Every time he gets TV face time, he uses the opportunity to bash the country/system that made him fabulously wealthy and to praise a communist country that engages in counterfeiting, uses quasi-slave labor, pollutes its rivers and air, doesn’t respect intellectual property rights, doesn’t allow its currency to float freely, etc. And because investment in industries is decided by bureaucrats and not by ROI or market forces, Chinese banks are now sitting on what couold be close to $1 trillion in bad loans.

http://tinyurl.com/2fzbpe

Unlucky for us, he now has a book to promote. So, the media gives him face time not only to bash America and American institutions, but to promote his book that promotes the China he so adores.

Keep in mind I started looking at this whole financial mystery in the early 90′s when even mentioning the fed was very much verboten for the MSM

And did anybody else hear Rogers say Bernanke is helping Wall Street at the expense of ‘us’? Jim Rogers an ‘us’. I had to chuckle at that one

Recessions good for the economy? This is effective as a sound bite because it sounds like a paradox. But if you think about it, it turns out to actually be one: it is like saying that the horse running away from the stable is good, because we learn to be more careful about locking the stable door. But why do we want to lock the stable door in the first place? To keep the horse from running away, because that would be… bad.

The real problem with this sort of argument is that the words “good” and “bad”, even “economy”, are too vague and don’t let us in on what the speakers are really thinking–these words are used to appeal to our “common” values as a meaningless way of arguing for a certain course of action (propaganda).

Tough times clear away certain people and make more room for others–whether this is “good” or “bad” depends on how you assign values to different sorts of people–also to yourself and how you stand to lose or gain. Even really tough times (such as those that lead to world war) can be “good” or “bad” depending on your valuations, which are in turn determined by how you stand to lose or gain from war.

I have a different take, which is that Wall Street wants ‘em higher so they can unload their inventories onto the unsuspecting. What’s needed for that, given the fact that the true picture isn’t very good? Short squeezes. The huge money squeezes the big money in order to bring the little money rushing in to be bagholders. For this to happen, bearish punditry must be given a lot of air time.

Now, had all this commentary happened six months ago, I might be inclined to agree with you. And I may be wrong here. But that’s my take on it.

If people don’t like it they can turn on CNBC where they give unchallenged air time to scumbags like Eliot Spitzer and Bill Gross.

That aside the format is juvenile and distracting but I’m sure it is the only environment the modern college grad can think in. If they were in a quiet studio the minds of their target audience would probably shut off