GuruFocus Premium Membership

Serving Intelligent Investors since 2004. Only 96 cents a day.

Free Trial

Free 7-day Trial
All Articles and Columns »

Investor Jim Rogers Tells Fox Business Agriculture Is “Going to Be One of the Great Industries of Our Time”

June 10, 2011

foxbusiness

2 followers
Chairman and CEO of Rogers Holdings Jim Rogers spoke with FOX Business Network (FBN) about the United States deficit and the path the nation and individuals need to take in order to prosper. Rogers said that the U.S. economy will not recover until we “accept reality, stop spending money we don’t have, go down to a lower level, and start over.” He went on to say that particularly in such an uncertain economy, “you should invest in only what you know, otherwise keep your money in cash.” Excerpts from the interview are below:

On his investment strategies:

“I am long commodities, long currencies, and short stocks. But we will see what happens. You should invest in only what you know, otherwise keep your money in cash. The reason people lose money is because they keep jumping around investing in things they don’t have a clue what they are doing. Normal people should just wait. Wait until there are good opportunities and take advantage of them. There are plenty of opportunities besides banks. Cotton is going through the roof, corn is making all time highs. Invest in farmers. Invest in agriculture. I think agriculture is going to be one of the great industries of our time.”

On what one commodity he would invest for the next 10 years:

“Agriculture. I am a terrible market timer but maybe rice. Maybe sugar.”

On the United States deficit:

“America is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. These clowns in Washington are running up the debts. They are not solving the problem, they are making the problem worse. We have a serious crisis facing us and no one seems to understand it.”

On what it will take for Congress to get serious about passing a deficit plan:

“Throughout history, countries have never dealt with this kind of problem until there is a crisis or a semi crisis. The way things are going we are going to have a crisis. It is going to be in the currency markets. Perhaps as early as this fall you will see a lot of currency turmoil in the dollar or the euro. That’s how these things usually start.”

On whether a crisis in Europe would impact world markets:

“Of course it will. We are going to have problems. Nobody wants to take pain even when its staring you in the face. We have made a lot of mistakes. We have got to deal with those mistakes and saying we don’t have a problem is going to make the problem that much worse. There is going to be some pain. We have had pain before. People have been going bankrupt for a few thousand years. Hopefully if that happens you have got shorts. That’s why you are hedged.”

On when our economy will recover:

“When we accept reality, stop spending money we don’t have, go down to a lower level, and start over. We are no longer what we used to be. The largest creditors are in Asia. I don’t like this. I am an American citizen, but we have got to face the facts.”

On who he would like to see running the Federal Reserve:

“I would rather Trichet were running the Federal Reserve than Ben Bernanke are you kidding? I would rather anyone run the Federal Reserve than Ben Bernanke. Mr. Bernanke has been wrong about everything in the last seven or eight years. I would rather have Touché but if I could have anyone I would have Merkel. I would want Merkel to sit there and say you guys have got to take a haircut.”

On whether bond holders should take a haircut:

“Absolutely. They made the mistake, why should innocent German taxpayers wake up one morning and say oh I have got a bill here to pay off some Greeks sitting on the beach. It’s just not right. It’s not morally right and it’s not economically right.”

**FOX BUSINESS NETWORK**

Rating: 4.4/5 (211 votes)

Comments

Bruce L Burke
Bruce L Burke - 3 years ago


Hey Jim Rogers-- Why is it that "some" small tax increase is out of the question on the very, very wealthy? Why does it ONLY have to be spending cuts? I agree we need major cuts in spending but for

goodness sake why not some tax on the wealthiest of the wealthy? Why is that off the table? The argument that it would stifle the growth of the economy is a joke! Just a real small tax increase on the

very top in this country should be on the table!! It would show "some" compromise on the part of the republicans and a willingness to negotiate and a lesser requirement in spending cuts to reach a common goal!
sm2200
Sm2200 premium member - 3 years ago
Increase the tax on the wealthyest of the wealthy and you won't collect much more plus you've started the slippery slope downward of increasing taxes.

If you want to collect the most in taxes, it's among the middle class. But I'm not in favor of that either.

Cut the size of the government, cut spending, install term limits for the House & Senate.Reinstall the work & save ethic.
secretbonus
Secretbonus - 3 years ago
It's biblical that "to him that hath shall more be given, and to him that hath not, even that which he hath should be taken away". In other words "the rich get richer". That isn't going to change. If you want to be rich, you must first be thankful for that which you do have and not expect the gov't to give you a free lunch. If you tax businesses more, they are going to reduce wages and cut back on employment... OR raise prices which have net zero effect on the non rich - that's the facts.

So you might as well incentivize the rich to do good things for the country and for the individual, while making money and to provide jobs in the process rather than move their assets overseas where the government can't tax them. Tax hikes makes other countries rich and it only moves money around. Socialism never lasts because it fails to encourage production or business and grants the government supreme power that benevolent dictators eventually exploit (Stalin, Hitler, Musilini,Mao,khan,nero, etc).

REAL economic activity isn't measured in dollars being moved around, it's in real goods and services being produced, which can only happen through companies. An effective government uses businesses to accomplish things that they are bad at by offering tax incentives... For example, people that invest in oil exploration are given an instant taxible rebate at the earned income level. So they invest $100k and they get 25k back from the government immediately to encourage the production of oil so people actually have the ability to drive cars, which is something the government cannot provide without the rich.

the wealthiest are protected because they already moved their money overseas because the US is the #1 taxed coorperate country. The tax system is already set up so increase in taxes is just on EARNED income, not coorperate income which is reinvested to grow earnings. Tax CUTS is what provides incentives for buinesses to use their capital towards what the government wants to accomplish, for example, providing housing or invest in green energy.

For over 150 years this nation became the wealthiest, most powerful, and most generous through little to no taxes. it wasn't until the 1940s that taxes was for over 5% of the population.
Mr. Reality
Mr. Reality - 3 years ago
I agree with Jim Rogers, Bernanke has only done one thing right in his life and that is to bullshit his way into his job. Our gov't is so corrupt it is hard to comprehend, they sold our country and our values just to be re-elected, most of them should be sent to prison for treason. Look at the mess they created, it is going to end very badly for most americans. Of course the american public is ultimately to blame, the majority listened to their false promises, to live high on the hog at their neighbors expense who are in the same boat as them. Then we get people such as Charlie Wrangle, Harry Reed, Anthony Wiener, etc. etc., the list goes on and on. The only way out is to downsize gov't by 75%, that means fire 100% of all gov't employees and then only hire back 25% of them that actually produce.
tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
We do not have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. Taxing the rich or anyone else just prolongs the problem. STOP THE SPENDING!! That is the only thing that will work.
chillum_99
Chillum_99 - 3 years ago
Wow, the tea-tards are running hard on gurufocus. Yes we must slash spending in the middle of a recession, that has worked so well in the past! Try cracking a history book sometime you knuckleheads.
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
Let's be responsible & pragmatic, reinstate the Clinton tax rates which the evidence shows to be effective. Republicans chose the $3 trillion Iraq war, & failed to intervene when the deregulated financial industry nearly bankrupted the country. It is time to take responsibility for these bad decisions, by increasing taxes.

tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
I see our liberal friends (as usual) resort to name calling and a pretended superiority. YOU try cracking the history books, but don't just go back a few years to find some thing that supports your ideas. Spend & tax has destroyed several countries in just the past 100 years. The United States is not immune to the laws of economics. Every great power in history has overreached and brought itself to ruin by unrestrained excess. To much spending and foreign ambitions have destroyed them one and all. The British Empire was the last example, at this rate we'll be the next.
vmccord
Vmccord - 3 years ago


Rogers is always good to listen too. I think he's a little simplistic in completely denouncing Bernanke and praising Merkel. Gov't spending cuts and tax decreases to stimulate business investment are the only real solutions.
bmc910
Bmc910 - 3 years ago


The real problems aren't going to be solved until we reform the banking system, they control the government. I believe the Fed ownes the majority of "our" national debt. Why shouild the taxpayers be responcible for the money that went to bail out the banks? Especially when then they created the money out of thin air and lent it to us at interest. I believe it is the same in Ireland, Greece and Iceland, the government has taken bank debt and put it on the backs of the average taxpayer.
chillum_99
Chillum_99 - 3 years ago
I ain't your friend bagger, and the history I was referring to was called The Great Depression, ever hear of it? If so take a look at what happened when they tried austerity as a remedy, or you could look at the UK today. It doesn't work.
ChBr02
ChBr02 - 3 years ago
The reality is that in recent history when tax rates have been cut, tax revenue has actually increased.

But, whether or not a tax rate increase is successful in raising tax revenue, the Federal government will spend at least 1.5 times as much as the expected increase.

But, hey I'm willing to pony up more taxes to meet the rates that were in effect when Clinton was in office, just as long as we go back to the total spending levels we had then.

We need a way to reward Congress and top bereaurocrats for spending cuts rather than spending increases.
duckhunter
Duckhunter - 3 years ago


Taxing the rich will not solve any deficit problems, it will only make you feel better cause you hate them apparently.
secretbonus
Secretbonus - 3 years ago
Chillum_99 Yes because all the 30 countries in the last century that fell to hyperinflation due to increased spending during crisis did so well... oh wait
secretbonus
Secretbonus - 3 years ago
The freeze of trade due to lack of trust in the system that was brought about by government manipulation through subsidizing farming bill, and due to the excess of "buy now pay later" that existed and the increased margin requirements on novice investors was among some of the problems. The depression persisted because of government intervention.

The depression of 1920 had 0 regulation,, 0 spending to get us out of the mess, and the government stayed out and it was over almost immediately.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI

secretbonus
Secretbonus - 3 years ago
As for my political bias, I don't believe in fairy tales. The lobbyist are funded on both sides by the same coorperations, and the lobbyists write the laws that the politicians sign if they want to get the funding to get reelected... There are very few that vote against the establishment, but I'm not necessarily against it, I'm just pro real financial and real political education. I think if this nation knew more about the real game that's being played, and also how businesses are able to succeed, and the playing field was slightly more level for small businesses we could encourage more small businesses to get started, and more investor money, and we could create real wealth that even though the rich would still be able to influence, would leave us with a better world as more could be produced and created, and there would be more innovation.

By the way, raising taxes will just continue to fund international corperations to take money from funding by the US government to spend it on growing their global business... In other words, money flows out of the US economy. Similarly that problem exists due to the low interest rates as people borrow here to do business elsewhere. Those who received bailouts are not national banks, they're global banks. So if you support higher taxes, bailouts, and increased spending, you are supporting an increase in global power, and you are more for big businesses anyways... The only question is if you want them to get their money through inflation via borrowing and spending, or through the high income earners like doctors and lawyers that are in debt up to their eyeballs and get taxed over 50% of their income already as it is while keeping the big businesses in power without competition due to high taxes of the national small businesses that already find it tough to succeed and create jobs as it is.
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
Duckhunter, study the Clinton years when our deficit was brought under control.Taxes were raised & the deficit was reduced. Then study our growing deficit under Bush, after his tax cuts. Our national economy historically grows at >3%/year, but after Bush cuts, grew at< 2%. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. Dare to seek the truth. Orwellian Newspeak precludes rational discussion.

tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
Despite what my not friend says, the great depression was caused by government intervention. The preceding Wall Street crash was also caused by government meddling. Those wonderful "Clinton Years" only started after the Democrats lost the House of Representatives to those nasty Republicans. Incidentally, Chillum_99 the fact that I do not agree with you does not put me into the Tea party category, although the attitude display by the "haters" might push me in that direction. To be direct, I passed math in the third grade and I do not believe in the tooth fairy, so money from thin air and more taxes so the parasites in D.C. can continue their addiction to other peoples' money does not make sense. I repeat, we do not have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. If you run your budget like the government runs the Federal budget, you shortly find yourself in prison.
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
We have a spending & revenue (low taxes) problem. If you can't acknowledge the low revenue problem after spending $3 trillion on an unjust war, while lowering taxes, I do not believe you are thinking responsibly.

tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
I disagree, spending on an unjust war is spending. That is one of many areas they need to stop spending. Obama continued Iraq and Afghanistan and started bombing Libya. Now they are starting to talk about intervention in Syria. The problem is not limited to one political party, it is both major parties. John Kennedy proved lowering taxes increases revenue to the government. The tax rate goes down but the government collects more money because of increased economic activity. Obviously, tax rates can't go to zero, because nothing would be collected. I was born in 1950, we did not live in caves, we had television and radio, lived indoors, had cars, went to the store, had telephones and, while it was not like "Leave it to Beaver" life was relatively pleasant. The government consumed much less of the GDP, taxes were lower and the United States still was regarded as the Light of the Free World. No one groped you at the airport. The IRS did not have to approve your passport. We will not return to those times and I do not particularly want to, but it is possible to have a civilized world with out the Nanny State.
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
I agree, defense spending is a problem & should be reduced. But Bush's tax cuts did not increase revenue to the government. Please read Michael Linden's article on the disaster of the Bush tax cuts.

chillum_99
Chillum_99 - 3 years ago
Tj... taxes were lower in the 1950's? Look that up please as from my info (Stanford study, easy to find) tax rates on everyone have gone lower since the 1950s. I am all for ending these stupid wars, ending the drug war (the drugs won), and getting rid of the patriot act but somehow I think the majority here just want to end medicare, ss, and continue to screw the middle class and poor in the interest of propping up failures in business.

I apologize if you agree with my definition of spending cuts, but if you are in favor of "entitlement" cuts then you are just a d@ck.
duckhunter
Duckhunter - 3 years ago


I think you are the one who needs to do a little studying. EVERY time tax rates are reduced, revenues to the government have increased. YOU are the one short on facts. And when you are talking about different administrations, let us not forget who approves every dollar that is spent. (clue- it is not the president).
duckhunter
Duckhunter - 3 years ago
You can take ALL of the income of the so-called rich and we will still have a deficit. Then what do you do after that year, when there are no more 'rich'? I guarantee they are not idiots and when you nail them to fund your stupid wasteful government programs, they will all somehow disappear.

Who is 'John Galt'?
tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
If you only look at income tax the rates were not so great, but you need to look at the total tax burden. We pay a zillion (exaggeration) taxes now that did not even exist in the 1950's. As for entitlement cuts, there is no choice. If you do not cut a little now (not current recipients ) no one will get anything in just a few years. Do the math, currently around 70% of taxes received go for entitlements. We currently borrow money just to pay the interest on the money we have already borrowed. We can't keep doing that, it just doesn't work. The real reason gasoline and food are going up in price is not evil speculators. It is the fact that the dollar is losing value. People in other countries want value for what they sell to the US. if the dollar is worth less, the want more of them for the same amount of stuff.
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
In 1993 Congressman Boehner (now speaker) warned that the Clinton budget (with tax increases) would slow the economy & only increase the deficit. Over his objection, the Clinton budget passed & unprecedented surplus' were realized until Bush became president. During the Bush administration, tax cuts supported by Boehner were passed, & record deficits followed. Duckhunter, you are entitled to your opinions, but you can not change the facts.

tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
Include all of the facts. Yes, taxes were cut and deficits went up but not because of the tax cuts.The deficits skyrocketed because Bush did some thing incredibly stupid, they cut taxes and increased spending. That was a recipe for disaster. Having said that, Bush's stupid mistakes are not justification for Obama's stupid policies, which seem to be intentional. He seems to be doing exactly the wrong thing on purpose. He is not a stupid man, which makes his actions even worse.
Long Ben
Long Ben - 3 years ago
Maybe the Bernanke should leave off his study of the great deppression and take up studying Weimar instead .
tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
I have to agree with you Long Ben. This situation is much more like the Weimar Republic. Like Weimar, our government seeks to pay off debt by debasing the currency it is denominated in. As long as there is a "greater fool" who will buy our worthless bonds, the party can continue. Unfortunately, we are running out of fools overseas. China has pretty much stopped buying our debt. Bernanke (the Fed) is now the fool of choice. The engines of inflation are being pushed to the limit. The idiots will probably do QE3. That will make the economy even worse. More jobs will go away, state governments will begin to go into default, pensions & savings will become worthless. BUY HARD ASSETS, get rid of paper assets, they will become worthless.
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
Tjo50511, where do you get your information? U.S. tax revenue is at its lowest level (as a % of GDP) since 1945. The U.S. has lower tax rates than most other developed countries (as a % of GDP). Today's tax rate on the wealthy (35%) is the lowest rate since before WWII, & Republicans are trying to lower it to 25% (despite our deficit), which would be the lowest rate since 1931. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.

Kanjoos Guru
Kanjoos Guru - 3 years ago
Damn, Gurufocus just turned into Zerohedge. There goes the neighborhood....
tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
Like you, I get my information many places. Facts are facts, period, but we do choose our sources. Comparisons with other "developed countries" are not that useful unless you want to end up in the same mess they are in. Which "developed countries" do you refer to? Greece? Spain? Britain? Ireland? Germany? Japan? The current economic situation in these countries is even more dismal than ours. Why not look a little closer to home. Try the State of Texas. No personal income tax, low corporate taxes and the highest job growth rate in the country. Since Obama's election Texas has produced 38% of all the jobs created in the United States. Seems to be a better model than other "developed countries".
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
Our "facts" seem to differ. By the way, Texas ranks 46th out of 50 states on public education. Yet the Gov. Perry led Republican legislature voted to reduce spending for education by $4 billion. Since Texas' population is growing, Texas educators must do "more with less " over the next 2 years. Let's see how this plays out. I could also talk about Texas' reduced funding for Medicaid, but Gov. Perry can best speak for his own priorities, when he runs for president.

tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
What does "ranks 46th out of 50 states" mean? Test scores?? Spending? Vending machines in the cafeteria? Washington, D. C. spends more money per student than anyone and one of the highest drop out rates and lowest test scores in the country. "Spending on education" usually means over paying union teachers in spite of dismal teacher performance. Bad metric to use.
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
I am unaware of any credible metric by which Texas ranks higher than 40. For what it is worth, Orwellian Newspeak is nonsensical & uninteresting.
tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
I'm glad you've read Orwell. 1984 is where we are currently headed. The difference between the R's & D's is the speed they drive the car towards the cliff. Their destination is the same.
paulwitt
Paulwitt - 3 years ago
R

No taxes

No regulation

High spending

D

High taxes

High regulation

High spending

Pick your poison!
brianbook
Brianbook premium member - 3 years ago
This is why the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition which considers virtue as the middle between two extremes has withstood the test of time. Statesmen value compromise, politicians insist on extremes e.g. no increase in taxes. Statesmen address the "needs" of the people, politicians give priority to the "wants" of the rich & powerful.
rlopez15
Rlopez15 - 3 years ago
The real problem of the USA is that people are getting older ,as well as Europe .I bet that none of you guys know the age average as a reference in LATAM is 25 years old and in Italy almost 40 .

See the forest (certanly not Sino Forest)

tjo50511
Tjo50511 - 3 years ago
Demographics are certainly a major factor. In Japan it is even worse. The age average is much higher in the "developed" countries. We tend to have fewer children and focus on improvements in life style. In practice, it doesn't provide enough new blood to keep the whole thing going. We have what some call a "mature market" with not much room for growth and governments that focus on the next election instead of providing conditions that encourage economic growth. Over regulation and over taxation in comparison to the developing countries. We no longer compete with the company down the street or in the next state, now we compete with workers half a world away. To justify a high wage, we must be very productive. Too many people do little or nothing and still want high wages and benefits. Impossible to compete in that environment. A sure recipe for disaster
Rasputin4711
Rasputin4711 - 3 years ago


A small tax increase on the wealthiest folks is ok. However, if it doesn't hurt them it probably doesn't solve anything on the income side. And: governments everywhere ( especially in Europe ) always increase taxes first, here a bit, there a bit, until you pay more than 50% of your income to the state. Instead, they should for once change tack and cut something. There are billions of unnecessary expenses to be cut. In the US look at the military. If you don't have the money, why are you funding a military complex at 7% of GDP instead of half that? Just to throw your weight around and show off. Like the guy in the Ferrari who drives around like a peacock without having 10k in the bank. And there is of course Medicare etc.
Rodney7777
Rodney7777 - 3 years ago


Who is it that has been saying that Ben bernanke knows exactly what he is doing? I have forgotten who said this, but I haven't forgotten the message. I will call him Mr. X. Mr X says that Bernanke does have a way out of the debt crisis, We see Bernanke printng money at what could be called an horrendous rate. This will put us into hyper-inflation where all debts could be paid off with worthless dollars. The fall-out is loss of savings and loss of most equity. Apparently the choice is inflate away the debt or let the following generations pay off the debt or keep going as we have in the past, accumulating more and more debt. Either way we are facing painful times. I am beginging to agree with Mr X when he says that inflating away our debt would give us a chance to very quickly start over. I see the possibility of the whole country learning a lesson about going into debt that should stick with us all perhaps permantly. The future, then, might include all govenments living within thier means, going back onto the gold standard and a change of philosophy in Washington D. C. So is it possible that Bernanke is making the choice that, while it seems to be horrible, is most in line with our history of an ability to recover from our collective mistakes and learn from them?
rkprkp
Rkprkp - 3 years ago
Clinton had a surplus because he used Social Security funds to cover his deficits. Boy, that was smart! He also changed the rules on accounting for the CPI to make it look better. Granted, what could he do, the costs of the unfunded liabilities like Medicare and Medicaid were even then going through the roof, and you couldn't afford a high COLA for Soc Sec, so why not just take out the things that are going up in cost rapidly so the CPI remains low and you can pay seniors billions less. I do not argue that they felt they had to do that... but it was very short sighted and just kicked the problem down the road. None of these bozos, Big Ben included, have been in a grocery store, personally, for a decade or two. They have NO clue about life as a head of household living on $25,000 or 50,000 a year. Or even $200,000 a year.
rkprkp
Rkprkp - 3 years ago


A small tax increase on the wealthiest folks is ok. However, if it doesn't hurt them it probably doesn't solve anything on the income side. And: governments everywhere ( especially in Europe ) always increase taxes first, here a bit, there a bit, until you pay more than 50% of your income to the state. Instead, they should for once change tack and cut something. There are billions of unnecessary expenses to be cut. In the US look at the military. If you don't have the money, why are you funding a military complex at 7% of GDP instead of half that? Just to throw your weight around and show off. Like the guy in the Ferrari who drives around like a peacock without having 10k in the bank. And there is of course Medicare etc.

rkprkp
Rkprkp - 3 years ago
A tax on the rich isn't even equivalent to a grain of sand on a beach. And then, who decides how much to tax? The jealous or the already super rich (Congress...?). I used to think Ferdinand Marcos, at a salary of $5,300 a year was one of the world's worst crooks for having amassed a couple billion or so during his Phil Presidency. He is a small time gambler compared to 50% of our congress and all their lobbyist friends. It is time for a radical change, aka Jefferson. Both parties need to be dissolved, totally deconstructed, and minced with the Slap Chop (TM). Wiped up with the Sham Wow (TM) and thrown into a furnace. (So they can experience what eternity will feel like). Can you honestly say that either party cares first and foremost about the US REPUBLIC or the US citizens? Look in the mirror and say it. Go ahead!
SonOfLiberty
SonOfLiberty - 3 years ago


Tax the Rich !!!!! Hey I have a better idea !! Dont tax them, instead lets confiscate the entire net worth of every single millionaire and billionaire in the US. Take every quarter, every nickel every dime. Guess what boys and girls that 2.9 trillion wont pay the Federal Budget for a single year. And then what? We've just destroyed the entire wealth of our most successful citizens. Then what???????
xn28dpos
Xn28dpos - 3 years ago
Taxing the rich in order to balance our budget makes no sense. When we say we need more jobs, in essence, we are asking our current and potential economic leaders (our business owners and employers) to do even more to be productive than they are now. How will increasing their taxes encourage them to do this? Since they are already wealthy, they can reduce their productivity whenever their government makes productivity less advantageous; which is what increasing their taxes will do.

If we were smart we would ask ourselves what tax policy would successfully encourage business leaders to create jobs, both in the short and long term?

Also we should ask ourselves how else we might reward those who create the jobs we so desperately need.

paulwitt
Paulwitt - 3 years ago
Joke:

How many programmers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None. It's a hardware problem.

REPLACE: "programmers" with "politicians"

REPLACE: "None. It's a hardware problem" with "535"

hahaha.....laughing all the way to the poorhouse

paulwitt
Paulwitt - 3 years ago
Pop quiz:

Which politician said that we're going to "drain the swamp"?

TN Flash
TN Flash - 3 years ago
Texas and is also ranked in the list of 5 states most likely to declare bankruptcy.

Not much to brag on there.

TN Flash
TN Flash - 3 years ago
We get our money back that Goldman Sachs stole from us.

Doesn't it bother anyone that Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, all worked for Goldman Sachs? Doesn't it bother anyone that the 5 largest banks and Goldman Sachs all received bailouts with no strings attached while other banks were shut down and absorbed? Does it bother anyone that the bail out money given to the 5 largest banks went to pay their debt to Goldman Sachs? Does it bother anybody that the TARP money given to the 5 big banks at 0.02% interest to make small business loans to stimulate the economy, was instead invested in US Treasuries paying 3% ...adding to the taxpayers debt? Does it bother anyone that the treasury bought the Toxic mortgages that the banks created, from the 5 banks, after giving them the bailout money? Does it bother anyone that all this money has been stolen from the US taxpayer and no one has gone to jail?
Sanjay Jain
Sanjay Jain - 3 years ago
There are issues which will hinder capital appreciation in Agri Business

One of the new drivers of Agriculture is resource nationalization trend sweeping across globe. Agri inputs are preserve of few continents/countries such as Canada, Australia and Africa. These countries would get into the same situation as Gulf countries have gotten because of Oil. However increasingly there are domestic voices which want larger share of their natural resources. So export taxes are becoming the norm in these countries.

2nd problem is places like Indonesia and Africa with sizable domestic population which is creating competition for export markets. So that would be another supply bottleneck.

3rd is the oft quoted diversion to biofuels.

4th is food inflation spectre in India and China. This would mean export controls on major crops such as sugar, rice, wheat etc thus raising their prices in Europe, middleeast but it would be bad for businesses in India and China as they would not be profitable.

So a rocky ride, but eventually in the long run no country can live in isolation and global demand supply equation would come to fore proving AGRI as a good investment

Fairyness
Fairyness - 3 years ago
Hi,

Yes, tax the total accumulated wealth of the individual...that may make a "little difference".This administration went over board spending ,not because of lack of financial intelligence but to carry out their intention, to bring AMERICA to it's knees financially so as to commence THE NEW WORLD ORDER with obama as the Leader . This is scary stuff and people do not want to face the TRUTH.
Fairyness
Fairyness - 3 years ago


We get our money back that Goldman Sachs stole from us.

Doesn't it bother anyone that Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, all worked for Goldman Sachs? Doesn't it bother anyone that the 5 largest banks and Goldman Sachs all received bailouts with no strings attached while other banks were shut down and absorbed? Does it bother anyone that the bail out money given to the 5 largest banks went to pay their debt to Goldman Sachs? Does it bother anybody that the TARP money given to the 5 big banks at 0.02% interest to make small business loans to stimulate the economy, was instead invested in US Treasuries paying 3% ...adding to the taxpayers debt? Does it bother anyone that the treasury bought the Toxic mortgages that the banks created, from the 5 banks, after giving them the bailout money? Does it bother anyone that all this money has been stolen from the US taxpayer and no one has gone to jail?

Fairyness
Fairyness - 3 years ago
Yes, very much and it also bothers me that Dobbs," Barney" and obama made out so well from the mortgage "SCANDAL".perpetrated through lies. All these people will never be held accountable in this life. This should bother all who profess to be moral and just people.
mikemitchell
Mikemitchell - 2 years ago
We're hearing that 46% of Americans pay no income tax. How about stopping all tax "refunds" to the legal and illegal people who pay no taxes? Many of these people are getting around $8000 from Uncle Sam each year. This is nothing but redistribution of wealth.

Please leave your comment:


Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)
Free 7-day Trial
FEEDBACK
Email Hide