Investor Jim Rogers: Obama is "delusional"

Jim Rogers is one of the most successful investors in American history, and now, thanks to America's not so "business friendly" policies, runs his operation in Singapore. This morning on radio, Jim joined to radio program to give Glenn his reactions to the plan for the economy Obama laid out in last night's SOTU address. Did Obama convince Rogers to relocate back to the U.S.?

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Well, welcome to Hour Number 3. You're about to hear some truth. If you ‑‑ if you don't want to hear the truth, you know, I don't know. Watch, you know, watch ‑‑ go turn on CNN. If you want the truth here on what you're about to enter and the truth about our economy, you're about to hear it from one of the smartest guys. Been around and successful for a very long time, Jim Rogers. He's the author of a new book called Street Smarts: Adventures on the Road and in the Markets. Paul Krugman says Jim Rogers makes my head hurt. So please, Jim, keep it up. The ‑‑

ROGERS: You know, one reason I did the book was so I could put that on the cover, I make Paul Krugman's head hurt. I wanted the world to know.

GLENN: I just love that. I love that. Okay.

ROGERS: Glenn, is this television? There I am.

GLENN: Yeah, that's television.

ROGERS: Let me put on my tie for God sakes.

GLENN: You don't need to wear a tie, Jim. No need to wear it.

ROGERS: I thought it was radio.

GLENN: It is radio. It is radio and television.

ROGERS: Okay. Go ahead. Carry on. I'm sorry.

GLENN: You don't need to wear a tie.

ROGERS: I know I don't. I'm trying to bring a little class to this group.

GLENN: It's impossible. So Jim, you're going to be on television with me tonight at 5:00 and we're going to kind of go over, you know, the ideas that really quite honestly the president and many in the GOP are just going right along with. And we just had Rand Paul on who, you know, he's ‑‑ he's got I think a plan that would actually, might work at this point. Are we past the point of no return?

ROGERS: Yes, because the debt is physically impossible to pay off. We are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world, in the history of the world. Not just the largest debtor nation in the world, but in world history. And if you take in the off‑balance sheet, Glenn, it's physically impossible to pay it off. If everybody paid 100% of their earnings as taxes, we still couldn't pay it off.

GLENN: I actually, I talked to some banker friends of mine who are, you know, strangely, you know, like, "You know, hey, what we can do," and they don't notice the slide that they are in, you know. I talked to them for ten years and they ‑‑ and it's always, "Well, that's not going to happen." "Yes, it is." "No, it's not going to happen. They would never do that. And they just keep sliding down. The last conversation I had with one of them is they said, "Glenn, it's not so bad. And listen to this. It's not so bad." How do you believe it's not so bad? We still have the national parks.

ROGERS: So we're going to sell the ‑‑

GLENN: Sell the national parks.

ROGERS: You know what we could do? Second sell Santa ‑‑ we could sell the North Pole, too. We could occupy the North Pole, sell the North Pole.

GLENN: It's crazy talk. It's crazy talk.

ROGERS: I know. It's insane.

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. So how does this, how does this go from here? What are the road signs that we should look at? And, you know, people like you, you know, you can get on your plane and you can go to Singapore. I can't go to Singapore. And most people can't go to Singapore. And quite honestly if America goes away, I don't know how lucky you are in Singapore. You know, who's policing anything in the world or providing stability except dictators?

ROGERS: Well, there are people in the world who don't think that America's doing a good job of policing the world right now.

GLENN: No. We suck at it. We suck at it.

ROGERS: If that's your idea, you've got problems.

GLENN: Right, right. But at least there is some stability. You know, there's still some question on who wins, who fails here, at least in the minds of the average person, the average bad guy. There's still some ‑‑ you know, I think they know we're at the edge and just a little push will push us over and then the world changes.

ROGERS: Of course the world changes. The world changed when the U.K. ‑‑ you know, after the first world war, the U.K. was the richest, most powerful country in the world. There was no Number 2. They were bankrupt three generations later. One generation there was economic chaos because it was corroded from within. We're on the same path. There's no way we can pay ‑‑ you know, Glenn, right now interest rates are 0%. In America, the Central Bank is destroying the people who save and invest. You know all the people you know who save their money, who didn't get six houses, who didn't have ‑‑ make no down payments on their property, et cetera, they are being destroyed now. That whole class of people who saved and invested and did things right.

GLENN: So Jim, what do they do? I mean, because you're talking to ‑‑ I mean, you're right now eight million people and they're listening, and out of that eight million people 1%, 2%, we probably have 5% of this audience is in a class where they can actually, you know, they can maneuver and they've got a lot of money. Most people are living right at the edge. What does the person do who has saved their whole life? You know, I just read something that said if you are a saver, you lose. So really the best thing to do is just pile up debt. I'm like, okay, that doesn't sound good either.

ROGERS: That's not good for a society. They are save ‑‑ what they are doing, they are bailing out the people who did it the wrong way. The people who did save, you're right, they are being destroyed. All of those people are getting zero on their earnings to bail away, Glenn, to bail out the people who did it wrong.

GLENN: So let's take my parents. My in‑laws just retired. He still has his small business. He's an insurance agent. They have saved their whole life. She's got pension, they have got 401(k). What are they supposed to do with it? What do they do?

ROGERS: Well, Mr. Obama last night said everything is great.

GLENN: They don't believe him and neither do I, neither do you.

ROGERS: Don't your in‑laws know what Mr. Obama said?

GLENN: I know.

ROGERS: He said that everything is great and the middle class is on the way back and everything is fine now. I mean, the man is delusional. I was really afraid when I saw that. The only reason I watched it, I wouldn't watch that stuff except I was coming here to be with you.

GLENN: Oh, I didn't watch it. So you ‑‑ thanks for watching it for me.

ROGERS: I don't watch it either. I don't waste my time.

GLENN: I know what he's going to say and I know what the response is going to be.

ROGERS: But it's delusional. It's frightening. I don't live in the U.S. anymore. It was fright ‑‑ I'm still a taxpayer. So I have to know something about what's going on. But he was totally ‑‑ I don't know if he believed it or if he was just lying.

GLENN: I don't really care at this point. I mean, he's either ‑‑ he's either the best liar or he is completely delusional. I don't know which it is, but it doesn't matter.

ROGERS: There's a whole crowd of good liars.

GLENN: Right.

ROGERS: Up there in Washington. So ‑‑

GLENN: Right. But again, let me go back to the question: What does the average person do to be able to survive, Jim?

ROGERS: Well, that's an extremely good question and everybody in America right now is, at least the people who saved for the future, are facing that question right now. The only thing I can urge them to do is, like your in‑law, in‑laws, put their money back into their own business. That's at least what they know. Don't go putting your money into some hot tips you hear from a guy on radio or TV. Certainly don't listen to the government telling you what to do. Just stay with what you know. These are very perilous times. The government is not on your side if you're saving and investing.

GLENN: Okay. So the idea, when you say invest in your business, I've tried to explain, and you'll probably be able to explain this better than I can. I've tried to explain that I think the stock market is going to continue to go up because it's meaningless, and it's paper. And the cheaper the money is, et cetera, et cetera, that paper will go up and up and up. And so you'll read this and say two things: One, we're getting better because look at the stock market. We have this delusion of that that means something. But as that money is going up in your 401(k) and you're seeing, well, I'm making more, the value of when you turn that paper in is going down. So yes, it might be worth $1,000, but your buying power, once you turn that money in, your buying power is maybe $800.

ROGERS: Glenn, everybody listening to this knows that prices are going up. Go to the grocery store. Education, entertainment, anything, price ‑‑ healthcare, oh, my gosh. Prices are going up. The government says they're not going up. But you make a very good point. You could say you have $20,000, but the $20,000 is worth less and less and less because they're debasing the currency. It's an active policy in Washington. The head of the Central Bank, head of the Federal Reserve in America is dedicated policy to debase the currency. This is not good for you, me, or anybody in America except for some ‑‑ a few people in Washington and a few people on Wall Street.

GLENN: I've been urging people to become as self‑reliant as they possibly can, to take care of their ‑‑ make sure that they understand how fragile the food, the supply lines are, to understand that farming is going to become extraordinarily important again, to know that any way you can get off the grid and not be dependent on power from somebody else is very important. Anything you can do to make yourself free, independent as possible.

ROGERS: Well, you are doing a good deed for many people if they listen to you because there are going to be many breakdowns like that. We're going to have serious food shortages, not just in America but in the world coming up. And by the way, as an aside, farming's going to be one of the great professions of the next 10, 20, 30 years. You should become a farmer.

GLENN: I am. I am.

ROGERS: You have?

GLENN: Oh, I am. I have a ‑‑ I have cattle and a farm out West and I have cattle here as well.

ROGERS: I will tell you I ‑‑ when I speak to universities and students, I tell them all they should be studying agriculture. They don't want to do it. They all want to get MBAs. But it's a terrible mistake. They should be studying agriculture.

GLENN: Nobody ‑‑ and you said this to me a couple of years ago and it really sat with me. I've thought about it. In fact, I quoted you just the other day in a group of friends, that farming, nobody is studying it. And nobody wants to do that job. And it's not just here. It's around the entire world. And so farming has become a lost art.

ROGERS: The average age of farmers in America is 58. In Japan it's 66. In Canada it's the oldest in recorded history. In Australia it's 58. In ten years those guys will be 68 if they're still alive. Somebody's got to go into the fields. More people in America study public relations than study agriculture. We don't have any farmers coming up.

GLENN: Even if you do study, you know, farming or whatever, I don't even know what they would call it now, but it becomes about environmental studies. It's not even about how to grow things. It's how to get man out of touching the Earth.

ROGERS: That's true too, but some of the courses, if you go down to Texas A&M, I'm sure they show you how to ‑‑

GLENN: No, no, Texas ‑‑ no, Texas A&M, they will ‑‑ you know, here in Texas they'll, you know, they'll teach you something.

ROGERS: I suspect at Auburn they teach you to plow. You know, and to plant and to fertilize. There are some schools left that teach you the proper thing but not many because there are only 10,000 students, 10,000 study agriculture, 200,000 get MBAs. That's the graduate degrees.

GLENN: So if you want ‑‑ if you were ‑‑ if you had a 15‑year‑old and they were planning their future, you would say to them what?

ROGERS: I would tell her to go into the fields and if she likes the fields or he likes the fields to become a farmer. Because that's going ‑‑ the farmers are going to be driving the Lamborghinis. The farmers are going to be rich. We don't have any farmers. What more do you need to know? There's no competition. You know, and stockbroking and finance, there are lots of competition. 200,000 MBAs every year, Glenn, every year. Nobody ‑‑

GLENN: What makes you believe that farmers would be able to keep their land? I mean, if things break down, this government ‑‑ I mean, you watched him last night. He's already saying, you know, you don't do the environmental study, I'm going to do it for you. I'll just, executive order. I mean, he's going around the Constitution. He's going around everything. So makes you think that farmers would be able to keep their land?

ROGERS: Well, it's certainly not the land of the free that it used to be, you know. There's no more habeas corpus. They don't have to have a search warrant anymore to go into your house or to your bank account or ‑‑

GLENN: It's crazy.

ROGERS: ‑‑ anything. I know, it's just startling.

GLENN: When did you see this coming, Jim?

ROGERS: Well, I've seen it coming. You've seen it coming for a while, I've seen it coming, but I'm stunned at how rapidly it's happened. I guess ‑‑

GLENN: Were you stunned by ‑‑ because you're watching it from (loss of audio) you know, maybe I'll get away because I'll be driving the Lamborghini along with the farmers.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?