I found this part of the Wikipedia article most interesting (he talks about it a bit, but very late in the interview, at ~40:00):
In December 2007, Rogers sold his mansion in New York City for about 16 million USD and moved to Singapore. This is due mainly in his belief that this is a ground-breaking time for investment potential in Asian markets. Rogers’ first daughter is now being tutored in Mandarin to prepare her for the future, he says. “Moving to Asia now is like moving to New York City in 1907,” he said. Also, he is quoted to say: “If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York City, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia.” In an CNBC interview with Maria Bartiromo broadcast on May 5, 2008, Rogers said that people in Asia are extremely motivated and driven, and he wants to be in that type of environment so his daughters are motivated and driven. He said during that interview that, this is how America and Europe used to be. He chose not to move to Hong Kong or Shanghai due to the high levels of pollution causing potential health problems for his family. His second daughter was born in 2008. 
Rogers is also an adventurer, went around the world both in a car and on a motorcycle, and published two books about it (along with investment books he’s known for). Check out his website – I think the car is waaaay too cool. 🙂
Since I posted Zeitgeist, the Movie here and admitted I kinda liked it, I feel obligated to include the sequel. Zeitgeist: Addendum was released (also free of charge to all) in 2008, and this one, too, got the Best Feature Activist Spirit Award.
But I would rather disagree. In the first part of the movie, the process of money creation is described in detail. The second part is basically a long interview with John Perkins who wrote Confessions of an Economic Hit Man – a wildly controversial and criticized book. And it goes downhill from there. Then The Venus Project is described, as a possible solution to all humanity’s troubles.
The Venus Project is basically a utopia, a society where all energy problems are solved with geothermal energy, there’s no money since energy is abundant. They call it “resource based society”. I fail to see how it’s different from communist utopia, with no money or markets/buying/selling so avidly described by some Soviet science fiction writers. Supposedly, if it wasn’t for corrupt oil companies, financiers and politicians, we all could live in such heaven, since we already have the technology to build it.
I got interested in this Venus Project. I surfed their website in search of answers. How are they going to distribute resources however big they are? What about geothermal power disadvantages? Its net energy? They claim there’ll be no crime – what about latest findings of cognitive science on the nature of violence? Well, as I suspected: nothing. The whole website looks like a pretty glossy paper advertisement brochure. Looks like a fine futurology/design experiment, nothing serious. How can you put it in a documentary? And talk about it as a “solution”?
I’ve always been wary of conspirologists, and the more I live the “warier” I become. Here’s the video:
A rather interesting presentation on the three “E”s – Economy, Energy and Environment, and where the world is heading. Chris is quite pessimistic about the existing monetary system, and is basically predicting a huge crisis the beginning of which we’re already seeing. From the website:
The Crash Course is a condensed online version of Chris Martenson’s “End of Money” seminar.
What is it?
The Crash Course seeks to provide you with a baseline understanding of the economy so that you can better appreciate the risks that we all face. The Intro below is separated from the rest of the sections because you’ll only need to see it once…it tells you about how the Crash Course came to be.
There are 22 short videos in total, every one touching on a specific topic such as inflation, debt, bubbles, money creation, peak oil, etc. Wathcing all of them requires a time commitment of 3 hours and 20 minutes. I would still highly recommend it.
This is simply a marvel. John Bird and John Fortune perform this hilarious sketch of an interview with an investment banker on the topic of Subprime Crisis:
I’m not sure whether the next one is a continuation or a beginning, but here the same couple discusses Credit Crunch:
And if you liked these two, you’re probably gonna like the continuation which was reportedly filmed on Nov 2nd:
According to Wikipedia article on Bird and Fortune, this all is a four-part mini series called “Silly Money”. So far, I’ve found three. If anybody knows of the fourth, or the correct order of the sketches, please let met know!
Peter Schiff is known to have predicted the current financial crisis and real estate bubble burst way back in 2006. Whether he was lucky or a genius, it’s still so much fun to watch these little clips from CNBC and Fox News where other guests would “boo”, and “ah” and “here we go again” him over and over. Pay attention to the price stickers as they talk about financial stocks. 🙂
What you gotta notice is how confident his opponents are. I guess we can all learn a lesson to never listen to Wall Street financial advisors, and anybody else expressing any opinion on where the market is heading for this matter. Even if Peter is a genius, how a simple man is supposed to pick him out of the crowd of others?
This is a “shareware”, 30-minute version of I.O.U.S.A. – 2008 documentary by Patrick Creadon. The movie concentrates on national debt, and also discusses money creation process on which I posted earlier. It paints a picture of 4 deficits:
and then goes into details about each one. Very nicely made.
People rarely stop to think how money is created in modern economies. Most people think that money is created by governments. Even after watching this and a couple of similar videos I had a weak grasp on the issue. Only after giving it some thought I finally got it.
Most money is created by banks when they loan it. In essence, whenever a bank gives you a mortgage, it creates money which is added to the overall money supply and gives it to you, thus collecting interest on the money that it (nor any one else) never had, since it simply never existed before.
Here’s a line of thinking that helped me cope with it – imagine person A deposits $1000 cash into his bank account. The bank now lends this $1000 to person B. Person B deposits it in the same bank (it really doesn’t matter but it’s easier to follow this way). Now the bank yet again has $1000 on its hands, which can be lent to person C. Now we have 3 people each with a $1000 bank account which can be used to buy stuff. Granted, all this debt will have to be paid off some day, but for the moment, we’ve created additional $2000 of “money” that has purchasing power, effectively diluting the existing money and decreasing its purchasing power by 66%.
The source of the trouble is that these bank accounts are nothing but bank obligations not backed by real cash. Whenever you’re writing a check to somebody, you’re paying this person with your bank’s obligation to pay you. Obligations with purchasing power can infinitely dilute money supply and render all money worthless. To understand that, imagine you and I will loan each other a thousand dollars which we don’t have. So, you have an IOU for $1k and I have another. This is a transaction which have zero effect, until we actually start using these IOU to buy apples in a grocery store. If it’s accepted (as bank checks are), we have just created money that never existed before.
As described, the process can go on forever. In actuality, fractional reserve banking system puts some limits in place. Banks can only lend every 9 dollars out of 10 dollars of there assets which means that depositing $1 cash in the bank can create only $10 worth of money in the economy. Although additionally, when Federal Reserve “prints” and deposits $1 onto bank’s assets, it can become $9 of new loans. So, it total, every $1 printed by Federal reserve can expand into $90 dollars with actual purchasing power in form of bank loans.
This is how it works, and gold-standard money would not change that. In order to change that we should make it impossible for obligations not backed by cash to have any purchasing power. Which would mean that the money your checking accounts would not be lent to anybody and keep sitting in the bank (so you would probably pay for this privelege), and your saving accounts would not be so easily withdrawable (how can you withdraw money that has been given to somebody else?).
Everyone sub-consciously knows banks do not lend money. When you draw on your savings account, the bank doesn’t tell you you can’t do this because it has lent the money to somebody else. Mark Mansfield
According to my limited understanding, Austrian School of Economics argues for this approach which would result in constant monetary supply and a slow rate of deflation, instead of permanent inflation. Which would be totally fine since they argue that only monetary deflation hurts economies, while deflation caused by increased productivity does not.