Jump to content

Talk:James Rickards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.6.140.177 (talk) at 07:37, 15 January 2021 (→‎wikipedia hypocrisy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gold at $7,000 an ounce

I assume USD, so I made that change. However, the quote is a tricky one, economically speaking. USD at its current value? at its value when Rickards made his equations? at some estimated future value? Is the estimate independent of returning to the gold standard or dependent upon it (which has its own problems)? Is this the level at which he would set his "smooth process" return, or is this where the "chaotic process" gold standard would end up? If the quote source cannot clarify these points, is there another source which does? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.190 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source does specify "current issue U.S. dollars" and that info is now in the article. Rickards states that gold, if allowed to trade openly, would reach this higher level and as I understood his remarks, this was meant as what would happen in a smooth process of return to the gold standard. I would have to listen to the article again, but perhaps the new ref, which has a kind of "cliff notes" highlights written out, will answer your questions. Marrante (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Still awkward (returning to a gold standard inherently requires "freezing" the USD relative to gold, so open market on that commodity, as measured in USD, becomes meaningless) -- but the awkwardness is his, so there is nothing Wikipedia can do about it. - Tenebris 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.117 (talk)
Exactly. The guy is just a book seller with hardly a clue.

Some deletions until sourcing can be improved

For now, I removed some information that was not sourced sufficiently to comply with Wikipedia policy on Biographies_of_living_persons: (1) removed information that was only sourced to speaker biographies likely to have been supplied by the subject of the article; (2) removed information sourced only to King World News, which I could not verify from more standard sources; and (3) removed a reference to a change in Chinese policy following a speech given by Rickards (no source was cited for the implication that China changed policy because of Rickards' speech, and the sentence about Chinese policy is a non sequitur unless one believes the implied link).Parkewilde (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'...references should be taken with a grain of salt...'?

"All references should be taken with a grain of salt. Many references are circular, often citing themselves."

Is it customary for Wikipedia articles to criticize themselves? This should be flagged on the article with the proper 'references' banner, not editorialized within the article itself. I do not know how to make such changes. Please fix, someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.245.10 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a Resume

The article reads like a resume of all his accomplisments, and then has external links to his products. Also, how is he connected to the CIA? I just got an email from him claiming his connection to the CIA, and how we should be concerned (terrorized) Americans. The email gives the impression he's an opportunist charlatan. It's obvious he wants us to buy gold and precious metals.

And here is a video with more claims of his government work: http://pro.moneymappress.com/MMRBSSH39PPM3/PMMRR962/?iris=411690&h=true .

Also, are there any criticism of his claims? 64.53.191.77 (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, a search for Project Prophecy, which the above video claims is a multi-agency project of great importance, leads to this amn's site here. Is it real, or is it smoke? 64.53.191.77 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A recent video appears on a web page https://pro.finance-today.info/p/AWN_dollarreset_0716/PAWNT802/?h=true&gclid=CO277eHb_NUCFQypaQodj4EC_Q. Despite the address, the web site is apparently under agorafinancial.com whose "About Us" pages lists Rickards as one of 21 editors. Contrast the bio that appears on Agora Financial:

"James G. Rickards is the editor of Strategic Intelligence. He is an American lawyer, economist, and investment banker with 35 years of experience working in capital markets on Wall Street. He was the principal negotiator of the rescue of Long-Term Capital Management L.P. (LTCM) by the U.S Federal Reserve in 1998. His clients include institutional investors and government directorates.
His work is regularly featured in the Financial Times, Evening Standard, New York Times, The Telegraph, and Washington Post, and he is frequently a guest on BBC, RTE Irish National Radio, CNN, NPR, CSPAN, CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox, and The Wall Street Journal. He has contributed as an advisor on capital markets to the U.S. intelligence community, and at the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon."
Rickards is the author of The New Case for Gold (April 2016), and three New York Times best sellers, The Death of Money (2014), Currency Wars (2011), The Road to Ruin (2016) from Penguin Random House.''"

with his own bio that accompanies the video:

"Most people know Jim Rickards because of his three New York Times best-selling books: Currency Wars, The Death of Money and The Road to Ruin. But his credibility goes much further than that. He was involved in the Iran hostage crisis in the 1980s. In the 90s he was the principal negotiator in the bailout of hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He also helped develop one of the first electronic stock exchanges -- the same system NASDAQ uses today.
More recently, he’s been advising the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA and 14 other U.S. intelligence agencies. He’s on a first-name basis with some the biggest investors and traders on Wall Street, CEOs of major banks, even members of the Federal Reserve and has connections all the way to the US Treasury and the White House'."

Whatever he might or might not be, his ability to turn something less into something more does mean that verifiable independent sources are not just good to have, they are mandatory.2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:9001:309E:EE9D:D68B (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Rickards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions

Currently, the article says that none of his major predictions has been borne out. On the other hand, the subject (at a link that is blacklisted, so I can't post it here) claims to have made a number of correct predictions: "'We can expect another panic spike in October 2008. This financial crisis is not over.' Unfortunately, everyone in Washington thought such a systemic collapse was impossible. But three weeks later Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy… Panic took over… And markets crashed across the globe, wiping out $10.2 trillion of wealth. Those who ignored my warnings lost everything." [ellipses in original]; "More recently, I predicted that the UK would vote to leave the European Union (the so-called Brexit). Nobody believed that could happen. Once again, those who ignored me were caught completely off guard. This has all been caught on camera, by the way. Here’s a short clip you can watch for yourself…" followed by a March 2, 2016 Bloomberg clip in which he says Brexit would probably pass. Kdammers (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia hypocrisy

I always find it odd that Wikipedia mandates an absolutist policy against any claims of the paranormal, but allows for all sorts of heterodox economic nonsense to be posted.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Rickards&oldid=1000473825"