That was a reflective interview of a man clearly at peace with himself and the world. My comment: If I'm half as sharp as Jim if I reach his age I'll be a happy man.

2. Around 14 min, Jim brings up how Venezuela was recently quite rich, but now is a complete basket case. His point: how quickly these things can change. My comment: Few cultures have the human capital to maintain political stability for long. Venezuela lack the human capital for peace and prosperity, which are the exception, not the rule, in human history.

3. At 15 min, Jim explains how many people got rich in times like these: times are dangerous, and most get hit hard, but many people make fortunes. My comment: Fully agree. I think this is the opportunity of a lifetime. However, I think the reality of the world has changed since Jim's era, and the future is unlikely to look like the past so Jim's thinking that worked so well for him back in the day is not the path to wealth this time around.

4. Agree with Adam's comment at 16 min, on how we are all just trying to avoid becoming collateral damage. My comment: Amen. And I don't know why Jim keeps saying "if" we decide to print our debt away because of course we will print out debt away! And yes, this will make us much poorer if owning the wrong assets. And unfortunately I'm not sure land or gold are the ones that will deliver.

5. I'm amazed at how non-ideological Jim is at his age; he's forever young and clearly not blinded by the past. I'm impressed by his awareness that the market may not be near it's top.

Would anybody care to elaborate on what Jim Rogers meant?

Well, I don't know he JR thinks, but I've said the same thing for years (even without MMT). The public is always fighting the last war, which is 1970s price inflation. Today, we face "asset" inflation in stocks and housing, and the likely reaction may well be a strong desire for the commanding heights of wealth production: stocks.

All MMT/socialism represents to me is inefficient but accelerated consumption by everyone. This will drive production and jobs, which will then drive stock profits...and thus an even greater division of wealth. Where else can the rich park their loot besides stocks? Land.houses cannot be easily leave their country so can be taxed into submission. Stocks, the ownership of the production itself, plus the primary vehicle for people's retirement, seem likely be the hot item in the future. Technology keeps putting a ceiling on commodity prices; even oil is not immune to future technology deflation; look how easily we cut back on oil consumption due to Covid. Then imagine more efficiency in transport with higher oil prices, or even a Black Swan like fusion.

Barbara, is your point that Schwab suspects markets are overvalued but are pimping stocks for the fees anyway? I'm honestly curious, not snarking here.

If you are, I would comment: doesn't this seem unlikely? Over a decade of elevated stock prices (by elevated I mean higher than historical value-based metrics would predict, hell, I would argue two decades, since the first tech bubble and Greenspan's "irrational exuberance") requires Schwab to get new metrics and a new map of reality? Or at least acknowledge the true "reality" of stock price correction may take over a lifetime to appear...which would make Schwab itself irrelevant?

My comment: I held the "stocks are too high" position but over time developed a new working map that seems to aligns with what I see on the ground better (but which, of course, may still not be true).

One point I thought funny in the article: “Markets historically are not particularly affected by which party wins the White House and/or control of Congress, and that seems to be the case again this year". If this is true, then doesn't it mean the voting public lacks the power to actually make changes in tax or business policy effecting the markets? That voting doesn't matter? Oh, from the mouth of babes :-)...