Interview with David Rosenberg

Published on
October 21st, 2016
49 minutes

Interview with David Rosenberg

The Interview ·
Featuring David Rosenberg

Published on: October 21st, 2016 • Duration: 49 minutes

In this rare hour-long interview, David Rosenberg damns the central banks for failing to relieve the debt burden on American households, and reveals that India is where he is now focused on achieving alpha.


  • RC
    Ryan C.
    8 September 2017 @ 12:29
    Jesus. This guy is totally nuts. Here's his quote 17mins in; "Helicopter Money is QE+. Where say the treasury issues a $2trl century bond on the feds balance sheet, so that when the bond matures we’re all dead anyway, then the treasury can use that money to stimulate growth. So here’s the beauty of it, you don’t have to go through congress." This is just embarrassing and symptomatic of the idiots in charge of monetary policy globally.
  • JM
    John M.
    7 April 2017 @ 23:30
    FYI Rosenberg's latest view on Toronto real estate per BNN interview: "Toronto housing bubble on par with what we had in the States'".
  • BE
    Barbara E.
    31 December 2016 @ 14:30
    David Rosenberg was recognized as the t 7th best economist in the world recently, so I don't think his comments should be taken lightly! Monetary policy has got to pass the baton to fiscal policy. He is right to stimulate the the economy out of the debt morass that we are in we have to change the denominator and incrementally grow our way out of the debt overhang that we are overburdened by. Student Loan forgiveness would put a large swath of the population in a better position to begin to move out of the baseents of mom and dad's basement and buy that first home and we all know how important to the economy new household formation is to begin to drive growth. Hopefully, we get the movement on capital hill in the form of passed budgets that create the confidence that corporations can begin to address capacity utilization rates again up again., with the lower tax rates being proposed they have more incentive to invest in the real economy. Unfortunately , we did not get the tax proposal change to the top and the benefit to the middle class that spend their savings directly into the economy and spur on growth to the economy, but we never seem to learn that trickle down tax cuts don't work.. The rich just save more,. Heicopter money proposed by Bernanke and again by David in some form to get to the middle class directly from the Fed's Balance Sheet makes complete sense because as the economy improves they can unwind that debt at the appropriate time and take advantage of the exceptionally low rate environment just like corporations are doing but do it for the American people,
  • DL
    Dermot L.
    6 November 2016 @ 17:50
    I would have to disagree with some of the points in Canada, living in Alberta at the moment it feels like the Canadian government is turing its back on the oil and gas industry. A lot of pipelines did not get the go ahead, the east cost still imports Saudi oil. The Canadian central bank also sold ALL of its gold.
  • wt
    william t.
    3 November 2016 @ 13:08
    The debt seems to the problem and it is interesting that the Central Banks don't get it? I use to consider myself a fiscal conservative but my mind set has changed. I would suggest that the target of the Fed and other Central Banks has been the problem. Sending the money that they created to the top 1% and hope that it would flow down hasn't worked. Creating a trillion Dollar loan forgiveness for student loans would have a greater chance of kick starting spending and would be less divisive socially. You could pay for it with a 1% sales tax dedicated to retiring it.
  • tw
    tam w.
    1 November 2016 @ 01:00
    Interesting how he says Germany must spend their surplus, and the US must add to their deficit by borrowing from future demand. Surely its about production and capital. The US needs to get more competitive ( work harder and grow savings ) while China and Germany can put their feet up and enjoy the fruits of their past hard work. If the US must increase fiscal deficits, a better way would be to just cuts taxes and let the free market decide whether to spend or save, and not have Govt direct spending to pet projects .
  • JC
    John C.
    31 October 2016 @ 07:19
    wow at times I thought I was hearing something out of a government, IMF or World Bank official. Or Freidman/Krugman. For a guy who's supposedly bearish it sure seems that all we need to do is add in more spending and debt forgiveness et voila! As if we haven't been spending like drunken sailors all these years. It's almost like he doesn't think we're in that bad shape (!). I like hearing a counterpoint but if this guys' right then either Trump or Hillary supposedly will save us all with $2 trillion of infrastructure spending and the forgiveness of $1 trillion of student debt. Where have I heard this before? I'd think he's naive but then again I know he's not - he's either talking his book or just that he can't get away from his Canadian politically correct socialist upbringing? Food for thought. Well I can't say I loved it but it sure got me thinking and I feel better today - everything's going to be ok! :)
  • TW
    Thomas W.
    27 October 2016 @ 16:54
    "The textbooks say ..." Yeah., well the textbooks have EVERYTHING ass backwards. You follow what the textbooks say and you get disaster. The only question is how long can you delay the inevitable. The idea that you can get sustainable organic growth over time ... and that the Fed will EVER be able to sell off its hoard of bonds ... by spending conjured money today is pure voodoo. The problem is it's institutionally accepted, mainstream voodoo. You almost make it sound sensible Rosey, but it's just more Keynesian twaddle. Fascism by any other name ...
  • LV
    Luís V.
    27 October 2016 @ 13:41
    Not to downplay the guest, but a bit excessive on the optimism. Portugal did none of the structural reforms the troika recommended (see latest from IMF on that) and with xtrem left party plus communist party plus socialist government there will be no structural reforms. Trade deal between CAN and EU, well that´s in a thin thread. No political pressure in EZ??? Well, there´s a lot that the guest is playing down. And all serious matters. I think Grant was a bit unconfortable about the performance. But kept the RV tv ethos and was a gentleman.
  • SD
    Stephen D. | Contributor
    27 October 2016 @ 09:33
    I have to agree with the comments on how 'Rosie' has changed. He's pulling his punches these days, is it that he's got a day job at Gluskin Sheff? And for a guy claiming he's bearish, he's sounding awfully sanguine on everything, even helicopter money. Truly a thing to make you go Hmmmm.
  • PJ
    Peter J.
    25 October 2016 @ 20:00
    Well this is what RealVision is all about - different viewpoints - whether you agree with him or not well worth a listen
  • MB
    Matthias B.
    25 October 2016 @ 09:49
    Given Mr Rosenberg's credentials and me reading his research at Gluskin initially , I expected more. I am truly disappointed in the suggested solutions, this time heli money. While I see the huge debt burden as a big hurdle, a jubilee cannot go without punishment, it creates moral hazard and social ramifications. Heli money is once again the same o' inefficient remedy to cure the current disease (long lasting profligated behaviour by the private and public sector). I am more disappointed that reasonable thinkers like Mr Rosenberg have lost the courage to state what has to be done (painful as it may be). have they all been corrupted by the gravy trains? in this interview I would have hoped as well to hear more about potential unintended consequences of heli money as it clearly is kicking the can down the road once more, or is it too scary to hear and would chase away investors therefore affecting the own income stream while being on the payroll of a Wall St or alike player?
  • RA
    Robert A.
    25 October 2016 @ 00:17
    Yikes! We are now having calm matter of fact discussions re a 2 trillion Fed financed fiscal stimulus "end around" on Congress, forgiving 1 trillion of student loans and those who have assets and/or are making money getting hosed. I thought the dang end thing was going to come riding on a pale horse----not from the mouth of a very pleasant looking fellow with a wonderful mild clipped Canadian accent.
  • DM
    Davis M.
    24 October 2016 @ 23:58
    I am so glad we are allowed comments on the video. Over the last couple of months, I have learned to start the video and read the comments at the same time. If comments match what I am hearing, then I can decide whether to continue with the video. Agree with many comments (Especially Peter M). As Keynes said "we are all dead in the long run". Well, he is dead and we are now "in the long run". Too bad this rubbish did not go with him.
  • AD
    Anthony D.
    24 October 2016 @ 19:45
    Lets think here a second. Last years total tax revenues were > 3 Trillion. Why not just have a complete tax holiday for federal taxes in 2017? Let those who earn keep there hard earned dollars.
  • EK
    Emil K.
    24 October 2016 @ 19:44
    Kind of weird. Started out with a bearish outlook but seems pretty optimistic on a number of fronts. Seems like a steadily growing number of people are pointing to fiscal spending but it is my sense this is a delay, not a solution. So the West will pursue the path blazed by China? Massive fiscal spending? Apply more hair of the dog? It's not altogether obvious that the answer to the credit problem is more credit.
  • PU
    Peter U.
    24 October 2016 @ 10:35
    Update to my comments earlier. . . . I am a paid up subscriber to David's daily publication. I will NOT be renewing my membership. Thank you.
  • PU
    Peter U.
    24 October 2016 @ 10:34
    Great comments from Mike B.!!!!!!
  • IH
    Iain H.
    24 October 2016 @ 08:38
    When QE was first implemented establishment economists backed it as the required solution, seven years later the forecast outcome has not eventuated. So now, its helicopter money that's the solution! How that will play out is predictable. Politicians will spend the money on projects that get them elected, not what will give the best return. That's why a real capitalist system requires small government. That's why we are where we are. Decades of politicians being given a free pass for bad policy thanks to central banks loosening money supply when bad policy slows the economy. Or loosening money supply when markets lower house prices or increase the cost of debt. The most important message for me in this interview was that helicopter money will eventuate and so investors need to get in front of it, or be left behind. The trick will be when to exit before you can't. I too would like to have seen Grant be a bit more challenging. Like, what happens after 5 years of 1 or 2 trillion spent a year and the projects have created inflation and cost much more that anticipated or even were a bad idea from the beginning ( think new airport for congressmen s vote) and the income from these projects can't pay the cost of the debt?
  • RE
    Rob E.
    24 October 2016 @ 05:48
    Seems like Grant could see a lost cause sitting in front of him and let David speak freely despite his own differing opinions... Can't imagine David would be too keen to return had he been lambasted for 45 mins... Let the viewers make up their own minds... There seemed to be a lack of depth in David's answers, as Raoul mentioned previously there are significant political ramifications for a bail in / bail out of DB and the future of the Euro - which David simply dismissed 'I think it will get resolved'...
  • TA
    Tom A.
    24 October 2016 @ 01:28
    What's the second highest inflation cost to most Americans - education. Who benefits the most - universities and the liberals that shelter their poor results. My oldest kid paid her loans in full, my younger girl is making payments, as her parents are on our home equity LOC, on her RISD education at $60k a year. She has a job because she had to get one to move ahead and continue to grow as a responsible adult. You want to just wipe that away on the backs of taxpayers? As stated above - what does the government spend money on well?
  • AH
    Andreas H.
    23 October 2016 @ 22:16
    By the way I think Grant did a great job!
  • AH
    Andreas H.
    23 October 2016 @ 22:14
    Right way to go, helicopter money, 3 Trillion on the balance sheet on the fed and massive tax breaks for the middle class especially for families with kids... and we should do the same in Europe...
  • JD
    Jonathan D.
    23 October 2016 @ 17:40
    Yet another 'economist' who has no idea what happens when you have a clear out a la Thomas E Woods US 1920/21
  • JD
    Jonathan D.
    23 October 2016 @ 17:40
    Yet another 'economist' who has no idea what happens when you have a clear out a la Thomas E Woods US 1920/21
  • MB
    Mike B.
    23 October 2016 @ 11:39
    What a disappointment. Not sure what happened to Grant but his questions were as weak as Rosenberg's answers. I felt like REAL VISION had become CNBC. No offence Grant, but you were far too enamoured with your guests PAST track record you slept through this interview and did not challenge his apparent contradictions. Rosenberg talked about all the small positives that could happen while he referred to underlying weakness everywhere. How did you let him go on about emerging markets and not ask about the rising $US and its implications? Or about China's Yuan devaluations and what impact that may have on the global economy. There were some good points Rosenberg made about debt but I still have no clue where he stands ar what he thinks will happen or where to invest or avoid. Don't air weak interviews, it diminishes your brand.
  • PS
    Parker S.
    23 October 2016 @ 07:38
    Lucky for him he'll be dead before I am.
  • TH
    Timo H.
    23 October 2016 @ 07:22
    I fear that Rosie has slipped to the dark side. To me, it's apparent that the core problem of the global economy is poor quality of investments fueled by too cheap money. If we make the money abundant (and free) and trust the government to spend it, I don't see the quality of investments go up. The simple reason for this is that the track record of governments in finding high quality investment targets is appalling. What I see developing here is Communism 2.0 and I don't like it. Bring back the capitalism and real price discovery. Please!
  • DS
    David S.
    23 October 2016 @ 05:13
    There are many problems with student loan programs. On the important problem of paying off a student loan, I feel it would be fair for the government ( i.e., the tax payer) to fund the loans interest free. The students would have to pay off all the principal in full . We do need a better educated work force. We do not want to encourage handouts without skin in the game..
  • DS
    David S.
    23 October 2016 @ 05:04
    Thank you Mr. Rosenberg for not excoriating the Fed and putting the blame on both houses of Congress for not doing anything for eight years. I expect Congress to keep debating and not performing for the next eight years.
  • MH
    Mark H.
    22 October 2016 @ 22:57
    re: The xenophobia comment about the USA. We have let in way, way, way too may people from countries that have crappy civic heritages. In Minnesota, we are NOTORIOUS for people from ONE country but we actually have a large amount from another country RIGHT NEXT TO IT THAT YOU NEVER HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT. They are GREAT CITIZENS. Immigration is central planning and being PC about it is stupid has hell. We are living it here.
  • MF
    Martin F.
    22 October 2016 @ 21:16
    Keynesian BS. Plain and simple. No added value. The usual story line: "more will do"
  • XS
    Xin S.
    22 October 2016 @ 19:15
    that is how david getting a job in the government. if he criticized the fed, he will be unemployed. never like him.
  • BB
    Bojo B.
    22 October 2016 @ 19:13
    A good interview, but I still don’t get it. At this point, facing reality should be more important than positivity. Plus, GDP growth is not inherently good, except it is necessary for the survival of the credit system. A Buddhist monk with peace of mind does not need iPhone 14.
  • CD
    Chris D.
    22 October 2016 @ 17:57
    Another crazy keynesian. Ultimate solution; always the perpetual fiat-scam.
  • Sv
    Sid v.
    22 October 2016 @ 16:48
    Interesting in that this guy who is smart, has his head in the game, has no answers. He is guessing, hoping, worrying, and wishing. That tells me the smart guys of the world have so much information coming at them they can not see the trends, they can't see the forest for the trees. Not much i can do with this other than say "Hmmm...?"
  • RZ
    RICK Z.
    22 October 2016 @ 15:07
    This only proves, that we have truly cracked up I'm listening to this idea that we're going to forgive $1 trillion worth of student loan debt, and somehow or another that's going to get household formations going – for people who don't have jobs and are not qualified to do much Really, I felt nauseous listening to it
  • SM
    Stephane M.
    22 October 2016 @ 12:52
    Pelose = Poloz ;-)
  • SM
    Stephane M.
    22 October 2016 @ 12:48
    I completely agree with Peter M. I'm from Canada and bought a load truck of U.S.$ lately. I don't agree with him on the future "strenght" of our CAD "Peso". I'm seeing the CAD going under 0.70$ in the next year or so. Why?? Our deficit is ballooning, Pelose don't want the CAD to go up and did you notice lately that the Oil price is going up and the CAD is going down!!! Let's see who will be right: an economist (with paper money) or me with my REAL money!!!
  • nn
    nisse n.
    22 October 2016 @ 12:14
    I completely agree with Peter M and I think it is unfortunate that Grant would not push him harder on the longer term consequences of kicking the can down the road and also maybe asked about why Rosenberg has changed his mind to embracing the idea that we can keep printing our way away from recessions. I always feel a bit sick when I hear people like Rosenberg advocating the "let´s pee in the bed for a little while-longer-onomocis". I would be very happy to see more questions on long term consequences (on environment) from the idea that positive GDP must be achieved at any cost.
  • PU
    Peter U.
    22 October 2016 @ 11:57
    I have known Rosie personally for many years. I have had many one on one conversations with Rosie over dinner and drinks at Mauldin's conference and in NY. I genuinely believe that Rosie has morphed from a smart economist who once believed that private industry should lead the economy to an economist embracing all Krugmenaomics has to offer. In the interview, he "spins" the espoused multi trillion dollar perpetual US Gov bond offering as a way to stimulate aggregate demand and "financed" via the "central bank balance sheet". The Central Bank does not have authority to defacto engage in fiscal policy. They are unelected officials. He further goes on to describe how the US Treasury and the Central Bank can "work around" Congress's inability to pass fiscal stimulus programs to stimulate (artificially nonetheless) aggregated demand . . . . shame on you Rosie. In my opinion, Rosie seems to have become a "bought and paid for" spokesperson for further Neo Keynesian policies. Frankly I feel totally misled by my friend Rosie, who in the past was an advocate of "let the private sector allocate capital" and real aggregated demand, employment and rates the pricing mechanism will fluctuate around economic equilibria. In private conversation, Rosie used to espouse the exact opposite as articulated in this video. Fiscal stimulus, just like monetary policy, only steals demand from the future for consumption today. You can't follow this policy forever or you will end up in a debt trap. Just trying to keep it real Rosie. I will be calling you to discuss. One word closing . . . . disappointed.
  • MF
    Mohammad F.
    22 October 2016 @ 07:13
    I don't know about you but I just can't accept these solutions to fixing real issues. We are on borrowed time and eventually we need to face reality and pay the real price. I certainly don't believe the solution is to borrow more- 'couple of trillion'. David R. is not wise and his forecast desperate.
  • MM
    MZ M.
    22 October 2016 @ 04:18
    Shovel ready jobs, Cash for clunkers, Tax the rich (cloak it in social justice), Huge infrastructure spending paid for with Century bonds ("what the heck in the long run we'll be dead"), Student loan forgiveness, central planning big government neo-keynesian and on and on.... Progressive much? But realistically we know thats what is coming in the U.S. Mr. Rosenberg makes it all sound oh so very reasonable... but when the music stops... there are going to be a lot of very disappointed people and I am so grateful for RVTV so i can at least understand this and maybe prepare myself and family for what the "PhD Standard" of the smartest and brightest are doing. Rainmaker is right, there's a reason for why a contract law guy just won a Nobel Prize.
  • JM
    John M.
    22 October 2016 @ 03:45
    The average price of a detached house in Toronto is $1.3 million. I think that's a bubble! Victoria is also a bubble. Canada has lowest mortgage rates ever and BoC has no intention of raising rates for several years. Inflated real estate is a problem far beyond "Chinese buyers" IMO.
  • WA
    William A.
    22 October 2016 @ 02:26
    Solutions offered are out of the central bank playbook. Which show no evidence of working so far. On the face of it, you have to wonder what end game is being advanced.
  • GG
    Gerald G.
    22 October 2016 @ 01:16
    It's "fun" to bearish and fear is more primal than greed? Riiiight!
  • GG
    Gerald G.
    22 October 2016 @ 01:15
    As stupid "solutions" get more and more extreme it becomes more and more obvious that there is a kind of of slow burn panic setting in as people begin to realize they might have to face the fiction of wealth creation that was never really earned in the first place. A whole generation (or 3) has grown up believing they are entitled to the highest standard of living in history whether they have earned it or not and...that there ore no real life consequences for the irresponsible policies that got us here.
  • PC
    Peter C.
    21 October 2016 @ 21:50
    Great interview and would like to see more of David Rosenberg. David brought new optimistic / bullish insights on Europe, EM, Canada.... And he pushed the envelope on government intervention which like the low / negative rates I disagree with but its happened. So massive fiscal spending or heli money should not be a surprise. I like his Canadian asset political premium. I am surprised he did not mention the oil impact on Alberta and its drag on Canada. Unfortunately Canada's economy is tied to the resource sector.
  • AV
    Alex V.
    21 October 2016 @ 19:43
    The Canadian needs to do some research before he extolls the virtues of failed programs. Golden Gate "no state or federal government funds were involved in building Golden Gate Bridge. He
  • rr
    rlw r.
    21 October 2016 @ 18:20
    Rosie is all 'Centralist' central Canada - Liberal Larry Summers style. Canada still does not even have free trade among provinces! So spare us the excessive Trudeau narcissism. No discussion of structural reform that is badly needed, just all the same old Big gov't stuff of past half century when growth was abundant. As Howard Mark succinctly outlines - 'no free lunches' though the politicians keep on promising. Equally Rosenberg is a brilliant guy and always worth the listen. Great interview Grant, alternative views always needed (aka-other side of the trade).
  • JV
    JACK V.
    21 October 2016 @ 18:04
    Greatly appreciate the speaker's insight. Disagree with the suggestion that existing (and his proposed new forms) of stimulus will likely ever be unwound in an orderly fashion. I'm disturbed by the developing consensus (outside of the Fed, where it has been the modus operandi for years) that delaying the inevitable crash is a more important consideration than the eventual severity thereof. Overall terrific interview though.
  • PU
    Paul U.
    21 October 2016 @ 17:26
    Rosenberg's praise of the current Canadian tax policy says it all; a dollar less in the hands of the more affluent is more productive in the hands of the middle class. The same middle class that is now sitting on the highest levels of household debt in the developed world. At the risk of sounding elitist, who is the wiser allocator of capital, those who create wealth and employ others or those with no other inclination greater than to consume today and create future obligations? I do not doubt he is correct that we will see a doubling down on this strategy, to expect it will end well is unbelievable.
  • JC
    Jan C.
    21 October 2016 @ 17:19
    I see the problem with Helicopter Money is that it continues the delusion that there is a free lunch. During the great depression there was an antiquated notion called shared sacrifice. Want to extinguish student loans or provide tuition free college? Easy. Each recipient provides an equal number of years in public service. Military, education, doesn't matter. If you get something for free, that eventually becomes it's economic value. Zero.
  • AV
    Alvern V.
    21 October 2016 @ 16:30
    Fiscal policy is over due, but don't be naive thinking that it produces a positive multiplier.
  • DW
    Daniel W.
    21 October 2016 @ 16:24
    I'm not nearly as smart as this man. He's made a lot of money in his life with his intelligence and I have not, so I'm just trying to get my head around many of his statements. He's states that a major hold back to the economy is student loans (debt), and to basically fix the economy is to massively borrow since money is currently cheap ( via infrastructure spending, helicopter money, forgiveness of student loans, etc.). Doesn't that all just create more govt. debt for people that are already in a ton of debt? All of this debt has to be paid by someone and it will just get passed on to American taxpayers....and ultimately the middle class. Government clearly isn't capable of paying down debt or spending appropriately. This cannot go on forever. I'm just not following the logic here....
  • TJ
    Terry J.
    21 October 2016 @ 14:54
    Brilliant interview with a very clever man whom I have great respect for. However, I fear for the future when people like David remain convinced that creating more money from nothing, albeit this time via fiscal and not monetary stimulus is the answer to fixing a problem that developed due to the disappearance of financial discipline once the gold window was closed in August 1971. David's views are fascinating and I really hope he is proved right about the fiscal cure if it happens, but can't help worrying as to what the unintended consequences will be after the combined monetary and fiscal stimulus exercise is exhausted, and the dust has settled.
  • IJ
    Ian J.
    21 October 2016 @ 14:25
    US Budget Deficit: 2010: 1,294B 2011: 1,295B 2012: 1,087B 2013: 679B 2015: 438B 2016: 587B US fiscal policy has been very tight the last few years?
  • RM
    Robert M.
    21 October 2016 @ 14:09
    So we are trying to get inflation so we can the raise rates? I dont get it. Let us lower rates so we can get inflation then we can raise rates. WTF?!
  • db
    don b.
    21 October 2016 @ 13:56
    Albert Einstein said “The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.” The Fed's zero interest rate policy is that power in reverse.
  • NR
    Nuno R.
    21 October 2016 @ 13:06
    Thanks RVT, very good interview.
  • NR
    Nuno R.
    21 October 2016 @ 13:06
    Thanks RVT, very good interview.
  • CC
    Christopher C.
    21 October 2016 @ 12:32
    Loved this interview and the plethora of minutiae. That being said I am having a harder and harder time not listening to and agreeing with the very simple and (in my estimation) very wise explanations of what is coming from Jim Rogers.
  • IH
    Iain H.
    21 October 2016 @ 12:15
    Well done RVTV, a lot to think about and a great amount of learning in this interview.
  • VS
    Victor S. | Contributor
    21 October 2016 @ 11:44
    Although David makes the case that economists have creative (fantasy ) imaginations -he does not understand or put into context things like helicopter money will cause inflation beyond what the fed wishes. Congress will demand approval ....Also the trend in europe towards other brexits are locked on. He will be very wrong in many respects ....
  • OM
    Omar M.
    21 October 2016 @ 11:34
    Awesome interview with Rosenberg. Awesome insgihts Thank you :-) It would be great if you can get Michael Pettis pls Thanks
  • KO
    Kieran O.
    21 October 2016 @ 11:33
    Mr. Rosenberg clearly looks at the world with rose colored glasses. There is not a storm cloud on the planet where he fails to see the silver lining. Which is certainly nice, because he essentially identifies some of the key bullish sign posts investors should be looking for. With all that said, as being one of the more bearish humans alive, I have my doubts. First off, exports have been declining in South Korea, Japan, and China. Just in September, USD value of Chinese exports was down 10% YoY. So I'm not sure what Mr. Rosenberg is talking about in those regards. Moving over to Europe, one of the main reasons why Europe or the EU is in the situation it is today, is because of how dysfunctional it is. And it is this dysfunction that has prevented Germany from expanding its fiscal expenditures. More specifically, if the EU allowed all the countries to engage in extreme deficit spending, then Germany and even more specifically German CITIZENS would in essence be bailing out the other countries. In such a divided and dysfunctional monetary union this is not a likely outcome in the NEAR TERM. For example, German elections are next year. Is the winning partly likely to campaign on a platform that bails out Greece and Spain and Italy at the cost of German citizens? I don't think that's very likely. Of course, this may not hold in a scenario where DB gets bailed out, but then Merkel would lose the election so she will do anything in her power to make sure that does not happen. And actually there's a whole complication with the Italian referendum that Grant brought up. That too is not clear. The investment climate in Europe is incredibly uncertain and yet bonds are trading like the future has never been more certain. A fun paradox that exists in the modern world of central banking. Which is the focus of all of this bearishness. I've sort of lost my train of thought right now and I look forward to re-watching this video again and again, Mr. Rosenberg is an incredibly smart man and the fact that he joins a growing list of people that are bullish on EM is something to take note. With that said, I think most of these people are wrong to ignore the elephant in the room which is China's debt bubble, and coming currency troubles. CHEERS!