Talk:James Rickards

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

'...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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * You should know that the second example is not "his own bio", but part of a sales page, written by marketers. It's obvious that sales pages should not be used as sources. DFlhb (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106164845/http://www.omnisinc.com/leadership.php to http://www.omnisinc.com/leadership.php

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

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

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)

Notability
I agree the subject is not notable. I would support deletion. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Having read a few reliably-published books about LTCM a few years back, I believe there are enough non-passing mentions of him in those books that he's clearly above the notability threshold for that alone. No idea about his other activities. DFlhb (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I stated that Rickards worked for a copywriter and in fact one could consider him a copywriter based on his published material. I have seen his published material and it is copy. Furthermore, he has claimed to have worked for the CIA many times over the years. Again, I probably know more about his shady business and false claims than anyone as I have been monitoring his activities since 2012 maybe even 2011. [BLPvio removed] Elipencils1990 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is of course a valid concern. Re: monitoring his activities since 2012: duly noted, but be aware of the WP:Original research policy.
 * I've repurchased my LTCM books as digital copies so I could run a text search, and it looks like I was quite wrong back in January; all are passing mentions. I'll ping this article's creator,, to check if they know of proper sources that would meet WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise it looks like Ratel is right, and this might merit WP:AfD. DFlhb (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as I thought. I'm wasting my time here. I'll go back to what I was doing. Exposing these cons on my own platform. And I'll add Wikipedia to the expose as well. Elipencils1990 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
Please don't delete the fact that he blames global elites for trying to use climate change to create a new world order. That is verbatim from his book. Either delete the whole article because he really is not notable, but if not, leave the crazy stuff in it. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The "crazy stuff", as you put it, was unsourced, and was accompanied by another WP:SYNTH statement sourced to a news article that mentions neither Rickards nor his book. Seemed like uncaught vandalism, so I replaced it with a properly sourced statement, which you've now removed. Might you at least find a citation for your sentence (see WP:BURDEN), and not reinstate the clearly SYNTH sentence preceding it? DFlhb (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've made some edits to source the statements of fact (that can be corroborated simply by reading his book, BTW). Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I still have great doubts about including people who openly subscribe to conspiracy theories in WP. It's hard to find proper reviews of his books in really solid RSes because he is simply not notable. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Belief in conspiracies and survivalism.
In a video (URL below), in which the voice-over claims to be of Jim Rickards he claims that the US bombed the Nord Stream pipeline "President Joe Biden ordered the Nord Stream attack.", and then goes on to give advice, "Get a high-quality firearm and know how to use it… Prepare a survival stash with 3 months of food, water, and a portable heat source… Watch this short presentation – before it’s shut down –".

The transcript and video are here:

https://pro.paradigmnewsletters.org/p/awn_energyarmageddon_0123/LAWNZ248/Full?cake_s1=05_173025192_c190ca2f-e84d-4d6f-bd26-68d9bd996539&h=true

His belief in conspiracies/false flag operations and survivalism do deserve a mention if it really is him, note that his twitter feed is similar:

https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/1574947770452279296?lang=en "I don't know who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines. I do know that when solving a mystery, you look for motives. Russia has none; they can turn off the gas when they want. The U.S. has plenty: Blame Putin, escalate the war, advance green agenda, make EU dependent. Go from there." Furbian (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There can be problems adding data to WP:BLPs that source back to podcasts and social media. Are they regarded as reliable sources? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)