The Presidential Election is a chance for a national rebirth. It's a quadrennial right of passage giving Americans the chance, nay the obligation to exercise their right to vote for the candidate who best represents their interests. At least that's the way the process is sold to the masses. Famed international investor Jim Rogers isn't quite so sure.
"A pox on both their houses as far as I'm concerned," says Rogers, paraphrasing the Bard. "I will vote the protest vote. I nearly always vote the protest vote."
Rogers isn't an America basher but a citizen who feels apart from the economic policies pursued by his country. He casts a ballot for none of the above because he doesn't think President Obama or Mitt Romney can rebuild the nation's flagging economy.
In terms of fiscal and all other policies, Rogers sees one major difference between the two candidates: "One is from Boston and the other is from Chicago," he states.
The Fiscal Cliff and Taxes
The vaunted Fiscal Cliff set to take place at the beginning of 2013 worries Rogers but only as part of a greater decline of the nation. The notion of cutting some spending has limited appeal, but jacking up taxes is anathema to him. "Raising taxes is always bad for any economy throughout history," he says.
Not that it matters in regards to The Cliff. The option of allowing an arbitrary deadline to send the nation into the abyss or setting a disciplined budget are each unthinkable to political animals. That being the case Washington will do what it always does when faced with tough choices; it'll go off the menu and simply stall for more time. (See related: Bernanke Hasn't Done Anything Right as Fed Chief: Jim Rogers)
Which brings us full-circle, back to Rogers and his protest vote. He's a fiscal conservative in a centrist nation, leaving him a man without a candidate.
"I will repeat to you again; I will not vote for either one of them," he states. "I will vote the protest vote because all of them have gotten us into this situation."