A party system is a concept in comparative political science concerning the system of government by political parties in a democratic country. The idea is that political parties have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations.

The concept was originated by European scholars studying the United States, especially James Bryce and Moisey Ostrogorsky, and has been expanded to cover other democracies. Giovanni Sartori devised the most widely used classification method for party systems. He suggested that party systems should be classified by the number of relevant parties and the degree of fragmentation. Party systems can be distinguished by the effective number of parties.

A typical system, the US system and the British system

In most democracies the electorate votes for a party. The party members develop an agenda, and nominate candidates to office based on how well they believe the candidate can carry out the agenda. The party is funded by a nominal membership fee, and contributions from the state for the cost of campaigning. The contribution may be in relation to the membership, the votes in the previous election, or similar. The party is not allowed to receive other contributions, a rule intended to prevent plutocracy. Parties may be grass-roots organizations with a bottom-up decision-making process, or top controlled, but in either case it is the party who sets the agenda and nominates the candidates for the ballots. In some cases the voter can mark individual names, in others he can only vote for a pre-determined set of names.

The U.S. system is completely different as it was designed for a situation without parties. In the U.S. it is the candidate who decides under what party he should run, registers to run, pays the fees, etc. In the primaries the party organization stays neutral until one candidate has been elected. The platform of the party is written by the winning candidate (in presidential elections; in other elections no platform is involved). Each candidate has his or her own campaign, fund raising organisation, etc. The primary elections in the main parties is organized by the states, who also registers the party affiliation of the voters (this also makes it easier to gerrymander the congressional districts). The party is thus little more than a campaign organization for the main elections.

The British Westminster system, on which many Commonwealth systems are based, is in some ways a mixture of the two: the parliament was also not originally designed for political parties. Until the end of the 17th century, a major deterrent to the development of opposing parties was the idea that there could only be one "King's Party" and to oppose it would be disloyal or even treasonous. This idea lingered throughout the 18th century. Some of the greatest early prime ministers, like Pitt the Younger, are well-known to have detested Westminster's developing partisan nature. However, by the 19th century, as the monarch's role in the day-to-day business of government continued to decline, and as rival claimants to the throne died or became discredited, the need for Parliament to hold government ministers to account increased and the argument that such scrutiny constituted disloyalty to the Crown itself became increasingly tenuous. The concept of Members of Parliament opposing government ministers while retaining loyalty to the Crown was formalised in 1826, when in a Parliamentary debate John Hobhouse coined the term ''His Majesty's Loyal Opposition''.

Today, political parties are officially registered in the United Kingdom, but their role in parliament is not officially recognized: the electorate votes for members of parliament, who officially merely happen to be generally party-aligned. The parties can be seen ''de jure'' as accidental collections of members of parliament who generally vote the same way, but this system is not built into parliamentary law. However, unlike the American system, there is a much stronger relationship between the party structure and their arrangement in government - though not necessarily, the party leader is usually the prime ministerial candidate at each election, and even opposition parties have 'shadow ministers' (declaring the role in government they would have were their party in power) - an arrangement possible since the prime minister, unlike a president, is not head of state but just first among equals in parliament, with a role of head of the executive only officially recognised as late as 1905.

Party systems per country

Europe

European Union

Two structures of party system have been identified in the European Parliament since its first universal direct election in 1979, albeit the main EU party groups remained the same:

1979–1994: a system split in two blocs on the left/right dimension, with the left bloc (Socialists, Radical Left and Greens) opposing a right bloc (Populars, Liberals, Gaullists and British Conservatives)

1994-onwards: a system in which the three central parties (EPP, PES and ELDR) have voted as much with each other as with their smaller allies, thus 'governing' the system, and facing different oppositions from the left (European Left and Greens and leftist euroskeptics) and from the right (Gaullists, British Conservatives, rightist euroskeptics and nationalists).

Italy

Italian party systems are usually considered only since the foundation of the Italian Republic (1946) as pre-fascist parties lacked a wide popular base.

The party system of the so-called ''First Republic'' (1946–1994), though based on a proportional electoral law, saw the dominance of the Christian Democracy (DC) and the ''conventio ad excludendum'' against the Italian Communist Party (PCI). DC and PCI together gathered around 85% of the votes in average. The system was thus a blocked bipolar system; governments were very short (in average lasting less than one year) and post-electoral, but the supporting parties and personnel could not change. With time, some parties (especially the Italian Socialist Party, PSI) gained momentum, till reaching the role of government-making in the 1980s. The system was completely destroyed by the bribery scandals of Tangentopoli, which shattered DC and PSI. According to Sartori, the two possible degenerations of proportionalism (fragmentation and lack of party discipline) were reduced by two factors: the stron role of parties ("''partitocrazia''") and the polarization between Christian-democrats and communists. Therefore, the ''first republic'' saw a maximum level of 5 effective parties, with only one dominant party.

The so-called ''Second Republic'' party system (since 1994) bears the following characteristic marks:

a majoritarian electoral law, introduced by referendum in 1993, which brought about a bi-polarization of the game (although limited by the 1/4 of votes still gathered proportionally)

the birth of Forza Italia as personal party of Silvio Berlusconi, with a strong polarization effect

the raise of new parties (the environmentalists Verdi and the autonomist Lega Nord since the late 1980s, Alleanza Nazionale through a reform of the post-fascist Italian Social Movement)

the split of old parties (between reformed post-communist Democratic Party of the Left and neo-communists of Rifondazione Comunista; between left-wing and right-wing of old Christian Democrats and Socialists, siding with or against Berlusconi)

Though more fragmented in the number of parties, the system was bipolar in its functioning. With time, both sides saw a strengthening of coalitions (even if with ups and downs) and the birth of unified parties (the Ulivo federation and then the Democratic Party on the left, and the People of Freedom party on the right side). The change in the electoral law in 2005 and the return to proportionality (although with a majority premium able to transform, in the lower chamber, the plurality in a 55% majority) didn't bring about a return to collusion, while still leaving such prospect open for the future.

Germany

The 2009 Bundestag election in Germany was characterized by widespread public apathy and record low voter turnout. Weldon and Nüsser (2010) argue that it solidified a new stable, but fluid five-party system that they see as a defining feature of the emerging German political system. The three minor parties each achieved historical bests at the polls with steep losses for the two traditional Volksparteien. They report that the increased volatility and fluidity of the party system is structured along the left-right ideological spectrum with the parties divided into two major camps and vote-switching much more likely within the respective camps rather than between them.

The 2009 election also marked a devastating defeat for the SPD, leading some commentators to speculate about the end of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) as a "catch-all party" and, against the backdrop of recent poor performance of center-left parties all across Europe—perhaps even "the end of social democracy."

Central and Eastern Europe

Four party systems have been identified in post-communist countries of Central-Eastern Europe:

I system (late 1980s - early 1990s): dominated by the opposition between communists and anti-communists, i.e. from supporters and opponents of the old regime; spontaneous mass movements formed on idealistic bases and transformed into 'umbrella parties'

II system (early 1990s): opposition between winners and losers of the economic transition to market economy. Anti-communist parties split and formed unstable coalition governments. Many parties, with a narrow political base, grew up

III system (late 1990s): the social conflicts of market transition aggravated, and socialdemocratic post-communist parties took over. The party system concentrated, while electoral volatility was extremely high

IV system (2000s): rise of a relatively stable and modestly concentrated party system, organized on a left-right dimension, including post-communist parties. Fragmentation did not rise again after the fall of many socialdemocratic parties from government.

Finland

Finland was a Grand Duchy controlled by Russia until 1918. Nationalistic demands from the peasants and workers for greater use of the Finnish language led to the first political party: the Finnish Party in 1860. In response, the Swedish-speaking aristocracy, landowners and businessmen formed their own political party. Thus emerged the first party system.

Canada

According to recent scholarship there have been four party systems in Canada at the federal level since Confederation, each with its own distinctive pattern of social support, patronage relationships, leadership styles, and electoral strategies. Political scientists disagree on the names and precise boundaries of the eras, however. Steve Patten identifies four party systems in Canada's political history

The first party system emerged from pre-Confederation colonial politics, had its "heyday" from 1896 to 1911 and lasted until the Conscription Crisis of 1917, and was characterized by local patronage administered by the two largest parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives.

The second system emerged following the First World War, and had its heyday from 1935 and 1957, was characterized by regionalism and saw the emergence of several protest parties, such as the Progressives, the Social Credit Party, and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.

The third system emerged in 1963 and had its heyday from 1968 to 1983 and began to unravel thereafter. The two largest parties were challenged by a strong third party, the New Democratic Party. Campaigns during this era became more national in scope due to the electronic media, and involved a greater focus on leadership. The dominant policy of the era was Keynesian economics.

The fourth party system has involved the rise of the Reform Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, and the merger of the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. It saw most parties move to one-member-one-vote leadership contests, and a major reform to campaign finance laws in 2004. The fourth party system has been characterized by market-oriented policies that abandoned Keynesian policies, but maintained the welfare state.

Clarkson (2005) shows how the Liberal Party has dominated all the party systems, using different approaches. It began with a "clientelistic approach" under Laurier, which evolved into a "brokerage" system of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s under Mackenzie King. The 1950s saw the emergence of a "pan-Canadian system", which lasted until the 1990s. The 1993 election — categorized by Clarkson as an electoral "earthquake" which "fragmented" the party system, saw the emergence of regional politics within a four party-system, whereby various groups championed regional issues and concerns. Clarkson concludes that the inherent bias built into the first-past-the-post system, has chiefly benefited the Liberals.

United States

The concept of party system was introduced by English scholar James Bryce in ''American Commonwealth'' (1885).

''American Party Systems'' was a major textbook by Charles Merriam in 1920s. In 1967 the most important single breakthrough appeared, ''The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development'', edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham. It brought together historians and political scientists who agreed on a common framework and numbering system. Thus Chambers published ''The First Party System'' in 1972. Burnham published numerous articles and books. Closely related is the concept of ''critical elections'' (introduced by V. O. Key in 1955), and "realignments."

A political science college textbook explains: :"Scholars generally agree that realignment theory identifies five distinct party systems with the following approximate dates and major parties: 1. 1796–1816, First Party System: Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists; 2. 1840–1856, Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs; 3. 1860–1896, Third Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 4. 1896–1932, Fourth Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 5. 1932-, Fifth Party System: Democrats and Republicans."

According to Marjorie Hershey, there have been at least six different party systems throughout the history of the United States:

First Party System: This system can be considered to have developed as a result of the factions in the George Washington administration. The two factions were Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists argued for a strong national government with a national bank and a strong economic and industry system. The Anti-Federalists argued for a limited government, with a more emphasis on farmers and states' rights. After the 1800 Presidential election, the Anti-Federalists (later known as the Democratic-Republicans) gained major dominance for the next twenty years, and the Federalists slowly died off.

Second Party System: This system developed as a result of the one party rule of the Democratic-Republicans not being able to contain some of the most pressing issues of the time, namely slavery. Out of this system came the Whig Party. Wealthier people tended to support the Whigs, and the poorer tended to support the Democrats. The Democrats dominated this era. The Whig party began to break apart into factions, mainly over the issue of slavery. This period lasted until 1860.

Third Party System: Beginning around the time of the start of the Civil War, this system was defined by bitter conflict and striking party differences and coalitions. These coalitions were most evidently defined by geography. The South was dominated by the Democrats who opposed the ending of slavery, and the North, with the exception of some major political machines, was dominated by the Republicans, who supported ending slavery. This era was a time of extreme industrial and economic expansion. The Third Party System lasted until 1896.

Fourth Party System: This era was defined by Progressivism and immigration, as well as the political aftermath of the American Civil War. Northeastern business supported the Republicans while the South and West supported the Democrats. Immigrant groups were courted by both parties. The Fourth Party System came to an end around 1932.

Fifth Party System: This system was defined by the creation of the New Deal Coalition by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression. This coalition supporting new social welfare programs brought together many under-privileged, working class, and minority groups including unions, Catholics, and Jews. It also attracted African-Americans, who had previously largely supported the Republican Party due to Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. This era lasted approximately until 1968.

The sixth party system is currently developing. It appears to have begun with the Democrats losing their long dominance of the South in the late 1960s, leading to a Republican dominance as evidenced by election results.

Argentina

Scholars of Argentina identify two distinct party systems, one in place between 1912 and 1940, the other emerging after 1946. The first party system was not consistently class based, but the second was, with the Radical Party representing the middle classes and the Peronists, workers and the poor.

Notes

Bibliography

Aronoff, Myron Joel. "The Americanization of Israeli Politics and Realignment of the Party System", ''Israel Studies'', Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2000, pp. 92–127

Belloc, Hilaire, and Cecil Chesterton. ''The Party System''. (1911) online edition, on British politics

Ishiyama, John. "Electoral Systems, Ethnic Fragmentation, and Party System Volatility in Sub-Saharan African Countries", ''Northeast African Studies'', Volume 10, Number 2, 2003 (New Series), pp. 203–220

Karvonen, Lauri, and Stein Kuhnle, eds. ''Party Systems and Voter Alignments Revisited'' (2000) updates on Lipset and Rokkan (1967) excerpt and text search

Lewis, Paul G. and Paul Webb, eds. ''Pan-European Perspectives on Party Politics'' (2003)

Lipset, Seymour M. and Stein Rokkan, eds. ''Party Systems And Voter Alignments'' (1967)

Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully. ''Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America'' (1996)

Mair, Peter, ed. ''The West European Party System'' (Oxford University Press, 1990) online excerpt pp. 302-310

Mair, Peter. ''The Changing Irish Party System: Organisation, Ideology and Electoral Competition'' (London, 1987).

Meleshevich, Andrey A. ''Party Systems in Post-Soviet Countries: A Comparative Study of Political Institutionalization in the Baltic States, Russia, and Ukraine'' (2007)

Sartori, Giovanni . ''Parties and Party Systems: A framework for analysis '' (1976; reprint in 2005)

Tan, Alexander C. ''Emerging Party Systems'' (2005)

Tan, Paige Johnson. "Indonesia Seven Years after Soeharto: Party System Institutionalization in a New Democracy", ''Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs'', Volume 28, Number 1, April 2006, pp. 88–114

Walch, James. ''Faction and Front: Party Systems in South India'' (1976)

Ware, Alan. ''Political Parties and Party Systems'' (1995), covers France, Germany, Britain, Japan and U.S.

Italy

The Italian Party System Between Crisis and Transition, by Sidney Tarrow

The Italian party system between parties and coalitions, ''West European Politics'', January 1, 2004; Bartolini, Stefano; Chiaramonte, Alessandro; D'Alimonte, Roberto

Party system dynamics and the making and breaking of Italian governments by Daniela Giannettia and Michael Laver, 2001

Remaking the Italian party system: how Lijphart got it wrong by saying it right ''West European Politics''; October 1, 1993; Calise, Mauro

Daaldera, Ivo H. "The Italian party system in transition: The end of polarised pluralism?" ''West European Politics'', Volume 6, Issue 3 July 1983, pages 216–236 online

Pridham, Geoffrey. ''The Nature of the Italian Party System'' (St. Martin's Press, 1981)

United States

Bartley, Numan V. "Voters and Party Systems: A Review of the Recent Literature", ''The History Teacher'', Vol. 8, No. 3 (May, 1975), pp. 452–469. online at JSTOR

Beck, Paul Allen. "Micropolitics in Macro Perspective: The Political History of Walter Dean Burnham." ''Social Science History'' 1986 10(3): 221-245. Issn: 0145-5532 Fulltext in Jstor

Brady, David, and Joseph Stewart, Jr. "Congressional Party Realignment and Transformations of Public Policy in Three Realignment Eras", ''American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp. 333–360 online at JSTOR Looks at links among cross-cutting issues, electoral realignments, the U.S. House and public policy changes during the Civil War, 1890s and New Deal realignments. In each case the policy changes are voted through by a partisan "new" majority party. The Civil War and 1890s realignments were more polarized than was the New Deal realignment, and the extent of party structuring of issue dimensions was greater.

Burnham, Walter Dean. "Periodization Schemes and 'Party Systems': The 'System of 1896' as a Case in Point" Social Science History, Vol. 10, No. 3, 263-314.

Campbell, James E. "Party Systems and Realignments in the United States, 1868–2004", ''Social Science History'' Fall 2006, Vol. 30 Issue 3, pp 359-386

Chambers, William Nisbet, and Walter Dean Burnham, eds. ''The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development'', (1967)

Chambers, William Nisbet. ''Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776–1809'' (1963)

Hofstadter, Richard. ''The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780–1840'' (1970)

James, Scott C. ''Presidents, Parties, and the State: A Party System Perspective on Democratic Regulatory Choice, 1884–1936'' (2000)

Jensen, Richard. "American Election Analysis: A Case History of Methodological Innovation and Diffusion", in S. M. Lipset, ed, Politics and the Social Sciences (Oxford University Press, 1969), 226-43.

Jensen, Richard. "History and the Political Scientist", in S. M. Lipset, ed, Politics and the Social Sciences (Oxford University Press, 1969),, 1-28.

Jensen, Richard. "Historiography of Political History", in Jack Greene ed., ''Encyclopedia of American Political History'' (Scribners, 1984), 1:1-25. online

Jensen, Richard. "The Changing Shape of Burnham's Political Universe", ''Social Science History'' 10 (1986) 209-19 Issn: 0145-5532 Fulltext in Jstor

Renda, Lex. "Richard P. McCormick and the Second American Party System." ''Reviews in American History'' (1995) 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext in Project Muse.

Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the party system: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States'' (1983)

External links

Party Systems (article at ''Citizendium'').

A detailed bibliography

Category:Political history of the United States Category:Elections Category:Political parties

bg:Партийна система cs:Stranický systém de:Parteiensystem fa:نظام حزبی lt:Partinė sistema ja:政党制 no:Partisystem pl:System partyjny uk:Партійна система zh:政党制度

name	James Beeland Rogers, Jr.
birth date	October 19, 1942
birth place	Baltimore, Maryland, USA
occupation	Chairman of Rogers Holdings and Beeland Interests, Inc. Co-founder of the Quantum Fund
alma mater	Balliol College, OxfordYale University
website	www.jimrogers.com
footnotes	}}

James Beeland Rogers, Jr. (born October 19, 1942) is an American investor and author. He is currently based in Singapore. Rogers is the Chairman of Rogers Holdings and Beeland Interests, Inc. He was the co-founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI).

Rogers is an outspoken proponent of the free market, but he does not consider himself a member of any school of thought. Rogers acknowledged, however, that his views best fit the label of Austrian School of economics.

Early life and education

Rogers was born in Baltimore, Maryland and raised in Demopolis, Alabama. He started in business at the age of five by selling peanuts and by picking up empty bottles that fans left behind at baseball games. He got his first job on Wall Street, at Dominick & Dominick, after graduating with a bachelor's degree in History from Yale University in 1964. Rogers then acquired a second BA degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Balliol College, Oxford University in 1966.

Business career

1970-2002

In 1970, Rogers joined Arnhold and S. Bleichroder. In 1973, Rogers co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros. During the following 10 years, the portfolio gained 4200% while the S&P; advanced about 47%. The Quantum Fund was one of the first truly international funds.

In 1980, Rogers decided to "retire", and spent some of his time traveling on a motorcycle around the world. Since then, he has been a guest professor of finance at the Columbia Business School.

In 1989 and 1990, Rogers was the moderator of WCBS' ''The Dreyfus Roundtable'' and FNN's ''The Profit Motive with Jim Rogers''. From 1990 to 1992, he traveled through China again, as well as around the world, on motorcycle, over 100,000 miles (160,000 km) across six continents, which was picked up in the ''Guinness Book of World Records''. He tells of his adventures and worldwide investments in ''Investment Biker'', a bestselling investment book.

In 1998, Rogers founded the Rogers International Commodity Index. In 2007, the index and its three sub-indices were linked to exchange-traded notes under the banner ELEMENTS. The notes track the total return of the indices as an accessible way to invest in the index. Rogers is an outspoken advocate of agriculture investments.

Between January 1, 1999 and January 5, 2002, Rogers did another Guinness World Record journey through 116 countries, covering 245,000 kilometers with his wife, Paige Parker, in a custom-made Mercedes. The trip began in Iceland, which was about to celebrate the 1000th anniversary of Leif Eriksson's first trip to America. On January 5, 2002, they were back in New York City and their home on Riverside Drive. His route around the world can be viewed on his website, jimrogers.com. He wrote ''Adventure Capitalist'' following this around-the-world adventure. It is currently his bestselling book.

2002 to present

On his return in 2002, Rogers became a regular guest on Fox News' ''Cavuto on Business'' and other financial TV shows. In 2002, Rogers said that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's "reaction to the stock-market bubble has caused two more bubbles to grow: a real-estate bubble and a consumer-debt bubble." In 2006, Rogers said he was shorting US financials, home builders and Fannie Mae.

In 2005, Rogers wrote ''Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market''. In this book, Rogers quotes a ''Financial Analysts Journal'' academic paper co-authored by Yale School of Management professor, Geert Rouwenhorst, entitled ''Facts and Fantasies about Commodity Futures''. Rogers contends this paper shows that commodities investment is one of the best investments over time, which is a concept somewhat at odds with conventional investment thinking.

In December 2007, Rogers sold his mansion in New York City for about 16 million USD and moved to Singapore. Rogers claimed that he moved because now is a ground-breaking time for investment potential in Asian markets. Rogers's first daughter is now being tutored in Mandarin to prepare her for the future. He is quoted as saying: "If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York City, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia." In a CNBC interview with Maria Bartiromo broadcast on May 5, 2008, Rogers said that people in China are extremely motivated and driven, and he wants to be in that type of environment, so his daughters are motivated and driven. He also stated that this is how America and Europe used to be. He chose not to move to Chinese cities like Hong Kong or Shanghai due to the high levels of pollution causing potential health problems for his family; hence, he chose Singapore. He has also advocated investing in certain smaller Asian frontier markets such as Sri Lanka and Cambodia, and currently serves as an Advisor to Leopard Capital’s Leopard Sri Lanka Fund. However, he is not fully bullish on all Asian nations, as he remains skeptical of India's future - "India as we know it will not survive another 30 or 40 years". In 2008 Rogers endorsed Ron Paul for President of the United States.

Rogers has two daughters with Paige Parker. Hilton Augusta (nicknamed Happy) was born in 2003, and their second daughter Beeland Anderson in 2008. His latest book, ''A Gift To My Children'', contains lessons in life for his daughters as well as investment advice and was published in 2009.

On November 4, 2010, at Oxford University’s Balliol College, he urged students to scrap career plans for Wall Street or the City, London’s financial district, and to study agriculture and mining instead. “The power is shifting again from the financial centers to the producers of real goods. The place to be is in commodities, raw materials, natural resources."

In February 2011 Rogers announced that he has started a new index fund which focuses on "the top companies in agriculture, mining, metals and energy sectors as well as those in the alternative energy space including solar, wind and hydro." The index is called The Rogers Global Resources Equity Index and according to Rogers, only the best and most liquid companies go into the index.

Bibliography

1995: ''Investment Biker: Around the World with Jim Rogers''. - ISBN 1-55850-529-6

2003: ''Adventure Capitalist: The Ultimate Road Trip''. - ISBN 0375509127

2004: ''Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market''. - ISBN 140006337X

2007: ''A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World's Greatest Market''. - ISBN 1400066166

2009: ''A Gift to My Children: A Father's Lessons For Life And Investing''. - ISBN 1400067545

Further reading

External links

The Millennium Adventure, Official Jim Rogers website

The Rogers International Commodity Index A site for information on the RICI

;Articles

"An Early Christmas for Jim Rogers". - ''BusinessWeek'' - December 8, 2004.

"Invest In Commodities – and Keep Your Shirt". - November 23, 2006.

"We Want Our Kids To Learn Chinese". - MySinchew. - July 19, 2008. - (article about Rogers' life in Singapore)

"Adventure Capitalist". - ''PODER Magazine''. - April 2010.

;Interviews

Curated Interview With Jim Rogers From Market Wizards

Jim Rogers on the British Pound, US Dollar, And China

Jim Rogers, The Adventure Capitalist

Jim Rogers and George Soros Started the Quantum Fund

rediff.com: The Money Interview/Jim Rogers, investor, globetrotter

Financial Sense Newshour's Ask The Expert: Jim Rogers:

*2003.

*May 6, 2004.

Riverside Conversations: a 3 Part TV Series with Marc Faber

SCMP video interview, September 8, 2008.

Investors Chronicle interview. - (on the decline of the US/Europe, emerging markets, commodities). - November 2008.

Bloomberg Night Talk interview. - November 24, 2008.

Jim Rogers on The Lew Rockwell Show:

*"The Crash of '08". - December 12, 2008. - (*.MP3 audio)

*"Economic Advice to My Children (and You)". - May 17, 2009. - (*.MP3 audio)

Bloomberg TV Jim Rogers Special. - December 24, 2008.

''TIME'' Q&A;: Jim Rogers:

*April 28, 2009.

*October 31, 2008.

Interview from March 2009 on Channel 4

Jim Rogers Sat 3 Interview German TV Sat 3

Euro is not to blame for crisis, BBC News, 26 December 2011.

References

Category:1942 births Category:Living people Category:Alumni of Balliol College, Oxford Category:American business writers Category:American expatriates in Singapore Category:American financiers Category:American finance and investment writers Category:American hedge fund managers Category:American investors Category:American money managers Category:American people of English descent Category:American stock traders Category:Austrian School economists Category:Columbia Business School faculty Category:Financial analysts Category:George Soros Category:People from Demopolis, Alabama Category:Stock and commodity market managers Category:Yale University alumni Category:Writers from Alabama

zh-min-nan:Jim Rogers de:Jim Rogers fr:Jim Rogers it:Jim Rogers he:ג'ים רוג'רס lt:Jim Rogers nl:Jim Rogers ja:ジム・ロジャーズ no:Jim Rogers fi:Jim Rogers sv:Jim Rogers zh:占·羅傑斯

#REDIRECTAnwar Sadat