By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Economist: civilization may not survive "death spiral"

the2real4mafol on 27 August 2012
richardhutnik said:
the2real4mafol said:
JGarret said:
Slimebeast said:
America is simply too strong to fall. The most powerful civilization in history after Rome.

This may sound slightly ironic since we all know Rome fell, but I truly believe history won't repeat itself in America's case.


There´s no 'too strong to fall'...one day the U.S will 'fall', and then the nation that becomes "number one" will also 'fall' eventually, there´s no 'too strong to fall' when it comes to our human society.

All the great civilizations collapse at some point, one day it will happen to the US too. Look, at Ancient Greece, the romans, the ottomans, The USSR and the British Empire, as some examples. All great powers at one time, not any more

They collapse as empires, but it doesn't mean they disappear as nations.  Even Rome is still about, as is England and Russia.  We have had an era of Pax Americana, post-Cold War period, and 9/11 ended up being the transitioning out of that period.  Who knows what the future holds.  No word it will be positive. Those who hold positive determinism have only their own ungrounded optimism to sustain it.

Yeah they just start to lose their wealth and power on the world, a bit like America. This happened to Britain in the 60's and Russia in the 90's, but they are still here, just not powerful or wealthy enough to be superpowers anymore. Hopefully, whatever happens will be peaceful



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Around the Network
iFlow on 27 August 2012
sethnintendo said:
iFlow said:


Nations aren't likely as to fall in today's modern era. Ottomans fell because of the World War, thats what happens when you take stand against the world's allied powers. The British Empire only "fell" because the rise of a new modern era of guidelines and government. England is still a VERY powerful nation. The USSR was never really meant to succeed. Look at the World wars, and the Cold War. But Russia is still a nation. 

So to say that the states will fall is a little too steep. We won't be top dogs much longer (China and India) but we will still be a World power. We've been through worse in terrible times. But as technology and the new era comes, its only hard to imagine how a nation would fall. Thank you technology, internet, and wahtever else that has improved our lives.


Weapons is about the only thing USA can produce now.  To have your economy based on a consumer economy probably isn't the smartest idea.  A nation has to be able to produce something.  Sadly our manufacturing base has shrunk a lot due to lay offs and outsourcing.  Manufacturing industry used to be where you could make a decent wage.  Most manufacturing jobs in Texas pay no more than 8-10 dollars a hour for the average worker (not talking about engineers, management, etc).  Pretty hard to support yourself let alone a family on less than 10 dollars a hour.  Manufacturing in USA is a joke and the only thing you can except is that you will probably be laid off.


Manufacturing is a joke in america at the moment, but that won't be the cause of our downfall. We won't fall apart as a nation unless we turn our backs on Nato and/or the UN. If we were to become a very evil country that was against everyone else (World Wars for example, Axis powers) then yeah, we will fall apart. However, that is very unlikely to happen soon so it's safe to say that the states won't fall. If we do lose world power status, we will still be a nation. 

Like I said earlier, it's hard to imagine a modern era nation being destroyed (only war can do this). Countries are only determined nations by exploration or war. Nations fall because of war. 

Back to the main point, life will become better soon in the USA. Unemployment is so high because of the Baby boomers. Once they leave and retire, manufacturing, outsourcing, and other issues shouldn't be anything like it is now.



Heavenly_King on 27 August 2012

the truth is that the economic system that rules the world right now is really flawed.



Open World-Survival-Game Days Gone

justinian on 27 August 2012
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Unethical banking system supported by corrupt governments ensuring the majority of the power is in the hands of the lucky few elites.
The world has existed for billions of years without money. Money is a human invention that has only existed for around 10,000 years.


So true. 

Yes, money has been around a long time but not as we know it know today. Usually money was worth it's  weight in gold or silver or whatever. 

A worthless piece of paper with a value on it is a relatively modern invention.

The first use of fiat money I think was started with the Romans and that didn't last. It went back to the value of the metal of the coin in Europe.

Paper money has only been use in the US for about 200 years or so and even at it's birth it was predicted to fail at some point as all fiat monies seem to eventually do. 

Ultimately countries will fall from their heady heights, economies will collapse and people will carry on dying. It's a fact of life. Not wanting it to happen isn't going to change the fact that these things do and will happen.

@iFlow: 

You are right. History shows that all big powers fall due to war and where mankind is concern war can never be discredited as the reason for future powers to fall as well.

About the baby boomers thing, with the high immigration going on in he US I don't see how this point is valid. If people have less babies there are still hundreds of thousands pouring in each year to negate this.



Kasz216 on 27 August 2012
justinian said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Unethical banking system supported by corrupt governments ensuring the majority of the power is in the hands of the lucky few elites.
The world has existed for billions of years without money. Money is a human invention that has only existed for around 10,000 years.


So true. 

Yes, money has been around a long time but not as we know it know today. Usually money was worth it's  weight in gold or silver or whatever. 

A worthless piece of paper with a value on it is a relatively modern invention.

The first use of fiat money I think was started with the Romans and that didn't last. It went back to the value of the metal of the coin in Europe.

Paper money has only been use in the US for about 200 years or so and even at it's birth it was predicted to fail at some point as all fiat monies seem to eventually do. 

Ultimately countries will fall from their heady heights, economies will collapse and people will carry on dying. It's a fact of life. Not wanting it to happen isn't going to change the fact that these things do and will happen.

Nah.

The chinese used Fiat money before.

Though, granted that ended in Hyperinfalation.


Fiat money isn't the problem... it works perfectly fine when regulated properly... and it's needed as most of the wealth in the world moves away from physical objects you can own... the more service based your economy gets, the more you need fiat money over a resource based economy.

The problem is people thinking they can print their way out of bad times with "Print away your problems"  economics, like the Keynsian style of economics.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 27 August 2012

Or to better explain why you need a fiat money... lets look at it this way.

Say we live on an island, with 6 people...

we use sea shells to represent our currency like someone might use gold.

Now imagine the population doubles...

but the amount of currency, mostly stays the same, with fewer sea shells being found... this is a problem. So we need to also use a second source, or everyones prices have to go down, just like they would in a fiat system anyway.  So we use snail shells or something.  This keeps going.

Eventually we run out of stuff with which to back our money, and we're hoarding everything of value in government vaults just so the money keeps its worth... and eventually it's going to fall apart anyway.

Had we not gone to a Fiat based money system, our economy would of never grown so prosperous and we would have already faced the hyperinflation we're worried about today.

The gold and other precious metals wouldn't of increased enough to represent the massive improvenents in the economy created by things like computer programs.

Besides, at the end of the day, while money is just paper.  Gold is just a rock.




justinian on 28 August 2012
Kasz216 said:

Or to better explain why you need a fiat money... lets look at it this way.

Say we live on an island, with 6 people...

we use sea shells to represent our currency like someone might use gold.

Now imagine the population doubles...

but the amount of currency, mostly stays the same, with fewer sea shells being found... this is a problem. So we need to also use a second source, or everyones prices have to go down, just like they would in a fiat system anyway.  So we use snail shells or something.  This keeps going.

Eventually we run out of stuff with which to back our money, and we're hoarding everything of value in government vaults just so the money keeps its worth... and eventually it's going to fall apart anyway.

Had we not gone to a Fiat based money system, our economy would of never grown so prosperous and we would have already faced the hyperinflation we're worried about today.

The gold and other precious metals wouldn't of increased enough to represent the massive improvenents in the economy created by things like computer programs.

Besides, at the end of the day, while money is just paper.  Gold is just a rock.

 

Gold may just be just like rock but it is globally respected as hard currency that will never fail. It's value may vary but in crisis times people always fall back to it and in these said crisis times it's value rises, often significantly. 

In extreme times of crisis, say a war, if a country wants to trade it's not the potential worthless piece of paper that other countries take into account. It's the gold reserves first, other precious commodities after.

You can keep your piece of paper, I'll always take the piece of rock.

Back to the money. 

I uderstand (and agree) as you pointed out that gold, for example could not possibly last as the currency in a modern growing economy.

I am not saying fiat money was not the way to go forward. It made sense that's why Benjamin Franklin was pushing for it in the US. 

I cannot remember who it was, maybe Franklin himself , that however said in generations to come it would be doomed to fail. 

 

 



Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 28 August 2012

Despite this.. ill still vote for Obama



Yay!!!

richardhutnik on 28 August 2012
justinian said:
Kasz216 said:

Or to better explain why you need a fiat money... lets look at it this way.

Say we live on an island, with 6 people...

we use sea shells to represent our currency like someone might use gold.

Now imagine the population doubles...

but the amount of currency, mostly stays the same, with fewer sea shells being found... this is a problem. So we need to also use a second source, or everyones prices have to go down, just like they would in a fiat system anyway.  So we use snail shells or something.  This keeps going.

Eventually we run out of stuff with which to back our money, and we're hoarding everything of value in government vaults just so the money keeps its worth... and eventually it's going to fall apart anyway.

Had we not gone to a Fiat based money system, our economy would of never grown so prosperous and we would have already faced the hyperinflation we're worried about today.

The gold and other precious metals wouldn't of increased enough to represent the massive improvenents in the economy created by things like computer programs.

Besides, at the end of the day, while money is just paper.  Gold is just a rock.

 

Gold may just be just like rock but it is globally respected as hard currency that will never fail. It's value may vary but in crisis times people always fall back to it and in these said crisis times it's value rises, often significantly. 

In extreme times of crisis, say a war, if a country wants to trade it's not the potential worthless piece of paper that other countries take into account. It's the gold reserves first, other precious commodities after.

You can keep your piece of paper, I'll always take the piece of rock.

Back to the money. 

I uderstand (and agree) as you pointed out that gold, for example could not possibly last as the currency in a modern growing economy.

I am not saying fiat money was not the way to go forward. It made sense that's why Benjamin Franklin was pushing for it in the US. 

I cannot remember who it was, maybe Franklin himself , that however said in generations to come it would be doomed to fail. 

Gold is just a rock, that people ended up valuing because it is pretty, resists decay, and is scarce, and others believe people want it.  It functions as currency well, if people choose to go with it.   But, if things go real bad, sinking to Mad Max level, the people will want things of practical value to survive, over gold.  Tangible assets people need, and the capital that produces them, is of greater value.  And tangible assets, and commodities are good hedges against inflation, because they are real.

A problem with have today, a large problem, is even beyond fiat currency.  We don't just have fiat currency, we have debt based currency.  These are IOUs that require more IOUs to service it.  There is a debt spiral, without sufficient funds to pay it off.  The currency is not pegged to goods and services produced, but its own animal, which is a dangerous thing.



Kasz216 on 28 August 2012
richardhutnik said:
justinian said:
Kasz216 said:

Or to better explain why you need a fiat money... lets look at it this way.

Say we live on an island, with 6 people...

we use sea shells to represent our currency like someone might use gold.

Now imagine the population doubles...

but the amount of currency, mostly stays the same, with fewer sea shells being found... this is a problem. So we need to also use a second source, or everyones prices have to go down, just like they would in a fiat system anyway.  So we use snail shells or something.  This keeps going.

Eventually we run out of stuff with which to back our money, and we're hoarding everything of value in government vaults just so the money keeps its worth... and eventually it's going to fall apart anyway.

Had we not gone to a Fiat based money system, our economy would of never grown so prosperous and we would have already faced the hyperinflation we're worried about today.

The gold and other precious metals wouldn't of increased enough to represent the massive improvenents in the economy created by things like computer programs.

Besides, at the end of the day, while money is just paper.  Gold is just a rock.

 

Gold may just be just like rock but it is globally respected as hard currency that will never fail. It's value may vary but in crisis times people always fall back to it and in these said crisis times it's value rises, often significantly. 

In extreme times of crisis, say a war, if a country wants to trade it's not the potential worthless piece of paper that other countries take into account. It's the gold reserves first, other precious commodities after.

You can keep your piece of paper, I'll always take the piece of rock.

Back to the money. 

I uderstand (and agree) as you pointed out that gold, for example could not possibly last as the currency in a modern growing economy.

I am not saying fiat money was not the way to go forward. It made sense that's why Benjamin Franklin was pushing for it in the US. 

I cannot remember who it was, maybe Franklin himself , that however said in generations to come it would be doomed to fail. 

Gold is just a rock, that people ended up valuing because it is pretty, resists decay, and is scarce, and others believe people want it.  It functions as currency well, if people choose to go with it.   But, if things go real bad, sinking to Mad Max level, the people will want things of practical value to survive, over gold.  Tangible assets people need, and the capital that produces them, is of greater value.  And tangible assets, and commodities are good hedges against inflation, because they are real.


More or less my point.  Gold as a currency really isn't differnet then paper currency.

In the end, gold is just a rock.  It's a play that "things will get bad... but not too bad."

Land... and in particular productive land, is the real "saftey buy".