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"

Kasz216 said:
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".

I believe land has a value related to the economic activity it is associated with, in connection with its scarcity.  Land out in the middle of nowhere has little value, but land in a city is worth much more.  Same with land with natural resources on it, and ability to obtain the resources.  It is really hard to get around trying to magically generate value for anything, unless there is intrinsic demand for it.  If you add the provison to Say's Law, regarding supply being things people want and need, you get close to explaining things.



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
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".

I believe land has a value related to the economic activity it is associated with, in connection with its scarcity.  Land out in the middle of nowhere has little value, but land in a city is worth much more.  Same with land with natural resources on it, and ability to obtain the resources.  It is really hard to get around trying to magically generate value for anything, unless there is intrinsic demand for it.  If you add the provison to Say's Law, regarding supply being things people want and need, you get close to explaining things.

Hence why i said productive land.  Get farmland, pay someone to work it for you... and not only will you have a decent investment that will hold it's value mostly, you'll get money off the crop and get some food out of it...

and in a particualarly bad economy, your a king... and will be able to ensure you can feed yourself and your loved ones.



justinian said:


@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.

If you look into it, Most superpowers rise just as others fall. For example, after world war one, the ottoman, the german, the italian and the dutch empires all collapsed, Just as the soviet union was started to rise. The depression allowed to grow even more than the west too.

And by the 1945 (end of world war two), this was when America really started to rise, by which time the Soviet Union was really powerful. Also, the war started to destroy the 2 biggest empires , the British and French ones. So you are right, the european dominance of the world went to America and Russia.

Whenever America starts to use power and wealth, another country will take it's place. China is ALREADY getting there, as they are starting to loan out money to europe and the US, which makes them more powerful



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

richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
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".

I believe land has a value related to the economic activity it is associated with, in connection with its scarcity.  Land out in the middle of nowhere has little value, but land in a city is worth much more.  Same with land with natural resources on it, and ability to obtain the resources.  It is really hard to get around trying to magically generate value for anything, unless there is intrinsic demand for it.  If you add the provison to Say's Law, regarding supply being things people want and need, you get close to explaining things.

What is fiat money?



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

richardhutnik 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.

All it takes is one very major disaster, that would hit all over the place, and America would end up being done.  Talking beyond even losing a city.  Rome fell after the barbarians sacked it.  But say the power grid permanently goes down, there will be huge problems.  America is vulnerable to such now.  There is no such thing as "too strong to fail".

The video, linked to the article, which is a sales piece to subscribe to a investor's research newsletter, does go into the big global problem of the exponential curve pattern of development, which is unsustainable, like a Ponzi scheme.  There is going to be a need to rethink everything, and come up with new ways for society to reorder itself, to survive.


If you really believe that the civilization is going to collapse, would you be selling stock?

Or would you be buynig non-perishable goods, gold, and guns?

Think about the source and the rationale.

Mike from Morgantown



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV

Around the Network

I've always said: The more the debt crisis becomes a real problem for the US, the more the world will realize why a country that is surrounded only by water and military irrelevant countries needs a "defense" budget that is almost as huge as that of all other countries of the world combined.



the2real4mafol said:
richardhutnik said:

I believe land has a value related to the economic activity it is associated with, in connection with its scarcity.  Land out in the middle of nowhere has little value, but land in a city is worth much more.  Same with land with natural resources on it, and ability to obtain the resources.  It is really hard to get around trying to magically generate value for anything, unless there is intrinsic demand for it.  If you add the provison to Say's Law, regarding supply being things people want and need, you get close to explaining things.

What is fiat money?

Pretty much money printed by government, and issued via fiat.  It isn't backed by anything:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money



mike_intellivision said:
richardhutnik 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.

All it takes is one very major disaster, that would hit all over the place, and America would end up being done.  Talking beyond even losing a city.  Rome fell after the barbarians sacked it.  But say the power grid permanently goes down, there will be huge problems.  America is vulnerable to such now.  There is no such thing as "too strong to fail".

The video, linked to the article, which is a sales piece to subscribe to a investor's research newsletter, does go into the big global problem of the exponential curve pattern of development, which is unsustainable, like a Ponzi scheme.  There is going to be a need to rethink everything, and come up with new ways for society to reorder itself, to survive.


If you really believe that the civilization is going to collapse, would you be selling stock?

Or would you be buynig non-perishable goods, gold, and guns?

Think about the source and the rationale.

Mike from Morgantown

What needs to happen is you have a support network in place that insures you can survive.  Merely hoarding goods, and just dumping stock, isn't going to cut it.  And you need to ask what kind of life you will have after things fall.  

As of now, I really don't own much of anything, nor do I have stocks.  I am currently trying to work on mastering contentment and develop a continued state of being positive.  I am investing in emotional stability, and stuff like that.  I wouldn't just dump stock now.

I do think gold is just a bunch of rocks also, and guns mean I do what, fight over scraps?  What is really non-perishable is skills you have, so getting skills counts.  But also, keep in mind, what is seen as collapse may not be what anyone expects.



The unfunded liabilities with Medicare and Medicaid (of which the bulk of the liabilities come from, particularly Medicare) can be dealt with pretty easily, if the cost of healthcare is dealt with.

If we can enact policies that reverse the trajectory of health care costs, we could solve many of the issues facing the United States in the future.

Of course, we have to ask, how are we going to reverse the trajectory? Simply, we need to end crony capitalism in the health care industry. Obamacare is crony capitalism. Romneycare is crony capitalism. Medicare part D was crony capitalism. Nixon's HMOs were crony capitalism.

End the Government control and manipulation of healthcare, let the free markets work, and we can fix a large part of the future debts.

---

There are so many other things that can be changed, too. $1tn of the US's debt can be attributed to the drug war. End the war on drugs. We'll see a USA with half the crime rate, half the number of prisoners, and people who are currently pushed off the sides of society becoming productive members of society.

---

Then there's foreign policy. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan. Close down 30-50% of all foreign military bases, and open a new one in the US for every 5 that is closed.

----

Finally, the tax code. Tax credits and breaks need to be eliminated. Capital gains tax needs to be eliminated. Maybe merge welfare systems directly into the tax code, and introduce something like Friedman's negative income tax. (I don't like this, but it's a shit-tonne better than the current system).

----

There you go, a handful of pretty much non-controversial policies that won't take away anyone's medicare, and will fix much of the deficit problem. Cut downs on the regulatory code, police spending, and eliminating some departments wouldn't go amiss, either (I'm looking at you, FCC).



SamuelRSmith said:
The unfunded liabilities with Medicare and Medicaid (of which the bulk of the liabilities come from, particularly Medicare) can be dealt with pretty easily, if the cost of healthcare is dealt with.

If we can enact policies that reverse the trajectory of health care costs, we could solve many of the issues facing the United States in the future.

Of course, we have to ask, how are we going to reverse the trajectory? Simply, we need to end crony capitalism in the health care industry. Obamacare is crony capitalism. Romneycare is crony capitalism. Medicare part D was crony capitalism. Nixon's HMOs were crony capitalism.

Due to the money in politics, and the fact that Big X industry will end up hiring retired government officials, and right legistlation to favor themselves, it is really impossible to avoid crony Capitalism.  When Obama first proposed creating a government run insurance company to compete in the market, it got shot down by the insurance industry, and other partisans jumping on.  After this came a proposal for non-profit insurance companies chartered by the government to step in and compete, and that got shot down.  So Obama rolls out the Heritage Foundation Romneycare with mandates, and a bunch more regulations to hold the entire thing together, and let the insurance companies get funds in exchange for more regulations.  And it passed, with the GOP jumping on board to oppose, because they need to politically oppose Obama.

Ending Crony Capitalism isn't just going to happen, particularly in a political climate where anything remotely Occupy related gets spun into "Lazy bums want free stuff!" rather than an attempt to depower the crony side by weakening their ability to buy politicians.