Doomsday Prepper Thread
In this moment, a very short term Tbill issued by the US government yields more than the 10y treasury.
That is *not* a sign the market (ie the totality of people with money worldwide) think the US government is in trouble paying it's debt, or will be in the next years, or the value of the USD will crash in the next years.
They can be wrong in the aggregate, but that's what the currenty yield curve is telling you.
That is the current yield curve but it has been steepening since the rate cut. Not so long ago, the 2 year paid a higher yield than the 10 year.
Reasoning for silver was the purported far easier usability for daily groceries and stuff
Dude, you've described a government and called it a charity, whatever that's supposed to mean. I mean, it's a really shitty government that is basically useless, but it's still a government. A dog born in a stable is not a horse.
It will be funded by voluntary donations rather than taxes. So, if it becomes corrupt or ineffective, donors can withdraw their funds and donate to a competing security force. And, there will be competing security forces, because there will be no restrictions on gun ownership other than the provision to prevent nuclear weapons.
Dude, you've described a government and called it a charity, whatever that's supposed to mean. I mean, it's a really shitty government that is basically useless, but it's still a government. A dog born in a stable is not a horse.
Like how is this "charity" going to "prevent slavery, trespassing, nuclear weapons and child or animal abuse"? Maybe with the use of some written rules about what is prohibited - we could call those "laws", and the establishment of an enforcement arm that ensures people adhere to those rules under threat of violence - we could call those "police".
It will be funded by voluntary donations rather than taxes. So, if it becomes corrupt or ineffective, donors can withdraw their funds and donate to a competing security force. And, there will be competing security forces, because there will be no restrictions on gun ownership other than the provision to prevent nuclear weapons.
And who's stopping one of these security forces getting a monopoly on the security force racket and putting all the others out of business under threat of violence, then forcing everyone else to pay them anyway? We could call those payments "taxes", and if they're nice enough, they might even use them to not only enrich themselves, but also build some roads and hospitals and stuff.
I mean, congratulations, you just designed human society as it probably looked 10,000 years ago from first principles. You'll be pleased to hear we've made some advances since then.
And who's stopping one of these security forces getting a monopoly on the security force racket and putting all the others out of business under threat of violence, then forcing everyone else to pay them anyway? We could call those payments "taxes", and if they're nice enough, they might even use them to not only enrich themselves, but also build some roads and hospitals and stuff.
I mean, congratulations, you just designed human society as it probably looked 10,000 years ago from first principl
So d2, you are actually going with "the government is a mafia that made it"?
Historically, it certainly seems that way. How did kings become kings? Somewhere down the line, one of their great grand-daddies came along with an army and asked very nicely to be in charge, right?
Then at some point, you know, democracy came along and stuff.
And who's stopping one of these security forces getting a monopoly on the security force racket and putting all the others out of business under threat of violence, then forcing everyone else to pay them anyway? We could call those payments "taxes", and if they're nice enough, they might even use them to not only enrich themselves, but also build some roads and hospitals and stuff.
I mean, congratulations, you just designed human society as it probably looked 10,000 years ago from first principl
Free market competition will prevent a monopoly in security. No one will be restricted from buying, selling or training with firearms once the security force is established. And, if the force begins trying to use force to prevent competition, people should withhold their donations and donate to a more just force.
Free market competition will prevent a monopoly in security. No one will be restricted from buying, selling or training with firearms once the security force is established. And, if the force begins trying to use force to prevent competition, people should withhold their donations and donate to a more just force.
Sounds like you've got it all worked out. What could possibly go wrong?
Democracy, which has resulted in the current political division as two sides seemingly unwilling to concede no matter the vote count fight over the last vestiges of the government's collapsing purchasing power, is not a good idea. Causes should be funded by voluntary contributions, not extorted through taxation so a privileged few can decide which parties should be favored at the expense of others. If people believe in a cause but lack the funds to address it, they should advocate for that cause and seek to convince others to donate voluntarily, not seek to rob them through taxation which does nothing but discredit the cause they failed to gain sufficient voluntary donations for.
Democracy, which has resulted in the current political division as two sides seemingly unwilling to concede no matter the vote count fight over the last vestiges of the government's collapsing purchasing power, is not a good idea. Causes should be funded by voluntary contributions, not extorted through taxation so a privileged few can decide which parties should be favored at the expense of others. If people believe in a cause but lack the funds to address it, they should advocate for that cause
Like I say, sounds like you've got it all figured out. Fund society through voluntary contributions. If the police aren't doing a good job, everyone will just voluntarily contribute to some Police 2.0 startup that will put Police 1.0 out of business.
What could possibly go wrong?
Like I say, sounds like you've got it all figured out. Fund society through voluntary contributions. If the police aren't doing a good job, everyone will just voluntarily contribute to some Police 2.0 startup that will put Police 1.0 out of business.
What could possibly go wrong?
Many things can go wrong but when people are free, they can efficiently respond to those things whether through the establishment of a new charity, business, employment opportunity or boycott.
It will be funded by voluntary donations rather than taxes. So, if it becomes corrupt or ineffective, donors can withdraw their funds and donate to a competing security force. And, there will be competing security forces, because there will be no restrictions on gun ownership other than the provision to prevent nuclear weapons.
Look up the articles of confederation and see how that worked out.
It will be funded by voluntary donations rather than taxes. So, if it becomes corrupt or ineffective, donors can withdraw their funds and donate to a competing security force. And, there will be competing security forces, because there will be no restrictions on gun ownership other than the provision to prevent nuclear weapons.
Regardless of how this strategy is likely to pan on a global scale, what's the backup plan if the voluntary donations don't meet the need of the people or if all the competing forces seized to be perfectly balanced in nature?
Regardless of how this strategy is likely to pan on a global scale, what's the backup plan if the voluntary donations don't meet the need of the people or if all the competing forces seized to be perfectly balanced in nature?
Then I suppose we will continue the struggle for freedom until the tyrants are displaced.
Many things can go wrong but when people are free, they can efficiently respond to those things whether through the establishment of a new charity, business, employment opportunity or boycott.
Or they could choose to structure society in such a way that there is an organisation that takes care of those things, fund that organisation through "involuntary donations" and establish rules for who gets to be in charge in the organisation. We could call that organisation "government" and the donations "taxes".
Like I say, you're just reinventing the wheel here. By the time you take your ideas through to their logical conclusion (most notably, once you understand that nobody is going to pay your donations if they're voluntary), you'll have come up with something very closely resembling the system we have now.
Then I suppose we will continue the struggle for freedom until the tyrants are displaced.
Okay, but we don't get to hit reset on the nintendo and try again.
Now we are now at the mercy of the new tyrant/s with far less legal and economic resources and all the people are broke, starving and apt to get murdered.
Or they could choose to structure society in such a way that there is an organisation that takes care of those things, fund that organisation through "involuntary donations" and establish rules for who gets to be in charge in the organisation. We could call that organisation "government" and the donations "taxes".
Like I say, you're just reinventing the wheel here. By the time you take your ideas through to their logical conclusion (most notably, once you understand that nobody is going to pay y
If the government monopoly regulator funded by taxes turns out to be corrupt, inefficient, ineffective, racist or otherwise problematic, we are stuck with them. If a voluntarily funded free market regulator is found to be those things, funders can remove funding to fund a competitor who is not those things.
Sure but generally the idea is it got it by popular fiat, not by being the strongest gang in the neighborhood and imposing that monopoly
We’re talking about government, not different forms of government. We’re still on the first principles of government which libertarians tend to be deficient at despite seeing themselves as being the spiritual successors of some of the smartest political thinkers (Founding Fathers).
In reality government arises from need, namely security and protection of liberties (not libertarian liberties but privileges). Thus a democratic government arises from a mutual benefit that the elite has with the body politic in common security and prosperity. This is why the founding fathers knew there would need to be many ways for people to voice their grievances in peaceful ways, that’s the only possible way to keep together a democratic government. When people believe they can only resort to violence, you get what happened in revolutionary France, an endless revolution.
I think the OP is a nothingburger since at the end of the day no matter how "****" the US $ is nobody has been really able to rival it and blow it out, people thougth the yen was going to catapult and we seen that that hasnt been the case for 10 years
unless the Euro(which has been more than the $ for most of this year iirc) or yen somehow increase by 40-50%, I don't ever see US economy being crippled even with the debt
I don't see how im wrong unless our deb omehow baloons up 100% within a matter of 2-3 years which seems unlikely
Okay, but we don't get to hit reset on the nintendo and try again.
Now we are now at the mercy of the new tyrant/s with far less legal and economic resources and all the people are broke, starving and apt to get murdered.
That's where we will be anyway once the government loses its purchasing power. But, I don't expect the security force will lack funds. Everyone should care about the security of society and there will be the additional incentive in that donors will get to vote in proportion to their donations on what constitutes child or animal abuse. And it should be much cheaper to maintain than the current military with its global presence.
