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.
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
There is no need that private enterprises and charities can't address once a charity is established to prevent the few things I mentioned. I agree that the current system is mutually agreeable to the elites and body politic. The problem is the masses of other people who pay the price for the enrichment of those who control, either directly or through political donations, the government.
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.
Nobody is going to fund your charity voluntarily, but amazingly enough, that's not even the biggest problem here. The bigger problem is that the task of regulating society is not something you can just farm out until you have some sort of "ultimate regulator" who has authority to do the farming out on behalf of that society. That body is called "government".
Nobody is going to fund your charity voluntarily, but amazingly enough, that's not even the biggest problem here. The bigger problem is that the task of regulating society is not something you can just farm out until you have some sort of "ultimate regulator" who has authority to do the farming out on behalf of that society. That body is called "government".
Regulators can be good or bad like any other entity that seeks to complete a task and even if a regulator (or any other entity) is good enough that everyone's happy to use it, the threat of competition can keep it that way.
If no one will fund the charity, then we can expect warlords to fight each other when the government collapses until the strongest takes over and sets our new rules. Good luck.
I wouldn't expect people to, but it is an unavoidable outcome once the bond market and dollar collapse, for the government will become unable to fund its expenditures, including the police and military, unless a charity is established to keep the peace in the power vacuum that remains.
I wouldn't expect people to, but it is an unavoidable outcome once the bond market and dollar collapse, for the government will become unable to fund its expenditures, including the police and military, unless a charity is established to keep the peace in the power vacuum that remains.
If you genuinely think that we're on the brink of anarchy, I really don't know what to tell you.
I'm take a different doomsday view
Economy isn't the problem. Rising inequality and the collapse of value added by labour is going to destroy captialist democracy as we know it. At the same time as the economy is doing very well.
We are going to lose capitalism as we know it or we going to embrace authoratarianism. Quite possibly both
I'm take a different doomsday view
Economy isn't the problem. Rising inequality and the collapse of value added by labour is going to destroy captialist democracy as we know it. At the same time as the economy is doing very well.
We are going to lose capitalism as we know it or we going to embrace authoratarianism. Quite possibly both
No ****, Sherlock.
Been banging on about this for years.
Finally the seamless leap from huh! To ldo
Should have been obvious to you after the financial crisis, if not before when climate change and the rise of China's centrally-planned economy made it obvious that democracy was going to be a poor fit for the future.
Still, welcome to the party.
lol
First time anyone has even agreed with me. Now i'm late to the party
One down, everyone else to go. Only taken a decade or so.
I'm take a different doomsday view
Economy isn't the problem. Rising inequality and the collapse of value added by labour is going to destroy captialist democracy as we know it. At the same time as the economy is doing very well.
We are going to lose capitalism as we know it or we going to embrace authoratarianism. Quite possibly both
Why would inequality destroy capitalist democracies? capitalist democracies were born in extremely unequal societies.
Now regarding labor that can change things yes, when and if it will happen we'll see what exactly happens.
Because people hate it and the consequences of it. And they vote.
Either we will find a way to deal with inequality or we will vote for increasingly extreme solutions.
Re labour - it's already happening. It's just not completely obvious yet A bit like climate change.
Not completely obvious to Luciom, you mean, like the disaster that is climate change.
Denial about the value of labour evaporating and capitalism dying is still very much the norm
I'm pleased to have you on board. Not many others about these parts
A free market will increase the price of labor as more will bid on it. Value, as hopefully you will agree, is subjectively viewed in the eyes of each buyer and seller. This is why consumer and producer surplus exist: why, through free trade, win-win agreements can be made where both parties improve their subjective impression of their circumstances, and the overall standard of living can increase.
A free market reduces the price of labour when supply exceeds demand and automation increasingly provides the supply.
and value to humans is about more than a price. People are happier when they are providing more value. For example, reading a script to annoy customer on a 'help desk' is soul destroying long before it's automated away.
A free market reduces the price of labour when supply exceeds demand and automation increasingly provides the supply.
and value to humans is about more than a price. People are happier when they are providing more value. For example, reading a script to annoy customer on a 'help desk' is soul destroying long before it's automated away.
The supply of labor results from the demand of laborers for wages. That demand, and thus that supply, will exist regardless of how free markets are, because people have to eat. But, with free markets, there will be more demand for labor because there will be more opportunities to employ labor in a profit-seeking venture. Thus, wages will increase.
Charity and a reduction in the prices of consumer goods will subsidize the decline in demand for labor as laborious tasks are automated. But the charity needs to be inspired by compassion and the desire for public approval and to avoid boycotts. Attempting to seize it through the force of taxation will only continue to destroy productive activity as entrepreneurs close up shop because the available profits available don't justify the work and risks involved in ventures. Investors will then redirect their investments to gold to preserve their wealth until the socialists have perished and we get economic freedom.
Charity (or government intervention) can make a difference but there is a sizable cost for human labour even if you pay them nothing.
Even if charity or government leads to employment, we will be increasingly ornamental or digging ditches to fill them in again, This lack of adding value leads to mass discontent
Some will argue that new jobs will replace the old automated ones "'cos it always 'as" That's denial but at least it would work if it were true.
The supply of labor results from the demand of laborers for wages. That demand, and thus that supply, will exist regardless of how free markets are, because people have to eat. But, with free markets, there will be more demand for labor because there will be more opportunities to employ labor in a profit-seeking venture. Thus, wages will increase.
Charity and a reduction in the prices of consumer goods will subsidize the decline in demand for labor as laborious tasks are automated. But the charit
What's stopping a really wealthy individual or group (someone like Musk, for example), pledging donations that dwarf everyone else's combined to your charity that provides security to the whole of society on the condition that they are allowed to remain above the law (or whatever passes for law in this scenario)?
What's stopping a really wealthy individual or group (someone like Musk, for example), pledging donations that dwarf everyone else's combined to your charity that provides security to the whole of society on the condition that they are allowed to remain above the law (or whatever passes for law in this scenario)?
It will be inspired by compassion and the need for public approval. Charities usually thrive when labor wages drop and resources are depleted.
What's stopping a really wealthy individual or group (someone like Musk, for example), pledging donations that dwarf everyone else's combined to your charity that provides security to the whole of society on the condition that they are allowed to remain above the law (or whatever passes for law in this scenario)?
Other donors should withdraw their donations and redirect them to a charity that only enforces the things I mentioned with no special favors. If one guy somehow gains enough purchasing power to defeat everyone else in society's combined might then I get that guy will be the new emporer but if someone starts being abusive like that, people should boycott his companies because purchasing power is real power (as Americans will discover when the dollar collapses) and without revenue, the tyrant will eventually become unable to fund their army.
