Benghazi: the gift that keeps on giving

[ladajo]

I see it that way as well. I just worry that we don't have enough time before the flaming slow motion train wreck hits the mountain.

I want to say what I think, but it's way too long. It involves showing in contiguous detail how a handful of the most successful people I know reacted this way and actually followed thru, and were wrong (the world still isn't over, nor has society collapsed, nor is there no technological (to put it briefly) light at the end of the political tunnel). Contiguous detailing of how they were definitely smart and well informed, hence successful. Successful enough to have the means to go completely off the grid, intention being to take their families out of harm's way when it hits the fan. Not nuclear bunker and gung ho self defense, but liquidated assets and safe houses in picturesque tropical middles of nowhere.

It's just hard to not see something fishy going on when consistently the predictions fail, especially when it's by better people than you (me).

I worry more about my kids than me. We are on an unstable down trajectory with no landing gear. We are hoping the airframe will absorb the landing. I am not sure it will.
That means I think alot about having a hand pump well and a garden. I also think about keeping firearms at home. I have not gone so far as to think about buying a bolt hole. But, I do have some means to go mobile with the family if need be. Do I think zombie apocalypse is tomorrow? No. But I do think it could happen. it is all about risk management decisions. My calculus is not the same as anyone elses. We all see it differently. If anything goes down, then those who chose wisely succeed. Those who did not, don't. The gene pool progresses again...

[GIThruster]

I think you're both right. It's true that people generally believe what they want to believe, or what they're afraid is true. This is why delusions fall into the categories of grandeur and paranoia. It is certainly paranoid thinking to be concerned about the end of the world, unless of course the end of the world is coming.

The end of nations is less a concern, but note nations are normally short lived. 200+ years is a long time for a democracy. We're already past our expected demise. What is the next step? Likely some sort of dictatorship. That's when we all get to regret the drones and the Easypass, the smartpower monitoring of our homes and all that stuff we let loose on Facebook. To think this nation will never end is naive and silly. All good things come to an end and the rate the giveaways are flourishing in this country, it's obvious the economy has to tank.

[Diogenes]

I see it that way as well. I just worry that we don't have enough time before the flaming slow motion train wreck hits the mountain.

I want to say what I think, but it's way too long. It involves showing in contiguous detail how a handful of the most successful people I know reacted this way and actually followed thru, and were wrong (the world still isn't over, nor has society collapsed, nor is there no technological (to put it briefly) light at the end of the political tunnel). Contiguous detailing of how they were definitely smart and well informed, hence successful. Successful enough to have the means to go completely off the grid, intention being to take their families out of harm's way when it hits the fan. Not nuclear bunker and gung ho self defense, but liquidated assets and safe houses in picturesque tropical middles of nowhere.

It's just hard to not see something fishy going on when consistently the predictions fail, especially when it's by better people than you (me).

My approach has been to advocate "dual use." Whatever you contemplate doing in the future, do so in such a manner that which ever way history flows, you will be prepared for either eventuality.


The numbers indicate that some sort of crash is coming. I would suggest your friends didn't get the prediction wrong, they simply got the timing wrong. As Adam Smith said, "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation." Predicting when it will manifest itself in such a way that even the simple minded can see it is no easy task.


Much of our current sense of well being is simply the product of inertia. People think that because things have always been this way, they will always remain so. This keeps people from panicking, but when sufficient numbers of people actually do start to panic, that is when our financial Ragnarok will be upon us.


Your friends weren't wrong, they just jumped the gun.

[williatw]

The numbers indicate that some sort of crash is coming. I would suggest your friends didn't get the prediction wrong, they simply got the timing wrong. As Adam Smith said, "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation."

Our biggest problem is exploding debt...biggest cause of exploding debt is health care cost mostly for the elderly (Medicare). The dirty/ugly fix is the gov will just pay whatever it decides it wants to for the senior care; the health care providers (doctors/hospitals) can take it or leave it. That’s the thing with a sovereign national gov, they really don't have to pay their obligations accept as they choose, to, don't even really have to print money like crazy, they can simply pay as they see fit (look how the SS cost of living increases just disappeared). It would eventually default to some kind of nationalized health care, you get what the gov says you get, (if your well-to-do you get supplemental private insurance like they doubtlessly have now); everybody else would just suck it up. The elderly will bitch and moan about long lines, wait times for surgery, generally shitty health care etc. (like in England/Europe) but that's about it, not like they would riot and burn the cities to the ground like if you cut off welfare/food stamps, for instance. If the AARP gets mad and get its members to vote out the current Congress critters, so be it, no great loss, won't make much difference, the new lot would screw them just like the old lot. Mean life expectancy might degrade (maybe) for some of the elderly, but don't see how that would be the end of the country.

Sorry but as an apocalyptic end of the world scenario it really doesn't stack up to the threat of global nuclear war that cast a pall over the 1950's, 60's, 70's etc.

[paperburn1]

I too am of the theory we will go out with a whimper than a bang. That seems to be the fate of most civilization. They outgrow their resources and fade away in a few decades.

What could save us? A new cheap resource that the individual or small group can control. Pollywell would fit the bill or a way to store renewable energy cheaply and easily. But it has to be available for the common man.

[williatw]

I too am of the theory we will go out with a whimper than a bang. That seems to be the fate of most civilization. They outgrow their resources and fade away in a few decades.

What could save us? A new cheap resource that the individual or small group can control. Pollywell would fit the bill or a way to store renewable energy cheaply and easily. But it has to be available for the common man.

But we haven't really outgrown our resources...thanks to the fracking boom we have at least 100yr supply of natural gas/oil. Copious amounts of coal (which can be converted to oil by the Fischer-Tropsch process). We are largely independent for food, we still I believe export allot of it; there are no military powers that could really threaten to invade us currently or foreseeably. We could be nuked/EMP pulsed of course. Certainty 100yr is a long enough time to develop fusion, (polywell, Focus Fusion or otherwise). Failing that we could always go with molten salt thorium fission reactors, enough Thorium (several times the amount of Uranium I believe) to last millennia. And of course wind and solar might finally come into their own.

[Betruger]

Life extension is a worthy synergy if not a solution almost on its own. Post-scarcity doesn't have to happen as urgently if we live to see another century, and a lot of other concerns are less pressing too. And how much wiser would a 150 year old be, versus today's healthy seniors? Along with such a larger population fraction that's 60-120 and still autonomous. That would make for a whole second life spent active compared to nowadays.

And yet this gets a drop in the bucket of overall funding, a lot like NASA, only even less. IIRC.

[JoeP]

To see how to fail in a resource-rich country, just look at whats happening to Venezuela. That is a self-inflicted crisis for the most part.

I see the USA on a path that could lead to similar outcome. And the points in this thread about inertia are insightful. Its going to take a while and it is certainly revertible. However, the political establishment is not able to do so and it is extremely unlikely that things will change through the normal course of voting and politics. When you have an electorate and a bureaucracy that essentially can control elections into two parties that really do not care (in aggregate) about fixing anything, there is little reason for any realistic optimism.

[williatw]

The end of nations is less a concern, but note nations are normally short lived. 200+ years is a long time for a democracy.

The Roman Republic (Latin: Res Pvblica Romana) was the period of ancient Roman civilization beginning with the overthrow of Roman Kingdom, traditionally dated to 509 BC, and ending in 27 BC with the establishment of the Roman Empire.

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

Lasted well over 400yrs twice as long as your 200yr estimate....trouble is there are not a allot of historical examples of democratic republics to look at, authoritarian seems to be the default. I assume you meant that democratic nations are short-lived. After all Britain has survived from 1066 (Norman Invasion) to today; that is almost 1000 yrs, but most of that they were not a democracy. Parliament has been around for along time, the magna carta was I think 1216; though they were a far cry from democratic for many centuries afterwards.

[GIThruster]

I think we're starting to split hairs when quibbling over the longevity of democracies, but just FYI, most people don't consider the Roman Republic a democracy because the Plebians never had any real power. As specific Plebians grew in influence and social standing, they usually became Patricians and thus part of the ruling class or aristocrats, but there were certainly exceptions. So one can indeed quibble about just how democratic Rome was, but in general most poly sci texts don't consider it a true democracy. For that, the power of election at the least, and to generate bills at the most, has to be invested in the People, and Patricians were not elected. They were born a part of the ruling class.

[williatw]

I think we're starting to split hairs when quibbling over the longevity of democracies, but just FYI, most people don't consider the Roman Republic a democracy because the Plebians never had any real power. As specific Plebians grew in influence and social standing, they usually became Patricians and thus part of the ruling class or aristocrats, but there were certainly exceptions. So one can indeed quibble about just how democratic Rome was, but in general most poly sci texts don't consider it a true democracy. For that, the power of election at the least, and to generate bills at the most, has to be invested in the People, and Patricians were not elected. They were born a part of the ruling class.

There are not allot of examples of democratic republics to choose from, the Roman Republic being a well know example of something close to it, that clearly was an inspiration for the founders of our republic. Initially the franchise in our country was fairly restricted...slaves couldn't vote, women, half the pop. couldn't vote, restrictions on requiring property ownership (I think). The state legislature originally until the 17th amendment elected each state's senators, not the people etc. At what point would you say England became a democracy? After all even today they technically still have a sovereign ruler. I think that authoritarian states fail just as often as democratic republics, it is just that when they fail they just default to other authoritarian states.

[williatw]

To see how to fail in a resource-rich country, just look at whats happening to Venezuela. That is a self-inflicted crisis for the most part.

There resource rich (oil) and that's about it it, there kinda of a one trick pony. They don't have anywhere near the industrial base of the US, our long history of free markets & democratic rule.

When you have an electorate and a bureaucracy that essentially can control elections into two parties that really do not care (in aggregate) about fixing anything, there is little reason for any realistic optimism.

They can quick/dirty "fix" by simply gradually not paying for senior health care. We are not like Weimar Republic Germany forced to pay reparations and forced to inflate our currency to do so. Our gov will do as it likes as far as meeting its obligations, paying for what it chooses to pay for when it decides to pay for it. Look at SS, gradually reducing eliminating COLA's raising retirement age at will, etc, don't see rioting in the streets happening as a result. They did kinda riot in the streets in Greece (and elsewhere in Europe) didn't change anything, the gov still cut their pensions/benefits as they saw fit. Hasn't exactly caused an apocalyptic social collapse in Europe.

[JoeP]

Don't see too much evidence of the gov not paying for social expenses, so I don't see that as a trend. Goes up decade after decade in total.

"Our gov will do as it likes as far as meeting its obligations, paying for what it chooses to pay for when it decides to pay for it." Um, yeah. The government can pay ANYTHING, funds are unlimited, since it controls the money supply, taxing, interest rates, and borrowing. As for what that does to an economy, history shows that economies are destroyed by such activity. Do you think creditors will stand idle whilst their investments in bonds will become next to worthless? As for ineffective riots by the "common people," you are picking and choosing. Historical examples abound where powerful "great" nations are brought low by the mass of people turning suddenly against their rulers. Now that is cyclical; some would say, an inevitable and normal part of the process.

There is money, and then there is wealth, and the two are not equivalent.

[hanelyp]

There is money, and then there is wealth, and the two are not equivalent.

Indeed. With a fiat currency a government can produce unlimited money. Wealth to back the money is much harder to come by, and more easily destroyed by government than created.

[williatw]

There is money, and then there is wealth, and the two are not equivalent.

Indeed. With a fiat currency a government can produce unlimited money. Wealth to back the money is much harder to come by, and more easily destroyed by government than created.

So the gov will continue to mindlessly print money in ever increasing amounts to cover its bills as the money starts to run dry....even though they know it will destroy the economy and ultimately them as well? With no credible outside force compelling them to do it whether they want to or not. Rather than say just keep increasing Medicare deductibles/copays/eligibility/payment lag times (already happening?). Rather than say raise SS retirement ages (already doing), delay eliminate COLA's (also already doing). Look at the current VA scandal, bills spike up, just throw them under the bus as far as taking care of them. Delay after delay in treatment, defacto death boards, etc.; in other words the gov will give our Vets (and ultimately us to) whatever benefits it decides to give, suck it up.