Debt before and during an economic collapse

[IndyDave1776]

Oh, I think people are in general compliant. They don't just say "we are taking your money". They start with making cash transactions more scrutinized and then more difficult (which has actually already happened. ). Then they limit the amount you can take in a day. Then they blame the limits on greedy people, not interested in the greater good (ya know like the gold hoarders in the Depression who didn't want to turn their gold over to the government). As long as a lot of people are dependent on the government (and a LOT of people are not just people who don't work) they'll have compliance.

Exactly, it will run exactly according to the frog boiling analogy. By the time most people figure it out, they will have already lost the fight and have no resources with which to fight.

 

[dusty88]

Exactly, it will run exactly according to the frog boiling analogy. By the time most people figure it out, they will have already lost the fight and have no resources with which to fight.

After that though still puzzles and concerns me. Because I really do think the economy is way out of wack. That needn't result in a chaotic mess, but the fact the government isn't letting natural forces (ie deflation) sort out the economy, makes me worry that it will be extreme when it finally happens.

The USDA has very specific data on all large food producers. And the USDA coordinates school lunch programs, now 365 days a year. So I think it very likely that regardless of currency valuations or availability, that the government has methods of controlling some of the food resources.

That doesn't bring economic resolution, though, so I don't know what does. Every theory pretty much sucks. I think an individual's best best is to be as independent as possible. But it's tough to be independent when so much of our resources are managed by a central power.

 

[IndyDave1776]

After that though still puzzles and concerns me. Because I really do think the economy is way out of wack. That needn't result in a chaotic mess, but the fact the government isn't letting natural forces (ie deflation) sort out the economy, makes me worry that it will be extreme when it finally happens.

The USDA has very specific data on all large food producers. And the USDA coordinates school lunch programs, now 365 days a year. So I think it very likely that regardless of currency valuations or availability, that the government has methods of controlling some of the food resources.

That doesn't bring economic resolution, though, so I don't know what does. Every theory pretty much sucks. I think an individual's best best is to be as independent as possible. But it's tough to be independent when so much of our resources are managed by a central power.

I believe we are pretty much on the same page. As you say, socialism/central planning has already crept in on us. the 'too big to fails' are going to go along with whatever they are told because, first, their snouts are in the federal trough, and second, if you are too big to fail, you are too big to hide. They have already decided that they prefer a life of being well fed living on a leash than being free with independent responsibility. That leaves the rest of us to be a self-sufficient as possible which is entirely doable so long as a person is willing to make some sacrifices. You would be amazed at how many people you can feed per acre. The Amish demonstrate regularly (fact notwithstanding that they are gradually drifting from the old ways in many cases) that it is possible to live without 'modern conveniences'. Returning to that parenthetical caveat, I do feel compelled to point out that their rejecting of most 'modern conveniences' is more cultural than practical, done without really having an eye on having to shut the gate at the front of the farm and never come out again, but they are still far more capable of pulling it off than almost any 'Englishmen'.

At the end of the day, if I grow it myself, I do not depend on a central power to provide for me. It is also significant that for the purposes of the 'never let a good crisis go to waste' crowd, the crisis does not need to be based on truly severe conditions and may be entirely superficial so long as it is sufficient to produce the shock value that panics people. Just look at how much shock damage was done by a government shutdown or two which amounted to not unlocking the doors at some public tourist attractions and delaying the mailing of the the Uncle Sugar checks for a few days. Worse yet was the WTC bombing. I don't mean to belittle a tragic event, but the damage done to our economy far outweighed the actual practical damage done all on account of general panic (which is before we even get to the way the event was used to strip us of most of our remaining civil rights).

As for food, the effects of .gov-controlled food supplies were spelled out quite nicely for us about 20 years ago:

"Food is power! We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize." These are the threatening words of Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program. Ms. Bertini, was our very own former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.

The only modification I would add for truthfulness would be that of replacing 'bribery' with 'extortion', which is what it truly is.