The end is near

[MoonShadow]

All Patriarchy, which is the collectivist opposite of the non-collectivist Anarchy.
Patriarchal, federalist chiefdoms are not stateless.

I wholely reject your absurd distortion of the terms in use. 

But even then, I can lay one down for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

Yes they were a matrilineal society (and a matriarchial one, IMHO) and yes they did trade internally and externally.

They were stateless, both by the true defintion of the term, and your's as well.

[1713965145]

1713965145

[1713965145]

1713965145

[Rampion]

Another is that particular classes of investments are forever; such as alcohol, guns, ammo and uncontaminated land.  And strange as it may seem, common table salt if you live more than 100 miles from a shoreline.

Gold, on the other hand, is pretty much useless unless you already have at least one of the first four things above.  It's also wise to stock up on gardening books, and perhaps take up beekeeping as a hobby.

Personally, I've already done all of these things.

Man, you forgot about THIS:

[Zarathustra]

All Patriarchy, which is the collectivist opposite of the non-collectivist Anarchy.
Patriarchal, federalist chiefdoms are not stateless.

I wholely reject your absurd distortion of the terms in use.  

But even then, I can lay one down for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

Yes they were a matrilineal society (and a matriarchial one, IMHO) and yes they did trade internally and externally.

They were stateless, both by the true defintion of the term, and your's as well.

Each expression of archy is by definition the opposite of Anarchy. That's an 'absurd' definition to collectivists, I know that.
"After becoming united in the League, the Iroquois invaded the Ohio River Valley in present-day Kentucky to seek additional hunting grounds."

Being united means being collectivised, governed.

[Anenome5]

I suspect we have at least a decade before any coming crash truly hits, and possibly more like 30 years before the crisis is unavoidable entirely.

if this is true then most of the leaders of the world today couldn't give a crap...  nobody will blame them ( at least not while they are still alive...)

Does it look like they give a crap? Doesn't look like it to me. All politicians worry only about their term of office, so 2-6 years tops, at least here in the US. They wouldn't be piling debt on debt if they did care.

[Anenome5]

Capitalism has been the driving mechanism for human society, progress and prosperity in modern history. It is this driving engine that is now about to fail completely.

Capitalism, as in free trade and voluntary interaction, is not going to fail. Much of the establishment of corporatist inefficiency will be in turmoil and the collateral damage for everyone may be severe, but eventually the natural order will recover better and stronger than before.

Yes, without the state, inefficiency will be eliminated. That means, that nearly nothing will be produced, as it was the case within stateless communities in the whole history of mankind. But that wasn't Capitalism. The austrian anarchocapitalists believe, that we will produce even more without the state. That's the greatest economic joke I ever heard.

You have a strange conception of the state's role in production.

To be more exact, you're conflating property and rights protection (law and police) and dispute resolution (courts) with the state.

But you don't need the state to provide any of those things. Law can be crowd-source or agreement based, ie: polycentric-law. No societal entity needs to have a monopoly on law production, that's just the way things have been largely until now. There's no reason for it to stay that way, and an alternative may (and probably will) be far better.

Similarly, courts and police can be privately provided on the market and due to changed incentives of the market will probably be far better.

Stateless communities often also had no rights protection, law, or courts. But it's possible to create not a state nor a stateless community, but rather the ideal is a self-governed community, and by that I mean one where each individual rules himself and himself alone. Not a community which uses a collective body to govern the whole--no, I mean a community where each individual has sovereign control of himself and no one else. A truly individualist society. This has never existed because we never had the ideas explicit to try it until modern time.

[Anenome5]

. The austrian anarchocapitalists believe, that we will produce even more without the state. That's the greatest economic joke I ever heard.

I don't know where you got this idea, but that's not true.  I know of no argument to imply that a free market would produce more than the current market.

The fact that a free market wouldn't have taxation means it's virtually guaranteed that it would produce more than the current managed market. Because there'd be a lot more wealth available for investment. Governments cannot invest, despite their ridiculous attempts to do so, because it costs them nothing for those investments to fail and the incentive structure makes them far more wasteful than an investing private individual.

It might, or it might not; depending on the desires and needs of the people.  The difference would be that productivity would not be siphoned off by an ever more needy state, and those who are dependent upon the state would have to learn how to produce something of value as well.

Yes, and it's those people who will fight tooth and nail to continue the system until it crashes irrevocably, and why political change in the US prior to a major economic disaster is not likely to happen.

[Anenome5]

We will also be able to significantly reverse environmental degradation (including, as a minor aside, powering bitcoin on equipment that is no longer coal-fired).

We've had the technology to do this for forty years.  It's just not being developed, and it won't in the current geopolitical environment.  It's wishful thinking to believe that wind, water and solar are ever going to be able to run our modern industrial economies.  Nuclear power is simply required if we really desire to move away from using coal.

Solar offers more power than we can use. We can even move to harvesting solar in space for literally the foreseeable future.

It will begin to be used when it's cost-effective against other forms of electricity. Which won't likely be very long now. We already have perfect solar antennas that pickup solar energy like an antenna rather than like photosynthesis, and can thereby capture a large percent of the energy efficiently, like 99.5%. What we lack are transistors that can switch fast enough to turn light's AC current into DC current.

So, by roundabout method, the microchip industry will ultimately solve our power problems

Long term, fusion may pan out also. But I think solar will bridge the gap.

[notme]

We will also be able to significantly reverse environmental degradation (including, as a minor aside, powering bitcoin on equipment that is no longer coal-fired).

We've had the technology to do this for forty years.  It's just not being developed, and it won't in the current geopolitical environment.  It's wishful thinking to believe that wind, water and solar are ever going to be able to run our modern industrial economies.  Nuclear power is simply required if we really desire to move away from using coal.

Solar offers more power than we can use. We can even move to harvesting solar in space for literally the foreseeable future.

It will begin to be used when it's cost-effective against other forms of electricity. Which won't likely be very long now. We already have perfect solar antennas that pickup solar energy like an antenna rather than like photosynthesis, and can thereby capture a large percent of the energy efficiently, like 99.5%. What we lack are transistors that can switch fast enough to turn light's AC current into DC current.

So, by roundabout method, the microchip industry will ultimately solve our power problems

Long term, fusion may pan out also. But I think solar will bridge the gap.

What you really need is to change the frequency of the AC current.  Most homes and transmission lines use around 60Hz AC, not DC.

Also, thorium is far more realistic than a power generating fusion process on Earth.

[pennywise]

Solar offers more power than we can use. We can even move to harvesting solar in space for literally the foreseeable future.

It will begin to be used when it's cost-effective against other forms of electricity. Which won't likely be very long now. We already have perfect solar antennas that pickup solar energy like an antenna rather than like photosynthesis, and can thereby capture a large percent of the energy efficiently, like 99.5%. What we lack are transistors that can switch fast enough to turn light's AC current into DC current.

So, by roundabout method, the microchip industry will ultimately solve our power problems

Long term, fusion may pan out also. But I think solar will bridge the gap.

Solar may offer some energy but takes up a lot of surface we aren't necessarily willing to give. And power system requires that in each moment power generation equals consumption. Therefore, energy market values coal and nuclear, whose generation can be foretold a year in advance easily, unlike solar, for which even a day is a long time to forecast. The problem would be perhaps solved if techology would be found to store energy efficiently and cheaply. That technology isn't there.

[MoonShadow]

We will also be able to significantly reverse environmental degradation (including, as a minor aside, powering bitcoin on equipment that is no longer coal-fired).

We've had the technology to do this for forty years.  It's just not being developed, and it won't in the current geopolitical environment.  It's wishful thinking to believe that wind, water and solar are ever going to be able to run our modern industrial economies.  Nuclear power is simply required if we really desire to move away from using coal.

Solar offers more power than we can use. We can even move to harvesting solar in space for literally the foreseeable future.

It will begin to be used when it's cost-effective against other forms of electricity. Which won't likely be very long now. We already have perfect solar antennas that pickup solar energy like an antenna rather than like photosynthesis, and can thereby capture a large percent of the energy efficiently, like 99.5%. What we lack are transistors that can switch fast enough to turn light's AC current into DC current.

Wow. You're response is to cite a theoretical method, and present it as a near term viable solution.  Solar antennas might one day power nanites, but even then the tech might be a bit out of reach.

So, by roundabout method, the microchip industry will ultimately solve our power problems

Long term, fusion may pan out also. But I think solar will bridge the gap.

You're dreaming.  TAbletop fusion is closer to a productive stage than solar antenna tech.

[Anenome5]

Solar offers more power than we can use. We can even move to harvesting solar in space for literally the foreseeable future.

It will begin to be used when it's cost-effective against other forms of electricity. Which won't likely be very long now. We already have perfect solar antennas that pickup solar energy like an antenna rather than like photosynthesis, and can thereby capture a large percent of the energy efficiently, like 99.5%. What we lack are transistors that can switch fast enough to turn light's AC current into DC current.

So, by roundabout method, the microchip industry will ultimately solve our power problems

Long term, fusion may pan out also. But I think solar will bridge the gap.

Solar may offer some energy but takes up a lot of surface we aren't necessarily willing to give.

I think we have plenty of space on the ocean's surface, we're not even using it.

And power system requires that in each moment power generation equals consumption.

Yes, a problem, but a solvable one.

Therefore, energy market values coal and nuclear, whose generation can be foretold a year in advance easily, unlike solar, for which even a day is a long time to forecast. The problem would be perhaps solved if techology would be found to store energy efficiently and cheaply. That technology isn't there.

OTEC or ocean-current generation could perhaps supplement for night-time, as well as the further development of supercapacitors or molten-salt power storage. It's not insurmountable.

For that matter, one solution is to build caissons on the ocean floor and use power during the day to pump water out and air in to these giant caissons. When you later need that power back out, you start letting water in which pumps air out at very high pressure, driving a generator. Voila, constant power as needed.

[pennywise]

Solar may offer some energy but takes up a lot of surface we aren't necessarily willing to give.

I think we have plenty of space on the ocean's surface, we're not even using it.

And power system requires that in each moment power generation equals consumption.

Yes, a problem, but a solvable one.

Solvable technically? Of course. Solvable economically? I doubt very much.

Therefore, energy market values coal and nuclear, whose generation can be foretold a year in advance easily, unlike solar, for which even a day is a long time to forecast. The problem would be perhaps solved if techology would be found to store energy efficiently and cheaply. That technology isn't there.

OTEC or ocean-current generation could perhaps supplement for night-time, as well as the further development of supercapacitors or molten-salt power storage. It's not insurmountable.

For that matter, one solution is to build caissons on the ocean floor and use power during the day to pump water out and air in to these giant caissons. When you later need that power back out, you start letting water in which pumps air out at very high pressure, driving a generator. Voila, constant power as needed.

You are talking about some very big complexes that cannot be as economically efficient as a simple nuclear (think thorium, perhaps even polywell...) plant that produces power when it is needed and can strike a deal for a period of time a year ahead. Those things are higly valued on the power market. Market value of todays wind and solar power is therefore practically zero, lifted only by state interventions that limit on communism...

[Anton Chigurh]

I didn't read all the comments here. But it is pretty damn obvious things are getting ready to happen especially here in America.
Even the blind and sleeping are waking up and opening their eyes.

My mom cursed me out for saying this, but my opinion is capitalism sucks a big one.
Not only does it make it so the heads of big corporations super rich while paying the people who actually produce the product very crappy wages,
but it also spams the day to day environment with ad after ad. Does anyone step back and realize how many advertisements for worthless crap is crammed down your throat every day? thousands.

I don't think socialism is the way to go, but maybe it is best in a world where we are all lazy asses who like robots to do things for us.

Someone said new technology is gonna save us. I just read an interesting article about this in a magazine (Not on the internet? Wow).
It said that everyone thought that at the turn or the century. The economy would be saved by the internet because of online shopping and all that stuff.

I think things are gonna get really bad. I've seen too many YT videos about the FEMA camps and how China got pissed at us, and rescinded their rule of no first strike.

I will just barricade myself inside as if there was a zombie apocalypse and hunker down with my canned veggies.
I am gonna be super depressed when the internet goes out though.

[MoonShadow]

For that matter, one solution is to build caissons on the ocean floor and use power during the day to pump water out and air in to these giant caissons. When you later need that power back out, you start letting water in which pumps air out at very high pressure, driving a generator. Voila, constant power as needed.

Another solution would be to build huge culverts to funnel the Pacific Ocean from San Diego to the Salt Flats, which happens to be about 200' below sea level and was an inland sea itself that finally dried up a few thousand years ago.  A few water turbines near the Salt Flats, and with the evaporation rate of the area, easily 100 Megawatts or more for as long as we like.  More, if we decide that an inland sea would be a good thing to have there.  It would alter the immediate environment, increasing humidity, cloud cover, and rainfall for several hundred miles around.

Not that the NIMBY crowd would let something like that happen either.

[PeZ]

I want to warn you about all these gloom and doom predictions.

If you would have followed these doomsday preachers you would have missed out on the huge rise in the markets and you would have bought gold at its peak. There are still people saying "buy gold and run from the stock market". These people are screwing you over. Gold is going down to $1000.

I love Max Keiser's show, but don't follow his advice.

Yes, we are in dire straights. Yes the numbers are ALL bad. We are in for a volatile year. But this paper game goes on because no one can pull the plug. You panic - you are personally doomed.

[AndreasMet]

It looks like I'm in the minority here.

Things are messed-up and they always have been.  Human beings are running the show, ad that's messed-up by definition. 

The markets are not about to collapse.  Leaders are making poor decisions, and we pay for that through the erosion we see.  The erosion will continue.

Even places where things are truly bad (and there are many, Syria for example) have not collapsed.

If you live in a relatively safe part of the world you need to worry more about your individual collapse than the world around you.  The fear of the outside is always greater than the reality.  And the fear on the inside (self) is never high enough.

Here in the USA you see doomsday preppers stocking-up on food, guns, bug out shelters.  They see the solution as having a year of food and guns.  Yet many are over-weight and in poor physical condition.  What they should really consider is that if society breaks down enough to require a year's worth of food, how will they physically and mentally survive the ordeal.  Their prep solution is to spend money on outside things instead of strengthening from the inside/

Any way, I am an optimist and see the future as far brighter than the past.  The good old days are always right now.

[xavier]

I want to warn you about all these gloom and doom predictions.

If you would have followed these doomsday preachers you would have missed out on the huge rise in the markets and you would have bought gold at its peak. There are still people saying "buy gold and run from the stock market". These people are screwing you over. Gold is going down to $1000.

I love Max Keiser's show, but don't follow his advice.

Yes, we are in dire straights. Yes the numbers are ALL bad. We are in for a volatile year. But this paper game goes on because no one can pull the plug. You panic - you are personally doomed.

"The markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" - This quote is probably the only useful think Keynes ever contributed. The fact is, I believe these people like Max Keiser are right about their predictions. It's just things take a long time to play out. The fact is, logically what is happening in the global economy is temporary in nature and cannot continue for ever. Logically, there is going to be a big crisis. Markets can remain irrational for a short period, but eventually mathematics rules.

I don't think it's going to be a 30 year wait before a big readjustment. I am betting strongly it's no more than 2 years.

I am not a doomsday preacher, but I do believe there is a big crisis on the horizon. I am positive we'll get over it, but I do believe it's going to be worse than anything experienced in modern history.

[notme]

I want to warn you about all these gloom and doom predictions.

If you would have followed these doomsday preachers you would have missed out on the huge rise in the markets and you would have bought gold at its peak. There are still people saying "buy gold and run from the stock market". These people are screwing you over. Gold is going down to $1000.

I love Max Keiser's show, but don't follow his advice.

Yes, we are in dire straights. Yes the numbers are ALL bad. We are in for a volatile year. But this paper game goes on because no one can pull the plug. You panic - you are personally doomed.

"The markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" - This quote is probably the only useful think Keynes ever contributed. The fact is, I believe these people like Max Keiser are right about their predictions. It's just things take a long time to play out. The fact is, logically what is happening in the global economy is temporary in nature and cannot continue for ever. Logically, there is going to be a big crisis. Markets can remain irrational for a short period, but eventually mathematics rules.

I don't think it's going to be a 30 year wait before a big readjustment. I am betting strongly it's no more than 2 years.

I am not a doomsday preacher, but I do believe there is a big crisis on the horizon. I am positive we'll get over it, but I do believe it's going to be worse than anything experienced in modern history.

That's not the only contribution Keynes made, but politicized neo-Keynesians like to forget he said that you should tighten your belt and reduce debt during boom times.

[MoonShadow]

The markets are not about to collapse.  Leaders are making poor decisions, and we pay for that through the erosion we see.  The erosion will continue.

Even places where things are truly bad (and there are many, Syria for example) have not collapsed.

I suppose that it really matter what one means by "collapse".  I'm of the opinion that markets can't collapse by their nature, they either grow or decline, but never cease.  Even the classic 'buggy whip' market never completely died after the invention of the "horseless carriage", as there are still niche markets such as hobby mini-horse carriage racing and the Amish/Anabaptists that require them for practical transportation.  The survivability of markets notwithstanding, your own personal economy could very well 'collapse' if one is not careful.  And there is some risk that it could collapse even if one is careful.  When the bovine fecal matter finally makes contact with the rotary cooling device, I doubt anyone west of The Hamptons is going to completely avoid it.

[Zarathustra]

Capitalism has been the driving mechanism for human society, progress and prosperity in modern history. It is this driving engine that is now about to fail completely.

Capitalism, as in free trade and voluntary interaction, is not going to fail. Much of the establishment of corporatist inefficiency will be in turmoil and the collateral damage for everyone may be severe, but eventually the natural order will recover better and stronger than before.

Yes, without the state, inefficiency will be eliminated. That means, that nearly nothing will be produced, as it was the case within stateless communities in the whole history of mankind. But that wasn't Capitalism. The austrian anarchocapitalists believe, that we will produce even more without the state. That's the greatest economic joke I ever heard.

You have a strange conception of the state's role in production.

To be more exact, you're conflating property and rights protection (law and police) and dispute resolution (courts) with the state.

But you don't need the state to provide any of those things. Law can be crowd-source or agreement based, ie: polycentric-law. No societal entity needs to have a monopoly on law production, that's just the way things have been largely until now. There's no reason for it to stay that way, and an alternative may (and probably will) be far better.

Similarly, courts and police can be privately provided on the market and due to changed incentives of the market will probably be far better.

Stateless communities often also had no rights protection, law, or courts. But it's possible to create not a state nor a stateless community, but rather the ideal is a self-governed community, and by that I mean one where each individual rules himself and himself alone. Not a community which uses a collective body to govern the whole--no, I mean a community where each individual has sovereign control of himself and no one else. A truly individualist society. This has never existed because we never had the ideas explicit to try it until modern time.

You are a dreamer. This is science fiction, written by austrian aristocrats. I know these theories very well, and in my former life I was an Austrian as well, until I realised that it is ahistoric science fiction. Real stateless communities in the rain forests 'produce' about the same amount as they did 10'000 years ago. Governed, collectivist societies produce about hundred fold the amount which was generated only 100 years ago. That's the difference, which the dreamers suppress. As I explained in another thread already: Any society is by definition collectivist. The opposite of society and collectivism is the self-sufficient community. A self-sufficient community is called self-sufficient, because they do not economically interact with strangers, aliens and foreigners.
But the hominidae can not live 'alone'. An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. To live a non-collectivist life, the homines sapientes need the organisation of the non-patriarchal, anarchal, consanguineal community, which was organised non-monogamous, matrilineal (female choice), wherever it existed in the whole history of mankind, and which have been destroyed, slowly starting about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence of a complicity of priests and militarists, which is terrorising the planet until today.