[Pops]

Default would mean a collapse of the financial system as the paper assets vanished. Everyone's bank account, insurance company, 401K, pension plan would vaporize. So I'm quite confident that the balance will be restored through money printing and inflation. Which is why one of my priorities for retirement is to own a real asset like a house that I can live in.

The thing is to know when is when.
RE right now is super inflated from lack of supply and low interest: sellers market big time. Even just a normalizing of supply will likely cause the market to cool, at the least. Lots of people are moving around right now looking for a place to land. As soon as inflation rises, interest will too, baaad for home prices. Lots of delinquent renters and mortgages too, baaad for prices down the pike.

I'm basically half n half, about half my assets in a house and half in cash— in the bank earning nothing. There is nothing available in the immediate area, nothing. A realtor friend says she has never seen such, when a house comes up it is gone in hours, likely selling to realtors, LOL.

This was a house of opportunity, dirt cheap with potential, besides I gotta live somewhere. We have been flipping on the 2 year exclusion but might sell this and take the gain if the gig looks to be up this spring. I'm like you, looking for a retirement place, right now I'm gambling my assets off hoping for some luck.

[Subjectivist]

Personally I think the catalyst will be the same as it was for Weimer, Germany. Not Hyperinflation per se but the average folks no longer believing their money has any real economic value. Once people lose faith in a fiat currency it degrades to its intrinsic value, and whole lot of our current money supply is electronic 1's and 0's in someone else's computer core. In other words, without faith in its value electronic money has no value at all, you can't even use it for TP like you could old Confederate money in 1866.

[Newfie]

Another perspective, soft collapse.

A growing movement of researchers want to shrink rich economies to stop the planet from heating — but both supporters and critics are gambling on prosperity and climate stability for billions of people across the world.

If governments were to cut emissions fast enough to get there, it would imply a drop in energy use so great that GDP would likely decline, too, said Lorenz Keysser, a researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich who has published studies on degrowth. "It's not a goal of degrowth to reduce GDP. It's just an anticipated consequence — and one which needs to be prepared for."

https://m.dw.com/en/degrowth-green-grow ... a-62285113

[vtsnowedin]

I don't follow them there unless they are cutting emissions without replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable or nuclear energy. Renewable energy is as valuable as fossil fuel energy and costs more per unit delivered then the fossil fuel it replaces so a complete conversion would create a big increase in GDP on paper, as that is just a Gross accounting of the dollars spent without regard to the quality or utility of the goods produced and purchased with those dollars.

[Newfie]

VT,

I think the point is that they don’t follow it themselves, there is no solution that works - to their liking. It is a ling winded way of saying “We are in a conundrum.”

There are various “solutions”, just none are palatable to our current state of mind.

[JuanP]

I don't believe there are any solutions left. What we have now are coping mechanisms. We had solutions until a handful of decades ago. This is not much of a problem for most of us because we are closer to our deaths than our births. It is way harder for younger generations; their future is screwed no matter what they do. Fortunately, most of them are too ignorant and/or stupid to understand what lies ahead. I let them be. ignorance is bliss! I have given up on trying to stop this because I believe it is pointless. Now, I am 100% focused on helping my wife and niblings to adapt as best possible when the time comes.

[vtsnowedin]

VT,

I think the point is that they don’t follow it themselves, there is no solution that works - to their liking. It is a ling winded way of saying “We are in a conundrum.”

There are various “solutions”, just none are palatable to our current state of mind.

This bit gets me:

"It's not a goal of degrowth to reduce GDP. It's just an anticipated consequence — and one which needs to be prepared for."

Why not avoid degrowth, not prepare for it?
Forcing populations to use dramatically less energy is just doublespeak for forcing populations to die.

[Doly]

Personally I think the catalyst will be the same as it was for Weimer, Germany. Not Hyperinflation per se but the average folks no longer believing their money has any real economic value.

That could happen, but people still have to buy and sell stuff in some way.

[Newfie]

VT,

You point to the obvious fact that increasing population puts more stress on our dwindling oil reserves. And a falling population would stretch out our reserves. While that seems completely obvious it is not a comfortable relationship and many don’t want to hear it.

They say they want to reduce carbon, e means reducing fossils fuel use and in the same breath say they want to eliminate poverty. It strikes me as axiomatic that by our current standards energy availability equals wealth, being poor is being without energy or its benefits. One could take a Buddhist approach and seek fulfillment within, but I am not seeing a lot line up for that option.

I have tried to talk about it here before but it is clearly a uncomfortable topic.

Yet it seems a few current posters are open to it, perhaps. Some one posted the Bartlett left/right list on some thread recently.

What is Over Population? How do we define it? How do we recognize it? How do we prevent it? How do we mitigate it in the most humane manner?

[Nefarious]

What is Over Population? How do we define it? How do we recognize it? How do we prevent it? How do we mitigate it in the most humane manner?

By letting nature and events run it's course.
To do otherwise would require power over another human to say what children they can and can not have, what foods they can and can not eat, what they can and can not own, what they can and can not aspire to. Master and slave, but it's for the good of everyone.

[Tanada]

What is Over Population? How do we define it? How do we recognize it? How do we prevent it? How do we mitigate it in the most humane manner?

By letting nature and events run it's course.
To do otherwise would require power over another human to say what children they can and can not have, what foods they can and can not eat, what they can and can not own, what they can and can not aspire to. Master and slave, but it's for the good of everyone.

Agreed, leave it to nature or God or fate or luck, don't try and make others slavishly adopt your plan.

[Nefarious]

Agreed, leave it to nature or God or fate or luck, don't try and make others slavishly adopt your plan.

Then the same can be said for climate change implementations. Or is it different in that regard and we should eat our mealworms and insects for our protein, travel less, have less, pay the carbon debt from previous generations, own nothing and be happy?

[Newfie]

From personal experience owning less has let to greater happiness.

It is kind if paradoxical. All depends upon your standards, what you adopt as hour norm. We live in Western culture. We own a lot, none of it is worth much, less that an average house in aggregate. And we travel, and have a rich life. Low consumption with some off sets for what we do consume. Yet, if all the world lived at my level it would be catastrophic.

A few can live at Western norm levels. A few more at my level. More yet can live at comfortable subsistence. I see no hope for 8 billion to not have most in abject poverty, and I doubt Earth can support that many folks for very long even without climate change. Resource depletion; oil, water, top soil, will see to that.

Once again I am just a whole bucket full of cheer.

[Tanada]

Agreed, leave it to nature or God or fate or luck, don't try and make others slavishly adopt your plan.

Then the same can be said for climate change implementations. Or is it different in that regard and we should eat our mealworms and insects for our protein, travel less, have less, pay the carbon debt from previous generations, own nothing and be happy?

I do firmly believe in global warming, however I have always urged that education and moderate government actions should be used not force. For example I am in favor of a revenue neutral carbon tax, i.e. a tax on carbon that replaces other taxes of equal cost to the consumer so the consumer maintains their current tax expense, they just distribute it differently. Say, repeal the individual income tax and instead charge an equal amount spread out over the entire range of fossil fuels. That would encourage or even enable consumers to buy less carbon intense forms of transport that have a price differential related to the low volume production and increased complexity for vehicles like plug-in hybrids. Directly targeted subsidies are counter productive, what I have more in mind is encouragement but not requirement. When the hidden subsidies for wind and solar are taken out of the picture and a life cycle cost benefit analysis is done their shine is a whole lot dimmer than advocates claim. If those hidden subsidies stop then prices will skyrocket overnight. Much better to have a consumer level incentive tax IMHO.

I think people are happiest and most productive when they have the opportunity to benefit from their own labor rather than their labor benefiting some elusive collective arrangement where the lazy get the same benefit as the workaholic. That means private property. If you want to live on meal works and lettuce more power to you, but I prefer a good steak or roasted thigh with a nice spinach salad, bowl of potato soup and ice cream for desert. I am not an ascetic type personality and if not for modern medicine I would have died nearly three decades ago so I am rather pro sensible modern medical care as well.

The most draconian climate solutions I have proposed were things like federal government purchasing low laying coast areas and no longer giving flood insurance to people who choose to build on eroding hurricane prone properties that private insurance is smart enough to not insure. Well I did also suggest building infrastructure in regions where farming is likely to migrate as the climate shifts, but that is hardly a draconian plan IMO.

[C8]

VT,

You point to the obvious fact that increasing population puts more stress on our dwindling oil reserves. And a falling population would stretch out our reserves. While that seems completely obvious it is not a comfortable relationship and many don’t want to hear it.

They say they want to reduce carbon, e means reducing fossils fuel use and in the same breath say they want to eliminate poverty. It strikes me as axiomatic that by our current standards energy availability equals wealth, being poor is being without energy or its benefits. One could take a Buddhist approach and seek fulfillment within, but I am not seeing a lot line up for that option.

I have tried to talk about it here before but it is clearly a uncomfortable topic.

Yet it seems a few current posters are open to it, perhaps. Some one posted the Bartlett left/right list on some thread recently.

What is Over Population? How do we define it? How do we recognize it? How do we prevent it? How do we mitigate it in the most humane manner?

Look at the bolded text above- could you draw this out a little more? I am not sure what you are talking about exactly, thanks

[Newfie]

I can try, but it is difficult.

We Westerners and many others seem stuck in a mind set of consumption. He who dies with the most toys wins.

This consumption drives GDP and climate change and the race to deplete scarce resources, e,g. water.

If you retain that mind set it is easy to see an equivalence between energy and success. And since there is only so much energy you then divide that energy by population. And that exercise tells us we can not erase poverty without it enormous amounts of additional energy. Or by reducing the population. Bigger denominator / smaller numerator.

The options are to change how we define success, can we be just as happy using far less energy? Likely, but even this only goes so far. Still it is the one optin we have at hand.

But in the ling run we are deep into overshoot and that will end. We can either try to bring it down humanely, or let nature take its course. Which is what Bartlett was about. Recognizing we have a choice.

Short of time, not a great answer. Sorry.

[vtsnowedin]

The options are to change how we define success,

Can we start with a roof over you head that doesn't leak and food on the table for you and family that are decently clothed. Add in a income stream sufficient to maintain the above with enough excess to provide security from several negative events in a year?
A million dollar retirement portfolio combined with six overpriced vehicles parked in a garage at a Mc Mansion that is mortgaged to the hilt and the limits of next months income is a gamble but not neccacarily a success.

[C8]

I can try, but it is difficult.

We Westerners and many others seem stuck in a mind set of consumption. He who dies with the most toys wins.

This consumption drives GDP and climate change and the race to deplete scarce resources, e,g. water.

If you retain that mind set it is easy to see an equivalence between energy and success. And since there is only so much energy you then divide that energy by population. And that exercise tells us we can not erase poverty without it enormous amounts of additional energy. Or by reducing the population. Bigger denominator / smaller numerator.

The options are to change how we define success, can we be just as happy using far less energy? Likely, but even this only goes so far. Still it is the one optin we have at hand.

But in the ling run we are deep into overshoot and that will end. We can either try to bring it down humanely, or let nature take its course. Which is what Bartlett was about. Recognizing we have a choice.

Short of time, not a great answer. Sorry.

Thanks, this is what I thought you meant. I agree with you about the change of definition of what is "success"- less IS more! Unfortunately, most people won't accept it. There might be biological reasons for this. Most animals try to defend a certain area and accumulate as much food as they can and fend off competitors. Humans are probably biologically wired to acquire as much as possible. The acquisition of goods increases the chances that one's offspring and genetic traits will survive.

I personally find it very liberating to be able to share things and not necessarily own them. I'm currently going through a lot of stuff that has been accumulated over the years and disposing of it. I try to give it to some sort of charity to be resold but much of it is simply too out of date.

I find the whole Buddhist lifestyle very enjoyable in liberating. but I do not believe that most people will accept it. Most of the consumption is actually done by a very few who have great deal of wealth. They take constant flights that use a large amounts of fuel and have much land that require constant maintenance. Unfortunately this is just something that is wired into the human species.

You said people were uncomfortable talking about these issues- what did you mean by that? Here at PO.com or in general?

[Pops]

Personally I think the catalyst will be the same as it was for Weimer, Germany. Not Hyperinflation per se but the average folks no longer believing their money has any real economic value.

That could happen, but people still have to buy and sell stuff in some way.

"FRN are worthless" is an old survivalist, anti-government trope but not really very common. The value of the dollar is currently higher than it has been in 20 years even in the face of raging inflation and dollar debasement. It's all a con game, where would confidence go if not for FRNs? Dogcoin? LOL! As Dolly said, you gotta use something.

The rise of nationalism and the end of globalism could be a turning point if not instigator of outright collapse.
Covid could be the immediate catalyst, China says they will keep the zero covid policy in place for years, their vaccine is crap so they don't have much choice. That means manufacturing will necessarily move back onshore. Ditto the stupid Russian aggression, I suppose there are lots of putin fanboys here to argue that point.

But if nothing else, demographics will be the winner. We're all heading for a Japanese style zombie economy as first world countries age-out. I've been ranting for years that the economy grows primarily due to more people, lower birth rates means fewer people and a shrinking economy if not collapsing. The US would shrink without immigrants like lots of other countries are. 17% of the US workforce are immigrants, trump got elected bashing them but wouldn't get the sheets changed and greens mowed without them.

[mousepad]

trump got elected bashing them but wouldn't get the sheets changed and greens mowed without them.

what a lame pro-immigrant argument. Can't you do better?