CF, I'm very interested in your thoughts on the original post before this turned into a survivalists thread. Are you as concerned as I am about 70% of new debt being bought by printed money? Isn't that basically the end of the line and the last resort to float a bankrupt government? Have we hit the point where we can't even turn the printers off because we can't afford the interest on the debt that higher interest rates would bring? Will foreigners stop buying even the 30% of new debt they buy when they figure out all they will be paid back in is devalued currency? Lastly, am I asking nothing more than a series of rhetorical questions?
Hey Narc. I'm as concerned as you regarding these issues.
How this all plays out is really hard to tell. The U.S. is still the preeminent military power in the world, by far. So, this could be a major factor.
Like Gerald Celente likes to say "when all else fails, they'll take us to war". And, it'll be properly orchestrated with most of mainstream media being complicit, just as mainstream business media has been complicit in our financial fiasco(s) for many years.
Also, if the U.S. closed off it's markets to China (our "benefactor"), the Chinese would likely experience extreme civil unrest from the ramifications. So, as Naill Ferguson calls it, "Chimerica" (our apparent "symbiotic" though really one sided relationship) can exist for quite a long time.
Another possibility is that we do go bankrupt, though it's unlikely that our "leaders" would call it that. Rather there could be a "global restructuring of debt" in which a new currency is literally created out of thin air. Perhaps it becomes a basket of currencies, as has already been discussed. The problem here should be obvious in that any further CENTRALIZATION of power would have an almost limitless potential for abuse, as we've seen in the case of, say, the Federal Reserve. Very little real accountability.
I'm just not sure. Who can be? I do not think we have a sustainable situation in the U.S., that's for sure. Things will get worse for the vast majority of people, which clearly is not ideal. So, while we're likely to see legions of losers as we undergo such change, who might the winners be?? Could potential winners have a hand in what is essentially the downfall of a once great country? Again, who knows, but to suggest it's not possible is naive to the extreme IMO.
After all, what is "austerity"?? The American people didn't (oh wait, we kind of DID) vote to offshore millions of high paying, societal wealth-producing, manufacturing jobs. The American people didn't (oh wait, we did yet again) buy into the "service sector" theory promoted by so many insiders on Wall Street and executives of multinational corporations, not to mention those in academia (i.e. those who teach our nations MBA's).
Another factor in all of this is that for quite a long time there hasn't really been a "we". In the "old days" it was common for European aristocracy to send their sons off to the officer corps. So, the elite had some skin in the game, so to speak (literally and figuratively). Today? Not so much. This went all the way back to the 1200's and probably even before that time. Now, we have a professional military which is very much underrepresented by the "elite" of our society. This has ramifications. It's too easy to "go bomb Iran" when it's not the Senator's son doing the dirty work. No, he's at Harvard. It's really easy to "go to war" when it's the other guys kid.
More to this point, there was an article in The Atlantic not too long ago (I'll post it later) which talked about the new global elite having more in common with one another than they often do their "neighbors", or countrymen. So, make no mistake. There isn't a "we" from the perspective of the truly elite of most societies these days. Perhaps this is why we see so little "corporate reponsibility" to society as we do in modern times. This article that I mention goes on to say how these folks are more likely to meet up, amongst themselves, in Hong Kong, or Singapore for the weekend than they are to spend time in their own communities in their native countries. Again, this has ramifications.
***If I could give anyone a bit of advice, it would be to please wake up to the fact that much of our information is tainted at best. It's extremely difficult to obtain good information. It takes a lot of work. Sometimes I think that ignorance really is bliss. But, we really need to think for ourselves. If something seems simply "inconsistent", then cross check your information with other sources. Go global (English language versions of foreign publicatons for example). Even survey "alternative" news media which you KNOW is biased, though perhaps in the other direction. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
Oh, and when in doubt, follow the money....
