[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '.')..
Gee. My parents are old, and they LIVED THROUGH the Great Depression. Where were you then, cube?

My dad was slogging it out in the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. Where were you then, cube?

Today's 70- and 80-year-olds were making a living long before computers and FORTRAN were part of the daily scene.

The "greed is good" generation came of age in the 1980s. Those people are old? Not.
...

[Ludi]

Then you'd better be prepared to teach them something useful, otherwise they will be depending on you as the only capable person around.

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', '
')The reason for this is quite simple: The vast majority of jobs people perform today does not produce anything of value whatsoever. Wal-Mart stockers don't produce anything, Realtors don't produce anything, Wall Street traders don't produce anything, and used car salesmen don't produce anything. These so-called "jobs" are the result of cheap energy and the inherent wealth that we have floating around...I guess people have an innate need to keep busy...LOL.

[Heineken]

I appreciate your clarifications, cube, but your opinions about those age groups seem like dangerous generalities. Many people who will be old after times turn really hard did not participate in the trends you refer to, or did so only reluctantly, or have repudiated "the church of growth," or will soon do so. Older people are still capable of change and personal development and learning new things. To dismiss them all as "useless" is poppycock.

(That's not to say that they won't die off at a higher rate than the younger crowd. Clearly, they're much more vulnerable.)

[MrBill]

Okay, I was perhaps playing Devil's Advocate and making provacative remarks. That is what these posts are for, right? Actually, my mom sits on The Council for Aging, is a member of The Retired Teachers Fund and does other advocacy work on behalf of the elderly like working with pharmacies and other businesses to make them more senior friendly.

Not all teenagers and elderly are useless. That was not my point. In my family we have farmers, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, welders and all sorts of useful skills. My step-father is still running the farm at age 72 and he is going strong.

But I think that the homage that age brings wisdom is not accurate either. You train your body and your mind all your life. Use it or lose it. That training starts early and should never end. If you have not rigorously trained your body and your mind you will not necessarily be in a place to pass on much needed wisdom if and when it is needed.

My father who passed away at age 51 accomplished way more and had much more knowledge then many elderly folks that outlived him. Part of that came from his work ethic and he was certainly a man of many talents and a voracious reader. He would be the kind of guy that I would like to have around post peak oil.

So yes my comments were particularly harsh. Sorry if I offended anyone. But a lazy teenager who turns into a lazy adult who does very little with their time on this earth, however long, will not automatically acquire wisdom or perspective to be passed along to future generations. On the other hand some will be wiser than their years.

As for medical care. Your point is well taken. We will all use the system eventually I suppose. However, health insurance, if it is really an insurance scheme and not a wealth transfer, should be based on the accurate assessment of risk just like automobile or life insurance. Differing premiums based on the likelyhood of developing chronic illnesses that are costly to treat. As for an example compare health insurance that provides with long-term care to simple accident insurance and you will see how expensive long-term care is compared to the chances of having an acute injury while skiing or going on vacation.

Please do not get me wrong. I believe that everyone should be compulsed to buy mandatory health insurance. But that health insurance should be portable and not depend on employment or other such factors. However, basic insurance should not preclude others from buying more expensive insurance to cover all the expensive extras. Those extra costs should not be pushed back on the taxpayer in the name of fairness as obviously our health depends primarily on our own everyday lifestyle choices and decisions just as much as on bad luck or developing medical conditions that no one can control. There has to be some kind of balance.

[Scactha]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom_seen', 'W')hen european settlers moved out west. They thought the Indians were lazy. The Indians though had lots of free time. They were able to meet their survival needs with plenty of free time left over.

[Revi]

Almost every former student of mine who is still around here is either unemployed or employed only marginally now. It's a tough place to live, but without a steady paycheck it is even harder to live around here. I talked to one who just declared bankruptcy and is joining the Navy. I am afraid that the military becomes the only choice for a lot of these guys.

[MrBill]

There is nothing wrong with hard, physical work. I love it. I spent a few hours last week scything the weeds that had grown up in the garden and along the fence rows on the farm. I would love to strangle the dumb ass Scotsman that introduced thistle to Canada!

Although very satisfying, as Revi points out, it does not pay the bills. So I can only afford to work on the farm as a hobby. The only full-time farmers I know farm in excess of 3000 acres. Some more. That is a lot of land to stay afloat profitably. And of course there is not that amount of land available for everyone.

Back at the end of the Second World War when almost 50% of the population still lived on the land what were they farming? About a quarter section a piece? And the global population was less than half of what it is now. But the amount of arable land has actually decreased.

In many ways it would be nice to have a real family farm again with multiple generations sharing the workload and communing with your neighbors. That would almost make the decline in living standards bearable. However, such a rosy outcome is not likely in the cards for most folks. Not by a country mile.

As an aside, I am dismayed that most of the railway spurs and country elevators in our area have now been torn down or destroyed. This will make peak post oil delivery of crops to markets that much harder and make food more expensive. I suppose they can be re-built as the right of ways are still there, but that is more energy, steel and labor needed, which of course are also adding to the cost of food.

[Olaf]

I think perhaps we have some folks that have not lived enough life yet to know that they don't know everything.

One thing I think I know. I will learn throughout my life as long as my brain is still up and running. In my 34 years of life so far, I have learned many things, including that I am not omnipotent.

If I were 54 now instead, I anticipate that I would have picked up some things I don't know yet, and have changed my mind on some things that I thought I knew. That is part of life. What you spend your life doing, directly influences some of the lessons you learn and knowledge you carry. So the question is not really whether you are young or old, but what have you spent your time doing and learning; and what can you do with that knowledge when you need it most?

[RdSnt]

It is indeed difficult to make a living on 3000 acres, if you happen to believe you in the corporate/industrial model of farming and you believe you must generate enough product to justify shipping to the world market.
And yes, if you lived in the prairies or further west the average starting farm was a quarter section. In Ontario or Quebec or the Maritimes, no, the farms were much smaller.

If you wish to maintain a city life style while living on a farm, then it's expensive. If you feel you need to manage 3000 acres then you need to mortgage your life for the equipment.

If however, you live a rural life, sell locally and grow what the local population needs, then your farm doesn't have to be that large and your life doesn't have to be a miserable corporate money chase.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'T')here is nothing wrong with hard, physical work. I love it. I spent a few hours last week scything the weeds that had grown up in the garden and along the fence rows on the farm. I would love to strangle the dumb ass Scotsman that introduced thistle to Canada!

Although very satisfying, as Revi points out, it does not pay the bills. So I can only afford to work on the farm as a hobby. The only full-time farmers I know farm in excess of 3000 acres. Some more. That is a lot of land to stay afloat profitably. And of course there is not that amount of land available for everyone.

Back at the end of the Second World War when almost 50% of the population still lived on the land what were they farming? About a quarter section a piece? And the global population was less than half of what it is now. But the amount of arable land has actually decreased.

In many ways it would be nice to have a real family farm again with multiple generations sharing the workload and communing with your neighbors. That would almost make the decline in living standards bearable. However, such a rosy outcome is not likely in the cards for most folks. Not by a country mile.

As an aside, I am dismayed that most of the railway spurs and country elevators in our area have now been torn down or destroyed. This will make peak post oil delivery of crops to markets that much harder and make food more expensive. I suppose they can be re-built as the right of ways are still there, but that is more energy, steel and labor needed, which of course are also adding to the cost of food.

[gg3]

Quick reply to a couple of items on page 1.

Jobs: It's too easy to make predictions at the large systemic level and linearly interpolate to the smaller local scale. In fact what happens is far more fractal. Humans are notoriously capable of adapting and carving out little niches for themselves, and they'll keep doing so. Thus, one size does not fit all. Increase in chaos, sure, increase in misery, sure, but beyond the large generalizations, the reality is that new "economies" will develop and people will somehow find themselves things to do.

Think of how you yourself will cope, and extrapolate that out to the larger scale.

A while ago there was a front page article to the effect of "the apocalypse of your brother-in-law sleeping on your couch for years." Monster mansions will be subdivided into little rabbit warrens, with people taking in friends and relatives, and the relatives of friends, and the friends of relatives, until they can make the mortgage payments. They will post "shower schedules" on the bathroom door, and plant edible crops in the front yard, and generally live communally the way 1960s hippies lived, minus the sex, and they'll resent every minute of it. Underground economies will bloom, barter will flourish, taxes won't get paid, essential services will bog down. In general people will adapt rather than curling up and dying.

New Orleans & gon confiscation: the reason they submitted is because they were in shock and they didn't see it coming. If anything like that was planned on a larger scale, people would see it coming as it started in certain locales (it can't happen everywhere at once; there is not hte logistical capability to do that), and then they would organize, and they would resist by whatever means up to & including overt revolt.

Aside from which, any municiipality facing a budget crunch will tend to encourage lawful firearm ownership and concealed carry, as a means of deterring crime.

More later, gotta scoot for now....

[Ludi]

You don't need 3000 acres to make a living farming. The Dervaes family make their living farming about 1/10 of an acre. Small farms are much more productive per land area than large farms, though take more labor. 2 acres in vegetables is about the maximum one person can manage, though I would say that's a bit large, myself.


http://pathtofreedom.com/


Those 3000 acre farms are for growing grain, not a very productive crop per acre.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'O')kay, I was perhaps playing Devil's Advocate and making provacative remarks. That is what these posts are for, right? Actually, my mom sits on The Council for Aging, is a member of The Retired Teachers Fund and does other advocacy work on behalf of the elderly like working with pharmacies and other businesses to make them more senior friendly.

Not all teenagers and elderly are useless. That was not my point. In my family we have farmers, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, welders and all sorts of useful skills. My step-father is still running the farm at age 72 and he is going strong.

But I think that the homage that age brings wisdom is not accurate either. You train your body and your mind all your life. Use it or lose it. That training starts early and should never end. If you have not rigorously trained your body and your mind you will not necessarily be in a place to pass on much needed wisdom if and when it is needed.

My father who passed away at age 51 accomplished way more and had much more knowledge then many elderly folks that outlived him. Part of that came from his work ethic and he was certainly a man of many talents and a voracious reader. He would be the kind of guy that I would like to have around post peak oil.

So yes my comments were particularly harsh. Sorry if I offended anyone. But a lazy teenager who turns into a lazy adult who does very little with their time on this earth, however long, will not automatically acquire wisdom or perspective to be passed along to future generations. On the other hand some will be wiser than their years.

As for medical care. Your point is well taken. We will all use the system eventually I suppose. However, health insurance, if it is really an insurance scheme and not a wealth transfer, should be based on the accurate assessment of risk just like automobile or life insurance. Differing premiums based on the likelyhood of developing chronic illnesses that are costly to treat. As for an example compare health insurance that provides with long-term care to simple accident insurance and you will see how expensive long-term care is compared to the chances of having an acute injury while skiing or going on vacation.

Please do not get me wrong. I believe that everyone should be compulsed to buy mandatory health insurance. But that health insurance should be portable and not depend on employment or other such factors. However, basic insurance should not preclude others from buying more expensive insurance to cover all the expensive extras. Those extra costs should not be pushed back on the taxpayer in the name of fairness as obviously our health depends primarily on our own everyday lifestyle choices and decisions just as much as on bad luck or developing medical conditions that no one can control. There has to be some kind of balance.

[Olaf]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he profit motive doesn't belong in health care.

[Byron100]

Heineken wrote :
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for health insurance, I believe only in centralized, government-supplied universal coverage. It could be funded by redirecting taxes that are wasted on military spending, which is the biggest boondoggle of all.

The profit motive doesn't belong in health care.

Anyway, in not too many more years, such discussions will be entirely academic. There won't be private or public health insurance. There won't be health care as we know it, just as there won't be work as we know it.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '.')..
As for health insurance, I believe only in centralized, government-supplied universal coverage. It could be funded by redirecting taxes that are wasted on military spending, which is the biggest boondoggle of all.

The profit motive doesn't belong in health care.
...

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'G')etting back to PO and the nature of work. I think there will be a "trigger event" in the future that will completely change society's direction.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '.')..
If gasoline were to rapidly get so expensive people couldn't drive to their places of employment, that would certainly qualify as a trigger event.

[gg3]

Ten poitns to Heinekin, Olaf, and Byron for catching Mr. Bill's ill-informed item about health insurance.

First of all, "if it.. isn't just a wealth transfer..." is like, "if there wasn't the law of gravity." As presently constituted, the health insurance industry is pure out and out fraud, a scam on an outrageous scale whose purpose is to extract money from patients & doctors and deliver as little health care as the law will let it get away with. Economically it's a cartel, which is a market distortion and by no means a free market; but in any case the term "market" doesn't apply to goods & services such as lifesaving medicine & surgery where you have no choice but to buy immediately or die immediately.

Second, "compulsed to buy..." translates to, legally required to pay money* to a private cartel that is subject to no checks and balances, for the privilege of just existing. I'll tell you what. Anyone try that on me and they will be looking at the practical side of the Second Amendment. I'm not alone on that point. (*Auto insurance requirements are onerous but the fact is that driving is optional. Taxes are onerous but government officials are subject to voters' veto at every election. There are no such solutions for a requirement to pay a private cartel just for the privilege of being allowed to live.)

Third, "assessment of risk..." OK, so we all have little bureaucrats telling us what we can and can't eat, drink, smoke, what kinds of exercise we need and how much, what kinds of recreation we're permitted to have, and so on, so now every possible voluntary measure is squeezed out of the numbers. After that the only remaining risk is genetic. So we'll have to line up for our genetic tests and get little assigned scores tattooed on our wrists or the electronic equivalent, that determine our fate in life. Once again, anyone want to try that on me, they'll be looking at the practical side of the Second Amendment.

The fact is we already know how to provide health care, because the rest of the world's already been doing it for well over half a century. Despite my Libertarian proclivities, the blunt fact is that universal, government-run, single-payer health care, funded via an increment in basic taxes, and paid for by a single government agency, results in better care at half the cost than what we have now. And if we want to allow private insurers to compete with that, fine, but they'll have to play on that playing field.

If we want to assess for risk, we can assess the relevant products & services rather than the individuals. First, do away with "sin" taxes, as they are a form of "legislating morality," and government has no business being in the morality business. Second, assess the taxes objectively based on cost calculations. I ran the numbers once for cigarettes, turned out to be about $2.50 per pack, and most smokers would not object to pay-as-you-go coverage for smoking-related risks. The same principle can be applied to every other product & service that carries a risk, including such things as skydiving lessons, mountain climbing equipment, circular saws, BB-guns, etc. etc. etc.

The point of that exercise being to make those lifestyle choices cost-neutral to society, thereby removing any basis for anyone to attempt to legislate morality by restricting peoples' choices in risky activities. In other words, maximize individual liberty. If you want to smoke two packs a day and I don't have to pay for the risk, fine with me, and I have no right to tell you to stop. If you want to climb mountains and I don't have to pay for the Spatula Squad if you slip, fine with me, and I have no right to tell you to stop.

So in effect by killing off a parasitic industry that has abused its own liberty, and replacing it with something that has a proven track record of success, we can also maximize individual liberty, which is always a good thing (subject to sustainability considerations which are also a blunt fact of life).

----

Meanwhile back to our regularly scheduled doomsterism...

[bshirt]

Excellent points, gg3 (as always).

But the idea of the "govn" having 100% control of the health industry just scares me to death. Look how they screw up everything they touch. "Everything".

Could you imagine the endless bureaucracy/cost that would be installed if they were 100% running the show? I know, it may be hard to believe it could be worse than the mess it presently is. But with those nimrods, I gotta believe they'll easily get it done.

Instead, how about removing the insane "license" requirements? Anybody who's sick can hire anybody and/or method of treatment they want. It's horrible in that treatments used in other countries are illegal here in the US. If I'm dying of cancer why can't "I" decide who's going to treat me and how? Who the hell is some bureaucrat to tell me who and how I can try to save my life?

Secondly, elliminate all lawsuits from medical care. You pay your $$ and take your chances. That's it. The reality is that currently a big percentage of outrageous medical cost is to keep the legions of lawyers away. Keep those scum out of the picture and I'll bet we're talking a 50% expense drop right there.

I really like your suggestions of "freedom" in medical care. Damn straight and well said. But honestly, gg3, freedom and government go together like oil and water.