by mmasters » Sun 07 Jul 2013, 00:03:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mmasters', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Exactly. Given that (money==debt==promise-of-future-work==energy) we will ultimately (how soon is anyone's guess?) enter into a deflation. Perhaps a deflationary spiral? When that happens all of our expectations built up during the increasing-energy regime will be turned on their heads.
--Decreasing energy==decreasing money supply.
--Things will be worth less (not more) in today's dollar.
--The opposite of inflation.
--Less money to buy things.
--Less trade.
--More indebtedness.
--Less power to the people.
--Less money.
Who wins? Those willing to accept labor for food. And who would that be? The landowners. The farmers.
I suppose more particularly it'll be stagflation on the way down (deflation + inflation in food and gas prices). The essential things in life will drive the economy, much like how rural towns operate on the essentials in life, this will become most everywhere. I think Jim Rodgers is right, the farmers/farmland owners will profit in the future because next wave of globalization will be that of essentialism.
After that there wont be anywhere left for the fractional money system to take us. That's when I predict socialism will come in--once the playing field has been reduced to that level the people will have no power left.
Exactly! Just like the 1970's when essential items (like food and gas) inflated in value, and discretionary items (many consumer products) deflated. That's first I've heard of that term, "essentialism," but it makes so much sense, real/pure form of free trade perhaps closer to a barter system?
As for the socialism, I see that too, but the question remains what kind. There are all sorts of command economies; Marxist-Leninist socialist states, Soviet-type central planning which might look awfully attractive. Compared feudal serfdoms, though one would hope we have gotten behind that, at least in the West.