Home » General

My Perspective on the Doomsayers!

31 October 2009 1,990 views 3 Comments

I watched Cramer on Friday and I listened to his talk, “One Year Later”, and I have to completely agree with him. But yet we have gone up and down, and on CBC comments like the following are written.

There is no recovery. the crash is imminent.
stock up on supplies and food.
the end is close

Move past the dead cat bounces, we are moving into the greatest depression. The western world is bankrupt. We are only going further into debt with all these taxpayer sponsered bailouts. This may be the biggest fraud in history

When I read such comments I just smile. My sister, who is a political scientist and economist, and I had a discussion on this topic. For those that don’t know my sister lives in Ecuador and has been there for the past decade. She has witnessed crashes, riots and just pure chaos. So I talked to her and asked if this was possible, because I sure did not believe it was.

Her opinion went along the following and I am paraphrasing and including my own opinions.

Riots, crashes and chaos are a reaction to people being unhappy regarding certain situations. The problem with people thinking about stocking up on supplies and food is that they are drawing the wrong conclusions and watching too much Hollywood. It is not rational.

Let’s say for the moment that a group of people decided to riot. The reaction would be that the police would immediately control the situation. Let’s say that the police are unable to control the situation, then the military will step in. And if there is one thing that has been shown time and time again, an adequate military can control a situation quite effectively. The military like in the Western world will have no problems putting a control on the entire situation.

Thus for argument’s sake lets say that the military is unable to control the situation, what results? Try Somalia. You get pure chaos and whatever you as an individual save will go to waste since you will not be able to fend off the masses. The idea that a single person can hamster and then fend of a population is absolutely ludicrous. In such a situation the more rational reaction is that the person who hamsters is taken out and shot on sight.

Ok now let’s go to the other side of the argument and consider that the military does get control. Will then there be the greatest depression? Maybe, maybe not. One can make the argument that dictators can get the job done, witness Pinochet. But the costs of that dictatorship can be very high and morally questionable. And in most cases with a dictatorship people suffer. So let’s say we have a dictatorship and you hamster away, you will most likely have everything taken away and if you were to struggle you would be shot on sight.

So in either case getting ready for the end and saving everything you have will result in you getting shot or having taken everything away anyways. The belief that you can somehow save yourself, while the rest of the world goes to hell in a hand basket is an illusion. And to believe that somehow buying gold is going to save you is yet another illusion because if the end is near and you have value it will be taken away from you in force.

Am I crazy? No, you need to read “The Wealth of Nations”, by Adam Smith and he talks about the need for taxes and justice:

Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and*23 extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days labour, civil government is not so necessary.

Adam Smith is very clearly saying that for one to posses, and keep those possessions you must have a civil society since it is that society that allows you to keep what you earned. If there is no civil society then you will not have protection and not own wealth. THUS, if the world is coming to an end you are going to loose everything you have since the civil society will come to an end as well. You can’t have one without the other.

So my suggestion to you readers who think the world is coming to an end. Get over it, no amount of planning is going to get you ready for it, because when it does come you have no idea what it will look like. And if see it coming, RUN! Run to the hills.

Otherwise when the market collapses, buy the stocks, wait and be happy!

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

3 Comments »

  • Patrick said:

    This is why I live in a country that is mostly empty.

    They say “mo´ money, mo´problems” and I believe that, I also believe “mo´pop. densisty, mo´ problems”. Props to Jay Z.

    In all seriousness, its good to hedge against systemic risk, you just can´t really do it at Wal-mart. The only real hedge against systemic risk is having good working relationships with people and soil in a locality where the weight of your relationships relative to the local population densisty carries a non-trivial assymmetry. Ultimately wealth manifests in our relationships with people in society. Investing some US dollars in giving to such a community so that they find you credible might be the best sort of credit to be invested in.

  • Christian (author) said:

    ?
    I think I know what you are saying, but could you explain it more?

  • Patrick said:

    I´ll give three concrete examples of how this hedge can be implemented.

    One example is the typical liberal idea of an exit plan, you have some folks in Marin county, they start growing food organically at a modest scale and try to improve their efficiency, sunk cost infrastructure like solar water pumps and drip irrigation do a wonderful job of it. They sell their food at the local market so they have cash to pay property taxes and buy PS3s or whatever, they have some means of livelyhood as well as a working relationship with the soil, they have good relationships with the people that also own land in upper Marin and some good contacts in San Rafeal. But then shit goes down hard, Southern California is whispered about in horror stories, and these folks have to hope that their freinds who do own guns will look out for them, or otherwise that the pesticide spraying over the Bay Area has feminized everyone sufficiently to keep them from violence. Then there´s water supplies, that´s a whole ugly story and the achilles heel of China. Bottom line, these people have a wonderful relationship with thier local economy down to blades of grass absorbing solar power, but weighted against the population density they are at risk of being mobbed out. This probably is a good hedge in many parts of the US but definetly not greater metropolitan areas.

    Second example, one of the guys who publishes the Casey Report is opening a sort of estate in Salta, Argentina, he calls it Cayafate. They´re going to have a winery and a restaurant and sell parcels to people who think money can buy you an alternative social contract to fall back on. Unfortunately the social contract is not an exchange traded derivative, it comes over the counter and is highly subject to default when your only relationship with real local people is ordering meat off the parrilla. There are a handful of places like this around Arentina, particularly in Mendoza. If 2001 happened all over again in Argentina, well, I hope these folks have hired some really hardcore ex-facista to guard them while they sleep. Sadly, this is what is likely to be the model in many parts of the world. They have the low population density but even then, no working relationships with the real community.

    Third example, a retired trader that I know lives out in a relatively remote part of one of the nicer provinces. He is going to take money out of some trust fund incorporated in CT to buy a drilling machine for digging deep wells, and also to invest in a machine shop so that fine mechanical parts can be furbished. He knows everyone in the village he lives in and most people who do commerce in the bigger town over. He speaks the language fluently. He is involed in local politics. If I buy property out here after the knock-on effects bring prices back to reality, I want to buy within that guy´s sphere of influence. That´s the closest thing to a functional, all-terrain systemic hedge that I´ve come across.