reply to post by Anonymous Avatar
I know a little about finance and economics, but this guy always confuses me.
I agree that companies and corporations should have been allowed to fail.
It's survival of the fittest. It's correct that a business which has failed through its own mistakes and greed should fail, and be replaced by
another with greater chance of learning from those mistakes and not doing the same.
No doubt it would have been difficult, and many would have lost their money. But that is their risk. It is their responsibility to know where their
money is. Senior management staff could have been sued for their bad business actions and money could have been secured. Just as it was in previous
What I don't agree with is is allowing for more deregulation, which is what he seems to propose. These bankers and senior business people have shown
consistently that they have no moral compass. They will happily take millions in payouts while their lower employees lose their jobs and while their
company goes belly up. They are corrupt, and allowing that to continue will only create more greed and corruption in the future.
So, I agree with him on allowing companies to fail. But I completely disagree with him in his ideas about allowing big business to act without
restraint or limitations from government.
On the stocking-up of supplies...
I think in this day and age this is a good idea. I think we all need to be heading toward preparing for self-sufficiency. In all honesty we should
never have allowed our own responsibilities to be so completely transferred to external sources (business and government).
Wherever possible we should be growing our own food, producing our own energy, reusing and recycling everything we can ourselves or trading such
things with others.
We've all become far too complacent, and we've forgotten how to provide for ourselves and our families "just in case".
I am certain that over the next few years we'll see a marked increase in the use of solar and wind energy for the home. This will lead to
improvements in development, advances in technology and lowering of cost in manufacture.
Those who refuse to accept it will find their energy bills rocketing as energy companies try to stay in position with fewer and fewer customers on the
grid, so eventually people will have no choice but to follow the energy revolution.
It would be cheaper to prepare for it now than find yourself paying double for what you use on the grid.
I think he has gone a little overboard on the cigarettes and alcohol. On this occasion he does seem to be imagining things a lot worse than they will
be. Sure in inner cities it will be worse and I can agree with needing these to keep certain people off your back. But for most of us, I don't think
it will be THAT bad. You'll be better off having vital goods to swap, things that others actually NEED rather than WANT.
For most of us a complete collapse will require improved home security, trips to a local trading market a few times a week, community initiatives,
home farming, home energy production and minimal use of it.
And to me, that sounds good rather than bad. It's what we should be doing anyway. More time with family and friends, appreciating the important
things in life.
We already have the technology to live like this, so why aren't we using it?