predictions are done.

Ok I'm not doing all this work without getting a post out of it so If you want to read them and argue them, see my blog post

http://canadiansilverbug.blogspot.com/2009/10/crystal-balls-five-year-view.html

In 5 years . . .

. . . the U.S. will be in trouble: depression, authoritarian/totalitarian gov't. Americans will abandon even the pretence of liberty. Freedom will be deemed to have been a failure. The standard of living will decline, though there will be a wealthy elite beholden to the state. Entrepreneurs will be based in Central and East Asia. A body run by the Russian/Chinese/Indian gov'ts will exert pressure on the U.S. to conform to its notions of socialism, just as the UN today harangues states that displease members of UN Security Council; in 5 years, the UN will be clearly fading into vanity along with U.S. influence.

. . . the U.S. will bog itself down further in foreign intervention as it becomes more politically/militarily aggressive. Expect the use of Bio-chem weapons or other dirty munitions, and perhaps tactical nuclear strikes far from D.C.

. . . the U.S. will break up a la the Soviet Union. The general cause will be the same (the two regimes were similar in their embrace of central planning). Von Mises proved in the 1920s that economic calculation in the absence of the market is impossible; this must lead to misallocation of resources and economic ruin. Expect jurisdictions to attempt secession.

. . . the Internet will be largely suppressed--at least officially (people will find ways around it).

. . . the idea that the elderly ought to be euthanized will gain currency, though this is a longer-term trend that I have been predicting for about 5 years now.

. . . enthusiasm for the natural environment will fizzle when people are struggling to survive; they will see that the green outlook is (1) a luxury and (2) that it harms them.

. . . Canada will experience severe economic hardship and the freedom of its citizens will be further reduced, but people living inside its borders will escape most of the problems of those under U.S. gov't jusrisdiction.

. . . Third World emigration to the West will result in a different political reality here. The influence of Asians will lead to a polarization effect: some (those self-starters seeking better lives who see the link between political/cultural/economic differences) will press for liberalization, others (whose background in the Third World largely precluded their exposure to the benefits of freedom) will advocate authoritarianism; the multicult types in the West will support the latter.

. . . the EU will sink further into socialism. It will become mercantilist in its rivalry with Asia for political world domination. European society will become like England has been since WWII: dour, grey, lifeless, regimented.

. . . The Toronto Maple Leafs will not have been able to field a championship team.

The above is a mostly pessimistic view. If I were more optimistic, I would predict that the end of the nation-state is approaching, and although there would be mass bloodshed as the statists see that their end is coming, a golden age awaits us. This is possible largely because of the Internet; people are now able to see the simple arguments in favour of liberty and the bankrupt arguments in favour of the state, how badly they are faring under state control, how the richest peoples are also the freest, and how the state gets more and more expensive while stripping away our freedoms and providing fewer "services". Also, the collapse of the greenback (which I predict, along with hyperinflation) will spell the general end of fiat currency.

Note: I don't pretend to know the future nor do I claim I can predict it in any way. These are guesses based on my knowledge of the laws of human action, which might be construed as economic, and historical trends; the most significant events are singular, contrary to trends, and inherently unpredictable (e.g., collapse of the U.S.S.R.--though Austrian theory posits that the visitation of economic reality was inevitable at some point; the rise of the Internet; the attacks of 9/11/01).

It would seem we agree on some of the outcomes if not on all the nuances of why

Quote :

. the U.S. will be in trouble: depression, authoritarian/totalitarian gov't. Americans will abandon even the pretence of liberty.

Quote :

. . the U.S. will break up a la the Soviet Union.

I think there is a movement towards freedom in that many of the states have seccessionist movement and that State Governments are making proclamations that reserve their rights where the Federal government had interfered. OF course this may not be a simple craving for liberty but a realization that the Feds can no longer bribe the States with cash to relinquish their legal juristiction. I don't think a U.S. collapse will splinter as readily as the USSR did because there are less defined regional identities in the U.S. vs. the pre established national identities of the former soviet republics. There will however be serious growth of independance movements but the prevailing and fearful us (U.S) vs. the world mentality will over ride the local desire to dissolve the union.

Dissolution is probably in the future but further along the Peak Oil decline when the logisitics of supporting a massive country will leave no choice.

Quote :

. . . the U.S. will bog itself down further in foreign intervention as it becomes more politically/militarily aggressive. Expect the use of Bio-chem weapons or other dirty munitions, and perhaps tactical nuclear strikes far from D.C.

I think the U.S. might lashout at a few "rogue" states but without the draft it will be cheap shots not full invasions. Should they support an Israeli attack on Iran the SHTF, Iran will spark up the middle east leaving the oil infrastruce destroyed and we will have TEOWAKI. Iran has better air defense, better air force, better navy, than iraq, as well they have better anti ship missles than the U.S. The Sunburn missle launched from small boats, planes, subs and land will sink a U.S, fleet if engaged.

Quote :

. . the idea that the elderly ought to be euthanized will gain currency, though this is a longer-term trend that I have been predicting for about 5 years now.

I don't get this, I think lack of resources individuals, HMOs and the state will mean medical treatment may be rationed in the future and many high $ proceedures will not pass a cost benefit analysis resulting in reduced health care but outright euthanasia seems a little much. If the crisis comes sooner than later, many old have more appropriate skill sets for survival than the young. Yes bodies will be failing but they remember how to survive with less and do for themselves.

Quote :

. . . enthusiasm for the natural environment will fizzle when people are struggling to survive; they will see that the green outlook is (1) a luxury and (2) that it harms them.

The divide between the two camps will grow even larger and governments will allow toxic mining and deforestation and such where previously banned , quick profit enviromental crimes will increae, but for those individuals that embrace green sustainability pracitces like permaculture, they will find themselves more independant from problems of resource depletion and inflating food prices. They could well become afluent should food shortages arise.

Hard times during 2 world wars, the pre Oil boom industrial slump, Cuba's attempt to become food independant since the soviet collapse shows that people/regions/countries can succeed by nurturing nature and not exploiting it. The west has the land and education to understand this, bark eating north Koreans , not so much!!!

This is why I've been investigating the Transition towns initiative, a grass roots movement out of the Uk that inclusively involves citizens, business and Local gov to adapt to a lower carbon future (from a mostly peak oil rational), to improve quality of life(without fixating on total wealth) increase local food security and relocalization of the economy towards greater self sufficiency in the needs of life. I'm currently looking for a few bodies to start a steering committe for Newmarket.

I don't understand how refraining from shitting in ones nest would be considered harmful or a luxury. People maintain their houses because they see the value of not having it fall on their heads. I think that the majority of people understand that having less and behaving better is a preferable solution to turning the entire planet into an upsized Easter Island, be it caused by CC, ocean acidification, deforestation, over populuation, peak everything etc. They just need to see that there is going to be a point where that choice will need to be made, and probably soon.

For me a luxury is having something I don't need to survive and thrive. I could do without a car if need be, tv, computer, dito. In fact we made the concious decision to be a one car/ 1 tv/1 computer/ no game system family. I would gladly never fly anywhere for vacation.

I cannot however survive without the means to feed and shelter myself, or get access to safe air and water. These things plus leisure, community, family security and culture provide more happiness than greater consumption, and additional societal consumption was proven to have nearly no improvement on happiness since 1961. There are many luxuries to reduce before I would say that being green was hurting me, and if taking that hurt means my kids won't be hurt to a greater extent, bring it on!

Quote :

. . . the EU will sink further into socialism. It will become mercantilist in its rivalry with Asia for political world domination. European society will become like England has been since WWII: dour, grey, lifeless, regimented.

actually , I see the EU with a greater chance to splinter than the U.S. short term because of National Identities, the northern/latin split, too much growth too quickly and the likely hood that some members will be booted out shortly because they cannot meet the fiscal requirements layed out in the constiution.

Quote :

Also, the collapse of the greenback (which I predict, along with hyperinflation) will spell the general end of fiat currency.

or at least one lame attempt at a world fiat currency,,,

have you backed up this belief with any hard currency yet?

I'm not predicting outright or positive euthanasia for the elderly (and certainly not within 5 years), but I do fear that in the coming decades they will be denied treatment by monopolistic state medicine (should the state still exist) and that society will come to support their abandonment (or at least not oppose it or perhaps be unable to oppose it except in their minds). Anything can be rationalized, and many will believe and even defend it. This trend will be countered (and defeated, I hope) by those who recognize that their particular loved ones are real people and hence, that all people deserve compassion; this will hinder the emergence of a more abstract, state-driven ideology that will hold that the old deprive the young of wealth (large numbers of retirees will learn that the property extorted from them by the state under the illusion that they were paying into a retirement fund won't be there; the denial of these funds must be rationalized somehow, the assumed unworthiness of the elderly is one possibility, gov't mismanagement will not be recognized in any significant way). The elderly will be depicted as selfish hoarders, unreasonably disposing of "society's" resources to a disproportionate degree.

kubera wrote:

This is why I've been investigating the Transition towns initiative, a grass roots movement out of the Uk that inclusively involves citizens, business and Local gov to adapt to a lower carbon future (from a mostly peak oil rational), to improve quality of life(without fixating on total wealth) increase local food security and relocalization of the economy towards greater self sufficiency in the needs of life. I'm currently looking for a few bodies to start a steering committe for Newmarket.

Sounds good on the surface, but what does "adapt to a lower carbon future" mean, and how would the initiative "improve quality of life"? How would "local food security" be "increas[ed]"? Isn't "relocalization of the economy towards greater self sufficiency in the needs of life" up to each of us individually?

kubera wrote:

I don't understand how refraining from shitting in ones nest would be considered harmful or a luxury.

Government decrees are harmful.

Feeling good about harmful environmental policies is a luxury--at best.

kubera wrote:

I think that the majority of people understand that having less and behaving better is a preferable solution to turning the entire planet into an upsized Easter Island. . . .

If they understand it, let them choose it for themselves.

kubera wrote:

[...] governments will allow toxic mining and deforestation and such where previously banned . . . enviromental crimes. . . . people/regions/countries can succeed by nurturing nature and not exploiting it [...]

People have a right to exploit their property in any way they choose, provided they don't cause physical harm to others' property. Thus, tort law, which deals with injury, ought to be adequate to the task--in contradistinction to governmental legislation, which legally trumps, and therefore effectively squeezes out, all other forms of resolution. The state thus prevents genuine resolution and thwarts justice.

Unless a polluter (et al) has demonstrably caused demonstrable harm, there is no justification for force and thus no role for the state to play. Thus, calling for legislation is backwards and morally wrong (i.e., evil). It's also detrimental to human rights, the economy, our psychic well-being (it creates moral confusion because the use of force against the innocent is portrayed as something good, a dangerous lesson for the rest of society), and our mutual amity (these issues tend to divide the population against itself, distracting us from what are surely more important issues, such as the destruction the state wreaks in every area of our civilization).

kubera wrote:

[...]

have you backed up this belief with any hard currency yet?

No.

kubera wrote:

[...]

I think there is a movement towards freedom in that many of the states have seccessionist movement and that State Governments are making proclamations that reserve their rights where the Federal government had interfered. OF course this may not be a simple craving for liberty but a realization that the Feds can no longer bribe the States with cash to relinquish their legal juristiction. I don't think a U.S. collapse will splinter as readily as the USSR did because there are less defined regional identities in the U.S. vs. the pre established national identities of the former soviet republics. There will however be serious growth of independance movements but the prevailing and fearful us (U.S) vs. the world mentality will over ride the local desire to dissolve the union.

While secession attempts would accompany the loss of central gov't authority, I believe a collapse of the U.S. government would be due to the unsustainable internal contradictions of central planning. Another factor: loss of gov'tal authority due to widespread recognition of the state's true nature: parasitic, wealth-devouring, murdering, problem-causing. "Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

kubera wrote:

For me a luxury is having something I don't need to survive and thrive. I could do without a car if need be, tv, computer, dito. In fact we made the concious decision to be a one car/ 1 tv/1 computer/ no game system family. I would gladly never fly anywhere for vacation.

That's freedom in action, baby. You're acting according to your own beliefs and conscience--to which you have a right. I'd rather have multiple cars, a computer, etc. Luxury is in the eye of the beholder. So is need, because both luxury and need seem to be exclusive ideal concepts but with overlap in practice, and the dividing line or zone would differ from person to person.

kubera wrote:

I cannot however survive without the means to feed and shelter myself, or get access to safe air and water. These things plus leisure, community, family security and culture provide more happiness than greater consumption, and additional societal consumption was proven to have nearly no improvement on happiness since 1961. There are many luxuries to reduce before I would say that being green was hurting me, and if taking that hurt means my kids won't be hurt to a greater extent, bring it on!

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

The various environmental laws that are being imposed on us must reduce the quality of life (living standards, wealth) of those who are prevented from acting according to their own lights. Because your actions are voluntary, you come out ahead (i.e., you have weighed the trade-offs; your decision is the one that, in your estimation, leaves you better off than the alternative). This is an absolutely crucial distinction: whether one's actions are voluntary or not.