I don’t want to be a doomer, but if you’re 18 and you’re planning on retiring in 50 years in a stable society by using paper that isn’t backed by actual value…do some research on global warming before you make your final decision…
The value of fiat currencies are backed by the state. In the absence of a successful global revolution achieving communism in the next 50 years, this retirement will have to be under a state.
Things of “actual value” i.e. food, water, shelter and the means of producing them cannot be hoarded in sufficient quantities to retire on with a state backing your ownership of these things.
Planning to retire in a stateless non-communist future is idiocy.
Global warming will either cause the collapse of near all modern states, or it won’t. Planning for the former eventuality is a fantasy because you can’t know how such an event will actually happen, where is safe, whether you can be safe and you also have no guarantee of being nearby whatever you have stockpiled when the collapse happens.
In the event that the world’s various states do survive the next 50 years, planning to retire with currency is probably fine, and it’s not any less safe a bet than anything else you can do individually.
The value of fiat currencies are backed by the state. In the absence of a successful global revolution achieving communism in the next 50 years, this retirement will have to be under a state.
Agreed.
Things of “actual value” i.e. food, water, shelter and the means of producing them cannot be hoarded in sufficient quantities to retire on with a state backing your ownership of these things.
I’m assuming you meant “without a state backing your ownership”. That was kind of my point, but I didn’t feel like writing a whole thing. If you’re living in the Maldives, for example, and saving Maldivian Rufiyaas for your retirement in 2075…do some research on global warming before you make your final decision. The state in which you’re earning backed-currency is not guaranteed to survive global warming to the extent that it can secure your stable retirement. You can’t eat money.
Global warming will either cause the collapse of near all modern states, or it won’t. Planning for the former eventuality is a fantasy…
Planning for global warming is a fantasy, as opposed to just completely ignoring it and planning on retiring like normal?
In the event that the world’s various states do survive the next 50 years, planning to retire with currency is probably fine, and it’s not any less safe a bet than anything else you can do individually.
My argument is that you can not reasonably expect all of the world’s various states to survive the next 50 years (and then the next 20 years after that while you’re “retired”). Building up community organizations, learning useful survival skills, and generally planning for the eventuality that your state won’t have the resources or willpower to meaningfully respond to natural disasters in your area are all pretty safe bets for long-term survival.
Planning to retire in a stateless non-communist future is idiocy.
I think you would be surprised how much of the world is going to be stateless and non-communist after decades of catastrophic climate change. Large portions of the planet will be generally unsurvivable.
But this is all essentially a sidebar to the point that I (badly) tried to make in the first place: If your plan is to work 40+ hours a week for 50 years so that you can earn your promised stable retirement, maybe set some extra time aside now to enjoy life while things aren’t fucked beyond repair, because that retirement is not a guarantee.
My “retirement” plan is more likely to include “dying in the water wars” than “cashing out my social security check every week from the U.S. Bank of Hawaii”.
In the event that the world’s various states do survive the next 50 years,
Unless your retirement account is a mix of multiple currencies held in person you’re banking (pun intended) on your particular government and financial institutions surviving for the next 50 years and not facing a single hyperinflation crisis. Even if you hold gold you’re banking on there not being a steep drop in the price of gold.
I would say if you can afford it at least keep stockpiles of stuff like dry rice (which lasts llmost indefinitely is stored right), canned food, maybe medicine.
I don’t want to be a doomer, but if you’re 18 and you’re planning on retiring in 50 years in a stable society by using paper that isn’t backed by actual value…do some research on global warming before you make your final decision…
The value of fiat currencies are backed by the state. In the absence of a successful global revolution achieving communism in the next 50 years, this retirement will have to be under a state.
Things of “actual value” i.e. food, water, shelter and the means of producing them cannot be hoarded in sufficient quantities to retire on with a state backing your ownership of these things.
Planning to retire in a stateless non-communist future is idiocy.
Global warming will either cause the collapse of near all modern states, or it won’t. Planning for the former eventuality is a fantasy because you can’t know how such an event will actually happen, where is safe, whether you can be safe and you also have no guarantee of being nearby whatever you have stockpiled when the collapse happens.
In the event that the world’s various states do survive the next 50 years, planning to retire with currency is probably fine, and it’s not any less safe a bet than anything else you can do individually.
Agreed.
I’m assuming you meant “without a state backing your ownership”. That was kind of my point, but I didn’t feel like writing a whole thing. If you’re living in the Maldives, for example, and saving Maldivian Rufiyaas for your retirement in 2075…do some research on global warming before you make your final decision. The state in which you’re earning backed-currency is not guaranteed to survive global warming to the extent that it can secure your stable retirement. You can’t eat money.
Planning for global warming is a fantasy, as opposed to just completely ignoring it and planning on retiring like normal?
My argument is that you can not reasonably expect all of the world’s various states to survive the next 50 years (and then the next 20 years after that while you’re “retired”). Building up community organizations, learning useful survival skills, and generally planning for the eventuality that your state won’t have the resources or willpower to meaningfully respond to natural disasters in your area are all pretty safe bets for long-term survival.
I think you would be surprised how much of the world is going to be stateless and non-communist after decades of catastrophic climate change. Large portions of the planet will be generally unsurvivable.
But this is all essentially a sidebar to the point that I (badly) tried to make in the first place: If your plan is to work 40+ hours a week for 50 years so that you can earn your promised stable retirement, maybe set some extra time aside now to enjoy life while things aren’t fucked beyond repair, because that retirement is not a guarantee.
My “retirement” plan is more likely to include “dying in the water wars” than “cashing out my social security check every week from the U.S. Bank of Hawaii”.
Unless your retirement account is a mix of multiple currencies held in person you’re banking (pun intended) on your particular government and financial institutions surviving for the next 50 years and not facing a single hyperinflation crisis. Even if you hold gold you’re banking on there not being a steep drop in the price of gold.
I would say if you can afford it at least keep stockpiles of stuff like dry rice (which lasts llmost indefinitely is stored right), canned food, maybe medicine.