Justin’s note: Today,
Doug and I continue our conversation on why the U.S. could dissolve over
time. Doug says the problems are all bubbling to the surface…and when the
U.S. eventually breaks apart “it will not be peaceful.” (If you missed Part
I, you can catch up right here.)
Justin: What
about political tensions? Because, as I’m sure you’ve seen, the far-left and
far-right are becoming more and more antagonistic. In some cases, they’ve
even become violent towards each other.
Could
radical political ideologies cause the country to break apart?
Doug: Yes, I
think so.
In the
late ‘60s and the early ‘70s, hundreds of bombings took place at
universities, banks, and all kinds of places. The National Guard was in
cities like Detroit during the riots, and they were raking buildings with .50
caliber machine guns. It was wild.
I don’t
think most remember this. At least, I don’t see it being brought up anywhere.
I lived
in Washington DC then. It seemed like there was tear gas in the air half the
time I went out on a date on a Friday or Saturday night.
But as
wild and wooly as things were back then, what we have now is much more
serious.
The
racial element is still there, but the ideological element is even more
pronounced.
In those
days, people at least talked to each other. You could have a disagreement,
and it was a simple difference of opinion.
It’s much
worse now. Today, there’s a visceral hatred between the left and the right,
between the people that live in the so-called red counties and blue counties.
You add
that to the racial situation. Then throw in the fact that the rich are
getting richer at an exponential rate while the middle class is disappearing.
And let’s
not forget the large-scale subsidized migration of people from totally alien
Third World hellholes. This is not what the U.S. was founded on. Before
changes in the immigration law that were made in the ‘60s, immigrants were
culturally compatible opportunity seekers that were coming to America to
improve themselves.
Now,
people from all kinds of alien places are being imported by the hundreds of
thousands by NGOs; they then go on welfare in enclaves in different places
around the country. This is unlikely to end well. The U.S. is no longer a
country.
That
said, I’m actually for open borders. But it’s only possible if, A, there is
zero welfare to attract the wrong types. And, B, all property was privately
owned, to help ensure everyone is self-supporting.
Justin: But
Doug, aren’t you against large nation states? Would the Divided States of
America be better?
Doug: Absolutely.
In my ideal world, there would be approximately seven billion little nation
states on the planet, all of them independent.
It would
be excellent if the U.S. split into smaller entities, where the people that
lived in these entities shared more in common with each other.
And let
me go further. I think it was a mistake for the U.S. to have come together
with the Constitution of 1789. The Articles of Confederation should have
stayed in existence, with a few modifications. The Constitutional Convention
of 1789 was actually a coup. A successful, non-violent coup. Most people
didn’t really care because the government was such a trivial factor in their
lives in those days.
I’m just
afraid that when the U.S. breaks up, which inevitably it will, it may not be
peaceful. The existence of the USA—which is now just one of 200 other nation
states, no longer anything special—is not part of the cosmic firmament. The
original founding ideas of America expressed in the Declaration of
Independence have been lost, washed away. The absence of those principles is
why I say it’s going to come to a bad end.
Justin: Do you
think the United States will dissolve over time? Or will something set this
in motion, possibly a financial or economic crisis?
Doug: An
economic crisis always brings things to the fore.
When the
standard of living is dropping, the government inevitably finds somebody or
something to blame…anything other than itself.
Usually,
they point the finger at foreigners. But if you get the wrong people in the
government, they can point fingers at domestic enemies, the way the Germans
did with the Jews in the ‘30s, or the way the Soviets did with the kulaks at
the same time. Or the way the Chinese did with its enemies of the State under
Mao. There are many, many other examples. Political power attracts the worst
kind of people—and then brings out the worst in them.
Economic
turmoil causes social turmoil and political turmoil. And one of the things
that scares me most is that if things get spooky within the U.S., people in
the government will try to find a foreign enemy in order to “unite” the
country.
Incidentally,
I don’t feel that uniting the country is necessarily a good idea. It all
depends on which direction they’re united towards, and united against what.
And do the people of the United States have enough in common anymore to even
be united? I think not, in an age of multiculturalism.
There are
a lot of problems, and they’re bubbling to the surface. When the economy gets
bad, which it will, I think the pot will boil over.
Justin’s
note: As Doug says, America’s problems are coming to a head.
Unfortunately, most investors aren’t prepared for what’s coming.
That’s
why Doug and his team just released this urgent video that explains everything you need to
know about the crisis that’s about to make landfall…and why you need to take
action today. Click here to watch it now.
Reader Mailbag
I can’t
see any currency that is unregulated by government and open to trading
manipulation and with no control for audit or to control money flow or
enforce taxes and fees to exist for long. When necessary, government
intervention will shut the door and the speculation will end with a thump.
You will hear the whimper from the last in. I will stay with gold. I think
your article essentially says this except you see us early in the bubble. So
money can still be made by those accepting the risk.
—David
Bitcoin
main value is as a transfer agent, as you said. But who knows how much that's
worth? Is it over or undervalued now?
Bitcoin
is too volatile to use as a currency. And Aristotle was talking about
currency, not money. There is a great distinction between the two. The
distinction is irrelevant to the working man, but very relevant to people who
study the economy and currencies.
I don't
know if bitcoin is a good speculation or not. Like the tulip mania, it
depends on when you buy or sell. There's nothing that stabilizes bitcoin's
value. That makes it too much of a risk for me to invest in it.
—Tom
|
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Casey's readers comment on bitcoin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment