This is one of your more complex articles, so I need time to digest a lot of it. I did pickup some salient points. We as individuals need to be able to survive 3 months (minimum) or more without any government intervention. Many of our adversaries are joining together and making alliances to help themselves when things become dire. These adversaries are already stockpiling foods to become self sufficient. By doing this the country/s are putting itself in a stronger position because it can take care of their population should a variety of events happening ie: wars, natural disasters, immigrant influx, whatever is thrown in the current mix of things.
We are not taking the necessary steps in our own county. Not at the federal, state or local level. This is a warning bell to get yourself as self sufficient as possible.
Thanks for reading, Pbr! I'm not 100% sure that the strategies that apply to nations or communities as a whole--e.g. stockpiling--can be fully translated over to individual households, but, yes, in general stocks are insurance policies of sorts, protecting the entity that creates and uses them from fluctuations in prices and supplies of necessary goods. It's one of the oldest agricultural risk management strategies there is. While full self-sufficiency (autarky) is probably not attainable for any of us, nations or households, the benefits of holding stocks of necessary goods have been forgotten over many decades of relatively peaceful and reliable international free trade. Recent shocks and crises are a good reminder of how and why economies looked different in other historical periods...global markets can be unreliable and are prone to disruption.
Thanks so much for reading and for taking the time to write back here! Really appreciate it. Agree that contemporary "free markets" aren't free in the way that their proponents suggested they would be, much like contemporary communist economies aren't really free in the way proponents suggested. In both cases, problems arise with concentrations in wealth and power, accumulation and centralization of resources in a way that fundamentally undermines individual freedoms. To my mind, in communist societies, it is the state and the party apparatus that tends capture wealth and power. But in capitalist ones like ours, ones that are "monopoly capitalist" in practice, it is major corporations that play that role. So, overall, I agree that "freedom" is bedeviled in both cases by powerful entities that capture and centralize wealth and power. A major difference is WHO is in control, the government or Big Business? This is clearly oversimplified, but I wanted to share this perspective so that we can chat a bit here if you'd like to keep doing so. Thanks again for reading!
This is one of your more complex articles, so I need time to digest a lot of it. I did pickup some salient points. We as individuals need to be able to survive 3 months (minimum) or more without any government intervention. Many of our adversaries are joining together and making alliances to help themselves when things become dire. These adversaries are already stockpiling foods to become self sufficient. By doing this the country/s are putting itself in a stronger position because it can take care of their population should a variety of events happening ie: wars, natural disasters, immigrant influx, whatever is thrown in the current mix of things.
We are not taking the necessary steps in our own county. Not at the federal, state or local level. This is a warning bell to get yourself as self sufficient as possible.
Thanks for reading, Pbr! I'm not 100% sure that the strategies that apply to nations or communities as a whole--e.g. stockpiling--can be fully translated over to individual households, but, yes, in general stocks are insurance policies of sorts, protecting the entity that creates and uses them from fluctuations in prices and supplies of necessary goods. It's one of the oldest agricultural risk management strategies there is. While full self-sufficiency (autarky) is probably not attainable for any of us, nations or households, the benefits of holding stocks of necessary goods have been forgotten over many decades of relatively peaceful and reliable international free trade. Recent shocks and crises are a good reminder of how and why economies looked different in other historical periods...global markets can be unreliable and are prone to disruption.
Thanks so much for reading and for taking the time to write back here! Really appreciate it. Agree that contemporary "free markets" aren't free in the way that their proponents suggested they would be, much like contemporary communist economies aren't really free in the way proponents suggested. In both cases, problems arise with concentrations in wealth and power, accumulation and centralization of resources in a way that fundamentally undermines individual freedoms. To my mind, in communist societies, it is the state and the party apparatus that tends capture wealth and power. But in capitalist ones like ours, ones that are "monopoly capitalist" in practice, it is major corporations that play that role. So, overall, I agree that "freedom" is bedeviled in both cases by powerful entities that capture and centralize wealth and power. A major difference is WHO is in control, the government or Big Business? This is clearly oversimplified, but I wanted to share this perspective so that we can chat a bit here if you'd like to keep doing so. Thanks again for reading!