Maybe the question of what nations would survive U.S. economic collapse with a spring in their step and a song in their hearts is actually too complex to answer meaningfully- like making an accurate model of the weather five years ahead. Because wealth is concentrated in the U.S.A. and foreigners own a lot of properties here, it is rather difficult to describe a U.S. economic collapse for-itself. Does it mean that the very rich lose money- even Warren Buffet may have billions and billions invested overseas and in China. If the rich lose their shirts should the poor or middle class care?
Warrent Buffett seems to prefer U.S. investments. Yet S&P 500 multinational index stocks have a lot of international exposure. Where the wealth is of the 1% is rather amorphous. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/17/a-stubborn-investing-rule-shared-by-jack-bogle-and-warren-buffett.html
The tragedy of the rich becoming less rich is meaningful only so far as it would affect an American’s standard of living who isn’t rich, adversely. If Bill Gates loses his American fortune and has to survive in Kenya on beans and bush meat programmers that formerly worked for Microsoft might need to go online to work for the Chinese or French- who can say?
U.S. economic collapse that means the government is broke and needs to get out of business and allow reorganization would make the 50 states consolidate into a few regional republics and one or two socialist-corporatist entities. Boston was one of the founding locations of the nation and may be left holding the bag on U.S. public debt (it would only be a few dozens of trillions probably).
Safety is also a concept with numerous meanings. In the breakdown of social order those nations that mostly ban gun ownership by private citizens very likely would number among the most dangerous places to live. States with farming surpluses would be good prospects. Russia and the Ukraine might be alright places to live if the planet is in great chaos and the people own an average of 4.3 guns per household. Afghanistan might be alright for Afghans since they are fairly independent people that know which end of a gun is the working end.
Warrent Buffett seems to prefer U.S. investments. Yet S&P 500 multinational index stocks have a lot of international exposure. Where the wealth is of the 1% is rather amorphous. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/17/a-stubborn-investing-rule-shared-by-jack-bogle-and-warren-buffett.html
The tragedy of the rich becoming less rich is meaningful only so far as it would affect an American’s standard of living who isn’t rich, adversely. If Bill Gates loses his American fortune and has to survive in Kenya on beans and bush meat programmers that formerly worked for Microsoft might need to go online to work for the Chinese or French- who can say?
U.S. economic collapse that means the government is broke and needs to get out of business and allow reorganization would make the 50 states consolidate into a few regional republics and one or two socialist-corporatist entities. Boston was one of the founding locations of the nation and may be left holding the bag on U.S. public debt (it would only be a few dozens of trillions probably).
Safety is also a concept with numerous meanings. In the breakdown of social order those nations that mostly ban gun ownership by private citizens very likely would number among the most dangerous places to live. States with farming surpluses would be good prospects. Russia and the Ukraine might be alright places to live if the planet is in great chaos and the people own an average of 4.3 guns per household. Afghanistan might be alright for Afghans since they are fairly independent people that know which end of a gun is the working end.
No comments:
Post a Comment