It's The Pace Of Change That Kills You

The author’s main point stands – I don’t disagree.
But he’s only kindof right regarding the 3-body problem. 3-body and 4-body problems have exact solutions that have been known for a hundred years. The N-body problem was long believed to be unsolvable; and for that we had the calculations they describe. Worse, errors grow in magnitude (they’re unstable), so there was a limit to what you could solve.
My father, a physicist, some fifteen or more years ago, showed how to get an exact solution for the n-body problem – by hand, if need be, and also included about twenty lines of basic code that speed up the calculation.
What he shows is valid for Newtonian mechanics. Actual orbital calculations would have to include general relativity, because Mercury’s orbit is under a different flow of time,due to the Sun’s gravitational well effect. The problem won’t be all that different, just a little more complicated.
That said, I can agree that if we have progressed into a zone (like Mercury’s orbit) where we don’t understand the equations, it’s next to impossible to be sure of the result from moment to moment. But that, it seems to me, makes it absolutely critical to exit the entire system.
I can think of some ways. I don’t think it’s possible if we discuss it online, though.

Not quite my understanding of chaos theory, Chris. A system of more than 2 variables is chaotic but is deterministic if you know the starting conditions exactly. The classic example is the weather system. The future state of the weather can be determined exactly if the starting conditions are known exactly to an infinite degree. However chaos theory says that very small variations in the starting conditions can result in huge differences in outcomes. Hence the famous ‘butterfly effect’, where a minute difference in wind currents caused by a butterfly flapping its wings alters the starting conditions that ultimately produces a hurricane. Weather computers will typically run their models thousands of times with slightly different starting conditions, then compare all the predictions that come out. They then choose the most common prediction with a confidence interval.
Anyway, regarding the financial system, Minsky recognised its chaotic nature. The Minsky moment will arrive.

it won’t be long till you drag your feet just to slow the circle down.

  • Joni Mitchell

I think we didn’t see crush yet because Masters are very happy with present situation. They can print money , steal , change the law , puppet gorvements everywhere and nobody to chalenge Them. Why to change anything? and They had a lot the time to prepare and face one day China and Russia. I am certain that ,They know exactly what They do , they have resources , money , smartest people , top technology etc and They not going away unless something very big happens - revolution ,war etc.

As someone who’s made the “big move” 3 years ago (to an entirely different country no less), these are the things I appreciate (or desire) the most:

  1. Being close to family or having the ability to visit family on at least an occasional basis is important. My wife is in the best situation with this, as the bulk of her family is here in Mongolia. But we always take one trip spending anywhere between 4-8 weeks with my family and friends in the US each year. I would really like to visit more, but the travel costs can add up. I’m resolved to suck it up and settle for the one trip a year until our business efforts here bear larger fruit, but I admit it is a little hard for me.
  2. Getting away from bureaucratic nonsense and the resulting drain from my pocket. Some of that you can get away from by moving to another city or state, and others you have to move to another country. Mongolia’s government in a sense loves its bureaucracy (holdover from Soviet days I suppose), but still the negative regulation effect is still lower on average. But what I really like is that their reach/control is limited so their ACTUAL interference in my daily life ends up being far lower than when I lived in Denver. Finding a place (whether inside or outside the USA) where not only the “official” bureaucracy but the actual day-to-day level of interference in one’s life is more limited is a tremendous plus in my book. If I decide to go back to the USA at some point, I will likely go back to Alaska or someplace similar where the bureaucratic overreach in many areas is at least less obnoxious.
  3. Having more than one option as for where we live (i.e. not going “all in”) and lifestyle freedom to do so. This spreads our resources (and our stuff) more than we like, but having options and flexibility to relocate or simply spend more time in another place gives me some peace of mind. It’s not so much having multiple houses and one of everything in those places (we certainly don’t go that far), but more having flexibility, family/friends/community, and potential systems of support in those places. There are things we like here and things we miss that aren’t here, but knowing that we aren’t “stuck” here should the situation or our desires/goals change in a strange way makes it easier to live here and tolerate the negatives.
    Hope you find what you’re looking for, and can’t wait to hear which location(s) you decide to eventually land…

We live in a town that is not incorporated…just a hole in the corner of the county. Churches and civic organizations fill many functions that might be relegated to government. “Food pantry” by the Methodist Church comes to mind. Our state has no state income tax and seemingly less regulation than other states. We welcome those fleeing regulatory oppression from states like California but just ask that once they get here they vote against the ideas from which they are fleeing.

My son traveled across Mongolia a couple of years ago when he left the Peace Corps in Nepal and was trekking across central Asia. The photos he took of the landscape are incredible. It was amazing to see how much un-populated land there is. He also took amazing photos of wildlife like a hunting golden eagle he held on his arm, a baby falcon he helped a wildlife researcher retrieve from a nest, baby reindeer he held in his lap, Przewalksi’s horses he observed, etc. He also had observed fishing for taimen and said I would love to do that (and he was right … what’s not to like about catching gigantic trout). He even tried his hand at Mongolian wrestling. My reservations at traveling there were that I wasn’t interested in doing the marathon 36 hour bus rides over rough terrain like he did nor eating a diet primarily of fatty meat (with few fresh vegetables and fruit) which he did. Yeah, I’ve gotten soft in my old age. Looks and sounds like an absolutely intriguing country. How are the mid winter temperatures? It seems like it can get incredibly cold there. Also, how’s the food quality and diversity there?

If I were a super-elite (with all the implied personality traits), looking at the world today I would likely conclude that even if I dedicated all my wealth and resources to fixing the problems of the world, we’re too late in a cycle that is bigger even than me. So, as I continue to consolidate my wealth and consider the future I would likely conclude that:
a.) our current financial system isn’t sustainable and can only be replaced after a crisis. Therefore, put a plan in place and maybe nudge the crisis along once I’m positioned to benefit from the outcome.
b.) the climate is in trouble and we haven’t figured out how to start a space colony yet. Human nature will not allow us to come together globally to resolve the issue, so the best way to ensure a habitable planet is to reduce the number of natural humans. Of course not wanting to give up all the shiny plastic things humans make, I would also advance AI, automation, and machine learning so that the computers can continue to serve my needs.
c.) energy supplies are dwindling. Given that I don’t enjoy sharing, I need less people competing for these resources. Besides, what good are these people to me if I can replace them with machines?
…Therefore, the best thing I can do, is allow the current narrative to play out. By this point I’ve already bought several remote private islands and have the jets fueled and ready to go. If I can keep the nationalists from resorting to nuclear armageddon to solve their problems, I will inherit a rather pleasant, slightly less crowded planet in about 15 years.
Since I am not one of the super-elite it’s necessary that I have a plan too. That plan has to provide a meaningful life for myself, my wife and most importantly my two daughters with a minimum of suffering. It has to assume that anything physical or digital that I think I own can be taken away. It has to be assumed that freedom of movement can be taken away. It also has to account for the fact that I could be totally wrong…besides, I have been since 2012 when I first started panicking. So I’m trying to build wealth (cash-flow and stored), reduce debt, store the essentials and plant as many food bearing perennials as I can. It’s unlikely that my walnut trees are going to viewed as a taxable item in my lifetime and even if I’m removed from my small piece of land, they’ll be there making food and sequestering carbon which in a very small way creates a more livable world for my girls.

Why do those who believe “the climate is in trouble” purchase islands in their dreams or in their reality (Obamas on the vineyard). Is the sea level gonna rise significantly or not? Just asking.

I personally think most people in America are better off moving to a different state/county/city that has less taxes and bureaucratic obstacles than moving to a different country. We moved to Mongolia primarily for other reasons (family, business opportunities, travel), but the lower taxes and lower overall government interference in daily life is certainly a secondary benefit I enjoy greatly. Texas sounds like a good overall option in that regard, but I’m afraid my blood is just too thick for that heat. :wink:

Yup, everything your son described is part of the charm of the place. And while when you’re out in the boonies the food options can be somewhat limited, sometimes you’d be surprised what you’ll find in even small towns (Korean food being quite popular and common here). And while you CAN take the bus to the far-flung areas and riding the unpaved roads are a bit brutal, there are flights available to most areas. It doesn’t have to be the rough, grueling travel experience that some of the backpackers and more frugal visitors experience, and I see more and more retirees visiting each summer.
Yes it can get pretty cold here… I was born and raised in Southcentral Alaska, and the northern half of Mongolia tends to be colder than even that (average temps often staying below zero Fahrenheit in mid-winter). Food quality for locally grown/raised food is good (we’re eating great watermelons right now), though produce is very seasonal. Imported food is a mixed bag… we get some decent imported food from Europe and Russia, but sometimes the only option for produce is stuff coming from China. And for local food, sometimes if you want it fresh you have to be a little more open-minded as to where you buy it. Last week we bought some fresh milk and cuts of beef that were sold out of the back of a neighbor’s old, dilapidated Hyundai (as one would typically do with all fine foods :wink: )

Heinrich Petsch opined that Capitalism is “state sponsored usury” the purpose of which is to “extract all of labor’s surplus value”. I have come to see he is right. I believe a free market economy is best and socialism/communism are anathema to freedom and prosperity- but history has shown that those systems arise in response to capitalism, which is based on usury and ends up concentrating wealth.
Just getting rid of usury would go a long way in returning the world to sanity.
Usury takes many forms. A simple example illustrating its extractive and impoverishing nature AND showing the direct link to the function of credit and the banking system is:
borrowing money from a bank to purchase an income producing property and using the rental payments to pay off the mortgage. Who benefits? 1. The bank of course as it receives interest on credit it was allowed to create “out of thin air” AND 2. The borrower/landlord who incurs little or no risk and who acquires a property off of the rent he receives over the long term. Who loses? The tenant, who goes to work and sells his labor and then uses that income to pay the rent. This example of robbing labor of its value to enrich the usurors is so simple a 10 year could understand it. Heck, this is who all those real estate fortunes are built - think Donald Trump, Robert Kiosaki, etc. Do we really wonder why it’s not banned?

So, gkcjrrt, the landlord incurs little or no risk? Pray tell, on what planet is that?
For your edification, here are some risks associated with being a landlord (and certain costs can’t necessarily be passed on to the tenant for a variety of reasons, at least within the short term): rising property taxes, rising insurance costs, rising utilities cost (if the landlord covers utilities), routine maintenance, repairs (especially unexpected and big ones like water heaters, furnaces, air conditioners, and elevators), tenants who don’t pay, tenants who abuse property, tenants who leave in the dark of night and tenants who leave legitimately, tenants who grow pot in your basement causing your rental house to be held as evidence by the government (with no tenants during that time but continuing fixed expenses), environmental catastrophes (including spills, both intentional and unintentional, like the Krysowaty farm in Hillsborough, NJ and Love Canal in NY), social deterioration (including undesirable neighbors such as a criminal element or the incursion of a certain racial or ethnic groups causing loss of property value), encroachment secondary to infrastructure and commercial development (such as a highway, airport, warehouse park with its associated high level of diesel pollutant spewing truck traffic, etc.), eminent domain (with the government taking your property at THEIR market price, not YOURS), changes in the economy (such as the drop in Houston real estate values with the oil business decreasing), changes in government (such as Nazi Germany, Communist Soviet Union, and Communist China confiscating your property), civil unrest or war (destroying your property), natural disasters that can damage or destroy real estate (including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, mudslides, volcanoes, forest fires, heavy snow falls collapsing roofs, hailstorms damaging roof and siding, etc.), non-English speaking roofers working on a weekend and using your restroom and having an epic poop blocking up the toilet and the toilet on the second floor flooding and them not being smart enough to turn the valve off on the water box and not having the ability to call anyone in English and communicate the problem and leaving the building with the flood ensuing over the weekend and liberally distributing that poop on the second floor and the essence of it through the ceiling to the first floor, overweight trucks illegally coming in your parking lot and breaking water mains which cost 5 figures to dig up and repair in the middle of the winter when the ground is frozen to 5 feet or more, mentally ill elevator inspectors telling you to make an expensive change (and then telling you to change it back and then telling you to change it back again) because their past incompetence caused a boy to be crushed in an elevator and you paying for these changes before the inspector was found out to be mentally ill and terminated from his position, a professional con “faller” who slips in your parking lot and sues you and who a jury decides for since their past 2 dozen falls are inadmissible in court as evidence, overbuilding causing a glut in commercial real estate causing you to have to drop your rents to maintain occupancy, etc. In case you wondered, I have some personal experience with at least the last 6 and more not even mentioned here because I’d like to block them out of my memory.
Also, for your edification, you may wish to review a basic investment principle:
For any other folks who have invested in real estate and are perceived by others as assuming little or no risk, did I miss anything?

ao, you describe a multitude of headaches associated with being a landlord; granted and conceded. Much of what you describe is associated with owning property generally, irrespective of being a landlord.
The simple answer to many of these potential headaches is simply to insure them away and pass that on to the tenant. Now just b/c you may not do that doesn’t mean it’s not done routinely. The first implementation of this was the triple contract:
Furthermore, where’s the financial risk to the individual? There is none: form an LLC that borrows the funds for the property and holds title, receives rent, pays contractors, taxes, insurance; the LLC is either cash flow sustainable in which case you make out extracting the labor value of the tenant - or not in which case the LLC files for bankruptcy, and you do it again (but even in this case the tenants labor has gone to pay the bank that created “money” it never had0. Of course the landlord has more work to do and more “opportunity cost” than the bank - but that’s b/c he’s not the bank. Hire a property management firm and pass the cost onto the tenant.
It’s important not to confuse work and uncertainty with financial risk; there’s plenty of the former but under the current usurious system, the latter can be effectively eliminated if you have the right banker.

Have you ever owned property? How about the massive down payment required to purchase rental property? Insurance will not cover all of the loses ao mentioned above. Ever heard of insurance deductible? They can be pretty large and every new event requires you pay it.
The best one is just pass the costs onto tenants. Sorry it doesn’t always work that way. And finally if you pay Management fees, yard work, plumbing, electrical, painting, cleaning, tree trimming, appliance repair, insurance, taxes, accountant, mortgage and everything else there is very little profit left. You expect people to do this for 15 to 30 years before it is payed off? I do 90 percent of all maintenance and management. It’s the only way for me to make it work. I worked a 40 hour a week job and another 20 plus hours a week for 19 years to make the rentals work.
I will agree these large corporations investing in rentals cause problems and drive rents to high. I have no answer on how to make rentals affordable. Until we change our thinking about how we treat each other and the planet it won’t change.

With regards to the issue of real estate investing, you seem to think in terms of an oversimplified fantasy world that is far removed from reality. Go out, give it a try for yourself, and then come back here and we can have a meaningful conversation based on you having actually experienced reality rather than discussing the subject as a theoretical abstraction. Truly, if it's so easy and trouble free, why don't you go out and give it a try for yourself? Since there's "little or no risk", what do you have to lose?
As an example you might better understand, consider this. You buy a house. You live in it. Your family lives in it. You fill it with furniture and a host of other things almost too numerous to count. It burns down to the ground and you lose it all. But you have it fully insured. DO YOU REALLY THINK THERE IS NO COST HERE AND THAT YOU HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED THE CONSEQUENCES OF RISK! Have it happen to you in real life and come back and we can discuss what a flawless, trouble-free, cost-free, risk-free process it was ... NOT.
Whether you realize it or not, property management firms are expensive and, especially for a small investor, they don't often work out well. First of all, they are expensive. Secondly, they don't own the property so they don't have "skin in the game" and so, their management is often less than optimal. Properties are often not as well maintained under them and there is often more "friction" (i.e. money lost because of various inefficiencies) as well as a host of other potential problems.
With regards to LLCs, from your comment about, it would seem that you have been spared much real life experience with the American legal system in these particular circumstances. Also, the last that I heard, attorneys charge for forming an LLC, charge for dissolving it, and charge for bankruptcy proceedings. Plus, you've invested all that time and effort (which equals money lost) and now you have nothing to show for it ... other than the effects of lots of stress on your health and relationships if you are the majority who don't know how to manage such things (which, thankfully, I did). There's no risk greater than that to your health and life. Buildings can be rebuilt. Damaged hearts, guts, marriages, etc.? Not so easy.
Again, if all this is so easy, trouble free, and risk free, why don't you go out, buy a bunch of properties with nothing down, protect yourself by forming an LLC, hire a property management firm, and sit back and watch the cash flow in like water. Should be a piece of cake for you.
By the way, here's another basic economic lesson. Work is labor. Labor has a cost, whether actual or an opportunity cost. When you have to pay that cost, you've just suffered the effects of risk. Again, from Investopedia: "In finance and investing, risk often refers to the chance an outcome or investment's actual gains will differ from an expected outcome or return."

FWIW - I have owned and rented out a property, doing everything myself, and I freely admit being a landlord can be (was for me) a royal pain. It did produce income. I might do it again. My critique as it is is not about landlords and rental property but the system of usury. The example I used to try and clearly illustrate usury was the simplest I could think of. A small investor who manages it himself and presumably forks over a large down payment to finance the property has skin in the game and expels labors and has risk, fair enough. But he is still operating as part of the usurious system extracting labor from others. I’m not casting fault but simply pointing out the facts. Which is easier: 1) work and save and use your savings to buy a rental property and then collect rental income or 2) borrow money out of thin air, buy a property and then collect rental income? It’s clear that 2 is the easier way to wealth b/c it involves usury, the making of money itself fertile - the misappropriation of someone else’s labor to pay the compound interest on money created out of nothing. (I’m not saying it doesn’t involve work and risk to the small investor).
Labor is the source of wealth (Locke, Marx, Smith) - money by itself is sterile/barren (Aristotle et al.). Money combined with labor can be fruitful, but money lent at interest with no risk of loss (aka skin in the game) is usury and that’s what capitalism is. If anyone had any doubts, the AFC brought it into plain sight. The lenders/usurors all got bailed out for example.
Another different example but exactly the same in operation: I borrow $5mil from a banker to build/buy a small manufacturing plant and higher staff to produce and distribute widgets. The compound interest on that loan is large expense that I have to include in the pricing of my product. People who buy my product are paying that interest - again money created out of nothing and with no risk to the banker is extracting the labor of the purchasers and going into the pockets of the bankers and their shareholders.
It would be very simple to fix this thing called usury, or at least a start. Make the banks like public utilities - they can still perform their important function of lending and they can even be profitable enterprises, but they would not be allowed to charge compound interest with no risk.

A few years ago my friend/ landlord suggested I get in on some foreclosed condos up for sale for $100k. I declined, due to the risk. He bought a few and is now in the process of selling them for a big profit. I coulda made $35k easy money over 3 years! I coulda rode the money printing/mass immigration gravy train but I chose to be safe and now I’m still a renting pleb!

Vast quantities of money created out of nothing (such as carried out by the central banks) is most definitely a problem. I think that’s one of the core precepts of this site, if I’m not mistaken, under the “E” of “economy”. I agree with you there.
Labor has a value and that value is frequently exploited and is generally not being properly rewarded in our present world. I largely agree with you on those points as well but there are exceptions.
But capitalism being “money lent at interest with no risk of loss (aka skin in the game) is usury and that’s what capitalism is”? I’m afraid I can’t agree with that statement. You may wish to amend that statement to one that more accurately reflects what capitalism actually is. The definition of usury is a problem as well. Some define it as any interest being charged while others define it as excessive or unreasonable interest being charged.
Furthermore, do you truly feel that banks assume no risk? Granted, for the too-big-to-fail banks, their risk has been negligible to non-existent in recent yours. But many banks do have risk. If they didn’t, why have there been so many banking failures such as occurred during the Great Depression and during the 2007/2008 Financial Crisis?

Whether or not we agree is not relevant. Facts are facts. I’m expressing a point of view and you are free to challenge it, but I note you did not even address the main point of my original post - that capitalism exploits labor through usury. I gave 2 examples anyone could follow, but instead of addressing them you just ignored it and went on to defend landlording. Why, b/c you are one, and presumedly finance properties at interest and pass that cost onto your tenants, and I am criticizing that. Well make a good show and defend it then. Reiterating how hard you work and the pains you suffer don’t negate the usury. I hear NY bankers work 16 hours a day; cultivating the free money machine is obviously worth the effort.
Usury was always understood as lending without risk at interest (that is one is guaranteed to get the money back and interest) - consider who reformed the definition to be excess interest - the capitalist, surprise surprise. Capitalism is “state sponsored/enforced usury” . Think Federal Reserve Act and the banking laws.
Yes, a lot of little banks failed (akin to the small RE investor). 90+% of the bad debt was held by the big money center banks, and not one of those failed. Do you remember, TOO BIG TOO FAIL, another smokescreen and proof of the state’s continued sponsorship and enforcement of usury (oh, but but but the tax payer made money off of TARP -lol)
You may have the last word.