NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes. And my grandma told me that you could stop yourself getting infections from dogbites, by rubbing the hair of the same dog, in the wound.

What our elders tell us, is not ALWAYS one hundred percent true... although it may LOOK like it to them.

I do believe, though, that the face that the Soviets were doing poorly economically factored into the equation.

Dont forget the UK! (vote commies 2016...)

Sadly, it looks like a form of 'conservative libertarianism' is on the rise in the UK at the moment... although there have been 'liberal' bright spots recently...

But, if the government keeps trending the way it has been doing, maybe we might still see a 'rebirth' of the Labour Party as something other than a populist clone of the Tories...

You don't need to discuss this. No ideal form of government works.

Maybe not ideal, but so far the best countries in the world happen to be democratic and capitalism.

The good thing about capitalism is it knows that people are selfish hungry bastards, and caters to their needs. While it is true that there will be insanely poor and insanely rich people, the poor have much better standards of living then poor people under socialism or dictatorship.

I do believe, though, that the face that the Soviets were doing poorly economically factored into the equation.

The Soviets WERE having economic problems, certainly... but WHY were they having those problems? Russian officials always seemed to have wealth, and trappings of western society... but where were they OBTAINING that wealth, and those trappings?

Imagine the economy of ANY modern society, East or West, as thoroughly riddled with corruption as the pre-Fall Soviet administration...


Also... the premise is a little illogical, once you dig below the surface... In many ways, the Soviet Union didn't NEED to 'compete' with the US. Their technology placed a man in space before the US managed it. Further - I am reminded of the old story about NASA spending billions of dollars trying to work out how to write in space, before they invented a pen that didn't need gravity to help the ink move.

The Soviet solution to the same problem, was to write in pencil...

Canada City']Maybe not ideal, but so far the best countries in the world happen to be democratic and capitalism.

The good thing about capitalism is it knows that people are selfish hungry bastards, and caters to their needs. While it is true that there will be insanely poor and insanely rich people, the poor have much better standards of living then poor people under socialism or dictatorship.

Really? So the poor in the cities starving to death under bridges in capitalist countries, have a 'better class' of starvation than those in communist countries?

I'm curious as to how people do not seem to be able to differentiate between 'capitalist' and 'democratic'... or 'communist' and 'despotic'.

eradicate rational self-interest

funny, and here was me thinking that working together is rational self-interest

Also... the premise is a little illogical, once you dig below the surface... In many ways, the Soviet Union didn't NEED to 'compete' with the US. Their technology placed a man in space before the US managed it. Further - I am reminded of the old story about NASA spending billions of dollars trying to work out how to write in space, before they invented a pen that didn't need gravity to help the ink move.

The Soviet solution to the same problem, was to write in pencil...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Soviets would have to keep on competing with the US. They couldn't just say "Yeah, well, we put a man in space first" while the US is planting flags on the moon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Soviets would have to keep on competing with the US. They couldn't just say "Yeah, well, we put a man in space first" while the US is planting flags on the moon.

why?

why?

Dude, that's how history works. Everyone competes with everyone. They don't have to, but they do. And that's what drives the world.

I will keep this short, sweet, and to the point. The reason Communism and Socialism contiune to fail is because of various reason. However, I will just hit on the main one.

Power- People crave power. It's human nature for us to want to be at the highest level of authority in our field. There will always be rulers, President, Dicatators etc. These political ideology goes against this simple human nature functions.

Greed- Let's face it, unless you know the person personally, or you are looking for something in return, you're less apt to help your fellow man. Not to say that people don't help fellow strangers, it's just that it happens alot less. Once again it's human nature. It's human nature for us to look out for our "pack" first and foremoth and then other packs when we feel like it. These political ideology try to force everyone to work together, to share, to divide up our reasources, etc. For the better of humanity. Let's face it, the human species aren't communial. We are indiviualist.

Also, it's human nature for us to try to get the best stuff, or to get the stuff that serves us first.

So in conclusion, These political ideology goes against human nature, and that why they always fail.

if you read marx's contribution to the critique of political economy, you'd understand why your explanation is wrong. then again, i'll assume you've never read it and don't understand. unless you understand something completely, don't argue against it.

funny, and here was me thinking that working together is rational self-interest

Rational in what manner, so that my exertions, in surpassing those of tohers, may only benefit me equally to them, whilst their meagre exertions benefit them disproportionately. Rather akin to the inverse of capaitalism, in that the less workand capacity one possesses, the more one benefits, entirely disengenuous to the very concept of natural selection.

Here endeth the lesson.

The Soviet Union collapsed because of infighting between criminals? This was more important than the Cold War in the collapse of the USSR?

I also refuse to believe the whole thing about Stalin chucking the thieves in and out of prison all the time. During Stalin's reign, most criminals and dissidents were summarily sent to work camps or executed.

The Soviet Union collapsed because of infighting between criminals? This was more important than the Cold War in the collapse of the USSR?

I also refuse to believe the whole thing about Stalin chucking the thieves in and out of prison all the time. During Stalin's reign, most criminals and dissidents were summarily sent to work camps or executed.

Concurrent to the entire Bolshevik central commitee of 1917, omitting Lenin, who died in 1924, and Trosky, who Stalin exiled and had assisinated. Oh, and 20 million others who dared to, well, be informed upon, exist, or harbour any indivudualist sentiment.

funny, and here was me thinking that working together is rational self-interest

Capitalism is a way of working together, it's just a different way of working together than communism.

In both systems, producers create goods for others and are in some way compensated.

Concurrent to the entire Bolshevik central commitee of 1917, omitting Lenin, who died in 1924, and Trosky, who Stalin exiled and had assisinated. Oh, and 20 million others who dared to, well, be informed upon, exist, or harbour any indivudualist sentiment.

Exactly. Some story about Stalin pardoning thieves and even just sending them to conventional prison in the first place does not comply with his record of treatment for criminals and political opposition.

I think it was more than 20 million, BTW.

I am not saying the USSR fell because of communism, because I'm willing to accept that it did not follow the tenets of communism accurately enough.

I will not accept that the USSR's system was workable and that it only collapsed because of a freak incident with some prisoners.

Exactly. Some story about Stalin pardoning thieves and even just sending them to conventional prison in the first place does not comply with his record of treatment for criminals and political opposition.

I think it was more than 20 million, BTW.

I am not saying the USSR fell because of communism, because I'm willing to accept that it did not follow the tenets of communism accurately enough.

I will not accept that the USSR's system was workable and that it only collapsed because of a freak incident with some prisoners.

I would concur to an extent, however, ardent Tory that I happen to be, I would assert that it fell due to the inherent flaws in communism, however, perhaps antoher time, another thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Soviets would have to keep on competing with the US. They couldn't just say "Yeah, well, we put a man in space first" while the US is planting flags on the moon.

As Free Soviets pointed out, there is no reason why they should try to match production unit for unit.

It doesn't matter WHAT the US did since then, the Russians will ALWAYS be able to claim the first manned spaceflight.

Similarly, it wouldn't matter what the Russians did, the Yanks were the first on the moon.

There need be no 'race'. Especially when we are talking about things they already did... so, inREAL terms.. the Russians CAN just say "Yeah, well, we put a man in space first" while the US is planting flags on the moon....

The Soviet Union collapsed because of infighting between criminals? This was more important than the Cold War in the collapse of the USSR?

I also refuse to believe the whole thing about Stalin chucking the thieves in and out of prison all the time. During Stalin's reign, most criminals and dissidents were summarily sent to work camps or executed.

Wow... did you not actually read the whole thing... I mean, I'd understand.. it was kind of long.

I said that the Soviet Union collapsed because of massive corruption and Organised Crime to a scale that the US has yet to encounter (but, the Russian Mob ARE gaining ground here... so they might YET encounter it).

And, I didn't say Stalin chucked 'thieves in and out of prison all the time'... I referred to one specific event... that was pivotal in the growth of the Red Mafia.


If you don't believe me... all well and good, but I'd recommend you research it a little before you tell me I'm wrong.

Let me point you in the direction of a Wiki article (yes, I KNOW Wiki is less than perfect, but it can be a start for you) on the "Suka Wars":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bitch_Wars

As Free Soviets pointed out, there is no reason why they should try to match production unit for unit.


It wasn't that simple. Space dominance was thought by both sides to be vital in maintaining mutually assured destruction. The USSR was terrified that the USA might use space to destroy or undermine their nation, and the USA were equally terrified that the USSR would do the same. They weren't competing for the hell of it - they both thought that if they stopped, the other one would out-perform and eventually assimilate or destroy them.

It wasn't that simple. Space dominance was thought by both sides to be vital in maintaining mutually assured destruction. The USSR was terrified that the USA might use space to destroy or undermine their nation, and the USA were equally terrified that the USSR would do the same. They weren't competing for the hell of it - they both thought that if they stopped, the other one would out-perform and eventually assimilate or destroy them.

You are believing the hype... friend.

M.A.D. made the whole matter academic.

Wow... did you not actually read the whole thing... I mean, I'd understand.. it was kind of long.

Ok, I've read up a little more and I admit that I made the incidents out to be less important than they apparently were.

I still maintain that this could not have been the main reason for the collapse of the whole USSR, and that the fundamental economic and societal policies of the USSR's government were the key to its eventual downfall.

I said that the Soviet Union collapsed because of massive corruption and Organised Crime to a scale that the US has yet to encounter (but, the Russian Mob ARE gaining ground here... so they might YET encounter it).

I don't think we can encounter it in the US unless we move to a far more integrated level of government-industry cooperation than is currently present. Personally, I would see Japan as the best example of a capitalist nation infused with organized crime, and you can see how they have done ever since the government-industry inflated bubble burst.

You are believing the hype... friend.


No. It is clear from the historical evidence that in both nations there existed a general sentiment of fear of destruction by the other side.

I still maintain that this could not have been the main reason for the collapse of the whole USSR, and that the fundamental economic and societal policies of the USSR's government were the key to its eventual downfall.

A powerful, huge government where the positions of power are inherently based on political patronage combined with a planned economic structure that gives these people the same level of involvement in the allocation of trillions of dollars in wealth is bound to eventually stagnate and then collapse under the weight of corruption, particularly in the face of outside shocks.

The USSR failed because their total-Socialism economy couldn't keep up with the US

you can't kill business incentive and expect anyone to want to go into business... business (and the investors they attract) drives economies. Socialism takes money away from businesses and investors and puts it into the hands of those who will neither provide jobs nor investment opportunities for people.... money that might have been used to make tons more money is given to those who buy products. Problem is, because many products from communist countries simply can't compete, and given the aforementioned constraints on business, there are fewer businesses to offer said products, and people can't have their He-Man figures or food.

the net effect:

take money away from those who would invest it in companies/jobs/innovation

and give it to those who can't do much with it but wait in line three hours just to buy bread.

also... i would imagine that people get sick of not having any financial freedom... which is what socialism diminishes. Financial freedom wasn't the only type lacking, of course...

The USSR failed because their total-Socialism economy couldn't keep up with the US

you can't kill business incentive and expect anyone to want to go into business... business (and the investors they attract) drives economies. Socialism takes money away from businesses and investors and puts it into the hands of those who will neither provide jobs nor investment opportunities for people.... money that might have been used to make tons more money is given to those who buy products. Problem is, because many products from communist countries simply can't compete, and given the aforementioned constraints on business, there are fewer businesses to offer said products, and people can't have their He-Man figures or food.

the net effect:

take money away from those who would invest it in companies/jobs/innovation

and give it to those who can't do much with it but wait in line three hours just to buy bread.

also... i would imagine that people get sick of not having any financial freedom... which is what socialism diminishes. Financial freedom wasn't the only type lacking, of course...

So - your argument is basically that the Soviet Union collapsed because those damned hungry people kept wasting money on food, rather than putting it to a sensible use like sponsoring the production of vital He-Man dolls?

Sure... that's market forces for you... however, even the LOWEST bid of a whole slew of price-gougers, is STILL price-gouging.

"Price-gouging"? You mean the free market in operation.

First problem with your rant: You assume there's a fair price set by some higher authority. That is the case in socialist economies, and they suffer for it.

When you arbitrarily set a price below the market clearing price, you create shortages. If prices can't rise with demand, what happens is people buy up all there is for sale, but there is no incentive to produce more to meet the rising demand. Price controls on petrol in the US in the 1970's caused exactly this, you perhaps have seen scenes of US motorists queueing at gas stations?

Read: http://www.mises.org/story/1593

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/PriceControls.html

You CLAIM it happens in socialism. Thus - it IS your model.

Socialist countries do experience shortages. Do you not read the history of what you advocate?

The Soviet Union had constant shortages:

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12573.html (even shortages of condoms)

Grain shortages: http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12750.html

Shortages of consumer goods: http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12742.html

Consumer goods again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_Union

There's a nice people of people, happy to live under socialism, flushed with wealth ... queueing to buy shoes.

I, under the oppressive thumb of capitalism, barely able to eat due to the predations of robber barons, have never queued for shoes in my life, all I've had to do is stroll in, select what I wanted from a vast range, and pay a quite low price for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortage_economy Nice pictures of shortages in Poland while under a communist government, one is a butcher's shop, with almost no meat in it, and certainly nothing like thick, juicy steaks, or roasts. Another picture of peoiple queueing to buy ... toilet paper!

People had to queue for bread under socialism. Under capitalism, I can walk into a supermarket at any time, and my big problem isn't finding bread, its finding the particular sort I like. No queues, just walk in, select, buy, walk out. Apparantly, I'm being gouged, but I can get the goods I need, while citizens of socialist countries who aren't being gouged have to queue.

Those simple terms can be expanded out to include every good and service.

No they can't. If they could be so expanded, then there would have been no shortages under socialist economies.

Here's what a Polish journalist had to say about what you're advocating:

"For the entire period of real socialism, investments were poured into a close production circle that offered no profit: coal was necessary to produce electricity; electricity was necessary to produce steel; and steel was necessary to mine coal. All that produced a statistical growth in national income, a growth which, as we now see, actually meant a decline in national wealth. Let us keep in mind that the prices for everything were taken out of thin air."

http://faculty.vassar.edu/kennett/Lipton.htm

Where do you get randomness from?

Without a real price system, goods move on whims.

And, one wonders WHY you automatically assume that delgated/devolved living automatically equates to a 'low living standard'...

You've never heard of specialisation, or the division of labour.

Stalin rebelled against the poor living conditions in Tsarist Russian territories, since the Tsar claimed 'ownership' of EVERYTHING. The political movement which arose to resist this regime, was one of redistribution of autocratically controlled wealth and property. Those who opposed the Tsarist regime, therefore were most likely to become members of this fledgling communist organisation. THAT is why Stalin 'believed in socialism', and why he was a member of the Communist Party.

He rebelled against conditions that resulted from the government owning everything ... by joining a party which advocated government ownership of everything.

How is socialism 'monopoly'? If anything, socialism is diametrically opposed to monopoly. Really- this is basic stuff.

Again - perhaps you are getting caught up in the confusion over 'statism' versus 'socialism'.

There isn't a confusion. Communal living isn't socialism, it is socialistic (meaning it draws from the ideas and thoughts of socialists), but socialism is a way to run a state. State ownership of everything is a monopoly.

Surely communism could work if their was no money - hence everything would be bartered.

I presume by money, you mean government paper. Money is the inevitable consequence of barter. Barter has inherient inefficiencies, one needs to find a double coincidence for a trade to take place (you have what I want, I have what you want). The way around this is to look to trade your goods for something you know most, if not everyone wants. Other people do this, and by a process of elimination, the market finds a good which is universally demanded. We call this good, whatever it may be, money.

If you abolished money tomorrow, it would be back the nexy day in an unofficial form. It is interesting to examine the various commodities used as money, everything from cigarettes (which feature prominently in recent black market economies, such as post-war Germany) to slaves (how would you make change? With a meat cleaver?)

The biggest contributing factor was almost certainly Organised Crime.

Organised crime never got close to breaking capitalist country's, by the way, the places where it is worst off are the places in which the government has prohibited free market activity.

The Soviets WERE having economic problems, certainly... but WHY were they having those problems? Russian officials always seemed to have wealth, and trappings of western society... but where were they OBTAINING that wealth, and those trappings?

Imagine the economy of ANY modern society, East or West, as thoroughly riddled with corruption as the pre-Fall Soviet administration...

Of course socialist countries experience huge levels of corruption. Firstly, there isn't a way to get the goods you need without doing it illegally, and secondly, with a government as far reaching and powerful, the opportunities for corruption abound.

A powerful, huge government where the positions of power are inherently based on political patronage combined with a planned economic structure that gives these people the same level of involvement in the allocation of trillions of dollars in wealth is bound to eventually stagnate and then collapse under the weight of corruption, particularly in the face of outside shocks.

Excellent post. Succinctly put.

There is something you may have neglected ... that if you neuter the government, that is if you remove its power to do anything other than operate the legitimate functions of military forces, police, and courts, then there are no favours to be bought.

and give it to those who can't do much with it but wait in line three hours just to buy bread.

Also, what of the losses on man hours with all that queueing? Under capitalism, I can work a 10 hour day, and at the end of it, go to the supermarket, get everything I need, and be out in a matter of minutes.

Under capitalism, I can work a 10 hour day, and at the end of it, go to the supermarket, get everything I need, and be out in a matter of minutes.
Except as a driver for Pizza Hut, where you'd have to make that 20 hours.
But I'll get to my practical experiences with Capitalism in a few weeks, when I see how this affair turns out...

"Price-gouging"? You mean the free market in operation.


A free market does not automatically equate to the demand-element getting screwed by the supply-element.

The greed inherent (even endorsed) in capitalism, however, suggests WHY it is the usual result when regulation is removed.


First problem with your rant: You assume there's a fair price set by some higher authority. That is the case in socialist economies, and they suffer for it.


No. I really don't. I think you are too fixated on 'price' mechanisms to actually comprehend anything I've said.... since you consistently miss the point, and bring it back to 'profits', 'value', and other irrelevences.


When you arbitrarily set a price below the market clearing price, you create shortages. If prices can't rise with demand, what happens is people buy up all there is for sale, but there is no incentive to produce more to meet the rising demand. Price controls on petrol in the US in the 1970's caused exactly this, you perhaps have seen scenes of US motorists queueing at gas stations?


I know the scenario you THINK you are speaking of... but you are about as way-off the mark as possible. You have the whole situation ass-backwards, and the price scenario inverted.

The 1970s energy crisis was caused by isolated shortages, and spiraling prices... spiraling upwards. Also - by 'gas rationing', which was what stopped the wealthy from monopolising the fuel supply.


Socialist countries do experience shortages. Do you not read the history of what you advocate?


Apparently, I am the one, of the two of us, that does.


There's a nice people of people, happy to live under socialism, flushed with wealth ... queueing to buy shoes.

I, under the oppressive thumb of capitalism, barely able to eat due to the predations of robber barons, have never queued for shoes in my life, all I've had to do is stroll in, select what I wanted from a vast range, and pay a quite low price for it.


Shoes made by sweatshop slaves, to maintain that low price, no doubt.

I get the feeling you somehow think that Communism = Cold-War-Russia, and that capialism is equal in every nation.


People had to queue for bread under socialism. Under capitalism, I can walk into a supermarket at any time, and my big problem isn't finding bread, its finding the particular sort I like. No queues, just walk in, select, buy, walk out. Apparantly, I'm being gouged, but I can get the goods I need, while citizens of socialist countries who aren't being gouged have to queue.


Again... you use a historical example of corrupt regimes, to explain your point. And, as usual, you are satisfied with the cosmetics of the situation. You have your pat little, alost religious doctrine about the hows and whys... and you don't care to dig any deeper.


Here's what a Polish journalist had to say about what you're advocating:

"For the entire period of real socialism, investments were poured into a close production circle that offered no profit: coal was necessary to produce electricity; electricity was necessary to produce steel; and steel was necessary to mine coal. All that produced a statistical growth in national income, a growth which, as we now see, actually meant a decline in national wealth. Let us keep in mind that the prices for everything were taken out of thin air."


Oh well... if you have an anecdote my argument must be in tatters....


Without a real price system, goods move on whims.


Nice claim. Hollow rhetoric of course... but it makes a good MTV soundbite.


You've never heard of specialisation, or the division of labour.


Of course I have. Thanks for the flippant retort. Was it JUST there to mask a lack of an argument?


He rebelled against conditions that resulted from the government owning everything ... by joining a party which advocated government ownership of everything.


He rebelled against conditions that resulted from the government owning everything ... by joining a party which advocated collective ownership of everything.


There isn't a confusion. Communal living isn't socialism, it is socialistic (meaning it draws from the ideas and thoughts of socialists), but socialism is a way to run a state. State ownership of everything is a monopoly.


Communal living is, as you say, not socialism... but you do not seem to know what it IS. Socialism is the social/production model, that puts the means of production in the hands of the collective, either directly, or under the stewardship of the government.

Socialism is NOT always statist. Also - I'm not sure if the term 'monopoly' can even be applied to situations where 'ownership' of everything is BY everyone.


I presume by money, you mean government paper. Money is the inevitable consequence of barter. Barter has inherient inefficiencies, one needs to find a double coincidence for a trade to take place (you have what I want, I have what you want). The way around this is to look to trade your goods for something you know most, if not everyone wants. Other people do this, and by a process of elimination, the market finds a good which is universally demanded. We call this good, whatever it may be, money.


No... money really is not 'inevitable'. Firstly - of course, because what we call money is ACTUALLY pure representation of a barter-transaction... and secondly, because barter (with or without currency) is stil NOT the only mechanism of service/good exchange.


Organised crime never got close to breaking capitalist country's, by the way, the places where it is worst off are the places in which the government has prohibited free market activity.


Like Miami? A heavy concentration of Red Mafia now operate there...

Organised Crime is on the rise everywhere, and is already incredibly strong in many places. The Cosa Nostra, Triad, Yakuza... huge, and multinational enterprises.

So - what is it that has thus far prevented the Cosa Nostra from overthrowing legitimate government (and, really... who is to say they haven't?)...? Basically, it likely centres around the fact that the highest ranks of government in the US, etc... have their OWN brand of corruption organised....


Of course socialist countries experience huge levels of corruption. Firstly, there isn't a way to get the goods you need without doing it illegally, and secondly, with a government as far reaching and powerful, the opportunities for corruption abound.


The first point is a strawman, and the second... is another strawman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy
best goverment form ever :fluffle:

I will keep this short, sweet, and to the point. The reason Communism and Socialism contiune to fail is because of various reason. However, I will just hit on the main one.

Power- People crave power. It's human nature for us to want to be at the highest level of authority in our field. There will always be rulers, President, Dicatators etc. These political ideology goes against this simple human nature functions.

Greed- Let's face it, unless you know the person personally, or you are looking for something in return, you're less apt to help your fellow man. Not to say that people don't help fellow strangers, it's just that it happens alot less. Once again it's human nature. It's human nature for us to look out for our "pack" first and foremoth and then other packs when we feel like it. These political ideology try to force everyone to work together, to share, to divide up our reasources, etc. For the better of humanity. Let's face it, the human species aren't communial. We are indiviualist.

Also, it's human nature for us to try to get the best stuff, or to get the stuff that serves us first.

So in conclusion, These political ideology goes against human nature, and that why they always fail.
The capitalist bubble will burst in time. When this will happen is anyone's guess, but it will happen. Capitalism will be replaced by some mixed bag of socialism and communism. It is inevitable.

China Set To Reduce Exposure To Dollar (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901042.html)

China has resolved to shift some of its foreign exchange reserves -- now in excess of $800 billion -- away from the U.S. dollar and into other world currencies in a move likely to push down the value of the greenback, a high-level state economist who advises the nation's economic policymakers said in an interview Monday.

As China's manufacturing industries flood the world with cheap goods, the Chinese central bank has invested roughly three-fourths of its growing foreign currency reserves in U.S. Treasury bills and other dollar-denominated assets. The new policy reflects China's fears that too much of its savings is tied up in the dollar, a currency widely expected to drop in value as the U.S. trade and fiscal deficits climb........

In recent years, the value of the dollar has been buoyed by major purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by Japan, China and oil-exporting countries -- a flow of capital that has kept interests rates relatively low in the United States and allowed Americans to keep spending even as debts mount. Some economists have long warned that if foreigners lose their appetite for American debt, the dollar would fall, interest rates would rise and the housing boom could burst, sending real estate prices lower.

Right now, the US has an open license to print money. In the future, that license will be revoked by the international community. It will be devestating for capitalistic societies.