Finding Profit in a Depleted World

Today's World presents some truly amazing contrasts. For example, about a billion people on the planet enjoy human history's only episode of mass affluence. On the other hand, about two billion people endure the most profound poverty. Most economists believe that it is entirely possible for everyone to enjoy an affluent lifestyle. On the contrary, our opinion is that mass affluence was a transitory phenomenon based on aggressive exploitation of nature, and nature is nearing exhaustion.

What prospects are there for enterprising individuals in this exhausted world? Let's start with food.

Modern farming is a grotesque of the natural cycle of sowing and reaping. It poisons the soil, killing its inhabitants and stripping its nutrients. Modern agriculture's 'soil' becomes merely a medium into which to put chemical fertilisers. This strategy, this 'green revolution' is declining in efficacy. Farmers of the future will simply have to return, gradually or all at once, to more classical methods.

The consequence of that retreat from modernism will be a tremendous decline in yields and the end of agricultural abundance. Food will become more expensive relative to other goods. Enterprising individuals will learn to eat lower on the food chain - tending towards vegetarianism. Perhaps more significantly, they will learn to prepare this diet for themselves, as the current food marketing system - from fast food restaurants to the purveyors of prepared meals - is still pushing the burger, fries and soda version of nutrition.

Moving on from food, we take up shelter. In North America, at least, the modern concept of shelter has also become a grotesque. The 'McMansion' and the strip mall in their suburban seat is a dreadful distortion of living space. Sadly, most North American compact towns and cities were more or less destroyed to make way for sprawl. Unfortunately, there is very little money to build space that is worth living in, so people are going to have to make do with what exists.

If you are lucky enough to live in a place that remains along the traditional village or urban neighborhood line, then you can simply enjoy it. For the rest, you will have to make the best of what is closest to that. Enterprising individuals will take care to site their living situations optimally. If you can't get to pretty much everything you need to in a 15 minute walk (or less), you should move on. Car-dependent place have no future. Consider making do with as little space as you can manage, sharing larger abodes with more people, if necessary.

Clothing is by far the easiest item to manage for the time being. It can be bought by the bag at many thrift stores, or at least quite inexpensively. Clothing can be mended to keep it going for quite some time. Do not be vain about clothes. It is silly. Having clean clothes in adequate repair is much more important than fashion. And in any case, fashion that you create with what you find is much more interesting than fashion that you buy.

Food, shelter, clothing. That is pretty much all anyone needs materially. Beyond this is luxury. If you don't agree - well, you're entitled to your opinion - but remember your 'needs' are just what you perceive them to be, and please don't force the responsibility of their satisfaction upon others.

Welfare State Crash

According to recent reports, the US Social Security system will start paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes next year. The US is hardly alone in having stresses on its old-age pension programmes. This raises the larger question, can society afford to pay people not to work?

It is ironic to ask this question at a time millions are being thrown out of work, and there doesn't seem to be enough to do. Of course, there always is plenty to do - it's just that it is uncertain what are profitable undertakings, and what are not.

The basic premise of the Welfare State is that those who are lucky enough to stumble upon something profitable to occupy their time should 'share' a portion of their wages (or winnings) with the portion of the populace who are not so lucky. This 'sharing' is enforced through taxation and the coercive power of the State.

During the growthy era from World War II to the end of the last century, there were plenty of profitable occupations in the Industrialised Nations and the dependent class was a minority. In recent years the dependent class has been growing much faster than the productive one. How many non-productives can society support? And at what level?

In a saner world, these questions would be coming to the front of public debate. But as that is not the case, we expect an overburdening of the productive sector and an accelerating economic decline. The end state is likely to involve the OECD nations little better off than the more advanced of the developing nations. In that case, there will be essentially no public resources for the disadvantaged and unmotivated to draw upon. Expect to see shocking poverty once again where it was supposed to have been eradicated.

Deep Frugality: A Crash Course

In October of this year, the world entered the 'crash' phase of the 2007 Depression: markets tanked; orders were canceled; shipping froze; factories began closing; mass layoffs accelerated. The crash is continuing world-wide, and shows no signs of letting up. What this means for pretty much everyone, among other things, is loss of income - usually a lot.

How best to deal with that loss of income? The thing that will give the most immediate results is to cut spending. Rather than cut expenses willy-nilly, it is best to have a plan. First of all, you need to think long-term. Create a program for how you are going to divvy up your income, and then live within that guideline.

If you really want to thrive, you should think about saving 50% of your income. This may sound outrageous, but there are people who can do this - sometimes whole countries. No matter how little you make, you must 'pay yourself first'. This is especially important if you want to improve your condition. The prognosis for wages and salaries in the future is not good. Your hope for financial betterment will depend most likely on self-employment and investment.

Another severe suggestion is to limit your housing expense to 25% of your income. If you are paying more than that, you are at risk. In many parts of the country, such a limit is quite a stretch, but there are ways to meet it - usually by sharing space.

As for cramming the rest of your spending into 25% of your income, you must rethink what your 'needs' are. You do not need the following: new clothes; prepared food; cable tv; and many other things. When your income is low, managing on this limit is quite austere. You need to accept that. Resist social pressures to spend. Ignore marketing. If your friends try to tease you into spending, educate them - or find new friends. The alternative to frugality is to remained mired in creeping poverty, and risk sinking into destitution.

There are infinite ways to cut expenses, and develop Peasant Virtues. Sometimes it is even fun. You will learn new skills, and perhaps make new friends.

The Myth of Progress

A notion bandied about, both in the media and in academics, is that of 'progress.' The idea, put simply, is that society will always improve itself. A problem immediately arises: one cannot define 'progress' any further than this. It is even more nebulous than 'globalisation' in meaning, and just as contentious a subject. In order to more clearly define progress, we will give our personal version thereof. Progress is:

An unending and inevitable process, moving the world towards a post-industrialised service economy. Society progresses towards an American-style middle-class lifestyle, and technology becomes both more efficient and less polluting. Progress is widely considered a 'good' thing, both a desirable and positive development.

Before we go further, let us say we consider 'progress' a load of bunk. For example, in the year 1800, the world population was around 1 billion. The vast majority of people then (i.e. 'the poor') were landless peasants. They had houses, they had food, they had beer or wine. The phrase 'poor but decent' comes to mind, in a general sense.

Fast forward to 2001, when 2.4 billion people lived on less than $2 per day. That's over twice as many people alive as in 1800... all completely or nearly destitute. Could you, Reader, live on about $730 per year, have only the clothes on your back (maybe a cinder block hut)? For the record, having less than $2 per day to live on is considered only 'moderate poverty' by the World Bank.

Another bit of 'progress' is the development of nuclear energy. It is argued that developing the power to split the atom was a 'good' thing - a 'good' thing which later acquainted itself with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is it a positive development that the planet could be rendered medically sterile several times over by fusion bombs? Even with 'peaceful' nuclear power generation, there is the deadly legacy of the radioactive waste; barrels of lethal crap which will exist for thousands of years to come. Progress?

Clinging to the idea that 'progress' is both a good and necessary thing is foolhardy. To believe that the old ways of doing things (a.k.a. business as usual) were the 'right' ways, is to be a casualty of the 2008 Depression. In the 2008 Depression, as with all past Depressions, one must adapt to the changes brought. For a closing metaphor, consider 'progress' the mirage of an oasis in the desert. One cannot afford to chase mirages; one must seek shelter.