Topic: The one law that would bring peace during an Economic Collapse (Read 3481 times)

No way would this do any good if anything it will open the door to more laws and regulations.  Such things would only be used to control the population and not be used for their benefit.  That is just how it would be sold to the majorly unsuspecting masses.  It is kind of intriguing but when you force people to do something and limit their options your heading down the wrong path and history proves that time and time again.

.. no

4. Greedy bastards actually get their R&D doing something, get mechanical spaceflight working effectively, and mine helium-3 off of the moon, solving a possible energy crisis. Maybe go so far as to move humans from earth.

It's been talked about of a while now, and people are looking towards the moon as an option of generating new energy. Now, then again, there would have to be some technology advancements, but judging by the speed of technological progress, we aren't too far away from getting what we need to accomplish this. It's not the easiest solution, but power companies could make a fortune if they actually wanted to. I always have to laugh at some things I think about in the event of an oil war, however. "Send vehicles that use oil to get more oil, and use that oil to make more vehicles and power them, etc.!"

well that's how our government built house tax and they failed, people were against it and on referendum it failed. Wasted milions of € estimating value of all houses, now it's worth 0$.

That would be cool, maybe it would help to decrease property cost 

First off a little History. Here is a map of the British Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#mediaviewer/File:The_British_Empire.png As you can see both Hong Kong and India were under British Rule. Both India and China have been heavily populating ever since. The more people a country has, the more SOLDIERS a country has. Result: Being able to defend itself from being ruled by another nation.

Humanity has hit a crossroads. There are 3 paths. If there is another I would love to hear about it.

1. Nuclear War and our species dies off.

2. 2.5 Billion people in China and India become fully sustainable on Nuclear Power in 53.3 years. Then, nuclear power world wide with one on every street corner with 30 Billion humans on this planet annnnddd..... our species dies off. #AlphaDecay

3. We grow and burn those trees to run our power plants. We use hydro power and wind power. We walk to work or work from home. And lastly, we grow our food with the sun.

I don't think that we need to build 10 billion homes on this plannet. Many people live in multifamily homes, live in a family home (husband, wife, children), live in apartments, live in highrise apartments. Most people do not own multiple houses and those that do often have the additional houses occupied by other people, ie are rental units.

The issue of running out of oil really has nothing to do with housing. However in order to prevent this from being an issue we simply need to invest in energy that we have a greater supply of and is reliable, ie nuclear energy.

Eat the rich

How many homes do we have to build on this planet? 8 Billion? 9 Billion? 10 Billion? How many people can this planet sustain? We are going to run out of oil in 53.3 years. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-14/bps-latest-estimate-says-worlds-oil-will-last-533-years

The economic collapse is going to happen because the Earth is having trouble sustaining 7 Billion people at our current levels of consumption.

I didn't say one house per week. But that how many the Chinese are going to be buying when this all goes down. Its funny how this article talks about kids living in the basement. http://www.silverdoctors.com/chinese-purchases-of-u-s-real-estate-jump-72-as-the-bank-of-china-facilitates-money-laundering/

I guess we can put the grandkids in the attics.

Orrrrr.... in addition to one house per person. Add in there that you have to be a citizen of the country to purchase that one house.

Facepalm not going to work
As the others have mentioned way to many problems with this type of policy and too many cats in one house (Imagines the cat ladies of the world)

To keep everything fair, perhaps the OP should be limited to one post per week? 

No this kind of law would prevent many people from prospering as the number of new homes built would go to essentially zero meaning less jobs.

This kind of law is very close to communism in that everyone is essentially able to have the same.

Communism is having the state own everything and distribute it "evenly" (Depending on your place in the social ladder) and make sure most of the populace remains poor.

And in an economic collapse, it really comes down to what you have and what you don't have. Being a serf won't necessarily be bad, but it comes down to who owns the property. You can have an a-hole for an owner, and not have a chance to do anything other than constantly work the land or pay rent. Or you can have a decent owner and be able to start a small business with other benefits to living on his land, with maybe marginally smaller rent.

It really just depends.

Not passing it wouldn't be an issue, cause if the people can't afford a house with 3% interest after many have lost their jobs because of the collapse, how do you expect for them to pay for it? They can at least for to pay off their rent otherwise, depending, and it will be smaller to pay for rent than a house for at least a few years.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

I think with a lot of the responses people don't get what the start of an economic collapse will look like. It would be hyperinflation of the currency. A run on the banks and the bonds and stock bubbles popping. Then there would be a giant wealth transfer from those that hold fiat over to those that hold hard assets. Countries like China, Russia, India and Iran that are stocking up gold and silver become extremely wealthy. When Germany repatriates its gold and the Federal Reserve can't even deliver more than 5 tons of gold http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-23/germany-gives-trying-repatriate-its-gold-will-leave-it-feds-safe-hands that tells me that America will become a third world country.  

I get what you are saying about protecting the value of a persons' property. If I don't mow the lawn then all property values on my block will go down. During an economic collapse citizens can't afford the fines and you wont be able enforce these laws thus reflecting in a true market price of what our countries houses should be listed at. What I am trying to tell you is that you have to drop these laws before you can rebuild. What do you think about the law against growing a garden in the front yard?

Yes that is it. You would be removing a persons' right to speculate in the housing market and prevent them from hoarding property. This way you would make housing affordable for our future generations. Those hoarders can go spend their cash on commodities, stocks, bonds, or even better start companies to create jobs.

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Just to clarify, when I say bring peace, war has already risen.

These codes, taxes and regulations protect the value of a person's property by preventing others from doing things that could impede the value of others' property.

Limiting the amount of assets that a person can own is limiting their rights.

Maybe when I say property rights you are thinking something different then me. I mean getting rid of all the codes, bylaws, regulations and taxes that impede freedom and liberty on property owners. Once that is done then you pass the one law that I talk about. So no, its not an oxymoron. Its a statement on how to bring peace during an economic collapse.

I did edit it for anyone that can't see it the way I do.