FDIC may go insolvent this year

[Uraniun235]

Yes, because America turned into Mad Max Land in the 30s, or Russia did in the 90s (well, it sorta DID, but not to "collapse of society" levels).

Big difference: 20% of the workforce was agrarian in 1930, while closer to 2% was in 2000. That means 1 in 5 Americans were right off-the-bat capable of subsistence living in the 1930s, while only 1 in 50 is now. It's still a non-sequitur to jump to the conclusion that if the money supply declines drastically, we'll have widespread social panic, but you can't make the case against largely based on the 1930s.

You mean the same 30s where a huge amount of farmland got wiped out by the Dust Bowl, sending a huge wave of people migrating across the country in search of jobs, leading to some places putting up signs saying that such refugees were not welcome? Also, how many of those agrarian workers would have been put out of a job by the Depression and simultaneously have enough of their own land (and enough resources to plant and sustain subsistence crops - weren't a lot of farmers usually in debt back then anyhow?) to feed themselves and their family?

[Broomstick]

^ What he said. In the Dust Bowl years the US had somewhere around 1.5 million people homeless (remember that our total population was significantly less) and roaming around the country looking for work, and the vast majority were displaced "agricultural workers". That's in addition to the destitute who chose to stay on their land, but even where they had land the Dust Bowl sometimes prevented even subsistence farming. A LOT of farmers lost everything because they couldn't pay their debts.

[Ender]

Yes, because America turned into Mad Max Land in the 30s, or Russia did in the 90s (well, it sorta DID, but not to "collapse of society" levels).

Big difference: 20% of the workforce was agrarian in 1930, while closer to 2% was in 2000. That means 1 in 5 Americans were right off-the-bat capable of subsistence living in the 1930s, while only 1 in 50 is now. It's still a non-sequitur to jump to the conclusion that if the money supply declines drastically, we'll have widespread social panic, but you can't make the case against largely based on the 1930s.

Yes, you can, just not the way some are. The problem with the doom and gloomers is that they treat it like a binary situation - either society stays the way it has been up until now, or we go Mad Max. But it isn't binary in the slightest. What would happen? Well in the 30's the dust bowl hit and wiped out a lot of farms. At that time we also had the job market crash. So what happened? Well we adapted and headed towards a new path of heavier urban development and much more industrialized labor. It was set about a massive change in demographics and consumption habits, but we didn't break. We can expect the same with all these other scenarios. Just like the US 30's or Russian 90's, it isn't going to go back to how it was. But that doesn't mean it will be the end of the world as we know it.