Canada had the richest stocks of Cod on planet earth around Newfoundland.

John Cabot once said they were so plentiful cod could be taken “not only with nets but with baskets".

However without regulation and the rise of supertrawlers and factory fishing the entire stock of was demolished within 15 years.

In 1994 the entire Cod industry of Newfoundland collapsed with 30-40,000 job losses.

Now every nation more or less uses quotas and fishing regulation to protect fish stocks.

There was a moratorium on fishing for the last 30 years and only last year as a little bit of fishing allowed once again.

The same process occurred for passenger pigeons and the American bison. Where they were made extinct or nearly extinct as result of the unconstrained operation and of the market. Same for the North American beaver whose skin made excellent hats.

The Bison only survived because the market bottomed out and their leather became less valuable fast enough for a small minority to survive.

title

I’m interested in a very narrow subject and I would appreciate your input. I know we all like memes and fighting in comments with statists here, but my aim is to have some discussion that will be productive for all of us. So, hear me out.

Sooner or later the real crash is going to happen and there are 2 options that will follow - the government is going to intervene or it won’t. And I wonder what’s going to happen with real estate in both cases.

If the government intervenes - bailout to banks again? We already know how this plays out. In current social climate I can see bailouts going to both, banks and individuals as a potential as well, but what happens then? Massive inflation but nothing happens to property prices when adjusted for inflation? Property real and nominal values skyrocketing because people that hesitated before worrying about mortgage payments being a little too high for them now don’t need to care about it? Please you share what do you think is going to happen in this scenario.

Government let’s the cycle go it’s course - where’s going to be the bottom and how soon we’re going to be there? How much down property prices are going in this case? The bottom post GFC happened 4 years after, property prices reached the bottom in 2012. Is 4 years going to be enough to restructure the economy assuming there will be no regulations added, nor any repealed? Or is it going to be even faster because the government won’t be intervening so we’re just going to go down from a cliff and bounce in 12-18 months like it happened in post 1920th crisis when the government did almost nothing comparing to all later crises. Share your thoughts on how deep real estate prices fall and how long it may take to get there.

I missed 2012, and I don’t want to miss this time.

Resolution is as low as the dollar’s valuation, but it’s whatevs 🤷‍♂️

Either by buying up competitive companies to kill them or conspiring with other competitors to artificially inflate prices?

I just finished reading this book and found it quite a compelling case for state involvement in economic growth. It argues that basic research and the funding needed to take research to markets is very risky. So risky that venture capitalists and companies are not willing to invest. Argues the state is the only actor that can consistently take on this risk and should therefore be enabled to invest in innovation and be fairly rewarded for doing so.

I know very little about Austrian economics but I would like to hear more than just one argument. My review probably won’t do her argument justice so here is a book review from somewhere else too - https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/research/financial-analysts-journal/2013/the-entrepreneurial-state#:~:text=In%20this%20trailblazing%20book%20on,technologies%20that%20have%20spurred%20economic

What are your thoughts?

Sharecropping was always voluntary, the problem was that people would engage in contracts without being educated enough to know that they will never pay off the contract, essentially unfair and dishonest business practices with unfair contracts. So if the FED can manipulate currency and the value of your salary by printing more money which disproportionately hurts the working class then it is not much different from sharecropping. The current system operates differently… however it has the same overall affect, the majority of working class people are engaging in a system where they cannot possibly win or get ahead by saving money at the same job. Most people did not care about this as long as it affected those without a degree and blue collar workers however people are now starting to realize how much BS it is now that the system is failing those who actually have a college degree and sacrificed years and took out hundreds of thousands in debt.

Also if you look at the Great Depression it was really share cropping not the “free market” I know that is a simple explanation but it’s true and everything you’ve learned about that period of time is a lie so that you don’t understand the actual problem. Why do priests not marry? Has nothing to do with theological reasons they kept dividing the land amongst their sons which kept leading to plagues and land mismanagement. Same thing caused the Great Depression and dust bowl has literally nothing to do with capitalism or the free market haha.

Like, even police, firefighting departments, or even the military?

Anti-gouging laws prevent the sudden increase in the price of goods due to unforeseen events, like disease or disasters. It does not control the sale value of goods at all. So in an anti-gouging law set at 10%, you can sell your water bottle for whatever price you want as long as you increase your price no more than 10% compared to the price 30 days before something disastrous hits. So you still get your normal profit plus 10% of the total price, which is usually higher than just 10% extra profit. In addition, there are exceptions for goods that have increased cost due to the situation. If you are against anti-gouging laws then you are just pro-profiteering. It is fine to be pro-profiteering, just stop saying that anti-gouging kills profit or something of sort.

I often hear this doomsday scenario: Robots with human level intelligence or abilities will be bought up by the super-rich and we will lose all of the influence we previously had in labor. Now, we won't have the power of labor to go on strike since we can just be replaced, and will all starve.

Why this is incorrect.

These robots will first be bought by the super rich, and everyone who owns them will no longer need the poorer people, but the poor people will be left. The non-robot-owners will create their own small communities to support each other by selling food, water, and using whatever crappy cheap model robots they can get from the richer folks. Some will ascend into full self-sufficiency by virtue of these robots, but there will be a class of non-owners supporting each other by bartering until everyone is lifted by voluntary charity into self-sufficiency, or naturally acquires the materials to make it there by themselves.

TLDR: Super-rich people will never cause the lower class to starve by hoarding AI workers.