QUESTION #1: I live in the US. When the sovereign debt explodes, and I will “own nothing “, does that mean that any car, house or property that has a loan on it will become the property of the bank and or government? Does it mean property that is paid off and I hold the title or deed will be taken from me and I will have to pay “rent” to hold on to it? Please answer by my email or on one of your blogs.
Thanks for all you do.
MH
QUESTION #2: Would you ever consider running for politics? Your experience towers over everyone out there.
BB
ANSWER: No, I am not interested in getting into politics. I have always preferred to be standing behind the curtain. If I ever stepped in front, they would quickly figure out a way I could commit suicide with a remote rifle 100 yards away and you can bet the media will say absolutely!
Now insofar as the sovereign debt default, we are looking at governments collapsing which will take down banks that must retain reserves in government bonds. Klaud Schwab is an academic. He has ZERO real-world experience. His ideas will collapse just like Marx for the one element both ignore is human nature. It cost over 200 million lives for Marx to get his theory in place. Communism collapsed because without curiosity and freedom to explore, talk, and think, all advancement of society comes to an end.
Schwab’s idea will fail because the setup is different this time. Marxism succeeded because in Russia serfdom ended only during the 1860s. Therefore, the common people DID NOT own anything and it made sense to raid the rich. This time, people own houses and cars, and they save with pensions and to help their children. This time the common people would have to surrender all their assets so Schwab’s Marxist theories can be implemented.
It is a whole different board game this time around. Our computer has NEVER been beaten by anyone, even me. It sees the future because it is monitoring everything. So while people argue over what they “think” will happen, Socrates just plugs away and lacks that human emotion that interferes with objectivity.
