So if we predict that inflation is coming in a big way then how should we proceed in paying back our current debts? As in how aggressively should we be paying down CC debt, mortgage, car payments, student debt, etc.

This is actually a perpetual myth. Every older generation thinks that the younger generation has a drastically worse work ethic. It's false. Technology advances and so things change, but that doesn't mean that subsequent generations don't produce as much...otherwise, how could scientific findings and technological advances keep accelerating? It's just a perpetual myth.

There is certainly a 'me' generation, but your position throws up its hands and says there's nothing to be done...well, there is! Make them take responsibility.

I would disagree with this as well. I think each generation is larger, thus there's more talented people and also more less talented people. So yes there's a drag at the bottom end, but the top end is so much smarter then generations past. How could they not be? They have the past to learn from which is why we keep advancing in various different industries.

Not at all. If you expect that inflation is going to hit us in a big way please go borrow as much as possible and buy TIPS.

I would say pay down all CC debt before anything because those rates are 20% or more. Then pay the others accordingly.

Don't leverage yourself in anything, especially one specific investment vehicle.

I would borrow as much as possible if I knew we would have hyper inflation. You wouldn't?

If I knew(100% sure) things were going to happen, sure I would. Nothing is ever 100% these days.

Well, his question was what would you do if you knew x would happen...

Fair enough. But I think advising him to borrow money and put it all in TIPS is aggressive. At least just tell him to put all his savings in there, not other people's money too, lol.

Because there is still plenty of bright people out there.



The group as a whole has more knowledge but not individual members of the group.

The problem with the each generation is larger argument is that you assume that every group reproduces at the same pace. The reality of the situation is that the group we want reproducing the most are not having as many children while the group we'd prefer to limit is pumping out the most children.

I don't believe this is as evident in the United States as in Canada mostly because the educational system in the States clearly has schools that are better than others so the bright people still congregate at top schools -- if you go to a top school you are to a degree insulated from the reality since you mostly interact with your own kind. In Canada, where the difference between a good and a bad school is smaller, you don't get that so it is easier to see just how bad things have gotten.

I do agree that the group we don't want reproducing, is doing just that at a higher rate then the group we do want reproducing. And that there is an abundance of lazy people out there who want to earn the quick buck. There is also a lot of people out there willing to work for it too. Seems like a broken argument to me.

It is a very difficult debate to have because there really is no metric by which we can measure ability / intelligence levels of large groups.

That The Secret sold several million copies while remaining the #1 book and DVD for weeks, and holds the record for the largest second print ever is scary.

When you watch politics you can clearly see that the message was tailored on the belief that the largest audience is borderline ******ed. Political groups do a lot of demographic research so if that is who they believe is out there then it probably is. The same is true of advertising / marketing and news reporting.

I spent ten years at university and I can say with certainty that at least 30% of first year students in 2000 would not have made it past Christmas had they been admitted in 1991. The only reason they were able to succeed was because standards were lower. I still hover around academia and it has actually gotten worse since 2000 to the point where I no longer consider someone who only has an undergrad degree as being educated.

The reason smart motivated people don't realize how bad general society is stems from the fact that smart motivated people go to school with, socialize with, and eventually work with other people like themselves.

But to what end...you'd have to spend whatever you could borrow on stuff that you would need in the future to survive (non-perishable food, supplies, etc) and basically become a Y2K or Michigan Militia freak. You wouldn't want to just sit on the money because it would become worthless. You'd have to use it while it's still useful...and then...if hyperinflation doesn't come, you're ****ed.

Well, yes. That and TIPS.

Wouldn't the government just default on all TIPS?

And yet shows like the Daily Show are taking off because people are getting back into caring about politics. The number ONE hallowe'en costumes were: Palin, Bernanke, Paulson...doesn't that say something?

You can cherry pick all you want, but I'm sure that there are metrics out there and studies if you searched sociology databases.

Being into something is irrelevant. After What The Bleep Do We Know was released plenty of people were into QM and string theory and it was horrible as they didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

The Daily Show actually supports my point. People now get their news from the fake news -- a show hosted by a very funny man who is also not very bright.

Could be. But if the US government defaults there are bigger problems than paying your loans...

Actually, it doesn't make your point. They win emmy's for being the BEST news show...that means that the news programs are terrible. And, if people get their information from terrible sources, can it be any surprise that they're stupid? Blame the people in charge of the news feeds for that...but also blame people for being lazy for not finding out for themselves. But, is that really different from any other generation?

Unless you're actually going out into the world and finding a way to compare generations across metrics, then you're just speculating...and I suspect that you're doing a very bad job of it because there is some evidence that I've seen (a couple studies) that go against your thesis.

Very good point. As far as people in general getting lazy/dumb, I think I would agree too as you see most kids are taking more then four years now to complete undergrad classes. Then they go to grad school full time, instead of going at night while working full time during the day.

I still stand by my original point though that there is plenty of very hard working, smart minds out there. Much smarter then people in the past.

Emmy awards for entertainment. I don't disagree that the show is funny and entertaining -- it just is not a legitimate source or news and the host is not even close to being as intelligent as he thinks he is.

Yes. Mostly because of the legitimizing of pseudo-sciences like psychology / sociology the mentality of younger people is considerably different than even people my age (Mid-30s). Further, the world has become considerably more complex so that magnifies the problem. If you look at the skill set required to be successful 25-30 years ago and compare it with the skill set required to do so now the current world requires a skill set that is considerably harder to master. The world is simply much more complicated than it was even in the 80s.

The problem with studies in this area is that they would generally fall into either sociology or psychology -- neither of which is a field I have any respect for.

Most of my evidence is anecdotal but I'm pretty sure my thesis is correct. For example, the issue of homework in grade school has become a major issue recently. Parents complain that their children can't do it and that is amounts to 4-5 hours of homework yet the actual quantity of homework has no increased. When I was in university the number of students taking a 80-90% course load grew from the occasional student to over 25% by the time I left university. Undergrad is a joke yet people can't handle a full course load.

I don't do much so the vast majority of my time is spent socializing. Outside of an academic environment and some professional environments I generally find that 95% of the people I just meet out in public places are not intelligent. I have a friend of a friend who does those interviews of people on the street for public reactions to political decisions for a major news outlet -- he works with a 3-1 ratio and even then is forced to air clips from people who are generally ******ed and uninformed. Based on other serious news shows and their similar segment this seems like a fairly universal outcome.

I can't think of one thing that I could point to that would make me even consider the possibility that Western society as a group is getting smarter. I can point to thousands that make be believe it is getting worse.

I don't disagree with that. The people who are smart and motivated are far more so than in previous generations. They just represent a much smaller percentage of the general population and also a shrinking percentage.

I think the newer generations are not willing to undergo hardships in order to see a payoff down the road. The sense of instant entitlement along with the cultivation of an everyone wins mindset has placed them at a disadvantage for when their elevated status cycles back to equilibrium.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a German machinist. We discussed the North American apprenticeship system. In NA, an apprentice considers himself fully qualified, and therefore deserving of full journeyman status and pay, after the 4 year schooling phase. As opposed to a European system, where the apprentice will work under a Master for a period of years to learn more and eventually become qualified enough to work without supervision.

So many stories of people refusing jobs because they are beneath their social status or dignity. Take a ride in the way back machine to see what happened to that mindset in the 1930's. Not everyone is in the top 1% of their field.

I'm sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about with respect to sociology/psychology. You seem to have a very small taste of likely very bad studies (if you've even been reading real studies). You don't seem to understand what "science" even means, nor certainly how to distinguish between good/bad science.

With respect to your anecdotal evidence, if you cared about psychology at all, you could have perhaps learned that events that are salient to you tend to be biased. So, your "sample" is likely biased in that you're going to be more likely to "see" events that confirm your "thesis" and miss events that disconfirm it.

Once again, your anecdotes show no referece to PAST generations. How have things changed? You say buddy has 3-1 ratio, but what was it in the past? Say, 20yrs ago? You don't know...you're just guessing and doing EXACTLY what you think sociology/psychology does. Except, that they actually have set standards and statistical methods and follow a methodology. Odd how your conclusions are based off far far worse standards than these fields which you have no respect for...odd indeed.