Investors now see Australia as a better place to invest than the USA or Germany.

[Walsingham]

With Italy tanking I'm asking myself for the first time if it's worth going abroad, lungfish style. Just hole up somewhere dirt cheap and full of mosquitos with a shotgun and plenty of rum. Live on ...I've no idea. Come back in five years when the dust has settled.

 

There is always Australia.

 

If I've got to live in a country full of venomous insects and reptiles, with **** lager and worse TV then I'll take bloody Rwanda. At least the scenery is nice.

[Humodour]

With Italy tanking I'm asking myself for the first time if it's worth going abroad, lungfish style. Just hole up somewhere dirt cheap and full of mosquitos with a shotgun and plenty of rum. Live on ...I've no idea. Come back in five years when the dust has settled.

 

There is always Australia.

 

If I've got to live in a country full of venomous insects and reptiles, with **** lager and worse TV then I'll take bloody Rwanda. At least the scenery is nice.

 

[Nepenthe]

Also, I just took a look at the legislation that will actually address the debt limit issue, and now I need another drink. It's going to be causing a lot of work-related headaches for me over the next few months. I mean, the core provisions were passed as amendments to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985! (Which, ironically, is what Congress produced the last time that there was a self-inflicted "crisis" because the opposition tied the nation to the railroad tracks and demanded a ransom before voting to raise the debt limit.) So, now, every time I need to understand part of the new law, I'm going to have to find the text of a 25-year-old law, along with all the amendments and legal interpretations (at least part of the original has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) it has gathered over the years to find definitions sections and other important context.

At least it's not a multilateral convention.

[Morgoth]

The thing is, even if the US is commited to cut, say 2 trillion dollars in a decade, it won't be enough. The US economy right now is very weak and will grow weaker, meaning the deficit will just grow bigger.

 

You'd have to cut 20 trillion per decade to get out of the hole, but that is an impossibility. Hence, default will be inevitable at some point.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The austerity measures will hurt, certainly-- even if certain spending is wasteful from a particular point of view, it's a profit for somebody, and taking it away means taking away income, jobs, and GDP.

You're talking as if that spending isn't taken away from someone else who would've produced more income, jobs, and GDP than a corrupt government program could ever do.

 

To me this is a good first step, at least now people can see that we're not just going down a waterfall without a paddle, so it should stablilize things and improve the economy long term.

[Enoch]

The austerity measures will hurt, certainly-- even if certain spending is wasteful from a particular point of view, it's a profit for somebody, and taking it away means taking away income, jobs, and GDP.

You're talking as if that spending isn't taken away from someone else who would've produced more income, jobs, and GDP than a corrupt government program could ever do.

Well, yeah. Isn't the whole premise to the thread the idea that the government spends way more than it takes in? What an introductory macroeconomics class would call the "G Function"-- the portion of GDP that reflect spending by the various levels of government net of the taxes and other revenue collected-- is a very large positive number. It is borrowed from future output, of course, but reams of objective data shows that people don't do much of anything to adjust their present habits based on anticipated higher future taxes due to budget deficits.

 

 

As to relative wastefulness, generally, I won't argue that governmental organizations carry a fair amount of waste. But so do most private entities. The reality in the business world is that tendencies to collusion, oligopoly, and monopoly are everywhere, and that this produces some shocking examples of waste. Having the corporate board meeting in Bora Bora? Waste. Hiring the VP's nephew into a sinecure position? Waste. Executive compensation well beyond any reasonable estimate of the value that the execs return to the firm and voted on by members of the Board of Directors who are themselves executives at other firms and whose pay gets benchmarked based in part on the compensation they vote for? Waste. The vast majority of advertising expenses devoted towards "brand identity" and squabbling over market share between competitors offering near-identical products or services? Waste. Corporate charitable contributions? Waste.

 

Sure, there are market forces to police this kind of stuff. Just like official oversight bodies and scrutiny in the public and in the press police government waste. Neither are nearly sufficient to eliminate it, of course. Which doesn't mean we should stop trying-- just that glib citations to wasteful governments don't have much persuasive value. If you have data relative to a useful benchmark, I'd be interested to see it, but until that point, I'll assume its anecdotal and ideological.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I didn't say it was wasteful, you did. I said it's corrupt, and it's inherently corrupt because it takes money from people who earned it and gives it to people who didn't. Further, unlike private business, the government produces nothing. And when it borrows or collects money, this is money that could be used for productive purposes instead. Yes, in some cases it is a necessary evil, but scaling it back from its excesses is something to be celebrated, not mourned.

[Enoch]

I didn't say it was wasteful, you did. I said it's corrupt, and it's inherently corrupt because it takes money from people who earned it and gives it to people who didn't.

Define "earn." Is all income or wealth in the absence of "earning" morally suspect? Is all income or wealth generated in the private sector automatically considered "earned"?

Further, unlike private business, the government produces nothing. And when it borrows or collects money, this is money that could be used for productive purposes instead.

What's more "productive"-- a company selling fire insurance policies, or the NYC Fire Department?

 

Try telling a road construction crew that the government spending that makes up their paychecks "produces nothing." Or a public school teacher. Or a NIH researcher. Or a doctor in a VA hospital. Or a food safety inspector. Or a Marine. (Might want to duck after that last one.)

[Humodour]

I didn't say it was wasteful, you did. I said it's corrupt, and it's inherently corrupt because it takes money from people who earned it and gives it to people who didn't.

 

No, that's a load of rubbish. That is an irrelevant aside to this issue (balancing the budget) which irks primarily only far right extremists (of which, admittedly, America seems to have an unhealthily large number).

[Walsingham]

I didn't say it was wasteful, you did. I said it's corrupt, and it's inherently corrupt because it takes money from people who earned it and gives it to people who didn't. Further, unlike private business, the government produces nothing. And when it borrows or collects money, this is money that could be used for productive purposes instead. Yes, in some cases it is a necessary evil, but scaling it back from its excesses is something to be celebrated, not mourned.

 

You realise that bar a few niceties these are the words of a communist. People who didn't earn it? You'll start waffling on about sweat next.

 

'Government' can and has spent money well in ways which enrich everyone because there is this thing we call 'society' and this other thing we call 'culture'. Oh, and 'national infrastructure'. It can act to develop these because it can take a long view which corporations could, but would be insane if they did.

 

This doesn't alter my feeling - shaped by discussion on here more than anything else - that many governments are spending at a level which is fundamentally unsustainable, precisely because the payoff is illusory. Essentially voters are treating themselves on credit at a national level rather than using personal credit . In the UK this would be because we've all maxed our credit cards. But that doesn't mean the payoff is always illusory.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I didn't say it was wasteful, you did. I said it's corrupt, and it's inherently corrupt because it takes money from people who earned it and gives it to people who didn't.

Define "earn." Is all income or wealth in the absence of "earning" morally suspect? Is all income or wealth generated in the private sector automatically considered "earned"?

Yes.

 

Further, unlike private business, the government produces nothing. And when it borrows or collects money, this is money that could be used for productive purposes instead.

What's more "productive"-- a company selling fire insurance policies, or the NYC Fire Department?

Both are necessary, I'm not saying government isn't a necessary evil (we have a volunteer fire department here btw). But stuff being cut from the federal government isn't in the category of essential services, which are usually provided by local governments anyway.

 

Try telling a road construction crew that the government spending that makes up their paychecks "produces nothing." Or a public school teacher. Or a NIH researcher. Or a doctor in a VA hospital. Or a food safety inspector. Or a Marine. (Might want to duck after that last one.)

I said the government produces nothing, not that they don't sometimes pay other people to produce stuff. But when they do it's normally super inefficient, and the only reason to let them do it is because it can't be done through the marketplace.

 

Edit: Anyway, when I said "produce", I meant create wealth. Government is a net consumer and redistributor of wealth, not a producer.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

Firstly, good luck getting that volunteer fire department to handle a major industrial chemical spill. And especially good luck with all the weird chemicals you'd have being made if your NATIONAL government wasnt able to keep big corporations in line.

 

You need to get out of the USA and spend a little time in places where they actually have to get by with **** all national government. See how they muddle along famously, getting raped by every two bit corporation and neighbouring proper state. Local government my arse.

 

Secondly, I'd like a straight answer from you on whether you accept that national infrastrcuture exists and would have been built at all without national investment.

[Enoch]

Well, if you're adamant in labeling everything governmental as "evil," in insisting that, to pick two arbitrary examples, an engineer at NASA and the Secretary of State don't "earn" their paychecks, and in denying that prudent governmental actions can ever enhance the wealth of a society, then there really isn't much point in talking to you about this. That kind of thinking makes for nice bumper stickers, but doesn't stand up to any kind of evidence-based analysis.

 

 

As with any human endeavor, there are things that government does well, things that it does poorly. Leave the "good" and "evil" out of the conversation and do the work to figure out which is which.

 

Edit: In case Wals' sneaking in ahead of me confused things, I should make it clear that this was addressed at WoD.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Enoch

[Gromnir]

As with any human endeavor, there are things that government does well, things that it does poorly. Leave the "good" and "evil" out of the conversation and do the work to figure out which is which.

 

gotta know your audience. enoch may be aware that the folks who end up implementing policy is, by-and-large, competent and dedicated... but your knowledge is sadly exceptional. sure, the decision making process is ugly and even self-defeating, but that is partial intended. yeah, there is some incompetence and corruption present in any large organization, and the US government is Extreme large, but it is amusing to observe how frequent the US is imagined as clowns piling outta a tiny car, or as a legion o' pitchfork wielding demons stinking 'o brimstone and blood. what is particular curious is that peoples is able to imagine the US as both clownish and demonic at the same time. in this country we got a Constitution that were original authored by revolutionaries, many of whom did not trust Government the further it got removed from The People. a system that makes tyranny extreme unlikely is not gonna be a model o' efficient decision making. the process is understandably fugly, but that doesn't meant that government is incompetent... and it surely not mean that government is inherent corrupt.

 

nevertheless, this board is populated by many folks who start with the given that US is evil. is no longer a surprise to us. heck, we grew up in a place where hating the US were the unofficial religion, so am familiar with the condition. no misfortune has befallen a member o' the OST in the past 100+ years that could not be blamed on the US. unemployment, disease, alcoholism, and infant mortality is the curses left behind by the US to wipe out oglala culture... and am only half-joking when we liken to religion, 'cause just as the primitive man looked to explain unknown/unknowable phenomenon on powerful and frequently malign intelligences (gods,) so too does the so-called evolved and educated men o' today look to place blame with some malefic force o' no-goodery. these educated folks who is too smarty to believe in a childish bogey-man like The Devil, find comfort in a more tangible evil slouching towards washington d.c.. such identifiable and omni-present infernal forces similarly makes it easy to shrug off personal responsibility.

 

for our next trick we will try and explain that george w. bush, while perhaps not the most dignified US president in recent memory, were not the rampaging evil menace most folks believe him to be... maybe try to explain actual Presidential powers compared to those imagined, and illustrate that many hot-button issues were existing before bush got elected.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 3, 2011 by Gromnir

[Nightshape]

As with any human endeavor, there are things that government does well, things that it does poorly. Leave the "good" and "evil" out of the conversation and do the work to figure out which is which.

 

gotta know your audience. enoch may be aware that the folks who end up implementing policy is, by-and-large, competent and dedicated.. but your knowledge is sadly, exceptional. sure, the decision making process is ugly and even self-defeating, but that is partial intended. yeah, there is some incompetence and corruption present in any large organization, and the US government is Extreme large, but it is amusing to observe how frequent the US is imagined as clowns piling outta a tiny car, or as a legion o' pitchfork wielding demons stinking 'o brimstone and blood. what is particular curious is that peoples is able to imagine the US as both clownish and demonic at the same time. in this country we got a Constitution that were original authored by revolutionaries, many of whom did not trust Government the further it got removed from The People. a system that makes tyranny extreme unlikely is not gonna be a model o' efficient decision making. the process is understandably fugly, but that doesn't meant that government is incompetent... and it surely not mean that government is inherent corrupt.

 

nevertheless, this board is populated by many folks who start with the given that US is evil. is no longer a surprise to us. heck, we grew up in a place where hating the US were the unofficial religion, so am familiar with the condition. no misfortune has befallen a member o' the OST in the past 100+ years that could not be blamed on the US. unemployment, disease, alcoholism, and infant mortality is the curses left behind by the US to wipe out oglala culture... and am only half-joking when we liken to religion, 'cause just as the primitive man looked to explain unknown/unknowable phenomenon on powerful and frequently malign intelligences (gods,) so too does the so-called evolved and educated men o' today look to place blame with some malefic force o' no-goodery. these educated folks who is too smarty to believe in a childish bogey-man like The Devil, find comfort in a more tangible evil slouching towards washington d.c.. such identifiable and omni-present infernal forces similarly makes it easy to shrug off personal responsibility.

 

for our next trick we will try and explain that george w. bush, while perhaps not the most dignified US president in recent memory, were not the rampaging evil menace most folks believe him to be... maybe try to explain actual Presidential powers compared to those imagined, and illustrate that many hot-button issues were existing before bush got elected.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Firstly, good luck getting that volunteer fire department to handle a major industrial chemical spill. And especially good luck with all the weird chemicals you'd have being made if your NATIONAL government wasnt able to keep big corporations in line.

 

You need to get out of the USA and spend a little time in places where they actually have to get by with **** all national government. See how they muddle along famously, getting raped by every two bit corporation and neighbouring proper state. Local government my arse.

 

Secondly, I'd like a straight answer from you on whether you accept that national infrastrcuture exists and would have been built at all without national investment.

I said government is a necessary evil, I didn't say abolish it entirely. As far as national infrastructure, obviously it exists, but whether national government was needed to put it in place, I'm not sure. In any case I don't believe it was constitutionally authorized, except as far as it impacts defense.

 

Well, if you're adamant in labeling everything governmental as "evil," in insisting that, to pick two arbitrary examples, an engineer at NASA and the Secretary of State don't "earn" their paychecks, and in denying that prudent governmental actions can ever enhance the wealth of a society, then there really isn't much point in talking to you about this. That kind of thinking makes for nice bumper stickers, but doesn't stand up to any kind of evidence-based analysis.

 

 

As with any human endeavor, there are things that government does well, things that it does poorly. Leave the "good" and "evil" out of the conversation and do the work to figure out which is which.

"Necessary evil" isn't the same thing as "evil". And no, there's nothing the government does well, but like I said, sometimes it's the only option.

[Gromnir]

oddly enough, carlin is actual relevant in US policy making... if only as a footnote. fcc v. pacifica taught us that school-aged kids gets the "cute-case" exception to ordinary con law jurisprudence. the retarded, amish, and school kids is among the select categories o' peoples that all needs extra protection. carlin's "filthy words" resulted in the creation o' quasi-protected status for indecent speech... to protect kiddies.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nepenthe]

As with any human endeavor, there are things that government does well, things that it does poorly. Leave the "good" and "evil" out of the conversation and do the work to figure out which is which.

 

gotta know your audience. enoch may be aware that the folks who end up implementing policy is, by-and-large, competent and dedicated... but your knowledge is sadly exceptional. sure, the decision making process is ugly and even self-defeating, but that is partial intended. yeah, there is some incompetence and corruption present in any large organization, and the US government is Extreme large, but it is amusing to observe how frequent the US is imagined as clowns piling outta a tiny car, or as a legion o' pitchfork wielding demons stinking 'o brimstone and blood. what is particular curious is that peoples is able to imagine the US as both clownish and demonic at the same time. in this country we got a Constitution that were original authored by revolutionaries, many of whom did not trust Government the further it got removed from The People. a system that makes tyranny extreme unlikely is not gonna be a model o' efficient decision making. the process is understandably fugly, but that doesn't meant that government is incompetent... and it surely not mean that government is inherent corrupt.

 

nevertheless, this board is populated by many folks who start with the given that US is evil. is no longer a surprise to us. heck, we grew up in a place where hating the US were the unofficial religion, so am familiar with the condition. no misfortune has befallen a member o' the OST in the past 100+ years that could not be blamed on the US. unemployment, disease, alcoholism, and infant mortality is the curses left behind by the US to wipe out oglala culture... and am only half-joking when we liken to religion, 'cause just as the primitive man looked to explain unknown/unknowable phenomenon on powerful and frequently malign intelligences (gods,) so too does the so-called evolved and educated men o' today look to place blame with some malefic force o' no-goodery. these educated folks who is too smarty to believe in a childish bogey-man like The Devil, find comfort in a more tangible evil slouching towards washington d.c.. such identifiable and omni-present infernal forces similarly makes it easy to shrug off personal responsibility.

 

for our next trick we will try and explain that george w. bush, while perhaps not the most dignified US president in recent memory, were not the rampaging evil menace most folks believe him to be... maybe try to explain actual Presidential powers compared to those imagined, and illustrate that many hot-button issues were existing before bush got elected.

 

HA! Good Fun!

'cept this time, this is essentially an all-American discussion. Unless the Republic of Texas has seceded while I was looking the other way.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No such thing as Republic of Texas. Yet.

[Gromnir]

As with any human endeavor, there are things that government does well, things that it does poorly. Leave the "good" and "evil" out of the conversation and do the work to figure out which is which.

 

gotta know your audience. enoch may be aware that the folks who end up implementing policy is, by-and-large, competent and dedicated... but your knowledge is sadly exceptional. sure, the decision making process is ugly and even self-defeating, but that is partial intended. yeah, there is some incompetence and corruption present in any large organization, and the US government is Extreme large, but it is amusing to observe how frequent the US is imagined as clowns piling outta a tiny car, or as a legion o' pitchfork wielding demons stinking 'o brimstone and blood. what is particular curious is that peoples is able to imagine the US as both clownish and demonic at the same time. in this country we got a Constitution that were original authored by revolutionaries, many of whom did not trust Government the further it got removed from The People. a system that makes tyranny extreme unlikely is not gonna be a model o' efficient decision making. the process is understandably fugly, but that doesn't meant that government is incompetent... and it surely not mean that government is inherent corrupt.

 

nevertheless, this board is populated by many folks who start with the given that US is evil. is no longer a surprise to us. heck, we grew up in a place where hating the US were the unofficial religion, so am familiar with the condition. no misfortune has befallen a member o' the OST in the past 100+ years that could not be blamed on the US. unemployment, disease, alcoholism, and infant mortality is the curses left behind by the US to wipe out oglala culture... and am only half-joking when we liken to religion, 'cause just as the primitive man looked to explain unknown/unknowable phenomenon on powerful and frequently malign intelligences (gods,) so too does the so-called evolved and educated men o' today look to place blame with some malefic force o' no-goodery. these educated folks who is too smarty to believe in a childish bogey-man like The Devil, find comfort in a more tangible evil slouching towards washington d.c.. such identifiable and omni-present infernal forces similarly makes it easy to shrug off personal responsibility.

 

for our next trick we will try and explain that george w. bush, while perhaps not the most dignified US president in recent memory, were not the rampaging evil menace most folks believe him to be... maybe try to explain actual Presidential powers compared to those imagined, and illustrate that many hot-button issues were existing before bush got elected.

 

HA! Good Fun!

'cept this time, this is essentially an all-American discussion. Unless the Republic of Texas has seceded while I was looking the other way.

 

not true. krez and morgoth has participated. also, am not understanding why you believe that americans cannot be the ones who sees US as evil. is actual something we referenced in our post. many o' the original framers had a distrust o' a powerful fed government, and many present day americans is similarly fearful... but w/o the understanding and education o' the founders. is very American to distrust and fear America, as odd as that sounds.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps most Americans will recognize the old adage, "people hate Congress, but love their congressman." is illustrative o' the somewhat curious and conflicted opinion Americans got regarding their govt.

 

pps am actual dubious 'bout the accuracy o' old adage. post health-care legislation, it seemed as if most Americans hated Congress And their congressman, but we don't have numbers to prove.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Gromnir

[Nepenthe]

not true. krez and morgoth has participated. also, am not understanding why you believe that americans cannot be the ones who sees US as evil. is actual something we referenced in our post. many o' the original framers had a distrust o' a powerful fed government, and many present day americans is similarly fearful... but w/o the understanding and education o' the founders. is very American to distrust and fear America, as odd as that sounds.

I read your earlier point a bit differently, but I agree with you here.

[Guard Dog]

Just to interject here. Most of you know where I stand on this stuff. Government is necessary and not an evil thing so long as it remains within it's boundries. It begins to get into trouble when it gets it's hands into things beyond it's scope, like health care, social welfare, etc. The issue really is that it is not capable of doing them well and the cost of doing them poorly is ruineous which I doubt anyone will disagree with.

 

But many of you are using that old tired straw man on WoD here. By arguing against government you are saying he is against roads, fire departments, etc. We have different levels of governments here in the US. The FEDERAL government is the one in a debt crisis right now. FEDERAL requirements on state spending is causing many state governments to founder. The FEDERAL government does not pay for fire, police, roads, dog-catchers, life guards, etc. State and local governments do for the most part. Complaining about run away federal spending is not complaining about the existence of basic social sevices. Lets keep the ball on the court here.

[Enoch]

Just to interject here. Most of you know where I stand on this stuff. Government is necessary and not an evil thing so long as it remains within it's boundries. It begins to get into trouble when it gets it's hands into things beyond it's scope, like health care, social welfare, etc. The issue really is that it is not capable of doing them well and the cost of doing them poorly is ruineous which I doubt anyone will disagree with.

 

But many of you are using that old tired straw man on WoD here. By arguing against government you are saying he is against roads, fire departments, etc. We have different levels of governments here in the US. The FEDERAL government is the one in a debt crisis right now. FEDERAL requirements on state spending is causing many state governments to founder. The FEDERAL government does not pay for fire, police, roads, dog-catchers, life guards, etc. State and local governments do for the most part. Complaining about run away federal spending is not complaining about the existence of basic social sevices. Lets keep the ball on the court here.

There's a conversation to be had under those terms, but it's pretty clear (particularly in this post) that WoD is speaking more broadly than that.

[Gromnir]

Lets keep the ball on the court here.

 

indeed. might be worth looking into just how much the fed has contributed to things like roads (huge) and state prisons and law enforcement (substantial) ... though am gonna admit that we believe that dog-catchers is likely 100% local. oh, and as much as we has problems with the method in which "social welfare" programs is administered, an insurmountable problem regarding any major overhaul o' such programs is the fact that near 50% of all such disbursements is going to aid children. is not practical or politic to be taking every "welfare" kid away from their parent's custody, but then how else does one gets monies to needy children?

 

is not so simple as you might believe to sever fed from state where it relates it basic infrastructure spending. am not always a huge fan regarding the manner in which the fed handles many programs, but typically there ain't no easy solutions... "just stop spending for _______ ," is hardly a viable alternative in virtual all cases, and rarely is the mistakes being made the result o' corruption and evil.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am guessing that gd ain't a fan o' fed health care spending. well neither is Gromnir. however, at this point you gots serious problems extricating the fed, especially in a time when the economy is working towards recovery. the fed is not like other business, but one thing that is common is that for big and small, private and fed, the easiest way to cut spending is to cut employees. so, reduce services and employment.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

Lets keep the ball on the court here.

 

indeed. might be worth looking into just how much the fed has contributed to things like roads (huge) and state prisons and law enforcement (substantial) ... though am gonna admit that we believe that dog-catchers is likely 100% local. oh, and as much as we has problems with the method in which "social welfare" programs is administered, an insurmountable problem regarding any major overhaul o' such programs is the fact that near 50% of all such disbursements is going to aid children. is not practical or politic to be taking every "welfare" kid away from their parent's custody, but then how else does one gets monies to needy children?

 

is not so simple as you might believe to sever fed from state where it relates it basic infrastructure spending. am not always a huge fan regarding the manner in which the fed handles many programs, but typically there ain't no easy solutions... "just stop spending for _______ ," is hardly a viable alternative in virtual all cases, and rarely is the mistakes being made the result o' corruption and evil.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am guessing that gd ain't a fan o' fed health care spending. well neither is Gromnir. however, at this point you gots serious problems extricating the fed, especially in a time when the economy is working towards recovery. the fed is not like other business, but one thing that is common is that for big and small, private and fed, the easiest way to cut spending is to cut employees. so, reduce services and employment.

 

No you are right. Much as I might wish otherwise we cannot get the genie back into the bottle. The best we can hope for is to delay the inevitable for as long as possible, but with the understanding that collapse is inevitable.