Article: "Doomsday planning for less crazy folk"

Just came across this lengthy article - has some philosophy as well as practical links.

Doomsday planning for less crazy folk

I stopped reading at the sentence:



Neither Friedman nor Piketty says that the state provides (or should provide) a "robust safety net for all of life's likely contingencies." It is particularly laughable to see Friedman's name connected to such an idea. Also, which elected official has been "schooling us" in economic theory?

The above is not a political observation, just fact checking. This sort of error makes me think the author hasn't put in enough care and thought into his article to make it worth my while.

That's too bad, as you've missed out on a very well done essay.



You're being extraordinarily picky. Friedman is generally understood to champion the citizen's efforts over the government. Piketty's chief tenet is that the government should redistribute wealth in the interest of fairness and economic safety. It's just a sentence in a prepper essay but it's a reasonable compare/contrast between two very divergent worldviews.



Thirty seconds on Wikipedia undermines your point. What, are you an econ major or something?

I agree that the article was definitely worth reading, despite the minor detour that was a turn-off for Mr. B. No need to get into petty arguments, folks, it was a throw-away sentence that's not worth the energy to debate.

Nothing enormously new for me in there, but I like the philosophy of recognizing, planning and mitigating real-life risks, rather than sexy apocalypses (how do you pluralize that anyway? can you have more than one?).

There were more than one thing to disagree with in the article but as an overall survey it was reasonably well done.

Your post actually supports my point. Perhaps if you reread and think a little more about it, you'd see that we're, ironically, on the same side where content is concerned. And, no, I've never studied economics formally. It just seems to me like every educated person should know something about people like Friedman, as their ideas have influenced the course of world events. But maybe young people these days need to actually major in something in college or look things up on the unreliable Wikipedia to know the very basics.

I prefer to take my survival advice from people who have thought carefully about it. If the author skimps on one part, where else has he skimped? "It's just a sentence" or "it's just a throwaway" can be used to justify ideas like "mix ammonia and vinegar to double their cleaning power!" (NOTE: do not mix these two liquids! You will produce toxic fumes!) I urge people to apply a higher standard when their lives are on the line.

I agree that fact checking is mandatory. This is an article off the Internet, with all the caveats that implies.

I think the general philosophy and approach of the article is very useful. I'm not convinced of certain statements he makes, but that's par for everything I read online. Even vetted and published materials get the skeptical eye, since good advice for one landscape may be bad advice in another.

I hope that we can discuss gaps or inaccurate statements in the document rather than descending into personalities. It's a much more productive use of time and energy.

(P.S., I suspect you were thinking of household bleach in your example. But I get your point.)

The basic Friedman vs Piketty analogy is reasonable for the topic involved and the clear intent of the author.

To ETSers who haven't yet read the essay in question, check it out, as one of its best merits is the reasonable risk assessment the author uses. I see it as a strategy vs. tactics thing.



Are you sure about that?

Mixing ammonia and chlorox (chlorine) bleach makes phosgene gas.

I'm lucky enough to be one of the ignorant people who has never heard of either Friedman or Piketty, so I enjoyed the article without being disturbed by that paragraph. Went right over my head. I just ignored it as being irrelevant fluff to pad out the length of the article. The introduction sections of articles typically contain nothing important, save the author trying to show how important/intelligent they are. Those sections are there just because good writing style dictates that you have an introduction. And a conclusion.

I typically read the conclusion first, because that gives me a good idea if reading the earlier sections of the article is worthwhile. The conclusion of this article, labeled "Final Thoughts", was extremely weak. Those last paragraphs would have gotten a D- if I had been grading them. "F" would have meant you forgot the conclusion, D- means you had one, but it was useless. It almost made me not read other parts of the article. But I skimmed them anyway, because others here reported that it was a pretty good article.