The whole COLLAPSE -> LIBERTARIANISM logic is undercut by the very economic reasoning that good laws and sound money improve social cooperation and personal character.

essentially I believe our choices are make the changes necessary to make what we have work – changes that are more painful that politicians are willing to consider. Or let the market fix itself which will be shorter – if left alone, more radical and faster.

gold cranks should consider that in a severe enough collapse – bread becomes the prefered currency the intrinsic value of gold is far less than the current market value. The primary value of gold is as a political statement about government money. But the catacylsym necescary to obliterate government money does not help the value of gold.

The US does not face problems as severe as the rest of the world. But more so than much of the rest of the world we are still headed in the wrong direction.

The wealth we are creating is insufficient to sustain the state we have chosen, something must give.

As you indicate, step 2 in the revolutionary process is the crux of the revolution. A crisis will not result in a good outcome unless the people are ready to make that change. There needs to be both an ideological and institutional foundation for a revolution. If a revolution does happen after a crisis, it will simply follow whatever path that culture moves towards — whether “more of the same” or fascism, or anything else. I don’t think that commodity currencies have the sort of support that is needed for a revolution to occur, even if the current financial/monetary system collapses. They don’t even have a ton of support among libertarians.

I think your analysis of SS is ignoring some important steps. First, SS could run out purely because of political decisions, regardless of the health of the economy. My impression is that it is having problems in part because the formula for payouts is not properly calibrated to the pay-in (e.g. underesmitaming lifespan) … though I’m no expert on this. Also, since SS is funded by payroll taxes, increased returns to capital will not improve its balance sheet; that would require a substantial change in the law. So yeah, there is no fundamental economic problem that will prevent most people from retiring with a reasonable standard of living (by 75?), but actually achieving that through SS will require some major changes that the government never seems willing to push.