Okay, I'm a little confused by this. What would have been analogous to "widespread debt defaults" in the Soviets' Marxist system?

What would have been analogous to "widespread debt defaults"?

Good question.
Simple answer:
____________________________
Widespread default of your Comrades' Promises.

The "promise" is a fundamental element (think H in periodic table) in all economic systems.

I do X for you to today in exchange for your "promise"
to do Y for me tomorrow,

where value of doing X today (as far as I'm concerned) =< value of getting Y tomorrow (as far as I'm concerned)
AND where I "trust" you to live up to your promise.

-----------------------------------------
Now in a capitalist system, "the promise" (basic element) is replaced by money (a complex compound) and the equation becomes something like this:

I do X for you to today in exchange for Money's "promise" (M amount of Money)
to do Y for me tomorrow,

where value of doing X today (as far as I'm concerned) =< value of getting Y tomorrow (as far as I'm concerned) based on having M amount of Money then,
AND where I "trust" society to live up to its promise that it will give me Y tomorrow in exchange for the M amount of Money I receive today.

---------------------------------------
You can see where this is going by substituting for Y, my expectation to receive Z barrels of oil for that M amount of Money I received today and where society is no longer able to deliver on its implied "promise".

When society can no longer deliver on its promises (be they capitalist money promises or commie comrade's promise to give to each according to his needs) you have default.

That is a good point. Even in this country, a lot of the promises that are going to be defaulted on are the implied promises that have been made. States have all kinds of programs - schools, universities, roads, medicaid, unemployment insurance. In the months and years ahead, states are going to find themselves unable to fund all of these promises.

The federal government has also made promises: Social Security; Medicare; war in Iraq and Afghanistan; keeping banks from failing; pay back its loans; money will hold its value.

It is pretty clear that not all of these promises can be honored. So far, there have not been major defaults on any of them, but they will be coming, as the amount of resources available decline.

That's the point Nate Hagens has been hammering, that we depend on real capital resources and that money is only a marker. Money doesn't even specify who owns the resources, but only the promise - the alleged promise. In a declining musical chair economy where there is more money than real resources, continual default will be the rule until that "excess money" collapses in debt and default. This implies to me a "flight to real resources" - not to cash, but to wheelbarrows, chainsaws and chainsaw parts.

cfm in Gray, ME

Paul Krugman in today's New York Times has an editorial that hammers in the point about folk not being able to live up to their "promises".

In this case he's talking about AIG, the insurance company that "promised" to cover the defaults of defaulting bankers but then itself turned into a "zombie" institution.

The insurance game is the ultimate in the making of promises, because they don't have to perform until after it is too late, and then what are you going to do about it? Sue them? Sue their ghosts?

But, but, but ... I've got it all here on paper, in the, in the contract. It says pigs "must" fly.

Some may wonder why "Gail the Actuary" would get into the oil business. Actuaries work in the insurance business and make all kinds of forecasts about claim experience, investment income, and most anything else that goes into insurance company operations. It was pretty clear from my early reading and thinking about the situation that peak oil would wipe out the financial system and with it the insurance system.

Insurance companies collect premiums, invest the proceeds until it becomes time to pay claims or benefits, and then pay out the claims or benefits. If everyone else is losing money on their investments, insurance companies are likely to lose money as well. Some actuaries work with pension plans, and the idea is the same --collect funding, invest it for a period or time, and then pay out benefits. Same problem.

Life insurance companies seem to be getting into trouble already because they promised more (on annuities and other products) than investments in real life are going to deliver.

Pension plans are likely already getting into trouble, but they can often hide the situation for a while. As I understand it, there is some flexibility in when a pension plan recognizes an investment downturn. Their payments are very long term in nature, so they likely have enough cash on hand for now, even if their investments aren't doing well.

Property casualty insurers (workers compensation, auto, homeowners, medical malpractice, etc) are doing a little better. They tend to invest in high-grade bonds, with much less exposure to stocks. Insurance regulations allow P/C companies to carry the bonds at amortized value on their books, unless there is a clear problem with the bond. With this accounting, unless there is really a default, the companies' financial statements still look reasonably OK. Also, if there is less driving, auto claims are likely down. I would expect homeowners' experience to get worse, with all of the vacant houses sitting around.

Gail, interesting perspective. Thanks.
I guess actuaries use a slightly different language. They don't call it a "promise" but rather a prediction or an actuarial projection with an assigned confidence level. But its all kind of the same thing. We are each trusting that somebody else in society will live up their end of what we believe they promised.