There is no existence without property.
He assumes that millions of people losing their liberty, their existence in a global economic depression is somehow less catastrophic then if you added some irrelevancies like global flooding and political, social, environmental and biological collapse. Everything but the flooding will necessarily happen if there is a global economic depression.
It's like choosing between getting hit in the head with a sledgehammer or a wreckingball.
You'll have to do better than that... as it stands, your "argument" is a non sequitur, you mention existence and property as equivalents, without justification, and then equate economic depression with liberty and existence, again without justification, and in fact without any link between the two (except 'existence'?)
In any event, I might very well survive an attack with a sledgehammer, but a wrecking ball, well... it's big, and maybe I could get out of the way?
Given enough warning anyway...
and assuming I'm paying attention...
