Free State Wyoming Forum
Free State Wyoming (FSW) Promotional => Making the Case for Moving Toward Freedom (and Wyoming!) => Topic started by: sambaguy on September 25, 2007, 03:23:42 PM
-
Victor Davis Hanson, a classical scholar who's ideas shouldn't be ruled out lightly, thinks that free societies have more military power because men are more willing to fight for them. I agree. Also, in his book on ancient Greek farming, I suspect that he argues that the independence of the small Greek farms gave the Greeks an economic basis for their freedom. Similarly, Jefferson thought that without lots of small farms, American democracy wouldn't prosper.
I bet that both of them have thought that one should have a farm or ranch that is big enough to sustain at least part of his family in bad economic times before he worries about training a lot as a soldier. Otherwise, a man couldn't support his family or himself, and he should be content to be an enlisted man with less training/cool equipment/ etc. I think they are on to something.
In his GB, Boston emphasizes thrift to become free. I think that he's right and that this is critical to our success, particularly if the housing bubble causes a recession soon. However, Boston wrote in his GB that he could have recommended each person have eleven different rifles. I suggest that many more than two rifles - an MBR and a .22 - and a single Glock should be the most that middle class should try to have. Most middle class perhaps should have less.
In fact, maybe we should be so focused on living lightly that each person should sell some of his extra weapons - so that we can make that much more progress to getting small ranches and farms.
Rich should get night vis. goggles and maybe body armor and a .50. Everything else should be put into farms or local factories/mines, etc. to build what we hope would be an independent economy in case of TEOTWAWKI.
If the housing bubble pops spectacularly, of which I think there is a good chance given the wickedness of the Fed/Greenspan/electorate/etc., members of the FSW with enough weapons to arm a squad may wish that they had put their money in something else. (The question is, though, in what? If we have a peaceful depression, will any investment be safe?)
My .02
-
Some interesting ideas. I don't see 'the housing bubble' causing an issue. In general, only those that have tight budgets with ARM's or 100+percent loans are likely to default. The ARM's are self explanatory, the 100%++ loans are easy to walk on since one had nothing to lose. Some losses on the coasts where housing is exorbitant may take place, but I doubt it will affect the rest of the country.
In the investment circles I frequent, the housing thing is seen as just a blip or two or three and won't cause a serious investment issue. The news merchants have to have something to sell and keep the uneducated fearful and entertained. CNBC for example is a hoot. Usually they sell panic and don't have a clue what really caused this or that sector to do this or that. The value of the dollar is more of an issue... See gold prices...
Being thrifty is simply a good life skill to practice. Buy what you can afford without going into debt. With those folks that are struggling, the biggest issue I see is multiple car loans, a healthy mortgage (bought too much house) and maybe even a second mortgage (gotta have a vacation) and possibly a school loan. These are crushing debt loads.
What I'm really saying is LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS. Life will be much more harmonious. Heck, I drive older cars and see folks that I know make less money driving new ones. ??? I just chuckle at the money that they are giving to the bankers. They're nuts, IMO. They will have their own little TEOTWAWKI sooner or later. ;)
I don't believe there will be a TEOTWAWKI anytime soon (unless the Lord returns). Much better chance of natural disaster or man-made disaster rendering a portion(s) of the country partially or totally inoperable. Metro areas due to high level of interdependence will get hammered. Best to be a one half to a full gas tank away from big metro areas.
Politics post '08 has mamy more insidious possibilities than anything I see right now. Universal Health Care, Higher Taxes, More Gun Control, Loss of Privacy thru more and deeper 'security measures'. The train's a comin'!!!!!!
-
Actually, just as ordinary people were buying stocks on margin in the late 20s, so people now have been buying houses on margin - same Fed. Reserve activities - same crash
-
Big difference. Two completely different animals.
The folks that are buying houses (mortgage at 95-100% appraised value) with little or no money down have no real risk other than their reputation. A foreclosure simply means eviction and a major hit on credit rating. Little or no monetary loss. I know of several young couples who have done exactly this or simply quit paying on a contract and let the property default to the lessor/owner. However, it can get real ugly with double rents for a period of time. :o
Where folks are getting pinched is having a 95% mortgage and an adjustable rate. If they could barely afford the property to begin with and were living paycheck to paycheck, and the interest rate goes up just a leeetle bit, they will have real problems meeting obligations because it busts their budget. Bad decision = bad outcome if the downside risk rears it's head.
Twist. If the loan is for say, 125% of the appraised value and the buyer defaults, they still owe the difference between a sales price if forced to sell and the mortgage amount. They have a choice of paying or filing bankruptcy. While the loss can be significant, the banks/lenders do not really want folks to default and will usually work 'a deal' if individuals are otherwise solvent and working.
Yeah, you could also get hammered by a balloon payment coming due and not being able to afford or get a fixed mortgage. More POOR decisions and planning.
Losses in the housing situation come about when housing values drop significantly ACROSS the country. That has not come to pass. That's what the media is trying to make happen with their fear mongering. Some places (coasts) have seen prices flatten for a while, but they start rising again. Pockets of drops, maybe SMALL ones. The economy is so robust right now that this 'housing/lender problem' is being absorbed. It is just not having much, if any, ripple effect on the economy as a whole.
No one should feel the least bit sorry for someone who made a bad financial decision and got in over their head on a tight mortgage and is now forced to default when the rate goes up a half point or more. If someone looses a job and ability to pay for some reason beyond their control, that's another story and THAT happens all the time.
I have held an ARM before and it worked real slick for us. It had maximum annual amounts that the interest rate could rise. It was a half point IIRC and a quarter point every six months with something like a two? month warning of an increase. So even if the prime rate (ARMS are usually tied to prime somehow) went up two points in a year, all I could expect to see is a recomputation based on just a half point. The way I had it figured, we would be ahead of the existing fixed rates for at least three years! We sold for a profit BEFORE that time frame hit. AND we did not max out our budget when we bought so we had 'room'.
I would suggest that commodity prices such as metals and now grains, along with energy will cause some shakiness, toss in govco printing more money and the ensuing inflation, devaluation of the dollar and now he recipe for real problems take front and center.
Margin with stocks, futures and options is a whole different kettle of fish. The short explanation is the brokerage house loans the investor money for up to about half the value of the stock (This is all predetermined based on your individual net worth and trading limits) when it is purchased. While the investor holds the stock, interest is accrues on the margin account. Any number of ways to pay. So if an investor buys 100 shares at 100dollars, thats $10,000 worth of stock (ignore trading fees for this example). But the investor only has or is willing to put up $5000, and buys the remainder on 'margin'. Then instead of going up, it goes DOWN next week to say $20. The brokerage house sees this and makes a 'margin call'. So the investor has to come up with $5000 plus interest. He sells the stock for $2000. But he must pay the brokerage house $5000. He has to come up with another $3000 and interest to be square. Now the investor is in for his original $5000 + $3000 and interest, for an $8000 net loss.
I am an individual investor and I NEVER TRADE ON MARGIN AND NEVER WILL. It ain't necessary, IMO.
During the crash in '29 folks were on margin in multiple trades and accounts for a lot more than 50% of the purchase price. When the stock went below a predetermined value relative to the purchase price and the amount on margin, the brokerage houses 'called margins' and folks lost EVERYTHING.
-
The housing bubble may be a problem if the govt. tries to bail out those losing their homes. Only one way to do that: print money. So it will be felt in even more inflation than we're looking at already.
Sambaguy is right about farms. My grandparents had a farm in the Depression. They were dirt poor but they owned it and always had food on the table.
-
The housing bubble may be a problem if the govt. tries to bail out those losing their homes. Only one way to do that: print money. So it will be felt in even more inflation than we're looking at already.
Your right on the 'money' on that. So far that HAS been their response, printing more fake money. :(
Sambaguy is right about farms. My grandparents had a farm in the Depression. They were dirt poor but they owned it and always had food on the table.
Absolutely, Samba is right on that. FWIW, that's my family history as well. Dad told me when I was a tyke that because of the farm, they made it through the depression without going hungry. My great-grandfather wasn't so lucky as they lost their farm as a result of foreclosure. The bank simply decided that they would not hold notes from planting to harvest any longer and started calling notes. Oh, well.
-
After more than 4 years, it is interesting to consider our old predictions. The issue I'm going to address has already been addressed, besides other places in BTP's Guide to Surviving Y2K, but it is related to this. When hyperinflation begins to hit, demand for commodities will go dramatically south and, as we all know, the average American will be caught unprepared. Jim Rogers famously buys and holds commodities. Gary North, IIRC, recommends gold, and someone on here recommends basically buying a lot of food, gasoline, etc. with the line, 'before you get gold, get what you'll need the gold for.' During the Depression, when America didn't exactly fall apart, the global price of food plummeted, and farms failed. During the times that are coming, hyperinflation is likely, and there is an excellent chance the global economy as we know it will stop.
For the sake of argument, pretend there is a fiat currency actually current now that isn't being inflated much. I know, I know. Maybe the Chilean peso, which is backed by a gov't that has relatively little debt and that may actually keep functioning after the collapse. If one could stock that currency, and promote awareness of it before the collapse, might not one's pesos buy a lot more food than the canned stuff after the bottom falls out of our unstable economy?
-
For the sake of argument, pretend there is a fiat currency actually current now that isn't being inflated much. I know, I know. Maybe the Chilean peso, which is backed by a gov't that has relatively little debt and that may actually keep functioning after the collapse. If one could stock that currency, and promote awareness of it before the collapse, might not one's pesos buy a lot more food than the canned stuff after the bottom falls out of our unstable economy?
People would flock to that 'currency' as they have to the dollar, in the past. You wouldn't have
to promote awareness.
I don't know what you mean by the term 'canned stuff'. Canned goods? Exchanged commodities?
The demand for commodities goes down because businesses need less raw materials while struggling
to stay afloat in the chaos. However, as division of labor shuts down the supply of goods and services
gets choked off while local demand stays the same or even spikes in the panic. That gives the appearance
of increased demand though its mostly just unmet demand. At that time the fact that you may
have gold and silver will be of limited use in obtaining the staples of life and of extraordinary value
in obtaining assets that do not directly meet immediate needs.
Therefore, it's best to obtain any staples of life that you can store in advance (Including tools and especially
the factors of your own production) and only then store the excess in precious metals.
http://www.youroptimal.com/blog/2010/09/16/vulture-economics-and-the-silver-lining-of-collapsing-asset-prices/
Terence
-
After more than 4 years, it is interesting to consider our old predictions.
Sure. Considering my predictions, things today are pretty damn excellent.
If one could stock that currency, and promote awareness of it before the collapse, might not one's pesos buy a lot more food than the canned stuff after the bottom falls out of our unstable economy?
No, I don't see any utility in that. That currency may have the advantage of reliable scarcity (lack of inflation), but it has no intrinsic value, nor can it be readily "redeemed" for something of value. In Chile, it would have at least the possibility of buying something because it has inertia among the people, or if nothing else, you could pay your taxes with it. (In fact, the necessity of paying taxes could be one of the supports for it.) But here, no.
I don't want to discount your idea, though. For some time, I have been thinking about an alternate semi-fiat currency based on labor debt. Basically, they would be IOU notes backed by individuals who "borrowed" someone else's labor and need to redeem the notes later by supplying their own labor. The notes could be printed, notarized, and even guaranteed (for a small fee) by a business that would be something like a cross between a bank and a pawn shop. People with a good reputation for redeeming would pay a very small fee, and bad risks might have to actually pledge something of value (like a pawn shop). If the person does not make good on the note, then the business that guaranteed it would be on the hook. Anyone would be able to issue notes to anyone, but people would usually want a notarized guarantee on the note. I think this idea has a possibility of being viable, since it is based on labor, which everyone has, and should solve the problem of nobody working "because nobody has any money".
-
If one could stock that currency, and promote awareness of it before the collapse, might not one's pesos buy a lot more food than the canned stuff after the bottom falls out of our unstable economy?
No, I don't see any utility in that. That currency may have the advantage of reliable scarcity (lack of inflation), but it has no intrinsic value, nor can it be readily "redeemed" for something of value. In Chile, it would have at least the possibility of buying something because it has inertia among the people, or if nothing else, you could pay your taxes with it. (In fact, the necessity of paying taxes could be one of the supports for it.) But here, no.
I don't want to discount your idea, though. For some time, I have been thinking about an alternate semi-fiat currency based on labor debt. Basically, they would be IOU notes backed by individuals who "borrowed" someone else's labor and need to redeem the notes later by supplying their own labor. The notes could be printed, notarized, and even guaranteed (for a small fee) by a business that would be something like a cross between a bank and a pawn shop. People with a good reputation for redeeming would pay a very small fee, and bad risks might have to actually pledge something of value (like a pawn shop). If the person does not make good on the note, then the business that guaranteed it would be on the hook. Anyone would be able to issue notes to anyone, but people would usually want a notarized guarantee on the note. I think this idea has a possibility of being viable, since it is based on labor, which everyone has, and should solve the problem of nobody working "because nobody has any money".
Your idea has merit, but there is nothing new about it. You've re-invented 1880 all over again : banks issuing currency/scrip/paper (you call them "a business" - a rose by any other name...), guaranteeing the value of the paper. Don't kid yourself - it's the banks name that is trusted, not some unknown laborer. But what would the banks "guarantee" the value of their scrip with? That is, what would be the ultimate transfer of wealth when someone walks in and demands value for the scrip? USD? Gold? Silver? The only other question that arises is this - are the banks doing fractional reserve banking, or not?
-
Thanks for the answer. I have often sort of had it in the back of my head. I still think the peso might be an excellent currency to hold as, say, 1-4% of the portfolio of someone who already had a lot of staples, guns, etc. gold, and silver. Chile's economy depends greatly on exports, but does have very little debt.
I have two other questions, if you please. I assume that in the case of a catastrophic crash taking out 20-95% of the US population, the possibility of which I won't discount, the first commercial networks to reappear would be in auto fuel and food staples, along with heating oil in cold climates. Following that would be ammunition. Has there been much discussion on this forum of the reestablishment of trade routes after the dust settles? It seems like one of the most basic questions for preppers. It also seems to me banditry on key highways would be a major deterrent to moving to Wyoming. Might be better to be in a conservative coastal area, or perhaps 100 miles removed to have access to oceanic trade. I'm thinking something like to the SE of Ron Paul's district.
Surely many of you have been reading Rawles Survival Blog for a decade or more and are light years ahead of me on this kind of thing.
-
Please excuse, I meant to the southwest of RP's district.
-
You've re-invented 1880 all over again : banks issuing currency/scrip/paper (you call them "a business" - a rose by any other name...), guaranteeing the value of the paper.
No, actually the people "borrowing" labor would issue the notes. As a matter of convenience, the bank/pawn company would probably print the blank notes so that there is some uniformity in appearance. That that would be ONLY a matter of convenience. The service company could issue notes promising future labor (from one of its employees), just like any other person could.
Don't kid yourself - it's the banks name that is trusted, not some unknown laborer.
Yes. I will kid myself. Pretty much everyone here knows everyone else, or knows someone who knows someone. If we started using labor notes, everyone's reputation would be common knowledge FAST. I also envision that there would be public notices telling who has failed to honor their labor notes. Maybe you are thinking of some big city (say, more than a couple thousand?) scenario -- they will have to figure out their own solution.
But what would the banks "guarantee" the value of their scrip with?
They would have to back it up with their own labor, or from the guarantee fees, or from valuables pledged (pawned) by the people who default. The person redeeming the note could settle for a valuable item, or insist on labor. In turn, the company would still have the right to recourse from the defaulter. Maybe the company should be called bank/pawn/guarantor/repo...
The only other question that arises is this - are the banks doing fractional reserve banking, or not?
How would they do that? Forge someone's name on the notes? That person would have a pretty angry score to settle with the company.
-
You've re-invented 1880 all over again : banks issuing currency/scrip/paper (you call them "a business" - a rose by any other name...), guaranteeing the value of the paper.
No, actually the people "borrowing" labor would issue the notes. As a matter of convenience, the bank/pawn company would probably print the blank notes so that there is some uniformity in appearance. That that would be ONLY a matter of convenience. The service company could issue notes promising future labor (from one of its employees), just like any other person could.
Don't kid yourself - it's the banks name that is trusted, not some unknown laborer.
Yes. I will kid myself. Pretty much everyone here knows everyone else, or knows someone who knows someone. If we started using labor notes, everyone's reputation would be common knowledge FAST. I also envision that there would be public notices telling who has failed to honor their labor notes. Maybe you are thinking of some big city (say, more than a couple thousand?) scenario -- they will have to figure out their own solution.
But what would the banks "guarantee" the value of their scrip with?
They would have to back it up with their own labor, or from the guarantee fees, or from valuables pledged (pawned) by the people who default. The person redeeming the note could settle for a valuable item, or insist on labor. In turn, the company would still have the right to recourse from the defaulter. Maybe the company should be called bank/pawn/guarantor/repo...
The only other question that arises is this - are the banks doing fractional reserve banking, or not?
How would they do that? Forge someone's name on the notes? That person would have a pretty angry score to settle with the company.
Notes guaranteed by labor promised directly by people in the local community.
That's fantastic, Richard!
At first, I imagine running the clearinghouse could be another income source for
some already trusted local business until it got to the scale of a small bank office.
-
At that time the fact that you may
have gold and silver will be of limited use in obtaining the staples of life and of extraordinary value
in obtaining assets that do not directly meet immediate needs.
I'm a bit doubtful of this. Gold and silver are media of trade that people trust. In hyper-inflation, this is even more so. Media of trades are useful things. These characteristics of the metals won't simply evaporate.
There was that youtube of the guy talking about the Serbian hyperinflation, did you see it? The inflation lasted for a while, then was eliminated overnight because the government created a new currency that was freely convertible to German marks. In our case, there is no superior currency to convert to, because the dollar is the reserve currency, and it will be hyperinflated (as will be all other fiat currencies). Only thing left is gold and silver.
I suspect if the government doesn't cobble together a currency freely convertable to gold, it will be done in the free market, maybe a digital currency, and the legal tender laws will simply be ignored.
I agree buying supplies is a good idea just in case my theory doesn't work out. :) But still I don't see the "price" of gold dropping. I bet an ounce will still buy a good rifle, just as it has for many decades.
-
Rich should get night vis. goggles and maybe body armor and a .50.
This was a mistake of Europe that allowed Genghis Khan to advance more easily, by far not the only mistake but it was a big important one. Just because you are rich does not mean you are a better shot with a .50 (which implies longer range generally). You also may not be the best person to go on raids using the night vision and requiring the body armor. Europe assigned military jobs based on wealth, when you have weapons held privately that will end up being the default operating method, especially when people have any shred of ego and do not want to hear that things would be better if they loaned their rifle to someone else.
At that time the fact that you may
have gold and silver will be of limited use in obtaining the staples of life and of extraordinary value
in obtaining assets that do not directly meet immediate needs.
I'm a bit doubtful of this. Gold and silver are media of trade that people trust. In hyper-inflation, this is even more so. Media of trades are useful things. These characteristics of the metals won't simply evaporate.
I think this is a maybe personally. If it is just a collapse like Zimbabwe or the Wiemar Republic then gold will certainly have value especially for international trades. You may even be able to trade off the market and get a better exchange rate (like trading USD for Brazillian Cruzerios in the 1980s). In Brazil inflation was so bad people had to be paid twice daily and then rush out and immediately spend it on food and other items. The only way to build wealth was to exchange that for something else. It was not hard to get twice the official exchange rate when converting dollars if you did the deal on the street instead of in a bank. I could see similar things happening with gold providing it is just an economic collapse. Zimbabwe I am unsure if this is the case, I do know that money is/was so worthless it is cheaper to use the currency for billboards than it is to buy blank paper.
Now the other extreme of economic collapse would be a cascade effect where you end up with some dystopian society where trade is all but cut off due to raiding parties on the highways, food is scarce and people are hungry. In that extreme case gold will have little value, people will be more concerned with things like dinner or not freezing come winter.
I think we are more likely to be on the Wiemar Republic, Brazil or Zimbabwe side of things than the mad max type side of things. Because of this I also believe that those who plan well, who are not forced to make bad deals eg "your house for a single meal", will generally come out the other side far better than the masses who think they are prepared because they followed ready.gov's 3 days of food and water advice.
If I am right about the level of commerce that remains then those who have mortgages could pay them off with little money from today. This is one of those things many I have spoken with over the years have not thought about but it makes perfect sense. 1 troy oz of gold is now about $1700. If the dollar collapses 100:1 (all 3 previously cited countries saw more than that, some much much more) your one troy ounce of gold is worth $170,000. Your mortgage is a fixed dollar amount regardless of the value of the dollar. In a way it would be like winning the lottery, great if it happens but dont count on it. This also means that some people would be in a position to gather great wealth by buying businesses, properties, etc. It would not surprise me if some people did exactly that and the ones who did not prepare scream about how it is not fair.
-
At that time the fact that you may
have gold and silver will be of limited use in obtaining the staples of life and of extraordinary value
in obtaining assets that do not directly meet immediate needs.
I'm a bit doubtful of this. Gold and silver are media of trade that people trust. In hyper-inflation, this is even more so. Media of trades are useful things. These characteristics of the metals won't simply evaporate.
There was that youtube of the guy talking about the Serbian hyperinflation, did you see it? The inflation lasted for a while, then was eliminated overnight because the government created a new currency that was freely convertible to German marks. In our case, there is no superior currency to convert to, because the dollar is the reserve currency, and it will be hyperinflated (as will be all other fiat currencies). Only thing left is gold and silver.
I suspect if the government doesn't cobble together a currency freely convertable to gold, it will be done in the free market, maybe a digital currency, and the legal tender laws will simply be ignored.
I agree buying supplies is a good idea just in case my theory doesn't work out. :) But still I don't see the "price" of gold dropping. I bet an ounce will still buy a good rifle, just as it has for many decades.
Sure, PMs will facilitate barter like they always have, but having a bunch of gold doesn't obviate the need to think through
what you'll need in an emergency and purchase in advance.
I say PMs will be of limited use because you can't buy what isn't there: The shelves get emptied
and aren't restocked for any number of reasons. It's great to have some gold or silver in a crisis
but it doesn't make salt, water, whiskey, batteries, lighters and a side of beef magically appear
before the gold holder. Most of those things require someone local to have already stored more
than they need or division of labor which would have just ground to a halt.
I'll look for that Serbian video, sounds interesting.
Terence
-
It's great to have some gold or silver in a crisis but it doesn't make salt, water, whiskey, batteries, lighters and a side of beef magically appear
before the gold holder.
Then you are doing the incantation wrong.
-
Gary North has claimed that there is no chance that Bernanke would let the currency hyperinflate, but that he will let galloping inflation occur because hyperinflation would destroy the value of his pension (and might make him a man hunted by vigilantes).
My inclination is to think that hyperinflation or not, commerce is likely to be disrupted, and having a lot of non-perishable food will be a good investment. When inflation is [more] widely recognized, investment will flee the USA, and many, many businesses will collapse. Being prepared for a dramatic economic collapse lasting six months with beans and MREs is pretty smart, IMO.
-
My inclination is to think that hyperinflation or not, commerce is likely to be disrupted, and having a lot of non-perishable food will be a good investment. When inflation is [more] widely recognized, investment will flee the USA, and many, many businesses will collapse. Being prepared for a dramatic economic collapse lasting six months with beans and MREs is pretty smart, IMO.
no doubt having food and water would be a good investment if nothing else as a hedge against inflation. Inflation excludes food and oil while growth includes those. We are seeing no inflation but a lot of growth which implies that much of the higher prices is coming from food and oil. Food in the US travels an average of 1500 miles farm to dinner table, it is transported largely by oil based products. Farmers, as a US national average, report that 60% of their costs from planting to harvest is energy related costs. The dollar is used globally to buy oil, when Germany buys oil it does so with US dollars, as the dollar weakens those selling want more of them. The price of food is largely based on the price of oil.
Buying now means that you are eating "cheaper food in the future" providing it is something you would eat anyway and something that is not insanely priced. The only way you would lose money on this deal is if the dollar gets stronger before your food is consumed.
With that said if you can afford it I do suggest that you have something for trade to get things you may run out of, things that may spoil or gotten infested, whatever. Additionally trade items can dramatically advance you financially post recovery. There will be a recovery at some point, it may not be this generation, it may not be the next, but at some point there will be a recovery and if you can gather things now that can be passed onto your children and so forth until there is a recovery they can take advantage of it. Buying additional farms, houses, businesses, etc could turn you, or your children, into a bottom end wage earner into a mid to upper end post recovery. If that is not what you want you would be able to provide assistance to others in need merely because you have surplus available to you.
-
It's great to have some gold or silver in a crisis but it doesn't make salt, water, whiskey, batteries, lighters and a side of beef magically appear
before the gold holder.
Then you are doing the incantation wrong.
I'm glad you think so. The more people who plan in advance the
better the incantation works. Probably part of what Paul has in mind.
Terence
-
I was just referring to it magically appearing
-
Terence, here is that discussion about Serbian hyperinflation. It was posted here earlier somewhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9qr9ssUCrU
I think it is unlikely we will see that level of inflation, but there are a lot of idiots running government policy so it remains possible. And their entire model is wrong too (Keynsian "economics"). The Serbian hyperinflation was stopped by creating a new dinar completely convertible to German marks. The difference for us is that there are few marks floating around here, and anyway if the dollar is going down the mark probably is too.
The farmer still has the productivity of his farm (reduced somewhat due to input costs, but still not zero). You want to buy food from him. He can't convert the declining dollar into German marks or anything else. What will he take? Trade goods, gold and silver. If an entrepreneur creates a digital currency that people start trusting, convertible to gold and silver, maybe that too. Or if the government makes a new dollar convertible to gold or silver.
Of course if the government "fixes" this problem by collectivizing the farms, all bets are off and starvation is just around the corner.
-
Terence, here is that discussion about Serbian hyperinflation. It was posted here earlier somewhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9qr9ssUCrU
I think it is unlikely we will see that level of inflation, but there are a lot of idiots running government policy so it remains possible. And their entire model is wrong too (Keynsian "economics"). The Serbian hyperinflation was stopped by creating a new dinar completely convertible to German marks. The difference for us is that there are few marks floating around here, and anyway if the dollar is going down the mark probably is too.
The farmer still has the productivity of his farm (reduced somewhat due to input costs, but still not zero). You want to buy food from him. He can't convert the declining dollar into German marks or anything else. What will he take? Trade goods, gold and silver. If an entrepreneur creates a digital currency that people start trusting, convertible to gold and silver, maybe that too. Or if the government makes a new dollar convertible to gold or silver.
Of course if the government "fixes" this problem by collectivizing the farms, all bets are off and starvation is just around the corner.
It took until today to finally watch that video, Paul, and it was a very informative.
- Initially, goods and supplies were available to holders of hard currency, but not for dinar holders.
- Food was subsidized and available on the open market and farmers would immediately convert to hard currency
to preserve the income.
- Labor and many products fell in real terms but not in nominal terms (Assets collapse while prices rise exponentially).
- People wrote bad checks to government stores obtaining 'free' goods even with 1000+% penalties (Love the irony of this one!)
- After convertibility to German marks it took only one week for things to stabilize.
- Stocks may hedge inflation levels below 6%.
It's too bad we can't plan for the most common solution of convertibility or we could just stock
up on whatever currencies are the most likely targets. That leaves gold & silver.
On topic is one of the latest posts from 'Selco' who seems to capture it in one paragraph:
http://shtfschool.com/trading/on-buying-gold-silver-for-survival-preparedness/
So in short instead of getting gold and silver to preserve your wealth you might consider getting useful stuff and if you like gold there is always option to get it from unprepared people in exchange for useful stuff if you think you need this for times after. If you already have everything you really think you could need then gold and silver might be good, better than just money for sure.
In an exchange of gold for food, the guy with enough food ends up with both. But, at least
the guy with the gold can eat . . . .for a while.
Terence
-
My take is that the Serbian situation was one of warfare where things were really out of control, snipers all over, bombs, etc.
According to Ferfal, in Argentina precious metals were very helpful, and remain so to this day, as a store of value amidst very high (but not Zimbabwe high) inflation/devaluation. In that environment, there were various street currency and metals dealers available. High crime but not war.
So the usefulness of gold will depend on the situation and locale.
-
Out of morbid curiosity, are the climate and soil in Wyoming able to produce enough food for its current and future residents?
Has anyone on this forum done enough cultivation to speak from experience on this topic?
I ASSUME that vegetable gardens, greenhouses, etc., are quite possible in Wyoming and that open range would make cattle (or at least some kind of livestock) a viable option but are there orchards, large farms, etc., in Wyoming? If so, are they located in particular regions that I should consider for relocation? If there aren't orchards, large farms, etc., in Wyoming, is it because having them is not a viable option due to climate or soil or is simply because it's been easier to import food from outside Wyoming to date?
I have some familiy experience with small dairy farms and egg (chicken) production but in both cases the economics were crippling - although there was plenty to eat. I guess my real question is should I plan on going hungry in Wyoming WTSHTF or is it more a matter of my own industry and foresight in planting fruit trees and learning to grow plenty of food there that will make the difference?
-
Out of morbid curiosity, are the climate and soil in Wyoming able to produce enough food for its current and future residents?
If a population can subsist on cows and wheat and sugar made from beets then yes, Wyoming is self-sufficient, but only because there are only 500,000 mouths to feed. In a societal collapse, pronghorn antelope and mule deer will become a major food source here, at least for a year until their numbers are decimated. Deciduous trees and therefore orchards are a no go - too dry, too cold, too windy and most importantly, too short of a growing season. Most of the state measures its growing season in days, not weeks or months. You will need a greenhouse for anything else you want to grow.
Water is a major problem in most locations. The Ogallala aquifer extends into far southeastern Wyoming (where I live) which allows for irrigation of certain row crops like pinto beans and corn, but the total amount of acreage is miniscule. But most of the rest of the state is a desert. Thank heavens for Snake, Green and North Platte rivers, and a few smaller creeks flowing out of the mountains. Without them, Wyoming would be a clone of Nevada.
And when I say windy, I mean windy. Twice in the past week I've had winds of 50mph sustained, gusts to 75mph. And these weren't just a quick storm blowing through - these winds last for many hours, destroying plants, roofs, closing interstates, etc. You really can't believe it until you experience it.
And the stuff they call soil here isn't soil like you are familiar with in the midwest. It's mostly just dust, sand and clay stuck together in a cement-like hard-pan. It has no ability to hold water or support organisms that could actually fertilize the soil. All in all, you're going to have a tough time being self-sufficent here unless you've got a lot of money to build and operate large greenhouses.
-
All in all, you're going to have a tough time being self-sufficent here unless you've got a lot of money to build and operate large greenhouses.
I really disagree Don. Granted, greenhouses will obviously extend growing seasons and give you some degree of year-round production, but they are not absolutely necessary. With proper gardening techniques (not requiring massive soil improvements either), one can be completely self-sufficient in *most of* Wyoming. If people follow a simple plan for self-sustained farming, they can provide for their own family quite comfortably. That plan includes short and long-term use root and veggie crops (stored or preserved accordingly), basic protein requirements (chickens, cows, horses, goats, fish, dairy, etc.), and basic grain products (1/2 acre of select grains can provide a family flour for a year). The largest problem with doing this is the amount of work required. It is extremely labor intensive. Additionally, maintenance of seed becomes an issue long-term.
All that said, if one has about 1 - 2 acres of land available for production, they can be food self-sufficient without green houses, even in *most of* Wyoming. I qualify that because the band of Wyoming from Laramie over to Green River is about the worst in the state for any life to exist at all. It would be hardest in that region.
What has not really been covered in this thread, however, is the change in quality of life/lifestyle that will come when people are forced to become self-sufficient. I think the necessary move away from the recreation based life, 9-5 workdays, and drive anywhere/anytime lifestyle will present more of an insurmountable problem than the difficulty of growing one's own food. Most people will not be able to take care of themselves because we, as Americans, have become a nation of soft pussies who want everything without truly earning it for ourselves. Some, like the people on this board, recognize the changes coming and will have little difficulty in making the change - it will still suck but we'll get 'r done. The rest of our society will implode when their cell phones stop working, they can't tweet the color of their latest BM, and their double-chocolate, part-skim, decaf mochachino requires a 4 hour walk under threat of attack, coupled with a $4700 price tag. I think growing food will be a small problem in the greater scheme of things.
*BTW: you can build a 15X48 hoophouse that will withstand WY weather for about $1000-$1500. *Just because I say one doesn't "need" a greenhouse doesn't mean I'm not going to have any!
-
The Red desert area that you are talking about is where I am from.
When I was a kid, we grew tomatoes, Brocoli, cauliflower, Sunflowers,Cabbage, Some small little carrots, (cant Remember the name) Spinach, and potatoes.
Yes, it was a lot of hard work.
Yes the area is a cold hell in the winter. :D
-
We also made paper mache pots to plant some of the veggie in before spring to give them a boost. We smeared pig fat onto the interior surface. Then just burried the pots in the ground. The moisture from the soil disolved the pots and the plants flourished.
-
All in all, you're going to have a tough time being self-sufficent here unless you've got a lot of money to build and operate large greenhouses.
I really disagree Don. Granted, greenhouses will obviously extend growing seasons and give you some degree of year-round production, but they are not absolutely necessary. With proper gardening techniques (not requiring massive soil improvements either), one can be completely self-sufficient in *most of* Wyoming...
I stand by my statements. Being "self-sufficient" is a whole lot bigger deal than being a "hobby farmer". You'll need many acres to either be a cattle rancher or dry-land wheat farmer, making enough income to trade with others for necessary fruits, vegetables, dairy and poultry to be "self-sufficient". On two acres, you'll have no dairy (what are you going to feed your cows?), no poultry (what are you going to feed your chickens?), and not enough land to grow a full year's worth of other food for your family. Depending on the quality of the land, the local climate, and access to water, if you want to be truly self-sufficent in Wyoming, you'll need anywhere from 200 to 2000 acres to grow enough grass to feed your cattle to be the staple of your diet to be truly self-sufficient. And forget fruits and many types of vegetables - without a greenhouse, you have zero chance of growing them. And even then it will be tough - the dirt really is miserable, as is the weather. Paul's earlier comment about the amount of sun (ie. latitude) is only relevant if the temperature isn't freezing outside. As most of Wyoming is above 5,000' and is very dry, the average overnight temperature is far below that of Wisconsin. That's what really matters about being successful in a garden - overnight lows and consecutive frost-free nights, both of which make Wisconsin a far better place to try to be "self-sufficient" on minimal land without a greenhouse.
To reiterate - there is a huge difference between being "self-sufficient" and a "hobby farmer". And there is also a huge difference between Wisconsin and Wyoming.
-
Lots of people, including me, grow enough vegetables to keep us supplied until the next growing season. You do need to have a plan for preserving said vegetables. People in our part of the state grow apples, cherries, pears, peaches, plums, and grapes. Usually, there is enough locally grown fertilizer to amend your soil. I forgot to add blackberries, rasberries, chokecherries, and gooseberries.
-
Ohh Oranges, in Wyoming, In the winter. :D
(http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac146/crappiewy/DSCN1478.jpg)
-
I stumbled on this very interesting web site while googling around looking for info on gardening in Wyoming. Check out the link along the left side titled "Gardening".
http://www.highaltitudelife.com/ (http://www.highaltitudelife.com/)
Whenever anyone comes kicking tires here at the FSW forum, we probably ought to point them to this web site.
-
Here's a link to the "degree growing days" for Devil's Tower.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wy2466
This can be compared to other locations. But DT is a full 1,000' below me. I'm at 4,950'. One year we tried growing tomatoes on the front south facing deck. Never got anything but little yellow globes. The next year we tried "Early Girl" variety. A bit better. Got about 10 golf ball sized tomatoes out of two plants (grown in containers with potting soil and good watering).
As with anything else, location, location, location. With enough effort, nearly anything can be done, somehow, but is it practical? The temperature at the bottom of my driveway, (100' lower) is noticeably cooler than right up near the house on the hillside. Micro climate is important too.
Good luck.
Mac
-
Most people will not be able to take care of themselves because we, as Americans, have become a nation of soft pussies who want everything without truly earning it for ourselves.
Hunger is quite a motivator though.
Here's an elevation map:
http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/mapcom/wy_mapscom.htm
Fortunately the main FSW counties are mostly in the lower elevation areas.
We had a garden in the back yard in Cody (5000 ft elevation). The sunlight was just OK (big trees nearby). We had a good fence that broke the wind. We got pretty reasonable production, and neither of us has a true green thumb. Our worst problem was curly top leaf virus that came from nearby beet farms, pretty much killed our tomatoes, but lots of other things grew well (bok choi, raspberries, rhubarb, some other things I can't remember).
Mac is right, microclimate is very important. Shelter from wind is very important.
Thanks for that website link, Don.
Crappiewy, I'm guessing you heat that greenhouse in winter?
-
Its a room inside my house. :D
1000W sodium vapor light.
If everything goes right I will build my greenhouse next spring.
Any how if the green house is built right there is not much need for heat. A open flame does help with carbon dioxide.
In Cheyenne there is a green house at the botanical gardens that is more than 6000 sq ft and is unheated. They grow tropical plants there such as orchids. It is at over 6000ft in elevation.
-
Um, botanical gardens in Cheyenne sounds like a big waste.