Before I came aware of ERE I was reading (and moving) towards self sufficiency. FI is great, but what if TSHTF?
Are you never afraid that the economies can’t carry the debts any longer and the financial economy comes to a halt? I do think that the debts of countries (and consumers) like the USA, EU, South Korea, Japan are so big, that they are not sustainable and can’t be solved within the current system.
It might go okay for many years, but will it go for another 40-50 years? I doubt it…
When looking into the history there are many examples of economies and currencies that came up and collapsed. When that happens, gold might have still worth, but what about the other parts of the PP?
Wouldn’t it be better in that case to be (also) self sufficient? And to be able to exchange some of your labour / products with the local community to be able to still live well?
Self sufficiency for me means:
-own a house without mortgage
-be able to live off grid (solar equipment for electricity and water, very well insulated so a small woodstove is sufficient for heating, a rain water harvesting system etc.
-a big plot that can be used to grow crops / keep chickens etc.
I believe Bigato has a pretty big plot on which he grows crops. But in most other journal’s I have read people seem not to consider this option.
In my ideal situation I would be able to self sufficient AND have enough assets to be FI. However, the costs of such a house and plot would cost much more than just an ordinary house (at least in the Netherlands). It would mean it takes more years before (E)RE and I’m wondering if it is worth the effort.
I’m looking forward to your thoughts about this.
FI and/or Self sufficient
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
I think both FI and self-sufficiency (hereafter SS) are popular ideas in the ERE crowd, and I think probably most aspire to both. Personally, I'm more interested in FI than SS because, unlike some, I don't think the end of the world or anything even near it is going to happen soon. In fact, I'm quite optimistic about the future; while global warming is a really scary problem, I think just about every other problem in the world, whether it be economic, military, social, ideological, or infrastructural, is already being addressed by technological innovation and will continue to be so in the long term.
So I aspire to accumulate as much capital as I can, but the other aspects of being a Renaissance Man espoused by Jacob really aren't interesting to me. Woodworking and the like are definitely admirable skills and the hobbies are probably very fun, but it's just not my bag (baby).
So I aspire to accumulate as much capital as I can, but the other aspects of being a Renaissance Man espoused by Jacob really aren't interesting to me. Woodworking and the like are definitely admirable skills and the hobbies are probably very fun, but it's just not my bag (baby).
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15996
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
I don't think TSHTF is an event. I think it's a condition. In that sense, I'm not looking for off-grid solar or other techy or even asset based (homestead) solutions. I'm looking to be as adaptable and generalized as possible. FI is a nice side-effect of the continuing function of the current financial systems. If those systems seize up (like Greece or worse), the solution (ERE) must still be workable.
The Renaissance Man approach is workable.
The Renaissance Man approach is workable.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6858
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
I wouldn't be comfortable having all of our wealth tied up in a homestead. Even if the world doesn't end, a disaster in your area could wipe you out. OTOH, I'm not comfortable having all of our wealth tied up in financial instruments. I guess we're shooting for somewhere in the middle. Or both really.
I think you can learn to be self-sufficient in whatever living situation you choose.
We need a non-sexist term for renaissance man. I'm not a bra-burning type of gal, but that term really annoys me.
I think you can learn to be self-sufficient in whatever living situation you choose.
We need a non-sexist term for renaissance man. I'm not a bra-burning type of gal, but that term really annoys me.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15996
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
I think the fastest way to get over the sexism is simply to adopt the prevalent term and stop making a sexist issue out of it.
This transition has been made in the Danish language (and culture). All nurses (men and women) use the female term. All teachers (male and female) use the male term and so on. Using the wrong term (e.g. male nurse using the male term) is a social faux pais. A few generations more and the unused term will be relegated to books on etymology.
Ironically, this also used to be the case for the English language. The word "man" when used in this context simply means "human being". The sexist overtones came later. So now people are trying to change the language to avoid cultural problem which wasn't a language problem before it became one. Very backwards.
So what actually happened is that there used to be wifman (female human being) and wapman (male human being) and e.g. businessman (human being who does business). The wap- was dropped. Wifman became wife. So then we have wife and man. However, man ex wap is not the same as the -man prefix. Think hu-man--human means human being, not the male version of hu that calls for a female huwoman or simply that human -> huperson.
In my opinion, the way to win the gender battle is not to engage in some Orwellian game of changing the words---that, in fact, is only going to make it clear that people still consider gender issues relevant. Rather, it's simply to adopt the prevailing terms as your own. Like male nurses (the minority) in Denmark adopted the dominant female term for themselves and female teachers (the minority) adopted the dominant male term for themselves.
This transition has been made in the Danish language (and culture). All nurses (men and women) use the female term. All teachers (male and female) use the male term and so on. Using the wrong term (e.g. male nurse using the male term) is a social faux pais. A few generations more and the unused term will be relegated to books on etymology.
Ironically, this also used to be the case for the English language. The word "man" when used in this context simply means "human being". The sexist overtones came later. So now people are trying to change the language to avoid cultural problem which wasn't a language problem before it became one. Very backwards.
So what actually happened is that there used to be wifman (female human being) and wapman (male human being) and e.g. businessman (human being who does business). The wap- was dropped. Wifman became wife. So then we have wife and man. However, man ex wap is not the same as the -man prefix. Think hu-man--human means human being, not the male version of hu that calls for a female huwoman or simply that human -> huperson.
In my opinion, the way to win the gender battle is not to engage in some Orwellian game of changing the words---that, in fact, is only going to make it clear that people still consider gender issues relevant. Rather, it's simply to adopt the prevailing terms as your own. Like male nurses (the minority) in Denmark adopted the dominant female term for themselves and female teachers (the minority) adopted the dominant male term for themselves.
We've been force-fed this notion that it is more self-sufficient to own (control) property. But is it?
I've got an aunt and uncle with a fully paid-off home in Ocean City, NJ, that was literally underwater last week. Sandy was a clear example of TSHTF. Are they really all that self-sufficient right now?
To be self-sufficient in times of turmoil one must be flexible, adaptable, resilient. In order to deal with the change produced by turmoil, people must practice dealing with change.
I've got an aunt and uncle with a fully paid-off home in Ocean City, NJ, that was literally underwater last week. Sandy was a clear example of TSHTF. Are they really all that self-sufficient right now?
To be self-sufficient in times of turmoil one must be flexible, adaptable, resilient. In order to deal with the change produced by turmoil, people must practice dealing with change.
It is highly unlikely civilization collapses under the current debt. For one, there have been times in history when countries have owed this much or more and successfully navigated it. Hell, the US had more debt after WWII and managed to pay it down while they helped rebuild Europe and Japan.
Plus, every thing is too interconnected now. China doesn't want to see us go bankrupt anymore than we want to see the Chinese or European economies collapse. There might be pain, but it will get worked out.
I guess my point is that there are a lot of other much much much more likely problems we should worry about. No need to spend a lot of energy or worry on something that is very unlikely to happen. Now if solutions to other problems also solve this problem, so be it.
Plus, every thing is too interconnected now. China doesn't want to see us go bankrupt anymore than we want to see the Chinese or European economies collapse. There might be pain, but it will get worked out.
I guess my point is that there are a lot of other much much much more likely problems we should worry about. No need to spend a lot of energy or worry on something that is very unlikely to happen. Now if solutions to other problems also solve this problem, so be it.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15996
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
I don't think it's "highly unlikely". I think the probability is sufficiently high to warrant consideration. The previous major socioeconomic collapse led to World War II. On a global scale, we've admittedly had peace since then, for 70+ years which is a somewhat long period when it comes to peace between powerful nations. Seventy years is enough for enough people to forget. This forgetting increases the risk of a recurrence significantly(!!).
However, for sure, we do not have any technological or progressive solutions to the usual risks associated with humanity (or lack thereof). Whenever the economy is down, populism takes hold everywhere. Anti-immigration rhetoric, isolationist, and nationalist tendencies increase. Imaginary foes are invented. Scapegoats are sought. This is nothing new. There's always the risk that such movements can change the entire system. Don't forget that it took less than 200 years for the Roman Empire to go from indoor plumbing to crude pottery. Technological progress was set back 1500 years.
FWIW, I agree with Ego about the appropriate strategies to cope with this. I think the cold-war (let's get supplies and live where the bomb won't fall) mentality/way of prepping is irrelevant to the current risks.
However, for sure, we do not have any technological or progressive solutions to the usual risks associated with humanity (or lack thereof). Whenever the economy is down, populism takes hold everywhere. Anti-immigration rhetoric, isolationist, and nationalist tendencies increase. Imaginary foes are invented. Scapegoats are sought. This is nothing new. There's always the risk that such movements can change the entire system. Don't forget that it took less than 200 years for the Roman Empire to go from indoor plumbing to crude pottery. Technological progress was set back 1500 years.
FWIW, I agree with Ego about the appropriate strategies to cope with this. I think the cold-war (let's get supplies and live where the bomb won't fall) mentality/way of prepping is irrelevant to the current risks.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6858
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
I think there are more intellectual overtones to 'polymath' but the term is suitably close that it could be used in place of 'renaissance man'. On the do-it-all spectrum, from blue- to white-collar, it probably goes "jack of all trades" -> "renaissance man" -> "polymath". That said, wikipedia and wiktionary treat Renaissance Man & Polymath as synonyms.
Personally, I'm happy to switch to using 'polymath' if people find Renaissance Man to be offensive. It's also shorter and the capitalization is less ambiguous.
Personally, I'm happy to switch to using 'polymath' if people find Renaissance Man to be offensive. It's also shorter and the capitalization is less ambiguous.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
The TSAHTF well and truely for millions around the world - past and present.
My relatives were well off eastern europeans who lost everything - land, houses, professions (doctors), lives - literally evrything during the second world war. No amount of veggie gardening or investment expertise helped them.
They just found a way to survive.
I suspect the same will happen when and if financial armageddon will happen. People will pool together and those with skills will have to carry the burden of others who dont.
If you have a nice big plot of magnificent looking apple trees, potatoes, mangoes spinach etc and the people around you are starving then you better have a very very high barbed wire fence.
My relatives were well off eastern europeans who lost everything - land, houses, professions (doctors), lives - literally evrything during the second world war. No amount of veggie gardening or investment expertise helped them.
They just found a way to survive.
I suspect the same will happen when and if financial armageddon will happen. People will pool together and those with skills will have to carry the burden of others who dont.
If you have a nice big plot of magnificent looking apple trees, potatoes, mangoes spinach etc and the people around you are starving then you better have a very very high barbed wire fence.
If I distill the general comments:
Some people do not think an condition of TSHTF will happen, some point out several reasons why it might happen again. Personally I’m leaning towards the 2nd: it might not happen (soon) but history has thought us it is not uncommon although the scale may vary. On a smaller scale I would say take a look at the economic collapse of Iceland ’08, Argentina ‘01, Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe in the ’00s, Balkan war ‘90s and huge worldwide issues in the 30’s with the depression and WWII after that and also the change to communism in Russia and Eastern Europe had a big impact on many lives.
However, even if this happens, it’s more important to have the skills to survive then rely (purely) on self sufficiency.
Also from the risk management point of view it’s better not to bet on a homestead (only).
To quote Bigato: “While is nice to be able to decouple from the system, it's also safer to keep linked to your community at least.” I think I go for that
.
OT:
“Hell, the US had more debt after WWII and managed to pay it down while they helped rebuild Europe and Japan.”
I do not believe this is correct. After a quick check on google I found a chart which shows that the debt per American for inflation was almost 25K after WWII, in 2010 it increased to 45K (I haven't verified it). I do not necessarily think this create an immediate issue, but living in Europe I follow pretty close the issues in Greece, Spain, Ireland. Seeing this, it makes you think about it what can happen to yourself.
Some people do not think an condition of TSHTF will happen, some point out several reasons why it might happen again. Personally I’m leaning towards the 2nd: it might not happen (soon) but history has thought us it is not uncommon although the scale may vary. On a smaller scale I would say take a look at the economic collapse of Iceland ’08, Argentina ‘01, Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe in the ’00s, Balkan war ‘90s and huge worldwide issues in the 30’s with the depression and WWII after that and also the change to communism in Russia and Eastern Europe had a big impact on many lives.
However, even if this happens, it’s more important to have the skills to survive then rely (purely) on self sufficiency.
Also from the risk management point of view it’s better not to bet on a homestead (only).
To quote Bigato: “While is nice to be able to decouple from the system, it's also safer to keep linked to your community at least.” I think I go for that
.OT:
“Hell, the US had more debt after WWII and managed to pay it down while they helped rebuild Europe and Japan.”
I do not believe this is correct. After a quick check on google I found a chart which shows that the debt per American for inflation was almost 25K after WWII, in 2010 it increased to 45K (I haven't verified it). I do not necessarily think this create an immediate issue, but living in Europe I follow pretty close the issues in Greece, Spain, Ireland. Seeing this, it makes you think about it what can happen to yourself.
Very interesting article here about one theory of five-stage economic collapse and what becomes an asset during each phase:
http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency-prepa ... e_02282012
http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency-prepa ... e_02282012
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
You could just learn to be a survivalist and keep the skills on reserve just in case, so you don't need a warehouse of equipment on reserve to keep you in a royal lifestyle should things become difficult. I know I can survive in a tent in the desert just eating wild rabbit and foraging cacti. I suppose that's a reassuring thought, though I don't think I'll ever be in a position where I have to do it again.
No need for solar panels, or stores of water or a year supply of food or a wood stove. I mean, I like those things because they make life more comfortable. But I know I can get by without them.
Many "survivalists" seem more worried about maintaining their lavish lifestyle of a varied diet, unlimited clean water, power, and a climate-controlled living space. Living that way is nice when things are in order and energy is cheap. But insisting on continuing to live that way under all sorts of disaster scenarios, instead of just learning to adjust your lifestyle appropriate to the resources at hand, will mean you're spending a pretty substantial hunk of your time and money preparing for something that will probably never come anyway.
But what's the worst-case scenario anyway? Death? That's gonna happen. I'm not going to waste my life worrying that it might come at a time inconvenient for my ego.
No need for solar panels, or stores of water or a year supply of food or a wood stove. I mean, I like those things because they make life more comfortable. But I know I can get by without them.
Many "survivalists" seem more worried about maintaining their lavish lifestyle of a varied diet, unlimited clean water, power, and a climate-controlled living space. Living that way is nice when things are in order and energy is cheap. But insisting on continuing to live that way under all sorts of disaster scenarios, instead of just learning to adjust your lifestyle appropriate to the resources at hand, will mean you're spending a pretty substantial hunk of your time and money preparing for something that will probably never come anyway.
But what's the worst-case scenario anyway? Death? That's gonna happen. I'm not going to waste my life worrying that it might come at a time inconvenient for my ego.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
"The previous major socioeconomic collapse led to World War II."
But it's a pretty Eurocentric view to say that WW2 and the years before it were a major collapse. America wasn't doing very well, but I don't think post-depression America could be described as "collapse", certainly not in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Then there's Asia--in many ways WW2 was a blessing for some Asian nations, as it gave them a chance to escape imperialism or establish their own nation.
Even the end of the Roman empire was a limited collapse--China was doing pretty well at the time, and the fall of Rome was pretty good for the Germans, if I remember my history correctly (which is not necessarily the case!)
But it's a pretty Eurocentric view to say that WW2 and the years before it were a major collapse. America wasn't doing very well, but I don't think post-depression America could be described as "collapse", certainly not in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Then there's Asia--in many ways WW2 was a blessing for some Asian nations, as it gave them a chance to escape imperialism or establish their own nation.
Even the end of the Roman empire was a limited collapse--China was doing pretty well at the time, and the fall of Rome was pretty good for the Germans, if I remember my history correctly (which is not necessarily the case!)
Hi Mike, I was originally not meaning to follow the doomsday peppers in case of war, floodings, etc. If that would means death in the end, so be it.
Though I would like how I can survive in a tent in the desert and just eating wild rabit and foraging cacti one day
I was just wondering what if your stocks will decrease with 90%, the bonds will get a junk status and loose almost all value (Greece…), etc. In worst case you might end with only 20% value of your original assets*. Those 20% won’t help you to continue your ERE life style and can’t pay for the rent, utility, food, transport, clothing etc.
But if you’re partly self sufficient, by having an own house, solar panels, a big plot to grow your own food, you might be able to still pay the remaining costs (transport, clothes) from your PP. But owning a house, a big plot etc. makes you less flexible and you’ll pay for it, even though you might not use so efficiently it justifies the investments (from financial point of view). As Bigato pointed out, some investments on becoming self sufficient will reduce the monthly expenses and will even help you to become ERE quicker. That’s the case with my solar panels, ROI is 6 years and thereafter my electricity bill is only € 5,- where it was € 50,- each month.
But buying a big plot for growing food will have an ROI of > 99 years probably.
*I know that the theory behind the PP is that if one part is going down the other part(s) will increase, but I'm wondering if this would be in every situation the case. I have to admit I have to read more about the PP as I have only found out recently about it.
Though I would like how I can survive in a tent in the desert and just eating wild rabit and foraging cacti one day
I was just wondering what if your stocks will decrease with 90%, the bonds will get a junk status and loose almost all value (Greece…), etc. In worst case you might end with only 20% value of your original assets*. Those 20% won’t help you to continue your ERE life style and can’t pay for the rent, utility, food, transport, clothing etc.
But if you’re partly self sufficient, by having an own house, solar panels, a big plot to grow your own food, you might be able to still pay the remaining costs (transport, clothes) from your PP. But owning a house, a big plot etc. makes you less flexible and you’ll pay for it, even though you might not use so efficiently it justifies the investments (from financial point of view). As Bigato pointed out, some investments on becoming self sufficient will reduce the monthly expenses and will even help you to become ERE quicker. That’s the case with my solar panels, ROI is 6 years and thereafter my electricity bill is only € 5,- where it was € 50,- each month.
But buying a big plot for growing food will have an ROI of > 99 years probably.
*I know that the theory behind the PP is that if one part is going down the other part(s) will increase, but I'm wondering if this would be in every situation the case. I have to admit I have to read more about the PP as I have only found out recently about it.