@rube Sounds reasonable!
FI and/or Self sufficient
@aussierogue: That's fine. Though extreme, I enjoyed the article (at least up to stage 4) and I still think it's relevant to the conversation.
The possibility of complete economic collapse is something that many of us in the first world never even consider. Yet, any number of things could happen to challenge our way of living and being -- financial meltdown, war, natural disaster, zombie apocalypse, whatever. Will these things actually happen? Maybe, maybe not. Still, I think discussions like this one -- about what's really important for survival, how these assets/skills tie in with FI, etc. -- are useful to have. At the very least, they make us appreciate things that we take for granted.
Having said this, anticipating TSHTF is kind of like living in an earthquake zone (which I do). The possibility of having the world taken out from under my feet exists every day and it's pretty much inevitable that the big one will eventually occur. All we can do is prepare ourselves as much as possible, but it doesn't make sense to spend every moment of every day worrying about what's going to happen.
The possibility of complete economic collapse is something that many of us in the first world never even consider. Yet, any number of things could happen to challenge our way of living and being -- financial meltdown, war, natural disaster, zombie apocalypse, whatever. Will these things actually happen? Maybe, maybe not. Still, I think discussions like this one -- about what's really important for survival, how these assets/skills tie in with FI, etc. -- are useful to have. At the very least, they make us appreciate things that we take for granted.
Having said this, anticipating TSHTF is kind of like living in an earthquake zone (which I do). The possibility of having the world taken out from under my feet exists every day and it's pretty much inevitable that the big one will eventually occur. All we can do is prepare ourselves as much as possible, but it doesn't make sense to spend every moment of every day worrying about what's going to happen.
-
Christopherjart
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:03 am
- Contact:
I have to agree with Secretwealth. The collapses that are always mentioned (Rome and early 20th century)aren't clear cut examples of collapse. Don't get me wrong they both suck, but not collapse suck.
Even if you count those times as true collapses that suggests it doesn't happen a lot. I would also suggest that plagues had a lot to do with how deep and how long Europe was down after the Roman Empire. That's kind of an uncontrollable wild card
@Rube
"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."
I'm more interested in debt as a percentage of GDP, as number of people is only an indication of GDP. While, GDP is exactly GDP.
I have seen multiple numbers for this, but everyone I have seen has the current US debt and US debt after WWII as at least the same percentage of GDP or US debt after WWII was up to 20% higher.
100.8% vs 121.7% (WWII)
http://visual.ly/united-states-debt-per ... -1940-2012
102.5% v 98.2% (WWII)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... aily-chart
Greece and Spain are not good comparisons with the US, as there aren't a lot of similar economic factors other than debt. Ireland is a little better, but it is still lacking.
I'm not suggesting we don't need to do something about the debt. I'm suggesting that we aren't yet at the "OH, F@#K there isn't anything we can do" stage yet. We are closer, but we still have time if we get our heads out of our asses.
Even if you count those times as true collapses that suggests it doesn't happen a lot. I would also suggest that plagues had a lot to do with how deep and how long Europe was down after the Roman Empire. That's kind of an uncontrollable wild card
@Rube
"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."
I'm more interested in debt as a percentage of GDP, as number of people is only an indication of GDP. While, GDP is exactly GDP.
I have seen multiple numbers for this, but everyone I have seen has the current US debt and US debt after WWII as at least the same percentage of GDP or US debt after WWII was up to 20% higher.
100.8% vs 121.7% (WWII)
http://visual.ly/united-states-debt-per ... -1940-2012
102.5% v 98.2% (WWII)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... aily-chart
Greece and Spain are not good comparisons with the US, as there aren't a lot of similar economic factors other than debt. Ireland is a little better, but it is still lacking.
I'm not suggesting we don't need to do something about the debt. I'm suggesting that we aren't yet at the "OH, F@#K there isn't anything we can do" stage yet. We are closer, but we still have time if we get our heads out of our asses.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
IMO, Greece and Spain would be fine if they could print their own money. Remember Spain had a very sound, responsible fiscal policy before the crash and is suffering now because Germany has all the power in the EU (I think George Friedman is best on this issue: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/spain-de ... overeignty).
I think with the advent of sci fi as a genre and Hollywood special effects, it's been easier to imagine the end of the world than ever before. Combine that with a Christian culture founded on the fantasy of complete destruction and resurrection, and it's kind of instinctual for many in western countries to think about the end of the world. Apocalyptic fantasies are (and always have been) much less popular in Asia.
One should always be on guard for their personal social bias. I think in America particularly there's a bias towards thinking our best years are behind us, and that can lead to all sorts of fantastical pontifications. But at the end of the day, we'll probably just keep bumbling along. Boring I know, but most likely.
I think with the advent of sci fi as a genre and Hollywood special effects, it's been easier to imagine the end of the world than ever before. Combine that with a Christian culture founded on the fantasy of complete destruction and resurrection, and it's kind of instinctual for many in western countries to think about the end of the world. Apocalyptic fantasies are (and always have been) much less popular in Asia.
One should always be on guard for their personal social bias. I think in America particularly there's a bias towards thinking our best years are behind us, and that can lead to all sorts of fantastical pontifications. But at the end of the day, we'll probably just keep bumbling along. Boring I know, but most likely.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
@Chad, et al--I've read the optimistic comments here and I've read many articles that suggest we'll figure a way out of our troubles before it's too late. It seems like a reasonable assumption. I want to believe it. Slow doom scenarios should give the world time to pull it's collective head out of it's ass. But I always come back to the frog in boiling water. In that way I think slow doom scenarios are more dangerous than SHTF events. If we take a small step every day down the wrong path, we won't necessarily know (or care) when we've gone too far.
Re: prepping
I don't think the goal for many of us is to maintain a lavish lifestyle. I do think there are small things that you can do that make a big difference. When we lost power for 5 days with Irene, we didn't have any hot water and our cooking ability was limited. We found those things to be the biggest inconveniences, so we addressed those issues. When we went 7 days without power this week with Sandy, we had hot water and hot food and really didn't feel much inconvenience at all. By simply replacing a hot water heater, purchasing a good camp stove, and stocking a minimal amount of propane, we improved our living conditions dramatically. It was also nice knowing we were prepared to cut up downed trees and make repairs to our roof. Again, not hard skills to learn, and meant we were able to repair our home right away.
I'm not prepared to survive a nuclear winter. I don't even have the preps to survive 6 months without access to food and power. But with (what seems like) minimal effort and skill, I'm prepared for the most likely events.
Re: prepping
I don't think the goal for many of us is to maintain a lavish lifestyle. I do think there are small things that you can do that make a big difference. When we lost power for 5 days with Irene, we didn't have any hot water and our cooking ability was limited. We found those things to be the biggest inconveniences, so we addressed those issues. When we went 7 days without power this week with Sandy, we had hot water and hot food and really didn't feel much inconvenience at all. By simply replacing a hot water heater, purchasing a good camp stove, and stocking a minimal amount of propane, we improved our living conditions dramatically. It was also nice knowing we were prepared to cut up downed trees and make repairs to our roof. Again, not hard skills to learn, and meant we were able to repair our home right away.
I'm not prepared to survive a nuclear winter. I don't even have the preps to survive 6 months without access to food and power. But with (what seems like) minimal effort and skill, I'm prepared for the most likely events.
@rube,
Based on your comments, I think you have a very good understanding of the problem, and I add my opinion.
Buying a larger plot is attempting to purchase a static form of security, and given that change is a constant, it is unlikely to work out. Gardening or growing food within your circumstances is prudent, but buying a farm is not unless you wish to become a farmer or rent to one. Similar to storing a month's worth of food (or several months) versus saving up to buy a grocery store; the latter is priced as an ongoing business, not as an investment in personal security.
As to SHTF, offhand I can't remember an instance in the past 100 years or so where farmers did particularly well, and often did very poorly in terms of survival. Even during the depression in the US, I think the farmers had the worst of it thanks to the dust bowl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
Even in a limited SHTF financial crisis (i.e., no social collapse), I think I'd rather be an experienced welder with a passport than a farmer with a homestead.
Based on your comments, I think you have a very good understanding of the problem, and I add my opinion.
Buying a larger plot is attempting to purchase a static form of security, and given that change is a constant, it is unlikely to work out. Gardening or growing food within your circumstances is prudent, but buying a farm is not unless you wish to become a farmer or rent to one. Similar to storing a month's worth of food (or several months) versus saving up to buy a grocery store; the latter is priced as an ongoing business, not as an investment in personal security.
As to SHTF, offhand I can't remember an instance in the past 100 years or so where farmers did particularly well, and often did very poorly in terms of survival. Even during the depression in the US, I think the farmers had the worst of it thanks to the dust bowl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
Even in a limited SHTF financial crisis (i.e., no social collapse), I think I'd rather be an experienced welder with a passport than a farmer with a homestead.
After you do some basic prepping like Jennypenny describes, I definitely lean towards Jacob's, Hoplite's, and m741's views that inflexibility to a changing world is a bigger issue than being well stocked.
@jennypenny
I understand the doubt, but the sheer number of doomsayers and all the years they have been calling for doom suggests an SHTF scenario isn't likely. At heart I'm a contrarian.
@jennypenny
I understand the doubt, but the sheer number of doomsayers and all the years they have been calling for doom suggests an SHTF scenario isn't likely. At heart I'm a contrarian.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
I suppose I often get caught up in semantics--that's what happens when you cross a writer with a philosopher--but self-sufficiency and prepping are two different things. Not mutually exclusive, but still different. Someone can be totally self-sufficient on a homestead while not prepping for or even concerning himself with SHTF scenarios, and someone else can be totally prepped for 6 years of nuclear winter in his bomb shelter yet still be closely coupled with the economy, e.g. not self-sufficient.
Self-sufficiency to me means being decoupled from the consumer economy. It means needing less money in order to survive. It's the "spending" side of the FI equation. Obviously, the lower you get spending the faster you will achieve FI and the lower the risk that your savings will run out. So I would say it's very relevant to ERE/FI, but only to the extent that self-sufficiency actually lowers your spending. Thus an analysis of priorities and cost/benefit is necessary. You'll often find self-sufficiency is not without its own costs and risks. See @Hoplite's example of a farm. Sure, you would likely increase your self-sufficiency, but is this the best investment for reaching FI, or even the best prep for SHTF? Maybe, maybe not.
I agree with others who've said owning land and/or means of production is not entirely necessary for self-sufficiency and/or prepping--but I think it does help. It brings the locus of control a little closer to you, e.g. Government > YOU as opposed to Government > Owner > You. There's one less agent who can (legally) interfere with your livelihood and that means one less risk. However, it is possible to be self-sufficient without
owning land, although your ongoing usage costs (e.g. rent) will be higher, and so your production capability would also need to be higher. Likewise, the risk that you will lose access to the resource is also higher. In terms of prepping, ownership of land could help but only depending on the nature of the SHTF event. As others have mentioned, in the stereotypical violent collapse that obliterates all social order, the roaming zombie hordes won't care much about titles to land--and neither will you.
Which brings me to my final point--I agree that flexibility is the ultimate survival tool (with health/fitness being a close second), but in no way do I see ownership of land or any other asset as a barrier to flexibility. In other words, it may or may not help to have a fully stocked bug-out cabin, but it probably won't hurt--in terms of
prepping, that is. Which is where the cost/benefit analysis comes in. If you care more about prepping and/or self-sufficiency than FI, maybe that secluded homestead is a good choice. If you care more about FI, though, maybe you risk the potential of the zombie apocalypse in order to invest your money where you foresee the greatest return.
For me, it's definitely FI > self-sufficiency > prep, in that order. I like the way the first two increase my chances of survival in SHTF, but I don't actively concern myself with that. For the time being I see a functioning economy and geopolitical environment as more likely than roving zombies, so I direct my finances accordingly.
Self-sufficiency to me means being decoupled from the consumer economy. It means needing less money in order to survive. It's the "spending" side of the FI equation. Obviously, the lower you get spending the faster you will achieve FI and the lower the risk that your savings will run out. So I would say it's very relevant to ERE/FI, but only to the extent that self-sufficiency actually lowers your spending. Thus an analysis of priorities and cost/benefit is necessary. You'll often find self-sufficiency is not without its own costs and risks. See @Hoplite's example of a farm. Sure, you would likely increase your self-sufficiency, but is this the best investment for reaching FI, or even the best prep for SHTF? Maybe, maybe not.
I agree with others who've said owning land and/or means of production is not entirely necessary for self-sufficiency and/or prepping--but I think it does help. It brings the locus of control a little closer to you, e.g. Government > YOU as opposed to Government > Owner > You. There's one less agent who can (legally) interfere with your livelihood and that means one less risk. However, it is possible to be self-sufficient without
owning land, although your ongoing usage costs (e.g. rent) will be higher, and so your production capability would also need to be higher. Likewise, the risk that you will lose access to the resource is also higher. In terms of prepping, ownership of land could help but only depending on the nature of the SHTF event. As others have mentioned, in the stereotypical violent collapse that obliterates all social order, the roaming zombie hordes won't care much about titles to land--and neither will you.
Which brings me to my final point--I agree that flexibility is the ultimate survival tool (with health/fitness being a close second), but in no way do I see ownership of land or any other asset as a barrier to flexibility. In other words, it may or may not help to have a fully stocked bug-out cabin, but it probably won't hurt--in terms of
prepping, that is. Which is where the cost/benefit analysis comes in. If you care more about prepping and/or self-sufficiency than FI, maybe that secluded homestead is a good choice. If you care more about FI, though, maybe you risk the potential of the zombie apocalypse in order to invest your money where you foresee the greatest return.
For me, it's definitely FI > self-sufficiency > prep, in that order. I like the way the first two increase my chances of survival in SHTF, but I don't actively concern myself with that. For the time being I see a functioning economy and geopolitical environment as more likely than roving zombies, so I direct my finances accordingly.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
Bravo, Spartan!
On the point of owning land, I have thought about this recently; my wife and I really want a second house in Vermont and we probably could afford it with a big mortgage. That second house would definitely make us less FI (dependent upon an income stream to cover the loan costs, not to mention added tax, transportation, and fuel liabilities), but it would also make us more "self-suffient/prepped" from the doomsayer's perspective. When Sandy hit, we could've easily just skipped town and waited it out.
I think a lot of people who would otherwise be on the fast track to FI could easily use the prepper rationale to justify unnecessary purchases. "We need to buy this extra $10,000 in farming tools not because I love to garden, but to prepare for The End." I see it really as the same rationalization as yuppie overconsumption ("I need a Haliburton suitcase to impress clients" as one friend once told me).
On the point of owning land, I have thought about this recently; my wife and I really want a second house in Vermont and we probably could afford it with a big mortgage. That second house would definitely make us less FI (dependent upon an income stream to cover the loan costs, not to mention added tax, transportation, and fuel liabilities), but it would also make us more "self-suffient/prepped" from the doomsayer's perspective. When Sandy hit, we could've easily just skipped town and waited it out.
I think a lot of people who would otherwise be on the fast track to FI could easily use the prepper rationale to justify unnecessary purchases. "We need to buy this extra $10,000 in farming tools not because I love to garden, but to prepare for The End." I see it really as the same rationalization as yuppie overconsumption ("I need a Haliburton suitcase to impress clients" as one friend once told me).
Quote Spartan: "I agree with others who've said owning land and/or means of production is not entirely necessary for self-sufficiency and/or prepping--but I think it does help. It brings the locus of control a little closer to you....
....in no way do I see ownership of land or any other asset as a barrier to flexibility."
_____
Locus of control. When you believe you have a measure of control over something you also have a measure of responsibility TO it.
That responsibility is the thing that kept some people in their homes during Sandy and Katrina. It was the responsibility to land, animals and property that kept many farmers in place when they would have been safer fleeing during countless wars and uprisings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc
Granted, some are able to disconnect from the responsibilities of property. They can quickly calculate what's most important and leave the unimportant behind. Frequently it is tough to make the calculation. The variables aren't all that clear. That's when those who control property err on the side of remaining in place while those who don't, move.
....in no way do I see ownership of land or any other asset as a barrier to flexibility."
_____
Locus of control. When you believe you have a measure of control over something you also have a measure of responsibility TO it.
That responsibility is the thing that kept some people in their homes during Sandy and Katrina. It was the responsibility to land, animals and property that kept many farmers in place when they would have been safer fleeing during countless wars and uprisings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc
Granted, some are able to disconnect from the responsibilities of property. They can quickly calculate what's most important and leave the unimportant behind. Frequently it is tough to make the calculation. The variables aren't all that clear. That's when those who control property err on the side of remaining in place while those who don't, move.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
@Ego: Admittedly, I am somewhat dispassionate toward material resources, but isn't that what insurance is for? If given an evacuation order for something like a hurricane, I would be gone in a minute... are you suggesting staying behind is a responsible idea? If not, why do we care about irresponsible decisions?
My point was that owning a resource gives a (rational) actor the flexibility of utilizing it or not utilizing it on his own terms. Renting a resource, likewise, gives the flexibility to utilize or not utilize on someone else's terms. And not having access to a resource gives no such flexibility at all.
Whether you can rationally determine how to use that resource is your own business.
My point was that owning a resource gives a (rational) actor the flexibility of utilizing it or not utilizing it on his own terms. Renting a resource, likewise, gives the flexibility to utilize or not utilize on someone else's terms. And not having access to a resource gives no such flexibility at all.
Whether you can rationally determine how to use that resource is your own business.
Loss Aversion, the Endowment Effect and Status Quo Bias.
-Humans have a cognitive bias that causes us to prefer avoiding a loss over acquiring a comparable gain.
-We are willing to pay more to retain something we own than to obtain the same thing owned by someone else.
-We will do completely irrational things to maintain the status quo.
The three combine to cause us to do absolutely nutty things in the protection of our possessions.
History is full of examples of people who stayed behind when they should have fled, who fought for a trifle rather than running, who remained to save their XYZ rather than leaving. Heck, that is the plot of half the movies coming out of Hollywood. We celebrate this type of irrational behavior. We reinforce it. That makes us even more biased toward making bad decisions.
"My point was that owning a resource gives a (rational) actor the flexibility of utilizing it or not utilizing it on his own terms."
Rational actors do not exist when we discuss possessions. But let's take it one step further. What cost does one pay for having it, "on his own terms"? There is certainly a value in that control. The flexibility of use, as you put it.
On the other hand, one of the things we discuss daily here is the flexibility of not having the the item in the first place. The freedom of minimalism. The abundance of having little.
Which flexibility is more valuable? There is no simple answer. One thing's for sure, each and every one of us is susceptible to the lure of our cognitive biases.
-Humans have a cognitive bias that causes us to prefer avoiding a loss over acquiring a comparable gain.
-We are willing to pay more to retain something we own than to obtain the same thing owned by someone else.
-We will do completely irrational things to maintain the status quo.
The three combine to cause us to do absolutely nutty things in the protection of our possessions.
History is full of examples of people who stayed behind when they should have fled, who fought for a trifle rather than running, who remained to save their XYZ rather than leaving. Heck, that is the plot of half the movies coming out of Hollywood. We celebrate this type of irrational behavior. We reinforce it. That makes us even more biased toward making bad decisions.
"My point was that owning a resource gives a (rational) actor the flexibility of utilizing it or not utilizing it on his own terms."
Rational actors do not exist when we discuss possessions. But let's take it one step further. What cost does one pay for having it, "on his own terms"? There is certainly a value in that control. The flexibility of use, as you put it.
On the other hand, one of the things we discuss daily here is the flexibility of not having the the item in the first place. The freedom of minimalism. The abundance of having little.
Which flexibility is more valuable? There is no simple answer. One thing's for sure, each and every one of us is susceptible to the lure of our cognitive biases.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Granted. But I'm not sure ownership makes a difference in those cognitive biases so much as possession. I'm sure there are renters who are attached to their land and homes as well.
Having access to the resource on your own terms (ownership) definitely has a value and associated cost. That's where I was going with the cost/benefit analysis. Whether and how you focus on FI and/or self-sufficiency and/or prepping are personal determinations based on your expectations of potential risk/reward. If you really value being prepared for all possible SHTF situations, again, ownership of land increases flexibility. Any associated cost is a ding against the pursuit of FI, not the pursuit of prep.
Having access to the resource on your own terms (ownership) definitely has a value and associated cost. That's where I was going with the cost/benefit analysis. Whether and how you focus on FI and/or self-sufficiency and/or prepping are personal determinations based on your expectations of potential risk/reward. If you really value being prepared for all possible SHTF situations, again, ownership of land increases flexibility. Any associated cost is a ding against the pursuit of FI, not the pursuit of prep.
Quote, "If you really value being prepared for all possible SHTF situations, again, ownership of land increases flexibility. Any associated cost is a ding against the pursuit of FI, not the pursuit of prep."
Preparation. Preppers. What is "being prepared"?
We've been conditioned by survivalists to assume that being prepared means digging in, controlling land and resources. But is it?
Let's look at a few actual SHTF situations from recent history.
Sudan
Iraq
Bosnia / Herzegovina
Chechnya
Afghanistan
Now imagine you are someone in one of those places with the means to purchase property. It is a few years before the disaster hits. Of course there is no way for you to know disaster will hit.
While you could purchase property and make yourself self-sufficient in the survivalist fashion, you could also spend your resources buying TRUE flexibility. Perhaps you might obtain a visa for a neighboring country that is friendly to your people. You might even get a passport from that country. You might spend your energy cultivating friendships with those who could assist you in an emergency. You might travel to visit distant relatives who live in a first-world country. You might might get some of your resources into that safe haven.
What about an economic SHTF?
Zimbabwe: When we were living in South Africa we met some folks who escaped their fortified compound in Zim with little more than suitcases. Sadly, they made the same mistakes again by rebuilding in rural South Africa and are now going through the same things once again.... slow motion SHTF.
Argentina: Prior to collapse the US$ and Peso were fixed at 1-1. People had dollar or peso bank accounts. Cash registers were full of $1,$5, $10 and $20s along with pesos. One day the government closed the banks, devalued the peso to 3-1, then reopened. Mortgages and loans were reassessed at the new rate, so there was no escaping debt. Cash was flowing out of the country so nobody was buying property. Those who owned were stuck. Those with international ties and resources outside of the country were golden.
Preparation. Preppers. What is "being prepared"?
We've been conditioned by survivalists to assume that being prepared means digging in, controlling land and resources. But is it?
Let's look at a few actual SHTF situations from recent history.
Sudan
Iraq
Bosnia / Herzegovina
Chechnya
Afghanistan
Now imagine you are someone in one of those places with the means to purchase property. It is a few years before the disaster hits. Of course there is no way for you to know disaster will hit.
While you could purchase property and make yourself self-sufficient in the survivalist fashion, you could also spend your resources buying TRUE flexibility. Perhaps you might obtain a visa for a neighboring country that is friendly to your people. You might even get a passport from that country. You might spend your energy cultivating friendships with those who could assist you in an emergency. You might travel to visit distant relatives who live in a first-world country. You might might get some of your resources into that safe haven.
What about an economic SHTF?
Zimbabwe: When we were living in South Africa we met some folks who escaped their fortified compound in Zim with little more than suitcases. Sadly, they made the same mistakes again by rebuilding in rural South Africa and are now going through the same things once again.... slow motion SHTF.
Argentina: Prior to collapse the US$ and Peso were fixed at 1-1. People had dollar or peso bank accounts. Cash registers were full of $1,$5, $10 and $20s along with pesos. One day the government closed the banks, devalued the peso to 3-1, then reopened. Mortgages and loans were reassessed at the new rate, so there was no escaping debt. Cash was flowing out of the country so nobody was buying property. Those who owned were stuck. Those with international ties and resources outside of the country were golden.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Ego, none of what you said is a reason to not own property. Rather they are reasons to not exclusively rely on property, which I completely agree with.
In my opinion, "being prepared" means being prepared for as many possible disasters as feasible. There are a thousand and one ways for the shit to hit the fan (see: Hollywood), and thus there are just as many ways to try to "be prepared". In some scenarios, owning land would be useless. In some scenarios, having liquid wealth would be useless. In some scenarios, a passport would be useless.
And in some scenarios, all those things would be "useless", at least from the standpoint of being prepared for whatever disaster strikes. Likewise, if no SHTF event, then all prep was "useless" and would've been better spent in the markets. Again, one has to assess his own expectations of risk/reward and determine the best course of action. This will be different not only depending on the expected SHTF event(s), but on the personality and skillset of the individual. Maybe a passport is the weapon of choice for an FI person who likes to travel and foresees a collapse localized to his country. Maybe a homestead is the weapon of choice for a self-sufficient person with a lot of skills who foresees a global collapse or an aggressive government preventing egress.
I simply cannot imagine a scenario where owning any resource is a liability in SHTF. I'll take a homestead and a passport over one or the other any day.
In my opinion, "being prepared" means being prepared for as many possible disasters as feasible. There are a thousand and one ways for the shit to hit the fan (see: Hollywood), and thus there are just as many ways to try to "be prepared". In some scenarios, owning land would be useless. In some scenarios, having liquid wealth would be useless. In some scenarios, a passport would be useless.
And in some scenarios, all those things would be "useless", at least from the standpoint of being prepared for whatever disaster strikes. Likewise, if no SHTF event, then all prep was "useless" and would've been better spent in the markets. Again, one has to assess his own expectations of risk/reward and determine the best course of action. This will be different not only depending on the expected SHTF event(s), but on the personality and skillset of the individual. Maybe a passport is the weapon of choice for an FI person who likes to travel and foresees a collapse localized to his country. Maybe a homestead is the weapon of choice for a self-sufficient person with a lot of skills who foresees a global collapse or an aggressive government preventing egress.
I simply cannot imagine a scenario where owning any resource is a liability in SHTF. I'll take a homestead and a passport over one or the other any day.