Forum Replies Created
May 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm in reply to: Debt Rattle May 21 2014: Drowning in the American Dream #13125
So, if instead of saying “in 5 years” Nichole had said “In 10 years,” you would have stayed in the house that “you owned” instead of going into a rental? And made no changes to your life? Really?
I guess I’m the opposite of you — every year that the catastrophe is delayed for me, I’m happy. One more year to pay down debt, build my business, learn new skills and expand on old one, collect useful items, plant more fruit-trees, and expand my social network. And a bit more time to enjoy the finer things of life, like flying across the country to meet with friends, take a long weekend in the mountains, visit a museum, or dream about a European vacation.
I’m sorry you’re unhappy with your life. But my guess is that if you had stayed in your house and ignored TAE, you would have an equal amount of stress and unhappiness.
Nicole said: There’s plenty of food here, and great weather. The people are really lovely. I am very happy here.
For me, that’s a very important thing. If you make all the plans in the world but aren’t happy with your life, you’re doing something wrong. Or thinking something wrong.January 5, 2014 at 1:21 pm in reply to: Teaser Podcast Prelude To Upcoming TAE Holiday Presentation #10251
The submission form is up and working again at The Survival Podcast. I really would love to hear you and Jack Spirko discuss permaculture, paleo diets, and the coming “collapse” of our economic-political-social system. Here’s the link:December 22, 2013 at 12:41 pm in reply to: Nicole Foss: Ragnarok – Iceland and the ‘Doom of the Gods’ #9955
Nevermind — I just emptied my cache and it reloaded fine. It was stuck on last week for some reason.December 22, 2013 at 12:40 pm in reply to: Nicole Foss: Ragnarok – Iceland and the ‘Doom of the Gods’ #9954
Excellent article as always, Nicole. But how come this isn’t coming up on the front page f the site?December 12, 2013 at 1:18 am in reply to: Teaser Podcast Prelude To Upcoming TAE Holiday Presentation #9715
I second the “go on The Survival Podcast” suggestion. I think you’d have a lot more in common than one might think. The “Zone Zero” idea is awesome….permaculture your body.
Thanks again for getting the word out. Looking forward to the new videos.October 24, 2012 at 3:54 am in reply to: Japan Is Not A Good Example Of How Deflation Typically Plays Out #6110
You make some great points here…I’m glad you bumped it up from the comment section.September 25, 2012 at 11:26 pm in reply to: You're Dreaming If You Think The Euro Crisis Is Resolved #5783
Viscount St. Albans post=5479 wrote: Ilargi said:
My position, our position, often stated, is that the depression will be so severe that anyone who presently owns less than $1 million (complete ballpark number, but certainly no less that that) in real wealth (not stocks, pensions, real estate etc.), will have no use for gold.
It would be useful if you explained, even in a rough sense, how you’re arriving at the $1 million ballpark figure.
Try thinking of it in terms of orders of magnitude (or logarithms for the more science-minded). A seven-figure amount of wealth, rather than six figures or eight figures.
My take on the $1,000,000:
1) it’s universally understood to stand for “a lot of money” in colloquial English
2) to have that sort of savings puts you in the top 5% or better of Americans/Germans/British/etc. So if you don’t consider yourself a lot better off than most people financially, don’t think about buying gold.September 18, 2012 at 9:04 pm in reply to: Bernanke And Draghi Are Not Trying To Save Our Economies #5658
Vulcanelli post=5346 wrote: The argument for metals that makes sense is where one where you hold it until a depression ends and can redeem it for much more currency. However this only makes sense if one assumes that society will emerge from times of lack to continue with a version of the previous economy. But if that economy is based on expansion the lack of sufficient energy and credit would well preclude that it ever comes back. There is also the issue of government confiscation and subsequent devaluation which has happened before.
Any thoughts on this?
I think you’ve hit the pitfalls of metals nicely. Here’s my biggest problem with the “buy gold” mantra: people talk about it like it’s the single solution. But there is no single solution.
Gold will not make you rich and happy.
A wad of cash won’t be the answer for all your problems.
The 99% rising up and overthrowing the evil bankers will not save you.
Stored beans and 1,000,000-zillion rounds of ammo will no make your life easy
Having a farm with wind generators will not mean you’re well-fed and comfortable.
This is going to stink, big-time. For pretty much everyone. In ways most of us can’t even imagine. We can do things to protect ourselves, but there isn’t a get-out-of-jail card.
Good luck with your new site, Ash. I’m sure you’ll find your walk continually interesting and inspiring. I do hope you keep posting here, too. TAE has been richer because of your contributions.
If you haven’t already, you should check out some of the writings of Francis Collins, the world-renowned geneticist and evangelical Christian.
Glennda post=4429 wrote: why are guns so easy to get?
I know this is a bit of a rhetorical question, but I thought I’d answer it in a different (non-political) way:
1. Firearms of all types are, at this time, a well-established technology. He basic designs haven’t changed in over 100 years.
2. They are incredibly simple to manufacture and are very reliable — for $300 you can buy a new gun that is of decent quality.
3. They are really very low-tech, and can be made with pretty basic materials. More akin to hand-tools than iPhones.
4. They don’t really wear out — tons of people have firearms from their grandparents that they still use.
5. They’re still the best tool to quickly and instantly kill most animals.
ashvin post=4400 wrote: I’m not saying that many of the current crises were not anticipated and/or planned by groups of elites, or, even more obviously, that they are benefiting from these crises in many different ways. But it seems very unrealistic and counter-productive to me when we assume these already powerful people and institutions are borderline omnipotent. Instead, I am confident that there will come a time when they are rendered nearly impotent,and how soon that time arrives is ultimately up to the rest of us.
I agree with you, Ashvin. And when that happens, it’s the “emperor has no clothes” moment. And that’s when everything TAE has been predicting will happen, possibly very fast, too.
Good insights as usual, Ilargi.
In my more philosophical moments, I realize that it’s Europe and the rest of the world returning the the normal, after 60+ years of abnormality. The periods of peace and prosperity over the last 2000 years have been few and far between.
When I’m feeling more realistic, I think, “Wow, this is going to suck big-time.”
stoneleigh post=4189 wrote: Everything we thought was normal was the result of a huge energy subsidy amplified by the largest financial bubble in human history. We are going to have to adjust to a radically different new normal in the relatively near future, and we are not going to like it. There’s nothing so addictive as freedom, and the loss of access to money and energy is going to deprive us of much of that.
Wow. That bit nicely cuts through all the BS and right to the quick. I think I’m going to write that down and pull it out anytime people say “yeah, but…”
Karpatok post=3918 wrote: So are the originators of TAE, Stoneleigh and Illargi, Christian evangelicals like Ashvin? And is the final objective of this website the kind of proselytizing that Ashvin is engaged in? Or rather is it to play on people’s confusion and fear, perhaps to make a living?
There are years worth of posts from Stoneleigh and Illargi on this site. The primers are a great place to start to find out what TAE is all about; Soneleigh’s video “A century of Challenges” is also a great summary of her take on things. You should peruse them and form your own opinion.
I agree with you about rural areas having huge plusses as our economy falters. My thoughts on low-population areas is more toward the really remote places — Alaskan bush, the great Northern Woods of Maine, the Rocky Mountains, and the Great Basin.
I’m a bit more wary of the tax-man than you, still. Local and State government has grown a lot since the 1960’s, and they might be more likely to come after your assets than the national/global folks.
Reverse Engineer post=3802 wrote:
Buy nothing you cannot Carry with you and Protect and Defend. Ownership of Land is a Chimera, always has been.
Have as little as possible to defend, so you are not a Target. Anyone purporting to OWN the land is a Target.
Go as far out as you possibly can from the center of the collapse, hopefully past the Event Horizon. Lowest population zones are best. High population zones are DEATH TRAPS.
Join with others, make a Tribe, Clan, Gang or Community. Do not try to suvive on your own. You cannot.
Depend on NO form of “money”. Barter only. Reject all forms of money pitched out by the elite to “Save the Day”, PMs or otherwise As any have ever been constructed through all of history, all are lies.
All the “wealth” constructed here from the Age of Ag and the Age of Oil is going down now, and depending on any of that is a mistake. Only your Wits, your Skllls and your Connections to others now represent true wealth. Build all of them as best you can, and GTFO of the Big Shities as fast as you can.
The Big Show is Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You.
There’s one problem with low population zones: they have a low population for a reason. Usually that means that even in the best of situations it’s exceedingly difficult to survive/thrive there. And we’re not talking about ideal situations. Especially as others get the same idea and enter your sphere. The existing, low-density resources will be drawn down rapidly, most likely at an unsustainable rate.
Couldn’t agree with you more on building community, though.
ashvin post=3806 wrote: [quote=Reverse Engineer post=3798]If David Rockefeller, Nathan Rothschild, Henry Kissinger, George Soros Bill Gates, et al; all the major Stockholders and Board of Directors of Monsanto, Dupont, IBM, GE et al do not get a summons from the Auto da Fe to appear in front of the Inquisition, it is a FAKE and not to be believed.
No shit, Sherlock…
The reality is that neither you nor I nor anyone else here will end up heading up a movement like OMMP. And, yeah, it will be painfully obvious to all of us when it actually happens that it is a deception, especially after we remember talking about that scenario in this thread…
You will be especially enraged when it all happens and I can see you yelling at the top of your lungs, “The Illuminati stole my idea to get rid of them!!” But no one will listen or care at that point. This scenario is a much more realistic outcome for OMMP than the Idealistic one you posit in your arguments, which is part of the reason why I think we need to be vigilant to defend against those who seek to advocate or pursue it.
Ashvin, you nailed it.
The rest is all “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
riesterm post=3777 wrote:
The question(s) I wrestle with are “do I spend my cash on land now — before my cash loses its value? Or, do I wait for deflation and take advantage of the “cash is king” adage?
Buying productive land now might be a wise choice. As long as you have enough capital to pay for it and living expenses (including property taxes on said property) for a few years after. I imagine tax collection and loan collection may be much more draconian as finances become tighter.
Also, what type of land makes a big difference on if it’s a good idea for you — farmland, wooded hills, desert, suburban homes, and frozen tundra all have different utilities, and my depreciate at different rates and absolute amount over the next few years.
So yeah, no easy answers I can see.June 5, 2012 at 4:36 am in reply to: Crashing the Operating System – Liquidity Crunch In Practice #3766
Glad to see you back, Stoneleigh (and Ilargi as well). I really appreciate your well-thought-out commentary on these crazy times.
That we’re all ‘going down’ isn’t in doubt. I’m just amazed at how long the sinking ship can remain afloat.
It’s funny, for years I always thought the folks on the Titanic must of been idiots — I mean, they hit an iceberg, the ship was listing…who couldn’t see what was going to happen? Why stay for one more dance, another shrimp cocktail, or the relative security of your cabin?
Now, when I talk to friends and colleagues who refuse to admit what’s going on, I understand.
Reverse Engineer post=3050 wrote:
Anyhow, right now on DD the HI vs Deflation debate Guest Starring Ashvin is pretty hot, and I just got off the Alaska Railroad in Talkeetna so I’ll be writing an article on that tonight with lots of great pics.
I’m thinking if we all just start calling it ‘flation, it’ll save alot of time.
Because no matter what the specifics, ‘flation is going to destroy the economy, cause chaos, and make life harder from us all.
pipefit post=2945 wrote: [quote=TheTrivium4TW post=2942]
Hyperinflation in the drachma could easily be deflation in dollar terms.
When Argentina hyperinflated their currency, did that mean that an American with dollars lost purchasing power or gained purchasing power?
It depends on one’s perspective. Think about it for a bit, I’m sure you’ll get it..
So, you are predicting that, no matter the size of the budget deficit of the USA federal govt., the US dollar will INCREASE in purchasing power? In that case, why don’t they run a deficit of a million dollars per person (320 trillion) and give a million dollars to every person in the states?
How about looking at gold as your base monetary unit? From that point of view, the cost of American goods and American labor is decreasing. You can buy more stuff with the same number of ounces. That’s textbook deflation.
Or anther thing to consider — if the Fed printed x% more money since 2008 and the economy hasn’t increased in size, then you’d expect (on average) all goods and services to cost x% more. So if money supply is up 25% and groceries up 10%, that could be considered deflation (less inflation than expected).
I’m a longtime reader, infrequent poster.
It’s not that you’re wrong, but just overly-focused on oil. Anything of true value can be used — steel I-beams, bushels of wheat, hours of manual labor, acres of land. Anything will real value is what “money” represents.
The best explanation I’ve heard is that “money is a claim on future goods and services”. If you want to always convert that into equivalent barrels of oil, that’s fine.
In regards to money vs credit: JP Morgan (the dude, not the bank) is famous for having said, “Gold is money. Everything else is just credit.” However, since credit spends like money, it’s common to talk about them together. In a deflation like S&I warn about, the difference will become universally obvious.