The (Economic) World in 2030

[wayneL]

Seriously, its not a shadow group, its the Republicans and their aim is to make sure they make Obama a one term President, and they are doing it in full view.

Substantiation please.

 

[konkon]

the inflation configuration

If one argues for an increase in the minimum wage, then many economists, accountants, politicians and large multinationals will argue that this is an inflationary move. Economics, like a lot of disciplines, is predicated on configured reasoning, and just like all forms of reasoning, this configured logic can change over time, especially if one is forced to meet certain outcomes.

It's amazing that the price of pretty much all everyday items, bills etc have gone up drastically over the past decade and inflation didn't enter the argument up until a year or two ago. The fact is wages haven't even been able to keep up with the rise in price of many items. The central banks around the world look at wages data like hawks, but have largely ignored the drastic increases in prices of many of the things we pay for, utilities, rents etc etc; a major flaw in central bank ethos. If wages, mainly in the past, increase by a factor of .5% then they hit the panic button.

I think that one of the biggest problems, outside of perpetual debt, overpopulation, lack of resources, is the world being 'run' by accountants and economists, that at large don't create anything in the real economy; maybe the former should just stick to doing our taxes. Now stats, mathematics can (at times) take you in many contrary directions, if you alone rely on these things primarily. If you base ideas about tackling real problems, like those mentioned above, on stats rapped-up in economic jargon, strictly configured to provide certain outcomes that seem to benefit (in the short-term) big business and not the welfare of a nation's longevity, then you are (like we're experiencing) setting yourself up for a major problem in the future. The problem may only be a restructuring of sorts, but a restructuring of the potential magnitude will hurt many on the wrong side of the equation; as was the case in 2008, this would be most people on earth.

Many economists, accountants are better suited in the art room for all their creativity. The EU debt problem at the moment is being dressed up repeatedly to look like a viable long term plan. But if you ignore all the colorful economic talk, you're pretty much looking at more debt (that the masses will end up paying for) to pay for previous (and even future) debt.

Economists, accountants, politicians were the driving force behind keeping wages below par and they have no real idea how to tackle a growing perpetual debt problem that has swept the world. In fact, they are creating even more debt, which is paraded as something else, and think that the public is silly enough to believe it will one day get resolved by some clever methods that only accountants/economists understand. It's as if none of us can talk about the direction the world is taking economically, because we're not economists and we don't 'understand' what is going on! It's probably a good thing to be excluded from economic conformity in times like these, because it reduces the chances of you being brainwashed with all this crap about debt restructuring.

At the end of the day, can you as an individual, company etc pay-down over the course of a period, (all) debt with revenue/profits? When was the last time you saw some expert economist, financial advisor etc on television base his assertions on this fundamental principle? Maybe sales reps don't need to do this!

 

[Knobby22]

Seriously, its not a shadow group, its the Republicans and their aim is to make sure they make Obama a one term President, and they are doing it in full view.

Here we go -from Mish Republicans will screw their own country to make sure they hurt Obama.

From Mish (following)

Republicans Blew Opportunity for Game-Changing Legislation

This was a dismal outcome, but hardly unexpected. Both sides are partially to blame but in my estimation Republicans blew it big time. They could have asked for anything in return for tax hikes.

I do not know if Obama or the Democrats would have gone along with those, but after all the Obama talk "I was willing to take a lot of heat", Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass some game-changing legislation in return for some pissy tax hikes

Obama told reporters at the White House Friday evening that he had offered Boehner more than $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending — both domestic and defense — and $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He said he had sought revenues that were less than those put forward in a bipartisan plan by the Senate’s “Gang of Six.” He said the $1.2 trillion in revenues could be accomplished without raising tax rates but by eliminating loopholes, tax breaks and deductions.

Now that he has “been left at the altar a couple of times,” Obama said, the question for the Republicans is, “Can they say yes to the anything?”

 

[IFocus]

I do not know if Obama or the Democrats would have gone along with those, but after all the Obama talk "I was willing to take a lot of heat", Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass some game-changing legislation in return for some pissy tax hikes

There has been a lot on commentary about the Republican regret in the future of letting the deal fail.

 

[konkon]

If you beat the grass, the snakes will eventually come-out! Just look at the number of countries (China and Russia being two very vocal ones in the past few days) that want the US to lose its reserve currency status. This has to mean that they would't mind seeing the US slowly loses its grip on geopolitical matters too, and I think that this is what these two countries in particular are emphasizing! I'm not surprised of this, and this is one reason why I never did see either of these two countries (and there are many more!) as supporting the US's (and its allies') long-term efforts/objectives to oversee and protect the geopolitical world from inevitable chaos, if the US (and its allies) weren't in control.

Just think of what the world would look like if the US and its true allies (some include Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, etc) didn't bother to oversee geopolitical issues and allowed the 'world' to just sort itself out! It would end up being a very unsafe world for most of us, in the east and west.

Sure you would have some countries step up the the plate, but you would have fragmented and conflicting agendas, power distributions and no referee. This is so dangerous a scenario and if we just put away our distracting cheap gadgets from China for a moment and think about this.

Media outlets just don't report on these probabilities, even in editorials.

I think that the US, in general, will have no choice in the future but to get even more militarized in nature (even if it's not obvious), even though congress, big business and very influential shadow organizations are becoming increasingly opposed to such future moves.

I text a friend last night and stated: "Those marines standing still in and out of the White House, are not for show. They are a reminder to the world that the US has always had the backing of its defense forces no matter what. So all types of non supporting countries/groups etc can go and get #$#%$%%ed! That includes the S&P rating agency!"

A time to see what some countries and organizations really think of the US and a time to see what course we might be taking, based on these and other observations.

 

[konkon]

Some modifications to the original post. China's ambitions over the next two decades and beyond are a concern for me. If it seeks to take control of world wide geopolitics, it won't do it like the US does. China would not oversee all geopolitical regions and potential dangerous gaps may exist; even more of a reason to continue to support and reinforce US/allies' agendas.

Major countries that are not strongly allied with the US: China, Pakistan, Russia. Iran...Careful attention was placed on allies and non-allies as this gives some sort of a blueprint as to what a major war might look like if the ^$%##$^ hits the fan!

When you beat the grass, the snakes will come out. Over the past few months it has become clearer, to me, that several nations might want to stick their necks out and look at future geopolitical zones that they might be able to have some influence over. China and its desire to strengthen its military has its sights on (perhaps most geopolitical areas in two decades, and beyond) south-east Asia. It may form a strategic alliance with Burma, but not with Vietnam. Even more of a reason for countries like Thailand, the Philippines and perhaps Vietnam to form a greater alliance with the US and its allies. Vietnam is a tricky one and China and the US will probably seek its support. Luckily, no Vietnam war revisited though.

The US is still in control-mode and has survived several stock market crashes and recessions. The norm has become to not pay a huge part of one’s perpetual debt and this goes for many individuals, companies as well as countries...

Stock markets will become even more volatile with next generation algorithmic computer trades taking markets in all kinds of directions, more frequently, and with greater momentum. Added to this the greater world-wide participation of investors with short term trading mandates.

One world-wide correction resulted, not from debt or the hand of the Federal Reserve, but by the development and implementation of quantum computing and its ability to in an instant decrypt, through even brute-force, classical computing encryptions. So financial companies, governments, internet etc had to reinvest heavily and reinvent themselves, which was costly...

This will add another complex dynamic to short-term heavy volume trading. On the issue of corrections, there will be more and more; a higher than normal historical average and for many reasons.

Europe is heavily in debt and is going nowhere really...

The European Union may no longer exist, or may no longer exist in the same format, for some time. An EU mark II is on the cards, but with a different focus and with initially stricter guidelines by its fellow members. This could very easily happen in the next few years. Or even sooner.

China has the world's largest economy but does not control the electronic markets; this (most asset classes around the world) is still under the US's control...

China will probably use Hong Kong as its financial hub and China will continue to try and direct business within its control. Buying harder assets around the world is still an important strategy for the Chinese. But trying to gain control of financial markets won't work. Using Hong Kong as a strategic (English Speaking) financial hub is a good strategy though.

Collusion and market fixing is still part of the game.

But with greater sophistication, volume and frequency.

Countries like Australia may have to militarize and further protect its borders and protect non-urban regions for fear of a possible invasion by hostile and desperate nations that need its expensive and rare resources; and they probably don't want to pay for them anymore. A long shot, but still a concern even in the next 50+ years. It will become an even bigger ally of the US.

Indeed. Hopefully, we're keeping an eye on China's slightly more aggressive stance on geopolitics in recent months. I'm sure many countries in South East Asia are doing the same.

China has a real problem; the demographics are skewered and do not favour an even +4% growth anymore (yes, no longer 10%). Their cities have long become the most expensive in the world (and so have many of their products!) and there still is a problem of the ultra-rich and the mega poor. The west still finds it hard to do business there, and there is growing unrest by a restricted and controlled people. The west may at times latently manipulate this to their advantage.

A whole lot can be said about China and the way it will continue to affect the west's inability to find its economic footing in periods of economic distress; and there will be many periods like this.

Another competing reserve currency failed to dethrown the USD, as it was initially used, accepted but ended up being manipulated on the exchange markets by the US and their highly sophisticated trading computer networks, which still controls the markets.

Not sure a competing reserve currency will take-off at all. The Federal Reserve in the US will make sure it doesn't, as long as Bernanke has his way. But Congress is, in an indirect (and unintentional) way, adding pressure for the USD to lose its reserve status. Sorry, but congress is a real problem for the US, as ironic as this sounds. At the moment, I'm convinced Bernanke wants the USD to remain the world's reserve currency. But he has lots of opposition. He won't be the Fed Chairman by 2030, obviously, so hopefully the next Chairman has the same agenda and ethos.

Wealth will still be made from lack of supply and high demand for space/land, housing, soft and hard commodities etc and not necessarily form innovative developments and innovations. So don’t expect the world to look too dissimilar to what it does today; just more populated and more expensive. A real let-down if you ask me.

One of the reasons why we're in the current mess is that the world has stopped creating and innovating. Globalization and the transfer of jobs to places like China, has meant that the middle classes have lost their competitive edge.

One of the biggest problems that countries have is an overburdening perpetuating debt crisis. Many, including the US, have no choice but to restructure their economies and even currencies. And yes, the finger was shown to countries holding and demanding payment on (unpayable) debt, more than once.

Let's just hope that wars don't break out because some country went after some other country's harder assets, predominately because debt agreements weren't honored; hopefully no wars break-out for any other reason too.

The United States has the most sophisticated military by far, and has opened up its doors to next generation defence and avionics (out of this world!) technologies, to some extent or to the extent they permit!

China will be catching up at a rapid pace though, and recent (officially) publicized articles by the Pentagon have suggested this. Don't know about you, but this is a concern for me.

Two of the biggest risks are overpopulation and perpetual debt.

And what to do with all this debt! Changes in the geopolitical landscape may be of some concern too.

 

[explod]

On China I think a lot are out of touch. China is coming out of the dark ages for them and the current middle generation are still slaves within themselves from the old regime.

One only has to look at the huge numbers of Chinese students at Doctorial Phd level throughout our own universities and now spreading throughout the world. The fast adoption of the Western culture as well as the economic, industrial and technological changes apace before our eyes.

The US is a cot case and dying. China sees itself as part of the big picture but in particular as part of the overall Asian region. Their investment in this country alone is now enourmous. The days of ruling with the gun and stick have gone. With modern communication the world at a socialogical level fast becoming one.

We cannot imagine the changes from now to 2030 but I do not believe that individual countries no matter how large will control on their own or against others. Wealthy and self interest groups will still be a major problem.

The front now are the marginalised extreme politial movements and the fanatical religious groups; and the US itself has more than its fair share on that front within its own borders.

 

[konkon]

A Better Accreditation System for (us and) Ratings Agencies.

I think that to get a grasp of a better economic world (or future world) there needs to be different sets of requirements (that can be incorporated into what they already use) from rating agencies like Finch, S&P and Moody's.

What seems to be happening is rating agencies are rating countries in isolation from other countries and the global picture overall. What should be happening is the implementation of a kind of global impact scorecard, where each country also has a set of criteria to address issues like, what impact is their own economy having (good, bad, or both) on others and the global picture. The idea is to gain a net result of their global impact reading on the world's economy after you factor in all (or as many) of the variables.

So a global impact reading, measurement or rating might consist of a country's net impact on the global economy, however little or big. If the impact is a negative read (ie. the transformation of manufacturing to China or the systematic, synthetic manipulation of currencies to gain economic (military even) advantages) then that particular country should have pressure on the downside to its overall rating, especially if it's clear that that country is not playing on a level playing field (no matter what the excuse), and is jeopardizing the future prosperity of other key nations to the world's economy.

Net imbalances should be taken seriously and addressed accordingly, especially amongst key players. A global impact reading must surely have a say in how and what other ratings are judged. So how can a county with a AAA rating, for example, keep this over the medium term if this same country is being disadvantaged by synthetic and artificial means, by another country? There would be more clarity in blame too, as clearly it would not be the fault of the country that is being squeezed; but blame does go to the less fortunate country now-days, and this is odd considering they are not the ones doing the synthetic and manipulative moves to gain advantages.

A global impact reading would also strengthen the, so called, impartiality of those making those crucial judgements, by factoring in to their overall accreditative conclusions (or matrix checklist systems) a perhaps more accurate read of longer term objectives or anticipatory events.

So if you're not playing fair or not playing on a level playing field then you should be penalized to some degree and until certain requirements are met.

We probably need to tame the future economic beast anyway we can and have a much better understanding of all kinds of future ratings, especially when volatility due to higher global market participation, newer and more complex trading instruments and next generation algorithmic trading computers etc, will most likely be higher on average historical terms.

 

[konkon]

Re: The (Economic) World in 2030 - and before this year!

Thought I might add to some of my previous comments relating to 'The (Economic) World in 2030'; and even before this period.

"Turkey will probably be a country that will help to negotiate with other Muslim nations, like Iran, if tensions become high. There may be some tension between Turkey and Iran but not like Friedman suggests. " my post 3rd july 2011

I still think Turkey will continue to be a more proactive nation that wants economic etc cooperation with other nations, but Turkey, like other nations, has sovereignty that it won't want to compromise. So that might mean, Turkey will not stand for major economic and political disruptions coming from other countries; I think this would be from the east, south-east and north, and I still strongly believe it will not seek to break-off relations with Europe at large (excluding Greece, perhaps). It may have no choice to break-off relations with Europe, if wars break-out in the Middle East, but Turkey will not instigate tensions with Europe at large and the west. Turkey will want to remain 'friendly' with the west. How this plays out depends on so much. It may, like many nations and people, flip-flop on key issues etc. But Turkey will resist the possible future pressures not to side with the west. In other words, Turkey will want to remain a friend to the west, even with all the opposition.

I think Friedman is right though that Turkey may not see eye to eye with Iran. Turkey may still try repeatedly to negotiate with Iran on several issues, to keep peace at a relatively stable level in the Middle East. I certainly hope that Turkey, if it needs to take sides later on, sides with the west and not with Iran's aggressive agenda in that region. It would be in Turkey's best interest to align itself with the west if things escalate out of proportion in the Middle East later on. Or not take sides at all and just defend its own borders if it needs to. Let's just hope that a major war doesn't break-out in the Middle East.

"Let's just hope that wars don't break out because some country went after some other country's harder assets, predominately because debt agreements weren't honored; hopefully no wars break-out for any other reason too." my post 4th of september 2011

Gee, a lot can be said about this. Over the next few years, it won't be about going after someone else's harder assets. But, as is reported in the press, escalations and tensions etc(!) may come down to making sure Iran doesn't advance any further with its nuclear ambitions. A major war in the Middle East before 2030 or even 2015?! I have strong opinions on this one! I just hope for Iran's sake, it plays the odds and sees that it can NOT even come close to defeating the 'west'! I strongly agree with Israel's (and the US's) strong stance on not wanting or allowing Iran to go nuclear. Many in that region would not want Iran to achieve this either, and rightly so.

Also reports of China allying itself with Iran in more ways than one, speaks volumes about China, I think. China is making the historically classical mistake of making friends with someone that doesn't see eye to eye with the west. Sure Iran has lots and lots of oil, that may find its way into China later on at disproportionate levels. But China is making a big mistake of perhaps one day becoming an enemy to the west. I don't think we're there. China is still officially seen as a cooperating partner to the west and east. But it's likely that this will change.

India will play a strategically important role in that whole region. It's positioned nicely geographically for the west. A lot more can be said about India's key geographical position. The same can be said about Burma.

"And what to do with all this debt!" 4th of september 2011

Well the debt is just getting bigger and bigger. What concerns me is the reported derivative exposures in financial markets at the +10s of trillions of dollars, and the leveraging being in the 1/25 to 1/75 level. Many of the major banks seem to be doing this too. A real and underreported risk to the stability of the financial system as a whole.

"Not sure a competing reserve currency will take-off at all." 4th of september 2011

I've been reading that the IMF was developing IMF SDR bonds as a way to issue or buy-up debt in the world. This was also seen as a potential future competing world 'currency' to the USD. I think the IMF should stick to funding 3rd World debt and not sticking its neck out like this. Anyway, it won't happen. The suggestion that congress in the US should block funds to the IMF should go ahead, if the IMF sees itself as just another 'having the mandate to print money or bonds from thin air' institution.

If the IMF has a newer agenda like this, countries like Australia, the US should see it as a breach of contract, withdraw funds to the IMF and redirect the funds to ie its defense forces.

To end, I agree with those that think Sarkozy is pretty much the captain of the Titanic and is just repositioning the deck-chairs. Well done David Cameron for not wanting to compromise on GB's sovereignty. Europe is much better off not accepting more record levels of debt, bonds etc. I just hope that Sarkozy's take on the Napoleonic era wasn't just about land and guns, but included major lenders and compromising one's position.

 

[explod]

konkon, you are in dreamland and talking to yourself about the current world landscape, two to three years out from today in my view at the most.

In fact there is almost no content that is on topic about the world in 2030 and with the rate of change now occurring I would say nobody would have any idea, suffice to say as has been said, it will not be a very nice place at all.

Your posts are a tedious load of rubbish.

In my humble opinion of course.

 

[Smurf1976]

I think it's fair to say that the next 20 years seems highly unlikely to involve a simple continuation of the broad trends we've seen over the past 40 years.

Finances, energy, food, the environment and other factors would all seem to be against "business as usual" in my opinion and indeed most of them seem to be near some sort of turning point right now.

Finances - the situation is clearly unsustainable with the only real questions relating to what emerges, when and with what consequences. Business as usual doesn't seem to be an option. The wheels have just about fallen off it would seem.

Energy - we've got the economy falling in a hole and yet oil is $100 a barrel and rising which ought to be ringing some pretty loud alarm bells somewhere. No matter how much oil may or may not be in the ground, we're clearly not able to keep extracting more and more of it and maintain low prices in order to continue business as usual. The wheels have already fallen off with this one and there's nothing left to debate other than what happens next. Conventional crude oil is, for practical purposes, no longer a means of facilitating business as usual economic growth.

 

[Glen48]

http://www.realecontv.com/page/6068.html

 

[Glen48]

http://www.realecontv.com/page/5961.html

 

[young-gun]

http://www.realecontv.com/page/5961.html

"economic depressions are by and large products of political intervention in the economy."

perfect summary.

 

[Knobby22]

"economic depressions are by and large products of political intervention in the economy."

perfect summary.

Yes, but in this case it was exacerbated by the REMOVAL of regulations that had been in place since the Depression to stop precisely what happened. It is never as simple as the "bankers" will push.

 

[wayneL]

Yes, but in this case it was exacerbated by the REMOVAL of regulations that had been in place since the Depression to stop precisely what happened. It is never as simple as the "bankers" will push.

Exacerbated, yes. But only one facet of the malaise. Without governments bulldozing credit into the system and facilitating both small and big ticket debt, it is possible that the system could have self regulated via healthy caution.

 

[explod]

Exacerbated, yes. But only one facet of the malaise. Without governments bulldozing credit into the system and facilitating both small and big ticket debt, it is possible that the system could have self regulated via healthy caution.

Yeeehhhaarr.

dear Maggie Thatcher said, "they are all basically honest and can regulate themselves",

pull the other leg.

And agree wayneL, Governments need to keep right out of the markets but they do need to regulate and audit all these wonderful honest ones.

 

[wayneL]

Yeeehhhaarr.

dear Maggie Thatcher said, "they are all basically honest and can regulate themselves",

pull the other leg.

And agree wayneL, Governments need to keep right out of the markets but they do need to regulate and audit all these wonderful honest ones.

Plod

They are as basically honest as the bureaucrats who seek to regulate them.

There is a balance between bureaucracy/regulation and laissez faire. Neither should dominate IMO.

 

[explod]

Plod

They are as basically honest as the bureaucrats who seek to regulate them.

There is a balance between bureaucracy/regulation and laissez faire. Neither should dominate IMO.

In the past under the Westminster System we had the Judiciary, the cops and the Auditor as set creatures of Statute under the hand of Government but that was as far as the line was crossed.

Each was independant to carry out the individual charter without Government interfearance. If there was a problem then legislation was changed or amended.

Today we have direct political tampering so that direction and the achievment of each charter has been lost.

I remember doing a course called "Managing Chaos" within an organisation, but little did I realise then that we were headed for total chaos across disciplines.

 

[Glen48]

I am very sorry because i have to destroy some popular opinions on some things, but i just have to do that. When i said and keep saying “no rules” i mean that. You can not have something like ideal preparations, you can only try to have it (and then hungry man down the road still might shoot you with his antique hunting rifle for a bit of flour).

So again on bartering and gold and silver:

No, gold and silver was not like second money, or second value during SHTF, it was not even worth like in normal times, and in most of the cases it was dangerous to have it a lot (actually it was too dangerous to have anything in great amounts and let other people to know that) If you had for example 1000 gold coins, and let s say that one coin worth 150 USD in normal times, you could think that you are rich in shtf.

But in reality it was hard to find someone who give you some food or battery or whatever useful for one coin. Gold coin was not useful for 90 percent of people, what they could use it for? Eat it? Start fire with that?

Only people which could use that gold were people who had connection to outside world, so they could use it for buying things trough their connections. In most cases they just used situation to acquire great amounts of gold for the future and in exchange for some simple things, like food, or fuel or…

They did that because they had everything else.

But thing is it was hard to make trade with people like that, because bad kind of people had connections or were gathering gold, so they can just gonna take that gold from you and give you nothing, or bullet in your head.

So yes gold was useful and not useful, it dependeds what kind of people or group you belonged to.

If we have worldwide crisis and you can not get food anywhere the first currency of choice will be food or useful things, not gold or silver. If you want gold to keep some kind of value for one day after all is over make sure you are prepped for long, long time crisis before that.

It is better to have some useful stuff in your prepping, then to waste money on gold or silver. And of course if you still want to have a lot of gold as a part of your preparations, i suggest you buy lot odd simple gold rings, or simple cheaper gold necklace, it makes more sense than to have gold coins.

In hurry it is gonna make more sense to offer “your wifes gold ring” someone for cans or something else then to offer someone some “strange” gold coin for food or one of the typical gold coins you can buy from gold sellers these days, it can raise some questions, and you do not need raising questions in situation like that. Stay low key. Be the guy with the last family jewels not the guy with gold coins from typical gold sellers.

I would say that in SHTF it is gonna be easier and cheaper to get gold then in normal times. Bartering was not a thing of some regular prices or regular places, even “expensive”things changed. Meet the guy with terrible toothache and you are only person who can do an ok tooth surgery. He will give you some gold for that if he can or a lot of other valuable things to simply get out of this situation.

As i remember coffee and cigarettes was hard to find and expensive through all of the time, everything else changed, sometimes was expensive and hard to find, sometimes not.

But important to remember is to make it easier to you, so obliviously, it is much easier to carry and trade candles and batteries than 20 liters of fuel. There is no sense of letting everybody know that you are “man for trade” and that you have a lot fuel for example, because then you might end finished robbed and probably dead.

If you can be, be a traveling trader and do not trade too often with same people if you can avoid that. People also got shot after trading with one person a few times before. Other person might just run out of things to trade and call on you to come to trade and all he has is bullet for you in exchange for what he needs (and he knows you come with what he needs).

In some hardest period cigarettes was sold at one piece, i mean you could buy one cigarette for something, it was so expensive. Same was with coffee, even some substitutes for coffee were expensive. Now you need to know that traditionally here people drink coffee a lot, so maybe some other thing is so “important” in your area, like tea, beer or something else.

But do not expect that people will loose their addictions because times are hard.

One of my older relatives smoked cigarettes while he had it, after that he smoked tobacco (pipe), after that he bought from some folks pieces of dry tobacco roots or tree, used knife to cut small pieces of that and smoked that, and after that he used some dry leafs from tree and smoke that. He never quit smoking.

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.

I do not believe in any quick recovery. Even with help from other states (thank you all for that) it took long time before things became more normal again.

If things don’t get better you do not want to be stuck with gold and having to do risky trades. Do not think that other people do not see when someone is desperate and take advantage of it.

» 37 comments