What just happened?

[goadam1]

Re: What just happened?

I haven't jumped on that chatter either. But "booze for barter" is kind of a freak out statement. So is it "booze for barter" world coming at us?

[Masher]

Re: What just happened?

I haven't jumped on that chatter either. But "booze for barter" is kind of a freak out statement. So is it "booze for barter" world coming at us?

That's what Shadowstats guy is talking about on national TV. Whiskey, man!

[cjppjc]

Re: What just happened?

http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowat...illion-of-cds/

Well that kind of figured. 300 billion here. 200 billion there. 450 billion here. 80 billion there. But what does this mean.

J6P US posters

[Guest]

Re: What just happened?

My understanding is: EJ or John Williams can mention in passing that something like booze for barter is a hypothetical, but that does not mean everyone has to immediately incorporate it as an absolutely assured outcome. Such assumptions feed on themselves and within a couple of days there are so many antecedent posts mentioning it that it becomes percieved as the "likeliest outcome".

Awarren - no offense intended guy. I personally don't have anything against accumulating survival gear, nor it's use. Merely suggesting that we keep a sense of how "probable" its' eventual use might be. I guess I trod on your toes with the above rejoinder, and I sincerely apologize.

I haven't jumped on that chatter either. But "booze for barter" is kind of a freak out statement. So is it "booze for barter" world coming at us?

[Masher]

Re: What just happened?

Wait, one day you are saying maybe we should buy booze to barter with and the next you are calling us doomers.

He never says booze for barter. Where does he say booze for barter?

[Slimprofits]

Re: What just happened?

Anyone remember the gas shortages last year in the Southeast US? That minor interruption of supply caused hoarding which further added to the problem. Could we not have a similar interruption in some other necessity? Food, water, electricity, gas to heat our homes?

Or the ice-storms in Massachusetts that caused severe power outages a few weeks ago? The flooding in Kentucky? etc. etc. etc. etc. I'm not a doomer, I'm a realist.

But I do think we could see a slowing of efficiency in our ability to transport supplies and deliver utilities in a hyperinflation scenario. How do you price transportation when fuel cost is rising 20% a day? Bound to be some chaos in that regard. Trucker strikes, stuff like that. A little forethought now could pay big dividends when the stores are empty and the baby is hungry.

Concur 100%.

[SuitablyIronic]

Re: What just happened?

Fred - I've now got this comment archived. I think it may come back to haunt you in 12-18 months. There is a stock market explosion - or moonshot, however we want to call it - up ahead not too far away, which iTulip will then have to re-incorporate into their thesis, and that may be a bit awkward given the unequivocal prognosis below to the contrary. USD set to bust out on the upside soon now is my view and can rise into the mid-90's this time. Stock market after the completion of this meltdown can be like dry tinder doused in gasoline (when torched, it goes up, a lot).

Moonshot: (Definition) An exercise where an enormous amount of government money is spent to show that we have bigger balls than the rest of the world.

End result: A few photos and some grey dirt in a jar. Ultimately futile.

I think that there is definitely going to be a moonshot in the near future, you read it here first on iTulip!

[Slimprofits]

Re: What just happened?

Well that kind of figured. 300 billion here. 200 billion there. 450 billion here. 80 billion there. But what does this mean.

J6P US posters

"Joe Six Pack Americans that post on itulip.com"

[Masher]

Re: What just happened?

If you are new here or don't stop by often, all this guns and gold and food and water talk is weird for a finance and economics site, even one that is forecasting a depression with high inflation. EJ trying to get folks "back on topic"?

[cjppjc]

Re: What just happened?

"Joe Six Pack Americans that post on itulip.com"

Thank you. Makes sense now.

Isn't some of the risk taking being wiped out. I mean when you make a bet. (Oh, I'm sorry a hedge.) Isn't part of the bet who your betting with. Bookies never cover their street guys bad decisions on counter party risk. If I don't pay my bookie, he is on the hook to his organization for the money.

I believe it was Jim Grant who asked:

What do you call capitalism without the risk of finacial failure?
Socialism for the rich.

[Prazak]

Re: What just happened?

Perhaps there are better places for doomer-gloomer types to congregate than a site given over to macro-financial commentary. But when you stumble across a group of intelligent people and many of them happen to share your views and are planning accordingly it's natural to want to compare notes.

If you live in one of the cities that have been struck by one of the awful terrorist attacks, or that are on the well-known target list of nihilistic jihadis, you may possess a certain additional existential dread. It's highly unlikely that any of the thousands or so people who are determined to do wholesale violence to this place will actually succeed. Because the counter-terrorism authorities are so very competent. Right? In the meantime, isn't it prudent to plan an emergency exit, in case of one of those nightmare scenarios ever comes to pass -- especially if you are a parent with responsibility over young lives?

Now throw in thoughts of Peak Oil. I'm no geologist or oil man, but there are lots of persuasive well-researched cases out there laying out a pretty troubling scenario fifteen years out or so. Even the IEA tip-toed in that direction a couple months ago. Maybe after the glaciers melt away we'll find vast new stores of oil in Greenland. Maybe Obama's great leap forward in green industry will find new ways to light up the grid. Maybe not.

If preparing for these scenarios, even if they are not likely, makes me foolish, so be it. Just don't come asking for food if TSHTF.

[Masher]

Re: What just happened?

Perhaps there are better places for doomer-gloomer types to congregate than a site given over to macro-financial commentary. But when you stumble across a group of intelligent people and many of them happen to share your views and are planning accordingly it's natural to want to compare notes.

If you live in one of the cities that have been struck by one of the awful terrorist attacks, or that are on the well-known target list of nihilistic jihadis, you may possess an existential dread. It's highly unlikely that any of the thousands or so people who are determined to do violence to this place en masse will actually succeed. Because the counter-terrorism authorities are so very competent. Right? In the meantime, isn't it prudent to plan an emergency exit, in case of one of those nightmare scenarios ever comes to pass -- especially if you are a parent with responsibility over young lives?

Now throw in thoughts of Peak Oil. Lots of persuasive well-researched cases out there that lay out a pretty troubling scenario fifteen years out or so. Even the IEA tip-toed in that direction a couple months ago. Maybe after the glaciers melt away we'll find vast new stores of oil in Greenland. Maybe Obama's great leap forward in green industry will find new ways to light up the grid. Maybe not.

If preparing for these scenarios, even if they are not likely, makes me foolish, so be it. Just don't come asking for food if TSHTF.

Certainly, but what do people actually do under these conditions? Do they run into their homes and hide with their Glocks and shotguns? Do they form neighborhood groups for security? Do they help each other out and pool resources such as food? Isn't this worthy of discussion? Why always right to guns and food storage?

[a warren]

Re: What just happened?

Luke. My sarcasm was not clear. Here in NZ there was a recent 60 minutes documentary showing the three of four neo-nazis doing their survivalist training. They drove thier Hi lux into a river & got it stuck, then ran around with cammo gear hiding behind bushes. I think they had bb guns. Those that noticed laughed at them. My comment was aimed at the itulipers who seem to think guns will solve their problems. I think they are just deluded. Like that guy in Apocalypse Now with the fancy habits.

Awarren - no offense intended guy. I personally don't have anything against accumulating survival gear, nor it's use. Merely suggesting that we keep a sense of how "probable" its' eventual use might be. I guess I trod on your toes with the above rejoinder, and I sincerely apologize.

[Prazak]

Re: What just happened?

Certainly, but what do people actually do under these conditions? Do they run into their homes and hide with their Glocks and shotguns? Do they form neighborhood groups for security? Do they help each other out and pool resources such as food? Isn't this worthy of discussion? Why always right to guns and food storage?

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as if I were going right to guns and food storage. Just trying to defend the principle of reasoned doomerism.

[ASH]

Re: What just happened?

My understanding is: EJ or John Williams can mention in passing that something like booze for barter is a hypothetical, but that does not mean everyone has to immediately incorporate it as an absolutely assured outcome. Such assumptions feed on themselves and within a couple of days there are so many antecedent posts mentioning it that it becomes percieved as the "likeliest outcome".

Speaking as an offender, I agree with your point. However, I think a rational approach to risk management requires consideration of low probability outcomes. Your policy should align with the likeliest outcome, but your planning should include unlikely outcomes. That is, after all, why we have insurance. And like insurance, it makes sense to pay a low premium to prepare to survive an improbable, but catastrophic, outcome. It makes no sense to pay a high premium to insure against a very unlikely event, but so far I've mainly read (and written) contingency planning. Stockpiling some food is not a big deal; there's a world of difference between that and selling all your belongings, leaving your city job, and starting a beet farm in some dusty corner of Idaho to wait out the apocalypse.

Unfortunately, the rhetorical and psychological hazards are exactly as you depict -- the more you fear something, and the more you talk about it and imagine it, the more likely it seems. That means a legitimate discussion of low-probability outcomes, imagined in sufficient detail for planning, has the negative consequence of distorting the perceived risk. That is human nature, but it does not make such exercises illegitimate. (My wife recently read a book about the misperception of risk called The Science of Fear: Why We Fear The Things We Shouldn't and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger, which got me thinking along these lines.)

I know the comments regarding Mad Max posts aren't "all about me", but I do feel compelled to justify what I've written. Worrying about rising crime and the security of your person and property in an economic depression is legitimate. Worrying about what types of assets the state is going to tax most heavily in this scenario is legitimate. And farming? Well shit -- on the plane ride out to Orlando this week, I sat next to a very nice grey-haired old lady who grew up during the Great Depression. How did her family make ends meet? By farming. If I lose my job in a hyperinflationary depression that lasts for years, should I (a) stay where I am in the suburbs and subsist off whatever the state is able to provide me, or (b) try to raise what I need myself? Sure, most likely people won't starve, but I bet you those who are out of work but can raise their own food will eat a good deal better than those who can't. Having a plan for short-term civil disorder, the interruption of utilities, personal security, and eating well while unemployed shouldn't be tarred with the Mad Max brush. And frankly, even planning for Mad Max is legitimate, as long as one doesn't take action that is incommensurate with the probability. I admit I did indulge in consideration of a true Mad Max scenario awhile back, but that was mainly in the context of pointing out how challenging security would truly be in such a scenario. Perhaps that was a bridge too far, but I thought the aspiration to live in security as an isolated family unit needed to be examined.

Anyway, I see worst case contingency planning as being legitimate, so long as everybody keeps in mind what the relative probabilities are. That said, I also recognize that consideration of such scenarios is distracting. Maybe this, too, needs to be buried off the front page in its own separate forum?