O.K., I promised to get onto where we should live and I should explain that one. First, we need to look at where we should NOT live and that will give us a better idea of where would be good.
Well, first off I need to explain that where you live depends on when we are talking about. There will be a few distinct periods involved in this collapse. The first period will be during the actual collapse. The primary die-off. During this period you do NOT want to be in an area with large groups of people. This will definitely mean that you do not want to be in cities. Cities will be major death traps. Between riots, people fighting over food, people trying to fight their way out of the cities, etc., you do NOT want to be trapped in any city during this period.
Me? I'll be at my pre-arranged bug-out spot. It's in the bush. It has access to water. It has plenty of nearly untouched area for hunting. I expect to be there for a couple, to three, months. This is the time period that I am guessing will be the bare minimum required to get past he primary die-off. After that amount of time, I would expect most of the madness to have died down and people will be just trying to stay alive.
After that period comes the second major period, the secondary die-off. The first winter. The first summer. Whichever it is doesn't matter but it will be the first period where you will be trying to survive with your own plantings, etc. At this time, you will probably prefer to get back near a city so that you can use pre-collapse gear, like hoes, etc., so that you can continue. You will still need to be near water and hunting areas but being near a city, as well, can make your life a lot easier. For example, it IS possible to plow, etc., with wooden implements but it is much simpler to use modern steel gear.
The next period is a growth time. This is the time where people will start getting back into groups. To start with ... we are probably talking about VERY small villages or tribal collectives. It is VERY difficult to hunt/farm on your own. Especially while still protecting what you have from others. This is why people got together, in the first place, and the same situation will arise again. You cannot farm all day and stand guard all night. If you hunt in a group, you can take down a much larger animal than one man alone.
Hunting and farming are both synergistic pursuits. One man can, possibly, farm enough to support himself. Two men can farm enough to support three or four. Three men can farm enough to support a half dozen. The same applies to hunting with primitive techniques. This is why tribes / villages evolved in the first place and the same reasoning will apply after this. As I stated earlier, in a previous post, there is going to be VERY LITTLE difference between the survivors of this collapse and our earliest ancestors. The major difference will be, in the beginning where we will still have access to some high-tech equipment and we will have modern seeds.
Modern plants are a LOT different to the plants our ancestors used. Our plants have been artificially selected over thousands of years for greater output and more reliability.
But, I digress, we were discussing living places. During the first three months you DO NOT want to put down roots. Your first living place is purely temporary and you need to be able to pick up and move at a moments notice in case the situation changes. After that, you want to get plants in the ground and hunting grounds discovered as soon as possible. That will mean that you can no longer move. This means that you want to be very sure of your area before you decide.
It's probably best to find this area NOW. You need space for planting. You need areas for hunting. You need access to clean water. And access to a city will be preferable.
I really can't tell you what your area will be because you will need to find an area that will suit you and your lifestyle. I have found mine. I am hoping that I can use it when the time comes and that somebody else hasn't taken it. ALWAYS assume that ANY plan that you make can fall apart. Always allow for the fact that situations will change. NEVER assume that a plan WILL work. Make contingency plans. NEVER just walk into an area because you decided beforehand that it looked good.
Gotta head for bed now, as it's late, but I'll have to think on my next entry.
Friday, 2 September 2011
Sunday, 14 August 2011
We live in a Stone Age?
O.K., according to most people ... we live in the Digital / Information age.
Fair enough! As far as it goes.
But, what does this really mean? Basically, it boils down to the fact that our main product is digital information. In reality, this suggests that what we really produce IS ...... nothing substantial.
Does this make a difference? Well, yes it does.
How does one define a Stone Age? A general definition would be a civilisation which does not really build anything but uses 'found' items, like stones, with small modifications to create a 'tool'.
Does this sound familiar? No? When was the last time you 'made' anything? Do you have the skills to create 'anything' from scratch? (In this situation ... I mean 'really' from scratch ... not going to the shop and buying the ingredients/materials.)
Do you know ANYONE who can walk into the bush and come back with any sort of finished article?
Do you know anyone who can create, and operate, a forge to keep an area at 'iron age' standards?
Modern Man only uses the TOOLS that he can 'find' in his immediate environment to 'create' things. Sometimes this tool may be a power drill, chain saw, mobile phone, computer, or what-have-you, but they are still just 'stones' that have been 'found.' Someone else has converted these 'stones' into useful tools AND, to make it worse, once you take away the power for them ... they revert to being JUST stones again.
When this thing breaks ... we are back to the Stone Age, folks. Possibly to the Iron Age in some, localised, pockets but the general populace will be doing nothing but using tools / items that they have found. Once those are gone ... that's when the REAL trouble begins.
Fair enough! As far as it goes.
But, what does this really mean? Basically, it boils down to the fact that our main product is digital information. In reality, this suggests that what we really produce IS ...... nothing substantial.
Does this make a difference? Well, yes it does.
How does one define a Stone Age? A general definition would be a civilisation which does not really build anything but uses 'found' items, like stones, with small modifications to create a 'tool'.
Does this sound familiar? No? When was the last time you 'made' anything? Do you have the skills to create 'anything' from scratch? (In this situation ... I mean 'really' from scratch ... not going to the shop and buying the ingredients/materials.)
Do you know ANYONE who can walk into the bush and come back with any sort of finished article?
Do you know anyone who can create, and operate, a forge to keep an area at 'iron age' standards?
Modern Man only uses the TOOLS that he can 'find' in his immediate environment to 'create' things. Sometimes this tool may be a power drill, chain saw, mobile phone, computer, or what-have-you, but they are still just 'stones' that have been 'found.' Someone else has converted these 'stones' into useful tools AND, to make it worse, once you take away the power for them ... they revert to being JUST stones again.
When this thing breaks ... we are back to the Stone Age, folks. Possibly to the Iron Age in some, localised, pockets but the general populace will be doing nothing but using tools / items that they have found. Once those are gone ... that's when the REAL trouble begins.
A Quick Aside
O.K., unlike a lot of people, I do NOT believe that what is coming up will be either transient or localised. I will explain WHY I believe these things and that will also explain how, I think, this thing will be going down.
Whether oil supply collapses first or fiat currency collapses first really has no bearing on the matter at hand. WHY?? Because once one goes ... the other will be days, at most weeks, behind it in collapsing.
If oil supply collapses first, so that they cannot truck any food/supplies to your local area, then there will be nothing to buy with any money that you DO have.
If money collapses first, then you won't be able to afford anything that they do truck in, and they won't truck anything in anyway as the fuel to truck it would be too expensive.
Hence, it really doesn't matter which way around it happens because once either of them gets a foothold, the other will collapse without its support.
Let's understand this .... EVERYWHERE in the world relies on stuff trucked in from elsewhere. There is absolutely nowhere, except in some tiny muscle-powered rural communities, that will not have MAJOR impacts felt from the loss of contact with the outside world.
Have a quick look around your house and see how many things are trucked in from outside. Most food is produced a LONG way from wherever you are. Indeed a lot of it is grown/produced overseas. Your food is grown in another area, your water comes from somewhere else, your energy is produced outside your local area, your sewerage goes to another place to be processed,
What does any of this have to do with whether it will be transitory or localised?
The answer is quite simple. Transitory means that it will pass fairly quickly ... let's assume that up to 10 years is still classed as transitory. Our infrastructure has been built up over hundreds of years and, once it fails, it is going to take a long time to rebuild it. Maybe, not necessarily, as long as it took us to build it in the first time but it will be a LONG time. Once it collapses, it will also lose us a LOT of skills that are now reasonably common.
For example, engineers will not be able to build things without power and power tools. They aren't trained that way. Electricians will not be able to build things without electricity to run them. Builders will not be able to build without power and all of their materials trucked in from outside. All of the training that our current professionals have is geared to our current infrastructure ... this means that, without the infrastructure to support them, they will be as good as useless. After a LONG period of instability ... will any of those trained individuals still be alive? Old age, environmental factors, lack of skills use, will mean that there will be very few left with any sort of skills that can be used to build a NEW civilisation. This means that we will probably have to learn our way back up from whatever level we fall to.
Localised is also easy to refute. We have just established that, virtually, nowhere in the world can survive without outside help. This means that EVERY area that collapses will affect a great number of areas that rely on whatever they produce in that area. This will cause those areas to collapse which, in turn, will cause other areas to collapse. The domino, or snowball, effect WILL ensure that this collapse is NOT localised.
Sometimes the snowball effect can work in reverse as well. The fact that one area produces an item means that, if the places that it supplies those items to collapses, then the area will have no-one to sell to. It works in both directions. The lack of production can affect supplies to an area and the lack of markets to supply to can affect production. Remember this two way nature when trying to foresee what areas are going to affect which other areas.
Next, I'll take a quick look at what level I see as probable before I go onto where we can bug out to and then back on to food.
Whether oil supply collapses first or fiat currency collapses first really has no bearing on the matter at hand. WHY?? Because once one goes ... the other will be days, at most weeks, behind it in collapsing.
If oil supply collapses first, so that they cannot truck any food/supplies to your local area, then there will be nothing to buy with any money that you DO have.
If money collapses first, then you won't be able to afford anything that they do truck in, and they won't truck anything in anyway as the fuel to truck it would be too expensive.
Hence, it really doesn't matter which way around it happens because once either of them gets a foothold, the other will collapse without its support.
Let's understand this .... EVERYWHERE in the world relies on stuff trucked in from elsewhere. There is absolutely nowhere, except in some tiny muscle-powered rural communities, that will not have MAJOR impacts felt from the loss of contact with the outside world.
Have a quick look around your house and see how many things are trucked in from outside. Most food is produced a LONG way from wherever you are. Indeed a lot of it is grown/produced overseas. Your food is grown in another area, your water comes from somewhere else, your energy is produced outside your local area, your sewerage goes to another place to be processed,
What does any of this have to do with whether it will be transitory or localised?
The answer is quite simple. Transitory means that it will pass fairly quickly ... let's assume that up to 10 years is still classed as transitory. Our infrastructure has been built up over hundreds of years and, once it fails, it is going to take a long time to rebuild it. Maybe, not necessarily, as long as it took us to build it in the first time but it will be a LONG time. Once it collapses, it will also lose us a LOT of skills that are now reasonably common.
For example, engineers will not be able to build things without power and power tools. They aren't trained that way. Electricians will not be able to build things without electricity to run them. Builders will not be able to build without power and all of their materials trucked in from outside. All of the training that our current professionals have is geared to our current infrastructure ... this means that, without the infrastructure to support them, they will be as good as useless. After a LONG period of instability ... will any of those trained individuals still be alive? Old age, environmental factors, lack of skills use, will mean that there will be very few left with any sort of skills that can be used to build a NEW civilisation. This means that we will probably have to learn our way back up from whatever level we fall to.
Localised is also easy to refute. We have just established that, virtually, nowhere in the world can survive without outside help. This means that EVERY area that collapses will affect a great number of areas that rely on whatever they produce in that area. This will cause those areas to collapse which, in turn, will cause other areas to collapse. The domino, or snowball, effect WILL ensure that this collapse is NOT localised.
Sometimes the snowball effect can work in reverse as well. The fact that one area produces an item means that, if the places that it supplies those items to collapses, then the area will have no-one to sell to. It works in both directions. The lack of production can affect supplies to an area and the lack of markets to supply to can affect production. Remember this two way nature when trying to foresee what areas are going to affect which other areas.
Next, I'll take a quick look at what level I see as probable before I go onto where we can bug out to and then back on to food.
Energy Input vs Output
This post will be about energy but not in the form of batteries or oil. This is more to do with personal energy. Energy in a survival situation is based on the amount of food input versus the amount of energy burned to acquire that food. If you burn more energy to acquire the food than you get from the food then you are losing energy and not gaining. It does not matter how much food you are eating if you are burning more to gather it than you are ingesting. Long term, this means that you are losing and that can only equate to dying in the long run.
All of this means that you will have to use brains, more than brawn, to acquire your food. Things like trapping, tracking, and other low-energy alternatives are vital to survive long term. What you see in the movies where they chase down some animal, for food, is a losing proposition UNLESS the animal is big enough to supply a number of meals. ALWAYS, your main thought should be how much energy you are going to gain versus how much energy it is going to cost you.
I guess we should get on to what food you should be building up for what we know is coming. In the movies we see lots of times when the hero has a small warehouse full of canned food prepared for the coming TEOTWAWKI. This is great if you intend to bunker down and have food, water, and a VERY secure location. This does NOT apply to the vast majority of people. It is almost never acceptable to bunker down unless you have an extremely well prepared bunker. This is not really applicable to anyone living in a city as cities are, decidedly, not secure. Even if you were to have the most secure apartment in the world, with food and water for 10 years, how secure is it when someone can set the building alight underneath you.
I suppose we really need to get into the whole question of where we can situate ourselves before we get into a modus operandi for survival including food. Therefore, I think that we should come back to food after we have discussed where we are going to be situated.
All of this means that you will have to use brains, more than brawn, to acquire your food. Things like trapping, tracking, and other low-energy alternatives are vital to survive long term. What you see in the movies where they chase down some animal, for food, is a losing proposition UNLESS the animal is big enough to supply a number of meals. ALWAYS, your main thought should be how much energy you are going to gain versus how much energy it is going to cost you.
I guess we should get on to what food you should be building up for what we know is coming. In the movies we see lots of times when the hero has a small warehouse full of canned food prepared for the coming TEOTWAWKI. This is great if you intend to bunker down and have food, water, and a VERY secure location. This does NOT apply to the vast majority of people. It is almost never acceptable to bunker down unless you have an extremely well prepared bunker. This is not really applicable to anyone living in a city as cities are, decidedly, not secure. Even if you were to have the most secure apartment in the world, with food and water for 10 years, how secure is it when someone can set the building alight underneath you.
I suppose we really need to get into the whole question of where we can situate ourselves before we get into a modus operandi for survival including food. Therefore, I think that we should come back to food after we have discussed where we are going to be situated.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Living in a Desert!!!
In the modern world, more than 50% of people live in a desert. In the developed world, it is even higher, reaching about 74%. YOU probably live in a desert with out knowing it. How can so many people be living in a desert without even realising it?
The answer is very simple. Those numbers are the percentage of the worlds population living in urban areas and almost every city in the world is a desert. Quite often VAST tracts of land concreted over with absolutely zero natural water.
Sometimes, the city is built on a river but that river is usually polluted by the farms upstream which are supplying the city with food. Sometimes, a city may have lakes, even BIG lakes, but they are quite often stagnant and/or polluted by the rubbish of the urban dwellers.
Take a quick look at the area you live in, in your head or on a map, and find out for yourself whether there is ANY potable water in the area you live. Generally, you are going to get a horribly nasty surprise. You are probably kilometres, or more, from ANY water source at all and, even then, it may not be usable.
Have you discovered your nearest water? Now, get ready for another horrible shock. You probably won't be able to use it.
When all of civilisation goes to hell in a handbasket, and your taps stop delivering water to you ... what is the first thing that you are going to do? Well, now that I've taught you to think about it, you are going to head straight for the water that you have just found, aren't you? BAD idea ... everybody else in the vicinity of that water is going to be doing the same thing and they probably are NOT going to want to share. Humans, as a rule, tend to be very tribalistic and territorial. This means that families/tribes are going to stake an area that has fresh water and they are going to defend it to the death.
Why would they defend it to the death when it's just water? In reality, it is death to not defend it. A human can only survive, literally, for a couple of days without water. If the current tribe gets pushed away from their water source they would only have a couple of days to find another or die of thirst. The chances are that ALL decent water sources in the area will be defended and that means that the tribe will perish if they leave their current source. This makes it only sensible to defend it with everything you have.
O.K., this means that you have to find a water source that not many know about or a VERY large water source, like a dam or reservoir, with areas that you can access without being seen. Does this make a difference to the usefulness of the watre source that you have already discovered?
(A quick aside : if you live in a rural area and you have your own dam on your farm ... do not assume that you are safe. If you know it is there, so do probably a lot of other people and ownership is only backed up, at the moment, by an outside police force. A police force is supported by the civilisation we live in and, once that goes, so does the police force. Ownership is only decided by what you can keep for yourself.)
O.K., now that we have come to realise that water sources are scarce ... lets look at a nastier side of water. Living in a City/Desert of any size means that you are going to have to get OUT of the desert before you can get a usable water source. If you live in a decent-sized city, something like New York or similar, then you have a VERY long trek ahead of you to get out. (Living in a city is NOT an optimum situation. It 'can' be done if you are HIGHLY trained in survival skills AND extremely lucky. It isn't, however, something that you want to try if you are a normal person.)
Some one in New York City, can have up to a 40 kilometre trek before they get outside of the city. THAT is a ridiculous number. How long would it take you to walk 40km? A human being, when they stride out, has a walking speed of about 6km/h. So, you would guesstimate, that it would take you about 6 hours and 40 minutes to walk that 40km, would you not?
That walking speed, of 6km/h, has a LOT of premises built into it. One is that you are walking on fairly solid, flat ground. (Large hills tend to slow you down a lot.) Another is that it is daytime with good visiblity. (Walking through a city, in the daytime, after the collapse of civilisation is NOT recommended.) Another premise would be that you don't have to keep stopping or detouring. (Stopping when you come across rioters/looters, or detouring around them is HIGHLY suggested.)
Now, adding in all the factors that are going to be abounding when you try to get out of the city, to a safe water source, means that it is probably going to take you DAYS to walk the 40kms out to a slightly safer area. I say slightly safer because Urban areas are going to be absolute hellholes when this thing comes down. Even suburban areas, while slightly safer, are going to be hellish to get through. Taking all of the factors into account, if you're smart enough to move slow and dodge lots, it could take you an entire night to get 5kms.
NOW, how far away is your water source?
It becomes quickly obvious, after a look into your local area, that having a stored source of water that you can use to get out of that desert is an absolute priority. THINK about your water.
And, think about this, leaving it until the last minute to grab some water is NOT a good idea. Your water is pumped by electricity and the "endless blackout" is possibly going to be your first warning that this stuff is going down. Once the endless blackout starts, it's too late to be thinking about getting water for your trip out of the Urban Desert that you live in.
The answer is very simple. Those numbers are the percentage of the worlds population living in urban areas and almost every city in the world is a desert. Quite often VAST tracts of land concreted over with absolutely zero natural water.
Sometimes, the city is built on a river but that river is usually polluted by the farms upstream which are supplying the city with food. Sometimes, a city may have lakes, even BIG lakes, but they are quite often stagnant and/or polluted by the rubbish of the urban dwellers.
Take a quick look at the area you live in, in your head or on a map, and find out for yourself whether there is ANY potable water in the area you live. Generally, you are going to get a horribly nasty surprise. You are probably kilometres, or more, from ANY water source at all and, even then, it may not be usable.
Have you discovered your nearest water? Now, get ready for another horrible shock. You probably won't be able to use it.
When all of civilisation goes to hell in a handbasket, and your taps stop delivering water to you ... what is the first thing that you are going to do? Well, now that I've taught you to think about it, you are going to head straight for the water that you have just found, aren't you? BAD idea ... everybody else in the vicinity of that water is going to be doing the same thing and they probably are NOT going to want to share. Humans, as a rule, tend to be very tribalistic and territorial. This means that families/tribes are going to stake an area that has fresh water and they are going to defend it to the death.
Why would they defend it to the death when it's just water? In reality, it is death to not defend it. A human can only survive, literally, for a couple of days without water. If the current tribe gets pushed away from their water source they would only have a couple of days to find another or die of thirst. The chances are that ALL decent water sources in the area will be defended and that means that the tribe will perish if they leave their current source. This makes it only sensible to defend it with everything you have.
O.K., this means that you have to find a water source that not many know about or a VERY large water source, like a dam or reservoir, with areas that you can access without being seen. Does this make a difference to the usefulness of the watre source that you have already discovered?
(A quick aside : if you live in a rural area and you have your own dam on your farm ... do not assume that you are safe. If you know it is there, so do probably a lot of other people and ownership is only backed up, at the moment, by an outside police force. A police force is supported by the civilisation we live in and, once that goes, so does the police force. Ownership is only decided by what you can keep for yourself.)
O.K., now that we have come to realise that water sources are scarce ... lets look at a nastier side of water. Living in a City/Desert of any size means that you are going to have to get OUT of the desert before you can get a usable water source. If you live in a decent-sized city, something like New York or similar, then you have a VERY long trek ahead of you to get out. (Living in a city is NOT an optimum situation. It 'can' be done if you are HIGHLY trained in survival skills AND extremely lucky. It isn't, however, something that you want to try if you are a normal person.)
Some one in New York City, can have up to a 40 kilometre trek before they get outside of the city. THAT is a ridiculous number. How long would it take you to walk 40km? A human being, when they stride out, has a walking speed of about 6km/h. So, you would guesstimate, that it would take you about 6 hours and 40 minutes to walk that 40km, would you not?
That walking speed, of 6km/h, has a LOT of premises built into it. One is that you are walking on fairly solid, flat ground. (Large hills tend to slow you down a lot.) Another is that it is daytime with good visiblity. (Walking through a city, in the daytime, after the collapse of civilisation is NOT recommended.) Another premise would be that you don't have to keep stopping or detouring. (Stopping when you come across rioters/looters, or detouring around them is HIGHLY suggested.)
Now, adding in all the factors that are going to be abounding when you try to get out of the city, to a safe water source, means that it is probably going to take you DAYS to walk the 40kms out to a slightly safer area. I say slightly safer because Urban areas are going to be absolute hellholes when this thing comes down. Even suburban areas, while slightly safer, are going to be hellish to get through. Taking all of the factors into account, if you're smart enough to move slow and dodge lots, it could take you an entire night to get 5kms.
NOW, how far away is your water source?
It becomes quickly obvious, after a look into your local area, that having a stored source of water that you can use to get out of that desert is an absolute priority. THINK about your water.
And, think about this, leaving it until the last minute to grab some water is NOT a good idea. Your water is pumped by electricity and the "endless blackout" is possibly going to be your first warning that this stuff is going down. Once the endless blackout starts, it's too late to be thinking about getting water for your trip out of the Urban Desert that you live in.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Discuss the "Whys"??
OK. I admit it. I've been lazy and haven't been updating these pages.
Should I continue discussing the why's or should I get into the "hows"?
I'ts beginning to get very late, I think, and it might be a good idea to start getting into the hows and the whats. Gold has just hit USD $1611, amongst other big pointers, so I think that it might be more prudent to start getting into what we need to be doing.
If anyone wants me to get more into the "whys" then leave me a message but, for now, I think that I should be getting into what we need to be looking at.
Should I continue discussing the why's or should I get into the "hows"?
I'ts beginning to get very late, I think, and it might be a good idea to start getting into the hows and the whats. Gold has just hit USD $1611, amongst other big pointers, so I think that it might be more prudent to start getting into what we need to be doing.
If anyone wants me to get more into the "whys" then leave me a message but, for now, I think that I should be getting into what we need to be looking at.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Fiat Currency Collapse
Like all civilisations in all the ages, our civilisation has been debasing our currencies. I say currencies, rather than currency, because all of the separate Nations around the world have been participating in this practice.
If you don't understand how modern Governments can be involved in such a shady practice without the People getting upset then you need to realise that they have changed the names to protect the guilty. In the modern world, we call currency debasement by a new name. We call it inflation.
Inflation IS currency debasement. If you cannot buy as much with your currency unit today as you did yesterday then the currency is, obviously, worth less. If the price of the things you buy rises ... then the value of your currency has fallen. They are the same thing.
Now, we are told by the Government (of whichever country you are in) that inflation is normal and we have to maintain a minimum level of inflation to encourage growth. This doesn't make much sense to me but, of course, I'm not an economist.
(If I was attempting to encourage growth of the economy then I would attempt to lower prices so that more people could buy more things. However, if I was running the economy of a World Class economy, I think I would be more inclined to allow market forces to run things without interference.)
However, leaving whether inflation is a good thing aside, the main thrust is that we are told that a 'small' amount of inflation is a good thing. The Governments of the world now tell us that we have, only, a nice small level of inflation. 2% - 3% percent is supposed to be the number that they aim for and this, they tell us, is exactly what they are achieving. Most Governments, of all persuasions, are generally stating that they have only a small inflation rate and that this is good.
What, however, is our real inflation rate? Are the Governments telling us the truth about inflation (how badly they are debasing our currencies)?
Well, as it is the Government who tell us what the 'official' rate of inflation is, we have no 'real' choice but to accept their word on what numbers they are seeing. Correct?
Not necessarily. There are other ways to 'see' inflation and other ways to 'calculate' what the true inflation rate is.
For example, as far as 'seeing' inflation goes, that is anecdotal from the people on the streets who are buying the things that they want / need to live. If you, as a consumer, are seeing prices rising a lot faster than 3% / year then, as you can imagine, that means that inflation is a lot higher than 3%. Now, the Government is measuring inflation across the Entire economy and this will make their inflation different to what you see. They are including things like aircraft purchasing by airlines, military purchases, etc. and these things may not be rising as fast as what you are seeing.
However, average people make up, by far, the largest percentage of the population. We are the ones who have to survive, on a daily basis, to make aircraft and military purchases any sort of use at all. Without a population there would be no need for Armies, aircraft, etc. You would think, therefore, that they would weight normal purchases to increase their effect on the overall inflation rate.
The truth, however, is far more shocking. A normal persons spending is taken up, to a great extent, by two main purchases. These would be food and energy. Everybody needs food and energy on a daily basis and cannot survive without them. These are the two main items that we base our view of inflation on. The Government, on the other hand, ignores food and energy completely when calculating overall inflation, Why do they do this? Not being an Economist, I really can't say what sort of excuse they give for ignoring the two most basic needs in human life. I do know, however, that it makes their inflation numbers look just the way they want them to.
It gets worse, when they are calculating inflation they use a technique whereby they replace items, on a yearly basis, so that some items do not skew the calculations. The explanation works somewhat like this : If the cost of a 60 inch flat screen TV rises in price out of the range of normal consumers .. then the consumer will start to buy 58 inch TVs instead.
Now, on the surface, this technique looks sensible. If consumers are no longer buying these items then they shouldn't be calculated in the inflation rate. That makes sense.
Where it doesn't make any sense, however, is when people attempt to compare this years inflation rate against last years'. You cannot compare year-over-year inflation rates because they are, no longer, pricing the same things as they were, last year. This makes any decision as to whether inflation is rising, or falling, completely worthless.
So, if the Government numbers are useless, and your anecdotal evidence only shows your 'private' inflation rate then is there anyway to calculate a fairly 'true' national inflation rate. Well, yes there is but it is too difficult for a single person to do but we do have a place where we can get access to a 'calculated' national inflation rate.
If you go to the website for Shadow Government Statistics then you will get a more realistic picture of the US inflation rate .. along with a lot of other statistics that the Government likes to 'bend' to make their governance look more decent. (I am NOT affiliated with SGS but do find that they have useful graphs and statistics, however.)
The main thrust of this post is that the Currencies are becoming worth less and less until they become worthless. This doesn't seem to be all that far away. WHY it is thought that it isn't too far away? That requires a lot more discussion, and I may go into it with another post but it is, in reality, a bit beyond the scope of this blog. This is supposed to be a preparations blog rather than an Economics blog.
There are a LOT of other websites that discuss the exact reasons why we are, probably, a very short step from total Fiat collapse. Inflation run rampant to the point where your currency will buy nothing at all.
If you don't understand how modern Governments can be involved in such a shady practice without the People getting upset then you need to realise that they have changed the names to protect the guilty. In the modern world, we call currency debasement by a new name. We call it inflation.
Inflation IS currency debasement. If you cannot buy as much with your currency unit today as you did yesterday then the currency is, obviously, worth less. If the price of the things you buy rises ... then the value of your currency has fallen. They are the same thing.
Now, we are told by the Government (of whichever country you are in) that inflation is normal and we have to maintain a minimum level of inflation to encourage growth. This doesn't make much sense to me but, of course, I'm not an economist.
(If I was attempting to encourage growth of the economy then I would attempt to lower prices so that more people could buy more things. However, if I was running the economy of a World Class economy, I think I would be more inclined to allow market forces to run things without interference.)
However, leaving whether inflation is a good thing aside, the main thrust is that we are told that a 'small' amount of inflation is a good thing. The Governments of the world now tell us that we have, only, a nice small level of inflation. 2% - 3% percent is supposed to be the number that they aim for and this, they tell us, is exactly what they are achieving. Most Governments, of all persuasions, are generally stating that they have only a small inflation rate and that this is good.
What, however, is our real inflation rate? Are the Governments telling us the truth about inflation (how badly they are debasing our currencies)?
Well, as it is the Government who tell us what the 'official' rate of inflation is, we have no 'real' choice but to accept their word on what numbers they are seeing. Correct?
Not necessarily. There are other ways to 'see' inflation and other ways to 'calculate' what the true inflation rate is.
For example, as far as 'seeing' inflation goes, that is anecdotal from the people on the streets who are buying the things that they want / need to live. If you, as a consumer, are seeing prices rising a lot faster than 3% / year then, as you can imagine, that means that inflation is a lot higher than 3%. Now, the Government is measuring inflation across the Entire economy and this will make their inflation different to what you see. They are including things like aircraft purchasing by airlines, military purchases, etc. and these things may not be rising as fast as what you are seeing.
However, average people make up, by far, the largest percentage of the population. We are the ones who have to survive, on a daily basis, to make aircraft and military purchases any sort of use at all. Without a population there would be no need for Armies, aircraft, etc. You would think, therefore, that they would weight normal purchases to increase their effect on the overall inflation rate.
The truth, however, is far more shocking. A normal persons spending is taken up, to a great extent, by two main purchases. These would be food and energy. Everybody needs food and energy on a daily basis and cannot survive without them. These are the two main items that we base our view of inflation on. The Government, on the other hand, ignores food and energy completely when calculating overall inflation, Why do they do this? Not being an Economist, I really can't say what sort of excuse they give for ignoring the two most basic needs in human life. I do know, however, that it makes their inflation numbers look just the way they want them to.
It gets worse, when they are calculating inflation they use a technique whereby they replace items, on a yearly basis, so that some items do not skew the calculations. The explanation works somewhat like this : If the cost of a 60 inch flat screen TV rises in price out of the range of normal consumers .. then the consumer will start to buy 58 inch TVs instead.
Now, on the surface, this technique looks sensible. If consumers are no longer buying these items then they shouldn't be calculated in the inflation rate. That makes sense.
Where it doesn't make any sense, however, is when people attempt to compare this years inflation rate against last years'. You cannot compare year-over-year inflation rates because they are, no longer, pricing the same things as they were, last year. This makes any decision as to whether inflation is rising, or falling, completely worthless.
So, if the Government numbers are useless, and your anecdotal evidence only shows your 'private' inflation rate then is there anyway to calculate a fairly 'true' national inflation rate. Well, yes there is but it is too difficult for a single person to do but we do have a place where we can get access to a 'calculated' national inflation rate.
If you go to the website for Shadow Government Statistics then you will get a more realistic picture of the US inflation rate .. along with a lot of other statistics that the Government likes to 'bend' to make their governance look more decent. (I am NOT affiliated with SGS but do find that they have useful graphs and statistics, however.)
The main thrust of this post is that the Currencies are becoming worth less and less until they become worthless. This doesn't seem to be all that far away. WHY it is thought that it isn't too far away? That requires a lot more discussion, and I may go into it with another post but it is, in reality, a bit beyond the scope of this blog. This is supposed to be a preparations blog rather than an Economics blog.
There are a LOT of other websites that discuss the exact reasons why we are, probably, a very short step from total Fiat collapse. Inflation run rampant to the point where your currency will buy nothing at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)