Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 5:47 am Post subject: Some advise needed!
Hello,
I'm following the topic Peak Oil. Every day I think diffrently about it. One day I think we are doomed the next I think won't be as bad afteral in '80 we only needed 60 mil barels a day and that was prety good living.
However the next day I think there will be a global monitarian crises and economic meltdown.
What ever that will happen peak oil will come as a shock.
I need advise:
I'm only working a few years and have no debts. I rent my home (Europa) and have a small job in IT. I live close to my job with public transport. My biggest problem is that I'm unable to buy a hous as my savings arn't even over 25 thousand $ . That means in crisis I will lose my job and be unable to buy a house.
If I buy know a house then I will lose it also in the crises because of the debt, inflation etc.
What should I do. I tend to plan for the following. Wait for the first economic downturn. I suspect a lot of people will be forced out of there home because they can't pay mortage. So the housing prices wil tumble down down down. Then I maybe can buy a small house with garden of the money I saved.
Is this a realistic scenario? What would you do in my place? I think owing a house will be essential to survive the collaps.
Will money first be devaluted before the real estate market collapses?
Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 890 Location: Scotland
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 5:55 am Post subject:
why do you think owning a house will be essential? and anyway, you won't own it outright - you'll likely have a big mortgage on it, which you may default on if unemployment goes up.
i'm not really sure what my advice is to someone who has savings but no debt. dont get into debt would be a good one. as for protecting your savings? no idea. they could be worthless overnight as has happened to many people in past crashes. maybe you should buy something 'tangible' with your money? try to think of stuff that people will need soon. no idea really.
im pretty thankful for my current situation - although i have a LOT of debt (about £25,000 worth - paid off by end 2010... hah! right! ), i am in a secure rented house from a local housing association. if i lose my job, the government pays my rent and council tax. i cannot lose my house, unless i breach the terms of the lease by, say, vandalising it or burning it down - needless to say, im not going to do these things.
i'd be shitting my pants if i lived in the US though - you guys have almost no social conscience over there and, from my experience, when you see a guy who is poor you have no sympathy at all - which appears to be reflected in your total lack of social welfare programs.
Joined: Mar 18, 2005 Posts: 2615 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:09 am Post subject:
Take any advice with a huge pinch of salt...none of us can fortell the future...that said:
Have you looked at bare land? would it be possible to use that 25,000 for a few acres & buy it outright with no mortgage?
If electricity & nat-gas go out...a log cabin would be just as good (if not better) than a modern home. And no need to live there right now...you could get a jump on planting fruit & nut tree seedlings on it (while you're still living in your rental place).
Just an idea...good luck & keep studying!!! PO only gets MORE INTERESTING!
Newsflash Linlithgow - social welfare doesn't create any more money or goods - So you really think if TSHTF your goverment is going to continue paying for you to sit in your apartment sucking the collective redistribution teat? Theres no difference between socialism (redistribution) and theft. PERIOD. Government takes from me, under threat of force, and reditributes to whoever they think need it more... ie THEFT. Or I guess you could call it extortion, whichever you like best...
btw the US has a HUGE social welfare system and is really not that much different from the UK in that sense, medicare, medicaid, low income housing, welfare, social security, etc....
C'mon is it really neccesary to make a broad flamebait statement like "the US has no social conscience, no sympathy for the poor etc"? - Jeez... And btw I have been to Scotland, have you even been here?
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1422 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 10:21 am Post subject:
gnm wrote:
Theres no difference between socialism (redistribution) and theft. PERIOD. Government takes from me, under threat of force, and reditributes to whoever they think need it more... ie THEFT. Or I guess you could call it extortion, whichever you like best...
The above statement rather gives credence to linlthgowoil's statement that "the US has no social conscience, no sympathy for the poor etc". I don't think too many people other than in the US think state supported health care is theft.
Getting back to the topic. I would recomend that you take a deep breath get up from your computer look around and evaluate the relative probabilities of the three following scenarios:
1. An economic recession in some other part of the world slows down the world economy and you personally feel no ill effects from peak oil in the next 5 years.
2. peak oil sends your country into recession or depression in the next 5 years but the government doesn't immediately collapse.
3. peak oil leads to the collapse of security in your area within the next 5 years and you are left to fend for yourself.
If option 1 is less than 80% it's probably best to avoid debt.
If option 3 is greater than 80% it's probably best to acquire as much debt as possible.
Standard caution: This advise is worth exactly what you paid for it. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
I fail to see how being opposed to government theft and redistribution means no social conscience or sympathy for the poor. There were many charitable organizations devoted to helping the poor before the current massive (and I may add) wasteful bueracratic "solution"... Keep in mind that those tax dollars are going to fund the war machine as well as the local clinic.... And if socialized healthcare works so well then why do wealthy Canucks come to the USA so they don't have to deal with it there...
I am talking about comparative definition here - Please explain how it is not theft or extortion. Any tax on income is theft. Tax on purchases can be protested by not purchasing , barter, etc.
That being said in general I agree with your economic assesment. One thing that I think about though, if we go into a severe inflationary period would holding debt be that bad? Assuming option 3 didn't happen as a result.
And what about the idea to buy when the economy goes in heavy recession. I gues then it will be a bargain to buy and the money system will still be valued. I live in Belgium/Netherland.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1422 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 11:29 am Post subject:
gnm wrote:
I fail to see how being opposed to government theft and redistribution means no social conscience or sympathy for the poor. There were many charitable organizations devoted to helping the poor before the current massive (and I may add) wasteful bueracratic "solution"... Keep in mind that those tax dollars are going to fund the war machine as well as the local clinic.... And if socialized healthcare works so well then why do wealthy Canucks come to the USA so they don't have to deal with it there...
I didn't mean to be debating whether or not people in the US have a "social conscience or sympathy for the poor", obviously they do, I simply was pointing out the irony that your statement sounds really really extreme to the ears of non-Americans and only boosts the image of Americans abroad as havng no "social conscience or sympathy for the poor".
Quote:
I am talking about comparative definition here - Please explain how it is not theft or extortion. Any tax on income is theft. Tax on purchases can be protested by not purchasing , barter, etc.
Sorry I won't respond to this question , it's just way too off topic.
Quote:
That being said in general I agree with your economic assesment. One thing that I think about though, if we go into a severe inflationary period would holding debt be that bad? Assuming option 3 didn't happen as a result.
Inflation is generally kind to debtors and bad for creditors or people on fixed incomes. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
Joined: May 20, 2005 Posts: 204 Location: Austin, Tx
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 11:39 am Post subject:
gnm wrote:
Any tax on income is theft. Tax on purchases can be protested by not purchasing , barter, etc.
Nice. Tax on income is rent you pay to the government of the United States to reside here, work here, use the roads here, use the infrastructure here, etc. If you don't want any income taxed you will not have any semblence of infastructure. No roads, no phones, no electricity, no laws--is that a good idea?
Also your ideas are very simplistic on another level--much of the income in the United States is subsidized, in one way or another, by that very theft. As I'm sure you are well aware, much of the current income in this country is the result of the government inventing money for us to borrow, so we can buy houses, and Chinese goods. Is it theft for the government to tax money that they created as welfare for the entire country? Many corporations in the US are government subsidized--therefore their payrolls are government subsidized, therefore the government is taxing money that they handed out to people from the taxpayers in the first place. There isn't, in fact, a lot of ways to make money in the United States which are not financed, in one way or another, by the taxpayers.
Moreover, the entire attitude that taxes are theft is exactly the reason this country is going to have such problems once social systems eventually begin to disintegrate. Life is a cooperative endeavor. You might think you can go at it alone and be an island unto yourself, but, fact is, you depend on all the rest of us, and we depend on you. You may hate the idea of socialism, but the idea of capitalism and hoarding wealth is based upon the false premise that resources grow forever. They don't--therefore that wealth you acquire is really stealing from the future--literally. In the real world, of limits, of annually renewable resources, you can't grow capital forever. This is why civilizations with huge disparities in wealth typically bite the dust.
I want, I want, I want....well I got a pacifier for you.
Joined: Feb 16, 2005 Posts: 251 Location: Siberia of Canada
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 12:37 pm Post subject:
linlithgowoil wrote:
i'd be shitting my pants if i lived in the US though - you guys have almost no social conscience over there and, from my experience, when you see a guy who is poor you have no sympathy at all - which appears to be reflected in your total lack of social welfare programs.
If you think the US has no social conscience, you need to check out what it is like in Russia. If you dropped on a street with a heart attack, people might walk over you for hours before somebody would call an ambulance. When the ambulance arrives, the personnel would routinely steal everything from your pockets and check if you can pay more for the medical care, surgery, medicines or have an insurance that covers this all. If not, then sorry, you are out of luck. After that, if you survive and end up seriously handicapped, but you do not have relatives to support you financially, the only option for you is to sit under a church awning and beg the passer-bies for spare change. No, Russia is not poor like most African or Asian countries are. It has several dozen people who control assets over 1 billion US dollars. People just do not give sh#t about each other.
RG, Paying "rent" implies that we serve the government not the other way around. Last I check most of those things could be covered and are covered with fees, licensing, property tax, fuel tax, food tax, medical tax etc. You really think the government has done such an efficent job of spending that they need the income tax also? What the hell would be wrong with a fair, sales based tax. Then you and I wouldn't be FORCED to act as unpaid CPA for the government and effectively testify against ourselves - we could also cut out the massive bloat that is the IRS.
Oh and its not an "idea" that the income tax is theft - it simply is.... just because you happen to like it doesn't change that...
-G
Russian - I think there are areas like that here as well - particularly in big cities...
Sorry to hijack the thread... I will refrain from any further posts to this topic..
Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 451 Location: Massachusetts
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject:
There are actually two discussions going on here, the request for advice by Enquest, and an appraisal of the radical libertarian philosophy offered by gnm and, in a more guarded way, by the Republican Party currently in control of the USA. Since I find the latter morally repugnant and a distraction from the thread introduced by Enquest, I will ignore it. {bold added by Tyler_JC, let's stay on topic people!}
Enquest, I am in much the same position as you: Only a few years into my career, no debt, and some savings but not enough to buy much real estate at current prices. The main difference is that I live in the USA, while you live in Euro-land.
I agree with you that we are going to have an economic collapse. However, I think that the USA and East Asia are going to suffer the worst, because their financial systems and economies are especially unbalanced. What we will have in the USA will be a collapse of the debt bubble, which almost certainly will mean a collapse of real estate prices, an economic depression probably worse than the 1930s, and probably, at least at first, general deflation. For this reason, I am keeping most of my savings in cash. What is unclear is whether the dollar will collapse, and so I have to hedge by holding other currencies.
You are lucky to live in Europe, because Europe is less dependent on exports to the US market than Asia is. Europe will probably have a deep recession and deflation, which means that your cash will be worth more, especially when it comes to real estate. Also, the value of the euro will probably rise, if anything, when Euro-land proves to be the safest place to invest. So you can probably just hold onto your euros.
My goal is to buy land if and when prices come down. I am less interested in the house because I can live in a tent while I build one, if necessary. Even in Europe, there will be a severe economic recession, and you may be out of work and want to grow your own food. After a period of partial recovery, peak oil is likely to hit really hard and even more people will be out of work. At that point, having enough land to be able to grow a fair percentage of one's own food, and possibly an additional crop for sale or barter, will be very valuable. So think about buying at least a hectare of land outside of a town.
why do you think owning a house will be essential? and anyway, you won't own it outright - you'll likely have a big mortgage on it, which you may default on if unemployment goes up.
i'm not really sure what my advice is to someone who has savings but no debt. dont get into debt would be a good one. as for protecting your savings? no idea. they could be worthless overnight as has happened to many people in past crashes. maybe you should buy something 'tangible' with your money? try to think of stuff that people will need soon. no idea really.
im pretty thankful for my current situation - although i have a LOT of debt (about £25,000 worth - paid off by end 2010... hah! right! ), i am in a secure rented house from a local housing association. if i lose my job, the government pays my rent and council tax. i cannot lose my house, unless i breach the terms of the lease by, say, vandalising it or burning it down - needless to say, im not going to do these things.
i'd be shitting my pants if i lived in the US though - you guys have almost no social conscience over there and, from my experience, when you see a guy who is poor you have no sympathy at all - which appears to be reflected in your total lack of social welfare programs.
Actually Linlith, This must be a common misperception. There are some who fit this description, but not the overwhelming majority. Some people who are the strongest advocates of low taxes and reduction of size of govt. would quite literally give you the shirt off of their backs, if you needed it. Their idea of charity is different than Europeans but they are actually, by and large, charitable people.
Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 890 Location: Scotland
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:15 am Post subject:
Quote:
Newsflash Linlithgow - social welfare doesn't create any more money or goods - So you really think if TSHTF your goverment is going to continue paying for you to sit in your apartment sucking the collective redistribution teat? Theres no difference between socialism (redistribution) and theft. PERIOD. Government takes from me, under threat of force, and reditributes to whoever they think need it more... ie THEFT. Or I guess you could call it extortion, whichever you like best...
btw the US has a HUGE social welfare system and is really not that much different from the UK in that sense, medicare, medicaid, low income housing, welfare, social security, etc....
C'mon is it really neccesary to make a broad flamebait statement like "the US has no social conscience, no sympathy for the poor etc"? - Jeez... And btw I have been to Scotland, have you even been here?
You think that taxing a rich person who has more money than he needs and giving it to poor people is theft? That just confirms to me the type of attitude that many americans have - 'i'm alright jack - too bad you have no cash, it must be because you are lazy, get your hands off my stash'.
yes - i've been to america - florida. Horrible place, lots of very fat people who could barely walk. Profligate consumption of unnecessary items. zero culture. Desolate landscape of lots of roads, no paths to walk on and endless malls with enormous car parks. Needless to say, i'm not in a hurry to go back.
maybe i phrased my post wrong though. i didnt mean america doesnt have a social conscience entirely - i just think the us has a totally different attitude. in the US, it appears to me that you are judged entirely upon your wealth. if you don't have 2 cars, a big house and all that crap, then you are worthless. and if you don't have these things, its because you didn't work hard enough or are stupid - therefore people who dont have these things shouldnt receive hand outs from the 'hard working' types who worked hard for their american dream.
i, and many others, dont see it this way at all. i can see that people who are born into rich families usually go on to become rich themselves, and those from poor families usually go on to become poor themselves - with exceptions of course. this tells me that, if you have wealth already, its very easy to protect, whereas if you dont, its hard to gain because those who have it dont want you to take it from them.
unfortunately, many americans actually believe they live in a meritocracy , which is very amusing to me.
Quote:
There were many charitable organizations devoted to helping the poor before the current massive (and I may add) wasteful bueracratic "solution"...
You sound a bit like Scrooge. 'The workhouse will take care of the poor, its none of my concern.'.
So, if you fell on hard times through no fault of your own, and you saw a guy driving by who inherited millions from his father but didnt work for it - would you think to yourself - 'this is fair, this is america!!!' and not want the government to help you out?
I cant believe you said socialism was theft though. You sound like one of those rabid anti-communist types who think anything other than unbridled capitalism is devil inspired. I suppose you believe in the 'trickle down' theory of wealth as well? Even though its shown that the rich get richer each year and the poor get poorer - how do you explain this?
A caring society should provide all its inhabitants with an income, no matter whether they work or not. The income should be enough to guarantee them a reasonable house in good repair, food, electricity, water, sewerage and public services etc. The main reason this should be done is that 100% employment is impossible, people get ill, people get old, things happen etc. etc. If you dont believe this then i take it you won't mind living on the streets and starving to death if/when your circumstances change for the worse.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
), i am in a secure rented house from a local housing association. if i lose my job, the government pays my rent and council tax. i cannot lose my house, unless i breach the terms of the lease by, say, vandalising it or burning it down - needless to say, im not going to do these things.
