“You can’t eat Gold”
your missing the point Mike. yes I know that PVs dont heat the house. Sure I’d love to house some people in exchange for labor. I believe your from Australia. Maybe the good and honest citizens of Australia will behave in a civil manner when things get desperate. Exchange their hard work for use of your home. Im not so sure that a band of well armed and desperate Americans will behave in the same fashion. I think they may claim the property for themselves. If I can’t defend it, then I can’t defend it.
And Im not talking about others trying to steal solar panels. They may decide to riddle them with bullets, or burn the house down. It’s just a very destructive part of human nature. If I can’t have it, neither will they.
"Won’t be able to eat it, ship it, store it, or sell it. Wise up. Who cares if you can recharge your mobile phone or lap top with solar for non existant networks. Or maybe for TV or radio with no channels broadcasting? For heat you need to burn, for light, you need to burn. Wood, would be a much better source or transferable, storable and selabale energy source. Or stock up now on gas canisters, lamp oil, kerosine, candles etc… but electricity? Waste of time. What would the Walton’s have done with electricity? Listen to the wireless? "
This strikes me as a satirical response that lacks vision.
With solar I could trickle charge the battery that powers my HAM radio.
I could charge AA and AAA batteries for walkie talkies, flashlights and regular radios.
It’s not a stretch to think that with Solar you could charge the battery on a drill, or sawzall to more quickly improve your infrastructure.
With a solar battery bank, you could keep your well pumps going, or the heating element working in your hot water tank.
Looking at the "luxuries" that will be of little/no use isn’t a viable criticism to the energy question.
There’s a hell of a lot more out there to power than just laptops and cell phones. Maybe we should consider just how much there is.
No doubt, our energy slaves are going to be cruel masters.
In any case, the same thing could be said for gold: What’re you going to buy?
Will gold be more "useful" to someone than an acre of land?
How about $1700 worth of food preps now?
How about a rifle, 1000 rounds of ammo and a class training you on how to use it, which could be had for 1700?
Will gold be worth more than a cow that produces milk every morning?
As with anything, I’m not talking about diverting 100% of my prep budget to alt. energy – just enough to make a practical impact in my quality of life/standard of living post collapse.
Won’t be able to eat it, ship it, store it, or sell it. Wise up. Who cares if you can recharge your mobile phone or lap top with solar for non existant networks. Or maybe for TV or radio with no channels broadcasting? For heat you need to burn, for light, you need to burn. Wood, would be a much better source or transferable, storable and selabale energy source. Or stock up now on gas canisters, lamp oil, kerosine, candles etc… but electricity? Waste of time. What would the Walton’s have done with electricity? Listen to the wireless?
This all seems very short sighted to me. You can’t un-invent technology. Even in the worst case scenario of world wide nuclear war, there WILL be survivors who use radios to communicate as well as other tech. You think the armies of the world are going to roll over, shut down their sattelites, and go back to carrier pidgeon for communication? Pah.
If you can only see one possibile outcome ahead of us… total and utter collapse of everything, apparently extremely quickly, then there is not much to say. If you allow for the possibility of many potential outcomes, perhaps the deployment of tools like PV start to come into focus.
Well our family couldn’t afford to do both gold/silver and major resiliency/sustainability preps either. In the end we had chosen to hold put our wealth towards considerable amounts of gold, silver, and cash, with most of our other preps along the lines of short-to-medium term emergency situations. We made this choice for two primary reasons, flexibility & portability. If we had been in a situation to put our limited wealth in land, a well-insulated home, off-grid heating and electricity, water well, etc. etc. that’s what we would have done, and made gold, silver, and cash a smaller portion of our wealth. But we knew we our situation was going to be fluid and changing for a few years at least, so we had to ‘invest’ accordingly. Any resiliency and sustainability preps had to fit in the category of being reasonably portable and at least somewhat liquid, which as one can imagine restricts the options considerably. There was at least some consolation that others in both sides of our family have much of the more fixed sustainability and resiliency types of assets (land, house, garden, greenhouse) but not as much in the way of gold/silver/cash, and in a near term major crisis we can try to pool our resources. It seems to me that the majority of us don’t have enough resources to achieve high levels of self-sufficiency on our own anyway, so by necessity some of us will pool resources and become larger family or community units in order to adapt.
Now though we are starting to move into a situation where we can put down some roots and invest in productive assets that are less portable. So in the next year we’re likely to use a portion of our gold/silver/cash savings to put towards things that (we hope) will prove to be valued assets in the future. I agree with Jeff in the sense it makes more sense to give a higher priority towards resiliency and sustainability assets/projects, but only if it makes sense for your living situation. For people who can’t (or don’t want to) be strongly tied to one place, I think gold, silver, cash, and other more portable & liquid assets have to make up a bigger part of one’s wealth. Even though our situation is looking to become more stable, I still find a lot of personal value in having options to move quickly and easily and so no matter what we will still hold on to some of our gold or silver for the longer term.
Ex-Patriation: I’ve thought strongly on getting out of the country, but my main concern is that right now, American’s aren’t popular. After we cause a Global Economic Collapse that will rival the Dark Ages, I’m not sure we’ll gain popularity… Think I’ll stick to home – though it’s nice to have the option.[/quote]
I share some of those concerns, but I think even though negative attitudes towards America (and Americans) probably will increase, it won’t be universal. Provided the US doesn’t do something horrendous like participate in a nuclear exchange, I think the attitude will be mixed across the globe and will depend on which country you’re in. Any country that dislikes us now will probably hate us later, and any country that hates us now will probably despise our very existence later. But for countries without any substantial negative history with the US and not in any potentially contested regions for resource wars (N. Africa or Middle East or SW Asia for example), I don’t see them having a big stake in hating the US or Americans. In fact it seems likely to me that the US will just be one of many competing power groups on the globe (instead of the dominant one), and you will still see alliances and various countries looking to improve ties with the US for various reasons.
However…. one thing along very similar lines does concern me more, and that is a potential rise in xenophobia in general across the world. Not really "there’s an American, let’s kick his ass!" but more like "there’s an outsider, let’s kick his ass!". As has been discussed many times before here, the tensions from shrinking global resources increases the potential for more nationalism (or regionalism) and us vs. them attitudes worldwide, and more meatheads on average will be out looking for the people in the ‘socially acceptable to hate category’ on which to vent their frustrations. I’m hoping that this won’t be universal, but who really knows.
Attitudes where I’m at are good now, but how much they might change when things get hard is unknown. Living in a foreign land probably is going to be a greater risk than it is now, but I honestly didn’t see any better way for our family to opt out of the financial system in the US ("starve the beast") and prosper in pursuit of our goals at the same time. It seemed to me that not exploring options outside the US for fear of how I might be viewed in that place in the future is kind of like the people who don’t buy gold because the government might increase taxation or might ban private ownership. Something to consider, definitely, but more like an adversity to be overcome rather than an impassable wall that stops you cold.
That’s not to say there might not be other good reasons to stay in the US though… I think already having a good community where one is at in the US would be one of the best reasons to decide to stay put more than anything else.