Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[pliznau]

Romania make plans to open some gold mines. With an estimative of 300tons of gold with 250 tons minable. In 2014 maybe 2015. They say it will bring around 15 tons per year. Maybe that will influence the price.

[1714169018]

1714169018

[1714169018]

1714169018

[oakpacific]

...
Without an online connection, bitcoins are useless, and this is the only reason I'd suggest precious metals as a hedge.

I disagree.  Any positive balance entry in the blockchain will remain there until the crypto is broken (probably never) or until someone with the private key moves it.  There will be a large amount of confidence that the system will re-start if it ever halts completely at all.  It is exceedingly unlikely that any event will bring us back to the stone age...at least world-wide and indefinitely.  So, a representation in the blockchain is not 'useless' when it comes to long-term wealth preservation.

Now I would agree that things could get so bad that free access to the global internet without significant controls could easily occur, and probably almost anywhere.  And they could last for some time.  For that reason I think it prudent to have a more stone-age answer to the question of where the next meal might come from.  PM's seem to me to fit the bill.

That depends on if(a big if) the whole network shuts down gracefully, if you somehow have isolated regional networks running independently after the global connections stop functioning, you will have a big mess(potentially intractable) after things get back to normal.

The reason why I find PMs as a hedge unattractive, is that central banks have stockpiled much more of them then everyone else combined, now guess what would they do with their PM reserves if its price were to skyrocket as a consequence of people dumping fiats.

[tvbcof]

...
Without an online connection, bitcoins are useless, and this is the only reason I'd suggest precious metals as a hedge.

I disagree.  Any positive balance entry in the blockchain will remain there until the crypto is broken (probably never) or until someone with the private key moves it.  There will be a large amount of confidence that the system will re-start if it ever halts completely at all.  It is exceedingly unlikely that any event will bring us back to the stone age...at least world-wide and indefinitely.  So, a representation in the blockchain is not 'useless' when it comes to long-term wealth preservation.

That depends on if(a big if) the whole network shuts down gracefully, if you somehow have isolated regional networks running independently after the global connections stop functioning, you will have a big mess(potentially intractable) after things get back to normal.

I do not believe so.

It's a simple and mechanical 'longest chain' issue at the end of the day.  If geo regions are separated, one is going to win out when they re-join.  As long as the TPS remains low (aka, block size remains reasonable), people will be able to figure out how to join regions fairly quickly, and a sub-set of them will have the balls to do so.

Further, as long as one does not sign transactions there is no danger of one's coins being spent on any chain.  If spends are attempted, I suppose that there may be some danger of a re-play attack but I am not familiar enough with the time-stamping and such to speak to that.  In any event, a prudent and technically savvy person will defer any block chain activity at all until things settle down if they have any choice in the matter.  Which is why having some other options is not a bad idea.

Now I would agree that things could get so bad that free access to the global internet without significant controls could easily occur, and probably almost anywhere.  And they could last for some time.  For that reason I think it prudent to have a more stone-age answer to the question of where the next meal might come from.  PM's seem to me to fit the bill.

The reason why I find PMs as a hedge unattractive, is that central banks have stockpiled much more of them then we did, now guess what would they do with their PM reserves if its price were to skyrocket as a consequence of people dumping fiats.

I don't think that what central banks do or don't do will amount to a hill of beans.  In a bad scenario all I will be caring about is whether I can get a wiener pig from the guy down the road or some replacement buckshot for my shotgun.  I can almost guarantee that a few junk silver quarters will be more effective than some BTC if/when the shit actually hits the fan in a real way.

BTW, I had a friend once who was a child in the Philippines when the Japanese were occupying the place.  She told me about her grandmother having a bamboo tube full of American coins (which were, of course, all 90% silver at the time.)  The family hauled ass out of the city and rode out the event in the country.  That chunk of bamboo got the whole family safely through the occupation in relative comfort.  It was an interesting story which I remember fondly.

[JakeGold]

BTW, I had a friend once who was a child in the Philippines when the Japanese were occupying the place.  She told me about her grandmother having a bamboo tube full of American coins (which were, of course, all 90% silver at the time.)  The family hauled ass out of the city and rode out the event in the country.  That chunk of bamboo got the whole family safely through the occupation in relative comfort.  It was an interesting story which I remember fondly.

I wish there were a safe have from which to watch this whole mess unfold.

Considering that almost every nation with access to the internet has some sort of Bitcoin user base, it is unlikely that the whole world wide Bitcoin network will go down all at once. Bitcoin "blackouts" will be isolated (whether planned or otherwise) and so it makes for a good "long term" store of wealth.

But as that story suggests, it's not going to do you any good if you need essential supplies in the moment.

Food/Medicine>ammo?>Precious Metals>Crypto

[oakpacific]

...
Without an online connection, bitcoins are useless, and this is the only reason I'd suggest precious metals as a hedge.

I disagree.  Any positive balance entry in the blockchain will remain there until the crypto is broken (probably never) or until someone with the private key moves it.  There will be a large amount of confidence that the system will re-start if it ever halts completely at all.  It is exceedingly unlikely that any event will bring us back to the stone age...at least world-wide and indefinitely.  So, a representation in the blockchain is not 'useless' when it comes to long-term wealth preservation.

That depends on if(a big if) the whole network shuts down gracefully, if you somehow have isolated regional networks running independently after the global connections stop functioning, you will have a big mess(potentially intractable) after things get back to normal.

I do not believe so.

It's a simple and mechanical 'longest chain' issue at the end of the day.  If geo regions are separated, one is going to win out when they re-join.  As long as the TPS remains low (aka, block size remains reasonable), people will be able to figure out how to join regions fairly quickly, and a sub-set of them will have the balls to do so.

Further, as long as one does not sign transactions there is no danger of one's coins being spent on any chain.  If spends are attempted, I suppose that there may be some danger of a re-play attack but I am not familiar enough with the time-stamping and such to speak to that.  In any event, a prudent and technically savvy person will defer any block chain activity at all until things settle down if they have any choice in the matter.  Which is why having some other options is not a bad idea.

It is human nature to go schismatic and create their own power base, a global network outage just provide them with the motivation and conditions to do so, just imagine how many altcoin creators would want to go down that path, things will go political pretty quickly, and even if everything would come together in the end, it would be at the expense of those betting on the wrong chains(shorter ones), at that stage, many would prefer to just keep the network splitted to limit their losses.

Now I would agree that things could get so bad that free access to the global internet without significant controls could easily occur, and probably almost anywhere.  And they could last for some time.  For that reason I think it prudent to have a more stone-age answer to the question of where the next meal might come from.  PM's seem to me to fit the bill.

The reason why I find PMs as a hedge unattractive, is that central banks have stockpiled much more of them then we did, now guess what would they do with their PM reserves if its price were to skyrocket as a consequence of people dumping fiats.

I don't think that what central banks do or don't do will amount to a hill of beans.  In a bad scenario all I will be caring about is whether I can get a wiener pig from the guy down the road or some replacement buckshot for my shotgun.  I can almost guarantee that a few junk silver quarters will be more effective than some BTC if/when the shit actually hits the fan in a real way.

BTW, I had a friend once who was a child in the Philippines when the Japanese were occupying the place.  She told me about her grandmother having a bamboo tube full of American coins (which were, of course, all 90% silver at the time.)  The family hauled ass out of the city and rode out the event in the country.  That chunk of bamboo got the whole family safely through the occupation in relative comfort.  It was an interesting story which I remember fondly.

Well, maybe I just didn't make it out clearly: I meant "hedge" purely in the "hedge investment" sense, which should be managed separately from your lunch money, for which extra measures must be taken to ensure its safety.  And let's not forget that even in a bad scenario the governments may still have a monopoly on legal violence, and there are not too many PM mines in this world for them to deploy a few guards to.

And I doubt your Filipino friend had gone to the lowest level of anachronistic pandemonium, in that case mobs will probably just break into  their residence to grab their PM coins.

[oakpacific]

BTW, I had a friend once who was a child in the Philippines when the Japanese were occupying the place.  She told me about her grandmother having a bamboo tube full of American coins (which were, of course, all 90% silver at the time.)  The family hauled ass out of the city and rode out the event in the country.  That chunk of bamboo got the whole family safely through the occupation in relative comfort.  It was an interesting story which I remember fondly.

I wish there were a safe have from which to watch this whole mess unfold.

Considering that almost every nation with access to the internet has some sort of Bitcoin user base, it is unlikely that the whole world wide Bitcoin network will go down all at once. Bitcoin "blackouts" will be isolated (whether planned or otherwise) and so it makes for a good "long term" store of wealth.

But as that story suggests, it's not going to do you any good if you need essential supplies in the moment.

Food/Medicine>ammo?>Precious Metals>Crypto

Sure, yet Cryptos may still remain useful, though not essential in the worst case scenario, if you still have faith in the world getting back to normal, yet not in keeping hold of your PMs from those with more ammos than you, your cryptos could remain completely invisible to them if you have taken proper measures, and become usable again someday in the future.

[molecular]

in the words of Chamath Palihapitiya, "this thing is gonna rip!"

that's almost as good as some of my memes  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUB1LfUzLI

I love this guy.

[tvbcof]

...
And I doubt your Filipino friend had gone to the lowest level of anachronistic pandemonium, in that case mobs will probably just break into  their residence to grab their PM coins.

Ya, I don't know a lot about the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, but I don't expect that it was much better than their occupation of other parts of Asia.  She said that certain of the Japanese citizenry had been prepped to take over, and she started learning the Japanese language in school.  Dunno if there were roving gangs of Filipinos, but I would suspect that the occupying forces took what they wished.  It might have had something to do with why her family left the city.

I do find it noteworthy and unsurprising that by the end of WW-II there were far fewer Japanese expats around Asia than before the war started.

I would not wish to be in a city in any a lot of possible scenarios.  I suspect that out in the country, outsiders who were causing trouble would be, um, discouraged with 'extreme prejudice' as would locals who were doing the same, and that generally speaking neighbors would look out for one another making life at least possible.  That is probably how it would work in most countries and how it has worked historically in times of strife.

[JakeGold]

I would not wish to be in a city in any a lot of possible scenarios.  I suspect that out in the country, outsiders who were causing trouble would be, um, discouraged with 'extreme prejudice' as would locals who were doing the same, and that generally speaking neighbors would look out for one another making life at least possible.  That is probably how it would work in most countries and how it has worked historically in times of strife.

You have to remember that this isn't a Nuclear Fallout threat, or a Zombie outbreak, or even a military attack. It will be more of a Great Depression scenario. More "gloom and ghost town"-esque than Mad Max.

[tvbcof]

I would not wish to be in a city in any a lot of possible scenarios.  I suspect that out in the country, outsiders who were causing trouble would be, um, discouraged with 'extreme prejudice' as would locals who were doing the same, and that generally speaking neighbors would look out for one another making life at least possible.  That is probably how it would work in most countries and how it has worked historically in times of strife.

You have to remember that this isn't a Nuclear Fallout threat, or a Zombie outbreak, or even a military attack. It will be more of a Great Depression scenario. More "gloom and ghost town"-esque than Mad Max.

For sure.  But I am pretty confident that the only realistic option would be to go through a period of martial law initially.  In the 30's the US was 25% agrarian and the modes of commerce, transportation, etc were vastly less developed than today.  The only way to keep large numbers of urban people alive (in the absence of letters of credit for suppliers and what-not) would be a command economy managed by the state.

After that period we'd enter the long slog.  The point I am making is that in all phases of the event life and life-ways are likely to differ significant between rural and urban environments.  The focus and nature of central government 'help' would differ significantly also.

[marcus_of_augustus]

The only way to keep large numbers of urban people alive (in the absence of letters of credit for suppliers and what-not) would be a command economy managed by the state.

In fact this is completely incorrect. The best way to keep large numbers of urban people alive is a free market economy in food ... I'm not sure how many times people have to witness a N. Korea or similar socialist famine to be relieved of the misconception that command economies are somehow more effective at feeding large numbers of people.

The break down of the monetary system is a separate effect but don't try and saddle the farmers who are actually trying to feed people, with the same failed fucked-up economic wonk theories that fucked-up the financial system.

Edit: ... and if you ever happen to end up in situation where you notice authorities are trying to fix food prices or command control over food distribution it is well time past to get out ...

[tvbcof]

The only way to keep large numbers of urban people alive (in the absence of letters of credit for suppliers and what-not) would be a command economy managed by the state.

In fact this is completely incorrect. The best way to keep large numbers of urban people alive is a free market economy in food ... I'm not sure how many times people have to witness a N. Korea or similar socialist famine to be relieved of the misconception that command economies are somehow more effective at feeding large numbers of people.

The break down of the monetary system is a separate effect but don't try and saddle the farmers who are actually trying to feed people, with the same failed fucked-up economic wonk theories that fucked-up the financial system.

Edit: ... and if you ever happen to end up in situation where you notice authorities are trying to fix food prices or command control over food distribution it is well time past to get out ...

While I agree with out in principle, people would start starving in a matter of days while a private supply system and transportation chain would take probably years to develop.

We don't have 'farmers' in the US.  We have multiple square mile farms owned by huge corporations and run by two guys and some GPS enabled tractor-like-things.  And these things consume a lot of diesel I might note.  With a failed monetary system stripping 99.5% of people any money they might have it is unlikely that said corporations would desire to feed people out of the goodness of their hearts.  And would be illegal besides under current corporate law.

I believe that the more senior of our leadership understands what would need to be done, and we see reflections of this in things like the NSA spying apparatus and other such clues.

For my part, I am adamantly against such control measures, but it is not because I don't believe that martial law and a command economy have no legitimate role in extreme circumstances.  In my case it is because I see a great danger that such 'solutions' will persist for much longer than they need to.

[Erdogan]

The only way to keep large numbers of urban people alive (in the absence of letters of credit for suppliers and what-not) would be a command economy managed by the state.

In fact this is completely incorrect. The best way to keep large numbers of urban people alive is a free market economy in food ... I'm not sure how many times people have to witness a N. Korea or similar socialist famine to be relieved of the misconception that command economies are somehow more effective at feeding large numbers of people.

The break down of the monetary system is a separate effect but don't try and saddle the farmers who are actually trying to feed people, with the same failed fucked-up economic wonk theories that fucked-up the financial system.

Edit: ... and if you ever happen to end up in situation where you notice authorities are trying to fix food prices or command control over food distribution it is well time past to get out ...

While I agree with out in principle, people would start starving in a matter of days while a private supply system and transportation chain would take probably years to develop.

We don't have 'farmers' in the US.  We have multiple square mile farms owned by huge corporations and run by two guys and some GPS enabled tractor-like-things.  And these things consume a lot of diesel I might note.  With a failed monetary system stripping 99.5% of people any money they might have it is unlikely that said corporations would desire to feed people out of the goodness of their hearts.  And would be illegal besides under current corporate law.

I believe that the more senior of our leadership understands what would need to be done, and we see reflections of this in things like the NSA spying apparatus and other such clues.

For my part, I am adamantly against such control measures, but it is not because I don't believe that martial law and a command economy have no legitimate role in extreme circumstances.  In my case it is because I see a great danger that such 'solutions' will persist for much longer than they need to.

I think the assumption here is a continued race further away from market economy through the crisis. You can not simply snap your fingers and say: Now lets try the market, you know it worked well in the 1880's... There will be hordes of people who (rightly) regard themselves as victims, and they will probably not be interested in economic principles or other principles.

[oakpacific]

The only way to keep large numbers of urban people alive (in the absence of letters of credit for suppliers and what-not) would be a command economy managed by the state.

In fact this is completely incorrect. The best way to keep large numbers of urban people alive is a free market economy in food ... I'm not sure how many times people have to witness a N. Korea or similar socialist famine to be relieved of the misconception that command economies are somehow more effective at feeding large numbers of people.

The break down of the monetary system is a separate effect but don't try and saddle the farmers who are actually trying to feed people, with the same failed fucked-up economic wonk theories that fucked-up the financial system.

Edit: ... and if you ever happen to end up in situation where you notice authorities are trying to fix food prices or command control over food distribution it is well time past to get out ...

While I agree with out in principle, people would start starving in a matter of days while a private supply system and transportation chain would take probably years to develop.

We don't have 'farmers' in the US.  We have multiple square mile farms owned by huge corporations and run by two guys and some GPS enabled tractor-like-things.  And these things consume a lot of diesel I might note.  With a failed monetary system stripping 99.5% of people any money they might have it is unlikely that said corporations would desire to feed people out of the goodness of their hearts.  And would be illegal besides under current corporate law.

I believe that the more senior of our leadership understands what would need to be done, and we see reflections of this in things like the NSA spying apparatus and other such clues.

For my part, I am adamantly against such control measures, but it is not because I don't believe that martial law and a command economy have no legitimate role in extreme circumstances.  In my case it is because I see a great danger that such 'solutions' will persist for much longer than they need to.

I feel like that I am reading some Marxism textbooks, where capitalists are supposed to pour their milk stock into river when nobody is buying them, right?

[Erdogan]

[...]
I believe that the more senior of our leadership understands what would need to be done, and we see reflections of this in things like the NSA spying apparatus and other such clues.

For my part, I am adamantly against such control measures, but it is not because I don't believe that martial law and a command economy have no legitimate role in extreme circumstances.  In my case it is because I see a great danger that such 'solutions' will persist for much longer than they need to.

The world is looking for a strong leader in the crisis... how predictable. Another prediction: We will get our strong leader.

[justusranvier]

The sooner this generation of old control freak lunatics with delusions of grandeur passes on the better.

The entirety of the 20th century can be summarized thusly:

"That thing we just did to solve a problem, which immediately made the problem worse? Let's do more of it! Don't let the slightest bit of evidence or rationality distract you!"

[cypherdoc]

in the words of Chamath Palihapitiya, "this thing is gonna rip!"

that's almost as good as some of my memes  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUB1LfUzLI

I love this guy.

Thank you molecular

[tvbcof]

[...]
I believe that the more senior of our leadership understands what would need to be done, and we see reflections of this in things like the NSA spying apparatus and other such clues.

For my part, I am adamantly against such control measures, but it is not because I don't believe that martial law and a command economy have no legitimate role in extreme circumstances.  In my case it is because I see a great danger that such 'solutions' will persist for much longer than they need to.

The world is looking for a strong leader in the crisis... how predictable. Another prediction: We will get our strong leader.

That is a fair bet.  Usually it works out that way.  My biggest concern is that we will be able to get rid of him/her before he/she does as much damage as has been the case previously.

[manfred]

For my part, I am adamantly against such control measures, but it is not because I don't believe that martial law and a command economy have no legitimate role in extreme circumstances.  In my case it is because I see a great danger that such 'solutions' will persist for much longer than they need to.

Exactly, as history shows once an entity is in charge it will not give up power easily. So be prepared for a lifetime of military dictatorship. And no there is no escape strong hands will lead everywhere.

[marcus_of_augustus]

For my part, I am adamantly against such control measures, but it is not because I don't believe that martial law and a command economy have no legitimate role in extreme circumstances.  In my case it is because I see a great danger that such 'solutions' will persist for much longer than they need to.

Exactly, as history shows once an entity is in charge it will not give up power easily. So be prepared for a lifetime of military dictatorship. And no there is no escape strong hands will lead everywhere.

... yeah it's likely a quick descent into regionalism, fiefdoms and some modern form of warlords would develop quite quickly. If Washington loses control over the money then it's got pretty much noting left to offer the states except violent threats. Some analyses show US seceding into 5 or 6 large regional blocks with common aligned politics/interests, NW, SW, South, Midwest, NE and SE of maybe 5-10 states each.