Get Rich During SHTF

[irishfan]

Interesting views some people have. I prefer the out of sight out of mind idea in SHTF

 

[Bunnykid68]

Interesting views some people have. I prefer the out of sight out of mind idea in SHTF

I love that idea and that is why it sucks to live in a well populated neighborhood

 

[kml]

Very good question..... Assuming a real collapse and not simply the "end of the month as we know it" like a localized natural disaster that will re-stabilize. The way I see it, much to the dismay of the "lone wolf" crowd, you will most likely have to interact with other people and barter will be a big part of it. There is real danger in setting others against you through greed, either theirs or yours. People knowing you have more than them WILL make you a target, especially early on. As things sort themselves out it will be a balancing act. No matter how well prepared, there will eventually be things you need and the same will be true of the others that are still around. Circumstance and dumb luck will have as much to do with success as wit and cunning. This is where having the skills and resources to sustain your needs with surplus will be the key and barter will be a way of life.

And that brings up an even tougher question. Depending on the particulars of the SHTF situation early on there will be people (mostly around the cities but some everywhere) that will be in desperate need but will have neither the means to take or trade for what they need. Though you can't feed the world there will be tough choices ahead. I have a few elderly neighbors that, though they don't know it, are in my "figurin" for food and what not. Now if others start coming around hungry and scared..Well, logically I know the answer to that question but truth is, until they're standing in front of you, you won't really know. That's why one of my BIG priorities is keeping a pretty tight lid on what I have.


As far as gold/silver and other forms of money... I had the privilege of a front row seat to Haiti's self destruction in the 90's. That experience changed many of my views about what was important if things ever went south here. I don't try to change anyone else's mind as most have already decided how they will handle the crash of our civilization and it usually resembles something out of mad max. If the U.S. does collapse maybe that is how it'll play out but what I saw was not quite like that.

There was no shortage of violence and mayhem but the majority of the jockeying for position happened pretty darned fast. It started out strong for the first week and a half and then tapered with occasional flare-ups finally settling out in a little over a month. During that time it was a free for all. TV's, computers, jewelry,cars, money, etc. were all hot items, again, for about a month! For the years that followed, if it didn't help you survive or decrease your misery that day no one had much interest. A used pair of shoes would get you farther in a barter than a fist full of money. A bottle of asprin? that would cause a riot.

There has to be a viable infrastructure for any form of money to be useful. Haiti still had a government of sorts but the people had destroyed the banks and stores in the first few weeks trying to get what they could. Any supplies that hit the shores were looted, destroyed or simply "disappeared". The people that had what little was there simply took what they liked and used it for control over those without. Money was essentially useless to both sides. Again, it took years for that to change even with massive outside assistance. From what I've heard it was very similar in Somolia, but I haven't been there personally.

Haiti and the U.S. are very different so what I saw may not have much validity. I do sometimes start to wonder if it would be a little more civilized here, then I see the news showing a mob running around wrecking, stealing, and burning crap because "their" team won or lost some game..and I order another case of ammunition and some more seeds.

There are some possible SHTF situations where money and PMs would be useful but dozens where they wouldn't. If you have the resources to hedge your bets and add stockpiling money to your plan, great. But to do so at the expense of things that would be valuable/useful in almost all SHTF scenarios isn't looking like a good bet to me.

Again, to each their own. I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do. Just sharing my thoughts on the subject.

Now for the important stuff..Does this count as a "quality post"? If so, forget being able to use the classifieds, how many do I need before I find out what the he!! is up with all this talk about BACON?

 

[Hoosier8]

22 ammo would be good as cash.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What is missing from this discussion is that the people in need of your stuff (food, firearms, ammo, etc) WILL HAVE NOTHING OF ANY VALUE TO TRADE FOR YOUR STUFF.

Unless you are relying on food packaged to last 20 years past the second coming of Christ, if you have a reliable food supply, it necessarily must be from a sustainable regenerating source (i.e., gardening/farming) which requires labor. Making someone work for what he receives is a time-honored tradition for which we have to prepare our own invoice to pay the .gov every April 15. Even if someone shows up with nothing but what he is wearing, as previously mentioned, there are still tasks he can perform to increase production and/or reduce the workload on Yours Truly.

Indydave 1776, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Not really. Something which has been smoldering in the back of your mind for 20 years is really a low-maintenance stream of thought. I which I had so much free time as you assume I do.

Interesting, but contradictory. You said; "those that aren't prepared will get what they get." And then you said its wrong to make money selling life saving stuff to these people. Indicating that we should help. Kind of the opposite. Which is it?

Also, you are assuming the cost would be ridiculously high. I don't think that has been implied. The "getting rich" could be providing a large amount of goods to large amounts of people at a fair price. Or do you think the stuff should only be given away?

You are assuming that people would die without the seller's food. I suggest that even in a non SHTF situation this is true. If I don't have food, I die. If I want food, I have to pay for it. Does the relationship between buyer and seller change simply because the SHTF? If anything the law of supply and demand states that every piece if food becomes more valuable and thus increases in price.

Now, if the post was about forcing people into immoral acts or slavery for food I would agree with you. I just don't see why asking value for value is wrong? I don't think you have made a figment argument that demonstrates why this is wrong.

Very well said. I must add, however, that expecting people to work in exchange for something they do not otherwise possess the wealth to purchase does not constitute slavery any more than does having a job right now. In fact, it is the same thing only without fiat cash, and without regulations, and without taxes.

You can't eat gold, burn gold or shoot it. Its going to be a hard life in USA and what we considered wealth will not mean much. Its going to be a barter society.

Mostly correct with one significant exception. One of the fears in years past regarding the gun grabbers was an effort to regulate lead out of our reach by virtue of being dangerous to the environment which would leave us with gold as the only metal sufficiently dense and malleable enough to construct a correctly-functioning bullet, thus pricing ammunition out of our reach.

So I need a shot shell to feed my family and you are "where" exactly when we meet and you hold my family's nutrition ransom? A booth on the side of the road? At your home? In some kind of flea market set up after shtf for people like yourself?

Not a realistic situation at all. Between having to defend one's home and family and having to work the farm in order to continue eating, a roadside stand, flea market, or space at Circle Center Mall are not realistic. In practice, you will be dealing with people who turn up incidentally, not from making yourself what the marketing people call a destination. In a SHTF, you will have people leaving the cities, but generally they will diffuse as they leave rather than travelling in an organized column meaning that most rural dwellers will see them in incidental numbers. Sure, there will be raiding parties, but we have ways of dealing with that as well.

Interesting views some people have. I prefer the out of sight out of mind idea in SHTF

Partially workable. I don't advocate hanging out a shingle, but there is nowhere relevant to us in which you are really going to be able to hide. It isn't advisable to advertise or run gensets (at least not without really good mufflers), but then again, being truly secret does not strike me as realistically doable.

Very good question.....

Not only is this a quality post, it is one of the highest quality posts I have seen in a while. Very well said! While it contained a great deal of good information, perhaps the most significant single point is that it is likely not possible to simply retreat into the bunker and wait for it to blow over, and consequently interaction will be unavoidable.

 

[Bunnykid68]

2 of the last 3 post were entirely too long

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Whatever I have when the lights go out, I am going to invest it in my people.

If my family has enough to stay healthy and strong and defend ourselves, that makes me wealthy. Silver and gold are valuable to me only to the extent they advance that goal.

My wealth is in my people.


(By "my people" I'm referring to probably a few hundred or so people, we had more than 50 for thanksgiving and that is just most of my sibling's kids and a few cousins/aunts/uncles. It might work or might not, but I figure I'm winning or losing with these people either way. I don't see a way I can win where they lose and if they win, I can die and it's worth it.)

 

[irishfan]

I will give my opinion here since so many have but it is mine and feel free to agree or disagree. Ok, I am a capitalist to the core so I believe that you have the right to profit from your goods during a time of crisis just as you can during a time of peace. Now, there is a line between profiteering and gouging as you have goods that are in high demand and for the most part only a limited supply so you need to acquire as much as you can in goods or services to cover the items you are giving up.

If you have the awareness and thought to put back food and supplies for your family and decide that you have extra to trade or sell to better you situation then I don't see a problem with it. If you have a neighbor that values their Escalade or multiple vacations a year more then their own self preservation of putting back some extra items then it is not your fault. Also, if you are offering a trade of simple items for something more desired by you such as a electronic device or another item that is not a life threatening or saving item then what is the harm? Now, on the other side of the equation if you are wanting to withhold something minor to you that could save the life of a neighbors child or a person you once called friend then you are getting into a whole new category at that point.

If you are looking to become a person that capitalizes on the suffering of others around you then that is just following the same criteria that has made many in this country rich. However, don't be surprised that during a SHTF situation when your house is set on fire if those same neighbors don't watch you lose it all so that you can be the one doing the suffering instead of them. Also, if you decide to make getting rich your priority then don't be surprised if you don't find yourself alone in the end without anyone to help you or watch your back when you sleep. It is a slippery slope without a doubt between profit and gouging and I prefer to avoid it all together.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I will give my opinion here since so many have but it is mine and feel free to agree or disagree. Ok, I am a capitalist to the core so I believe that you have the right to profit from your goods during a time of crisis just as you can during a time of peace. Now, there is a line between profiteering and gouging as you have goods that are in high demand and for the most part only a limited supply so you need to acquire as much as you can in goods or services to cover the items you are giving up.

If you have the awareness and thought to put back food and supplies for your family and decide that you have extra to trade or sell to better you situation then I don't see a problem with it. If you have a neighbor that values their Escalade or multiple vacations a year more then their own self preservation of putting back some extra items then it is not your fault. Also, if you are offering a trade of simple items for something more desired by you such as a electronic device or another item that is not a life threatening or saving item then what is the harm? Now, on the other side of the equation if you are wanting to withhold something minor to you that could save the life of a neighbors child or a person you once called friend then you are getting into a whole new category at that point.

If you are looking to become a person that capitalizes on the suffering of others around you then that is just following the same criteria that has made many in this country rich. However, don't be surprised that during a SHTF situation when your house is set on fire if those same neighbors don't watch you lose it all so that you can be the one doing the suffering instead of them. Also, if you decide to make getting rich your priority then don't be surprised if you don't find yourself alone in the end without anyone to help you or watch your back when you sleep. It is a slippery slope without a doubt between profit and gouging and I prefer to avoid it all together.

Fair enough, but I still don't understand why refusing to operate at a net loss immediately leads into wailing and gnashing of teeth about 'gouging' or fails to account for the fact that at least half of those neighbors would try to take by force rather than honest means without any such incentive for doing so.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Personally, I'd like to be completely off the grid.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Personally, I'd like to be completely off the grid.

Amen to that

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Fair enough, but I still don't understand why refusing to operate at a net loss immediately leads into wailing and gnashing of teeth about 'gouging' or fails to account for the fact that at least half of those neighbors would try to take by force rather than honest means without any such incentive for doing so.

Some people just tend to wail and nash.

I don't presume to dictate what others do with their property and would appreciate the same courtesy (but all the guns, ammo and shooters are plan B).

 

[irishfan]

Fair enough, but I still don't understand why refusing to operate at a net loss immediately leads into wailing and gnashing of teeth about 'gouging' or fails to account for the fact that at least half of those neighbors would try to take by force rather than honest means without any such incentive for doing so.

I never said anything about operating at a loss or not making a profit. My only point is that the line between profit and gouging can get fuzzy when it is done to much in a certain situation. Also, the large profit you make on a persons suffering today could cost you greatly tomorrow. There are several shops that I will NEVER set foot in again and a couple are sponsors here but due to their policy or acts during a previous situation they will never see my money.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Personally, I'd like to be completely off the grid.

That is a great goal, and necessary if you are going to make it when there is no functioning grid. While I have been taking on the image of the heartless robber baron wannabe, one of the problem issues I see is that it is nearly impossible to go completely stealth so far as the people around you are concerned. I suppose if you want to construct a 'root/storm cellar' and when things get bad, hunker down and hope your 5 year supply of MREs doesn't run out, you are going to be visible, at least to the alert observer and must be prepared to defend yourself if necessary, but will likely have reason to engage in some form of trade.

 

[Whitsettd8]

Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay/trade for it. If Indy goes to a local trade market with some highly desirable excess trade items it's obviously in his best interest to get the best trade in his favor. Capitalism in it's simplest form. Now take it to the extreme where Indy shows up to a crowd of starving people with a tractor trailer piled to the ceiling with food, goods and hygiene products and demands everyones first born child for a package of Ramen noodles then yeah things are gonna get ugly. As many have mentioned there is a fine line. Should Indy exchange items for his investment cost; no it makes no sense unless he needs something else. If I give Indy a Glock for a $1 is he obligated to sell it for a dollar? Hell $5 would be a 500% markup no he's gonna sell it at market value. Even in a collapse everything will have a market value.

At what percentage markup does something become gouged?
I sold a few guns off during the Sandy Hook panic. People paid exorbitant prices I was completely amazed did I gouge no. I listed items on GunBroker set very reasonable reserves and let capitalism take over. Does it make me a bad guy , maybe? I didn't advertise 200% markups people willingly bid it there.
So Indy if your wanting to turn profit I guess it would be in your best interest to hire an auctioneer and do it anonymously.

 

[BigMatt]

Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay/trade for it. If Indy goes to a local trade market with some highly desirable excess trade items it's obviously in his best interest to get the best trade in his favor. Capitalism in it's simplest form. Now take it to the extreme where Indy shows up to a crowd of starving people with a tractor trailer piled to the ceiling with food, goods and hygiene products and demands everyones first born child for a package of Ramen noodles then yeah things are gonna get ugly. As many have mentioned there is a fine line. Should Indy exchange items for his investment cost; no it makes no sense unless he needs something else. If I give Indy a Glock for a $1 is he obligated to sell it for a dollar? Hell $5 would be a 500% markup no he's gonna sell it at market value. Even in a collapse everything will have a market value.

At what percentage markup does something become gouged?
I sold a few guns off during the Sandy Hook panic. People paid exorbitant prices I was completely amazed did I gouge no. I listed items on GunBroker set very reasonable reserves and let capitalism take over. Does it make me a bad guy , maybe? I didn't advertise 200% markups people willingly bid it there.
So Indy if your wanting to turn profit I guess it would be in your best interest to hire an auctioneer and do it anonymously.

This is what I was getting at. Very well said.

I would just like to add a video that has been posted on the forum many times.

[video=youtube;R6ojYtKazgQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6ojYtKazgQ[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

That is a great goal, and necessary if you are going to make it when there is no functioning grid. While I have been taking on the image of the heartless robber baron wannabe, one of the problem issues I see is that it is nearly impossible to go completely stealth so far as the people around you are concerned. I suppose if you want to construct a 'root/storm cellar' and when things get bad, hunker down and hope your 5 year supply of MREs doesn't run out, you are going to be visible, at least to the alert observer and must be prepared to defend yourself if necessary, but will likely have reason to engage in some form of trade.

Well, I'm pretty country. If I could make it back home, either to my families properties in Alabama or Arkansas, I could be completely self-sufficent, and completely "off the grid," with only my weirdo family members to deal with. if someone dared to set foot on the "settlement," (and yes, it's REALLY called that), they may be in for a Deliverance flashback.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, I'm pretty country. If I could make it back home, either to my families properties in Alabama or Arkansas, I could be completely self-sufficent, and completely "off the grid," with only my weirdo family members to deal with. if someone dared to set foot on the "settlement," (and yes, it's REALLY called that), they may be in for a Deliverance flashback.

What if he is the head of a hungry household and wants to trade you a butter churn you need to replace the one that got dropped and broken in exchange for a chicken and a sack of vegetables? It is necessary to be so harsh when everyone can walk away from the encounter better off than he had been at the beginning?

 

[ar15_dude]

Unless you are relying on food packaged to last 20 years past the second coming of Christ, if you have a reliable food supply, it necessarily must be from a sustainable regenerating source (i.e., gardening/farming) which requires labor. Making someone work for what he receives is a time-honored tradition for which we have to prepare our own invoice to pay the .gov every April 15. Even if someone shows up with nothing but what he is wearing, as previously mentioned, there are still tasks he can perform to increase production and/or reduce the workload on Yours Truly.

I appreciate your benevolence (allowing people to earn what you give them), but my experience is that most people are worthless to do honest work. Start with the total population, and subtract those that are lazy, used to free gubiment handouts, those without skills, without muscle, with a bad attitude, those that are inherently dishonest and there are very few people left. I have participated in "community service events", and it was shocking how few young people have any kind of work ethic, let alone practical work experience. Most stood around until asked to do something, and then quickly stopped trying.

So go for it, but just like a cat, if you feed someone and let them hang out at your place, they become attached to you, for better or worse. And they may like what they see, and take what they "need". Better to keep unknown people away from you and yours IMO.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I appreciate your benevolence (allowing people to earn what you give them), but my experience is that most people are worthless to do honest work. Start with the total population, and subtract those that are lazy, used to free gubiment handouts, those without skills, without muscle, with a bad attitude, those that are inherently dishonest and there are very few people left. I have participated in "community service events", and it was shocking how few young people have any kind of work ethic, let alone practical work experience. Most stood around until asked to do something, and then quickly stopped trying.

So go for it, but just like a cat, if you feed someone and let them hang out at your place, they become attached to you, for better or worse. And they may like what they see, and take what they "need". Better to keep unknown people away from you and yours IMO.

Being off the beaten path and not hanging out a shingle should weed out most of the problem. Lazy people won't hike that far. Still, given that it is impossible to be invisible while operating the farm, some people are going to notice it. My take on it is that someone who made it that far would probably be in the upper 50% anyway. I would also surmise that most people in the upper 50% are going to be more pliable to exploring new types of personal effort in preference to hunger. Generally, I am expecting to encounter more people who got up, went to work, et cetera, who didn't see such circumstances coming than welfare wastrels. As for people being like cats, it has also occurred to me that I might want some of them to stay around. As for the others who are either insistent on being useless or else are dangerous, we have ways of dealing with that as well.

I am not sure how to understand the reference to benevolence, but I believe that welfare demonstrates how poisonous handouts are (as you expanded upon nicely). In reality, this strikes me as a perfect way to be prepared for the likelihood of more people turning up over time and building a sustainable system rather than having to make a decision between whether a starving stranger is going to eat as my nieces and nephews do without or vice versa, given that the greater the demand on the system, the more labor input is required.