Preparedness for when

Frugalsod

Perplexed_Pineapple wrote: »

Has anyone seen this?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-09/all-over-america-government-officials-are-cracking-down-preppers
It's a bit OTT in the general message I thought, but I found the section about woodstoves interesting. Does anybody know whether there are restrictions on emissions from woodstoves sold here? Wouldn't it partly depend on the fuel you were burning (different types of wood) and how well it was seasoned anyway? I'm trying to learn more about this, a woodstove or multi-fuel stove is on our wishlist,

The real reason for this is maintain profits for utilities, who are big political contributors. If people can live off grid that reduces profits for the companies.

Perplexed_Pineapple wrote: »

Frugalsod, that's a good thought about cash held by solicitors, I don't know what could be done about that, nothing I expect. It might be best if buying a house to sell first and move into a rented place for a short while, then at least if a house purchase falls through at the last minute you aren't homeless. It would cost a bit more (although not much in the scheme of a house move) and might be worth it for peace of mind. Although then there is the risk of having the cash in your own account for longer (unless you keep the house deposit in used 20s under the mattress :rotfl:)

Selling first and renting still creates the problem of what to do with the money once you have sold your home? Yes you could rent but if the banks are bailed in before you buy somewhere else? You are still renting and with no money to buy anywhere else. That was why I think that buying or selling a home would be risky if the banks are in trouble, it also could strike very rapidly and at anytime. Once the banks collapse property values will shrink anyway so you would be able to buy more with your money if you have any. Rents will collapse as well, which will !!!!!! many buy to let investors plans. It will be even worse if they have any debts attached to those properties.

Frugalsod

GreyQueen wrote: »

:mad: I was rather cross the other day at getting door-stepped by chuggers, the Red Cross, this time. I know they're mostly students, that they get given a 'patch' and left to get on with it, but I do feel that this borders on unacceptable behaviour on behalf of charities. Imagine how uncomfortable my immediate neighbours will feel (one big issue seller who's just got re-housed from a hostel, another bloke with a pregnant g/f who got laid off his job the week before Xmas).

Those of us who work aren't exactly on Easy Street and those who aren't working are struggling to get by. This ward is officially classified as deprived, I do think charities ought to check on that and not send chuggers to the impoverished places. *rant over*

You are probably aware that the poor are far more charitable than the rich. As a percentage of income the poor are much more generous so it does make sense in a way.

GreyQueen

Yes, I can recall reading at the time of the Cyprus bail-in about one British expat woman who had just sold her house over there, so that there was a temporary balance in excess of 100,000 euro which brought her into the frame for having her account bailed-in, even though it would normally have been in that account only a week or so before being moved back to Blighty. She was in a very bad position, don't know how that panned out for her long term.:(

I would think that if there was a financial crisis active, persons who were in process of transactions but not legally committed beyond no return would probably stop what they were doing and sit on their hands and wait to see what happened. Some cynics might even hope to be able to pick up assets for pennies on the pound in the future.

If people don't trust the currency, what is the value of items denominated in that currency? If an estate agent values your home at £200,000 but the currency is hyper-inflating, what would you do? I suspect things to seize up, at least for a while, in a financial crisis.

The value of something is subjective not objective, and that's something which not everyone can get their heads around.

ETA Frugalsod, I'm well-aware that the poor consistantly donate more than the rich, perhaps you have to have been hard-up to experience true empathy. But I think about those neighbours where he lost his work the week before Xmas and she'll have to give up hers shortly, baby due in 4 months. Don't expect they feel very happy or safe or likely to sign up to a DD, as opposed to finding a stray £1 for a charity tin. Or the bloke on the other side who sells the big issue and who just go housed as few weeks ago from the hostel, he's only just getting by.

I detest this bringing of long-term financial charitable commitments to people's doors. There you are on the evening or weekend, minding your business, and there they are, often hunting in pairs, badgering you at your door.

mardatha

Never had that GQ, and don't want it either. They'd get a sharp answer if they came to my door.

ivyleaf

Perplexed_Pineapple wrote: »

Interesting jk0 and a big chunk of the cash withdrawal was after Christmas so it can't all be Christmas shopping. I really hope the Greeks tell the EU where to go. They have really been exploited, right from the moment that the EU turned a blind eye to their economic problems to get them into the Euro.

Just to point out that the Greeks celebrate Christmas later than we do, as they have the Greek Orthodox church. This year their Christmas was on 7th January.

Frugalsod

GreyQueen wrote: »

Yes, I can recall reading at the time of the Cyprus bail-in about one British expat woman who had just sold her house over there, so that there was a temporary balance in excess of 100,000 euro which brought her into the frame for having her account bailed-in, even though it would normally have been in that account only a week or so before being moved back to Blighty. She was in a very bad position, don't know how that panned out for her long term.:(

I would think that if there was a financial crisis active, persons who were in process of transactions but not legally committed beyond no return would probably stop what they were doing and sit on their hands and wait to see what happened. Some cynics might even hope to be able to pick up assets for pennies on the pound in the future.

If people don't trust the currency, what is the value of items denominated in that currency? If an estate agent values your home at £200,000 but the currency is hyper-inflating, what would you do? I suspect things to seize up, at least for a while, in a financial crisis.

The value of something is subjective not objective, and that's something which not everyone can get their heads around.

It is something that the vast majority of the public have not grasped yet.

My concerns about property transactions during an unstable time is not about the actual transaction but who gets bailed in. It is like a nasty game of pass the parcel. Who ever is left holding the money when the music stops gets bailed in. So from a buyers perspective they want to complete as fast as possible. They have the money now and so would want to complete as fast as possible to avoid themselves being bailed in.

Once the transaction is completed the property is theirs and if it falls in value it is more likely a lot less than a bail in that they would have suffered. The problem now becomes the sellers, so once the transaction is completed the seller has to get the money out of the banking system as fast as possible. Now they could use it to clear debts and mortgages so could be fine. Though if they and still holding the money before that has happened they could be bailed in so have no money but still owe on the mortgage and could also without the property.

Also the risks of hyper inflating are wrong. Once the debt bubble bursts the value of assets of all kinds including gold will plummet. Cash will be more valuable as long as it is not in the banking system and so at risk of a bail in. Look how wrong most bloggers and economists have been over the last 7 years. The economy was supposed to be roaring ahead by now and the deficit would be gone. Yet the government have had to push back the deadline for fiscal balance every year. They are also wildly out on their calculations of what the deficit would be by now, that they do not even mention it in absolute terms only in percentage terms.

The problem for most people is that they take the zero hedge data as gospel and also the largely Austrian analysis as correct. While the data is fine the interpretation of it is rubbish most of the time. Look how often they criticise Keynesian policies yet most governments have been running a variation of Monetarist policy since 1979. They claim that loose monetarist policy is enough to dominate tight fiscal policy and create plenty of inflation to inflate away the debt problem. Yet trillions of QE later and the world is still mired in debt, and falling inflation is everywhere and the Eurozone now in deflation even though parts have been deflating for 6 years now. The UK is not really helping most people because they are being squeezed by the fight fiscal policy and austerity and are not benefiting from the loose monetary policy and zero interest rates.

If you are looking at the wrong problem (government debts) then you are not going to fix the real problems (private debts and lousy economic activity.) You would have thought that by now someone high up would have realised that. :mad:

Karmacat

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

My principle in life is don't go in without finding out where and how the way out is!!! Don't let your guard and vigilance slip for a second and always keep your eyes wide open and peeled to spot something wrong/out of place/ where it shouldn't be and don't be worried about flagging it up to the security man, it's what he's paid to do and he like you would rather be safe than sorry, in fact him probably more than you because he's there all the time! No guarantee that you won't be caught up in an 'event' but might just stop one from happening if you act first.

I used a security phone on a London tube platform one evening, thought I had to describe where I was so they could get to the dodgy parcel I'd seen ... and the guy said "yes I know where you are, I can see you" I had to leap on my train then, but I said to them, if I read of a problem in the papers, I'll get back in touch with you fortunately there wasn't!

GreyQueen wrote: »

I detest this bringing of long-term financial charitable commitments to people's doors. There you are on the evening or weekend, minding your business, and there they are, often hunting in pairs, badgering you at your door.

UNICEF, of all the organisations that might do this, knocked on my door the other evening - two of them, as you describe, GQ. I told them truthfully that I never, ever give to any organisation that invades my privacy in this way, and shut the door.

GreyQueen

How does the saying have it; the markets can remain irrational longer that you can remain solvent?

Looking at the history of the well-named 'dismal science' of economics, I can see that none of them, whatever their affiliation, have a clue how to get out of this without blood on the streets. And that has been the case for decades, not just in the past 7 years.

There is a lot of financialisation frothing on the top of the world's economies without any substance behind it. Why produce goods and services, how gauche is that when you could be developing some nice CDS to bamboozle the investors? Charles Ponzi would be weeping with joy should he be alive to see it. So much bubble-fuelled hot money trying to purchase wealth-producing assets and instruments, and ramping everything higher before the fall.

Trouble is with bubbles is they pop, and usually with minimal or no warning, then the investors (which includes all of us who hold pensions and other financial products) are left in the brown stuff.

Tangibles, like sturdy houses which you can afford to live in, will retain utility-value, even if their money-value fluctuates wildly. Likewise some portables, like the precious metals, will hold some money-value; they've held some money-value for millennia already and I can't see that changing in the future.

If it goes t*ts up, would you rather have a krugerrand in your pocket or an armful of designer clothes which lost most of their money-value the moment you bought them? I own neither, but if I were to make a choice, I'd choose the round shiny golden thing, and let it lie quietly until needed, even if the need was a generation or two hence.

smileyt_2

Frugalsod please could you explain what bail in is, please? Is it the freezing of bank accounts by the government? Would it be everyone's account, even people like me who only have a couple of hundred pounds to their name? :eek:

nuatha

smileyt wrote: »

Frugalsod please could you explain what bail in is, please? Is it the freezing of bank accounts by the government? Would it be everyone's account, even people like me who only have a couple of hundred pounds to their name? :eek:

The last round of bank troubles were addressed by a government bail out - ie the government used tax payers money to prop the banks up. Future bank problems are to be addressed with the opposite approach, a proportion of customer deposits will be seized and used to sort the the same problem. The initial proposal for Cypress was a percentage from every account, the eventual solution was a percentage from every account with a balance in excess of €100K if memory serves. Its also been referred to as a haircut.
HTH