Preparedness for when

moneyistooshorttomention

Frugalsod wrote: »

Cash will become even more valuable and what might cost you £100 of electronic money might only cost £80 of real money.

....and there was me thinking the going rate for paying in cash (or "real money" as you put it) was around 10% off...:cool::rotfl:

GreyQueen

The reaction of too many political and economic thinkers (and I use the term loosely and humourously) is that when something is shown to be ineffective, it isn't abandoned it is a) done more forcefully/ frequently and b) exported to other areas/ countries and done there. With equally poor results.

I have, as is my wont, managed to avoid several in-person blandishments to consume/ sign up with chuggers and a whole city centre's worth of artfully-designed retail opportunities. This is my normal behaviour, carefully honed by decades of skintness.

I know a lot of people who are avoiding non-essential spending in every possible aspect. This isn't because they're Mr/ Ms Tightwad, this is because rising costs of living aren't being met with rising earnings, so covering the essentials is harder each year.

At the moment, I am enjoying my broadband connection (half the price of the TV license I don't need for the TV I don't have) and getting a free hit of cannabis smoke drifting in thru my windows from my dope-smoking neighbours. The world is full of free kicks, if you but go about it the right way.

nuatha

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

Stock up on chocolate, tea and coffee I reckon in a barter society they'd be worth having in quantity, certainly tea would be the thing I missed most if it wasn't readily available to buy.

Its a bit of a trek but I could guarantee you a cup of tea Mrs L.
Reorganising stocks last night, I realised I may have slightly overstocked in some areas or I've laid in plenty of barterables.

[Deleted User]

YAY! THREE CHEERS FOR NUATHA (and his tea stocks!) great stuff, I think we could make it on foot, but it might take a while! Thank you, much appreciated!

Frugalsod

ivyleaf wrote: »

I have no idea what neoliberalism is. Nor, while i think of it, do I know what "neocons" are - neo-conservatives, I do know that, but I don't know what they are. It seems to be one of those expressions that the media simply assume everyone knows about.

This will give you a start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

It broadly covers all the mainstream political parties who have adopted laissez faire policies which have basically thrown everyone under the bus for the benefit of corporations.

The problem is that commentators like Zerohedge clearly have Austrian/Libertarian leanings and all the Austrians were panicking about hyper inflation when QE started, yet we still have no inflation. Then you hear them claim that QE causes deflation but they have the wrong mechanism so again they are on a wild goose chase.

Austrians typically use the household budget as an example but what works for households fails to work for countries collectively, and that is the big failing of governments to realise that. Many also want a return to the gold standard. Many think that there is central bank rigging of the gold market. There might be but banks trade on the volatility rather than any direction. It was the near collapse of a gold bank in London in the 1990's that lead to the sale of 300 tons of UK gold at the very lowest price to rescue the bank. Though that is never mentioned. I suspect that the banks this time have been making losses on gold trading which might be why so much gold is now in China.

Then there is the recovery or lack of it. This crisis was caused by private debt in the US sub prime market yet the solution is to deal with the government debt caused by the policy response to it. So virtually all economists are ignoring private debt and concentrating on public debt and then wonder why customers are not spending. They also see that the private sector as are loaded up with cash and expect consumers to be out shopping. Yet they again ignore the power balance between workers and companies. The fact is that thanks to the erosion of labour rights they do not have the economic power to get higher wages and be able to spend. The money is stuck in corporations with no way to boost wages. Which is another reason why capital investment by companies is so dire. Without customers buying there there is no reason to invest to boost production.

Then you will hear about the productivity puzzle. Why with lower unemployment is the productivity gap so wide. They completely miss that the high paid jobs from before the crisis have been replaced with low income self employment and zero hour jobs on minimum wage.

You will also hear comments about the dangers of big government and again quote Hayek's work Road to Serfdom is quoted as a reason for smaller government. Hayek was impacted by the soviet occupations and wrote the Road to Serfdom as a response. Though in his later years he also saw the same threat from a corporatist/fascist state but you almost never hear mention of that. It is pretty much like the claims that over spending by government to get the economy going is Keynesian policy, yet there are no Keynesians in government and none in central banks either, or have been since the 1980's. What they have adopted is one half of a definition, just like they have adopted one half of Hayeks work. What Keynes also said which is always ignored by most economists and all politicians is that when the good times are going governments have to apply counter cyclical policy to stop things getting out of hand and even having a budget surplus. Yet when have you ever seen that?

So while I look at the data I come to a very different conclusion to many zero hedge commentators.

Frugalsod

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

....and there was me thinking the going rate for paying in cash (or "real money" as you put it) was around 10% off...:cool::rotfl:

It could be anything. Until we have negative interest rates we will not know. As deflation rips through the economy they could continue to lower interest rates even further into negative territory.

jk0

GreyQueen wrote: »

At the moment, I am enjoying my broadband connection (half the price of the TV license I don't need for the TV I don't have) and getting a free hit of cannabis smoke drifting in thru my windows from my dope-smoking neighbours. The world is full of free kicks, if you but go about it the right way.

I'm just imagining the police raiding Shoebox Towers, and by the time they find the flat they were looking for, have completely forgotten why they are there.

GreyQueen

Talking to my parents (early-mid seventies) and others of that generation who came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, as well as their elders, it seems to me that we have reverted to the 1950s.

By which I mean that the financial rewards for work are just about sufficient to keep body and soul together, but are laughably inadequate to fund many of the consumerist habits which have only been possible in the last 40 years. You'll work, but you'll still have burger-all.

The difference being that there was plenty of work around in that era, including for the low-skilled and barely-educated, which is not the case today. But another thing is also lacking; as sense of optimism that things would slowly improve, as they had been improving.

I mooch around at the 'Edge and read things which interest me and speed-read the comments, which oscilate wildly from sublime to ridiculous with side excursions into obscenity and scatology. One thing which lodged in my mind was a bloke's remark that he looked around his home and realised that he couldn't afford to replace what he already owned.

That is a sobering thought, the realisation that you have slipped into a lower economic level than you formerly occupied and cannot hope to replace that appliance/ whatever when it goes the way of all flesh.

I think a lot of ordinary people are running on fumes, hanging on to car ownership, and a number of other practices, by their fingernails. Very many of the things/ services etc being consumed are non-essentials and can easily be discarded. The consequences for that, for those whose livelihood is reliant on the fluffier parts of the economy, will be serious.

GreyQueen

jk0 wrote: »

I'm just imagining the police raiding Shoebox Towers, and by the time they find the flat they were looking for, have completely forgotten why they are there.

Yeah, the stoners seem to be nose-blind and have no clue about how far the reek of cannabis travels. There's a newborn babe in that flat, too.

Frugalsod

As I did foresee the long term impact well ahead of everyone I made huge changes to my lifestyle. My utilities were always low because I was frugal but I changed my cooking significantly. It was concern over what was in food that made me switch to making things from scratch. So I switched to mincing my own meat long before the horse meat scandal. Same with bread.

For example, today I have made two large trifles for about £2.20 whereas smaller ones in the shops will be £3 each. I even make the trifle bases from Victoria sponge mix. Tinned fruit and jelly topped with double cream and that is all I have to spend. All these savings are adding up. Any ready meal has lots of profit for the supermarkets and so by making from scratch instead, you can avoid paying out over the odds for your food. I will still raid the bargain bin if I see something for 10p or less but no more £5 pizza from the supermarket or take aways. I even make my own pizzas from scratch and they are nicer than the ready made as they have no additives. My salt levels have fallen considerably as well, because by making everything myself I know how much salt is used. Same for sugar.

Last month I discovered a trick to make peanut butter. It is easy. I have been experimenting and I can make a small tub for pennies in five minutes. It also eliminates the added sugar that is used by manufacturers. All these things take time to implement but over time I keep reducing cost of living and so keep increasing my ability to cope with any potential changes.