Where to go...where not to go...

[Atash Hagmahani]

http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/big-picture/2011/11/05/02/erik-townsend/a-peak-oil-journey-around-the-world-best-places-to-live

Erik Townsend likes resource-producing countries, like Chile and Australia, and also countries whose populations are not hostile to those who are well-off, like Thailand.

He is wary of Brazil for having a reputation for hostility to the prosperous. I've heard similar impressions elsewhere. However Brazil is VERY resource-rich. I've heard it would be a good place to hang out in a global crisis because you're unlikely to starve to death. (Instead, you'll get kidnapped and held for ransom, or die in the cross-fire from rival gangs.  ). Also heard that it's easy to run a business there.

One strategy I've heard is to not live IN Brazil but near it, in a country that is a trading partner.

But Mr. Townsend is wary of Argentina because he says the infrastructure is breaking down and the corrupt government is unable to do anything to reverse the situation. He says Chile in much better shape.

One interesting thing about Chile is that a lot of crops I already have would grow fine there: the climate is very similar at similar latitudes. Eastern side of Chiloe Island would be very similar.

Also horrific earthquakes to remind me of home.  Except more often, and even harder. One of the most active seismic zones on earth.

One thing that troubles me about Oz is lack of much water. Tasmania is rainy, and so are a few areas here and there on the eastern and western coasts, but most of the rest rather dry. There are some other issues too.

These are places not to be:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/b3-vwYJiD8g?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/b3-vwYJiD8g?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US</a>

The author's list makes sense to me, though I do not think Yisrael is under any real threat from its neighbors--it is too heavily armed, and besides they'll have their own problems--instead it will run into the problem that they can't eat or drink thermonuclear weapons. None of its current aggressive foreign policy objectives will save it--if anything they are a catastrophic distraction.

Los Angeles does not strike me as being in imminent danger, but the whole southwest is too dry and too unsustainable, plus California is bankrupt and the state government corrupt beyond belief.

"If food and fuel can not get in, what about Prozac?"

England...yes, I thought of that myself. The country has had a massive chronic trade deficit since before I was born, like us has negligible productive capacity but even worse than us has very little agricultural capacity, and even if they planted every seed in every spare centimeter they could find the ratio of population to arable land is VERY high plus they've squandered too much land for other purposes. Crime is reputedly out-of-control.

London will be hell. Get out.

New York? That one scares me too--densely-populated islands, hard to evacuate in an emergency. If financial system breaks down, then yes its economy breaks down. Glad Lilya and Yaromir are out of there.

Not sure Washington DC particularly dangerous, aside from chronic crime. Not convinced it would lose control. It might even go the other way: like Moscow in the soviet union or Mexico City in Mexico, when capital is being depleted, remaining resources tend to concentrate in the power centers. I think this is in fact what we are already seeing, and the reason that D.C. is so overblown and getting more so.

What about Chicago? Most of its manufacturing gone, commodities trading might become superfluous if finance crumbles, under corrupt and inefficient state and local governments, taxes too high. Crime has gotten very bad there in recent decades.

[silverseeds]

  I disagree with the idea of assuming the types of places highlighted are the best ones to go to. we dont know fully what the future holds of course, but lets say our fragile food system collapses. we have nearly 7 billion humans on earth. 300 million in our country. In such an event we would have million of mobile people seeking out food. they will go where they assume food will be assuming there is not some network in place offering atleast sustenance level provisions. This is a very possible scenario, and if it came to pass the last place you would want to be is where people think there is food, you will be over run.

    Many sources will look very low towards where i live, and many scenarios this can be true, no doubt... yet in many, there will be a mass exodus from this area. even without that, there is a massive amount of land per person, if things are bad enough society is breaking down, it would be even more so where food is plentiful because of the influx of people. Im not sure why people dont account for this, they just write it off as if lack of gasoline will stop people from doing this. It sure never did in the past. hinder it at best. So if society isnt bad enough there is such an exodus people will seek answers... and much of the south west has plenty, especially the high desert where droughts like in texas dont really happen. There are more then enough wells to provide enough water to grow, and that isnt even needed with the right knowledge. such knowledge would spread fast in many scenarios. there are way to many variables to gauge actually. but with just the resources available locally where I live if managed well (not that it is likely) many multiples more people could prosper then are actually here. That doesnt even include the superior farming methods and the like. Of course it does include ranchers sharing their herds until a new paradigm is established....

      I can think of 100 scenarios based on possible future variables that simply cannot be fully accounted for until it happens, but especially the high desert south west I think fares as well through as many possible futures as the area of the country many others point to. People assume some areas might grow food better, or have a better economy... will that hold true with mass influxes of people? something that is likely whether things get rougher OR truly fall apart?  when people gauge these things they seem to assign many values to things they feel are likely without taking many things into account.

       It would take me many pages but I can think of many values to assign various possible outcomes with different variables. I strongly disagree that you should go to places most point to. Those are the last places i would go. Much wise to know how to make do in a place people are more likely to flee from, especially one that has a lot of resources and un tapped potentials such as the high desert. Land and taxes are very cheap here for another thing. Im still building on the homestead, but once that is in place building up a business from the soil itself will only take work and some time, very little capitol.... shouldnt be hard to find workers. All raw materials needed are available locally.

         The compartmentalization of modern society could easily make even very wet fertile areas hard to grow food even ignoring the influx of people likely to happen.   So the south west isnt at as severe disadvantage there as it look like on the surface in this regard. the learning curve wont be much harder here actually, even without more obscure things like I do.... will also be easier to get land, something most anyone here can do if they try. nearly everyone knows someone or is related to someone with a large parcel. cattle are everywhere... so if people only know the basics... most should be able to grow, there are lots of wells. generators are common (to power wells) because people already are used to managing without the grid.

     Really i could go on with many variables but im not convincing anyone... Ill stop 

[Beeherder]

  Hi SS,

 Can i sing in your choir? You do not need to convince me, i'm in the same chapter of a similar book but you have a much more developed system than what is in place here. I suspect that half of my neighbors will leave here looking for "greener pastures" elsewhere under most collapse scenarios. This is both a threat and an opportunity because the ones who leave are the ones whose expectations are most out of line with reality right here. With them gone, restrictions on livestock will relax and this valley (1500 acres +/-) could be very productive.

Most of those fleeing rural areas going to the cities or densely populated areas will meet an ever increasing threat of violence and lack of resources. In some scenarios the flow will quickly change directions and the populations will flee the cities. About 5 years ago there was an interview with a 90+ year old survivor of WW-2, who laughed at the idea food could be hidden from "the golden horde". She then described the roaming bands taking anything and everything saying her friends/family survived by knowing which small fields had unharvested root crops that were not obvious food. She described it as impossible to resist their invasions because there were so many people. Makes me wonder if the armies were herding the civilians.

Survival may depend on not being noticed. Hmmm blackout curtains? wonder if they can be done with those "warm windows" curtains?

[Ryder]

I agree that we should be where we need to be before things get wacky. If the dollar collapses the reset and adjustment will be interesting to say the least. Something I just read mentioned that in an emergency you don't rise to the situation you desend to the level of your training. If the power goes out suddenly I am not going to invent a new power source from termite castings to power my generator but I will be able to ride my bicycle over to the river to ice fish for much needed protien.
  In the long view as in 7 generations further on maybe a good place to relocate is along a major river system or by a major natural salt water harbor. Commerce and trading seem to flourish in spite of floods and tsunamis.

[offdalip]

In the long view as in 7 generations further on maybe a good place to relocate is along a major river system or by a major natural salt water harbor. Commerce and trading seem to flourish in spite of floods and tsunamis.

Yep and yep,  I have both of those contingencies covered now as alternate locations.

I don't really think off U.S. sanctuaries  are necessary as there is soo much space here still.
You just have to know where to look. Even Doug Casey will soon have problems in Argentina
as they set up their "corralito's"  there.
SS and Ryder seem to have the right approach, hunker down in as best a fashion away from the
all seeing eye. Financial , economic and social repression is coming, just learn how best to distance
yourself from its effects

[Atash Hagmahani]

I understand your concerns. Bear in mind I'm not telling anyone to run for it; on the contrary I have said over and over again stay put and hunker down during crises. Move to wherever you want to make your stand BEFORE a crisis hits.

Bear in mind first of all the "southern cone" of South America is not only modestly populated, but in fact is sparsely settled: the population is concentrated in large cities like Buenos Aires, Santiago, Reunion (Reunion is not a particularly large city...but among it and the other 2 biggest cities of Paraguay you've got something like 3/4 of the population of the country), and Montevideo. That is an interesting side-effect of chronic capital depletion.

Second, however, I suggest not getting too fixated on population density PER SE, but instead, consider the ratio of population density versus "carrying capacity".

In terms of how much local food and water are available, and could be made available through a renaissance of local production, I would guess that the "breadbasket states" are the least overpopulated (indeed, some of them are dying off as farmboys and farmgirls head to the big cities), while the southwest, the basin states, and some of the mountain states are extremely overpopulated compared to local resources.

I fully expect Las Vegas to die just like New Orleans and Detroit, since its only raison d'etre is gambling and entertainment, functions that are available elsewhere and closer at hand to the customer now, through both the internet, and casinos run on Amerindian reservations.

Furthermore Lake Mead has been falling for a while now. It can't keep up.

Much of Arizona will die off from old age. Unsustainable retirement communities, one of the most famous also explicitly not allowing resident children. Average age quite high.

That brings up another issue: humans are social animals in the sense of requiring each other's services. Even hunters-and-gatherers have some division of labor, but anything above that level of existence requires rather a lot of trade and specialization.

Americans have been indoctrinated to consider the frontier pioneer or "mountain man" type to be self-sufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth: unless he's running around nekkid with nothing but some self-chiselled hunting knives (and he's not), then he is highly dependent on industrial infrastructure to manufacture everything from his logging and farming tools to his clothes to his wagon wheels to his horse shoes to blankets, bedding, and cordage, to even the vast quantities of canned and dried provisions that the real pioneers tended to depend on. They were mostly manufactured in Europe and exported to the USA, with some items (textiles) being worked in the northeastern USA, then distributed along trade routes.

What I'm saying is that wherever local systems break down badly enough to disrupt both production and/or trade, you're in a bad and probably non-survivable situation (or it's back to hunting and gathering, anyway).

Therefor there is actually a risk of fleeing to zones that are sparsely-populated. Lines of communication and transportation already spread rather tenuously.

For example, toney trendy former mining towns in the mountain states, reborn as resort communities. They will die out. There's no mining anymore to attract and pay for a flow of goods.

Look for viable local production, preferably of something fairly basic or else highly strategic, and look for multiple lines of transportation including train stops.  Intersections of multiple transportation routes or lines are good.

[silverseeds]

  Through a long enough crisis trade routes will re form even if goods are more expensive. heck it will happen BECAUSE goods are more expensive... If they do not this implies a much greater disaster that could easily be worse in the type of areas you point to,(atleast within country ones) because they DID fair better. More people will go there having heard of it on the radio or other means.

    So if things arent bad enough for a full degrade into hunter gather system wide, trade routes will be back online. Of course being closer to them is better.. in some scenarios anyway. there really are to many variables to gauge.. what if things DO heavily degrade, and people travel the rails or major roads on food looking for areas that did better? very possible...

      I cant imagine very many scenarios the hot much drier parts of the south west fair well, but the colder south western regions, even tourist mountain towns are solid picks in my eyes. good places to ride out truly bad scenarios, and sevicable places to wait until trade routes re emerge should those fail.

      These places that DO have decent base level economies... In rough situations there will be a massive influx of people. by itself further disrupting the system. In truly rough scenarios where society truly falls this will almost certainly hold even more true.... especially in country scenarios.... Many simply wont be likely to leave their country. Doing so even when going to a country where expats are welcomed might not be so wise anyway. dynamics can change fast when times are tough. the "others" easily blamed as the strain on the system... even if its clear they arent the actual strain... I really dont think its as simple of a topic as many think.

[Atash Hagmahani]

OK, now I understand your position better. I was confused because you were responding to one of my positions, and I did not quite understand where in the process you were referring to.

My contention is that most folks are heading the wrong directions now because they're making their decisions based on irrational or irrelevant factors. Your position is that if I'm right, I am likely to still have a problem on my hands because "success" will be hard to hide under a low profile, and is likely to attract unwanted guests in the future.

Yes, that's true.

Small numbers of "you" might be able to hide in peculiar niches in counter-intuitive locations. You'd jolly well better: fewer potential enemies but also fewer defenders. I suggest having plans in place to recruit help, long distance, if needed.

In any case the ranks of competitors and potential troublemakers will be thinned in any crisis that lasts more than 3 months. If it's not that long-term of a crisis (at this point, I see so many falling dominoes I think it's time to think about the unthinkable), but instead a relatively manageable decline (I'm starting to lose my faith), then the answer will be that the Johnny-come-latelys have 3 options:

* make themselves useful
* starve on the streets
* stare down the business-end of Opsec's "tool collection"

Aside:

Those of use who will be sponsoring "havens" should probably organize among ourselves to maintain contact through multiple channels (in case any one goes down--like the internet or the post office) and have plans in place to welcome invited guests (as opposed to the other kind) in an emergency requiring evacuation or necessary travel.

A "haven" is a place that has significant reserves of stored food, capacity to grow more, some tools, and some infrastructure.

Start imagining what your world will look like if unemployment rates hit 50%. Think Jugoslavia while it was disintegrating.

[spacecase0]

my thoughts on things,
first everyone get ham radio setups,
we can all meat on the radio and arrange things even if the net is down and the mail service is down.
I have that all set up, so anyone that wants to join can,
a radio net is a great way to stay in touch no matter what happens

as to the locations,
I am all for places that are hard but possible to live,
if you are in lush farmland someone is going to want what you have,
they will either take direct or tax you
either way it will be hard

so my ideal is a place that no one else wants
my issue is that my backup place is right off a major highway
but my guess is that I like most people
I can't afford to relocate now,
so I have to deal with what I have and who I am helping
good luck to us all

[Atash Hagmahani]

Ham radio or something similar is a good idea. We've talked about it before but haven't taken action yet--at least, I haven't...

[Ryder]

http://www.amazon.com/Grundig-M300-World-Radio-Black/dp/B000XA2XJS/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321457243&sr=8-1-spell

Here is a simple pocket radio that covers many shortwave bands. It does not have the capability to hear single side band shortwave like some hams use but it is great fun to listen to the world. Out in the wilds of montana this little radio works well.
The down side of talking back and forth with shortwave is that everyone else can hear you as well.

[spacecase0]

sure they can here you on the radio, but unless you give away your location, they will have a very hard time figuring out where you are.
if you are talking to people you know already you can arrange things for trade,
you can find out if a trade route is safe before you leave, you can find out what to take,
you can send back warnings to others
I love the radio,
it just gives an advantage that most will not have.
you can study for the ham radio test here
http://www.qrz.com/xtest2.html
you need general class license to use shortwave bands,
you can just buy and set it all up without a license, but studying for the test will teach you how to set it all up.
here is where to find the test locations
http://www.arrl.org/finding-an-exam-session


if all you have is a receiver, that is a good start and will help some,
having SSB is a big deal,
if you want to here propaganda, it will be on AM mode on your shortwave radio, you need high power to transmit it clear around the world,
and typically only religious groups and governments manage to afford such a setup.
if you are wanting to here first hand reports of what is going on, you have to listen to the ham radio people, and they use SSB because it works so much better with way less power.

[Atash Hagmahani]

Keep this part of the conversation going, or maybe even start it's own thread. It's important. I am very concerned about communications at this point. I think the bottom line is that with resources stretched tight at the moment, if communications go down due to the occasional natural disaster or God forbid a human-engineered crisis, they might not go back up again in a timely manner.