What to do with money now, assuming a huge crash is coming?

"seemed to me he was concerned with the government arbitrarily taking most or all of his money."

While this is true, other parts of your post are also true but simplistic. First of all there is the wise use of credit that you gloss over, even if technically unnecessary, it can make economic sense. Second, I'm not disagreeing about the need to "invest"--what I am concerned about is a lack of control over that "investment".

For me, control is what separates an "investment" from a "gamble". When I work materials to generate wealth, I rely on "investments" I have made in the enterprise, both financial and work. There is a sliding scale of control. Pure gambling on arbitrary outcomes is the extreme example of no control. Securities and financial instruments lie somewhere else on that spectrum, depending on exactly what they are.

During "normal" social periods, the guarantees that are made regarding the "security" of these mechanisms are enough for people to consider ceding some control. During times of crisis, such security is out the window, and nationalization takes over. How do you get your money out of, say, GM if you want to? How would you get it if the markets were down, or if real nationalization took over, or if for some reason they didn't want to give it to you?

I'm not arguing that there is no need to invest--on the contrary, I am suggesting that actual "investment" involves a fair degree of control of not only productive operation, but also of the security taken the degree of control afforded over the security.

Maserati wrote:

Nations now use debt not to finance investment aimed at future return, but instead to compensate for inefficient cash flow management that is insufficient to compensate losses due to waste, fraud, abuse, and decay. I analogize it to a person who is living beyond their means using a credit card to fund essential purchases, versus a loan enabling capital improvements aimed at increasing productivity.

They are falling to their own schemes that they foisted on the rest of us.

"If I have $5 million or more in retirement accounts when I retire, then I shouldn't mind paying a bit more in taxes."

And this is where you and I part ways.

Why? Waste, fraud, and abuse.

I would have no problem paying a fairly large sum in taxes, if I got something meaningful in return. Increasingly, we pay more and get less, while being charged higher taxes and other specific "user fees". In the current and foreseeable environment, I totally disagree with paying any more in taxes, especially when agreed-upon social contracts are unilaterally varied by government.

"first of all, if you're really looking for advice rather than trying to spread your worldview, the advice is pretty clear - diversify into multiple currencies/markets, own physical assets that would have value at whatever level of calamity you fear, and minimize exposure to the things you think are most at risk."

This of course makes eminent sense. Advice on currencies to avoid? Those to own? Advice on what physical assets? Advice on the vulnerabilities of different distribution systems?

You state the obvious, yet put no meat onto the bones.

Where do I get #2? I'm an attorney who deals with the federal government all the time. I get it from the fact that I know it personally, from decades of experience, and from that which is obvious to anybody with an even remotely diverse life, which will necessitate varying interactions with different levels of government.

"at least at the federal level, your average "bureaucrat" who is interpreting or enforcing law in a particular agency or regulatory environment is highly knowledgeable."

This is entirely false when the knowledge of which you speak is knowledge of what law and regulation are supposed to be, of the US Constitution, and of how disputes are adjudicated. What they are knowledgeable about, to some extent, is institutional practices and SOP's--which are often substantially different from even the legal guidance that is afforded to them from the varying relevant sources. This point is not arguable. I would point to military personnel as exemplars, but that would suggest that they are the best examples, when in reality they are perfectly representative of the larger government.

Yes, I act on what I believe, but that is predicated in part upon that which I know. I'm not going to go on to demonstrate to you what I know and how I know it, because I wasn't looking for a debate on my interpretations of things, I was looking for suggested responses to my interpretation. The fact that I hastily used the term "rate" rather than "burden" in my post should have no bearing on the substance of this discussion. In my personal experience, during my productive life, my tax burden in this country has risen--enormously--while level of services I personally receive have dropped precipitously.

I would appreciate your putting some meat on the bones you presented, however. Advice on currencies to avoid? Those to own? Advice on what physical assets? Advice on the vulnerabilities of different distribution systems?

"the relative burden of lower, middle and upper classes has shifted over time"

This is the key. It has shifted to me. Healthy, with an income, some assets, some money, and no debt. The shift shows no signs of abating.

It could be due to a pure accident of historical timing, that I just got the shaft during the course of my productive life--but the why isn't that important to me, because the what has remained, and has only increased in severity.

According to what I have now, I would have at one point been considered wealthy. Now I'm not. Why? Because I have just enough to take, and because serious inflation could wipe me out, if I'm not smart about things.

J.R. wrote:

Hingle McCringleberry wrote:

How about not posting at all?

Make up your mind.

I did. Learn to read.

Maserati wrote:

W didn't lower anything

are you seriously claiming that incomes tax rates, including the long term capital gain tax rate and dividend tax rate, were not lowered during the george w. bush administration?

in terms of the capital gains tax rate, unless you are making over $200k as an individual, or $250k married, the capital gains rate today is 15%, about the lowest it has ever been. if you are between $200k and $400k, or $250k and $450k, the rate is 18.8% (and only 15% on the portion below the 200k/250k threshold), which is still lower than the rate at any time prior to the w bush tax cuts. for dividends, the rate was as high as 39.6% in the 90s, and is now the lower 15/18.8 number.

if you are above the 400/450 threshold, then a portion of your gains/dividends will be taxed at 23.8%. still lower than the rate under reagan or hw bush on capital gains, and lower than the rate on dividends during nearly the entire post-wwII era.

and why is it relevant whether you personally had capital gains during the 1980s and 1990s? your assertion was the tax rates on retirement income only go in one direction - up. and i presented you with data for the last 30 or so years, and a chart that covered a few more decades, to show that that was not true. why does it matter whether you personally paid the higher or lower rates?

Maserati wrote:

I would appreciate your putting some meat on the bones you presented, however. Advice on currencies to avoid? Those to own? Advice on what physical assets? Advice on the vulnerabilities of different distribution systems?

i don't share your paranoid world view, so i can't offer the specifics you seek.

honestly, your complaints in your most recent post have much more in common with a libertarian or low-tax/small-government mindset than anything else. just because that viewpoint is a minority does not mean the country is in trouble.

but if you really believe that the majority is so wrong that the economy is going to crash, then you should bet on what you believe. you know what that is, and you seem smart enough to know what assets would do well in those circumstances. if western europe is collapsing in your estimation, then steer clear of euros and european stocks. if supply chains are going to break down, focus on survival items. if the US is going to decline rapidly but other countries will rise, then bet on those countries - their currencies and companies.

wtf? so somebody, somewhere pulls a number out of their @ss and that is what a crash is in the "real world"?

K5 wrote:

[quote]ryan foreman wrote:

Well, there is no agreed upon metric of what a crash is. So yeah, I can't really disagree with you.

A 50% drop in the market is a crash in the real world.

You know, the world where we don't use the word metric when we are telling a lie

Give it all to me. It will be worthless anyway so what's the harm?

I'll take it off your hands and dispose of it, and set your mind at ease.

[quote]ryan foreman wrote:

wtf? so somebody, somewhere pulls a number out of their @ss and that is what a crash is in the "real world"?

Just because you are ignorant of the 50% crash in the market that took place from early 1973 to the end of 1974 -- as was the initial commenter -- does not mean it did not take place.

What a curious mix of ignorance and arrogance you whiny right wingers are

Sons of Shlomo wrote:

[quote]ryan foreman wrote:

wtf? so somebody, somewhere pulls a number out of their @ss and that is what a crash is in the "real world"?

Just because you are ignorant of the 50% crash in the market that took place from early 1973 to the end of 1974 -- as was the initial commenter -- does not mean it did not take place.

What a curious mix of ignorance and arrogance you whiny right wingers are

K5, why did you change your name again? Are you too cowardly to properly defend your earlier post?

Data for the last 30 or so years are not relevant when it comes to SS and Medicare going forward, and when the federal debt has doubled in only the past few years.

I re-iterate:

The fact that I hastily used the term "rate" rather than "burden" in my post should have no bearing on the substance of this discussion. In my personal experience, during my productive life, my tax burden in this country has risen--enormously--while level of services I personally receive have dropped precipitously.

Maserati, I think the answer to your question is to buy hard objects people will need. Fuel, food, water, tools.

What you can't turn into hard objects, buy swiss francs, gold, maybe the canada dollar, norwegian currency. US dollars too - most accepted currency in on the planet, even with its problems. Don't rely on banks - bury it or find some other way to hide the money and gold.

Be fluid and ready to move. In your scenario there will likely be peace in one place and anarchy in another. Think what you would like to have if you showed up in a medieval village. Buy lots of that.

If you are not concerned about collapse, just civil unrest, sell your stocks and bonds, get a lot of different currencie - maybe you even want to borrow some because paying back will be easy if there is inflation. Stay in teh city if you want but have a place in mind to go to, quickly, that is stocked up.

Beyond that - watch Mosquito Coast, read Vonnegut and hope for the best.

Wisdom from jammer.

Currency diversification, hard assets, lack of reliance on banks, and geographic diversification of property are all excellent ideas, I think. You have essentially put into words some of my own thinking, except for Vonnegut.

That's one reason I started the other thread about buying real property in Mexico.

What a pain. I have already looked into some european property, and into setting up foreign accounts, for which the US reporting burden is now a pain in the butt. I haven't done anything yet, but I'm pretty sure it would be smart to do something in the not-too-distant future.

So Maserati can also play the name change game.

Look up "Major stock market crashes" on wikipedia. 73-74 isn't one of them. and the stock market never fell 50%, although it was close. Look, use the word crash if you want. Its just an exercise in semantics to me My only point in all this is to differentiate what the 73'-74' market crash was from other events. Generally it was a relatively more prolonged drop in stock prices over a matter a months. There may have been some steep one day drops in there but that is pretty much what it was. It was different than 1929, 1987' (which btw has been called a "crash" even though it didn't fall to your arbitrary 50% amount) and 2008. Psychologically there was never a time in the early 70s where people thought the bottom was falling out and traders panicking. That is generally associated with a "crash".

K5 wrote:

[quote]ryan foreman wrote:

Well, there is no agreed upon metric of what a crash is. So yeah, I can't really disagree with you.

Admit it. You got caught in some BS claiming there was no crash in the 1970s.

Here is what wikipedia says, for what it's worth

The 1973–1974 bear market was a bear market that lasted between January 1973 and December 1974. Affecting all the major stock markets in the world, particularly the United Kingdom,[1] it was one of the worst stock market downturns in modern history.[2] The crash came after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system over the previous two years, with the associated 'Nixon Shock' and United States dollar devaluation under the Smithsonian Agreement.

Note the use of the word crash

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

So Maserati can also play the name change game.

You are a fraud and an imposter. POTO has assured us of this.

Buying property in other countries is not so easy and most of them require citizenship.