Get Rich During SHTF

[IndyDave1776]

Wha?.... Huh?.... I'm going to suggest you bypass the next "Sopranos" marathon.

I never watched the sopranos, but that is the only practical implication I can take from the suggestion that one should yield to the expectation of others to supply them gratis for fear of their reaction to not doing so. Similarly, we have millions who presently believe that they are indeed entitled to receive largess from the .gov which, in turn, demands that we shell it out for 'redistribution'. Those people would also be in for a surprise if things were up to me. I don't mind helping people, but it will be in a way that does not foster dependence or the belief in righteous larceny. The bottom line is that I believe in charity when applicable, but not larceny-based redistribution. Let me emphasize that charity is given on the terms of the giver and not the taker. Why should I help someone who is not willing to be part of his own solution? What is wrong with a solution which is beneficial to all involved rather than being parasitic in nature? Why should I make a decision to accept a parasitic relationship based on the fear of retribution? After all, if these people didn't think to pack a lunch, why should I expect them to have thought to pack heat?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I never watched the sopranos, but that is the only practical implication I can take from the suggestion that one should yield to the expectation of others to supply them gratis for fear of their reaction to not doing so. Similarly, we have millions who presently believe that they are indeed entitled to receive largess from the .gov which, in turn, demands that we shell it out for 'redistribution'. Those people would also be in for a surprise if things were up to me. I don't mind helping people, but it will be in a way that does not foster dependence or the belief in righteous larceny. The bottom line is that I believe in charity when applicable, but not larceny-based redistribution. Let me emphasize that charity is given on the terms of the giver and not the taker. Why should I help someone who is not willing to be part of his own solution? What is wrong with a solution which is beneficial to all involved rather than being parasitic in nature? Why should I make a decision to accept a parasitic relationship based on the fear of retribution? After all, if these people didn't think to pack a lunch, why should I expect them to have thought to pack heat?

Well, you missed a great show. Anyways, I never implied that people should give away anything. You ran away with that one. What I'm saying that once SHTF, people are going to want and probably expect that you share whatever you have... whether it's surplus, or simply just enough to get you by, yourself.
People that are starving and cold, don't care about your needs, they care about their own needs, and if you have something they need odds are that they will attempt to aquire it. So why put yourself out there, as a person who has things people "need?" That seems incredibly dangerous, unless you deal with a select few, of a similar mindset. Now, as I was saying, if you had a skill, you can gather needed things that way. It makes no sense to kill a guy who can build and repair a roof, he has an enduring skill that can be bartered for goods.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, you missed a great show. Anyways, I never implied that people should give away anything. You ran away with that one. What I'm saying that once SHTF, people are going to want and probably expect that you share whatever you have... whether it's surplus, or simply just enough to get you by, yourself.
People that are starving and cold, don't care about your needs, they care about their own needs, and if you have something they need odds are that they will attempt to aquire it. So why put yourself out there, as a person who has things people "need?" That seems incredibly dangerous, unless you deal with a select few, of a similar mindset. Now, as I was saying, if you had a skill, you can gather needed things that way. It makes no sense to kill a guy who can build and repair a roof, he has an enduring skill that can be bartered for goods.

I see. You simply expressed your expectation of the reality on the street. Again, I wouldn't be operating a business enterprise as such, but there are few places, even the most rural you will find in Indiana, in which there will not be people around and likely less than 10% will be anything approaching prepared. As for trading on skills, I would expect anyone willing to take my possessions by force to also be willing to take my labor by force. I also don't see why any but the laziest of people (who likely wouldn't make it far enough to meet me anyway) would object to some form of participation in their solutions and learn how to make it without me anyway. A few would have something to trade, most would not. Allowing the empty-handed person the opportunity to work, be fed, and share the increase does not strike me as unreasonable. Everyone gains. Looters should be treated as such without reservation.

 

[DRob]

The reality is no matter how much a person may have stockpiled/hoarded/whatever it will be a finite supply. If you decide to become a business because you have a product or products that everybody needs, you will soon enough be out of inventory with no way to restock. The biggest danger will be in letting it become widely known you have a cache of goods. For the record, I have nothing and intend to keep all of it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The reality is no matter how much a person may have stockpiled/hoarded/whatever it will be a finite supply. If you decide to become a business because you have a product or products that everybody needs, you will soon enough be out of inventory with no way to restock. The biggest danger will be in letting it become widely known you have a cache of goods. For the record, I have nothing and intend to keep all of it.

Is that anything like 'I didn't do it and promise never to do it again'?

Seriously, not all things are finite. It is entirely possible to have a system of replenishable supplies, particularly food, if one is adequately equipped in the first place. I have some assumptions which go into my thoughts, starting with the likelihood that there are not exactly going to be legions of people roaming around the country. This is followed up with a group of neighbors who are equipped to make life miserable for those who would bring trouble looking for us, and the fact that willingness to engage in a certain amount of trade and setting up with the profile of Walmart are two entirely different things. In practice, there will be some people suitable to keep indefinitely, some for a while, some with whom you may trade if they have anything of value, and some you would give a bowl of soup, point, and declare, "FEMA's that way". For those who would be violently uncooperative, there is always the option to address the mineral deficiency that causes that type of behavior.

 

[Whitsettd8]

If you want to know how it will break down turn on the world news and look at Africa for the past 30 years. Anyone in a position of wrath or power will be toppled by the next up and coming warlord. Get as rich as you want it's not going to do you any good when there is a line of people waiting to put a bullet in your head and take whatever they want. That's the society we live in now with laws and structure.you better surround yourself with as many trust worthy folks as possible and be prepared to defend whatever slice of the pie you have.

 

[dmarsh8]

The reality is no matter how much a person may have stockpiled/hoarded/whatever it will be a finite supply. If you decide to become a business because you have a product or products that everybody needs, you will soon enough be out of inventory with no way to restock. The biggest danger will be in letting it become widely known you have a cache of goods. For the record, I have nothing and intend to keep all of it.

Then you find other needs/demands and meet them. Everything will cycle. People became wealthy or even simply better off in bad times before.
That won't change. And plenty are still in business today from those times. If we can use the brain we've been given properly, there is always a
way to make the life we live, and world we live in, a better place.

 

[ar15_dude]

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. Non-preppers, if they have money now, are buying fancy cars, electronics, brand name clothing, etc., all of which is worthless in SHFT/TEOTWAWKI/grid down/etc. They likely aren't currently buying gold and silver to trade to you in the future. They also likely don't often have worth-while SHTF skills. And as for the current welfare class that are benefiting from .gov stealing your money to buy their votes with, you can forget about trading to them, they don't have anything you want, and want your stuff for nothing. So since a trade requirements some for of acceptable payment, I don't see the attraction to trading to "get rich".

 

[Whitsettd8]

If you want to know how it will break down turn on the world news and look at Africa for the past 30 years. Anyone in a position of wealth or power will be toppled by the next up and coming warlord. Get as rich as you want it's not going to do you any good when there is a line of people waiting to put a bullet in your head and take whatever they want. That's the society we live in now with laws and structure. You better surround yourself with as many trust worthy folks as possible and be prepared to defend whatever slice of the pie you have.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is that anything like 'I didn't do it and promise never to do it again'?

Seriously, not all things are finite. It is entirely possible to have a system of replenishable supplies, particularly food, if one is adequately equipped in the first place. I have some assumptions which go into my thoughts, starting with the likelihood that there are not exactly going to be legions of people roaming around the country. This is followed up with a group of neighbors who are equipped to make life miserable for those who would bring trouble looking for us, and the fact that willingness to engage in a certain amount of trade and setting up with the profile of Walmart are two entirely different things. In practice, there will be some people suitable to keep indefinitely, some for a while, some with whom you may trade if they have anything of value, and some you would give a bowl of soup, point, and declare, "FEMA's that way". For those who would be violently uncooperative, there is always the option to address the mineral deficiency that causes that type of behavior.

I'm betting there will be. There are tons of historical examples Southerners fleeing during Sherman's March, the Dustbowl, German expulsion of the Poles, Germans fleeing the Russians, Chinese fleeing the Japanese, S. Vietnamese fleeing after the American withdrawal... all of which created one hell of a SHTF for the populaces involved.

Say a small nuclear device was detonated in Chicago, and it was rendered unliveable. Outside the collective cheers of a number of people, where do you think those people would go? South. If even a quarter of the poulation survived, that would be quite an issue for us.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

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

 

[ViperJock]

I'm just glad there are people like Trigger Time who are willing to give stuff away until everyone is on an equal level. I wonder when he will sell his computer to buy food for the poor. It will be a tragedy to lose such a benevolent soul on our board.

 

[Arthur Dent]

So what I'm really wanting to know is who plans on "taking advantage" as some would call it of people? Personally in that situation I would consider anything fair game. Basically who is stocking extra ammo, food, ect that you will use just for the purpose of trading for gold or silver? In a situation where someone is in need of food, water, ammo, you have the upper hand in trading for it.

This is the original question, not whether or not someone is entitled to something for nothing or who is a socialist/communist or capitalist. Here are my thoughts on it: Why take advantage of someone else? Sooner or later you will need help, too. Regardless of what you think, you will need someone else to help you at one time or another. Why would you want to put yourself in that sort of disadvantage?

Also, unless you can throw that gold and silver with pin point accuracy and lethal velocity all you will have is a bunch of shiny paperweights.

I'm not saying give something away for nothing. I'm saying learn to barter. So that the guy you are trading with feels like he got a good deal and doesn't leave with bad feelings toward you. Your house burns down in the middle of winter and the guy you screwed during the summer is your only hope of having shelter for the night you can bet he's going to remember the rogering you gave him and he's going to pay it back in spades.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm just glad there are people like Trigger Time who are willing to give stuff away until everyone is on an equal level. I wonder when he will sell his computer to buy food for the poor. It will be a tragedy to lose such a benevolent soul on our board.

Never said I would give anything away, nor that I thought anyone else should. Those that are prepared deserve to thrive and not die. Those that aren't prepared get whatever they get. It's the way it works.

what I had a problem with is people who jack prices way up on items that dying people come to buy or trade for. Of coarse I believe in a free market and you have the right to sell your stuff to whomever and for how ever much you want.
but if your intentionally trying to "get rich" off people who are dying then your no better than certain healthcare equipment providers and pharmaceutical companies of today.
to each their own. Id rather just not be involved and isolate me and mine from the madness.

 

[trailman]

A quick reply here after reading the thread. IMO Your metals are going to be worthless for a long time to come. And as far as things returning to normal, whats that exactly? The somalia example is a good one, where is the government? I think they were called technicals. Those folks will eat you alive. Before then while your practicing your social science experiment I will kill you to feed my family. Or another armed group will take you out to get what you have. They'll find whoever you sold it to, cut their hands off for the information and come find your stash.

Best movie example I can see after everything pans out is the postman. After the death and destruction common folk will band together in whats left and try and start communities, we will have to to survive. Between them will be the badlands. 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.

I like the Chicago example, I live in the northeast I can sympathize. Here's mine, in January 2019 after Clinton gets us in a shooting war with China to show her balls. You know that day when the jet stream hits as far south as Dallas and most of the Country is in single digits, the lights are gonna go out and with them the heat water and everything else. I don't care where you are they are gonna come for what you have and they ain't going to pay. You'll be lucky if there is enough left to bury.

 

[ViperJock]

Never said I would give anything away, nor that I thought anyone else should. Those that are prepared deserve to thrive and not die. Those that aren't prepared get whatever they get. It's the way it works.

what I had a problem with is people who jack prices way up on items that dying people come to buy or trade for. Of coarse I believe in a free market and you have the right to sell your stuff to whomever and for how ever much you want.
but if your intentionally trying to "get rich" off people who are dying then your no better than certain healthcare equipment providers and pharmaceutical companies of today.
to each their own. Id rather just not be involved and isolate me and mine from the madness.

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.

 

[BigMatt]

Best movie example I can see after everything pans out is the postman. After the death and destruction common folk will band together in whats left and try and start communities, we will have to to survive. Between them will be the badlands. 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.

The problem with your scenario is, it is one dimensional. If you think there is only one scenario for TEOTWAWKI, you are wrong. You can read of modern examples of how society and government are still around, but if you have gold/silver as a store of wealth, you are in a much better position.

In most any other case, ammo/food/water/shelter are going to be the main items to barter, but to say that PM's are definitely going to be worthless after SHTF, you are misguided.

 

[BigMatt]

To all bleeding hearts out there, I am not giving anything away. Every can of food, every round of ammo, every bottle of water I give away is one less for my family. That comes at a price.

If I feel like I can reasonably risk that I have enough water, I will be willing to barter for something of equal or greater value.

At that point, it isn't a game. It isn't considered gouging - it is life and death.

It is easy to say that you wouldn't try and take advantage. When the time comes and you don't gain an advantage with every barter you make, you are losing position for nothing and that is stupid.

 

[Fourtrax]

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?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Happy New Year

Almost there