If you didn't lost your job in the last GFC, or have some bad investment go pop etc, then another GFC is like, meh. It's not the SHTF scenario everyone likes to hype up to salivatory (new word) levels.
The crisis is already here, its just not evenly distributed. Most of us here in Australia are probably doing relatively ok, but it would be imprudent to keep partying like the good times will last forever. ...a time to sow and a time to reap... which is it now? .
For sure. But the argument is what actually happens "when the good time end"? How bad will it be? Will half the population be out of work? Will inflation be in the many double digits bad? Will Australian banks fail? Will the home foreclosure rate hit double digits? I don't see any of that happening. Just more of the same that happened during the last GFC.
Loss of AAA rating. Banks downgraded. Loan costs rise. Banks with large mortgage books have to raise rates. Housing pulls every spare dollar out of the economy. Recession at least.
Last time we were saved, not by any genius economic management from Canberra, but due to external factors. Who will save us this time? Certainly not Canberra.
I suppose we will never know if the $900 stimulus package had any part to play in the resilience of our economy. Now I think they will do the same except perhaps 2 or 3 to try and stir up the sort of consumption that creates employment.Whether it works a second time is very much open to debate, but these people in charge of us all are very good at kicking the can down the road We will not see 25% unemployment as we did in the 30s because they have ways of disguising that figure. There won't be queues at the dole office because it will mostly be done online. As they say it's a recession when your neighbour is out of work it's a depression when you are out of work. Either way I can't see Australia going down the tubes big time, as in collapse and head for the hills. The PTB have too many tricks to play yet.
I stopped listening to him when he associated with Casey, but Rickards used to always recommend 10% for most people and 20% for those who wanted to be "aggressive". Nothing new there.
the coming of the run away slave dollar :lol: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nati...bman-to-Replace-Andrew-Jackson-376398371.html
Im with Julie. if Rickards is so convinced that the collapse is going to happen, and he is convinced, then why not 30, 40, 50% of your wealth in PM's??? i think he's trying to appease his friends on the street, so they dont think he is a whacko. But my bet is, he believes we should have a higher allocation of PM's! its not a matter of If according to Jim, but when!!
Rickards ain't dccpa. . Have you read the book? If not, you should. You'll see how different how you two are. :lol: :lol:
Only the true wackos go in so heavily, forgo income producing assets and head for the hills. It's not about being the richest person after the crash but about being prepared. He also suggests investing in land and not pulling money out of, for example, your business to buy gold because the income can be used to accumulate more gold. The collapse may be certain, but the timing isn't.