As long as governments tax, spend and regulate and the Fed controls the money supply and manipulates interest rates, there will continue to be misallocations in the economy.  As long as this is going on, I can keep writing about the things I write about.

Most investment advisors will focus on individual stocks and make them fit into their clients’ portfolios.  I don’t spend a lot of time analyzing individual companies.  There is certainly nothing wrong with this and some money can be made with this strategy (look at Warren Buffett), but I prefer to look at the overall economy and the investment implications.  In order to understand the economy in our world today, it is impossible to avoid politics.

Government policies and central bank manipulation of money (which is granted this power by government) drive the performance of the economy as a whole.  The central bank causes boom and bust cycles by creating money out of thin air and by artificially influencing interest rates.  Government spending also distorts the economy by redistributing wealth and by misallocating resources that do not satisfy consumer demand.  If a product were desired by the public enough for them to spend money on, then the government should not need to subsidize it or protect it from competition or to favor it in some other way.

Since the government plays such a significant role in our everyday lives with its taxing, spending, and regulating, it has a huge negative effect on the economy.  This has a huge effect on investments.  This is why it is important to understand the consequences of these government policies as it can and will determine how your various investments perform.

Virtually all government spending and regulation causes some kind of a misallocation of resources.  The challenge is to figure out the most likely possibility of how humans will react to these policies and how it will direct money and resources.

As long as these dislocations are taking place, I will always have something to write about.  If we ever achieve a fully libertarian society, then I can write about the brutal history of government and all of the unnecessary misery that it caused people in the past.  This will be to make sure that it never happens again, so that free human beings can prosper.

Back in September, I wrote about Gary Johnson and his proposals for a Fair Tax and a balanced budget.  I said that I am not a fan of the so-called Fair Tax, but that I do like his idea of immediately balancing the budget by cutting spending by 43%.

I recently received a comment regarding that post.  I will not quote the whole thing here.  It has bad language at the end, but you can read the whole thing here if you wish.  The commenter says to me, “So you want to cut fed spending almost in half?  Sure.  Go for it.  Just don’t cry about the depression from hell that would follow.”

While the comments were strong and more rude than your typical person, they do reflect a certain mentality that permeates our society.  It is Keynesianism.  While I think Keynesianism has been somewhat damaged in the recent years with the economic troubles and with the internet replacing the mainstream media, there is still a large faction that believes this stuff.  Some people think that if we cut government spending drastically, that major chaos would follow.

The comment about having a depression is not completely wrong.  If the government were to drastically cut spending all of a sudden, we would have a sharp downturn in the economy.  It would be quite painful for the American people.  But at least it would be temporary pain and we could look forward to a real recovery.

The big question is, what are the other options?  The other options involve more spending, more inflation, higher taxes or some combination of the three.  They will all lead to things far worse than the above scenario and they will all end in a far greater depression.  The voluntary economy is starving for savings and capital investment.  It is being sucked up by governments at all levels, but particularly the federal government in DC.

Most people don’t know there was a severe economic downturn in 1920/ 1921.  The government did not come up with any grand stimulus plans.  It cut taxes and spending.  Most people don’t know about it because there was a quick recovery.

On the other hand, people know about the Great Depression.  It dragged on and on as the government continued to spend money like crazy and prop up the bad investments.

We could eliminate the Department of Education tomorrow and the effects would be minimal.  Sure, the government school workers would be screaming like crazy.  But the education system is a complete disaster anyway.  Federal funding represents less than 10% of funding for most schools.  It would not be the end of the world.  While I’m against having to pay for government schools at any level, ending federal funding is quite modest.

Education is just one small example of the overall budget.  One easy cut would be to end the wars and bring troops home from all over the world.  This would save hundreds of billions of dollars almost immediately, without even firing people from their jobs.

After World War 2, there was a massive influx of soldiers returning home to America.  The economy was a mess.  The Great Depression didn’t end with the start of the war.  The war brought rationing and misery to millions of people.  It was a continued depression.  The men got jobs, but it is hard to imagine they were any happier.  The depression ended with the end of the war.

The troops came home and, while there was clamoring to do something, the government didn’t really do much of anything in the way of stimulus plans or a jobs bill.  Government spending decreased dramatically in 1946 and we basically saw an economic miracle.  Japan and Germany had their own miracles too.  This so-called miracle is called the free market.  When the government gets out of the way, prosperity happens.

We will not see a true and sustainable economic recovery until the government gets off of our back.  This means repealing taxes and regulations.  It means stopping the money printing machines.  Most of all, it means a drastic cut in government spending.  When government spending is cut dramatically, we can look forward to a quick and sustainable recovery and a return to the American dream.

A new poll was released showing a virtual 4-way tie in Iowa.  The poll showed Cain at 20%, Paul at 19%, Romney at 18%, and Gingrich at 17%.  CBS News released a story saying that Ron Paul has moved into the top tier.  Both articles were featured on Drudge Report.

Just the fact that both of these stories appeared on Drudge, help the Ron Paul campaign.  It makes people realize that he is a serious candidate with a legitimate chance of getting the nomination.  It also makes it difficult for the media to portray Ron Paul and his supporters as a bunch of wackos.  Are they going to keep saying that if he starts polling at 50%?

If you look at the 5th paragraph of the CBS News article, it says that Paul is the leader, with 32 percent support, from likely caucus-goers who say they’ve made up their minds.

If you look at the 4th paragraph of the Bloomberg article, it says that Paul’s support is more solidified than his rivals.

This is quite significant.  A lot of the potential Republican voters are switching with whichever way the wind is blowing.  They either don’t like the candidates, don’t know enough yet, or are just afraid to make up their minds without being part of a big crowd.

Ron Paul’s supporters tend to be quite devoted.  The majority of his supporters will not change their minds.  This means that Ron Paul’s poll numbers will not plummet like we have seen with Bachmann or Perry.

Romney is still the favorite to get the nomination, particularly since he is the establishment’s choice and he has the most money.  But Romney has his problems.  He is still the founder of Obamacare and there is nothing he can do to change that.  He is still not that well liked with Tea Party people and other fiscal conservatives.

Gingrich has the same problem that Bachmann has.  He does not poll well against Obama in a head-to-head match up.  Republicans are concerned that he can’t win the general election and rightly so.  We will see if it turns out for him the same as it turned out for Howard Dean in 2004.

Cain, as I continue to say, just isn’t that bright.  His latest gaffe was about Libya.  He is practically incoherent on foreign policy.  His 9-9-9 plan is a massive tax hike on the middle class.  And if you have any doubts on what I’m saying about his lack of intelligence, just watch this video.

Because of all of these flaws of the candidates and because a lot of Republicans can’t support Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, I am not counting Rick Perry out yet.  He has been horrible in debates, but he still has a lot of money and may still make another run by default.

We will see what happens, but today was good news for libertarians.  Ron Paul’s message is getting out there and is being received well by many people now.  It really gives me great hope for the future of this country.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was created in 1933 during the Great Depression.  It is not really a corporation as the name says.  It is a government agency which guarantees people’s deposits in banks.  The amount of insurance has increased over time.  Just a few years ago, it insured up to $100,000 per depositor per bank.  That amount was increased to $250,000 during the fall of 2008.

The agency was created due to the large number of bank runs taking place in the 1930’s.  This caused the equivalent of monetary deflation, as bank runs reversed the fractional reserve process.  This was one of the reasons that prices fell during the Great Depression, even though the central bank was engaging in monetary inflation (although not nearly enough according to Helicopter Ben Bernanke).

As a libertarian, I am completely opposed to the FDIC.  Only the government could run such an agency.  No private firm would find it profitable to insure banks in the current system of huge risk taking and massive fractional reserve lending.  I don’t think it is inconceivable that there could be insurance companies for depositors in a free market environment, but it would look a lot different than it looks today.  There would be no central bank, far less (if any) fractional lending, and we can also assume that most banks would be far more careful with their lending standards.

With the current system we have now with fiat money, central banking, and government granted privileges, only the government can really run a deposit insurance agency.  That is because only the government and the Fed have a legal monopoly over the money supply and can always create new money out of thin air if necessary.  No private insurance company could do this.

I am a hard-core libertarian and I am in favor of abolishing most government programs and departments immediately.  However, the FDIC might be one exception where I can envision major problems if the FDIC were abolished overnight.  There would be massive bank runs immediately, and the last ones to arrive would be stiffed out of all of their money that was in a bank.

I hated the bank bailouts that happened in 2008.  The politicians in DC really demagogued the issue.  With that said, there may have been one relevant point when they were saying that we would see Armageddon if we didn’t pass the bailouts.  For some reason, most politicians were afraid to come out and say the obvious, which was that they feared massive bank runs.  They threw all of these threats at the American people (including martial law), but I didn’t hear many say that we needed to pass the bailouts so that you could still access your checking account and withdraw money out of the ATM on Monday morning.

The American people would have actually supported the bailouts if they were told this and thought it was their only choice.

However, it really wasn’t the only choice.  The government could have actually let the banks go into bankruptcy and just refunded depositors their money.  The bank executives would have lost their jobs and their pensions.  The government/ central bank would have had to use the printing press to do this, but it probably would have been less than what was handed out with TARP.  Then the banks and all of their assets (for the ones that had to go into bankruptcy) could have been sold to the highest bidders.  Any money collected by the government could have been immediately used to pay off the new bonds held by the Fed, thus reversing the previous monetary inflation.

This whole FDIC thing is a major problem that we need to get rid of.  It is the ultimate moral hazard.  Depositors do not really care what bank they use in terms of safety.  Banks use excessive risk with this backstop.  The only regulation on the banks is occurring by government.  It should be done by the marketplace.  Private insurance companies could play a big role in keeping banks sound.

I am not sure about how to end the FDIC in an orderly fashion.  But as long as there is an FDIC, there will continue to be bailouts.

I like to make some comments after each Republican debate, especially with Ron Paul being involved.  After tonight’s debate on CBS, it is hard to call it a debate and it is hard to say that Ron Paul was actually involved.  If he had actually been asked more than two questions, maybe I would be able to comment on his performance better.

This “debate” was only nationally televised for the first hour.  After that, it was only aired in certain regions, unless you wanted to watch it via the internet.

CBS did a hideous job of hosting the debate and the candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) did a hideous job.  Perhaps Jon Huntsman was a little less hideous and Rick Santorum is the worst of the worst, but overall, they are all bad.  Ron Paul is the only candidate on that stage who has anything near a rational foreign policy.

All of the others think the world revolves around the United States government and that the U.S. government should be calling all of the shots.

I found it interesting that some of the candidates think we need to be careful with Pakistan because Pakistan has nuclear weapons.  In other words, they don’t want to go to war with them.  Meanwhile, they want to go to war with Iran (some more than others) because Iran might possibly be developing nuclear technology.  So basically, that says to every country out there that if you don’t want to be invaded and blown to smithereens by the U.S. government, then you should acquire a nuclear weapon.  Now that is incentive.  It is also the law of unintended consequences.

Now I’m not saying the U.S. should go to war with Pakistan.  It is quite the opposite.  The U.S. should not worry about Iran and the U.S. should stop getting involved everywhere.  There should be no intervention in the world.  Perhaps there could be exceptions if two parties both agree to a mediator, but even this could be done privately without the involvement of the U.S. government.  The only thing that the U.S. government should do is to keep trade open so that Americans are free to do business with anyone in the world, so long as they are not directly inflicting violence on us.  If someone does inflict violence, then that person alone should be held liable and not a whole country or group of people.

These Republican hacks may sound decent on some economic issues, but they are awful on foreign policy.  Herman Cain is even dumber when it comes to foreign policy as he is on economic and social issues.  Bachmann is horrible with just about everything she says regarding foreign policy.  It seems that Santorum, the so-called Christian, is in competition to kill as many Muslims as possible.  Newt  is also pro-war and could potentially be worse than both Bush and Obama.

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are both bad too, although maybe there would be a slight glimmer of hope that they would not be quite as bad as the others on the issue of war.  Meanwhile, as I wrote earlier, Huntsman is probably the least bad out of the seven of them.  Ron Paul, of course, is by far the best, even though he barely spoke for two minutes in the first hour of the debate, which was the only hour that was nationally broadcast.

Not much changed after tonight’s debate, except that it solidified my opinion that I have no use for CBS other than for watching football, Survivor, and Amazing Race.  It certainly does not qualify as a news organization.

The volatility in the stock market has continued this week.  The market was down big on Wednesday as there was increased concern about Italian debt, as rates on Italian bonds rose.  The stock market gained back some today (Thursday).

Gold, after showing a lot of strength and getting back near the $1,800 level, pulled back significantly today.

There is a continuing tug-of-war between the bears and the bulls.  I expect this to continue.  There is a tug-of-war between another artificial boom and a recession.  For a while, it looked as though the recession was going to win out in the short term.  But the stock market has done well in the last month and it points to the possibility of a short-term boom.  A short-term boom would not necessarily drive down unemployment significantly, but it might give people some false hope with rising asset prices, particularly in the stock market.

I thought that Wednesday sent an interesting signal with the concerns about Italian debt.  We have been hearing about Greece a lot, but I think the big fear all along has been that other countries would follow right behind Greece.  We have heard about the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain), but now we are actually seeing the markets react negatively to all of the big government debt.  Before it was just Greece, which is a small and relatively poor country.  Italy is another story.

Wednesday was interesting because the U.S. stock market tanked.  It shows that major trouble in Europe will affect U.S. markets to a large degree.  While I still see a mini-boom cycle as possible in the near term, the situation in Europe makes it a little less likely.  A partial or full default by a country the size of Italy will send shock waves around the world.  It will be bearish for U.S. markets.  It will be bullish for the U.S. dollar, at least in the short term.  It is harder to say how gold will react.

The Republican candidates in the debate last night were saying that what happens in Italy is their business and that the Fed should not bail out anyone.  The candidates say that, but they are simply pandering to their audience (with the exception of Ron Paul of course).  If a default on Italian debt or any other debt jeopardizes banks in the U.S., you can count on a bailout.  Several of the Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney and Herman Cain, were big supporters of TARP (the bank bailouts) in 2008.  Of course, it may not matter because this may all blow up in the next year while Obama is still in office and we know that he will not stop a Fed bailout.

I expect continued market volatility.  I continue to recommend the permanent portfolio, as described by Harry Browne.  The name of the game right now is asset protection.  You have to keep what you have.  Any investment growth should be icing on the cake.

There was a Republican presidential debate on CNBC featuring the 8 major candidates (no Gary Johnson).  The debate focused specifically on economic issues.  I am biased on who did the best, based on my libertarian beliefs.  With that said, I will first try to give a quick rundown of who I thought performed well, even if I didn’t agree with them.

Aside from Ron Paul, I though Romney and Gingrich had the best performance.  I disagree with Romney on many issues and I believe he is a phony when it comes to the things that he says in which I agree.  However, he did hold his own tonight.  Libertarians don’t like him and most Tea Party people don’t like him.  He is a mercantilist as he showed when he advocated slapping tariffs (those are taxes) on Chinese products.  But I don’t think he hurt himself as far as his supporters go, who tend to be less fiscally conservative.

Newt Gingrich has had a brilliant strategy and it has worked in getting his poll numbers up.  He is very careful not to criticize the other candidates.  The few times he has done so in past debates, he has done it respectfully.  But he doesn’t just make Obama the target.  He goes after the media, including the moderators of the debate.  He basically tells them that they are asking dumb questions, without being quite that blunt.  He is calling out the so-called liberal media, even if he doesn’t use that term.  Maria Bartiromo was about to blow a gasket at one point in the debate and I think that is what Gingrich wanted.  Conservatives like it and that is why he is doing it.

I think Gingrich is a fraud, but he is a smart man.  I don’t think he will get the nomination.  He is the Howard Dean of 2004.  The Republicans would like to nominate Gingrich (just as the Democrats wanted to nominate Dean in 2004), but they sense that he could not win the general election.  I think the Democrats were wrong in 2004 and made a blunder in putting up John Kerry.  I think the Republicans are right though, in that Gingrich probably cannot beat Obama.  The Republicans are not going to nominate someone who most likely cannot beat Obama.

I thought Michele Bachmann was a little stronger as compared to previous debates.  She is much better on economic issues than foreign policy.  She also didn’t use any stupid lines tonight about making Obama “a one-term president”.  Maybe her advisors finally told her how dumb she sounded whenever she said that line.  Bachmann has the same problem as Gingrich in that people question whether she could beat Obama.

Some people will say that Herman Cain did well tonight.  He deflected the questions about his personal past.  When it comes to the issues, I will continue to say that the man is just not that bright.  He has absolutely no grasp of foreign policy, little grasp of economic issues, and has no plan to cut one dime in spending.  The Republican voters need to wake up and start seeing through this man.  He is absolutely horrible on all of the issues and he might even be worse than Obama, if that is possible.

Rick Perry had another poor performance.  He actually listed some specific departments that he would get rid of, even though he couldn’t think of one of them at the time.  He isn’t a good debater, but I’m not sure who people will turn to when Cain falls.  Perry has a lot of money and backing and I would not count him out yet.

I thought Ron Paul did a good job overall in the debate.  I wish he would have been more bold when he was talking about healthcare.  Michele Bachmann may have actually done a better job on that topic.  But Ron Paul is forcing the other candidates to take positions that I don’t think they would have taken otherwise.  He is talking about his plan to cut one trillion dollars in his first year and he hit the nail right on the head when he said that taxation is just a symptom of the spending.  Everything revolves around spending.  It is pointless to talk about tax reform if you don’t address the out-of-control spending.  The only other thing I wish he would have done is to challenge Herman Cain specifically.  He should have pointed out that Cain has not identified one specific spending cut of any significance.

In conclusion, it looks like things still have a way to go before they play out.  I believe that Cain will slip, as people realize that he is full of slogans, but short on specifics.  It will become a race between Romney, Paul, and probably one other person.  I’m not sure if that other person will be Perry, Gingrich, or Bachmann.  Right now, I am still betting on Perry, despite his poor debate performances.  He has a lot of money.

We will see if Ron Paul can get any pro-war Republicans to defect to his camp.  He will not really lose supporters as other candidates do.  His current supporters are strongly on his side and not going anywhere.  If he gains some more momentum, he could actually make things very interesting.

I have to return to this topic every now and then, just to say how crazy it is.  In bipartisan fashion, you will hear both Republicans and Democrats talking about how we need energy independence in our country.

This is an absurd idea to push.  Why is there this great focus on oil?  If we want energy independence, do we also want car independence?  How about computer independence?  What about independence for gold and diamonds?  What about food independence?  Surely that has to be important enough that we not depend on other countries.

The only difference I can see with oil/ energy is that there seems to be a finite amount of it, whereas with food, you can continue to grow more.  But even here, there is a massive amount of oil contained in this planet.  It just so happens that the stuff that is the easiest to get to and use is mostly in the Middle East.  If there begins to be a shortage in oil, then the price will go up.  If the price goes up, then it becomes profitable to start extracting oil from the tar sands and other places that are more costly.  In addition, if the market is left free, then there will be replacements so that we don’t have to use as much oil.  Perhaps we will see electric cars become profitable and cost effective.  Of course, if we had a true free market, we might already have something better and safer to use than gas guzzling cars.

Sometimes I think that the people living in the Middle East would be much better off if there was no oil there.  The dictators running Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be better off, but most of the people would be.  It would keep the American empire away from them and allow them to prosper more naturally.

This whole idea of energy independence though is just ridiculous.  All we need is free trade.  Even if the pro-war Republicans were correct that Iran is run by a madman, there is still no reason not to buy oil there.  The dictators in the Middle East can’t drink the stuff.  It does them no good unless they use it themselves or sell it.  And with free trade, there is far less of a chance for conflict or war.

If Americans could produce enough oil and gas so that there is no need to buy from people in other countries, that is fine.  But that should be left to the market to decide.

I am all for opening up ANWR for oil drilling.  In fact, I think the U.S. government should sell it to the highest bidder (maybe a company like Exxon Mobil would bid on it) and the proceeds can be used to pay off Social Security recipients so that the program can be ended.  Meanwhile, we will also get cheaper gas.

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with buying oil from other countries.  Just as Americans buy lots of different food items and electronic gadgets from other countries, it is also beneficial to buy energy from other countries.  It is called free trade and it allows us to have a higher standard of living.  Americans should tell these politicians in DC to get a new job and to stop telling us what to buy and who to buy it from.

It seems that the top political story in the U.S. for the last week has been Herman Cain and accusations by several women that he made unwanted sexual advances on them back in the late 1990’s.

I have mixed opinions on this story.  It does seem kind of ridiculous that the media would spend so much time on this story when America has troops fighting all around the world, the national debt is $15 trillion, and the official unemployment rate is at 9% and showing little signs of improvement.

On the other hand, Herman Cain is now one of the supposed front-runners for the Republican nomination to become president.  If these allegations are true (and my guess is that they are), then it does speak to his character.  Of course, I already thought Cain was a jerk before these allegations came out.  A lot of people seem to be suckered into his seemingly pleasant personality, but I can see right through him and I do not see much good about him.

Some polls are showing that Cain and Romney are each at about 25%.  That means that half of Republicans are supporting a candidate who founded Obamacare (Romney) or a candidate who supported the bank bailouts (Cain and Romney both).

Herman Cain is a statist.  He headed up the Federal Reserve of Kansas City.  He is not an outsider.  He is an outsider only in the fact that his campaign team is unorganized.

I think when it comes down to it, Cain will not get the nomination.  The man is a moron, and I mean that sincerely.  His views on foreign policy are horrendous.  Read this article that was linked via LewRockwell.com today.

If you haven’t seen this video of Cain talking to John Stossel about abortion, watch it.  Like I said, the man is a complete moron.  It is possible to be against abortion, but not think it should be illegal.  The first time I saw the beginning of this clip, I thought maybe that was what he was saying.  But no.  The man is a moron.  How could he possibly get the nomination?  He actually makes George W. Bush sound somewhat coherent.

Cain is fooling a lot of people right now who are fed up with the status quo.  He is offering them garbage.  His 9-9-9 plan is terrible, as I have written about before.  He offers no specific spending cuts.  He is a demagogue.  He is a liar.  He is also a moron and he will be exposed sooner or later.

I would rather have Obama as president.  At least there is a chance we won’t have war with Iran with Obama in office.  Obama’s foreign policy has been horrible, but it could actually get worse with Cain.

I run this blog on libertarian investments.  I talk politics, economics, money, and investment strategies.  Occasionally I get challenged on my commentary and I even get challenged on the investment strategies.  One particular challenge is that if I am giving suggestions from a libertarian point of view, that the number one goal should be survivalism.

The interest in survivalism is immense.  With the economic troubles starting in 2008 and the election of Obama, combined with the internet, the interest in this topic is enormous.  There are literally tens of thousands of people who believe that there is going to be a complete breakdown in our civilization.

I do believe there is major economic trouble ahead.  There could be massive rioting, particularly in big cities.  There could be a significant increase in crime.  There could be higher unemployment, more poverty, and an increase in homelessness.  However, I think the chances of seeing a complete breakdown in civilization are very low.

One investment strategy I have recommended that the survivalists out there should like is one of my hedges against inflation.  I recommend storing up on extra food and other necessities when they are on sale.  You can’t buy extra milk and other things with near-term expiration dates, but there are a lot of things you can store up on.  You can buy extra soda, bottled water, canned foods, frozen foods (although they wouldn’t last without power), cereals, rice, etc.  You can also buy extra toilet paper, paper towels, deodorant, shaving cream, shampoo, soap, etc.  As long as they are things that you will eventually use, then I figure you can’t really lose anything with this strategy.  The prices of these things will most likely not be any lower one year from now.

I give this strategy as primarily an inflation hedge.  But it is also a good idea in a survivalist sense.  If there is a hurricane, snowstorm, or some other natural disaster, then having extra food will be important.  You should always have enough extra food to last you at least one week, at a minimum.

The survivalists will not like this.  They will tell me I have to get a second house in the country and raise my own food and prepare for the worst.  While I can’t be one hundred percent sure that something won’t happen, I am not going to turn my life upside down to prepare for something that will most likely never happen.

I only see two things that could realistically happen to cause a breakdown in civilization.  One is hyperinflation and the other is some kind of a terror attack.

I have said before that I think hyperinflation is unlikely.  While I can definitely see high price inflation happening, I don’t see the Fed and the rest of the bankers promoting a policy that would destroy themselves.

As to a terror attack, this is a little more likely, although it would have to be really bad to disrupt society that much.  It would have to be something major, like an airborne illness.  Unless, there was a major pandemic, society would find a way to continue on.

I don’t think many of the survivalists understand what they are saying.  If there was a complete breakdown in the division of labor in our society, then most of the survivalists would perish too.  Maybe they could hold on for a little while longer, but not by much.  How would they protect their gardens or farms?  How will they get any medical care?  What happens when their shoes are worn out?  Can they survive the heat and cold of the seasons?  How will they protect their property?

These questions could go on and on.  We take so many things for granted, we don’t even think about them.  We are talking about a society where you can’t go anywhere (there would be no gas and it wouldn’t be safe).  We are talking about all stores being shut down.  We are talking about staying in your house for the rest of your life or until most of the population dies off.  We are talking about the need to have several people bonded together.  They would have to take shifts in order to guard their property 24 hours a day.

If you believe there is going to be a breakdown in civilization like this, then you must turn your life upside down to prepare for it.  Tinkering around the edges will not get you far.  Tinkering around the edges will allow you to survive a hurricane or a short-term breakdown.  This is why I will not go to full-fledged survivalist mode.  It is not worth the costs.  It won’t be much of a life to live anyway if it ever did happen.