What should the Govt do first?? (when TSHTF)

[DominicJ]

Biff
The last one confiscated salt stocks during bad weather....

You might be a Minshevik, but Labour are Bolshevik....

[snow hope]

I've been wondering a bit lately, that when TSHTF...

How will you know when that is? What is your criteria for TSHTF? Are there any quantifiable markers?

When most things become not normal and/or when the Govt. start to do strange things.

eg. fuel rationing is introduced, food rationing is introduced, war breaks our - conscription re-introduced, people lose their jobs in droves - 20/30% unemployment, widescale rioting breaks out, sudden jump (doubling/tripling) in prices of many basic goods, etc. etc.

I think most of us on here will have a good idea when the real crash starts.

I don't really know what the Govt. should do. I have the feeling that they won't really be able to do much in a fast crash situation. Slow crash is a different story.

[vtsnowedin]

There are two different break points here. The first is when world oil production (not supplies) can be seen to be declining by five percent or more per year. The second is when the high cost of scarce energy drives world governments into bankruptcy and they have to lay off all their employees including cops and soldiers.
With the first one a government can make choices that make the trip down the slope a lot easier for the majority. Or totally blow it and actually throw people off the cliff with enough velocity to make the first bounce fatal.
Three things to do after break point #1?
1.Stop turning food into ethanol, end all farm subsidies,
2. Stop most highway construction and upgrade railroad lines while regulating the rail companies to keep them from being rapacious monopolies.
3. Rework the tax code so that what is taxed is the waste (not just use) of energy. Saving energy would become the focus of all business.
And if I could throw out a number 4. Automatically grant permits to any renewable energy project. Don't subsidise them but don't add any regulatory cost or delay to the project.
After break point number two there will be little or anything the government can do as they will be out of business. They could have the decency to tell people they are on their own and give them time to set up local militias and police services and pass out what guns they have on in the days before they stop enforcing the law of the land.
They could shoot the violent prisoners in the prisons rather then just let them out on the street.
Confiscating food would do no good as you would just have to redistribute it and the government would lose so much in the back and forth their programme would cause more starvation then it avoided.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

There are two different break points here. The first is when world oil production (not supplies) can be seen to be declining by five percent or more per year. The second is when the high cost of scarce energy drives world governments into bankruptcy and they have to lay off all their employees including cops and soldiers.
With the first one a government can make choices that make the trip down the slope a lot easier for the majority. Or totally blow it and actually throw people off the cliff with enough velocity to make the first bounce fatal.
Three things to do after break point #1?
1.Stop turning food into ethanol, end all farm subsidies,
2. Stop most highway construction and upgrade railroad lines while regulating the rail companies to keep them from being rapacious monopolies.
3. Rework the tax code so that what is taxed is the waste (not just use) of energy. Saving energy would become the focus of all business.
And if I could throw out a number 4. Automatically grant permits to any renewable energy project. Don't subsidise them but don't add any regulatory cost or delay to the project.
After break point number two there will be little or anything the government can do as they will be out of business. They could have the decency to tell people they are on their own and give them time to set up local militias and police services and pass out what guns they have on in the days before they stop enforcing the law of the land.
They could shoot the violent prisoners in the prisons rather then just let them out on the street.
Confiscating food would do no good as you would just have to redistribute it and the government would lose so much in the back and forth their programme would cause more starvation then it avoided.

Yes, could be worse. We could be stuck in America surronded by all those maniacs with guns. Take care, VT.

[DominicJ]

The second is when the high cost of scarce energy drives world governments into bankruptcy and they have to lay off all their employees including cops and soldiers.

I dont know about the US, but in the UK, courts, prisons, police and the armed forces are about 10% of GDP, and 20% of government spending.

Governments can easily survive if they are prepared to eat their sacred cows.
Healthcare, Welfare and Pensions are more than the above, individualy.

[vtsnowedin]

[Yes, could be worse. We could be stuck in America surrounded by all those maniacs with guns. Take care, VT.

Yes but I am also surrounded be responsible citizens with guns, myself included. No need to be begging the government for the means to defend ourselves. I'll take my situation over yours

[vtsnowedin]

The second is when the high cost of scarce energy drives world governments into bankruptcy and they have to lay off all their employees including cops and soldiers.

I dont know about the US, but in the UK, courts, prisons, police and the armed forces are about 10% of GDP, and 20% of government spending.

Governments can easily survive if they are prepared to eat their sacred cows.
Healthcare, Welfare and Pensions are more than the above, individualy.

Yes but they won't let those sacred cows go or even trim their diet until they go totally bankrupt and the foreclosure sales begin.

[clv101]

...I am also surrounded be responsible citizens with guns, myself included.

Responsible now, for sure, but isn't the issue how the folk around you will respond to an extreme situation? We've no idea how people respond under extreme pressure. In that environment, it's probably a good idea not to have every other person carrying a gun.

[vtsnowedin]

...I am also surrounded be responsible citizens with guns, myself included.

Responsible now, for sure, but isn't the issue how the folk around you will respond to an extreme situation? We've no idea how people respond under extreme pressure. In that environment, it's probably a good idea not to have every other person carrying a gun.

This is a longstanding debate and I respect your point of view and would not try to persuade you to change.
I expect that in my community if and when the federal and state governments collapse the townspeople will organise with a special town meeting and provide for law and order and assign each taxpayer a certain amount of duty to cover the need without raising taxes that can't be paid in a chaotic economy. Lawless criminal gangs would have a tough time of it as any house they tried to enter would likely contain an armed tenant. The worst that it is likely to get is that the highways into and out of town might have to be manned 24/7/365 to only let people with legitimate business into the town.
The presence of guns in the town would not be a problem. What would cause real hardship is the loss of the electric grid as the villages drinking water and waste water disposal are both dependant on electric pumps.

[DominicJ]

...I am also surrounded be responsible citizens with guns, myself included.

Responsible now, for sure, but isn't the issue how the folk around you will respond to an extreme situation? We've no idea how people respond under extreme pressure. In that environment, it's probably a good idea not to have every other person carrying a gun.

At least in the US, many of the armed people are sensible.
In the UK, virtualy everyone with a firearm is a criminal.....

I know where I'd rather live

[JohnB]

In the UK, virtualy everyone with a firearm is a criminal.....

I know farmers commit crimes against the planet by using masses of fossil fuel and pesticides, and gamekeepers and sportsmen support the killing of wild creatures for pleasure, but in British law they're not regarded as criminals .

[DominicJ]

Hence the virtualy.
And most are likely to have shotguns or .22's.
With the odd single round .303 for deer hunters.

No one has a clue how many illegal firearms are floating around the UK.
One group guessed at half a miilion replicas.
Which can be converted into real guns for under £100....

[Ludwig]

...I am also surrounded be responsible citizens with guns, myself included.

Responsible now, for sure, but isn't the issue how the folk around you will respond to an extreme situation? We've no idea how people respond under extreme pressure. In that environment, it's probably a good idea not to have every other person carrying a gun.

At least in the US, many of the armed people are sensible.

In the UK, virtualy everyone with a firearm is a criminal.....

But I'd bet the total proportion of psychopaths who are armed in America is higher than in the UK.

I know where I'd rather live

I suspect you might change your mind if transplanted to East LA or some of the suburbs of Washtington in a post-Peak world....

[sam_uk]

I know where I'd rather live

When do you leave?

Oh wait, no that would make you an immigrant.. Can't have that.

[DominicJ]

What an odd comment....

I leave as soon as I can meet the immigration criteria of course