Realcent.org

So I often wonder how "few" people are really awake? You know what I mean. How many people stack, hoard or just basically think about taking care of themselves in the times we are in. So I started looking at the web sites I looked at the best # of read articles and so far I have found....

"reads" on an article vs people in the US.

0.0009302857142857142

I know there is a lot of gray area here but if I just adjust that for "my" known family it is not a lot better. Too many heads in the sand.

If more than 1% of people have any kind of a prep plan I would be shocked.

If you mean 0.0009302857142857142 in percentages, so just under one hundreth of one percent, I would say that is approximately correct.

Some quick googling and very rough napkin math. There's about a billion ounces of silver above ground and tradeable. Let's say that 100 oz of silver is a hoarding unit (that being about a month's disposable income of ~$3000 for a first-world person). That only allows 10 millions hoards. Take away the gov't stockpiles around the world, corporate stockpiles of companies who use it in their industry, and silver tied up in financial warehouses for ECNs or other commercial hedges and such; leaving half?

There's about 7 billion people in the world, so let's say the 10% richest of the world have enough money to even consider building a hoard. That's 700 million people, chasing 5 million hoards. All of the people that I know that collect silver are very coy about how much they own, as am I, but I get the feel that each has more than one hoarding-units worth.

Your one in ten thousand number is very plausible.

About a year ago I suggested that a "serious silver investor" is someone with at least 300 ounces of physical silver. I believe consesus was that about 1% of U.S. households met this standard. Add to that those who favor physical gold, those who hold cash in pennies/nickels, those who have extensive gardens (and even some livestock) and those who store extra food and, even accounting for overlap, you probably have somewhere around 5% of households who are at least somewhat prepared. Now if you further include those with critical SHTF skills, (engineers, mechanics, doctors) which can be bartered for food and PMs we could be close to 15%.

300 ounces Ag at $30 / oz, that's only $9000. $50 is a more reasonable value for physical (blasted paper manipulators), but that's still only $15,000.

Pocket change, if things get seriously wrong.

We only need a few months worth of "money" in the event of a paper currency collapse. Remember that SHTF doesn't mean retirement for those with a few hundred ounces of silver. It means we personally become a micro-community bank with this new hard money, lending tiny amounts to our immediate neighbors, until trade resumes normally. We keep working like before, earning enough to feed and clothe and house ourselves and our families. Our paychecks just change from bits in a computer to literally ounces and fractionals of gold and silver.

Of course, more is better. I'm stacking until I'm retired, then I'm selling to help fund my retirement.

SilverEye wrote:We only need a few months worth of "money" in the event of a paper currency collapse. Remember that SHTF doesn't mean retirement for those with a few hundred ounces of silver. It means we personally become a micro-community bank with this new hard money, lending tiny amounts to our immediate neighbors, until trade resumes normally. We keep working like before, earning enough to feed and clothe and house ourselves and our families. Our paychecks just change from bits in a computer to literally ounces and fractionals of gold and silver.

Of course, more is better. I'm stacking until I'm retired, then I'm selling to help fund my retirement.

Good description of post-SHTF life. That's why I think pre-65 Roosevelts are going to be quite versatile.

I've been thinking about this question for awhile now and maybe this is the appropriate place to ask, but.....how much is enough? Meaning, if it does go down like some on here believe, is a months worth of pay, at today's prices, of Pm's enough to see one through? A years worth? Just curious as to what everyone has in mind.

I save a month in cash...
a lifetime in PM's to pay taxes (don't want to lose the house)
junk silver to last a few years
a year in food for each family member
ammo in the amount to make one big crater if the zombies over run us. (go in style)
kind of down that line of thinking for me.

Saabman wrote:I've been thinking about this question for awhile now and maybe this is the appropriate place to ask, but.....how much is enough? Meaning, if it does go down like some on here believe, is a months worth of pay, at today's prices, of Pm's enough to see one through? A years worth? Just curious as to what everyone has in mind.

Originally I thought "Oh, a couple of years."

More recently, I've decided that there should be no limit. Suppose you develop serious medical problems? How much are you going to need to cover the costs?

Mossy wrote:300 ounces Ag at $30 / oz, that's only $9000. $50 is a more reasonable value for physical (blasted paper manipulators), but that's still only $15,000.

Pocket change, if things get seriously wrong.

Correct, but the bulk of the US has negative savings, no matter how the measure, so anyone that actually has savings period is well ahead of the crowd.

As savings (retirement) I would use a rough rule of thumb of an allocation of an ounce of silver per day per person for as many days as you think you need to cover. For a couple, that's a need of 700 oz per year. For ten years, that's 7000 oz. Or an ounce of gold per month per person. Give or take.

If we're lucky we might see a real appreciation in the value of silver that would make the amount needed go down to half or a third of the above. But the general yardstick remains useful.

68Camaro wrote:

Mossy wrote:300 ounces Ag at $30 / oz, that's only $9000. $50 is a more reasonable value for physical (blasted paper manipulators), but that's still only $15,000.

Pocket change, if things get seriously wrong.

Correct, but the bulk of the US has negative savings, no matter how the measure, so anyone that actually has savings period is well ahead of the crowd.

As savings (retirement) I would use a rough rule of thumb of an allocation of an ounce of silver per day per person for as many days as you think you need to cover. For a couple, that's a need of 700 oz per year. For ten years, that's 7000 oz. Or an ounce of gold per month per person. Give or take.

If we're lucky we might see a real appreciation in the value of silver that would make the amount needed go down to half or a third of the above. But the general yardstick remains useful.

Good standard you have there 68. I've never really thought about in such specific terms. I suppose I would just add that one's needs in PMs would also be determined in some degree by how well one had set aside the other pillars of preparation such as food, medical, defense, transportation, etc.

Thanks for y'all's thoughts on this. As I antcipated would be the case.....I have a long way to go.....but at least I'm on the right path.

68Camaro wrote: ...
Correct, but the bulk of the US has negative savings, no matter how the measure, so anyone that actually has savings period is well ahead of the crowd.

Being ahead of the crowd can still be mighty bad off.

I need to continue to accumulate PMs, but I'm not worried, plenty of time, the private sector is doing fine!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/ ... doing_fine

In my limited experience, I am the only person I know who actively buys gold or silver (and I can't afford to buy much). The attitudes of the people I know range from aggressively anti-PMs ("It's a huge bubble, no way it stays that high, it's going to come down, blah blah blah) to "I think it's a good idea, but it's too expensive" to "maybe someday". Of all the people I know, I only know 2 who have any silver at all - one older lady who has a sock full of old quarters and dimes and a guy who has a couple of AEs (bought on my recommendation) and they definitely aren't stacking/hoarding. I wouldn't be surprised if it is less than 1%.

Mossy wrote:

68Camaro wrote: ...
Correct, but the bulk of the US has negative savings, no matter how the measure, so anyone that actually has savings period is well ahead of the crowd.

Being ahead of the crowd can still be mighty bad off.

No argument - just didn't want to discourage someone that had busted their butt to get/stay out of debt, and actually had some positive savings. That's so freakin' rare these days...

I've discussed "investments" with a bunch of people, and there is no way that even 1% have any physical PM's. I would agree with the earlier guess of 1 in 10,000. Most people just have their homes and some mutual funds (stocks/bonds).

We should also think about the jewelry boxes with a few of their "treasures." I know 14k resale/usage may be tough in a stink HTF scenario though it's better than nothing. Adding in the rings and necklaces will bring the percentages up some.

shinnosuke wrote:We should also think about the jewelry boxes with a few of their "treasures." I know 14k resale/usage may be tough in a stink HTF scenario though it's better than nothing. Adding in the rings and necklaces will bring the percentages up some.

(gloom) "Paid high retail and had to sell at less than retail." Only the jewler makes money on that, and not much after expenses.