8 votes

Where should you live during the coming global financial collapse?

This six-minute video does a decent job outlining considerations you should have in finding a relatively safe location. However, it confines itself to the United States and, in my opinion, does not adequately take into account the impact of urban flight in the case of infrastructure failure, including truck deliveries.

Its conclusion, Jackson County FL, based on rainfall, population, % of population on food stamps, incidence of hurricane, tornado and flood damage, agricultural production, and winter temperatures, is probably not far enough from the population centers of Tallahassee, Columbus, Montgomery, and Pensacola, not to mention closer coastal areas in event of Hurricane devastation. A trade-off in favor of further distance from migration sources would be my recommendation.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
henry9's picture


I'm staying put right here in central Maine where it is too cold for most folks and an abundance of Liberty minded people.

Linda Cross's picture

I know a better place.

and I'm not tellin! :)

If you see something, say something, the government is listening.
Silence isn't golden, it's yellow.

Michigans upper peninsula

I know a guy who just sold his business, home, bought a boat and purchased acreage in the upper peninsula of Michigan, right on Lake Superior. It's a tad cold up there, but plenty of firewood to stay warm in the winter, an area that has great hunting and fishing. There is enough wind coming off that lake to spin the bearings out of a windmill and a long, long way from any populated areas.

double post


New Hampshire and Ecuador.

I've lived on a lake before

but I won't anymore. Jolting earth changes could move a mountain of water on top of you in a few seconds. If there are mountains next to the lake it could be a landslide that sends a 100-ft. wave barreling down on you. If there's a massive fusillade of meteor strikes there could be crustal displacement. Combined centrifugal force and gravity will keep the water right where it is but the shore will move and wind up with a lake on top of it.

Much also depends on whether or not you expect people to form pillaging gangs following the collapse. Open water would be great for shore hunting and fishing but would also be a pathway for pirates. I expect piracy to explode following a ruinous collapse. I'd like to be out of sight, out of mind.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Interresting deductions...

However, I think there are several considerations not taken when reaching his conclusion.
Proximity of military bases.
Distance to cities from which the hoards will come.
A defendable position.
I think the effort was a good one...I just don't agree with his/her conclusion.

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

I disagree with this map's exclusions.

Particularly, he removes large sections of perfectly viable locations simply on the basis of >30% chance of hurricane "damage."

Note, that damage could be something minor like a tree knocked down, a fence blown over (because it wasn't installed properly, or because the tree fell on it) or maybe a broken window or a few missing shingles. It does NOT mean you have a >30% chance of your home being obliterated.

Also he discounts these areas because "government won't be coming to save you."

The problem with that method of thinking should be obvious. Government is no longer a consideration at that point anyway, so to use it's lack of response as a reason to exclude an area is just plain stupid.

Hurricanes don't hit any one particular spot often. And all you'll need to get through an economic collapse is a year or so. The odds are not against you with hurricanes in that area. Most of those locations don't even see a storm once every 10 years, and they don't see anything of any decent destructible force but once every 20-40 years.

In fact, being in a hurricane zone might be beneficial. If you are in a sturdy structure with good drainage and wind blockage, you'll come out relatively unscathed. However, those with no preps and who can't survive without help, won't. It will be a "cleansing" of sorts.

And on that note, to include any county of Florida as "safe" from Hurricanes is laughable. If you are going to exclude interior portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, or portions of the Texas Gulf coast, then you have to exclude ALL of Florida. I think the guy who made this video lives in that part of Florida and just wants to justify to himself that he is safe and others aren't.

I would say the same goes for the tornado exclusions. We just don't get them that often along the gulf coast or even moderately inland. Yes the do happen, but they are rare, and usually not very strong. They also don't wipe out entire parishes/counties or even towns. They are mostly a touch and go sort of system around here- very short lived. Your odds of being a tornado victim around here are slim and none.

The biggest concern you have is #1 FOOD

Let me repeat - FOOD.

You need to be able to provide your crops with at least 1" of rain per week during the growing season.

Note, I said the growing season.

That means you can now include much more of the U.S. on the map as the growing season isn't 52 weeks long.

Certainly, he lists the better places to grow crops. But if they were the only ones, the U.S. wouldn't have settled as quickly as it did, especially east of the Mississippi.

If you don't get enough rain during the growing season, then you need to be near a water source. Being near one anyway helps no matter what for other purposes though.

So living near a river or stream is best, a lake or the ocean second.

If you don't get enough rainfall, but you have a fresh water source, you can use irrigation to grow your food.

Running water can also provide a cheap and easy source of power if you have planned for it.

Everything else is irrelevant if you don't have food and fresh water.

Also, if you are near where food is presently being grown and animals grazed, then you'll be closest to the present sources when distribution networks fail. Your local stores will have food stocks longer than those farther away from the sources.

Second consideration is DEFENSE.

If you can't defend your food and water or your own life, you won't make it.

You need a site that is defensible. That means, you shouldn't be at the bottom of two or three hills. You should be on the TOP of one of those hills.

If you live in flat terrain, then you need to be located where you can use surrounding structures or trees for defense. The better you can manage to either camouflage your location, and/or funnel travelers away from you or into a certain "alley" or area that is not defensible, the better.

If you can put "intruders" into a non-defensible "turkey shoot" predicament, you'll likely survive the urban hoards that will scour the country side for food.

The reason this is a second consideration and not a first is because you "could" live on the run or "go camping" and simply avoid all civilization for a few months. Otherwise, this should be your FIRST concern.


After that, then you need to think about other things such as structures, first aid, etc.

Listening to a Joel Skousen interview,

he says DON'T build on a hill where people can see your location from afar. Build in a place away from where they are more likely to go. But I agree, you can't set yourself up as a shooting gallery. Maybe an underground house on a hilltop so it looks like nothing's there.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Very good!

The hurricane and tornado exclusions were just plain dumb. And he did not mention that all Florida, in spite of the beautiful climate, has no nutrients in its soil. No petroleum based fertilizer - no crops. The area surrounding the Okeechobee is the only exception.

The Midwest could be a good choice. The Mississippi delta could be stellar. Any delta has water and great soil. Food can always be preserved. Most of the Western states would probably be too dry. The Northeast could be fine too although it is quite heavily populated.

I think the video maker must have been from Jackson County, FL.

Great critique, samadams!

I agree. While the video is a good starting point for the survival thought process, no relocation decision should be made on the basis of the video. It was in too much of a hurry to mark an X on the map.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

I highly recommend Joel

I highly recommend Joel Skousen's 'Strategic Relocation'...


Watch the 2 hour video interview he did with Alex Jones.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

OK, John C, I watched the AJ/Skousen interview

He paints a realistically grim picture of what you will face in the city when the grid winks out and doesn't return for weeks. The biggest danger for most will be from their neighbors who didn't prepare, and there will be too many of them to hold at bay with your arsenal. Best solution: get out of the city before it happens.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

I will.

I've saved it later :-)
Listening to a Dr. Paul interview at the moment.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Checking my equatorial property:

Annual rainfall: 2501mm-3500mm (roughly 100-140 inches)
Temperature: 60-80 degrees F (my estimate)
National population density/km2: 55.8 (approximately = Georgia)
My province's population/km2: 6.34 (approximately = Idaho)
My canton's population/km2.: 3.49 (approximately = North Dakota)

New Hampshire and Ecuador.