Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Taking Advantage of a Sharply Changing Environment -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: isopatch who wrote (1865)	6/7/2019 10:57:57 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6337

It comes down to certain areas of Colorado and New Mexico. My 2nd choice was only about 40 miles from here. To the south. Everywhere east of the Mississippi is ruled out -- New Madrid, population density, small state sizes may mean restricted freedom of movement. The West Coast - CA, WA, OR - seismic and volcanic risk, population density. Midwest and Plains - flooding, severe weather, more flooding, tornadoes, brutal Winters - there may be some areas where these are not as much of a threat. Those areas would have to be further screened. There's not a whole hell of a lot to choose from. There really is no "best case scenario" going forward from here. The GSM/pole shift is going to go from bad to worse...and then worse yet. As time moves on from here, options will only narrow. Relocating is not easy and it's probably fair to say that most people aren't in any position to do so. People are being forced to relocate already with the floods. Volcanoes have forced some too. As Theodore White, astromet says, "Think long and hard".