L: Doug, we talked previously about getting assets out of your home country, especially the US, where to take them, and what to do with them. In so doing, you touched on the inevitability of currency controls just ahead, especially for Americans. Can you tell us more about that?

Doug: Yes. I'm quite serious about what I said about "the grim reality of impending currency controls." As the global economy continues to deteriorate, governments will have to appear to be "doing something." It's going to become very fashionable to institute some sort of foreign exchange control.

Why might that be? Because obviously, people who are taking their money out of the country are unpatriotic…

L: Those bastards.

Doug: That's right. Jingoistic Americans naturally, but stupidly, see taking money out of the country as being unpatriotic. They don't understand that it's mainly those prudent people who will be able to supply the capital to rebuild a devastated economy later. Besides, getting money abroad is obviously something that only rich people would do… and of course, it's time to eat the rich, as well. For those two reasons, there won't be much resistance to controls. And the state gets to appear to be "doing something."

And when they do, more people - at least those with any sense - will get scared and really try to get their money out, which will exacerbate the run to the exits. The bottom line is that if you want to get your money out, the time to do it is now. Beat the last-minute rush.

I don't know what form the exchange controls are going to take, but there are two general possibilities: regulation and taxation.

The regulations might take the form of a rule prohibiting you from taking more than X thousands of dollars abroad per year without special permission. No expensive vacations, no foreign asset purchases without state approval.

As for the taxation, if you want to, say, buy foreign stocks or real estate, you might have to pay an "Interest Equalization Tax" or some such. So you could do it, but it'd cost you a lot of money to do it.

Something like either of these, or both, is definitely in the cards.

L: But aren't FX controls something from the past? I mean, where do they exist today?

Doug: Well, FX controls have been used since the days of the Roman Empire. A country debases its currency, raises taxes beyond a certain level, and makes regulations too onerous - and productive people naturally react by getting their capital, and then themselves, out of Dodge. But the government can't have that, so it puts on FX controls. They're almost inevitable at this point.

Almost every country - except for the US, Canada, Switzerland, and a few others -had them until at least the '70s. I remember leaving Britain once in the '60s, and a border guy searched me to see if I had more than 50 pounds on me. In those days, currency violations in the Soviet bloc countries could get you the death penalty. Things liberalized around the world with Reagan and Thatcher, and then the collapse of the USSR. But you have to remember that that was in the context of the Long Boom. Now, during the Greater Depression, things will become much stricter again.

Right now, the US just has reporting requirements. But some places, like South Africa, make it very expensive and inconvenient to get money out. South Africa, perversely, may serve as a model for the US.

L: Okay, so we talked previously about Americans at least setting up a Canadian bank account and safe deposit box, and better yet going in person to Panama, Uruguay, Malaysia, or a similar place to do the same. And once there, you advised getting with a lawyer, either referred by someone you trust or found through an interview process, to set up a corporation that can handle your assets and investments for you. This all needs to be reported, but it's wise to do it in advance of the higher costs or other limitations to come.

Doug: Yes. While US persons must report foreign bank and brokerage accounts, safe deposit boxes are not - at least not yet - reportable. This leads me to the biggest and best "loophole" when it comes to potential foreign exchange controls, and that's foreign real estate.

I'm of the opinion that, broadly speaking, real estate as an asset class is going to be a poor performer for a long time to come - but that won't be equally true across all countries. Real estate in countries that rely on mortgage debt to buy and sell will continue to be the worst hit.

People don't understand that buying property with a mortgage is just the same as buying stocks on margin. It's caused speculative bubbles and malinvestment. Until the malinvestment in those countries is entirely liquidated, you don't want to invest in real estate in them. But a lot of countries, especially in the Third World, have no mortgage debt whatsoever. Zero mortgage debt. You want a piece of property, you pay for it in cash. That keeps prices down and the market much more stable. And it makes for more interesting speculations, because if a mortgage market develops in the future, it could light a fire under prices.

But, from the viewpoint of FX controls, the nice thing about real estate is that there is no way they can make you repatriate it. Other than owning a business abroad, real estate is the only sure way to legally keep your capital offshore.

L: I suppose it would be difficult for even Uncle Sam to seize your estancia in Argentina… not without starting a war.

Doug: Yes. Although I don't doubt he'll be starting more wars as well… [Laughs]

L: So, part of your thinking here isn't just speculative. You're talking about strategies for wealth preservation, not just in the face of foreign exchange controls, but more aggressive, predatory taxation and confiscation by the state - they can seize your assets, even real estate, in the US, but not abroad.

Doug: Exactly. Argentina is excellent from that point of view; rights to real property are, if anything, better than those in the US. In many ways, Argentina is culturally and demographically more like Europe than Europe. Uruguay is also excellent, although culturally it's like a backward province of Argentina. Paraguay is quite secure - but a bit weird as a place to live.

I'm not currently up to date on the Chilean real estate market, but Chile is definitely now the richest and most advanced South American country, and an excellent choice. Brazil is fine. Colombia is improving greatly. Ecuador has a goofy president, but parts of it are very nice, and it's about as cheap as Argentina. Eastern Bolivia is interesting, actually, despite Morales. Only Venezuela is out of the question in South America. It's just a pity they have all that oil, which is always a corrupting influence.

L: Well, then, what about Central America? I know you prefer South America for speculative purposes, but what if someone wants to park a lot of wealth by buying a couple miles of beautiful beachfront property in Costa Rica, or some place like that?

Doug: I was a big fan of Costa Rica for many years… The first time I went down there was 35 years ago - but it's a different place now. Then it was very cheap, and now it's very expensive. And it's totally overrun with gringos. So, Costa Rica is not of that much interest to me at this point; it's pleasant, but there's limited upside.

I think an excellent place to be in Central America is Belize. Although culturally and ethnically, it's not really part of Central America; it's part of the Caribbean.

L: And they speak English there.

Doug: They do indeed, though things are changing. The Guatemalan government has always regarded British Honduras, which is what Belize used to be called, as part of Guatemala. There have actually been confrontations between Britain and Guatemala over this. But that's in the past; now there's a different problem. Guatemalans are rolling over the border in much the same way that Mexicans are in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

So, the character of Belize is changing, but for the foreseeable future, it's still going to be Belize, and I rather like it. Aside from Panama, Belize would be my first choice in Central America.

The problem with Central America, however, is that it's a bunch of small countries that have historically been very unstable. And culturally backward. Most are under the thumb of the United States… there's a long history of US invasions, most recently in Panama with Noriega. There are "Frito banditos" running around these places…

The most culturally advanced country in Central America - not counting México, of course, since it's in North America - is Guatemala. But Guatemala has had huge troubles with violence, which has only recently come to an end… I hate going through checkpoints at night, manned by jumpy, uneducated, heavily armed teenagers.

Nicaragua is the low-cost alternative, but it's relatively backward. Panama is probably the best choice. It's very international, very urban (in Panama City), and it's very sophisticated, infrastructure-wise.

If I didn't like Argentina and Uruguay so much, I would put Panama at the top of my shopping list.

L: Got it. Back to the exchange controls themselves. Do you think people will have any warning at all? It seems to me that this is the sort of thing the Powers that Be would want to spring on people.

Doug: I think it's going to come out of left field. It always does, with at most an official denial just before it happens. In August 1971, Nixon devalued the dollar, which immediately dropped against gold and all foreign currencies. I think there's a reasonable probability that the government will do that again. Gold may not be part of the equation, but they may decide to put in some sort of fixed exchange rate between the dollar and various foreign currencies.

The reason for thinking this is simple: with all the dollars outside the United States devalued by that much, that much of a liability just vanishes into thin air. And in the short term - it's never a long-term fix - US exports would go up. This would "stimulate" the domestic economy. Imports to the US would go down, which would make for fewer dollars leaving the US.

L: I know you hate making predictions, but can you tell us if your guru sense is tingling on this so strongly that you think it could happen soon?

Doug: The timing on this is really unpredictable. These people don't have a plan. They're acting ad hoc to whatever seems most urgent. All the so-called economists around government today are really just political hacks. Their world views are totally unsound.

L: With all the problems the US has, do you think this could happen now? Could we be reading about new exchange controls on CNN.com this afternoon?

Doug: Sure. Although they typically pull these stunts over a weekend. I expect something of this nature to happen any time between tomorrow morning and two years from now. If some form of currency controls are not instituted within two years, I'm going to be genuinely surprised.

So if you're going to take action, you should start heading for the exits now. Not next month, and certainly not next year.

L: For those who don't take action until it's too late, under the scenarios you mentioned, they'll still be able to get money out. It's just that it might be more difficult, time consuming, humiliating, and certainly more expensive to do. For every $100,000 they move, only $90,000, or $70,000, or whatever will get to where it's supposed to go. Can you foresee a more Stalinesque alternative, where they simply can't get anything out at all?

Doug: Hopefully not. Anything is possible, and things can change so rapidly… but I'd hate to think of what conditions would be like if they ever became that draconian. It'd be so bad on other fronts that there would be all sorts of even more urgent things on your mind - Americans would get a very quick and unpleasant education in the real meaning of Maslow's hierarchy.

L: Like the Mad Max-style neobarbarians at the door with a battering ram.

Doug: Exactly - that's when you'll definitely want to be in more pleasant climes. I'd want to be watching it on my widescreen, in comfort, not out my front window.

L: We're talking about extremes here…

Doug: You know, back in the 1970s there was a spate of books published on financial privacy. In those days, financial privacy was still possible. Now, it's not only no longer truly possible, short of embracing a completely outlaw lifestyle, it's very dangerous to write about it or even talk about it. I kid you not. These days, people who ask too many questions about privacy techniques may well be government stooges…

There's lots of handwriting on the wall. All those books on financial privacy were published in the '70s - if you look on Amazon, you can still find them. But there's nothing really worth reading that's been written on the subject in 20 years. It's actively discouraged by the government. I could name - but I won't - at least two authors who got themselves into a real jackpot this way. Forget about the First Amendment.

In fact, I even feel uncomfortable talking about it in this interview.

So let me once again emphasize that I advise everyone to stay fully within the bounds of the law.

That's not for moral reasons, of course; there is no morality to the law. It's strictly for reasons of practicality. Risk-reward ratio.

L: Understood. Loud and clear. Any more investment implications, besides foreign real estate, that you want to draw attention to here?

Doug: Yes - and it's another reason for those so very clever boys in Washington to embrace currency controls. They will be disastrous for the US economy, but there's a very good chance that, in the short run, they'll be very good for the stock market. That's partly for the reasons I already mentioned about it temporarily boosting US exports, and hence earnings of US exporters, but also because all that money that can't leave the US will have to go into something.

Investors will probably want to put it into equity rather than debt while the dollar is depreciating. Again, it's disastrous over the long term, but as a short-term play, buying the blue chips the day the exchange controls are instituted could be a good move.

L: You'd buy the Dow?

Doug: I might, if I couldn't think of anything more intelligent or original to do. We'll just have to see what the situation is like.

L: Thanks again, Doug - you've given us a lot to think about.

Doug: My pleasure.

You can learn more about expatriating your wealth from Doug Casey, as well as four other economic experts, at 2 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 30. Casey Research will premier a special web video, Internationalize Your Assets. This webinar is a must-see event for anyone interested in protecting at least some of their assets abroad. For details and to sign up, click here.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

The International Man is long out of print, of course, and only available through used bookstores and finders (including amazon.com). While I'm obviously biased, it's actually still an excellent read, although the world is a different place and I've learned a few things since 1976. The book was directed to Americans, but found a fairly broad international market - becoming, among other things, the biggest-selling book in the history of Rhodesia. That, in and of itself, provides a bit of an object lesson in how things can change, I think.

When I first went to Rhodesia in 1978, war was still raging, but I was able to find an entrepreneurial local publisher, Gordon Graham. At the time, there were still about 250,000 people of European extraction among the 6-million population. And it was clear most of them were eyeing the exits and wondering where to go.

Most of the whites were native Africans, born to families that had been in the country for generations, and they felt they had just as much right to be there as the blacks. But when it comes to such things, it's not a question of rights but of political power. Today there might be 5,000 whites still hanging on. But making what they called "the chicken run" 30 years ago was definitely the smart course. However, few of them had a "bolt hole" elsewhere. In any event, my book flew off the shelves, as people desperately scrambled for alternatives.

The problem - your problem - is that any country can turn into a 1970s Rhodesia. Or a Russia in the '20s, Germany in the '30s, China in the '40s, Cuba in the '50s, the Congo in the '60s, Vietnam in the '70s, Afghanistan in the '80s, Bosnia in the '90s. These are just examples off the top of my head. Only a fool tries to survive by acting like a vegetable, staying rooted to one place, when the political and economic climate changes for the worse. When the going gets tough, the mentally tough go elsewhere. The way your forefathers once did - at least, if you live in an immigrant-built country like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Argentina.

I don't know exactly when I became interested in exploring other lands. Maybe it began with reading Uncle Scrooge comics when I was a kid in the '50s. Uncle Scrooge (who is a fantastic character and one of the great heroes of American literature) was always taking Donald Duck and his three nephews off to an exotic clime for a high-adventure treasure hunt. Maybe it was when I wanted to be a paleontologist and read about Roy Chapman Andrews (a model for Indiana Jones) rooting for fossils in Mongolia. Or when I decided I'd like archaeology better and read about Heinrich Schliemann discovering Troy. But a couple of specific things really set the bit in my teeth.

One was when I was in Milan, looking to buy a Ferrari. The seller was a guy I remember well, Viviano Corradini, who was actually an American. I asked him why he was living in Italy. "You see this?" he said, as he veered the car way into the opposite lane and back again a couple of times, then slammed on the brakes, then accelerated - a wild little ride. "You can't do this in the States. They'll throw you in jail. Here, you can do anything you want!" He was right. After I bought the car we realized I didn't have any plates, so he reached up into a closet and found some old New Jersey plates. "Here. Use these." I did, no problem, for the next six months, all over Europe. It gave me some practical reality about not being controlled by other people's arbitrary rules.

Another was in Switzerland, when I was hanging around for about a month with an ex-Foreign Legionnaire named Ron Schneeberger. He was planning to rob the national bank of Haiti, figuring that Papa Doc had about $50 million in negotiables sequestered there. That was a lot of money in those days. Ron reasoned, quite correctly, that if you robbed the corner liquor store, you'd get $50 and likely get killed. If you robbed an ordinary bank, you might get $5,000. But if you hit a government… who was going to pursue you?

Of course the world in general - and absolutely, positively Europe - is a bit more tightly wrapped now. And I don't endorse the idea of reckless driving. Or of robbing national banks - at least not without the cover of being an executive with Goldman Sachs…

But the point is that, at different times, there are places that are good for doing certain things. And places where it is bad to be. Who wouldn't have preferred to be in the USA, rather than the USSR, from 1920 to 1990? Ireland was a dismal, depressing place for decades after WW2; then in the '90s it blossomed. Africa was a very safe, prosperous, and enjoyable place before about 1960, when it started to degenerate into a giant hellhole.

About every country on the planet has had its good times and its bad times; that's one reason the original Baron Rothschild sent his sons to several different ones. Some countries, like Russia, have been living at Hard Times Central since day one; others, like the US, have had good times for a long time.

A wise man, at least in my view, doesn't allow himself to be limited by an accident of birth.

It's most unfortunate (for them, anyway) that most people have a peasant mentality. They're idiotically indoctrinated into thinking that their country is the best place in the world, simply because that's where they were born. It makes sense in a way; their ancestors rarely ventured more than a day's walk from the village where they were born. After all, there were stories of dragons and demons over the hill. Things haven't changed much, except people have exchanged the mud hut for a McMansion. But they've retained that medieval serf worldview. And the CNN and BBC newscasts on their widescreens only reinforce the notion that things are dangerous outside their borders; they're probably even more scared than their primitive ancestors. Assuming they watch anything beside sitcoms and sports.

It's certainly possible to be happy living your whole life in the place you were born and grew up. But unless you were born a member of the lucky sperm club, it's almost always suboptimal, and sometimes it can be disastrous. I suspect now is one of those unhappy times.

We're of the opinion that the world at large, and the US in particular, is heading into some seriously turbulent times. The diminution of personal and financial freedom looks like a hyperbolic curve, at first with an almost unnoticeable slope, then one that gets steeper and steeper, at an accelerating rate. I think an excellent case can be made that the current crisis is an inflexion point, beyond which it goes vertical. As one of Obama's closest counselors (and he's a very scary guy) has said, "One can't let a good crisis go to waste."

A crisis (and this will be a very real one) always draws exhortations from the authorities to "unite" and "pull together" - which usually boils down to following orders and turning in those who don't. People will want, and will get, "strong leadership." This does not bode well for libertarians, classical liberals, and free thinkers, in general.

As the crisis deepens, it's likely to be dangerous for someone who doesn't agree with groupthink. Things are likely to be much mellower if you're living somewhere they consider you a tourist, than to stay on your home turf where questions will be asked if you don't join the hooting and panting chimpanzees that will surround you. You can absolutely plan on unwelcome social pressure in the years to come, especially as the wars expand.

Coincidental with this is going to be the near destruction of the US dollar; I just don't see any realistic way around that eventuality at this point. The consequences of that are going to be disastrous, but it's possible to insulate yourself from many of them. The biggest problem, and also the one most people just don't see, is political. There is almost no way you can effectively insulate yourself if a government, and society as a whole, goes crazy.

You might argue that really tough times in the US are a long shot; the US is "different" from other countries. It's certainly true the US has been particularly blessed for most of its existence, because it actually was different. The problem is that what made the US different from every other country - a Constitution that expressly limited the powers of the state, and an explicit acceptance of property rights and the free market - has evanesced. It's why I refer to it as the US, which is just another country, rather than America, which was a unique and excellent concept.

In any event, I suggest you at least consider the possibility of transplanting yourself, or at least start by transplanting some assets. Don't look at it as a negative thing. The world is your oyster. Make the most of it. This is directed not only at Americans, but at everybody, everywhere. It just seems a little more urgent for Americans, as well as for Europeans, at this point.

In many ways the world seemed to turn over a new leaf in the '80s. Not just with the election of Reagan and Thatcher, but with the appearance of many more like them, almost everywhere. Whether it's the "hundredth monkey" hypothesis, or whether there really is such a thing as the "spirit of the century," the majority of people tend to hold similar views at the same time. It's strange. From about 1980-2000, all over the world, tax rates went down, regulation was relaxed, markets were freed up. The Soviet Union collapsed, apartheid in South Africa nonviolently disappeared, New Zealand fired two-thirds of its government employees, China liberalized. Even the constipated continents of Europe and South America loosened up. It looked like freedom was in the ascendant. But it couldn't last.

Now, certainly since September 11, 2001, the tenor of the world has changed again - radically. And the negative new trend has been supercharged by the financial crisis that began to unfold in 2007. Now practically everywhere, much higher taxes, onerous new regulations, border controls, and capital controls (to prevent the make-believe crime of money laundering), among other things, are the new order. It seems as if the clock has been turned back to the 1930s, but much worse, in that governments are much more powerful. And I fear a redux of the 1940s is in store. The whole world acted pretty much the same in the '30s and '40s as well, you'll recall.

One thing I think you can plan on is foreign exchange controls. A government turns to FX controls during a currency crisis, to prevent its citizens from swapping the local currency for something foreign - transactions that would further weaken the local currency. FX controls, in effect, force people to stay with a sinking ship. But they are politically popular, for a number of reasons. They allow the government to "do something" during a crisis. They appeal to the average yahoo, partly because he doesn't travel abroad and tends to question the patriotism of those who do. Only the rich (especially the "unpatriotic" ones) have assets out of the country, and it's now time to eat the rich.

We're heading into a currency crisis for the record books, and I think you can plan your life around some type of FX controls. If you don't get significant assets out of your home country now, you may soon find it costly and very difficult to do so. Already, very few foreign banks and brokerage firms will take accounts from US persons. But although there are reporting requirements, there's currently no law against Americans having overseas accounts, and no laws against foreign banks and brokerage firms accepting American business. Many institutions find that it's simply not worth the aggravation and worry to deal with Americans.

At a bare minimum, you should have a meaningful amount of gold in a foreign safe deposit box. In addition, you should own some foreign property, preferably in a location where you would enjoy spending some time. These things are currently not reportable, and it would be impractical for the government to get you to repatriate that capital.

The ideal scenario, of course, is to have your main residence in one country, your assets in another, your business in a third, and your citizenship in a fourth. That isn't practical for most. But you can certainly get assets abroad. And you may want to consider acquiring a second citizenship, which can considerably expand your options. The International Man has a lot on this topic. It's not necessary, and often not even desirable, to establish official residency in the country where you'd like to spend time, because that risks getting stuck in its tax system. It's usually smarter just to leave every 90 days to renew your tourist visa and not spend more than six months per year in any one country. That way you'll be treated as a valued tourist, who should be courted, rather than as a citizen, who can be milked like a cow.

Once you do acquire another passport, the next question is whether you should renounce your US citizenship, which could give you huge tax and regulatory benefits. As everyone knows, the US is one of the few countries in the world that taxes its citizens regardless of where they may live - although it must be said that other governments seem to be moving in this direction.

The problem with renouncing your US citizenship is that the US assesses what amounts to an exit tax on Americans who do so.

Since 2004, any high-net-worth individual who renounces his citizenship is automatically assumed to have done so for tax reasons. And any individual deemed to have expatriated for tax reasons is deemed to have sold all his assets at fair market value on his last day as a US citizen. And, if the expatriate spends more than 120 days per year in the US, he can be taxed on his worldwide income and potentially is subject to estate tax.

In the near future, however, even that option may not be feasible. So let's plan ahead…

I wrote The International Man as a guide for those who were looking for a place that could offer more of what they want. I can't rewrite the book in this short report. But it's worth making a few observations about the world in general, then about some areas and countries in particular.

First, there may not actually be any one "best" place, simply because you're dealing with the human animal, who's subject to all manner of fears, hysteria, vices, and assorted aberrations. I don't know where Shangri-La is located. Therefore, you want some degree of diversification, so you always have a "Plan B" available.

Second, there are roughly 225 distinct political entities around the world, and there are likely to be more as time goes on. There are advantages to places that are unstable, poor, repressed, and backward, just as there are disadvantages to places that are stable, rich, free, and advanced. A lot depends on who you are and what you want to do. Try to keep an open mind.

Third, I don't think there's any doubt that the West - meaning North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and Japan - is in relative decline. Meanwhile, places like China, India, and Vietnam are on the way up.

The reasons are simple. In the developing world, a worker earns between 1/5 and 1/30 what his counterpart does in the West. But he's just as smart, might be even better educated, is likely to work twice as hard, and has less of an attitude of entitlement. It may be true (but less and less) that the developing country has less infrastructure. But now a number of them have telecoms, roads, airports, and such that are among the world's newest and best, while many of those in the West are falling apart. At the same time, the general level of taxes and regulation tends to be much lower in developing countries; that's a big reason why they're developing. Part of the better social ambiance is reflected in people being free of debt; they may not make much, but they save something like 10% to 20% of what they do make. So, instead of a mountain of debt that must be paid off, there's a growing pool of savings to be invested.

The days of automatically having the odds tilted in your favor simply because you were born an American are coming to an end. By the end of this century, wages will be more or less normalized the world over. Americans also have had a huge advantage in speaking English, the world's most commonly spoken language, its lingua franca, and the language of science, business, aviation, entertainment, and other fields. But that advantage is also diminishing, as almost every educated person now has English as a second language. Most Americans have only English.

Negatives? Many of these places have large bureaucracies, as a legacy from buying into various strains of socialism imported from Europe. There may not be much regulation (of the type we have in the West), but there are still plenty of forms that need to be processed and approved. In order to make things happen, bribes must be paid. I've discussed the ethical implications of paying bribes in the past, but suffice it to say that as developing countries become freer and wealthier, bribery and general corruption will likely diminish. At the same time, as the US becomes less free and wealthy, bribery and general corruption will greatly increase.

I think it's incumbent upon any self-directed free man to go where he can most fully realize himself. But where that is depends on who he is. And sometimes happenstance plays a part. I'm reminded of one of my favorite scenes in Casablanca. Claude Rains, as Renault the police inspector, asks Bogart:

"Rick, how'd a guy like you ever wind up in Casablanca?"

"I came for the water."

"But there's no water in Casablanca - this place is a desert…"

"Yeah, I was misinformed."

Doug Casey is chairman of Casey Research and a highly sought-after speaker on investments and the economy. At 2 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 30, you can hear him discuss how to legally move your assets abroad in a special web event, titled Internationalize Your Assets. Joining him will be Euro Pacific Capital Chief Global Strategist and CEO Peter Schiff; GoldSilver.com founder and owner Michael Maloney; World Money Analyst Editor Kevin Brekke; and Casey Research Managing Director David Galland.

Get the details and register here.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

Let's consider some of those commonly stated reasons, and why they might be unjustified. While largely directed at Americans, these are also applicable to pretty much anyone from any country.

"America is the best country in the world. I'd be a fool to leave."

That was absolutely true, not so very long ago. America certainly was the best - and it was unique. But it no longer exists, except as an ideal. The geography it occupied has been co-opted by the United States, which today is just another nation-state. And, most unfortunately, one that's become especially predatory toward its citizens.

"My parents and grandparents were born here; I have roots in this country."

An understandable emotion; everyone has an atavistic affinity for his place of birth, including your most distant relatives born long, long ago, and far, far away. I suppose if Lucy, apparently the first more-or-less human we know of, had been able to speak, she might have pled roots if you'd asked her to leave her valley in East Africa. If you buy this argument, then it's clear your forefathers, who came from Europe, Asia, or Africa, were made of sterner stuff than you are.

"I'm not going to be unpatriotic."

Patriotism is one of those things very few even question and even fewer examine closely. I'm a patriot, you're a nationalist, he's a jingoist. But let's put such a tendentious and emotion-laden subject aside. Today a true patriot - an effective patriot-- would be accumulating capital elsewhere, to have assets he can repatriate and use for rebuilding when the time is right. And a real patriot understands that America is not a place; it's an idea. It deserves to be spread.

"I can't leave my aging mother behind."

Not to sound callous, but your aging parent will soon leave you behind. Why not offer her the chance to come along, though? She might enjoy a good live-in maid in your own house (which I challenge you to get in the US) more than a sterile, dismal, and overpriced old people's home, where she's likely to wind up.

"I might not be able to earn a living."

Spoken like a person with little imagination and even less self-confidence. And likely little experience or knowledge of economics. Everyone, everywhere, has to produce at least as much as he consumes - that won't change whether you stay in your living room or go to Timbuktu. In point of fact, though, it tends to be easier to earn big money in a foreign country, because you will have knowledge, experience, skills, and connections the locals don't.

"I don't have enough capital to make a move."

Well, that was one thing that kept serfs down on the farm. Capital gives you freedom. On the other hand, a certain amount of poverty can underwrite your freedom, since possessions act as chains for many.

"I'm afraid I won't fit in."

The real danger that's headed your way is not fitting in at home. This objection is often proffered by people who've never traveled abroad. Here's a suggestion. If you don't have a valid passport, apply for one tomorrow morning. Then, at the next opportunity, book a trip to somewhere that seems interesting. Make an effort to meet people. Find out if you're really as abject a wallflower as you fear.

"I don't speak the language."

It's said that Sir Richard Burton, the 19th-century explorer, spoke 10 languages fluently and 15 more "reasonably well." I've always liked that distinction although, personally, I'm not a good linguist. And it gets harder to learn a language as you get older - although it's also true that learning a new language actually keeps your brain limber. In point of fact, though, English is the world's language. Almost anyone who is anyone, and the typical school kid, has some grasp of it.

"I'm too old to make such a big change."

Yes, I guess it makes more sense to just take a seat and await the arrival of the Grim Reaper. Or perhaps, is your life already so exciting and wonderful that you can't handle a little change? Better, I think, that you might adopt the attitude of the 85-year-old woman who has just transplanted herself to Argentina from the frozen north. Even after many years of adventure, she simply feels ready for a change and was getting tired of the same old people with the same old stories and habits.

"I've got to wait until the kids are out of school. It would disrupt their lives."

This is actually one of the lamest excuses in the book. I'm sympathetic to the view that kids ought to live with wolves for a couple of years to get a proper grounding in life - although I'm not advocating anything that radical. It's one of the greatest gifts you can give your kids: to live in another culture, learn a new language, and associate with a better class of people (as an expat, you'll almost automatically move to the upper rungs - arguably a big plus). After a little whining, the kids will love it. When they're grown, if they discover you passed up the opportunity, they won't forgive you.

"I don't want to give up my US citizenship."

There's no need to. Anyway, if you have a lot of deferred income and untaxed gains, it can be punitive to do so; the US government wants to keep you as a milk cow. But then, you may cotton to the idea of living free of any taxing government, while having the travel documents offered by several. And you may want to save your children from becoming cannon fodder or indentured servants, should the US re-institute the draft or start a program of "national service" - which is not unlikely.

But these arguments are unimportant. The real problem is one of psychology. In that regard, I like to point to my old friend Paul Terhorst, who 30 years ago was the youngest partner at a national accounting firm. He and his wife Vicki decided that "keeping up with the Joneses" for the rest of their lives just wasn't for them. They sold everything - cars, house, clothes, artwork, the works - and decided to live around the world. Paul then had the time to read books, play chess, and generally enjoy himself. He wrote about it in Cashing In on the American Dream: How to Retire at 35. As a bonus, the advantages of not being a tax resident anywhere and having time to scope out proper investments has put Paul way ahead in the money game. He typically spends about half his year in Argentina; we usually have lunch every week when in residence.

I could go on. But perhaps it's pointless to offer rational counters to irrational fears and preconceptions. As Gibbon noted with his signature brand of irony, "The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."

Let me be clear: in my view the time to internationally diversify your life is getting short. And the reasons for looking abroad are changing.

In the past, the best argument for expatriation was an automatic increase in one's standard of living. In the '50s and '60s, a book called Europe on $5 a Day accurately reflected all-in costs for a tourist. In those days a middle-class American could live like a king in Europe; but those days are long gone. Now it's the rare American who can afford to visit Europe except on a cheesy package tour. That situation may actually improve soon, if only because the standard of living in Europe is likely to fall even faster than in the US. But the improvement will be temporary. One thing you can plan your life around is that, for the average American, foreign travel is going to become much more expensive in the next few years as the dollar loses value at an accelerating rate.

Affordability is going to be a real problem for Americans, who've long been used to being the world's "rich guys." But an even bigger problem will be presented by foreign exchange controls of some nature, which the government will impose in its efforts to "do something." FX controls - perhaps in the form of taxes on money that goes abroad, perhaps restrictions on amounts and reasons, perhaps the requirement of official approval, perhaps all of these things - are a natural progression during the next stage of the crisis. After all, only rich people can afford to send money abroad, and only the unpatriotic would think of doing so.

The most important first step is to get out of the danger zone.

Let's list the steps, in order of importance.

1. Establish a financial account in a second country and transfer assets to it, immediately.
2. Purchase a crib in a suitable third country, somewhere you might enjoy whether in good times or bad.
3. Get moving toward an alternative citizenship in a fourth country; you don't want to be stuck geographically, and you don't want to live like a refugee.
4. Keep your eyes open for business and investment opportunities in those four countries, plus the other 225; you'll greatly increase your perspective and your chances of success.

Where to go? In general, I would suggest you look most seriously at countries whose governments aren't overly cozy with the US and whose people maintain an inbred suspicion of the police, the military, and the fiscal authorities. These criteria tilt the scales against past favorites like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK.

And one more piece of sage advice: stop thinking like your neighbors, which is to say stop thinking and acting like a serf. Most people - although they can be perfectly affable and even seem sensible - have the attitudes of medieval peasants that objected to going further than a day's round-trip from their hut, for fear the stories of dragons that live over the hill might be true. We covered the modern versions of that objection a bit earlier.

I'm not saying that you'll make your fortune and find happiness by venturing out. But you'll greatly increase your odds of doing so, greatly increase your security, and, I suspect, have a much more interesting time.

Let me end by reminding you what Rick Blaine, Bogart's character in Casablanca, had to say in only a slightly different context. Appropriately, Rick was an early but also an archetypical international man. Let's just imagine he's talking about what will happen if you don't effectively internationalize yourself, now. He said: "You may not regret it now, but you'll regret it soon. And for the rest of your life."

Spreading your wealth to different countries is like giving it diplomatic immunity - it protects what's rightfully yours from the shenanigans of your home government. That's the subject of a must-see video from Casey Research: Internationalize Your Assets. This timely event features five financial luminaries who will show you how to legally transfer assets abroad: Casey Research Chairman Doug Casey; Euro Pacific Capital Chief Global Strategist and CEO Peter Schiff; GoldSilver.com founder and owner Michael Maloney; World Money Analyst Editor Kevin Brekke; and Casey Research Managing Director David Galland. Internationalize Your Assets premiers at 2 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 30. Details and signup information here.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

L: Doug, we're getting a lot of questions from readers on how to follow your advice to diversify assets politically. I know it's a prickly subject, but what can you tell us about getting our money out from behind the new iron curtain that seems to be descending?

Doug: First - and I can't stress this enough - you've got to accept the grim reality of impending currency controls. The modern era of foreign exchange controls really started with the perversely Orwellian-named Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. For the first time, that made it obligatory for US citizens to report any foreign bank or brokerage accounts they had to the government.

But the threat is older than that, of course, going back to 1933, when Roosevelt confiscated Americans' gold. Interestingly enough, only gold bullion held by Americans within the United States was confiscated. If you had gold outside the United States, you were insulated.

L: I didn't know that - if history repeats itself, that could be a key tactical factor for our readers to consider.

Doug: Yes. There are no guarantees, of course. Those in government today think they can do absolutely anything they deem necessary and expedient. But at least if it's out of their physical bailiwick, it improves your odds.

L: Why do you think they allowed that exemption last time? I doubt it was because they had any shred of respect for private property - maybe they just recognized that trying to seize gold overseas would be impractical.

Doug: Good question. Well, the 1930s were a different era. Communication, for one thing, was vastly slower and more expensive than it is now. And you have to remember that though we had an income tax in the 1930s, since 1913 actually, very few people were paying it - even among those allegedly legally obligated to pay it. It was hard for the government to find out who they were, and how much they were earning, and so on. Even though there were only 140 million people in the country then, the absence of computers and much less centralization made it very hard for Washington to keep tabs on them.

L: The income tax really was a voluntary tax back then!

Doug: [Laughs] Much more so than now - it really was a different era. At any rate, based on this history and that the juggernaut is building momentum towards the bottom of the ditch, I have to reiterate my advice on the most important investment decision you can make. And it isn't one among the different classes of investment; it's political and geographical diversification. Simply put, that's because no matter where you live, your government is the greatest threat to your wealth today.

If you're a high-income earner, the state basically takes 50% of what you earn, and then from what's left, you have to pay your real estate taxes, sales taxes, and many, many other kinds of taxes. Government is without question the biggest danger to your financial health. You've got to diversify your assets so they are not all under any one government's control.

L: You say that in almost every speech you give these days, and you said it in one of our interviews a couple of weeks ago.

Doug: Yes, and it bears repeating, constantly. It's the elephant in the room that very, very few people pay any attention to, and it's going to stomp most people to death, for just that reason.

L: Okay, so give us a primer. For those who want to avoid getting crushed by the elephant, where do they begin?

Doug: To start with, it makes all the sense in the world to have a foreign bank account. Not a hidden one - I'm not advising anyone to break any laws. You report it on your annual tax filings. So, the government will know about it, but if it's a foreign bank account, they can't just step in and lock down your assets in an instant.

L: Does Canada count as a foreign country for Americans?

Doug: I'll probably get hate mail for saying so, but it's important for investors to recognize that Canada is a sort of "USA Light." When Washington says, "Jump!," Ottawa says, "How high?" Nonetheless, if only for the sake of formalities and legal pleasantries, US citizens would have some degree of insulation with a Canadian bank account. And, as a general rule, Canadian banks are more solvent than US banks, so setting up a Canadian bank account is an easy first step for many US investors.

The second thing to do would be to set up a Canadian brokerage account. Unfortunately, the SEC has made it so that no Canadian broker will open an account with an American unless they have a US subsidiary. That, in effect, makes your Canadian brokerage account like a US brokerage account. That doesn't help you much from an asset-protection point of view, but it does let you trade directly in many of the stocks we recommend in the International Speculator and the Casey Energy Report (not through a US market-maker via the pink sheets).

Third, I think that having a safe deposit box in Canada is vastly preferable to having one in the US. You probably do remember that when Roosevelt confiscated gold in 1933, he also sealed safe deposit boxes in all US banks. No American could visit a safe deposit box for some time without a government agent accompanying him. That could certainly happen again.

And all of this is true in other countries around the world.

But yes, as an easy place to start, Canada is a sort of plain-vanilla jurisdiction that's worth giving a try.

L: So, what would be the French vanilla, or even the Bailey's Irish Cream jurisdiction? Is there such a thing as a tax haven anywhere in the world anymore? Even the Swiss have caved… I just heard that they just started handing over new account info to US authorities.

Doug: Yes, apparently there were some 50,000 accounts UBS had, owned by US citizens. UBS, a multinational bank with a very substantial presence in the United States - and therefore exposure to extortion by US authorities - was going to hand them all over. The Swiss government stepped in, saying they would prosecute UBS officials if they violated Swiss law by doing that. But the Swiss worked out some sort of compromise with the US authorities, so only about 5,000 accounts are being handed over. On what basis they picked these 5,000 is uncertain.

So, the first tax-haven rule is to never go to a place that's obviously a tax haven. If I were interested in bank privacy, I'd forget about places like the Bahamas or the Caymans. It makes no sense at all today. All those little island republics are totally under the thumb of the US at this point. And they've always been infiltrated with stooges. They may have bank secrecy laws, but they don't have a tradition of privacy like Switzerland has - although that's no longer what it was.

You'll recall how the German government bribed a Liechtenstein banker to steal account names and information. The Germans then turned over relevant data to the UK, US, and other governments, who were quite happy to receive stolen goods. And there was about zero protest over the appalling theft. It's a testimony to how thoughtless and ethically complacent most people are; when a state commits a crime, they just overlook it.

L: Are you saying that all of the little havens are unreliable?

Doug: Well, I don't know of any that are reliable.

Instead, I would recommend places that are geographically distant from the US - and culturally distant as well. To me, the best places to be are in the Orient. That's partially because the Chinese and other Oriental civilizations are much less prone to roll over and do what they are told. National pride ensures that, if nothing else.

But if you go this route, with, say, an account in Hong Kong, you certainly would not want to use a bank like HSBC. It's got branches all over the world, prominently in the US - so, like UBS, they'll do what they are told.

Actually, there are still Swiss banks that will open an account for a "US person," if you can convince them to do it. But you definitely do not want a Swiss or Liechtenstein bank that has any presence in the US. The same would be true in the Orient - so forget about HSBC. You want a real Chinese bank. That way, when the US government calls, the phone will be answered in Chinese and no one will speak English with them.

The best places are the least obvious places. Malaysia is interesting. Thailand. These are completely non-tax-haven types of places - and that might make them suitable.

L: What about step two, getting a brokerage account?

Doug: Well, it's tough these days. If you want to trade in US and Canadian stocks, you pretty much have to have an American or Canadian broker. But one thing that can be done that is completely legal (and reportable) is to open up a foreign company. Then the company can open up a brokerage account. That way, you do have a level of insulation I think is very valuable, both from a practical and a legal point of view.

L: I gather you're not talking about the banana republic IBCs I see peddled on the Internet?

Doug: Right. Most of what you see on the Internet offering to open up an IBC - which is just an offshore company - are just scams, if not stings. The fees are too high. The people are usually sleazy. They often come up with all sorts of cockamamie tax-avoidance schemes. You may be encouraged to do things that are illegal. They are just disasters waiting for you to walk into. I strongly encourage people not to even consider such offerings.

If you want an offshore company for the purpose of convenience or a measure of privacy, completely reportable and within the law, the best thing to do is to go to the jurisdiction you've picked and see a lawyer who deals in that sort of business. Cut out the middleman. Ideally, the jurisdiction would be one that meets the criteria I outlined above, but is also a place you'd actually enjoy spending time in.

L: So, you hop on a plane to, say, Panama, and… how do you go about finding a reliable attorney to set up your corporation?

Doug: That's the intelligent way to do it. There's nothing illegal, nor particularly tricky about it; you just find a lawyer who specializes in it, pay the fees, and off you go.

How do you find a good lawyer? Same way you do at home; you go and start interviewing lawyers until you find one that impresses you as being sound.

Panama, by the way, is probably the best place to do this at this moment. The British Virgin Islands may be another. And, of course, if you're an Australian or a New Zealander, you should think about Vanuatu - it's only a two-hour plane ride from Sydney or Auckland.

Back in the Western Hemisphere, the only other reasonable alternative I see is Uruguay. It's always been promoted as the "Switzerland of South America" - and there's a lot of truth to that. Uruguay is a small country, about the same size and with the same size population as Switzerland, and a very big part of its national income is foreign banking. It has no tax on foreign-earned income - though, unfortunately, it recently instituted a tax on domestic-earned income. Too bad.

Another unfortunate thing about Uruguay is that when you import gold there - such as by carrying Krugerrands in your briefcase - their customs form asks you to report it. It's not against the law, but for some ridiculous reason, they want to know.

L: That's really all it takes? Find a lawyer and pay the fees?

Doug: Yes, though there can be nuances worth paying attention to. For example, there are various jurisdictions with different tax treaties that can be used to your advantage. The Dutch Antilles being a famous example, as far as dividends treatment goes. This is a specialist area that, well, you should discuss with a specialist. But you should definitely give it some thought.

Oddly enough, you can import gold into Argentina with no problems nor reporting requirements, and you can buy and sell gold in Argentina just as easily. It's much easier than in Uruguay, but I wouldn't dream of doing any significant banking in Argentina - and neither do Argentines. The government is just completely untrustworthy when it comes to things like bank accounts.

So, it's rather perverse; you can deal easily in gold in Argentina, but not bank accounts, and you can't deal in gold easily in Uruguay, but bank accounts are easy.

Frankly, the best place to look for one-stop financial services shopping is Panama. Banking is easy, and there's no gold reporting.

And yes, you can still take gold in and out of the US without reporting it. It's like stamps or rare coins. The exception would be, if you had enough of them, to remember that Double Eagles have a face value of $20, and the new Eagles have a face value of $50.

L: What about your cash, once you have your offshore bank account set up? You have to declare it if you take more than $10,000 on your person, but can you wire whatever you want?

Doug: Yes, you can send any amount of money you want, currently. It gets reported, but it's basically unregulated. And by the way, the $10,000 limit doesn't cover gold, but it does cover stock certificates and other financial instruments - but you can still send those by Federal Express.

L: I wonder how long that will last…

Doug: I'm sure they'll get 'round to closing all the loopholes. So, the time to act is now. We'll keep monitoring the situation, but when this happens, the Powers that Be won't want anyone to see it coming, so it will zing in from left field. Your only chance to protect your wealth is to start diversifying its exposure to any one particular predatory state as soon as possible.

I have to stress again the urgency of diversifying the political risk your assets are exposed to: do it now.

L: Okay, Doug - thanks!

Doug: You're welcome.

Your first step toward internationally diversifying your wealth is to tune in to a Casey Research webinar on the subject. Internationalizing Your Assets premiers at 2 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 30. Doug Casey - Casey Research chairman and a New York Times best-selling author - highlights a blue-ribbon cast of financial experts who will reveal their favorite strategies for protecting your wealth abroad. Get more information and register now.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

As challenging as some of the ideas Peter and Doug expressed may be, they're just a sample of a principled libertarian way of thinking. Get a deeper perspective by reading Doug's new book, Totally Incorrect. It's sure to shake up your thoughts on several topics.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

The Gold Report: Doug, you have a new book out called Totally Incorrect: Conversations with Doug Casey. In one of those incorrect conversations with Louis James you said, "It's not the US economy that's facing a fiscal cliff, it's the US government. People equate government with the economy. They are entirely two different things. The only way to revitalize the US economy is through both vast reductions in taxes and vast reductions in government spending. Instead, these idiots are arguing over how much to raise taxes and how little they can cut spending." Now that we have avoided parts of the fiscal cliff and delayed addressing other parts, what are your observations?

Doug Casey: Nothing has changed. I am amazed to read about what is called a trillion-dollar platinum plan to get around Congress having to raise the debt ceiling. It's actually quite comical that some people are talking about it as a solution; it's Three Stooges economics. My only question is: Why not make it a $10 trillion coin? That would solve the problem for several years and release the government from even the fictional restraints on spending it now has. Actually, let's do $100 trillion; why deal in half measures? It's all a ridiculous charade at this point, the precisely scripted Kabuki theater between the left and right wings of the Demopublican Party. The ending of the ridiculous drama is totally predictable.

The point is that the government is spending more than $1 trillion a year more than it is taking in. And that's using cash accounting, which is improper. If the government used accrual accounting, which takes into account future obligations, mandates, and liabilities, the number is more like $3-4 trillion.

Already the Chinese and the Japanese really don't want to buy any more Treasuries to finance the deficit. So the Federal Reserve is buying most of it and crediting the accounts of the US government with the money it creates. Maybe it should ask the Chinese if it would like the trillion-dollar coin? At least it would have a cute collectible. The Chinese should insist on a 10-ounce-size coin, so it doesn't get lost too easily.

But all kidding aside, the Fed may as well issue a $1-trillion coin. As the economy really goes off a cliff over the next couple of years, government outlays will almost necessarily go up and tax revenue will absolutely decline as the economy slows down.

TGR: You often make a distinction between the government and the country, and the economy. But if the government and the economy are two different things and the government is the one facing the fiscal cliff, why should the economy go downhill as well?

DC: Because the government is such a massive actor in the economy today. Whenever a massive economic actor is bankrupt, there will be repercussions. There are around 2.7 million people directly employed by the federal government, by all the hundreds of agencies, bureaus, commissions, and whatnot; that's been fairly stable for a long time. They say there are around 22 million employed by all levels of government, and that's actually been dropping - non-federal governments can't borrow any more, and they can't print money. A few have declared bankruptcy.

But those numbers don't include things like the Post Office and Amtrak. They don't include 1.5 million active-duty troops. And all branches of government have increasingly gone to using outside contractors, as the military famously does.

Some 25 million people, more or less, employed by government is one thing. That's a lot. But of course, many are doing things that would otherwise be done privately. The real problem is so many major corporations have the state as their major customer - military and aerospace contractors, construction firms, computer outfits - everything you can imagine. Having your major customer bankrupt is a big problem.

But there's much more. The US government has 50 million people dependent on food stamps, 7 million on disability, and scores of millions more on Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs.

In my ideal world, government would exist for two reasons: as a police force to protect the citizens, and as a court system to allow citizens to adjudicate disputes. The economy is far too important to be left to the government and the kind of people who are drawn to work in it.

The fiscal cliff and the bankruptcy of the government are important because so many people depend on the government for their livelihoods. Most major corporations are customers of the US government. It's said fully 37% of Americans derive their income from the government. That is a gigantic distortion that has been put into the economy over many decades, and it has to be unwound.

TGR: Can it be unwound slowly over many decades or do we have to go over a cliff?

DC: It could be unwound slowly over many decades, but that would require a complete change in the way the American people think. Right now, the people who run for president or for Congress, for state legislature seats, and even local offices, actually think that government is a magic cornucopia.

This problem will not be solved unless that attitude changes, and I do not see how that will happen at this point. In fact, there's every reason to believe it's going to get worse.

TGR: Some European countries have implemented severe austerity programs. Will that help Europe turn around or are these programs just a slow, painful edging toward the same cliff?

DC: Europe is in much worse shape than the US. Socialism is totally ingrained in the psyche of the average European. The European idea of austerity is cutting back some government programs around the edges, making a few cosmetic changes. Maybe an occasional headline upbraiding a particularly egregious example of corruption. It's all public relations and generalities. But the idea of pulling the plant out by its roots is totally anathema. That's because they really believe socialism, welfarism, and all kinds of state intervention is morally correct. Most Europeans actually want a stronger state, all paid for with money stolen from a diminishing pool of productive taxpayers.

Most Europeans believe the state owes them a living and that the rich should be eaten to finance that. That attitude will not be changed without real tumult. There is no impetus for gradual change or reversal in Europe.

TGR: In the conversation titled On 2013, you say 2013 will be ugly, but merely a warm-up for 2014. Yet the economic trends appear to be positive: the end of quantitative easing by year-end, increased domestic oil and gas production resulting in inexpensive energy for decades to come, more manufacturing jobs, and less unemployment. Is this slow-growing economic recovery masking the effects of the deficit and unfunded liabilities, thus allowing politicians to kick the can further down the road? Why do you think 2013 and 2014 will be so bad?

DC: Most of the information that people get about what is going on comes from the popular press and, at this point, the popular press is almost the fifth branch of government - after all the agencies, which have become the fourth branch of government.

As for things improving, yes, things seem better because we're not actually in the middle of chaos. Well, actually we are, but only because it's the eye of the hurricane. Those trillions of currency units that have been and still are being created make people feel more prosperous than would otherwise be the case.

I have no trust in the unemployment figure. If it were still calculated as it was before 1980, unemployment would be between 13% and 19% today. I have no more confidence in the inflation figures issued by the US government than I have in the inflation figures published by the Argentinean government.

It is in the government's interest to keep those reported numbers as low as possible, in part because payments on things like Social Security are adjusted to inflation. In addition, people in government think the economy depends more on psychology than reality, and no one wants to set off a panic. I suggest people panic now and beat the last minute rush. [laughs]

As far as oil is concerned, I believe in the peak oil theory, which basically says that the cheap, easy, light sweet crude has all been found. Crude is extremely hard to find. At the same time I believe technology will solve all energy problems - oil is a very simple compound made out of hydrogen and carbon, essentially. Technology allows us to create almost anything, so there's no reason why we'd ever run out of oil. Fracking and horizontal drilling will make lots of hydrocarbons available. The question is, at what price?

TGR: But why 2013?

DC: In 2007, we started into the leading edge of a financial hurricane. In 2010 through 2012, governments around the world printed trillions of new currency. That did not solve the financial problems of the banks, brokers, hedge funds, or large corporations - much the way giving a million dollars to a wino will temporarily solve a lot of his problems - but at some point those dollars, which are currently sequestered, will start coming into circulation. That will result in huge price rises of everything.

You can't solve problems just by printing pieces of paper. You become prosperous by producing more than you consume and by saving the difference. However, the US, Western Europe, and many other parts of the world consume more than they produce. They have been living on borrowed money and mortgaging our future with debt. That holds true for governments and for individuals.

TGR: That leads me to another conversation in the book, called The Morality of Money. In that conversation, you argue that accumulating wealth is an important social as well as personal good. You say, "The good to the individuals of accumulating wealth is obvious, but the social good often goes unrecognized. Put simply, progress requires capital. Major new undertakings, from hydropower dams to spaceships, require huge amounts of capital. You need the wealth to accumulate in private hands to pay for these things. If the world is going to improve, we need huge pools of capital, intelligently invested."

You said earlier that the goal of government should be to provide police and to adjudicate disputes. But if world improvement requires huge amounts of capital, who is better placed to make those intelligent investments: self-serving wealthy individuals or self-serving governments?

DC: Let me say something many people will consider shocking: I do not believe government entities should exist at all, or are even necessary. Government is based on force and coercion. Essentially, the power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun, as Mao Zedong noted. I do not think that is the proper way for a civilized society to function. By its nature, government never has and never will be a producer. It is a consumer. It acquires income by theft.

I am an anarchist. Contrary to popular opinion, anarchy has nothing to do with a guy dressed in black holding a little round bomb with a lit fuse. Anarchy is a system of self-rule; you do not have someone telling you what to do and not do.

TGR: But if civilization needs huge amounts of capital to progress, can we expect the wealthy to employ their capital wisely and for the social good?

DC: You cannot expect anybody to do anything, but the fact that the wealthy have a lot of money shows they are good at making money - which is to say, creating and conserving wealth. Governments aren't noted for production - their history is largely one of wars, persecutions, confiscations, and general repression. And the people who are attracted to government are problematical for that reason.

Most rich people, for example Warren Buffett today and Sam Walton a generation ago, are not interested in consumption. They are more interested in creating more capital. It is better to trust the people who are creating more capital than to trust those in government who do things for political, not economic reasons.

TGR: In the On 2013 conversation, you talk about the bond market, saying, "We are approaching the absolute peak of the bond bubble. Interest rates in the developed economies around the world are two percent, one percent, or even negative. This is fueling a bond bubble of truly catastrophic proportions. When it bursts, it will be an order of magnitude worse than the tech stock-market crash of 2001 or the real-estate crash of 2008."

DC: This is another reason why I think 2013 and 2014 will be so turbulent. At this point, it appears interest rates are at an all-time low. Bonds are in a bubble. And low rates encourage people to borrow - not save. But saving is absolutely critical - and as much as possible - because it's proof that an individual or a society is producing more than it's consuming. When interest rates start going back up, the face value of the bonds will collapse. A lot of individuals and a lot of governments cannot crack their monthly interest nut at low interest rates. How will they cope with high interest rates?

This bond bubble will be much more serious than the stock market bubble, especially because absolutely everyone is buying all kinds of complete junk today that offers a 2% yield. This will be much more serious than the tech-stock or real-estate crashes. The money markets are much bigger.

I pity those who are reaching for yield now. Instead of risk-free return, they're getting return-free risk.

TGR: Do you see ancillary economies crashing along with the bond market, or do you agree with the notion that rising interest rates will prompt governments to print more money, creating hyperinflation?

DC: A catastrophic deflation is always a possibility - and it's better than the alternative, a catastrophic inflation. Either way, a depression is inevitable - we're in it now, actually. I think at this point the authorities will go with creating lots more money.

The government gets revenue three ways. The first is by confiscating the wealth of citizens through taxes. There are hundreds of different taxes, and they all are quite high right now. The second way is by borrowing. Governments are incredibly overindebted and uncreditworthy now, and those debts will never be repaid. The third way is by printing money.

They will continue to print money because number one, it is now the only way out. Number two, the politicians masquerading as economists actually think printing is a good way to stimulate the economy.

TGR: Will that create a bond crash or hyperinflation, or are they one and the same thing?

DC: Perhaps both in sequence. The thing to remember here is that bonds are a triple threat to your capital: interest rate risk, inflation risk, and the risk of default. Anyone who holds old bonds today is holding an asset that is reward-free risk. The risks have never ever been greater in the bond market, and the returns have never been lower. We are at the peak of one of the biggest bubbles in history.

TGR: If we are at the peak, what is the best way to preserve wealth and ride out the next two or three years?

DC: Agriculture and arable land have become quite popular recently. I like them. But I am not crazy about investing in grains and soybeans because they are very political commodities, and the price of agricultural real estate has gone up hugely to reflect higher grain prices. There are no bargains anywhere in the world.

I am a big fan of cattle because cattle herds are at generational lows today. They have been in liquidation because it has been an unprofitable business for years. For most people, however, cattle are not a practical investment.

The most practical thing the average person can do is have a significant position in precious metals. They should own the metal. In years to come, when governments have blown up their currencies, gold and silver will be reinstituted as money.

TGR: How large a portion of one's portfolio should be in precious metals?

DC: Apart from my house, my business, and expensive consumer goods, I would not be afraid to have most of my financial assets in precious metals.

I am not very interested in the stock market today. The bond market, as I said, is a fantastic short-sell at this point. Real estate is certainly a lot cheaper than it was, but it floats on a sea of debt. That's not good. It's also the easiest thing for governments to tax.

Now people ask what about owning cash? The dollar is an unsecured asset of a bankrupt government, and it will be a hot potato in the years to come. For cash you definitely want to own precious metals - even at current prices. The other thing to look for is speculations in the marketplace. As inflation heats up and markets become more chaotic in the years to come, people will be forced to speculate. It's a pity, really...

TGR: And what would those be?

DC: Speculation is capitalizing on politically caused distortions in the marketplace. In effect, it's betting against the government. It is not gambling in the market.

The best speculation - the most beat-up market - right now is mining exploration companies, junior resource stocks. There are several thousand of them trading around the world. Most are not "investments," most are "burning matches," but relative to the price of the metals, they are close to the lowest levels in history. We have not had a truly good bull market for them in years, so they are an excellent place to put a portion of your capital with potentially large returns.

TGR: To what extent do investors need to be selective in that category?

DC: There is an old saying in the mining-stock business: When the wind blows, even the turkeys will fly. That is true. When the public gets the bit in its teeth and gold and silver are running, all kinds of junk will be promoted. A lot of money will be spent on promotion instead of exploration work out in the field.

TGR: If the bond bubble bursts this year or next, should investors wait for that before buying into the gold and silver junior mining stocks? Might they not be at even lower prices once the bubble busts?

DC: That is a real possibility. If you want to speculate and ride the futures market, sell long-term bonds short. That will offer a bit of a hedge.

You have to get the timing right in the market, of course. In the past, decent companies have sold for half of their cash in the bank and you end up with all of their properties for free, along with half the cash in the bank.

There is no telling how cheap the market can get. Anything can happen with these little stocks, but I think now is the time to start accumulating quality issues.

TGR: Both Totally Incorrect and the earlier Conversations with Casey are thought-provoking and entertaining. What motivated you to have these conversations and publish them?

DC: No one in the mass media and no politician today is willing to say that the king does not have any clothes on. That is why I am doing this. I say a lot of things I suspect you do not hear among friends at cocktail parties.

TGR: True. Cocktail party chatter tends to be about weather, sports, maybe entertainment, but nobody talks about government or religion. Why is that?

DC: I blame the educational system in part. In the last century, people learned Latin and Greek and read the classics. The object was to see what people thousands of years ago thought and said and to be able to comment on whether they were correct and how those thoughts might apply today. Education today is sound bites. Nobody reads a classical book in school anymore, only PC stuff that has been passed by a school board. They have a half an hour of geography where they're lectured by some teacher who probably has not traveled outside his or her home country, maybe never out of the state or province. Education has been transformed into political indoctrination in many ways.

TGR: Will greater access to the Internet, where you can Google just about anything and delve into specific topics and areas, change people's appetite for more meaningful conversations?

DC: The Internet is the best thing since the invention of moveable type. Rather than misallocating years of time and huge amounts of money to go off to college where they will just chase the opposite sex and drink, and where the quality of the professors is uncertain and the courses are in subjects that will clutter up their minds - gender studies, political science, English, and the like - people who really want to can get an education from the Internet.

The fact that you cannot believe everything on the Internet is equally true for what you read in books or newspapers.

TGR: That is a perfect example of why the book is called Totally Incorrect. Thank you for this conversation.

Ever wonder how famous investors and self-made millionaires think - what it is that makes them so successful? Then you should let Doug Casey give you a piece of his mind. His new book, Totally Incorrect, is a showcase of radical libertarian thinking and unwavering free-market advocacy that will open your eyes to a new world view... not to mention investment opportunities flying under Wall Street's radar. Learn more about this provocative work.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.