PING: Some thoughts for Economist Olson [long]

For quite some time now, you have been making dire predictions about the
future of the economy, not only that of the U.S., but that of the entire
world. I classify this as "problem finding."

Now I seek solutions to the problems, which I name "problem solving."
Perhaps you can be instrumental in this process as well.

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would become "worth
less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply, which is
contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and continue, or
perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of paper assets, making
them "worth less" tomorrow than they were today. We have certainly
experienced this over the course of our lives, and have learned to
compensate and adjust. We have even had a couple of periods of fairly rapid
decline, and we obviously survived those.

But "worthless," the word I see you using, is an entirely different
situation. That means that all the fiat money in the world would not buy a
piece of bubble gum, and all investments that consist of 0s and 1s in a
computer somewhere would be deleted and the hard drive wiped. Each of us
would be reduced to the real estate and personal property at our immediate
disposal. Even those would have no "value," other than what we could
exchange them, or barter them, for. It would take a long time, I believe,
for any kind of stable system of exchange to become established. How many
stuffed teddy bears, for example, equal a quart of milk?

2) A situation that resulted in total worthlessness of all paper financial
instruments, as well as all the fiat coinage, would certainly wreak instant
hardship on anyone who did not have an alternative. Those people will need
to eat today - and tomorrow, and the next day. The numbers of the destitute
would increase rapidly and exponentially, and we could easily see half the
U.S. population desperate within just one short week. We are not going to
have a stable society by any stretch of the imagination under such
circumstances. We can talk about stockpiling firearms and ammunition to
deal with the occasional intruder upon our property, bent on stealing what
we have, but there are few of us who could hold off attack by a mob of, say,
even twenty-five persons. Sure, we can blow away a few of them, but not all
of them. We are talking ultimate desperation here, and such people will not
be deterred by the fall of a few of their compatriots. Law enforcement,
which would have already been decimated by layoffs and retrenchment of
budgets, would be virtually powerless to protect the collective population.
Those who survived the day would live to face an even larger threat the
next. And the next. And the next. This would even necessarily include the
CEOs and Rush Limbaugh.

3) Of course, all this neglects the effects on world stability. The worst
threat is some nuclear states and other entities, having even less to lose
than they do at present, would feel eminently justified in blowing away a
few million of their imagined enemies, "just because." If and when this
happens, we can be absolutely certain that the world will be changed
bigtime, and permanently. Everything will be assessed in its terms. Petty
day-to-day concerns will also become "worthless" when compared to the Event.

3) Faced with your doomsday scenario, which I have amplified and extended
in detail, how does an individual prepare himself for survival? There are
only so many caves around, and those are mighty uncomfortable. As you have
often counselled, precious metals are the key to survival. But how much PM,
and in what form? How would the exchange value of a 1946-D Roosevelt dime,
for example, be determined? How would I get change for a $20 Liberty, and
in what form? What about a silver bullion bar? What good is that going to
do me? Most of the population has long forgotten what the economy was like
under a hard money standard, and answers to these questions would be long
and hard in coming.

Mormons are known to have raw wheat stockpiled in 40 gallon containers in
their basements. Some people stockpile tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and
ammunition, to be used as barter. Even toilet paper has been suggested as
something that would skyrocket in exchange value. Fresh water could
suddenly become liquid gold. How much of any of that would guarantee
long-term survival?

4) What should government(s) do more of, or less of, to prevent the
Ultimate Crisis? Should it do anything at all? Do we understand the
fallout that may ensue from the disappearance of GM, for instance, or a
second Great Depression? Is your crystal ball really crystal clear, or is
yours, like those of everyone else, including big-name economists, rather
foggy at best?

5) Finally, what are you yourself doing that will assure your own long-term
survival? Buying a couple Roosies at a flea market and stashing them away,
which you reported in another post, is fine, but still, hardly even a finger
in the dike.

I await your thoughtful commentary.

James

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wroteL

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would become
"worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply, which is
contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and continue, or
perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of paper assets, making
them "worth less" tomorrow than they were today.

In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque" issued
by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's spot price
and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about 2.67 _trillionths_
of a gram of gold. That's well less than a dollar per atom of gold.

The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.

That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into worthless.

--
Michael Benveniste -- (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

Hello

There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
this.

Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
these two pieces of legislation.

1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.

2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.

The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act should be restored and at
least the "Credit Default Swap" should be removed or
repealed.

When it comes to the fear of massive inflation from
the "TART BILL", and the "STIMULS" (jobs bill), I
would not worry about that. We are in a period of
deflation, not Inflation.

The real economic terrorism lies with China, and other
foreign governments that hold over 1.7 trillion dollars in
U.S. Treasury bills. All they have to do is sell them back
to the United States and flush this country will dollars.
That is the REAL INFLATION fear. Not the job spending
bill that Obama will sign into law this Tuesday in Denver,
or the TARP bill money. These foreign governments have
been covering the United States federal deficits these
last eight years.

Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
the United States will get involved in a future conflict
remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
some four million young men in the military. It would not
only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
place the United States in a better position to deal with
any conflict that will be coming up.

Arizona Coin Collector wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

Hello

There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
this.

Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
these two pieces of legislation.

So, are we still blaming Clinton for Original Sin as well? I'm just
sayin'...

1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The appeal? Please define.

2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.

Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life, which
began considerably longer ago than 2001.

The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act should be restored and at
least the "Credit Default Swap" should be removed or
repealed.

When it comes to the fear of massive inflation from
the "TART BILL", and the "STIMULS" (jobs bill), I
would not worry about that. We are in a period of
deflation, not Inflation.

Does the TART bill have anything to do with legalizing prostitution?

The real economic terrorism lies with China, and other
foreign governments that hold over 1.7 trillion dollars in
U.S. Treasury bills. All they have to do is sell them back
to the United States and flush this country will dollars.
That is the REAL INFLATION fear. Not the job spending
bill that Obama will sign into law this Tuesday in Denver,
or the TARP bill money. These foreign governments have
been covering the United States federal deficits these
last eight years.

Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it? They're
just folks, too.

Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
the United States will get involved in a future conflict
remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
some four million young men in the military. It would not
only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
place the United States in a better position to deal with
any conflict that will be coming up.

Yeah, it takes a lot of soldiers to counterbalance the nuking of a Great
City. Let me guess - you're beyond draft age.

If you turned this essay in to an English teacher, you'd get a note at the
top that said "See me." Then you and the teacher would have a discussion
about doing your own original thinking, and not claiming somebody else's
ready-to-wear opinion as your own.

James

"Arizona Coin Collector" wrote in message
m...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

Hello

There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
this.

Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
these two pieces of legislation.

1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.


The repeal (I think you mean) of Glass-Steagall did not kick down barriers
that prevented the current economic mess from happening. Where do you get
that idea? In December of 1999 banks were already in the investment
business and investment companies were already in the banking business. The
law passed by Clinton actually put some standards around what they can and
can not do. If anything this may have prevented things from being even
worse.

2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.


Republicans loved it at the time. The Enron loophole was crafted by Phil
Gramm. Carl Levin, a Democrat, in 2007 proposed closing this loophole
specifically in reposnse to the record high oil prices that were part of a
larger energy crisis. Bush vetoed it.

*the rest snipped*

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Arizona Coin Collector wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

Hello

There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
this.

Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
these two pieces of legislation.

So, are we still blaming Clinton for Original Sin as well? I'm just
sayin'...

I would blame Senator Phil Gram of Texas. He was the one
that authored both bills back in 1999, and 2000. He was
Senator John McCain economic adviser during his run for
President. (Remember Phil Gam calling Americans
"Wieners" in mid 2008 during the job losses?). President
Bill Clinton came out publicly and said he had regrets
on appealing the 1933 Glass-Steagall act. If the congress
Of 1999 and 2000 knew what would happen eight years
later, both the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act,
and the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act may
not have happen back then.


1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The appeal? Please define.

That would be the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
that appealed the remaining parts of the
1933 Glass-Steagall act. Again Senator Phil Gram
of Texas authored the bill.

2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.

Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life, which
began considerably longer ago than 2001.

Gas prices from 2001 to now have risen faster and sharper
than it did in the last 40 years. I remember the late 1970's
and 1980's jump. It was not to the elevated levels of the last
eight years. ($1.45 a gallon in 2000 / $4.00 a gallon in July
of 2008)


The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act should be restored and at
least the "Credit Default Swap" should be removed or
repealed.

When it comes to the fear of massive inflation from
the "TART BILL", and the "STIMULS" (jobs bill), I
would not worry about that. We are in a period of
deflation, not Inflation.

Does the TART bill have anything to do with legalizing prostitution?

OOOPS, "TARP" no "TART".


The real economic terrorism lies with China, and other
foreign governments that hold over 1.7 trillion dollars in
U.S. Treasury bills. All they have to do is sell them back
to the United States and flush this country will dollars.
That is the REAL INFLATION fear. Not the job spending
bill that Obama will sign into law this Tuesday in Denver,
or the TARP bill money. These foreign governments have
been covering the United States federal deficits these
last eight years.

Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it? They're
just folks, too.

I would respond by saying a BALANCE BUGETS like
the ones the United States had during most of
the 1990's, would have been a better choice. The
Republican party lost the moral ground on physical
spending policy since they started the spending
deficits before the terrorist attach of 9-11. The
Republican controlled house, and senate from 2001
through 2006 bare the biggest responsibility for
this. I am not letting the Democrats off the hook
on this as well. They could have shut down the
Federal Government if they shown some backbone
to get the budget balance.


Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
the United States will get involved in a future conflict
remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
some four million young men in the military. It would not
only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
place the United States in a better position to deal with
any conflict that will be coming up.

Yeah, it takes a lot of soldiers to counterbalance the nuking of a Great
City. Let me guess - you're beyond draft age.


You should have seen my mom back in the 1970's
when I got my draft card in the mail. I though
she was going to break down and cry. My dad was
drafted and served from 1943 through 1946. My
dad viewed anyone joining the reserves as a
low life "draft dodger".

If you turned this essay in to an English teacher, you'd get a note at the
top that said "See me." Then you and the teacher would have a discussion
about doing your own original thinking, and not claiming somebody else's
ready-to-wear opinion as your own.

James
It would seem you have your own "READY TO WEAR" opinions James.

"PC" wrote in message
...


The repeal (I think you mean) of Glass-Steagall did not kick down barriers
that prevented the current economic mess from happening. Where do you get
that idea? In December of 1999 banks were already in the investment
business and investment companies were already in the banking business.
The law passed by Clinton actually put some standards around what they can
and can not do. If anything this may have prevented things from being
even worse.

PC - Check out the link below from Wikipedia. It will expane and
answer your questions above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act



2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.


Republicans loved it at the time. The Enron loophole was crafted by Phil
Gramm. Carl Levin, a Democrat, in 2007 proposed closing this loophole
specifically in reposnse to the record high oil prices that were part of a
larger energy crisis. Bush vetoed it.

*the rest snipped*

It was Arizona Public Service (here in Arizona), that fingered Enron
to the Feds when California was having POWER BROWN OUTS
created by Enron back in 2001. Phil Gramm and George W Bush got
a great deal of distance from Enron CEO when the crimal charges
were filed. The rest is history.

"Arizona Coin Collector" wrote in message
news

"PC" wrote in message
...


The repeal (I think you mean) of Glass-Steagall did not kick down
barriers that prevented the current economic mess from happening. Where
do you get that idea? In December of 1999 banks were already in the
investment business and investment companies were already in the banking
business. The law passed by Clinton actually put some standards around
what they can and can not do. If anything this may have prevented things
from being even worse.

PC - Check out the link below from Wikipedia. It will expane and
answer your questions above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act


It seems to reinforce what I wrote. Copied directly from the link you
provided:

"Prior to the Act, most financial services companies were already offering
both saving and investment opportunities to their customers."

and

"Also prior to the passage of the [Gramm-Leach-Bliley] Act, there were many
relaxations to the Glass-Steagall Act. For example, a few years earlier,
commercial Banks were allowed to get into investment banking, and before
that banks were also allowed to get into stock and insurance brokerage"

Arizona Coin Collector wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Arizona Coin Collector wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

Hello

There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
this.

Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
these two pieces of legislation.

So, are we still blaming Clinton for Original Sin as well? I'm just
sayin'...

I would blame Senator Phil Gram of Texas. He was the one
that authored both bills back in 1999, and 2000. He was
Senator John McCain economic adviser during his run for
President. (Remember Phil Gam calling Americans
"Wieners" in mid 2008 during the job losses?). President
Bill Clinton came out publicly and said he had regrets
on appealing the 1933 Glass-Steagall act. If the congress
Of 1999 and 2000 knew what would happen eight years
later, both the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act,
and the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act may
not have happen back then.

If one man, Phil Gram or whoever, can bring down the entire world economy,
then Heaven help us. To me it sounds more as if the responsibility should
be spread over a much wider group of individuals.

1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The appeal? Please define.

That would be the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
that appealed the remaining parts of the
1933 Glass-Steagall act. Again Senator Phil Gram
of Texas authored the bill.

Don't you mean REpeal, not APpeal?

2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.

Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life,
which began considerably longer ago than 2001.

Gas prices from 2001 to now have risen faster and sharper
than it did in the last 40 years. I remember the late 1970's
and 1980's jump. It was not to the elevated levels of the last
eight years. ($1.45 a gallon in 2000 / $4.00 a gallon in July
of 2008)

If I read that correctly, you are saying that the rise from 1961 to 2001 is
smaller in terms of speed and sharpness than the rise from 2001 to date.

The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 1961 was around $0.29. In 2001 it
was around $1.45, as you point out. That's a fivefold increase over the
period in question.
The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 2001 was around $1.45. On
February 17, 2009 I just filled up my tank for $1.86 a gallon. That's
slightly more than a one-fourth fold increase over the period in question.

The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act should be restored and at
least the "Credit Default Swap" should be removed or
repealed.

When it comes to the fear of massive inflation from
the "TART BILL", and the "STIMULS" (jobs bill), I
would not worry about that. We are in a period of
deflation, not Inflation.

Does the TART bill have anything to do with legalizing prostitution?

OOOPS, "TARP" no "TART"

Thank goodness we caught that in time! 8).

The real economic terrorism lies with China, and other
foreign governments that hold over 1.7 trillion dollars in
U.S. Treasury bills. All they have to do is sell them back
to the United States and flush this country will dollars.
That is the REAL INFLATION fear. Not the job spending
bill that Obama will sign into law this Tuesday in Denver,
or the TARP bill money. These foreign governments have
been covering the United States federal deficits these
last eight years.

Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it? They're
just folks, too.

I would respond by saying a BALANCE BUGETS like
the ones the United States had during most of
the 1990's, would have been a better choice. The
Republican party lost the moral ground on physical
spending policy since they started the spending
deficits before the terrorist attach of 9-11. The
Republican controlled house, and senate from 2001
through 2006 bare the biggest responsibility for
this. I am not letting the Democrats off the hook
on this as well. They could have shut down the
Federal Government if they shown some backbone
to get the budget balance.

Just exactly how could they have done that?

Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
the United States will get involved in a future conflict
remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
some four million young men in the military. It would not
only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
place the United States in a better position to deal with
any conflict that will be coming up.

Yeah, it takes a lot of soldiers to counterbalance the nuking of a
Great City. Let me guess - you're beyond draft age.


You should have seen my mom back in the 1970's
when I got my draft card in the mail. I though
she was going to break down and cry. My dad was
drafted and served from 1943 through 1946. My
dad viewed anyone joining the reserves as a
low life "draft dodger".

I guessed correctly about your age then. You might canvass the attitudes of
people under 35 to see how many agree with you on the draft issue.

If you turned this essay in to an English teacher, you'd get a note
at the top that said "See me." Then you and the teacher would have
a discussion about doing your own original thinking, and not
claiming somebody else's ready-to-wear opinion as your own.

James
It would seem you have your own "READY TO WEAR" opinions James.

Very little of what I have expressed, either in the OP or in either of my
responses to you, could reasonably be classified as "opinion." Please go
back and read what I wrote once again. You will find most of it either
asking questions or pointing out the obvious. As for my English teacher
prediction, let's just say that a third of a century in the classroom taught
me to separate out certain papers for further "analysis."

James

On Feb 17, 9:59*am, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
For quite some time now, you have been making dire predictions about the
future of the economy, not only that of the U.S., but that of the entire
world. *I classify this as "problem finding."

Now I seek solutions to the problems, which I name "problem solving."
Perhaps you can be instrumental in this process as well.

1) *You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." *That they would become "worth
less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply, which is
contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and continue, or
perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of paper assets, making
them "worth less" tomorrow than they were today. *We have certainly
experienced this over the course of our lives, and have learned to
compensate and adjust. *We have even had a couple of periods of fairly rapid
decline, and we obviously survived those.

But "worthless," the word I see you using, is an entirely different
situation. *That means that all the fiat money in the world would not buy a
piece of bubble gum, and all investments that consist of 0s and 1s in a
computer somewhere would be deleted and the hard drive wiped. *Each of us
would be reduced to the real estate and personal property at our immediate
disposal. *Even those would have no "value," other than what we could
exchange them, or barter them, for. *It would take a long time, I believe,
for any kind of stable system of exchange to become established. *How many
stuffed teddy bears, for example, equal a quart of milk?

2) *A situation that resulted in total worthlessness of all paper financial
instruments, as well as all the fiat coinage, would certainly wreak instant
hardship on anyone who did not have an alternative. *Those people will need
to eat today - and tomorrow, and the next day. *The numbers of the destitute
would increase rapidly and exponentially, and we could easily see half the
U.S. population desperate within just one short week. *We are not going to
have a stable society by any stretch of the imagination under such
circumstances. *We can talk about stockpiling firearms and ammunition to
deal with the occasional intruder upon our property, bent on stealing what
we have, but there are few of us who could hold off attack by a mob of, say,
even twenty-five persons. *Sure, we can blow away a few of them, but not all
of them. *We are talking ultimate desperation here, and such people will not
be deterred by the fall of a few of their compatriots. *Law enforcement,
which would have already been decimated by layoffs and retrenchment of
budgets, would be virtually powerless to protect the collective population.