Saturday, February 28, 2009

Dow 800??

Some have expressed disbelief at my forecast of Dow 800 by 2020. I have no doubt I am right. None. I issued that forecast at 14,100 (when people thought I was really nuts); we're already halfway there. How do I know something will happen that seems so unlikely?

Because it is not unlikely. What is unlikely is inflation continuing forever. Inflation is simple crime, immoral, premeditated theft perpetrated by deeply evil people. Nature does not allow a system built on systemic corruption to thrive.

So where are we now? Let's take inventory.

The latest Big Bull Market started in 1932 at Dow 40 and it peaked (according to more broad indexes than the Dow) in 2000 at Dow 12,000. Lest one mistake that for natural growth...

$40 compounded at 3% real growth for 68 years is a whopping $298.53. That's right, in 2000 when our most recent bull officially died, the Dow was roughly 97%-pure inflation. To think inflation will continue when 11,700/12,000 dollars is nothing but stolen buying power, well, seems just as odd as predicting it will go on ad infinitum.

The hardest thing to me, about forecasting Dow 800, is justifying a number so high. Well, part of that is cheating. I'm adding 20 years to the above, so the steady state growth number is more like Dow 540. Call me an optimist, but I think Americans are a hard working people, we can squeeze out another 50%.

Another clarifier is Elliott Wave analysis. Anyone who has watched stocks thorough an EW lens for a while knows that 2nd wave retracements of entire first waves are not only possible, they are common. In fact, it is pretty uncanny how many 1st waves retreat to about their stating point, spanning all degrees, from minute-to-minute to year by year. The most common EW retracement, which is technically a guideline but happens predictably, is a wave 2 termination in the vicinity of the previous wave 2 of one lesser degree, that is, at wave 2 of the previous 4-to-5 wave of the same degree. That indicates a strong probability of revisiting the price territory of the Dow's 1974 to 1978 low (the wave 2 retracement within the previous 5th wave), or 740.

Next, there is gold. When the elite index of what was, then, a true industrial power, lost 90% in the 1930's, partial gold backing was still an inflation mitigator. Even thought the US didn't have near enough gold to cover all the dollars in circulation, the "gold standard" still enforced some wealth reserve to reign in mega-inflation.

U.S. Capitol Steps, 1932

Contrast to today. Not only did we allow 97% of our collective national wealth to be purchased away from us using nothing but worthless printed paper, now we have a gold price of $950 pumped from just $20 at the beginning of the inflationary bull market. That means that if this decline equals the 90% decline of the 1930s (which was on the gold standard), look out, because this time asset prices, reflected by globally priced gold, have as much as 97% to fall just to return to the steady-state baseline. In other words, we have exponentially more paper inflation in our prices than they had at the kickoff of the Great Depression. I guess that should be obvious, the Federal Reserve's Great Depression pilot program peaked at Dow 390, the mature program deployment peaked at Dow 14,000+.

LA County Employment Bureau, mid-1930's

Now consider the boat anchor. The inflation kludge, the one criminal central bankers forced upon Americans to cause their original Great Depression, is still with us in larger form. No surprise that the exact same poor-->rich wealth-transfer schemes that caused the Great Depression, are causing GD 2.0. FDR's creation of the welfare state, his socializing the losses of wild bank speculation with customer deposits through the FDIC, his heavy handed FHA/government influence in real estate markets--all remain the direct and immediate causes of both depressions--ours being an entire EW degree larger than the Great Depression.

Living on birds hunted by the children. Nipoma, California, 1936

So let's check ourselves in for a quick financial physical. Our deficit in 2009 is projected to be about $1.5T, about a 45% shortfall. Problem is, that assumes income taxes keep rolling in. They won't. New York City, a huge windfall for D.C. paid 97% less tax revenue in 2008 than at peak. California was a bigger economy than China by many measures, our largest Federal cash cow at peak inflation. Now CA can't fund their own tax refunds, let alone contribute to the national scene. With national spending on a pace to double every few months or so, our physical exam looks downright ugly.

We had about 140M taxpayers; we've got an official U6 of 14% and we're losing a million taxpayers every six weeks. Let's say the real number right now is about 120M contributors. Median income is around $50K. $12T in overt debt/120M is negative $100K per taxpayer, twice the most common income. Take your income and double it, that is roughly your mind-numbing debt. Don't forget to add a couple of trillion every year for the foreseeable future. Our national obligations, including promises congress has made on behalf of unborn Americans, total about $70T, or half the cumulative wealth of every human living on Earth. The patient is flat-lined.

Dow 800? Ready or not, here it comes.


  1. But apart from, everything else is just fine.

  2. twice income is fine. we can borrow up to 3 times annual pre-tax earnings.

  3. How much can the 18% (shadowstats) or 14% (the 'official' month-old number ) who are unemployed or long-term unemployed borrow?

  4. best.prediction.ever.

  5. I think, instead of buying 1953 silver certificates, I'll just stuff regular dollars in an envelope and put it in the safe.

  6. "Nature does not allow a system built on systemic corruption to thrive."

    Bwahahaha! You should read up on your history if you really believe this.

    I've got news for you: autocratic systems of one kind or another, where systemic corruption is the rule and not the exception, have been by far the dominant form of government throughout history. It's not until relatively recent history (the last couple of hundred years or so) that representative forms of government really became commonplace (although they have existed for the past couple of thousand). And as we've all seen, even those have corruption to varying degrees.

    "What is unlikely is inflation continuing forever."

    This is true. But it's also irrelevant. Inflation doesn't have to go on forever. It just has to go on long enough and be high enough to wipe out the value of any savings you have in whatever currency you have it in (probably the U.S. Federal Treasury Note). And lest you think it can't happen, it already has, in a number of places and times. Modern Zimbabwe is probably the most egregious example, but there are plenty of others.

    Now, that's not to say that the actual cost of goods and services, as determined by the amount of labor required to produce them combined with the factors of supply and demand, won't go down even in the face of inflation. In fact, that's a distinct possibility (if not a near certainty).

    In the face of the massive debt you so correctly point out, what in the world makes you think that the Fed and the Treasury won't try to print their way out of it? And what else would you call what *must* result from that other than inflation/hyperinflation?

    One more thing: remember this: the rules you believe the Fed and Treasury must operate under are rules that they follow at their whim. There is nothing that says they must continue to do so. While the basis of the currency system we have right now is debt from the very start (which presently constrains how much currency is able to be injected into the system), that is something that can change at the stroke of a pen.

  7. FDR , excellent insight. I will listen to you and the likes of Shiller, Fleckenstien, Pinto, Paglieia, Shilling , just to name a few. Why ? Because you guys have not been wrong yet. Simple.

    It would be a great service from you if you would predict at what point would be the best to sell , to exit the markets.

    Thank goodness i have only a 15 % position in the markets. Do you still believe the markets will climb to a Dow 9500 befor the next big down draft?

    Thanks in advance.

  8. Thoughts FDR?

    "Buffett says U.S. Treasury bubble one for the ages"

  9. "In the face of the massive debt you so correctly point out, what in the world makes you think that the Fed and the Treasury won't try to print their way out of it? And what else would you call what *must* result from that other than inflation/hyperinflation?"

    They will try to print their way out, but fail. Why? Because they can't. The "printing press" = hyperinflation theory is invalid at this point because the focus is being placed on money supply and scary Fed charts...and ignoring CREDIT, which exceeds base money. Any increase in money supply is being offset by credit contraction. Japan pumped like crazy in early 2000 and lending still collapsed. We know how that turned out.

    Money is being hoarded to replenish reserves, and for good reason. Everybody's been burned, and consumers are strapped with debt. They cannot afford (literally) to borrow anymore.

  10. "They will try to print their way out, but fail."

    Slight modification:

    They have tried to print their way out, and failed.

  11. fdralloveragain wrote: "They have tried to print their way out, and failed."

    Yes, they have, but within the current limitations they have self-imposed onto themselves.

    You and the others here appear to be assuming that lending is the only possible way for the government and/or the Fed to introduce currency into the system, but there is nothing that says they *must* introduce currency by lending -- that limitation is, as I said, self-imposed, and can be removed by the stroke of a pen.

    Consider this: the U.S. government currently owes massive debts. You pointed that out yourself. One way they can pay those debts off is by printing currency and then using the new currency to pay the debts. The creditors can't simply reject being paid that way.

    Another way to expand the money supply without introducing credit is for the government to use newly printed money to pay all government expenses. Do you think people who are paid that way will refuse to spend any of the money?

    Both of those methods are limited, of course -- there are only so many debts and expenses that need to be paid. But with the amount of dollar currency in circulation at or below $1T right now, that alone would be enough to expand the money supply by well over a factor of 10.

    At the very least, the government and/or the Fed could offset the credit contraction in its entirety and as a result keep prices stable. That means no price deflation (value inflation, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing). It also means no significant contraction of the Dow (certainly not to 800).

    So again I ask: in the face of the above, what compelling reason do you have to believe that inflation/hyperinflation isn't a real possibility?

  12. "You and the others here appear to be assuming that lending is the only possible way for the government and/or the Fed to introduce currency into the system, but there is nothing that says they *must* introduce currency by lending -- that limitation is, as I said, self-imposed, and can be removed by the stroke of a pen."

    Yes, there is something that limits them from printing currency altruistically: profit motive. That is how Jefferson knew private currency issue would always end in disaster.

    They don't print to enrich you, they print to enrich themselves. Nothing will make private banks give away the requisite trillions. That is why deflation is a lock.

    No profitable borrower; no loan.
    No loan; no cash printed.
    No counterfeit cash; no commercial leverage.
    No leverage; no counter to 40:1 de-levering.
    No leverage; no chance.

  13. Who said anything about banks giving away the money? I'm not talking about banks, I'm talking about government. And who said anything about the motive being altruistic? Most assuredly, it won't be.

    You seem to be focused strictly on how the system currently works. I agree that those in power will do something only if it's in their interests. But you seem to be thinking within the box of the current system. You have to think outside of that box, because I guarantee you that those in power certainly are.

    Deleveraging is beneficial to those in power only to the degree that it allows them to claim ownership of the assets of those who are in debt. But those in power also already own the U.S. government (this should be obvious on its face, but if you need proof you need only look at the kind of bills that are passed), and they don't own it by way of debt -- they own it through control of information and control over those in office. Because it's impossible to be elected without being willing to do that which those in power want done, it follows that the only people who get elected are those who are already owned and controlled.

    The Fed and the U.S. government are one and the same, not because the Fed is controlled by the government, but because those who control the Fed control the government.

    Now, as you know, being in debt means that those to whom you're in debt have power over you. Unless the debt the U.S. government owes is strictly to those who already control it (it's not), it follows that those who are in control of the government will do what they must to eliminate any control that anyone else has. And the easiest way they can do that is by eliminating the debt on the books owed to others.

    And *that* requires that they print money.

    Because the alternative is for the U.S. government to default on its debt. If that happens, its power in the world, and therefore the power in the world of those who control it, will decrease sharply. There's already talk of moving the world away from the dollar as the reserve currency of choice. Were that to happen, the dollar would certainly be tossed out as the reserve currency of choice, and thus the power of those in control will drop sharply.

    What makes you think they'll allow that to happen?

    If faced with the choice between losing control and printing money, they'll print money.

    This part of the situation didn't exist during the Great Depression, so you can't use the GD as a basis of comparison.

  14. kcb,

    Good points, well made.

  15. "I'm not talking about banks, I'm talking about government. "

    Our government has no role in printing money, we sold that to private central banks over two centuries ago for a free set of coffee mugs with their bank logo.

    Seriously, the American government has no say whatsoever in policy affecting the U.S. currency supply. That is why Fed testimony to congress is strictly one way. They inconvenience themselves just long enough to tell the American people exactly what they are going to pay, and exactly how long they have to pay it, or else.

    "The Fed and the U.S. government are one and the same, not because the Fed is controlled by the government, but because those who control the Fed control the government."

    That is like saying the slave and his master are one and the same because they both work to enrich the slave owner. That is one way to look at it. Another way is that they could not be more different.

    The Federal Reserve's ONLY goal is maximum plunder of America for profit. As long as we do not accidentally perish, they want to knock us down farther to the lowest level of poverty that still inspires Arbeit Macht Frei.

    Same as any slave owner.

    Our U.S. politicians' goal, on the other hand, is to do whatever it takes to keep their master from killing them. That, also, means plundering the American people relentlessly.

    So in a way you are right, the private for-profit Federal Reserve banks and the U.S. government are one and the same, in that they both share the singular goal of financially decapitating every American citizen: dead, alive, and unborn.

  16. "The Federal Reserve's ONLY goal is maximum plunder of America for profit."

    Would you attribute the same motive to the Bank of England in regards to the UK?

    Mervyn King seems a well-intentioned guy.

  17. Yes. There is no other reason to have a central bank.

    Consider the following proof:

    We are in big financial trouble. Has the central bank offered to waive the $350B, or 12% of our total annual Federal budget, that we pay them in interest each year?


    That is non-negotiable.

    If they waived the interest alone for 2 years there would be no need for Tarp I or II. But that would require that "they" are on our side, and "they" are not, "they" are the enemy.

    The BoE is no different, in fact the BoE and the Fed are one and the same about an inch below the surface.

  18. FDR, I think kcb's argument is that TPTB (the powers that be) which are behind the Fed are actually in competition with other TPTBs (i.e. those which are backing their own Feds in other countries, most likely countries that are not on the dollar reserve system). In which case, which is more likely to guide their decisions - their competition with each other, or their exploitation of their citizens? I think kcb is arguing that the competition takes primacy, in which case exploitation of their citizens will take a back seat to viability of their citizens as an on-going (wealth-producing) concern.

  19. Trying to join the dots here, FDR...

    Mathematician David Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees.

    Is he a friend or enemy of the Fed?

  20. FDR: I think you misunderstand what I'm saying about the U.S. government and the Fed. The U.S. government is an instrument of power to those in the Fed and elsewhere. Its value is *not* limited simply to how much wealth can be milked from U.S. citizens. The U.S. government has a large standing army and a huge weapons arsenal, and that enables it to project power all over the globe with ease.

    Do you really think the people who wield real power have no interest in making use of that? Do you really think they are willing to lose the capabilities it brings to the table?

    No, the Fed and the government are joined at the hip. They *are* the same thing in any meaningful sense, just as your arms are part of you. The government does the bidding of those in power just as your arms do your bidding. And in both cases, the controlling entity would be a lot less capable without that extension of themselves.

    Remember that the amount of power the bankers have is limited by how much their currency is used. Someone who doesn't trade in dollars, for instance, has no dependence on the Fed for anything. This is why it's such a big deal for the dollar to be the world's reserve currency, and why it's so important to those who control the Fed and the U.S. government to keep it that way.

    And it's why the Euro (as much trouble as it may be in right now) is such a threat to those people, as is any other currency that might be a serious contender for the title of the world's reserve currency.

    djrichard is exactly right in what he says. There are multiple competing concerns for those in power over the Fed/government right now, but their overriding concern is preservation (and, if possible, expansion) of their power. Sucking U.S. citizens dry does them no good if it doesn't increase their worldwide power. Until now, it has, but the nature of the current situation is such that they now have to make a choice.

    Sucking a resource dry is by definition unsustainable. Even the people in power are not above the natural laws that govern the universe.

  21. "The government does the bidding of those in power (the Fed and elsewhere)just as your arms do your bidding."

    So Obama is simply a figurehead and McCain's policies would have differed only in their delivery?

    I have a problem with that.

  22. "[regarding military power] Do you really think the people who wield real power have no interest in making use of that? Do you really think they are willing to lose the capabilities it brings to the table?"

    The Fed doesn't care about military power beyond its potential to generate debt at interest. All the central banks are the same in this respect, so no, they do not compete with one another. There is only one central bank in any practical sense.

    The central banks of the world are front offices of the same back office organizational structure. They create and execute wars when wars are mutually beneficial to the back office bottomline.

    I'm sure there are examples of major wars since the late 17th century (outside of the American Revolution) where central banks didn't create the conflict then finance both sides to obtain virtually limitless profits, but I can't think of one.

    If there is one thing you get out of this blog and nothing else, it should be a basic understanding of the central bank's modern operating model: create the illusion of a two-sided conflict (in all facets of your minions' daily life) where heads we win and tails you lose. Give your slaves a perceived outlet, then operate outside the overt rules of the game to turn their dislike for you into financing at interest payable back to you.

  23. The part of my brain that wavers between disbelief and mind-numbing realization is now tilting towards the latter. I should have taken the red pill, LoL :-)

    On a related note, I think you'd find this interview very interesting (tip of the hat to ticker forum). 8 min interview with "renegade" economist Michael Hudson, where he suggests the modern-day equivalent to the jubilee. Some of the most insightful commentary I've seen outside of FDR's.

  24. FDR: I think you and I must agree to disagree on the value of military power to those who control the Fed and the U.S.G.

    You seem to believe that generating debt at interest is the ultimate goal for those who control the Fed. On this I disagree completely. I will agree that it is one of the tools they use, but it is by no means the only one, nor is it necessarily the most powerful one they have.

    The ultimate goal for those who control the Fed is to control the events of the world. Power and control are the ultimate end goals. Financial debt is merely but one means to achieve that.

    If there were really one central bank in any practical sense, then the Euro would not have come about at all. As I said before, you can't control the debt of someone who isn't using your currency. If the central banks were really all part of the same overall organization then we'd certainly have a single worldwide currency by now. Such a currency would be much easier for the central banking organization to control.

    And finally, if one were faced with the choice of controlling military power or controlling financial power, I'd say control of military power is more important. Why? Because there are other ways to control people's actions aside from control over money, and most of them flow from the use of force.

    A central banker controlling trillions of dollars of debt is no match for a charismatic leader who controls a well-supplied army of millions, if only because the charismatic leader who controls the army of millions holds the power of life and death over the central banker. The reverse is not true.

    And, in fact, use of force is the only reason control over currency can work at all.

    Why is that the case? Simple: because debt cannot be *enforced* except at the end of a gun. The only reason people who are in debt have any sort of forced obligation is because of the legal and social framework that enforces the rules of debt upon the debtor. Remove that threat of enforcement and the person who is in debt will simply ignore those to whom he is in debt.

    This is why control of force is so important, more important even than control over the currency supply.

    And *that* is why those who control the Fed will do what they must to keep the U.S. strong as a military power, even if it means sacrificing some of the debt currently owed to them.

  25. KCB, You've made some good points there, now FDR need you to come back with a reply...

    this is what makes this forum the one!

  26. Hi kcb,

    I don't disagree with you that military power is one of the many things the Fed and related central banks own by buying "free market" governments. To the contrary, as I've always said, war is the central banks' greatest financial prize.

    But as we are about to find out, in such a system there is no credible military power without economic control.

    If you don't believe me, watch.

  27. I'll get the popcorn ;-D

    This would be easier to watch though if this wasn't participatory theater.

  28. Bravo FDR, Bravo!

  29. FDR: I suppose we may be looking at the same thing from two different angles, but the question is what derives from what. You say that there's no credible military power without economic control. But I say there's no credible economic control without military and/or police power.

    I'd argue my view is the more correct one, for the simple reason that control over the actions of others does not require control over economics (though that is one way to achieve it), while control over economics requires control over the actions of others. There have been many, many countries throughout history which managed to control the actions of the population without using a debt-based currency (and therefore having direct control over the currency used). Such countries extend far enough back through history to precede the use of money itself.

    Power comes in many forms and can be had in multiple ways. Any ability to influence others' actions is power, and leaders have used many ways to achieve that throughout history. Economic influence was but one means they used.

    Why would the present be any different?

    If you can answer the question of how you can enforce economic control without guns (and, in particular, how you can do so without guns against someone who has guns), then you can make a convincing case for your position. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

  30. just for shits and giggles...

    you don't have to enforce it...
    because the people with guns don't really know your the controlling force...

    and how about this...the people with guns are being controlled by people without guns who are elected officials. meaning the power of control over the people with guns was endowed to the controller by the people with guns...

    the only problem with this argument is...what happens when the people with guns find out that your the "force" pulling all the strings. I would say it then becomes uncontrollable. So in a sense FDR is right why bother using force to control when you could use it to make a profit. And kcb your right too. When the cat is out of the bag,the ponzi sceem is up, the veil comes down and the wizard is just a little man behind the curtains...all hell breaks loose.

  31. Breaking news:

    Chris Dodd has approved FDIC to borrow up to 500 billion dollars from bottomless pocket taxpayers.

    Why the FDIC bailout? Apparently this particular sum of money is enough to cover the top five banks in the country should they fail. This was not mentioned as the motivation for the bill obviously, but is the speculative conclusion that some choose to make.

    To me it is a pretty clear signal that banks are going to be closed.

  32. Anonymous wrote: "you don't have to enforce it...
    because the people with guns don't really know your the controlling force..."

    But you *do* have to enforce it. Unenforced debt is worthless, because the debtor can (and will, since its in his own self-interest) simply not pay back the debt.

    It doesn't matter whether or not the guys with the guns know who their master is. All that matters is that they end up doing what their master wants. Whether they do so as a result of a set of laws on the books or as a result of direct command doesn't really matter -- the result is the same.

    Now, recall that my original point is that the people in power are at a point where they must choose between milking the population further or keeping the U.S. as a viable and credible political and military power. And I assert that they will choose the latter. The political and military power of the U.S. is what allows the people in power to extract wealth from sources outside the U.S. There's no way they're going to give that up.

    A military power such as what the U.S. is right now doesn't come about overnight. It takes decades to put it together. To throw it away entirely in order to milk the population of a few more trillion dollars is even more short sighted than the typical U.S. corporation's actions.

    I do agree that if the people with the guns find out who their master really is, they might suddenly turn on their master. I don't know how likely that is in this case, but it's a possibility.

    Regardless, the people in power would not have their power if they didn't control (via whatever means) the guns. I guarantee they'll not sacrifice that control for a few more bucks.

  33. kcb wrote "Unenforced debt is worthless, because the debtor can (and will, since its in his own self-interest) simply not pay back the debt."

    This certainly seems to have been the case during the times of merry old england when they had debtor prisons.

    But I think the threat that is more operative today is the threat of having a bad credit rating. You can walk away from debt, it just tanks your credit rating.

    In a way, the credit suppliers are the ultimate enforcer by being able to deny credit to individuals or corporations or by being able to charge very high rates for credit.

  34. The core of American power is not the military, it is the Second Amendment.

  35. FDR said: "The core of American power is not the military, it is the Second Amendment".

    The Second Amendment? The one that says that everyone may keep and bear firearms, as long as it's limited in power? (it doesn't actually say that, but it has been interpreted to mean that, so I stand by my description of it)

    The real purpose of that amendment was to allow the people to keep the government in check, but the framers neither saw the need to explicitly say as much in the Constitution itself (they have said as much in many writings elsewhere) nor did they anticipate the technological improvements that would dramatically increase the firepower difference between the average *well-armed* civilian and the average soldier. They assumed that civilians and soldiers would remain roughly on par in terms of firepower when they decided to allow the country to have a standing army, figuring that the civilians would be able to keep the government, with its standing army, in check.

    It hasn't turned out that way at all. The average soldier has somewhere between thousands of times and millions of times the firepower of the average civilian, depending on what weaponry the military decides to bring to bear.

    The average well-armed civilian with his semi-automatic AR-15 is no match for an F-15 cruising along at 50,000 feet. The latter can drop bombs and fire missiles at the former whilst the former can do *nothing*.

    No, the Second Amendment is no longer the core of American power, even if it was a long time ago. While I'm still a strong believer in Second Amendment rights, it is because I consider the right to keep and bear arms to be a freedom in a long list of freedoms that all people of sound judgment should have. I have no illusions about the efficacy of an armed civilian population against a well-armed modern military machine.

  36. I'll bet if you took an honest poll, you'd find U.S. military members own a disproportionate number of personal firearms.

    The U.S. military isn't the enemy the Second Amendment was meant to counter, not then, not now.

  37. FDR wrote: "I'll bet if you took an honest poll, you'd find U.S. military members own a disproportionate number of personal firearms."

    No doubt. But that's relative to the rest of the civilian population, not relative to the active military. And even then, the weapons they have are strictly personal firearms. The weapons any well-equipped (by modern standards) military force would bring to bear cannot be countered by the weapons that even ex-military civilians own.

    That is why I said that the firepower of the average soldier is, at the very least, many thousands of times that of the average armed civilian.

    "The U.S. military isn't the enemy the Second Amendment was meant to counter, not then, not now."

    No, the enemy the Second Amendment was meant to counter is a U.S. government that has turned against the people. And the U.S. military is one of the most significant entities of that government. It works for the U.S. government, not for the people, at least in name. How it works out in practice depends entirely on those within the military structure at the time.

    And so, even if the Second Amendment wasn't written to counter the U.S. military by name, it was certainly written to counter it in practice.

    The reason? If the U.S. military sides against those who would turn the U.S. government against the people, then there is no need for the Second Amendment at all. It's only when the government has a large armed force at its disposal that the Second Amendment becomes important. Or, put another way, when the military sides with the government against the people.

    As I said, the founders didn't anticipate such a huge disparity in per-person firepower between the military and the civilians. Back when the country was founded, such a disparity was literally impossible.

    But that disparity makes all the difference in the world, and transforms the Second Amendment from a lynchpin of the republic into just another freedom to be protected.


The USA's political-economc system is best described as:

On Nov 2, 2010, I plan to vote (FOR or AGAINST) my incumbent congressman

Free Hit Counter