The Unraveling

 

Day One: Woman Having Credit Card Declined

The grocery carts stopped moving, as all the customers listened in on the din from the front of the store. A young mother with three young children was furiously yelling at the check-out clerk. Apparently, the uproar occurred as the clerk would not allow the woman to take her groceries until her debit card was approved or another form of payment was provided. The young woman continued the commotion by shouting that there was money in her account and she needed the milk and food for her babies.

The same situation occurred at the same time down the block, across town, and throughout the entire country. Widespread complaints of customers to store clerks echoed throughout retailers nationwide.

Within only a few hours, freight trucking companies called back tens of thousands of long-haul and short distance delivery trucks, not allowing supplies to be delivered to supermarkets, retailers, restaurants, gas stations, hospitals, etc.

Day Two:

As supply chains break down, restaurants without reserves of food decide to close and retail stores shuttered. Utilities start having problems delivering water, power, and electricity to their customers. The States immediately announce “temporary” widespread electricity, water, and gas rations and subsidized public utilities.

Rumors on social media, television, and radio all referred to a collapse of the U.S. monetary system. Block-long lines formed outside local banks. People tried to withdraw their money, but banks cannot meet their deposits and run out of cash immediately.

Day Three:

Civil disobedience, looting and crime began in every metropolitan area. Gasoline supplies dried up and the airlines grounded their fleets. Public transportation was ‘temporarily suspended’ while truckers became stuck on the sides of highways with the last of their remaining products, but no ability to sell them. Some of them fall victim to random assaults and theft. Civil breakdown spread from the inner cities to the suburbs. Law enforcement could only standby and watch.

…and that was just the beginning.

Pulp Fiction, right? Except, in September of 2008, the greatest economy in the world, the United States of America, found itself 10 days away from the above events actually occurring.

Claire Berlinski responded to a comment of mine and requested further explanation on Larry Kudlows post “Will Anyone Defend Banks,” where I mentioned how there are still some really bad players in the banking industry, some five years after Frank-Dodd was supposed to have fixed it all.

Most people understand why the crisis occurred. I called it the unholy trifecta:

  1. The financial industry (read Wall Street) lobbied Congress in the 90′s through Robert Rubin and Sandy Weil to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act: a Depression era law created to prevent another economic collapse seen in 1929 by seperating investment banks and commercial (main street) banks.
  2. In response to the dot-com crash and subsequent attacks on 9-11, former FRB Chairman Alan Greenspan dramatically lowered interest rates to send a message to world that America was still a safe bet.
  3. Congress (in their infinite wisdom) felt that every American should own a home. They encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start buying up conventional and subprime mortgages, thereby allowing banks to make risky loans.
2007 Lines Of Depositors at IndyMac Bank Trying to Withdraw their Money

Not the Depression – Lines of customers at IndyMac Bank unsuccessfully trying to withdraw their money

In Spring of 2008 the house of cards started to collapse as we saw the end of Bear Stearns. Six months later, the economy fell into complete crisis. Most people — while they knew things were going from bad to worse –were not fully aware of how close the U.S. to the precipice.

While the media were focused on horse race politics (aghast!!! John McCain’s ‘political considerations’ of canceling a presidential debate to head back to DC!), what was happening behind the scenes terrified the most experienced financial service professionals and economists.

The unfolding crisis was painful as the stock market along with real estate collapsed. Except, things were about get a whole lot worse.

New York Fed Chairman (soon to be Obama Treasury Secretary) Tim Geithner was in deep crisis mode. Just six weeks before a presidential election, he and Hank Paulson (Bush Treasury Secretary) forgot politics. They worked together each day with Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve Board Chairman) trying to avoid the unthinkable.

What if the banks suddenly became insolvent? This was not only a real prospect, it was happening: Lehman Bros. was about to become the next casualty.

What had them so worried? A student of the Great Depression, Bernanke knew that the lifeblood of any economy is cash flow: the movement of money. If banks and financial institutions suddenly find themselves insolvent, the system breaks down. The Unraveling happens quickly and takes no prisoners.

After arm-twisting Nancy Pelosi’s Congress, as well as some reticent Republicans, Paulson pushed TARP through, which provided the much-needed cash infusions into the banks. This allowed the economy to continue, and for most people, their only real concern was watching their personal wealth deteriorate: a relatively minor concern compared to the collapse of the entire economy which would lead to a social breakdown.

Most economists agree that what transpired over six years ago was never fixed. It was merely stitched up with silly putty and Elmers glue.

We are now in our seventh year of the post-crisis economy. While the stock market has doubled, there is no credible source of economic news that suggests the economy has truly rebounded as in previous post-recessions.

Most agree the stock markets jubilant return to it’s lofty heights are due to ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and QE (quantitative easing), both tools of the Federal Reserve Board to prevent the economy from sliding into recession. The problem with these tools is that they were only viewed as temporary. The Federal Reserve balance sheet of $4.5 trillion – yep, with a “t” — is fueling the stock market which is akin to leading lambs to the slaughter.

Whatever you think of bankers, they are not stupid. 2008 is in their rearview mirror, but not far enough behind to forget about. Many of the same bankers from then are still in positions of power, and they all tacitly acknowledge that QE and ZIRP have artificially inflated the economy. While many of the largest banks are sitting on massive cash reserves, they have kept it sidelined. Business owners are still finding it’s very hard to get business loans from main street banks. Mortgages are not easy to secure.

Banks operate under the guidelines and oversight of the FDIC and FRB. There are several banks that have caused tremendous hardship against their customers by way of illegal actions that only get reported if the customers are knowledgeable about protections afforded them by the FDIC and FRB. Most people do not realize they have recourse to fraudulent appraisals, mafia-like tactics, and blatant gouging through fees. Banks are acting like they are still in survival-mode even though they are flushed with cash.

So after six years of the Fed flushing the banks with cash, why are they not parting with the money, while others may even be acting in bad faith? Financial service professionals seem to all agree, and FRB Chairwoman Janet Yellen has all but stated that it’s a matter of when, not if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates.

What impact will that have on the economy? Even with QE and ZIRP, the GDP is still at a very disappointing annualized 2-3%. Can you imagine what the GDP would be without the Fed’s tools? Bankers know this. They also know one very real and incontrovertible fact: TARP caused the largest banks that were too big to fail in 2008 to become even bigger. Bank of America gobbled up Countrywide; Wells Fargo took over Wachovia; etc.

If another crisis happens — China, Europe, Terrorism, War, etc., could each catalyze one — the economy could very quickly go into crisis mode again. The largest banks which were too big to fail in 2008 have all grown larger. Today, bankers know they are now too big to save.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 47 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    Hm. I have my doubts that TARP saved anything.

    But I agree that things could go south, much faster than most people can imagine.

    All collapse requires is that people follow Wile. E. Coyote’s lead, and look down.

    • #1
  2. user_277976 Member
    user_277976
    @TerryMott

    Thanks, David.  I’ve been sleeping much too soundly lately.  This post should fix that right up.

    It doesn’t help that you’ve given substance to my nagging intuition that only one shoe has dropped, and that the tardier the other is, the louder will be its report.

    • #2
  3. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    David Sussman: So after 6 continual years of the Fed flushing the banks with cash, why are they not parting with the money, while others may even be acting in bad faith?

    With every influx of free (printed) cash the total value of a bank’s reserve is diluted, so if insolvency is the risk then spending the reserve would still be foolish. The bank may have more cash at the end of the exercise, but the amount of wealth it has in reserve is relatively unchanged. The bank needs increased returns on investments, not more free cash.

    • #3
  4. user_1065645 Member
    user_1065645
    @DaveSussman

    iWe:Hm. I have my doubts that TARP saved anything.

    But I agree that things could go south, much faster than most people can imagine.

    All collapse requires is that people follow Wile. E. Coyote’s lead, and look down.

    As a free market advocate, I was not a fan of TARP, but in retrospect, it was necessary. Unlike subsequent government cash injections (Stimulus, son of stimulus, etc) TARP actually was paid back and returned a profit for the U.S. Govt.

    • #4
  5. user_645127 Lincoln
    user_645127
    @jam

    I never understood something about QE. If the banks needed cash/liquidity, why not first give the cash to the citizenry? The very first thing the citizenry would do with the cash is deposit it in their bank! Then, it would either sit there, or it would go to another bank in the form of some kind of payment, such as for groceries or paying down a credit card. It would go from bank to bank this way, and overall banking liquidity would rise, would it not?

    The obvious risk is inflation, if too much cash is injected this way too quickly. But after a very, very preliminary number crunch this is what I found. $2T divided by the adult population of the US (which I estimate at about 243M) is just over $8K spread out over 7 years (2008-2015). I’m sure there are other variables I don’t know, but there are my questions for now:

    • Is $2T accurate?
    • Would giving each adult slightly over $1,000 annually raise the risk of inflation too much?
    • Would it have helped the liquidity crisis?
    • #5
  6. EThompson Member
    EThompson
    @

    Most agree the stock markets jubilant return to it’s lofty heights are due to ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and QE (quantitative easing), both tools of the Federal Reserve Board to prevent the economy from sliding into recession. The problem with these tools is that they were only viewed as temporary. The Federal Reserve balance sheet of $4.5 TRILLION is fuelling the stock market which is akin to leading lambs to the slaughter.

    So much astute stuff to comment upon here David but I choose to focus upon your specific comment above because it expresses my most critical concern.

    Your post couldn’t have been more timely. I’ve just spent five hours glued to the NASDAQ screen trading, buying and changing my orders like a mad dog because what I thought might come to fruition in September is fast becoming a harsh reality now.

    Thanks for this post.

    • #6
  7. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    EThompson: I’ve just spent five hours glued to the NASDAQ screen trading, buying and changing my orders like a mad dog because what I thought might come to fruition in September is fast becoming a harsh reality now.

    Do tell!

    • #7
  8. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    David Sussman: The financial industry (read Wall Street) lobbied Congress in the 90′s through Robert Rubin and Sandy Weil to repeal the Glass Steagall act: a Depression era law created to prevent another economic collapse seen in 1929 by seperating investment banks and commercial (main street) banks.

    Too many problems with this post to detail here.

    I’ll just observe that repeal of Glass Steagall had nothing to do with causing the events of 2008.

    Every investment bank that was still structured as it had been prior to the repeal failed.  None of the investment banks that had merged with a commercial bank failed.

    Shattering the Glass-Steagall myth

    • #8
  9. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @PleatedPantsForever

    Just Google “hurricane sandy dumpster diving” and you will see how fragile normality can be.

    At least that was a natural disaster, how much more depressing would it be for those circumstances to be created through financial stupidity?

    • #9
  10. EThompson Member
    EThompson
    @

    iWe:

    EThompson: I’ve just spent five hours glued to the NASDAQ screen trading, buying and changing my orders like a mad dog because what I thought might come to fruition in September is fast becoming a harsh reality now.

    Do tell!

    The day’s not over yet and accounts don’t settle until 6 EST. We’ll see if I made the right decisions.

    • #10
  11. user_1065645 Member
    user_1065645
    @DaveSussman

    Tuck:

    David Sussman: The financial industry (read Wall Street) lobbied Congress in the 90′s through Robert Rubin and Sandy Weil to repeal the Glass Steagall act: a Depression era law created to prevent another economic collapse seen in 1929 by seperating investment banks and commercial (main street) banks.

    Too many problems with this post to detail here.

    I’ll just observe that repeal of Glass Steagall had nothing to do with causing the events of 2008.

    Every investment bank that was still structured as it had been prior to the repeal failed. None of the investment banks that had merged with a commercial bank failed.

    Shattering the Glass-Steagall myth

    Tuck,

    Please, share your problems with the post.

    The column you site politicizes Glass-Steagall. I never stated GS was THE reason, it was one of 3.

    Investment banks absolutely took advantage of the CMBS market, which provided regional banks the backstop to make risky loans, which lead to a worldwide recession. That’s incontrovertible.

    For the few columnists like Pearlstein, there are an over abundance of economists who would trounce his opinion with facts.

    • #11
  12. user_1065645 Member
    user_1065645
    @DaveSussman

    Jennifer Johnson:I never understood something about QE. If the banks needed cash/liquidity, why not first give the cash to the citizenry? The very first thing the citizenry would do with the cash is deposit it in their bank! Then, it would either sit there, or it would go to another bank in the form of some kind of payment, such as for groceries or paying down a credit card. It would go from bank to bank this way, and overall banking liquidity would rise, would it not?

    The obvious risk is inflation, if too much cash is injected this way too quickly. But after a very, very preliminary number crunch this is what I found. $2T divided by the adult population of the US (which I estimate at about 243M) is just over $8K spread out over 7 years (2008-2015). I’m sure there are other variables I don’t know, but there are my questions for now:

    • Is $2T accurate?
    • Would giving each adult slightly over $1,000 annually raise the risk of inflation too much?
    • Would it have helped the liquidity crisis?

    George W. Bush would agree. His tax refund of $1500 to each tax payer spurred a temporary increase in the GDP. But this is different than shoring up banks.

    • #12
  13. Vance Richards Inactive
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    So, what’s the fix? Personally, I’m thinking gold and ammo but I on a larger scale, what should the Fed and Washington be working towards?

    • #13
  14. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    David Sussman:

    Tuck,

    Please, share your problems with the post.

    The column you site politicizes Glass-Steagall. I never stated GS was THE reason, it was one of 3.

    You listed it as #1, that generally has significance.  At any rate, it had nothing to do with the events of 2008.

    And if you think the Post is political—in point of fact, it’s you, not he, doing the politicizing—then here’s a right-leaning org saying the same thing:

    “…Finally, there is no evidence that the small investment banks with which the insured banks were affiliated contributed in any significant way to the losses of the insured banks. In other words, if Glass-Steagall had never been amended in 1999, the financial crisis of 2008 would have happened exactly as it did….”

    Five Myths about Glass-Steagall

    Investment banks absolutely took advantage of the CMBS market, which provided regional banks the backstop to make risky loans, which lead to a worldwide recession. That’s incontrovertible.

    I’ll controvert it, then.  Banks were required by law to make those risky loans.  And they complained about it as they were forced to do so.

    I suggest you start with Reckless Endangerment, for a better view of what actually led to 2008’s events.

    • #14
  15. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    The economy does not have to hold together forever.  Just long enough for a Republican President and a Republican Congress can get the blame for the next fall like they did for the last one.  This will allow the Progressives / Democrats to sweep back in and further their agenda like they did back in 08.  A couple of crashes with Republicans at the helm should get them sidelined for a generation or two if not break their backs forever.

    • #15
  16. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Here’s another excellent overview of what actually caused the 2008 crash:

    ACORN and the Housing Bubble

    • #16
  17. EThompson Member
    EThompson
    @

    The obvious risk is inflation, if too much cash is injected this way too quickly.

    It’s a double-edged sword. Inflationary increases will bring the govt to its knees due to its ginormous debt, but most assuredly would curb irresponsible mortgages and encourage savings. I’m personally frustrated right now because I’m at the point in my life that I could live comfortably on my savings and assets with a mere 4% interest rate.

    • #17
  18. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    The problem is that the institutions diversified under the repeal of Glas-Steagal had the fewest problems.  Or at least what they were saying over at marginal revolution.

    • #18
  19. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    EThompson:It’s a double-edged sword. Inflationary increases will bring the govt to its knees due to its ginormous debt, but most assuredly would curb irresponsible mortgages and encourage savings. I’m personally frustrated right now because I’m at the point in my life that I could live comfortably on my savings and assets with a mere 4% interest rate.

    Inflation can only help debtors, which is what the government is.  If all of their debts denominated in dollars are suddenly worth half of what they were last week, but the Government is collecting more revenue due to bracket creep their balance sheets suddenly look a lot rosier.

    If, for instance, you were astute, and thought a major inflationary cycle were right around the corner you should go deep on investment properties right now and mortgage them to the hilt.  Your creditors get paid back in devalued dollars in the future and you get to reap the increased rental fees consequent to inflationary pressure.

    Trouble is, doom and gloomers have predicted 10 of the last none hyperinflation-fuelled crises and 20 of the last one financial panics.

    I thought where all the money went was into the Fed itself, which was offering banks guaranteed interest on money deposited with the Fed – an insane policy guaranteed to stifle riskier private lending.  Did that policy come to an end?

    • #19
  20. Yeah...ok. Inactive
    Yeah...ok.
    @Yeahok

    So by day 3 of the unraveling we have widespread riots and looting. How many days unraveling do you estimate we need to endure before we no longer need to hear about climate change?

    If the banking system unravels, how will OFA pay for the rioters?

    • #20
  21. EThompson Member
    EThompson
    @

    If, for instance, you were astute, and thought a major inflationary cycle were right around the corner you should go deep on investment properties right now and mortgage them to the hilt.

    I’m sure many would to be happy to make your argument but I enjoy owing no money– no mortgage, no car payment, no college debt, no credit card balances and even cancelled my obscenely expensive wind/flood insurance this year. My bills consist of minimal Florida state prop taxes and homeowners/car insurance. C’est tout.

    Inflation doesn’t bother me because my only indulgences are nice shoes, good wine and third row seats at the symphony.

    • #21
  22. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    My take is that we will keep muddling along at 1 to 2% real growth with nominal growth at 3%. I don’t think 2008 was as dire as you make it out to be, however I agree that nothing done since 2008 has made anything better.

    • #22
  23. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Z in MT:My take is that we will keep muddling along at 1 to 2% real growth with nominal growth at 3%. I don’t think 2008 was as dire as you make it out to be, however I agree that nothing done since 2008 has made anything better.

    I think there is still a massive deleveraging which has to take place.  The trouble with the low interest rates is that people are strongly incentivized to take on debt and invest the money elsewhere for a higher rate of return, like in foreign markets.

    The Fed has us pincered because if they raise the interest rates it might get people more interested in deleveraging their debt but it will cause the Federal debt service to balloon along with the deficit.  We’ll be spending more on debt service than we do on defense.

    Unfortunately, I think the only way out is to gradually raise the rates and take some lumps in order to try and encourage domestic investment outside of equities.

    • #23
  24. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Jennifer Johnson:I never understood something about QE. If the banks needed cash/liquidity, why not first give the cash to the citizenry? The very first thing the citizenry would do with the cash is deposit it in their bank! Then, it would either sit there, or it would go to another bank in the form of some kind of payment, such as for groceries or paying down a credit card. It would go from bank to bank this way, and overall banking liquidity would rise, would it not?

    Quantitative easing (QE) is not accomplished by giving away money.  It is generally accomplished by “open market operations,” meaning that the Fed buys assets.  It is this purchase that injects “cash” into the economy.  Actually, it is a “cash equivalent” in the form of bank deposits that is created.

    Even the bulk of TARP was not a give-away.  The bulk of TARP was loaned to banks and repaid, with interest.  The give-away portions were the GM/Chrysler bailout and a relatively small mortgage repayment program.

    • #24
  25. user_1065645 Member
    user_1065645
    @DaveSussman

    Z in MT

    My take is that we will keep muddling along at 1 to 2% real growth with nominal growth at 3%. I don’t think 2008 was as dire as you make it out to be, however I agree that nothing done since 2008 has made anything better.

    Last month a very interesting article by Vanity Fair(!?) followed up with the power players of the banks in the middle of the 2008 storm. Wall Street Executives from the Financial Crisis of 2008: Where Are They Now?

    But it was Russ Sorkins book (which became an HBO movie, well worth watching) which quoted Hank Paulson: “if they don’t stop the meltdown, soon there will be “no milk on the shelves.”

    • #25
  26. user_1065645 Member
    user_1065645
    @DaveSussman

    EThompson:

    Most agree the stock markets jubilant return to it’s lofty heights are due to ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and QE (quantitative easing), both tools of the Federal Reserve Board to prevent the economy from sliding into recession. The problem with these tools is that they were only viewed as temporary. The Federal Reserve balance sheet of $4.5 TRILLION is fuelling the stock market which is akin to leading lambs to the slaughter.

    So much astute stuff to comment upon here David but I choose to focus upon your specific comment above because it expresses my most critical concern.

    Your post couldn’t have been more timely. I’ve just spent five hours glued to the NASDAQ screen trading, buying and changing my orders like a mad dog because what I thought might come to fruition in September is fast becoming a harsh reality now.

    Thanks for this post.

    Thanks ET

    I wouldn’t be the first to say that this market is no longer based on fundamentals. Remember the old EF Hutton commercials? “When EF Hutton Talks, People Listen”. That could now read “When Janet Yellen Talks….”

    Cheap money or the potential lack thereof is now what drives the market. Thing is…economics are cyclical. If you tilt the table, water will eventually find it’s level.

    • #26
  27. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Tuck:

    David Sussman: The financial industry (read Wall Street) lobbied Congress in the 90′s through Robert Rubin and Sandy Weil to repeal the Glass Steagall act: a Depression era law created to prevent another economic collapse seen in 1929 by seperating investment banks and commercial (main street) banks.

    Too many problems with this post to detail here.

    I’ll just observe that repeal of Glass Steagall had nothing to do with causing the events of 2008.

    Every investment bank that was still structured as it had been prior to the repeal failed. None of the investment banks that had merged with a commercial bank failed.

    Shattering the Glass-Steagall myth

    Absolutely right!  The whole Glass-Steagall meme was created by lefties who wanted to blame the financial crisis on “deregulation.”  Since there never was any “deregulation,” they seized on the closest thing they could find – the bipartisan, Clinton Administration, Glass-Steagall bill.  Which they then called “Bush’s deregulation.”

    The nice thing about being on the left is that nothing you say has to make any sense.  But that’s no excuse for our side to pick up their falsehoods and repeat them.

    • #27
  28. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @WardRobles

    At the end of WWI the nation was looking at a failed progressive administration, staggering debt, and a sluggish economy. The Harding and Coolidge administrations cut spending, raised not lowered interest rates, cut spending some more, and then cut taxes. The economy was strong enough at the end to withstand a short depression, a longer experiment with socialism, and simultaneous unlimited war against Germany and the Japanese Empire.

    • #28
  29. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Ward Robles:At the end of WWI the nation was looking at a failed progressive administration, staggering debt, and a sluggish economy. The Harding and Coolidge administrations cut spending, raised not lowered interest rates, cut spending some more, and then cut taxes. The economy was strong enough at the end to withstand a short depression, a longer experiment with socialism, and simultaneous unlimited war against Germany and the Japanese Empire.

    People seem to lack that sort of patience nowadays.  They’ve been conditioned to believe that they are entitled to having all of their economic woes quickly papered over by government policy.

    The problem being that we might just be Wile E. Coyote, windmilling our legs at insubstantial air, blissfully unaware that gravity is going to catch up to us when we eventually look down.

    • #29
  30. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @FrontSeatCat

    Major irresponsibility on the part of banks’ lending practices, plain old greed, and deception with derivatives – investments bundled that no one could decipher – yet people trusted the “packagers”, came together to create what you described.

    What happened recently with just the dock workers on strike in CA disrupted the supply chain for weeks and that was one event – cargo ships sat out in the ocean unable to offload!

    I worked in real estate in 04′ and 05′. – it was like the stock market every day – land sucked up and sold in hours, condos, subdivisions, building everywhere – banks giving average people 7 & 8 mortgages – some in my office – no one qualified for these. The actual job availability did not support the homes, condos and shopping centers that were being built.  The oil spill in 2010 added more injury here in FL.

    Throw in another massive government program like Obamacare to pay for, millions of immigrants escaping horrible conditions and coming here – it takes money to provide for them, cities, schools are already burdened financially.

    You are right – it won’t take much to tip the balance. If you can pay off debt, buy extra food or some land, grow a garden, sharpen your real life skills, might be a good idea…  Many of the experts are warning to take heed, that this fall is due for a major readjustment.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.