Back to 1997 again. Interesting double top. I would hate to be a fund manager and have to put a good face on these numbers.

A lot of familiar names on this list like Six Flags, Chiquita Brands, Blockbuster, Eddie Bauer, Best Brands. Of course it doesn't guarantee that all or even some of these companies will go bankrupt, it just means it's possible.

The current credit crunch is clearly going to get worse once Main Street starts to crack. Current access to loans is very hard for large entities, smaller ones may wind up being hurt worse.

Locally (DFW, Texas) I've seen restaurant chains vanish but I am still seeing a lot of new retail development which was clearly planned earlier in the year but I wonder how many of these new restaurants/stores will survive the next year or so.

It sure makes companies like Apple which amassed a tons of cash look very smart to have not spent it. Apple in its weakest period was at one point worth less than its cash but never gave in to spending it all.

Most companies don't have that luxury but I expect it may become more popular again.

In 1995 I briefly working on developing a trading system for the S&P500 Index Futures but never completed the work. I did however remember a particular day at the end of the work where the market bounced up from around 470. Little did I realize that around that time the next major bull market would grow.

From 1995 until September, 2000 the S&P500 grew from around 470 to 1520, or 320%. Then, in the post dot com/9-11 crash, it fell back to 840 by March, 2003, a fall of 45%. It's interesting that in the 10 worst stock market "crashes" the most common drop is between 40% and 50% (other than 1929, which ultimately fell 85%).

The next ramp up starting in March, 2003, went from 840 up to 1560 in October, 2007, a rise of 185%. The current fall (as of a few minutes ago) is to 914, a fall of 42%. As bad as things seem now, the stock market fall is in line with all but 1929.

Of course much of the fall has occurred in the last month, although the market has been falling somewhat since last year. Where we go from here is still unknown as the causes of the current negative outlook seem much more complicated than normal.

Since I wrote two paragraphs earlier the market has already dropped to 897.

Strap on your harnesses, this thrill ride is just getting started.

The real question is could this ever happen here?

I believe it could be tried, but in the long run, it can't succeed.

The short answer as to why it wouldn't succeed is not some high moral or political reason but simply that this country is too big and complex to control by a single individual or small group. Even if the entire military were somehow willing to enforce what is essentially against their oath, there are insufficient forces to control even a small portion of the citizenry.

Another complicating factor would be keeping the economy from completely collapsing during such a transition. For example, one common act for a dictator or junta is to control the press and media to keep information from flowing to potential attackers. The internet, although it could be disrupted easily enough by compromising the root DNS servers and killing the backbone networks, the internet today is the basis of much of our economy, including the flow of finance, healthcare and general business operations. Without the internet being available many common services such as ATMs, checks, banking, and shipping simply stop working. The end result would be chaos, although it might seem like a good idea from a controlling perspective, the end result would be destroying all the value that might be had from ruling a rich country.

Further difficulties would come from outside the US, since we are still at the center of the world's commerce, and depend on both investment, markets and especially the import of oil. Without support from the world's economies (which would be expected in a coup of this type) the entire country would grind to a halt.

You can also imagine with this country being geographically spread out and with an insufficient force to manage it, cities or even states might splinter off and form pockets of independence. The end result would more likely resemble the breakup of Yugoslavia than a stereotypical "banana republic". Populations would like begin to move from areas under control to these splinter "countries" since the breakdown of commerce would mean many people would be without food and need to move to areas with supplies.

Clearly the larger cities might remain under the control of martial law since they are easier to control; but again with the difficulty of finding food it is likely that the populations would fight to leave.

How likely would the military support this act? Given that currently most of our military is overseas (especially in Afghanistan and Iraq) there are barely enough remaining to control one or two cities. It would be likely that the troops overseas would abandon their posts to return to the US to help their families, and depending on the circumstances they find would be more likely to support the populace that the government.

I imagine the only way this could work is if it was made to look like an attack but I have a hard time thinking it could be accomplished so well that enough people would be fooled. Despite continuing belief in 9/11 conspiracies, the fact is most governments leak like a sieve, and all it takes is for one person to leak this for it to be stopped. It makes a great movie plot, but in reality large conspiracies simply don't work.

Will we ever see full martial law in this country? I don't think so. It has happened before, under limited circumstances (Lincoln during the Civil War is the best example, but even there the Supreme Court said no) but I think anyone having a desire to turn the US into their personal plaything is likely to never get beyond the dreaming state.

Let's sure hope I'm right.

I ran across this today. Interesting how "modern" solutions to economic problems occur over and over again. This article on the Emporer Diocletian covers how he tried to fix Rome's economic problems by printing (coins actually) money and fixing wages and prices. The result was wider inflation, lack of goods for sale, and riots.

Over the years many societies have had serious economic troubles (and often vanished, were conquered, or at least had their governments disrupted) that came directly from fighting a debased currency. Interesting also how often they try to fight a worsening currency by inflationary means, like creating more currency.

So how are we today any different?