 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 08:40 pm  I'm curious to know what you think were the causes of the ongoing crisis? And why we are still in this mess?
| |
| Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 08:49 pm Conspiracy aside... Housing Collapse Bank Bailouts Quantitative easing is only prolonging a meaningful recovery. Why we are still in this mess? QE obviously, but a hidden factor. I think a better question would be, 'Why won't we come out of it, and why? The Global Financial Crisis coupled with the growing mideast unrest, that is now resurfacing in Europe along with hints of unrest coming to the USA will lead to the reasoning that Local governance is no longer a viable form of governance. Global oversight is needed. Global oversight in whatever form it may come in via Nato extension or a revived United Nations, is the only way to combat issues that affect global economic and military stability. Look for Global Terrorism, Future talk of Total Global Economic collapse, and regional instability caused by the mideast unrest spreading outward as the rationale and catalyst for global moves in the direction of global oversight and governance. And I left a ton of conspiracy stuff backing all that up out of it.
| |
| Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 11:22 pm The desire of the governing class to have this global system ( aka New world order) is causing them to destroy the world economic system. The excessive debt, government regulation, and easy monetary policy are all part of the mix. Also, left leaning groups are spreading unrest through the world which will continue to create additional uncertainty and chaos.
| |
| Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 11:44 pm I sense much Glenn beck in you Danny. Left-Leaning groups' could be more easily and believable substituted with 'CIA'. If there is any doubt about that, do some research. Unrest is fueled by degrading standards of living conditions, not some conspiratorial nudging of left-leaning groups. Although I will say that Obama has done a fine job of encouraging the Libyan rebels to march to their deaths. That would be the only left-leaning antagonism I can verify. I am far from accepting any of the rhetoric about Ghadaffi being some citizen killing terrorist to his own people. He has taken that country in a very positive direction over the last 20+ years almost always at the cost of international poker chips. The US, Europe, and France especially has been holding his hand for the last decade. So suddenly have we changed the tune. I would venture to say above the obvious motivation OIL, that the real reason we have intervened in Libya is the growing Chinese influence in Africa. We probably want an American friendly regime in Libya before Ghadaffi outright pledges his oil to China as Chavez has. Nevertheless, left leaning groups have historically comprised most Unions. Reading into that line would be like saying it is hot today because the sun is shining. If workers are protesting because of pensions or wages. Would you not expect Unions to be present or even organizing given that they are organized labor? Comon. Likewise shall we say the unrest in Europe has anything to do with the left-leaning groups? Are students protesting increases in education left-leaning? You could say that if you used the 2008 US Presidential elections ONLY where students were decidedly voting democratic and pushed Obama to an easy victory. Historically that wouldn't be accurate however. And in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, they don't even practice Democracy as we do, what could possibly be left or right about those uprisings? I need some factual basis for this accusation to take a bite.
| |
Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 04:51 am Haha, I hope you're ready for a great many conspiracy theories.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 05:10 am Inefficient allocation of resources.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 07:38 am Excellent question, Laguna: My own views: 1. Fundamental shifts in the legal and economic sytems of the US and European societies, some dating back to the late 19th Century, many as a result of The Great Depression, WWI & WWII and their aftermath. 2. Major decisions made in the early seventies regarding monetary policy. 3. The End of the Cold War and the resulting economic shift and displacement of major economic actors. 4. The decision of the world's major economic actors to attempt a world free trade system. (a mistake, in my view. Slavery destroyed the Roman Republic; I forsee no better outcome for the modern equivalent.) Service economies do not create wealth. 5. The dismantling of major banking and financial regulations during the 90's giving rise to the very practices that caused the Crash of '29 and inventing some new one's, eg Derivatives Markets. 6. The cumulative effects of all of the above failing to be addressed by responsible governmental( read Legislative/Judicial) action. 7. Feeding off of #6, the complete paralyzation of the national political processes for positive action of practically every major country with representative, multi-party government. Please spare me any replies based on political ideology, unless you want to be seriously abused. You have been warned.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 08:16 am Free Trade = Slavery? Right . . .
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 08:36 am Oh boy.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 09:14 am Modern equivalent of slavery = Wage slavery and bound labor systems, not free trade. Don't be coy, Scarlet. It continually amazes me how many "Free Marketeers" are completely ignorant of economics. Read your Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 10:24 am Please explain wage slavery. I've never heard that term used before.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 10:47 am wage slave noun a person who works for a wage, especially with total and immediate dependency on the income derived from such labor. Origin: 1885-90 related forms wage slavery, noun
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 01:17 pm Wendy, Actually you are correct about the US Govt involvement in the unrest, although I would say its more State Dept than CIA. Also, you have the ICG. We have also exported food price inflation with QE1-99. Linebacker - good points except for the wage/ slave comment, I'm baffled by that one.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 01:38 pm Things that are happening now are not new. This sort of thing happens over and over again, throughout history. We're just more "connected" now. Something that 100 years ago might have been bad for one nation with small ripples in it's close trading partners causes much bigger ripples now, that go much further. This too, shall pass.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 01:53 pm Danny I have a few vidoes about 10 minutes each that would explain in great detail the system we are currently taking part of. Modern Slavery. In my own opinion this is truly happening. If you work for a company and get taxed on your earnings, and live paycheck to paycheck, you are enslaved to the system. Having to perform certain duties to 'get by' and never having prospect or opportunity to advance from that 'rat race' so to speak. I have a hard time separating my thoughts into something not so long. The videos will go a long way to demonstrate the concept. I'll get them and upload them to my you-tube shortly and link them here.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 02:05 pm Ever hear of "company stores" or "mining towns"? These were examples of the attempt at bound labor systems, here, in the US during the late 1800's. They, and related practices, gave rise to the term "wage slavery" as wonderfully defined by Wendy. Eventually, these practices were banned by law. However, they have a long history throughout the 3rd World, most particularly, in the last 20 years. The modern incarnation are typified by "sweat shops", traditionally with the textile and garment industries. However, the practice has expanded geometrically with the mass exodus of manufacturing from the US and other industrialized nations to the 3rd World. It is a doubly foolish process whereby, the wealth creating engines af any economic system are isolated from the larger domestic economy and funnel capital into fewer hands, neither benefiting the market country, nor the host country. Translation: Moving our industry to 3rd world countries paying literally substinence wages to workers who are trapped by various means in their occupations helps neither the developing world, nor our economies. The popular argument that "cheap" goods support a higher standard of living in developed countries is specious as they merely stave off the effects of declining real wages and concentrate wealth, capital, into relatively few hands as the economic activity is not permitted to flow throughout normal processes through a domestic economy. Tristan's comments regarding the history and cyclical nature of these practices are right on the money. However, the most common results are economic and social unrest, frequently resulting in revolutions and wars. For anyone who truly believes in "free" markets, these are very disturbing developements. Try The Economy of Cities by Jane Jacobs for a very thought provoking look at modern socio-economics. Take particular note of her "Third Force" postulate. Examination of recent trends considered against the absence of this force should be quite revealing.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 02:38 pm It would be better for everyone if the evil capitalists didn't outsource to hire third world workers. Except the third world workers, who would then be unemployed . . . but who cares? I'm not a third world worker.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 04:11 pm John, your ability to regurgitate political ideology is impressive. You were warned. The present conception of "Free Trade" is neither "free", nor "trade" in the economic sense of the word. This system, as it is being implemented, depends on barriers being maintained that prevent the free flow of all economic factors, most especially labor, while preventing the functioning of the traditional leveling and moderating influences of regulatory agencies. The quasi-Libertarian worldview of the sort being trumpeted today is a much a collection of myths, misconceptions, and misrepresentations as anything Lenin and Marx ever perpetrated. The greatest threat to the functioning of free economies is the over-concentration of capital in entrenched politico-economic interests. That is precisely the situation that has been developing for the last century, and accelerating since the end of the Cold War. Until third world countries develope reasonably functioning institutions of government and society that allow them to operate on a level playing field with the develped world, they will merely be another raw resource of exra-econmic exploitation. This is simply another manifestation of colonial mercantilism with the added twist of also contracting the economy of the "mother" nation as well.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 05:27 pm As to those workers simply being "unemployed" as opposed to wage slaves in transnational corporate latifundia, please check the Eurocentric arrogance at the door. Those workers were peasant farmers and craftspeople and would be again. While there is no inherent nobility in poverty, at least there is some found in freedom of destiny. The organized rejection of this very one-sided "free trade" arrangement by much of the Third World should speak volumes about what is fact and what is propaganda.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 07:26 pm Since I have no economics background and absolutely no knowledge of how the economy runs, I believe I am the most qualified to comment on the current crisis. 1.) It's the Fed. That's obvious enough. 2.) It's Bushama as well. They suck. 3.) It's big business and banks because the are greedy. 4.) It's Crafty. That bastard has his grubby little hands all over this mess. There you go. Facts supported by detailed rationale. You may close the debate.
| |
| Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 07:52 pm It's not the 1950's in America any more. Black people can vote now. Hispanic people can vote now. And Asia is building everything from 10cent items to Jet Planes now. And the Republicans & Liberals want us to believe deficit spending is good for America. What was that great line? "Fighting for Peace is like fucking for Virginity" Let's all move to Montana..Lock and Load Baby!
| |
| Friday, April 1, 2011 - 01:46 am So the ongoing crisis is caused by free trade, though what is called free trade is not free trade. How about this: what IS the "ongoing crisis"?
| |
| Friday, April 1, 2011 - 07:52 am Economic recession. Wow, For America there are several cuases. They are still in a mess becuase the cuases are not fixed. How to get out? *Turn off Fox news, propaganda is bad for you. *Realize the world isn't going to end in 2012 and if it does, you can't take it with you. *Stop flipping houses. *Buy substantual products that are made in America. *Boycot unregulated and manditory insurance. *Protest foriegn occupation. *Protest for the seperation of Enterprise and State. *Don't vote for the party of the stinking rich. *Don't vote for the party of the rich. (hmm, that would mean don't vote, lol) *@#&% it revolt like evryone else. ;)
| |
| Friday, April 1, 2011 - 01:44 pm there is a solution: Vote for Pedro!
| |
| Friday, April 1, 2011 - 01:47 pm @Maestro: As someone who was raised in Montana, I can assure you, they don't want you. They'll take your tourist money, but they aren't interested in a bunch of big city intellectuals moving to their state and trying to change things. 
| |
Friday, April 1, 2011 - 05:47 pm Thank you. I'm glad to know that I can faithsomely mimic political rhetoric with minimal exposure. If it isn't free trade, there's no reason to be calling it free trade. Anyway, obviously, I would say that let's allow the free flow of all economic factors . . . or none I suppose depending on the country. As far as the preventing the "leveling and moderating" influences of government, that's kind of the idea of free trade. The free part means free from the influence of government . . . that's kind of the point. Well, I don't know about you, but I saw the government move to bailout and prevent the failure of many large companies. Is this part of the "leveling and moderating" functions of government? Checked. Now, I have a different conundrum. Why would anyone consent to be a wage slave when the preferable options of peasant farmer and craftsman are available?
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 01:40 am Lol, unquenchable greed is the root cuase, everything else is an affect of greed. Corperations are inherently greedy with the single goal of making the largest profit possible. Corperate interests are in the pocket of every politician no matter their BS to get elected. Corperate interests are in the pocket of the media. Absolute Capitalism is absolutely corrupt and cannibal. Shed it or learn to farm and condision your children to be wage slaves.
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 02:22 am Government bailed out the big banks. Government bailed out General Motors. Government is going to force people to contribute to the health insurance industry's profits. Government supports farmers, the nuclear power industry, the oil industry, General Electric, Halliburton, NPR, etc. Government regulates virtually every industry and profession.
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 02:55 am Government needs to regulate every industry. It's sad to say we can't trust the capitalist to do the right thing. Very sad
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 08:36 am Corperate interests are in the pocket of every politician no matter their BS to get elected. In essence industry regulates government. good luck. ;P
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 01:46 pm Government is out of control. They along with their crony capitalist friends ( GE, Google, and others) and labor unions are the ones we can't trust.
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 02:02 pm Crisis? What crisis? If you are one of the complainers then you cant be succeeding. The rule of survival of the fittest. There are plenty of people out there doing very well thank-you. These are the ones we need to further an evolving Human race. If you're a loser, then you belong in the bin, simple, there arent enough resources for the world to support every weak link until s/he lives to 150. Harsh I know, but true.
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 02:58 pm This wage slave concept is nonsense. In a capitalist system, workers are free to offer their services to whom they choose. Oftentimes, they choose to work for the employer that offers the best compensation / benefit combination. It would only be slavery if they were forced to work at a company. These industrial towns sprang up because of a lack of infrastructure that existed at that time. These facilities, especially lumber mill towns and mining towns, were sometimes in very remote regions. So, the company had no alternative except to build a town since nothing was there. In my home state of North Carolina, most of the lumber towns are gone but many of the textile mill towns are cities now, and some of the old mill houses were renovated and are being lived in.
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 09:36 pm Well. America is the target of China, Russia, and Iran. It is becoming the truth that in the next coming years, Iran will reduce producing oil to the world market in order to create the high shortage of oil( Iran is one of the largest oil producer in the World). This will bring all price of the products to the sky. The strategy for destroying US dollar is finished. Now, these three countries are planning to hurt Americans by spending more money to buy things. Therefore, in the next few years, we would not have cheap products any more. If we talk about labor forces, China could provide enough workers( cheap salary) for companies. In the past years, many American businessmen could not be able to refuse PROFITS from cheap labor forces. Moving American factories to China is one of the China Government strategies. All of you can't convince American businessmen to deny MONEY.
| |
| Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 09:40 pm Today we live in an interdependent world. And we live in response to our own interest (even altruism can be considered in our interest). Neither government,business, military power or the so called free market have given us the answer to how to live together where your rights don't literally bump up against mine and vice versa. We know that neither free markets or planned economies provide the answers. The current world crisis is a result of these completing interests. And now we see that the so called developed countries that for so long have been spending and commiting themselves for more than they can afford, do not have enough children to pay into the system to keep it afloat. And emerging markets are often exploited of their resources for the benefit of the few. Those with power will continue to stack the deck in their favor. Even if we throw them out, all we're doing is rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. So, what's the answer? FREEDOM.. but not the kind that we might think of. Freedom to recognize and act upon the rights and needs of others. To recognize and to change my own greed and avarice; the freedom to demand or apathetically ignore accountability of my legislators and those in power to do what is moral and in the best interest of ALL of us, while at the same time for me to be accountable for that which I need to be accountable (family, friends, moral and spiritual, etc.) In other words, to have the freedom to give up some of my freedom to do as I wish, while at the same time to be willing to work with others and say "enough is enough". No one owes any of us anymore that we owe each other. You are my brother and sister and you are a blessed creation and therefore I should cherish you; To see that business is not amoral existing only for the bottom line; that it exists for the stockholders, the workers, those that are its customers and the community at large. Business and government were created by us and even though quite complex, still are fathonable by us all; To see that government has been created by us and that in order to work we have to learn civility and compromise and neither expect it to fulfill all our needs but to give us a way to be in relationship with one another to help us work together more harmoniously. And we have to participate. We have to vote, we have to organize our neighborhoods to fight crime and blight instead of sitting in our strat-o-lounger and just clicking our tongue and saying, "ain't it a shame". Get off your butt and live out your freedom. I suppose the bottom line for me as it applies to freedom is that i'm free to act responsibly and with compassion or i have the freedom to screw up my life and the lives of those around me. Or I can bellyache about how terrible things are. You don't like it? Stare a revolution. Being human, we will continue to struggle with how do we live together; and being human, it won't get any easier. I just hope that we have time to get our act together.
| |
| Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 01:05 am @Crafty, Most successful Americans are far from fit. Thoose with out compassion are your 'weak link', the cuase of the subject, over population, religion, and quite frankly set back the entire human race from day one. @Danny, The term 'wage slave' means having no choice but to offer your services for very little. @Sima Zhao, I believe America is more a victom of their own greed than a target. Iran has aready done this and we expect less oil in the future it doesn't take a magic eight ball to forsee that. ;) @Parsifal, Your answer of freedom is as easy as starting a revolution. It takes enlightenment wich is often interpeted as bellyaching. :P
| |
| Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 03:34 am Synicus, it's about being involved in the process and recognizing our complicity in what's going on. It's not just the rich guys or business or government. We all have to be accountable.
| |
| Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 05:51 am i agree with what you said Parsifal. alot of wisdom to be taken from those statements. everyone should stand and voice thier opinions or no one will hear. but on same side, stand for what is right. maybe the biggest problem politicians have is that we have all these different cultures, who all want different things. looks to me like we need someone with balls to say F**K that. this is the way it is.
| |
| Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 06:18 am Yep. Vote for me.
| |
Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 06:53 am
Where was the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were encouraging subprime loans to people who couldn't afford them, and handing out multimillion bonuses to their executives? Where was the regulation of the big banks when they were repackaging these toxic assets? Where was the regulation of Madoff, for crying out loud? Why does "regulation" so often mean "bailouts", "price supports", "barriers to competition", and other things that enable business to use government as a tool towards their own ends? Why do people have such faith in government as a solution to problems, when it so often can't solve the ones it is already empowered to solve?
| |
| Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 07:36 am you got my vote Crafty. but of course, you better have some balls. and Jojo, you have very good reasons as to why you should take your voice public. i've talked with you before Crafty. don't think i've ever spoken with you Jojo. you both have what it takes to make change happen. in fact, anyone reading this can make a difference. you only have to start with one small step, then another step, and so on.
| |
| Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 03:04 pm A headline from 2000. The policy behind the mortgage crisis. I have the entire document if anyone wants to read it HUD No. 00-317 Further Information: For Release Or contact your local HUD office October 31, 2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HUD ANNOUNCES NEW REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today announced new federal regulations that require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages during the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.
| |
| Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 05:42 pm Arrest all the corrupt banksters and all their supporters and let the countries print their own debt-free money, and we will be free. We dont need corrupt old men with eugenics ideologies to rule our world, we do much better without them...
| |
Monday, April 4, 2011 - 12:21 am
I have to admit the thought did not even once cross my mind. When I ask this question, what I usually hear goes along the lines of incompetent politicians, high deficit, subprime crisis, speculation, etc. I have heard that this crisis marks the end of a system, but not quite like some put it here... I would like to know why some consider bailouts, quantitive easing and regulation factors that favor the crisis. And whatever more you have to say regarding monetary policiy that is not included in quantitive easing.
| |
| Monday, April 4, 2011 - 02:14 am Where to start, Laguna? Money is a social contract. What happens enough actors decide not to honor the contract? I believe you know what the impact is going to be when the full ramifications of 2008 can no longer be ignored.
| |
| Monday, April 4, 2011 - 10:32 pm Money is akin to a social contract but it is not one. Money is the means by which we exchange propriety rights. In a social contract we transfer rights to a higher body. While the public debt is high in the USA, it is not prohibitively so. It is not a problem now, but it will be in future. You all have a better chance to reduce the deficit with your economy going at full speed (~5% unemployment), than with a half-assed "are we safe, yet?" speed.
| |
| Monday, April 4, 2011 - 10:59 pm Seems to me that no matter how much you have, its never quite enough (a generalisation). If we get used to the current 'austerity' that we all have to accept, which is not a full speed ahead economy, then improvement in our financial security and standard of living will be felt and appreciated. If we were to continue as if nothing much was wrong, then we carry on regardless until the whole shebang self-destructs. The latter course of action will cause far more harm to far more people though it may not happen tomorrow, whereas austerity is hitting right here right now to most. I think this is more or less what Laguna says, but I say the economy needs slowing, people have come to expect too much and want even more. Always expect the worst and anything good is a bonus, anything else is inviting disappointment.
| |
| Monday, April 4, 2011 - 11:30 pm "I would like to know why some consider bailouts, quantitative easing and regulation factors that favor the crisis. And whatever more you have to say regarding monetary policy that is not included in quantitative easing." The Bailouts were not a bad thing. At least the bailouts of the Corporations that were caught in the down-slide caused by the crisis. The Banks, should have never been bailed out. They should have been broken up. Let failing parts fail, and reviving productive divisions. The SuperBanks like Bank Of America, the preservation of SuperBanks will perpetuate further decline in the US financial system. If the World Market is failing, local governments would/should increase spending to sure up their base. But, quantitative easing, in the manner it is distributed is very bad, and basically useless. The money trickles to the banks first. The banks are not lending to everyday Americans. They are loaning money to financial investors and firms in order to invest in the markets. The markets are puffed up on corporate cutbacks, job cuts, and demand for stocks as the institutional buying is accelerated due to the cash on hand. It doesn't create jobs for everyday people, doesn't induce spending by job creation or through direct handouts. Even Bush, had the ability to foresee that in order to fully mask the continuation of economic decline he had to put the money in the hands of the people who would spend it. It also doesn't encourage lending for homes. It also does not prohibit the predatory lending that continues to be a main source for all new home loans, of the few little home loans are being approved. These loans are still backed by the government or a government entity. Of Bush's total Stimulus almost all of it was intentionally passed on to consumers to spend. no doubt it had little to no noticeable affect on the economy overall. The fact that they acknowledged 'little' to no' affect says a lot. Of course in a multi trillion dollar economy is $150B +/- is going to have little. The word play is interesting here. In the same instance there is an acknowledgment of 'little affect' and then 'no affect' The reality is that it couldn't be both. The wording is an acknowledgment that there was in fact an affect. But the affect was on par with the minimal injection into a huge economy. Of his tax cuts, that 1.2 Trillion in cuts benefited working businesses. Of Obama's Tarp. (which was and still is in many ways a continuation of the Bush economic policy btw) almost went all to Wall Street. Stimulus isn't too far behind. One thing that has been speeding along decline is the sweeping of money from consumers. 99ers with no jobs or jobs to apply to now have no income to spend in our economy. The number of unemployed overall, now have to cut back spending and focus on getting by, not making many consumer purchases. Should the money have been spent on shoring up consumer spending rather than giving money to Big Banks with tons of mortgages set to default? The government, by design obviously, missed out on a huge opportunity. Instead, what happens is, we give money to the large problematic contributor banks. They survive the crisis due to the cash injections. Little neighborhood banks(which made good and responsible loans) failed in the aftermath of the downturn, Big problem banks bought up their assets and their companies, and all we are is a double dip away from another seemingly necessary round of tarp. What the government should have done was buy up the securities they already own by default. They could have taken possession of all mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie, especially those sub-prime and balloon mortgages. Then instead of begging Bank Of America to redo the mortgages, The USA could have redone the mortgages. A point or so would have been lost on the mortgages on the front end, but Fannie and Freddie would have made out on the 30 year interest. The banks have taken the money from the gov. Invested in the Stock market. Frozen consumer lending except in rare cases. The lack of home loans available has depressed real estate so far so fast, it only makes sense of them to use our money or profits made from it to go and buy up the remaining real estate that is now worth a 3rd of what it should be. Long story short, the monetary policy of quantitative easing is not as effective as economic stimulus in the way Bush envisioned it. And that is hard to say. Less money for Wall Street and the banks, more rebate checks for Americans. At least this will boost consumer spending, adding tax revenues on all levels, and allowing retailers and manufacturers to realize demand and profits that would spur on new hiring. I firmly believe this would have been a faster way out of this crisis. Wall Street would have suffered and so would have corporate campaign donations but who cares. Wall Street doesn't vote, people do. Obama raised more little sum donations than anyone in history, I wonder why the divergence from his base in favor of Wall Street. The sad reality is that, too many people in power, present and past have too much invested in Wall Street to let it collapse, unless they pull out liquidity first, then did it on purpose. And therein lies the problem.
| |
| Monday, April 4, 2011 - 11:40 pm CC, I don't think that there aren't a few problems. Problems that can be solved in less offensive ways to meager wage earners or students. But I do think they way problems are being presented and stressed as "OMG cut it now or we're all dead" urgency is very disingenuous to the public. It amazes me how almost every European country, along with the United States has so suddenly realized without regard for the last 25- 30 years leading up until today, that we have 'problems' that couldn't be addressed until today, but must be addressed today, simultaneously along with most other Western Civilized governments, all have the exact same solutions to those problems. When the only solution across the board is a reduction in Social Services, Pensions and Retirement funds, and government employment, raises in education costs, I think something bigger is going on behind the scenes. Too many complex economies and countries involved to have suddenly discovered we are on a path to doom set to go boom in this decade, while the solution is too themed and not so complex. That is a long list of coincidences. Too many usually aren't.
| |
| Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - 12:08 am It is worthy of considering Wendy, and I'm by no means a conspiracy theorist. I just find it hard to believe all the big players that would need to be involved could actually agree to a plan and pull it off, ha! It may well have been building a while, but not that long, I'm not good on history and dates but your great depression wasnt really all that many years ago, neither was GBs great winter of discontent, the 3 day week etc etc. Now dont get me wrong, I'm not signing up for The Coalition of Hippeh Tree Huggers, but the worlds insatiable greed and expectation of rights to be given everything is the root cause of civilizations discontent. (I'm an anti-media person, stop thrusting things we need and must have and your neighbour has and youre nobody without, and its so cheap, especially if you buy two, and anti state moddy-coddling, live like this, live like that, we know best, etc). Grr. you've got me ranting now. Where did I put those tranquilisers?
| |
| Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - 08:00 am Conspiracies are not necessary. The current mess has been generations coming. It represents the coninuing concentration and dilution of capital cycle that can be observed through all of recorded history. It is not a conspiracy to note that those who wish to get rich will typically do whatever is necessary to get it, keep it, and expand it. What is lacking in the last 100 years or so is the decline and near demise of the moderating influences of our collective culture that tended to be reflected both in legislation and throughout society. @Laguna. I will defer to Mr Locke.
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 02:34 am Reduced tax rates for the rich and increased taxes on the poor, in addition to trillions of dollars of debt, a growing dependence on a resource that will be gone in several decades, tops, along with an increase in severe weather due to global warming, a constantly increasing world population causing more shortages, and jobs being shipped overseas resulting in a higher unemployment rate and lower salaries.
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 08:31 pm There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction evident throughout this conversation that any criticism of the current economic system masquerading as free market capitalism is somehow an advocacy of Socialist Marxism or some other command economy. I do not believe that to be the case, certainly not, speaking for myself. The issues being raised here highlight the trend towards plutocratic measures whose effects are to stifle competition and use governmental authority to concentrate capital into fewer hands despite failure in the market place. Adam Smith wrote the Bible of free market capitalism a few centuries ago, The Wealth of Nations. Perhaps we should examine some of his words and compare their application to our current environment.
Are we seeing greater competition benefiting consumers? More producers entering and competing in the marketplace or fewer, larger producers dominating?
Are we seeing capital being put to use in industry and business throughout our economies or is it being channeled into purely non-productive financial activities that benefit only the speculator? Is industry growing or shrinking from lack of capital investment?
US fact: Concentration of wealth has i{never} been higher than it is today. 95% of capital owned by 1% of household. Is this trend continuing towards greater concentatration or less? Are the lower and middle strata of society becoming wealthier or poorer?
No commentary required.
Just food for thought.
| |
Monday, April 11, 2011 - 10:03 pm That's a damn lie! [source]
| |
| Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 08:05 am No, John. That is what the data shows using the total definition of Capital. You may cite any number of web pages or sources that will show any numbers from less than 25% through the upper 90% depending on definitions. This sort of statistical chicanery is exactly the sort of thing that perpetuates the current system. Though, I take note that you failed to take a swing at any other points.....
| |
| Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 01:26 am You have no data. There is no possible measure or definition of capital that results in 1% controlling 95% of capital. That "statistic" is such a massive lie as to have zero possibility of being true regardless of how broad or narrow the definition of capital is made. As far as Adam Smith goes, I don't share his value system. Thus, his words regarding moral considerations mean little to nothing. Why is consumption the sole end of all production? If consumption is the sole end, then why should anyone produce more than they consume? Why should there be two separate groups, producers and consumers, of which on group provides for the others? Unless of course, everyone is only a consumer insofar as they are a producer. How can you consume that which has not been created? The market is merely an intermediary between production and consumption: allowing specialized professions to provide for themselves things other than the profession would create by engaging in voluntary exchange: 1. Production 2. Exchange 3. Consumption In other words, production merely exists for consumption, yes, BUT not because of any moral imperative, but rather simple necessity: someone must be produce before they can consume. If one produces something, one must be assured that that labor will not go to waste . . . meaning that labor should it be engaged in production beyond what will be consumed must have a practical reason to do so. The reason being the accumulation of material wealth, which may further be extended to increased personal consumption or financial security. Otherwise, why should one engage in such labor beyond subsistence? The interest to the producer is pivotal because it is the only thing that promotes non-subsistence production in the first place. Further, there is NO REASON for separating producers from consumers. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, right? Labor buys it, even if the labor is sold for cash which is exchanged for the lunch. All consumers MUST BE producers first. Any consumer that does not produce is merely a parasite. His standard of value is radically different. He isn't advocating capitalism insofar as it promotes individual freedom. He's promoting insofar as it raises societal good. If these two goals should CONFLICT, what then? Do we trample individual freedom to help out the masses? DOES trampling individual freedom help the masses, considering that the masses are all individuals? Is the implication here to limit what individuals may do with their money? It seems like that, but what do you believe he's implying here: government intervention, individual action? Ultimately, what gives anyone the right to tell anyone else how they should be spending their money? I defer to my challenge on the accuracy of your statement. Why is THIS perfection? There is no reason for self-negation to be a moral imperative and as for it constituting perfection, there is likewise no reason. As near as I can see it, selfishness is the guiding principle of most human action (eating for one) and there is NOTHING immoral or imperfect about that. It is NATURAL to be concerned with advancing your own interests. It is GOOD to take care of yourself first. Selfishness is so necessary to existence as to be INDISPENSABLE. I would not live long if I were incapable of acting in my self-interest. Why should I restrain a necessary trait and promote an ephemeral trait? I could definitely get by if I were never benevolent. What makes benevolence constitute perfection? Life, liberty, AND property. As long as these are preserved in their negative sense (as opposed to positive freedoms), the government is doing it job. As far as positive freedoms (entitlements), there is a tendency of these types of freedoms to only promote the rights of a few to infringe upon the rights of others. Okay, I responded to the other points.
| |
| Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 07:32 am Wonderful counter-arguments, John. Bravo. It will be a couple of days until I have time to respond in a manner worthy of your points. However, my compliments on very well thought-out and presented arguments.
| |
| Friday, April 15, 2011 - 10:38 am OK John, now that I have a few minutes, I will answer the questions you raised. Starting with the first quote regarding production and consumption, what Smith was pointing out was the fact that Demand is the first and driving force in any economic system. Demand is universal and permanent as long as there are human beings. Supply only exists and has meaning as a concept in relation to being a means to satisfy demand. That is simple economic reality. Economics, itself, can be defined as the system by which goods and services are produced to meet demand. On to the specific questions you raised: Why is consumption the sole end of all production? Without consumption, production is simply so much wasted time, effort, and resources. It has no utility to anyone and therefore no value. You could produce 1000 lead balloons and unless you, youself, have some use for them or gain some sort of satisfaction from making them, absent a buyer, they are so much lead, nothing more. Your production is meaningless in any economic sense. If consumption is the sole end, then why should anyone produce more than they consume? In order to sell their production, hopefully at a profit, to at least obtain the means to provide for their own consumption and with an excess for other uses. Why should there be two separate groups, producers and consumers, of which on group provides for the others? Those groups are terms which modern economic scholars have designated as entities in the interactions of the subject of their studies. The basic model used in the Circular Flow Model, which depicts resource markets. Modern economists use the term Firms, rather than producers as Smith did; but, the terms themselves and what they represent in discussions of economics have been around for quite awhile. You'll have to talk to an Econ professor if you want to know more about WHY those terms where created and the roles they play. Unless of course, everyone is only a consumer insofar as they are a producer. No. That is not what Econmics states. While everyone is a consumer to some degree, not everyone is a producer, neither in real or academic terms. There is some overlap, but the study of economics recognizes them as distinct groups for purposes of study as market participants. How can you consume that which has not been created? Not quite sure what you mean there? Have you taken a course in Micro or Macroeconomics yet? Continuing on...Your description of a market is pretty good. The technical defintion is: A mechanism through which buyers and sellers are brought together for the purpose of exchanging some good or resource. Smith's implied moral attachment to the supremacy of the consumer has to do with the nature and purpose of his work, The Wealth of Nations. As primarily a social philosopher rather than an economist, he was rebuking Mercantilism and searching for central truths of economic behaviors, while proposing another system more conducive to reality and beneficial to society. That system was Capitalism. The moral arguments I happen to agree with. I suggest you read it before summarily dismissing it. ...someone must be produce before they can consume. I assume you mean someone must be a producer before being a consumer? Is that accurate? Does an infant or child produce before consumption? An invalid? You may be taking a bit too narrow view. Step back at look at economic behavior in its entirety. Also consider primitive economies where the individual actor meets nearly or all of his own consumption requirements through his own labor. The rest of your paragraph hazily describes the profit motive, which is correct, but the rest goes off base. Further, there is NO REASON for separating producers from consumers. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, right? Labor buys it, even if the labor is sold for cash which is exchanged for the lunch. All consumers MUST BE producers first. Any consumer that does not produce is merely a parasite. First part, take that up with Academia, but you are out voted by thousands of PHD's. The rest, that's so simplistic as to be utterly useless in any discussion of economics. The last is not only not true; its rather repugnant. The second quote under discussion, I will tie in with the last as the notions you broach are on the subject of Rights. The middle quotes dealt with the correlation and integration of morality with economic behaviors. Statements of Smith's which I agree and you disagree. Little point in arguing them. Morality is a personal choice. Back to the second and last. If these two goals should CONFLICT, what then? In a liberal society, society usually wins. Do we trample individual freedom to help out the masses? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's up to our elected representatives and the court system to decide if, when, and how individual rights are subordinated. DOES trampling individual freedom help the masses, considering that the masses are all individuals? Sometimes, sometimes not. You just broached 200 years of political history for which there are no clear or easy answers. Is the implication here to limit what individuals may do with their money? Yes. Absolutely. It seems like that, but what do you believe he's implying here: government intervention, individual action? Both, but mostly governmental intervention. Ultimately, what gives anyone the right to tell anyone else how they should be spending their money? The social contract that is the Constitution of the United States of America as well the various State constitutions whichever might apply to the state in which you reside. And by extension, YOU since you choose to live and work here. Life, liberty, AND property. As long as these are preserved in their negative sense (as opposed to positive freedoms), the government is doing it job. As far as positive freedoms (entitlements), there is a tendency of these types of freedoms to only promote the rights of a few to infringe upon the rights of others. Part one: There are several reasons why societies find it necessary for government to intervene in their economies. First, experience has shown that society benefits when markets are highly competetive; therefore, governments seek to promote competition by enacting and enforcing antitrust laws, by prohibiting extra-economic discrimination, and generally ensuring a level playing field for market participants. Where competition is impractical or greatly limited for technical reasons, governments impose reulations on producers to protect the public. Utilities are a good example of this. Governments also implement stabilization policies in an attempt to avoid or mitigate the extremes of rampant inflation and economic depression. These are primarily through Fiscal and Monetary policy. Most societies have also empowered government to deliberately intervene to modify the extremes of poverty and affluence, finding that both bear opportunities costs those societies are willing to exchange for increased social stability and justice. Further governmental activity involves adressing externalities, both positive and negative, within free market systems. And finally, governments provide Public Goods and Services that the market can't or won't supply to society's satisfaction. Those are the Government "doing its job." Last part. The American electorate has decided it wants entitlements, and is willing to trade some economic and personal freedoms to have them. That's a Democracy. I believe that addresses all your posed questions? My Turn. You touched on this notion of Rights. Here are some thoughts to ponder: You have NO natural rights whatsoever. Anything you might believe is a Right to you is simply a contractual promise to you within certain clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. Those promises are only valid within the ability and willingness of governmental agencies to provide for and exercise means of redress when you feel they have been broken or violated. Therefore, your Rights only exist insofar as our society has said they do and will enforce them. Without society, you only have whatever you can sucessfully defend by yourself. Good Luck with that.
| |
| Friday, April 15, 2011 - 02:04 pm Son of a b****, did you guys get your masters degrees in economics?
| |
Friday, April 15, 2011 - 04:59 pm
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I agree that this is needed, but I see very little effort by our current government to do any of these things. When is the last time we have seen any antitrust cases? It actually seems that the government is trying to help companies it likes(eg GE), and hurt companies that it dislikes. Tax policy seems to favor large multinational corporations, and hurt small businesses. Banks are able to make a guaranteed profit buying tbills, since interest rates are low, and this dries up funds that could be lent to small business. Also, I can't remember the last time the federal reserve tightened monetary policy.
| |
| Friday, April 15, 2011 - 09:19 pm Who cares, you're all going to die anyway.
| |
| Saturday, April 16, 2011 - 09:44 am Okay, I'm clearly no economist and do not mean to project myself as one. However, I can see when there is a political/moral argument being made and that is what I'm debating. Here's a better explanation of what I was saying in the first part: Scarlet's Economic Thesis Labor = Production = Money Maybe I'm misusing producer as an economic term, but in any case, my point is that all work is production and all workers are producers - no matter if they are selling their work for a wage or working for themselves. Unless I'm totally taking this out of context or am mislead by what this appears to mean, I think even Adam Smith agrees: In my words, someone must produce before anyone can consume. Yes, an infant is a parasite taking the definition of parasite to mean something that lives off another thing. I'm using this as a rough approximation of what I mean since both parties are the same species. The parasite benefits (consuming) at the expense (work) of the host. The work of the parent is the production before consumption. Labor comes before consumption, make no mistake. So a better explanation of what I mean by "everyone is only a consumer insofar as they are a producer" is that each person's labor is only valuable for what that labor produces. The value of the production that results from this equates to a value which is determined by voluntary exchange. Money, in its function as a medium of exchange, represents unconsumed production. Any economic theory that would deny this seems fishy. I don't see what could possibly change on the macro scale that contradicts: I work. I produce. I exchange. I consume. Any imbalance between production and consumption on my level seems to be accounted for by my savings/debt/assets. In other words, it really doesn't matter WHO does the production so "everyone is only a consumer insofar as they are a producer" is a bit rash. What should be said is that consumption can only exist because there was past production. Now, the reason for the rashness is that I interjected a simplistic version of justice: you reap what you sow. Therefore, barring charity or robbery, all consumers are producers first. In any case, this leads back into my main point: The quotes you're posting are arguing the moral basis of an economic system. I'm saying that separating producers from consumers is silly because of this. My entire argument here is: it doesn't matter one bit if production is directed toward consumption when gauging the ethical value of a system since consumption likewise requires production to exist - otherwise we would be talking about bare, unfilled need. Without production, demand is only unfilled need. I don't account for "gifts" of production (parents providing for children, charitable donations, and so forth), but that does not change the fact that someone who consumes and does not produce IS a parasite, albeit by the voluntary choice of the provider. I suppose that I could use a neutral term for when the parasitism is voluntary . . . but what I mean by the term should be clear now anyway. I'm sure that I've said enough to make Laguna facepalm so bottom line: for the Academia, I don't see how production and consumption can be separated or one favored when making a moral argument. Yeah, you can't sell something undemanded so the consumer matters there, but you can't buy something unsupplied either so the producer matters there. One cannot exst without the other. For the rest, it ceases to be an economic discussion when you're posting quotes that argue the moral goals of an economic system. For the last, I've explained how it is true. Regardless of whether you think there is a point in arguing them, I would like to point out that morality is so irremovably essential to any economic or political system as to be the FOUNDATION of them. I don't even know HOW we could have any meaningful discussion if we cannot agree upon a standard of value by which to measure the merits of the system . . . Utilitarianism isn't the only ethical system around, you know. Scarlet's Politico-Economic Thesis Any political or economic system is determined by a corresponding ethical system. Corollary to Scarlet's Politico-Economic Thesis Any ethical system that does not require the voluntary consent of the all parties involved is effed up. In any case, let me pose this for you: what makes morality a personal choice and economic behavior NOT a personal choice? What is the ultimate difference between the two? I'll put it like this: an individual is the smallest minority of any society. What you're describing is just the majority oppressing the minorities. Oppression by a majority isn't what American democracy means at least. I don't think that sacrificing individual freedom can help the rest of society in any case, and if it did hypothetically work, I'd think that any claim morality has been sacrificed with the person's rights. I suppose the best quote to summarize this is:
Okay, now, you were wondering this earlier why? How much economic freedom should be limited before I would be justified in thinking you're advocating some partial variation of command economy?
Assume the consitution was amended so that it gave the President "prima nocta" and the Supreme Count approved. Is the government justified in doing so? I'm not talking about social contract here. I'm talking about the natural rights of man and I'm re-proposing the idea that there are rights that are not justified in being taken away, no matter what society, corporation, individual, government, consitution, regime, gang, group, military, majority, minority, or anything else says.
Okay, I didn't make it clear that this was building off the aforementioned notion of the inviolate individual. In any case, I would only support those economic interventions that have the goal of protecting people's rights which I do not see any reason to include anti-trust laws providing that the companies in question weren't engaging in coercion or fraud. May I refer back to Ben Franklin? Yes, that is a democracy in the broadest sense. No, I don't support any democracy that doesn't support and protect individual rights. No, the "electorate" isn't trading economic and personal freedoms - the majority is agreeing to strip these freedoms from everyone, sometimes just select groups. Here I am figuring that I have natural rights and wouldn't you know that I only have the rights that society says I do . . . wait . . . I don't give a damn what rights society says I have. I have natural rights. Have you also considered that those natural rights I get to keep are only those I can successfully defend by myself - FROM society as well as WITHOUT society. What difference does it make whether I'm defending them physically from a thug or verbally from a society? It's not like a society or a government can't use the threat of force to ensure obedience and take away MY NATURAL RIGHTS in the form of a police force or a military. The ONLY question that matters is whether these are threats to my rights or defenders of them. In America, these mostly defend my rights which I like very much . . . but I only like them because my rights are being defended. I only like democracy insofar as it is a device to protect my rights. The second these cease defending my rights I don't like them. Make no mistake, I've never associated natural rights with something that didn't need to be defended. Long story short: I have free will; therefore, I have natural rights.
| |
| Saturday, April 16, 2011 - 11:24 am Hmm, it would seem that I'm partially equipped to answer this question of Laguna's: I consider bailouts to favor the economic crisis by favoring firms based on factors other than market forces. Aside from political/ethical reasons, I'm sure that it's not too far of a leap to say that supporting existing companies that would otherwise fail fosters inefficiency and stacks the deck against potential new companies by providing existing companies with artificial support. I would consider quantitative easing to favor the economic crisis because it seems to me that the value of the money supply would naturally seek equilibrium with the value of unconsumed production. This view would seem to indicate that injecting cash into a system merely promotes inflation, but I have no idea if this is what is happening. The exact effects of any of this on the larger system are a mystery to the uninitiated like myself. This lack of understanding on my end I imagine is to some extent translated on a larger scale with uncertainty over the future contributing greatly toward keeping the economy down - so my opinion would mainly be that any form of monetary policy that is perceived (the perception is more important than the facts for this) to be erratic harms economic recovery. The belief that the government will intervene drastically in any particular industry - the form of bailouts, regulations - or in the financial sector though monetary policy causes people, corporations, banks to be more inclined to "wait and see", and the US government at least appears to have no qualms with intervening. This incentive to "wait and see" would seem to explain the lack of noticeable economic recovery. Regardless of whether one type of policy with money is better or worse, a seemingly inconsistent one is doomed to be harmful. I could be completely wrong, but as I hopefully made clear, my support of the free market is much less concerned with promoting material prosperity than with maintaining economic and political freedoms. I acknowledge that it could be wishful thinking that says that promoting economic freedoms leads to material prosperity, but at the same time, this is irrelevant to me.
| |
| Saturday, April 16, 2011 - 09:10 pm @Laguna: You've called it a crisis, rather than a deep recession with an anemic recovery. Why?
Bailouts of financial failures leave the people who made the bad decisions in charge of resources. They are more likely to mismanage those resources than those who have not failed. Also, others will see the bailouts and make some of the same financial mistakes, expecting the same bailouts. So they weaken the economy. Regulation as refereeing of the economic players, allowing them to play the game but enforcing fair rules impartially, is useful and has much support. Regulators can under-regulate (Madoff), selectively regulate (Lehman, Bear Stearns), over-regulate (what banks are claiming now), or regulate incompetently (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac). All these things can hurt productivity within a sector and cause damage beyond it. As for easing and monetary policy: the worry is that excessive national deficits will build excessive national debt which will fuel inflation. You don't mention excessive government spending (aka stimulus). The concern is that the more people government employs to do useless and crappy things, the fewer people will actually be working producing useful stuff and useful services; the more monetary incentives are paid to people, companies, states, etc for postponing facing up to their problems, the longer those impending problems will fester. Overall, we'll all be the less prosperous for it.
| |
| Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 12:10 am Again, John, very well reasoned response and I will get back to you Sunday evening. @Laguna. Despite the huge increase in both the US National Debt and that spread throughout the world Financial Community, nothing has really changed in terms of options. The US will have to continue the balancing act between stimulus oriented Fiscal Policy and loosening/tightening Monetary policy to try to grow/inflate our economies past the red ink. There are no short term fixes for this mess. What little growth we see will be generally anemic with frequent contractions for at least a generation. Barring something dramatic, such as major currency collapses or defaults from some large actors, this will have to be a long, slow, frustrating process for investors, consumers, and financial authorities. In terms of regulations, unless the regulatory firewalls are put back up between the different financial institutions, we will see more speculative bubbles burst within the derivatives and hedge funds markets. I am just glad that I did my profit taking in the late 90's and when long on metals when they were at historic lows. And I will be sitting on it for the forseeable future. However, what are your views, Laguna?
| |
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 04:24 am Laguna, The Depression was flagged as a German Eagle Head. Len Peat, BS in English from "theUniversityofWellhead". http://applieddgepshycics202.blogspot.com/ study in Vancouver\/psychic Engineering Prices This is Free admission Please note: Fowl at eCONo(mic)s now costs a Dollar. Future economics: .http://fowlateconomics.blogspot.com/
| |
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 10:56 am The Student Loan crisis is next, bigger scandal than our sub-prime mortgages... stay tuned..
| |
Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 05:14 pm 
| |
| Friday, October 18, 2013 - 03:16 am how is quantitative easing the cause of our economic woes? with basic knowledge of the business cycle one can see that recessions and recoveries are self catalyzing vicious cycles and some sort of stimulus is required to begin a recovery
| |
| Friday, October 18, 2013 - 03:22 am just read psycho honeys posts.... very enlightening many thanks
| |
| Friday, October 18, 2013 - 03:29 am I'm doing great so as far as i'm concerned the recession is 0ver.
| |
| Friday, October 18, 2013 - 04:59 am it aint started lol
| |
| Friday, October 18, 2013 - 07:15 pm yea baby keep booming like a bomb
| |
| Sunday, October 20, 2013 - 12:04 am lol
| |
| Sunday, October 20, 2013 - 10:02 am Hmm, @Psycho_Honey is one very intelligent woman indeed. Wonders if she's single, haha oh boy.
|
