Dumb idea to start with without having fiscal & political union was never going to work
A couple of articles or three that attracted my attention including one from Germany/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/29/spain-riot-police/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/28/greek-police-send-crime-victims-to-neo-nazi-protectors/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/thousands-protest-across-germany-for-higher-taxes-on-the-wealthy/
Going to be keeping a watch over the next few weeks as it looks to me like we are at a crucial juncture.
Saturday, 29 September 2012
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Austerity is it a new thing?
Sabrina reminded me of something and its sparked something intresting to me with modern economics.
I was christened into the Anglican faith, although my parents had moved from Devon to London before I
was born so summers when i was a kid were spent in the lovely devon countryside. Every sunday we were
required to go to church but even as a youngster I felt there was something wrong (and this may be the
connection with my later athiesm) it was depressing something almost puritanical about it.
As ive got older and had part of our group of friends who were Catholics after the pub on christmas eve
we would invariably end up at midnight mass which seem to be much more joyful. Later visiting cathedrals
and churches as i love the architecture it struck much how much more intresting Catholic churches in
general were (the Vatican museum is an absolutely stunning group of buildings) Sabrina linked me
to some of her pentecostal sermons and reminds me of the Baptists as well of the feeling of the sermons
much more joyous.
Going back in time it appears that the anglican faith was related to the first Lutherian churches of
Northern central europe and puritanical in way that hard work and a simple life is the only way to God.
Lets step forward into the Industrial revolution and into free market economics. The driver of course
in the Industrial revolution were the British especially what became known to the Germans as "manchesterism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_capitalism
This form of capitalism was pre eminent in the Industrial revolution and was directly descended from
the protestant form of religion and hard work that the puritans had admired. Classical economics and
later Neoclassical economics are to come from this and spread right across the Northern European
countries that were and are mostly lutherian type protestants but for a long time they were sidelined
as a type of Keynesian Economics which was a synthesis of Keynes and Neoclassical economics, what us
Post Keynsesian types refer to (Coined by Joan Robinson, a Professor of Economics at Cambridge) as
bastard Keynesians. Although was a mix it wasnt actually too bad at the time but had some major
flaws in trying to synthesise the 2 schools and when the oil crisis of the 1970s come along it failed
to predict or have any effect on it causing stagflation.
Waiting in the wings were the hardcore right wing of neoclassical economics, Milton Freidman, Friedrich
Hayek etc who were heavily influenced by Manchester capitalism and the free market economics of that
period. Although in the USA they were from northern european stock and therefore influenced in some
way by the puritanism of the forefathers?
Move forward into the early 1980s and along come 2 uber free market types in Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagen amongst the backdrop of the ongoing cold war. It can be no surprise to learn that Thatcher
in particular was influenced by Hayek. Straight away workers rights were eroded, the free market was
let loose to the final damage we are now seeing. This become known to a lot as Anglo Saxon economics
but again driven by the Northern Europeans& the USA but including Germany & The Netherlands. To us
on the left its Neoliberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Forward again to the Eurozone, it can be no surprise that the so called sinner states are Catholic
or in the case of Greece Orthidox that dont have the puritan anglo saxon work and austere thinking.
Being in the Euro these periphery states have no choice but to have this "austerity" enforced on them,
The UK conservative government doing the same thing, calls from the US right to do the same thing but
which makes no economic sense. France dont be fooled is Catholic of course and will be next in line
to be shot at by the bond vigilantes and seems to be just be going along with the protestant countries
for now.
It seems to me that all this talk of austerity being the way out is some hold over from the differences
between the original protestent break from the Catholic church. Is the old split between northern and
southern Europe alive and kicking?
Andy
Sunday, 23 September 2012
From right to left a journey
Sabrina put up a nice post about her journey, I think its worthwhile to bring up my own.
I am completely surprised at where I am now.
Up to the middle of 2008 I had always considered myself to the right of centre, conservative
with fiscal policies etc although to be really honest about it I had no real interest in
either politics or economics. I would suggest I did care about what happened to other people
so there was an element about my make up that wouldnt make me like a Randian style of world.
September 2008 the Great Financial Crisis come upon us and although it didnt have an effect
on me as such I was very curious about what happened as we had supposed to have learnt from
the Great Depression of the 1930s.
At first gravitated to blogs that where to my political leanings lay which were blaming competiveness, the
welfare states, national debt being a problem frankly the whole of right wing thinking economics
wise.
One day a question was asked by a blogger
It was "why do governments borrow except for in wartime? its madness"
Now the question was rhetorical really as he then went on to make a whole argument why they
shouldnt. But I was intrigued why indeed do they borrow? I knew the usual answer that it was
the difference between taxing and spending and that they borrow to make up the difference but
a quick check showed me something odd in that for most of the last 300 years the UK had borrowed
just about every year as by that standard we should have been broke as a country a long time
ago.
I decided to look a bit further as it didnt really make sense so I searched until a few searches
in a website was suggested
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/
Rodger was explaining something he called monetary sovereignty which was an understanding
of how a FIAT money system works and claimed that deficits were not only desirable but
actually necessary. In that kind of system it is the government that create money that is
used by the private sector and that a growing economy required an expanding quantity of money.
That government borrowing was actually an illusion, that taxes dont fund the government and
bonds dont play a financing role in todays system.
The government own the printing press and nothing backs that money ie gold, silver etc.
This was mind blowing to me and straight away knew without doubt that he was quite correct
and that it had to be that way. This was a few months after the general election in the UK
that had the prime minister to be saying "the country has overspent on its credit card" and
now ive found out thats a misleading slogan at best a complete lie being the worst. My whole
political beliefs were based on a non truth.
Reading more of Rodger (who is a lovely man I should add)it couldnt be this simple
but I kept coming across a reference to something called MMT which I found stood for
something called Modern Monetary Theory that Rodger said was related and a lot of the
comments on his pages were by people calling themselves MMTers.
A quick google and I found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism
Where I found it was a school of economics that used the nickname MMT. On further investigation
I found it was part of what is called Post Keynesian Economics, now I knew a little bit
about John Maynard Keynes but what I didnt know that the Keynesian economics that the press
and the right like to believe is a school called NeoKeynesian economics who one of the
people that profess to be that are Paul Krugman. Further that the Post Keynesians claim to
be the real descendants of Keynesian theory and that the Neo Keynesians are part of the mainstream
current dominant school of Neo Classical economics.
Back to my story so I started reading some of the MMT sites (links to a few on my profile)
This was much more sophisticated than Roger and showed a truth to the system that I realised
we were not being told and it seem to be something certainly the right wing parties were seeking
to obscure.
My base for how the system works has then been changed, what else could be wrong?
It seems pretty much all the right wing ideology is based on Neoliberal/Neocon beliefs in the free
market and the equilibrium which then ensues is completely and damagingly wrong, its exactly why we
are in mess we have.
Next time you hear a politician say we have run out of money, stop think and ask yourself is this really
true?
Andy
I am completely surprised at where I am now.
Up to the middle of 2008 I had always considered myself to the right of centre, conservative
with fiscal policies etc although to be really honest about it I had no real interest in
either politics or economics. I would suggest I did care about what happened to other people
so there was an element about my make up that wouldnt make me like a Randian style of world.
September 2008 the Great Financial Crisis come upon us and although it didnt have an effect
on me as such I was very curious about what happened as we had supposed to have learnt from
the Great Depression of the 1930s.
At first gravitated to blogs that where to my political leanings lay which were blaming competiveness, the
welfare states, national debt being a problem frankly the whole of right wing thinking economics
wise.
One day a question was asked by a blogger
It was "why do governments borrow except for in wartime? its madness"
Now the question was rhetorical really as he then went on to make a whole argument why they
shouldnt. But I was intrigued why indeed do they borrow? I knew the usual answer that it was
the difference between taxing and spending and that they borrow to make up the difference but
a quick check showed me something odd in that for most of the last 300 years the UK had borrowed
just about every year as by that standard we should have been broke as a country a long time
ago.
I decided to look a bit further as it didnt really make sense so I searched until a few searches
in a website was suggested
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/
Rodger was explaining something he called monetary sovereignty which was an understanding
of how a FIAT money system works and claimed that deficits were not only desirable but
actually necessary. In that kind of system it is the government that create money that is
used by the private sector and that a growing economy required an expanding quantity of money.
That government borrowing was actually an illusion, that taxes dont fund the government and
bonds dont play a financing role in todays system.
The government own the printing press and nothing backs that money ie gold, silver etc.
This was mind blowing to me and straight away knew without doubt that he was quite correct
and that it had to be that way. This was a few months after the general election in the UK
that had the prime minister to be saying "the country has overspent on its credit card" and
now ive found out thats a misleading slogan at best a complete lie being the worst. My whole
political beliefs were based on a non truth.
Reading more of Rodger (who is a lovely man I should add)it couldnt be this simple
but I kept coming across a reference to something called MMT which I found stood for
something called Modern Monetary Theory that Rodger said was related and a lot of the
comments on his pages were by people calling themselves MMTers.
A quick google and I found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism
Where I found it was a school of economics that used the nickname MMT. On further investigation
I found it was part of what is called Post Keynesian Economics, now I knew a little bit
about John Maynard Keynes but what I didnt know that the Keynesian economics that the press
and the right like to believe is a school called NeoKeynesian economics who one of the
people that profess to be that are Paul Krugman. Further that the Post Keynesians claim to
be the real descendants of Keynesian theory and that the Neo Keynesians are part of the mainstream
current dominant school of Neo Classical economics.
Back to my story so I started reading some of the MMT sites (links to a few on my profile)
This was much more sophisticated than Roger and showed a truth to the system that I realised
we were not being told and it seem to be something certainly the right wing parties were seeking
to obscure.
My base for how the system works has then been changed, what else could be wrong?
It seems pretty much all the right wing ideology is based on Neoliberal/Neocon beliefs in the free
market and the equilibrium which then ensues is completely and damagingly wrong, its exactly why we
are in mess we have.
Next time you hear a politician say we have run out of money, stop think and ask yourself is this really
true?
Andy
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
Walking with God
"Can
two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3
There was a time when I loved the world more than God. I wanted the desires of my own heart and my own will. I loved the world. The things of the world and worldly things were my desire and refuge.
There was a time when I loved the world more than God. I wanted the desires of my own heart and my own will. I loved the world. The things of the world and worldly things were my desire and refuge.
The
Lord saw the world under his curse, and I loved its favour and its
blessing--seeking to enjoy that which God
had denounced. The Lord saw that the
world was full of evil, whilst I saw it full of good. Therefore we could not
agree.
In
order to be agreed with God, we must have God's thoughts in our heart, God's
ways in our soul, and God's love in our affections.
"For
my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the
Lord." Isaiah 55:8
We must
strive for them to become one. When
God's thoughts become our thoughts and God's ways our ways, when we have the
mind of Christ and see with the eyes of God, then God and we become agreed, and
being agreed, we can walk together.
What
is it to walk together? It is to enjoy
union, communion, fellowship, and friendship. A few weeks ago I was on a roadtrip with
Jesus. I was listening to some old CD’s
– non christian. As I was listening the
songs meanings changed in my mind as they were being sung. In some songs I was singing to Jesus, in
other songs he was singing to me and in others we sang together. The Eagles song “Take it Easy” , lyrics “just
find a place to lie your head and take it easy”
Jesus was saying just go where your feet take you and trust in me. You have no need to worry, I’m right here
with you. Song after song this went on…
for hours! I was so excited I was
dancing in my seat. Jesus was with me!
As
we are brought to agree with God, we walk with God. Do we need to walk with God?
“Let
us then approach God’s throne of grace with Confidence, so that we may receive
mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” Hebrews 4:16
As
the eyes are enlightened to see the truth of God; as the heart is touched to
feel the power of God; and as affections are drawn forth to love the things
of God, we meet at the mercy-seat.
It
is sprinkled with blood; it contains and hides from view the broken tables of
the law. There God meets man in gracious friendship, and enables us to pour out
our soul before him and to tell him our troubles, trials, and temptations. Every
now and then he sweetly relieves us by dropping in a gracious promise, applying
some portion of his sacred truth, encouraging us to believe, and still to hope
in his mercy.
"And he led them forth
by the right way, that they might go to a city of habitation." Psalm 107:7
"He led them forth." Forth out of the world--forth out of sin--forth out of a profession--forth out of a name to live--forth out of everything hateful to his holy and pure eyes. "To go to a city of habitation." They had no city to dwell in here below; but they were journeying to a city of habitation above, whose walls are salvation, and whose gates are praise; where there are eternal realities to be enjoyed by the soul; where there is something stable and eternal; something to satisfy all the wants of a capacious and immortal spirit, and give it that rest which it never could find while wandering here below. If we have a city here, we want no city above; and if we have a city above, we want no city here.
This then must be our state and case; either to be pilgrims, journeying onwards, through troubles, to things above, or taking up our abode below; seeking heaven here, or heaven hereafter; resting upon the world, or resting upon the Lord; panting after the things of time, or panting after the things of eternity; satisfied in self, or satisfied only in Christ. One of the two must be our state and case. The Lord reveals it clearly in the hearts of his people that they are on his side; and give us to know and feel that our very restlessness and inability to find food and shelter in the things of time and sense, are leading us more earnestly and believingly to seek after the things that have reality in them; that finding no city to dwell in here below, we may press forward to being citizens of that city which is above, "which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God!"
"He led them forth." Forth out of the world--forth out of sin--forth out of a profession--forth out of a name to live--forth out of everything hateful to his holy and pure eyes. "To go to a city of habitation." They had no city to dwell in here below; but they were journeying to a city of habitation above, whose walls are salvation, and whose gates are praise; where there are eternal realities to be enjoyed by the soul; where there is something stable and eternal; something to satisfy all the wants of a capacious and immortal spirit, and give it that rest which it never could find while wandering here below. If we have a city here, we want no city above; and if we have a city above, we want no city here.
This then must be our state and case; either to be pilgrims, journeying onwards, through troubles, to things above, or taking up our abode below; seeking heaven here, or heaven hereafter; resting upon the world, or resting upon the Lord; panting after the things of time, or panting after the things of eternity; satisfied in self, or satisfied only in Christ. One of the two must be our state and case. The Lord reveals it clearly in the hearts of his people that they are on his side; and give us to know and feel that our very restlessness and inability to find food and shelter in the things of time and sense, are leading us more earnestly and believingly to seek after the things that have reality in them; that finding no city to dwell in here below, we may press forward to being citizens of that city which is above, "which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God!"
Friday, 14 September 2012
Doubt
Judges 6:39, 40 "And Gideon said
unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this
once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be
dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. And God did
so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only and there was dew on all the
ground."
Many Christians live with
doubts and fears. Questions and
suspicions as to the reality of the work of grace upon their hearts. Whether
their convictions were not merely convictions of natural conscience, and
whether their joys have been anything else but the joys of a fool. "O,"
they say, "what would I give to have a divine testimony that the God was
leading me in the right path!" It is through these very doubts that the
evidence is obtained. Doubts lead to cries and groans lead after to a divine
testimony; and in answer to these cries the heavenly witness is given. A man
without doubts is without testimonies. Doubts are to testimonies what the ring
is to the finger, the lock to the key, the enigma to the solution.
1 Samuel 12” Then Samuel
took a stone and set it up
between Mizpah and Shen. He named it Ebenezer,[b]saying, “Thus far the Lord has helped us.”
Testimonies are Ebenezers,
"stones of help" but the stone must have a hole dug for it to stand
in, and that hole is doubt. Doubts of salvation are to manifestations of
salvation what hunger is to food, nakedness to clothing, a thunderstorm to a
shelter, a gallows to a reprieve, and death to a resurrection. The one of these
things precedes, prepares, and opens a way for the other. The first is nothing
without the last, nor the last without the first. Thus, next to testimonies,
the best thing is spiritual doubts. To know we are right is the best thing; to
fear we are wrong is the second best. To enjoy the witness of the Spirit is the
most blessed thing this side of the grave; to pant after that enjoyment is the
next greatest blessing
Psalm 84:5-7 “Blessed
are those whose strength is
in you, whose
hearts are set on pilgrimage. As they
pass through the Valley of Baka, they
make it a place of springs, the
autumn rains also
cover it with pools. They go from strength to strength,
till each appears before
God in Zion.”
The path through the valley
of Baca is "from strength to strength," that is, according to the
eastern mode of travelling, from one halting-place to another, where wells are
dug, and "the rain fills the pools"
We do not learn either God or ourselves, sin or salvation, in a day. The
question is not so much whether you have much faith, but whether you have any.
It is not quantity, but quality; not whether you have a very great religion,
but whether you have any at all. A grain of true faith will save the soul; and
I have known many, many times when I should have been glad to feel certain that
I had the thousandth part of a grain. A grain of mustard seed is the smallest
of all seeds; and even faith as small as that can move mountains. Happy is he
that has one divine testimony to his eternal interest in the electing love of
the Father, in the atoning blood and justifying righteousness of the Son, and
in the divine teachings of the Holy Spirit.
Thursday, 13 September 2012
Central Banks
What are they good good for?
Have been watching online tonight mostly shrill comments on what Bernanke has been doing today and chuckling about some of the comments ive seen.
MMT sites have not of course been that bothered (see my QE primer.. even now its still just as asset swap, just changing differennt assets compared to earlier QEs,)
What seems to be the problem here is an understanding of the function of a central bank and what they can and cant do.
I would suggest a central bank isnt anything more than a backstop to the system. If you look back through history what it shows you is that CBs come about through the instability of the system, private banks used to issue their own currencies so imagine that today its not just when you go abroad you need to know an exchange rate you actually would need that in your own country. Think about using a different banks ATMs now you would have to shop around to see which is the better rate.
So bring a central bank into the equation, a central banks main task is to keep the payment system between the private banks stable thats their absolute main priority its the reason we have this system.
Ok so what are we asking them to do now after all the Feds mandates are to keep the system in order and to have full employment. How they are supposed to do both nowadays beats me.All they can do is stop the system falling apart which to give them credit I have to admit they have done the last few years. Government have completely sidestepped their responsibilties on this regard and asking the central banks to do more. But they cant do more all they can do is keep the system stable. QE has stopped some countries going into a debt deflation spiral but thats it thats all they can do. To ask cbs to engineer growth isnt possible yes they can mess around with interest rates.asset swaps and affect the housing market (the main mechanism that monetatry policies work) but little else they can do.
They have no more power to engineer growth than I have.
Bernanke was diplomatic as the only tool they have in the real economy is to get people to think there will be inflation, and even then that is hope not fact. Look through the BoEs website and find the QE article all they ever mention is "expectations" thats it thats all the have.
As ive explained all Central Banks can do is keep the system from imploding so lets stop looking to them for growth when its just not possible.
Governments now you have to do your job and not use departments that are not designed for the purpose.
Andy
Have been watching online tonight mostly shrill comments on what Bernanke has been doing today and chuckling about some of the comments ive seen.
MMT sites have not of course been that bothered (see my QE primer.. even now its still just as asset swap, just changing differennt assets compared to earlier QEs,)
What seems to be the problem here is an understanding of the function of a central bank and what they can and cant do.
I would suggest a central bank isnt anything more than a backstop to the system. If you look back through history what it shows you is that CBs come about through the instability of the system, private banks used to issue their own currencies so imagine that today its not just when you go abroad you need to know an exchange rate you actually would need that in your own country. Think about using a different banks ATMs now you would have to shop around to see which is the better rate.
So bring a central bank into the equation, a central banks main task is to keep the payment system between the private banks stable thats their absolute main priority its the reason we have this system.
Ok so what are we asking them to do now after all the Feds mandates are to keep the system in order and to have full employment. How they are supposed to do both nowadays beats me.All they can do is stop the system falling apart which to give them credit I have to admit they have done the last few years. Government have completely sidestepped their responsibilties on this regard and asking the central banks to do more. But they cant do more all they can do is keep the system stable. QE has stopped some countries going into a debt deflation spiral but thats it thats all they can do. To ask cbs to engineer growth isnt possible yes they can mess around with interest rates.asset swaps and affect the housing market (the main mechanism that monetatry policies work) but little else they can do.
They have no more power to engineer growth than I have.
Bernanke was diplomatic as the only tool they have in the real economy is to get people to think there will be inflation, and even then that is hope not fact. Look through the BoEs website and find the QE article all they ever mention is "expectations" thats it thats all the have.
As ive explained all Central Banks can do is keep the system from imploding so lets stop looking to them for growth when its just not possible.
Governments now you have to do your job and not use departments that are not designed for the purpose.
Andy
Conspiracy Theories
What is it that captures the imagination of people with
these things?
One very popular site is http://www.abovetopsecret.com
which I find very entertaining but look through the articles and threads you
will notice that all of their evidence is circumstantial, based on hearsay at
best and even completely wrong but sounds really convincing.
For instance last night on facebook a friend was talking
about the 9/11 attacks and when one of the aircraft disappeared off radar that
it wasn’t passed over to the defence department and then fighters getting
launched to intercept which of course is true but instead of looking at what
actually happened its immediately confirmed their preconceived notion that this
was a false flag attack.
Looking at what happened shows something different.
Whenever looking at the 9/11 attacks we should always remember that nothing like
it has ever happened before but plenty of crashes, technical problems so
probably first thoughts were a problem with the aircraft and then maybe a
hijacking.
Firstly the radar used in civil aviation doesn’t work
like they think. Modern aircraft
use a transponder and it’s this that the radar tracks not the aircraft itself.
Of course they have communications with ground as well but there could be all
sorts of reasons that there was a delay in passing the info onto the defence
department while they were trying to figure out what was going on. Has the plane crashed? Is it just the
transponder out? Etc
Now Boston to New York is only around 190 miles so in
flying time that’s not very long certainly a lot less than an hour so I think
then that I am not sure they could believe what was going to happen (wouldn’t
have myself I suspect) that certainly would have taken plenty of
time.
Secondly, scrambling fighters to intercept. I think someone has been watching too
many Second World War movies where they run out of dispersal and jump into their
spitfires and off they go. A
modern fast jet fighter such as an F15 is a much more complex machine it needs
time to get going. Even if arguably
they had been alerted straight away it would still have taken too
long.
What’s forgotten is that the US wasn’t in
cold war mode with alert birds and crew ready to go with a moments notice fully
armed. Since then of course they would have alert birds all ready but even so
arguable they would get there in time even now (during the London Olympics they
moved a squadron of RAF Typhoons
down to RAF Northolt in West London from their base further north, you just do
not normally base military aircraft in the middle of a city).
Now I have a very poor opinion of those in charge but a
deliberate attack on their own citizens so they can invade another country I
just cannot buy since when did they need an excuse like that before? Can always make out it’s a hunt for
WMDs.
The moon landing hoax.
I am really staggered on this one.
Not one NASA staff member on the project has ever come
out and said that it was a hoax and in fact are very indignant should it be
suggested. We are talking about 1000s of people here.
The craft themselves were tracked by different stations
at all times. There is a wonderful
Aussie movie called The Dish which is the true story of the Aussie radio
telescope that tracked Apollo 13 and the TV signal of Neil Armstrong taking that
famous first step actually come through that radio telescope (of course they
have dramatised it and made it the very quirky type humour that the Aussies do
well) but in truth these Scientists at those tracking stations would have
noticed if the signal was coming from elsewhere. These radio telescopes are
really precise and are listening into stars across the universe, a spacecraft a
few thousand miles isn’t that difficult.
From what I can see of these moon hoax believers is that
the reason they are not convinced is that the photos are too good and the flag
looks like its waving in wind (it was actually designed to look like that and
the when it was touched the lack of friction would keep it moving for quite a
long time in a near vacuum) and other bizarre claims.
RIP Neil Armstrong your name will be remembered as long
as the Human race exists I hope.
Area 51
Dreamland, Paradise Ranch, Groom Lake all names for this
“top secret” air force base that the
whole world has heard of.
But aliens? Come on it’s simply a secure research base for the US Air
force which funnily enough they don’t like people approaching or knowing what
they are up to there as it’s supposed to be like that, it’s a testing centre for
advanced aircraft and weapons.
More info and interesting speculation on the projects
there now and in the past and generally what else is going on at Edwards AFB at
http://dreamlandresort.com and its UFO free.
No doubt there are conspiracies out there in the world
and always have been when a few people meet up and discuss things in private.
It would be naïve to think that cover ups do not happen
and as I am writing this the truth about the Hillsborough disaster has been
revealed that the police covered up their ineptitude by trying to blame the fans
(no surprise to us who had stood on the Leppings lane terrace a few times, it
was an accident waiting to happen) and note that its taken time but the truth
has come out.
The scale of these so called theories are huge though,
it’s just not possible without someone blabbing and having incontrovertible
proof of what they say which never seems to turn up.
Is it more interesting to believe a sensational multi
person conspiracy or the truth that tends to be pretty mundane or has there been
a change in that traditional religion for a lot has taken a back seat so they
feel need to substitute their beliefs with “something” as the feel they are
missing something without knowing what?
Andy
Thursday, 6 September 2012
Gina again
Dont really know what to say about this its almost beyond comment
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/05/worlds-richest-woman-suggests-2-a-day-wages-for-australian-miners/
Shes starting to make Ayn Rand look compassionate.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/05/worlds-richest-woman-suggests-2-a-day-wages-for-australian-miners/
Shes starting to make Ayn Rand look compassionate.
National Debt or is it?
For these purposes im mostly using the USA and the USD for example, The USA is an Autonomous Currency Issuer in a floating exchange rate system as is the UK, Canada in fact every currency sovereign country it is the same apart from and this is important the Eurozone does NOT apply.
Im sure any internet user that has any interest in economics or politics has been subjected to this
sooner rather than later.
http://www.usdebtclock.org
Certainly is a big scary number and spinning upwards making you dizzy.
Lets look a bit closer at that big number and actually what constitutes it.
National debt is actually the outstanding amount of Government bonds, its the difference
between its outgoings and its incomings so a deficit adds to this year on year which is the national debt.
Compar it to your household and the famous quote by the Charles Dickens character in
David Copperfield Mr Micawber comes straight to mind
"My other piece of advice, Copperfield, said Mr. Micawber,
you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six,
result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds
ought and six, result misery"
Its all straight forward you spend more than you earn year after year you are going to be
bankrupt sooner rather than later so its sensible advice by Micawber.
Only there is a problem here with the analogy when it comes to the USA, in all its history
it has only once payed off its national debt and that was back in 1835*. I cant think of a household
that could continually run up a debt up over 235 years.
Whats occuring here with this seeming contradiction? a person cant run up a debt for long but a
government always can.
Simply the government owns a printing press you and I do not. This matters and why they do not
have any solvency constraint, they can always pay any bill of any size thats denomonated in its own currency.
Even so its a debt we all have to pay? well no actually, you may very well find you own a lot
of it yourself through a pension or even just invest in bonds its not unusual at all. So think of
that in that you own the debt and then pay it off? that makes no sense you want to be credited for
owning it.You would own a bond for only 1 reason and thats to save and get some interest back on your investment.
If everyone is doing the same thing in the non government sector then its just people and institutions wanting to save (any foreign investors become part of our currency area by doing this, dont be confused by national boundries at this point)
Lets go back to the debt clock and just change its name to usassetclock (an owner of a debt would show the debt as an asset)and see how much the non government sector has saved... thats a lot of savings. I wonder whos sitting on all that cash? Not quite so scary when you put it that way is it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9150406/Budget-2012-UK-companies-are-sitting-on-billions-of-pounds-so-why-arent-they-spending-it.html
(ok thats UK same story in the US though)
What we really find from this is that National Debt isnt a debt instrument at all its quite the
opposite and is a credit instrument ultimately based on the governments power to tax... a tax credit.
A quote from Chris Cook a senior research fellow at the Institute for Security and Resilience Studies at University College London.
"This was always the case for some 500 years until the Bank of England came along and privatised sovereign credit, since when the reality of public credit issuance has been airbrushed from economic history as an Inconvenient Truth"
*note that year 1835 and paying off national debt, coincidence that the US went into depression less than 2 years later?. One for the future.
Next time
Spend and tax or Tax and Spend? A chicken and egg question but with an answer.
Im sure any internet user that has any interest in economics or politics has been subjected to this
sooner rather than later.
http://www.usdebtclock.org
Certainly is a big scary number and spinning upwards making you dizzy.
Lets look a bit closer at that big number and actually what constitutes it.
National debt is actually the outstanding amount of Government bonds, its the difference
between its outgoings and its incomings so a deficit adds to this year on year which is the national debt.
Compar it to your household and the famous quote by the Charles Dickens character in
David Copperfield Mr Micawber comes straight to mind
"My other piece of advice, Copperfield, said Mr. Micawber,
you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six,
result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds
ought and six, result misery"
Its all straight forward you spend more than you earn year after year you are going to be
bankrupt sooner rather than later so its sensible advice by Micawber.
Only there is a problem here with the analogy when it comes to the USA, in all its history
it has only once payed off its national debt and that was back in 1835*. I cant think of a household
that could continually run up a debt up over 235 years.
Whats occuring here with this seeming contradiction? a person cant run up a debt for long but a
government always can.
Simply the government owns a printing press you and I do not. This matters and why they do not
have any solvency constraint, they can always pay any bill of any size thats denomonated in its own currency.
Even so its a debt we all have to pay? well no actually, you may very well find you own a lot
of it yourself through a pension or even just invest in bonds its not unusual at all. So think of
that in that you own the debt and then pay it off? that makes no sense you want to be credited for
owning it.You would own a bond for only 1 reason and thats to save and get some interest back on your investment.
If everyone is doing the same thing in the non government sector then its just people and institutions wanting to save (any foreign investors become part of our currency area by doing this, dont be confused by national boundries at this point)
Lets go back to the debt clock and just change its name to usassetclock (an owner of a debt would show the debt as an asset)and see how much the non government sector has saved... thats a lot of savings. I wonder whos sitting on all that cash? Not quite so scary when you put it that way is it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9150406/Budget-2012-UK-companies-are-sitting-on-billions-of-pounds-so-why-arent-they-spending-it.html
(ok thats UK same story in the US though)
What we really find from this is that National Debt isnt a debt instrument at all its quite the
opposite and is a credit instrument ultimately based on the governments power to tax... a tax credit.
A quote from Chris Cook a senior research fellow at the Institute for Security and Resilience Studies at University College London.
"This was always the case for some 500 years until the Bank of England came along and privatised sovereign credit, since when the reality of public credit issuance has been airbrushed from economic history as an Inconvenient Truth"
*note that year 1835 and paying off national debt, coincidence that the US went into depression less than 2 years later?. One for the future.
Next time
Spend and tax or Tax and Spend? A chicken and egg question but with an answer.
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
Quantative Easing a guide.
Some time ago in a discussion with a colleague at the office I ended up writing a paper for him (not sure he ever read it though!) he was worrried that QE was inflationary, currency disbasement yadda yadda so thought as I will be going off down the monetary system rabbit hole it was worth doing again as it has some basic concepts.
Money
Base money,outside money,central bank money, bank reserve cash,High Powered Money HPM.....money banks use to settle between themselves. This money doesnt pay interest or has a duration. (im ignoring Interest on Reserves at the moment as that doesnt play a part in what we are discussing)
Broad money (inside money) bank commercial credit... the money we use.(this also includes the notes and coins we use, the government sell this to the banks and profits on the difference between minting/printing which is called seniorage. but only makes up around 3% of broad money)
Gilts (or bonds) im putting this here as itself is a form of money, it has a duration and pays interest (the Yield)
What the Bank of England actually did.
The BoE uses the buying and selling of gilts in its monetary policy through open market operations to hit its target interest rate. When we started approaching zero (or zirp) they needed some other way to influence monetary policy, they were seeking a way of driving investors away from owning gilts and to push them into other assets or so they said, either this was an outright lie or a misunderstanding of banking so you can make your own mind up there with the results. So what they did in buying gilts and swapping for cash was actually alter the composition of private sector assets swapping government liabilities. What they didnt do was actually add any extra net financial assets to the system so in essence it was an asset swap.
Now that was done through the commercial banks which added bank reserve cash to the system. Now thats great if you assume via Fractional Reserve Banking that they then go on to loan through having these extra reserves above what the reserve requirment is (note for Sabrina Canadian Banks dont have a reserve requirement which is kinda curious in a so called FRB system as that would assume they could create an infinate amount of credit)
Now the central banks know without a shadow of a doubt banks do not work like that as it implies that a money multiplier is at work but its a myth (as any Post Keynesian or MMT economist will tell you) even the fed themselves admit this in a recent paper.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2010/201041/201041pap.pdf
“Changes in reserves are unrelated to changes in lending, and open market operations do not have a direct impact on lending. We conclude that the textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected.”9
Banks loan on what their capital position is which is basically its equity (shareholder value,retained earnings that sort of thing) and then seek reserves if they need to after to satisfy any reserve requirement is (as above)
You can see by this that means that you can add as many reserves to the system as you want and it will make no difference on how much banks loan. When a loan is made that adds to the amount of commercial bank credit and also creates a deposit through double entry bookeeping. This shows you that its loans that drive reserves not vice versa.
Ok so what happened to those gilts and interest payments on them, well in the UKs case the BoE then put them into something called the Asset Purchase Facility (APF) where they are sitting and the interest being put there as well which is somewhere around 30 billion GBP. Think about it they are basically paying themselves interest but its sitting there doing nothing. Thats a lot of money sitting there that has effectively been taken out of the economy.
From this we can deduce that it isnt inflationary and by adding reserves to the system they have stabilized the payment system saving the banks and holding asset prices up (banks havent had to foreclose and have firesale prices) Just because its stopped deflation for the moment it doesnt mean its inflationary.... in fact in the end it will be deflationary as money as in the interest payments has been lost to the non government sector.
Money
Base money,outside money,central bank money, bank reserve cash,High Powered Money HPM.....money banks use to settle between themselves. This money doesnt pay interest or has a duration. (im ignoring Interest on Reserves at the moment as that doesnt play a part in what we are discussing)
Broad money (inside money) bank commercial credit... the money we use.(this also includes the notes and coins we use, the government sell this to the banks and profits on the difference between minting/printing which is called seniorage. but only makes up around 3% of broad money)
Gilts (or bonds) im putting this here as itself is a form of money, it has a duration and pays interest (the Yield)
What the Bank of England actually did.
The BoE uses the buying and selling of gilts in its monetary policy through open market operations to hit its target interest rate. When we started approaching zero (or zirp) they needed some other way to influence monetary policy, they were seeking a way of driving investors away from owning gilts and to push them into other assets or so they said, either this was an outright lie or a misunderstanding of banking so you can make your own mind up there with the results. So what they did in buying gilts and swapping for cash was actually alter the composition of private sector assets swapping government liabilities. What they didnt do was actually add any extra net financial assets to the system so in essence it was an asset swap.
Now that was done through the commercial banks which added bank reserve cash to the system. Now thats great if you assume via Fractional Reserve Banking that they then go on to loan through having these extra reserves above what the reserve requirment is (note for Sabrina Canadian Banks dont have a reserve requirement which is kinda curious in a so called FRB system as that would assume they could create an infinate amount of credit)
Now the central banks know without a shadow of a doubt banks do not work like that as it implies that a money multiplier is at work but its a myth (as any Post Keynesian or MMT economist will tell you) even the fed themselves admit this in a recent paper.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2010/201041/201041pap.pdf
“Changes in reserves are unrelated to changes in lending, and open market operations do not have a direct impact on lending. We conclude that the textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected.”9
Banks loan on what their capital position is which is basically its equity (shareholder value,retained earnings that sort of thing) and then seek reserves if they need to after to satisfy any reserve requirement is (as above)
You can see by this that means that you can add as many reserves to the system as you want and it will make no difference on how much banks loan. When a loan is made that adds to the amount of commercial bank credit and also creates a deposit through double entry bookeeping. This shows you that its loans that drive reserves not vice versa.
Ok so what happened to those gilts and interest payments on them, well in the UKs case the BoE then put them into something called the Asset Purchase Facility (APF) where they are sitting and the interest being put there as well which is somewhere around 30 billion GBP. Think about it they are basically paying themselves interest but its sitting there doing nothing. Thats a lot of money sitting there that has effectively been taken out of the economy.
From this we can deduce that it isnt inflationary and by adding reserves to the system they have stabilized the payment system saving the banks and holding asset prices up (banks havent had to foreclose and have firesale prices) Just because its stopped deflation for the moment it doesnt mean its inflationary.... in fact in the end it will be deflationary as money as in the interest payments has been lost to the non government sector.
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Views across the Ocean: Technology and abundance - Response
Views across the Ocean: Technology and abundance:
Some interesting jabber this time.... likely true except for Genesis Chapter 3 as mentioned in previous response. Here I'll fill you in quickly:
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
So we will never run out of work... its impossible. All that may happen is the type of work we do and the methods of remuneration for such may change. In the west and many other countries once our "boomers" start to return in droves there will most certainly be work for our youth. In fact we may have an abundance of jobs if researchers are correct. In such circumstances it is beneficial for the automation we have developed to be necessary. Even if you think of all the technology we have gained to date compared to just 100 years ago, we are still no less busy. 100 years ago it took a woman a week to do the laundry we now do in an afternoon. How could woman possibly have the time for a full time job if the technology had not improved?
It is encouraging though to think that due to the changes in technology we have our time for such conversations as these. A chance to share the gospel and teach the truth. That through this the Lord may magnify and glorify his holy name.
Some interesting jabber this time.... likely true except for Genesis Chapter 3 as mentioned in previous response. Here I'll fill you in quickly:
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
So we will never run out of work... its impossible. All that may happen is the type of work we do and the methods of remuneration for such may change. In the west and many other countries once our "boomers" start to return in droves there will most certainly be work for our youth. In fact we may have an abundance of jobs if researchers are correct. In such circumstances it is beneficial for the automation we have developed to be necessary. Even if you think of all the technology we have gained to date compared to just 100 years ago, we are still no less busy. 100 years ago it took a woman a week to do the laundry we now do in an afternoon. How could woman possibly have the time for a full time job if the technology had not improved?
It is encouraging though to think that due to the changes in technology we have our time for such conversations as these. A chance to share the gospel and teach the truth. That through this the Lord may magnify and glorify his holy name.
Views across the Ocean: Attack on the poor - Response
Views across the Ocean: Attack on the poor: Response
Right so.... lets start at the beginning.
For us Christians it is not man (or woman) we should be listening to when it comes to the direction of our lives. It is God's will we should seek first. Therefore, what Gina Rinehart says or doesn't say is irrelevant. Read 1 Samuel 8.
Nevertheless, lets review what they say she said: "Gina Rinehart, a mining magnate worth an estimated £19 billion, has advised those jealous of the wealthy to "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working" in order to be successful."
Well, no matter what you do you will always have work to do. Whether you are rich or poor we must all work. It is the curse placed on man from the garden. Read Genesis Chapter 3:17-19. As for drinking - Proverbs Chapter 23:21 - For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags. In other words too much drinking and relaxation with bring you to poverty. Hmmmm maybe she's onto something.
Now as to whether or not she knows anything based on whether or not she is self made is again irrelevant. Nobody is self made. We are all created by God and our successes are by his grace alone not by our own strengths. If we make the wrong choices he rewards us with disciplines, if we make the right choices he rewards us with blessings. We'll talk about this later.
Without God we are all nothing. But then of course the atheist wants you to believe we are nothing as we came from nothing didn't we?
Right so.... lets start at the beginning.
For us Christians it is not man (or woman) we should be listening to when it comes to the direction of our lives. It is God's will we should seek first. Therefore, what Gina Rinehart says or doesn't say is irrelevant. Read 1 Samuel 8.
Nevertheless, lets review what they say she said: "Gina Rinehart, a mining magnate worth an estimated £19 billion, has advised those jealous of the wealthy to "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working" in order to be successful."
Well, no matter what you do you will always have work to do. Whether you are rich or poor we must all work. It is the curse placed on man from the garden. Read Genesis Chapter 3:17-19. As for drinking - Proverbs Chapter 23:21 - For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags. In other words too much drinking and relaxation with bring you to poverty. Hmmmm maybe she's onto something.
Now as to whether or not she knows anything based on whether or not she is self made is again irrelevant. Nobody is self made. We are all created by God and our successes are by his grace alone not by our own strengths. If we make the wrong choices he rewards us with disciplines, if we make the right choices he rewards us with blessings. We'll talk about this later.
Without God we are all nothing. But then of course the atheist wants you to believe we are nothing as we came from nothing didn't we?
Technology and abundance
In 1931 John Maynard Keynes wrote
an essay entitled Economic possibilities for our Grandchildren where he
suggested the following
“The day is not far off when the economic
problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and
the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems - the problems of
life and of human relations, of creation and behavior and religion”
(have read that some people thought he
meant religion is a problem and anti Christian, its not meant like that at all,
he meant problem as in quiz, something to understand)
What he envisaged was a future where work
would take a back seat and most of our time would be leisure as automation will
free us from these at times mundane tasks working just 1 or 2 days a
week.
Far Fetched? Well not so.
There has been a lot of talk
around the blogosphere and even mainstream newspapers recently on this subject,
it seems the late great JMK was remarkably prescient about this.
Izabella Kaminsky at the
Financial Times wrote a wonderful series of articles here
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/series/beyond-scarcity/
The point of those articles was
that the world has now huge overproduction for the needs of people and how much
“stuff” we really need. We
can see this in the price of a lot of goods over the last decade or so which
actually has had a deflationary effect (covered up by inflation in asset prices
and a credit boom) mostly of course these goods were manufactured by low cost
labour in the far east but even without that it probably would have happened
anyway if manufacturing had been kept in the west as to keep costs down more
would have automated which is now happening in China (already quite advanced and
accelerating in Japan & Germany) factories are becoming a few person
operation with just some technicians to keep on eye on the machines. Did you notice Walmart (Asda is
the UK division)
have been trialling holographic greeters? http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/companies/supermarkets/asda/asda-to-follow-up-on-virtual-assistant-holograms-trial/228861.article
so its actually across most sectors of the economy not just manufacturing.
For those of us in Freight
Forwarding (you know who you are) how much lower have freight rates been driven
over the last 20 years? we are making more on the other services that we
provide.
Marx certainly had some things to say about a capitalist
system which are part of this story as in the “Tendency of the rate of profit
fall”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall
What is this going to do to the
jobs market? When I have spoken to people about this the first thing they always
say is that someone has to build the robots but the latest advance is now that
robots are actually building robots so no you only need to build 1 and then that
replicates. Of course you will still need a certain amount of designers,
programmers etc but even for them once that job is done it can pretty much run
without them.
Labour is simply not required
anymore in the same quantities and where you can really see this problem is in
youth unemployment across the west, the figures are quite horrifying in most
countries and the amount of short time working that’s happening everywhere
although at the moment due to a lack of demand it wont change anytime soon and
will find more and more jobs going that way.
Unlike in the past where
technology actually created more jobs its now inverted and destroying more
jobs.
Unfortunately our governments (of
whatever persuasion) are completely in denial of this effect so solutions from
40 years ago are simply not applicable.
Is this future horrible? Actually no I think this could be a
really exciting time in the development of humanity if we grab the opportunity
given and embrace it, there are other options than just letting 50% of the
population starve and live off the scraps without descending into a 1984 type
totalitarian communist or fascist state which I believe is likely if not
recognised, we only have to look at 1916 to 1940 for that.
We can and will find other things
to do, more for communities, learning, arts the list is endless so it’s going to
be “work” as we understand it changing.
Monday, 3 September 2012
Attack on the poor
Assault on normal working people of the week award goes to Gina Rinehart who is the richest women in
Australia
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9510025/Gina-Rinehart-attacks-je
Now apparently "poor" people are jealous and shouldnt be drinking, socialising & smoking then
they too might be billionaires.
Now if she was self made I might consider that she knows what she is talking about but when you
are left GBP 13 billion by your mining magnate father Lang Hancock what would she know about
being "poor" Its far more efficient to inherit wealth.
Apparently its the "billionaires and millionaires are doing more than anyone to help the poor by investing their money and creating jobs”
Lets look at the drinking first of all as she is accusing the average worker of, handily the
Australians had a department research this (h/t Bill Mitchell)
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442474884
Its conclusion
"When personal income by alcohol drinking status was analysed, the data show that as personal income increases, so does the prevalence and frequency of drinking … For example, the prevalence of any alcohol consumption is 95% among the highest income group, compared with around 80% among the lowest income group, and there is a fairly constant gradient across these groups. This applies for both sexes."
So it seems the better your income the more likely you are to drink.
Socialising
What does she mean by socialising, humans are social creatures, whether its chatting with friends,
a night out down the pub, playing some sport, even going to church is a social activity, spending
time with family etc.
No friends Gina is that it? dont spend time with your family? actually we know the answer to that last
question as her kids bought legal action against her over trust funds.
Finally the billionaires & millionaires do more to helping the poor myth.
Now certainly some do Bill Gates of course comes to mind. But what churches,charities and other organisations dont
help the poor then?
Or does she mean by creating jobs? well missing something there im afraid the wealth creators
are you,me and everyone else spending without customers businesses are nothing.
Australia
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9510025/Gina-Rinehart-attacks-je
Now apparently "poor" people are jealous and shouldnt be drinking, socialising & smoking then
they too might be billionaires.
Now if she was self made I might consider that she knows what she is talking about but when you
are left GBP 13 billion by your mining magnate father Lang Hancock what would she know about
being "poor" Its far more efficient to inherit wealth.
Apparently its the "billionaires and millionaires are doing more than anyone to help the poor by investing their money and creating jobs”
Lets look at the drinking first of all as she is accusing the average worker of, handily the
Australians had a department research this (h/t Bill Mitchell)
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442474884
Its conclusion
"When personal income by alcohol drinking status was analysed, the data show that as personal income increases, so does the prevalence and frequency of drinking … For example, the prevalence of any alcohol consumption is 95% among the highest income group, compared with around 80% among the lowest income group, and there is a fairly constant gradient across these groups. This applies for both sexes."
So it seems the better your income the more likely you are to drink.
Socialising
What does she mean by socialising, humans are social creatures, whether its chatting with friends,
a night out down the pub, playing some sport, even going to church is a social activity, spending
time with family etc.
No friends Gina is that it? dont spend time with your family? actually we know the answer to that last
question as her kids bought legal action against her over trust funds.
Finally the billionaires & millionaires do more to helping the poor myth.
Now certainly some do Bill Gates of course comes to mind. But what churches,charities and other organisations dont
help the poor then?
Or does she mean by creating jobs? well missing something there im afraid the wealth creators
are you,me and everyone else spending without customers businesses are nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)