Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cloud

The Money System

Recommended Posts

You replaced my words with your own

 

You might as well say you are not stealing my home if you replace me with yourself.

 

And for more idiot logic you want to tell me it is unnatural to have fractional reserve banking because you want to be able to profit as a saver and to hell with everybody else.

 

And then you want to ramble on about the failure of the collective while promoting the collective that is the von mises institute.

 

And it seems it all boils down to you and your other individuals who think that life is unfair and you are not getting what everybody else is getting.

hehe get a grip i made it quite clear that i had done that

 

i know the game and i can do ok out of it - but i know that it is at the expense of others and believe that the world would be a better place if the game was stopped

 

but it is in the process of failing as all con games do once too many are aware of the con

 

i believe in freedom - what do you believe in

 

im quite happy for the free market to sort out the fractional reserve banking problem - just remove the central banking cartel - lender of last resort

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Within the boundaries of a state, the legal order usually has an influence on the money-character of commodities which, though small, cannot be denied. The origin of money (as distinct from coin, which is only one variety of money) is, as we have seen, entirely natural and thus displays legislative influence only in the rarest instances. Money is not an invention of the state. It is not the product of a legislative act. Even the sanction of political authority is not necessary for its existence. Certain commodities came to be money quite naturally, as the result of economic relationships that were independent of the power of the state.

 

But I'd call that trade, which is when any number of commodities, gold included, can be used to trade for other things. Currencies developed because trade is very inefficient, people are not sure of the value of stuff, or how to "price" things.... and often don't exchange on that basis [and hence a more self-sufficient life]. An economy [involving an efficient division of labour] relies on people not having to take the time to work out what this is worth there, where all these time-consuming calculations are made redundant by standardization in monetary units / prices [also, without a currency, prices could not be set in a market].

 

So, I'd say this "natural money", or gold, in a trading situation could be called money, but only if also any other manner of thing used to trade is also called money. But then the idea of money has become so broad as to be near meaningless.

 

Then we get an organized economy on the back of social organisation.This gives rise to a standardized currency, which performs the monetary function a lot more efficiently than trade ever can. No doubt, the currency involved standardizing what people had been using as money, however inefficiently. Money/ currency, pragmatically, is therefore a social institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hehe get a grip i made it quite clear that i had done that

 

i know the game and i can do ok out of it - but i know that it is at the expense of others and believe that the world would be a better place if the game was stopped

 

but it is in the process of failing as all con games do once too many are aware of the con

 

i believe in freedom - what do you believe in

 

im quite happy for the free market to sort out the fractional reserve banking problem - just remove the central banking cartel - lender of last resort

 

I believe in freedom too. I believe the banks should be free to fail too. But i also believe that a person should be free to operate a fractional reserve bank and object to the way you are saying it is a con. Either you are doing it deliberately or you dont understand the nature of money.

 

I also believe in you having the freedom to say anything you want but i object to the way you want to pretend you talk about the future with truth but i am in some manner not allowed the same rights.

 

You are guessing about the future and using constructions of reality that make no sense to me to achieve it. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with FRB. But if you create the idea it is a con then you can apparently have logically created reasons why your dreams will come true.

 

So to my way of thinking it comes down to why you say that FRB is a con and seem to want to promote that viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This gives rise to a standardized currency,

 

We dont really have a standardized currency. What we have in each national area is a collection of private currencies that are individually exchangeable in privately created economies which are then connected together by a national currency - supposedly at parity. Then these national currencies are connected to other area currencies and their collection of private currencies connected together supposedly at parity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe in freedom too. I believe the banks should be free to fail too. But i also believe that a person should be free to operate a fractional reserve bank and object to the way you are saying it is a con. Either you are doing it deliberately or you dont understand the nature of money.

 

I also believe in you having the freedom to say anything you want but i object to the way you want to pretend you talk about the future with truth but i am in some manner not allowed the same rights.

 

You are guessing about the future and using constructions of reality that make no sense to me to achieve it. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with FRB. But if you create the idea it is a con then you can apparently have logically created reasons why your dreams will come true.

 

So to my way of thinking it comes down to why you say that FRB is a con and seem to want to promote that viewpoint.

fraction reserve banking is a form of embezzlement - most of the population believe that their money is safe - it isnt

 

i dont have a problem with it if people are made aware of the facts - but once they are aware of the facts the banking system as it works today collapses

 

remove the central bank and the Goverment gurantees (they dont have the money to cover the costs) and see what happens

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We dont really have a standardized currency. What we have in each national area is a collection of private currencies that are individually exchangeable in privately created economies which are then connected together by a national currency - supposedly at parity. Then these national currencies are connected to other area currencies and their collection of private currencies connected together supposedly at parity.

Exactly. Once the currencies were no longer fixed... the idea was to allow the [global fx] market itself to "price" the currencies [Washington Consensus/ market fundamentalism]. Given that standardized currencies allowed [efficient] markets to emerge in the first place, this seems quite odd. No small wonder that the [non-standardized] currency sysytem we have at present is becoming increasingly unstable. This is also why I think we will go back to gold..... for purely pragmatic reasons of course.

 

I'm reminded of Baron Von Munchausen pulling himself and his horse out of the bog by his pigtail. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You replaced my words with your own

 

You might as well say you are not stealing my home if you replace me with yourself.

 

And for more idiot logic you want to tell me it is unnatural to have fractional reserve banking because you want to be able to profit as a saver and to hell with everybody else.

 

And then you want to ramble on about the failure of the collective while promoting the collective that is the von mises institute.

 

And it seems it all boils down to you and your other individuals who think that life is unfair and you are not getting what everybody else is getting.

 

Just to get this clear... are you saying fractional reserve banking of fiat currency (i.e. in unbacked monetary systems) in its current form is a sucessful and historically common place mode of operation?

 

Personally from what i've read of history FRB only really came about with the establishment of gold reserves in instituational banking a few hundred years ago and even then was based on an underlying commodity asset ie. gold/silver.

 

Additionally i am not aware of any fiat currency that has survived in it's original form for any prolonged period of time (i.e. 50 years). The dollar came off its gold standard and the pound was re-adjusted both in the 1970's. More recently the euro was brought in to replace a number of european currencies.

 

Every time a fiat currency has 'hit the wall' so to speak its underlying value is re-adjusted to suit the prevailing issues and limitations of the crises at that time. A dollar today is not the dollar of 50 years in anything other than name, same for sterling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. Once the currencies were no longer fixed... the idea was to allow the [global fx] market itself to "price" the currencies [Washington Consensus/ market fundamentalism]. Given that standardized currencies allowed [efficient] markets to emerge in the first place, this seems quite odd. No small wonder that the [non-standardized] currency sysytem we have at present is becoming increasingly unstable. This is also why I think we will go back to gold..... for purely pragmatic reasons of course.

 

We are avoiding gold for purely 'pragmatic' reasons also. Unless you can compel government signatories by force of nuclear annilation that they wont devalue their national currency against gold i dont see how this gold system is going to be the magic bullet when most of the money used will not be gold but instead gold claims. Today nobody has to hold somebody elses currency if they dont want to other than for the small moment in time when payment is made if payment in that currency is required.

 

Gold money is prone to:

 

Uncontrollable deflation as claims go back to the gold asset with no government power to prevent this short of confiscation or devaluation.

 

Hoarding which creates uncontrollable deflation unless the gold is confiscated etc

 

Wars where the more successful economy gets 'all or your money' and you cannot have an economy until you go and get it back. A truelly rediculous situation.

 

There is absolutely no way we are going to go back to gold money!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely no way we are going to go back to gold money!

What happened to pragmatism? :lol:

 

How can you be 100% certain we won't. Obviously there is a lot of reluctance by bankers towards gold, but if we get massive instability in currencies, and money piling into gold, I think a good case can be made out that governments will have no choice. Essentially they will have to stabilize/ fix current currencies to gold. Otherwise, money will just continue to go into gold, killing economies. Gold is already at 1150. Gold at 2000 might involve quite an economic mess.

 

Gold money? Not sure about that... that would be back to primitive trade. More like some kind of international gold standard, a new reserve currency to which current currencies are stabilized/ fixed. Might even involve a modest fractional reserve. Oh, and they can fix the Yuan/dollar peg problem while they are at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happened to pragmatism? :lol:

 

How can you be 100% certain we won't. Obviously there is a lot of reluctance by bankers towards gold, but if we get massive instability in currencies, and money piling into gold, I think a good case can be made out that governments will have no choice. Essentially they will have to stabilize/ fix current currencies to gold. Otherwise, money will just continue to go into gold, killing economies.

 

Gold money? Not sure about that... more like some kind of international gold standard. Might even involve a modest fractional reserve. Oh, and they can fix the Yuan/dollar peg problem while they are at it.

 

Ben Bernanke said a few years back that he has the gold price on his desk in one form or another each working day.

 

Greenspan was also playing around with fixing the dollar to gold.

 

Meanwhile all the nonesense about printing money has come to sweet FA as far as all of that hyperinflation by next june stuff, that was all the rage about 2 junes ago!

 

Money cannot really go into gold. All that can happen is the gold i have is sold to you where i get dollars when i did not want gold. Gold is useless for most people unless it can buy them something sooner or later. Gold is just like any commodity. Even aluminium is giving gold a run for its money i expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Bernanke said a few years back that he has the gold price on his desk in one form or another each working day.

 

Greenspan was also playing around with fixing the dollar to gold.

Kind of says it all right?

 

Gold is useless for most people unless it can buy them something sooner or later.

Agree. It's just a means to an end. "Money" shouldn't be considered an end.

 

Money cannot really go into gold. All that can happen is the gold i have is sold to you where i get dollars when i did not want gold

 

I think the rules could be different in a debt deflation. In a debt deflation, a lot of "anti-money", debt is being destroyed. So say I put my savings into gold. The person who sold me the gold, might have to pay off debts. So we are looking at money/ capital going to gold in order to survive, as it's being destroyed in other assets, or used to pay off loans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm interested in the monetary system, but there seems to be a load of sketchy information around, so it's hard to know what to believe.

 

I've watched Zeitgeist 1+2 and Money is Debt cartoons, but people have warned me off these sources. For a more rigorous perspective I got hold of a copy of Macroeconomics by Mankiw, which does have a chapter on Fiat Money and Inflation, and explains its existence as being for convenience, and for Seigniorage. Also that inflation helps labor markets. Obviously it doesn't go into theories about the origin of the Fed, or Rothchild/Illuminati type stuff, or central banks enslaving humanity, so how far can this really be believed?

 

the purpose of a fiat monetary system is to aid theft and extortion on a massive scale.

 

and no it doesn't help labour markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the rules could be different in a debt deflation. In a debt deflation, a lot of "anti-money", debt is being destroyed. So say I put my savings into gold. The person who sold me the gold, might have to pay off debts. So we are looking at money/ capital going to gold in order to survive, as it's being destroyed in other assets, or used to pay off loans.

 

If the person selling gold does so to clear debts, and you buy to save, there is no difference.

 

Money cannot go into gold. Your money can go into gold but somebody elses money has to come out of gold for that to happen.

 

The price of gold will be driven by which person has the greater willingness to trade.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the person selling gold does so to clear debts, and you buy to save, there is no difference.

 

Money cannot go into gold. Your money can go into gold but somebody elses money has to come out of gold for that to happen.

 

The price of gold will be driven by which person has the greater willingness to trade.

OK, strictly speaking money can't "go into" gold, just as it can't go into anything. I think we both agree that money is essentially an idea [lets leave it to the german idealists to work out its ontological status]. However, does that mean we can't loosely say that money goes "into" a currency when other currencies are bidding it up? If this is strictly speaking a fiction, it's still a very useful fiction. My main point has been that money should be viewed pragmatically.

 

For example, look at the way commodity currencies fluctuate against the dollar. I think it perfectly sensible to talk of capital flows between currencies - reflecting buying and selling pressure - which in this case often reflects whether the risk or the risk averse trade is on. The behaviour of gold can also be compared to a commodity currency here.

 

Obviously, as you say, the way prices move depends on whether there is more buying or selling pressure. If buying pressure pushes the price up, I think it's OK to say money is going into gold here.... especially when you consider it may be being "destroyed" [debt deflation] in the aggregate elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, strictly speaking money can't "go into" gold, just as it can't go into anything. I think we both agree that money is essentially an idea [lets leave it to the german idealists to work out its ontological status]. However, does that mean we can't loosely say that money goes "into" a currency when other currencies are bidding it up? If this is strictly speaking a fiction, it's still a very useful fiction. My main point has been that money should be viewed pragmatically.

 

For example, look at the way commodity currencies fluctuate against the dollar. I think it perfectly sensible to talk of capital flows between currencies - reflecting buying and selling pressure - which in this case often reflects whether the risk or the risk averse trade is on. The behaviour of gold can also be compared to a commodity currency here.

 

Obviously, as you say, the way prices move depends on whether there is more buying or selling pressure. If buying pressure pushes the price up, I think it's OK to say money is going into gold here.... especially when you consider it may be being "destroyed" [debt deflation] in the aggregate elsewhere.

 

If you say money goes into gold to bid up the price then you might believe that money has to come out of gold for the price to fall. But we agree it does not. All that is required for the price to fall is an absense of buyers. So for example a buying group could get the price to rise but thereafter they need new buyers or the price will just fall back to where it was when the buyers altered the price from the existing buying and selling. A rising price either needs more money or faster buying/reluctant selling. It seem true therefore that a constant price is always a bubble kept in constant pressure by buying pressure that matches selling pressure? So if an extra buyer appears the pressure increases until a seller is found and thereafter the pressure reduces to the previous constantly churning buyer/seller pressure unless sentiment has changed also.

 

You mentioned debt deflation again. Less money in aggregate, if that is what you mean, means less ability to bid up prices with the same quantity of money. So gold would fall in price unless Gold became more highly sought after at the same time ie faster buying/reluctant selling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mentioned debt deflation again. Less money in aggregate, if that is what you mean, means less ability to bid up prices with the same quantity of money. So gold would fall in price unless Gold became more highly sought after at the same time ie faster buying/reluctant selling.

Yes, debt deflation... and one in which currencies themselves are caught up due to the burgeoning of government debt... shifting risk from the private sector to the public one. The way I see it, within the context of a global debt deflation, certain currencies on the "periphery" will see capital flow/ flight to the core currencies. With currencies destabilized and "problematized", gold looks likely to be one of these beneficial core currencies. The dollar obviously being another. So the price of gold can continue to climb even in a debt deflation as investors/ CBs look to swap their currencies [and assets] for it... while staying liquid. Even in an environment where money is being destroyed, gold can climb in price. It's all relative though... higher gold prices would just be reflecting depreciated currencies. Assets in turn may continue to depreciate against currencies. This would involve a double depreciation in terms of gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this thread has thrown up some fascinating viewpoints and links regarding fiat currency and FRB can I ask about central banks? How do you find out about the structure and ownership of central banks?

 

The perceived wisdom of the population is that the government own and control central banks, however in my simple mind that argument doesn't stack up. If the governments own and control central banks then why do they need to sell bonds and borrow money, then repay it with interest by taxation or selling more bonds? Also what about a central bank like the ECB that is the central bank for different countries using the same currency but with different economies?

 

If I owned the central bank and wanted to buy a house I would have the central bank create the money and give it to me rather than get a mortgage at RBS if you follow my simple and perhaps flawed logic. :unsure:

 

Is it really the too TFH (for me currently) Bilderberg / Trilateral / Zionist / Rothschild / JPM "conspiracy theories" or is there a more simple less extravagant explanation and ownership / structure?

 

Apologies if I have gone off topic but my Google searches on the subject don't satisfy my curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, debt deflation... and one in which currencies themselves are caught up due to the burgeoning of government debt... shifting risk from the private sector to the public one. The way I see it, within the context of a global debt deflation, certain currencies on the "periphery" will see capital flow/ flight to the core currencies. With currencies destabilized and "problematized", gold looks likely to be one of these beneficial core currencies. The dollar obviously being another. So the price of gold can continue to climb even in a debt deflation as investors/ CBs look to swap their currencies [and assets] for it... while staying liquid. Even in an environment where money is being destroyed, gold can climb in price. It's all relative though... higher gold prices would just be reflecting depreciated currencies. Assets in turn may continue to depreciate against currencies. This would involve a double depreciation in terms of gold.

 

Today there is no such thing as capital flight of a nations currency. all you can have is more of X buying less of Y so that Y buys a great deal in the country of X where X is losing value.

 

What actually do you mean by a debt deflation? It suggests fewer buyers. A global debt deflation appears to suggest a global fall in savings as debt is repaid which again suggests fewer cashed up buyers with savings but instead more potential buyers with assets of all kinds who have less money to spend. More or less taken to its limit if there are no debtors there is nothing to price gold in. In other words in a depression a person can say i am totally penniless and struggling to survive and i hope that one day i can sell my valueable land for more than i paid for it but for now there are no buyers because there is so little money. Even if the person had piles of gold there would be few with any money to buy it. The overall problem would be lack of money to buy things like gold.

 

Maybe by debt deflation you mean a high inflationary recession? ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this thread has thrown up some fascinating viewpoints and links regarding fiat currency and FRB can I ask about central banks? How do you find out about the structure and ownership of central banks?

:(

The perceived wisdom of the population is that the government own and control central banks, however in my simple mind that argument doesn't stack up. If the governments own and control central banks then why do they need to sell bonds and borrow money, then repay it with interest by taxation or selling more bonds? Also what about a central bank like the ECB that is the central bank for different countries using the same currency but with different economies?

 

If I owned the central bank and wanted to buy a house I would have the central bank create the money and give it to me rather than get a mortgage at RBS if you follow my simple and perhaps flawed logic. :unsure:

 

Is it really the too TFH (for me currently) Bilderberg / Trilateral / Zionist / Rothschild / JPM "conspiracy theories" or is there a more simple less extravagant explanation and ownership / structure?

 

Apologies if I have gone off topic but my Google searches on the subject don't satisfy my curiosity.

 

I highlighted this part. Percieved wisdom is a great thing and often, as in this case, utterly wrong. The US people or government does not in any way, shape or form 'own' the Fed. Similarly in the UK their is no 'ownership' of the BoE.

 

Both these instituations are essentially supra-banks whose boards are made up of banking sector professionals and associated financial accademics. They are not publically elected or accountable.

 

One of the reasons this is often mistaken is that government take great pains to look like they are in control i.e. the letter from the BoE to the government if inflation targets aren't met. In reality the Central Banks are pretty much given free reign until a problem or crisis occurs.

 

If you haven't already done so go spend some time watching the Crash Course. It's sometimes oversimplified but it paints the picture very well:

 

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this thread has thrown up some fascinating viewpoints and links regarding fiat currency and FRB can I ask about central banks? How do you find out about the structure and ownership of central banks?

 

The perceived wisdom of the population is that the government own and control central banks, however in my simple mind that argument doesn't stack up. If the governments own and control central banks then why do they need to sell bonds and borrow money, then repay it with interest by taxation or selling more bonds? Also what about a central bank like the ECB that is the central bank for different countries using the same currency but with different economies?

 

If I owned the central bank and wanted to buy a house I would have the central bank create the money and give it to me rather than get a mortgage at RBS if you follow my simple and perhaps flawed logic. :unsure:

 

Is it really the too TFH (for me currently) Bilderberg / Trilateral / Zionist / Rothschild / JPM "conspiracy theories" or is there a more simple less extravagant explanation and ownership / structure?

 

Apologies if I have gone off topic but my Google searches on the subject don't satisfy my curiosity.

 

Many of the central banks are privately owned. The Fed and ECB at least are privately owned. The ECB being owned by the member central banks of each country in the euro which are then owned by whoever owns them. I suspect the BOE is privately owned. More or less we do have government by corporation.

 

The basic idea today is that the amount of money issued into the economy is controlled not by the desire to spend by whichever plonker is in government but rather by the rate of inflation. And of course governments lie about inflation.

 

Even so the basic idea is that central banks are at arms length from governments ability to be able to spend in an unlimited manner. If the government spends into existance the national currency in an unlimited manner it simply devalues the currency.

 

So the method does make at least some sense. Importantly people who go on about money printing are generally totally wrong as for example 'hyperinflation by june 2008 100% guaranteed'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today there is no such thing as capital flight of a nations currency. all you can have is more of X buying less of Y so that Y buys a great deal in the country of X where X is losing value.

 

What actually do you mean by a debt deflation? It suggests fewer buyers. A global debt deflation appears to suggest a global fall in savings as debt is repaid which again suggests fewer cashed up buyers with savings but instead more potential buyers with assets of all kinds who have less money to spend. More or less taken to its limit if there are no debtors there is nothing to price gold in. In other words in a depression a person can say i am totally penniless and struggling to survive and i hope that one day i can sell my valueable land for more than i paid for it but for now there are no buyers because there is so little money. Even if the person had piles of gold there would be few with any money to buy it. The overall problem would be lack of money to buy things like gold.

 

Maybe by debt deflation you mean a high inflationary recession? ??

It depends which way you look at it. On the one hand you have all the dynamics of a debt deflation as consumers look to pay down debt and/ or save. Then on the other hand you may have increasing prices in certain "peripheral" countries due to a depreciated currency.... Britain may be a case of this [though I wonder if demand destruction might put some downward pressure on prices even as there is pressure for prices to move up due to currency depreciation].

 

So much for the real economy, then we have the financial economy, where investors rather than sitting on cash, as you would think they would in a debt deflation, have the extra complication of thinking about the worth of that cash in a global market..... where the currency of a country can be susceptible to speculative attack. The idea here is uncertainty and increased instability in the currency system... so much so that investors are increasingly willing to put some of their reserves into gold [just as CBs have been doing]. I've used the idea of hyper-deflation to denote a global deflation within which certain currencies may depreciate against others... and then all against gold. What's at stake here is the Washington Consensus/ market fundamentalist assumption that currencies can themselves freely trade, like commodities, on the fx market.

 

You mention the fact of less buyers. This is exactly what is envisaged in Exter's reverse liquidity triangle. But a reversal in thinking towards gold may be required here. Rather than being an asset, or investment, that investors buy, it becomes a form of super-liquidity, even better than some dodgy currencies, as investors seek to escape from increasingly illiquid assets.

 

Exetersinversepyramid.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends which way you look at it. On the one hand you have all the dynamics of a debt deflation as consumers look to pay down debt and/ or save. Then on the other hand you may have increasing prices in certain "peripheral" countries due to a depreciated currency.... Britain may be a case of this [though I wonder if demand destruction might put some downward pressure on prices even as there is pressure for prices to move up due to currency depreciation].

 

So much for the real economy, then we have the financial economy, where investors rather than sitting on cash, as you would think they would in a debt deflation, have the extra complication of thinking about the worth of that cash in a global market..... where the currency of a country can be susceptible to speculative attack. The idea here is uncertainty and increased instability in the currency system... so much so that investors are increasingly willing to put some of their reserves into gold [just as CBs have been doing]. I've used the idea of hyper-deflation to denote a global deflation within which certain currencies may depreciate against others... and then all against gold. What's at stake here is the Washington Consensus/ market fundamentalist assumption that currencies can themselves freely trade, like commodities, on the fx market.

 

You mention the fact of less buyers. This is exactly what is envisaged in Exter's reverse liquidity triangle. But a reversal in thinking towards gold may be required here. Rather than being an asset, or investment, that investors buy, it becomes a form of super-liquidity, even better than some dodgy currencies, as investors seek to escape from increasingly illiquid assets.

 

Exetersinversepyramid.jpg

 

As far as money from the private banks goes Debt equals savings. So if debt is repaid savings reduces in equal amount. Most save by paying down debt and owning more of their asset as it were. Other wise the savers are getting poorer and the earners are getting those savings and the earnings go towards paying down debt. By definition debt equals savings.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×