Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 09-05-2011, 06:13 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatMan View Post
Uh...how is inflation real and CPI an illusion?
Money is only as good as what it buys. Relative to gold/platinum, the dollar has been losing value. It appears the FED has been keeping us in line with CPI, but everything might have gotten cheaper with real wages rising if backed by hard assets.

Quote:
So, we should let housing prices plunge without doing anything (like, say, a helicopter drop to every taxpayer), leading to an increased real debt load (since money will be tighter because homeowners will have to spend more on debt financing), which would depress household spending further, helping to exacerbate the demand problem. Sign me up!
When houses get cheap enough, people start buying them. The entire home construction market is idle because nobody wants to take a loss on their homes. A helicopter drop is more moral hazard. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, but what makes you Keynesians so sure?

Quote:
One can't be Hayekian and Keynesian?
No.

Quote:
Housing bubble wasn't too terrible.
The current aggregate demand problem is a direct result of the housing bubble.

Quote:
How much of that will be because of skills deterioration from the fact that we're too busy being afraid of the deficit and non-existent inflation than trying to get to full employment.
I do worry about this.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-06-2011, 01:21 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
An updated CPI has been suggested, but is not used. I don't know why that would make the point moot. I think that's fairly critical when saying something like inflation hasn't moved for 30 years. Even if you don't want to track dollars to gold because gold is in a bubble, you can still measure against platinum. Inflation is real; CPI is an illusion.
What is fairly critical? Low stable inflation since Volcker tamed it was called the great moderation. People wrote thesis on this subject.

Speaking of gold if you adjust for inflation it is still below its peak in 1980. But what makes gold or platinum so special? Can't we use rice instead? Or how about canned soup? My favorite is the price of a McDonalds Hamburger, which has actually experienced a bit of deflation since 1950s. If you are arguing for the prices the citizenry has to pay these are more relevant than gold and platinum.

Quote:
Krugman is relevant because he and all Keynesians have been repeating the same mantra. I'm not saying he's wrong. What I'm saying is that there are other smart people who say we ought not be so sure. I agree, however, that we have a demand problem. This could also be fixed by letting house prices plunge like they're supposed to.
Let me see how this goes:

1. Krugman says X in 2002.
2. Krugman and I both say Y in 2011.
3. You don't like X.
4. Since I agree with Krugman on Y I am also responsible for X.

Ah, I see it now! Nicely deduced.

Quote:
At BBC4, those were economists at the debate. I'd like to know your reasons for dismissing Hayekians and extending credibility to Keynesians.
I have provided evidence that Hayek would favor very strong easing by the Fed right now.

Quote:
I'm not so sure after the manufacture of an artificial housing bubble. That was the easing.
Again, Hayek was not talking about bubbles and housing. He supported NGDP targeting. US has been well below target for nearly 4 years, so we need more easing.

Quote:
But we were talking Sumner. France has a generous welfare state and they've been at 9-12% unemployment for a quarter century. Sumner acknowledges the demand problem. After easing, what if unemployment stays high? Because I'm betting it will.
So in your opinion even with easing unemployment would stay high. Ignoring the fact that QE 2.0 lowered unemployment from 9.8% to 8.8% for a moment. I don't see what the downside of easing is then. We have 9.1% unemployment already! And it would also help exports by weakening the dollar.

Quote:
Our debt is closer to 100% of GDP if counting intragovernmental holdings. Could you tell me why it's okay to ignore $4.5 trillion?
Consistency. The figures for EU countries don't contain the debt you are adding to US public debt.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-06-2011, 01:34 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romanized View Post
Yep. Zero percent interest rates from now until and two rounds of quantitative easing is precisely the equivalent of sitting on your hands. Gee, you lefties get belligerent when your pet policies are exposed as impotent.
I am not a lefty and the policy I am arguing for is not a leftist one. But these facts aside do you realize how weak your argument is?

Lets say we have a child who has an infection, we give him some fluids and Tylenol for the pain and fever but the kid gets worse. We take him/her to the hospital they give him some Penicillin but it does not work. They switch to Minocycline but that does not work either. Finally the doctor says: 'probably it is MRSA, we should start Vancomycine stat'. You say 'two courses of antibiotic have failed, this proves antibiotics are just a conspiracy to make big pharma rich, I am taking my child to a homeopathic healing center.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-06-2011, 01:40 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallax View Post
I am not a lefty and the policy I am arguing for is not a leftist one. But these facts aside do you realize how weak your argument is?

Lets say we have a child who has an infection, we give him some fluids and Tylenol for the pain and fever but the kid gets worse. We take him/her to the hospital they give him some Penicillin but it does not work. They switch to Minocycline but that does not work either. Finally the doctor says: 'probably it is MRSA, we should start Vancomycine stat'. You say 'two courses of antibiotic have failed, this proves antibiotics are just a conspiracy to make big pharma rich, I am taking my child to a homeopathic healing center.
Good analogy.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-06-2011, 01:46 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Money is only as good as what it buys. Relative to gold/platinum, the dollar has been losing value. It appears the FED has been keeping us in line with CPI, but everything might have gotten cheaper with real wages rising if backed by hard assets.
CPI is not a number central bankers pull out of their behind. It is based on things people actually buy. Why do you think we have CPI less food and energy?? Because the good old CPI has food and energy items in it!

Quote:
When houses get cheap enough, people start buying them. The entire home construction market is idle because nobody wants to take a loss on their homes. A helicopter drop is more moral hazard. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, but what makes you Keynesians so sure?
You see this is exactly the problem. What you are stating is called Say's law which essentially says supply creates its own demand. Now in ordinary times this works. But these are not ordinary times and if you don't believe me find me the last instance when the yield on US treasuries fell below 2%.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-06-2011, 04:32 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallax View Post
CPI is not a number central bankers pull out of their behind. It is based on things people actually buy. Why do you think we have CPI less food and energy?? Because the good old CPI has food and energy items in it!
Okay, when I said CPI is an illusion, I did not mean to suggest that it is completely irrelevant. CPI is an inadequate measure, not an irrelevant one. That's why I said that updates to CPI have been suggested, but haven't been implemented.

Quote:
You see this is exactly the problem. What you are stating is called Say's law which essentially says supply creates its own demand. Now in ordinary times this works. But these are not ordinary times and if you don't believe me find me the last instance when the yield on US treasuries fell below 2%.
House prices have returned to historical levels. But when demand is low, people don't just start buying them. They need to drop further. I'd consult Robert Shiller who runs the Case-Shiller indices on house prices.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-06-2011, 04:46 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallax View Post
Speaking of gold if you adjust for inflation it is still below its peak in 1980. But what makes gold or platinum so special? Can't we use rice instead? Or how about canned soup? My favorite is the price of a McDonalds Hamburger, which has actually experienced a bit of deflation since 1950s. If you are arguing for the prices the citizenry has to pay these are more relevant than gold and platinum.
I agree. I don't know what caused you to think otherwise.

Quote:
Let me see how this goes:

1. Krugman says X in 2002.
2. Krugman and I both say Y in 2011.
3. You don't like X.
4. Since I agree with Krugman on Y I am also responsible for X.

Ah, I see it now! Nicely deduced.
I don't know why you keep missing the other parts to my argument. We are agreed that we have a demand problem. I only purport to have some humility on the matter and to the proper fixes. You're advocating a Keynesian policy. This Recession was caused by that policy. It's possible that we may need a crap ton of inflation to get out of this mess and I've said so in another thread. That doesn't make it crystal clear that we should.

Humility is my argument.

Quote:
I have provided evidence that Hayek would favor very strong easing by the Fed right now.
And I've said that the house bubble was the easing. Hayekians say that you can't have easing on top of easing. The idea is that QE1 worked, QE2 didn't, and QE3 will be more trouble than it's worth. Am I sure that this is right? No. But what makes you sure that it isn't?

Quote:
Again, Hayek was not talking about bubbles and housing. He supported NGDP targeting. US has been well below target for nearly 4 years, so we need more easing.
I don't know what you mean by this.

Quote:
So in your opinion even with easing unemployment would stay high. Ignoring the fact that QE 2.0 lowered unemployment from 9.8% to 8.8% for a moment. I don't see what the downside of easing is then. We have 9.1% unemployment already! And it would also help exports by weakening the dollar.
I've answered this.


Quote:
Consistency. The figures for EU countries don't contain the debt you are adding to US public debt.
If you want consistency, then before comparing our debt to Europeans, shouldn't we consult Americans on whether or not intragovernmental debt is debt?

Here's what PBS says on the matter.

I get the feeling that you want certain facts to be true. I'm only interested in what actually is.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-08-2011, 07:13 PM
Flaw Flaw is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 84
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

I'm not interested in seeing Tim Fernholz back on the show.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-09-2011, 03:57 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Okay, when I said CPI is an illusion, I did not mean to suggest that it is completely irrelevant. CPI is an inadequate measure, not an irrelevant one. That's why I said that updates to CPI have been suggested, but haven't been implemented.
OK this is an academic discussion better left to economists. And as far as I know a majority of them are happy with either core or median CPI. If the consensus changes then we can talk, but as long as changing CPI is only heard from fringe economists (same goldbug anti-Fed crowd) and political activists it is just not credible.

Quote:
House prices have returned to historical levels. But when demand is low, people don't just start buying them. They need to drop further. I'd consult Robert Shiller who runs the Case-Shiller indices on house prices.
How far do the prices have to fall? When is it too much depreciation? Or is there anything like that at all? This view is most widely known as real business cycle theory which has been greatly discredited by ... reality.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-09-2011, 04:11 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallax View Post
How far do the prices have to fall? When is it too much depreciation? Or is there anything like that at all? This view is most widely known as real business cycle theory which has been greatly discredited by ... reality.
Glenn Loury and Ross Levine discuss this briefly in the latest diavlog. Home prices are being propped up by Fannie and Freddie. There are a number of proposals that have been put on the table of which mortgage workouts are one; Ross says that none of the ones he's come across are particularly palatable.

Make no mistake about it. The primary problem of demand is what I've said. House prices are too high. This isn't crank theory; it's Krugman. The reason we don't allow for prices to just drop to equilibrium is that demand would be even worse. This last part is plausible, but I'm skeptical. Either way, no one's going to do anything about it, so expect the problem to go on for another 4 years.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-09-2011, 04:37 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I don't know why you keep missing the other parts to my argument. We are agreed that we have a demand problem. I only purport to have some humility on the matter and to the proper fixes. You're advocating a Keynesian policy. This Recession was caused by that policy. It's possible that we may need a crap ton of inflation to get out of this mess and I've said so in another thread. That doesn't make it crystal clear that we should.

Humility is my argument.
We are discussing policy here, right? Policy does not get better with humility. That might be a factor in selling it but not in it effectiveness. Furthermore this whole thread we have been talking monetary policy. I am asking the Fed to do the following:

1. Eliminate interest on excess reserve (if memory serves Fed never paid interest on reserves so this is just revoking something that did not even exist 3 years ago before the Lehman collapse).

2. Switch its portfolio from short term treasuries to long term treasuries (note that this would not change the size of its balance sheet).

3. Start QE 3.0 at a rate of 100 - 200 billion per month in long term treasuries until the unemployment drops below 7.5%.

These are not Keynesian policies, if you read Krugman you can see how dismissive he has been of monetary policy at zero lower bound. A Keynesian policy would be a trillion dollar fiscal stimulus to be implemented immediately.

Also for all the talk of humility you seem awfully certain what caused the crisis. I am not sure about that at all. I am not even convinced that the housing bubble was the main cause, after all the housing bubble burst in late 2005/early 2006 and US did not go into recession until two years later.


Quote:
And I've said that the house bubble was the easing. Hayekians say that you can't have easing on top of easing. The idea is that QE1 worked, QE2 didn't, and QE3 will be more trouble than it's worth. Am I sure that this is right? No. But what makes you sure that it isn't?
You can't have easing on top of easing? What does that mean? The Fed can't lower interest rates twice in a row? And if lowering interest does not count why do QEs count? And who said QE 2 did not work? It worked perfectly well its only problem was that it had a ceiling. The Fed should not have a fixed amount for Quantitate Easing. The textbook QE ties it to unemployment rate or a level of Nominal GDP.

Quote:
If you want consistency, then before comparing our debt to Europeans, shouldn't we consult Americans on whether or not intragovernmental debt is debt?

Here's what PBS says on the matter.

I get the feeling that you want certain facts to be true. I'm only interested in what actually is.
My point was that you have to compare gross debt to gross debt and public debt to public debt (public debt does not include intragovernmental debt). EU countries have intragovernmental debt of their own. Now you may ask if my figures were public debt or gross debt and upon reflection they might be gross debt in which case you are correct and it would be appropriate to look at US gross debt rather than public debt.

But even after adding the intragovernmental debt the US situation is markedly better than the EU countries: Greece's debt is way passed any reasonable limit and like I said Ireland's problem is that it decided to guarantee its banks. That leaves Portugal which has a debt level similar to US. But then you can look at markets: Portugal's 10-year notes have a yield of ~ 11% while for US that number is hovering around 2%. Obviously people have decided that US will pay its debt, no problem.

PS: Again people who oppose Fed easing should not call themselves Hayekians. Hayek was for targeting NGDP which in turn implies additional substantial easing.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-09-2011, 04:47 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Glenn Loury and Ross Levine discuss this briefly in the latest diavlog. Home prices are being propped up by Fannie and Freddie. There are a number of proposals that have been put on the table of which mortgage workouts are one; Ross says that none of the ones he's come across are particularly palatable.

Make no mistake about it. The primary problem of demand is what I've said. House prices are too high. This isn't crank theory; it's Krugman. The reason we don't allow for prices to just drop to equilibrium is that demand would be even worse. This last part is plausible, but I'm skeptical. Either way, no one's going to do anything about it, so expect the problem to go on for another 4 years.
The real problem is household balance sheets. House prices are falling and since people owe a great deal to their bank on their house this hurts, a lot. So the solution is to make the overall debt smaller you can do this in two ways:

1. Government transfers the debt from households to public. For example we could have a fiscal stimulus where the government mailed everyone a $5,000 check.

2. Inflation. This happens if Fed starts to ease and do so vigorously.

Of course one could envision a combination of 1 and 2 where government sells its debt directly to the Fed to pay for the helicopter drop. But sadly that is not something I expect to happen ...
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-09-2011, 04:55 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Glenn Loury and Ross Levine discuss this briefly in the latest diavlog. Home prices are being propped up by Fannie and Freddie. There are a number of proposals that have been put on the table of which mortgage workouts are one; Ross says that none of the ones he's come across are particularly palatable.

Make no mistake about it. The primary problem of demand is what I've said. House prices are too high. This isn't crank theory; it's Krugman. The reason we don't allow for prices to just drop to equilibrium is that demand would be even worse. This last part is plausible, but I'm skeptical. Either way, no one's going to do anything about it, so expect the problem to go on for another 4 years.
The real problem is household balance sheets. House prices are falling and since people owe a great deal to their bank on their house this hurts, a lot. So the solution is to make the overall debt smaller you can do this in two ways:

1. Government transfers the debt from households to public. For example we could have a fiscal stimulus where the government mailed everyone a $5,000 check.

2. Inflation. This happens if Fed starts to ease and do so vigorously.

Of course one could envision a combination of 1 and 2 where government sells its debt directly to the Fed to pay for the helicopter drop. But sadly that is not something I expect to happen ...
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-09-2011, 04:57 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Glenn Loury and Ross Levine discuss this briefly in the latest diavlog. Home prices are being propped up by Fannie and Freddie. There are a number of proposals that have been put on the table of which mortgage workouts are one; Ross says that none of the ones he's come across are particularly palatable.

Make no mistake about it. The primary problem of demand is what I've said. House prices are too high. This isn't crank theory; it's Krugman. The reason we don't allow for prices to just drop to equilibrium is that demand would be even worse. This last part is plausible, but I'm skeptical. Either way, no one's going to do anything about it, so expect the problem to go on for another 4 years.
The real problem is household balance sheets. House prices are falling and since people owe a great deal to their bank on their house this hurts, a lot. So the solution is to make the overall debt smaller you can do this in two ways:

1. Government transfers the debt from households to public. For example we could have a fiscal stimulus where the government mailed everyone a $5,000 check.

2. Inflation. This happens if Fed starts to ease and do so vigorously.

Of course one could envision a combination of 1 and 2 where government sells its debt directly to the Fed to pay for the helicopter drop. But sadly that is not something I expect to happen ...
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-09-2011, 08:23 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallax View Post
But sadly that is not something I expect to happen ...
We are finally agreed.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-10-2011, 02:36 PM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Reality vs McArdle

On Friday the 10-year treasury yield closed on 1.92%.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-22-2011, 12:30 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Reality vs McArdle II

Wednesday Sep. 21st: the 10-year treasury yield is 1.81%.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-22-2011, 01:36 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Reality vs McArdle II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallax View Post
Wednesday Sep. 21st: the 10-year treasury yield is 1.81%.
Thanks for adding some data. I can't believe we're leaving money on the table like this.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-22-2011, 07:46 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Reality vs McArdle II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Thanks for adding some data. I can't believe we're leaving money on the table like this.
You are welcome. In fact right now it has gone down to 1.77%.

We are headed for big losses today and Friday I think. Beside the stock market commodities are down too: WTI crude is down more than 4% now trading slightly above $82 per barrel. I doubt we will get a replay of 2008 as some predict but it is going to be ugly. If the payroll tax goes up in January it will be uglier, if there is a government shut down between now and end of the year then the situation will be catastrophic. Next Fed meeting is on Nov. 2nd up until then there will be nothing to improve the markets.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-01-2011, 02:39 PM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Reality vs McArdle III

As I am writing this now the 10 year treasury yield is 2.04% and the 30 year is 3.06%.

Right before the recession on Nov 1st 2007 those numbers were 4.36% and 4.64% respectively.

And if Greece actually holds a referendum and voted no for the bailout the yields will fall even lower ...
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 11-01-2011, 04:45 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Reality vs McArdle III

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallax View Post
As I am writing this now the 10 year treasury yield is 2.04% and the 30 year is 3.06%.

Right before the recession on Nov 1st 2007 those numbers were 4.36% and 4.64% respectively.

And if Greece actually holds a referendum and voted no for the bailout the yields will fall even lower ...
NGDP targeting.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-01-2011, 10:30 PM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Reality vs McArdle III

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
NGDP targeting.
I don't get your point.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-21-2011, 07:14 PM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Reality vs McArdle IV

Today the 10 & 30 year treasury yields were 1.96% and 2.94% respectively.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-23-2011, 05:06 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Re: Reality vs McArdle IV

The price of US debt is going up: right now the 10 & 30 year treasury yields are 1.91% and 2.87%.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-15-2011, 01:17 AM
Parallax Parallax is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 219
Default Reality vs McArdle V

Bond yields for US treasuries:

10 year: 1.88
10 year (inflation adjusted): -0.07
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.