The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Our paradigm of banking regulation is shot > Comments

Our paradigm of banking regulation is shot : Comments

By Andy Schmulow, published 2/9/2009

In the wake of the GFC there needs to be a radical overhaul of banking regulation, bypassing the state in favour of the market.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Andy, as is widely acknowledged the GFC was brought on mostly by the failure of the Americans to regulate their own market. The better regulated Australian market held up quite well in the crisis, with no major institutions here going under. Markets boom and bust, its what they do, but at least strong regulation of the financial sector will make the busts far less uncomfortable than they would otherwise be.
To make any case for reducing regulations you would have to draw a very strong link between regulation and the bust which the article fails to do.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 11:41:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea that insurance and its premium can be used to control risk in lending is interesting, but it relies on the idea that someone can effectively calculate the likelihood of future outcomes. The GFC, specifically the role of the ratings agencies, showed (yet again) that we aren’t very good at this.

Adding more regulation, while it might be some peoples preferred option, it is not the only possible path. A less regulated, more volatile system may lead to more innovation and a more regular culling of unviable institutions, lessening the impact when they do fail. As to regulators being able to foresee future outcomes and design regulation so that it allows innovation while preventing unwanted instability, see point one
Posted by Grumbler, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 12:38:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What strange logic.

"Shareholders and consumers have learned the hard way that bankrupt banks take the rest of the economy down with them."

Which was, of course, why governments adopted the highly unpopular strategy of borrowing from future taxation, to prevent as many as possible from going down the tubes.

But apparently, governments stepping in like this is, somehow, a bad thing.

"...what was the response to this series of stuff-ups? An ever greater determination to rely on the state to regulate bank"

Watch out baby, the bathwater is on the move...

>>we should... admit we have a problem. Our paradigm of banking regulation is shot.<<

That is akin to suggesting that because our jails are full of criminals, our justice system has failed.

"insurers will insure against earthquakes. So why not insure a bank against insolvency?"

I can think of a few reasons, straight off the top of my head.

One, of course, that immediately springs to mind, is that insurance companies were shown to be not entirely in control of their risks in the existing regime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/business/17insure.html

AIG has so far needed more than $100 billion to keep them afloat. That's a lot of billions.

And these are the people the author suggests should evaluate the risks of Banking, and act as regulator?

"This just goes to show you shouldn’t hire an economist to design your house."

But when it comes to Banking in Australia, we should take advice from a South African Arts/Law graduate?

Quaint.

As I said, strange logic indeed.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 1:43:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugger that.
Too big to fail = Too big to exist.
Break them up and destroy their ability to effect the whole world with their greed and usury!
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 3:38:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For every hundred hacking at the branches, there is only one striking the root."

Why no mention of the Federal Reserve? Presumably a monopoly power, and a chronic policy, of inflating the money supply has no effect on money, credit or banking.

The steering mechanism of any market is the price mechanism.

The price of money is controlled by government: that's what the central banks are for.

The price of shoes is not regulated by government, and no wild booms or busts there. The price of white-goods is not regulated by government. No wild booms or busts there. The price of food is not regulated by government. No wild booms or busts there either.

But the price of money is regulated by government, and surprise surprise, we have the curious coincidence: the mechanism for harmonising supply with demand is controlled by national socialist central planning committees, and we have massive wild upswings and depressing downswings, legal privileges for political favourites, and enormous economic waste, dislocation and hardship.

According to the orthodoxy, this has nothing to do with monetary policy, which is presumptively beneficial or neutral.

The idea that a money supply *less* regulated by government would be *more* volatile is mistaken. In the absence of the government monopoly and its endless interest in inflation to fund imperial wars, and politicians' welfare-state handouts, the result would most probably be:
1. a slow growth in the money supply
2. slow but steady compounding economic growth
3. a rise in the general living standard of all, including in environmental quality
4. gradually falling prices: ie money gaining in value
5. an end to the cycle of greedy booms and depressing busts
6. greater individual liberty, and more effective control by society over government's anti-social and criminal tendencies.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 4:51:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we shouldn't have economist building houses please stop lawyers lecturing on topics they know nothing about. Most of the hybrid securities that undermined the world financial systems were insured. However the lack of proper anti trust legislation to stop monopolies meant that there was no impediment to one insurer being the insurer of all the banks and the hybrid securities. Hence the insurer simply could not pay out on the policy.

The dependance of the price mechanism to fully signal all costs and risks to the market is the root cause of the problem. As an earlier post stated Australia has survived relatively unscathed because of a better regulatory regime. By relying on the price signal we ignore concepts of imperfect information, irrational behaviour on behalf of investors. When price to earnings ratios are significantly higher than historic trends why do investors continue to buy stock? Simply because they think other mugs will keep on buying and hence they can time the market to beat the correction. Hence the price is distorted from long term value and is not an accurate assessment of true risk.

We need a fundamental rethink of monetary policy, unless we reject the neoclassical chicago monetarist religion we will only repeat the mistakes of the past.
Posted by slasher, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 6:17:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The monetarists did not believe in the market determining the price of money. They thought the role of monetary policy was to constantly increase the supply of money.

That religion had in common with the Marxian and Keynesian religions the beliefs that all the statists champion but are too scared, or disingenuous, to openly defend, namely:
1. governmental inflation of the money supply has no connection to the booms and busts;
2. government's creation of new money does not confer exclusive benefits on privileged interests and defraud the poor and middle class;
3. governmental inflation of the money supply is a process by which we can create real wealth - ports, and bridges and hospitals - simply by stamping pieces of paper;
4. the wealth appearing under this process is not mere wealth distribution: it is net real wealth creation.
5. thus there is no reason in principle why government could not abolish the scarcity of capital, and make us all independently wealthy, without the need for anyone to engage in productive activity.
6. the criterion of efficient markets is a state of equilibrium in which no further action is possible. Government should strive to impose that state of affairs on society by forced redistributions guided by self-interested academic eggheads guided by mathematical equations that no-one else in government or society can understand.
7. government has a super-human power to know the difference between real prices, and a theoretical equilibrium, even though the knowledge necessary to know it is dispersed among millions of people and simply unknowable *ever* to a central planning committee;
8. government is capable of managing not only the part of the economy that is the money supply, credit and banking, but by extension of knowing how most economically to allocate what capital to what uses, and therefore to manage the whole of the economy.

This debate is an inexcusable re-run of the destructive, long-refuted, socialist idiocy of the 20th century.

I challenge anyone to defend the above propositions, or show why they are not necessarily implied in governmental regulation of the money supply.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 8:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, you and the author of the article both seem to have missed the part where the well-regulated Australian banking system did not run to the brink of collapse.

Surely you won't also be among the motley crew arguing that the shallowness of our recession and the (seeming) beginning of a recovery had nothing at all to do with the stimulus and in fact that if had not been implemented there would have been no downturn at all.
Posted by Fozz, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 8:59:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With one word, Peter Hume: China.
I wonder how the author intends to stop the major shareholders of the banks also becoming the major shareholders of the relevant insurance companies?
The concept of a 'thieves guild' makes wonderful fiction...
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 9:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
peter, please study some economic history boom and busts occurred during periods of low inflation, especially in the pre-keynesian era. they occurred prior to the reserve banks and when the private banks controlled the money supply. with deregulated currencies, floating exchange rates (non government control) so called market forces we see overshooting and under shooting between various currencies of over 50%. That is to purchase the same quantity of goods in different countries after exchange conversion we see 50% error. The market does not mystically set the "right" price. individuals gather incomplete information and act on that information.
Posted by slasher, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 9:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter H - unfortunately Peter, although the free market stuff sounds really good, the reality to which everyone is moving is a mixture of regulation and free market. In fact in Australia in recent decades we've moved in both directions at once, freeing up markets - chucking out tariffs and regulations on markets such as milk and egg production - and clamping down on the financial markets. Both shifts have occured for very good reasons. You should ask yourself why.
Posted by curmudgeonathome, Thursday, 3 September 2009 12:09:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You just struck a sore nerve with me, Curm....
As one very close to the action with the deregulation of milk in NSW, I witnessed the North Coast Dairy industry almost literally decimated. Farm gate prices were slashed by almost half, Cooperatives went to the wall, small farmers who had survived and raised families for decades were encouraged or forced off their farms while retail prices went up, and consumers were forced to pay more for dairy products.
For good reasons? Only if you were a shareholder in a major supermarket chain.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 3 September 2009 6:51:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you.

I could not have wanted a better demonstration that the arguments for governmental regulation of the money supply rest on nothing but evasions, fallacies and slogans.

When you tire of such intellectual fairy floss, Ron Paul gives a clear explanation of the privatizing of profits and socializing of losses that you all seem intent on defending:
http://mises.org/story/3687
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 3 September 2009 9:03:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Ron Paul's dissembling is your idea of clarity, Peter Hume. That explains a lot.

>>Ron Paul gives a clear explanation of the privatizing of profits and socializing of losses<<

Let's take a quick peek at his arguments.

>>But how much do we really know about what goes on inside the Fed?... From its founding in 1913, secrecy and inside deals have been part of the way the Fed works.<<

Hmmm. Looks like we're already into daggett/Arjay territory here. Nothing like a bit of ignorance to get the conspiracy juices a-flowin'.

What's their crime, again?

>>But under the old definition of inflation — an artificial increase in the supply of money and credit — the entire reason for Fed's existence is to generate more, not less of it.<<

Typical of the Austrian School. The reason that it is an "old definition", Peter, is that it is out of date. No longer relevant. Not informative.

Unless, of course, you believe as the Austrian School does, that any form of economic growth stimulus is automatically bad.

There is no doubt that if the precepts of this fringe group of ultra-conservatives (small-c) had been maintained, there would be no possibility of a boom-bust cycle. Unfortunately, economic growth would also have stagnated to the point where we quite probably wouldn't have invented the television yet, let alone the computer.

Yes, there is a price to pay for the ability to print money. However, it is a price that is determined by the market, once the credit has been created.

Applying Austrian School/Mises Institute values to our present situation is akin to those that the US applied to Prohibition. Alcohol is bad, therefore it must be banned. When the only real cure is to un-invent alcohol.

Un-inventing money is not a realistic option in 2009.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 4 September 2009 9:26:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles’ post explicitly shows the unshakeable but false belief of the inflationists that we can create real net wealth by stamping pieces of paper.

The predictable gross economic and social chaos that is unleashed by this self-evidently absurd piece of voodoo is then blamed on the ‘free market’.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 4 September 2009 1:12:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again I can half agree with you, Peter Ah Hume.
We have just witnessed not the crime of the century, but the crime of the millenium; perhaps the greatest single crime in all history.
Millions left homeless. Millions unemployed. Super funds slashed. Billions of tax payer dollars shunted into recapitalising banks, sent almost bankrupt by their own greedy lending practices.
And who went to jail for these massive crimes?
I know who didn't go to jail; the same ones the Misians would have us liberate from the cruel shackles of legality.
These are the people the Austrian school would have us believe, will be turned into innocent choir boys, by the simple mechanism of the free, unshackled marketplace.
You know what 'the marketplace' is going to do now, Peter Ah Hume. They've just been shown an absolutely guaranteed way of turning big bucks. If you're too big to fail, you don't need to be responsible. You don't need to be clever. You don't even need to do it right.
You can actually make more money by screwing up.
Quick guys, let's merge! Let's amalgamate! Let's get so goddam big, the tax dollars will come directly to us, and we can do without governments altogether!
Then we can do away with this one person one vote crap. It will be one share one vote; and for all intents and purposes, all the important shareholders will be able to sit at one table.
This isn't conspiracy theory. This is the inevitable result of laissez faire economics.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 4 September 2009 7:55:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim

If the state steps in to stop failing businesses from going broke, by taking money from everyone else in the population and socialising the losses, that's not "the marketplace" or "laissez faire economics" you fool. It's the state!

Grim's post shows the invincible ignorance of the statists. They would rather see what they hate most in full swing - crony capitalism, privatised profits and socialised losses - than abolish the arm of the state that is creating those privileges! You would cut off your nose to spite your face.

This is the level of the debate. You point out the obvious - you can't really create real net wealth by stamping pieces of paper, and government doesn't really have a cornucopia with which it can abolish economic scarcity through the printing press. It is only forced redistributions, that is all.

And what are you met with? A howling chorus of disapproval from those experts on running a capitalist economy - the socialists. We are all so indebted to them for their wonderful demonstration of what paradise on earth could really be like - North Korea, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Castro's Cuba, Mengistu's Ethiopia, Burma, Saddam's Iraq (Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party), Hitler's wonderful National Socialists. Oh I forgot, that's not 'true' socialism. We have to keep trying the same thing - arbitrary political control of production - and insist it eventually must work.

Wake up people! It doesn't work! It doesn't matter how much you want to believe it!

Notice by the way, in all the twisted logic, Grim still won't actually venture to defend the basal propositions he relies on.

At least when the superstitious primitives did rain dances to make crops grow, they weren't choosing a means that actively worsened the end they were trying to achieve.

But those defending governmental regulation of the money supply are actively causing the worst problems they are trying to solve with their intervention. Theirs is a superstition even more ignorant and deluded than that of the rain-dancers
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 5 September 2009 4:29:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
peter ah hume, once again half right.
The RESPONSE to the GFC was 'statist'. The CAUSE of the GFC was a bunch of ratbags manipulating a financial system in the absence of Law.
What bothers me is that no one seems to be asking whether or not this was premeditated. Did the ratbags perpetrate this crime, knowing full well they would be bailed out? Or are they still being paid millions for simply being incompetent? As Malcolm Turnbull has recently pointed out, the survivors have come out of all this very well indeed.
Once again, they're richer, and we're all poorer.
I'm not sure which answer bothers me most.
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 5 September 2009 6:27:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It must be very tiring, Peter Hume, carrying around all that rage.

I think you are fighting the wrong battle, though.

You seem to think that the US Federal Reserve is some kind of evil cartel, dedicated to the subjugation of humankind, and simply trot out a laundry-list of slogans to justify your position.

It may possibly have escaped your notice, but we tend to muddle along quite well with the current system - it is by no means perfect, but that is because it is run by people. We have survived each boom and bust intact, each time just that little bit better off.

Your random mish-mash of idealistic wishful thinking is fine, so long as you don't try to apply it to the real world. It is perfect, though, for a bit of prissy-mothed sanctimony between consenting Mises-nuts.

Ron Paul's entire rationale rests on two foundations; an incomplete understanding - either natural or wilful - of the mechanism of debt, and an entirely irrational loathing - either real or simulated - of the Federal Reserve. His stance is nothing more than vote-catching sloganeering, directed equally toward fellow bandwagoners, and those folk either disinclined, or unable, to think for themselves.

Much of the recent drama was caused by the overenthusiastic use of financial "instruments" that employed massive amounts of dollars chasing the tiniest arbitrage opportunities. Regulation was pitifully inadequate, due mainly to the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome - regulators were loath to admit that they didn't fully understand the complex algorithms created by slightly-mad mathematicians with multiple PhDs.

It wasn't the system that failed. Just the people.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 5 September 2009 4:35:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
peter hume needs to understand some facts he argues the reserve or central (the state) should not issue money. Well it was private banks issuing derivatives based on valueless property outside the regulatory reach of the state which caused the GFC. The market and all the private sector banks could not determine their real market value. If it was not for the action of the reserve banks in easing monetary value, quantative easing and government fiscal stimulus policies that prevented a catastrophy. Peter please explain how the state was responsible for dutch tulip bubble in 1634-1637.
the austrian school of ineptitude strikes again
Posted by slasher, Saturday, 5 September 2009 5:20:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim
“The CAUSE of the GFC was a bunch of ratbags manipulating a financial system in the absence of Law.”

Grim is reduced to arguing by a theory that monetary policy, which has no other purpose than to manipulate the price of money, had nothing to do with the financial crisis. And the entire regulatory machinery, including the Fed, the Treasury, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc. etc. etc. represents an ‘absence of Law’, and had nothing to do with the GFC.

“What bothers me is that no one seems to be asking whether or not this was premeditated. Did the ratbags perpetrate this crime, knowing full well they would be bailed out?”

Well the government’s history of hundreds of years of bailing out pet businesses obviously wouldn’t have *reduced* the risk of the ratbags perpetrating this crime, would it? That’s the point!

Why are you defending the monetary policy that a) manipulated the price mechanism to benefit banks at the expense of everyone else, and then b) bails them out when they get into trouble?

In the absence of a governmental mechanism to bail them out, they would, and should, have failed. Why are you defending this criminal scamming?

Slasher and Pericles
By definition, *derivatives* are the wrong place to look for the *origin* of something. The function of derivative contracts is to hedge risk in the underlying contracts. The greater the risk in the underlying contracts, the greater the multiplier effect in the derivative contracts.

You assume that the manipulation of the money supply had nothing to do with the blow-out in the risk in the underlying contracts. Thus you are assuming what is in issue.

It is simply false to say that the banks that did this were ‘outside the regulatory reach of the state’, because the relevant effect is in the *increase of the money supply*. According to your theory, every single aspect of every single transaction would need to be controlled by government. But if not, why not? Answer?

Slasher
Good question about tulipmania.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 7 September 2009 3:03:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tulipmania was a result of monetary policy, essentially the same as caused the GFC. In short, the state ascribed to money a value *above* its market value (trying to value debased coins at face value). This state-sponsored increase in the money supply then led to massive inflation, speculation and large-scale malinvestment.

Full details: http://mises.org/story/2564

But even if earlier crises and cycles had happened without government intervention, that would still not amount to an argument for government manipulation of the money supply, considering it has presided over both the Great Depression and the GFC.

Pericles
“regulators were loath to admit that they didn't fully understand the complex algorithms created by slightly-mad mathematicians with multiple PhDs.”

Well surprise surprise. Did you?

In the absence of profit and loss, what else would they have to go by to determine the proper price? Answer?

Even assuming the regulators are all-knowing, all-virtuous, and all-capable, - which is not conceded - *how* exactly are they to know the difference between the market price and the supposed right price? Answer?

What is Ron Paul’s alleged misunderstanding of debt ?

I’m not trotting out “slogans”. I’m arguing that governmental regulation of the money supply is bad for numerous reasons and cannot be justified on the basis of the reasons given.

So far the statists here have offered
a) personal argument (my supposed rage)
b) circular argument (assuming what is in issue)
c) appeal to absent authority (assuming the knowledge, capacity and disinterestedness of governmental controls)
d) irrelevance (‘that’s how it is’)
which are invalid forms of argument.

No-one has yet given reason to think that government is able to create net wealth by printing paper; that this is anything but mere redistribution; that it does not cause inflation, malinvestment and financial crises; or that government control of capital allocation is anything but non-viable.

Politically, it enables ever-increasing governmental power, which leads society down a dead-end path of government control over anything and everything, the non-viability and abusiveness of which was demonstrated in the 20th century both in theory and practice. The Emperor has no clothes.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 7 September 2009 3:06:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And China is bailing out the world.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 7 September 2009 7:56:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
all right the austrians believe that we should not have state controls over money, they believe the market sets a price to enable demand and supply to form an equilibrium.
they believe speculative bubbles come from increase in money supply.
please answer this question if the market through the price signal is best gauge of risk of asset and value of the asset, then why would an increase in volume of money matter, the market would factor that in and would reduce the price of all assets accordingly. is it because the rational market hypothesis is flawed?
the greatest period of stable growth occurred from 1945-72 under the bretton woods arrangements, with government controlled exchange rates.
it collapsed with the opec embargoes and vietnam and the fact that the world economy had grown beyond the capability of one nation's economy to be the reserve currency.
when private merchant banks created hybrid securities/derivatives not regulated by the state why was it that the market could not assess their true worth, why was it that ratings agencies failed?
bring back all the economic tools, quantitative controls through changing reserve ratios for lendings to different sectors, fixed exchange rates and transparent system for devaluation/revaluations, we need to democratise the economy not anarchisise the economy.
Posted by slasher, Monday, 7 September 2009 10:32:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It might just help us all, Peter Hume, if you didn't phrase all your questions along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?"

You do not have a monopoly on truth, justice and the Austrian way. If you decide to debate the issue calmly, and without shouting "Answer! Answer!" like some demented backbencher, you may find some opportunity to argue your case, instead of simply haranguing those who disagree with you.

Fat chance, I know. But I thought I'd give it a try.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 8 September 2009 10:55:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy