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 > Endgame: USA > Comments

Endgame: USA : Comments

By Cameron Leckie, published 18/12/2009

A possible outcome of the GFC is the collapse of the USA and the demise of the world’s largest economy and only superpower.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
An interesting article, Cameron Leckie. I think your 4 defence strategies are sensible, but clearly if the US does collapse and takes the rest of the so called 'first' world with it, we will need to address the whole question of money and banking, and international trade.
Nothing could provide stronger evidence that the current system just is not viable.
In a post peak oil world, international trade will drop to a trickle; and the idea that it is cheaper for one country to manufacture goods for the rest of the world will be shown for the absurdity it is.
Reliable renewable energy supplies, rather than a cheap labour force will determine where goods are manufactured.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 18 December 2009 10:47:52 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
Unfortunately for all of us this will probably be the case, especially if "business as usual" continues.

Then again the USA would have sooner or later collapsed under the weight of its own delusions.

There are dozens of books etc out there which chronicle or describe the reasons why this collapse is inevitable.

Three of my favorites are:
Dark Ages America by Morris Berman
Idiot America by Charles Pierce
The Man Who Sold the World: The Betrayal of Main Street America

These 3 books all point to the Reagan years as to when the rot really set in, culminating in George W Bush--the village idiot from Texas, the hanging/executing governor

Plus I also like the gadfly understanding offered by James Howard Kunstler

Plus 2 authors who offer a meta-history of the present moment.

William Irwin Thompson via Coming Into Being
Richard Grossinger via The Bardo of the Waking Life
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 18 December 2009 12:15:13 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
(1)The level at which oil production peaks depends on what consumers are prepared to pay per litre of petrol, there's plenty of oil out there in tar sands,shale etc.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427375.900-extreme-oil-scraping-the-bottom-of-earth-barrell.html

(2) The US is a democracy the chances of it collapsing in the manner of a rigid totalitarian society such as the USSR are very small indeed.

(3) I agree with the author's comments in regard to debt levels,particularly private debt,however what are the prospects of convincing the voters to reduce debt, they think the real estate boom has made them rich?
Posted by mac, Friday, 18 December 2009 1:29:53 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
Good article - and it is common sense. Those 4 steps (Decouple from the global economy; Reduce debt levels; Forget about Emission Trading Schemes; Reduce oil dependency) are good and healthy things to do regardless of what happens or does not happen in America.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 18 December 2009 1:44:21 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
At least some people are thinking in the real world.The US $ will collapse and that will be a shock to the entire planet.Bernanke is churning out more counterfeit money which will eventually reach the real market economy and doing more of the same will bring on hyper-inflation.

Obama is insane.The USA has defence forces 13 times greater than their nearest rival and still he is increasing defence spending and expanding the war front.They cannot afford to run 700 bases around the planet.

My greatest fear is that they will create more wars to pay for their economic stupidity and unite the home front under a more totalitarian regieme.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 18 December 2009 3:05:04 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
If you are wrong about the US - and I believe you are - the policy prescriptions you suggest would be disastrous for Australia. The decoupling would reduce our standard of living substantially.
So what you are suggesting is a very large gamble, based on some forecasts of the future. Forecasts of this kind are notoriously unreliable so I doubt that anyone in a position of responsibility would want to do what you suggest.
Posted by Ken Nielsen, Friday, 18 December 2009 5:30:38 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
Ken Neilson.Cameron is right unfortunately and for most of us this will mean genuine hardship.The real GFC has yet to play out.The stimulus packages and bailouts only postponed the inevitable.

The bailout money in the USA went to the bubble economy of the banksters and Wall St.This money was added to the debt of the US people who make the real economy work.When you starve the real economy of liquidity,then there will serious collapses.Once things spiral backwards it is difficult to stop the the rot.

Obama should have stopped the bailouts and put many banks and their appararicks into liquidation.This would have saved the real economy from credit starvation and more debt.

Recently I've spoken to very credible people from the USA and Congress were cornered at the time of the bailouts and told,"If you don't pass the bailouts,there will be anarchy and martial law will be imposed." The American people at this time were totally opposed to the bailouts but were ignored.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 18 December 2009 6:54:01 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
mac, what last year showed us is that oil at US$147 a barrel is to expensive for the world economy to handle, which leads to demand destruction (ie. recession) which leads to supply destruction (over 20% cut in investment this year according to the IEA). Agree that there is a lot of oil out there, but much of the light, high quality crudes are gone. Tar sands, oil shale etc are all low EROI and highly capital intensive, I highly doubt they will ever replace conventional crude, especially with the other limits they face (natural gas, water etc).

I suggest you read some of Dmitry Orlov's work on comparing the US and USSR ( http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/). A Russian engineer who lived through the collapse of the USSR (surviving on zuchini's and fish for some months) and now lives in the USA, he argues that the USA is not as well equipped as the USSR was to handle collapse.

Ken Nielsen, I hope that I am wrong in my prognosis, unfortunately I don't think that I am. It could be rapid, it could take decades, it could be severe or it could be an extended economic downturn - who knows? We take a gamble either way. Pretending that growth is the only possible option, despite some fairly strong evidence to suggest otherwise, I would argue is a far bigger risk.
Posted by leckos, Friday, 18 December 2009 10:41:20 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
there is no doubt that the world influence of the USA in it's current form will be greatly diminished in the next decade; how it disengages itself from Afganistan, Iraq, and how , if at all manages to stop Pakistan from imploding , will be an enormous test for the Obama Admin. Will it manage to resucitate its own economy within 10 years and maintaint it viable , who knows; I hope it does because there is nobody else on the horizon with their potential to affect world affairs. If anybody thinks the USA is bad , imagine CHINA , RUSSIA,ISRAEL, IRAQ, or the UAE with that kind of power and influence
But we surived the demise of the Bitish Empire and a few others before as well. We are " in between ages " and who will emerge victorious is yet to be seen.
Posted by MANYA, Friday, 18 December 2009 11:07:25 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
leckos,

.."what last yer showed us that oil at US$147 a barrell is to expensive for the world economy.." You might be correct, but unless you can "wash out" the effects of the GFC on aggregate oil demand,I'm not convinced.The level at which oil "peaks" is a moving target and depends also, on alternative energy supplies to hydrocarbons.

Orlov's comments are interesting,however I think that two of his so-called "symmetries" are false. Both societies were indeed "predicated on technological progress and growth",however only the USA really achieved this aim. The USA and the USSR were not "evenly matched for decades",after an initial panic, the Americans realised that fact during the Reagan administration, and so proceeded to push the USSR to breaking point. The USSR never had a chance of matching the US.
Orlov might indeed be correct in assuming that the US will not cope with collapse as well as Russia for the reasons he outlines,however my argument is that it's far less likely to arrive at that critical point,because of democratic and capitalist flexibilities.

A far more sophisticated case for America's decline and (perhaps) fall is presented at this link by Prof Johan Galtung prior to the GFC

http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_USempireFall.html

it's still relevant.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 19 December 2009 12:05:47 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
leckos (I take it you are Cameron Leckie),

I agree that the US is in a bad situation. A combination of 21st century financial engineering wizardry and a belief that regulating financial markets was largely unneccessary - they would "regulate themselves" - saw US private debt as a percentage of GDP reach staggering levels. AS far as I am aware, a private sector debt level of 300% of GDP has no precedent in the 250-odd year history of capitalism. The only other time it even came close that I am aware of was approximately 240% of GDP at the time of the great crash of 1929.

But while the private sector is a mess, we should not assume that the US government will default on it's debts. The debt is entirely in US dollars - and the US government's spending is the source of US dollars. They do not materialise as a function of private market activities. They could only default on a debt in their own currency by some strange and entirely voluntary choice.

It is a mistake to construct the US government debt as being the same as private debt. The US government faces no solvency issues in it's own currency.

If the debt-saturated private sector is unwilling and/or unable to keep expanding it's debt and indeed moves to paying it down and accruing savings instead, I think it will be futile to talk about slashing the US government deficit. If private sector spending is insufficient to get the economy out of the hole, government must do it.

With real stimulus measures that involve creating jobs and demand, not simply bailing out failed financial institutions and pumping up the banks with liquidity. This is where most of the US government spending appears to have gone and is one of the reasons why it has been so much less effective than the Australian stimulus.

This is a financial crisis and one that the US government can easily deal with - but not with neo-liberal thinkers continuing to dominate all policy making and direction.
Posted by Fozz 2, Saturday, 19 December 2009 10:44:02 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
Hello mac and Fozz 2,
like all complex problems, assigning one causal factor is usually incorrect. The oil price spike in combination with sub prime and unsustainable debt levels resulted in the GFC.

Historically when oil is >4% of GDP it has resulted in recessions in the US, last year being no exception. See the James Hamilton link for a detailed analysis. I disagree that the oil peak is a moving target, once it peaks (permanently), it has peaked. Of course we can't call the 'peak' until years afterward.

Alternative energy supplies will slow but not halt the peak. Conventional fields are depleting at around 3-4 million barrels a day per year, sanctioned new projects are only just managing to replace this with a shortfall on the horizon around 2011-12. There is no alternative energy source that can replace oil at this rate - that is the key issue with peak oil, flow rates not reserves/resources.

The 'democratic and capitalistic' flexibilities you talk about are why I am convinced the US won't dig it self out of its predicament. The actions they need to do so are not in the (power) interests of those running the show, which is Wall St as much as Washington, as demonstrated by their approach thus far to the GFC, which is where I agree with Fozz 2. The US could get itself out of its situation, but not with the current crew in command. However where I disagree with Fozz 2 is that at some point sovereign wealth funds will reduce/stop buying US debt. This is a big conundrum for large holders of US debt, damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation.

Thanks for the link. I am more interested in what we should do about this proposition than explaining the causal factors and triggers. Interestingly enough, Kevin Rudd's comments in response to Barnaby Joyce did not say that he was wrong, just irresponsible. It is irresponsible not to plan for such an eventuality, it is a case of risk management.
Posted by leckos, Sunday, 20 December 2009 6:38:43 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
leckos,

In my opinion finding the causal factors and triggers helps us determine the solution.
I agree with your comments on the situation for foreign holders of US debt,the question is, will there be a gradual transition to other currencies or the traditional market panic with disastrous consequences? And much of US debt is financed by the Chinese--"Interesting Times" indeed.
Posted by mac, Sunday, 20 December 2009 9:15:44 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
Hi again leckos,

I think that the reality for a sovereign government that presides over a modern fiat monetary system (as opposed to the old gold-standard systems they used to preside over), is that if no-one wants to buy US government debt, this will not stop the US government from being able to spend - it does not acutally need to finance it's spending by issuing debt. It does not need to "finance" it's spending at all. It's spending is the source of $USD.

The US federal reserve would have to take a slightly different approach in such a situation though, since history shows* that government spending a greater amount than the debt they issue puts downward pressure - not upward pressure - on interest rates. Interest rates seem likely to saty very low for quite awhile yet.

*the history of modern fiat money systems that is - since the Bretton woods system was dismantled.
Posted by Fozz 2, Sunday, 20 December 2009 10:21:55 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
I do not know. I read a lot on this subject and logic is defied at every turn. Legal manipulation is rife.

The US would probably benefit in the long term if the USD value was smashed. However other countries want the benefits of devalued currency themselves. So everyone is trying to sell, buy and short to keep their local indicators healthy. This attitude has actually supported the USD. China is the key of course, they need to build alternate markets and meanwhile they want the US to stay afloat.

Everyone knows the US day in the sun is over but it still gets more sun than anyone else so I think the fall will be gradual rather than rapid.

What do we do?

I do not know. The AUD. What is it really good for? It is a traders currency. Interest rates are higher a plus for AUD. Commodity prices favour stronger AUD. But commodities are traded in USD so we really need less of this type of trade to realise the full value of commodity demand. Plus we buy in Euro and USD. So we buy in FX and we sell in FX so why is the AUD so high, really is only a local currency? Physical gold is the opposite, there is also too much elecronic trade compared to demand for physical ownership. However one day people might actually demand delivery. Our currency is over valued and that may hurt us more than what happens in the US.

Perhaps we should learn currency manipulation that nobody can deny is occuring wordwide. So much for free market economies when trading is used to support or engineer economic policy.
Posted by TheMissus, Sunday, 20 December 2009 1:41:59 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
At a difficult time like this, it is comforting to realise that Australia is the only country in the world with the four vital things necessary for survival. These are:

(a) a surplus of food;

(b) a surplus of energy;

(c) a surplus of minerals;

(d) most important of all, a sea boundary.

While supporting the thrust of the article and the 4 defence strategies, I believe there is one strategy that would assist greatly is overcoming an oil crisis, which is likely to envelop the world suddenly.

This would be for the Rudd government to drop the current ETS legislation, and to give twelve months notice of a significant increase in the taxation of petrol, to something around $2 per litre, coupled with a reduction in the tax on LPG. It would also commit to applying the increased revenue entirely to repaying government debt.

The idea of giving twelve months notice would be to allow people to convert their vehicles to LPG in an orderly fashion. After conversion the tax on LPG could be raised steadily to discourage excessive use. Electricity should not face an extra tax, in order to encourage electric cars.

If Abbott wants to encourage efficient use of electricity without taxing it a simple way would be to introduce a stepped tariff for both gas and electricity. An example with electricity would be to start from the average residential consumption and the current average price. A possible stepped tariff would be 50% reduction up to 60% of current use, and 100% increase for more than 125% of current use. There would be no reductions for low income earners, in the same way that there is currently no reduction for beer and cigarettes.

I share the fear that the US could collapse, although I believe it is more likely that they will simply retreat to their borders. Isolationist sentiment in the US is currently the highest ever recorded, and such action could well occur if Sarah Palin is elected . The interesting thing to consider is that if this happens, whether we would be inside their border.
Posted by plerdsus, Sunday, 20 December 2009 8:30:23 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
I would like to see a retraction not a full on collapse of the USA. Maybe wishful thinking but how nice it would be if the US multinationals returned home, taking the US military with them, and got on with sorting out their own problems instead imposing their solutions on the rest of the world.
The world survived the collapse of the Roman Empire and many other Empires. The world would not only survive but benefit from the collapse of the American Empire. And hopefully it would take the World Bank and the IMF with it.
Posted by Daviy, Monday, 21 December 2009 12:12:52 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
Very interesting and is similar to what I have been saying for sometime.
Ken Nielsen; Our standard of living is going to fall anyway.
Our main hope will be to saw off the rest of the world and look after
ourselves. Everyone else will do that anyway.

Fozz2; You seem to consider that money is the key to it all.
It is not, energy is the key.
It is because of the peak in oil supply that growth has stopped.
Everything depends on energy, money is only a mirror of energy.

Plerdus; Yes convert our vehicles over not to LPG which comes from oil,
but to LNG which we have a fairly good supply. We would have to cancel
all overseas export contracts, which the Chinese won't like but it
is a tough titties game we will be playing.

Cameron, what effect will it have on the Telecommunications industry ?
I have been trying to find opinions on this and info but it is very scarce.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 21 December 2009 3:11:49 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
Bazz, good question.

What we know is that as civilisations advance in complexity, so to does the degree of economic specialisation. The converse is also true. Modern telecommunications are based upon extremely high degrees of economic specialisation. How long this can be sustained in a civilisation that is reducing in complexity is a good question. Given its importance, I would imagine that it would be a high priority for government and industry, but the costs of maintaining a highly sophisticated network may not sustainable long term (several decades plus). Makes you wonder about the NBN, perhaps we should stick to copper!
Posted by leckos, Monday, 21 December 2009 9:28:33 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
Leckos; Tks for the reply.
Well Belly and I will be OK we can talk on HF radio and I even have
a HF data system in operation.
All the rest of you will have to suffer withdrawal symptoms from the internet !
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 7:25:00 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
Interesting article Cameron.

I've read Homer-Dixon's Upside of Down and I've come across the catagenesis concept. I also read earlier this year Overshoot by William Catton Jr, which I can thoroughly recommend. Catton makes what is in effect the Peak Oil argument that 'homo colossus', as he terms modern humanity (or at least the 1 billion of us enjoying Northern lifestyles) is, in the absence of radical change, destined for collapse because we've become overly dependent on a single non-renewable resource which we're burning like there's no tomorrow.

Two comments:

1.I was a bit concerned when you said you were less interested in understanding the causes of our predicament than in proposing corrective action. I understand where you're coming from, but as I think Mac said, unless we understand the causes properly, any corrective action we take may be based on faulty premises and in fact make things worse. We see this already happening with the ETS. Nicholas Stern described climate change as the 'biggest market failure in history', so what do governments do? Create another market mechanism to 'solve' it. The market orthodoxy is so powerful that governments believe they can only act within its terms. We need to change our way of thinking, change the boundaries of what we believe is politically and economically possible. Thinking outside the growth paradigm is a start; thinking beyond capitalism is also necessary in my view.

2. What Homer-Dixon says about catagenesis and avoidance of synchronous failure is persuasive. However we need to be very careful in assuming we can transfer what we understand of natural ecosystems and their processes to human societies. There's absolutely no guarantee that a) collapse in human societies won't be catastrophic and b) whatever comes after it will follow the 'regeneration and regrowth' cycle suggested by the proponents of 'panarchy'. The fundamental problem now is that if collapse is catastrophic we may lose a large chunk of our technology and infrastructure (not to mention access to cheap oil) in the process. That would make regeneration and regrowth very much more difficult
Posted by Take off your blinkers, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 8:58:56 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
Toyb & leckos;

Yes, governments and individual members of those governments have
grown up with the belief that the market is God and will fix
everything no matter what.

The market is a feedback mechanism in what is a quite complicated
control system.
However all control systems require that there be no non linear input
parameters, ie if the system calls for more of one input, it will be
supplied in the requested amount.

However, if one of the current outputs, namely growth, needs to be
increased, but one of the inputs has become somewhat non linear and
cannot supply all the requested input,it will cause failure in the
system. It is expected to be a limited input in future, and in the
longer term the maximum input available may in fact decrease.

In our case this parameter is energy and in a normal three term
controller this causes the controller to lock its output in one state
and the system is then out of control.
The only solution is to recalibrate the system to operate with a lower
energy parameter.
The output, growth, will change its sign and become negative.

That is it, no argument can be considered.

I find putting the argument this way eliminates the illogical
behaviour of economists who believe that money is the main input
required.
It also avoids the alphabet soup phraseology used by financial people
who do not seem to understand what is going on.

Yes Toyb, the crazy ETF will not fix the problem as it is designed
for the wrong problem.
It is interesting but I recently read of a conspiracy theory that
said global warming was cooked up (ha) to hide peak oil and to try
and get mechanisms in place that will be acceptable to the public
until peak oil can no longer be hidden !

That is this weeks theory anyway.
Well it certainly fits the denial attitude of politicians to peak oil.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 24 December 2009 7:39:13 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
Hello Toyb,
ref the causes, I take your point. I didn't explain myself very well. In my view the causes are pretty clear, an economy that demands more of everything to continue without imploding being the main one. You are right that it is crucial to understand the causal factors in developing a response, the GFC being a prime example. Despite their being two main drivers (oil price and credit crunch) only one has been considered in the responses, meaning that we have set the pre-conditions for another oil price spike whilst doing nothing to reduce our dependency on oil.

As far as panarchy goes, I don't foresee the next growth cycle resembling anything like our current circumstance. Whatever emerges will be at a much lower level of complexity. How much lower will depend upon how we prepare, or how high our adaptive capacity is. By ignoring the possibility of collapse we are limiting our options in the future which is why I believe 'collapse' needs to be part of our discourse and public debate now.
Posted by leckos, Thursday, 24 December 2009 10:44:01 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
Bazz

I too have felt for a while that, largely due to the likely impacts of peak oil, we (nationally and globally) are probably destined for a (shorter, longer, or perhaps semi-permanent) period of 'de-growth' (aka depression). A big problem as I see it is that our social and economic structures are not all geared to cope with such periods. Quite simply, they 'do not compute'. Included amongst the many major challenges facing this generation is how to make the transition away from the crude measure of GDP towards a more sophisticated, qualitative measure of societal well-being. This conversation has at least begun, with ideas like the Happy Planet Index and Tim Jackson's new book Prosperity without Growth.

Cameron

I agree that there needs to be a willingness on a social and political level to consider the possibility of 'collapse', whatever that might mean. However in some ways this discussion has already started, and it is being driven by Hollywood in very apocalyptic directions (eg 2012, The Road). Having a rational discussion in the mainstream media about collapse in the way you are proposing will I think be exceedingly difficult, because it has become taboo in mainstream discourse to even consider such topics. If it's to happen it will probably be at a lower level, in the alternative media and amongst grassroots groups like Transition Initiatives, local food networks, etc. At the same time, it's pretty clear that at higher political levels governments have given the topic some thought and made some planning around it. The militarization of our societies on the alleged justification of the spurious 'War on Terror' is relevant here: did you see how the Danish police treated peaceful protesters in Copenhagen? Collapse planning is already under way, but not in the way you & I would like to see it. If you haven't come across it, read Gwynne Dyer's Climate Wars for an insight into the sort of climate-driven collapse planning scenarios and responses the Pentagon has mapped out. I'd be very surprised if something similar didn't exist for Peak Oil.
Posted by Take off your blinkers, Friday, 25 December 2009 8:41:54 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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