Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Beyond Ponzi Economics

by harnoes Fri Aug 28th, 2009 at 09:08:37 AM EST

For a long time I wonder about an economic system which isn't addicted to growth. Is it possible? Why the question at all?
Read from somebody who thinks along similar lines like me at Beyond Ponzi Economics (Tom Flynn)

My impression is that macro economists don't think this question is important. So how can I try to answer it? Let's construct a mathematical model. How can it work if macro economists of the last three decades didn't succeed(Krugman)? I don't know, but let's try :-)


Display:
Maybe this might be helpful to get started on some of the mathematical model building:
The Bank of England Quarterly Model

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Fri Aug 28th, 2009 at 08:00:30 PM EST
This has been discussed in some degree of depth on ET. I'd suggest starting here, here and here, but you may find other starting points interesting.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 29th, 2009 at 12:11:56 PM EST
Oh, and welcome to ET.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 29th, 2009 at 12:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... post war liberal construction of the meaning of "Keynesian Economic Policy".

There is nothing in Keynes' General Theory that is predicated on incessant growth ... it is, however, an essential part of the Fordist political economy in which the government "ramps up demand" as its sole means of pursuing an objective of full employment.

That is, when people use "Keynesian" to mean "restricting full employment policies to fiscal policy tools alone", it is guilt by association to think the limit is built into the Keynesian macroeconomics.

Of course, the General Theory was just a start - Post Keynesians since WWII have elaborated that starting point. They have not trapped themselves into trying to force compatibility with a flawed microeconomic theory. Indeed, the term "Ponzi Economy" is itself a term from the Post Keynesian Minsky to describe the condition in which there is the greatest risk of financial crisis.

Now, building on that foundation still implies a need to be careful, since the general desirability of economic growth sui generis is taken for granted by Post Keynesians almost as often as by the New Classical, New Keynesian and other assorted heirs of the neoclassical tradition.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Aug 29th, 2009 at 02:59:54 PM EST
First: Thanks for the recommendation(s)!
Now:
@Ronald Rutherford: I added your link to my preliminary strategy paper at http://www.edgar-schwarz.de/mmpub/BeyondPonzi

@JakeS: The links you gave aren't exactly the direction I want to take. More later.

@BruceMcF: I'm not against growth per se. But I'm disappointed by a system which needs growth whether it's good or bad growth.

So what I expect here is a BOF discussion of the Ponzi problem.
If there are some interested people we could create a charter for a WG (That was some IETF lingo :-)

When we know what questions we want to answer we can decide on the tools and plan the first steps.

Possible questions:

  • Is a capitalist economy really addicted to growth?
  • If yes: Can politics change boundary conditions?
  • Is there a correct rate how wages should rise between the religions of managers and unions?

Possible tools:
Possible results:
  • A set of differential equations easier to understand than the stuff I already found (Even if mor complex than Lotka-Volterra)
  • Illustrated with a convenient tool.

Look at me, Harno

Make it as simple as possible but not simpler (Albert Einstein)
by harnoes on Sat Aug 29th, 2009 at 04:32:12 PM EST
harnoes:
Is a capitalist economy really addicted to growth?

Yes. What we today refer to as capitalist economy is a growth-addicted system that rewards expansion with claims (credit) on the existing set of stuff. The organisational forms - the limited company, the stock market, the fractional reserve banking - are all built to serve a utilisation of existing resources for perpetual expansion.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 29th, 2009 at 06:09:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have been a member here for a long time but have not been active for much of the time, so did not even know you were new.
Welcome, harnoes.
Is a capitalist economy really addicted to growth?
Since humans have unlimited wants then why would anyone expect limited "growth"? Just think about nail fungus. I want to feel good about myself and I find it disgusting so "capitalists" figure out ways to satisfy my wants and needs. I trade a little bit of my time for their products and we both are happy.

Of course capitalists can provide a lot of other things from curing cancers to aids to providing electric back scratchers.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Sat Aug 29th, 2009 at 08:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Since humans have unlimited wants

Unlimited capacity for wants to be synthesised for them. The notion that humans have unlimited wants is prima facie nonsense - if they had, there would be no need to create artificial wants through advertising.

then why would anyone expect limited "growth"?

Finite planet.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Aug 30th, 2009 at 02:25:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Synthesised?" Interesting. Do you feel advertising unduly influences you on your decisions? Are you forced to buy products after watching advertisements? I believe there is 12 step programmes for those afflictions.

Have you watched the videos like "Century of the Self" as well as some of his other "scary stuff"?

There are infinite ways of arranging this planet and its resources.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Sun Aug 30th, 2009 at 02:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ronald Rutherford:
There are infinite ways of arranging this planet and its resources.

No, a finite set of atoms has a finite combination of arrangements.

If you meant that there is a very large number of combinations, I would like to point of that many of these does not support human life or indeed life at all.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Aug 30th, 2009 at 03:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Synthesised?"

Synthesised.

The premises are simple enough:

  1. The notion that the marginal utility of consumption does not decrease as consumption increases is broadly repugnant to common sense.

    It is also theoretically incompatible with standard utility theory:1 If the marginal utility of individual goods decreases with increased accumulation, then obviously the marginal utility of the last good you purchase is less than the marginal utility of the first good you purchase. Eventually this marginal utility, ceteris paribus, goes to zero.

  2. But all else is not equal: As the marginal utility of consumption decreases, producers will ramp up the propaganda effort in favour of the goods they produce - their identity as producers depends on the urgency of the desire for their products.
  3. Massive propaganda works.

If you do not believe this, try watching commercial-free TV or no TV at all for a month or three, then sit down in a comfortable chair and watch a whole night's worth of programming on some commercial station. Any minimum of introspection during the following day or two will permit you to identify synthesised desires, as you pass through your ordinary grocery shopping.

Individuals can, of course, opt out of these synthesised desires (whether by not watching ads or by training themselves to deconstruct them).2 But this does not negate the point that desires can be (and are) synthesised, and that the majority of the population does not, in fact, opt out of these synthesised desires.

There are infinite ways of arranging this planet and its resources.

So God finally got around to repealing the laws of thermodynamics? I must've missed that memo.

- Jake

1Utility theory may or may not be applicable to a reality-based theory of economics, but the credible alternative models of consumer behaviour I've seen admit even more readily to synthesis of desires.

2Although given the volume of advertisement that is permitted to pollute our streets, opting out of advertisement completely is not the easiest thing in the world.

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Aug 30th, 2009 at 03:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I could be mistaken, Jake, but did you call me a troll once? It seems like a lot of effort you put into your posts just for me-including footnotes. I am flattened, oops flattered.

Marginal utilities compares one product of basket of products against other products. Thus marginal utility does not seem to hold the clue you are searching for since we are talking about total utils, and not the marginal utility derived from consuming more of one product. I have the desires to travel to the moon and then to Mars, but that is not in my basket of consumables now.

I am sure I have done similar endeavors and experiments and find no "undue influence". But the question is whether you feel overly influenced by advertising? How do you feel?

So God finally got around to repealing the laws of thermodynamics? I must've missed that memo.
Sorry rounding. I have a close friend that defines infinity as 100! since no need for any number beyond that necessary for humans. The point is that there are a lot of possibilities and more than humans can grasp. And many of them are better than the present one. At some time the combinations boil {literally}  to one where the Earth is sucked into the sun. Until then we are just working on some combinations of those atoms.
I noticed that another forum is discussing similar issues: http://www.thomhartmann.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1402&sid=959e27965e03be69cdad098cbea21 38b

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 at 01:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems like a lot of effort you put into your posts just for me

Very American, assuming that a long text takes longer to write than a short one. Maybe I just don't consider your time important enough to spend time pruning them...

Or maybe I'm not writing for your benefit at all.

Oh, and it's doggerel too.

Marginal utilities compares one product of basket of products against other products.

Ah, yes, indifference curves.

The point is that the marginal utility of moving to a farther-out indifference curve drops to zero when you get far enough out.

I am sure I have done similar endeavors and experiments and find no "undue influence".

"Manufactured" and "undue" is not the same thing. Remember that I don't believe in your fairytale of sovereign individuals.

The point is that there are a lot of possibilities and more than humans can grasp.

Apparently, for you that includes the properties of the geometric series. Don't be excessively ashamed - you share that lack of understanding with most professional economists.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 at 04:56:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Very American, assuming that a long text takes longer to write than a short one. Maybe I just don't consider your time important enough to spend time pruning them...

Or maybe I'm not writing for your benefit at all.

Why thanks for calling me so "very American" {sic}. No it was not really long-at least I have seen much longer like Warren Huntsinger. No it was the fact of having footnotes and well formatted and I thought it had some intriguing questions/ideas.

Please, we all want to feel special and I hope you are not denying my little vision of flattery. No?

Ah, yes, indifference curves.

The point is that the marginal utility of moving to a farther-out indifference curve drops to zero when you get far enough out.

Nothing seems to point any scale diminishing on the X and Y axis. They both go to infinity.
Apparently, for you that includes the properties of the geometric series. Don't be excessively ashamed - you share that lack of understanding with most professional economists.
And here I thought we were getting along so well. What properties of geometric series should I be ashamed of? But this does make me wonder if you are like some on boards that just don't like answering questions.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 at 07:18:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nothing seems to point any scale diminishing on the X and Y axis. They both go to infinity.

Uh huh. But since they are equipotential curves, the absolute value drops. Of course, it may drop in such a fashion as to never quite reach zero. But that is an academic distinction, because all the evidence before us is that they do, in fact, reach zero unless they are being manipulated with conspicuous amounts of salesmanship.

And here I thought we were getting along so well. What properties of geometric series should I be ashamed of?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 1st, 2009 at 08:04:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]


En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 04:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ronald Rutherford:
I believe there is 12 step programmes for those afflictions.
That was uncalled for.

Now for the serious point Jake was making. Have you never heard the phrase "I never knew I needed <consumer product>"? See, for instance, Things you didn't know you needed published in the  - "Gadgets" section of the NZ Herald this year...

The prize was a celebration of the "stupendous creativity of the people tasked with inventing constantly inflated new wants for us to want," says Naish. "It's a monument to perverse imagination and needless consumption."

In his book, Enough: Breaking free from the world of more, Naish suggests strategies for avoiding the mental pressure to acquire more needless consumer goods. "We're beset with messages that tell us that the stuff we've got now isn't good enough - that we need more stuff, that we need stuff that's somehow improved, with ever more extras and options.

"It's all got to be new, too, rather than, ugh, so last year. We've got fixated on producing and consuming stuff that has no future. It's only there to take our money on its brief trip from factory to landfill."

Interestingly it appears there's a lot of people who will buy useless junk just because it's advertised to them.
The only downside with all this: that motorised icecream cone appears to have completely sold out.
Humans can have the attention span of Kiki the ferret...

Ooo shiny!

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 at 03:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was uncalled for.
Really?
Mr. Shulman has been featured as an expert on shopping addiction and compulsive shopping and spending on the following television programs:

All you have to do is buy his books...
But the question is whether you feel overly influenced by advertisements? Now I may just have to go out and buy that USB Chameleon. See what you made me do? I feel happy just looking at it.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 at 01:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is why I used the term "incessant" growth, to distinguish between a system that can accomodate economic growth and a system that requires ongoing growth for system stability.

Economic growth without material growth is certainly possible, but incessant economic growth is probably not possible without material growth.

That is where the addiction to growth question arises.

Note that there may be structural/institutional issues that are exogenous to a system of differential equations, so that the system of differential equations necessarily reflects only a subsystem of the economy, rather than the whole economy.

Also a note on the style of comment system that ET support: if you use the "reply" link, the system maintains threaded replies; as well, people that look in their comments page to see if there has been any response to anything they have written will know that there has been a response.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Aug 30th, 2009 at 04:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BruceMcF:
Note that there may be structural/institutional issues that are exogenous to a system of differential equations, so that the system of differential equations necessarily reflects only a subsystem of the economy, rather than the whole economy.
This is of necessity. Technological evolution results in the appearance of new products/industries and that changes the dimensionality of the differential equations.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 at 03:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But its not just the dimensionality ... institutions also determine the causal links, including direct cause and effect as well as agonism and antagonism relationships.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 at 01:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi BruceMcF,

Note that there may be structural/institutional issues that are exogenous to a system of differential equations, so that the system of differential equations necessarily reflects only a subsystem of the economy, rather than the whole economy.

I don't suppose to be able to create the "eierlegende Wollmilchsau, die fliegen kann"-variety of a model. I only want to understand e.g. what changes of wages and taxes do to the GDP and employment. There are different opinions on this topic when you hear economists and politicians.
And naturally there a lot of exogenous parameters you would have to make up. For example "savings rate" I would take as an exogenous psychological paramter.
So is such a project feasible? Or was it already done somewhere by some economists? Remember: one thing are the mathematical formulas. A goodie would be a open source tool to do the actual simulations. That out there somewhere or are these trade secrets of the economists?

Schau in mich, Harno

Make it as simple as possible but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

by harnoes on Tue Sep 1st, 2009 at 02:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, if you assume that all the parameters that are affected by tax structures are exogenously fixed, then it's easy to make a model :-P

On a more serious note, there is a lot of politics in deciding which variables are taken to be fixed in the model, and which are permitted to couple to each other.

For instance, if you take the work week as fixed and look at how changes in the tax structure affects GDP, you get a different result from what you'd get if you keep GDP fixed and looked at changes in the work week from changing the tax structure.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Sep 1st, 2009 at 03:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:

On a more serious note, there is a lot of politics in deciding which variables are taken to be fixed in the model, and which are permitted to couple to each other.

Agreed! That's where the fun is coming in. Discussing about the variables and their coupling. And evaluating different models by simulation and compare to reality.
http://wiki.eurotrib.com would be an appropriate location for that. Because this isn't blog stuff.

Schau in mich, Harno

Make it as simple as possible but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

by harnoes on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 03:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
there is a lot of politics in deciding which variables are taken to be fixed in the model, and which are permitted to couple to each other

Political debate is, always and everywhere, about frames...

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 04:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you must give up perpetual growth (which is different from temporary or transient growth), and to give up perpetual growth you must give up return on investment, also known as usury.  

Are you ready for that?  

Countless peoples in the past and a few in the present have run their lives and societies like that, so it is not really such a mystery.  

Oh, yes:  And right now Islam stands out as the only "major" religion that rejects usury.  Though muslim lands are variously under military and economic assault from the West right now, I don't think they can be counted out.  

Look around a bit before you worry about building abstract mathematical models.  I love models as much as anyone, but presumably we are trying to be practical here.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Aug 30th, 2009 at 07:05:10 PM EST
Gaianne:
you must give up perpetual growth (which is different from temporary or transient growth), and to give up perpetual growth you must give up return on investment, also known as usury.  

Are you ready for that?  

Heh, investment banking gave up  return on investment a long time ago, and they focus on turnover and transaction income. Mergers and acquisitions, underwriting shares issues, market-making... All of these are transaction fee-based business with no meaningful definition of return on investment. What matters to them is turnover and income.

But I'm sure Mergers and Acquisitions is not what you want our economy to morph into.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 at 03:53:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi Gaianne,

Look around a bit before you worry about building abstract mathematical models.  I love models as much as anyone, but presumably we are trying to be practical here.  

I did that. But looking around doesn't help at least me to understand the interactions of growth/wages/investments/employment in a market/capitalist environment.
So for me building a model containing the parameters above seems to be practial. YMMV :-) Any better proposal?
For those who think working on a model could be a worthwile task: I plan to start a project probably based on a wiki. Perhaps in European Tribune if possible.


you must give up perpetual growth (which is different from temporary or transient growth), and to give up perpetual growth you must give up return on investment, also known as usury.

You think so? Show me please. At first I think it would e.g. to be necessary to find out what we define as "growth".

Schau in mich, Harno

Make it as simple as possible but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

by harnoes on Tue Sep 1st, 2009 at 02:16:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
harnoes:
At first I think it would e.g. to be necessary to find out what we define as "growth".

You can define it as an increase in claims - as it is today - but if claims increase without goods and services increasing you will get an increase in cost for goods and services. And that is inflation although in some cases it might not be counted as such.

Looking at goods and services we can first exclude the possibility that goods can grow indefinetely. Since we have a limited planet with limited useful resources and are limited by such things as the second law of thermodynamics there simply is no way for goods to grow beyond certain limits. You can claim that services can grow indefinetely, but services are provided by people who need goods to sustian themselves. Further having some persons dedicate themselfs to nail care means fewer people working with turning resources to goods. To sustain the same level of goods they are generally replaced by more resource consumption. For example coal and iron to build and run machines.

You can argue that we can use resources more efficiently and looking at our waste heaps that is certainly a possibility. But even if we succeed, once waste heaps are eliminated and the components reused over and over we have just moved the point where growth stops.

So unless you define a concept of growth that is unrelated to goods or you get more planets infinite growth is not possible.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 04:39:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A swedish kind of death:
if claims increase without goods and services increasing you will get an increase in cost for goods and services. And that is inflation although in some cases it might not be counted as such.
Inflation or outright default.

Dated claims default, undated claims devalue.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 04:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You think so? Show me please.
 

This is basic.  All physical systems that grow exponentially explode, crash, or whatever, that is, transform themselves into a new state totally unlike the previous.  

Think of yeast in a wine bottle, growing exponentially until they starve or poison themselves and are no longer yeast at all, being dead.  

The same applies to humans.  

Capitalism is inherently a one-way dead-end trip, due to its requirement of growth.  Hence it is inherently a Ponzi scheme, under the wider definition of Ponzi.  (The narrow definition is paying "interest" to early investors out of the investments of later investors.  Extending the definition makes sense when you realize that natural resources are non-renewable physical capital, and using them to fuel your economy is exactly analogous to a financial Ponzi scheme.)

Ignore the funny money meant to make the system function.  Look at real goods and services:  If they are growing, and must continue to grow, your system is inherently unsustainable and will crash when it hits its resource boundaries.  

When you look at people who actually are sustainable, they have nothing to do with wages, investment, nor any other of that crap that implements exploitation but has nothing to do with a sustainable economy.  

Generally they are concerned with meeting real needs through social networks of sharing.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 01:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Gaianne:

All physical systems that grow exponentially explode, crash, or whatever, that is, transform themselves into a new state totally unlike the previous.

But is e.g. GDP a completely physical metric?

Gaianne:


Capitalism is inherently a one-way dead-end trip, due to its requirement of growth.

This also true for nonphysical growth? See above.

But these are rather philosophical questions. I prefer to start with more down to earth problems.

E.g.:

  • Do tax cuts help the German economy? An idea of the Liberals (FDP) in case they manage to govern Germany after the elections in three weeks.
  • Is it realistic to create 1 million jobs by investing in environmental technologies? Green Party.
  • Is it possible to model the effects of minimal wages?

  • Unemployment is waste! Any chance to stop this waste by help of the invisible hand of the market? :-) E.g. tax cuts for companies with less working hours per employee to better distribute the available work?

Schau in mich, Harno

Make it as simple as possible but not simpler (Albert Einstein)
by harnoes on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 04:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But these are rather philosophical questions. I prefer to start with more down to earth problems.

E.g.:

 

Fine, but these are very, very short-run strategies--or tactics, really.  They matter provided you have mid-term and long-term strategies you can implement if you succeed short-term.  

But everything you are doing is not actually sustainable.  The paradigm--system--you are working in will end (crash) soon.  You do not have centuries here--more like decades or years.  Indeed, economic crisis will worsen significantly--and you will feel the repercussions in Germany--in just a few months.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Fri Sep 4th, 2009 at 12:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries