Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Tory campaign strategy

Should stress ring-fencing social spending and giveaway tax cuts   1 vote - 33 %
Should stress early repayment of debt   0 votes - 0 %
Should stress both, since that's actually possible   1 vote - 33 %
Should stress both, since voters won't realise it's impossible   1 vote - 33 %
 
3 Total Votes
A nun rolling down a hill | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 hidden)
Question by Herring (4.00 / 1) #1 Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 01:33:43 PM EST
OK, really more of an opinion request - cos I don't study these things enough.

It strikes me that cutting public spending soon will take that money out of an already fragile economy and likely result in recession. Not doing so would likely result in "downgrade of our credit rating". Am I wrong? Which is worse? If the economy goes tits, then you aren't going to be able to pay back national debt either.

(Personally I think we're fucked whatever.)

And don't you think there's something wrong with a system that will rate a bunch of dodgy mortgages AAA but Japan AA?

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

Aaargh by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #2 Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 01:54:57 PM EST
I planned to do a response to Osborne's Mais lecture in this diary but didn't post it because it just got too long and too technical.

But basically not many people seriously think that the UK's credit rating will get downgraded, and even if it does, other nations with lower ratings still borrow at reasonable rates.

You have to remember that regarding prices and spreads of UK bonds, there are other factors than the risk of default. If you buy government bonds (debt) and the pound falls, you've lost money. Or if there's inflation, you've lost money in real terms. Since the UK has its own currency, if you're an investor in the Eurozone you're taking an additional exchange-rate risk by buying UK bonds. So they're going to look riskier than other EU government bonds, especially in chaotic times, even if the UK govermment is no more likely to default.

One thing that's interestingly absent from Osborne's Mais lecture is what he plans to do with Sterling. He stresses that he wants to boost British exports. Logically that would mean weakening the pound still further. I can't see how he's going to boost exports while at the same time strengthening the pound to its pre-crisis level, since that makes all our exports more expensive.

So another explanation for UK government bonds being perceived as riskier would be if the markets think the Tories are more likely to win the election than Labour, and Osborne's serious about his plan to boost exports and will devalue sterling.

Personally, I don't believe Osborne's claims to predict market behaviour, and suspect that he doesn't either. I think he just wants to shrink the state and the credit rating is just an excuse to do that.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Fail by Herring (4.00 / 1) #4 Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 03:06:19 PM EST
I always forget about the exchange rate thing.

I put my faith in Vince. I haven't been closely following what Osbourne says because it sounded stupid initially. More stupid than Darling.

I know it's been said 10^23 times before, but it does seem like the Douglas Adams scenario: "Why do people vote for the lizards?".

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

[ Parent ]
BTW I meant my fail, not yours by Herring (4.00 / 1) #5 Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 06:40:11 PM EST
It's late. It's been a tiring day.

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods
[ Parent ]
Implications by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #6 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 10:29:16 AM EST
But basically not many people seriously think that the UK's credit rating will get downgraded,
Oh yes they do, I work with them everyday.  Not op-ed's in the papers or leftist economists, the actual people who lend the money to governments in the first place.

and even if it does, other nations with lower ratings still borrow at reasonable rates.
They do, and we will have access to those rates.

But factored into the price we will pay to borrow is also the deficit.  Because if we keep spending more than we earn, and add to our debt, the more likely it is seen we are a default risk.  Or if not the whole default shebang, we may be seen as heading to inflate the debt away, which is not as bad as default but investors still get bilked.

There are other problems, the market for our bonds diminishes too.  Investment groups can only own a certain percentage overall of each rating band, so perhaps 25% CCC, 35% BBB 40% AAA rated investments.  These ratings of holdings are enforced by the regulators.

If UK debt drops out of that AAA band, institutional investors will either have to sell other AA rated holdings to make space for them and buy other AAA investments, or just sell them outright.

Neither is going to be good for the UK economy.


[ Parent ]
So are these the same people by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #7 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 12:06:25 PM EST
That assured us, through you, that if the Bank of England introduced quantitative easing, it would give us Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation?

Come to think of it, didn't they (and you) also say that if QE was introduced it would make gilt prices plumment? How come in reality the start of QE made them go up and the end of QE made them go down, when that was the opposite of their prediction?

It seems to me that the "leftist economists" (WTF?) seem to have been doing a rather better job of predictions than your mysterious sources so far.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Now by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #8 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:04:51 PM EST
Inflation is underway already.  Not perhaps to Zimbabwean levels, but at 3.5% last reporting figure (even with the Govt's fiddled inflation methodology) it's way outstripping growth.  Calculate the cumulative effects of inflation from 2 years ago until now and you'll understand the concerns.

Gilts - are we talking issue price or nominal here?  Are you talking about the nominal / spread price?

IIRC I said the yields (or coupon) would have to go up, which they have.

I also believe I made mention that our currency would be debauched, which if you look at our crossrate to Aussie dollar, Euro, Yuan and so on I believe I'm largely right.

Leftist economists include but are not limited to Krugman and the Stumbling and Mumbling chap you link to from time to time.

So, back to the original point, is it likely that we'll lose our credit rating?  Well, both Moody's and S&P have issued warnings it's possible.

A country losing it's AAA rating would be a pretty catastrophic event for the markets, so they're by and large not too keen for it to happen (aside from some speculators, of course).

What is staying the hour of execution is the forthcoming budget; that'll be the last one before the GE.  That budget and the outcome of the GE might be enough to change policy to please the markets.  There's a lot of holding of breath going on right nows.


[ Parent ]
Now here's a funny thing by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #9 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:49:38 PM EST
When VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15%, a certain Mr Breaker said:
Inflation dropped as the VAT cut kicked in; a one off event
Now that 3.5% inflation rate includes 2.5% which is due to that change being reversed back up. So why is it in the Breakerverse that VAT reductions affect inflation, but VAT increases don't?

Now back to gilts. You said that yields would increase when quantitative easing began. Instead, gilt yields rose as quantitive easing ended:

Yields have been kept down this year by the Bank of England's quantitative easing policy with £200bn of asset purchases, most of which were gilts. By increasing the demand for gilts, the Bank has helped raise their price and suppress the yield.
If you were right, yields would have increased when QE began, and dropped when it ended. Exactly the opposite happened.

Well, not quite, because according to you quantitative easing would never have ended at all, since it would create a cycle of recursion where:

The printing of money will continue until it is impossible to carry on due to other impacts on the economy due to a devalued currency, then we will have to go to the IMF.

--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Well then... by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #15 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 04:46:14 PM EST
Now that 3.5% inflation rate includes 2.5% (VAT)
Not strictly true; some purchase items are not subject to VAT.  I'm not arguing that the VAT rate being returned to previous values hasn't affected inflation figures.

But the BoE figures should have taken that into account.  We have discussed this before I believe.

Now back to gilts. You said that yields would increase when quantitative easing began. Instead, gilt yields rose as quantitive easing ended:
I don't think I ever gave a timetable, noting that QE would cause a rise in coupon rates for gilts.  You're basically agreeing with me there though - QE caused a rise in gilt yields.  What I didn't expect was the government to use it's regulatory powers to effectively force captive state owned and other banks in UKia to buy their gilts.  Thereby distorting the market.

If you were right, yields would have increased when QE began, and dropped when it ended
No, I don't think I ever said there'd be an end to the yield increase due to QE.  In addition to our structural defict, this is another millstone about our necks. 

QE has ceased right now, but given the worst January's tax receipts for about 25 years, we're going to face a budget shortfall.  Expect the printing presses to be fired up again after the GE.


[ Parent ]
Gilts by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #17 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 05:00:42 PM EST
True, as I recall, before QE ever started you just predicted it would cause yields to rise, without giving a timetable.

What actually happened was that gilt yields fell when it was introduce, and starting rising at the end when they scaled back the monthly amounts.

Now in retrospect, you've gone back and invented a magical time lag which means that the rise at the end was a delayed response to the start. But that fails on two grounds. It doesn't explain the fall during QE. And you've never given a reason why this delay happens. In some markets, they try to locate the servers near the market to save valuable microseconds while the signals pass along the cables. You've never explained why in this market, the delays take many months. Very long cables, perhaps?

January inflation. Yes, a minority of goods are VAT free: it doesn't affect the figures that much. Also oil's gone up slightly which feeds through. But it would be quite wrong to adjust the inflation figures to take out the VAT increase (or the earlier VAT reduction). The actual prices people have paid went up (or down) that month, and that's what VAT's supposed to measure.

So I see you're ending with another prediction of QE. It's not impossible: some members of the Times' independent Shadow MPC have called for it. But your prediction record isn't really superb, is it?
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
When you're dealing with by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #36 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 06:09:03 AM EST
5, 10 15 and 25 year bonds, and a quarterly new issue at best, the markets aren't as fast as say options.


[ Parent ]
From the FT by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #37 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 06:54:53 AM EST
Gilts lose triple A lustre for investors.

British government debt is already trading at prices that suggest it has lost its prized top credit rating, heightening concerns that investors already view gilts as less than triple A-rated assets and demand greater rewards for holding them.


[ Parent ]
You're not being consistent by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #40 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 01:36:16 PM EST
If anyone's interested in the real significance of these figures, Stephanomics is worth a read.

But according to your explanation for QE, bond markets take about a year to react to public information. Therefore today's movements can't be a response to any recent debt figures or opinion polls. Instead, those will cause a sudden step change some time in 2011.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
I am too. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #42 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 06:21:37 PM EST
You're just expecting me to have exact timelines for when my (admittedly vague) predictions will come to pass.

Todays step changes are a cumulation of past knowledge, current knowledge and a little bit of speculation.

QE is an unknown in todays breed of bond traders, so they wait until concrete evidence emerges.

I thank you for your more apologetic response.


[ Parent ]
Um, don't confuse sarcastic for apologetic by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:35:18 PM EST
Breakernomics says that markets react to events in a sudden jump than can occur any time from seconds to years after that event.

So yes indeed, this means you can interpret any random fluctuation in a market as "proof" that you're right. Or if the market goes in the opposite direction, or stays flat, you're still right and the delayed jump hasn't happened yet.

In your view this proves all your predictions are perfect.

But it seems to me it proves that all your predictions are perfectly worthless, since they can never be falsified by any data.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
At last by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 04:25:45 PM EST
You agree with me.


[ Parent ]
Also, on currency by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #14 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 04:07:23 PM EST
Last time you hit the panic button on exchange rates you said:
Cable rate: below US$1.40.
One pound sterling now sitting at €1.08
Currently according to Google, one pound buys US$1.5248, or EU €1.1194

So I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for the currency death spiral. The pound seems to have appreciated slightly since then.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
It did by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #16 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 04:51:35 PM EST
Largely through other currencies taking a bath.

But as of last week, well.


[ Parent ]
That's a 4-month low by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #19 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 05:14:19 PM EST
But that article mentions 90 pence per Euro, which is €1.11 Euros per pound, still higher than the €1.08 it was when you said it was about to plummet.

The Telegraph and the right-wing blogs are full of people endlessly screaming "You must cut taxes and shrink the state and be inflation hawks just like I want or the sky will fall in!" That didn't even start with the recession: they had the whole "middle class inflation" thing beforehand. But it's worth being a bit skeptical.

The truth seems to be that the pound was overvalued during the long boom, since everyone thought Britain had a huge profitable financial sector. When that turned out not to exist, the currency markets priced that into Sterling. But it's not in spiral of decline, it's just bobbling along around the new level.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Want to strongly echo the MeFi sentiment: by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #3 Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 02:58:27 PM EST
Anyone over the age of three, who does not understand that the vagina is an internal organ, is a fucking idiot.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

Republican Future by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #10 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 03:15:29 PM EST
The more I learn about the Tea Party movement the more I see it as a repeat of the "Republican Revolution" from 1992.  From what I see this is the death knell of the angry white man phenomena.  You have the elderly and the soon to be elderly (Baby Boomers) struggling to retain power.  They're afraid of a future where minorities are the majority.  The election of a black President is the harbinger of doom for these people. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
tea party == Ross Perot by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #11 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 03:27:36 PM EST
There are huge similarities.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Similarities, but more the angry white man thing by jimgon (4.00 / 2) #12 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 03:40:31 PM EST

The whole Ross Perot thing was really a desire for an alternative, but the Tea Party doesn't want an alternative.  They want conservatives to run in the Republican party.  CNN recently did a poll on Tea Party activites.  They overwhelmingly self identify as conservatives who would vote Republican in a two party race and don't favor forming a third party if it would result in Democratic victories.  I suppose you could say they learned from the Ross Perot campaign which resulted in a draw off of votes from George W Bush in 1991, but I don't entirely buy it.  I see this increasingly as the angry white guy who is afraid that brown people are taking over. 






---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
Same people, I think by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #13 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 03:45:27 PM EST
A lot of the Perot movement was also driven by the angry white male, though then they were afraid of immigrants and jobs being shipped over seas.  There are definitely differences, sure, mostly in the injection of religion and the fear of a black president.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
I dunno by lm (4.00 / 3) #21 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:12:53 PM EST
I voted Perot, twice.

I'm certainly wasn't afraid of immigrants then (or now for that matter).

I think most of his supporters were of the mind, ``this guy made billions from scratch, he ought to be able to run a bureaucracy as big as the US government.''

Now, the stragglers that went on to create the Reform party after his first run nose dived probably do have some overlap with the Tea Baggists. How else can you explain the Pat Buchanan endorsement when Buchanan's platform was largely the reverse of Perot's on every significant issue?

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
I don't know by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #23 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:38:15 PM EST
I knew a lot of Perot supporters back in the day and the fear of immigrants and jobs had nothing to do with it.  He was a successful business man, and hence inspirational.  He also had some interesting ideas that would never have generated within one of the parties. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
Why shouldn't they be afraid for the future? by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #18 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 05:13:24 PM EST
Can you show them a stable and prosperous nation, apart from America, which isn't run by white people?

Yeah, racism blahblahblah, but that's the unfortunate reality we live in.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Japan? by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #20 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 05:42:53 PM EST
Maybe South Korea. China seems to be on it's way to prosperity. I've heard good things about Kenya.


[ Parent ]
Japan by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #22 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:18:52 PM EST
Tokyo is cleaner, more modern, better organized and safer than any major city run by white people I've ever been in.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Japan is also near 5 nines homogeneous by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #26 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 09:17:07 PM EST
and as a culture, discourages dissent. I'm sure that's a factor in Japan's economic success.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Japan by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #27 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 09:33:47 PM EST
You are off by few of orders of magnitudes.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Okay, so it's 98.6% pure Japanese. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #30 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 11:31:08 PM EST
Ya feelin' me homie?

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Prosperious and politically stable though by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #48 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 08:31:48 PM EST
Even democratic. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
Interesting point by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #24 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 06:40:56 PM EST

China. 






---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
I don't believe by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #25 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 09:12:51 PM EST
that we can put China in the Prosperous category yet, considering their wealth distribution. See: South Korea

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Wealth distribution by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #28 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 09:42:43 PM EST
I am not sure if I get your point...  South Korea, like Japan, has less of a disparity in income than the US.  (As do most Western countries.)
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
And... by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #29 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 09:45:49 PM EST
According to the CIA World Fact book, China is only slightly worse than the US in income equality.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Here's my metric: by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #31 Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 11:37:32 PM EST
The percentage of Chinese people engaged in subsistence farming is gonna be a hell of a lot higher than any first-world nation.

Let's face facts - China has yet to arrive.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Comparison by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #32 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 12:52:31 AM EST
China : Subsistence farming :: US : Welfare.

Guess who wins that?
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
You're right! by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #33 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 01:01:47 AM EST
and families of executed prisoners get a bill for the bullet == THIRD WORLD.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Yup by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #34 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 01:49:35 AM EST
Western nations never torture or execute prisoners.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
I prefer our appellate procedures. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #35 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 02:27:45 AM EST

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
As do I... by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #38 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 11:29:53 AM EST
But we're talking societal cohesion here, not freedom.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Third World? by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #47 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 08:28:13 PM EST
Sounds like capitalism. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
Is that by quintiles? by lm (2.00 / 0) #41 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 06:08:42 PM EST
If so, I suspect the real disparity is masked by the very small number (relatively speaking) of filthy, stinking rich folks in China.
Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
No by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #43 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 07:06:15 PM EST
I don't entirely understand the formula, but from what I understand it is something meant exactly to tell the difference between lots of poor + a few stinking rich vs. a more even, rich populous.

(See Gini coefficient.)
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
I know that China has billionaires by lm (2.00 / 0) #44 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 07:21:48 PM EST
But IIRC the average income is still only the equivalent of four digits USD.
Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
Well... by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #45 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 07:24:59 PM EST
Could it be a case of $4 billion vs. $2000 compared to $40 billion vs. $20,000?
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
That could very well be by lm (2.00 / 0) #46 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 07:39:52 PM EST
But that's from average to the top, not from the bottom to the top.

I suspect that in general one has to go to some fairly out of the ordinary places in the US to find the sort of poverty that is the norm in large swaths of China, especially some of the rural provinces. At last count 10% of the country is under the World Bank's poverty metric.

They've made some really amazing strides in the last couple of decades. And it will probably keep getting better for quite some time.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
Another point by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #49 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 08:35:29 PM EST
You had a first question before the second.  Why should they be afraid of the future?  Fear is irrational.  Trying to explain why they have fear in a rational manner will be entirely unsuccessful.  I personally can't understand the mindset, so I can't come close to answering the question.  They do have fear though.  You can see it, and you can hear it.  




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
Singapore by Scrymarch (2.00 / 0) #52 Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:12:58 AM EST


Iambic Web Certified
[ Parent ]
US Republican future by duxup (4.00 / 1) #39 Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 01:24:56 PM EST
"The generation that came of age during the Bush years and overwhelmingly backed Obama is not go0ing to become receptive to movement conservatism"

I don't really buy that.  I can't say I'd be sorry if that was true, but I don't buy it.  I think that statement is more of a reflection of those political fanatics who buy into the political identity game that gets played by politicians.   Pollutions might play party purity games, use the opposition's name like an insult, and such garbage, most folks don't care IMO.  Fewer people seem to identify with parties and folks are aware of the differences, or lack of them between the parties / politicians, what they deliver, and who owns them.  I dont' see any reason the pendulum won't swing back and forth as usual as time passes.  

I've seen both parties declared dead by media idiots numerous times in my short life.

____
A nun rolling down a hill | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 hidden)
Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:
View: Display: Sort:

Powered by Scoop  
 
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments and Stories are owned by the Poster and Licensed to "Hulver's site". See our Copyright page for more information.
faq | help | accounts