One PRIMARY quibble:
"Good. Cheaper labor means cheaper products, which means
consumers have
more money left over to buy other things, which creates more jobs, and
means consumers can buy more things. This is comparative advantage. We
shouldn't be worried about jobs moving overseas. What we should be
worried about is production moving overseas (i.e. the trade
deficit). The past fifty years has seen a massive exodus of production,
due to excessive taxes and government regulations such as the minimum
wage. The only reason this hasn't hurt us too much yet is that the
United States has been extended an almost infinite line of credit by
countries who falsely assume that this benefits them in the long run.
(They are beginning to rethink this strategy now.)"
Cheaper labor overseas means unemployment or underemployment here, at
least in the short term. Those FORMER consumers will have no money left
to buy other things and keep the cycle going. They will be trying to
survive and meet their existing commitments on less money rather than
more money. As the "Unemployed 6 months or over" crowd passes the
previous record of 1948, I am less and less enthralled at the concept
of my job being outsourced to Bangalore.
In the meantime, I kind of agree with this:
"I think your implication is that, without the Fed, who would protect
us
from criminally greedy capitalists? But the Fed is not a magical entity
that, by existing as an unelected body of bureaucrats, has some special
power to weed out greed from the economy, allowing all to prosper in a
world where everyone thinks of others before themselves. We already
have a legislative and executive branch. They can make and enforce
laws. Those who are dishonest should go to prison. Those are are
incompetent should go bankrupt. (Instead, they get government
subsidies.) And before you say, "It's more complex than that," let me
respond with, "No it isn't." ;)"
And this:
""Those who are dishonest should go to prison. Those are are
incompetent
should go bankrupt." This applies to the derivatives market pretty
well. The derivatives in question were sold at AAA ratings. If this was
due to dishonesty, those responsible should go to prison. If due to
incompetence of the ratings agencies, then the ones who rated them AAA
should rightly receive some competition from ratings agencies that have
a better perspective on how the economy works.
The Fed didn't create derivatives, but it did create the economic
environment where derivatives speculation and highly-leveraged hedge
funds would prosper (in the short term). It did this, as it always
does, by extending easy credit at below-market interest rates, and
giving implicit guarantees on debt (for businesses which were "too big
to fail")."
>From what I've read, I would like the Austrian School Economics rather
than the mess we have now.
I start to have trouble here:
"If A has displaced B in the market, it is because A has provided a
product at a price that consumers find preferable to B's product at B's
price. Now this is very sad for the employees of B, who no longer have
jobs. It's true that some of them may be quite worse off as a result.
However, to consider only B would be to ignore the much larger group
that is all other consumers and industries. They benefit very
much from this occurrence. If A is selling essentially the same product
that B sold, but at a lower price, then consumers can buy more of A's
product. This allows A to hire more employees, which means that on the
whole, more jobs exist now than before. This works its way backwards
through the whole industry that supplies A's capital goods as well.
Consumers can also choose to buy the same amount of A's product, but
spend the savings on other goods, which benefits all other industries,
and allows them to hire more employees.""
And this is where I really don't want to go:
"Granted, the higher the rate of "creative destruction," the more
unemployment there will be, as workers must train themselves for new
jobs. But the rate of creative destruction is also directly
proportional to increased prosperity as outlined above. To limit it is
to limit the growth of prosperity."
"Train [myself] for new jobs." Great. NOT. I love what I do. Where I do
it is becoming unpopular and incrementally more insane, but what I am
doing is what I love. It's most difficult to kiss a 30 year career
good-bye. I'm trying to go through with the DB2 certification, but I
don't see the payoff in switching programming languages and all of that
rot. Particularly where the pay is less and the jobs are almost as
non-existent as where I'm at NOW.
When my wife in the public schools starts out-earning me, then I'm in
the wrong line of work.
David
"Free
speech is meant to
protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no
protection."—Neal Boortz
Kevin Nardi wrote:
Hi Billy,
Thanks for the response. Here is a rather long-winded and hopefully
not-too-ranty response to your response.
However,
your assumption seems to be that laissez faire is the
font
of all economic good and if only we got rid of the Fed , then Utopia
would
be around the corner.
I am indeed a fan of laissez-faire, though I am not quite that
starry-eyed. :)
Trouble
is, our economy, like all advanced economies, is multi-dimensional, a
fact
that
laissez faire theory doesn't really allow for.
What do you mean by "multi-dimensional?"
Smithians
assume an "innocent marketplace"
when
pure competition not only can exist but necessarily will exist -as
long as the
big
bad government keeps out of things.
I do not assume an innocent marketplace, and that has not been my
understanding of Smith's philosophy either. I contend that while pure
competition cannot exist in all markets, it can exist in almost all
markets, and that the closer you get to pure competition, the better
the marketplace is for industry as a whole and consumers as a whole.
This model has never been true and can never become true.
Too many special interests.
Special interests are served much better by a powerful central bank.
They can then spend money on lobbyists to grant themselves special
privileges. Without the powerful central bank, they have no one to
lobby. A free market is better at combating special interests because
no one gets special treatment by government.
Too much unfair competition, the equivalent of a butcher with
his thumb on the scale.
A butcher who puts his thumb on the scale, in a free market, while find
himself out of business as his customers go across the street to the
honest, cheaper butcher. It is only in the absence of
competition that the dishonest butcher benefits from dishonesty.
(Consider the special case when the butcher in question is Goldman
Sachs. With that huge loan from the government, they became one of the
only buyers on the market. When sellers have no one to choose from but
Goldman Sachs, that gives the "butcher" the opportunity to be
dishonest, because there is no other butcher to go to.)
Too many outside players -multinationals and foreign gvts-
who could care less
about our rules or priorities.
Could you elaborate?
One problem cannot be attributed to Smith himself, since he
wrote a whole book
about one of the issues you raised, moral hazards. Essentially
he said that unless
a society has a strong moral culture the economy will
necessarily be cutthroat,
unjust, avaricious, and you name it.
And no-one can possibly say that American culture as it
currently exists has a
strong moral foundation. If anything , it has an amoral
foundation based on
unfettered greed, or at least obliviousness to the common good.
I agree, but I would argue that greed is
apparent everywhere, and also that there is nothing that can be done
about it (at least, not by mandate of government). This is precisely
why the free market works, because it turns the sin of greed into
something that benefits everyone. This is Adam Smith's "invisible hand."
In other words, dismantling the Fed, I guess this is your
underlying objective,
simply would create a new set of problems.
I think your implication is that, without the Fed, who would protect us
from criminally greedy capitalists? But the Fed is not a magical entity
that, by existing as an unelected body of bureaucrats, has some special
power to weed out greed from the economy, allowing all to prosper in a
world where everyone thinks of others before themselves. We already
have a legislative and executive branch. They can make and enforce
laws. Those who are dishonest should go to prison. Those are are
incompetent should go bankrupt. (Instead, they get government
subsidies.) And before you say, "It's more complex than that," let me
respond with, "No it isn't." ;)
There still would be capital flight, either to Delaware or the
Caymans,
Good. Investors moving money from high-risk to low-risk investments is
beneficial to everyone.
Also, remember that countries are high-risk for investment precisely
when their governments are more likely to effect significant changes in
monetary policy. Markets in comparatively laissez-faire economies are
at much lower risk from political turmoil.
there still would be shipment of jobs overseas,
Good. Cheaper labor means cheaper products, which means consumers have
more money left over to buy other things, which creates more jobs, and
means consumers can buy more things. This is comparative advantage. We
shouldn't be worried about jobs moving overseas. What we should be
worried about is production moving overseas (i.e. the trade
deficit). The past fifty years has seen a massive exodus of production,
due to excessive taxes and government regulations such as the minimum
wage. The only reason this hasn't hurt us too much yet is that the
United States has been extended an almost infinite line of credit by
countries who falsely assume that this benefits them in the long run.
(They are beginning to rethink this strategy now.)
there still would be dangerous levels of technology transfer,
Not sure in what sense you mean this. If you mean the sharing of skills
and technology with other countries, then I think we disagree about how
dangerous this is. If you mean the relative loss in technological
advantage, then I would say that this is just one of the results of not
being competitive as a nation (which of course I argue is the fault of
too much government taxation and regulation).
and much else. Worse, there would be additional woes
to contemplate, we can be sure of that even if exactly what is
currently unclear.
Again, I disagree that the Fed has magical powers.
After all, did the Fed create derivatives ? I don't think so,
in fact the major headaches
caused by derivatives blind-sided the Fed, at least according
to Greenspan.
In a previous decade the big issue was the wild gambling
behavior of hedge funds,
also outside the purview of the Fed.
"Those who are dishonest should go to prison. Those are are incompetent
should go bankrupt." This applies to the derivatives market pretty
well. The derivatives in question were sold at AAA ratings. If this was
due to dishonesty, those responsible should go to prison. If due to
incompetence of the ratings agencies, then the ones who rated them AAA
should rightly receive some competition from ratings agencies that have
a better perspective on how the economy works.
The Fed didn't create derivatives, but it did create the economic
environment where derivatives speculation and highly-leveraged hedge
funds would prosper (in the short term). It did this, as it always
does, by extending easy credit at below-market interest rates, and
giving implicit guarantees on debt (for businesses which were "too big
to fail").
As well, the laissez faire values of the Bushies made sure
that vital regulations
were junked so that margins could go to hell, basically, with
leverage ratios
sometimes around 25 or 30, when 10 or so is the most that is
prudent.
Why should government dictate prudence? Won't imprudent investors lose
their money? Isn't that enough to discourage imprudence? Government is
only in the business of dictating prudence when it is also bailing out
the imprudent businesses that failed. This is one of the many reasons
that it shouldn't be bailing out failed businesses.
The problem in this case is that government encouraged
imprudence through far-below-market interest rates.
Then there is the anti-Fed, at least by way of metaphor, the
international financial
system which moves trillions of dollars around, almost by the
hour, chasing
fractional gains to be multiplied millions of times over to
yield billions in
unearned profits. This destabilizes every nations' best
efforts to create
sustainable economies for their populations.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the Fed. If you want to make
speculation on leverage illegal, that can be done without the Fed. I
would argue, however, that speculators actually smooth out the prices
of assets, at the macro level anyway--as they make educated guesses on
what the price of an asset is going to be, they even out the graph
between then and now. If they are wrong, they lose money--so it is in
their very best interest to know more about the markets than anyone
else. In so pursuing their own selfish gain, they act as vital guides
to market prices--prices move to "equilibrium" more quickly because of
them.
It is also a very dangerous practice, and the vast majority actually
end up subsidizing markets with their own money. Which is good for
everyone except the speculators that lose.
Yet you seem to think such
things can be ignored with impugnity.
Rather, I think that the free market is much better at not ignoring
them than government.
As for "creative destruction," sure, Schumpeter is sometimes
right, maybe
even often right. But ALWAYS right ? ? ?
If A has displaced B in the market, it is because A has provided a
product at a price that consumers find preferable to B's product at B's
price. Now this is very sad for the employees of B, who no longer have
jobs. It's true that some of them may be quite worse off as a result.
However, to consider only B would be to ignore the much larger group
that is all other consumers and industries. They benefit very
much from this occurrence. If A is selling essentially the same product
that B sold, but at a lower price, then consumers can buy more of A's
product. This allows A to hire more employees, which means that on the
whole, more jobs exist now than before. This works its way backwards
through the whole industry that supplies A's capital goods as well.
Consumers can also choose to buy the same amount of A's product, but
spend the savings on other goods, which benefits all other industries,
and allows them to hire more employees.
Granted, the higher the rate of "creative destruction," the more
unemployment there will be, as workers must train themselves for new
jobs. But the rate of creative destruction is also directly
proportional to increased prosperity as outlined above. To limit it is
to limit the growth of prosperity.
Because of this False Absolute we now have a hollowed out
economy with
a way too large section of our industrial base now in China,
Korea, Japan, and
elsewhere. And some industries are necessary for basic
national security.
Let electronics vanish from the USA ? We have almost done
exactly that
and no longer produce TV sets, CD players, and you name it, or
only produce
a fraction of what we could manufacture, because it supposedly
is good
to maximize profits at the expense of just about everything
else. But this
isn't sound economic policy, it is social and political
irresponsibility.
So you think we don't have enough tariffs? I disagree with the idea
that exporting labor is bad for us. As above, everyone benefits from
cheaper prices. If China decides to cut us off from their electronic
exports, that is their loss, and will cause our own electronics
industry to have a sudden overnight Renaissance. However, replacing our
own manufacturing industries with service industries is bad,
and happens as I've said because of minimum wage laws and excessive
taxes/regulation.
Let me assume that various of your complaints are valid. But
it seems to me
that the solution is drastic ( radical ) redesign of the Fed,
not junking the Fed.
The Fed represents to me the power of government to steal value from
its constituents without direct taxation, allowing government a
limitless supply of money to fund its agendas, including unjust wars,
which would otherwise be limited by citizens' willingness to pay for
it. It represents the power of financial special interests to receive
favors and special treatment at the expense of everyone else.
I am of the opinion that what we need is not more government,
but more choice. More freedom to spend the fruits of our labor on what we
decide. Less taxpayer subsidies (though direct taxation and
inflation; through direct subsidy, government guarantees, price-fixing,
and tariffs) for special interests. Less government meddling in the
economy, which causes false economic signals, which causes
malinvestments, which causes asset bubbles and depressions, and vast
amounts of underhanded theft from the middle and lower classes
through resultant re-inflation and government bailouts.
If it is not yet clear, I am not a fan of the Federal Reserve system. :)
Also, if this debate is becoming too much off-topic, I would be glad to
move it off-list.
-Kevin
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, <[email protected]>
wrote:
Kevin
:
Thoughtful
critique. However, your assumption seems to be that laissez faire is the
font
of all economic good and if only we got rid of the Fed , then Utopia
would
be around the corner.
Let
me grant the worth of some of your arguments. Among other things the Fed
has
the severe limitation that just about all it can do is tinker with
monetary policy.
The
result is the "hammer problem." When the only tool you have is a
hammer,
all
problems look
like nails.
Trouble
is, our economy, like all advanced economies, is multi-dimensional, a
fact
that
laissez faire theory doesn't really allow for. Smithians assume an
"innocent marketplace"
when
pure competition not only can exist but necessarily will exist -as
long as the
big
bad government keeps out of things.
This model has never been true and can never become true.
Too many special interests.
Too much unfair competition, the equivalent of a butcher with
his thumb on the scale.
Too many outside players -multinationals and foreign gvts-
who could care less
about our rules or priorities.
And much more.
One problem cannot be attributed to Smith himself, since he
wrote a whole book
about one of the issues you raised, moral hazards. Essentially
he said that unless
a society has a strong moral culture the economy will
necessarily be cutthroat,
unjust, avaricious, and you name it.
And no-one can possibly say that American culture as it
currently exists has a
strong moral foundation. If anything , it has an amoral
foundation based on
unfettered greed, or at least obliviousness to the common good.
In other words, dismantling the Fed, I guess this is your
underlying objective,
simply would create a new set of problems.
There still would be capital flight, either to Delaware or the
Caymans, there still
would be shipment of jobs overseas, there still would be
dangerous levels of
technology transfer, and much else. Worse, there would be
additional woes
to contemplate, we can be sure of that even if exactly what is
currently unclear.
After all, did the Fed create derivatives ? I don't think so,
in fact the major headaches
caused by derivatives blind-sided the Fed, at least according
to Greenspan.
In a previous decade the big issue was the wild gambling
behavior of hedge funds,
also outside the purview of the Fed.
As well, the laissez faire values of the Bushies made sure
that vital regulations
were junked so that margins could go to hell, basically, with
leverage ratios
sometimes around 25 or 30, when 10 or so is the most that is
prudent.
Then there is the anti-Fed, at least by way of metaphor, the
international financial
system which moves trillions of dollars around, almost by the
hour, chasing
fractional gains to be multiplied millions of times over to
yield billions in
unearned profits. This destabilizes every nations' best
efforts to create
sustainable economies for their populations.
Yet you seem to think such things can be ignored with
impugnity.
As for "creative destruction," sure, Schumpeter is sometimes
right, maybe
even often right. But ALWAYS right ? ? ?
Because of this False Absolute we now have a hollowed out
economy with
a way too large section of our industrial base now in China,
Korea, Japan, and
elsewhere. And some industries are necessary for basic
national security.
Let electronics vanish from the USA ? We have almost done
exactly that
and no longer produce TV sets, CD players, and you name it, or
only produce
a fraction of what we could manufacture, because it supposedly
is good
to maximize profits at the expense of just about everything
else. But this
isn't sound economic policy, it is social and political
irresponsibility.
Let me assume that various of your complaints are valid. But
it seems to me
that the solution is drastic ( radical ) redesign of the Fed,
not junking the Fed.
What needs to be junked is laissez faire theory -which is
more of a joke than
a serious theory of economics.
I'm reminded of an Anarchist ( of the peaceful variety , sort
of Tolstoy-ist in character )
who I once worked for in New Mexico. His ideal world was the
Old West when
people were free to be "completely independent " of government
and, in the
process, could flourish as never before --or since.
What self delusion.
Each inch of Western land was obtained by the government for
them, was protected
for them by the military, and was serviced for them in large
part because of
government policies, such as selectively selling public lands
to RR companies
so that Western farmers and miners and ranchers, etc, could
have access
to markets.
Were all government policies for the good ? Of course not. But
the solution
is government reform, and we got plenty of that in the
Progressive Era, under TR
especially, and later under FDR, and if things still were not
optimal at least
there were some changes for the better --with the possibility
for
future generations to take the reform process further.
Billy
============================================
Hi all, new to the list, and already being opinionated. :)
The author doesn't do a very good job of presenting the
arguments of the "Fed bashers," so I thought I'd chime in. Those
opposed to the Fed are opposed for three major reasons:
- Legality -- The Fed's position as a creator of fiat
money that is not under the authority of any branch of government and
can't be fully audited contradicts some language in the Constitution
(art. I, § 8, cl. 5.; art. I, § 9, cl. 6.). This is perhaps the weakest
of the three arguments, as all three branches of government violate the
Constitution day in and day out and no one seems to mind.
- Morality -- The Fed is often said to be "waging a war
against inflation," when in fact the Fed is the only possible cause of
monetary inflation, as it controls the money supply. Inflation is
precisely a sinister form of tax by which the Federal Reserve (by
issuing credit and buying various instruments with money that didn't
previously exist) steals value from its constituents' savings. The Fed
thus discourages saving money, and (especially through below-market
interest rates) encourages spending. Inflation is an invisible tax
without representation, as long as Congress is not allowed any monetary
power.
- Economic merit -- The strongest argument of the three.
The Federal Reserve is the primary cause of the current recession, and
by its very nature causes asset bubbles. It does this in two primary
ways. It sets lower-than-market interest rates, which cause more
borrowing to be done than would be done under a free-market system,
causing malinvestment (as seen in the dot-com and real estate bubbles).
Secondly, it implicitly guarantees debt, which creates moral hazard,
allowing banks and other financial institutions to make investments
that would not be possible without this guarantee--which again causes
malinvestment and results in asset bubbles. The author actually praises
the Fed for these flaws:
The
Fed pumped out more than $1 trillion in new credit, created special
lending programs to support faltering segments of the credit markets
(commercial paper, money market funds) and rescued financial
institutions, notably AIG, whose bankruptcy might have triggered a
chain reaction of failures.
It's hard to imagine the kind of economic thinking that would see
trillions of dollars of inflation and call that a good thing. Not to
mention the government subsidy (with taxpayer money, through inflation)
of segments of our economy that contributed to the malinvestment. In a
healthy economy, dying industries must be allowed to die so
that others that don't yet exist may be born (see horse-and-carriage
argument).
Well, that turned into an essay. Sorry about that!
-Kevin
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM, <[email protected]>
wrote:
WPost
Fed 'reform' we don't want
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, November 30, 2009
Ever since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has
grappled with a daunting political contradiction. The Fed is charged
with preventing the collapse of the banking and financial system, whose
health is essential for the "real economy" of production and jobs. But
financial bailouts usually occur when mistakes or misdeeds by bankers
and investment professionals make them public pariahs. To do its job,
then, the Fed protects -- or seems to protect -- an unpopular,
disgraced and undeserving group. We are now witnessing this
contradiction in full bloom.
The Fed has become a congressional scapegoat for
assorted economic frustrations: 10.2 percent unemployment; expensive rescues of fragile
financial institutions (AIG, Bear Stearns, Citigroup); outsize Wall
Street bonuses; and the crisis itself. The denunciations transcend
rhetorical outbursts. The House Financial Services Committee recently voted to require the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to "audit" the Fed's monetary policy -- its efforts to
influence interest rates and credit conditions. In the Senate,
Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee, has proposed stripping the Fed of all powers to
regulate financial institutions -- its actions to police lending and
management practices. These powers would go to a new agency.
The Fed backlash is bipartisan. Rep. Ron Paul, a
Republican and libertarian, proposed the GAO audit, which he sees as a
first step toward abolishing the Fed ("End the Fed" is his latest
book). Paul favors resurrecting the gold standard and combining it with
private money; Wal-Mart could issue currency. His views are
long-standing, principled -- and wholly impractical. Dodd, of course,
is a Democrat. Much Fed-bashing simply indulges Congress's impulse to
blame someone else for anything unpleasant.
Lost in this politically charged climate is the reality
that the Fed, more than any other government agency, arguably stopped
last fall's financial panic from becoming a global depression. The Fed
pumped out more than $1 trillion in new credit, created special lending
programs to support faltering segments of the credit markets
(commercial paper, money market funds) and rescued financial
institutions, notably AIG, whose bankruptcy might have triggered a
chain reaction of failures. These were seat-of-the-pants responses,
taken in the midst of crisis and pervasive uncertainty. We will never
know what might have happened without them. The second-guessing is
occurring now when there's less fear and more information.
What's also overlooked is that the Fed isn't the
super-secretive, unaccountable agency of political stereotype. In 2009,
Fed officials from Chairman Ben Bernanke on down have testified 32
times before congressional committees. The Fed makes detailed
disclosures about its policies. After every meeting, the Federal Open
Market Committee (FOMC), the key decision-making body on monetary
policy, issues a statement explaining why it has -- or hasn't --
changed its interest-rate target. Until 1994, there were no
announcements after FOMC meetings. Economists and investors had to
guess.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Fed's activities
are already widely audited. Deloitte & Touche examines the Fed's
financial statements, which are published. The GAO can audit many Fed
activities, including its banking regulation and supervision of the
payments system. What it's barred from auditing is the conduct of
monetary policy, including relations with foreign central banks such as
the European Central Bank.
Congress has so far sensibly put this off limits.
"Audit" has a different meaning in the context of the GAO than in
everyday usage. It means examine, investigate, evaluate and,
often, criticize. It's not just crunching numbers. The GAO
usually undertakes studies at the request of someone in Congress. This
suggests that the GAO could be used to influence or intimidate the Fed
through selective investigations, which would involve access to
internal Fed documents and interviews with policymakers. The Fed might
be pressured to finance government deficits or to adopt an "undue focus
on the short term," Vice Chairman Donald Kohn testified before Congress on July 9. Historically,
similar pressures have caused other central banks to unleash
inflationary torrents of money, Kohn said.
This is not inevitable, but even the impression that the
Fed's "independence" is compromised could perversely undermine
confidence in the dollar, leading to higher market interest rates or a
rapid fall in the dollar's foreign exchange value. Massive projected
government budget deficits compound the psychological damage. Similar
objections apply to Dodd's proposal to end the Fed's power to examine
and regulate financial institutions. If this crisis teaches anything,
it is that the Fed needs to know more -- not less -- about large
financial institutions.
The Fed isn't infallible. Its mistakes contributed to
the crisis. Its present low-interest-rate policy poses dangers of
fostering inflation or new "asset bubbles." But the congressional
Fed-bashing poses greater dangers. Ironically, the destructive remedies
being peddled are part of "financial reform" legislation. If this is
"reform," we're better off without it.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
|
