39 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. I propose that the Melbourne spring racing carnival is the social highpoint of the year, not Christmas. The Cup is more ‘Australian’ in the sense that it dwells on the vagaries of fortune, long time between drinks, even a battler can beat the millionaires and so on. I doubt that Muslims, Jews and anti-consumerists find it irritating like Christmas. Prime time TV is not dominated by interminable concerts of tedious carol singing. The TV movies aren’t all about Scrooge and Grinches and Santa losing his sleigh. Then in 35C temperatures we are supposed to gorge ourselves on enough meat to feed Bangladesh for decades, followed by forced feeding of sickly puddings that would test Mr Creosote.

    There will be no let up because even the news breaks on the TV will show slightly deranged shoppers buying endless junk on the plastic. Economists will speak of retail sales ‘turning the corner’. My suggestion; pay off all credit card debts this year and avoid retail stores that run irritating ads.

  2. Hermit, I buggered if I know who is going to win this year’s Melbourne Cup but I am going to back Alcopop, Master O’Reilly & Daffodil.

  3. The trouble is Hermit, that it isn’t about any sort of social anything whether it be a highpoint, event, happening or whatever. It’s about rampant consumerism and I realise you are aware of that.

    I have been trying to get my family to give me only Australian stuff if they must give me something. Trouble is, when that old bottle of Drambuie shows itself, all my good intentions kind of slip away. And then there is the damn grandkids, discracefully spoiled in the first place but “it’s Christmas, we have to give them something”.

    Maybe we should make Christmas a guilt fest and determine to make amends for the rest of the year.

  4. Did anyone in Sydney hear Alan Jones and Malcolm Turnbull go head to head? Quite by accident I came across it as a video-feed on the APAC channel 607 (Austar), and Turnbull was mightily peeved at Jones’s parrotting the Monckton rubbish re climate and Copenhagen. Gave him a fairly decent serve, enough so that I was sure it would be shown on the ABC news. Nope. Or maybe the 7:30 report – maybe I was getting a coffee when it popped on – or maybe not. If they don’t at least spend two seconds on it on Lateline shortly, I’ll be wondering why they don’t consider it newsworthy enough.

    NB: the Parrot being in NSW is yet another reason for liking SA so much.

  5. @Michael Harris

    I certainly did, at any rate. The CSIRO Public Comment Policy does make it relatively clear that a distinction must be made between discussing policy options which is acceptable, and criticising or approving government or opposition policy, which is not acceptable.

    The policy is what it is. In the past some people have resigned in order to be free to comment upon what they have seen as political interference in the science itself. This happened IIRC in 2004 or so, when John Howard and co set out to aggressively contradict Australian and international climate scientists. The well known SourceWatch gives a bit of the story away…

  6. It turns out that Spash is a steady state economy fan.

    The enhanced Greenhouse Effect is an impact on the physical not the
    monetary. We may then ask, if the scale of the physical economy shrank 20% why should anyone in affluent societies really care that much? In affluent societies, continued increases in material consumption have been noted to have added nothing to well-being for some considerable time (Economist, 2006), and reduced scale of through-put has been
    advocated to save resources for future generations (Georgescu-Roegen, 1975). A permanently smaller material economy has been positively advanced, by literature on steady-state economics, as something for which we should be planning. Smaller by design rather than smaller by disaster.

    Modern economic growth has been locked-in to dependence upon fossil fuels and these are the historical source of the majority of Greenhouse Gas emissions. Humanity is facing the transformation of the economy away from this dependence; that transformation will come whether we choose to plan for it or not. A new economics is required in which human well-being is addressed as a multifaceted concept which involves a plurality of values. Poverty
    in less industrially developed economies is not solved by supplying more luxuries to the already wealthy. Traditional “progrowth” policies fail to address the problems we face, the necessary transition or the nature of widespread environmental change we are undertaking. The time is upon us when we must ask: economic activity “for what”?

    Spash on Economic Modelling

  7. Many of us in industry have been concerned about the increasing tendency to sheet home liability to directors and management for work safety, however far removed from direct care and control. For example in the transport industry there are now laws that can make third parties like Coles and Woollies directors responsible for remote subcontractor trucky hours in the sense that squeezing freight margins is supposed to contribute to that practice.

    That raises questions about householders doing the same with getting ‘quotes’ from tradesmen to do work about the house, none so more than our PM, with the news that a tradesman he engaged to clean his house gutters has had a serious fall and is in hospital and the incident has been reported to police. According to OHS in the building industry nowadays, no worker is to work above 2m without appropriate scaffolding or fall arrest tether. I guess the question the QLD DPP might be asking themselves now, is to what extent did the injured man’s ’employer’ fail in his duty to see to it that an adequate Job Safety Analysis had been formally written and observed and if not to what extent a very knowledgeable ’employer’ in this area of the intent of such law, ignored his larger responsibility for personal economic gain? What say you bush lawyers and homeowners?

    I must say I feel for our PM’s predicament now that he fully understands the invidious position his union base have placed him and wish his ’employee’ a speedy recovery naturally.

  8. @Fran Barlow

    Hmm. Might have to have a read and see what he has to say. The question of whether it is possible to have an economy that a) doesn’t depend in an essential way upon population growth, and/or b) can provide a good life, and/or c) provide some technological and scientific progress (and art and other cool stuff too) without exponentially increasing demands upon raw resources; well, it would be nice to see some people take a serious crack at answering it.

    One problem I suppose is that the notion of progress seems to be that if we aren’t forever increasing our range of new toys as fast as possible we aren’t making “progress”.

  9. So, Observa, still feeling confident in your predictions of Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation in Australia and 10%+ unemployment?

  10. I detest the Melbourne Cup and everything associated with it. It has nothing to recommend it. The further promotion of the destructive drinking and gambling culture of this country is to be deplored. The horse racing and gambling industry is a blight on the nation, a haven for crooks and spivs. Thoroughbred racing is just as exploitatively cruel to animals as circuses ever were. The lionising of horse trainers is absurd. For every “champion” thoroughbred that succeeds, a hundred horses are broken and destroyed. All this is done for human vanity and greed.

  11. @Ian Gould

    Steve Keen is predicting the Australian economy will slide back into recession and possibly severe recession in 2010. I must say I have read his reasoning and agree with him. The current revival is a false dawn.

    Keen’s basic reasoning is this. The First Home Owners grant reinflated the Aussie housing bubble and generated a considerable multiplier effect (up to 50 times) for money outlayed by the government. This reinflated not only our housing bubble but our general debt bubble. The economy continues to bubble along only by the taking on of more credit. This is unsustainable and sooner or later people must pay down the credit, deleverage or go broke. Once deleveraging goes into full swing the amount of credit money withdrawn from the economy will vastly outweigh any possible government stimulus. Ipso facto; CRASH!

    So, Ian Gould, yes, unemployment of 10% by official measure is coming soon to Australia. In point of fact total underemployment is probably 20% right now. It’s just that our disingenuous system uses spurious measures for employment. For example, if you do paid work of 1 hour per fortnight you are recorded as employed. If you are a discouraged worker and no longer seeking work you are not on the unemployed books either.

    There are a number of other categories I could mention but this post would drag on. Overall, the amount of productive human potential our society wastes is astonishing. I would qualitatively esrtimate it in the vicinity of 40% (though I admit it would be difficult to find a defendable set of quantitative measures for it).

  12. Re “Spash on Economic Modelling”, referenced @ 7

    My reading of the above paper by Spash is that he is critical of macro-economics with its focus on monetary measures such as GDP. His arguments, if I may say, are ‘mainstream’. I would not conclude that he is a ‘steady state economy fan’ but rather that he is concerned with the material (as understood in natural science) welfare of humans – all of them.

  13. A note on my imprecise use of terminology. When I said “underemployed” I meant “underemployed plus unemployed plus hidden unemployed”.

  14. Ikonoclast: I’ve read Keen’s stuff intermittently with some interest. To a non-economist his arguments are plausible, but then plausibility-to-a-nonspecialist is obviously a low hurdle to jump. What’s more interesting to me is that (a) Keen appears to have a better prediction record than mainstream economists, whilst at the same time (b) his current predictions are starkly different from what we’re hearing from others.
    Predictions by experts occupy an interesting position for non-specialists (psychologist Philip Tetlock has done empirically-detailed work showing that experts in politics generally are poor predictors). Keen certainly has the courage to lay his predictions out explicitly. I’ve made a note-to-self to check back at the end of 2010. “2010 will be a bad year for the Australian economy” isn’t numerically specific, but it’s qualitatively different enough from the mainstream picture to seem falsifiable enough (though there’s always the “it’s coming soon” gambit).
    It would be interesting to see some more general attempt to hold experts’ predictions to account. Maybe it’s already being done somewhere.

  15. Ernestine Gross :
    Re “Spash on Economic Modelling”, referenced @ 7
    My reading of the above paper by Spash is that he is critical of macro-economics with its focus on monetary measures such as GDP. His arguments, if I may say, are ‘mainstream’. I would not conclude that he is a ’steady state economy fan’ but rather that he is concerned with the material (as understood in natural science) welfare of humans – all of them.

    Spash is a card-carrying (as far as I am aware) member of the “Ecological Economics” tribe which brands itself as distinct from “mainstream environmental economics”. Some members of teh EE tribe are also strong advocates of “steady state” economics, but I haven’t seen Spash take this line explicitly.

    I agree that Spash is fundamentally critiquing some aspects of the modelling of impacts of climate change that uses changes in GDP as the approriate metric — mainly, that it includes things it “shouldn’t” (if used for this purpose), excludes things it should include, and operates at a level of aggregation that masks important distributional impacts and effects.

    So, yes, not way outside of the mainstream by any measure on this score, I would say.

  16. Here’s a typical OHS legal liability clause(from NSW) our empathetic and clearly knowledgeable PM may have contravened morally by the way-

    26 Offences by corporations —liability of directors and managers
    (1) If a corporation contravenes, whether by act or omission, any provision of this Act or the regulations, each director of the corporation, and each person concerned in the management of the corporation, is taken to have contravened the same provision unless the director or person satisfies the court that:
    (a) he or she was not in a position to influence the conduct of the corporation in relation to its contravention of the provision, or
    (b) he or she, being in such a position, used all due diligence to prevent the contravention by the corporation.

    Basically our PM believes wholeheartedly in this guilty until you prove yourself innocent, Kangaroo Court tribunal system (suitably stacked with appropriately selected like minded souls) and for a second time in weeks may find himself politically hoisted on his own petard (keep an eye on those clever Indos). There have been a couple of notable recent convictions that illustrate the extent to which our PM could rightly feel he should take ‘ownership’ of his injured worker too. In the case of ‘Kirk’ the owner of a farm was convicted when his manager was killed while riding an ATV which over-turned. In ‘Smith’ proceedings the director of Daly Smith Corp (labour hire firm) was convicted where a worker was injured while placed with a host company. Consequently we can rightly ask ourselves to what extent is our PM as a homeowner engaging tradeys also responsible? A delicate conundrum for the Qld DPP now no doubt but if nothing else it perhaps demonstrates why the need to coccoon and cosset our PMs and Presidents in Yarralumlas and White Houses for the duration.

  17. “So, Observa, still feeling confident in your predictions of Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation in Australia and 10%+ unemployment?”

    Well Ian, like Glenn Stevens I probably overlooked the two distinct parts to inflation with all that funny money, namely goods and services inflation and asset price inflation. They’ve succeeded in printing money to get asset prices to roar back to help the needy folk at Goldman Sachs and the like, but I’m not convinced about the battlers over the long haul. It remains to be seen whether the globally insignificant Lucky Country can dodge the problem by relying on mining, education and services. Lots of expensive dirt per capita sure helps by the looks of things, but with India breaking ranks and stocking up on gold, the party might soon be over for those that don’t have the luxury of our currency’s commodity backing.

    I sold out of gold quite a while back by the way because I realised our dollar was by and large commodity backed, whereas I certainly wouldn’t have done so as a native of the US. Keynesians to a man in the US Fed and govt are about to get a hard lesson in Austrian economics I’m afraid. Take some comfort Ian that we can’t tell you when, but merely why and who benefits most along the Keynesian way, which explains why we’re reluctant to pour carbon credit creation fuel on this global financial fire. We figure over half a mill dollars per employee at Goldman Sachs over 9 months is probably sufficient.

  18. @Crispin Bennett

    It is impossible to predict “chaotic” systems like our current economic system. Keen’s work is important because he demonstrates just how unstable it is. We know that debt has to unwind sooner or later or else “solve” the problem through inflation.

    There is another way and that is to make it financially cheaper to build new productive assets than it is to buy existing assets.

    If you want to invest in a new asset you have to use savings.

    If you want to buy an old asset you can get a loan.

    New assets are generally more efficient than old assets yet they are more expensive because it costs a lot more (twice as much) to use savings than it does to get a loan. Don’t believe me. Go to your nearest investor for money to build a new plant versus going to a bank to borrow money to buy an existing plant.

    The system is designed to encourage asset bubbles.

    However, if we make it financially cheaper to build new assets than to buy old assets we would stop asset bubbles from occurring. This would lead to an unwinding of debt because instead of trying to buy loans (old assets) we would find that it was more profitable to build new assets because we could not depend on asset inflation to supply the profits. We do not have to do it for all loans – just a few selected areas with a few selected loans where we have asset inflation.

    So instead of giving a first home owners a grant give first home buyers purchasing a new house a zero interest loan. If they sell the house then they must immediately pay off the loan. Do this for a few months and watch the house price bubble collapse. You could test it by trying it in a geographic area where there was plenty of land for development or redevelopment.

  19. @Crispin Bennett

    It is impossible to predict “chaotic” systems like our current economic system. Keen’s work is important because he demonstrates just how unstable it is. We know that debt has to unwind sooner or later or else “solve” the problem through inflation.

    There is another way and that is to make it financially cheaper to build new productive assets than it is to buy existing assets.

    If you want to invest in a new asset you have to use savings.

    If you want to buy an old asset you can get a loan.

    New assets are generally more efficient than old assets yet they are more expensive because it costs a lot more (twice as much) to use savings than it does to get a loan. Don’t believe me. Go to your nearest investor for money to build a new plant versus going to a bank to borrow money to buy an existing plant.

    The system is designed to encourage asset bubbles.

    However, if we make it financially cheaper to build new assets than to buy old assets we would stop asset bubbles from occurring. This would lead to an unwinding of debt because instead of trying to buy loans (old assets) we would find that it was more profitable to build new assets because we could not depend on asset inflation to supply the profits. We do not have to do it for all loans – just a few selected areas with a few selected loans where we have asset inflation.

    So instead of giving a first home owners a grant give first home buyers purchasing a new house a zero interest loan. If they sell the house then they must immediately pay off the loan. Do this for a few months and see if the house price bubble collapsed. We could test the idea by trying it in a geographic area where there was plenty of land for development or redevelopment.

  20. @Kevin Cox
    Point taken about the impossibility of predicting complex systems. Though accurate dynamic models of such can be expected to describe the qualitative states that the system goes through, and a good model will produce sequences of these somewhat reflective of the system’s behaviour.
    I don’t know enough about economics to say much about your proposal. But what interests me is that this is the situation we find ourselves in all the time: having to make judgements about expert opinion in a condition of relative ignorance (those who comment on blogs of course tend to be those most loathe to admit ignorance on anything; but the fact of it remains). Holding experts to account on their predictions seems like it might be a worthwhile tool here.

  21. Kevin,

    Your idea about an interest-free loan sounds a lot like that from Chris Joye. However, Keen has shown himself to be driven by a fat tail prediction at the height of an international crisis and he was unwilling to amend his prediction. As Keynes said; when the facts change, I change my mind. Keen embodies the worst of the arrogance of a few of our economists who are too proud to admit that they might be wrong.

  22. @Crispin Bennett
    Holding experts to account is the way most disciplines work – but not it seems in economics. This is understandable because the current economic system is chaotic and hence unpredictable.

    I have tried to understand how economists think and what it is about their profession that distinguishes it because economists influence policy makers more than other professions and not just in government. If you look at any company, at any group of people who control resources you will find they are dominated by people who profess to be economists or financial experts. In practise they are mainly accountants but their thinking is dominated by prevailing economic ideas.

    Unfortunately the way we have constructed our economies means that the economic ideas most prevalent have little chance in predicting outcomes.

    Economic ideas are dominated by the idea of moving from one stable state to another. The outcome of this is to try to preserve stability not to grow the organism. However, in trying to preserve stability we introduce instabilities. Because economies are human inventions and they can be changed I have spent the last few years trying to understand the underlying causes of the instabilities and thinking of ways to change the system that are practical and will make the system behave less chaotically.

    The key to economics is money because it is the measure everyone uses and it is the tool by which we distribute resources.

    Unfortunately the economic system we have constructed has a built in instability mechanism. This is the way we increase the money supply. We increase the money supply through a loans mechanism. When we create a loan we create money (and don’t let any economists tell you otherwise). Having created money we can now use the money as backing for another loan and so create more money. We have tried to build in all sorts of restrictions – such as loans have to be paid back, loans must be backed by assets, organisations that create loans must have balance sheets that show that they have not created too much money etc.

    Unfortunately these restrictions do not work very well and so we have a system that creates debt and with it debt money and with it more debt….. The mechanism is also such that once we stop creating debt then we quickly go the other way because there is less money against which to create debt so loans get repaid, money drops off etc. and we get governments having to introduce stimulus packages. The current system is chaotic because we cannot predict how high the debt levels will go and we cannot predict how low they will go because of the positive feedback mechanisms.

    We need to find a way of increasing and decreasing the money supply that does not feed upon itself in a positive feedback loop.

    This is why I have been advocating mechanisms to increase the money supply that will guarantee we increase productive assets at the same time as we increase the amount of money. The latest version of this is zero interest loans for those who will build new productive assets as the way to increase the money supply. It will bring stability to markets – certainly it is worth a try and a few experiments. The housing one would be easy to try but investments in ways to reduce ghg concentrations is a more urgent place.

    We use this approach today in our HECS system for investing in education and most would agree that it has been a reasonable success in terms of increasing education levels although the implementation leads a lot to be desired and could be improved.

  23. SeanG: I don’t care that much about economists’ character or cuddliness (or those of any other experts). But I’d love to see a searchable online database of predictions against which we could check their record. At least Keen is upfront about his, and willing to cop the consequences if he’s wrong on the specifics. Though as you say, he insists he’s right on the principle. We’ll see. If he continues to be wrong, at least the banker gambit isn’t available to him (that’s where you get out of promises via a massive government payoff, tell everyone to f*** off, and pay yourself more than you were getting before you failed).

    Kevin Cox: Your approach to the problem sounds like it’s in Keen’s territory. Again, it sounds plausible. I’d like to see various ‘experiments’, as you put it (in effect another way of holding experts to account), but our ideological approach to policy and politics makes such things tricky.
    (aside: HECS has increased educational levels? Hardly. It does seem to have increased the supply of education by getting lots of people into university who shouldn’t be there, don’t need or want it for their own development, and who mostly go on to do jobs that they could have easily been trained to do with a decent high school education. It’s a wasteful racket, though, and I think it’s had dire consequences for the quality of undergraduate education).

  24. Crispin, he gets a bailout via the government funded university job. The problem is that I are being too harsh on him. We should be more accomodating of people with different points of view and should not discount everything someone says because of one mistake. His view on personal debt is correct. In the US and UK where credit growth has stalled, many small businesses have gone bust and the stimulus (fiscal and monetary) have not had the impact that policymakers hoped for. If Australia were to deleverage just a little bit, or if the supply of housing stock were to increase such that median prices decreased (and the flow on effect of people not viewing housing as an investment) then what impact would this have on the Aussie economy?

    If we discount what he said about the depression, it would be foolish for us to ignore everything he said on debt.

  25. A digression: every now and then I read in posts that it is impossible to predict complex systems. Usually this is with regards to climate, but also economics. There are many categories of complex systems, even when restricting attention to purely deterministic systems.

    It depends upon the complex system as to how predictable it is, and in what sense you mean “prediction”. For example, the now classical case of deterministic chaos in the Lorenz system (Edward N. Lorenz “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Vol 20, pp 130–141, (1963); Guckenheimer & Holmes “Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields” (1983), and a zillion other famous papers and books) demonstrates that while detailed forecasts of the behaviour on the attractor are effectively impossible, it is certainly possible to accurately characterise the qualitative features of the long term behaviour on the attractor for systems like Lorenz’s.

    The fact that there is “sensitive dependence upon initial conditions” means that two solutions that start off almost adjacent – their initial conditions are close to one another – soon become separated at an exponential rate in at least one direction in phase space. On the other hand, because the Lorenz system is dissipative and the attractor is bounded, all solutions near enough to the attractor must hang around it. This means that exponential divergence of two solutions happens while they are close enough, but once the solutions get near enough to the attractor, they are forever more trapped in a bounded volume.

    If we know the detailed geometry of the attractor we can make predictions as to long-term behaviour of the system in spite of the exponential divergence of nearby solutions from one another. In other words, the nearby solutions move away from each other rapidly enough to destroy detailed forecast accuracy on medium to long time scales, but on long time scales the attractor’s geometry allows prediction of limiting behaviour. In the case of the Lorenz system, the attractor of popular interest has two loops – kind of like a distorted figure eight. Solutions spin around one loop a number of times, and then switch to the other loop. The period to complete one cycle of one loop can be stated to a level of approximation, but it is impossible to determine the number of spins about each loop and the order in which they happen over long time periods. The sensitive dependence upon initial conditions guarantees that.

    I’m only using Lorenz as analogy here, for it isn’t complex in the sense of having a huge number of variables; indeed, there is only time t, and the three dependent variables x(t), y(t) and z(t). However, Lorenz-type systems are embedded in many complex systems, so it at least provides one example of where some type of predictability is achievable.

    Relating this to climate systems, the analogy is one of detailed meteorological forecasts of weather beyond a few weeks in which sensitivity of initial conditions eventually swamps the forecast with errors; and, of long term climate prediction of ice ages and interglacial periods, in which cycling around one loop might correspond to ice age climate and cycling around the other loop might correspond to interglacial warm climate – to stretch the analogy.

    Regards,

    Don.

  26. Just a quick note JQ — I heard you on Breakfast alongside Clover Moore …

    I thought your comments apt, though the idea that a comprehensive system for marginal pricving of road usage was decades away was depressing. There was an economist a while back – his name eludes me just now but he was from Monash IIRC — who was reported as favouring a comprehensive system of marginal road use charges. I strongly support this.

    In very general terms, I’d favour a system where the fixed charges were essentially token but the marginal charges were scaled and to some extent progressive (in relation to TARE for example, emissions intensity for example). To buttress the system, people would pay a bond in advance for their likely road usage or could accept typical modelling in the early phases and then get rebated if they went under. Each vehicle would have a meter in it telling the user in real time how much the sundry charges were.

    As to fuel excise, I would abolish it altogether since the user would be paying separate road charges and also charges for emissions. Allowances in the charge would be made for road portions that were not closely conforming to significant public transport options and/or that were within one’s normal residential precinct.

    Such a system would allow even CTP to be rolled into it so that again, cross subsidies between low use and high use drivers could be eliminated.

  27. John, it has been reported today that the tax office is investigating the banking sector over tax avoidance involving ‘asymmetric swaps’ whereby the banks made a substantial sum irrespective of whether it was a loss on the long swap and/or a profit on the short swap. What next?

  28. Do you have a link?

    It reminds me of the rorts that the Sydney offices of int’l banks would do. They would make a profit in Australia but to avoid paying taxes they would deliberately engage in a loss-making transaction with either their Singaporean or Hong Kong office to transfer profits.

  29. SeanG, Richard Gluyas piece on the “ATO targets banks’ swap deals” is in today’s Australian.

  30. Thanks.

    Just read it. Funny. Regulators around the world are trying to crack down on this. Some of the transactions out of Europe are fiendishly complex and larger… much larger than the NAB deal stated here. The problem is that it will be avoidance not evasion, so it will be legal and in the eyes of the law above board.

    I will try to find a typical transaction for you that I have come across. I am not an expert in tax so the details escape me but the multiple party/jurisdiction nature of the transaction is why these guys get paid heaps.

  31. @SeanG
    Sean, the pahramaceutical firms have been getting away with that for decades in Australia and I would say its not the only industry. The problem of transfer payments and subsidiary operations.

  32. SeanG, in respect to Westpac’s troubles in NZ, in 1998 its own chief credit officer, Rob Nimmo, warned that the proposed structure finance transactions would be “seen publicly as tax avoidance” and “inconsistent with Westpac’s good corporate citizenship”. The NZ High Court found in favor of New Zealand’s Inland Revenue $780 million of back-taxes and penalties. Expect the ATO to follow suit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s