Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
"I do not recall any one making a case for "expansionary austerity" based on the details of ANY known school of economics"

Well, it seems to be quite consistent with the Real Business Cycle drivel.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 02:19:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
True. They do keep insisting that what we are experiencing was a "recession" and is now a "recovery" in a normal business cycle.  Almost all of the gains since 2009Q1 have gone to the financial sector. But that is a result of ZIRP and QE, not of "expansionary consolidation", and we - at ET at least - know that what we have been experiencing is not a recession. It is the beginning of a decade(s?) long unwind of debt built up since 1970. But "mainstream" economics has never accepted that debt matters and rejected Fisher's Debt Deflation Theory of Great Depressions. Worse, we have learned how to "extend and pretend" and have largely avoided writing down debt that cannot be paid, at least from the proceeds of the investments that were the objects of that debt.

If only the holders of wealth agreed with mainstream economics that debt doesn't matter we could write down the bad debt and be one step closer to actual recovery. But to them it is the only thing that matters. They just don't want it in their economic theories.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 01:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My understanding is if the banks and other financial institutions wrote down their debt, marked to market, they'd be bankrupt.  Which would collapse the $822 billion a day US bond market, which would, IMHO, collapse major US corporations who depend on the Money and Bond markets for short and long term financing.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 01:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want to save the corporations that do something productive, take the banks in receivership, seperate into good abnk and bad bank, recapitalise good bank. Good bank then provides banking services. It is what Sweden, Finland and Norway did in the 90ies. It worked.

I even think the US did that in the 80ies, with the savings and loans crash. But I know less about that.

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

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 02:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
US banks haven't made direct investment in corporations in decades.  Now they are a leveraged Ponzi schemes waiting for the various bubbles to burst.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 02:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is certainly not all the US banks, just the TBTFs and some of the next tier down. Simon Johnson recently wrote that Bill Hoenig of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City is being brought to Washington as a top officer of the FDIC because he believes even a bank such as BOA can and should be put through a resolution process. If there is a reasonable chance of this being done with integrity and working, and I suspect there is, it should be attempted with BOA, Citi and Wells Fargo.

My fear is more that the process will be subverted politically and that wealthy malefactors will get to keep their money and power more than that it will be impossible to resolve a "TBTF". If you don't want to do something it is always nice if it is impossible.

But, even if a resolution fails and the whole system crashes, I believe that would be better than continuing as we are going. The longer this runs the greater the damage. And no real recovery is possible until the current bad debt is written down, and, probably, until the current financial incumbents are removed from power.

The only reason for temporizing is to spread awareness of the nature of the existing system and the need for fundamental change. The occupy movement is doing that and I suspect that the current effort to wall paper the Euro elephant will fail massively the first time the elephant moves -- which will be soon.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 05:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I said the other day, I think the various global TPTB and the TBTF (including them there Chinese ones) can wiggle and squiggle all they want, when the hammer comes down they are going to be sucking eggs along with the rest of us.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 05:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was really responding to this comment, which seemed to caution against writing down the bad debt.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 06:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Link for Simon Johnson article about Bill Hoenig.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 05:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, no, they would not be bankrupt in most cases, but their capital would be severely impaired (because each loan written down reduces the bank's capital by a small amount as well. Regulations (Basel II and other regulatory frameworks) require a certain amount of capital to be allocated to each loan made, based on various measures of default risk of loans. So if capital is impaired too much, banks are not permitted by regulatory authorities or best practices to make new loans.

Bankruptcy means unable to pay one's bills, and writing down loans (assets) in most cases also means writing down liabilities (the loans banks themselves take out from others to leverage their own capital while making loans to others).  So profitability would be reduced and in many cases losses would also be experienced by shareholders of banks, but bankruptcy would only occur in some cases.  Even in those cases, however, as the US TARP program showed, it is both easy and relatively costless to prevent those banks from failing if they are deemed too large to be allowed to do so.  Central banks, as lenders of last resort, can just print money, for free, and lend it to banks for the purpose of just keeping capital high enough on balance sheets to stay in business while the bank raises its own capital through retained earnings and other investments.  As long as the money isn't lent, it cannot produce inflation, so it is essentially just a waiver from the government which allows banks to continue operating outside of normal regulatory or best practice standards.

Why do things seem to work differently for banks than for other businesses? Because banks aren't in the business of making any real things, just arranging social commitments between people.  They are in the same business that government is -- organizing people to do things in common projects.  Just like in government, it really doesn't matter if banks run profits or deficits if their stakeholders are willing to let it pass -- willing to let some of their own commitments be relaxed and worked out later.

by santiago on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 05:27:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bankruptcy means unable to pay one's bills, and writing down loans (assets) in most cases also means writing down liabilities

That is a bold assertion. Are you really sure most of the loans due to be written off contain an automatic put option in their refinancing?

In any event, writing off a loan means that someone, somewhere will not have the money he thought he had. That buck can stop in four places: With the government, with the private bondholders, with the private shareholders, or with the depositors of depository institutions.

The FDIC means that the first and last options are essentially equivalent. So the question is whether the government wants to make good on the claims of shareholders and bondholders to insolvent institutions, or not.

I vote for "not," and if that causes bank runs, well then there's nothing wrong with a bank run that won't be solved by confiscating the bank, decapitating its management (metaphorically or literally, depending on whether it's done by the government or an angry mob), and repudiating every liability not held by an industrial firm or as an insured deposit.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 06:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I agree.  TARP worked in the US for what it was supposed to do -- avoid a bigger headache of rebuilding a system of credit from the ground up using people who've never worked in the field before (because you've fired the existing bankers). But given the low level of lending that society has by now adjusted itself to, another TARP would not be as necessary for that. The economy is already of such low performance that another "credit crisis" brought on by banks being taken over by the government (and thereby reducing their lending activities for a time while the new managers learn the ropes) cannot possibly affect things as much as they could in 2008.  People are already so risk averse that our consumption and investment behavior is largely immune to the effects of another bank meltdown.
by santiago on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 09:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
our consumption and investment behavior is largely immune to the effects of another bank meltdown.

Ah.

As optimistic about the effects of Capitalism as ever.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 10:33:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's actually a pessimistic outlook, if that's not what you meant.  Things are so bad now because of the banking shenanigans that those of us who could  be helped by credit are pretty much denied it already, individuals as well as businesses, and we have gone to other non-bank sources of credit or adjusted our spending to accommodate less access.  So if the banks reduce lending now for whatever reason, its affect on us will be less because new lending is so low already.  There really has never been a more painless time to jettison the present banking system altogether if there were ever enough support for doing it.
by santiago on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 11:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing wrong with a collapse of private sector credit creation that would not be solved by a sufficiently large government investment outlay.

And given the present decrepit state of the infrastructure of nominally first-world countries, you would run out of unemployed before you ran out of useful government projects. Possibly quite a long time before, depending on how aggressively you repudiate private sector debts.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 11:53:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, that's essentially my point.  When times are good, doing so could cause a severe global recession because of the uncertainty about future institutions and conditions for doing business that such a takeover would create.  But if you're already in a severe recession, like we are now, there's not really much harm that could come of it.  Banking is functionally a form a governance as much as government is, and government is as much an arbitrator of credit (trust and commitments) as banking is, so one can largely do the work of the other with the difference being in terms of distributions of benefits and efficiency questions stemming from the principal agent-problem.
by santiago on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 12:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that's a general statement, not one specific to the current situation:

If you have a Treasury with a drawer full of shovel-ready, useful infrastructure projects, then the Treasury can shoot the private banking sector in the back of the head, dump the corpse in a shallow grave and nothing excessively bad will happen (except maybe a coup d'etat), irrespective of where you are in the business cycle.

Because with sufficiently activist fiscal policy, you get to abolish the business cycle.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 12:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not without replacing it in some form. Attempting to make all financing decisions to be made throughout a modern monetary production economy at the level of national fiscal policy quickly runs into information overload.

We need a banking system so that the fiscal authority can concentrate their attention on those tasks that a banking system cannot or should not be doing.

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 Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 02:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obviously you'll need to recreate it. My point was that you can paper over any temporary disruption for a potentially indefinite period with fiscal policy.

Not that you would want to do it unless your banks needed a lead pill delivered intercranially for other reasons.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 08:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then you aren't shooting the whole private banking sector in the back of the head and burying it out back.

Obviously we could shoot all the TBTF banks in the back of the head, and so long as we did it by taking them into receivership long enough for people to shift their accounts to small community banks and credit unions, there wouldn't be any massive calamity in the short term, and in the long term we'd be better off.

But shooting the entire private banking sector in the back of the head and having to recreate the entire sector from scratch ~ that seems likely to deepen the current depression.

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 Fri Nov 4th, 2011 at 01:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True, I'm not shooting the whole private banking sector. Only as much as is required. The point I was trying to make is that there is no magical upper limit to how large a share of the function of the private banking system the state can take over if it needs and wants to. How much you want to take over depends on how corrupt the different sorts of banking are in your country. And how corrupt the civil service is, obviously.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Nov 5th, 2011 at 06:28:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Debt is a distributional issue. It nets down to zero as for each debtor there must be a creditor.

The rot is that we have had 40 years of propaganda to the extent that you cannot tax rich people because you would be stealing "their" dollars. Which makes it kind of tough to solve the distributional issue.

Another problem is that we have left money creation in the hands of debt. This therefore makes it necessary to maintain a high level of debt, and therefore a skewed distribution (technically two people could owe each other the same amount, and therefore you'd have debt without any inequality, but of course in practice it just does not happen).
We would need to reclaim control of the money supply in order to reduce debt levels.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 02:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Debt is a distributional issue. It nets down to zero as for each debtor there must be a creditor.

That's the NCE view.  

Looking at it Dynamically, debt has Opportunity Cost(s) for the debtor since they have to make the interest payments.  This reduces the amount of money they could spend on other things.  Compound interest really socks it to the debtor as the stream-of-payments amounts to as much as 300% of the initial borrowing.  

It wouldn't be so bad if this was recycled and circulated in the micro-economy.  What happens is the lender takes the payments and loans it out again, creating compounding on compounding, creating a parasite/host predatory economic environmental relationship.  

If the predation is not restricted the economy wanders to the right side of this:

graph and Things Fall Apart.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 02:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, distributional effects are more than capable of creating a catastrophe. My point is just that the world (or the EU) as a whole does not need to repay any debt, if only it could re-allocate the existing assets better.

There need not be any drain from the debt at societal level. Of course, there will be plenty of "repayments" at societal level in the coming decades, mostly because we will have to divert huge resources into making our economies sustainable.

But with regards to the immediate situation (I know climate change has already wrecked many communities, but it is yet to have a major economics impact. Similarly, even at 100$ a barrel, oil remains pretty cheap), it did not have to be that way. It is a matter of choice. A choice that was clearly not made by, or at least in favour of (there is far too much support for crazy policies, after so much propaganda), the 99%.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 03:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is a Choice, no doubt about it.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 05:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not about the money - it's about who makes policy decisions, and who benefits from them.

Money is just the wrapper. You have to peel it off to reveal the naked predation underneath.

Some people enjoy risk. They enjoy being passionate about projects. They enjoy working 16 hour days trying to make something.

I think they're kind of insane, but it's obvious they exist, and they're not necessarily a bad thing.

But all that happens with lending is that someone decides to invest in a project because they think it's viable.

In practice this means believing they won't lose their stake, that they'll get more out than they put in, and that the social, cultural, domestic, and political environment will support the project.

But what profit means is that personal benefit outweighs social calculation. 'Investment' happens because it's personally profitable even though it's socially and culturally ruinous.

So the key idea that has to change is the concept of getting something for nothing. 'Risk' is just a bit of PR that dresses up the concept of investment as public decision-making performed with a view to getting more out than individuals put in.

What's missing is useful accounting of personal and social benefit and loss. Current terminology is biased towards the idea that individual returns are the only outcomes that matter. Reality-based economics would have to include wider social outcomes in its definitions of wealth.

In fact the most productive systems are likely to be ones where there's room for personal enterprise, but also enough control to make sure that political and financial power can never become so personally concentrated that they lock out other stakeholders from policy.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 10:43:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Debt is a distributional issue. It nets down to zero as for each debtor there must be a creditor.

So Debt Deflation can't happen?

George Monbiot Seminar | Steve Keen's Debtwatch

I tried to point out that since the rate of change of debt contributes to aggregate demand (for both newly produced goods & services, and existing assets), then the change in debt matters, but I made no headway at all with the argument.

by generic on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 02:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if (yes, a completely unrealistic if in the current climate) we were to decide to tax the creditor and credit the debtor it could be repaid. You could still then have the same rate of change of debt -but you'd be starting from a level of 0.

Of course, it would be far better to couple that with a fairer distribution going forward (which probably requires taxation as you'll find it very hard to prevent the commercial roles from taking a big bite). In effect, you'd be replacing change in the debt level by redistribution in order to get money in the hands of those likely to spend it.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 03:18:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Basically a jubilee? Sounds good.
by generic on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 04:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Debt nets down to zero but what matters is the size of the balance sheets which comes from gross debt.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 05:02:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Finance is based on investments producing streams of revenue sufficient to pay back the investment with interest. If a given investment doesn't work out, it has to be written down to a level that can work, either by negotiation or as the result of a bankruptcy proceeding. Making sure this process will work properly is called underwriting. That is what banks are supposed to do. It is what Jerome does do.

What happened is Greenspan asserted that banks were self regulating and proceeded to let them perform the regulation. This policy was reinforced by appointing anti-regulators to other regulatory bodies. With the repeal of Glass-Steagall higher risk/higher return opportunities were available and the Fed was there when things went wrong, with the Greenspan Put.

Investment banks, such as Goldman's, wanted more and more mortgages to package and sell on and didn't care about the quality. There was a rush to oblige this interest and the price of real estate in large markets soared beyond the conceivable ability of the economy to sustain over time. So we got, say, $10 trillion in mortgages packaged into MBSs that, at current real estate prices, are only worth, say, $5 trillion, and that is only if the banks do not try to sell the non-performing loans. If they did the property underlying the mortgages would be found to be worth substantially less. So, everyone is just holding the bad mortgages on their books and are being allowed to pretend they are still worth face value - extend and pretend.

Worse, the depression that has resulted is making even prime mortgages worth only half or less of face value, as mortgagees lose jobs and become unable to pay. The same dynamic has played out in other areas and other countries. Recently Cyprus has emerged as a new Euro-zone problem with a massive title fraud problem.

ALL of these problems have to be resolved and the unsustainable debt has to be written down in order for a new cycle to begin, regardless of what may change in that new cycle. But those who issued and those who hold the bad MBSs, etc. are politically powerful and refuse to allow THEIR assets to be appropriately written down. The lawbreakers are in control. As any healthy economy relies on rule of law, we have another reason why the current system must change before recovery is possible.

Properly and lawfully resolving these problems, including prosecuting lawbreakers, would both eliminate unpayable debt and restore the rule of law. Otherwise it will be worse than Groundhog day, as the whole situation will just keep repeating, but each iteration will get worse.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Oct 30th, 2011 at 05:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Debt is a distributional issue. It nets down to zero as for each debtor there must be a creditor.

Yes and no.

Debt also allows you to invest more than you save, or to save more than you invest (in real terms).

When you work for me, and I pay you in an IOU rather than in the products of your labour, then I have invested your labour, but you have not accumulated any real stuff - only a claim on me. If you exercise that claim, then I have to give you money whether or not you intend to invest it in real stuff.

Debt therefore means that you can have periods in which everybody wants to save more than they want to invest in real stuff, which is what creates mass unemployment. It also means that you can have periods where people want to invest more than they want to save, which is a precondition for the growth rates we have come to associate with industrial society.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 05:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Debt is a distributional issue because it arises when people don't have enough wealth or income to support their needs. In the immortal Adam Smith quote:
By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensibly necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person, of either sex, would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France, they are necessaries neither to men nor to women; the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend, not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. All other things I call luxuries, without meaning, by this appellation, to throw the smallest degree of reproach upon the temperate use of them. Beer and ale, for example, in Great Britain, and wine, even in the wine countries, I call luxuries. A man of any rank may, without any reproach, abstain totally from tasting such liquors. Nature does not render them necessary for the support of life; and custom nowhere renders it indecent to live without them.
In another order of things, debt arises when people don't have the resources to carry out their projects and somebody else does. The ability to mobilize idle resources has been condensed into money (this is not entirely a bad thing). In the old days of metallic money the money stock was limited by what precious metals could be dug out of the ground. Today, with fiat money, we are fortunate that the money to mobilize resources for worthy purposes can be created ex nihilo. This highlights that money and credit are not just distributional issues, they're about power (the socially recognised power to mobilize resources) and therefore they're deeply political.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 05:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well said. Although in pre-modern times, money, even metallic money, was not the major means of organizing people or resources for projects because exchange was not the principal social institution for obtaining cooperation of others. Family loyalty, faith, military allegiance, and other institutions were as or more powerful means of compelling others to engage in commitments with each other.  Fealty to a prince was as much a form of debt as a loan based on monetary notions is today because it resulted in the same kinds of distributions of real resources among stakeholders, just without using markets to do it.
by santiago on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 05:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And conversely, insisting that all debts be honoured in real rather than nominal terms is an attempt to grant the creditors the same feudal privileges enjoyed by the petty princelings of the premodern era.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 06:14:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Even the neoclassicals realise that the real business cycle hypothesis (and I use the term loosely) is drivel.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 04:44:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are a lot of people out there who are still trying to get DGSE models to work, or even make sense. I wish them luck. They'll need it.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 09:12:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DSGE is the only econometric model for which US Government backed research grants are available. So the efforts are likely to continue until/unless the policy changes.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2011 at 01:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series