The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'


There is a great scourge that has plagued Mankind since He decided to socialize Himself several thousand years ago.  I believe this virulent cancer has been responsible for most of what makes social Man what he is, a ruthless warrior.  His seemingly insatiable desire to get ‘something for nothing’ has dominated nearly every sphere of human existence.

In our own time, this affliction is omnipresent, from the corporate penthouse suites, to the middle income mutual fund investor, to the lowliest tenement slums.  It seems to pervade everything we do, everything we see, our hopes, desires, and even our fantasies.

 “Free,” that favorite word of Madison Avenue, a mere phantasm, as anything of value is so because a human being has added his labor (value).     

 In our present economic system, people aspire to a position, where, instead of working yourself, why not let your money work for you? What a wonderful idea!   Capitalism, an economic concept, an economic reality of people laboring for its reproduction, owned by anybody, or nobody at all, simply a concept which asks that we “give” a certain percentage of our labor-value to its perpetuation. 

Regardless of the means of production, or resident –ism, it’s the same scam.  How do we organize society for the most effective appropriation of the majority’s labor-value?   What are the most effective methods of enslavement, oppression, inciting terror, slaughter?

Our country has twenty thousand nuclear weapons for good reason, and It is not to keep the peace. 

Something for nothing...or else.

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

"How do we organize society for the most effective appropriation of the majority’s labor-value?"

It's not really about that any more, not at a macro, civilisation level.

As Civilisations advances and technology requires increased specialisation, people, especially specialists, have an increased need to save money, since their specialism renders them vulnerable as well as valuable. Given that civilisation advances (in the conventional economic sense)  via increasing specialisation, a means must be provided for these specialists to defer some of their consumption and save it for the future.

However the current surplus is not easily stored or saved (food rots, lumber decays etc), so the best way of preserving value for the future (from a whole civilisation perspective) is in a bond, or debt - i.e. give joe rights to your consumption today, and he gives it back in 10 years by deferring his at that time. Hence, a store of value - saving in the form of a promised by another to repay in future.

The relationship between borrowers and savers is really the key to civilisation, not surplus labour value.

 

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

nark -

Not sure where you are going with this thread.

You have greatly overstated the nation's nuclear weapons operational stockpile.  By orders of magnitude.  Drop a zero and you are much closer to the correct number.  I ran the Nuclear Stockpile Assessments and Analysis Branch in a previous life at USSTRATCOM.

Of course if you dropped an unarmed physics package on someone's foot it would hurt a lot.  But I'm pretty certain that's not what we have them for.

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

 nark,

I have never got "Something for Nothing" that is worth having. And if you think "investing money to make money" requires no effort, then please enlighten me to your methods. While I appreciate your idealist viewpoints, I'm more concerned with the survival of my family in the years ahead.

Please feel free to psychoanalyze and categorize this community (and this country), but I can save you some time on this path and tell you that who you think "you" are, and who you think "they" are... is the only thing obscuring the truth from your grasp.

nothing for something...or else.

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

Not sure where you are going with this thread.

DIAP:

Sorry, I guess I was a bit obscure, but this little q/seventy-five year event we are experiencing is only an small crisis within a total calamity within an over all catastrophe.  It was the catastrophe, I was referring to.  The depression which is now underway was guaranteed after the final de-coupling from gold in 1971.  It was only a matter of time until everything that happened, happened.  This has been well known and predicted by many for the past four decades.

There are many who also believe that this is also the end of a three hundred year debt super-cycle.  If this is the case, our party will make the so-called Great Depression look like a picnic.  I will give you references for that.

But, beyond the actual mechanics of economic systems and how they are manipulated and how they implode, is what I feel is the primary etiology of all of this nonsense, that is, Man's unbridled appetite for free stuff (most commonly manifest in stealing another's labor(value).  In order words, if you had a mythical system whereby everybody had to work for themselves, things would be considerably different.

It appears as if this drive to exploit one another is so fundamental, and so institutionalized within the Western psyche and legal framework, that people refuse to acknowledge their complicity.  Similar to how the professional class in the United States has completely sold out the rest of the country so that they could scoop up the crumbs which occasionally drop off the corporate boardroom tables.

So, I was kind of going there.

 

   

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

JAG says:

I have never got "Something for Nothing" that is worth having. And if you think "investing money to make money" requires no effort, then please enlighten me to your methods. While I appreciate your idealist viewpoints, I'm more concerned with the survival of my family in the years ahead.

Please feel free to psychoanalyze and categorize this community (and this country), but I can save you some time on this path and tell you that who you think "you" are, and who you think "they" are... is the only thing obscuring the truth from your grasp.

This was not to be taken personally.  I also understand your concern for your family.  I believe you mis-understood what I meant by, 'something for nothing.' 

On a macro- level, very few people actually receive full value for their work.  OTOH, some people receive the value from literally thousands of people.  This is how people make such enormous incomes.  If you believe this to be morally OK, then we can just disagree.  Working for someone else, be in a private individual, corporation, or government entity means that you will be giving up a percentage of your labor (value).  Of course, we all know this.  What I am saying is that this leads to enormous problems.  The desire to covet the labor of as many people as is possible, in and of itself, is a catastrophe of biblical proportions.  War after war after war has been fought over this objective, alone.

I am not really trying to psycho-analyze anybody, but I completely agree with you in that there is absolutely no difference between you and they, literally, well, spiritually (oops!)

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

Scepticus says:

As Civilisations advances and technology requires increased specialisation, people, especially specialists, have an increased need to save money, since their specialism renders them vulnerable as well as valuable. Given that civilisation advances (in the conventional economic sense)  via increasing specialisation, a means must be provided for these specialists to defer some of their consumption and save it for the future.

However the current surplus is not easily stored or saved (food rots, lumber decays etc), so the best way of preserving value for the future (from a whole civilisation perspective) is in a bond, or debt - i.e. give joe rights to your consumption today, and he gives it back in 10 years by deferring his at that time. Hence, a store of value - saving in the form of a promised by another to repay in future.

The relationship between borrowers and savers is really the key to civilisation, not surplus labour value.

I understand what you are saying.  The problem is that packed in with specialization comes all the deceptions, at no extra charge.  With the increase in productivity seen in the United States over the past century, we should all be working a two day work week!

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

"With the increase in productivity seen in the United States over the past century, we should all be working a two day work week!"

That can only be achieved with 0% or lower interest rates. If savers want a +ve return on savings the economy will need to be growing year on year (which requires everyone to keep working at least as hard as before).

To have a situation in which as productivity increases, the economy stays the same size (and therefore we get more free time as you advocate), then interest rates would have to be fixed at 0% by decree.

While I think that would be an improvement to the current one side situation, I think it would create economic stress when new technologies did emerge, creating pressure for growth and +ve rates), so I think it better to allow rates to fluctuate around zero (or around whatever the trend growth line of the economy happens to be).

I think if it were left to the market, rates would settle at a point determined by peoples propensity to work given the rewards,  growth opportunities and the relative demand for savings and loans.

 

 

 

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

Scepticus replies to me:

"With the increase in productivity seen in the United States over the past century, we should all be working a two day work week!"

That can only be achieved with 0% or lower interest rates. If savers want a +ve return on savings the economy will need to be growing year on year (which requires everyone to keep working at least as hard as before).

I am not sure I follow what you are saying but the point I was making is that there has been a tremendous increase in productivity over the past century (due to technological advancement).  Most, if not all, of that increase in productivity has been siphoned off at the top.  This is one of the reasons why the standard of living has precipitously declined for most working Americans.  The major reason, of course, is the planned theft (inflation) initiated in 1913 by the Banksters.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'
anarkst wrote:

I am not sure I follow what you are saying but the point I was making is that there has been a tremendous increase in productivity over the past century (due to technological advancement).  Most, if not all, of that increase in productivity has been siphoned off at the top.  This is one of the reasons why the standard of living has precipitously declined for most working Americans.  The major reason, of course, is the planned theft (inflation) initiated in 1913 by the Banksters.

nark -

And there has been a disproportionate decrease in people actually doing the work.  In 1929, 70% of Americans were producers, 30% were consumers.

Today 20% of Americans are producers, 80% are consumers.  And a high percentage of these are the unjustifiably, self-entitled lot who want 'something for nothing.'  They are members of the "Fourth Turning" described in the book of the same name by William Strauss and Neil Howe.  I highly recommend it - but it is a tough read - in both context and content.  At the same time it is encouraging because while society always goes through a crisis at the Fourth Turning, it always comes out changed for the better.  It's the process of change that is painful.

As to the "planned theft....by the Banksters" - whether by malevolent intent or benign incompetence - it is likely that a cataclysmic crisis is looming. 

I for one hope it happens and it resets the clock such that 80% of us are once again producers because it is the only way we are going to get through the changes that are coming.

Still curious though - where were you going with the reference to nuclear weapons in your earlier post?

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

DIAP says:

I for one hope it happens and it resets the clock such that 80% of us are once again producers because it is the only way we are going to get through the changes that are coming.

Still curious though - where were you going with the reference to nuclear weapons in your earlier post?

Remember that all systems are fashioned by the elite in their interests, so even if you get back to your ideal "default settings," it's not too wonderful.  This is the very nature of man-made systems.

The reason we have nuclear weapons is to incite terror into any other system (opposing elites) who would care to challenge the status quo, that is, the current method of getting 'something for nothing' - State/Crony/Corporate/Corrupt capitalism. 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

Interesting -

Seems like they served their purpose then.......

But I never saw DGZ laydowns for "opposing elites" in any target set or strike option.

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

"But I never saw DGZ laydowns for "opposing elites" in any target set or strike option."

I am not sure what a DGZ laydown is, but the "Cold War" wasn't really a philosophical battle over the means of production, but instead, a battle over the right to appropriate the world populations' surplus labor value, i.e., that amount of value created over and above mere subsistence.

If you ever get the chance to read or listen to Michael Hudson, a very well known economist who worked for all the big money center banks and also the IMF.  His job with the IMF was to figure out exactly how much excess labor value was present in a society (his specialty was Latin America) so that the IMF could accurately calculate the amount of money they could loan to these countries in order to exact all that value ( in interest) over and above subsistence for the entire country. 

People will do EVERYTHING for money!

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

DGZ is Desired Ground Zero.  It's a fixed lat/long coupled with weapon Height of Burst (HOB) to achieve the desired damage against a specific target.

I've read Hudson - some would say all he was doing was assessing various investment vehicle ROI potentials.  Like any good business should do.  That it was based on surplus labor I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.  It's when exploitation occurs to force the subsistence level down to increase the margin that such an approach leaves good business and becomes unethical and immoral.

And it would seem that our current administration is trying to appropriate the surplus of a select few to distribute to the many in a very perveted scheme of entitlement.

Why don't we try spreading work ethic instead of wealth?  Eliminate the entitlement programs and we force ourselves back to a more appropriate mix of producer vs. consumer - at the expense of the those who seek to capitalize on excess labor - or those 'others' who want something for nothing.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2368
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

Anark,

Quote:

I am not sure I follow what you are saying but the point I was making is that there has been a tremendous increase in productivity over the past century (due to technological advancement).  Most, if not all, of that increase in productivity has been siphoned off at the top. 

This is addressed in the Crash Course; we've had such a vast surplus that we've been able to choose both growth and prosperity. We're so heavily leveraged into growth at this point, that the 20% of producers are about to break under the weight of the consumers. Had we chose prosperity, things would be quite different - and it can be said that this is the net result from allowing a population with a dramatic surplus to choose what it would prefer, while dawdling an economic model that touts consumerism as a viable alternative to growth and prosperity.

That said, Loonies know...

TANSTAAFL!

Aaron

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

This is addressed in the Crash Course; we've had such a vast surplus that we've been able to choose both growth and prosperity. We're so heavily leveraged into growth at this point, that the 20% of producers are about to break under the weight of the consumers. Had we chose prosperity, things would be quite different - and it can be said that this is the net result from allowing a population with a dramatic surplus to choose what it would prefer, while dawdling an economic model that touts consumerism as a viable alternative to growth and prosperity.

Aaron, how exactly do you define producers?, because unless you are actually making something (yourself) that is marketable, you are simply exhausting wealth. 

I believe the surplus you may be referring to was our temporary economic dominance of the post-war period?

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2368
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

More or less a cyclic economic dominance that's existed since we severed from Britain, and started with authority during the industrial revolution. The Temporary dominance of the post-war era ended quite a while ago. We're currently riding the tail end of the technological revolution, which created some pretty serious bubbles, and enough excess for people to grow once again.

When I say producers, I'm talking about textiles, farms and livestock.
Automobiles and software don't make a difference to me, and can't support starving people.

In essence, my problem with this system is that instead of each of us pulling our own weight, or even a little of our own weight, we rely entirely on a handful of massive agro-industrial businesses for the production of food.
Terminally short-sighted? We'll see soon enough...

Aaron

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

DIAP says:

Why don't we try spreading work ethic instead of wealth?

Because people don't want to work if they can get something for nothing.  Just look at the millions of idiots who buy lottery tickets evvery day (no offense intended), or go to billion dollar casinos, or gamble in the stock market, or all the other get rich quick scams out there.  It seems to be human nature, and this is where the shysters do their best business. 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2368
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'
Quote:

Because people don't want to work if they can get something for nothing.  Just look at the millions of idiots who buy lottery tickets evvery day (no offense intended), or go to billion dollar casinos, or gamble in the stock market, or all the other get rich quick scams out there.  It seems to be human nature, and this is where the shysters do their best business. 

HUGE +1.

That said, I would like to submit that it's caused less by human nature, than the innate desire of anything predominately run on electricity to seek the path of least resistance.
Humans are no different, and in the absence of a society that requires participation from all of its members in order to survive/thrive/exist, the luxuries of doing absolutely nothing will fall squarely on the "surplus" humanity. The people who are low achievers by nature and really have very little to offer. It doesn't mean they don't have aptitude, it's just a simple inability to find gratification from work.

People who are industrious tend to waste less and have stronger character, higher standards and are generally more difficult to get along with.

Just some thoughts. I hate the "Casino" scene myself. Really blurs the lines between fantasy and reality for people who need less fantasy.

Aaron

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'
anarkst wrote:

Because people don't want to work if they can get something for nothing.  Just look at the millions of idiots who buy lottery tickets evvery day (no offense intended), or go to billion dollar casinos, or gamble in the stock market, or all the other get rich quick scams out there.  It seems to be human nature, and this is where the shysters do their best business. 

So those of us with a focused and disciplined approach to trading and investing in the stock market wouldn't be lumped in with the gamblers and idiots right?

65% average annual ROI for the last 4 years.  I hope that doesn't make me one of the shysters.

And the millions of idiots you accurately refer to are the ones who will feel the coming collapse first and the hardest.  The rest of us need to get ready for them coming our way, but that is a conversation taking place in another thread.

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

""the luxuries of doing absolutely nothing will fall squarely on the "surplus" humanity"

This point, which I agree with, applies both to welfare scroungers AND to wall street bankster rentiers expecting to do nothing but rent their money out for a usurious profit while not conducting any socially useful function.

The rentier acusation can also be levelled at those who hope to save for 30 years and then retire at 55 and live of a positive return on their savings.

It's all unsustainable useless-eatery we can do without.

 

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

DIAP says:

So those of us with a focused and disciplined approach to trading and investing in the stock market wouldn't be lumped in with the gamblers and idiots right?

Of course not.  The vast majority of people who participate in these activities get slaughtered.  That's why these activities exist in the first place.  Unfortunately, all systems prey on the weakest.  Indeed, it is their mission to weaken to people to that end. 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2368
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

Scepticus,

It's also a strong indicator of a society absent of culture.
We've broke the barriers down, and replaced them with a form of cultural anarchy where anything goes; the perpetrators are victims, every kid gets a medal and anyone can do anything they want in anonymity... without the repercussions of their peers judgment, be it positive or negative.

Truly a society of madness, without direction or clear ambition.

Aaron

anarkst's picture
anarkst
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 1 2009
Posts: 121
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

That said, I would like to submit that it's caused less by human nature, than the innate desire of anything predominately run on electricity to seek the path of least resistance.
Humans are no different, and in the absence of a society that requires participation from all of its members in order to survive/thrive/exist, the luxuries of doing absolutely nothing will fall squarely on the "surplus" humanity. The people who are low achievers by nature and really have very little to offer. It doesn't mean they don't have aptitude, it's just a simple inability to find gratification from work.

Aaron, this is why I came to the conclusion many years ago that the only solution (ideally) is for everybody to literally work for themselves.  You don't want to work, then don't eat.  Those who really can not work will either perish or survive based on the surplus available.  It seems to be the way nature intended it (viewing our cousins out there in the animal world).

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'
scepticus wrote:

""the luxuries of doing absolutely nothing will fall squarely on the "surplus" humanity"

This point, which I agree with, applies both to welfare scroungers AND to wall street bankster rentiers expecting to do nothing but rent their money out for a usurious profit while not conducting any socially useful function.

The rentier acusation can also be levelled at those who hope to save for 30 years and then retire at 55 and live of a positive return on their savings.

Scepticus -

Bravo.  Although, clearly two of your groups are parasitic and almost worth killing the host (the 'system' as it is) as it were. 

Your third group are only in the 'system' because the haven't had their eyes opened.  I am hopeful that that is happening fast enough to make changes.

Pardon me while I pat all of us on the back for a damn fine conversation.  This is the kind of exchange we have been sorely missing of late.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

I was busy writing on another thread and just saw this gem.  nothing to add!

great virtual coffeeshop discussion generated in just 3 hours.  is that a record?  

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2368
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

Dogs,

Tooooo right brother...

So how do we return necessity to 6 billion people?

Juli B's picture
Juli B
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 87
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'
Aaron Moyer wrote:

Anark,

Quote:

I am not sure I follow what you are saying but the point I was making is that there has been a tremendous increase in productivity over the past century (due to technological advancement).  Most, if not all, of that increase in productivity has been siphoned off at the top. 

This is addressed in the Crash Course; we've had such a vast surplus that we've been able to choose both growth and prosperity. We're so heavily leveraged into growth at this point, that the 20% of producers are about to break under the weight of the consumers. Had we chose prosperity, things would be quite different - and it can be said that this is the net result from allowing a population with a dramatic surplus to choose what it would prefer, while dawdling an economic model that touts consumerism as a viable alternative to growth and prosperity.

That said, Loonies know...

TANSTAAFL!

Aaron

Which is Russian for "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"---I do miss Heinlein's writings.

(from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" right?")

juli

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2368
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

Juli,

Very Close! You're correct about the book and author, but TANSTAAFL is an Acronym:
T - There
A - Ain't
N - NO
S - Such
T - Thing
A - As
A - A
F - Free
L - Lunch

Though, I'm certain the Russians have similar expressions in their language.
Too bad people don't pay more attention to Heinlein, he's a philosophical genius. The perfect union of realism and optimism.

Cheers!

Aaron

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'
Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:

Pardon me while I pat all of us on the back for a damn fine conversation.  This is the kind of exchange we have been sorely missing of late.

I couldn't disagree more with that statement, but I guess somebody has to represent the "dumb money" in this community, so I'll be happy to play that role in this situation.

All I "read" in this conversation was a collective egocentric attempt to foster an illusion of superiority. Please "enlighten" me as to the value that this thread contributed to this community, as I'm afraid that I'm to simple minded to understand it in the form in which it was presented.

Typically, I wouldn't bother to call anyone out on this, but Aaron and Dogs..., I look up to you guys in this community and your inputs in this thread seem out of character to me.

Sorry for the negativity.

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: The Economics of 'Something for Nothing'

So how do we return necessity to 6 billion people?

Prevent them from saving money ad infinitum which can then later be exchanged for anything under the sun. The fungibility of money combined with its perceived nature of being a store of value allows people to largely stop thinknig about anythnig except money.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments