Renminbi Appreciation and US Policy
March 30, 2010 11:03 PM   Subscribe

Recently, Paul Krugman has been advocating for US trade protectionism to counter China's apparent undervaluation of renminbi. Peking University Economics professor Yiping Huang disagrees.
posted by jjray (47 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
It’s true that if China dumped its U.S. assets the value of the dollar would fall against other major currencies, such as the euro. But that would be a good thing for the United States, since it would make our goods more competitive and reduce our trade deficit. On the other hand, it would be a bad thing for China, which would suffer large losses on its dollar holdings. In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.

Repeated for truth.
posted by afu at 11:11 PM on March 30, 2010 [3 favorites]


I read Prof. Huang's piece at the East Asia Forum site and there's a bit of a debate in the comments there, with Huang joining in.
posted by Abiezer at 11:14 PM on March 30, 2010


And on the "America has China over a barrel, not the other way around", the most cogent analysis of that I've read recently has been Hung Ho-fung at the NLR: America’s Head Servant? The PRC’s Dilemma in the Global Crisis.
posted by Abiezer at 11:18 PM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]


Using the word "protectionism" is a cheap trick. Ask any legitimate journalist or historian. Its akin to using "socialism" to describe a health care plan. I checked the NYT article, and there was no mention of the P-word there.

I say fail.
posted by hal_c_on at 11:28 PM on March 30, 2010 [3 favorites]


I'm surprised to find myself convinced by Huang's argument. It seems to me he is saying:

Yes there may some currency manipulation going on, but if this becomes a big political issue, we cannot trust the politicians on either side of the Atlantic to act like adults, so it is best to not make it a big issue and let the technocrats slowly work things out.
posted by afu at 11:29 PM on March 30, 2010 [3 favorites]


"Yuan" I know, "renminbi," not so much.
posted by bz at 11:31 PM on March 30, 2010


The entire global system, at this point, is built around Americans taking stuff they can't pay for, and will never be able to pay for, but are nevertheless promising to by sending dollars overseas. No matter how many dollars ship out, we just make more, so our economy isn't impacted by our foolish consumerism. The problem gets worse and worse, and doesn't self-correct, because both sides are hiding it with currency manipulation.

Once China finally figures out that this isn't going to get better, and starts to dump their dollar holdings, they will take enormous economic damage. They'll go through something very much like our Great Depression. Their economy is massively overbuilt to service our demand, while our economy is massively underbuilt. They'll most likely go through a horrible deflationary contraction, where they scramble to sell those massive numbers of goods to someone, anyone, while we will outright collapse.

We are trying to spend far more than we actually have, and our steadfast refusal to face economic and fiscal reality in any way, shape, or form means first inflation, and then ultimately hyperinflation. We want it all now, all of it, everything, and fuck the people who come after.

Times will be bad in China, but absolutely horrific here.
posted by Malor at 11:34 PM on March 30, 2010 [6 favorites]


Using the word "protectionism" is a cheap trick. Ask any legitimate journalist or historian. Its akin to using "socialism" to describe a health care plan. I checked the NYT article, and there was no mention of the P-word there.

Nonsense. Protectionism is exactly what Krugman is advocating, whatever words he chooses to describe it. The American health care plan on the other hand does not appear to be calling for the control of the means of production by the workers, so it isn't socialism.
posted by atrazine at 11:34 PM on March 30, 2010 [4 favorites]


Vitaliy Katsenelson would agree that China is about to burst its bubble, but not that the US is in a powerful position, necessarily, due to its "steroidally challenged economy".

It's hard to imagine a future (that is, in the short-term, 2-5 years horizon) wherein a collapse in renminbi versus US dollars would be a good thing for the world economy at large, or even the US. "Collapse" being a particularly violent image...
posted by IAmBroom at 11:59 PM on March 30, 2010 [1 favorite]


on either side of the Atlantic

Pacific

posted by afu at 12:00 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]


"Yuan" I know, "renminbi," not so much.

bz, care to extrapolate on your enigmatic little contradiction?
posted by IAmBroom at 12:00 AM on March 31, 2010


From the linked article - To resolve the global imbalance problem, China, the US, and other countries will need to work together and adopt more comprehensive reform packages, focusing not only on the exchange rate regime but also on domestic structural reforms in their respective countries.

Those domestic structural reforms are a hoary, mammoth chupacabra.

China relies on our out of control spending on cheap products and the US relies on China's dependence on cheap peasant labor (along with non-existent child labor and environmental regulations).

Wouldn't PROTECTIONISM force both sides to deal with these central domestic issues?
posted by jabo at 12:11 AM on March 31, 2010


I have to agree with hal_c_on. Krugman isn't talking about protectionism. He is strongly against that. Here's a great essay here wrote about free trade.

He's talking about a temporary "surcharge on imports" (which I don't think is a good idea)
posted by bhnyc at 12:18 AM on March 31, 2010


The problem is, we did not actually win the cold war.

We merely caused the Soviet Union to collapse by forcing them to spend so much on the military they became a hollow shell.

China, our other adversary, was left standing and is pursuing a long-term strategy aimed at doing to us more or less what we did to the Soviets.

I'd say they've made substantial progress and remain on track to achieve their goals.
posted by jamjam at 12:51 AM on March 31, 2010 [2 favorites]


Jamjam, China isn't interested in creating a socialist utopia. As the Soviet Union collapsed and China was likewise threatened, the leadership looked to what was motivating the rebels. Did they want democracy? Sure, some, maybe even most, of them did. But many, possibly most, saw it as a means to an end. The end was an escape from poverty for most and the opportunity for some to make money. Or if we want to put it differently, the creation of a middle class. (Classical Marxist theory makes this sort of situation a complete non sequitur).

The Chinese leadership responded by creating a society in which, progressively, such a middle class could emerge. They did this not because some Marxist theory told them they had to, but because they saw this was the best way to divide and conquer the rebels and thereby maintain their grip on power.

They are not ideologically opposed to the USA, but they are opposed to anything that will weaken their grip on power.
posted by GeckoDundee at 1:25 AM on March 31, 2010


It's a fool's game to frame it in terms of what's good for "China" or "America"; as ever the question is what's good for the working class and the world's poor wherever they may be. What's behind the formation of this particular cycle of exploitation is the value to capital in both countries that this environmentally destructive and socially wasteful mode of production has in suppressing wages and allowing the enormous rises in inequality seen in both China and the US in the past 30 years. Loren Goldner set out some of this in a 2007 article:
...US imperialism since World War II has not, indeed, followed Lenin’s model (which was always flawed), but has perfected the strategy of ‘managing empire through bankruptcy’. The $1-2 trillion in the Bank of China consists of little green pieces of paper (dollars and dollar-denominated bonds) exchanged for real Chinese goods produced by the exploitation of Chinese workers, pieces of paper then re-lent to the ‘US consumer’ so he/she can buy those goods. That money will never be seriously repaid, particularly if US policy makers get their way and the Chinese revalue their currency (from 7.8 renminbi = $1) to the desired level of 4 renminbi = $1, cutting in half the value of those reserves to themselves. The Japanese, who saw their dollar holdings reduced in value by Nixon’s dissolution of the old Bretton Woods system in 1971, can tell the Chinese a thing or too (and the Chinese know the stakes very well and have discussed them publicly)....

But most importantly, the bedrock of the world economy has shifted from the post-1945 North Atlantic connection between the US and Europe to the Pacific connection between US ‘consumers’ and Asia’s producers, and above all China’s. China’s boom has in turn, through a frenetic demand for oil and raw materials, set off commodity booms in Latin America and parts of Africa.

At the same time, first the American and more recently the European working classes, which from 1965 to 1977 carried out the most sustained period of wildcat strikes in history, have been rolled back by a relentless combination of de-industrialisation, outsourcing and high-tech induced unemployment.

And while most of the past 30 years appear in capitalist terms to have been a ‘boom’ period, they have in fact been years of a steadily spreading precariousness for workers, peasants and marginal populations everywhere (even booming China has lost 20 million industrial jobs in the past decade). Accompanying the glitz of new ‘creative classes’ from California to London to Warsaw to Shanghai and Mumbai, a huge upward shift of wealth has occurred. And the key to the whole period is, once again, fictitious capital.
Hung Ho-fung addresses similar territory in his article I linked above.
posted by Abiezer at 1:46 AM on March 31, 2010 [8 favorites]


Krugman isn't talking about protectionism. He is strongly against that. Here's a great essay here wrote about free trade.

He's talking about a temporary "surcharge on imports"


Surcharge = tariff = barrier to trade Chinese goods in the US = protrectionism.

The issue here isn't whether Krugman's suggestion of a surcharge is protectionism, the issue is whether it is justified.
posted by biffa at 1:59 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]


There has to be a way to profit from the eventual normalization of the renminbei, something like credit default swaps. We know the Chinese can't depress the value of their currency forever, it has to give someday.

I wonder if the Treasury is stockpiling them...
posted by Jimmy Havok at 2:14 AM on March 31, 2010


Currency speculation. Soros is on top of it, no worries.
posted by mek at 2:41 AM on March 31, 2010


Protectionism is exactly what Krugman is advocating,

And spending money to artificially deep-six our currency is rampant subsidisation. The US, given its defense industry and agricultural policies, is hardly an exemplar for free trade, but pricing goods at a true cost instead of a subsidised one is no bad thing.
posted by rodgerd at 2:52 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]


When the dollar was high, 5-10 years back was anyone claiming that China was keeping it's currency too high with the dollar peg?

Or is it only now that they complain because the dollar is low?

Why pick on China when the US has a trade deficit with over 90 countries? As the FT describes, perhaps blaming China for the US's problems is not the way to go.

It's also worth noting that this month China is going to run a trade deficit. Chinese internal consumption is taking off.
posted by sien at 3:57 AM on March 31, 2010


let china exchange scrip for gold. if my experience shopping for jewellery with my mom is any standard, then chinese gold is some of the best in the world. they value it deeply, as it shines the pure fire of red and gold :) or so mom says when she tries to explain why indian brides wear red and gold :)
posted by infini at 4:17 AM on March 31, 2010


Abiezer, the east asia forum is always a great source of thought and discussion on these things, isn't it? I have to say, though, you can always guess the content of that dude Lincoln Fung's comments: Whatever is the CCP wants is what he'll be arguing, every single time.

Sien, it's a little bit disingenuous to talk about the US' trade deficit with other countries, it's like comparing apples with tiny, tiny little oranges.
Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. has a trade deficit for the month of January (US millions)

China -18,296.34
Mexico -4,621.95
Canada -3,902.02
Japan -3,349.24
Nigeria -2,068.81
Ireland -1,637.67
Venezuela -1,599.54
Russia -1,384.97
Algeri -1,227.14
Saudi Arabia -1,225.61
reference

So - whether you agree with the argument or not, there's a reason why everyone is talking about China.
posted by smoke at 4:20 AM on March 31, 2010


Currency speculation. Soros is on top of it, no worries.

Or is that SORROWS? *rimshot*
posted by WalterMitty at 4:55 AM on March 31, 2010


sien,

Krugman has also pointed out that China's currency policies negatively affect other developing countries. So perhaps focusing only on the US is not the way to go.
posted by dsword at 4:55 AM on March 31, 2010


Ta for that smoke... I'd started a comment about the effect on third nations, but given up because I hadn't those numbers. I wonder if Mexico and Canada can push Krugman's case, and get a boost in the tchotchkes for t-bills trade.

If anyone cares about t-bills by then....
posted by pompomtom at 4:57 AM on March 31, 2010


"Peking University?" Huh. They actually call themselves that in English. Weird. The name of the school is 北京大学, or Beijing daxue. I wonder why they still use the old romanization.
Yes there may some currency manipulation going on, but if this becomes a big political issue, we cannot trust the politicians on either side of the Atlantic to act like adults, so it is best to not make it a big issue and let the technocrats slowly work things out.
What makes him think that the technocrats are doing a good job?
The entire global system, at this point, is built around Americans taking stuff they can't pay for, and will never be able to pay for, but are nevertheless promising to by sending dollars overseas. No matter how many dollars ship out, we just make more, so our economy isn't impacted by our foolish consumerism. The problem gets worse and worse, and doesn't self-correct, because both sides are hiding it with currency manipulation.
Oh god. First of all, the U.S. is never going to run out of nominal dollars. Secondly, you've been going on and on about how we are going to have hyperinflation, bla bla bla forever and it's never happened. Instead the banking system has recovered (not without some rather sketchy behavior by the government) and actually we've got disinflation going on which is harming liquidity, etc.

The Chinese are keeping the Yuan locked with the dollar, and the U.S. wants the Yuan to appreciate, but will only affect that currency pair. The dollar is kicking the Euro's ass, and core inflation is super low.
China, our other adversary, was left standing and is pursuing a long-term strategy aimed at doing to us more or less what we did to the Soviets.

I'd say they've made substantial progress and remain on track to achieve their goals.
What are you talking about? China isn't trying to "Defeat" the U.S, they just want to sell us crap, which means they need our economy to stay strong. And btw, they are just as dependent as us as we are on them. They're not making us spend anything, other then by offering cheap credit. (And, btw, The U.S. owes china about 800 billion, a small slice of the overall debt. A lot of people seem to think that China is the majority creditor of the U.S, which is not the case at all. One of the biggest ways the government borrows money is through the sale of treasury bonds directly to the American people)
posted by delmoi at 5:25 AM on March 31, 2010 [3 favorites]


Krugman is proposing basically what Richard Nixon did in 1971 - imposed a 10% surcharge on all imports as a way to force other countries, particularly Germany, to revalue its currency versus the dollar.

It worked. (Of course in the same move Nixon also unpegged the dollar from the gold standard and imposed 6 months of wage and price freezes - Krugman's lefty ideology prevents him from going that far and Obama has not the cajones, but still.)
posted by three blind mice at 6:13 AM on March 31, 2010


> In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.
>
> Repeated for truth.
> posted by afu at 2:11 AM on March 31 [1 favorite +] [!]

"If you owe the bank $1000, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $1,000,000,000, the bank has a problem."

Or anyway that's the tune I'm whistling past this particular graveyard.
posted by jfuller at 6:35 AM on March 31, 2010


I don't think anything about China's economy fits very well into the sort of Neo-Classical models Krugman bases his arguments on. I think the basic idea that Krugman is workng from is that, raising the relative values of the U.s. and Chinese currencies would lead to increased Chinese imports from the U.S. (and other places) and resulting growth in the world outside of China. But, the currency peg is just one part of how the Chinese governments maintains a mercantilist stance and the post-Bretton Woods dollar trade is tightly controlled by the U.S. government. I have no confidence that doing this would have any other effect than reducing the value of Chinese dollar holdings.

I would assume that China is probably doing what's best for China and the U.S. is looking to extract concessions from them. As Krugman says, "America has China over a barrel..." not the other way around.

If Chinese economic growth has been built on a foundation of keeping internal consumption low, through suppressing wages and barrier to imports (like the currency peg,) why would increasing consumption in China lead to further growth in the Chinese economy? Further, as I understand it, the Chinese government is currently engaging in massive internal stimulus through direct government investment in infrastructure. I would assume this is largely backed by China's large currency reserves. Why would policies that would weaken their ability to do this be in China's interest?
posted by ennui.bz at 6:40 AM on March 31, 2010


are there any non aligned nations still left in the world? if so, what are they saying? who are they? where is their news media and what is it saying? lets get some more voices in here, please, people, after all, what we're talking about is not just two or three largish blocks or brics but hey, "Rest of the World"(tm) here
posted by infini at 7:05 AM on March 31, 2010


*jazz hands* ?
posted by infini at 7:06 AM on March 31, 2010


wait, I meant to wave ... whatever...
posted by infini at 7:07 AM on March 31, 2010


Whatever is the CCP wants is what he'll be arguing, every single time.
You speak as if this is somehow unusual, comrade. Would you mind staying behind affter the meeting, we have a few questions for you...
posted by Abiezer at 7:16 AM on March 31, 2010


Why would policies that would weaken their ability to do this be in China's interest?

If China's trading partners put enough pressure on them, then it would be in their best interest. It's a bit of the prisoner's dilemma - not everything that appears to be in your best interest is going to work out that way if you ignore the interests of others.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:06 AM on March 31, 2010


i totally agree
posted by infini at 8:09 AM on March 31, 2010


bhnyc: I have to agree with hal_c_on. Krugman isn't talking about protectionism. He is strongly against that.

I certainly disagree. I'm not sure how else to interpret Krugman's comments:

In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports...it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action

Second, there’s the claim that protectionism is always a bad thing, in any circumstances. If that’s what you believe, however, you learned Econ 101 from the wrong people

I’d urge China’s government to reconsider its stubbornness. Otherwise, the very mild protectionism it’s currently complaining about will be the start of something much bigger
posted by Adam_S at 8:29 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]


"(Of course in the same move Nixon also unpegged the dollar from the gold standard and imposed 6 months of wage and price freezes - Krugman's lefty ideology prevents him from going that far and Obama has not the cajones, but still.)"

I wonder how that would practically work today. IE: the price of black iron pipe closely tracks the price of steel and much maybe even a majority of black iron pipe Used in building in Canada comes from China or Thailand. So if the price of steel rises 50% and the price of pipe is fixed do houses does gas construction in houses and commercial establishments just stop? No supplier could stay in business if they are taking a 25-30% loss on every piece of pipe they sell.
posted by Mitheral at 8:47 AM on March 31, 2010


If China's trading partners put enough pressure on them, then it would be in their best interest. It's a bit of the prisoner's dilemma - not everything that appears to be in your best interest is going to work out that way if you ignore the interests of others.

Yes, but an economist like Krugman is essentially arguing that by diminishing world economic growth China is ultimately hurting it's own economy while at the same time, if low wage manufacturing investment started to move to India or Africa he would declare "all's fair in the quest for ultimate economic efficiency." He can look at his equations and say something which to him appears quite neutral but to the Chinese looks self-interested: not a great place for a prominent public economist to be...

And the fact is that current monetary policy in Asia (China is hardly the only government their with abnormal currency reserves) is at least in part a function of the feeling that the western 'bailout' of the "Asian Tigers" under Clinton was motivated in part by self-interest in the west.

When Krugman talks about trade one is reminded again that, at his heart, he is a neo-liberal economist and that is hardly a 'left' position. but,somehow, in the last ten years, being against torture and illegal wars has become leftwing....
posted by ennui.bz at 9:17 AM on March 31, 2010 [1 favorite]


Shouldn't this be what happens:

1) chinese policy expands the middle class thus increasing demand for consumer goods thus creating trade deficit in china

2) american consumers, burned by the shit of the last few years, start saving, thus reducing demand for imports domestically

3) increased chinese demand by new middle class spurs increase in exports from u.s. to china thus further reducing our gap

Profit?
posted by spicynuts at 1:23 PM on March 31, 2010



Shouldn't this be what happens:

1) chinese policy expands the middle class thus increasing demand for consumer goods thus creating trade deficit in china


Or it could be this:

Chinese policy expands middle class, but the low RMB makes purchasing foreign products and investments expensive. Instead, Chinese middle class turn to domestic real estate, creating huge asset bubbles and not reducing the trade deficit at all.
posted by reformedjerk at 1:36 PM on March 31, 2010 [2 favorites]


Can anyone explain the mechanisms by which the Chinese control the peg?

If the current account gap is $ 18 B (Smoke's reference above) and the US Treasuries they hold are at $ 889 B does that represent what they've accumulated by 'funding' the current account gap?

Is it that simple? Where do people get this 1 to 2 Trillion in the BOC?
I would especially love if someone could link a map to the network of funds flows (what forms? Equities, Bonds (treasury, muni etc...).

What does this river of money look like?
posted by astrobiophysican at 1:39 PM on March 31, 2010


True, China has the biggest deficit with the US now but it's important to note that the US is running trade deficits with a number of countries. If it wasn't China the others would be making the things that China does and selling to the US.

It used to be Japan and Germany that were to blame, now it's China. Who knows, maybe in 15 years it will be India and Vietnam.

The US appears unable to balance the government budget and to do something about their balance of payments. These twin issues have been running for 20 plus years. It may well also be that the US can get away with it.

The Chinese do appear to be wanting to gradually move to a floating currency. They have talked about special drawing rights and other mechanisms to move away from their dollar peg.
posted by sien at 3:15 PM on March 31, 2010


What makes me uneasy about blithe prescriptions like this one from Krugman (whom I generally like) is that there are so many variables which are not accounted for in the relatively short-term analysis. Many, many, problems are not seen because they take 30-40 years or more to make themselves seen - just recently there was an article about the budget problems for states, and how for example California's ratio of debt obligations to gross product is only something like 7%, but once you factor in pension obligations it balloons to 37%... and pension obligations are something that can take 30-40 years to really snowball. Policies are promulgated, the effect of which will not be seen for decades, and then the success of these are judged on a 2-5 year frame! It's like the Iraq war - sure, everything seems manageable when we can borrow the money and throw in $140-$150 billion off the books at the problem without the economy being affected in a 5-10 year frame - but ultimately the accumulated cost of that war goes up to something like $3-$4 trillion down the line, becoming a serious drag on the economy, but people don't connect the dots from decisions made 10-15 years earlier to the present disaster.

So too with the entire economy. I don't think we need to necessarily analyze the economy from on a time scale of Kondratyev waves, but these short term measures like Krugman's proposal have a way of generating knock-on effects that can only be fully appreciated in a much longer time frame, after everybody has long since forgotten the original proposal.

It seems to me, our political attention span is woefully shorter than the economic timeframe for our decisions. That's what I find so frustrating in the fierce debates between the various right/left wing economists - in pointing to some policy effects, it seems the equivalent to the man falling from a skyscraper and passing one of the floors and shouting to the people in the window "so far so good!". That's how I feel about these various proposals - "it'll be just great, and here's how!".
posted by VikingSword at 5:48 PM on March 31, 2010


When Krugman talks about trade one is reminded again that, at his heart, he is a neo-liberal economist and that is hardly a 'left' position. but,somehow, in the last ten years, being against torture and illegal wars has become leftwing....

Neo-liberal economists usually don't advocate for increased trade protections.

Can anyone explain the mechanisms by which the Chinese control the peg?

Check out this article by James Fallows in the Atlantic, The $1.4 Trillion Question.
posted by afu at 7:18 PM on March 31, 2010


But that's just not true, Sien. I'm not trying to attack you, here, but it's a very distorted comparison you are making. We can see this by looking at 3 things:

1. You can see what the top 10 deficits were like in Jan, 1998 here (China is number, two, and just about to eclipse Japan).

2. You can see the China's going back to 1985 here.

3. and, if you go here you can see how large and exponentially the US trade deficit has grown.

I won't bother linking to the graphs of Germany since 1985 - suffice to say, it's a very different shape, that doesn't really support your contention in its scale and shape.

Those numbers aren't inflation adjusted - but even taking that into account, you can see a very worrying trend here - and you can also see that the deficit with is China is what's driving that trend.

It's all very well to say, "if it wasn't china, it would be taiwan or whatever", but in doing so you are ignoring the gross currency and market distortion that China is engaging in. If it was another country, as their exports increased and their economy picked up, their interest rates would increase and with them the currency. This would reduce the export boom because other, cheaper countries would start making doo-dads, and the original country would only remain making doodads that they could sell economically.

By spreading the financial risk - yes, the US would still have a massive, bad, trade deficit. However, there would be two effects - 1. the financial risk would be spread much more evenly (as it was when you look at some of those deficit charts going back), and thus the US economy wouldn't be in an unhealthy co-dependent relationship with one other economy, and 2. Some doo-dads would simply get more expensive because no one could make them as cheaply. Thus, the US would buy fewer of them, or develop them domestically, the trade deficit would accordingly reduce, etc. etc.

This doesn't even get into the effects all this would have on respective currencies.

Painting this as purely as US problem is both naive, and frankly by-the-bye. As others have pointed out above, these policies are having a direct impact on the citizens of China that's not all positive, and secondly; these are two of the biggest economies in the world - it's not the US' problem, it's everyone's problem.

I'm so far from libertarian free-market wet dream material, but if you can't see the problem with this - for the US, for China, for everyone - you're not looking very hard. I'm not arguing that the solution lies in some form of tariffs or protectionism - I'm not an economist, I don't know what the solution is.

But make no mistake, we have a big problem, China is exacerbating it, and there will come a reckoning.
posted by smoke at 8:50 PM on March 31, 2010 [3 favorites]


smoke: Good points, well made.
posted by sien at 11:14 PM on April 3, 2010


« Older The password of 1,112 MeFiers is "123456"   |   8-bit Pink Floyd Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments