Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Renegade

Infinite Money/Finite Resources

Recommended Posts

We literally have an unlimited supply of dollars.  So, when politicians roll out big ideas for free college, healthcare, green energy, and UBI, we really do have enough money to pay for it.  We can just print more.  The Chinese want to give us manufactured goods in exchange for dollars?  Cool.  We can just print more.    We can increase Social Security payments, add funding for infrastructure, and grant billions for research.  We could increase foreign aid by an order of magnitude and double NASA's funding.   

 

Money is unlimited because money is an abstract thing.  It's not real.  Dollars are just a concept...an idea.  The cost of producing more is almost nothing.

 

On the other hand, resources are not unlimited.  There's only so much steel, electricity, skilled labor, land, water, etc.   We can print more money (or move it from A to B) with the stroke of a pen, but the resources available to be purchased by that money do not change, at least not quickly.  

 

So, when we decide to do something new, the resources have to be redirected from something old.  For instance, we stop digging up coal and we start building solar panels.  Of course, it's never that easy.  Most coal miners don't know how to build solar panels.  Coal mines can't be used as solar panel factories.  Significant effort is required for re-training and re-purposing.  So, change itself requires additional resources until it's complete.  Change must be managed through a series of viable intermediate stages.  To continue the coal/solar example, electricity must continue to be generated throughout the changeover period.  You can't turn off coal today and turn on solar in 6 months.

 

It's the same for all big changes.   Additional funding for healthcare means we need more doctors...doctors take time to train.  The people who become new doctors are not available to do whatever other work they would have done.  UBI and increased Social Security will create additional demand for resources.  How will that demand be met?   Production resources will need to be re-purposed from whatever they're doing today to do something different.  Either that, or prices will just go up (inflation) enough to absorb all the new cash and no reallocation occurs.  

 

Politicians focus on money instead of resources.  They will fund these initiatives by taxing the wealthy.  Cool.  I'm good with that.  But, what does it mean (in terms of real, physical resources) when you take a few trillion dollars from the rich and give it to the poor?  What were the rich spending that money on (if anything)?  Whatever it was, they won't be doing it now.  Does that free up actual physical resources?   If not, where will the resources come from to meet the new demand from people who benefit from the initiatives? 

 

I make these points, not to argue against the changes (which I believe are good and necessary) but to encourage a cautious, measured, and incremental approach.  I realize this is the political 'silly season' when politicians put forth big ideas that are more long-term inspirational than short-term practical.  I just hope those who get elected are prepared to moderate their proposals once they get in office and those who elect them will have the patience to accept managed change.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 7:32 AM, Renegade said:

We literally have an unlimited supply of dollars.  So, when politicians roll out big ideas for free college, healthcare, green energy, and UBI, we really do have enough money to pay for it.  We can just print more.  The Chinese want to give us manufactured goods in exchange for dollars?  Cool.  We can just print more.    We can increase Social Security payments, add funding for infrastructure, and grant billions for research.  We could increase foreign aid by an order of magnitude and double NASA's funding.   

 

Money is unlimited because money is an abstract thing.  It's not real.  Dollars are just a concept...an idea.  The cost of producing more is almost nothing.

 

On the other hand, resources are not unlimited.  There's only so much steel, electricity, skilled labor, land, water, etc.   We can print more money (or move it from A to B) with the stroke of a pen, but the resources available to be purchased by that money do not change, at least not quickly.  

 

So, when we decide to do something new, the resources have to be redirected from something old.  For instance, we stop digging up coal and we start building solar panels.  Of course, it's never that easy.  Most coal miners don't know how to build solar panels.  Coal mines can't be used as solar panel factories.  Significant effort is required for re-training and re-purposing.  So, change itself requires additional resources until it's complete.  Change must be managed through a series of viable intermediate stages.  To continue the coal/solar example, electricity must continue to be generated throughout the changeover period.  You can't turn off coal today and turn on solar in 6 months.

 

It's the same for all big changes.   Additional funding for healthcare means we need more doctors...doctors take time to train.  The people who become new doctors are not available to do whatever other work they would have done.  UBI and increased Social Security will create additional demand for resources.  How will that demand be met?   Production resources will need to be re-purposed from whatever they're doing today to do something different.  Either that, or prices will just go up (inflation) enough to absorb all the new cash and no reallocation occurs.  

 

Politicians focus on money instead of resources.  They will fund these initiatives by taxing the wealthy.  Cool.  I'm good with that.  But, what does it mean (in terms of real, physical resources) when you take a few trillion dollars from the rich and give it to the poor?  What were the rich spending that money on (if anything)?  Whatever it was, they won't be doing it now.  Does that free up actual physical resources?   If not, where will the resources come from to meet the new demand from people who benefit from the initiatives? 

 

I make these points, not to argue against the changes (which I believe are good and necessary) but to encourage a cautious, measured, and incremental approach.  I realize this is the political 'silly season' when politicians put forth big ideas that are more long-term inspirational than short-term practical.  I just hope those who get elected are prepared to moderate their proposals once they get in office and those who elect them will have the patience to accept managed change.   

Absolutely true. I was sitting on edge with your words here. The Yuan, is kept low in comparison to the US dollar, because the Chinese buy up a lot of international monetary reserves, like the good olde US dollar / or greenback if you will.

 

BTW - just to sow in the point that we are tied to history, my old man when he was a little boy was driven around by his grandfather from the South who was around during the civil war. He smoked a lot of cigars and I am told had lots of money once. My dad only remembered driving around sitting on his lap trying to steer. The confederates tried to create their own currency, which they called the Greyback. And it's true, any decidedly nation state could create it's own currency or federal reserve of that currency, which of course they could easily make more of

if they decided to. Or, instead, if they were growing as an economic power, they could keep that currency worth any rate on the global market simply by purchasing other nations currency and holding it in reserve. 

 

But the truth is, resource is the thing that keeps the entire world together as one. Some folks capitalize, inequality becomes rampant and those who hold power suggest that to take another approach is akin to socialism, or even worse communism. The goats in the field moan to this. Capital holds some merit, does it not?

 

I love this phone call from an economist explaining home mortgages: 

 

Actually, I can't post the phone call because Youtube would not allow it to be embedded here. The only way you can listen to it is to listen to Robert Skidelsky's peace regarding history, and then, after it is done, look for the piece about what most people don't know about their mortgage. 

 

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/videos/is-history-important

 

Anyway, some of the points you make are salient. However, yes, you can turn off coal quickly, but the problem is the big footprint of money that will try to stop you in doing so. They will try and have tried to stop transmission lines for wind to be built from one state to the other. They have tried to embargo the growth of solar energy, and the idea of solar powered charging stations for the electric car. 

Ask yourself this, why don't we have more mass transit? 

But yes indeed, there is a lot of capital built up in the existing infrastructure - you maybe just bought a car last year, a combustion engine that cost you a lot, it was a major purchase for you, and it was also part of the economic in that it employed many folks - the worker.

 

Yes, there will need to be a transition period, this much is more than obvious. Ten years, maybe twenty, but we need to take it in large increments. We should have done this decades ago - because you're right. We are talking about total resource and a sustainable economy - and in global terms no less.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Ask yourself this, why don't we have more mass transit?

 

Thank you for the response.  That was an interesting story about your dad's grandfather.  Wouldn't it be awesome to hear more of their stories?

 

The question on mass transit is cost.  Big projects take a lot of resources to build.  I think a few expensive, high-profile overruns like this have made people wary of taking on anything big.  They don't trust cost estimates or delivery dates anymore.  

 

The 'Big Dig'.   Originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 for $2.8 billion (1982 dollars).  In reality, it was completed in 2007 for $8.1 billion (1982 dollars).   

 

California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR).  Anaheim to San Francisco estimated at $33.6 billion in 2008 for completion in 2028.  By 2012 the estimate was $53.4 billion (2011 dollars).  By 2018, the cost was estimated at between $63.2 and $98.1 billion.  So, now they're only building from Bakersfield to Merced for $12.4 billion.

 

Of course, mass transit doesn't have to be a billion-dollar project.  It could be buses and trams and such.  Even the poor and conservative area I live in has decent buses now and a once-a-day passenger train.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 6:18 AM, Renegade said:

 

Thank you for the response.  That was an interesting story about your dad's grandfather.  Wouldn't it be awesome to hear more of their stories?

 

The question on mass transit is cost.  Big projects take a lot of resources to build.  I think a few expensive, high-profile overruns like this have made people wary of taking on anything big.  They don't trust cost estimates or delivery dates anymore.  

 

The 'Big Dig'.   Originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 for $2.8 billion (1982 dollars).  In reality, it was completed in 2007 for $8.1 billion (1982 dollars).   

 

California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR).  Anaheim to San Francisco estimated at $33.6 billion in 2008 for completion in 2028.  By 2012 the estimate was $53.4 billion (2011 dollars).  By 2018, the cost was estimated at between $63.2 and $98.1 billion.  So, now they're only building from Bakersfield to Merced for $12.4 billion.

 

Of course, mass transit doesn't have to be a billion-dollar project.  It could be buses and trams and such.  Even the poor and conservative area I live in has decent buses now and a once-a-day passenger train.  

This is true, big projects take money, and big planning as well. You have to plan out every detail in a very meticulous way - hard to do these days. You have to because it will cost a lot of capital, and it has to last a long time - the idea of mass transit has to be appealing to people, and it has work for commerce as well. 

It short, it needs to be a great long-term investment and a worthy goal.

Mass Transit. We went away from the idea once - but why? 

These ideas regarding what we need to do here in the US are big endeavors. If we were to get them right it would benefit not just us, but the world. It would benefit our neighbors to the north and to the south, as well as those oceans away to the east and the west. They ride bicycles a lot more all over the world much much more than we do here in the US. Why is that? You make incredibly lightweight bikes, and wouldn't it be fun to ride to work with a whole bunch of people all going to work not having to worry about getting hit by a car - or a large truck. It hurts more when you get hit by a truck on a bike, much more than it does when you get by a car most people do say. Speed is also something to take into consideration. 

 

Here's a cool story about spies I just heard about today. Look up Moe Berg in Wikipedia - true story. 

You got relatives, who executed more preciseness in their lives back in the day when times were tough, a whole lot tougher than now. It's the dream, the positive note in waking up and 

working towards something profoundly good that you yourself may never witness. We need more of this / and we should strive inspire resourcefulness especially when it comes to resources that are in limiting supply. We have to look at our twenty somethings, and then envision what life will be like for them in thirty or forty years down the road.

 

Nobody likes restrictions to their declared freedoms, or their way of thought - so that's why we got to work together to get the plan for progress smoothed out. It's funny, given the same goal, people who don't like restrictions soon become the ones with more ideas, once they get into it the sky is the limit.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheOldBarn said:

They ride bicycles a lot more all over the world much much more than we do here in the US. Why is that?

 

In some of our eastern cities, bike riding could be a big deal.  But, here where I live, it won't work.  Cities here were built during the automobile age.  That means that no effort was made to conserve space or locate living areas near work areas.  

 

I lived in Germany for 3 years and Korea for 1.  It's striking how much more efficiently they use space.  In Germany, I think it's because their cities were built before the automobile.  In Korea, it's because they needed every square foot for growing food.  But here...jobs, stores, and homes are spread over a ridiculously large area.  In Germany, stores are jammed together and parking, if you can find it, is something you pay for in a parking garage.  Here, every store has a big free parking lot and an acre of landscaping around it.  

 

I would have loved to ride a bike to work, but for the last 5 years I worked, the commute was 30 miles one way over hills.  Temperatures here are over 100 in the summer and freezing in the winter.  I didn't move closer because I had the house before the job and I knew the job wasn't forever.  

 

1 hour ago, TheOldBarn said:

working towards something profoundly good that you yourself may never witness. We need more of this / and we should strive inspire resourcefulness especially when it comes to resources that are in limiting supply. We have to look at our twenty somethings, and then envision what life will be like for them in thirty or forty years down the road.

 

Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

In some of our eastern cities, bike riding could be a big deal.  But, here where I live, it won't work.  Cities here were built during the automobile age.  That means that no effort was made to conserve space or locate living areas near work areas.  

 

I lived in Germany for 3 years and Korea for 1.  It's striking how much more efficiently they use space.  In Germany, I think it's because their cities were built before the automobile.  In Korea, it's because they needed every square foot for growing food.  But here...jobs, stores, and homes are spread over a ridiculously large area.  In Germany, stores are jammed together and parking, if you can find it, is something you pay for in a parking garage.  Here, every store has a big free parking lot and an acre of landscaping around it.  

 

I would have loved to ride a bike to work, but for the last 5 years I worked, the commute was 30 miles one way over hills.  Temperatures here are over 100 in the summer and freezing in the winter.  I didn't move closer because I had the house before the job and I knew the job wasn't forever.  

 

 

Absolutely.

Hey Renegade, you know it. 

There is this scenic road that people used to take in the Bay area where I live. They would take this winding road that went by untouched land, small mountains, green from a lush river rolling through. They took it to escape the US highway 680. Back then, I took it on a bike during the week to get to work. It was beautiful and dangerous as heck. There isn't even a car width distance from the road and the edge of a steep ledge that you could easily drop off. I would bike this thing and big gravel trucks would come down the hill and brush past me, they had no way of slowing down. And yet, it was a great ride. 

Anyhow, once a year they give the road up for bikes only. It's like bucolic man, you find yourself and a bunch of other folk riding through the valley, and sure, there are some areas where you glance down and see people, little camps where they have their tents, you know homeless folks who just couldn't pay the rent. I'm not kidding. 

If I was homeless that's where I would hike my tent. But you got to keep it secret, because only the smartest homeless know of this.

 

Actually when I rode the road when I first came to California, there were only a few. That was back in the early Eighties. I was a Midwestern kid who had traveled a bit and yet it was really special to live in California. 

 

We are from this place. My people here in the US go back a while. A lot of them settled in Iowa. They bought furniture from Massachusetts, Davenport 

You take your feet off the Davenport, they'd say to me, my grandparents would. German Irish, or Irish German, what does it matter.

It is indisputably finite just like I wish swamp gas was, or my friend growing up Grand mama used to say, shiit fire!!! quite a lot. Loosely translated that meant, you better watch out, or else, all shiit fire will ignite instantaneous like. And we laughed because she was a sweet lady, but she meant it, you could see it in her eyes.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 8:18 AM, Renegade said:

 

Thank you for the response.  That was an interesting story about your dad's grandfather.  Wouldn't it be awesome to hear more of their stories?

 

The question on mass transit is cost.  Big projects take a lot of resources to build.  I think a few expensive, high-profile overruns like this have made people wary of taking on anything big.  They don't trust cost estimates or delivery dates anymore.  

 

The 'Big Dig'.   Originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 for $2.8 billion (1982 dollars).  In reality, it was completed in 2007 for $8.1 billion (1982 dollars).   

 

California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR).  Anaheim to San Francisco estimated at $33.6 billion in 2008 for completion in 2028.  By 2012 the estimate was $53.4 billion (2011 dollars).  By 2018, the cost was estimated at between $63.2 and $98.1 billion.  So, now they're only building from Bakersfield to Merced for $12.4 billion.

 

Of course, mass transit doesn't have to be a billion-dollar project.  It could be buses and trams and such.  Even the poor and conservative area I live in has decent buses now and a once-a-day passenger train.  

I spent most of my career designing construction projects.

Just as an FYI,

most projects are approved without sufficient investigation and planning done BEFORE the estimate is given.

If something will eventually cost $50 billion, about $5 billion should be spent BEFORE the estimate  is even given.

The public would freak out if someone told them that that much money must be spent before the final price can be determined,

and,

if they don't like the final price estimate,

all the up front money was wasted.

 

That is the way things work,

meaning that there will probably always be cost over-runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example this was my first time reading this post the interstate national highway system that was put into affect under the Eisenhower administration in 1991 was estimated the final cost was 128 billion dollars according to inflation if built today it would cost $241,111,776,798.83. That's right almost two times more than in 1991. 

 

There is infinite amounts of money but the problem is that the amount of inflation that we currently have is absurd, you cannot be a civilized nation like the U.S and allow this type of disparity. You have people that are suffering week in and week out just to scrape by but the CEOs and board member are doing fine. 

 

If the minimum wage was adjusted to inflation the minimum wage currently would be around 28 dollars yeah that's right twice the amount some are fighting for to be implemented. 

 

So the real problem is the amount of greed and such that people take advantage of the system and most importantly the people that help them support there actions.  

 

People need to realize we need systematic change to have an effect on our whole system not just parts of it, because if you do not change the system as a whole the bad parts will still outshine the great parts of the system just like we have today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

the minimum wage was adjusted to inflation the minimum wage currently would be around 28 dollars

 

Where did you find that $28 number?   Is that a federal number or a local number?

 

CNN shows a peak of $11.55 (inflation adjusted in April 2019) for the federal minimum wage in 1968.   US Minimum Wage by Year

 

Here's a chart that shows how the minimum wage has lost ground to inflation over the years.  This one uses 2015 dollars, so it doesn't quite match the CNN number.  It looks to me like the minimum wage is higher, in real inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was 30 years ago.

 

 

real%20min%20wage%20(3).jpg

 

 

14 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

the problem is that the amount of inflation that we currently have is absurd

 

Cumulatively, over decades, the net effect of inflation increases exponentially.  But, I don't believe we currently have an absurd amount of inflation.  This chart is a little out of date (inflation is currently just 1.7%), but it gives historical context.  Most economists believe some amount of inflation is necessary for a healthy economy.

 

6a5ee0f2b808920ac707386c4b2061d0.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i meant to say equal to productivity and the number was still wrong if adjusted accordingly to productivity it would be around $21.16 I believe.

 

I swear I read somewhere that it would be around 28 dollars but I can't find the article so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the comments below in a thread on NHB (Deficit Spending)...and got no reaction.  NHB is dead.  Something like this should have gotten a huge reaction from true conservatives.  Anyway, I'm posting it in this thread as well, since it fits with my OP.

 

I've changed my mind about deficit spending.  I guess I'm no longer a fiscal hawk

 

Taxes have multiple purposes, most of which I don't like.  For example, we like to use taxes to 'encourage' or 'discourage' behaviors we like or don't like.  If we like someone, farmers for example, we give them a tax break.  If we don't like someone, smokers, we tax them extra hard.    Without getting into the morality of that, I think it's safe to say our economy would run just fine without any of these nudges.

 

But, the number one (supposed) purpose of taxes is to pay for spending.  I finally understand this is incorrect thinking that dates back to the gold standard.  We have a fiat currency (for almost 50 years now) and there's no need to take a dollar in taxes before we spend a dollar.  

 

There's only one real reason taxes are a necessity:  to control inflation.  We could print and spend until hell freezes over and, so long as inflation is low, there's no reason to ever charge a single penny in taxes.  It makes my head spin.

 

With a fiat currency, the money we print has a fluctuating value.  A gallon of milk might cost $3.50 ...or it might not.  The value of your money depends on supply and demand, just like everything else.   So long as the supply and demand are reasonably balanced, inflation is low and the value of money is mostly stable.  But when supply outstrips demand, we get inflation.  Milk costs more.  Wages and savings are worth less.  On the other hand, when there's not enough money, economic activity slows or even goes into reverse (recession).

 

Everyone expects the Fed to control the economy with interest rates.  Lower interest rates (are supposed to) increase the supply of money.  For that to work, banks must loan the money to businesses who then spend it in the economy.  It's not working very well right now anywhere.  Interest rates are historically low and yet economies aren't exactly booming.  The ECB has negative real interest rates now.  Even though banks have to pay the ECB to keep their money safe, they do it because there aren't enough businesses borrowing the money.  The world is stuck in a loop where there's not enough consumer demand to justify increased business activity that would lead to more and better jobs.

 

Since central banks are at their limit for increasing the money supply, governments need to help out by running bigger deficits.   We could either lower taxes or increase spending or both.  In the current circumstance, I prefer spending over tax cuts, but that's a whole other subject.  With more money in consumer's hands, demand for goods and services would increase which would also increase demand for loans as businesses ramp up to meet demand.  We'd get more economic growth.

 

This is where my old fiscal hawk self would start to get worried.  I'd say:  "But what happens when inflation comes back?  We won't be able to afford interest on the debt!"  

 

When inflation and high interest rates return, that's when we have to raise taxes, not with the intention of paying off loans or balancing the budget, but to take excess money out of circulation and control inflation.  That's the only good reason to have taxes at all.

 

We've been relying on the Fed to run the economy, and overall they've done a pretty good job, but right now I think they need some help.  I can't believe these words are actually being typed on my keyboard but...governments around the world need to run bigger deficits until economies (and inflation) are stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 7:05 PM, Renegade said:

 

 

There's only one real reason taxes are a necessity:  to control inflation.  We could print and spend until hell freezes over and, so long as inflation is low, there's no reason to ever charge a single penny in taxes.  It makes my head spin.

 

 

That was stated very well, absolutely true!

You are talking true economics here. It is about resource, and it is also about the demand to allow for the available resource to be be efficiently utilized in a way that produces the best outcome for the most people!

 

Inflation is a terrible state regarding the economy. Many of us who lived during the late sixties and seventies remember hyper-inflation. It wasn't what some countries like say Nicaragua is dealing with now, but boy, that's a completely different story entirely. But it's still important to understand. 

 

Inflation is a good term to use when we understand the meaning of true purchasing power. That's the term economist use to understand what country has the biggest economic value. 

Right now, that's China by about 25%.

 

So to tell the truth about inflation and what it means to most people I think it would make a lot of sense to utilize the idea of resources.

So let's say you have a Lake Tahoe, which has an area of 122,616 acres, and a volume of 36.15 cubic miles. That's all the fresh water you got, however lets say, with inflation, it would be like having a lake like lake Superior with an area of 20, 287,963 acres, and a volume of 2,903 cubic miles. Except, you only really got Lake Tahoe. You have inflated all that fresh water, and its cost means nothing, nor does the currency, since most people are starving because there is no food.

Of course that's a bad analogy. Since both lakes are found in the US. But overall, regarding the Global Economy, it does mean something very much so.

So China does buy up a lot of natural resources all over the globe. Just like the US has in the past - but the two things are not the same, the US did so as empirical mercantilism, for private markets and individualism  - Corporate Greed. We did that following suit with kings and Queens. China did it with a communism and a pseudo capitalism. 

 

This is the problem we face. We are essentially misusing the Earth's resources in a profound way while at the same time playing a stylistic monetary game.

It's a bad analogy since we have undercut efficiency and utilized an archaic system regarding the use of capitalism as well as new technologies that really could make a difference overall.

 

I think you make the most salient point Renegade with your post regarding purchasing power and what it truly means. 

 

We waste too much at our own peril.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to tell the truth about inflation and what it means to most people I think it would make a lot of sense to utilize the idea of resources.

So let's say you have a Lake Tahoe, which has an area of 122,616 acres, and a volume of 36.15 cubic miles. That's all the fresh water you got, however lets say, with inflation, it would be like having a lake like lake Superior with an area of 20, 287,963 acres, and a volume of 2,903 cubic miles. Except, you only really got Lake Tahoe. You have inflated all that fresh water, and its cost means nothing, nor does the currency, since most people are starving because there is no food.

Of course that's a bad analogy. Since both lakes are found in the US. But overall, regarding the Global Economy, it does mean something very much so.

So China does buy up a lot of natural resources all over the globe. So did we. They got over a billion people in China. We got a lot more billionaires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry, my last two posts got messed up in a big way. They make no sense. 

I was trying to define the problem with inflation, or purchasing power and I got muddled trying to find some resource that could tell a story. I ended up googling and then posting without any 

thoughtful message or viewpoint.

 

In doing so I have confused myself only which is okay for me. But not for the rest of you. 

 

I apologize.

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...