Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
Does capitalism work ? NO
Does Communism work ? NO
Does People work ? NO
What does work ?
COLLECTIVE WILL AND COLLECTIVE DETERMINATION to achieve a certain level of moral ethical and economic position.
the only really successful economy is a mixed economy with strong government and ethically and morally aware big business
Does Communism work ? NO
Does People work ? NO
What does work ?
COLLECTIVE WILL AND COLLECTIVE DETERMINATION to achieve a certain level of moral ethical and economic position.
the only really successful economy is a mixed economy with strong government and ethically and morally aware big business
But, I disagree - which demonstrates that your "collective" is quite non-inclusive. If I agree with you, then I'm part of your "collective". There are lots of collectives. Quite often they disagree on many issues.
So what you seem to endorse is a "battle of collectives" which is really just "the weak are assimilated or annihilated", which is capitalism which you said doesn't work.
Unless of course you think there is only one collective (which is negated clearly by anyone who EVER disagrees on anything), or we could possibly form just one.
If you believe that people are individuals and have a unique perspecitive in space-time, yet share a commonality somewhere in that we are humans and conscious - then I'd say a "collective" is necessarily impossible.
If you mean "just a bunch of people have to force the others into submission with their collective will", well I'd say that's been the case throughout the history of our species.
"I wish I could make him see the light"
Oh if I could see your light,
what a lovely light it would be.
but alas the light that I see bright -
is a light that's just for me.
But yeah sure we can try to share our light gunk and stuff.
pew pew pew!
Bah.
Anyway.
People are independent value functions in a (subjectively) forever re-evaluating feedback loop with incoming stimulous and percieved circumstance related to some ever-shaping context that frames the everchanging function.
So their VALUES are unique.
So "economic systems" are really just different organizational takes on logistics and the related politics of "what is endorsed by who". As in "the 'state' (which is really just a sanctioned mob of other individuals) formulates "rules" (which are really "guidelines to what the mob says you can't do") and then from an economic perspective we can say "this system is more like this than that"...
When in fact, everyone, at every moment is a perfect expression of their own value, and has perfectly attained it at that moment as constrained by the tao. There is no choice but that people seek what they value at all times, as it just follows that if you "sought it" you had to have valued it to do so.
You breath because you value air, even unconsiously.
You value typing here because for whatever reason you do. You could have done anything else the tao allows at the moment you typed it, but you didn't. You typed. Your value function was expressed perfectly, even if it changed on the fly while you were typing it.
Bah I'm rambling screw it.
That's pure capitalism, and that's what's up.
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
as luck would have it your post is the most lucky possible for some numerologists...
what i wonder does that mean in the tao ?
in my opinion you have raised 2 issues in your post,
1.]
the definition of anarchy Vs collective liberalism with a governing base of collective law i.e
thou shalt not kill,
thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.
human existence is based on collective will as a fundermental aspect of the species survival.
i am surprised that you do not attribute higher ideals such as non violence as an aspect of of collective will ? (or are you avoiding such concepts for the sake of a short ranged philosophical argument ?)
2.]
to be or not to be.
the definition of divine being as an expression of absolute now.
this one is obviously a somewhat religious and philosophical debate
and needs to be taken a fair way past the "if a tree falls in the Forrest" kinda layman's shallow paddling.
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
Slow and steady wins the race
fly by night crashes the kite
no type of economic system will work if the production arm is levied against borrowing to buy the very items that are assumed to be the "wants" of the people along with the people borrowing to buy those borrowed items.
its all kinda ass about face really.
but maybe a lesson that will not be learnt any other way.
the simple fact of the matter traces back to this one thing
if only the cheque was in the mail for this advice im about to not give
Your right capitalism does not work. It's been shown time and time again on the monopoly board. There's a winner every time.
What do you suggest as a replacement?
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
india is socialist and likely to stay that way, ALTHOUGH,
here is the intellectual bit that soo many people seem to be incapable of understanding.
Mixed economy
free market capitalist investment into companies that are allowed to operate but must pay tax.
Government regulation of capitalist companies inside a socialist framework.
it is the ONLY REAL economy that works.
however no matter if the country is communist, socialist or capitalist there is always dishonesty fueled by a lack of honor.
dishonest governments breed dishonest companies and organizations.
uncaring apathetic governments and government agencies breeds uncaring and apathetic general public.
Because of the capitalist machines going unchecked and running rampant, which we are now witnessing in finance company collapse and stock market jitters.
We have a septic situation with indentured abuse with over charging and monopolisation of government services and tax money.
independent evaluation is required.
mostly the time between an advancement being proposed agreed and given the green light to it actually being finished makes it go past its current cost and reduces its effective debut and full marketing and usage potential.
fly by night millionaires have been idolised by the general public and now people want everything now,
AND
the concept of saving toward something seems to have gone out the window.
slow and steady is better than fast and bust.
lack of fortitude and good morals being taught to children.
poverty breeds crime and bad parenting breeds war lords.
Last edited:
tabularasa
Registered Member
why socialism works... better
i am an american expat who has been living in canada for 13 years. i was born and raised in the usa and despite having no healthcare and a family struggling just above the poverty line, i never had a major illness and was the first in my family to obtain a bachelor's degree in international affairs in oregon (albeit with a huge student loan that took years to pay off). then i fell in love with a canadian, and now live in montreal.
what i can offer is a visceral POV of an american who grew up as a child with my hand over my heart every day belting out the Pledge of Allegiance, with an education and american values of "believing in capitalism"... that anyone can succeed in america with a little hard work. what i didn't learn was that it is ultimately a flawed economic model... if you happen to be someone who has VALUES that tend to believe in the common good.
for example, everyone in "socialist" canada can walk into a clinic or hospital and get the best of care available, regardless of income level. i just plain sleep better at night knowing that all children here are covered, but am haunted by the millions of american children with no insurance (just watch denzel washington in the movie John Q, and it says it all). what america DID do for me is to instill the responsibility to speak out against injustice, and that is what i am doing now.
capitalism is inhumane and favours the rich over the poor. end of story.
watch the incredible documentary THE CORPORATION and you will have a refresher about how this entity is the root of the problem with capitalism. no conscience, no ethics. it is all about money.
socialism doesn't mean you can't work hard and improve your circumstances. it just means that the basic needs like healthcare, education, and even the arts (our national public tv network CBC is funded by tax dollars, not struggling for individual donations and advertising like PBS) are supported by tax dollars. it is not "perfect" but i wouldn't trade it for capitalism... EVER.
come visit anytime and i'll show you around personally. spend a moment in another "country's shoes" so to speak, and you will be able to see america with fresh eyes. and be inspired to make her better...
i am an american expat who has been living in canada for 13 years. i was born and raised in the usa and despite having no healthcare and a family struggling just above the poverty line, i never had a major illness and was the first in my family to obtain a bachelor's degree in international affairs in oregon (albeit with a huge student loan that took years to pay off). then i fell in love with a canadian, and now live in montreal.
what i can offer is a visceral POV of an american who grew up as a child with my hand over my heart every day belting out the Pledge of Allegiance, with an education and american values of "believing in capitalism"... that anyone can succeed in america with a little hard work. what i didn't learn was that it is ultimately a flawed economic model... if you happen to be someone who has VALUES that tend to believe in the common good.
for example, everyone in "socialist" canada can walk into a clinic or hospital and get the best of care available, regardless of income level. i just plain sleep better at night knowing that all children here are covered, but am haunted by the millions of american children with no insurance (just watch denzel washington in the movie John Q, and it says it all). what america DID do for me is to instill the responsibility to speak out against injustice, and that is what i am doing now.
capitalism is inhumane and favours the rich over the poor. end of story.
watch the incredible documentary THE CORPORATION and you will have a refresher about how this entity is the root of the problem with capitalism. no conscience, no ethics. it is all about money.
socialism doesn't mean you can't work hard and improve your circumstances. it just means that the basic needs like healthcare, education, and even the arts (our national public tv network CBC is funded by tax dollars, not struggling for individual donations and advertising like PBS) are supported by tax dollars. it is not "perfect" but i wouldn't trade it for capitalism... EVER.
come visit anytime and i'll show you around personally. spend a moment in another "country's shoes" so to speak, and you will be able to see america with fresh eyes. and be inspired to make her better...
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Of course capitalism has its flaws. There's no denying that. Also, everyone more or less agrees that some level of regulation is needed to make the capitalist system work, but bear in mind that all western capitalist countries, the U.S. included, have socialist aspects to them that have arisen as a result of that kind of corrective regulation.
Canada is a capitalist country. Pure socialism would be one where society (in the form of the government) makes all the decisions and provides all the services, and as a result, where everyone is a government employee. Communism is then beyond that, where the government is disbanded and everyone collectively makes decisions in the best interest of the group.
The Soviet Union and Cuba tried to hew closely to the socialist ideal, and it didn't turn out so well.
The real question is not "Does capitalism work?" Laissez-faire capitalism surely does not (although it does not fail by nearly as much as pure socialism) work very well. The real questions are: "Does anything work better than modern, regulated capitalism?" and since the answer to that is 'no,' "What level and standards of government intervention in the markets are optimal?"
Canada is a capitalist country. Pure socialism would be one where society (in the form of the government) makes all the decisions and provides all the services, and as a result, where everyone is a government employee. Communism is then beyond that, where the government is disbanded and everyone collectively makes decisions in the best interest of the group.
The Soviet Union and Cuba tried to hew closely to the socialist ideal, and it didn't turn out so well.
The real question is not "Does capitalism work?" Laissez-faire capitalism surely does not (although it does not fail by nearly as much as pure socialism) work very well. The real questions are: "Does anything work better than modern, regulated capitalism?" and since the answer to that is 'no,' "What level and standards of government intervention in the markets are optimal?"
To Tabularasa, mainly:
Welcome to sciforums. My story resembels yours in that I moved to Brazil 16 years ago mainly because of lady I met while she and I happen to be on a beach vacation in Mexico. I think I am little older than you - had already separated from first wife. After we had exchanged a few visits, both ways, I sold the stuff I had in USA and moved into her apartment in Sao Paulo. We only bothered to marry last year - mainly to keep our financial assets separated for our first marriage kids. (second time for her also.) We both were university professors, but I never had one that looks as good as she does in a bathing suit. (Still!)
I may have been more liberal than you while still in USA. I was very active (a leader) in the civil rights movement. I liked the fact that Brazil had solved that conflict much more than USA, but still not entriely economically. I also like the long-term prospects for Brazil as a supplier of essential raw materials, food stocks, and already well on its way to an alcohol based sustainable economy. -
I see things coming in 10+ years more cleary than next week. (Got rich by being correct and acting before others.) I was very poor also, but had "full needs" scholarship so avoided going into deb for my Ph.D. You may not have read my dire prediction for the US and EU. (Run on dollar between Oct08 and Oct2014, converting to world's worst ever depression in a few months after dollar collapse.) They were posted here years ago (with those same date back then even) when few had even heard of "sub-prime." Unfortunately, it looks like I will be right again.
Canada will be hurt by that depression more than Brazil, but much less than the USA, as Canada will sell uranium, and probably oil, and other metals or their ores to Asia plus food stocks, especially wheat.* I.e. not as much as Brazil will but Canada will also become an "economic colony" of Asia. You were lucky to have marriage take you out of US.
-----------------
*Smart thing for Canada to be doing now is to try to make bread gain market shair on rice as the carbohydrate of choice in Asia.
Welcome to sciforums. My story resembels yours in that I moved to Brazil 16 years ago mainly because of lady I met while she and I happen to be on a beach vacation in Mexico. I think I am little older than you - had already separated from first wife. After we had exchanged a few visits, both ways, I sold the stuff I had in USA and moved into her apartment in Sao Paulo. We only bothered to marry last year - mainly to keep our financial assets separated for our first marriage kids. (second time for her also.) We both were university professors, but I never had one that looks as good as she does in a bathing suit.
(Still!)I may have been more liberal than you while still in USA. I was very active (a leader) in the civil rights movement. I liked the fact that Brazil had solved that conflict much more than USA, but still not entriely economically. I also like the long-term prospects for Brazil as a supplier of essential raw materials, food stocks, and already well on its way to an alcohol based sustainable economy. -
I see things coming in 10+ years more cleary than next week. (Got rich by being correct and acting before others.) I was very poor also, but had "full needs" scholarship so avoided going into deb for my Ph.D. You may not have read my dire prediction for the US and EU. (Run on dollar between Oct08 and Oct2014, converting to world's worst ever depression in a few months after dollar collapse.) They were posted here years ago (with those same date back then even) when few had even heard of "sub-prime." Unfortunately, it looks like I will be right again.
Canada will be hurt by that depression more than Brazil, but much less than the USA, as Canada will sell uranium, and probably oil, and other metals or their ores to Asia plus food stocks, especially wheat.* I.e. not as much as Brazil will but Canada will also become an "economic colony" of Asia. You were lucky to have marriage take you out of US.
-----------------
*Smart thing for Canada to be doing now is to try to make bread gain market shair on rice as the carbohydrate of choice in Asia.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cuban socialism has a serious claim to being the system that saved Cuba from the fates of its neighbors - such as Haiti. "Socialist" Russia modernized, from a third world country with the general development of Brazil to an industrial and military world power, in about one generation and including a horribly destructive war - a feat no capitalist country had, or has, duplicated.pande said:
Free markets are the way to set prices if they can be arranged in practice - but that sphere of practicality is limited. Generally speaking, the more socialist a "capitalist" country is the higher its standard of living compared with similar countries - the greater its "efficiency" in obtaining good life from given wealth. That can of course be taken to far - central planning is a heavy burden not to be extended beyond benefit - but the near term pattern is pretty clear.
Absolutely. Too bad the US government has done so much, much too much, "central planning." Even worse is it is so badly done and hidden (in tax laws that have accumulated over many years) So well "hidden" that most of the planers do not even realize they are "Central Planning" Planers! That is probably why it is so badly done.
Christ put it well from the cross:
"God forgive them for they know not what they do."
For example:
“... Not only is the current complex tax basically unfair, designed for the rich, etc. but it is also a great and foolish exercise in usually stupid "central planning" that the old USSR would have been proud of. For example, a well paid, but childless lady lawyer, married to a stock broker MUST buy that 6 bedroom country estate to help shelter their high 6 figure total incomes via a big mortgage and then get low capital gain tax rate when selling it. This makes a great distortion of the economy, and only one example of stupid "central planning" via the tax laws -They should be living in the city in a fancy high-rise apartment near their offices instead of making CO2 driving their Mercedes and BMW separately into work, for a total of two hours of frustration in traffic each day.
Few recognize how much "central planning" is hidden in the IRS tax laws. To a large extent the unlimited mortgage deduction has made many cities into slums. Only local funding of schools had done more to make US cities so undesirable. (Look at Europe, for example Paris, to see how much more equal and desirable urban living can be.) …”
From my post at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1791784&postcount=127
Or,, somewhat the same, but from another thread where you can help change this stupidity:
“…Buying a home in the US (vs. renting) is main economic decision most people make. It is strongly driven by tax considerations. There are, of course, also strong non-economic considerations. My most important non-economic factor was the quality of the local school.
That one is a good example of the strong "positive feedback" which makes the US "central planning" via the tax code much more effective than was possible in the old USSR, but also much more stupid.
The local school is funded by the local community and thus the effect of the IRS tax code, which tends to drive the wealthier out to where the more expensive homes are built is greatly re-enforced. In a very real sense, seldom recognized, the stupid IRS tax code combined with local funding of school has destroyed most US cites. - Made them into undesirable slums. - It need not have been so - look at European cities, like Paris. Cities can be (and a few in the US are) exciting places for the rich to live. The fundamental reason why most are not in the US, IMHO, is the stupid hidden "central planning" built into the IRS code, which drove the rich to the suburbs; undercut the quality of the urban school, etc.
This is just one, but important, example of the uncoordinated, stupid, hidden, unintended, central planning effect of the complex IRS code. We badly need a simple tax code free of a zillion special exceptions written by lobbyists that favor the rich with tax lawyers. We need a tax code designed to fund the government's financial needs, not one doing "social engineering" so badly that it destroys US cities! …”*
From my post at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1794648&postcount=20
--------------
*Also in the "expensive energy era", now arriving, the stupidly done US's central planning will destroy the US economy as the "surburban infrastructure" these idiots planners have encouraged will collapse much quickly than the more rational European public transport, desirable urban-living, smaller cars, etc. system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Cuban socialism also led to a wonderful world wear being a bell boy pays *WAY* more money than being a brain surgeon. If you want a wealthy spouse in Cuba, you need to look for someone who works for tips from foreigners.
Don't even try to defend its backwards ass economy, because I have many contacts in Cuba, none of whom have ever sung its praises.
On the Soviet Union, you are right that they developed, and then they found their own system was unsustainable, and the nation crumbled. As the fans of the Soviet Union used to say, it's "developmental dictatorship" (and if a few eggs have to be broken, in the sense of shot in the back of the head by assassins for criticising those in power, so be it.) Central planning is good when you are trying to expand rapidly, no doubt about that. What it's bad at (in a large and complex economy) is expanding in a way that maximizes growth in the long run and does it in a sustainable way.
At the same time, though, if you wanted bread or milk, you either needed to get incredibly lucky or go to the black market and pay more (usually in U.S. dollars because the black marketeers didn't want rubles) than what you would have in most capitalist countries. One plus side was that it had an amazing ability to churn out academics and highly-skilled professionals. The bad news is that most of them could earn more money as cab drivers, bartenders in touristy bars. For those with a particular intellectual passion and a desire to pursue that, it was great (so long as your field did not require large cash outlays in the course of the research, as that only went to certain fields). For those with a family to feed, it was less so.
The first time I went to Moscow, people would "tip" hotel staff with blue jeans, unbreakable plastic combs, toothbrushes, sony walkmen, and U.S. dollars, because no one wanted rubles.
I am not one to claim that Reagan can take credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it seems clear that the (largely very wasteful) military buildup in the U.S. did spark a reciprocal build up in the Soviets (albeit, not to the same degree). Even though they were not matching us dollar-for-dollar in that build-up, it did a lot to cripple their economy. It wasn't good for ours either, but it also didn't come close to hobbling us. (As such, I'd say that the buildup likely hastened their collapse.)
Venezuela is also doing not so poorly at the moment, because it's inefficiency can be covered by its oil wealth. We will wait to see where they are in 20 years though, as I expect the results will be singularly unimpressive.
I have no doubt that the U.S. has taken a standard of living hit since the last time I saw the numbers (since we are (a) disproportionately oil dependent, and the price of that has since skyrocketed and (b) suffering from devalued currency, so imports cost more), but the last time I saw the indicators (likely 2003ish), the U.S. was doing better on a GDP per capita basis than every E.U. country and Japan, with the exception of Luxembourg, and the growth of our GDP per capita was higher then all of them save three or four (including Luxembourg, and I believe Finland). Since all of the EU is more socialist than the U.S., and while Finland's high growth rate may be the basis of your point, I am not sure that in the long term what you say is correct, at least historically. Certainly, taking the EU in the aggregate, it's well known that the U.S. standard of living has historically swamped theirs, as has our aggregate growth rate, and as has U.S. worker productivity (which drives the growth). (On the latter, the U.S. was the most productive per person as of 2006.)
If you can find the numbers on the standards of living that contradict me, I could be wrong and so would like to know. Somewhat oddly, googling "standards of living" isn't giving me too much useful information.
Last edited:
Billy T,
No, Billy T, they would get the same mortgage deduction if they bought a high-rise townhouse in the city.
How does choosing to live in the country instead of the city distort the economy?
There are not enough fancy high-rise apartments in the city at present. All available ones are occupied. Are you suggesting the low-rent apartments in the city should be torn down and replaced with fancy high-rises? Don't you have a conscience about throwing the low-income residents out onto the streets? I guess the low income people could move out into the country and buy cars to commute back and forth to work. I'm not so sure they have enough excess income to buy cars and pay $4 per gallon for gas to commute to work, though. Wouldn't that be more affordable for higher income workers? Oops, that is what we have now, isn't it?
No, most low and middle income people buy homes as an investment for their future. Homes are very often their greatest asset, where their wealth is accumilated. Renters accumilate no wealth in their living quarters and will have to pay ever increasing rent the rest of their lives. Young people that have not yet settled on their long-term employment are better off renting rather than having to sell their home because of job and location changes, but rent money is wasted income. Buy a home with a fixed-rate mortgage and your "rent" will never increase over the years, unlike paying someone else ever-increasing rent payments for the privilage of occupying the same space. For instance, my home is worth much more than all the mortgage payments I have ever made on it. It is like putting money in the bank. If I had rented this whole time, I would still be having to make rent payments and would have accumilated nothing of value for that money. Plus, the rental rates on a home equal in value to mine is presently about three times what my mortgage payments were. One simply has to buy a home with mortgage payments they can afford and not keep re-financing their home to draw equity out of it. After all, you can't draw equity out of the property you are paying rent on, can you? Of course, an extended illness or unemployment can mean you lose your home if you fail to plan for such occasions. You will also be kicked out of an apartment that you can't pay the rent on. What's new?
As you later admit, there are not enough nice high-rise apartments in the city (and I might add they need to walk their dog before going to bed- too dangerous to go out after dark etc.) This is just one example of how the tax laws are hidden "central planning" that distorts the economy. Another would be the greater sales of riding lawn mowers vs. the reduced sale of elevators. Etc. As I said: the tax laws and local financing of schools have so greatly distorted the cities that most are essentially destroyed. The USSR's central planners never produced as much damage to the society as the US laws have via hidden "central planning" as the writers of these laws seldom even consider their long term consequences in the US case, but almost always did in the USSR's case. Do not miss understand. The central planning by the USSR was a disaster. - I hope you read and remember my post telling about my train ride conversation with a pretty Russian student in Hungary - she worked every summer in a tomato processing plant. One summer just sat at her workstation 8 hours reading mostly English books as the central planner had forgotten that the large cans needed large lids. That summer the plant manager bribed the truck drivers arriving daily from the state farm with tomatoes to dump them directly in the town's dump. One of the others summers was even worse - wasted the efforts of a "sister factory" in Rumania also, but that takes longer to tell.
I am no fan of central planning - I just wish the US had much less of it, (a one page tax law for all)* or at least it were better done so as not to destroy the cities and build the "suburban infrastructure," the SUVs etc. that will soon collapse in any high energy cost era. etc. (Note these features are unique to the US - not part of Europe or cities like Paris. - Did you ever ask yourself: WHY?)
No. I am suggesting that we let Adam Smith's "invisible hand" do more and central planners do less. I suspect that the cities that hand would build would be great places to live. With luxury apartments high above offices so the wealthy living there could take the elevator down to their office, etc. The poor, whose time was less vauable, would live in the outter parts of the suburban areas and not mind too much the hour long bus ride in to clean the offices after 5PM or early in the AM to be the maid or cook of the apartment renters. But I would not try to design these "better cities." - I'd let Adam's hand do that job, without central dictation from central planners, even those hidding their evil deeds in the tax laws.
To answer last question first: Falling home prices. At times renting and investing the capital tied up in house equity is much smarter than buying - should be obvious to anyone making the rent or buy choice within the last year
Also, NOT TRUE THAT YOUR "RENT" WILL NEVER INCREASE IF YOU OWN YOUR HOME:
Note that the schools are locally financed mainly from your state or city taxes often mainly restate taxes. - You seem to be forgetting that they are directly connected to increase in value you do conveniently remember. They only go up, rents at times come down. Those taxes will be going up rapidly now. Real estate assessments lag by years the real value of the house - great when it was inflating, but not now because of this lag. The rates will go up faster now also as the municipal bonds become more at risk. - Issuers must pay higher rates to sell them. - You will supply the funds for that increased cost of your local government. Etc. and for many other costs that will hit mainly property owners. Sandy told about a year ago that she was buying up property. - I bet she has negative gain now or soon will.
SUMMARY of my POV:
Yes capitalism can work. Too bad is not tried in the US with all its hidden central planners in control of economic decision process instead of Adam's Smith's magic hand. Again do not miss understand – Yes, there is a role for government - Public Service commission limiting the profits of the electric company, etc. - May Anne Rand twist a few times in her grave. - I am no fan of her "pure capitalism" either.
-----------------
*One page, instead of approximately 100,000 pages of special benefit "central planning." It is possible - see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1792841&postcount=1
but there surely needs to be revisions in that OP - please review it an make some, or at least point to flaws.
Last edited by a moderator: