Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boost Employment By Ending The Fed And Resurrecting The Gold Standard
Forbes ^ | 9/08/2011 | Bill Flax

Posted on 09/08/2011 6:24:42 PM PDT by billflax

Another month and another lackluster employment figure. Both parties profess to be fixated on job creation. Where are they? In normal recoveries GDP booms and firms invest in exciting concepts that spur new hiring. Why not now?

Despite corporate profits exceeding $1.5 trillion in the recent period, which elevated corporate cash balances over $2 trillion – both records – few firms dare expand. Uncertainty paralyzes both those with capital to invest and those with investments seeking capital.

Several probable causes catalyze this economic confusion: looming tax increases, time-wasting regulatory demands and anti-business rhetoric emanating from Washington. All have merit, but not spoken of enough is a more effective economic cure, which would be to reform our monetary system.

Money is so fundamental to investment that bolstering the dollar represents the surest route to prosperity. Unfortunately, the dollar glides downhill as if on a rollercoaster. It suffers new lows against a host of currencies. Gold poises for $2,000/oz.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 0ancientrome; bernanke; congress; constitution; economy; federalreserve; feudalsocialism; goldchains; goldstandard; obama; santogold; teaparty
Money is the essential linchpin for the economy.
1 posted on 09/08/2011 6:24:52 PM PDT by billflax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: billflax

There isn’t enough gold in the world to back the world’s economies. We would have to dig Mars and get lucky.


2 posted on 09/08/2011 6:27:41 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billflax

Five years ago this would have been grounds for zot.

Eight years ago vehement ranting about the illegal immigration problem and calling the President Jorge Bush was grounds for zot.

Funny how people’s opinions change.


3 posted on 09/08/2011 6:28:39 PM PDT by Rebelbase (Disgusted with the establishment GOP and their enablers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billflax

You can try something like this during times of calm and stability when people have time to digest and understand. You can’t pull this stuff in the middle of a crisis and expect anything to get better.


4 posted on 09/08/2011 6:31:08 PM PDT by risen_feenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billflax

Warren Harding figured it out in 1920...

Congress and the Executive Branch have lots to do.

So far they’re not doin’ it right..

Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.” 2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1319&loc=r

BTW..ole Warren ALSO fixed immigration...

Mr. Harding signed into law the Emergency Quota Act[3] which sought to control immigration following World War I and preserve the distinctive American culture by ensuring the majority of immigrants came from the historically compatible cultures of Northern Europe. This law aimed to bring wages of hard working Americans under control by limiting immigration to 3% of the 1910 census. It was followed on by a similar act in 1924, after Mr. Harding’s death.[4]

A Warren Harding prescription...if filled ...would ignite the afterburners on the US job machine and the economy. However DC would have to yield on a tremendous amount of power. Our job as We the People...is to persuade them of the “utility” ..shall we say..of doing so. In all probability the same minds that made the mess...aren’t capable of the solution however.

BTW any takers that ‘Bammy couldn’t even tell you that Warren Harding was one of his predecessors in office?

Even more telling about what our betters in the RinoCracy think of a Constitutional President..

http://www.usnews.com/listings/worst-presidents/warren-harding


5 posted on 09/08/2011 6:32:20 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

But posting before reading the column is timeless.


6 posted on 09/08/2011 6:32:50 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Always.


7 posted on 09/08/2011 6:34:26 PM PDT by Rebelbase (Disgusted with the establishment GOP and their enablers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DRey

A government doesn’t need to have an enormous amount of gold for this to work. Just enough to issue at the margins until the dollar has parity.


8 posted on 09/08/2011 6:35:18 PM PDT by Protoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: billflax

About as likely as me walking to the moon tonight and getting back before dawn.


9 posted on 09/08/2011 6:37:13 PM PDT by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billflax; All

That will do absolutely nothing to curb devaluation of the dollar; the government will simply keep lowering the ounce per dollar valuation.

Gold as money can have horrific inflation, as was the case during the spanish empire.

Juan De Mariana documented spanish inflation in his writings in the early 1600’s.

The crown was coining money like it was going out of style and cheapening the alloy.

Backing the dollar with gold will succeed in making the price of gold skyrocket, though.


10 posted on 09/08/2011 6:39:58 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billflax

“Both parties profess to be fixated on job creation. Where are they?”


There are millions of jobs being created. The world job market has boomed in the past 5, 10 years.

The new jobs are in Communist China, Asia, etc.


11 posted on 09/08/2011 6:40:35 PM PDT by CGalen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DRey

“There isn’t enough gold in the world to back the world’s economies.”

Really? You couldn’t raise the price of gold?


12 posted on 09/08/2011 6:42:40 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Protoss

Just enough to issue at the margins until the dollar has parity? Parity how, at $20/ounce? It would have to be $2,000/ounce. I don’t understand what you mean by “margins.”


13 posted on 09/08/2011 6:43:31 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

So just put an arbitrary amount on the price of gold, huh? That’s smart. <s/


14 posted on 09/08/2011 6:44:51 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DRey

No
The price would float. Your ignorance of gold/money is embarrassing you and you don’t know it.

Your old argument has been disparaged so many times. Do you read at all?


15 posted on 09/08/2011 6:53:08 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: billflax

Who remembers the following?

Santo Gold Infomercial (intro)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa51xwO4Toc

;-)


16 posted on 09/08/2011 6:57:09 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), Army NG, '89-' 96)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DRey

Do you think the price of gold is somehow arbitrary ?
The price of angled backed economy’s set by some clown in a room?

You sound so confident in your post that there is not enough gold in the world. Yet, you fail to consider price in your deep analysis.


17 posted on 09/08/2011 6:57:16 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

The price of a gold backed...


18 posted on 09/08/2011 7:00:10 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney
Really? You couldn’t raise the price of gold?

Sure can...and you can manipulate the supply. It has been done time and time again in the past by the banks...especially those in Europe...to drive countries into recession and manipulate their money supply.

19 posted on 09/08/2011 7:03:48 PM PDT by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DRey

“It would have to be $2,000/ounce. I don’t understand what you mean by “margins.””

Actually, it would be much higher than $2,000, but it is what it is.

Criminey! You don’t understand “margins”?


20 posted on 09/08/2011 7:08:09 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

I think you misunderstand your own question. No, I do NOT think the price of gold is arbitrary. That’s what I just said. Are you incapable of having a conversation without trying to insult your listener? Good grief.


21 posted on 09/08/2011 7:08:23 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DRey

Ain’t that the truth!


22 posted on 09/08/2011 7:09:01 PM PDT by Wu (Excuse me while I kiss the sky......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

No, cowturd, I don’t know a lot about it. That’s why I posed that question. But not to you. You see, people like you are just online to insult others and look terribly, terribly small. I asked a civilized question and am awaiting the answer from the person I was speaking with.


23 posted on 09/08/2011 7:10:32 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
Juan De Mariana documented spanish inflation in his writings in the early 1600’s.

The crown was coining money like it was going out of style and cheapening the alloy.

This happened in France, too, if you read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. However, cheapening the alloy is a matter of currency more than money. If a country actually produces gold coins, yes, the example would hold, but if a dollar were always guaranteed to be backed by 24ct gold in a bank, then this wouldn't happen.

There are a lot of problems with gold, such as tying a currency to mining luck, but tying it to government faith has been a disaster. I've heard (and haven't verified) if you look at how much gold it takes to buy a suit now, it takes about as much as it did 200 years ago. A suit costs a lot more now, indicating that the government has devalued the currency by a great deal. Throughout the 1700s and 1800s, an era ruled by gold, prices actually fell steadily, which makes sense given a stable currency. Increasing efficiencies dictate more goods should be produced per person, thus lowering the cost.

24 posted on 09/08/2011 7:13:46 PM PDT by ElectronVolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

Yes, I understand margins very well, thank you. I don’t understand what the person I was talking with meant. That person, is not you, so good night.


25 posted on 09/08/2011 7:14:29 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DRey

“There isn’t enough gold in the world to back the world’s economies”

Gold is relatively fixed in quantity. About 10 billion ounces over the last 200 years.

Gold based economies have been in existence for quite a while.

The price just needs to change to fit the economies. If you don’t get that, you shouldn’t make such comments as you did above.


26 posted on 09/08/2011 7:19:52 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

Government price-fixing is always a disaster eventually. It’s as dishonest and arbitrary as the FED manipulations of the dollar. You would become that which you hate?


27 posted on 09/08/2011 7:28:30 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DRey
Just enough to issue at the margins until the dollar has parity? Parity how, at $20/ounce? It would have to be $2,000/ounce. I don’t understand what you mean by “margins.”

"At the margin" is a standard economics term. What he's trying to say is, let the price of gold find its natural level and fix the dollar there. It might be $2,000/oz; it might be $5,000. Only the market knows for sure: I've found out the hard way.

With regard to your comment about "not enough gold," you seem a little behind the times. Have you heard of digital gold? It's made gold fungible down to thousandths of a gram.

This outfit's the best-known vendor of digital gold.

28 posted on 09/08/2011 7:29:38 PM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DRey

Bizarre comment
Has nothing to do with any previous comment


29 posted on 09/08/2011 7:31:02 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan
I understand margins, but I didn't understand the "natural level" aspect. Does that mean it's supposed to settle when someone decides, okay, today is the day, and then it's fixed at that rate permanently?

As far as digital gold and whatever...wow. Yeah, I'm behind the times, and from what I hear, I don't like the idea at all.

Thanks for the clarification.
30 posted on 09/08/2011 7:33:42 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

That’s what I thought about your comment.


31 posted on 09/08/2011 7:34:47 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DRey

Great comeback


32 posted on 09/08/2011 7:37:43 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

Thanks


33 posted on 09/08/2011 7:39:33 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DRey
I understand margins, but I didn't understand the "natural level" aspect. Does that mean it's supposed to settle when someone decides, okay, today is the day, and then it's fixed at that rate permanently?

Not quite. It settles when supply and demand come roughly into balance over time. Think of a stock trading sideways; you'll get the idea. Then, someone can can be decided that "okay, today is the day."

I'm glad to issue the clarification. You'll find that many Freepers are well-versed in economics, so they use terms like "at the margin" like they're part of ordinary English. I'm sure you'll pick it up as you go along.

As far as digital gold and whatever...wow. Yeah, I'm behind the times, and from what I hear, I don't like the idea at all.

Even if Rick Perry get behind it? :)

34 posted on 09/08/2011 7:42:20 PM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney; DRey

Hello,

Yes, I meant that via the gold window, the market would settle on the right dollar price of gold as people exchange their gold for dollars or vice versa. I do believe if this were established today, many would come to the gold window and exchange dollars for gold, thus settling on a price of gold under 1,000 per ounce. I say this because gold above 1,000/oz is a recent phenomenon, and that we haven’t seen the inflation across all goods/services yet (it starts in commodities and acts like a wave). This is the reason the banks were in so much trouble in 08 and now, because they rely on lending (lender gets screwed when money is devalued). Also, dollar stays weak because of 0bama’s (AKA Zer0) crap economic policies.


35 posted on 09/08/2011 7:47:57 PM PDT by Protoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan
Even if Rick Perry get behind it? :)

Lol. If he gets behind it I promise to get better versed at the very least. I gave him hell over Gardisil before I realized how misinformed I was. Won't make that mistake again. ; )
36 posted on 09/08/2011 7:48:56 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DRey
So just put an arbitrary amount on the price of gold, huh? That’s smart. < s /

You'll recall that FDR called in all of the gold and set an arbitrary price of $35/ounce.

That worked out quite well. For the government.

Why the populace stood for it I'll never understand.

37 posted on 09/08/2011 7:48:56 PM PDT by IncPen (Educating Barack Obama has been the most expensive project in human history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Why the populace stood for it I'll never understand.Exactly.
38 posted on 09/08/2011 7:50:37 PM PDT by DRey (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Protoss

Thanks

A couple notes:
Gold’s current price is below the all time high adjusted for inflation
Inflation is actually about 4% currently. MIT runs a study on this based on billions of items
http://bpp.mit.edu/


39 posted on 09/08/2011 8:08:45 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

Small chance of that happening now
Global markets makes it preposterous


40 posted on 09/08/2011 8:11:39 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney; blam; Rebelbase; Beelzebubba
You are so right. The basic ignorance concerning money and gold on this thread is truly embarrassing.
41 posted on 09/08/2011 8:24:43 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

I’ve been here for awhile and I’ve never seen any zotted for advocating the constitutional principle of the gold standard, or calling Bush a pro illegal alien RINO.


42 posted on 09/08/2011 8:35:59 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney
Small chance of that happening now
Global markets makes it preposterous

Dunno. The point of FDR's scheme was to take control of the most solid means of storing wealth (gold), basically to break the public's trust in it by confiscating and devaluing it.

And there's more than one way to break the public trust in trinkets like gold. Because if there's nothing for the middle class to invest in, they'll have no choice but to throw in their fate with the Government.

Consider that home ownership until very recently was considered an almost faultless investment. Home prices always go up, right? The only time they go down is when Government screws up-- hello California! So... how could you destroy peoples' faith in the home as a means of storing and protecting wealth? By legislating its devaluation, via the Community Reinvestment Act.

Before that they broke the banks, the auto companies, and attacked the Christians.

And I have no horse in the current runup in gold, it certainly seems justified on some level.

But when you look at the playing field you have to scratch your head; you've got a guy in the White House who began his political career in Bill Ayers' kitchen, who we know consorts with Soros and has a grudge against this country.

Would they like nothing better than to runup the gold market, then crash it in a heap, taking out much of the middle class?

Isn't that essentially what FDR did?

43 posted on 09/08/2011 8:42:27 PM PDT by IncPen (Educating Barack Obama has been the most expensive project in human history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ElectronVolt
However, cheapening the alloy is a matter of currency more than money.

All currency is money but not all money is currency. Demand deposits are money. A checking account has money in it, but not paper currency.

The number total dollar value of all paper U.S. dollars in the world is far less than the total dollar value of all U.S. dollars. I believe there are somewhere the neighborhood of 1 trillion in paper dollars, but the total of U.S. dolars in the world is I believe somewhere around 8 trillion (a figure which includes the paper dollars).

Not only would the paper dollars have to be "backed" by gold, but all dollars would.

At the current market price of $2,000 per troy ounce of gold, there is somewhere around $8 trillion worth of gold - in the world.

Now, since the U.S. government can't simply demand that everyone in the world give them all their gold, the number of U.S. dollars backed by one ounce of gold would have to be much higher than 2,000.

And voila - we have our devaluation problem the moment the U.S. government sets a conversion ratio. Say they set it at $24,000 per troy ounce. Let's just say the have 334 million ounces, and we start off using our new gold-backed dollars.

Now let's say we're the U.S. government and we want to create another trillion dollars. Do we need to somehow acquire more gold, specifically, another 41,666,667 troy ounces ? We could print dollars or write a check and use that money to pay a gold miner for the 41 million ounces of gold. And then the government, as long as it just put that gold in a vault - and never touched it - would have backed the dollars with gold and put the dollars into circulation. Wonderful.

But let's put our reality hat on for a moment. Suppose the miner just doesn't have that much gold when they come to buy it. This will inevitably happen some day years from now. Will the government just smile and shrug, when years from now there are 350 million Americans trying to conduct business instead of only the 300 million there are today, and these people start clamoring that the $8 trillion money supply is just not enough any more, there have to be more dollars because there are more people ? Certainly not. All they need to do is arithmetic. They say to themselves - we need another 1 trillion dollars in the money supply and we can't aqcuire enough gold. Let's just say each troy ounce of gold is now backing $27,000 instead of $24,000. Now let's create $1 trillion and spend it to get it into the economy - woo-hoo ! Every dollar is now backed by 1/27,000 of a troy ounce instead of 1/24,000 of a troy ounce. Who cares - everybody's happy - the U.S. dollar is backed by gold !

I've heard (and haven't verified) if you look at how much gold it takes to buy a suit now, it takes about as much as it did 200 years ago. A suit costs a lot more now, indicating that the government has devalued the currency by a great deal.

Gold was $300 per ounce about 10 years ago. That would only buy a cheap off the rack suit. A benchmade suit would start at somewhere around $5,000 both then and now; some high quality cloth and some extras and you're talking $10,000. Gold is now about $2,000 per ounce. That will buy more than off the rack, but perhaps only a made-to-measure suit.

There are various factors at work in an economy that functions well which cause inflation and a different concept, the need for more money in circulation.

Everyone wants to gather up wealth during their life, many are successful at it. As their net worth goes up, their need for on-hand cash goes up as does their transaction volume in money units, i.e., dollars. People earn more as they get older. People want more income and wealth as they get older. It beats being broke. Consequently, there is a propensity for the economy to have higher transaction volumes and consequently a need for more money in the money supply.

Businesses all want to have higher sales every year. This fact, coupled with people having increasing incomes and the desire for stuff helps push prices up.

From time to time, the supply of various things might go up faster than demand. Land in a city that's falling out of favor. A abnormally large corn crop. Etc. That will make prices go down until supply is worked off or demand rises.

Also, the population creeps up over time. Every person is a new financial entity that has a job, a bank account, a place to live, a car, etc. They earn money in their job and deposit it into their bank account. So 330 million people require a larger money supply than 320 million if they are both populations in the same nation around the same time, in other words, all other things being equal.

There are more variables in motion in an economy that most people realize. Those who have invested in gold, at the moment, are playing a few old riffs to try to gin up interest amongst everyone to buy gold, as that will help propel the price higher. There are also those who are simply mixed up and push the old riffs because they believe them. Commodities can be a good alternative asset to cash when the value of the currency is under assault or in times of high inflation. Aged cigars might be preferable to cash if the cash isn't needed at the moment. Gold is simply the king of commodities because of it's relative rarity and it's inertness. But we must remember that commodities do not produce a return and therefore would not be nearly as attractive if the supply of U.S. dollars was not so irresponsibly increased and was better managed and if government spending comes under control so government debt can start being reduced. The fall of 2012 may well prove to be the time to sell one's gold.

Bottom line, prices of everything have changed over time, and productivity levels and technology levels have dramatically increased over time and those are the primary driving factors of standard of living, earning potential and the accumulation of wealth.

Fiat money eliminates one problem with commodity-based money, that of the supply and demand for the underlying commodity itself affecting the value of the money.

But even with that problem eliminated, the greatest challenge with money is still found in the combination of it's necessary characteristics:

A) the authorization of it's creation is by the government so private entities don't run wild producing it.

B) the amount in circulation must be maintained at levels that are both adequate to facilitate the volume of transactions in the economic system and not so large as to invite poor decisions by the entity in the economic system through which the superfluous money is introduced, whether they introduce it via spending or lending or investment.

C) Governments are people, and they have a tough time resisting the urge to create too much money.

Increasing efficiencies dictate more goods should be produced per person, thus lowering the cost.

An overgeneralization that shows only part of what's going on. If you consider that with one item, like computer memory chips, the statement holds true if there are no other intervening factors significant enough to disrupt the downward trend. We are seeing the effect only of technology increases in a single type of technology.

If we look at all goods and services that we buy today - as a whole (sum them up) - we see there are other factors involved. Things available today were not available then. If you look at how much the average Joe earned back then, what he had to buy and how much those things cost, today's average Joe gets a lot more bang for his working hour. If we wanted to live the same simple life as people did back then, our costs would be far lower - but this is only possible to evaluate theoretically, of course. Think of the "lower cost" of this: we "common people" can travel coast-to-coast on an airplane for perhaps a few days or few weeks pay. How did King George travel ? The most common person today in a civilized country would consider themselves "roughing it" if they had to live like the king did then. The common man today is much wealthier than hundreds of years ago, and does not mind spending what would seem like untold amounts because he earns what would seem like untold amounts to the man of yesteryear.
44 posted on 09/09/2011 12:45:00 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson