User Tag List

View Poll Results: Is fractional reserve banking a necessity?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 46.15%
  • No

    4 30.77%
  • I don't even know how to use wikipedia

    3 23.08%
First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 52

  1. #41
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Banks don't collapse these days because rather they're allowed to simply not pay.
    I agree, and understand, but in an economy so dependent on credit what would the wider consequence of allowing banks to break be? We can not assume that a dominio or ripple through the wider economy wouldn't be worse.

    Most people have no idea about any of this stuff, and myself very little also. I do not invest my money expecting my government to save my bank, but if they did not, would i have access to information regarding the reserve ratio this bank uses, and in a competitive environment, what scope would a bank have for setting a higher reserver ratio?

    Meh! it ain't gonna change anytime soon... the old trick of spreading your money aorund several banks is certianly still as good an idea as it was in the 19th century.

    Overconfidence is caused by the illusions of inflation. Inflation makes it easier for unprofitable companies to make themselves appear to be profitable.
    I think that you would agree that less government interference in the market the better right? So how would you ensure that comanpies did not make themselves appear more profitable in this way? And was the IT bubble an inflationary driven over confidence?

  2. #42
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    I agree, and understand, but in an economy so dependent on credit what would the wider consequence of allowing banks to break be? We can not assume that a dominio or ripple through the wider economy wouldn't be worse.
    Actually, the worst economic depressions have been caused by central banks. Their policies have served to intensify economic expansions and contractions. If we allowed banks to fail, they would be forced to adopt less risky policies. Because they know they won't be allowed to fail, they play a riskier game, thus intensifying future economic downturns.

    Most people have no idea about any of this stuff, and myself very little also. I do not invest my money expecting my government to save my bank, but if they did not, would i have access to information regarding the reserve ratio this bank uses, and in a competitive environment, what scope would a bank have for setting a higher reserver ratio?
    Banks will not voluntarily set a higher reserve ratio, at least not under the current system, because there is no advantage to be gained. Stability is (supposedly) guaranteed by the government. So why assume a less risky position when you only stand to gain less from it?

    Hooray for government intervention!

    Meh! it ain't gonna change anytime soon... the old trick of spreading your money aorund several banks is certianly still as good an idea as it was in the 19th century.
    I don't even know if that will be good enough if we have a world-wide system failure.

    I think that you would agree that less government interference in the market the better right? So how would you ensure that comanpies did not make themselves appear more profitable in this way? And was the IT bubble an inflationary driven over confidence?
    Yes, less government interference is better. Government guarantees only serve to motivate banks to assume more risk. They don't make your money, or mine, any safer.

    Removing inflation is the only way to ensure that companies don't take advantage of it with their accounting practices.

    I don't know enough about the IT bubble for me to feel comfortable commenting on it.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #43
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Actually, the worst economic depressions have been caused by central banks. Their policies have served to intensify economic expansions and contractions. If we allowed banks to fail, they would be forced to adopt less risky policies. Because they know they won't be allowed to fail, they play a riskier game, thus intensifying future economic downturns.
    Would they take less risks though? There a fewer bank runs today than in years gone by when there was less government intervention. Also allowing banks to break rather than stepping in to stop them reduces the risks of a bank run spreading to other banks as the collasped banks creditors attempt to collect on the outstanding loans it holds.

    Banks will not voluntarily set a higher reserve ratio, at least not under the current system, because there is no advantage to be gained. Stability is (supposedly) guaranteed by the government. So why assume a less risky position when you only stand to gain less from it?

    Hooray for government intervention!
    I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough, the comment on competivness was meant to be considered in light of non government intervention, of course I can see how banks may behave less responsibly once the guareentee is there of intervention. All though the individuals in the bank that set policy would still have much to lose by irresponsible actions? Also has anyone actually given an industry wide guarentee? I know the British government has not and that no bank or person should assume that that government would intervene, especially if we get a change of party in office.

    I don't even know if that will be good enough if we have a world-wide system failure.
    No, but then nothing would be!

    Yes, less government interference is better. Government guarantees only serve to motivate banks to assume more risk. They don't make your money, or mine, any safer.
    Hold on, frational reserves banking makes a bank vulnerable in the case of a bank run, right? But if government steps in and forces the bank not to have to pay, then eventually you should get your money back, as the bank slowly collects on the money it has lent out, the reserves return to meet the creditors demands?

    Removing inflation is the only way to ensure that companies don't take advantage of it with their accounting practices.
    Yes I can see that, but then we'd all need to agree what a) inflation actually is and b) what causes it. If I understand correctly, people haven't manage to agree on either yet...

  4. #44
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    Would they take less risks though? There a fewer bank runs today than in years gone by when there was less government intervention. Also allowing banks to break rather than stepping in to stop them reduces the risks of a bank run spreading to other banks as the collasped banks creditors attempt to collect on the outstanding loans it holds.
    Right, there are fewer banks, but that doesn't really matter when there's a central bank.

    One of the primary scenarios that caused bank runs in the past (pre-Federal Reserve) is when a particular bank would inflate (lower it's own reserve ratio by offering loans) faster than other banks. That money would eventually end up in the accounts of other banks, which would call for payment from the offending bank. If the offending bank couldn't pay up, there would be a panic, a bank run, and a failure.

    With a central bank, this doesn't happen. In the US, the Federal Reserve sets those reserve requirements. If a bank doesn't have the reserves to meet their demands, the Fed backs them up.

    What this sets up is the possibility of a far greater catastrophe. If one bank fails, that's not good, but the economy can handle that. But what happens if the central bank fails? Well, it prints more and more money, forestalling failure, but that only works for so long. Eventually the economy will enter hyperinflation and the entire system will collapse. I'd say that's far worse than a single bank failure. Wouldn't you?

    I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough, the comment on competivness was meant to be considered in light of non government intervention, of course I can see how banks may behave less responsibly once the guareentee is there of intervention. All though the individuals in the bank that set policy would still have much to lose by irresponsible actions? Also has anyone actually given an industry wide guarentee? I know the British government has not and that no bank or person should assume that that government would intervene, especially if we get a change of party in office.
    If the bank is a corporation, and I'm sure almost all of them are, employees, stockholders, management, etc. are not personally responsible for anything. Well, outright fraud can be prosecuted, but taking ill-advised risks, as long as they're technically legal, won't be prosecuted. If you lost money, your only recourse would be to go to civil court, and good luck with that.

    Even if it's not written explicitly, the government will intervene. Also, in the US, we have something called the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It 'insures' the first $100,000 of deposits payable in the US. The FDIC doesn't actually have the reserves to cover much of anything.

    No, but then nothing would be!
    Silver, gold, and other commodities can always be used as money in the case of a currency collapse.

    Hold on, frational reserves banking makes a bank vulnerable in the case of a bank run, right? But if government steps in and forces the bank not to have to pay, then eventually you should get your money back, as the bank slowly collects on the money it has lent out, the reserves return to meet the creditors demands?
    Right, after the central bank creates more money to cover those demands.

    Yes I can see that, but then we'd all need to agree what a) inflation actually is and b) what causes it. If I understand correctly, people haven't manage to agree on either yet...
    Inflation is an increase in the nominal money supply.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #45
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    One of the primary scenarios that caused bank runs in the past (pre-Federal Reserve) is when a particular bank would inflate (lower it's own reserve ratio by offering loans) faster than other banks. That money would eventually end up in the accounts of other banks, which would call for payment from the offending bank. If the offending bank couldn't pay up, there would be a panic, a bank run, and a failure.

    With a central bank, this doesn't happen. In the US, the Federal Reserve sets those reserve requirements. If a bank doesn't have the reserves to meet their demands, the Fed backs them up.
    So the entire system is underwritten explictly by the federal reserve? WOW. now that IS crazy. Mind you wasn't it set up BECAUSE there had been a set of banks breaking? Isn't that what started the crash in the 30s? Or am I wrong? I was certain that the federal reserve was set up deliberately to prevent multi banks failing at once, because of the damage that did when it did happen.

    What this sets up is the possibility of a far greater catastrophe. If one bank fails, that's not good, but the economy can handle that. But what happens if the central bank fails? Well, it prints more and more money, forestalling failure, but that only works for so long. Eventually the economy will enter hyperinflation and the entire system will collapse. I'd say that's far worse than a single bank failure. Wouldn't you?
    Of course, but the chances of the central bank failing is remarkably slim. But what you described above, in the pre federal reserve situation, leave the system open to larger banks deliberately breaking smaller ones... which would be fine, if that bank didn't have some poor wage earners life savings in it.

    If the bank is a corporation, and I'm sure almost all of them are, employees, stockholders, management, etc. are not personally responsible for anything. Well, outright fraud can be prosecuted, but taking ill-advised risks, as long as they're technically legal, won't be prosecuted. If you lost money, your only recourse would be to go to civil court, and good luck with that.
    hmmm most banks here a plc's also, so there is limited liability, still don't think you'll be in a new job very soon though huh?

    Even if it's not written explicitly, the government will intervene. Also, in the US, we have something called the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It 'insures' the first $100,000 of deposits payable in the US. The FDIC doesn't actually have the reserves to cover much of anything.
    I think not. They did not when bearings broke (and that was the queens personal bank!) and although they did with northern rock, I don't think they would have if it had been a conservative government, and i don't think they would again as they've have huge problems justifying this intervention.

    Also it would take the level of government intervention in britain to a new high, a height it hasn't been at since the labour and conservative governments that followed the end of ww2. This would be politically unacceptable to many.


    Silver, gold, and other commodities can always be used as money in the case of a currency collapse.
    Like I suggested(unclearly) earlier, there is not enough of these comodities to provide a currency that would serve a globalised system?

    Right, after the central bank creates more money to cover those demands.
    Not necessarily, the bank can wait until the people it lent the deposited money to repay it, then they can return it to the people who deposited it without printing more money.

    Inflation is an increase in the nominal money supply.
    Hmmm, so stop printing more money, and freeze changes in the reserve ratio and the nominal money supply remains the same? but under capitalist conditions this money would slowly filter and concentrate in the top layers of society as the resource everyone wants become infinte (this is in a globalised system)

  6. #46
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    So the entire system is underwritten explictly by the federal reserve? WOW. now that IS crazy. Mind you wasn't it set up BECAUSE there had been a set of banks breaking? Isn't that what started the crash in the 30s? Or am I wrong? I was certain that the federal reserve was set up deliberately to prevent multi banks failing at once, because of the damage that did when it did happen.
    The Federal Reserve was created in 1917, long before the crash in 1929. The Bank of England, which the Federal Reserve is modeled after, was created in 1694.

    The stock market crash had nothing to do with banks failing in the US. The stock market crash was caused by bankers calling in loans, while simultaneously not creating new loans. At the time, most stock was bought with borrowed money. If you owned stock with borrowed money, and your loan was called, you had to sell your stock. But without banks loaning out money to other investors, there would be fewer potential buyers for your stock. So, you had to drop your price lower and lower until you found a buyer. This has a cascading effect, causing the crash.

    Of course, but the chances of the central bank failing is remarkably slim. But what you described above, in the pre federal reserve situation, leave the system open to larger banks deliberately breaking smaller ones... which would be fine, if that bank didn't have some poor wage earners life savings in it.
    The chance of the central banking failing isn't slim. It's inevitable. It's simply a matter of how long they can put it off. How long can they inflate the money supply before the public loses confidence? That's the question.

    I think not. They did not when bearings broke (and that was the queens personal bank!) and although they did with northern rock, I don't think they would have if it had been a conservative government, and i don't think they would again as they've have huge problems justifying this intervention.

    Also it would take the level of government intervention in britain to a new high, a height it hasn't been at since the labour and conservative governments that followed the end of ww2. This would be politically unacceptable to many.
    I don't know all of the details of that situation, so I'll ask, did depositors lose all of their assets? Or was there any type of national insurance program, like the FDIC in the US.

    Edit: After further reading, ING bought them out, assuming all of their liabilities. So the depositors lost nothing. That's what I suspected.

    Like I suggested(unclearly) earlier, there is not enough of these comodities to provide a currency that would serve a globalised system?
    There is, because the nominal supply of money is not important in that situation. It doesn't matter if there are a million ounces of gold or a billion.

    Not necessarily, the bank can wait until the people it lent the deposited money to repay it, then they can return it to the people who deposited it without printing more money.
    And why would the central bank do that when it can just print new money? Are you suggesting that government might, at some point, not take the easy way out?

    Hmmm, so stop printing more money, and freeze changes in the reserve ratio and the nominal money supply remains the same? but under capitalist conditions this money would slowly filter and concentrate in the top layers of society as the resource everyone wants become infinte (this is in a globalised system)
    As the resource everyone wants becomes infinite? What are you talking about?

    What you describe is the opposite of what would actually happen.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #47
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    The Federal Reserve was created in 1917, long before the crash in 1929. The Bank of England, which the Federal Reserve is modeled after, was created in 1694.

    The stock market crash had nothing to do with banks failing in the US. The stock market crash was caused by bankers calling in loans, while simultaneously not creating new loans. At the time, most stock was bought with borrowed money. If you owned stock with borrowed money, and your loan was called, you had to sell your stock. But without banks loaning out money to other investors, there would be fewer potential buyers for your stock. So, you had to drop your price lower and lower until you found a buyer. This has a cascading effect, causing the crash.
    So as the banks tried to reduce their risks, and also increased their reserves, by calling in loans and not offering them out again, the crash ensued. This decreases the amount of money availble in the system, thus by you defination is defaltionary and was a good thing then?

    The chance of the central banking failing isn't slim. It's inevitable. It's simply a matter of how long they can put it off. How long can they inflate the money supply before the public loses confidence? That's the question.
    Why is it a matter of how long can the put it off? What is going to creat a run on four or five maor banks at once?
    I don't know all of the details of that situation, so I'll ask, did depositors lose all of their assets? Or was there any type of national insurance program, like the FDIC in the US.

    Edit: After further reading, ING bought them out, assuming all of their liabilities. So the depositors lost nothing. That's what I suspected.
    Yeah ING bought them as they wanted the name, the nominal price one 1 GBP was paid, but what you'll notice is that the bank of england DID NOT pay out to save bearings.
    There is, because the nominal supply of money is not important in that situation. It doesn't matter if there are a million ounces of gold or a billion.
    I see you expect the demoninations to be very very small... fair enough.. one microgram of silver for a loaf of bread....


    And why would the central bank do that when it can just print new money? Are you suggesting that government might, at some point, not take the easy way out?
    I'm merely saying that they could, not that they would!! I honestly think that this is part of the uk governments plan to deal with the northern rock fiasco.

    As the resource everyone wants becomes infinite? What are you talking about?

    What you describe is the opposite of what would actually happen.
    Money, is the resource I'm talking about, as it is a notional expression of resource. What I mean is, that if you do not find someway to increase the amount of nominal money availble then those who are very very good at getting hold of money will end up with it all. The current system has been sustained by finding new ways to generate wealth and increase the amount of money availble to be chased. With globalisation, we are hitting the problem that there is no easy way to generate more wealth at a drop of a hat.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    So as the banks tried to reduce their risks, and also increased their reserves, by calling in loans and not offering them out again, the crash ensued. This decreases the amount of money availble in the system, thus by you defination is defaltionary and was a good thing then?
    Deflation is also harmful to the economy. It is best is to have a stable money supply.

    Why is it a matter of how long can the put it off? What is going to creat a run on four or five maor banks at once?
    Loss of confidence in the system. When people figure out that this banking experiment is not stable, they'll refuse to participate.

    Yeah ING bought them as they wanted the name, the nominal price one 1 GBP was paid, but what you'll notice is that the bank of england DID NOT pay out to save bearings.
    They did not pay out because ING assumed Baring's liabilities.

    I see you expect the demoninations to be very very small... fair enough.. one microgram of silver for a loaf of bread....
    No, I don't expect that at all. If there is not enough gold or silver to go around, people will find another media of exchange. Societies have done this for as long as they have been progressed beyond bartering.

    Money, is the resource I'm talking about, as it is a notional expression of resource. What I mean is, that if you do not find someway to increase the amount of nominal money availble then those who are very very good at getting hold of money will end up with it all. The current system has been sustained by finding new ways to generate wealth and increase the amount of money availble to be chased. With globalisation, we are hitting the problem that there is no easy way to generate more wealth at a drop of a hat.
    Wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to this because it's so wrong. What you claim is simply not the case.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #49
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Loss of confidence in the system. When people figure out that this banking experiment is not stable, they'll refuse to participate.
    So we'd best be quiet then? This annoys me somewhat, it is certainly a big weakness in the system, that a loss of confidence would destroy it, but there is no reason for everyone to panic it's worked fairly well for 100 years, if the biggest threat is everyone realising it will collapse if everyone realises that it could then for once ignorance isn't a bad idea? Also any system humans have ever constructed, be it banks, governments or courts only works will the people remain confident in its ability to provide whatever the service is; Courts stop supplying justice, people protest; Banks look a bit bad, a bank run ensues; Government tyrannise, people revolt.

    They did not pay out because ING assumed Baring's liabilities.
    Granted, though it remains to be seen that they would, the government and not the bank of england bailed out northern rock, and plenty of banks have broken without being saved since the bank of England's establishment in the seventeenth century.

    EDIT: The Bank of England is a sepperate autonomus body from the British government, or atleast it currently is, I think it's hoped back and forth a few times..
    No, I don't expect that at all. If there is not enough gold or silver to go around, people will find another media of exchange. Societies have done this for as long as they have been progressed beyond bartering.
    I'd expect in a system of total monetary collapse the bartering culture would suddenly spring back for a while. What I meant was that I understood what you meant, however the traditional use of gold and silver is because of it's rarity and the current requirement for vast amounts of available currency makes a return to a system where the currency itself had material value was probably inpracticable.
    Wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to this because it's so wrong. What you claim is simply not the case.
    sorry if I disappointed you there, I'm sure I am wrong as you put it, though I'm more certain our disagreement is due to differing interpretations of history and economics. Frankly without it happening I don't think either of us could claim the other is wrong.

    So you claim that the development of finical and commercial systems has nothing to do with the desire to find a means to make money with surplus capital without all the messing about with railroads and factories, while spreading the risk from merely personally lending the fortune required to someone else to tediously mess about with railroads and factories?

    Of course this process was interrupted by annoying governments desperate to find ways to fund bloody and often unnecessary wars....

  10. #50
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    So we'd best be quiet then? This annoys me somewhat, it is certainly a big weakness in the system, that a loss of confidence would destroy it, but there is no reason for everyone to panic it's worked fairly well for 100 years, if the biggest threat is everyone realising it will collapse if everyone realises that it could then for once ignorance isn't a bad idea? Also any system humans have ever constructed, be it banks, governments or courts only works will the people remain confident in its ability to provide whatever the service is; Courts stop supplying justice, people protest; Banks look a bit bad, a bank run ensues; Government tyrannise, people revolt.
    No, we best educate.

    Has it really worked that well for the last 100 years? The worst economic depressions have occurred in the last 100 years. Before the advent of fiat paper money, no nation had ever seen hyperinflation. All the current system adds is larger peaks and valleys. It doesn't add to output efficiency, at all. If anything, it serves to decrease output efficiency as people 'chase the money'.


    I'd expect in a system of total monetary collapse the bartering culture would suddenly spring back for a while. What I meant was that I understood what you meant, however the traditional use of gold and silver is because of it's rarity and the current requirement for vast amounts of available currency makes a return to a system where the currency itself had material value was probably inpracticable.
    Actually, people would just use whatever is convenient as an exchange media. For example, post WWII Germans used cigarettes as currency.

    sorry if I disappointed you there, I'm sure I am wrong as you put it, though I'm more certain our disagreement is due to differing interpretations of history and economics. Frankly without it happening I don't think either of us could claim the other is wrong.
    Throughout most of history, inflation was small-to-negligible (at least by current standards). How is it that the rich didn't acquire all of the wealth back then, if inflation was so low?

    So you claim that the development of finical and commercial systems has nothing to do with the desire to find a means to make money with surplus capital without all the messing about with railroads and factories, while spreading the risk from merely personally lending the fortune required to someone else to tediously mess about with railroads and factories?

    Of course this process was interrupted by annoying governments desperate to find ways to fund bloody and often unnecessary wars....
    Huh? This run-on sentence has me confused.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTP] ISTPs--Shy, Socially Anxious, Reserved?
    By grendiecat in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 07-28-2009, 04:25 PM
  2. Fiat Currency & Fractional Reserve Banking
    By robespierre in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-14-2008, 07:50 PM
  3. The Federal Reserve Poll
    By Annuit Coeptis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-15-2008, 09:00 AM
  4. Lame financial "personality test" by a bank
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2008, 07:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO