Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
CrowEpistemologist

Ron Paul: Bitcoin could 'destroy the dollar'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

People who invest in loans are afraid of US dollar inflation.

 

Yep. In other words, informed investors who explicitly decide that the US dollar is a good investment and place their bet accordingly are afraid of their business decision being the wrong one. Good answer. I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your point is that a perfect investor will always make perfect trades, then fine. I've got no argument, but I don't see any broader implications in your posts than that. The point I was approaching is this:

"Informed investors" making good decisions by fleeing the dollar is exactly the danger. This will cause an economy-wide retraction of liquidity for businesses. If you can't see how this will affect you, then good. It means, on some level, you understand why central planning doesn't work. But you must realize that it's not just the "uninformed investors" who suffer. When people are forced to use a particular currency, the inflation of that currency is fundamentally different than the inflation of a real commodity. When gold devalues it's because we have more gold or a suitable alternative. In other words, the devaluation indicates a relative increase of value in the economy. All monetary distortion does is cloud signals, which will result in less value over time.

 

Ron Paul understands that bitcoins aren't inflatable, but he's found a poor way to make that point. One of the reasons I don't believe that bitcoins will rival the dollar any time soon is that they aren't forced on us. I'll start believing in them when people start trading them for real estate.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your point is that a perfect investor will always make perfect trades, then fine.

 

I don't know what that means, so that wasn't my point, no. I don't think "a perfect investor" is a valid concept. Maybe an illustration?

 

 

[...]

 

When people are forced to use a particular currency, the inflation of that currency is fundamentally different than the inflation of a real commodity. When gold devalues it's because we have more gold or a suitable alternative. In other words, the devaluation indicates a relative increase of value in the economy. All monetary distortion does is cloud signals, which will result in less value over time.

 

Ron Paul understands that bitcoins aren't inflatable, but he's found a poor way to make that point. One of the reasons I don't believe that bitcoins will rival the dollar any time soon is that they aren't forced on us. I'll start believing in them when people start trading them for real estate.

 

To buy a house, I'd sell a couple thousand shares of AAPL, transfer the US dollars I've converted to the selling party, and then pick up my keys. I have, in effect, bought a house with AAPL shares. I would have held US dollar for about 3 hours perhaps. I could do the same with gold or whatever.

 

There are absolutely, positively, NO laws in the USA forcing citizens to use US dollars for trading. Billions of transactions a day occur without US dollars, millions of them involving US citizens.

 

So no, the US dollar is no different than any other commodity or investment instrument in which one might place a bet. If your portfolio has US dollars in it, that's your fault, not the fault of any government. There is no law that says you must place your savings in US dollars. None. The only thing the law says is that you must pay Federal and State taxes in US dollars. Even that law does not force you to hold US dollars for more than a few milliseconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is an investor that correctly interprets all data and is good enough at obtaining data that he always makes profitable decisions. It's as valid a concept as is a Unicorn. That neither can exist is a separate matter.

Regarding the rest of your post, do you mean to imply that dollar inflation won't cause a retraction in business loans?

Edit: I already said that I have no argument with you regarding how investors treat the dollar when trading commodities. But the fact is that when an AAPL stock split occurs, your shares aren't diluted. You can't say the same of the dollar. The point I'd like you to stop dodging pertains to how this difference effects businesses. Because there is no requirement that monetary inflation be paired with a distribution scheme that maintains each individual's asset value, and because it's the law that people trade in dollars (not AAPL shares), monetary inflation signals something fundamentally different and causes different things to happen. One of those things is a retraction in loans. Can you name another investment instrument that could have this effect? I can't. I briefly considered oil because energy is one of the few things that could effect a whole economy. But if oil prices took a nosedive, again, that would indicate an abundance of value. It certainly wouldn't cause a fog that prevents businesses from obtaining loans.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is an investor that correctly interprets all data and is good enough at obtaining data that he always makes profitable decisions. It's as valid a concept as is a Unicorn. That neither can exist is a separate matter.

 

 

Yep, humans are non-omniscient. Even the richest hedge fund managers on Wall Street hedge their investments because they deal in educated guesses, not certainty.

 

 

Regarding the rest of your post, do you mean to imply that dollar inflation won't cause a retraction in business loans?

 

 

A retraction? Sure. Lots of relatively small factors can cause a retraction, however. A war, for instance. A major terrorist attack. A major financial failure of a large private institution. A prolonged period of leveraging causing a bubble (to then burst). And yes, the US government suddenly reversing its 30 year old anti-inflation stance and suddenly, willfully trying to mess up our economy. That too would cause a shock and a resultant contraction of activity.

 

All of these things are temporary. 9/11 didn't cause us to devolve into the stone ages, nor did the 2008 blow-up. The Fed going psycho wouldn't either.

 

 

Edit: I already said that I have no argument with you regarding how investors treat the dollar when trading commodities. But the fact is that when an AAPL stock split occurs, your shares aren't diluted. You can't say the same of the dollar. The point I'd like you to stop dodging pertains to how this difference effects businesses. Because there is no requirement that monetary inflation be paired with a distribution scheme that maintains each individual's asset value, and because it's the law that people trade in dollars (not AAPL shares), monetary inflation signals something fundamentally different and causes different things to happen. One of those things is a retraction in loans. Can you name another investment instrument that could have this effect? I can't. I briefly considered oil because energy is one of the few things that could effect a whole economy. But if oil prices took a nosedive, again, that would indicate an abundance of value. It certainly wouldn't cause a fog that prevents businesses from obtaining loans.

 

 

AAPL stock could crash leaving me with nothing. I'm not sure what splits have to do with it.

 

Also, for the Nth time here, there is no law that people trade in dollars in the USA. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. There is no law, and people trade in non-dollars millions of times a day. 80% of the world economy trades in non-dollars. Every US citizen, by law, has access to virtually every investment on Earth, including the 80% not transacted in dollars. You can trade your neighbor his Honda for your dog. Corporate share swapping happens in every single day in the USA in acquisitions. Dollars are convenient most of the time, but not legally required.

 

If oil spiked (again because of a war etc.) then surely that would cause temporary uncertainty and probably a contraction of business activity... US dollars (and the Fed in general) is different in degree, but not in form...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government printing money is analogous to a stock split without the rule that an individual's stake must be maintained. Therefore, though AAPL stock can fail for many reasons, it can't fail because of a stock split. The Dollar can.

 

We've gone round after round over the monetary monopoly, and you're wrong that it isn't enforced by law. It is the mechanism by which wealth is taxed, business subsidies are granted or denied, FDIC participants are insured, vast sectors of the home loan industry are guaranteed, etc. You are correct in that you are free to barter or contract without it under limited circumstances. But your property and capital gains will be converted into dollars and taken from you for the express purpose of propping up the "good faith and credit" of the US. If you want to make the argument that "there's no law" requiring that each and every transaction involve dollars, then you won't have an arguing partner. But I won't let you use that argument as a semantic life raft to escape the sinking ship Innocent Dollar. She happens to be as seaworthy as her name is candid. Before this analogy runs away on me I want to make it clear that I am making no predictions about fed policy or the value of the dollar. In other words, though I remain open to the idea, I don't share Schiff's and Paul's convictions that the demise of the dollar is imminent. But if the value of the dollar were to sink like the Spanish armada, the State's monetary monopoly will make this a very messy affair for anyone with any wealth to lose. And, yes, that too will be temporary.
 

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your property and capital gains will be converted into dollars and taken from you for the express purpose of propping up the "good faith and credit" of the US.

 

 

So you must pay your taxes in US dollars. So what. I convert some of my (non-dollar) holdings into USD and pay my taxes a few nanoseconds later. If the dollar tanks, it's the US government that gets screwed, not me. This is a very real effect, which underscores how our government does not have a vested interest in tanking the Dollar--quite the opposite: the US government would see the biggest downside to USD inflation.

 

 

But I won't let you use that argument as a semantic life raft to escape the sinking ship Innocent Dollar. She happens to be as seaworthy as her name is candid. Before this analogy runs away on me I want to make it clear that I am making no predictions about fed policy or the value of the dollar. In other words, though I remain open to the idea, I don't share Schiff's and Paul's convictions that the demise of the dollar is imminent. But if the value of the dollar were to sink like the Spanish armada, the State's monetary monopoly will make this a very messy affair for anyone with any wealth to lose. And, yes, that too will be temporary.

 

 

So say I have lots of wealth to lose. While I personally, currently see the USD as a decent store of value, I could move the fraction of my holdings in USD out of it on a moment's noticed should I see any evidence I should. The dollar can tank all it wants. It won't effect me, directly at least.

 

Don't get me wrong, massive and sudden USD inflation would mess things up because it would make things hard to compute, taxes would be a mess, and so forth. I think the technical solutions I've talked about in other threads would mitigate things a lot, but clearly our economy would be forced to spend an undue amount of resources on accounting and finance until the problem is fixed (which as I said would involve complete disintermediation of the USD from widely perceived value). The technology is there and its a solution in search of a problem. The minute the ship sinks, we'll all climb aboard our airplanes...

 

So in summary:

 

1. I don't worry about US dollar inflation, run-away inflation, the Fed printing money, bla bla bla. It's no more on my radar than dying of smallpox. There's absolutely no evidence that it's going to happen anytime soon, and lots of evidence that it won't happen ever.

 

2. Even if such a thing did occur, I personally would be fine, financially, as would anybody with any sort of modern financial approach (i.e. any more modern than stuffing Benji's into their mattress).

 

3. If such a thing did occur, it would be akin to suddenly running out of oil: we'd have an alternative available by wile entrepreneurs in a matter of months or even days, and then life would go on, business as usual, except that the fluctuation of USD value would have no impact on our lives rather than the some minimal impact as before. We'd get a cold and then build up the antibodies for next time, impervious to its effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand that the way you argue this point screams out the implication that the monetary monopoly is ok because you (one guy) have the skills and means to minimize its impact on your life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand that the way you argue this point screams out the implication that the monetary monopoly is ok because you (one guy) have the skills and means to minimize its impact on your life?

 

The government has a monopoly on lots of things that they shouldn't have. It's a matter of prioritizing. The US monetary policy is "okay" right now, yes. Not ideal, but making it "perfect" would have no discernible impact on my life. Compare that to fixing things like drug laws, abortion laws, industry graft, immoral taxation, etc. etc.

 

The number of customers of mutual funds and various investment instruments in the USA numbers in the tens of millions, and virtually every citizen makes use of a bank, which could easily move funds on behalf of customers.

 

So it's a little broader than, "one guy" who has the "skills" to not store their wealth in their mattress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand that the way you argue this point screams out the implication that the monetary monopoly is ok because you (one guy) have the skills and means to minimize its impact on your life?

Furthermore, one function of money is to act as a standard: as a basis for interaction and as a mental standard. It is very convenient when people who trade a lot (e.g. an employer and an employee, or a store and its customer) use the same mental standard.

It's a bit like using English to get around in the U.S. In theory, one could train oneself to think in Esperanto, and then translate whenever one spoke to someone else: French to your manager, Spanish to your customer, and English to your supplier. Money evolved for this very reason: to have something that you know will be readily acceptable to everyone from whom you might want to get some other value in exchange.

While the government allows people to use other media, they would always have to convert to dollars -- either in reality, or at least for the purposes of accounts and taxes. Court judgement too will be in terms of dollars.

In addition, once a money gets started and becomes widely accepted, it takes on a life of its own -- with its acceptability giving it value over and above any intrinsic value it might have had. You can start with gold, then reduce the basis, and then make it purely fiat, and it retains its social-acceptance value.

Still, if one gratuitously expands the money enough, people will weigh the conveniences against that expansion. Typically, at some point, the government steps in and restricts the convertibility of the currency. Not just governments like Argentina; even Western European governments had exchange-controls in the 1970's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you are mistaken.  First of all, the 'conspiracy theory' is not rooted in the '50's but in 1910, 3 yrs before the Federal Reserve came into being.

As long as our currency is controlled by the feds, the feds can control inflation (theft), by being the first in line to trade their money-out-of-thin-air at the current value, pre-circulation.  The rest of us get that money after the circulation has devalued it (hence theft).

 

If we all accepted shoes as currency, they would have no power over us via inflation.  But we do not.

In comes BitCoin.  By widely accepting this medium of exchange, we now have the power to overthrow the hijack.  After a while we will see stability.  The rise and fall of the bitcoin value is only due to its youth and governments' attempts to dethrone it.

 

Information and communication will always be our ally, thanks to the web - hence the reason ALL governments now see it as a threat, including ours.  It has dethroned monopolies on the music industry, all forms of publications, hotels (airbandb.com), taxis (uber).  No reason why it would stop at currency.  Philosophically, it stands to absolute reason that a virtual form of mining would replace its physical counterpart - gold.  Is it BitCoin?  I don't know - but it would need to stand the test of what makes for a good currency.  Rarity, endurance, work needed to attain it, easily divided, easily exchanged etc.  Paper replaced gold ONLY because of weight and volume and therefore exchangeability.  Bitcoin surpasses this requirement being weightless, volumeless with no limit to the distance of exchange.  To me, the only 'if' area is in the mining.  It needs to be rare with a substantial effort needed to acquire.  But I do not know much about the mining of this technology.

Edited by dreadrocksean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you are mistaken.  First of all, the 'conspiracy theory' is not rooted in the '50's but in 1910, 3 yrs before the Federal Reserve came into being.

 

As I understand it, the Illuminati was founded in 1776, not 1910.

 

 

As long as our currency is controlled by the feds, the feds can control inflation (theft), by being the first in line to trade their money-out-of-thin-air at the current value, pre-circulation.  The rest of us get that money after the circulation has devalued it (hence theft).

 

Can you explain, then, why they haven't used their magic powers in any significance since the 80s? We have a Kenyan Socialist Dedicated to Evil in the White House. Why hasn't he used this power?

 

(Awaiting the inevitable conspiracy theory answer, as all good CT's have an answer to absolutely everything).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the Illuminati was founded in 1776, not 1910.

 

 

 

Can you explain, then, why they haven't used their magic powers in any significance since the 80s? We have a Kenyan Socialist Dedicated to Evil in the White House. Why hasn't he used this power?

 

(Awaiting the inevitable conspiracy theory answer, as all good CT's have an answer to absolutely everything).

When he said "conspiracy theory", he didn't really mean it. It's called sarcasm.

The notion that the government controls the value of the dollar isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a basic fact that really shouldn't escape anyone with a pulse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government has a monopoly on lots of things that they shouldn't have. It's a matter of prioritizing. The US monetary policy is "okay" right now, yes. Not ideal, but making it "perfect" would have no discernible impact on my life. Compare that to fixing things like drug laws, abortion laws, industry graft, immoral taxation, etc. etc.

 

The number of customers of mutual funds and various investment instruments in the USA numbers in the tens of millions, and virtually every citizen makes use of a bank, which could easily move funds on behalf of customers.

 

So it's a little broader than, "one guy" who has the "skills" to not store their wealth in their mattress.

 

 

In characterizing money, some people point to a medium of exchange and a store of value as defining. But, an even more important characteristic of the concept is private property.  Money is private property; it has to be because property rests on the more fundamental identification that "every man is the owner of his mind and his effort". (FTNI pg 89.)   Money as private property was replaced by force of law.  In looking at your posts on the issue, I still don't understand you.  How could this immorality be "okay" with you and of less priority to you for political change? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In characterizing money, some people point to a medium of exchange and a store of value as defining. But, an even more important characteristic of the concept is private property.  Money is private property; it has to be because property rests on the more fundamental identification that "every man is the owner of his mind and his effort". (FTNI pg 89.)   Money as private property was replaced by force of law.  In looking at your posts on the issue, I still don't understand you.  How could this immorality be "okay" with you and of less priority to you for political change? 

 

Because I am not affected by US dollar inflation, nor is anybody who is not a moron.

 

If the US government declared they would execute, without judge or jury, any citizen who stood in the exact location of the Four Corners, that would be a miscarriage of justice. However, it would be pretty easy to avoid.

 

On the other hand, take the WOD. Walk down the street in New York and you will feel the effects: you will be walking down much more dangerous streets since the government has created a war--complete with a war zone--in our streets because of a backward prohibition now fueled by a giant bureaucracy who won't let it go.

 

Then there's Federal intervention into schools, which anybody with kids in public school will directly experience.

 

Oh yeah, and taxes. People say that inflation is "like a tax" which I suppose is true if you keep physical Benji's stuffed in your mattress as your primary savings account. In that scenario you might have lost, what, 10% of your wealth in the last 5 years? I lose more than that in a few months to actual, real, here-and-now taxes.

 

And then there's taxes that not only tax, but actually change economic behavior in huge, inefficient ways. Like all investors (including simple homeowners) I radically alter my behavior to reduce my taxes. That changes the whole complexion of economic (and thus all) life in the USA. There are dozens of huge industries which would not exist, and dozens which do not exist now, all because of tax laws.

 

Hence my ongoing charge here: the preoccupation with "inflation" and the Fed, and all of that stuff is driven by weirdo conservatives from the 60s--who actually invaded my Objectivist Club meetings--and not any real concern. Take away the Illuminati--or the belief in same--and Ron Paul would have never brought up the Fed anymore often than he brings up the Post Office. Annoying sometimes, sure, but hardly a life-changer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One does not need be "preoccupied" with inflation to observe it's occurrence. It is a shame that one has to rise above 'moron' status to become unaffected by it. Reality offers enough challenges to come to grips with. Do we really require man-made augmentations subverting monetary policy (among other things, i.e.: public indoctrination, I mean education) into their respective political obstacle courses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I am not affected by US dollar inflation, nor is anybody who is not a moron.

 

If the US government declared they would execute, without judge or jury, any citizen who stood in the exact location of the Four Corners, that would be a miscarriage of justice. However, it would be pretty easy to avoid.

 

On the other hand, take the WOD. Walk down the street in New York and you will feel the effects: you will be walking down much more dangerous streets since the government has created a war--complete with a war zone--in our streets because of a backward prohibition now fueled by a giant bureaucracy who won't let it go.

 

Then there's Federal intervention into schools, which anybody with kids in public school will directly experience.

 

Oh yeah, and taxes. People say that inflation is "like a tax" which I suppose is true if you keep physical Benji's stuffed in your mattress as your primary savings account. In that scenario you might have lost, what, 10% of your wealth in the last 5 years? I lose more than that in a few months to actual, real, here-and-now taxes.

 

And then there's taxes that not only tax, but actually change economic behavior in huge, inefficient ways. Like all investors (including simple homeowners) I radically alter my behavior to reduce my taxes. That changes the whole complexion of economic (and thus all) life in the USA. There are dozens of huge industries which would not exist, and dozens which do not exist now, all because of tax laws.

 

Hence my ongoing charge here: the preoccupation with "inflation" and the Fed, and all of that stuff is driven by weirdo conservatives from the 60s--who actually invaded my Objectivist Club meetings--and not any real concern. Take away the Illuminati--or the belief in same--and Ron Paul would have never brought up the Fed anymore often than he brings up the Post Office. Annoying sometimes, sure, but hardly a life-changer.

I love that you decided that the only consequence of government control over the financial sector is inflation. Even though, through this forum (and I'm sure in your Objectivist Club as well), all the "conspiracy theorists" (and I'm being sarcastic there, so don't take it literally) have pointed out to you that the Great Depression, and every recession and financial crisis since, is a direct consequence of that control.

Ron Paul doesn't blame the Illuminati for the ills of the American economy. He blames the Fed, and rightfully so. If you would pay attention to him, instead of making up lies to slander him in long winded rambling posts about the evils of the American Right, you'd know that, and then you could argue for your position (if you even have a position that goes beyond lefty talking points) without coming across as a partisan shill.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that you decided that the only consequence of government control over the financial sector is inflation. Even though, through this forum (and I'm sure in your Objectivist Club as well), all the "conspiracy theorists" (and I'm being sarcastic there, so don't take it literally) have pointed out to you that the Great Depression, and every recession and financial crisis since, is a direct consequence of that control.

Ron Paul doesn't blame the Illuminati for the ills of the American economy. He blames the Fed, and rightfully so. If you would pay attention to him, instead of making up lies to slander him in long winded rambling posts about the evils of the American Right, you'd know that, and then you could argue for your position (if you even have a position that goes beyond lefty talking points) without coming across as a partisan shill.

 

I don't remember any rational, non-insane people I talked to disregarding the role of things like Fanny and Freddy in the last one, or in over-speculation / normal business cycle stuff. Yeah, maybe Alan Greenspan wrote all of those bad loans from the housing bubble himself. Sure, why not. Or some of his agents from the Illuminati wrote them. Or something.

 

Or maybe upturns and downturns are just part of life in a free market. Maybe, just maybe, downturns that only catch morons out is not something that Objectivists should particularly worry about. I certainly don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framed as triage, I still think you should re-evaluate where you put the monetary monopoly. The WOD is a heinous and separate problem; if I were to rank it I just might also put it above the monetary monopoly. But before I rank the problems I'd want to make sure I identify each one correctly... And here is where I think you're making an error with regard to taxation. Part of the reason your tax bill is so high is because of spending largess. That largess is made possible by runaway deficit spending, which is itself made sustainable by the monetary monopoly. Sure, the government could accumulate debt without the monopoly, but I doubt they'd rack up a bill as big as they have.

Edit: Without debt financing they'd have to raise taxes alongside, right on the heels of, or just before new spending measures. People don't stand for largess when they know they have to pay for it (case in point, Obamacare). As it stands, the debt finance shell game buys lawmakers enough time to use the "Budget crises! We're already knee deep in this! Nobody knows how we got here but we'd better raise taxes or the economy will blow up!" excuse to raise taxes.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the Illuminati was founded in 1776, not 1910.

 

 

 

Can you explain, then, why they haven't used their magic powers in any significance since the 80s? We have a Kenyan Socialist Dedicated to Evil in the White House. Why hasn't he used this power?

 

(Awaiting the inevitable conspiracy theory answer, as all good CT's have an answer to absolutely everything).

 

Why is everyone who is critical of the Fed automatically Alex Jones now? 

 

That isn't fair at all. 

 

Anyways, I am not an expert on this at all, but is this relevant? 

 

There is a massive misconception about where the Bernanke Fed's stimulus landed. Although the Bernanke Fed has disbursed $2.284 trillion in new money (the monetary base) since August 1, 2008, one month before the 2008 financial crisis, 81.5 percent now sits idle as excess reserves in private banks. The banks are not required to hold excess reserves. The excess reserves exploded from $831 billion in August 2008 to $1.863 trillion on June 14, 2013. The excess reserves of the nation's private banks had previously stayed at nearly zero since 1959 as seen on the St. Louis Fed's chart. The banks did not leave money idle in excess reserves at zero interest because they were investing in income earning assets, including loans to consumers and businesses.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-auerbach/massive-misconceptions-ab_b_3490373.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember any rational, non-insane people I talked to disregarding the role of things like Fanny and Freddy in the last one, or in over-speculation / normal business cycle stuff. Yeah, maybe Alan Greenspan wrote all of those bad loans from the housing bubble himself. Sure, why not. Or some of his agents from the Illuminati wrote them. Or something.

 

Or maybe upturns and downturns are just part of life in a free market. Maybe, just maybe, downturns that only catch morons out is not something that Objectivists should particularly worry about. I certainly don't care.

I love irony as much as the next guy, but your use of the word moron is starting to exceed "let's protest capitalism while connecting to a Starbucks hub on our MacBooks" levels.

It's worrisome. The Universe is gonna implode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×