Britain – A Self-Harming Economy

September 26, 2013

by Martin Odoni

We, by which I mean the Western world and further, have gone through over five years of the worst financial crisis since before World War II, so we are told. The crisis has been cynically blamed on widescale ‘over-spending’ on welfare, accusations of public sector self-indulgence that I and many others have debunked elsewhere. In truth, the damage was done by ridiculous risk-taking in the financial services sector, chiefly in the United States of America, but by no means limited to there.

But irrespective of whose fault it is that the financial crisis happened, the simple fact is that it is still here, and one of the consequences for the UK was that the last Labour Government, headed up by Gordon Brown, chose to hand the banks a series of enormous bail-outs of public money to prevent the whole financial system collapsing. This more or less quadrupled the National Debt owed by the British Public Sector in the blinking of an eye. The exact debt the country owes depends very much on which calculation, and indeed which definition, you use. By the kindest calculation i.e. the one that leaves out all private sector debts, including ones that have public sector overlaps, the country owes roughly £1.4 trillion. By other, more realistic calculations, it is somewhere between £5 trillion and £6 trillion.

Since the present Coalition Government came to power, it has been in the grip of what seems a frenzied obsession with paying down the National Debt as the only way it can think of to end the crisis. To do this, it thinks it would need to dismantle the structural Deficit i.e. put a complete stop to the amount it has to borrow each year to meet its spending commitments.

This is not quite the case though. While there is no doubt that the National Debt is too high – it damages the country’s credit rating and also can put an unhappy strain on international relations – it is certainly not the out-of-control runaway locomotive that the Government seems convinced it is. Indeed, it’s not exactly a problem. It contains an absurdity, for sure, and one day it might well evolve into a real problem, should economies in certain other countries collapse, but as things stand, it really is not a big deal at all.

The National Public Sector Debt is largely just the sum total credit belonging to non-Government agencies (which we shall call ‘the creditors’, although a lot of them are exporters instead) in deposit accounts within the Bank Of England.

What happens is that, when the UK Government purchases goods or services from a foreign country, it sets up a deposit account (yes, just like the sort of deposit account you get in a regular High Street Bank) within the Bank Of England in the creditor’s name, and credits that account for the full cost of the goods purchased. Whilst the money is in the deposit account, it can’t be used for purchasing anything (again, just like in a normal High Street Bank deposit account), but it receives a high rate of interest. This account is sometimes called a ‘Gilt’, a ‘Bond’, or a ‘Security’.

Now, when the deposit account ‘matures’ i.e. reaches the date when it needs to be paid back, all the Government has to do is to transfer the whole sum into a current account in the creditor’s name, again within the Bank Of England. (Yes, yet again it works in exactly the same way as a current account on the High Street; low interest rates, if any, but the sums can now be used for making payments.) Then the Government simply has to forward credit notes for the total to the creditor. That credit note will allow the creditor to claim any British goods available for sale up to that total, without having to pay any money for them.

Once that total is off the creditor’s deposit account and into the current account, the debt is officially paid off. That’s all that most of the National Debt really is, just a combined total of credit notes that haven’t been printed yet, because the respective deposits haven’t matured. As soon as one of these credit notes is printed, its sum is no longer part of the Public Sector Debt.

And that’s it. That’s all that happens.

This is happening with trade deal after trade deal every single day. But new deals are also being struck every single day, which is one of the reasons why the Debt never seems to go down.

And the most important point, before anyone asks, is this; no, the credit notes cannot be cashed in by the creditors for international transfer. The creditors cannot demand money in their place, or that they be paid off in gold, or some-such; the pound-sterling is not signed up to the gold-standard, it is a non-convertible currency.

The upshot of this is that the British Government doesn’t have to send its creditors any actual money. All it has to do is just give a guarantee to let the creditors claim British-owned sales goods to the value of the amount owed – in other words, it has to give them the credit notes. What the creditor chooses to do with a credit note once received is really up to him. He can leave it in limbo, he can use it to open another deposit account within the Bank Of England to increase the interest further, he can genuinely use it to claim sales goods (in the unlikely event that he can find any available on the British market worth having), or he can even trade it to someone else. But those are pretty much the only options the creditor will have. There is near enough nothing that he can do to get the money itself. (Well, he could demand the cash, technically, but he would have to come all the way to London and collect it himself, and then ship it all the way back home under his own steam. And why would he bother doing that, when all those pound notes are only really usable in the UK?)

There is a point of bad honour in this, in that the UK has effectively taken vast quantities of goods from countless trading partners without really paying for them (“What else is new?” cries most of the Commonwealth). But looked at in purely practical terms, there is no real need, as things presently stand, for the UK to pay off the National Debt at all. The creditors would have known the risks when they sold their goods to the UK (and indeed to other countries) in the first place – that they were never going to receive any actual money for the goods, only credit to their agreed value that they could eventually purchase British-owned market goods with in return. Such a trade is merely an exchange-in-waiting. From the moment the value of the sum is transferred to a Bank Of England current account, the creditor can use it to make purchases on the British market, therefore he has received the ‘purchasing power’ the deal entitles him to as though the credit were real money, so the debt is classed as ‘paid off’.

Even if the creditors find there is never anything on the British market that they wish to buy, there is every possibility that at least some of them will continue trading with the UK, depending mainly on which country he is from. For instance, countries that are ‘export-driven’ (see below), such as China, are more or less compelled to keep selling to the UK – and yes, even more so to the USA – even though there is seldom anything they can do with the credits they receive. This is because if they do not keep exporting, their own economies will collapse; they will only have their own markets to sell to (and maybe a few countries with much smaller markets of their own), but if they have little or no internal demand because of inadequate pay-rates among the general population, which is usually the case, most of their goods will go unsold, and the industries will have to stop retailing or producing, causing surges in unemployment. This is why the Chinese Government currently holds an ever-growing mountain of over $2 trillion at the US Federal Reserve, and hardly ever uses any of it – because it needs to keep exporting to the US to keep its heavy-manufacturing base turning over, but can hardly ever find anything it can use from the US markets to take back in return.

Because Britain has little native manufacturing industry, it has to keep importing, as it would struggle to meet its population’s own needs if imports stopped. (This is quite different from the position of the USA, which still has a large native industrial base that can ‘kick in’ very quickly if necessary.) So for the sake of trading relationships, it would be best for the UK if it can get the Debt down quite substantially in real terms – say by going back to manufacturing goods again that creditors would actually want to buy – especially in case circumstances in exporting countries were to change. Say the Chinese economy did collapse, or introduced a substantial minimum wage for its workers to stimulate domestic demand, then the British would have to look elsewhere for many of the imports it needs. Not all prospective trading partners will be ‘export-driven’ in the same way as China, in which case the bad real-terms record of the UK as a trading partner would come back to haunt the negotiations – the new prospective exporter might say, “You people never produce anything that I would want to buy, so what use are your credit notes going to be to me? Pay me in dollars or euros, or something!” But one way or another, this has almost nothing to do with the methods the Coalition Government are trying to employ to reduce the Debt anyway.

The Public Sector Debt is not really a crisis after all, and it’s not even an issue to any great extent, at least not yet, and it won’t be until a major export partner collapses. But the problem is that nobody in Parliament seems to be aware of how the National Debt really works, of how little pressure there really is to pay it off, or of how simply (and automatically) it is paid. All they do is see the huge numbers involved, nearly have a heart attack, and respond by taking a hatchet to necessary services in order to cut costs. In-so-doing, they cause economic slowdowns that reduce tax yields and so make the borrowing requirement grow even bigger.

The Government’s whole approach is quite pointless, and it has caused much needless suffering for many people, to no achievable end. We are still lumbered with a crisis that is in large part a phantom, even though its effects are very real.

That the crisis is ongoing after half a decade is a testament, not to national self-indulgence, but to national self-harm.

Advertisements

14 Responses to “Britain – A Self-Harming Economy”


  1. A very good piece. But you have missed out the little matter of the petrodollar. As oil is almost exclusively traded in dollars, like every other nation, China has to have dollars to meet its energy needs. Oil rich countries that attempt to trade their oil in other currencies, countries such as Libya, Iraq and Iran, coincidentally find themselves invaded or sanctioned. Weird that, isn’t it?


  2. I have previously raised (at a Manchester People’s Assembly meeting and in a couple of newsletters, e.g. http://www.revolutionaryplatformofleftunity.org/news/6.html) the argument that a socialist state should not pay bondholders back after a revolution (like the Bosheviks refused to pay the debt accumulated by Tsarist Russia after the October 1917 revolution).

    You have just replied to my blog entry at http://thatcheroftheleft.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/is-moneyweeks-end-of-britain-just-fearmongering-what-about-us-debt-default-is-socialist-revolution-on-the-cards/. I don’t buy your argument that defaulting on the (US or UK) debt wouldn’t make any difference. Currencies can be traded, at a Bureau de Change, a Bank or (for serious speculators) on international money markets. Credit rating agencies, despite their ridiculous AAA ratings for sub-prime mortgages, still make a difference to interest rates. After the 2007-8 credit crunch, speculators realised the Greek economy was in dire straits, and interest rates shot up exponentially.

    If you are going to seriously argue that bonds/gilts are still deposited with the Bank of England after they expire (rather than them having to be paid back so that the lender can use the money elsewhere), you will need to provide evidence. Some hyperlinks would be useful! Some mainstream economic commentators predicted a global recession if the US did default on its debt. The Republican Party realised it would hit them and the big businesspeople they represent in the pocket, if the US defaulted, hence they had no choice but to capitulate (bearing in mind Obama would not sacrifice his healthcare programme which was already in law and will probably be his only real positive legacy).

    • hstorm Says:

      “a socialist state should not pay bondholders back after a revolution”
      I’m not sure what you’re responding to with that sentence. I’ve not discussed revolutions in this essay at all.

      “I don’t buy your argument that defaulting on the (US or UK) debt wouldn’t make any difference.”
      Well no, I don’t buy that either, but then I never said it. I said that defaulting would be completely unnecessary.

      As for the evidence, I recommend you read “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds Of Economic Policy” by Warren Mosler. You should be able to find a free PDF of it online if you search for it in Google.


      • hstorm, I have read enough of “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds Of Economic Policy” by Warren Mosler (the first two “deadly innocent frauds”), to persuade me that that particular book is itself a fraud (or perhaps I should say “probably a fraud” since he’s got a lot of money he could use to sue me with!). The lack of a single reference, apart from a list of other publications by Mosler himself, within that entire PDF does not help its credibility!

        As I stated above, currencies can be traded on international money markets (the official title is “Foreign Exchange Market” or “Forex Market” for short). This includes central banks, as stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market, as well as regular High Street Banks, companies, hedge funds and other financial speculators. A bit of searching has found the following page http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/quar_reports.html which contains reports explaining why the US Federal Reserve (Fed) has not intervened in the Forex market since the end of 1998 (no data before that). The clear implication is that it could have intervened if it wanted to!

        Trying to apply facts or speculation about the Fed to the Bank of England (BoE), or indeed the European Central Bank, is problematic since currency exchanges have very different effects. Many other countries peg their currencies to the dollar (Scottish banks can issue banknotes which is the only parallel with the BoE), which I think is for stability purposes, and this probably partly explains the reluctance of the Fed to dabble in the markets (as well as the possible panic it would provoke on Wall Street).

        I note (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mosler) that Mosler stood to be President of the US for the Democrats in 2012. It is my view that this was a trap for the (not very) left – his arguments have so many holes in them that they would have been exposed by the media and given the Republicans a run-away victory if he had been selected!

        On to your (hstorm’s) other points,

        I said “a socialist state should not pay bondholders back after a revolution”
        You replied “I’m not sure what you’re responding to with that sentence. I’ve not discussed revolutions in the essay or in my comment at all.”

        I’m giving this as a vital part of the jigsaw for socialists if/when we have a socialist revolution in the UK. Perhaps the idea of cancelling the debt could be implemented in the short or medium term, before a revolution, but it is naive to expect any of the mainstream parties to carry out this policy because they are wedded to “free market” capitalism and it would massively destabilise the markets.

        I said “I don’t buy your argument that defaulting on the (US or UK) debt wouldn’t make any difference.”
        You replied “Well no, I don’t buy that either, but then I never said it. I said that defaulting would be completely unnecessary.”

        OK, fair enough. Even Mosler says “This, however, does NOT mean that the government can spend all it wants without consequence. Over-spending can drive up prices and fuel inflation.” It can also lower the value of the pound relative to other currencies, traded on the Forex Market, affecting the prices of imports and exports and making it more expensive to go on a foreign holiday.

        I asked “Do you advocate a minimum wage in China, comparable with the one in the UK? I do.”
        You replied “No. I advocate a minimum wage in China substantially *higher* than the one in the UK. For that matter, I also advocate a minimum wage in the UK substantially higher than the present one.”

        The idea that China can overtake the West (while the capitalist economic system continues) in terms of wages is ridiculously naive (much as I too would welcome a vastly improved minimum wage in China) – its whole competitive advantage is based on low wages. I also advocate an increased minimum wage in the UK, to at least the “living wage” or preferably the “European Decency Threshold”.

  3. hstorm Says:

    “I have read enough of “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds Of Economic Policy” by Warren Mosler (the first two “deadly innocent frauds”), to persuade me that that particular book is itself a fraud (or perhaps I should say “probably a fraud” since he’s got a lot of money he could use to sue me with!). The lack of a single reference, apart from a list of other publications by Mosler himself, within that entire PDF does not help its credibility!”
    You haven’t actually stated why any of his assertions are wrong.

    “As I stated above, currencies can be traded on international money markets (the official title is “Foreign Exchange Market” or “Forex Market” for short). This includes central banks, as stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market, as well as regular High Street Banks, companies, hedge funds and other financial speculators. A bit of searching has found the following page http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/quar_reports.html which contains reports explaining why the US Federal Reserve (Fed) has not intervened in the Forex market since the end of 1998 (no data before that). The clear implication is that it could have intervened if it wanted to!”
    Yes, currencies can be traded on the International Market, I never said otherwise. It’s why you can exchange money at airports when you travel to another country. This is largely irrelevant to the National Debt, which is about trading of goods and services.

    “I note (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mosler) that Mosler stood to be President of the US for the Democrats in 2012. It is my view that this was a trap for the (not very) left – his arguments have so many holes in them that they would have been exposed by the media and given the Republicans a run-away victory if he had been selected!”
    You haven’t identified or demonstrated a single hole in his arguments. And it is your view that it was a trap? Who set the trap up, how did they do it, and how did it Mosler fall for becoming the bait?

    “I’m giving this as a vital part of the jigsaw for socialists if/when we have a socialist revolution in the UK. Perhaps the idea of cancelling the debt could be implemented in the short or medium term, before a revolution, but it is naive to expect any of the mainstream parties to carry out this policy because they are wedded to “free market” capitalism and it would massively destabilise the markets.”
    Yes, but the point I’m making is that this has nothing whatever to do with what is being discussed, it was a complete and utter non-sequitur to say it.

    “Even Mosler says “This, however, does NOT mean that the government can spend all it wants without consequence. Over-spending can drive up prices and fuel inflation.” It can also lower the value of the pound relative to other currencies, traded on the Forex Market, affecting the prices of imports and exports and making it more expensive to go on a foreign holiday.”
    Yes, as I say, defaulting would have bad consequences, and I have never asserted anything to the contrary. But my point wasn’t about the consequences of defaulting, it was simply that they don’t have to do it. Ever. It would therefore be idiotic to do it.

    “The idea that China can overtake the West (while the capitalist economic system continues) in terms of wages is ridiculously naive (much as I too would welcome a vastly improved minimum wage in China) – its whole competitive advantage is based on low wages. I also advocate an increased minimum wage in the UK, to at least the “living wage” or preferably the “European Decency Threshold”.”
    Well, firstly I wasn’t saying it should overtake the West in terms of wages, I was saying it would be in the economic interests of both countries (indeed of most countries in the world) to introduce a much-heightened minimum wage in order to increase domestic demand.

    But also, this ‘competitiveness’ (euphemism for ‘product-of-slavery’) isn’t really an advantage. Because the Chinese can’t sell to their own population, they are locked into repeatedly sending vast quantities of goods – effectively for free – to other countries in order to keep their industries ticking over. Otherwise, the goods they have will simply sit in China unsold, causing their price to descend to way below their production value, because nobody can buy them. Eventually the industries would have to stop producing because there will be nowhere for the goods to go, resulting in mass unemployment and causing an economic depression. And of course the current balance is also unsustainable in the longer term, as the Chinese can’t afford to keep sending resources away, effectively for free, indefinitely.

    This is not competitiveness, it’s self-imprisonment.

    The real reason the Chinese Government is reluctant to improve the lot of the masses is that they realise that prosperity for all means greater education for all, and therefore the workforce will become empowered and more likely to push for more.


    • You (hstorm) didn’t bother posting this reply of yours to my blog, perhaps because you realised you are losing the argument. I am posting this on my blog too, at http://thatcheroftheleft.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/is-moneyweeks-end-of-britain-just-fearmongering-what-about-us-debt-default-is-socialist-revolution-on-the-cards/

      I wrote: “I have read enough of “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds Of Economic Policy” by Warren Mosler (the first two “deadly innocent frauds”), to persuade me that that particular book is itself a fraud (or perhaps I should say “probably a fraud” since he’s got a lot of money he could use to sue me with!). The lack of a single reference, apart from a list of other publications by Mosler himself, within that entire PDF does not help its credibility!”
      You replied: “You haven’t actually stated why any of his assertions are wrong.”

      I made arguments against his assertions later in my comment.

      I wrote: “As I stated above, currencies can be traded on international money markets (the official title is “Foreign Exchange Market” or “Forex Market” for short). This includes central banks, as stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market, as well as regular High Street Banks, companies, hedge funds and other financial speculators. A bit of searching has found the following page http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/quar_reports.html which contains reports explaining why the US Federal Reserve (Fed) has not intervened in the Forex market since the end of 1998 (no data before that). The clear implication is that it could have intervened if it wanted to!”
      You replied: “Yes, currencies can be traded on the International Market, I never said otherwise. It’s why you can exchange money at airports when you travel to another country. This is largely irrelevant to the National Debt, which is about trading of goods and services.”

      Mosler took 18 pages to explain “Deadly Innocent Fraud #1”, repeating himself a lot, yet he never provided any evidence why money deposited by a bondholder (e.g. from China), due to the bond maturing, in a “checking account” with the Fed (or any other central bank) cannot be withdrawn and traded on the Forex market. In fact “Forex” or “foreign exchange” isn’t even used once within the whole PDF! If you (or he) wants to justify such a counterintuitive assertion, then some real evidence (preferably a hyperlink to information provided by somebody other than just one lone “unorthodox” economist) is necessary. And, even if the rules of the Fed have been constructed around such a con, that of course does not mean that every other central bank (including the Bank of England) is constituted in the same way. Why would any investor/speculator lend money to the BoE by buying a bond (also called “gilt” due to them being gilt-edged and supposedly guaranteed to be repaid – but that won’t happen under socialism!) if, when they do mature, they don’t get their money plus interest back?

      I wrote: “The idea that China can overtake the West (while the capitalist economic system continues) in terms of wages is ridiculously naive (much as I too would welcome a vastly improved minimum wage in China) – its whole competitive advantage is based on low wages. I also advocate an increased minimum wage in the UK, to at least the “living wage” or preferably the “European Decency Threshold”.”
      You replied: “Well, firstly I wasn’t saying it should overtake the West in terms of wages, I was saying it would be in the economic interests of both countries (indeed of most countries in the world) to introduce a much-heightened minimum wage in order to increase domestic demand.”

      There is no such thing as a country’s “national interest”. There is the interest of big business and the interest of an ordinary worker (most socialists talk about the interest of “the working class” but I prefer the Occupy movement’s 99% versus 1% idea). It would make a lot of sense, however, from a capitalist government’s point of view to increase the minimum wage to the level of the “living wage” (at least) since it reduces benefits that are basically subsidies to the bosses. Similarly, cutting welfare, as the ConDem coalition government in the UK is obsessed with doing is counterproductive since less money is spent on goods and services.

      You also write: “But also, this ‘competitiveness’ (euphemism for ‘product-of-slavery’) isn’t really an advantage. Because the Chinese can’t sell to their own population, they are locked into repeatedly sending vast quantities of goods – effectively for free – to other countries in order to keep their industries ticking over. Otherwise, the goods they have will simply sit in China unsold, causing their price to descend to way below their production value, because nobody can buy them. Eventually the industries would have to stop producing because there will be nowhere for the goods to go, resulting in mass unemployment and causing an economic depression. And of course the current balance is also unsustainable in the longer term, as the Chinese can’t afford to keep sending resources away, effectively for free, indefinitely.”

      You have identified one of the contradictions of capitalism.

      You go on: “The real reason the Chinese Government is reluctant to improve the lot of the masses is that they realise that prosperity for all means greater education for all, and therefore the workforce will become empowered and more likely to push for more.”

      Maybe Chinese workers will form strong trade unions, capable of going on strike and winning concessions – or even having general strikes with the possibility of bringing down the regime and introducing genuine socialism!

  4. hstorm Says:

    You (hstorm) didn’t bother posting this reply of yours to my blog, perhaps because you realised you are losing the argument.”
    Right, well this is the last of your comments I am going to approve on this page until you apologise, as you are now being accusatory, and are further appointing yourself the referee of the discussion, which is a very childish way to behave.

    I do not feel obliged to explain myself, but for the record, I did not post my reply to your blog because I was not aware that you had replied again there – I received no notification. Blame WordPress if you want to make an issue of it.

    No, I am not losing the argument, because you keep discussing other matters, sometimes jumping off into complete non-sequiturs. Whether you are doing it deliberately in order to create a strawman argument, or are just not paying attention properly, I don’t know, but as a general rule, if winning an argument is your aim, it will help your position a great deal if you don’t change the subject.

    By the way, if I was trying to hide from a lost argument, don’t you think I would simply have refused to approve your comments in the first place? Stop being irrational.

    “I made arguments against his assertions later in my comment”
    No, you didn’t. For the most part, all you offered was a series of increasingly speculative insinuations against the guy who wrote it, and never addressed any of his points (and what few points you did raise were irrelevant, as you were talking about currency exchanges, when the subject under discussion is imports and exports of goods and services, not of capital). That is called an ad hominem attack. Just labelling someone a fraud or a con does not explain why what he is saying is wrong.

    It is also interesting that you yourself offer no evidence that Mosler is a fraud, which is pretty rich coming from someone who cries out for evidence.

    “he never provided any evidence why money deposited by a bondholder (e.g. from China), due to the bond maturing, in a “checking account” with the Fed (or any other central bank) cannot be withdrawn and traded on the Forex market.”
    BECAUSE HE WASN’T TALKING ABOUT DEPOSITS. You are either not paying attention to what you are reading, or are creating a strawman. The overwhelming bulk of the National Debt is made up of IMPORTED GOODS, not of imported money. (The bank bail-out was largely taken from taxation and ‘Quantitative Easing’ funds.) You keep using the word ‘Exchange’. THINK. Has it not crossed your mind that when money is traded in the way you are talking about, the money is exchanged up front? It doesn’t affect the Debt because the money is simply swapped up front.
    When you go abroad and need to go to the Bureau de Change, do they simply give you the sum of foreign money you ask for and say, “Don’t worry, you can pay us the sterling for it when you go back home”? No. The exchange is up-front.

    Oh, and as for sources, Mosler is writing from his own experience. Last time I checked, an eyewitness account does not require endnotes.

    “And, even if the rules of the Fed have been constructed around such a con, that of course does not mean that every other central bank (including the Bank of England) is constituted in the same way”
    No. But in the case of the BoE, it just so happens that it is.

    “Why would any investor/speculator lend money to the BoE by buying a bond (also called “gilt” due to them being gilt-edged and supposedly guaranteed to be repaid – but that won’t happen under socialism!) if, when they do mature, they don’t get their money plus interest back?”
    As I say, that is a separate discussion. You seem to think this is about people putting money into the central bank, when it isn’t. This is about exports and imports of goods and services – in this case, the accounts within the BoE are set up by the Government, not by the exporter.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: