Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

The Big Picture Place
NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360305

Postby NeilW » November 26th, 2020, 2:57 pm

Useful response to Sunak from The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/25/the-guardian-view-on-rishi-sunak-ideological-approach-risks-disaster

No need for tax rises. It'll all sort itself out if and when people spend the savings they have accumulated. Although it is rather amusing watching some fiscal conservatives prefer their ideological monetary biases over the correct choice of leaving taxes alone (and possibly even cutting them depending upon how bad unemployment becomes).

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360308

Postby ursaminortaur » November 26th, 2020, 3:02 pm

NeilW wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
If you put up barriers to trade then trade will suffer.


That's an EU concern, not ours. Given the floating rate it will reflect onto their exporters to us - due to opening up to full global competition. Those areas imposing the barriers pay the cost of them overall.

The correct approach here is to drop as many import restrictions as possible to encourage supply from across the world. Then let the market sort it out.


Sorry gravity models for trade still accurately model world trade patterns. Putting up barriers with our largest and geographically closest market will not be offset by trade with more distant and, apart from the US, far poorer countries. Also dropping all tariffs on imports into the UK from the whole world will destroy our agricultural and manufacturing sectors as even Patrick Minford admits.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360313

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » November 26th, 2020, 3:21 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
NeilW wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
If you put up barriers to trade then trade will suffer.


That's an EU concern, not ours. Given the floating rate it will reflect onto their exporters to us - due to opening up to full global competition. Those areas imposing the barriers pay the cost of them overall.

The correct approach here is to drop as many import restrictions as possible to encourage supply from across the world. Then let the market sort it out.


Sorry gravity models for trade still accurately model world trade patterns. Putting up barriers with our largest and geographically closest market will not be offset by trade with more distant and, apart from the US, far poorer countries. Also dropping all tariffs on imports into the UK from the whole world will destroy our agricultural and manufacturing sectors as even Patrick Minford admits.

If I over-simplify then as we leave the EU we can trade with anyone including the EU? So apart from a a bit more paperwork we must surely have access to "more trade"? I can't believe for one minute that the CEO of BMW (by way of example) will be happy to put his country first and stop selling to the UK because of "trade restraints".

Anyone who thinks a debt of £2TN does not need repaying is financially delusional. We have no current option other than to kick the "covid can" down the road for some time and increase the UK debt burden. There are some significant headwinds and this isn't going to go away any time soon. Taxes may not increase under this governments term and it would be political suicide to say that now whilst Labour are in opposition.

AiY

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360315

Postby Lootman » November 26th, 2020, 3:26 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Anyone who thinks a debt of £2TN does not need repaying is financially delusional. We have no current option other than to kick the "covid can" down the road for some time and increase the UK debt burden. There are some significant headwinds and this isn't going to go away any time soon. Taxes may not increase under this governments term and it would be political suicide to say that now whilst Labour are in opposition.

The "debt of £2TN" need not be repaid as long as maturing gilts can be paid for by issuing new gilts, i.e. as long as global investors are willing to buy UK gilts. Interest rates are ridiculously low which makes the debt serviceable, and we can always generate some inflation at the right moment to reduce the real value of that debt.

I agree that increasing taxes in a futile attempt to pay off our debt is the wrong strategy in a recession. That can await the next boom when these temporary Covid/Brexit fears have gone away.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360324

Postby dealtn » November 26th, 2020, 3:50 pm

Lootman wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Anyone who thinks a debt of £2TN does not need repaying is financially delusional. We have no current option other than to kick the "covid can" down the road for some time and increase the UK debt burden. There are some significant headwinds and this isn't going to go away any time soon. Taxes may not increase under this governments term and it would be political suicide to say that now whilst Labour are in opposition.

The "debt of £2TN" need not be repaid as long as maturing gilts can be paid for by issuing new gilts, i.e. as long as global investors are willing to buy UK gilts. Interest rates are ridiculously low which makes the debt serviceable, and we can always generate some inflation at the right moment to reduce the real value of that debt.

I agree that increasing taxes in a futile attempt to pay off our debt is the wrong strategy in a recession. That can await the next boom when these temporary Covid/Brexit fears have gone away.


Which is all true until the point when interest rates rise (perhaps when we have generated some of that "useful" inflation). Maybe it is no longer (quite as) affordable at that point. It might be preferable to be reducing that debt, at least as a ratio to GDP, before the point where that affordability dissipates.

NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360325

Postby NeilW » November 26th, 2020, 3:50 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:Sorry gravity models for trade still accurately model world trade patterns.


They don't accurately model anything. The natural consequence of gravity models is every person on the planet ends up in a single black hole somewhere. They are complete nonsense.

You trade for imports - preferably for no exports. Not an issue.

NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360330

Postby NeilW » November 26th, 2020, 4:05 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Anyone who thinks a debt of £2TN does not need repaying is financially delusional.


Let's see if we can get through the delusion then.

Why do we have a shortfall? Because people haven't spent very much via the spending/income cascade and there is a tax shortfall. They haven't spent very much because there is nothing to spend it on, and they are scared. That builds up net private savings which then ends up in Gilts. And that, by accounting identity, is what the government deficit is. It's a simple balancing item on the national accounts.

Now let's reverse that out. People decide to spend those savings. When people spend the savings that causes the tax to arise that was previously the shortfall via the spending/income cascade. When you tot that up it will equal the amount that was saved initially.

Therefore the number you are worried about will be extinguished when the savings it comprises of stop being savings - should that ever happen. All without changing any tax rates at all. Gilts are a store of taxation as well as value.

But where is all this saved spending going to go? Hopefully hiring all the people that have been made unemployed by the crisis, which will automatically back off any further new spending by government (and be replaced by savings being spent). Only when we run short of unemployed people do we need to worry about tax rates.

We shall see if fiscally conservatives work that out before they accidentally cripple the economy.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360333

Postby ursaminortaur » November 26th, 2020, 4:07 pm

dealtn wrote:
Lootman wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Anyone who thinks a debt of £2TN does not need repaying is financially delusional. We have no current option other than to kick the "covid can" down the road for some time and increase the UK debt burden. There are some significant headwinds and this isn't going to go away any time soon. Taxes may not increase under this governments term and it would be political suicide to say that now whilst Labour are in opposition.

The "debt of £2TN" need not be repaid as long as maturing gilts can be paid for by issuing new gilts, i.e. as long as global investors are willing to buy UK gilts. Interest rates are ridiculously low which makes the debt serviceable, and we can always generate some inflation at the right moment to reduce the real value of that debt.

I agree that increasing taxes in a futile attempt to pay off our debt is the wrong strategy in a recession. That can await the next boom when these temporary Covid/Brexit fears have gone away.


Which is all true until the point when interest rates rise (perhaps when we have generated some of that "useful" inflation). Maybe it is no longer (quite as) affordable at that point. It might be preferable to be reducing that debt, at least as a ratio to GDP, before the point where that affordability dissipates.


The good news on that front is that over the last twenty odd years UK governments have increased the average debt maturity period to over 15 years which is much much longer than for other western economies. That means that we need to rollover a much smaller percentage each year and hence it would take much longer for interest rises to substantially raise the cost of that debt.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785550/debt_management_report_2019-20_final_web.pdf

By end-December 2018, the average maturity of thetotal stock ofgilts had remained at 15.8years, as shown in Chart A.4. The average maturity of the stock of conventional gilts had also risen to 14.0 years, with the average maturity of index-linked gilts falling from 21.2 to 20.2 years. The average maturity of the government’s wholesale debt remains consistently longer than the average across the G7 group of advanced economies
...
A long average maturity of debt significantly reduces the UK government’s exposure to refinancing risks. Chart A.6 shows the expected gross financing requirement as a share of GDP for all G7 countriesin 2014 and 2018. Further, according to the IMF, on average since 2010, the UK government has refinanced debt equivalent to 6.9% of GDP each year. This is the lowest across the G7, with the comparable figure at 7.0% in Germany, 17.6% in the US, 20.8% in Italy, and 46.1% in Japan.This illustrates the supportive impact that the long average maturity of the UK’s debt stock has on the UK’s gross financing requirement, thereby lowering refinancing risk

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360335

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » November 26th, 2020, 4:12 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Lootman wrote:The "debt of £2TN" need not be repaid as long as maturing gilts can be paid for by issuing new gilts, i.e. as long as global investors are willing to buy UK gilts. Interest rates are ridiculously low which makes the debt serviceable, and we can always generate some inflation at the right moment to reduce the real value of that debt.

I agree that increasing taxes in a futile attempt to pay off our debt is the wrong strategy in a recession. That can await the next boom when these temporary Covid/Brexit fears have gone away.


Which is all true until the point when interest rates rise (perhaps when we have generated some of that "useful" inflation). Maybe it is no longer (quite as) affordable at that point. It might be preferable to be reducing that debt, at least as a ratio to GDP, before the point where that affordability dissipates.


The good news on that front is that over the last twenty odd years UK governments have increased the average debt maturity period to over 15 years which is much much longer than for other western economies. That means that we need to rollover a much smaller percentage each year and hence it would take much longer for interest rises to substantially raise the cost of that debt.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785550/debt_management_report_2019-20_final_web.pdf

By end-December 2018, the average maturity of thetotal stock ofgilts had remained at 15.8years, as shown in Chart A.4. The average maturity of the stock of conventional gilts had also risen to 14.0 years, with the average maturity of index-linked gilts falling from 21.2 to 20.2 years. The average maturity of the government’s wholesale debt remains consistently longer than the average across the G7 group of advanced economies
...
A long average maturity of debt significantly reduces the UK government’s exposure to refinancing risks. Chart A.6 shows the expected gross financing requirement as a share of GDP for all G7 countriesin 2014 and 2018. Further, according to the IMF, on average since 2010, the UK government has refinanced debt equivalent to 6.9% of GDP each year. This is the lowest across the G7, with the comparable figure at 7.0% in Germany, 17.6% in the US, 20.8% in Italy, and 46.1% in Japan.This illustrates the supportive impact that the long average maturity of the UK’s debt stock has on the UK’s gross financing requirement, thereby lowering refinancing risk

Does that include the £400bn "we've" used to pay for Covid which represents 20% of the national debt.

AiY

NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360336

Postby NeilW » November 26th, 2020, 4:13 pm

dealtn wrote:Which is all true until the point when interest rates rise (perhaps when we have generated some of that "useful" inflation). Maybe it is no longer (quite as) affordable at that point. It might be preferable to be reducing that debt, at least as a ratio to GDP, before the point where that affordability dissipates.


Interest rates will only rise if the Bank of England permits it. Since they work hand in glove with HM Treasury to manage monetary policy, that will be when it can be managed effectively.

An interesting byproduct of the pandemic is that it has impacted on supply chains, which should increase the risk of inflation arising from bottlenecks, in the face of substantial fiscal support on the expenditure side.

The fact that no such price pressures have emerged after nearly 12 months of disrupted supply chains suggests that inflation is a difficult beast to provoke.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360338

Postby dealtn » November 26th, 2020, 4:15 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:The good news on that front is that over the last twenty odd years UK governments have increased the average debt maturity period to over 15 years which is much much longer than for other western economies.


Agreed, others have a more pressing problem. Doesn't mean we shouldn't also be planning on how we address it though.

NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360339

Postby NeilW » November 26th, 2020, 4:15 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Does that include the £400bn "we've" used to pay for Covid which represents 20% of the national debt.


The Bank of England holds £600bn of that so called debt, and can happily hold the rest of it if necessary.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360340

Postby ursaminortaur » November 26th, 2020, 4:16 pm

NeilW wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:Sorry gravity models for trade still accurately model world trade patterns.


They don't accurately model anything. The natural consequence of gravity models is every person on the planet ends up in a single black hole somewhere. They are complete nonsense.


What on earth are you talking about ? Trade gravity models are based upon the distance between trading partners and the size of the economies of those trading partners. Even if you took freedom of movement to a ridiculous extreme everyone is not going to move so as to end up with zero distance between them and hence could not all end up in a single black hole.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360344

Postby dealtn » November 26th, 2020, 4:18 pm

NeilW wrote:
dealtn wrote:Which is all true until the point when interest rates rise (perhaps when we have generated some of that "useful" inflation). Maybe it is no longer (quite as) affordable at that point. It might be preferable to be reducing that debt, at least as a ratio to GDP, before the point where that affordability dissipates.


Interest rates will only rise if the Bank of England permits it. Since they work hand in glove with HM Treasury to manage monetary policy, that will be when it can be managed effectively.



Absolutely not true unless we have a completely new framework where Gilt Coupons (indeed yields) aren't determined by market rates. I'll be amazed if that happens. Policy rate could be zero (or indeed lower) and Gilt yields and Coupons much higher than presently!

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360346

Postby Lootman » November 26th, 2020, 4:23 pm

dealtn wrote:
NeilW wrote:
dealtn wrote:Which is all true until the point when interest rates rise (perhaps when we have generated some of that "useful" inflation). Maybe it is no longer (quite as) affordable at that point. It might be preferable to be reducing that debt, at least as a ratio to GDP, before the point where that affordability dissipates.

Interest rates will only rise if the Bank of England permits it. Since they work hand in glove with HM Treasury to manage monetary policy, that will be when it can be managed effectively.

Absolutely not true unless we have a completely new framework where Gilt Coupons (indeed yields) aren't determined by market rates. I'll be amazed if that happens. Policy rate could be zero (or indeed lower) and Gilt yields and Coupons much higher than presently!

That was the traditional view i.e. that the BofE can control short term rates but not long term rates, which the market sets.

But that has been turned on its head by the more recent practice of printing money so that the BofE can buy longer-dated gilts, and even corporate debt, junk bonds and bond ETFs. We have not gone as far down that path as the US Federal Reserve but then that just shows that we can do this a lot more if needed.

But the US dollar is the world's reserve currency and sterling is not. So what could ruin this is if the global investment community decides that sterling is a basket case currency.

NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360355

Postby NeilW » November 26th, 2020, 4:41 pm

dealtn wrote:
Absolutely not true unless we have a completely new framework where Gilt Coupons (indeed yields) aren't determined by market rates. I'll be amazed if that happens. Policy rate could be zero (or indeed lower) and Gilt yields and Coupons much higher than presently!


It is true. QE demonstrated that to the tune of £800bn so far, and the BoE could easily set a standing price where they will be any or all of the Gilts/Bills in issue.

They have full control of the yield curve.

NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360357

Postby NeilW » November 26th, 2020, 4:43 pm

Lootman wrote:So what could ruin this is if the global investment community decides that sterling is a basket case currency.


To do that somebody has to be coming in the opposite direction - since an exchange is required. Who is that, and what do they know?

Largely it will be nations that need to export to the UK to maintain demand for their planned output.

The 'global investment community' doesn't exist. There are differences of opinions - otherwise there wouldn't be a market :-)

The technical answer is as follows

It is very possible that a fall in the currency will make a current account worse (as imports become more expensive, and quantities do not immediately adjust). But since the valuation of currencies are driven by capital flows, not trade flows, this cannot go on forever. The domestic wage bill of exporters is being deflated versus international peers, and they become more competitive. (Imported input prices rise in local currency terms, but they pay the same world prices faced by competitors.) Since the exporters are more competitive, expected future profits rise, making domestic equities relatively more attractive. This effect will eventually limit the weakness of the currency. And the empirical reality is that the developed market currencies move around a lot, there appears to be a limit how far they can deviate from a purchasing-power parity fair value estimate.

NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360362

Postby NeilW » November 26th, 2020, 4:53 pm

ursaminortaur wrote: distance between trading partners


I know. They are complete nonsense because distance is cultural and technical as well as physical. We are culturally closer to the USA and Canada than Germany for example. Far easier to trade with China than Slovenia as eBay proves every day.

Additionally they tend to assume fixed exchange rates (or invalid rate models), bilateral tariffs and other characteristics of the neoliberal belief systems.

GIGO in other words.

We're taking the straitjacket off. Models that assume arms can't move no longer apply however "empirically validated" that lack of arm movement claims to be.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360364

Postby dealtn » November 26th, 2020, 4:57 pm

NeilW wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Absolutely not true unless we have a completely new framework where Gilt Coupons (indeed yields) aren't determined by market rates. I'll be amazed if that happens. Policy rate could be zero (or indeed lower) and Gilt yields and Coupons much higher than presently!


It is true. QE demonstrated that to the tune of £800bn so far, and the BoE could easily set a standing price where they will be any or all of the Gilts/Bills in issue.

They have full control of the yield curve.


Full control must mean something different to you then!

Why aren't the issuing with zero coupons then, and saving even more interest expenditure? Market yields are what determines things. Admittedly the agency of the BoE is a large part of the market demand at present, but even then they haven't got zero yields, and certainly can't be guaranteed to even be any part of the demand in the future, let alone the major determinant of price/yield.

Unless you are expecting a change in regime, in which case explain the when and how, you will continue to have gilt yields determined by the market.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Increased tax, higher unemployment & economic difficulties

#360383

Postby ursaminortaur » November 26th, 2020, 5:27 pm

dealtn wrote:
NeilW wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Absolutely not true unless we have a completely new framework where Gilt Coupons (indeed yields) aren't determined by market rates. I'll be amazed if that happens. Policy rate could be zero (or indeed lower) and Gilt yields and Coupons much higher than presently!


It is true. QE demonstrated that to the tune of £800bn so far, and the BoE could easily set a standing price where they will be any or all of the Gilts/Bills in issue.

They have full control of the yield curve.


Full control must mean something different to you then!

Why aren't the issuing with zero coupons then, and saving even more interest expenditure? Market yields are what determines things. Admittedly the agency of the BoE is a large part of the market demand at present, but even then they haven't got zero yields, and certainly can't be guaranteed to even be any part of the demand in the future, let alone the major determinant of price/yield.

Unless you are expecting a change in regime, in which case explain the when and how, you will continue to have gilt yields determined by the market.


The UK has been issuing gilts with negative yields (rather than just the real yield being negative) since May 2020.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/20/the-uk-just-sold-its-first-ever-negative-yielding-government-bond.html

In an auction Wednesday, the country’s Debt Management Office said it sold £3.8 billion ($4.66 billion) worth of three-year gilts at a yield of negative 0.003%.

This negative-yielding bond means the British government is effectively being paid to borrow. Investors will get back slightly less than they initially paid if they hold the bond to maturity, such is the demand for shoring up money in bonds.



https://www.lse.co.uk/news/update-1-more-than-half-of-british-gilt-market-in-negative-yield-territory-tradeweb-zfwkzdajk4g1e8k.html

According to Tradeweb, more than half of the British government bonds traded on its platform now carry negative yields.

Its data showed that the pile of negative-yielding gilts rose to around 1.33 trillion pounds ($1.74 trillion) as of
end-July or just over 53% of a total market worth almost 2.5 trillion pounds. This was up from 1.17 trillion pounds as of end-June.

The British gilt curve out to eight years has yields in negative territory. On Friday, British 10-year government bond yields sank to their lowest on record at just 0.07%.


https://monevator.com/negative-yields-bonds/

The UK’s maiden negative conventional government bond goes by the name of 0¾% Treasury Gilt 2023 and £3.8 billion worth of the blighter was auctioned off on 20 May 2020.

0¾% Treasury is a 3-year gilt that pays an annual interest rate (also known as the coupon rate) of 0.75% on its face value3 of £100.

In an ordinary world that means you get:

75p of income every year you hold the £100 bond.

£100 if you hold the bond on its maturity date – this is you getting back the original £100 loan you made to the government in exchange for that whopping 75p interest per year.

In negative-yielding bond world though, successful bidders paid the government an average price of £102.38 for gilts with a face value of £100. It’s the price they paid that plonks us into negative-yield territory.
Last edited by ursaminortaur on November 26th, 2020, 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Macro and Global Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tedx and 4 guests