Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:

Powered by WSN Forum




Register | Forgot Password

Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?
Quality of Life v Capitalism

printPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?
Orang
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 06/07/07 - 10:52 AM:
quote post
#51
Fried egg wrote
Well, if we can't be trusted with freedom, why should we have any?


Why go extreme? Why can it only be full freedom or not at all. Why can't we go with "some" or "enough"?

Not attall. Freedom is a basic right and not a luxury that most of us can do without. But that is an ethical position I adopt and you obviously do not.


I'm quiet impressed. You're not one of those people who worship freedom but don't respect the freedom to not grin

The problem is that taking away freedom generates dependency. We have become used to and expect the state to watch out for us and prevent bad things happening. It infantises the population and makes your argument self justifying. Whilst the state "nanny's" us, we never will be ready for freedom.


It's wrong for not giving a child any freedom or responsibilities. But it's also wrong to let a 4 years old kid to cross a busy street. As I said, we need a certain level of freedom. The enough level. If we want to increase it, then there will be certain things to do first (that may include teaching and testing). You could compare it to getting a driver's license if you want freedom to drive a car, but of course in a more complex way.

The thing is I've seen too many people causing bad things and deteroriating the environment in using their freedoms. Many big companies , for instance, throws their waste everywhere, rapes resources greedily in destructive ways, and launches irresponsible marketing campaigns polluting the minds of the youngs with consumtive culture. Many other smaller cases take place every day. I belive you would, if not already, found some if you just look around. Any ways thanks for the quote thing.

If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.
Fried Egg
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661
Posted 06/07/07 - 01:20 PM:
quote post
#52
Orang
It's wrong for not giving a child any freedom or responsibilities. But it's also wrong to let a 4 years old kid to cross a busy street.

Why persist with the paternal analogy? The state is not like a loving, benevolent parent taking care of it's children. It's just a bunch of power hungry people serving their own interests.
The thing is I've seen too many people causing bad things and deteroriating the environment in using their freedoms. Many big companies , for instance, throws their waste everywhere, rapes resources greedily in destructive ways, and launches irresponsible marketing campaigns polluting the minds of the youngs with consumtive culture. Many other smaller cases take place every day. I belive you would, if not already, found some if you just look around.

Free market capitalism requires a proper system of property rights in place to work. We don't have a proper system and hence the kind of problems you refer to. Pollution is not an example of people having too much freedom. It is an example of one person having too much freedom at someone elses expense.
unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941
Posted 06/10/07 - 01:05 PM:
quote post
#53
So, perhaps we should incorporate our government. That way we could have the Ur-corporation, owned by the citizens. The one that writes the rules for the rest to play under.

Pollution could rapidly dissapear as the Ur-corporation could institute a series of hostile takeovers against polluters at the urging of its shareholders, discharge the present management and put in a managerial team friendly to the citizens and their desires for a cleaner environment.
RandsAXiOM
A posteriori
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 25
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 06/16/07 - 07:16 PM:

quote post
#54
FreedomEvolvesB9 wrote:
When too many losers in genetic or demographic lotteries are unable to participate in the market, . . .


That is an impossible threat. Laissez-faire capitialism allows for everyone, no matter who you are, to systemate, by bounds of ethical conduct, anything that your mind expands to.

Look at your supposed "genetic loser", Stephen Hawking.

Look at your supposed "demographic loser", my father. He grew up in a ghetto, and came out an Ivy League undergraduate doctor.

So that does not apply.
Orang
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 06/22/07 - 01:52 PM:
quote post
#55
Fried Egg

Why persist with the paternal analogy? The state is not like a loving, benevolent parent taking care of it's children. It's just a bunch of power hungry people serving their own interests.


Damn right they are! I'm not suggesting the now states to be given more authority. No they need to be changed also. I said we ought to elect people who are wiser than us first (most of the current governments are clearly far from this quality) , then we'll talk about setting the freedom level. Not the other way around.

Free market capitalism requires a proper system of property rights in place to work. We don't have a proper system and hence the kind of problems you refer to. Pollution is not an example of people having too much freedom. It is an example of one person having too much freedom at someone elses expense.


Well it's still freedom all the same. And not an unusual one. Logically speaking increasing freedom more or less also means increasing that kind of freedom. And that's just an extreme clear example of problems created by too much freedom (yet as clearly wrong as it is, it's still happening and growing like crazy). Many other problems are not as clear as that. But I'm not gonna mention mine now cause they will trigger another lengthly debate. I'm sure we all got our own examples.

RandsAXiOM


Look at your supposed "demographic loser", my father. He grew up in a ghetto, and came out an Ivy League undergraduate doctor.

So that does not apply.


Guess he won the genetic lotteries then. smiling face

Edited by Orang on 06/24/07 - 07:20 PM

If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.
RandsAXiOM
A posteriori
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 25
Posted 06/22/07 - 04:34 PM:
quote post
#56
Orang wrote:
Fried Egg



Damn right they are! I'm not suggesting the now states to be given more authority. No they need to be changed also. I said we ought to elect people who are wiser than us first (most of the current governments are clearly far from this quality) , then we'll talk about setting the freedom level. Not the other way around.



Well it's still freedom all the same. And not an unusual one. Logically speaking increasing freedom more or less also means increasing that kind of freedom. And that's just an extreme clear example of problems created by too much freedom (yet as clearly wrong as it is, it's still happening and growing like crazy). Many other problems are not as clear as that. But I'm not gonna mention mine now cause they will trigger another lengthly debate. I'm sure we all got our own examples.

RandsAXiOM



Guess he won the genetic lotteries then. smiling face


Fortuantely for me, yes.
Orang
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 06/24/07 - 07:57 PM:
quote post
#57
RandsAXiOM

Look at your supposed "genetic loser", Stephen Hawking.


And how could you say Stephen Hawking is a genetic loser. He might've lost the motoric part, but he had certainly won the logic part.

It takes the 'right' (not good or bad nor high or low but right) combination of gene, nutrition, and education (and perhaps many other things) to make a capitalism compatible person. I don't think capitalism allows for everyone. Like you said, you're fortunate.

If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.
RandsAXiOM
A posteriori
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 25
Posted 06/26/07 - 01:45 AM:
quote post
#58
Orang wrote:
RandsAXiOM



And how could you say Stephen Hawking is a genetic loser. He might've lost the motoric part, but he had certainly won the logic part.

It takes the 'right' (not good or bad nor high or low but right) combination of gene, nutrition, and education (and perhaps many other things) to make a capitalism compatible person. I don't think capitalism allows for everyone. Like you said, you're fortunate.


What exactly is your definition of a "genetic loser"?

Give me an example of a person in such a scenario as to where he or she is not "compatible" with capitalism.
Orang
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 06/29/07 - 11:23 AM:
quote post
#59
Point of extereme:
Backward people
Autist people
People with extreme phobias
(And people with many other severe physical and mental abnormalities)

Point of not so extreme:
People who have to work all day just to make enough money to life
People who are severely indoctrinated that their people don't deserve anything better
Many people in poor countries
People in war zones
People with non-productive frame of mind (might it be caused by bad parents or friends or TV mad )
Or people who just have plain bad luck

You might think that they just don't have enough wills, but the diference in states of minds are real. Just because doing somethings are really easy for me doesn't mean it's the same for everybody else, vice versa. Don't discredit someone's effort for it might be his incapability (or plain unluckyness) not unwillingness that made it fail. People are different, look around.

If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.
unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941
Posted 06/29/07 - 07:10 PM:
quote post
#60
If Stephen Hawking had been born in other circumstances, it is quite probable that he would be dead, or some freak in an asylum, or circus.

A genetic loser in today's capitalism is often someone whose skin is dark though their brothers may be light.
unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941
Posted 06/29/07 - 07:14 PM:
quote post
#61
Fried Egg wrote:
...

Free market capitalism requires a proper system of property rights in place to work. We don't have a proper system and hence the kind of problems you refer to. Pollution is not an example of people having too much freedom. It is an example of one person having too much freedom at someone elses expense.


So what, in your view, would constitute a proper system of property rights?
RandsAXiOM
A posteriori
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 25
Posted 06/29/07 - 09:38 PM:
quote post
#62
Orang wrote:
Point of extereme:
Backward people
Autist people
People with extreme phobias
(And people with many other severe physical and mental abnormalities)

Point of not so extreme:
People who have to work all day just to make enough money to life
People who are severely indoctrinated that their people don't deserve anything better
Many people in poor countries
People in war zones
People with non-productive frame of mind (might it be caused by bad parents or friends or TV mad )
Or people who just have plain bad luck

You might think that they just don't have enough wills, but the diference in states of minds are real. Just because doing somethings are really easy for me doesn't mean it's the same for everybody else, vice versa. Don't discredit someone's effort for it might be his incapability (or plain unluckyness) not unwillingness that made it fail. People are different, look around.


I know there are a few instances where you will find people with such grotesque anomalies that their lives are forever affected, but the vast majority remains.

But there are families and special institutions to help those kind of people whom cannot do anything at all because of their mental or physical condition.

As for your list of "points not so extreme", they'll have to innovate on behalf of the consequences of their choices.

The mild exceptions would include the people that are just unlucky. But that's what insurance is for, and a strategical financial plan for such problems in life.
psychopath
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 03, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 32
Posted 07/02/07 - 07:23 AM:
quote post
#63
As Fried Egg pointed out to me in another thread, my belief relates to "labor theory of value", but not completely based on labor.

If you invest in a house, and someone rents it, you get money from it forever. I find this disturbing, and I also believe this is how most rich become rich, by increasing their assets and not doing anything at all (yes this is a genralisation, I don't really mean ALL rich people)!

The people renting that house have to keep paying to live in it, yet you only pay once and own it forever. I think that the amount you pay should determine the time you own the house, and you have to pay again to keep owning it. I mean, don't you find it disturbing that someone can be rich in such a way without conributing to society much at all? If we can get rid of investing, we get rid of lazy rich people, and the only rich people left are big contributers.

So I think that you don't neccessarily have to work really hard to earn money, but contribute in some way. So that nobel prize winners still get a nobel prize, and the person who cures cancer still gets a lot of credit.

As Fried Egg also poitned out, historical value also plays a part. For example, a gun from a soldier who fought on d-day would be more valuable than a modern gun. I accept that, but I also believe that to own an asset you need to keep paying to own it, since it keeps making you money from others.

Don't you think that what I have said so far result in a more effective civilisation? For example, many people believe that communism failed since nobody was motivated (including me), but what I have said mtivates people to contribute more (not always "work"), and I think that is the answer to all our problems!

Edited by psychopath on 07/02/07 - 07:30 AM
Fried Egg
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661
Posted 07/02/07 - 07:57 AM:
quote post
#64
unrealist42 wrote:


So what, in your view, would constitute a proper system of property rights?

A system that prosecuted any who encroached upon the property rights others. A system that well defined property rights (to minimise ambiguity and confusion). A system that extended the concept private property as far as it would go in an attempt to eliminate all forms of "commons".
Orang
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 07/09/07 - 10:44 AM:
quote post
#65
RandsAXiOM

But there are families and special institutions to help those kind of people whom cannot do anything at all because of their mental or physical condition.


Are there always be? Are they always right? Always good? Many countries don't even have any. And even if they do have some, many people might not have access to the them.


As for your list of "points not so extreme", they'll have to innovate on behalf of the consequences of their choices.

The mild exceptions would include the people that are just unlucky. But that's what insurance is for, and a strategical financial plan for such problems in life.


There are institutions for some points in my second list also. And these institutions proves that they are less "compatible" to the society they're living in, including the capitalistic society. And as I said; institutions, families, insurances, financial plans, or even friends aren't always there, and aren't always right (or good or honest). Luck takes in again.

You can say that they can always work it out somehow. But they are still unlucky, being that they must work harder to get even to the luckier ones. And the unluckier ones may not even have the idea on how to work it out.

If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.
unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941
Posted 07/09/07 - 04:04 PM:
quote post
#66
Fried Egg wrote:

A system that prosecuted any who encroached upon the property rights others. A system that well defined property rights (to minimise ambiguity and confusion). A system that extended the concept private property as far as it would go in an attempt to eliminate all forms of "commons".


What is property?
How is it that there is some sort of right to property when there is no right to live?
Or is the right to live a property right?

And how would an orderly disposal of the "commons" be accomplished?
How would oceans and rivers and other waterways and the air we breath be privatized with so many claims upon them already?

Would people be issued shares for breathing air upon birth?

It is easy for you to define your position in a few short sentences but the words you use are quite nebulous, subject to much ambiguity and confusion.
A more detailed explanation is necessary.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533
Posted 07/12/07 - 10:58 PM:
quote post
#67
Fried Egg wrote:
"You are right that political systems should not set about maximising economic growth with the assumption that whatever it does to increase production will increase happiness."


An increase in GDP can be closely connected with a societies standard of living.

Let me ask you this: Would you prefer to be a rich person in 1925, with access only to the technologies and lifestyle available in 1925, or to be a person with an average standard of living today, with access to all the modern technologies?


Timothy Taylor, Economics 3rd Edition, Teaching Company 2005 wrote:
"In the long run, internally generated growth is by far the single most important factor in a nation's standard of living, far outstripping the impact of redistribution from those with high incomes to those with low incomes.

What are the sources of economic growth?
A. Productivity growth, measured as real output per hour worked, is a useful measure of economic growth.
B. Productivity growth is rooted in growth in physical capital, human capital, and especially new technology, which for economists, includes all methods of reorganizing and changing production, as well as new ways of applying scientific discoveries to production."



"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust.

"I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class

"You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert
Orang
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 07/14/07 - 09:00 PM:
quote post
#68

hipskipdip wrote

Let me ask you this: Would you prefer to be a rich person in 1925, with access only to the technologies and lifestyle available in 1925, or to be a person with an average standard of living today, with access to all the modern technologies?



Happiness is really relative. Many people who lived in 1925 (or whatever time) would certainly chose to keep living in it had they know what it's like 'now' simply because they're used to it. Sure we got more technology now, but not without it's cost of more mental pressure, natural destruction, cancers, and everything. And more production also won't simply increase happiness because the more people get the more people wants. For me the key is actually more of controlling wants than to blindly keep fulfilling them.

If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.
JChen
sexy time explosion
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 180
Posted 07/21/07 - 05:16 AM:
quote post
#69
Happiness is the responsibility of the individual, not the government, not the economy. If you're not happy with your million dollar house and your 4 cars, then that's your problem.

Orang, people like you (and yes, there are a lot of people like you) terrify me.
Orang
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 07/22/07 - 05:56 AM:
quote post
#70
BOO!! heh heh heh
By the way, as far as I know, economy is very very strongly related to happiness and government is very very strongly related to economy. Anyway, isn't it the point of having a government? To have an organized society to more efficiently achieve wellfare, wellbeing, security and so on and so on that will finally lead to people's happiness.

If that's not the point and I'm wrong then please kindly tell me what it is.

If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.
JChen
sexy time explosion
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 180
Posted 07/23/07 - 04:47 PM:
quote post
#71
How exactly does a society's economy relate to its citizens' happiness?

The point of a government is to establish a society's infrastructure so that meaningful social interactions can happen. Its role is to protect and structure, not mother and pamper. Welfare, wellbeing, security, happiness. Out of these, only security is the government's concern and even that only to a certain extent.
MilotheMayor
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 24
Posted 07/23/07 - 09:59 PM:
quote post
#72
psychopath wrote:
As Fried Egg pointed out to me in another thread, my belief relates to "labor theory of value", but not completely based on labor.

If you invest in a house, and someone rents it, you get money from it forever. I find this disturbing, and I also believe this is how most rich become rich, by increasing their assets and not doing anything at all (yes this is a genralisation, I don't really mean ALL rich people)!

The people renting that house have to keep paying to live in it, yet you only pay once and own it forever. I think that the amount you pay should determine the time you own the house, and you have to pay again to keep owning it. I mean, don't you find it disturbing that someone can be rich in such a way without conributing to society much at all? If we can get rid of investing, we get rid of lazy rich people, and the only rich people left are big contributers.


The only reason that rent and interest exist is that at some point in time, someone chose to forgo consumption. In order to buy that house the person had to spend a lot of time forgoing consumption to afford the purchase. The renter is equally able to do such things. He must just choose to forgo consumption in order to accumulate capital. If you get rid of interest or rent and the like, you provide no incentive for economic growth and we go back to a static economy. The reason is that humans, ALL humans, have a positive time preference. We prefer consumption now to consumption later. If you ask a girl on a date and she tells you she will go on a date with you in 5 years but not this week, you are disappointed. With this, interest (which is inherent in rent) is the incentive for someone to forgo consumption now and accumulate capital.

Maybe Paris Hilton looks like she doesn't deserve to get richer, but she has money invested (she is forgoing consumption of it) in order that others can use it and therefore is earning it. If we got rid of investing, Paris would just consume whatever she doesn't need for the forseeable future, and no entrepreneurs (who create higher standards of living) would be able to access it because Paris blew it all one night at the strip club.

psychopath wrote:
Don't you think that what I have said so far result in a more effective civilisation? For example, many people believe that communism failed since nobody was motivated (including me), but what I have said mtivates people to contribute more (not always "work"), and I think that is the answer to all our problems!


Communism didn't fail because of the incentive problem. It failed because of the economic calculation problem. The entire economy became a morass of shortages and surpluses.
MilotheMayor
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 24
Posted 07/23/07 - 10:08 PM:
quote post
#73
exile wrote:
That's fine for individual decisions. But some decisions must be made collectively. Go to war - or not? Raise the base interest rate or not? Outlaw abortion or not? (OK the last could be left to individual choice - but would this freedom of choice extend to theft and murder as well?)


This implies a social contract that I never signed nor wanted to be a part of.


Orang
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Hanging on your motherboard
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 07/24/07 - 06:57 AM:
quote post
#74

JChen
How exactly does a society's economy relate to its citizens' happiness?


Isn't the goal of economic activity is to get happiness? I don't know, but for me it's the only goal that makes any sense.


JChen
The point of a government is to establish a society's infrastructure so that meaningful social interactions can happen. Its role is to protect and structure, not mother and pamper. Welfare, wellbeing, security, happiness. Out of these, only security is the government's concern and even that only to a certain extent.


Yes to a certain extent, and no I didn't say anything about pampering. Where did you got that idea anyway. Just because I was saying that governments have (a share of) responsibilty for peoples happiness (because they feed on people's taxes) doesn't mean that individuals don't have their's too. You jump on conclusions. People like you scare me. cool

If I can choose I'd like to have a world without terrorist, but I'd like it more to have a world without CIA. For without CIA there will be almost no terrorist but without terrorist there will just be more of CIA.
JChen
sexy time explosion
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 180
Posted 07/25/07 - 02:58 PM:
quote post
#75
Orang wrote:


Isn't the goal of economic activity is to get happiness? I don't know, but for me it's the only goal that makes any sense.


The purpose of economic activity is to allocate goods in what society deems to be an efficient manner. Certainly, the individual is self-interested, but that doesn't mean that economic activity will make that person happy since no allocation of goods could possibly translate directly into happiness. I will agree that those with more relative wealth in a society will tend to be happier than those with less relative wealth, but 1) there is no causal relationship and 2) the correlation itself is very weak and influenced heavily by the lower extremes. If you compared the middle class and the upperclass, for example, I don't think you could find such a correlation.

Orang wrote:

Yes to a certain extent, and no I didn't say anything about pampering. Where did you got that idea anyway. Just because I was saying that governments have (a share of) responsibilty for peoples happiness (because they feed on people's taxes) doesn't mean that individuals don't have their's too. You jump on conclusions. People like you scare me. cool


People pay taxes so that governments will establish and maintain the things that are essential for the survival of that society. Roads, defense, security, and in some cases public education and health care. The government should NEVER even attempt to take responsibility for its citizens' happiness. The government doesn't know what makes me happy and it never will. Instead of taking responsibility for my happiness, I would rather the government reduce my taxes so that I can better provide for my own happiness. Nothing the government could do would make me happier than giving me back the $600 it took from me in the past 2 weeks.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6



You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

41 total queries
This page was created in 3.87 seconds
Memory used: 7730520 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 142 days, 13:31, load average: 0.45, 0.70, 0.81