Quote of the day

If under stress of circumstance individuals have made any promise to the enemy, they are bound to keep their word even then.

Syndicate content

Our writers

Paul Rogers

Global security


Li Datong

China from the inside


Fred Halliday

Global politics


Mary Kaldor

Human Security


Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitan Democracy

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:


Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz


Follow oD on Twitter:


Join our Facebook group:
Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

openDemocracy likes:

Navigation

Recent comments

Signpost Blog


View 9 comments

Beyond the triple crisis: a green new deal

An imaginative and radical set of policies is needed to address the triple crunch of debt, peak oil and climate change, says Ann Pettifor.

(This article was first published on 27 October 2008)


It is a small measure of the dramatic financial meltdown of 2007-08 that leading representatives of western liberal capitalism ransacked the past for reference-points to convey its scale. The "most wrenching [financial crisis] since the end of the second world war", said former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, in March 2008; the "largest financial shock since the great depression", said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in April; even "the largest financial crisis of its kind in human history" said the deputy governor of the Bank of England, Charlie Bean in October.

Also in openDemocracy on the global financial crisis of 2007-08:

Tony Curzon Price, "Responsible recessions" (3 April 2008)

Willem Buiter, "The end of American capitalism (as we knew it)" (17 September 2008)

Fred Halliday, "The revenge of ideas: Karl Polanyi and Susan Strange" (24 September 2008)

Godfrey Hodgson, "The week that democracy won" (29 September 2008)

Tony Curzon Price, "Unprincipled madness" (1 October 2008)

Grahame Thompson, "Deglobalising the crisis" (3 October 2008)

Will Hutton, "Wanted: a fairer capitalism" (6 October 2008)

Avinash Persaud, "Europe's financial crisis: the integration lesson" (7 October 2008)

Paul Rogers, "A world in flux: crisis to agency" (16 October 2008)

Andrew Dobson & David Hayes, "A politics of crisis: low-energy cosmopolitanism" (22 October 2008)

Paul Rogers, "A crisis-opportunity moment" (23 October 2008)
All this before the crisis has run its course. For even after the massive bailouts and banking takeovers of September-October 2008, there is no end to the fear and panic in global stock-markets. A problem that was (during the epic week of 22-28 September when the Hank Paulson plan to stabilise Wall Street was being debated) seen by some complacent Europeans as being confined to the United States soon came to force European governments too into emergency responses; after Iceland's desperate situation was exposed, now emerging markets in east-central Europe (Hungary, Ukraine) have needed urgent assistance to provide credit and shore up the currency. For some global-south countries (Pakistan, Argentina) the difficulties are even more severe; and several of Asia's powerhouse economies (South Korea, China) have been forced into a rapid rethinking.

A systemic problem

The prospect that the huge funding packages of these weeks will not contain the problems, and that indeed things may get even worse, is terrifying for central-bank governors, financial institutions and politicians - and indeed for the citizens who will carry the greatest burden of the crisis in terms of disappearing jobs, repossessed homes, and tightened credit.

Yet I believe things will indeed get worse, for one reason above all others: that those in the financial and political establishments charged with making decisions to contain the crisis have shown themselves inadequate to the task. In particular, elected finance ministers, International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff, the governor of the European Central Bank (ECB), Jean-Claude Trichet and his fellow central-bank governors persist with flawed economic policies:

* dear money or high real rates of interest which aggravated the downturn by amplifying debts, bankrupting debtors and accelerating deflation

* sustained capital liberalisation - despite shocks to exchange rates, global imbalances and volatility 

* the dumping of even more debt on to the giant Ponzi scheme that is the globalised economy.

These policies have been responsible for a pernicious cycle in which easy money fuelled easy credit; easy credit fuelled consumption, which in turn fuelled economic growth; and alongside, "easy jets" and "easy cars" helped fuel a massive expansion of toxic greenhouse-gas emissions. 

This sequence makes clear that what is at stake is more than a financial breakdown that can be repaired by policy adjustments at the margin. Rather, the excessively indebted global economy is but one aspect of an  unprecedented triple crunch, each element of which has contributed to the current crisis:  

* an enormous Ponzi scheme of debt

* peak oil

* climate change.

It is becoming clearer that at heart the resulting crisis is "systemic" not "conjunctural", and that it requires a holistic response that addresses it in its linked as well as singular aspects: financial-economic, governance-political, environmental-ecological (see John Elkington & Mark Lee, "Finance, politics, climate: three crises in one", 14 October 2008). A small group of economists connected to the new economics foundation (nef) has proposed such a holistic approach, which they have termed a "green new deal". To implement this set of policies will require using all the resources of democracy to  make governments and regulators switch course, guided by and understanding that the threat of debt, peak oil and climate change must be addressed in imaginative and radical ways. 

A model infusion

The latest dominoes to fall have been in Europe. This is in part thanks to the misjudgment of one of the most orthodox central bankers, Jean-Claude Trichet - who has (as Aurelia Maccario notes) been exposed by the collapse of both the real and the financial European economy. In a show of macho defiance, he had in 2007 already rebuked Nicolas Sarkozy for objecting to the ECB's higher interest rates, and for not "adapting faster". In July 2008, at the height of the worst debt crisis in modern history, he and his board hiked borrowing costs on loans in the European Union.Ann Pettifor is executive director of Advocacy International.

In the 1990s she helped design and lead the international campaign Jubilee 2000. She is editor of The Real World Economic Outlook (Palgrave, 2003) and author of The Coming First World Debt Crisis (Palgrave, 2006)

Also by Ann Pettifor on openDemocracy:

"The coming first world debt crisis" (1 September 2003)

"Ethiopia: the price of indifference" (19 February 2004)

"Gleneagles, 7/7 and Africa" (4 July 2006)

"Debtonation: how globalisation dies" (15 August 2007)

"Globalisation: sleepwalking to disaster" (11 December 2007)

"The G8 in a global mess: 1920s and 1980s lessons" (7 July 2008)

"America's financial meltdown: lessons and prospects" (15 September 2008)

"The week that changed everything" (22 September 2008)

By this action they helped precipitate the crisis now engulfing economies like Hungary. Hungarians, like many east-central European citizens and companies, were lured by EU promises into buying mortgages and loans in euros and Swiss francs. These borrowers have now been hit by the fall of the currency in which they earn income (Hungary's forint), relative to the currency (the euro or Swiss franc) in which they owe debts.

The borrowing costs on their euro-denominated debts were increased by the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to raise rates. Its governor, Jean-Claude Trichet, somewhat embarrassed by the negative impact of that decision, now offers to "rescue" Hungary, by dumping another €5 billion ($6 bn) on an already debt-burdened economy. High interest rates and heavy economic conditions will further undermine Hungarian economic independence, and could cause social, political and ecological dislocation. 

The policies of the ECB, of other central banks, and of finance ministries and treasuries mean that the world is now embarked on a debt-deflationary spiral that destroys the value of assets, wages, incomes, goods and services - and will lead to political and social upheaval. The threats are very grave. 

The IMF's predatory lending has been rebuffed by emerging markets ever since its policies first caused and then exacerbated the southeast Asian crisis of 1997-98 and the Argentinean crisis of 2001. It seems not to have learned its lesson: for now it is pouring more debt down the throats of bankrupt countries like Iceland and struggling economies like those of Hungary, Ukraine, Pakistan and Argentina. The IMF is also encouraging central bankers to play the speculators' game by raising interest rates (in Hungary, for example, they were raised on 22 October 2008 to a staggering 11.5%.

This is unbelievable good luck for those hedge-fund managers facing major losses elsewhere, and roaming the world for gains; but this luck is predicated on the now inevitable bankruptcies of small and large businesses in Hungary's domestic economy, and on the livelihoods of those who are amongst the lowest-paid in Europe. It will come as no surprise if people in Hungary and elsewhere of all classes become disillusioned and angry at the failure of their central-bank "guardians" to protect their country's interests and finances; the chances of a populist backlash are thereby strengthened (see Andrew Dobson & David Hayes, "A politics of crisis: low-energy cosmopolitanism", 22 October 2008).

The IMF will further oblige international speculators by injecting billions of dollars into the bloodstream of central banks drained of hard currency.  This transfusion of capital will enable international investors and speculators to make a quick "smash, grab and getaway" - leaving central banks with even more debts, owed at high real rates of interest to the IMF. To repay these debts, without any change in basic structures or operating modes, will require even greater exploitation of labour and the ecosystem. 

The orthodox economic policies that aggressively deregulated lending and encouraged borrowing, also held down incomes while boosting consumption. In the context of prevailing industrial and commercial patterns, both had the effect of inflating greenhouse-gas emissions and contributed further to the creation of a global "debtonation".

When high real rates of interest raised borrowing costs, making debts unpayable, the collapse of the Ponzi scheme was inevitable. Now the chaotic deleveraging of debts is leading to the deflation of asset prices, particularly property prices, to bankruptcies, stock market falls and unemployment – with no end in sight.

The increasingly desperate actions of central bankers and finance ministers -  and the silence or irrelevance of academic, neo-liberal economists - are evidence of the flawed nature of the past generation's economic orthodoxy, and of the intellectual bankruptcy of the world's ruling elite. 

A democratic deficit

What strategy and policies should democratic citizens and progressive forces around the world adopt to help the global economy recover and challenge the destructive policies of these elites? (see Paul Rogers, "A world in flux: crisis to agency", 16 October 2008). It will not be easy, but three processes are essential 

First, it will be important to divert popular anger away from bankers and their bonuses towards the institutional failings of the real transgressors: the central-bank governors, regulators and the political legislators that created the framework for the giant house-of-cards that is global debt. It was politicians and regulators not private bankers or other oligopolistic businessmen who legislated for, facilitated and permitted the creation and growth of easy (but never cheap) debt that has fuelled both consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions. 

It's true that private bankers or oligarchs have effectively ensnared politicians. But in the end it is regulators that draft policy and politicians that sign and agree legislation; only regulators and legislators, prompted by citizens-voters informed with democratic arguments and ideas for change, who can implement a system-wide fix.  

Second, citizens all over the world need to build the political parties and movements that will rise to the challenge of climate change, peak oil and the current global financial meltdown.

In liberal-democratic countries whose democratic systems have withered or which still have inbuilt unfairness (such as Britain, with its centralised and winner-takes-all electoral system), this will mean an energetic work of reform. Democratic political parties in the past decades have been hollowed out of political content and power. The signs of revival around the Democratic Party in the United States - if they continue and are consolidated in practical results - are an encouragement to all those wishing to challenge the status quo in democratic economies.

To succeed, political parties must be rebuilt from the bottom-up. Such initatives as Moveon.org provide clear evidence that by exploiting the openness, plurality and uncensored reach of the web - and combining these strengths with down-to-earth, face-to-face "townhall meetings" - activists can reclaim the political agenda. 

This major task of democratic revitalisation will take time, but it is an essential process if the policies needed for restoring balance to both the economy and the ecosystem are to be informed by the active discussion and engagement of citizens.  

A radical agenda

The heart of such policies are a series of principles that if followed would lead to a more stable, strong and sustainable political economy that can begin to meet the tests of debt, peak oil, and climate change:

* unpayable debts must be recognised as unpayable, and written off. This needs to done as far as possible in an orderly, structured manner, and with due attention to principles of fairness and awareness of the causes of high levels of debt

* the monetary system must be managed in the interests of society as a whole, not just the finance sector

* debt/credit-creation must be carefully regulated

* capital flows must be regulated, and the power to fix the key levers of the economy (interest-rates and the exchange-rate) must be restored to elected, sovereign governments- accountable to labour and industry, and accountable to the ecosystem

* publicly accountable central banks must be free to a) inject debt-free money into the economy, and b) keep the cost of borrowing low, so that loan-expenditure projects can be easily financed

* incomes must be raised, to restore the balance between an economy burdened with debts and stripped of pensions, and people starved of income to repay those debts or unable to live in dignity

* there must be no eviction of people from their homes because of unpayable debts

* new forms of social, cooperative housing and housing finance should be developed

* resources must be raised to create jobs, by using the monetary tools above and by filling tax-loopholes and closing tax havens

* a "carbon army" of green-collar workers must be mobilised to insulate homes, transform every building into a power station, and build alternative sources of energy

* trade must be localised and regionalised in order to limit the impact of emissions, to cut oil consumption and to end trade imbalances, with only exceptional items traded internationally (when war-memorial panels in northeastern England containing lists of names of the fallen are stripped for the metal they contain to feed a ravenous global commodity-market, the destructive consequences of the dominant form of globalisation are vividly revealed)

* a new global and independent central bank should be established - based on JM Keynes's International Clearing Union - to manage and stabilise trade between countries, and to create both a trading currency and a reserve asset that is neutral between countries. This should be on the agenda of the G20 summit in Washington on 15 November 2008 as part of the discussion of a "new Bretton Woods" settlement.

In other words, the way beyond this period of severe crisis and multiple threats lies in a green new deal

Average rating
(4 votes)
read on

new economics foundation

A Green New Deal 

Debtonation

 
Copyright © Ann Pettifor, . Published by openDemocracy Ltd. You may download and print extracts from this article for your own personal and non-commercial use only. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Contact us if you wish to discuss republication. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

Comments


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Isaac Leung said:



Sat, 2008-11-01 23:13

The hydra that Ann Pettifor attacks is surely one that must be attacked, but surely some knowledge of economics and of how the global economic system works is called for, in such a delicate endeavour.

I recommend reading Keynes on Project Gutenberg or archive.org; in his works, for example, he attacks Clemenceau for trying to reverse the deep economic changes that had occurred between 1871 and the First World War, warning that attempts to do so could destroy everything.

It is a shame that the will for progressive reform of all aspects of the international system is so often be separated from knowledge of how to do so, with many critics ignorant and many experts blind. Certainly one would want Ann Pettifor at the helm of the dream team of global reformers and possibly leading the charge but her solutions read more like involuntary effects of the credit crisis than intelligent policy.

A system of taxation of imports that accounted for the emissions content is surely the only way to ensure that a system of carbon registration and control reflects the fact that demand and supply of carbon dioxide-generating goods and services are found in different countries. Don't we need to focus on implementing this, rather than banning all trade in non-essential items and attempting to regulate the level of incomes by government fiat?

Meanwhile, I do worry at the confused state of mind betrayed by some (not all) of the other commentators. They make Ann Pettifor's suggestions look positively lucid. I am afraid we have all set the intellectual bar too low, and that is why there is a financial crisis, and we have as yet no powerful solutions to tackle man-made climate change.

 

 

Cathy Fitzpatrick said:



Wed, 2008-10-29 03:35

 Ann, this is just an old-fashioned socialist agenda dressed up in various "eco" clothing. There is so much heavy government regulatory control of all facets of the economy in your scheme that it can in no way still be called "capitalism".

You tell finance to operate "in the interests of the people". Which people? How much for the people? And why do "the people" who don't invest in the finance have to "benefit"? If you make interest rates low, what is the incentive to invest in CDs and such, or save in a savings account? I don't get it.

Forgiving all debt? That sounds rather drastic. Not a single plan to perhaps reduce debt, or create pay-down plans? How about something simpler from the old days like cheaper banking fees and less penalties for bounced checks or "funds not arranged"? There is something terribly old-fashioned in our electronic day and age for banks to be holding checks for 5 days because they are from another bank, or 7 days because they are out of state. These concepts mean nothing in a time of instant electronic transactions. So why new, $35 fees simply because an automatic debit also set up electronically to pay a monthly bill hits at a time when "the check has not cleared" -- when the bank all the while gets the advantage of the investing of the float during those 7 days? I'd rather see common-sense measures like curbing of credit card rates, reduction of severe banking penalties, better oversight of mortgates, then something as utopian as "write off all debts"?

 
Obviously, if you "write off all debts" you impoverish all the lenders. Do you have a plan for what they are supposed to do to access "institutional lending" after that?

As for moveon.org, in my experience, the site has no "grassroots" bottom-up flavour -- it's heavily top-down and bureaucratic, with a small cadre preparing memes for consumptions of the masses. The hard left is pushing memes like "telecoms" as if this matters -- it's simply not of interest to the mainstream and the real problem was the president's wrongful orders, not the telecoms rolling order -- the focus was put in the wrong place on that one. 

I also have to say something about that "energy-saving" lightbulb in the picture going with your article. I went to the store yesterday with my dwindling grocery budget -- $6.59 for a box of cereal now, $3.99 for a few strawberries, rushing to get there in time to get the cheap Cuban bread for $2.69 the loaf -- ground beef for $5.00 to make 2 little hamburgers, etc. And I peer at the price tag on the energy bulbs -- a whopping $14.89 -- and I go for the cheaper $1.89 2 packs. Oh, sure, I get that the energy saver is supposed to last long, but will it break? The "green" solutions that get pushed at us like these bulbs are expensive. Who will pay?

Cathy Fitzpatrick

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/un_tethered

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/ngo_accountability

Not logged in Lawrence Efana (not verified) said:



Wed, 2008-10-29 00:34

A couple of years ago people were running a project titled "Making sense". Yours is not a project but short article. Ann Pettifor, is it that you are really giving out "words of wisdom" with your article? Then tell them so, more so when for some of us, it is hard to forget that in the beginning was the word: they say...., and that the word....! I miss those non-latent (manifest) moral dimensions of the discourse.

Glossing at some of the comments deserves the question: are we missing your points?

Besides realities of 1st and 2nd worlds in the article I fail to also find clearly differentiated arguments and positions for 3rd, 4th and 5th worlds. The idea of systemic crisis is spelled out: how does that embrace all these worlds? The global picture of the crises doesn't just seem to capture them: the reason for much to ironise and little to be serious about? Commentators do not made it either easier, other than play pranks with words in the 'abstract'!

I fancy manipulating rationality of "bottom-up" progress but discretely uplifting the status-quo - misunderstand all and argue that wealth will not be created and spread! Who pays (income/profit/consumption, etc.,) taxes? Who doesn't and what bearings on, for example, raising capitals and funds for public health-care delivery, at least for the weakest? Oh damn bottom-up welfare ad-hocs, because that could mean spreading wealth, even if indirectly and also [cautiously] solicited from the tops! Aha bottoms should not be accessed such social services, even if they also bear the brunt of bailing out the tops!

This American presidential race soon ending has indeed led many to see the different faces of openDemocracy articles and sense immense fond from the commentators in their diversities, thanks to the freedom of writing and also of thinking, using whatever the facts are - call it democracy in play.

Using commentators as example, it should be even clearer to configure the up-hill tasks of putting across change, also where failures calling for its dynamism are obvious as in this case. I would like Ann Pettifor to further highlight the limits of "using all the resources of democracy". That is, with global setting in its entirety, where for example, would an institution like the United Nations also come into the picture, in finding and handling problems of the kind we see? Westphalia and League of Nations history, both tell of it as product of complex crises in which this particular one, at this time of human civilisation is not different.

While everything: from environment, to war, global peace, politics, culture and economy), plays a part, signifying how interdependent we and our systems are in global sense, fitting Kenynesianism into the international picture is no bad step in the right direction, on matters of a global central bank and clearing system. On economic and financial fronts, the management and stability of global trade might perhaps find the headway to solution.

However, heterogeneity of variables - including variations in development levels of states, should warn and advise to see beyond the G20 Summit hence extra pain to be taken to meet its unique global "top-down/bottom-up" challenges. Our lessons are truly numerous (a) with IMF/WB, some countries have seen themselves used as capitalism sacrificial lambs; (b) it was good with the end of the cold-war, but most of those countries did express critical opinions about the need for orderly practice of capitalism, naive though many were; (c) the promise of rapid growth, its dependence on consumption, labour and industrialisation - all necessary but must now be rethought - with the idea of solidarity not necessarily meaning socialism, but cautioning more about Riftkins thesis of "End of Work", rather real if we are well informed and frank about capitalism. The task ahead is nothing to joke about if the reform and change we want will have to be peaceful and sustainable. These are in one or the other ways some of the intricate issues captured in the Democratic campaign and I hope voters are not led away from truly seeing and understanding what aspects of the change highlighted might mean so that they can make their choices as they vote. For these reasons it is good to give words of wisdom and Obama seems to do that just right, with love for his nation and the world. "MoveOn" surely features in all!

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

Martin Large (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-10-28 21:16

Good article-and green new deal a good start. Here in Stroud we have been trying to develop a coop housing scheme, but on govt land-they pay lip service. As you say, we need a transformed democracy to make the new financial system work. www.gloucestershirelandfor people.coop

James Conroy (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-10-28 17:37

Atlas may shrug, and the world will likely know great disruptions before our current house of cards can be rebuilt on a foundation of substance. Politicians must promise to "feed bellies" to get elected and then actually deliver to be re-elected. Out of such chaos will arise more Hitlers and hopefully enough Churchill and Roosevelts to counterbalance.

This will be a time of frugality and rediscovery of the basic elements of successful community. The baby boomers are responsible for this mess, and should be the first to sacrifice when the world restructures.

rocyahsoul said:



Tue, 2008-10-28 11:15

Oh yeah, and you missed Colony Collapse Disorder, better referred to as the global disapperance of high percentage of the bee population which polinates 80% of human food.  Einstein said 4 years beyond the disappearance of bees, humanity would also be gone.

You missed the biggest crisis which is the massive stockpiles of clever weapons.

So that's 4 and 5.  

What you call "climate change" is about to turn "Ice Age".  Commondreams.org wrote an article about it 4 years ago.

Wide spread mercury pollution having dumbed down enough of the population to cooperate with mass murderers or sit idle while the killing spree goes balistic.  I'd say that's #6.

There's definitely something else that's massively wrong though.  You might mention 1/4 of mammals near extinction.  

You're quite vague about buildings being power plants when how it can be done is expressable in a phrase, "heat engine attached to an alternator".

Seriously though people, if you don't live 3 steps to a cave, you need to bust a whole through the foundation in your home and start digging and don't stop until you have a few potential exits some thousands of feet apart.  Then fill them in that you can dig your way out in a short time, but they'll not be obvious to anyone as a human burrow.  Maybe get your whole neighborhood in on connecting up some tunnels and share with each other where they're booby trapped and take care to place camera surveillance near the entrance.

 

rocyahsoul said:



Tue, 2008-10-28 10:58

Intellectually bankrupt?  Look in the mirror fool.

The elite are turning those memorial panels into robot attack jets (x45) and space nuclear power plants to feed their space lasers and microwaves.  They already have enough explosives to demolish the surface of the planet 15X.  

They just pocketed ALL the cash by a 600 trillion dollar derivatives market which dwarfs the real economy by bets on stocks failing...  And you're calling them "intellectually bankrupt" while you think things are going to get better in this nuclear ice age world oil production decline...

Either you're the most clever propaganda writer, or you're amongst the biggest dupes of all time.  I'm guessing propagandist, based on your seeming ignorance of where the money obviously went.

The only solution that's going to keep anyone alive is bringing enough sun light lamps, permanent magnets, wire coil and seeds under ground with you to ride out the nuclear hostility.  

What would be nice after that is direct democracy and calorie economics.  The elimination of cash as a means of transaction for all time.  Human effort MUST be repaid in human effort and NOT in material nor intellectual property.  If you don't want to share your intellectual property then there's not a stick big enough in this whole place to deliver what you got coming to your a$$.  

Bon Voy Agee numnuts,

Dan

http://www.lamegame.name

opendemocracy said:



Tue, 2008-10-28 10:39

I continue to wonder what Ann has in mind as a mechanism for allocating capital to projects. If capital is "cheap but not easy", then some institution(s) must be rationing capital. What are these institutions? On what principles do they operate? Is this some sort of third way? Not micro-planning, not market .... but what?

We know this dilemma from the National Health Service, which makes treatment "cheap/free but not easy". Multiply the scale and complexity of the NHS by several thousands, and you have the problem of allocating capital.

Ann's system criticisms strike a real chord. But where, since the 2003 book, is the detailed constructive agenda?

Tony

Dr S Jones (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-10-28 10:24

No evidence is offered to support Ann Pettifor's assertion that MoveOn has "reclaim(ed) the political agenda".

The Democratic Presidential candidate abandoned the MoveOn agenda on campaign funding, telecomms immunity, drilling in Alaska, and many other positions.

Is wishful thinking now an acceptable substitute for evidence? Is making unsupported assertions at OpenDemocracy now the norm?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options