Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 92

Thread: "Credit Crunch"

  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Wasnt sure if that was sarcasim ?

    If AIG had gone under it would have been the end of Capitalism, bye bye loans bye bye pensions bye bye mortgages bye bye the Western World
    Stewart - are you identifiying a potential link between AIG and LHC? Do you mean that there would be no more Ceroc?

    AIG/HBOS/LHC? All things must pass...........

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    61
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: "Credit Crunch"


  3. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bedfordshire
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Interested to receive the views of those working in the City - was the primary cause of the start of the troubles people in the US defaulitng on sub prime mortgages, or was it the financial sector creating and trading in derivatives they didn't understand the full implications of, or a bit of both ?

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by marcusj View Post
    Interested to receive the views of those working in the City - was the primary cause of the start of the troubles people in the US defaulitng on sub prime mortgages, or was it the financial sector creating and trading in derivatives they didn't understand the full implications of, or a bit of both ?
    Well there would not have been any defaults - if the money had not been lent in the first place.

    As banks/financial institutions became more expert in financial wizardry then, as the regulatory framework loosened up (together with lower interest rates) - then all the ingredients are there for more risk taking.

    Interesting to hear the description of how the Halifax Building Society was formed back c. 1850. The guys got together for a coffee and wrote in an exercise book to the effect, we will take savings from the local community and then lend money to the local community for buying houses.

    In recent times, that model changed so with the globalisation of financial markets the effects ripple through the world. Who knows who is exposed to what risks?

    I sense there is a lot more to come............more banking consolidation for sure. More 'scares' (there is nothing to be frightened of really - but that's another thread). And longer term, US defence spending is likely to suffer (at least in relative terms) - as the dollar drops and fiscal changes come in to play - so what will that mean? Will China or Russia become 'top dog'? Or will Ceroc gain world domination? Only time will tell.
    After spending time in China in 2006, I remarked that it was more capitalist than the USA. Now with Fannie and Freddie under the wing of the government the USA is moving more towards being a socialist republic (see FT today for a good analysis of that).......

    Time for a rule change to allow Arnie to become the boss?

    And where is the great British leader of our times?

    Nick Clegg anyone?
    David Cameron?
    Gordon Brown? .....not enough rofl's to fit on the page.

  5. #65
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    61
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by marcusj View Post
    Interested to receive the views of those working in the City - was the primary cause of the start of the troubles people in the US defaulitng on sub prime mortgages, or was it the financial sector creating and trading in derivatives they didn't understand the full implications of, or a bit of both ?
    You are right! It is everything you say

    But I don't agree that derivative trading is to blame just because things have gone sour. Trading in Futures and Options has aided immensely to create healthy economic growth globally and many can argue that this sector might see us through these times. To understand the what went wrong we have to look at the history of the Derivates as the industry has gone through changes over the years

    CBOT (Chicago Board of Trade) founded in 1848 - the first organised Futures market for grains. The Grain Market literally exploded! These were very good times indeed! Farmers were in the biz - their produce would secure prices whether or not it was a good crop or not because of the concept of Futures i.e. agreeing to buy and sell a standard quantity of a specified asset on a fixed future date at a price agreed today. Around this time, the first customized option contract were offered.

    1970’s: Dawn of Financial Derivatives - Good Economic Times
    - Introduction of standardized options
    - Deregulation of foreign exchange rates. So when foreign exchange rates became free floating, new currency markets (example Eurodollar) developed and also markets for trading customized forward contracts in foreign currencies were formed. The players were and still are domestic international banks who set the stage for the banking industry to become more involved in trading of other types of financial derivatives.

    1980’s: Age of Deregulation - Good Economic Times and ofcourse the "Yuppie" era!
    The idea - to create products designed to alleviate the risk exposure to “certain situations” and “certain players” Banks were not the only ones profiting from financial derivatives designed to pass on the risks elsewhere - investment banking firms (derivatives dealers) soon joined in this space of derivative markets.

    1990’s: Electronic Trading - Still good economic times
    Saw a period where the Exchanges went though changes - some merged, some consolidated but they all had one thing in common - the need for less regulation. Aside from organisational changes, derivative exchanges changed the way they traded and moved from the floor to the “screen” and electronic trading was born. Many did not fully understand the topic of risk management systems and this coupled with less regulation resulted in derivatives dealers possibly trading above limits. However, in today’s climate, investors appetite for risk has reached it’s lowest level ever as they adopt the “most risk-adverse mindset yet recorded” as reported in CITY-AM

    21st Century - yes here we are. Credit Crunch. The general consensus London and New York are the world’s primary markets for derivatives.



    Bibi

    (Source: Futures Industry).
    In terms of size, today the U.S. accounts for almost 35% of futures and options trading worldwide. However, the Korea Stock Exchange is the largest derivative exchange in the world. The second largest by volume is the Eurex (German-Swiss), followed by the Chicago Board of Trade, the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange, the Paris bourse, the New York Mercantile Exchange, the Bolsa de Mercadorias & Futuros of Brazil, and the Chicago Board Options Exchange. Note that in 2001, these exchanges traded in aggregate 70 million derivative contracts
    Last edited by Bibi; 18th-September-2008 at 10:30 PM.

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bedfordshire
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by Bibi View Post
    You are right! It is everything you say

    But I don't agree that derivative trading is to blame just because things have gone sour. Trading in Futures and Options has aided immensely to create healthy economic growth globally and many can argue that this sector might see us through these times. To understand the what went wrong we have to look at the history of the Derivates as the industry has gone through changes over the years

    CBOT (Chicago Board of Trade) founded in 1848 - the first organised Futures market for grains. The Grain Market literally exploded! These were very good times indeed! Farmers were in the biz - their produce would secure prices whether or not it was a good crop or not because of the concept of Futures i.e. agreeing to buy and sell a standard quantity of a specified asset on a fixed future date at a price agreed today. Around this time, the first customized option contract were offered.

    1970’s: Dawn of Financial Derivatives - Good Economic Times
    - Introduction of standardized options
    - Deregulation of foreign exchange rates. So when foreign exchange rates became free floating, new currency markets (example Eurodollar) developed and also markets for trading customized forward contracts in foreign currencies were formed. The players were and still are domestic international banks who set the stage for the banking industry to become more involved in trading of other types of financial derivatives.

    1980’s: Age of Deregulation - Good Economic Times and ofcourse the "Yuppie" era!
    The idea - to create products designed to alleviate the risk exposure to “certain situations” and “certain players” Banks were not the only ones profiting from financial derivatives designed to pass on the risks elsewhere - investment banking firms (derivatives dealers) soon joined in this space of derivative markets.

    1990’s: Electronic Trading - Still good economic times
    Saw a period where the Exchanges went though changes - some merged, some consolidated but they all had one thing in common - the need for less regulation. Aside from organisational changes, derivative exchanges changed the way they traded and moved from the floor to the “screen” and electronic trading was born. Many did not fully understand the topic of risk management systems and this coupled with less regulation resulted in derivatives dealers possibly trading above limits. However, in today’s climate, investors appetite for risk has reached it’s lowest level ever as they adopt the “most risk-adverse mindset yet recorded” as reported in CITY-AM

    21st Century - yes here we are. Credit Crunch. The general consensus London and New York are the world’s primary markets for derivatives.



    Bibi

    (Source: Futures Industry).
    In terms of size, today the U.S. accounts for almost 35% of futures and options trading worldwide. However, the Korea Stock Exchange is the largest derivative exchange in the world. The second largest by volume is the Eurex (German-Swiss), followed by the Chicago Board of Trade, the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange, the Paris bourse, the New York Mercantile Exchange, the Bolsa de Mercadorias & Futuros of Brazil, and the Chicago Board Options Exchange. Note that in 2001, these exchanges traded in aggregate 70 million derivative contracts
    Thanks Bibi - an interesting and informative reply.

    Maybe I have a naive view but for me futures and options in the early days were simple and understandable not only to those that created them but to those that used them, they allowed people to buy certainty with the people selling the financial products an opportunity to turn a profit.

    In more recent years I think things have gone a bit haywire with even the people creating the financial products not understanding their full implications and potential impacts.

    Once again I must be naive, even though I am an accountant and operate in the financial world, I have real trouble with the concept of people making huge sums of money gambling with others people's money, all the upside and little of the downside, and the world somehow thinks it's more honourable than the shady bloke in the betting shop putting his own money on the horses.

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    On the latest situation a couple (or 3) observations:

    1. This article by Will Hutton is the best analysis I have read so far - in terms of some of the underlying themes. Will Hutton: I've watched the economy for 30 years. Now I'm truly scared | Comment is free | The Observer
    (It is also interesting to read that Hank Paulson negotiated a tax-free salary when he took his government job. Nice one Hank).

    2. The TV journo's are a bit out of their depth I sense. Poor Robert Peston is on every BBC radio/TV news programme - he looks knackered, shagged out and sometimes looks like he's been on the lash. His delivery is-so-deliberate-and-yet-he-talks-such-drivel. "We're all doomed......".

    3. Although the prospect of another 1 million unemployed is quite daunting - there are some potential advantages to a downturn: roads and trains less busy for example, with consequent benefical effects on CO2 emissions.....

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bedfordshire
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by JiveLad View Post
    On the latest situation a couple (or 3) observations:

    1. This article by Will Hutton is the best analysis I have read so far - in terms of some of the underlying themes. Will Hutton: I've watched the economy for 30 years. Now I'm truly scared | Comment is free | The Observer
    Just read the article - excellent !

  9. #69
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by JiveLad View Post
    (It is also interesting to read that Hank Paulson negotiated a tax-free salary when he took his government job. Nice one Hank).
    Actually, what Paulson negotiated was that he could sell out his ~$500 million state in Goldman Sachs without paying tax. Which saved him about $100 million. The tax paid on a $200k salary is probably not high on his list of concerns.

    On the Goldman Sachs connection, it does seem a little odd how the Feds decided "we need to demonstrate moral hazard" for just long enough to take out Lehman and ML, but started mass bailouts again just as GS started looking deeply vulnerable.

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by David Franklin View Post
    Actually, what Paulson negotiated was that he could sell out his ~$500 million state in Goldman Sachs without paying tax. Which saved him about $100 million. The tax paid on a $200k salary is probably not high on his list of concerns.

    On the Goldman Sachs connection, it does seem a little odd how the Feds decided "we need to demonstrate moral hazard" for just long enough to take out Lehman and ML, but started mass bailouts again just as GS started looking deeply vulnerable.
    Yes....I stand corrected. My point was about the principle of being selfish and not paying tax like everyone else...............

    I guess he was probably settling some old scores with Lehman and ML first.

  11. #71
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by JiveLad View Post
    Stewart - are you identifiying a potential link between AIG and LHC? Do you mean that there would be no more Ceroc?

    AIG/HBOS/LHC? All things must pass...........
    Apologises I meant the Western civilised world .ceroc would therefore me unaffected

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    61
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by marcusj View Post
    In more recent years I think things have gone a bit haywire with even the people creating the financial products not understanding their full implications and potential impacts.
    This is correct!

    Quote Originally Posted by marcusj View Post
    Once again I must be naive, even though I am an accountant and operate in the financial world, I have real trouble with the concept of people making huge sums of money gambling with others people's money,
    Ahh .... this is the society we live in. Unfortunately, those that have lots of it, can get away with doing what they like and making the rest of us pay for their mistakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcusj View Post
    and the world somehow thinks it's more honourable than the shady bloke in the betting shop putting his own money on the horses.
    This is what I thought when I first started out, but no, it's complexity is far greater than the concept implies - many algorithms and formulae get applied in working out the figures.

    In yesterday's news, the problem is to do with "credit" - and it appears that most of our world's banks and financial instutions have run out of the 'lubricating oil' that is needed to facilitate all the borrowing mechanisms between global instutions (or in other words the "libor")

    Yes, we are in deep s**t!! In the meantime, trading will be thin (not for gold anyway ) and positions limited as traders continue to err on the side of caution. The other problem of course is that no one actually knows what extent this could go to and it is not the end of the banking woes - and one is welcome to make their own conclusions ....

    Bibi

  13. #73
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bedfordshire
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by Bibi View Post
    This is what I thought when I first started out, but no, it's complexity is far greater than the concept implies - many algorithms and formulae get applied in working out the figures.

    Bibi
    Working out the form of horses or the complexities of derivatives ??!!

  14. #74
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    The key change in recent years has been the deregulation of the financial markets. In the past, there were limits on how financial institutions were allowed to behave. These have gradually been removed, starting with Regean, Thatcher and their ilk in the 80s, mostly in response to a couple of big economic shocks in the 70s. The deregulation slowed down after the '87 crash. It picked up again in the mid-late 90s (John McCain was a cheerleader for the deregulation), with a combination of technology changes and continued deregulation.

    The net effect of these changes was to create a largely unregulated market. The argument for doing it was that regulation limited the flow of capital. If someone had a good idea for a new business, or wanted a house, or wanted to invest in further their business the capital available was being limited by regulation. By removing regulation, it improved the flow of capital. The presumption was that market forces would drive capital towards the most productive areas. In many ways, this was true: the changes did free up a lot of capital and made funding more accessible. The wider availability of mortgages was only the tip of the iceberg. Essentially, these changes put capital at the mercy of the market far more than it had ever been in the past.

    One of the biggest weaknesses of markets is their ability to handle uncertainty and risk across time. Markets are designed to trade things and determine the value through the trading process. When the true value is determined in the future, they tend to be weaker. When there is major uncertainty around the future value, they get very shaky. With mortgages, the risks revolve around whether or not they will be paid off. This risk is uncertain.

    But markets also attach value to risk: if something is risky, the market will expect a higher return (if I buy a portfolio of mortgages, I'll figure into the price an expectation that some of them will default and change a premium to cover the expected losses). But if I'm selling a portfolio of mortgages, I want to maximise the price I receive for those mortgages today. So I would attempt to reduce the perceptions of future risk associated with the portfolio. The problem is the value of the risk is based on perception, and perceptions are always unreliable. The people who are the markets made the sorts of decisions that people always make: and this created a market that massively overstate the current and future value of financial assets.

    One of the problems with markets is markets fail. Even if they don't, they are cyclic and individual actors within markets will fail. The costs of market failure and the costs of firm failures are never well built into market exchanges. When the market gets thoroughly embedded in the society and when the actors get very large, the costs of failure get enormous and are not included in the market's behaviour (in economics, this is called an externality). So there were two layers of risk that were poorly built into the price financial instruments in the market.

    Now, perceptions have shifted and the major institutions suddenly find they have a lot of debts on their books that are perceived as bad and won't be repaid, removing them from assets as either write-offs or liabilities. Some of them are positioned to absorb these bad debts (eg CitiGroup) others are not (eg Lehmans). This is compounded by the downgrading of credit ratings, increasing the costs of servicing the loans. Now the big institutions are faced with a massive loss of assets coupled with a huge increase in expenses. The problem is finance is a promiscuous industry: if one of them catches something, everyone gets it.

    All of this is a product of an unrestrained market with significant risk, uncertainty and externalities. One of the valid roles of government in a market economy is to ensure that markets take account of externalities (eg, by ensuring that participants have insurance) and to minimise uncertainty (eg, by requiring disclosure).

  15. #75
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post

    ....... etc

    All of this is a product of an unrestrained market with significant risk, uncertainty and externalities. One of the valid roles of government in a market economy is to ensure that markets take account of externalities (eg, by ensuring that participants have insurance) and to minimise uncertainty (eg, by requiring disclosure).

    What does having Insurance do ??

    Im afraid all of this Toxic stuff was heaviliy 'Insured'

    I could let you read 30,000 pages of Due Diligence reports before all this happened

    What should the Government do ?

    There has always been lots of disclosure just no one knows what it all means/meant
    Last edited by stewart38; 1st-October-2008 at 03:06 PM.

  16. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    What does having Insurance do ??

    Im afraid all of this Toxic stuff was heaviliy 'Insured'
    Ahh - no. The credit guarantees for Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were examples of the Government stepping in and (in effect) providing insurance for the securities. They did this because the mortgage securities were not insured. Quite the contrary, insurance firms often invest in mortgage securities to protect their funds. The whole point of an investment security is that it has risk and return associated with it. Should you insure it (most commonly, insure the capital), you reduce the risks, but you increase the costs thereby reducing the return. Most of the problematic securities were given high credit ratings, and thus insurance would be a bad expense. Instead, you include the risk, reflective of the credit rating, into the price.

    Requiring insurance would also be based on the credit rating. But if an insurance agency is responsible for returning invested capital, that would effectively police the quality of the credit rating. The insurance companies wouldn't put their necks on the line unless the credit rating was solid. You can also bet that the insurance companies would require full disclosure of all due diligence reports on the investment funds (as an insurer, you have different rights than as an investor).

    By requiring the major funds (ie pension and insurance backed funds) to have a percentage of their holdings insured, you can guarantee that the level of due diligence would be significantly higher. This would bring the risks into the market.
    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    I could let you read 30,000 pages of Due Diligence reports before all this happened
    One of the major problems with the sub-prime collapse last year was the lack of due diligence. On one hand, as a direct result of deregulation in the late 90s, it became significantly easier to create complex debt-backed securities with a combination of good and bad debts mixed in. It's hard to do due diligence on this sort of fund, because the risk is determined by the risks of the individual mortgages. There was a (bad) assumption that mortgagers would be reasonably sensible in their lending.

    Where it was conducted, there were warnings generated. But due diligence warnings are not binding and were collectively ignored by the investment banks. There are a bunch of court cases going on at present because corporate investors bought mortgage securities from banks that had conducted due diligence then failed to disclose negative findings in the prospectus. The reports themselves are confidential between the commissioner and the consulting firm.

    One suspects the firms that are in relatively good order now paid more attention to this sort of due diligence than the firms that are in trouble.
    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    What should the Government do ?
    Exactly what I said. Require higher standards that would mitigate the market failures. One simple change would be to empower Moodys, S&P and Fitch to access all due diligence reports (and require formal notification and filing of due diligence with the SEC). Had this happened, a lot of the risk would have been bought into the market about 3-5 years ago, before it got completely out of hand.

    Another would be target the mortgage lending directly: put regulations in place limiting some of the worse excesses of mortgage lending (for example, 100% mortgages). This would probably work best as industry self-regulation. The Government's role would be to get them together and tell them to regulate themselves properly or they'll step in and do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    There has always been lots of disclosure just no one knows what it all means/meant
    See above, on due diligence: there were serious failures in disclosure. The sellers knew what the disclosure would have meant, but chose not to disclose. The buyers failed to ask many questions.

    The buyers (corporate investors) wanted the valuations to be true, so didn't question them too hard. The sellers (investment banks) wanted to make as much money as possible, so told their own story. When buyers and sellers both willing to fool themselves, they are both fooled. That is a market failure.

  17. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    3,166
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by Bibi View Post
    ........ .....! In the meantime, trading will be thin (not for gold anyway ) ...........

    Are people actually buying Gold and putting their safe or burying in the garden

    Or are they just getting a piece of paper “ I promise to pay the bearer” and giving the piece of paper to the bank for safe keeping

  18. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Quote Originally Posted by philsmove View Post
    Are people actually buying Gold and putting their safe or burying in the garden

    Or are they just getting a piece of paper “ I promise to pay the bearer” and giving the piece of paper to the bank for safe keeping
    People are buying gold ingots, medallions (haha) etc.........the goldsmiths are very busy! I read this today on the global dashboard (which was taken from an FT article):

    ----------------------------

    Investors in gold are demanding “unprecedented” amounts of bullion bars and coins and moving them into their own vaults as fears about the health of the global financial system deepen. Industry executives and bankers at the London Bullion Market Association annual meeting said the extent of the move into physical gold was unseen and driven by the very rich.

    “There is an enormous pick-up in investment demand. I have never seen a market like this in my 33-year career,” said Jeremy Charles, chairman of the LBMA. “The gold refineries cannot produce enough bars.” The move comes as fears grow among investors over the losses at investment vehicles previously considered almost risk-free, such as money funds. Philip Clewes-Garner, associate director of precious metals at HSBC, added that investors were not flying into gold simply because they saw it as a haven amid Wall Street’s woes. “It is a flight into gold because it is a physical asset,” he said.

  19. #79
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Its just getting worse

    Is there no end in site


    BBC NEWS | The Reporters | Robert Peston

    I now want 35% inflation

    Given interests rates cuts dont = Mortgage cuts or loan cuts

    Lets get the cost of my borrowing in real terms way down

    ps Of copurse 35% inflation wont happen

  20. #80
    An Eclectic Toaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,042
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: "Credit Crunch"

    Fascinating little story concerning Iceland (the country that is, not Kerry Catona's meal ticket), which is currently nearly bankrupt and trying to get bailout cash from other governments - the rest of Scandinavia has already been putting money in.

    Now, they've turned to Russia for a 4billion euro loan - appropriate given the way the Russian mafia has been using Icelandic banks for money laundering (allegedly). However, they may be prepared to let Russia have access to an old abandoned US Air Force base at Keflavik as part of the deal (link). Obviously such a facility would have massive security implications: Iceland is part of Nato, but it looks like they might use this as a bargaining chip to get Europe or the US to help out. Cold War politics in the marketplace: who'da thunkit, eh?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •