LibertyHQ forums

Educating in Economics, History, and Philosophy and Organizing for Liberty
It is currently Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:44 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Welcome
Welcome to libertyhq

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 1:15 pm 
Offline
VIP Member

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:58 pm
Posts: 2149
I'd like to write an article summarizing a Rothbard lecture, where he mentions 16 mistakes AE corrected in economics, and he says the mainstream in his time still believed in many of them. He wrote it a good while ago, so I need help to know which, if any, of the points he raises are still accepted by today's economic schools, be it neoclassical, Marxist, the various flavors of Keynes, anything.

So here's a sneak preview of the article. Please enlighten me about what you can.

16 Classical Economic Mistakes that AE Fixed Up Before Mises, But the Mainstream Still Believes in.

All the 16 were corrected before Mises, by Menger and Bohm Bawerk and Frank Feder.
Mises found some more, and we’ll get to them in another article, hopefully.
Source for this article:
Mises and Austrian Economics Murray N Rothbard.mp3
and Mises and Austrian Economics Murray N Rothbard_2.pdf

In other words, I’m summarizing Rothbard. I’m not sure when he made the presentation. He mentions computers and calculators being cheap, and the Communist countries still being Communist, so that may give some clue. I’m also not sure which of these blunders are no longer believed by the mainstream. So the format will be as follows. I’ll name the fallacy, then quote Rothbard about it in italic font, then mention what little I know about it. I’ll put a star next to the ones I’m not sure of. Without further ado, the big 16.

1. Too much aggregate, too little individual.
...all the other schools of economics...deal with aggregates, groups, classes, wholes of one
sort or another, without focusing on the individual first and building up
from there.

Smiling Dave: Yep, this one is still with us.
Devil’s Advocate: But Dave, you don’t explain why it’s wrong.
SD: That’s beyond the scope of the article, which is very long already. Just going to list the blunders, not refute them.

*2. Consumer prices are determined by cost of production [when the truth is vice versa].
...value, economic value, price, was determined by the cost of production...
SD: I’ve seen this one around still.

3. Labor Theory of Value.
...the cost of production embodied in some fashion in the product, and specifically
by the quantity of labor hours embodied in it.

SD: In another mp3 in the series, his listeners tell Rothbard that no professional economists, not even Marxist
economists, believe in that anymore. But among sociologists, fiction writers, and the like, people who are Marxists
but have not actually studied any economics, the Labor Theory of Value is alive and kicking.

*4. False Dichotomy of Exchange Value and Use Value.
...value in use and value in exchange, ... and we have to deal with exchange value,
and forget about use value. You see right away this sets up the conditions for a whole bunch of
left wing thought in the late 19th, early 20th century. It’s still going, I
suppose,...production for use and production for profit.
It immediately sets that up somehow as a big distinction.

SD: I’ve seen some of this around. Don’t know if mainstream econ, or even Marxists, still believes in this.

5. Preoccupation With Numbers.
...science meant measurement in those days for these people. And so therefore, how do
you measure value, how do you measure changes? He’s looking for
some hard quantity...

SD: Oh, yes, worse than ever.

*6. Distribution Theory.
...they had a separate thing called distribution, theory...trying to figure out...who decides
how much of the national output goes to wages, how much goes to profits, how much goes to landlords?

SD: Don’t know if this is still around.

*7. Class Conflict.
...a class struggle between these three mighty groups, [land, labor, and capital].
In other words, the good is produced somewhere, first they produce
it, then they fight for who gets the different shares of income
.
SD: Most people still believe this. I don’t know if mainstream econ also does. I get the impression that not.

*8. Iron Law of Wages.
...wages are determined by the iron law of wages, the Malthusian iron
law, down at the subsistence level...Everybody gets the lowest possible wages...

SD: I think Marxists think this true, as do labor unions. Don’t know about mainstream econ.

*9. Landlords are Parasites Who Deserve to Be Paid Zero Rent.
...evil, unproductive landlords, getting an increasing share
of the national product...

SD: I think this is still believed by laymen, and I think by Keynes as well. Don’t know if the mainstream still thinks so.

*10. Focus on Equilibrium.
...focused totally on nonexistent, unreal,long-run
equilibrium. This is done right now by modern microeconomics, and
macroeconomics, for that matter...In long-run equilibrium you
don’t have to forecast anything; nothing ever changes.

SD: Dunno.

*11. Forgot about the Entrepreneur.
...they don’t talk about entrepreneurs because entrepreneurs deal with change and
uncertainty. You make a profit if you can forecast better than the next
guy. You make losses if you can’t forecast. In long-run equilibrium you
don’t have to forecast anything; nothing ever changes...So the entrepreneur
then becomes a pain in the neck. It’s messing up your neat
mathematical system.

SD: My impression is that this is still going strong.

*12.Perfect Knowledge.
Since nothing ever changes, everybody has perfect knowledge, as they
call it, perfect knowledge, everybody’s in perfect competition, there’s no
uncertainty, no risk, no profits, there are no losses.

SD: I think there’s a thing now called Rational Expectations, which I think is a revival of this old chestnut.
Need to know more about it.

13. Micro and Macro Never Meet.
...separate, divide totally the macro from the micro sphere.
We’re all familiar with that, those of us who take current economics...
Micro, you learn about supply and demand or whatever,
and then suddenly you leap into macro
and nobody talks about supply and demand,
they all talk about growth curves and velocity and all that, totally different.

...It’s like two hermetically sealed spheres.
There’s the microsphere where things are going on, it’s fairly
understandable, supply and demand, prices and all that. Then there’s
the macro sphere, totally cut off from the micro, where you have
money and prices bouncing up and down, with no relationship between the
two.

SD: Alive and kicking.

*14. Don’t Understand Interest.
...the poor anti-usury people could never
figure out... what their justification for interest
is, interest on a pure loan. They could understand about risk, they
understood about uncertainty and all that; they just didn’t understand
about, why should people be able to charge three percent or eight
percent or whatever on a pure loan.

SD: Keynes believed this, dunno what the mainstream thinks nowadays.

*15. Capital is a Homogeneous Lump.
...capital...as a homogeneous lump, which modern economics still tends to
say, just add more capital, as if it’s somehow a blob out there.

Capital is a latticework, it’s a network, a structure which all has to fit in
together. And by the way, only the free market can fit it in. Only
entrepreneurs, the profit and loss test, profit and loss, incentive, and
free price system can do the fitting.

SD: My guess is that this is still around.

*16. It Takes Time to Make Stuff, and Some Things Need More Time than Others.
...modern economics still has not learned, capital takes time, production
takes time. Capital is a time structure.
Some goods are very close to consumers, like producing Wonder Bread,
where the retailer is very close to the consumer.
On the other hand, machinery, the iron ore that goes into making the
machinery that produces Wonder Bread is way up the structure, takes
a lot of time to get to the earlier phase of production or a higher order
of production. So we have then production taking time.

SD: I don’t think they get this yet.

So there you have it. As you can see, I need more info on the latest mainstream take on 12 out of 16.

DA: Dave, you would have failed a mainstream econ test. For shame.
SD: We can’t all be perfect.

_________________
That makes perfect sense...In the Twilight Zone.
1. My humble blog


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 4:07 pm 
Offline
VIP Member

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Posts: 283
SmilingDave wrote:
All the 16 were corrected before Mises, by Menger and Bohm Bawerk and Frank Feder.

It's Frank Fetter.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 5:00 pm 
Offline
VIP Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:30 am
Posts: 308
Highscores: 5
SmilingDave wrote:
*2. Consumer prices are determined by cost of production [when the truth is vice versa].
...value, economic value, price, was determined by the cost of production...
SD: I’ve seen this one around still.

3. Labor Theory of Value.
...the cost of production embodied in some fashion in the product, and specifically
by the quantity of labor hours embodied in it.

SD: In another mp3 in the series, his listeners tell Rothbard that no professional economists, not even Marxist
economists, believe in that anymore. But among sociologists, fiction writers, and the like, people who are Marxists
but have not actually studied any economics, the Labor Theory of Value is alive and kicking.

*4. False Dichotomy of Exchange Value and Use Value.
...value in use and value in exchange, ... and we have to deal with exchange value,
and forget about use value. You see right away this sets up the conditions for a whole bunch of
left wing thought in the late 19th, early 20th century. It’s still going, I
suppose,...production for use and production for profit.
It immediately sets that up somehow as a big distinction.


SD: I’ve seen some of this around. Don’t know if mainstream econ, or even Marxists, still believes in this.


Well, usual microeconomic theory is not based around that anymore, but it is not impossible for retard economists and economic students to forget. Many layman think those are iron laws of economics.

SmilingDave wrote:
*6. Distribution Theory.
...they had a separate thing called distribution, theory...trying to figure out...who decides
how much of the national output goes to wages, how much goes to profits, how much goes to landlords?



Dead.

SmilingDave wrote:
*7. Class Conflict.
...a class struggle between these three mighty groups, [land, labor, and capital].
In other words, the good is produced somewhere, first they produce
it, then they fight for who gets the different shares of income
.


Dead. Most people believe in the politico-economical hegemony of large financial capitalists.

SmilingDave wrote:
*8. Iron Law of Wages.
...wages are determined by the iron law of wages, the Malthusian iron
law, down at the subsistence level...Everybody gets the lowest possible wages...



Most people recognize that other factors matter, but tend to be a bit confused like: "This guy is 'qualified', he will get a good wage.". People also tend to think sociologically, in terms of capitalist-manager-worker relations. Mainstream economics is not based around that anymore.

SmilingDave wrote:
*9. Landlords are Parasites Who Deserve to Be Paid Zero Rent.
...evil, unproductive landlords, getting an increasing share
of the national product...



As in the first.

SmilingDave wrote:
*10. Focus on Equilibrium.
...focused totally on nonexistent, unreal,long-run
equilibrium. This is done right now by modern microeconomics, and
macroeconomics, for that matter...In long-run equilibrium you
don’t have to forecast anything; nothing ever changes.



Research branches of economics are trying to use dynamical models (a small branch) and time-variable economic models based on equilibrium (a large branch). I've not heard a single significant result.

SmilingDave wrote:
*14. Don’t Understand Interest.
...the poor anti-usury people could never
figure out... what their justification for interest
is, interest on a pure loan. They could understand about risk, they
understood about uncertainty and all that; they just didn’t understand
about, why should people be able to charge three percent or eight
percent or whatever on a pure loan.

SD: Keynes believed this, dunno what the mainstream thinks nowadays.


Price of money!!

Quote:
*16. It Takes Time to Make Stuff, and Some Things Need More Time than Others.
...modern economics still has not learned, capital takes time, production
takes time. Capital is a time structure.
Some goods are very close to consumers, like producing Wonder Bread,
where the retailer is very close to the consumer.
On the other hand, machinery, the iron ore that goes into making the
machinery that produces Wonder Bread is way up the structure, takes
a lot of time to get to the earlier phase of production or a higher order
of production. So we have then production taking time.

SD: I don’t think they get this yet.

You are correct.

Keynes is troll, hence there are some points of him that you can't take seriously. Pay attention to what I'm saying: sometimes he is so unhelpful when he should be clear that determining whether he is being honest is an academic exercise.

_________________
The art of writing good discursive texts is a very complicated one. I fail and so do many others. But when others fail, my entire life-perceptions tear apart for 30 seconds. Such feeling is a mixture of pure rage, and ironically embarrassment, as I blame myself for other's mistakes. - DanielG

My first goal is to make more posts than mustang19. - DanielG

You can only demand if you have supplied. - A important law of economics


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 5:50 pm 
Offline
VIP Member

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:58 pm
Posts: 2149
Thank you Andrew, corrected.

Daniel, thank you for the detailed, informative, reply. I didn't understand some of what you wrote.

7. Class Conflict. Rothbard said that the Austrian theory is that nobody fights over who gets what, because everyone gets what he contributed to the final profit. The laborer added, say, $10 of value, so he will get paid $10, and so forth. Do you mean that there is no conflict because there is one Goliath that no one can fight with? Is that the mainstream economic explanation of how the profits are divvied up?

9. Landlords are parasites. You wrote, "As in the first." Do you mean that maybe some people here and there still think so, but it is not mainstream economics?

10. Focus on Equilibrium. Would it be fair to summarize by saying that there is some recognition that we ought to think about change, but it's only at the frontiers of research?

14. Don't understand interest. You wrote, "Price of money!!" Do you mean that it is now accepted that it's OK to charge people for borrowing money, and that the price is determined by supply and demand, like all prices?

So we still have 11. Entrepreneur, 12. Perfect Knowledge, 15. Capital is a Blob. Be very grateful for response to those.

_________________
That makes perfect sense...In the Twilight Zone.
1. My humble blog


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 7:16 pm 
Offline
VIP Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:48 pm
Posts: 1562
SmilingDave wrote:
15. Capital is a Blob. Be very grateful for response to those.


Certainly still around. If you were to ask Paul Krugman whether capital is homogenous, he would presumably reply in the negative, but he clearly still treats it as though it is. To wit: his comments on the business cycle. He doesn't seem to understand (or somehow doesn't think it matters) that a widget producing machine cannot produce gadgets, or at least takes time to be retrofitted to that new purpose. This is part of the whole macro/micro problem, and also the mathematical problem. Once you start talking about quantitative relationships and writing equations, it becomes impossible to treat capital as anything other than a magnitude.

_________________
nihil per populum omne pro populo

A.E.I.O.U.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:57 pm
Posts: 2602
[quote="SmilingDave"]
1. Too much aggregate, too little individual.


Kind of. Certainly in macro, far less in macro. In micro it's gonna vary a bit between economists and subfield, but I would certainly say that this isn't universally applicable.

Quote:
*2. Consumer prices are determined by cost of production [when the truth is vice versa].


A lot of micro price theory is nearly identical between Austrian and mainstream, but costs of production certainly have a role in the short run in determining price in both theories, in the long run this is not true, however. Constant return to scale firms have horizontal supply curves in the long run.

Quote:
3. Labor Theory of Value.


Not as such except insofar as it relates to 2

Quote:
*4. False Dichotomy of Exchange Value and Use Value.


Definitely not. Dealing with water/diamond paradox with marginal utility is standard in pretty much every micro textbook

Quote:
5. Preoccupation With Numbers.


Yuuuup, except I think that it could be better described as "obsession"

Quote:
*6. Distribution Theory.


This is an Austrian thing too. Rothbard spends significant portions of MES talking about the distribution of income, I believe Riesmann does the same. I actually saw way more of it out of Rothbard than from mainstream econ, which doesn't focus on it too terribly much.

Quote:
*7. Class Conflict.


A little bit with monopsony, but the real home would probably be in trade theory, where they have a decent point on this relating to tariffs and the like. Some win and some lose whenever national protection is lifted, so you could argue it's appropriate there. No free market stuff to my knowledge though.

Quote:
*8. Iron Law of Wages.


Lol absolutely not. Only a fool believes in that. Simple wage data disproves it.

Quote:
*9. Landlords are Parasites Who Deserve to Be Paid Zero Rent.


Barely touched on by mainstream, which means that they don't think this, although because of this they are probably more susceptible to the belief.

Quote:
*10. Focus on Equilibrium.


Absolutely, except in macro... Kind of.

Quote:
*11. Forgot about the Entrepreneur.


Entrepreneurs are there but far less emphasized and the role is restricted.

Quote:
*12.Perfect Knowledge.


No, imperfect information and assymetric information are routinely talked about. The role is a little different than in Austrian theory, however.

Quote:
13. Micro and Macro Never Meet.


Kind of. There has been a significant push in the direction for micro foundations of macro, but there are certainly large gaps, and it depends a bit from economist to economist.

Quote:
*14. Don’t Understand Interest.


Interest is kind of a *********** for everyone. There's even disagreements concerning it within Austrian circles (Reisman and Hulsmann disagree with Mises and each other)

Quote:
*15. Capital is a Homogeneous Lump.


Yes, but this assumption varies a little bit. Less present in micro than in macro, and less in macro than it has been in previous decades.

Quote:
*16. It Takes Time to Make Stuff, and Some Things Need More Time than Others.


Superficially accepted, but partially misunderstood and entirely unintegrated except in explaining how the interest rate expands business activity.
_________________
Joseph Schumpeter wrote:
If anything can be called obvious in this field, it is the fact that this intellectual is just a bundle of prejudices that are in most cases held with all the force of sincere conviction.


Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent


If you think I'm being unfair


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 4:21 am 
Offline
VIP Member

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:58 pm
Posts: 2149
Thank you Associationist, Neo.

1. Neo, about 11. Equilibrium, and 12. Entrepreneur. Rothbard said that the exclusive focus on equilibrium, which I get from him to mean a state of affairs where all forces have done their thing and there is no reason for anything to change, is what leads to throwing out the entrepreneur.

So if you say the mainstream is still focusing only on equilibrium, where does the entrepreneur fit into their scheme?

2. Also, since the mainstream's tool is making models, meaning a set of equations, where can an entrepreneur fit into a system of equations?

Just to be clear, an Entrepreneur means in this context someone who risks his money in a speculative venture that may lead to his losing all, because he thinks he will make a fortune, because he thinks he knows the future better than other people. He thinks that in the future rubber ducks will be coveted by everyone, and so he buys up rubber cheaply now [when no one else is making ducks, so it's cheap], and starts making rubber ducks. If he is right, he will be the only supplier of ducks at first, and will make a lot of money. Later, other people will move into the duck market and his profits will fall to the standard rate of profit in the economy.

So what equation describes this person's activities?

3. About 12, perfect knowledge. From what I see in wikipedia under Rational Expectations and Efficient market Hypothesis, the perfect knowledge assumption is alive and well.

4. Also, if there is asymmetric and imperfect info, how is there equilibrium [see Rothbard quote in OP that makes the same point, that equilibrium implies perfect info]? Info spreads and increases as time goes on. Or do they just assume that the existing state of ignorance is eternal?

_________________
That makes perfect sense...In the Twilight Zone.
1. My humble blog


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 4:50 am 
Offline
VIP Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:30 am
Posts: 308
Highscores: 5
When I said most people, this doesn't specially include mainstream economists, they usually don't care about a lot about class struggle. The division between land, labor and capital is something I don't see on mainstream significantly.

_________________
The art of writing good discursive texts is a very complicated one. I fail and so do many others. But when others fail, my entire life-perceptions tear apart for 30 seconds. Such feeling is a mixture of pure rage, and ironically embarrassment, as I blame myself for other's mistakes. - DanielG

My first goal is to make more posts than mustang19. - DanielG

You can only demand if you have supplied. - A important law of economics


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 5:25 am 
Offline
VIP Member

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:58 pm
Posts: 2149
Thank you once again Daniel, Andrew, Associationist, Neo. The article has seen the light of day, making full use of everyones valuable contributions.

http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/need-some-help-with-mainstream-econ-t2666.html

_________________
That makes perfect sense...In the Twilight Zone.
1. My humble blog


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:57 pm
Posts: 2602
[quote="SmilingDave"]
1. Neo, about 11. Equilibrium, and 12. Entrepreneur. Rothbard said that the exclusive focus on equilibrium, which I get from him to mean a state of affairs where all forces have done their thing and there is no reason for anything to change, is what leads to throwing out the entrepreneur.

So if you say the mainstream is still focusing only on equilibrium, where does the entrepreneur fit into their scheme?


Entrepreneurs are considered to be very accurate with their predictions and primarily associated with technological innovation. Mainstream economists do not believe that we are always in equilibrium, but they would usually say that we are very close much of the time (at least with short run partial equilibrium if you include monopoly power). So basically an entrepreneur implements new processes where others are lat to catch on. It's a much more reliable and static role for the most part. Industrial Organization sort of work breaks this down a little further into something more like the Austrian vision. There's some genuinely good stuff that comes out of IO on this front.

Quote:
2. Also, since the mainstream's tool is making models, meaning a set of equations, where can an entrepreneur fit into a system of equations?

Just to be clear, an Entrepreneur means in this context someone who risks his money in a speculative venture that may lead to his losing all, because he thinks he will make a fortune, because he thinks he knows the future better than other people. He thinks that in the future rubber ducks will be coveted by everyone, and so he buys up rubber cheaply now [when no one else is making ducks, so it's cheap], and starts making rubber ducks. If he is right, he will be the only supplier of ducks at first, and will make a lot of money. Later, other people will move into the duck market and his profits will fall to the standard rate of profit in the economy.

So what equation describes this person's activities?


Well the real answer is that no equation describes their activities. The mainstream economist might describe to you what the "rational" amount invested or produced would be based upon certain risk levels, but that would be about it. I've described this a little bit in a recent thread the distinction between "equilibrium as method" compared to "equilibrium as state or tendency", but basically you would simply observe equilibrium to see where we are headed based on entrepreneurial action.


Quote:
3. About 12, perfect knowledge. From what I see in wikipedia under Rational Expectations and Efficient market Hypothesis, the perfect knowledge assumption is alive and well.


Yeah more so in macro than in micro, particularly with the absolute horse **** that is new classical econ. Trust me that this is used commonly in a lot of micro work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry

Quote:
4. Also, if there is asymmetric and imperfect info, how is there equilibrium [see Rothbard quote in OP that makes the same point, that equilibrium implies perfect info]? Info spreads and increases as time goes on. Or do they just assume that the existing state of ignorance is eternal?


More the last sentence than anything else. It is generally assumed that there is a consistent gap in information that isn't corrected for, leading to an "imperfect equilibrium", although I believe that this is, once again, a short term partial equilibrium rather than a long term general equilibrium, although it wouldn't have to be that way.
_________________
Joseph Schumpeter wrote:
If anything can be called obvious in this field, it is the fact that this intellectual is just a bundle of prejudices that are in most cases held with all the force of sincere conviction.


Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent


If you think I'm being unfair


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Need Some Help With Mainstream Econ.
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:33 am
Posts: 3498
It's worth noting management theory and economics are closer to AE than "pure" mainstream economics, as in you will see more of an acknowledgement of the role of the entrepreneur and the heterogeneity of capital and the element of time.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

subSilver+ theme by Canver Software, sponsor Sanal Modifiye
suspicion-preferred