tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post3098056692120838141..comments2024-02-26T11:30:05.072-08:00Comments on winterspeak.com: S=I+(I-S)?winterspeakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13611241702356475764noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-64529273629194137802012-03-10T04:48:18.672-08:002012-03-10T04:48:18.672-08:00I realize that there is another thread but I made ...I realize that there is another thread but I made thus far only. There clearly seems some background massaging of definitions of commonly accepted terms. There is no problem with it if new terms can be shown to be better than the commonly accepted definitions.<br /><br />I like to view “budget surplus”, “retained profits” and “household savings” (obviously all flow) as conceptual equivalents which for some strange reason have different names for different economic sectors. Talk about confusion ...<br /><br />To me the key to understanding the concept of saving is the corporate balance sheet from which the concept automatically and naturally expands onto the other sectors.<br /><br />The idea of P&L and retained profits is very natural to everybody’s mind. And it is also natural that retained profits “accrue” to the corporate equity. That is the way how P&L statement is integrated into the balance sheet statement.<br /><br />As the balance sheet size goes up, so do both sides of the balance sheet. However, it is impossible to have an accounting link between individual liabilities and individual assets. They only have to match in aggregate. So be it a house or cash in the bank account or government bonds, all and any of them can be a counterpart to equity. It is obvious here that corporate savings are NOT house, deposit or government bonds. Corporate savings is the equity while house, etc. are just *possible* representations of savings.<br /><br />The only confusing point which needs additional attention here is that there is an external counterparty which has a claim on corporate equity. That is shareholders. But the thing is that this claim is *artificially* external. Corporate equity is related to the entity itself and they can not be separated. Equity is the fact of existence of the company. No company – no equity. No equity – no company.<br /><br />With this background in mind if we switch to households and apply the same framework, it becomes clear that household savings is not houses, deposits and bonds, but it is what is called net worth or, as JKH likes to call it, equity (I believe a-la corporate equity though he might come from a different perspective). Houses and bonds are just possible representations of savings/equity/net wealth. While there IS a *transactional*, i.e. cashflow, relationship between them at the point of transaction, there is no balance sheet relationship. 99.(9)% of transactions involve cash transfer but it means nothing for the balance sheet. Mixing different financial statements (cashflow statement and balance sheet statement here) makes no accounting good. Individual financial statements serve different purposes but all together are required to understand the underlying reality. Finally, in case of household, its equity as liability is clearly internal and can not be separated from the existence of household. The loop is closed again.<br /><br />Now to the question of (contestable) definition of savings as per MMT in various discussions. Remembering that we need to keep in mind separate representations of P&L statement, cashflow statement and balance sheet it is clear that any income received aggregates to a corresponding increase in the balance sheet size through the increase of equity, i.e. savings (P&L statement vs balance sheet). “Income” spent on consumption (in the balance sheet language we are already talking about *assets* spent on consumption which can be cash and then it also affects cashflow statement) obviously leads to a reduction of balance sheet size through the decrease of equity, i.e. savings. Transactions with assets like a purchase of a house or Apple stock do NOT lead to changes of the balance sheet size, changes in balance sheet liabilities, and therefore to changes in equity, i.e. savings.<br /><br />And the only issue that we are left with is the macro-aggregation but I will not go into it. It is quite clear.Игры рынкаhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001273098690387194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-24116757530739070172012-03-02T22:07:54.818-08:002012-03-02T22:07:54.818-08:001. Movements of cash across sectoral boundaries mu...1. Movements of cash across sectoral boundaries must net to nothing.<br /><br />2. Thus for the sectoral balance equation to hold, S,I,X,M,G and T must be defined in such a way that they refer to cash movements, and nothing else. E.g. the conventional definion of exports, which is something like “stuff shipped to foreigners” just won’t do. The definiton has to be something like “cash receipts from foreigners in payment for exports or for any other reason”.<br /><br />3. Including investment in the equation is a nonsense because if I buy an investment type good off another private sector entity, cash does not cross a sectoral boundary.<br /><br />Plus there is no sharp distinction between investment goods and consumption goods.<br /><br />For more on this, see:<br /><br />http://ralphanomics.blogspot.com/2012/03/sectoral-balance-equation-again.htmlRalph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-17603505617850594692012-02-28T09:00:09.291-08:002012-02-28T09:00:09.291-08:00R.,
Yes, the logic is always the same and is very...R.,<br /><br />Yes, the logic is always the same and is very straightforward once you understand it--even when you're applying it to situations that are quite complicated in terms of the interactions between economic entities and aggregates.<br /><br />Which is why it is possible to be very imprecise and informal as long as everyone knows the precise and formal definitions--e.g., I am writing S = I, but there's a lot that one could say about this identity and how the variables are defined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-87600076643769191402012-02-28T08:31:31.618-08:002012-02-28T08:31:31.618-08:00Vimothy,
Yes assumed you would know. Should have ...Vimothy,<br /><br />Yes assumed you would know. Should have addressed differently. <br /><br />Was trying to point to WS about the fact that there is so much of this which is counterintuitive but once one has a good handle, things appear fine. <br /><br />But best to keep it simple.Ramananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123448543333785121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-59881545184120288182012-02-28T08:15:05.707-08:002012-02-28T08:15:05.707-08:00R.,
Agreed--was trying to keep things simple!
Th...R.,<br /><br />Agreed--was trying to keep things simple!<br /><br />The point that I'm trying to hammer home is that saving connects income to the stock constraint via changes net worth. Like you say (& per my quote from the SNA2008) saving could could represent either an increase in assets or a decrease in liabilties.<br /><br />But best to try to be intuitive about these things given the context, and not bring in to many comp[licating factors and qualifications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-37011034357972987622012-02-28T06:00:08.281-08:002012-02-28T06:00:08.281-08:00Vimothy,
Good you drive these points. It seems to...Vimothy,<br /><br />Good you drive these points. It seems to get stuck at the same place. <br /><br />One technicality - saving can also be used to retire liabilities. So I can be saving in one year without having accumulated assets but with a negative incurrence of liabilities. <br /><br />(Of course in one definition, accumulation of assets already includes the latter). <br /><br />So let us say I save $100 in one period and prepay $100 principal on previous loans. My saving is still $100.<br /><br />Worse is the technicality brought into the discussion because of consumption of fixed capital and the flow of funds and SNA used Net Saving for Saving Net of Consumption of Fixed Capital. <br /><br />Which of course I already know and referred to a blog post a week back initially here. <br /><br />One cannot hide behind this technically and say that MMTers are right when they that it is *impossible* to save when the government budget is balanced. The private sector can both gross save and net save (in SNA language) with a balanced budget! (where this net refers to net of consumption of fixed capital).Ramananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123448543333785121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-5882709835098041842012-02-28T04:56:58.292-08:002012-02-28T04:56:58.292-08:00WS,
It’s not that I think that your claims are cr...WS,<br /><br />It’s not that I think that your claims are crazy—I suspect that they approach the expected opinion of the population on such matters. But they are wrong and confused, in my view. Or at least, if you are going to hold to colloquial definitions of saving and investment, then you ought to forget about their meaning in terms of economic theory, because equivocation in this context is the royal road to total confusion.<br /><br />“<i>1. at an individual level, spending income on ANYTHING is not saving.</i>”<br />Two comments follow directly:<br /><br />1, Nobody else defines saving in such a fashion;<br />2, Given that you have defined saving in such a fashion, you are going to have to create your own framework for the national accounts, in order to make your definition work. <br /><br />So what’s the point?<br /><br />“<i>Ranaman disagreed and says that spending income on an asset (like housing) IS saving.</i>”<br /><br />We seem to be going round and round here without really getting anywhere. You’ve said this several times, and have been corrected several times, both by Ramanan and by me, but it doesn’t seem to register.<br /><br /><b>BUYING AN ASSET IS NOT SAVING. SAVING IS NOT CONSUMING INCOME. </b><br /><br />Savings are a <i>source</i> of finance for the acquisition of assets. Savings must be allocated across the spectrum of available assets, given that they exist. But saving and buying assets are two different things.<br /><br />“<i>2. at an aggregate level, spending income on an asset has no impact on saving, it just shuffles savings around.</i>”<br /><br />At an aggregate level, the flow of saving (out of current income) is equal to the flow of expenditure on new non-financial assets, plus or minus some other stuff at the margins (e.g., “net saving”), depending on the nature of the aggregation and how you’re partitioning the economy in terms of sectors. <br /><br /><i>3. Yes, the private sector can increase saving (in this sense) by cutting back on spending and increasing investment, but the "investment" this income hoarding will generate is unsold inventory and unemployed workers.</i><br /><br />That’s not a statement that is true in a general sense. What if the private sector increases its investment? Then either private saving will increase, or their will be a net financing flow from some other sector.<br /><br />Or say that investment is fixed at I’. Current private saving is S’’, say, where, S’’ < I’, with the difference made up by the foreign sector. The private sector can increase its saving to S’ = I’ without any need for an increase in the level of investment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-59017325861607909192012-02-28T04:32:55.580-08:002012-02-28T04:32:55.580-08:00and what about the person whose produce was consum...and what about the person whose produce was consumed? is that person saving? in both cases?<br /><br />sorry about my severed questions. i'm late to the S=I show.Oliver Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09960924207469377279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-5618550144504570192012-02-28T03:36:54.881-08:002012-02-28T03:36:54.881-08:00or does winterspeak arrive at total of 200'000...or does winterspeak arrive at total of 200'000.- saving?Oliver Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09960924207469377279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-8782093777831808952012-02-28T03:33:21.850-08:002012-02-28T03:33:21.850-08:00Taking Ramanan's example
Person A earns $1,00...Taking Ramanan's example<br /><br />Person A earns $1,000,000. <br /><br />Pays Taxes $300,000<br /><br />Consumes $100,000<br /><br />Buys a home for $400,000 (no loans). <br /><br />Saving thus far = $1,000,000 - $300,000 - $100,000 = $600,000<br /><br />Person B receives 400'000.- for his house and does nothing with it.<br /><br />saving thus far <br /><br />according to standard definition:<br /><br />Person A: 600'000.-<br /><br />Person B: 0.-<br /><br />Total: 600'000.-<br /><br /><br />according to winterspeak's definition:<br /><br />Person A: 200'000.-<br /><br />Person B: 400'000.-<br /><br />Total: 600'000.-<br /><br />Different story, same outcome? One keeps track of people's $ balances (deposit stocks) and the other of flows of income into consumption, i.e. 'the destruction of tangible goods' through consumption, but both end up with the same outcome? One is purely nominal, the other combines financial and real goods and thus also keeps track of the depletion of natural and use of human resources in $ terms. Are there examples where one would arrive at different macro conclusions depending on which definition one uses?Oliver Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09960924207469377279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-46775343251759481192012-02-27T23:37:31.748-08:002012-02-27T23:37:31.748-08:00I thought I'd get to the bottom of this by doi...I thought I'd get to the bottom of this <a href="http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2012/02/reconciling-s-i-s-i-to-national.html" rel="nofollow">by doing the work on the national accounts.</a><br /><br />And from that we get the National Accounts definition of Gross Saving<br /><br />Gross Saving = Gross National Disposable Income - Household Final Consumption - Government Final Consumption<br /><br />Net Saving has a particular definition in the national accounts which relates to the depreciation of fixed capital. It is not something we use in the MMT sector calculations.<br /><br />(S - I) is referred to in National Accounts as the 'net lending (or borrowing)' of the domestic private sector. Excess Savings would probably be a better term.<br /><br />So to be entirely certain as to which saving you are talking about you really need to qualify it with 'Gross', 'Net' or 'Excess'.NeilWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11565959939525324309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-21784917942601405822012-02-27T23:31:20.472-08:002012-02-27T23:31:20.472-08:00Winterspeak,
You have to leave the notion that I ...Winterspeak,<br /><br />You have to leave the notion that I say buying a house is saving. Because I don't. <br /><br />But I won't say it is dissaving either. <br /><br />Saving is defined as disposable income less consumption. <br /><br />In my example above what one does with the $600,000 - buying a house or buying a financial asset does not change the saving because it has already occured. <br /><br />Andy Harless clearly uses everyone's definition as Vimothy quoted. <br /><br />In your accounting however buying a house is dissaving because expenditure on the house is given the same treatment as consumption expenditures. <br /><br />So you have to ask the same people if they consider buying a house as dissaving. <br /><br />By "everyone" I meant everyone we are discussing with some background on such issues. What I meant was that to criticize someone you have to use their definitions. It may be the case that the definition itself is faulty and self-inconsistent but it isn't. <br /><br />The whole debate was focussed on the observation by JKH and SRW that the "saving" and "net saving" are are blurred frequently.Ramananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123448543333785121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-83618033021286365202012-02-27T20:27:57.182-08:002012-02-27T20:27:57.182-08:00Ramanan:
I asked a couple of people if they thoug...Ramanan:<br /><br />I asked a couple of people if they thought buying a house or a car was "saving". They said they did not.<br /><br />So, there are at least three people who do not think buying houses or cars count as saving. They think not spending your income counts as saving, which is what Harless says in his essay as well.winterspeakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13611241702356475764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-37669304201204876372012-02-27T14:48:10.378-08:002012-02-27T14:48:10.378-08:00Winterspeak,
Well...let's do this.
I earn $...Winterspeak,<br /><br />Well...let's do this. <br /><br />I earn $1,000,000. <br /><br />Pay Taxes $300,000<br /><br />Consume $100,000<br /><br />Buy a home for $400,000 (no loans). <br /><br />My Saving = $1,000,000 - $300,000 - $100,000<br /><br />i.e., Saving = $600,000 :-)<br /><br />Whether I but a home with the $600,000 or buy stocks does not change the saving. <br /><br />In your definition of Saving <br /><br />Saving = $$1,000,000 - $300,000 - $100,000 - $400,000 <br /><br />which is $200,000. <br /><br />Which of course, you are free to define but only you in the whole world does it that way.<br /><br />Which is contradictory to the fact that this is an MMT blog. <br /><br />It is counterproductive to count spending on house similar to consumption when everyone else does not.Ramananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123448543333785121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-49299634626637141012012-02-27T13:35:52.343-08:002012-02-27T13:35:52.343-08:00Ramanan:
The borrowing is a red herring. If I go ...Ramanan:<br /><br />The borrowing is a red herring. If I go into debt to buy a house, I am dis-saving. If I buy a house for cash, similarly I am dis-saving.<br /><br />To me, if you spend income on an asset, you are not saving. If you borrow money (whether to buy an asset, or to purchase a consumption good) similarly you are not saving.winterspeakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13611241702356475764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-20449304868464898382012-02-27T13:23:00.346-08:002012-02-27T13:23:00.346-08:00Winter,
"Ranaman disagreed and says that spe...Winter,<br /><br />"Ranaman disagreed and says that spending income on an asset (like housing) IS saving."<br /><br />Imagine I spend all my disposable income on consumption and imagine I buy a home whose price is five times my annual income this year by borrowing. Would that mean I am saving five times my annual income? No!<br /><br />My saving is zero.Ramananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123448543333785121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-41384235295822269712012-02-27T12:42:35.402-08:002012-02-27T12:42:35.402-08:00vimothy:
here are my crazy claims:
1. at an indi...vimothy:<br /><br />here are my crazy claims:<br /><br />1. at an individual level, spending income on ANYTHING is not saving. It is dis-saving to the extent that !saving=dis-saving.<br /><br />Ranaman disagreed and says that spending income on an asset (like housing) IS saving.<br /><br />2. at an aggregate level, spending income on an asset has no impact on saving, it just shuffles savings around.<br /><br />3. Yes, the private sector can increase saving (in this sense) by cutting back on spending and increasing investment, but the "investment" this income hoarding will generate is unsold inventory and unemployed workers.<br /><br />I don't think you'll find anyone saying that a private sector cannot create unemployment and stockpiles of unsold goods by itself.winterspeakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13611241702356475764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-34792456787449304952012-02-27T08:14:26.316-08:002012-02-27T08:14:26.316-08:00"right, at least i see where that income is c..."right, at least i see where that income is coming from. mostly from financial assets, local and foreign, that sit on the cb's balance sheet and generate income which is accounted seperately from the gvt. expenditure / tax receipt circuit?"<br /><br />Not necessarily separately Oliver. In many cases - such as even in the case of the United States, the Treasury holds foreign assets. So in addition to indirect sources of revenue, through central bank profits, there's direct source as well. <br /><br />"that profits from domestic financial assets constitute a flow that is akin to taxation in that they transfer financial wealth from the private sector into the public domain? "<br /><br />Yes agree we could say that. <br /><br />"and similarly that profits from foreign financial assets are akin to exporting, albeit without the accompanying flow of real goods or services to foreigners? official international rent seeking, so to speak."<br /><br />Yeah because these income flows appear together with exports in the current account of the balance of payments.Ramananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123448543333785121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-60197935654602831732012-02-27T08:03:12.042-08:002012-02-27T08:03:12.042-08:00right, at least i see where that income is coming ...right, at least i see where that income is coming from. mostly from financial assets, local and foreign, that sit on the cb's balance sheet and generate income which is accounted seperately from the gvt. expenditure / tax receipt circuit?<br /><br />could one not say, in simplified terms, i.e. by aggregating all those separate circuits, that profits from domestic financial assets constitute a flow that is akin to taxation in that they transfer financial wealth from the private sector into the public domain? and similarly that profits from foreign financial assets are akin to exporting, albeit without the accompanying flow of real goods or services to foreigners? official international rent seeking, so to speak.Oliver Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09960924207469377279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-34792992204984947302012-02-27T07:24:51.462-08:002012-02-27T07:24:51.462-08:00WS,
That lol was not directed at you but some of ...WS,<br /><br />That lol was not directed at you but some of the other commenters here who seem to think that meaningful economic analysis starts and ends with their speculative and uniformed hunches about how the world works.<br /><br />In general, I think that you have a clue, which is why I was commenting in the first place, and why I was surprised that you seemed to be making such claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-37525723868605811922012-02-27T06:25:17.632-08:002012-02-27T06:25:17.632-08:00Oliver,
"a change in stocks (increase of sav...Oliver,<br /><br />"a change in stocks (increase of savings (stock)) is a flow, no? "<br /><br />Yes it is but there is a flow of investment as well. <br /><br />While it is true that deficit spending increases the wealth of the private, by no means it is the only way. <br /><br />"this, to me, sounds like a definition of a surplus. how can one simultaneously run a surplus and a deficit?"<br /><br />A deficit is usually defined by considering ALL expenditures. <br /><br />So the situation I am discussing (as shown by the Fed's Z.1) is a situation in which the government has saving and a deficit. <br /><br />No need to define two types of deficits. <br /><br />Receipts as in taxes here but it can have other sources of income such as central bank profits, interest income from holding of financial assets - for example interest from foreign reserves.<br /><br />"Or do you mean to say that the value of the savings (stock) that belong to government can increase at the same time as it spends more $ than it receives in taxes? "<br /><br />If the government has more expenditures than income, then it's liabilities increases. <br /><br />However in the situation it had a positive saving. <br /><br />Now, one doesn't usually discuss the full balance sheet of the government and restricts the discussion to public debt which increased in our case. However it had saving and the stocks - i.e., in Assets it has more real assets because of Net Investment than it began with which is more than the increase in liabilities. <br /><br />The discussion can go off tangent if we start discussing what is the meaning of real assets of the government and all those things!<br /><br />Does not escape the fact that it is possible for the government to have a positive saving in spite of having run a deficit. <br /><br />"Does one receive receipts for revaluations?"<br /><br />No one doesn't. <br /><br />"or is revaluation of assets the better term? an upward revaluation of asstes leads to a flow that is termed saving, the plural of which is referred ro as savings?"<br /><br />Revaluations of assets is a different matter altogether. Saving is about flows in one period. We start with "Opening Stocks" and then write down all the flows. Then we do revaluations and reach "Closing Stocks". <br /><br />Saving appears in flows not in revaluations. <br /><br />Plural as in Savings of sectors for example. I am a bit against the usage of savings for wealth because it unnecessarily confuses the discussion but consistent with SNA.Ramananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123448543333785121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-40472239297082050162012-02-27T05:54:50.911-08:002012-02-27T05:54:50.911-08:00or is revaluation of assets the better term? an up...or is revaluation of assets the better term? an upward revaluation of asstes leads to a flow that is termed saving, the plural of which is referred ro as savings?Oliver Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09960924207469377279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-85342232042325809772012-02-27T05:47:14.060-08:002012-02-27T05:47:14.060-08:00right, confusion.
"Deficit spending increas...right, confusion. <br /><br /><i>"Deficit spending increases net financial assets of the private sector, also known as nominal savings. "<br /><br />The discussion is obscured by the usage of the phrase "savingS". We are discussing flows here.</i><br /><br />a change in stocks (increase of savings (stock)) is a flow, no? <br /><br /><i>if its receipts exceed current expenditures</i><br /><br />this, to me, sounds like a definition of a surplus. how can one simultaneously run a surplus and a deficit? Or do you mean to say that the value of the savings (stock) that belong to government can increase at the same time as it spends more $ than it receives in taxes? But where are the receipts in that? Does one receive receipts for revaluations?Oliver Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09960924207469377279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-47552445012618139502012-02-27T04:52:25.965-08:002012-02-27T04:52:25.965-08:00Oliver,
"Deficit spending increases net fina...Oliver,<br /><br />"Deficit spending increases net financial assets of the private sector, also known as nominal savings. "<br /><br />The discussion is obscured by the usage of the phrase "savingS". We are discussing flows here. <br /><br />Yes, deficits add to private sector wealth. <br /><br />"But real savings is the accounting record of real investment."<br /><br />These terms need to be defined. "Real savings" ?? "Real Investment" ?? Have defintions?<br /><br />This does not escape the fact that if the budget is balanced (closed economy for simplicity), the private sector can have positive saving (as opposed to Saving net of Investment). <br /><br />"Is that an artefact of lagged accounting or of the endogeneity of the budget outcome?"<br /><br />Neither. <br /><br />It is a result of the definition of Saving.Ramananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123448543333785121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913439.post-87629423616163804912012-02-27T04:04:40.925-08:002012-02-27T04:04:40.925-08:00Warren Mosler from that post by Andy Harless:
Def...Warren Mosler from that post by Andy Harless:<br /><br />Deficit spending increases net financial assets of the private sector, also known as nominal savings. <br /><br />But real savings is the accounting record of real investment.Oliver Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09960924207469377279noreply@blogger.com