by Russel Norman
We had the Reserve Bank Governor in front of Finance and Expenditure Committee today about his Monetary Policy Statement. The MPS is very much a steady as she goes document.
But if you look more closely it’s not so pretty. For example it predicts the current account deficit returning to more than 7.2% by 2013 (from 1.8% in 2010). This deficit is the result of imports being greater than exports, plus the export of profits and dividends from overseas owned NZ companies, plus paying interest to overseas lenders for money we’ve borrowed in the past.
In order to cover a current account deficit we have to borrow more money and sell more NZ assets to overseas owners. Of course this exacerbates the deficit as we have to pay more interest on the extra debt and we export more profits and dividends. It is a downward spiral that results in ever greater nett indebtedness and ever greater proportion of GDP being sent overseas.
If Reserve Bank projections are correct then the NZ economy still has fundamental underlying problems and the global financial crisis has not solved them.
Published in Parliament by Russel Norman on Thu, March 11th, 2010
Tags: MPS. Monetary Policy Statement, Russel Norman
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
There are two major reasons for the deficit:
* Regulatory competition – companies in countries which allow the most short-sighted, selfish, and exploitative behaviour by big companies will be able to produce the cheapest products, and therefore there will be a net flow to that country (at the expense of destroying the environment of that country – or in the case of CO2 emissions – of the world, and causing major social problems for the exporting country). The solution is to impose tarrifs on goods from countries which do not act responsibly (for example, those where there is no price for CO2 emissions, or a low minimum wage).
* Short-sighted government policy. It is a Green Value to “think long term and holistically”, but every other party in NZ parliament seems to like borrowing money from private sources, and selling off assets, so that hardship is not felt during their term, but in the next one – when the opposition typically gets the blame. Such short-sighted thinking means that New Zealanders often end up paying a lot of money to a foreign owned monopoly. This is a harder issue to fix, because the right-wing corporate (and often foreign) owned media is very good at sweeping major long-term problems under the rug and drawing the public’s attention to the latest sports star sex scandal instead.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Finally twigged that borrowing $250M per week is stupid. Good on you.
Now the tricky bit. What expenses will you chop to negate the $250M per week borrowing?
Or what extra taxaton will you collect to pay back the $250M plus 5.5% interest per week?
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
Apart from the obvious, the post is about the BOP deficit, not the budget deficit.
Why were we borrowing $250M a week when the budget deficit was $2B and still borrowing $250M a week, now its forecast to be $600M?
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
We have had this BOP deficit problem for decades now and it continues throughout the budget cycle – it reduces during recessions when our local budget deficit develops, it increases as we grow out of recessions and balance the budget.
The largest sign of it is in our borrowing loans to buy domestic property (housing and farmland) – this does not result in having to sell these assets to foreigners, just the debt being held against them being a burden agains the incomes of wage earners and farmers – who send money offshore via their banks to meet the interest payments.
Our major problem is that housing and farmland are overvalued and we borrow offshore to afford the higher cost – all because we have no CGT to restrain speculation led growth in these asset values.
If we constrain local asset values and increase local saving (not so invested), then we will have found the path to recovery and reducing our BOP deficit. Frankly the size of our local government budget deficit has little to do with it – though if farmers and homeowners spend less of their incomes on their property costs – there should be higher GST revenues and higher income tax revenues to government (as well as the CGT revenue).
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Oh my gosh someone else (one of the many thumbs that follows Gerrit around to take his side against others on each thread he joins?) confuses the budget deficit with the BOP deficit.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
If Reserve Bank projections are correct then the NZ economy still has fundamental underlying problems and the global financial crisis has not solved them.
Let’s assume it is correct. Can you spell out the fundamental undies for me..
Oh, and Gerrit, (I’m not sure if this obliges SPC here) where did you get the 5.5% from..?
Just asking..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
tomfarmer
Cant find the reference but I read it somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Your fixation with my thumbs is kinda strange. Wierd in fact.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
SPC’s not the only one to notice your thumbs Gerrit.
I was surprised to find myself reading about them in the Woman’s Weekly (can’t remember when) but I do remember that it was thought that at least two thumbs followed you every where you go.
Care to confirm?
Or deny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
Why are Gerrit’s thumbs as ignorant as he is about the difference between the BOP deficit and the budget deficit?
If this was a less polite thread we would make comments about those who applaud themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
greenfly,
OMG I’m being stalked!!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“There are two major reasons for the deficit”
A1kmm, you also forget that the Chinese Yuan is, for all intents and purposes, fixed in value. At the present, the exchange rate is 7 Yuan to the US Dollar, whereas according to PPP, it should be closer to 3 Yuan to the US Dollar.
This essentially makes goods from the People’s Republic artificially inexpensive and also makes goods from Western countries artificially expensive.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
john-ston
Yes and no, if China was not supplying the goods they do, other cheap producers would instead.
Is not the major reason at present the lack of development by us of new exports as our population grows and the lack of saving and dependence on loans – our home property debt went from 80 to 160B (not counting farm debt) within a decade – the annual interest bill on this contributes a lot to the BOP deficit.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Go on why hold back!!!!
Applaud themselves – not sure what you mean but are you suggesting I can manipulate the like or dislike feature?
I’m good at straight HTML and have written more then a few MS Access programmes but wordpress blogs are not my forte.
You are someone who is fiscally naive enough to believe that an increase in the wages, without a corresponding productivity increase, will lead to the nirvana of happiness and balanced budgets.
And as such are fiscally naive enough to believe one set of figures has no linkage to ALL others.
Note that Russel said this
And where do you think the repayments for the current goverment borrowing will come from?
Thats right you got it, from the Gross Domestic Production (not Balance Of Payments between exports and imports).
So with a flat growth rate (0.2%) how will the debt be paid? Easy really, from extra taxation on the savings you are so desperate to generate.
You still keeping up?
Currently New Zealand wont be in a budget surplus till 2016 and it will require most of our childrens money to repay that debt until 2030.
I think that is the situation that Russel was refering to in his posting. Maybe he can do a follow up.
You once said that debt was good. Well I hope you never get to run this country’s budgets (or your household one).
Debt is only good if you generate the cashflow (GDP) to pay for the principal and interest.
New Zealand is not in that position. All we are doing is putting our debt on the credit card and hope that future generation will pay off this debt.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Are you sure it’s thumbs and not those pale green pants with nobody inside them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
you and SPC talk a strange language. Best explain to this old fella what “applaud themselves” and “pale green pants” means.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
It’s Seussian, Gerrit. Just a bit of fun, like ‘fly an I were having with “star bellied creeches” etc a few evenings ago:
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
pretty cool toad.
I was trying to work out how the green thumbs up could be refered to as “empty green pants”.
LOL
SPC will be upset, two people have given me a thumbs up on my latest comment.
Quick give it a thumbs down!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
gerrit, I realise your keeping “on your message” theme (your balanced budget concept and that this probably attracts inarticulate ACT/libertarian groupies who arrive dragging their hands behind them)
…
but the topic is the BOP deficit, that’s trade + “international” invisibles.
Government borrowing occurs, both internally and externally, so only some of the government debt cost impacts on invisibles.
The need to borrow too much offshore rather than locally relates to the wider issue of domestic savings rate – which is the more important issue than budget deficit itself in the context of the BOP issue.
So your rabbiting on about the cost of the government’s budget deficit in relation to the BOP deficit is a diversion on so many aspects.
1. Not all of the $250 million per week borrowing was from foreign sources, thus the figure did not relate in full to the invisibles component on the BOP deficit.
2. Not all of this borrowing is to finance the budget deficit some is to finance borrowing for investment
3. The deficit forecast for the year has gone down from $2B to $600M – and this would have some impact on future borrowing plans – so one wonders when Mr English will get a Treasury update on borrowing programme adjustments.
Of course a borrowing programme which includes borrowing to finance investments in infrastructure is widely regarded as sound business practice – particularly after years of paying down debt.
I know of no government which does not and would not borrow to invest in the countries future. It’s not debt which is good but investment in a sustainable economy – which requires infrastructure maitenance, renewal and modernisation.
Budget deficits are normal in recessionary periods and often they follow after a years of paying down debt because of budget surpluses in an earlier growth period. It is not untypical for governments to maintain spending and accept deficits in the first phase of a recession (to make sure it is only a recession) and then apply constraint on new spending to reduce deficits when growth returned.
For all your emphasis on our budget deficit problem – we have one of the lowest government debt rates in the OECD. And while our position will worsen, it will still be one of the better positions to be in in 5 years time (the position of others is also worsening and some at much faster rates than ours).
The emphasis on the budget deficit is a convenient theme for those who favour smaller government as a matter of political choice (thus the thumbs that you drag in here) but is totally misguided on this topic.
Our BOP deficit has occured for decades now – it continued while we ran budget surpluses and were paying down debt to low levels, thus it is not the cause, or the cure of this problem. It’s the petty cash on this issue.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
PS
1. “(not Balance Of Payments between exports and imports).”
Here you confuse the Current Account (trade) with the BOP (trade + invisibles).
2. I will ignore your silly attempt to conflate issues – by taking comments on other threads out of context to make “claims” about what I have said on other threads.
3. It has not been the practice of governments to balance the budget during a recession since the Great Depression.
Governments have learnt that by not over-reacting to economic downturn the recovery will occur all the sooner, then rising profits and higher employment rates tend to raise government revenues and balance the budget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
SPC is right, the BOP and Government Deficit are two separate macro-economc issues.
Of the later, Dr Bollard indicated that the increased Government spending/deficit during the “recession” last year was necessary stimulus to minimise the negative impacts of the recession. He was thus echoing the conventional stance of almost all central bankers. His latest statement on government spending is that it should now turn the tap off because he, or at least the RB, believes the crisis is over. Methinks otherwise.
Of the former, the BOP deficit has been a problem for decades caused by under-performance of the NZ market place – that is the domestic sector is too small and we focus too much on our exporters. Dare I say it, AND I have previously on this blogsite, but it has been a problem since we abandoned an imports restriction-domestic production industry focus that Bill Sutch championed as oppossed to the export-led one that has taken us down the path of “deregulation” and “free trade”. We have ended up with an economy focused on what are essentially cash-crops (agriculture production, be it dairy, wool, wine. dead meat or trees) that have in turn led to significant debt of our farming community as they buy land on credit to chase foriegn currencies that the rest of us then spend on imports as opposed to the country developing quality products that can directed to domestic consumption. The results speak for themselves.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
SPC,
you say home property (ex farm) debt is currently NZD160bn. Any idea what it is including farm props ( either as on-farm residences sorted. or not 0 ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s not something I recall – the 80B to 160B increase in housing debt was the sort of figure that sticks.
But there is this.
http://www.nzfarmersweekly.co.nz/article/7645.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
And this by the RB
http://www.agprodecon.org/node/91
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
My reading of the RBNZ tables is that households liabiklities amounted to $177M in 2008, with the asset value $194M. Agricultural liabilities $44M, with 28.5M in Dairy, 10.5 in grain and sheep/beef/cattle products, 3.2 in horticulture/fruit and 0.9M in other animals in 2009. The household asset value/liabilities tables go back to 1978, but agricultural ones only to 2004. They used to produce all this data on the last few pages of their quarterly reports and can be viewed from their website. Analysising the data is moot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry, should be Billions, too late in the week and type-face too small and also my madness
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I note that both household debt and farm debt doubled in about 5 years.
That must have added a lot to our BOP deficit – 80B household and 20B farm 100B at 5% is 5Bpa – $5Bpa less the debt covered by local borrowing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
This from wikipedia supports the the opening post by Russel.
Further, New Zealand has a very large current account deficit of 8-9% of GDP. However, despite this, its public debt stands at only 21.2% (2006 est.) [5] of the total GDP, which is small compared to many developed nations.
However, It has also been noted that net foreign debt has increased 11-fold between 1984 and 2006, now reaching NZ $182 billion, NZ $45,000 for each person.[1]
The combination of a modest public debt and a large net foreign debt reflects that most of the net foreign debt is held by the private sector.
One reason why New Zealand runs persistent current account deficits, that drives the net foreign debt upwards, is that earnings from agricultural exports and tourism fail to cover the imports of advanced manufactured goods and other imports (such as imported fuels) required to sustain the New Zealand economy.
However, this trade imbalance is much smaller than the investment income imbalance which makes up the vast majority of New Zealand’s current account deficit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“The combination of a modest public debt and a large net foreign debt reflects that most of the net foreign debt is held by the private sector.”
So it is clear that government budget deficits/public debt has not caused our on-going BOP problem. Thus simply waiting a few years for the defict to end and to begin paying down the debt will not amount to much in dealing with the much wider economy based BOP deficit problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“Yes and no, if China was not supplying the goods they do, other cheap producers would instead.”
Yes, but then as the exports of those other producers increased, there would be upward pressure on their currencies – for instance, the Japanese Yen doubled between 1985 and 1988 and had an impact on their industry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
Your need and approval to borrow is not matched (quite rightly) by Russel Norman.
I repeat what Russel said
Russel (the socialist) like me (in your eyes a pidgeon holed rapid right winger) both agree that to cover the BOP (accounts deficit) we may need to sell more assets to send our hard earned (GDP) overseas.
Juast have a look at what Portugal Ireland, Greece and Spain (Pigs) are facing
http://drpinna.com/economy/greece-and-the-other-pigs
Excessive borrowing will do that.
I would have thought that a study of the 1930 depression and the consequence of extended borrowing made the depression last a lot longer.
Suggested reading
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch15wd.html
You may be interested in this
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
It’s not really Japan, but the low labour cost India and ASEAN nations that would be developing the ability to supply the production that China is at present.
What China has done is manifest a global market production transformation much faster than would have occured otherwise (simply because of the size of their labour market, the continuing investment in increasing further production and the establishment of distribution networks to cater for the export production).
What the exchange rate management has done is provide security for their investment programme – because they know they can dominate their ASEAN rivals by keeping their costs lower. In that sense the victim of their (exchange rate) policy is not the West but these rivals. Of course some in the West are concerned about the economic power China’s BOP surplus gives them in the global financial system (this concern is exacerbated by their single-minded what’s good for China exchange rate management) but that unrelated to our own BOP deficit problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit, the BOP deficit occurs for a number of reasons – trade (current account) on the one hand and otherwise dependence on foreign capital – lack of local saving.
Business borrowing – 70B+, farm borrowing 40B+ (doubled in a few years), household borrowing 160B+ (doubled in a few years) does not necessite further loss of asset ownership – but rising debt against assets still owned by us. The BOP has worsened because of it, but the consequence seems to be loss of GDP (invisibles deficit) to pay the interest (the debt is more likely to be rolled over than paid back – possibly limited by asset values which fall relative to inflation, thus falling in real GSP terms).
Our BOP problem is not caused by government debt – that is why we had a high BOP deficit while having one of the lowest debts in the OECD (we still do) and a budget surplus (who has one at the moment?).
You think
“to cover the BOP (accounts deficit) we may need to sell more assets to send our hard earned (GDP) overseas.”
Why?
It’s just an account that reflects what is happening, it’s not a bill – it shows how much GDP is being used to pay interest on the debt used by banks to finance a large part of their local lending.
PS
1. The deficit in the UK is quite comparable to that of Greece, Portugal and Spain – they have large debts being built up, but the UK has little problem at present. Why is that? Because the issue is not so much the size of the deficits, but the Euro system – which does not allow inflation or devaluation.
2. The GD legacy is clear enough – governments don’t cut spending and increase taxes to balance the budget during recessions today. They simply begin to restrain spending during the recovery, the extent to which this is done and the timing of it reflects partisanship – but the principle is bi-partisan.
3. The combination of a modest public debt and a large net foreign debt reflects that most of the net foreign debt is held by the private sector.
One reason why New Zealand runs persistent current account deficits, that drives the net foreign debt upwards, is that earnings from agricultural exports and tourism fail to cover the imports of advanced manufactured goods and other imports (such as imported fuels) required to sustain the New Zealand economy.
However, this trade imbalance is much smaller than the investment income imbalance which makes up the vast majority of New Zealand’s current account deficit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit, the BOP deficit occurs for a number of reasons – trade (current account) on the one hand and otherwise dependence on foreign capital – lack of local saving.
Business borrowing – 70B+, farm borrowing 40B+ (doubled in a few years), household borrowing 160B+ (doubled in a few years) does not necessite further loss of asset ownership – but rising debt against assets still owned by us. The BOP has worsened because of it, but the consequence seems to be loss of GDP (invisibles deficit) to pay the interest (the debt is more likely to be rolled over than paid back – possibly limited by asset values which fall relative to inflation, thus falling in real GDP terms).
Our BOP problem is not caused by government debt – that is why we had a high BOP deficit while having one of the lowest debts in the OECD (we still do) and a budget surplus (who has one at the moment?).
You think
“to cover the BOP (accounts deficit) we may need to sell more assets to send our hard earned (GDP) overseas.”
Why?
It’s just an account that reflects what is happening, it’s not a bill – it shows how much GDP is being used to pay interest on the debt used by banks to finance a large part of their local lending AND also the profit and dividend flows to foreign capital owners of local assets/business operations. Such transfers (and the current account deficit) impact on the currency and usually result in a devaluation of the currency (the medium of exchange which is applicable), but our currency is traded way above the norm possibly because of our internationally high OCR.
The traditional cost of a BOP deficit is (via a devaluation) a higher price to imports but our anti-inflation policy (high OCR) prevents this. Which is why the RB is looking at other anti-inflation tools (long term funding/core funding ratios etc) and better government policy.
PS
1. The deficit in the UK is quite comparable to that of Greece, Portugal and Spain – they have large debts being built up, but the UK has little problem at present. Why is that? Because the issue is not so much the size of the deficits, but the Euro system – which does not allow inflation or devaluation.
2. The GD legacy is clear enough – governments don’t cut spending and increase taxes to balance the budget during recessions today. They simply begin to restrain spending during the recovery, the extent to which this is done and the timing of it reflects partisanship – but the principle is bi-partisan.
3. from wikipedia
The combination of a modest public debt and a large net foreign debt reflects that most of the net foreign debt is held by the private sector.
One reason why New Zealand runs persistent current account deficits, that drives the net foreign debt upwards, is that earnings from agricultural exports and tourism fail to cover the imports of advanced manufactured goods and other imports (such as imported fuels) required to sustain the New Zealand economy.
However, this trade imbalance is much smaller than the investment income imbalance which makes up the vast majority of New Zealand’s current account deficit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
Direct quote from Russel’s words in his posting. Not mine, though I did add the BOP and GDP reference.
I repeat what Russel said (for the second time) so please read and agree or disagree with Russel.
As you are fully up to sped with BOP perhaps you can answer this.
Are the interest charges for funds borrowed overseas included in the BOP figures?
As you can see this is part of Russel’s gripe. Is he wrong?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Gerrit
I asked the question of you because you wrote this
“Russel (the socialist) like me (in your eyes a pidgeon holed rapid right winger) both agree that to cover the BOP (accounts deficit) we may need to sell more assets to send our hard earned (GDP) overseas.”
You said you agree, why won’t you say why?
Russel is not here to answer, we’re the ones debatibng the important issue he raised – our economy is unbalanced (BOP deficit) and we need to develop a more sustainable economic policy.
As you seem to believe a BOP deficit could result in the sale of assets -perhaps you would explain why you thought that.
I have shown the nature of most of our foreign debt is private and not public. Homeowners and farmers are mostly meeting their repayments.
I will help, if you can only agree with Russel without saying why. By showing an example
Some financial institutions are going bankrupt. But their assets will need to be sold to pay off their investors – but they are local. However some of their loans came from banks – who financed them offshore. The ball is now in your court.
It’s only borrowers who cannot pay the interest on their debt who have to sell assets.
“Are the interest charges for funds borrowed overseas included in the BOP figures?”
Given I wrote at length on a number of occasions – about the rising private sector debt (from rising asset values partly caused by a lack of CGT) financed largely from offshore as the reason why our invisibles deficit is rising (we have an ongoing factor of the large foreign ownership of areas of the domestic economy and outflows of dividends/profits at the base of this deficit, hopefully one day KiwSaver and the Super Fund will diminish this) – why do you need to ask. The BOP deficit is the current account deficit (imports and exports) + the invisibles deficit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I suspect Russel’s comments about more borrowing or selling assets is a statement of fact rather than esppousing policy. The follwoing sentence that selling our assets exacerbates the situation (BOP deficit) indicates his preference not to sell assets. The reason for this is that any profits paid out as dividends to offshore investers adds to the deficit.
BTW, the answer is YES to the question:does interest on offshore borrowings get counted as an out-going in the BOP measurement.
This country’s economy is in perilous state. In some ways we are only solvent because the Australian-owned banks have so much invested (lent out) here in various ways that they can not afford to retrench because if they start not recycling residental loans (most mortgages are short-term in nature)and commercial loans (overdrafts etc) not only will the borrowers face a crisis but so will they. The RBNZ and commercial banks just hope all the wheels keep turing….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The very founding ideals of the international Labour movement and the ideas of Keynes in their complete form would deliver the Green movement all that they claim to seek in environmental,social and economic justice, so what are you waiting for?
Was John Maynard Keynes advocating a Public Credit Monetary System complete with a warning on exceeding the boundaries of sustainable natural resources?
Did the Monetarists adopt only the parts of Keynes thesis that suited their plan of economic dominance and then set out to make him a scapegoat?:
“Poor old Lord Keynes. The world’s press has spent the past week blackening his name. Not intentionally: most of the dunderheads reporting the G20 summit which took place over the weekend really do believe that he proposed and founded the International Monetary Fund. It’s one of those stories that passes unchecked from one journalist to another.
The truth is more interesting. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, John Maynard Keynes put forward a much better idea. After it was thrown out, Geoffrey Crowther – then the editor of the Economist magazine – warned that “Lord Keynes was right … the world will bitterly regret the fact that his arguments were rejected.”(1) But the world does not regret it, for almost everyone – the Economist included – has forgotten what he proposed.”
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/12/13/keynes-post-war-public-credit-to-be-mortgage-backed/
What Keynes proposed in 1945 was the very same as the long forgotten founding ideals of the international Labour movement, late 1800’s, the very same reforms of monetary, banking and credit systems sought by Labour then are even more required today for the very same reasons. Perhaps the only hope this nation has of fending off the relentless foreign corporate raiders and their locally recruited co-operatives is to put the Labour back into Labour.
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2008/07/28/labours-original-ideals-were-social-credit/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To gain a detailed insight into the role that Government Bonds play in our economy and the few favoured privately owned foreign incorporated investment banks that are allowed to give us their created credit in exchange for our pledges to repay their debt book entry loans out of future taxes of the nation via the Government Debt Bond contract, please read my submission presented to the Unofficial Banking Inquiry, a submission that most every MP, including Russel Norman, are doing their very best to ever admit to having read it, because to do so would see them compelled to act because of the irrefutable facts it contains from the very mouths of the major players
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/08/31/iain-parkers-submission-to-unofficial-government-banking-inquiry/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)