For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
What will you cut back on to compensate for higher energy prices?
Travel
29%
[ 95 ]
Eating out/Entertainment
27%
[ 89 ]
Groceries
0%
[ 2 ]
Purchases of capital goods
10%
[ 33 ]
Tech Toys: Cell phones, cable TV, etc.
23%
[ 77 ]
Investments
3%
[ 10 ]
Recreation
5%
[ 18 ]
Total Votes : 324
Author
Message
LoneSnark Intermediate Crude
Joined: Nov 15, 2007 Posts: 507
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Quote:
Now, you just said that our economy is not growth-dependent. I'm interested in hearing more - please extrapolate on that, because that would be big news.
It is more an economics lesson than anything else. Too much to go into. But, short of telling you to go read a book, I will give you an example of a shrinking economy.
Every few years the statisticians do a study and find that Americans are working about as much time per week as ever. At the same time, they find that productivity has increased. This Jevon's Paradox all over again. But it is not a rule: the number of hours worked has fallen before, there is no reason to believe it could not in the future. There is nothing inherent in the system to prevent workers from accepting their higher wages and then demand more time off from work. GDP would remain flat in this example. But if a furvent religious revival swept the country and everyone started working even less than productivity grew then GDP would fall. I know of no reason to believe such an eventuality would be damaging, much less disasterous.
Quote:
Yes, assuming we know the outcomes of what we spend our time doing
Of course, our knowledge is limited, we are not God. But, similarly, the rules are not nearly as complex as some pretend. Yes, no one knew introducing rabbits to Australia would be less than ideal. But dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is knowable. People get obsessive about the 0.1% cases, but we know what the effects will be: higher sea levels and warmer winters. We can plan for that, we can adjust to that, and we can help nature adjust with us (don't buy oceanfront property unless you are willing to invest in dutch windmills).
Quote:
Demand destruction? What resource will replace oil? And praytell how high prices are going to destroy demand for a good as inelastic as oil.
About $100 a barrel. Adjusted for inflation, that is about the price it reached in 1979. By 1983 U.S. oil consumption was down 21%. Of course, by 1986 prices were back to historic lowes so consumption resumed with gusto. Similarly, that is the price oil reached just this year, and just in the last month oil consumption is down 1.6% annualized and accelerating. In both instances the value of stuff created by the economy grew, just less of that stuff used oil. The fact is oil is usually cheap, and so we use it in ungodly wasteful ways, which we are all to ready to give up given sufficient incentive. As consumption falls it becomes ever easier to substitute with other energy sources or to simply make do with what production remains.
But I do have one complaint. Most Peak Oillers have a catch they choose to defend. Some latch onto the collapsability of the fiat money system. Others cling to the myth of extraction efficiency (costs more to extract oil than it is worth). In this post you have not made any of these, just a general appeal to catch phrases. Perhaps I should ask you to explain the steps you believe Peak Oil will cause our downfall, then I can disprove your reasoning instead of throwing text at generalized concepts.
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Lonesnark,
Would you explain how the economy will keep chugging along with an increasing decline rate year upon year? IMO it will become harder year upon year to hit the economic reset button once PO is realized.
Have you been to the Oil Drum and looked at the export land model? I am sure they would be happy to show you the numbers.
Net Oil Exports and the "Iron Triangle"
Have you debunked Hirsch, Simmons, etc? No sense in coming in here and debating with us cats until you have thrashed the proffesionals. Good luck with that!
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Quote:
Would you explain how the economy will keep chugging along with an increasing decline rate year upon year?
Simple: as I said, high oil prices will cause demand destruction and encourage the development of alternatives until demand is below supply, at which time the price will collapse because consumption is falling faster than production and must be arrested, just as occured in the late 1980s when Saudi Arabia discovered that at $100 a barrel it would soon no longer be an oil exporter, and so it slashed its price.
It is all right there in any economics textbook.
As for your links, I have already read such irrelevance. That OPEC countries find themselves ruined by peak oil is not my problem. Oil consumers will find supply elsewhere or simply stop wasting so much oil.
As for the paper you linked, they failed to address why what occured in the early 80s could not be repeated. In a 91 page paper on the economic ramifications of falling oil consumption, they spent only one paragraph discussing the last time such an event occured. Let me just say I was disappointed. Not to mention all the assumptions stated without any defense. That the normal fleet turnover takes 30 years does not mean it will take the same amount of time when oil is at $100.
Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 175 Location: Federal City, USA
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps I should ask you to explain the steps you believe Peak Oil will cause our downfall, then I can disprove your reasoning instead of throwing text at generalized concepts.
Our downfall? I never said anything about a downfall. If you mean concern about our total and utter dependence upon finite natural resources, then ok.
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
Simple: as I said, high oil prices will cause demand destruction and encourage the development of alternatives...
What alternatives? Please explain how you see that playing out.
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
...until demand is below supply...
The day that comes, I'll buy everyone dinner. _________________ Business as usual is about to get unusual.
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Well, I guess we might as well wring it to a close. You can be concerned about whatever you want, I guess. But stop making up myths about "our total and utter dependence upon finite natural resources" when there is no dependence. We are not 'addicted' as as some politician once said. We would still have a technological civilization if there had never been any oil to discover. We already know everything we need to in order to continue to prosper without oil; yet even you admit we will still have oil for decades to come.
Quote:
What alternatives? Please explain how you see that playing out.
Easy, those economic activities which produce the least end-user surplus will be phased out. For example, the airlifting of the latest electronics from factories in Asia will probably be one of the uses we give up. Flat-screen TVs can be transported by high-speed cargo ship for 1/10,000th the quantity of oil of a plane ride. Similarly, over 10% of the world's electricity is produced by burning oil. This is inefficient even when oil is cheap. Similarly, oil is used very wastefully by many industries, such as in concrete production. Some of these industries have already transitioned to alternative methods in Europe because of greenhouse emission standards, but $100 oil for a long time would provide a similar incentive.
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
Would you explain how the economy will keep chugging along with an increasing decline rate year upon year?
Simple: as I said, high oil prices will cause demand destruction and encourage the development of alternatives until demand is below supply, at which time the price will collapse because consumption is falling faster than production and must be arrested, just as occured in the late 1980s when Saudi Arabia discovered that at $100 a barrel it would soon no longer be an oil exporter, and so it slashed its price.
It is all right there in any economics textbook.
As for your links, I have already read such irrelevance. That OPEC countries find themselves ruined by peak oil is not my problem. Oil consumers will find supply elsewhere or simply stop wasting so much oil.
As for the paper you linked, they failed to address why what occured in the early 80s could not be repeated. In a 91 page paper on the economic ramifications of falling oil consumption, they spent only one paragraph discussing the last time such an event occured. Let me just say I was disappointed. Not to mention all the assumptions stated without any defense. That the normal fleet turnover takes 30 years does not mean it will take the same amount of time when oil is at $100.
Its in the economic books but is it in legislation a bill or an act? Starting fom the effects of an issue instead of addressing an issue head up sounds like "reacting" after the fact. Is that economics?
Respectfully you sound like an economics major straight out of the assembly line. Your posts lacks life experiences! V/R _________________ It's a cold cold world when a man has to pawn his shoes.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Personally, I would sooner read posts by two clever individuals that have obviously different opinions, and attack the same argument from different perspectives, than to have everyone agree on our own conventional peak oil wisdom as handed down to us by its founders and high priests of the movement.
There were or are some icons on peak oil dot com on the geological realities of peak oil that totally fall on their faces when it comes to the economics of post peak oil resource depletion. Mostly because they do not have a very good grasp of economics and finance in the first place.
I assume 'endless growth' to mean that 'we have to work for our daily bread'. If I could keep getting paid for work I did years ago, and use my free time for non-productive hobbies, then what would I be? A retired Baby Boomer on a pension? ; - )
But seriously, if we live and depend on nature - or inputs from nature - then our endless growth has to be ultimately sustainable. As anything that is unsustainable must by definition eventually come to an end.
So endless growth is possible. That is the same land under agricultural production for over a 1000+ years by multiple generations like in parts of Europe. Or well-managed forests. Your so-called return on investment is your surplus production that can then be spent or re-invested.
But not unsustainable growth in excess of our ability to regenerate that land or harvesting faster than the trees can re-grow. That would be unsustainable. Eventually your ROI would become negative.
Just like we have long given up on slash and burn agriculture because we found it ultimately unsustainable for a growing population's needs. But that was not the end of agriculture or forestry. Or profits (ROI) generated from agriculture and forestry.
When you remove petroleum from your current energy mix then if there is no sustitute your total energy will decline. Naturally. If you do not then rationalize the economy in-line with your new energy supply mix then the size of the remaining economy must also shrink. But it does not mean that the total economy disappears. Or that a new one will not emerge that is eventually in equilibrium with your new energy mix including those energy alternatives that become economically viable now that petroleum has been removed completely from your energy mix.
Your new energy mix may be more expensive in real terms and less efficient than the petroluem based economy it replaced. There is no economic law that states this cannot happen. If so, then living standards, as currently measured, may have to fall to that new equilibrium or new reality.
But as petroleum disappears from your current energy mix it makes all remaining energy in that mix economically more valuable. At least until new technology is able to find better substitutes than currently exist, or are currently uneconomical, so they have not been properly researched and exploited due to a lack of immediate demand.
I am not half as worried about the economics of resource depletion per se as I am really worried about disruptive external events - such as resource wars and rioting that destroys needed infrastructure - as a wholly human reaction to those falling living standards and the transition to a new reality that will surely create geographic winners and losers. Or perhaps stability and instability as I do not expect many winners to thrive and others struggle to survive. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 175 Location: Federal City, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
But stop making up myths about "our total and utter dependence upon finite natural resources" when there is no dependence. We are not 'addicted' as as some politician once said.
Who are you speaking for, LoneSnark? We aren't dependent on oil? In China, demand for oil is growing by the emerging consumer class, and is paramount for the production of myriad products. In North America, we are dependent on it primarily as transportation fuel. The distances between home, work, play, and shopping for most Americans necessitate car ownership. Period. It has ceased to be a convenience; it is now a requirement for full participation.
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
We would still have a technological civilization if there had never been any oil to discover.
I disagree. The physical properties of oil as a power source are unique, and easy to exploit. The discovery of oil 150 years ago has totally revolutionized the way we live in the world.
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
We already know everything we need to in order to continue to prosper without oil;
True enough. I get the feeling that your idea of prospering and mine are two very different things, however.
Look, obviously were talking past each other. We have radically different metaphysical perspectives. And admittedly, I'm not from an economics background, but when I refer to a "growth-based economy", I'm referring to GDP growth. My understanding is that GDP cannot fall year after year without consequences. I assume that GDP growth is dependant upon gross population growth worldwide and the production of goods for those additional people.
MrBill wrote:
Quote:
But it does not mean that the total economy disappears. Or that a new one will not emerge that is eventually in equilibrium with your new energy mix...Your new energy mix may be more expensive in real terms and less efficient than the petroluem based economy it replaced. There is no economic law that states this cannot happen. If so, then living standards, as currently measured, may have to fall to that new equilibrium or new reality.
I am not half as worried about the economics of resource depletion per se as I am really worried about disruptive external events - such as resource wars and rioting that destroys needed infrastructure - as a wholly human reaction to those falling living standards and the transition to a new reality
Yes, I agree with all of this - I really do. I think the disconnect is coming from my misunderstanding of how economic principles such as supply and demand (which are commonsensical) are intertwined with the purely quantitative metrics of "progress" that economists rely on, such as GDP (which I believe to be grossly shortsighted and narrowminded). _________________ Business as usual is about to get unusual.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Duende wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I agree with all of this - I really do. I think the disconnect is coming from my misunderstanding of how economic principles such as supply and demand (which are commonsensical) are intertwined with the purely quantitative metrics of "progress" that economists rely on, such as GDP (which I believe to be grossly shortsighted and narrowminded).
Well, that is fair enough. I will certainly use my limited knowledge of micro- and macro-economics to forward my arguments on post peak oil resource depletion, but I am not prepared to defend just any economist's own take on economic theory in general.
I would suggest that I would have not have gotten along with some of Mr. John Kenneth Galbraith's particular pet theories that I believe have been thoroughly discredited, but which remain none the less in our collectively economic lexicon. And I am also no left-wing western apologist. More a social liberal, but definitely a fiscal conservative.
Ditto for defending the distortion of economic theory of such economists as Keynes, Phillips, Ricardo or even Adam Smith himself by journalists, activists and politicians who have often taken their arguments and inaccurately made them say something completely different than intended.
The most famous recent example might be using the Laffer curve by politicians to mean they can lower taxes and increase spending at the same time. He obviously never said such a thing nor was that his intention. Just as Keynes never suggested that one did not have to balance budgets over the business cycle. Something spendthrift governments all too often conventiently ignore.
There is certainly nothing wrong with measuring GDP or a nation's economic output. What matters gets measured. It is a convenient tool. But it is not a policy end in itself. That may be what you are saying? It is a metric. A guage. It is but one. An economic growth spurt fuelled by excess money supply growth or by fiscal deficits is only as sustainable in the long-run as the stimulous itself. There is no long-term boost to productivity.
The Marshall Plan succeeded only because it became self-sustaining whereas all the aid west Germany is pouring into the former DDR is basically water down a rat hole. Certainly not good value for their efforts. More like a regressive tax on west German firms that lowers their own long-term growth and weakens their external competitiveness.
But while we are there I think there is a common misconception that the government can print money and therefore stimulate extra growth. They can, but only in the short-term. Eventually that debt has to be repaid with interest thereby lowering future income. That governments can issue new debt to retire existing debt only prolongues the day of reckoning, and therefore adds to the amount of interest that needs to be paid, which comes out of future income or higher saving that will lower growth in the future.
The only escape is to devalue debt by either inflating the economy or devaluing your currency and therefore sharing your debt burden with foreign investors. But that just makes everyone poorer as they lose buying power and creditors demand higher real interest rates to protect themselves from inflation or devaluation. As this article in the FT.com makes clear.
It has just appeared to the casual observer that the US has been able to magically print enough currency to pay all of the US' debts. What we have not seen is the fall-out from those voodoo economic policies, which are probably one of the reasons that economics in general is not a very well-respected field. I would not blame it so much on the practioners in finance and economics, but rather on policy makers trying to avoid making necessary trade-offs between competing interests in the economy and ultimately voters. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Quote:
In North America, we are dependent on it primarily as transportation fuel
You are mistaking means for ends. In North America we are dependent upon the automobile. We are dependent upon central heating. We are dependent upon the electricity grid. But to say we are dependent upon 'oil' is to skip a crucial question: is oil the only way to fuel these dependencies? The answer is no. Oil is just our current means of attaining our ends, but other means exist. And we will still have oil 150 years from now. All peak oil means is that the quantity supplied will fall from here on out, not that it will run out completely.
Quote:
I assume that GDP growth is dependant upon gross population growth worldwide and the production of goods for those additional people.
No, many European countries today have falling populations and their economies are fine. But you have overlooked the information revolution of the past 20 years. It takes less than half as much oil to produce the same dollar of GDP today than it did in the 1970s, and that was while oil was ridiculously cheap from 1987 to 2005. What people wanted from their economy changed.
GDP is a human measure of value; it is intangible in the real world. It does not translate into tons or barrels. Human value comes from whatever resources are available that can be combined with human creativity. That everyone is forced to drive a small electric car does not mean they cannot have a bigger house, faster computer, or more advanced video games. What people associate with economic hardship is unemployment. And in a Peak Oil world there will be plenty of work to do building more power plants and replacing the automotive fleet.
Quote:
I am not half as worried about the economics of resource depletion per se as I am really worried about disruptive external events - such as resource wars and rioting that destroys needed infrastructure - as a wholly human reaction to those falling living standards and the transition to a new reality
I must concede to MrBill on this. He is absolutely right. While people living in markets will have no trouble prospering as oil production falls, after some hardship due to dashed expectations, there is no limit to the damage that can be inflicted in the non-economic realms. Politicians do not need Peak Oil to wage war. But, if we do manage to escape war, what is to stop them from going on television, as Richard Nixon did, speak of economic emergency, and attempt to regulate prices? Nothing, they have done it before, and single-handedly gave us all horror stories of energy shortages from the 70's. I blame Nixon for today's Peak Oil crowd. Had he not attempted to regulate the markets there would have been no shortages. All anyone today would remember is temporary high prices, not gas lines, not driving around a city desperate to find enough fuel to get home. Not watching businesses shut down because they cannot get fuel. Watching oil tankers turned away from terminals because they could not be unloaded profitably.
Peak Oil, like most economic myths, will be supported not because the threat is real but because it enables politicians to assume more power over us, while at the same time blaming the resultant hardship on others (greedy speculators, hoarders, etc). The hardest part is people like you, Mr Duende, already convinced that free people will be unable to self organize themselves to deal with some eventuality. If we accept you are right and markets will be unable to manage this shortfall, what is the solution? If you were in charge, I suspect your response would be to fashion some form of "Energy Bill" to set up government commissions to manage and regulate the shortfall. Without thinking you would be doing exactly what Nixon did, and I would predict similar results: the economic catastrophe you feared would become reality; only it would not have been caused by an oil shortage, the fault would be yours.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Duende wrote:
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
We would still have a technological civilization if there had never been any oil to discover.
I disagree. The physical properties of oil as a power source are unique, and easy to exploit. The discovery of oil 150 years ago has totally revolutionized the way we live in the world.
We already had a technolological civilization before oil. What would you call the steam locomotive, the steamship, the cotton gin, the electric printing press, the combine harvester or the telegraph(all before 1840)?Obviously development would have been slower without the handy little powerpack that is oil, and no doubt that would have a been a good thing for the planet. Actually I find it an interesting line of thought to ponder, and often do-what if there hadn't been any stored plant and animal material in the ground,not even coal or gas,only minerals. If we had been forced to generate our own energy, rather than have all those critters charge that great big battery for us all those years ago, how would we have developed? Could have been a long, slow, gentle rise that didn't involve massive population increase, pollution and species extinctions...such a lovely thought...sigh... But anyway, wishful musings aside, it's plain to see that we were on a technological trajectory that had been going for a long time before oil.
Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 175 Location: Federal City, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Lonesnark wrote:
Quote:
But to say we are dependent upon 'oil' is to skip a crucial question: is oil the only way to fuel these dependencies? The answer is no. Oil is just our current means of attaining our ends, but other means exist.
LoneSnark, are you as confident as you seem in your assertion? I'm not discounting alternatives, but you're gonna have to do better than just saying "other means exist." Show me something - anything - that's demonstrable and scalable.
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I assume that GDP growth is dependant upon gross population growth worldwide and the production of goods for those additional people.
No, many European countries today have falling populations and their economies are fine.
Read exactly what I wrote: I specified gross worldwide population growth. It could very well be that the cheap employment overseas has freed the Western world up for an information economy - one built upon the backs of all those third world assembly line workers, working all day for a shiny nickel or two. How does your economic forecast look in the face of worldwide population decline?
LoneSnark wrote:
Quote:
The hardest part is people like you, Mr Duende, already convinced that free people will be unable to self organize themselves to deal with some eventuality... If you were in charge, I suspect your response would be to fashion some form of "Energy Bill" to set up government commissions to manage and regulate the shortfall.
LoneSnark, goodness gracious. Actually, if I was in charge, we would have powered down two days before yesterday. Conservation. I'm not a hardcore doomer like you are probably assuming. The problem isn't that oil is peaking; it's that demand has gotten that high to begin with. I think we should scale down everything we do in sociey; I believe we need to localized power production, food harvesting, entertainment, transportation, and bring the concept of community back to prominance, like it was before oil tricked us into thinking that we function outside and above the dominion of nature. Thatwould be self-organizing in the face of an eventuality. _________________ Business as usual is about to get unusual.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Here is how the economic markets are fairing in the opening salvo of what is either Peak Oil or a precursor.
Quote:
Wall Street Falls Amid Economic Worries- AP
Wall Street fell but came off its lows Wednesday as investors searched for anything to placate their worries about the wilting mortgage market and the health of the overall economy.
Oil Hesitates on Drive to $100 a Barrel- AP $100 Oil Will Hit Gas and Airfares- CNNMoney.com Home Sales Declined in 47 States in 3Q- AP Economy Likely to Keep Slowing
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil
Quote:
LoneSnark, are you as confident as you seem in your assertion? I'm not discounting alternatives, but you're gonna have to do better than just saying "other means exist." Show me something - anything - that's demonstrable and scalable.
Easy. The tropical regions of this planet can be cleared and sugarcane planted in its place. Sugarcane is capable of an 8% solar to chemical conversion rate, four times that of corn, high enough to challenge solar voltaics. This sugar can then be fed to bacteria for producing Ethanol. Or, if LS9 Inc. finishes its genetic engineering work, the sugarcane can be fed to bacteria which turn it directly into gasoline.
http://www.ls9.com/technology.htm
But as I said, this is irrelevant: we are not about to run out of oil tomorrow, just not have as much as we had before. As such, some gasoline will come from sugarcane in Brazil, the rest will come from the remaining oil wells.
The last component, of course, is plug in hybrids. I lost the statistic, but 30% of America's vehicle fleet could go electric, being recharged at night, just on the existing power grid infrastructure.
But I did not come here to argue specifics: I do not know what the future economy will look like. All I know is that we have 600 years of proof that as long as people are free to truck and barter they will self-organize to correct for any disruption, expected or unexpected, short of war.
Quote:
How does your economic forecast look in the face of worldwide population decline?
Fine. Why would that matter to anyone? What possible mechanism could there be for a government statistic, that no one is even sure of, to cause the worldwide economy to falter?
Economists are not sure where economic growth usually comes from, and they have looked. Either it is supply driven (if you make it they will buy it) or demand driven (if they demand it we will make it). But we know it works fairly well. As such, we don't know how economic contraction will work. Will it be demand driven (price fall and producers shut down) or will it be supply driven (employers cannot find workers and shut down). But the rules for one should apply equally well to the opposite. Especially since economist history is nothing but falling production: buggy whips, horse breeders, whale-oil producers, etc. As far as they were conserned the population might as well have being killed off by the plague, since they sold fewer and fewer products every year at every lower prices until they sold none.
Quote:
Actually, if I was in charge, we would have powered down two days before yesterday. Conservation. I'm not a hardcore doomer like you are probably assuming. The problem isn't that oil is peaking; it's that demand has gotten that high to begin with.
How? Did you just sign an executive order telling everyone to power down? Will you execute them for failure to do so? Who sh
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
