Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official International Trade Policy Thread*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
The Z Machine
Footballguy
No, not currently.
msommer
Footballguy
If you keep shipping jobs away you erode the buying power, ie. the stuff might be cheaper but the won't be more of it.
Traditional counter is that jobs migrate to other industries, but in isolation, if no such thing happens, then the job loss vs cheaper stuff might not be positive.
Look at Africa, why do these low income country not become the manufactoring centres of the world - governance aside, they are stuck in the trap. They cannot build the skill sets to needed to compete because there already is someone in the cheap labor seat. And most countries also have issues getting the required infrastructure in place.
A lot of African countries have welcomed the Chinese investments in principally minerals extraction but also large scale building projects, thinking ths would give a local skills push, but the Chinese have mainly brought everything they needed from abroad, rather than produce locally and thus have ended up in the role of robber barons, more than development aid donor.
And without the skills transfer to the African workers, they cannot start a manufacturing base able to compete with the exisitng occupant of the cheap labor seat - principally China
Traditional counter is that jobs migrate to other industries, but in isolation, if no such thing happens, then the job loss vs cheaper stuff might not be positive.
Look at Africa, why do these low income country not become the manufactoring centres of the world - governance aside, they are stuck in the trap. They cannot build the skill sets to needed to compete because there already is someone in the cheap labor seat. And most countries also have issues getting the required infrastructure in place.
A lot of African countries have welcomed the Chinese investments in principally minerals extraction but also large scale building projects, thinking ths would give a local skills push, but the Chinese have mainly brought everything they needed from abroad, rather than produce locally and thus have ended up in the role of robber barons, more than development aid donor.
And without the skills transfer to the African workers, they cannot start a manufacturing base able to compete with the exisitng occupant of the cheap labor seat - principally China
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Btw, lots of low cost manufacturing is leaving or has left southern China for inland China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. I've been through shoe factories and textile good factories in the free economic zones there that are at like 10% capacity or are note now closed. Semi-skilled Chinese labor (like Japanese and Taiwanese labor before) has increased in cost so much that it is no longer the low cost leader despite great infrastructure and operational expertise there.
The race to the bottom continues.
The race to the bottom continues.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Yup, I read it. Like you, it conveniently ignores what the TPP text actually says and simply labels it a"free trade agreement".
More handguns might not be a great idea.
More soda or cocaine, maybe not.
More video games, debatable.
But for an awful lot of stuff -- housing, clothes, competent medical treatment, vegetables, etc. -- as long as "cheaper" incorporates all direct and indirect costs (pollution, etc.), cheaper is almost certainly better 100% of the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're saying that Chinese workers are currently commanding higher wages than before, and now it's Thailand's turn. When the poorest workers around the world are lifted out of poverty, how is that not a good thing?
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, this is a more fundamentally interesting question than my previous answer gave it credit for.
One of the apparent paradoxes in economic development is that when a country increases its wealth and its standard of living, it doesn't necessarily increase its happiness. Based on surveys where people are asked to rate their overall life satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 10, and perhaps other more sophisticated methods I'm not aware of, people in China today do not seem any happier (and may be slightly less happy) than they were a few decades ago before they started making such economic progress. (One of the things that strikes me whenever I see footage of primitive people building tree houses, foraging for honey, etc., is how dang happy they all look.)
I could riff on this idea and get into all kinds of tangents, but for now, I'll just post this link to an idea from Bhutan that seems kind of interesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
Yeah, a lot also migrated to Ningbo and Shanghai, from where there is a move going on to particularly Xingang, Tianjin (Hebei SEC) and Chongqing. But moving inland (e.g. Chongqing) increases the logistics cost and lead time so that makes Southern Asia become attractive again to US and European buyers. If you look at what is produced these days in the Southern SECs it's mostly durable goods where before it was the cheap stuff. Now it's dishwashers, tvs, computers, iPhones etc
msommer
Footballguy
The migrant workforce and restrictions on internal migration might make China a more unique case than is generally thought.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It's all related. Sowell's theory is based on an academic view where "this industry in the U.S. has to close shop" and "jobs are outsourced to China" have neutral value. This stuff isnt off topic, it's the point of the quote you posted. They simply state a fact and are not good or bad.
But ceding industries to a foreign country that we can make ourselves, especially vital industries, isn't neutral because it fits into a larger political context. Sowell is right. But we don't live in a vacuum.
You can't have true free trade with laissez-faire principles that does what we want it to do between countries with disparite regulations and ends up without loss of industries in the regulated countries. And exploitation of the non-regulated ones.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Many good points, MT.
Where is the balance between lifting those in other countries out of dire poverty and putting those in our own country into poverty through the loss of their jobs? It's obviously not zero sum, and a rising tide and all that, but the loss of manufacturing in the U.S. has had dramatic consequences on our rust belt cities, and the people living in on them that couldn't or haven't retrained to become knowledge workers.
Where is the balance between lifting those in other countries out of dire poverty and putting those in our own country into poverty through the loss of their jobs? It's obviously not zero sum, and a rising tide and all that, but the loss of manufacturing in the U.S. has had dramatic consequences on our rust belt cities, and the people living in on them that couldn't or haven't retrained to become knowledge workers.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Also, I was hoping for insight into the consequences of the "more stuff" rather than the "cheaper" part of the equation.
Personally, I think the western world is getting close to "peak stuff".
*Full disclosure, I heard that phrase on Marketplace when Kai interviewed someone from IKEA.
Personally, I think the western world is getting close to "peak stuff".
*Full disclosure, I heard that phrase on Marketplace when Kai interviewed someone from IKEA.
AAAll-Stars
Footballguy
I'm going to put in what I put in the Trump thread.
TRADE REFORM
1. Trade deals disproportionally hurt African-American and Hispanic-American workers.
http://equitablegrowth.org/african-american-workers-are-hurt-more-by-the-decline-in-union-and-manufacturing-jobs/
https://medium.com/@northstarnewstoday/5-million-u-s-manufacturing-jobs-lost-in-15-years-46a3b1639e77#.h4zmtklig
In the 1970s AA and HA's with a college degree enjoyed high levels of employment due to manufacturing jobs and other heavy/important labor that didi require college specialization. Now that number is much less and as such forces many of them to turn to government assistance, drugs/gangs, or going into heavy debt at college. Also few jobs drives down the wages for jobs they compete for and thus lowers their purchasing power as a whole. Support for TPP/NAFTA is a form of racism. Not standing against trade reform is a form of racism.
2. Enriching a Communist Oligarchy and an American Civil Oligarchy
These trade deals are a tremendous scheme by the rich. So these "economists" tell you that you'll get a lot more of these cheaper goods which will increase your purchasing power. So what happens? You say you'll buy the product. So American Oligarch sends his/her factories to China, which practivally employs slave labor, gets a massive amount of profit and enriches themselves! And the corporation in China, which employs slave labor, gets a massive amount of the profit and enriches the Chinese Oligarch who owns it and is in league with the Communist Chinese government to suppress their citizens. And now there are few jobs too! So people have to take lower paying jobs, and are stuck buying these goods! Good gravy!? What a scam!
Oh sure, all the economists agree on free trade. They say that all these people with money will invest that money back into America and China to develop wealth. HAHAHAHAHA. Let me explain.
http://www.businessinsider.com/asher-edelman-endorses-bernie-sanders-2016-3
3. Asher Edelman, the real life Gordan Gekko, recently endorsed Bernie Sanders. He said ""Well, I think it's quite simple again. If you look at something called velocity of money, you guys know what that is I presume, that means how much gets spent and turns around. When you have the top 1% getting money, they spend 5-10% of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend 100-110% of what they earn."
Enough said. Why spend all your loot where you have multiples of what you have already? And why take risks? Anyone knows that once you make a lot of money, you become risk adverse and Edelmen's numbers are proof of this.
4. Helping the Chinese rich will do little to help push that country into democracy.
China, by not being a liberal democracy, represents a long term global threat to this planet. Their push into genetic eugenics, social engineering, human rights suppression, slave labor, forced abortions, and geo-political expansion represent a grave threat to all liberal values around the globe. They right now seem to have little need to turn to liberal democracy.And they need to be pushed into liberal democracy or else. By continuing to feed the beast, we only serve to make the monster we'll someday face that much more dangerous.
5. So we want to live in a world where major chunks of this country are owned by China?!
What the hell are you people smoking!? China is a Mercantilist/Communist/Capitalist country. Think of it like an octopus, and the brain is the Chinese government, the corporations are the tentacles. They are already buying up major parts of Africa, Greece, Europe, and the USA. Corporations buying things around the globe is one thing, but having them tightly controlled by the China Government Machine is a whole different story. These corporations right now exist as a way for China to give themselves soft power over other countries and their citizens. They are an ominous threat to us.
And in general, is that what we want the world to become? A bunch of super-corps owning everything around the globe and putting the pressure on governments to make things more business friendly for them? Globalization without strong/smart government regulation will absolutely lead to disaster.
6. Global Warming.
Modern liberalism is a joke on this. They keep pressuring the West to conform to these green friendly systems but they mean jack until we address China/India/Africa. China is the biggest polluter in the world. Right now, we're threatening American industry by adopting these measures, and the idea that the "green supporters" will be able to get China to buy in is laughable. China will say yes and drag their feet for 50 years. We need to stick it to China, and use our economic leverage to force them to make reforms.
E. Enriches corrupt Mexican oligarchy.
Income inequality is also going up in Mexico, Surprise surprise!
http://www.eldailypost.com/news/2015/06/income-disparity-in-mexico-is-dizzying-and-growing/
Gee, I wonder how that happened! Maybe there was some sort of trade deal...maybe there was a drug trade that allowed corrupt Mexican officials to become entrenched in power...nah. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Straight up, not supporting trade reform and sticking the screws to the Mexican establishment KILLS MEXICANS. Enough said. The NAFTA/TPP scheme allows the super rich to hyper increase their wealth while driving down worker/middle class wealth across the board. Which leads to people getting involved with gangs/crime to pay the bills. Not supporting trade reform is a form of racism against Mexicans.
7. Cripples Unions.
I won't spend long here, but this country used to be 30% unionized. Now it's down to 11%. Here are a few article showing how slave labor in China/India is being used as a weapon to crush American Unions.
http://www.cwa-union.org/pages/10_ways_the_tpp_would_hurt_cwa_represented_workers
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/trans-pacific-partnership-fast-track/
Without Unions, Americans can bargain for better worker rights as easily and wages are suppressed across the board.
-------------
These trade deals are working with partners that are not free at all. The income gap in this country continues to widen, we enrich Communist Oligarchies and NAFTA seems to sit right at the heart of much of this.
As for TPP, I read the article Maurile posted.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/11/donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-are-delusional-on-trade-policy.html
Maurile, can you point to the data points in it that prove your point. Not what the author says in the article, but the information within the data points the article sites to give hard proof that free trade is good enough to overcome the issues I have with it above?
Thanks. I would like to hear a strong alternative perspective on this.
TRADE REFORM
1. Trade deals disproportionally hurt African-American and Hispanic-American workers.
http://equitablegrowth.org/african-american-workers-are-hurt-more-by-the-decline-in-union-and-manufacturing-jobs/
https://medium.com/@northstarnewstoday/5-million-u-s-manufacturing-jobs-lost-in-15-years-46a3b1639e77#.h4zmtklig
In the 1970s AA and HA's with a college degree enjoyed high levels of employment due to manufacturing jobs and other heavy/important labor that didi require college specialization. Now that number is much less and as such forces many of them to turn to government assistance, drugs/gangs, or going into heavy debt at college. Also few jobs drives down the wages for jobs they compete for and thus lowers their purchasing power as a whole. Support for TPP/NAFTA is a form of racism. Not standing against trade reform is a form of racism.
2. Enriching a Communist Oligarchy and an American Civil Oligarchy
These trade deals are a tremendous scheme by the rich. So these "economists" tell you that you'll get a lot more of these cheaper goods which will increase your purchasing power. So what happens? You say you'll buy the product. So American Oligarch sends his/her factories to China, which practivally employs slave labor, gets a massive amount of profit and enriches themselves! And the corporation in China, which employs slave labor, gets a massive amount of the profit and enriches the Chinese Oligarch who owns it and is in league with the Communist Chinese government to suppress their citizens. And now there are few jobs too! So people have to take lower paying jobs, and are stuck buying these goods! Good gravy!? What a scam!
Oh sure, all the economists agree on free trade. They say that all these people with money will invest that money back into America and China to develop wealth. HAHAHAHAHA. Let me explain.
http://www.businessinsider.com/asher-edelman-endorses-bernie-sanders-2016-3
3. Asher Edelman, the real life Gordan Gekko, recently endorsed Bernie Sanders. He said ""Well, I think it's quite simple again. If you look at something called velocity of money, you guys know what that is I presume, that means how much gets spent and turns around. When you have the top 1% getting money, they spend 5-10% of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend 100-110% of what they earn."
Enough said. Why spend all your loot where you have multiples of what you have already? And why take risks? Anyone knows that once you make a lot of money, you become risk adverse and Edelmen's numbers are proof of this.
4. Helping the Chinese rich will do little to help push that country into democracy.
China, by not being a liberal democracy, represents a long term global threat to this planet. Their push into genetic eugenics, social engineering, human rights suppression, slave labor, forced abortions, and geo-political expansion represent a grave threat to all liberal values around the globe. They right now seem to have little need to turn to liberal democracy.And they need to be pushed into liberal democracy or else. By continuing to feed the beast, we only serve to make the monster we'll someday face that much more dangerous.
5. So we want to live in a world where major chunks of this country are owned by China?!
What the hell are you people smoking!? China is a Mercantilist/Communist/Capitalist country. Think of it like an octopus, and the brain is the Chinese government, the corporations are the tentacles. They are already buying up major parts of Africa, Greece, Europe, and the USA. Corporations buying things around the globe is one thing, but having them tightly controlled by the China Government Machine is a whole different story. These corporations right now exist as a way for China to give themselves soft power over other countries and their citizens. They are an ominous threat to us.
And in general, is that what we want the world to become? A bunch of super-corps owning everything around the globe and putting the pressure on governments to make things more business friendly for them? Globalization without strong/smart government regulation will absolutely lead to disaster.
6. Global Warming.
Modern liberalism is a joke on this. They keep pressuring the West to conform to these green friendly systems but they mean jack until we address China/India/Africa. China is the biggest polluter in the world. Right now, we're threatening American industry by adopting these measures, and the idea that the "green supporters" will be able to get China to buy in is laughable. China will say yes and drag their feet for 50 years. We need to stick it to China, and use our economic leverage to force them to make reforms.
E. Enriches corrupt Mexican oligarchy.
Income inequality is also going up in Mexico, Surprise surprise!
http://www.eldailypost.com/news/2015/06/income-disparity-in-mexico-is-dizzying-and-growing/
Gee, I wonder how that happened! Maybe there was some sort of trade deal...maybe there was a drug trade that allowed corrupt Mexican officials to become entrenched in power...nah. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Straight up, not supporting trade reform and sticking the screws to the Mexican establishment KILLS MEXICANS. Enough said. The NAFTA/TPP scheme allows the super rich to hyper increase their wealth while driving down worker/middle class wealth across the board. Which leads to people getting involved with gangs/crime to pay the bills. Not supporting trade reform is a form of racism against Mexicans.
7. Cripples Unions.
I won't spend long here, but this country used to be 30% unionized. Now it's down to 11%. Here are a few article showing how slave labor in China/India is being used as a weapon to crush American Unions.
http://www.cwa-union.org/pages/10_ways_the_tpp_would_hurt_cwa_represented_workers
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/trans-pacific-partnership-fast-track/
Without Unions, Americans can bargain for better worker rights as easily and wages are suppressed across the board.
-------------
These trade deals are working with partners that are not free at all. The income gap in this country continues to widen, we enrich Communist Oligarchies and NAFTA seems to sit right at the heart of much of this.
As for TPP, I read the article Maurile posted.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/11/donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-are-delusional-on-trade-policy.html
Maurile, can you point to the data points in it that prove your point. Not what the author says in the article, but the information within the data points the article sites to give hard proof that free trade is good enough to overcome the issues I have with it above?
Thanks. I would like to hear a strong alternative perspective on this.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Article that gets to some of my points: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/consumerism-reached-peak-stuff-search-for-happiness
renesauz
IBL Representative
Seems pretty obvious to me. If goods are produced in a place that has slave wages with zero environmental regulation, then the competition is inherently unfair and no amount of efficiency is going to overcome it.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sorry Tim...."good articles" don't assume the premise that TPP is a real "free trade" agreement. They can't because it isn't.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'll also say, the quicker we get past the idea that "free trade" really exists, the better off we'll be. The second step would then be for our politicians to craft legislation with "free trade" as the ideal rather than the goal. This would force them to focus on the impacts on the citizens rather than the corporations. It's our government's job to protect us and help us succeed in the global market, not to play the role of a concrete block around our ankles after we've been thrown in the river of the global market.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I like it, except when he veers off into his home ownership argument, which seems completely unsupported. I feel like this is a good description of a lot of us (including me): "Yet most people today, says Sedlacek, work in jobs they do not much like, to buy goods they do not much value – the opposite of any idea of the good life, Aristotelian or otherwise."
The Commish
Footballguy
A wonderful business to be in right now is the self storage business. Those things are going up everywhere it seems. We buy all kinds of stuff for our huge houses and that's still not enough, so we buy more and it flows over into these storage units because we can't part with it, but we also don't want it.
By 'fairness,' do you mean eliminating comparative advantage? If so, can you explain why such fairness is desirable at all? (Otherwise, what do you mean by it?)
I understand why we'd want other countries to have sensible environmental policies (and to prohibit actual slavery), and I understand why we might use trade negotiations to induce them to implement such policies ... but in that case, the goal is sensible environmental policies, not fairness. 'Fairness,' in this context, sounds like a pretext for the kind of protectionism Bastiat parodied in his candlestick makers' petition against the sun.
msommer
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
renesauz
IBL Representative
It sounds like you're just fine with our businesses having to go toe-to toe, in our own marketplaces. with foreign companies who have little to no environmental regulations to add to their costs, extremely poor working conditions and near slave labor?Maurile Tremblay said:
All free trade is not equal.
AAAll-Stars
Footballguy
I completely agree. Free Trade is like Libertarianism, it sounds great in theory but it never works in practice because the world is inherently unfair.
msommer
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
How are the lives of people in these countries going to get better without jobs?
There's a problem if an American has no more skills to offer than an uneducated foreign worker. I prefer to focus on improving the skills of American workers.
The Commish
Footballguy
If we are going to be in the world market and sticking our noses in everywhere, it should be perfectly acceptable for us (the United States) demand of these foreign governments adequate working conditions for their citizens. We should also not have a problem protecting our workers while these countries get up to speed with those demands. I'm not sure when it happened, but somewhere along the road "price" became pretty much the only standard we measured value and fairness by. Which is unfortunate because it's one of many factors and I would argue not even the top 5 from a morality/ethical perspective.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Because in the absence of similar regulations, COGS for manufactured goods simply cannot be competitive with other countries' COGS. That leaves the elimination of large-scale manufacturing of goods in the U.S. as a very possible outcome.Maurile Tremblay said:
It is undesirable that the United States not have a strong manufacturing base. The loss of large-scale manufacturing to other countries makes the U.S. vulnerable to political forces in other countries solely to keep our economy running.
We may disagree as to whether that's bad or not, but if we do we're probably never going to come to agreement on that issue.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'd say the opposite. I understand why we'd want to keep manufacturing our own tanks, jets, and missiles; but I don't see why manufacturing our own vacuum cleaners or stereo systems has anything to do with that. (Maybe we don't want to become dependent on any single country for our vital stereo-system needs, but there will likely always be plenty of countries willing to sell them to us, so that doesn't really seem to be an issue.)
I think what would render us vulnerable to political forces in other countries would be (a) a weak economy, (b) a weak military, or (c) weak political alliances with other nations. The last of those is probably most important.
I think a robust economy that takes full advantage of international trade is an important part of guarding against all of those things. A strong military depends on a strong economy to fund it. A strong economy depends on foreign trade to power it.
And I think it's indisputable that countries that trade with each other a lot are much less likely to go to war against each other, and much more likely to support each other in skirmishes against others.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
A country that does not engage in large scale manufacturing trades primarily in services and raw materials. A country that trades primarily in services and raw materials is significantly more vulnerable to market fluctuations and international political concerns. Manufacturing is an economic stabilizer, particularly in volatile economic times.
Even service industries are incredibly reliant on manufactured goods. Look at how countries fared in the financial crisis. Countries with high export numbers for finished non-durable manufactured products generally fared significantly better than those that were focused on service, capital goods, and raw materials. There's a reason that the economic sectoral multiplier (to say nothing of the employment multiplier) for manufacturing is consistently so high.
It's great to have trade. It's essential that trade does not destroy the large scale manufacturing base necessary for a diverse, stable economy.
msommer
Footballguy
An interesting article concerning attitude towards globalization and international trade
Why Voters Don't Buy it when Economists Say Global Trade is Good
Why Voters Don't Buy it when Economists Say Global Trade is Good
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
None of these are why I am resistant to our current and proposed "trade deals". Well, maybe, if I try hard I can fit my position into the "selfish" theory.
1. "free trade" <> "fair trade"
2. There is a thick layer of "business" between me and these "deals"
3. What's right for businesses isn't necessarily what's right for the individual.
#1 is obvious. There's no need to explain that one. Because #3 is true, it brings #2 into the equation. It remains to be seen if the "benefits" ever filter down to us as individuals in the market. Of course it does to shareholders, but let's not fool ourselves, that group is incredibly small compared to the market as a whole. We've seen time and time again the situation where companies experience windfall growth and prosperity under these agreements and our wages remain stagnant. The companies sit on their earnings while they continue to ride on the backs of their employees with little acknowledgment/compensation thrown the employees' direction.
Without getting into the "TL'DR" range, that's my issue with these deals. Yeah, they are great for business, but that's generally where the economic analysis ends in a lot of these conversations. We (at least I) don't trust the companies to pass the winnings/benefits to the rest of us via salary/compensation. There's little to no loyalty to the worker by the company and that seems to go unaddressed in most of these analyses.
Most lopsided IGM poll ever?
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_bPhkXOCq57dbfql
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_bPhkXOCq57dbfql
cstu
Footballguy
worrierking
Footballguy
I just stumbled on this thread and I have to say I am astonished at how polite and thoughtful it has been. Congrats.
I am 100% in favor of free trade. That doesn't mean I don't think these deals like TPP aren't fully loaded with special side deals to protect the well-connected.
I am 100% in favor of free trade. That doesn't mean I don't think these deals like TPP aren't fully loaded with special side deals to protect the well-connected.
The Commish
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Thought-provoking interview with Dani Rodrik.
https://promarket.org/globalization-contributed-tearing-societies-apart/
https://promarket.org/globalization-contributed-tearing-societies-apart/
“For a long time, Bangladesh – whose garment industry has become almost synonymous with sweatshops – has been used as a critique of capitalism. And for an equally long time, capitalists have said this is a process countries have to go through and in a few years Bangladesh will reap a reward of economic growth and development. So it’s relevant to hear that Bangladesh is booming, with per capita income tripling in a decade, poverty rates cut in half, near food self-sufficiency, and the UN graduating them out of “least developed country” status.” (Link)
msommer
Footballguy
Bozo
Footballguy
Similar threads
