IMF's whacky far-out conspiraloon Government Issued Utility Money Plan

[love detective]

Right, well in that case, there's no guard against a bank going bust when its rolling deposits dry up. I still don't quite see how that is truly 100% reserve lending. It clearly isn't if your long-term loans are not fully funded by long-term deposits. And if all loans had to be matched exactly to deposits like that, the whole system would grind to a halt.

I know you're not advocating this, but it doesn't seem to be a coherent theory to me.

Because you're trying to make 100% reserve banking something that it's not

It's about restrictions on what you can do with certain types of deposits (i.e. deposits which can be withdrawn without notice/on demand) not what you can do with lending - and yes completely agree it's not a coherent theory whatsoever, but then what should we expect from the type of people who support it

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I'll break my own advice to quote this because it is such utter nonsense. If you have any fractional reserve lending, you do not have full reserve banking. This the whole point.

You're doing what you usually do and taking something complicated and reducing it to a simplistic black or white idea. This is why you get stuff so wrong.

 

[Blagsta]

I suggest simply ignoring love detective's posts to avoid confusion. He does not understand the process of money creation and the difference between fractional and full-reserve banking, or indeed bank runs.

With full-reserve banking, there's no such thing as a bank run. The money is there.

Ironically brilliant.

 

[Jazzz]

Original Chicago Paper on Full Reserve Banking (Page 22):-

Under the 100% reserve system, demand deposits of checking deposits, being the equivalent of cash, would be withdrawable or transferable without any restrictions whatever. The cash would belong to the depositor, and ought to be ready at his beck and call. But savings or time deposits would, as at present, normally be covered only fractionally by cash reserves.

Which is crucially not the same as fractional-reserve banking. Of course the time deposits aren't fully covered: that's the whole point. They've been lent out, and the depositors have no claim to them (apart from the fraction that becomes due). It is precisely because the bank can fulfil all the claims against it at any time that it is full-reserve banking.

Muppet

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'll break my own advice to quote this because it is such utter nonsense. If you have any fractional reserve lending, you have money creation by private banks, you do not have full reserve banking. This the whole point.

Thing is, it isn't really full reserve banking, not from what I can tell. At best it's a system that is pretending to be a full reserve system but really isn't, but has mechanisms such as banks' own wealth by which lending is made fractional again. I can only stress again that loans have two components - amount and time. It was the second of these that fucked Northern Rock, that always fucks banks when they are fucked because they borrow short and lend long - that's their business.

I can't see any upside to this idea, tbh.

 

[Jazzz]

The money is only 'there' if the time of the deposits is matched to the time of the loans.

eh? can you elaborate?

With full reserve banking, it's just like you or I making loans. We can only make them once the money is deposited. We can't create it ourselves. How can you have a problem with the timing?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which is crucially not the same as fractional-reserve banking. Of course the time deposits aren't fully covered: that's the whole point. They've been lent out, and the depositors have no claim to them (apart from the fraction that becomes due). It is precisely because the bank can fulfil all the claims against it at any time that it is full-reserve banking.

It can't though. If it is lending against its own assets, and the value of those assets (which have become liabilities once they've been mortgaged like this) goes down, they're fucked! That paper seems to be suggesting pretty explicitly that banks should be lending against the value of their own personal assets.

This whole thing is incoherent.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

eh? can you elaborate?

With full reserve banking, it's just like you or I making loans. We can only make them once the money is deposited. We can't create it ourselves. How can you have a problem with the timing?

If A gives B £10 on a one-week deposit, and B lends that £10 out to C for a year, when A comes back for their £10 one week later, B won't have it - C has it for another 51 weeks.

This, in a nutshell, is what happened to Northern Rock. A refused to lend B that £10 again, but C wasn't due to repay. Hence they couldn't balance their books, and as soon as a bank cannot balance its books, it's in trouble.

 

[Jazzz]

If A gives B £10 on a one-week deposit, and B lends that £10 out to C for a year

Which is already not full-reserve banking.

edit - I understand where you were coming from - indeed with full reserve banking the timing must match up.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which is already not full-reserve banking.

Exactly. Full reserve banking has to involve time-matched loans and deposits. I've read most of that paper now - initially I thought this was what they were proposing, but it isn't. They are proposing something rather odd, meaning that banks must lend money that isn't on deposit, their own money, basically, which they match to the loan in time. Fine - but that's not an effective banking system. That's a system that grinds to a halt/has banks lending at extortionate rates because they can. It's reducing the availability of funds to lend - that's not a good situation for borrowers.

It's actually a rather weird proposal that advocates banks being really rich. Otherwise they can't do anything. The paper actually proposes that government should legislate for banks being really rich by law by imposing legislation saying that they must own certain independently held assets. They say this:

the government imposes official minimum capital adequacy requirements (henceforth referred to as MCAR), to neutralize the moral hazard created by the fact that banks operate under limited liability.

What that means is that the government imposes a requirement on banks to be rich.

Look at building societies and how they work. They don't operate under 100% reserve requirements. What they do is take a large number of people's deposits and, operating on well-established patterns of behaviour, lend long and borrow short. They do this to the benefit of both borrowers and lenders. That's a legitimate role for banks, operated properly.

 

[Blagsta]

eh? can you elaborate?

With full reserve banking, it's just like you or I making loans. We can only make them once the money is deposited. We can't create it ourselves. How can you have a problem with the timing?

Banks can only lend money that has been deposited (or otherwise funded). That's the whole point of fractional reserve banking! They lend money out that has been deposited.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Banks can only lend money that has been deposited (or otherwise funded). That's the whole point of fractional reserve banking! They lend money out that has been deposited.

That's disputed! As the paper Jazzz links to says, and I quoted, there is evidence that this is not how banking works. The loan creates the deposit, and the central bank expands the money supply after the fact so that banks don't break their reserve requirement.

I've finished that paper now (albeit I didn't follow all the maths) and it's seductive in that it says much that endogenous theorists like Minsky would say (and which I agree with), but its proposal is actually absurd. Sorry jazzz, I do think it is absurd. It's not internally consistent.

 

[Jazzz]

That's disputed! As the paper Jazzz links to says, and I quoted, there is evidence that this is not how banking works. The loan creates the deposit, and the central bank expands the money supply after the fact so that banks don't break their reserve requirement.

I would simply say - the loan creates the deposit. (even if central banks failed to expand the monetary base, it wouldn't mean we had full reserve banking).

It's nicely put in that paper - describing the transition to full-reserve banking:

The control of credit growth would become much more straightforward because banks would no longer be able, as they are today, to generate their own funding, deposits, in the act of lending, an extraordinary privilege that is not enjoyed by any other type of business. Rather, banks would become what many erroneously believe them to be today, pure intermediaries that depend on obtaining outside funding before being able to lend.

Nicely describing love detective.

The governor of the Bank of England said much the same on Tuesday.

When banks make loans to customers, they create money by crediting their customer's accounts
Sir Mervyn King

source

It's really that simple. What's complicated is how the thing fits together.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm a bit puzzled by your previous post lbj, but perhaps it can wait until tomorrow.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm a bit puzzled by your previous post lbj, but perhaps it can wait until tomorrow.

The paper begs questions both about how the new system might work and about how the current system works. imo it doesn't pay enough attention to the other side of the money creation by loan system - namely the money destruction by loan repayment process. It does correctly identify a problem in the banks' having a motive for seeking to expand debt, but it doesn't really make a good case for its assertion that the current system has to necessarily lead to unsustainable debt. I don't think it does - if banks were all incorporated as mutual societies with firm rules regarding who gets loans and how much, the worst excesses of bank lending could be avoided. There's a far better solution than this, basically, one that wouldn't be very difficult to implement. There are also various mechanisms by which the necessary deleveraging process to reverse the madness of the recent boom can be carried out.

So, I think there's another, far more sensible and more easily implemented solution. I don't actually see the problem as being the creation of money through loans. The problem is the incentive built into the system for banks to increase the overall debt by as much as possible. The advantage of the current system is that it can instantly respond to demand. Yes, asset bubbles create a whole load of 'useless debt', but loans also create useful debt that can be used by people to do stuff. This flexibility in the money system allows for dynamism in the economy. The proposed system appears designed to remove that dynamism. It places enormous faith in the ability for non-deposit funds to fulfil the need for loans. Some of the proposed sources for those funds outlined in ld's link are simply illusory - wrong because they forget that repaying a loan destroys an equal deposit. The other proposed source - the banks' own wealth - can only be significant if the banks are made fabulously wealthy, which is not a desirable outcome.

I don't believe this system would provide funds for loans. Loans would become hard to obtain and expensive. The system would quickly need to be broken to free up funds for lending. It would go the same way as monetarism, basically, I think - abandoned after a short while because it doesn't work the way the theorists said it would.

In the 80s and 90s there was a massive process of demutualisation. What is needed now is a massive process of mutualisation. That's what I would be advocating as the change needed in the banking system - in all systems, in fact.

 

[love detective]

you're on a hiding to nothing arguing this one with Jazz - from his posts on this thread it's clear he doesn't even understand the proposals for full reserve banking that he apparently supports

Not one of these proposals, from the original chicago proposals, through to the IMF staff paper (or even the positively hatstand positive money proposals) suggest anything like the kind of maturity matching stuff that has been discussed in this thread (all they do is place a restriction on what can be done with demand deposits). One the one hand he argues that all these proposals are the saviour and ultimate fix, then on the other when he's actually told what is in those proposals (by people who have actually read them as he obviously hasn't) he then claims that those proposals are not full reserve banking, despite concurrently claiming that they are and therefore the saviour from above

As to the general thrust of this thread, tinkering with the top layer of a system that is produced by, and a manifest off, a deeper set of underlying (and contradictory) relations is never going to solve the problems that stem from those underlying contradictory relations in the first place. Those deep contradictions of capitalist social relations will merely produce new/different manifestations which are displaced to other layers and manifest themselves in different forms of crisis

Contradictions in capitalism are never actually resolved within capitalism, at best they are just displaced to other parts of it to cause further problems there. For a hundred and fifty years supporters of capitalism have both claimed that they can be solved (proposals like this for example and all the other money focussed loon stuff) and have been solved. Both history, logic and a little bit of common sense tells us otherwise.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A final point about that paper. I've read it but I didn't tackle the mathematical models. Wading through economics models is hard, and I don't think I can be bothered to do it with this one because I don't think it's worth it. Without tackling the maths, it's a little hard to tell exactly what it is they are proposing, but I am highly suspicious of their assumptions. Whenever you try to model a system you have to be acutely aware of the assumptions you're making and to carefully consider whether those assumptions are reasonable or not. They don't appear to have done this, and some of the assumptions I see them making in the text part of the paper lead me to suspect that their model is probably worthless. For example, they simply assume that their system would result in zero inflation. I don't agree with love detective about everything, but one thing I think he is right about is that inflation is not simply a function of the size of the money supply. In fact, looking at the way money supplies change size and relating this to inflation shows very clearly that the relationship between the two is highly complex. In that paper, they don't consider ways in which inflation could still occur, and the consequences of that for their system, because they simply assume that it can't occur now that the money supply is under government control. The monetarists thought something similar.

Worth remembering that many reasonable economists thought Milton Friedman was an idiot. The idiot not only championed monetarism, but he supported this idea too. Just because Friedman thought something was right, that doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, but it's not good company to be keeping. Friedman was a friend of the rich, believed that the rich needed to be looked after first. And he was an idiot. Joan Robinson once described him as like a conjuror who stands on stage in plain view of the audience and puts a rabbit in a hat, then pulls it out again and expects gasps of amazement.

 

[Jazzz]

Thing is, it isn't really full reserve banking, not from what I can tell. At best it's a system that is pretending to be a full reserve system but really isn't, but has mechanisms such as banks' own wealth by which lending is made fractional again. I can only stress again that loans have two components - amount and time. It was the second of these that fucked Northern Rock, that always fucks banks when they are fucked because they borrow short and lend long - that's their business.

I can't see any upside to this idea, tbh.

But clearly it is full-reserve banking. There is no money creation from the private banks. The paper is very clear about that? i.e. from the paper

The second advantage of the Chicago Plan is that having fully reserve-backed bank deposits would completely eliminate bank runs

In the model section, page 33:

The key requirement of the Chicago Plan is that banks have to back 100% of their deposits d(t) by government-issued reserves m(t)...

This means that banks cannot lend by creating new deposits.

The point is that with a fractional reserve bank, the bank has more liabilities which could be claimed at any moment in time than it reserves to fulfil them with. This is the 'fraction'. The liabilities in excess of reserves are the new money. Under the full reserve system, demand deposits must have the reserves there, and the time deposits do not, until they mature of course. What I think has confused love detective and maybe yourself is that the proposal that there is also some reserve - bank's own wealth - to help cover the time deposits. But this is not fractional reserve banking at all. It's just a buffer to cover the possibility of defaults from borrowers, and it is clearly necessary because with full-reserve banking, the bank must be declared insolvent the instant the valid claims against it exceed reserves available.

The paper begs questions both about how the new system might work and about how the current system works. imo it doesn't pay enough attention to the other side of the money creation by loan system - namely the money destruction by loan repayment process. It does correctly identify a problem in the banks' having a motive for seeking to expand debt, but it doesn't really make a good case for its assertion that the current system has to necessarily lead to unsustainable debt. I don't think it does - if banks were all incorporated as mutual societies with firm rules regarding who gets loans and how much, the worst excesses of bank lending could be avoided. There's a far better solution than this, basically, one that wouldn't be very difficult to implement. There are also various mechanisms by which the necessary deleveraging process to reverse the madness of the recent boom can be carried out.

So, I think there's another, far more sensible and more easily implemented solution. I don't actually see the problem as being the creation of money through loans. The problem is the incentive built into the system for banks to increase the overall debt by as much as possible. The advantage of the current system is that it can instantly respond to demand. Yes, asset bubbles create a whole load of 'useless debt', but loans also create useful debt that can be used by people to do stuff. This flexibility in the money system allows for dynamism in the economy. The proposed system appears designed to remove that dynamism. It places enormous faith in the ability for non-deposit funds to fulfil the need for loans. Some of the proposed sources for those funds outlined in ld's link are simply illusory - wrong because they forget that repaying a loan destroys an equal deposit. The other proposed source - the banks' own wealth - can only be significant if the banks are made fabulously wealthy, which is not a desirable outcome.

I don't believe this system would provide funds for loans. Loans would become hard to obtain and expensive. The system would quickly need to be broken to free up funds for lending. It would go the same way as monetarism, basically, I think - abandoned after a short while because it doesn't work the way the theorists said it would.

In the 80s and 90s there was a massive process of demutualisation. What is needed now is a massive process of mutualisation. That's what I would be advocating as the change needed in the banking system - in all systems, in fact.

To the extent I can see where you are coming from with this, I think it is not true at all. With full-reserve banking, all the money coming into the system is coming in at 0% interest. Compare that with interest rates on loans now, which reflect a continual redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich for the rental of our money! As much money would be created to fulfil the needs of the economy. So clearly there is far less call for loans, because we are not in debt in the first place (backed up by the model). Thus, with less demand for loans, the rate is going to be lower. That's my logic anyway, from the paper:

Third, private debts can be dramatically reduced, because money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation.

Looking at the graphs on figure 5 (page 68) the investment increases, and all the interest rate measures drop, and inflation drops 3%. Oh, and tax rates drop too by 5%!

enough for one post I guess.

 

[Blagsta]

Jazzz, how do you think value is created?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As much money would be created to fulfil the needs of the economy. .

This is exactly the kind of statement that makes me suspicious.

Let us say for argument's sake that we're considering a properly 100 percent reserve system. Set aside that paper, and consider what both you and I think is real 100 percent reserve, matching loans in value and time.

The strength of the current system is that the money supply responds to demand for loans. Changing this so that money is created centrally in response to the perceived needs of the economy, how effective do you think this is really going to be? At best, I would think it would require a considerable time lag between the application for a loan and that loan being granted. And all kinds of other considerations will be in play. At present, in a well-operating system, the grounds for the loan are considered purely on their own merits.

I think you and I differ because I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the creation of money in response to demand for loans. That demand comes from the real economy - two parties have agreed a price for a good or service, which is paid for by a loan to the buyer. That loan creates a promise that the buyer then needs to fulfill from their future earnings, and that fulfillment of the promise destroys the original loan. That's potentially an efficient way of operating. The problem, as ever, comes from ownership. Who owns the banks? That's the crucial point for me. Making banks mutuals or nationalised entities largely solves this problem as banks are then incorporated in such a way that they must act in the interests of their customers, not their shareholders. Irresponsible lending is then dramatically reduced.

 

[camouflage]

That loan creates a promise that the buyer then needs to fulfill from their future earnings, and that fulfillment of the promise destroys the original loan..

You mean...

[shreiks] OUT OF THIN AIR!!!1!1 [/shreiks]

[shreiks louder] KEYNESIAN!!!1![/shreiks louder]

 

[Jazzz]

This is exactly the kind of statement that makes me suspicious.

Let us say for argument's sake that we're considering a properly 100 percent reserve system. Set aside that paper, and consider what both you and I think is real 100 percent reserve, matching loans in value and time.

The paper gives a perfect description of full-reserve banking. I have trouble agreeing to put that aside to debate finer details. Why? Because if you properly understand fractional reserve banking the whole idea that it could possibly be the right way just cannot come into the mind! It makes as much sense for nourishing the economy as a mother breastfeeding the baby and then demanding the milk back with interest.

So (maybe again) please let me point out that with the system in the paper, the bank's liabilities at any time are always covered, in excess by the reserves demanded by the capital adequacy requirement. Whereas with a fractional reserve bank, liabilities may exceed available cash by a factor of magnitude, and the difference represents credit (money) that the bank has created.

The strength of the current system is that the money supply responds to demand for loans. Changing this so that money is created centrally in response to the perceived needs of the economy, how effective do you think this is really going to be? At best, I would think it would require a considerable time lag between the application for a loan and that loan being granted. And all kinds of other considerations will be in play. At present, in a well-operating system, the grounds for the loan are considered purely on their own merits.

The idea isn't that you would bring money into the economy by private loans. The new money would be brought in by paying for government expenditure with it, just by crediting the account of the payee. Public grants, civil servant's salaries, I would suggest a citizen's income. Or you buy government bonds with it, as already happens (I think that was going on in the model). After the transition period money could be destroyed via taxes. Loans would be covered by banks now operating under full-reserve of course, or peer-to-peer lending, so there wouldn't need to be any red tape with them.

 

[Blagsta]

Jazzz, what is value and how is it created?

 

[butchersapron]

The paper gives a perfect description of full-reserve banking. I have trouble agreeing to put that aside to debate finer details. Why? Because if you properly understand fractional reserve banking the whole idea that it could possibly be the right way just cannot come into the mind! It makes as much sense for nourishing the economy as a mother breastfeeding the baby and then demanding the milk back with interest.

So (maybe again) please let me point out that with the system in the paper, the bank's liabilities at any time are always covered, in excess by the reserves demanded by the capital adequacy requirement. Whereas with a fractional reserve bank, liabilities may exceed available cash by a factor of magnitude, and the difference represents credit (money) that the bank has created.

The idea isn't that you would bring money into the economy by private loans. The new money would be brought in by paying for government expenditure with it, just by crediting the account of the payee. Public grants, civil servant's salaries, I would suggest a citizen's income. Or you buy government bonds with it, as already happens (I think that was going on in the model). After the transition period money could be destroyed via taxes. Loans would be covered by banks now operating under full-reserve of course, or peer-to-peer lending, so there wouldn't need to be any red tape with them.

December 26, 1847: Jews. Write an article against this race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand its expulsion from France with the exception of those individuals married to French women. Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It’s not without cause that the Christians called them deicide. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear. Oh yeah, and a peoples bank.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The paper gives a perfect description of full-reserve banking. I have trouble agreeing to put that aside to debate finer details. Why? Because if you properly understand fractional reserve banking the whole idea that it could possibly be the right way just cannot come into the mind! It makes as much sense for nourishing the economy as a mother breastfeeding the baby and then demanding the milk back with interest..

I don' think it's quite as mad as that. If you see the creation and destruction of money through the process of taking out and repaying loans as simply the making and then keeping of promises, the problems arise only really where the one accepting the promise - the bank - does not make properly sure that the promise is likely be kept.

The biggest problem imo is the built-in incentive for banks to encourage asset price bubbles because it increases their profits. We have the contradiction here that banks left to their own devices are vulnerable to bank runs, which ruin the economy, but the remedy for this problem - namely govt guarantees of bank deposits - creates so-called moral hazard, a clear rational incentive for the banks to take greater risks, and take promises from people where there is good reason to judge that they will not be able to keep those promises, which ruins the economy.

We cannot just leave banks to the private market because they fulfil too important a social function. So governments underwrite them, socialising losses and privatising profits. To me, the remedy for this is clear - nationalise/mutualise the entire banking system. The 'money creation by loan' system would work in the interests of the people using the system in such circumstances, whereas at present, it works in the interests of those who run the system. I do agree with you that at present we effectively work for the banks. Changing the ownership of banks would shift that around so that the banks work for us. It's pretty analogous to the difference between John Lewis and Tesco.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The idea isn't that you would bring money into the economy by private loans. The new money would be brought in by paying for government expenditure with it, just by crediting the account of the payee. Public grants, civil servant's salaries, I would suggest a citizen's income. Or you buy government bonds with it, as already happens (I think that was going on in the model). After the transition period money could be destroyed via taxes. Loans would be covered by banks now operating under full-reserve of course, or peer-to-peer lending, so there wouldn't need to be any red tape with them.

I agree that this kind of money creation should be expanded, and this would reduce the need for private loans - but there's no reason why the two can't co-exist. But whichever money you create through wages, etc, you're still back to the problem with a 100 percent reserve system that someone wanting a loan needs to find an equal and opposite deposit in both amount and time. Either that, or they borrow directly from government, which prints them up some new money. In practice, this sounds to me like a monolithic, centrally controlled command economy with very little room for private activity. I don't want that kind of system. It is very important, imo, that people should have the freedom to associate in mutual groups that are smaller than and largely independent from the state. I also do think that it's very sensible to allow space both for people to finance the buying of a car, say, through future earnings (ie by a loan), and to finance new ventures. 'Useful' debt, in other words, as opposed to the 'useless' debt of asset bubbles. Restricting access to such loans stifles the economy, and I suspect that it would also favour those who are already rich over everyone else.

In short, I don't share your confidence that loans would be easily available under such a system.

I am also yet to be convinced that the banks' business - lending long, borrowing short - isn't itself a useful function. I suspect that it is a useful function in that it provides a mechanism by which long-term investment is available over and above the availability of long-term deposits. Is that not extremely socially useful, properly managed (improper management being the likes of Northern Rock, which borrowed too short out of greed - social ownership of banks should prevent that)? Would not full-reserve banking impose even greater pressures for short-term returns than we have now?

 

[Jazzz]

From the Telegraph today:

IMF's epic plan to conjure away debt and dethrone bankers

So there is a magic wand after all. A revolutionary paper by the International Monetary Fund claims that one could eliminate the net public debt of the US at a stroke, and by implication do the same for Britain, Germany, Italy, or Japan.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

One could slash private debt by 100pc of GDP, boost growth, stabilize prices, and dethrone bankers all at the same time. It could be done cleanly and painlessly, by legislative command, far more quickly than anybody imagined.

​

The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money -- roughly 97pc of the money supply -- with state-created money. We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.​

​

Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air.​

​

The nation regains sovereign control over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles. Accounting legerdemain will do the rest. That at least is the argument.​

​

Some readers may already have seen the IMF study, by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof, which came out in August and has begun to acquire a cult following around the world.​

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...o-conjure-away-debt-and-dethrone-bankers.html​

 

[free spirit]

From the Telegraph today:

wtf?

it's the same fucking article as in the OP of this thread from October last year.

 

[Jazzz]

oh, my bad! someone linked to it and I only paid attention to the date in the top right which was today's...

oops.

Apologies.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

oh, my bad! someone linked to it and I only paid attention to the date in the top right which was today's...


oops.

Apologies.

At least we now have proof that you don't bother to actually read any of the shit you post up.