Why did Egypt reject IMF/WB loans?
Issandr El AmraniThis post has been updated below — now with feedback from the World Bank.
It's a question whose answer escapes me. Egypt is facing an economic crisis in the year ahead, even if there are some signs of recovery from the dire months immediately during and after the revolution, and has a long-running fiscal deficit problem that's only getting worse. Why is it not taking money that comes fairly cheaply (in the sense of low interest rates and not many strings attached) and that it could use for some stimulus spending to accelerate the recovery?
Reuters reported:
Egypt will not borrow from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund after revising its budget and cutting the forecast deficit, even though a loan had been agreed, Finance Minister Samir Radwan said Saturday.
The 2011/12 deficit in the first draft budget was forecast at 11 percent of gross domestic product, but was revised to 8.6 percent because of a national dialogue and the ruling army council's concerns about debt levels, the minister told Reuters.
"So we do not need to go at this stage to the Bank and the Fund," Radwan said, adding Egypt, which had borrowed from the IMF under ousted president Hosni Mubarak, still had the "best relations" with the two U.S.-based institutions.
Despite the budget revisions, the government said it still expected growth of 3.0-3.5 percent, in line with previous forecasts, which some economists said could prove optimistic.
Egypt this month agreed on a $3-billion, 12-month standby loan facility from the IMF, which Cairo had said came with more lenient terms than usually associated with such lending.
The IMF and World Bank had been among a range of foreign countries and bodies to offer funds to Egypt to help cover a big budget shortfall after the economy was plunged into turmoil by the mass protests that drove Mubarak from office on February 11.
Egypt's cabinet had approved on June 1 a budget for 2011/12 that increased spending by a quarter to create jobs and help the poor. That was revised in a new draft announced Wednesday that included raising income tax and reducing fuel subsidies.
Gulf Arab states are among those who offered support.
Radwan said Qatar had provided $500 million for budgetary support in the past week. "That is a gift," he said, when asked if there were any conditions attached to the Qatari cash.
He said Saudi Arabia had earlier offered a similar amount.
So the GCC countries are financing the budget deficit. I wonder what kinds of strings are attached to that. It's true Egypt can return to the IMF/WB at a later point — for instance for the next fiscal year (2012/13) budget, assuming it will be available under the same conditions, which is not guaranteed. Another reason not to contract new foreign debt right now might be that it's better if a more legitimate, elected government is the one making these decisions.
But it remains odd. Last night a friend — an economist who specializes on Egypt — emailed me this about the move away from the IMF/WB package, in response to the points I made above:
A discouraging move, I think. The vacillation from the Ministry of Finance over the past month doesn’t create confidence in those who are responsible for economic policy and the management of public finances. How is it possible to move from a draft deficit of 11% of GDP to a final deficit of 8.6% of GDP without reducing your estimate for growth? And is it wise to have a fiscal contraction during Egypt’s worst economic shock in decades, when private sector investment is going to be very low?
So why has this happened? The IMF money was cheap, and came with relatively few strings attached, as far as I can tell. The terms of the loan would have been transparent, with a published interest rate and a repayment schedule. The IMF’s preferences (not conditions) are for a better-targeted subsidy system and for greater transparency on public finances – who could argue with that? The same goes for the World Bank’s budget support.
This decision is the product of a marriage made in hell between the authorities and the well-meaning but misguided social forces that give the authorities cover. The government seems to prefer ‘gifts’ with uncertain conditions (from GCC, US etc.) to more transparent and sustainable means of financing the budget deficit. And the social forces, for many of whom ‘neoliberalism’ is a shibboleth, seem to think that not accepting IMF money and relying on such gifts or illusory liquidity in local banks will allow Egypt to be more independent. Perhaps they don’t understand how serious the economic situation could get, or how gifts are never for free.
In the short term, I don’t think the man on the Shubra al-Kheimah omnibus cares whether budget support comes from the IMF or Saudi Arabia or the EU. He will care when there’s no work and he can’t find a butagas canister to warm his family’s home this winter. You are right that they can probably come back to the IMF later, but by then the economy might in a darker place, because the public sector stimulus will have been far smaller than it could have been.
And in the long term? The chief danger, I think, of accepting gifts from donors, rather than loans that must be repaid, is that it does not put the public finances on a sustainable path (by raising taxes, cutting subsidies etc.). The giving of such gifts creates a moral hazard. I have heard many times over the past few months that Egypt is too big to fail, because of its location, size, treaty with Israel etc. The risk is that successive Egyptian governments continue to seek rents (gifts by another name), based on this idea of too big to fail, rather than put their country on a path to economic self-sufficiency and independence.
One optimistic view of Egypt’s future has it becoming more and more like Turkey. One of the remarkable things about Turkey over the past two decades is that it has begun to develop a more independent foreign policy. This is partly due to the decline of some neighbouring powers – the Soviet Union, Saddam’s Iraq – but this has also happened in spite of the rise of other powers such as Iran. Turkey’s economic development has meant that it is less dependent on rents, and more self-sufficient. This has given it room for greater political autonomy.
One counter-example is Jordan, for which country grants are an important support to fiscal and external balances. Does Jordan have political autonomy?
I've written of the dangers of Egypt's "too big to fail" syndrome before. The big question is, what are the hidden costs of accepting these handouts? Or getting too used to them? There was a time in the 1980s when the Mubarak regime was continuously panhandling, using the prospect of trouble in the country (and ensuing geopolitical consequences) quite successfully to get bailed out time after time, including the big bailout it got after the 1990 Gulf war when half of its debt was forgiven. That method of economic management didn't really work out for the Egyptian people then, obviously. So why should it now?
Update: The FT's Heba Saleh gets more details from the minister of finance:
Mr Radwan said the decision to scrap the loans was in response to public opposition. He said the military council, in power during the current transition to elected rule, had decided “not to burden” those who take over from them with heavy loans.
Mr Radwan had presented a draft budget earlier this month, which foresaw a 25 per cent increase in public spending and a deficit of 10.9 per cent. He has now revised his targets, cut his spending plans and forecast the deficit to be 8.6 per cent.
“We have reduced allocations to ministries, but we have tried to retain everything to do with social justice,” said Mr Radwan. “We have maintained the spending on salary and pension increases, but we are now allocating less than we would have liked to education, health and housing.”
Mr Radwan said the funding gap in the next budget was $24bn dollars, and he planned to borrow $20bn domestically and rely on aid and grants to cover the rest.
So to recap, the money is going to civil servants who have already gotten steady increases in salary over the last few years, but not to education, health and housing which would reduce the main expenses of most of the population and have been already suffered from severe under-investment in recent years? Are they just buying support of the six million civil servants who could bring public administration to a standstill at this point?
Update 2: A spokesperson for the World Bank emails:
"We have been in ongoing discussions with the Government of Egypt over a lending program with a focus on governance reforms and employment generation. The central aim of this program is to support access to information, enhance transparency and accountability, and generate employment opportunities. These were basic demands of the recent uprising, which we support. As far as we are aware these discussions are ongoing, and we have heard nothing from the Government to suggest the contrary. If there is no IMF program, we will have to take stock."
Reader Comments (15)
After reading this, I feel guilty about being optimistic. Nonetheless, the option to borrow in the future hasn't been closed off entirely--the Washington Consensus would rather lend to Egypt rather than Greece. I'm intrigued that there has been little focus on Egypt's fiscal austerity measure of raising income taxes. How do you think Egypt will enforce this given that increased transparency measures are necessary? ~PITAPOLICY
I do not see this entirely dangerous or even economically unsound at this juncture ... In fact typically in emergency situations one could take some panic lead decisions ... which would not necessarily be beneficial for the future.Egypt is presented with parliamentary elections in September and to my understanding presidential 3 months after ... Would it not be more prudent to make more strategic longer term decisions with a fully functioning new government ? Egypt needs to assess where the priorities are for the future, i.e. education, health, investments etc. I cannot see how such a long term plan can be fully done under a transitional entity. Overall Egypt with all the problems encountered since the 25th Jan uprising has presented some very bright and intellectual voices, and being calm under pressure is KEY. Hopefully the new Egypt will be a calm, patient and prudent country.
Congratulations to Egyptian brothers that they rejected to take loans from IMF and world bank of financial suckers. Egyptians should stand on their feet. We had taken loans from IMF before and it was huge destruction in Turkey in 2001 crisis resulting in devaluation of our money nearly 100%. Please take a look at examples of Malaysia and Indonesia in 1997 crisis. Malaysia did very well since they did not take care of IMF at all while Indonesia gave its arm to IMF and got nothing back. Result was nearly 83% devaluation and degrade of GDP around 84%.
Brother in Islam from Turkey
I think the operative words here are "support access to information, enhance transparency and accountability" and "greater transparency on public finances". I don't want to jump into unfound conclusions here but it seems to me the SCAF would lose more if they allow for such tranparancy without arranging their papers and making sure that any future parliment & government is not going to demand that the army reveals its budget and spending..
Yes, the point is "why receiving money from sources like the GCC instead of having cheap money from IMF?"
The following is a statement from the Arab NGO Network for Development:
http://www.counterbalance-eib.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Arab-CSO-statement-on-G8.pdf
And check this, please ;-)
http://www.counterbalance-eib.org/?p=1326
There are so many voices against IMF or the World Bank in Egypt and Tunisia.
And in Greece, in Spain, in Ireland in Iceland...
Another 2 references... (Tunisia)
Tunisia and Egypt: From dictatorship to slavery?
http://nawaat.org/portail/2011/05/25/tunisia-and-egypt-from-dictatorship-to-slavery/
Voila pourquoi je m’oppose au plan du G8, et pourquoi faudra qu’on le fasse tous!
http://nawaat.org/portail/2011/05/25/voila-pourquoi-je-moppose-au-plan-du-g8-et-pourquoi-faudra-quon-le-fasse-tous/
Very interesting comments above ... Thanks Abdullah , as Turkey will be a very close comparison to Egypt ... You are a very good example for us as Egyptians.
The question of transparency vs a hold on the ability of a country to evolve or direct , I do not see as a valid argument. Egypt has been a net receiver of US Aid in the past which had no impact on that matter what so ever, ironically it was just mis distributed.
We are entering a new era, where decisions should be based more on the idea of future vision. A progressive, effective and astute government.
Leaving strategic, long-term decisions to an elected government makes sense - but it didn't look like this particular IMF agreement would have required much in the way of strategic promises. I get the impression the IMF was basically offering a stopgap no-strings loan tailored to the political situation.
The IMF isn't often accused of sensitivity to local political conditions. But even they must have realised that demanding long-term policy commitments, from a military-appointed government, weeks before the first democratic election in a country's history, when you've spent the last decade praising policies implemented by that country's corrupt dictatorship that led to widening inequality and ultimately popular revolution, may not have been a good idea.
So while there are good reasons for scepticism about the IMF, Egypt's U-turn here does look more like an image thing than a reasoned economic decision.
Oh, and a word about Turkey - ok, the economy collapsed while under an IMF program in 2001. But Erdogan, who I'm told has singlehandedly transformed the country from a barely habitable desert to a land of milk, honey and Eurasian Tigers, was following IMF programs until 2008 and didn't noticeably change policy even after he stopped taking IMF money. Pretty much all of his government's economic thinking was shaped by those programs and the results that, under very favourable conditions, they delivered. At some point that's going to be a problem.
to be fair. Its not as if the the Bretton Woods Institutes have the best track record on improving the long term economic condition of developing nations. In places where they have influence or even a guiding hand in economic policy the results are normally catastrophic for recipient nation.
Issandr,
I’ve been following Arabist for a long time and have enjoyed its analysis and coverage, but I am surprised at the superficial and thoroughly wrong analysis of this issue. You make three lethal mistakes: you assume that increased government spending will help the economic situation, and you seem to think that taking on more debt will not cause fiscal crises in the future, and you completely ignore the politics of being dependent on the IMF & WB.
“Why is it not taking money that comes fairly cheaply (in the sense of low interest rates and not many strings attached) and that it could use for some stimulus spending to accelerate the recovery?”
What makes you think that this money, spent on stimulus, will actually ‘accelerate the recovery’? The idea that government spending will improve economic growth is a myth—a myth that has broken down tragically at the shores of reality in every single place it has ever been tried. Where is the magical recovery Obama promised his trillions in spending would bring about? Did decades of government spending in the third world, financed by the WB & IMF, achieve economic growth and development? What did all the government spending do for the economy of the Soviet Union?
The WB&IMF ideology of spending money in order to bring about economic growth is not a logically defensible or even remotely respectable concept. It is a function of these incompetent bureaucracies’ wrong understanding of how a modern economy works—a misunderstanding that is very conducive to their continuing in business. All of the WB & IMF’s understanding of economics, after all, comes from the thoroughly discredited neoclassical and Keynesian models of economics that have proved to be a joke over and over again. I’d strongly suggest you check out Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson if you would like to think through this idea of spending as stimulus—it’s a joke, but a catastrophic joke that has ruined the lives of billions.
Had Egypt spent all of that money, it would not have accelerated any recovery. All it would’ve done is to stifle the dynamism of the Egyptian economy and tie up enormous amounts of resources and humans working in nonsense unproductive jobs to tick a bunch of meaningless international organization boxes. And it would’ve produced a very large debt burden.
“I wonder what kinds of strings are attached to [Arab gift money].”
I wonder, too. But I also wonder why you do not care about the strings attached to the WB & IMF funding? Take a look at their track record and you’ll feel that any Saudi strings will appear completely benign compared to the utter disaster that the WB & IMF conditions would unleash.
“And is it wise to have a fiscal contraction during Egypt’s worst economic shock in decades, when private sector investment is going to be very low?”
There can hardly be anything wiser. The biggest problem Egypt faced under Mubarak is a criminally large public sector that destroyed economic dynamism and was used to enrich Mubarak, the NDP and their buddies. The more government spending there is, the more cronyism, inefficiency and economic decline. The more government spending is slashed, the better for everyone—except, of course, for the people who benefit from this spending (and that includes IMF and WB economists whose lucrative 5-star junkets are, after all, paid for by Egyptian taxpayers—with interest! I gather your friend has been on one too many of these junkets, judging by his inability to see anything wrong with IMF & WB.)
“Perhaps they don’t understand how serious the economic situation could get, or how gifts are never for free.”
Again, I think you are the ones misunderstanding how serious the economic situation could get. If you did, you would not want to take the IMF & WB loans, because they will only make a bad situation worse.
“The risk is that successive Egyptian governments continue to seek rents (gifts by another name), based on this idea of too big to fail, rather than put their country on a path to economic self-sufficiency and independence.”
-This is a correct sentiment, but it’s very curious your friend fails to apply this same analysis to IMF&WB loans. If the country can’t meet its fiscal obligations today, how exactly is taking on debt going to help achieve self-sufficiency and independence?! Remember: taking on debt today necessitates repayment in the future with interest. If the budget can’t be balanced today; taking on debt solves nothing: it only exacerbates the problem for the future, by moving the budget deficit further down the line, with added interest!
You’re right in that taking hand-outs is not going to solve anything. But neither will taking on loans. The answer lies in the Egyptian government learning to live like a government of grown-ups and not a Mubarak-like gang of spoiled children running around looking for sugar daddies. There is no alternative to fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget and a limited public sector. The Egyptian government needs to rely on its taxes to fund its spending. Whatever it can’t collect, it should not spend.
This brings me to the political point: as long as the ruling regime is dependent on foreign funding and support, it will continue to be accountable to its foreign bankrollers, and not to its people. That is a recipe for disaster, and has to end. The Mubarak regime provided us with the perfect prototype of a regime unaccountable to its people because of its foreign bankrollers. Why would anyone want to repeat that?
“Turkey’s economic development has meant that it is less dependent on rents, and more self-sufficient. This has given it room for greater political autonomy.”
Yes, and a big part of Turkey’s prosperity, development and independence came after they finally told the international financial institutions to leave them alone. Egypt’s levels of foreign indebtedness were already too high under the Mubarak regime and are the reason that the country had basically outsources its sovereignty to various incompetent US-based bureacracies. Increasing the burden of debt is going to only exacerbate that, and shackle the new Egypt with the same chains of the old Egypt.
One final question: your enthusiasm for WB & IMF loans seems to somehow forget that Mubarak had spent decades taking on these loans and listening to their economists dictate how Egypt should be run. These were the same organizations singing the praises of the Mubarak regime and of the great ‘reforms’ that it instituted. After millions took to the streets to remove that regime, why do you still view IMF & WB programs as part of the solution, rather than the problem?
Incidentally, I had a piece in the FT on this issue a couple of weeks ago: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/12174874-9147-11e0-9668-00144feab49a.html
Egypt was right to not take on a new IMF loan, which would have kept is monetary policies narrowly constrained with the single objective of containing inflation at very low levels in the constant short-term while foreclosing on its options to use other possible monetary policies for increasing employment and production more in the future. See this Youm7 essay:
http://english.youm7.com/News.asp?NewsID=340301&SecID=294&IssueID=149
Egypt needs a new development model, not more of the same policies that had failed under Mubarak's support of the IMF and World Bank model... See this UK Guardian essay:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/05/time-for-new-development-model
Saifedean,
Thanks for your long comment (as well as others). I'm well aware of the track record for the international financial institutions but Egypt's foreign debt is quite manageable now and it can take on extra debt. As for stimulus spending, I do think it would have generated at least short-term growth that might be necessary as the transition takes place, and if invested in things like infrastructure could generate long-term growth too. I thoroughly agree that the way the economy is managed should happen first, but you don't always have that luxury. At the same, not taking money from anybody right now, as you seem to suggest, sounds very dangerous (although it might force very necessary reforms to book the budget, such as cutting all fuel subsidies apart from butagas) — but good luck dealing with the truck transport lobby on that one.
I am not as adamant about the WB/IMF loans as my friend cited above, but am very suspicious of GCC grants and loans. These should be given the same scrutiny and skepticism than the WB/IMF system, which after all is more transparent system and one that Egypt has bought into.
Dear Issandr,
I personally do not have fear of money coming from the GCC ,I do not see it as an underhand way to manipulate the political landscape (especially in the light of a current interim government). I instead see it as a means of building bridges with a new Egypt which will more than likely have a significant political and economic impact on the region. This extension is to show both the Egyptian people and government that we were there with you during the crisis, as in the new world (Arabia post uprisings) Egypt will have a more than likely shift in many policies. Whatever the motives are, I hardly see it as means of dictating policy locally.
In terms of the IMF judging by the Asian crisis and its post IMF bailout leaves a lot to be desire of their involvement.
I have read above comments with a great degree of interest and find it so refreshing to seek new way of economic models, rather than merely focus on models which in the light of the current financial crisis seem to have failed. I think Egypt needs to find its own way, and assess what it's real requirements are. More importantly this can only be done with a proper functioning government. I do not perceive Egypt will have short term financing issues till election, therefore no need to make hasty decisions.
Clear view decisions rather than making calls during a clouded path.
Many thanks to all of you, I am reading with a great deal of interest.
Go to http://tarpley.net/ to find out why no country should take loans from any of these criminal banking organizations!
Advice to Arab Governments, Political Forces, Trade Unions
The Arab world needs to learn a few fundamental lessons about the mechanics of CIA color revolutions, lest they replicate the tragic experience of Georgia, Ukraine, and so many others. In today’s impoverished world of economic depression, a reform program capable of defending national interests against the rapacious forces of financial globalization is the number one imperative.
Accordingly, Arab governments must immediately expel all officials of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and their subset of lending institutions. Arab countries which are currently under the yoke of IMF conditionalities (notably Egypt and Jordan among the Arabs, and Pakistan among the Moslem states) must unilaterally and immediately throw them off and reassert their national sovereignty. Every Arab state should unilaterally and immediately declare a debt moratorium in the form of an open-ended freeze on all payments of interest and principal of international financial debt in the Argentine manner, starting with sums allegedly owed to the IMF-World Bank. The assets of foreign multinational monopolistic firms, especially oil companies, should be seized as the situation requires. Basic food staples and fuels should be subjected to price controls, with draconian penalties for speculation, including by way of derivatives. Dirigist measures such as protective tariffs and food price subsidies can be quickly introduced. Food production needs to be promoted by production and import bounties, as well as by international barter deals. National grain stockpiles must be quickly constituted. Capital controls and exchange controls are likely to be needed to prevent speculative attacks on national currencies by foreign hedge funds acting with the ulterior political motives of overthrowing national governments. Most important, central banks must be nationalized and reconverted to a policy of 0% credit for domestic infrastructure, agriculture, housing, and physical commodity production, with special measures to enhance exports. Once these reforms have been implemented, it may be time to consider the economic integration of the Arab world as an economic development community in which the foreign exchange earnings of the oil-producing states can be put to work on the basis of mutual advantage for infrastructure and hard commodity capital investment across the entire Arab world.
The alternative is an endless series of destabilizations masterminded by foreigners, and, quite possibly, terminal chaos.
Print / Share
Print
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Twitter
Reddit
Google Bookmarks
Diigo
DZone
Fark
Propeller
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Live
Slashdot
Yahoo! Buzz
Webnews.de
January 16th, 2011 | Category: Uncategorized | Comments are closed
December 23, 1310: Emperor Henry VII of Luxemburg, Supported by Dante, Arrived in Milan and Started the Process Leading to the Modern State – 700 Years Ago Today
[Translate]
Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net
December 23, 2010
Henry VII
Henry VII of Luxemburg
Today, December 23, 2010, marks one of the most important world-historical anniversaries of all time. Seven hundred years ago this evening, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VII of Luxemburg passed through the city gates of Milan, Italy and set into motion the process leading to the most important political innovation of the past 2,000 years: the modern state.
Dante Alighieri
Dante Alighieri
Henry VII’s most vocal political supporter and advocate was the Florentine exile Dante Alighieri, by all odds the greatest man of the second millennium AD. Dante’s immediate goal was to end the fratricidal party strife between the Guelf (pro-papal) and Ghibelline (pro-imperial) factions by restoring imperial guidance to the northern Italian city states, which had been gripped by growing anarchy and incipient civil war since the death of Frederick II of Hohenstaufen and the end of his southern Italian kingdom 60 years earlier. One of the victims of this anarchy had been Dante himself, who was driven out of Florence in 1303 by the ascendant Black Guelf party, acting with the encouragement of the simonist pope, Boniface VIII.
The Greyhound
Dante’s Divine Comedy, the first sustained poetic effort in Italian and the first masterpiece in a modern language, was written as an ideological handbook and justification for Henry VII’s Italian expedition and the restoration of a balance between pope and emperor in northern and central Italy. In Canto I of the Inferno, when Dante is lost in the dark wood of error, his guide Vergil foretells the coming of “il veltro” — a greyhound who will destroy the wolf of avarice, the source of all depraved desires, thought by some to represent the banking power, especially its Venetian aspect. The greyhound is a figure for Henry VII. The entire “Divine Comedy” is full of references and prophecies about Henry VII, too many to be enumerated here. Continue reading December 23, 1310: Emperor Henry VII of Luxemburg, Supported by Dante, Arrived in Milan and Started the Process Leading to the Modern State – 700 Years Ago Today
Print / Share
Print
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Twitter
Reddit
Google Bookmarks
Diigo
DZone
Fark
Propeller
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Live
Slashdot
Yahoo! Buzz
Webnews.de
December 23rd, 2010 | Category: Uncategorized | Comments are closed
Emergency Call to Congress: Stop the Destruction of Social Security by Wall Street Puppet Obama!
[Translate]
Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net
December 12, 2010
Dear Senator/Congressman –
American voters are shocked and outraged by Obama’s latest betrayal of the FDR New Deal heritage. Most alarming in his dirty deal with the Republicans is the proposed sabotage of Social Security. We will work hard to defeat any politician of any party who loots or drains the Social Security trust fund, including Obama’s diabolical trick of a payroll tax holiday. Tell Obama HANDS OFF OUR SOCIAL SECURITY! Any problems with Social Security can be easily solved by removing the cap on the FICA payroll tax and making rich parasites and economic royalists pay their fair share — not rewarding them with tax bonanzas. We can already see the GOP vultures led by Ryan, DeMint, & Co. getting ready to destroy Social Security if this measure goes through.
We demand that you use your position and influence actively, to beat back this sinister ploy by Obama.
In the Senate, any senator who does not filibuster Obama’s plan deserves to be primaried first, and then defeated at the polls.
If this rotten sellout is not stopped, House members must dump Pelosi as minority leader, rather than become parties to such monstrous treachery.
Print / Share
Print
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Twitter
Reddit
Google Bookmarks
Diigo
DZone
Fark
Propeller
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Live
Slashdot
Yahoo! Buzz
Webnews.de
December 12th, 2010 | Category: Uncategorized | Comments are closed
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Publications
Select a book to review and purchase on Amazon. Most are also available at:
Progressive Press