Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 30, 2007
To Save The Economy – Bomb Iran?

In 2008 the U.S. will slip into recession. This will likely kill any chances the Republicans might otherwise have in the 2008 election. But a recession could probably be avoided by starting another war. The argument:

U.S. house prices will continue to go down:

Home prices in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas slumped in August by the most in at least six years, a private survey showed today.

Values dropped 4.4 percent in the 12 months that ended August, an eighth consecutive decline, …
[…]
Most economists expect housing to extend its slump and continue to be a drag on economic growth as loan foreclosures rise and tougher lending standards make borrowing more difficult.

The housing bubble in the UK is also starting to pop:

The British enjoyed lower rates earlier this decade – and the result was double-digit house-price rises. Since August 2006, however, rates have been marching upwards. After six hikes, the base rate is at its highest since 2001. That is already a headache for the dwindling battalions of first-time buyers, or anyone on a variable-rate mortgage. But it will also be a pain for the estimated 2.1 million borrowers coming off low fixed-rate mortgages in the next 18 months.

The mortgage crisis will lead to a recession:

As David Rosenberg, the chief US economist for Merrill Lynch put it in his most recent report:

"We think a miracle is needed to avoid recession. With domestic demand growth struggling to stay above a 1% run-rate, if we manage to avoid a recession with another huge down-leg in homebuilding activity and home prices, we think it will be a miracle."

A Fed bail-out by reducing interest rates back to the 1% level is unlikely. Prices are rising for food and energy:

For example, in the first nine months of this year, food and beverage prices rose at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.7 percent. Transportation costs advanced at a 6 percent annual clip. And energy skyrocketed to an annual rate of nearly 12 percent.

The Fed is playing ostrich by pretending to only look at "core" inflation rates which exclude food and energy costs. But people need to eat and heat their homes and if the Fed lowers interest rates far enough to reignite the mortgage business and housing boom, the dollar would slump even faster and real inflation would blow through the roof.

So what can be done to avoid the recession that will hit during the 2008 election?

Nouriel Roubini points out:

As Ed Leamer showed in his Jackson Hole paper, six of the last eight housing recessions have ended up in a economy-wide recession; and this housing recession will end up being more severe than all of the former eight ones. The only two exceptions of a housing recession not leading to economy-wide ones were those during the Korean War and the Vietnam war when a massive fiscal stimulus rescued the economy. What we spent – or waste – on Iraq is not sufficient to get that fiscal stimulus; we would need another equivalent of $200 billion fiscal stimulus to do the job.

To spend another $200 billion is easy to do. Just start another war.

A war with Iran is such an option: but a war in Iran would lead to an overnight doubling of oil prices to $200 per barrel plus and would lead to a certain U.S. and global recession.

Are we sure about the real effects of another doubling of oil prices? When those prices hit $50 a barrel in 2004, people already thought that this would have severe consequences:

The high oil prices, which climbed to a record high of $49.40 per barrel last Friday, may scare consumers and keep up gas prices. The effect worldwide is real, too. Every $10 added to a barrel of oil is estimated to knock "at least half of 1 percent … equivalent to $255 billion" off world GDP, according to analysis in May by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris.

If the IEA would have been right in their 2004 prediction, world GDP growth should have be down significantly. But the effect on the world economy was much less than expected. Even with oil prices increasing to above $90 per barrel, worldwide GDP growth continued at about 4% per year. 

A war on Iran would certainly lead to a spike in oil prices. But during the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. was able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open even when Iran tried to blockade it. Some right wing authors point to this as they argue to attack Iran. They bet that oil prices would soon sink back to sustainable levels.

A U.S. recession because of falling house prices is imminent. A Fed bail-out is unlikely. "A miracle is needed." A war on Iran could be such the ‘miracle’ that would boost the U.S. domestic economy.

The additional spending for such a war would bring enough stimulation to keep the U.S. economy growing. The negative effect through rising oil prices would possibly be short time and less severe than the housing induced recession that needs to be avoided.

I personally do not agree with this view. I don’t think a war on Iran could be contained. The additional money or debt-capability to finance such a war isn’t there either.

But the Republicans would like to win in 2008 and, to avoid an otherwise certain 2008 recession, they think along this argument.

It is certainly one reason why all Republican candidates (ex Ron Paul) are pushing for a war.

Comments

This argument would only work for someone who was actively looking for excuses for starting the next war, damn the consequences. The uncertanty surrounding the blowback is enough I think to keep even Republicans in congress on the fence. Oil prices are just one possible negative side effect of droping bombs. Our troops swinging in the breeze in Iraq are another source of major concern, as is our strained relationship with Russia and China.
We know that the neocons are interested in creative destruction. Negative consequences are the rancid icing on the cake for these guys.

Posted by: Growth Factor | Oct 30 2007 16:32 utc | 1

Iran never attempted to close the Straits of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq war – the bulk of military activity against tanker traffic was confined to the head of the Gulf – where the Iraqi and Iranian loading terminals were located. IIRC, IRAQ attempted, on a couple of occasions, to target Iranian tanker traffic heading towards the Straits using its air force, but that’s more or less it. At any rate, the only party that would end up closing/restricting traffic in the Straits of Hormuz for any length of time would be the US – which is why the whole thing is immensely awkward ( it’s a “Kobayashi-Maru-type” scenario, in which by attempting to keep the Straits open the Iranians can induce the US navy to do the opposite ). The Iranians don’t need to block the Straits anyway – a few hits on the Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Saudi or Emirati loading terminals are much easier to achieve and have a very long-lasting effect.
The interesting thing about the run-up in oil prices since 2003 is that OPEC, the world bank, the IEA, the EIA and just about everyone else were all working from a massively flawed pricing model that suggested that oil prices above $30-35 would have negative impacts on the global economy, and that prices at that level would be recessionary; FWIW, I doubt that all of them actually believed this – but why pay $50 when they’ll sell it for $25 and you can capture the value-added component. The situation is massively different when your starting point for oil prices is at $85+ and you have a weakening domestic economy with consumers already straining under the impacts of healthcare, education, food and energy inflation, high debt levels, a deteriorating currency and higher mortgage costs in the pipeline due to re-setting rates.
OPEC and other oil producers have now re-worked their pricing models, having gone from a price band of $22-28 to $30-35, to $55-65, to whatever we can get the market to pay, having discovered that they’d been seriously underpricing their product for over a decade, and that 50-60 euro per barrel oil is, in fact, sustainable indefinitely and that regular price increases are going to be fine as long as they’re orderly enough.
From memory, I’m fairly sure that US efforts in the Korean/Vietnam wars weren’t financed by China, Japan or petrodollars ( they were financed with domestic US savings which no longer exist )- the analogy that Roubini is using is defective as it fails to account for the immense fiscal deterioration of the US government’s position, the emerging reality of a weak dollar ( and the stagflationary consequences thereof ) and that a significant portion of the US expenditures in Iraq/the Gulf region are to local contractors that aren’t bringing monies back to the US. I’d also note that when you’re importing 11+ mbpd of oil/products, then a $100 increase in per barrel prices is going to take an additional $400 billion out of the US economy due to the BoP deterioration – this dwarfs the $200 billion “stimulus” that a war might bring. Given that US product prices have yet to “adjust” to the current crude price, the next few weeks are liable to see a fairly sharp rise in petrol, diesel and propane prices. Tomorrow’s US inventory report is going to be a lot of fun.
A war with Iran cannot “save” the US economy from the impending hangover – it can only make it worse and prolong the agony.

Posted by: dan | Oct 30 2007 16:57 utc | 2

would it be a stretch to state that the “war” on iraq temporarily saved the u.s. economy from the recession following the corrections post dot-com bubble, sept 11 2001, the bear mkt in the summer of 2002, etc.?

Posted by: b real | Oct 30 2007 17:18 utc | 3

The housing bubble was a last stab at Ponzi schemes to keep ‘the economy’ going.
To squeeze the poor saps, but also to keep the whole Magik thing wheeling along.
Our modern economies run on ‘oil’ (fossil fuels, concentrated energy free in the ground, one only needs to extract it) and although there is quite a lot of it left, there is not enough to continue business as usual. Not enough to ensure ‘growth’, not enough for the stock market to furnish returns, not enough for the poor to rise up (btw, that has been a fact for a long time), to pay pension funds… not enough for optimism except for the believers and loosers.
Grab for ressources (eg Iraq war) invest much in hope of more…the end-run of the Great Game.
Oil peaked in 2005-6 (or will peak soon, dates are not that important) and that means facing the downslope, which will hit hard, about 5 or 7 % less every year – it might even be more – for the Western World.
This spells not only recession, which sounds like a temporary thing; rather it will be an inevitable, steep and horrendous, decline. Decline which will be accompanied by terrible social strife – as the US and the UK realize (Uk, their oil fields, clapped out), which is why they are clumsily setting up control, starting with no fly lists, an going on to all the rest, thought crimes, massive camps for ‘terrorists’ and the control and manipulation of the pop. thru sacrifice and war. They know, and figure they are doing their best to prepare for the future. To keep their local power they prefer repression to facing, and dealing with, the global issues. For them, I guess, it all looks inevitable.
Only about 20 % (or less) or world fossil fuels are under the hand of international oil cos. The rest has been nationalized (Putin, Venezuela, etc.) As the shoe pinches, exporting countries will export less, as they will feel the need to hog their own stuff and use it for their own development needs. (That won’t work out well as they themselves are acting on in a stupid flat earth scheme..)
The only solution, already implemented (Afgh. Iraq. Nigeria, Palestine, in diff, ways etc.) is take over, war.
So far that hasn’t worked well, as military might does not guarantee the shunting over of resources, the building of pipelines. the drilling, the infrastructure, all the rest, their smooth functioning, etc, which is a fact that the US, for one, seems determined to ignore.
Somehow, torture and killing millions *must* be efficient, imposing one’s might, control, will, *must* furnish the needed returns. Not so, as Iraq shows. Old style colonialism with slaves did far better, as a triple layer was controlled – the ground, the ppl who worked on it, managed it, and the culture and control on top of that…(aka colonisalist police state..)
It will all take quite some time to unwind.

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 30 2007 18:04 utc | 4

@b real – would it be a stretch to state that the “war” on iraq temporarily saved the u.s. economy from the recession following the corrections post dot-com bubble, sept 11 2001, the bear mkt in the summer of 2002, etc.?
No – it was a big part of the stock market revival. Lockheed went from $50 to $110 …
The other major part was the Greenspan policy of near 0% interests justified with “deflation” scares that were part of the general “scare” fabrications.

@Dan – A war with Iran cannot “save” the US economy from the impending hangover – it can only make it worse and prolong the agony.
I agree in prinicple, but it is a question of timing for the election.
We have learned that under Karl Rove advice all foreign policy is tied to some domestic voter group and timed to election events. He is still running the general Republican campaign. I am sure he is thinking about this:
When will the market push of new war spending arrive vs. when will the oil price hike arrive?
If the first part arrives before the election and the second part later (through ab-use of the Strategic Oil Reserve) it could be a win. Damn the long term consequences …
Recently an order went out for 18,000 Mine Resistant Vehicles for Iraq at $1,000,000+ each. These are not needed and even not wanted by the military. But it is a nice push for the U.S. economy. More like this would certainly help to delay the slump.
I don’t believe this will work, but I have been pessimistic on the markets since three years ago and the markets did hold up much, much longer than I expected.

@Growth Factor – the blowback is enough I think to keep even Republicans in congress on the fence
Are there any repubs on the fence with regard to Iran? I haven’t seen or heard of one. They will do what they always do which is what the White House is telling them to do.

Posted by: b | Oct 30 2007 18:20 utc | 5

B
Ah yes, I can see it now, timing the opening salvoes of a war against Iran prior to the 2008 election – August? September? October? – during the Atlantic Hurricane season? Never. Gonna. Happen.
Cast your mind back to the interplay between hurricanes and postponed IAEA meetings to discuss the Iran dossier back in 2005. They were so worried about the impacts of even discussing Iran’s nuclear programme whilst there were GoMex supply disruptions that they had to cancel the sessions on at least 2 occasions – if that ain’t a “tell”, then I don’t know what is.
There’s no “order” as such for 18k Mrap’s ( they still can’t decide which models they want, who gets them and what they’re going to use them for ) – and there’s certainly no prospect of this number being produced in 1 year. $18 billion dollars – over 4-5 years perhaps – hardly a stellar stimulus to the economy.
Every dollar rise in the price of crude is an additional $12 million hit to the US EVERY SINGLE DAY. The recent spike from about $80 per barrel to $94 per barrel is costing the US a cool $150 million PER DAY on top of the $1 billion PER DAY that it already pays for petroleum imports. And given that the bulk of this expenditure is for consumer products – gasoline, diesel and propane – there’s a tendency to feed through to voter’s bottom lines very rapidly, certainly much, much more rapidly than any putative countervailing stimulus benefits from defence contracts.
The basic maths on this is overwhelmingly unpleasant, and the negative effects of oil spikes are highly visible and widespread events, whilst defence spending as a form of economic stimulus isn’t – and considering the eyewatering amounts that the US is already spending in this area, it’s doubtful that 5-10% increments are going to be that significant in turning around a very shaky economic ship.
Anyhoo – weren’t we all talking about timing a war with Iran to coincide with the 2006 congressional elections? Didn’t happen then. We did, however, get a “small” Hizbullah-Israel war that added $10 per barrel to oil prices, in spite of the fact that neither country produces a barrel of the stuff.
If you cast your mind back to Fallujah II, an action that had no direct impact on voters’ personal finances, the destruction of the city was “postponed” until AFTER the election. Was that a Rovian calculation? And if so, what does it tell us about the interplay between policy, propaganda, elections and action?

Posted by: dan | Oct 30 2007 19:19 utc | 6

I wish someone would explain why an increase in the price of petroleum is recessionary. The money that I have to pay goes into someone else’s pocket so the transaction is virtually meaningless. I may abstain from a steak but the fellow that controls the fuel may buy that steak. When a Van Gogh is sold for 40 000 000 dollars the money goes from one account to another and the painting from one wall onto another. The balance of the universe does not change a bit. Now if the petroleum supply is disrupted that is another completely different matter. When the Western USA runs out of water it won’t matter how many millions are in Las Vegas. Material things are real, financial things are imaginary but when that imaginary power is supported by weapons and invasions and threats then the finances take a certain form of reality. Wars are excellent sources of capital, booty, the Spaniards financed through the exploitation of the Peruvian mines the development of capitalism in Europe. When France was broke the Italian wars led by Bonaparte restored the finances thanks to the gold and silver that was captured and then France blossomed.I guess I have answered myself. The price of petroleum is irrelevant, its existence and control are of the utmost importance.

Posted by: jlcg | Oct 30 2007 19:38 utc | 7

jlcg, I am sure others will answer your post with much more skill than I am able to muster. i think you are overlooking all the things that petroleum does for us. Deanander once stated (IIRC) that 20 calories of energy are used to produce 10 calories of food. once you take into account the long chain involved with getting a serving of jolly green giant corn on your plate you can see this. starting with seed, trucks transport the seed to the farm, tractors plow the ground, sprayers apply pesticide and herbicide, machines apply fertilizer, a harvester passes over the field to pick the corn, a truck takes the corn to a storage facility, another truck moves the corn to a processing plant, there it is cleaned, cooked and/or frozen, then you have to follow the path of the packaging material, if it is plastic then that comes from petroleum products, if it is steel or aluminum there are many steps from digging the ore and smelting to preparing the can and getting it to the food plant. once that is all done it has to get to the store, requiring trucks, and then you have to go to the store to buy it using your car. finally you will heat the corn using either gas or electricity likely produced with natural gas.
does that help explain why a rise in energy price affects everyone? at a certain point it will become cheaper to hire men to do the work that these huge farm machines now do effortlessly. our lives will be different. no longer will we spend long periods during the day deciding what we will eat. we will be quite content to be able to eat every day.

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 30 2007 20:08 utc | 8

@ D of S
It’s more than 20:10 – according to some it could be as high as 7:1 or even 10:1. Here’s a good interview with Michael Pollan on the subject. I think he’s also said something to the effect that it would be cheaper if we as a nation just drank gasoline neat instead of eating processed food.

Posted by: Tantalus | Oct 30 2007 20:43 utc | 9

Keep in mind the price of oil is not really going up – The US dollar is tanking so it takes more US dollars to buy the oil. Look at the dollar’s decline against the Euro over the past year, even the last 6 months. In Jan/Feb of this year the Canadian Dollar bought only 85 cents US. Today it buys $1.05 US.
Defense expenditures in today’s high tech military also tend to be more localized, they don’t really trickle down that far into the general populations’ benefit, so aren’t a real anti-recessionary tool. More useful to the commonwealth would be to dump money into infrastructure repair, which is highly needed, and would more effectively distribute money into the general economy.
But I guess sewers don’t provide the same photo ops as does shock and awe.

Posted by: Allen/Vancouver | Oct 31 2007 0:26 utc | 10

What is wrong with these people?
Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

Posted by: b | Oct 31 2007 6:29 utc | 11

Dan: usual estimates are that you lose 90% of the greenies’ energy if you eat meat instead of vegetables.
B: Bush was re-elected by 50+% of Americans. We already know there’s something deeply wrong with half the US people.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Oct 31 2007 11:39 utc | 12

hopefully at some point, we can come up with a global energy policy that provides sensible rations for all nations as well as incentives for conservation & sustainable technologies.
better management of wastages in the energy production & commerce categories would reap major benefits too

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 31 2007 13:21 utc | 13

Keep in mind that “likely voters” are not that big a group.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Oct 31 2007 13:58 utc | 14

@2
OPEC and other oil producers have now re-worked their pricing models, having gone from a price band of $22-28 to $30-35, to $55-65, to whatever we can get the market to pay, having discovered that they’d been seriously underpricing their product for over a decade, and that 50-60 euro per barrel oil is, in fact, sustainable indefinitely and that regular price increases are going to be fine as long as they’re orderly enough.
OPEC’s favored price-pointing in the past derived from cutting production to stabilize falling prices (the cut-side) & ramping-up to forestall weakening the global economy in response to rising prices (the ramp-side).
problem is the ramp-side of the model is a different beast today. First theres increased demand see China/India (may be perceived as good or bad for the “global economy” depending on how it plays into ones local/personal economy). Second problem is OPEC’s overall weakened capabillity to ramp-up production on a projected basis.
question is: now that OPEC’s ability to work the ramp-side is much reduced, whats the substitute ? Or should there even be a substitute ? In other words, leave it to the “market” (paper/physical commodities) as OPEC’s detractors have always wanted ? Let them sort it (pricing) out and as always, we can count on them to do the right thing. Also, FWIW, must note that China is the market-maker with the mostest cash.
a little digression, but the point is we may one day wish for the days when “OPEC controlled prices”

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 31 2007 23:11 utc | 15

Bush was re-elected by 50+% of Americans.
Using 220 million as a rough estimate of the adult population of the United States, and considering Bush got just over 62 million votes in 2004, call it 28%. In the 220 million certainly there are certainly a significant number who wouldn’t be eligible to vote even if they were so inclined. In the 62 million certainly there were some shenanigans. So let’s settle for 30%, which is almost certainly higher than reality. But show me a large population group anywhere in the world that isn’t roughly 30% – for lack of time to decide on a better word – idiots.

Posted by: mats | Oct 31 2007 23:38 utc | 16

We keep searching for rationality on the part of US leaders; but project our own concerns into their calculations. They are not like us. In particular, they have nothing to lose; as whether or not an Iranian war leads to disaster for the great mass of Americans it will initially and inevitably benefit them through the massive graft made possible by wartime spending and the relaxation of controls, accountability etc. that we all saw in Iraq. Their personal money is safe, either in Dubai or Zurich, and not in dollars; possibly even in oil. As we saw with the Yoo memos, only the most transparent pretext is required; enough to be able to say “Who could have known?” and “We acted naively, but sincerely.” in order to avoid prosecution for war-crimes. That, and no breakdown in the financial system’s willing ignorance that lets dirty money be used as good and the media’s unwillingness to begin throwing stones or upset the apple cart. They’ve lost the next election anyway; who cares what voters think anymore?
World empires seem driven to push until they take one leap too far and are overthrown. At each step the incentives for those in power lead inevitably to the ultimate challenge. I can vaguely see a scenario in which China, Iran and Russia unite to “just say no” to the US on oil; EU & JP are bought into neutrality by supply of the same; the USD goes to hyper-inflation; there is a mass exodus of skilled workers from the US and other countries whose reserves are exhausted and so starving to those still able to source petroleum or otherwise grow food; US leaders disappear only to re-surface years later under new identities in neutral countries like the ex-Nazis in Argentina…
2008 does seem like some sort of deadline…

Posted by: PeeDee | Nov 1 2007 2:47 utc | 17

“B: Bush was re-elected by 50+% of Americans. We already know there’s something deeply wrong with half the US people.”
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Oct 31, 2007 7:39:59 AM | 12

50% of those who voted. 108,000,000 eligibles did not vote.

Posted by: pb | Nov 1 2007 2:53 utc | 18

Posted by: annie | Nov 1 2007 5:03 utc | 19

Waste of time. I’ve tried explaining electoral theft and misrepresentation of statistics to people who are just incapable of believing that somebody in the media might have an agenda before. Let me just say that there are cinder blocks on the right and left.
Only yesterday a Canadian coworker was trying to convince me (ME!) how wonderful things were in the United States, where the unemployment rate is only 5% and anyone who has a degree can make a living wage. I patiently explained to him exactly how the numbers are fudged and how that “5%” represents the number of those who have applied for unemployment within a window of less than six months, but I, an American citizen who has a degree and competed in that very job market for many years, must be full of shit because he’d read a goddamned number in some newspaper or other.
There are those who still believe that Iraqis hijacked airplanes in 2001 and that Saddam Hussein had an active weapons program. Hell, some small minority of folk actually believe some kind of nebulous weapons of mass destruction really were found in Iraq after the invasion of 2003. It might have involved some alumunium rods or something called “yellowcake”… they’re a little fuzzy on the particulars. They might have read that somewhere and there’s no shaking their conviction.
There are those who still believe that St. Ronald Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War by marching into Berlin in 1989 and tore down the wall while Mr. Gorbachev stood idly by shaking in impotent Communist fury. At the risk of invoking a Godwin, there are those who truly believe that if Mrs. Hitler had had an abortion, there would have been no World War II. They probably read that somewhere.
George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and threw a silver dollar across the Potomac. Yep, I saw it in a book. The US Civil War was all about slavery, and Abraham Lincoln freed them from the evil southerners after writing down his address on the back of an envelope. Book. Rome was built in a day, Adam and Eve talked to snakes, There are checks and balances in government, Richard Nixon was not a crook, There’s a face on Mars, book, book, book, book, website.
And, most importantly, a majority of the people of the United States of America, no matter how slim, must have supported George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004, and continue to do so today, because… as I read in a book somewhere… America is a democracy and everyone has an equal voice under the law.
And the same people who continue to spout off all their unshakeable and sacrosanct book learning are the ones who call me a “conspiracy theorist” for believing my lying eyes over the words carved into the immortal stone of their particular newsletter. Screw it. Trying to change lead into gold would probably be a more productive way of passing the time than trying to change the mind of some of these cinderblocks who continue to parrot facts and statistics that have either been selectively skewed or were pulled whole cloth straight out of some authority’s ass. I’m done chasing the same circular arguments over and over and over while newspapers, books and websites continue to spew more selective validation for people’s willful ignorance.
Believe what you want to believe. You were going to anyway.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 1 2007 6:01 utc | 20

Monolycus #20: ’Waste of time’
I disagree, though like many of us, I share your frustration. Without a doubt, our leaders have survived by endurance and repeating propaganda, not by caring about the truth. And mass media aids in spreading the lies. Although on a different topic, below is a short video ‘pep talk’ of G. Galloway to the Stop the War Coalition in Britain about the lies fueling the possible war with Iran.

‘We must challenge the lies’ – George Galloway

Posted by: Rick | Nov 1 2007 18:42 utc | 21

Regarding attempts to create gold I recommend as an introductary course this take on August Strindberg’s attempts.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Nov 2 2007 1:44 utc | 22

wow, thanks for the rant monolycus

Posted by: annie | Nov 2 2007 2:12 utc | 23