Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
angrypenguin

U.S. imposing steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico and Europe

Recommended Posts

On 6/1/2018 at 3:43 PM, angrypenguin said:

Right from the get go, free trade has driven down the price of basically everything we buy in life. Protectionism hurts consumers, and while you can make an argument with respect to how trade impacts certain industries, from a consumer standpoint, we're almost basically always going to win from free trade.

When most consumers have to step back and explain their purchasing decisions, they have to admit that a large chunk of what they buy, they can't really explain why they bought it! And this makes sense in our consumer-driven capitalism where advertisers apply psychological manipulation to motivate potential consumers to buy on impulse/rather than need. 

So, besides the environmental consequences and increased demand on resources, cheap consumer products does NOT necessarily equal a better world for all! And then we factor in costs that have increased faster than inflation...like real estate..almost everywhere. The lower your income, the greater the likelihood you are a renter rather than a homeowner, so the poor who get the benefit of the ten dollar shirts lose all those benefits in stagnant wages and rising rents! 

And then we get to the stratification of income and wealth that has increased under the brave new world of free trade since the 80's everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WIP said:

When most consumers have to step back and explain their purchasing decisions, they have to admit that a large chunk of what they buy, they can't really explain why they bought it! And this makes sense in our consumer-driven capitalism where advertisers apply psychological manipulation to motivate potential consumers to buy on impulse/rather than need. 

So, besides the environmental consequences and increased demand on resources, cheap consumer products does NOT necessarily equal a better world for all! And then we factor in costs that have increased faster than inflation...like real estate..almost everywhere. The lower your income, the greater the likelihood you are a renter rather than a homeowner, so the poor who get the benefit of the ten dollar shirts lose all those benefits in stagnant wages and rising rents! 

And then we get to the stratification of income and wealth that has increased under the brave new world of free trade since the 80's everywhere.

You're completely missing the original argument here and bringing in additional variables that bear no relevance to the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, angrypenguin said:

You're completely missing the original argument here and bringing in additional variables that bear no relevance to the topic at hand.

I said before that I don't accept compartmentalizing these issues cause they all impact each other, and how much real freedom we will have personally and as a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WIP said:

When most consumers have to step back and explain their purchasing decisions, they have to admit that a large chunk of what they buy, they can't really explain why they bought it! 

Statement of fact unsupported by evidence.

I personally always know why I buy something. I don't know anyone who is any different in that regard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China fell into decline after the Great Wall was built because it limited the flow of goods and services into China.  The U.S. will suffer most from this self-imposed trade war because other countries will simply work around it, trading with each other without the barriers of duties or tariffs.  While I see short-term pain for Canada's exports, this U.S. action will lead to less Canadian trade with the U.S. and more trade with BRIC nations, the rest of South America, and Europe.  It's better in the long run for Canada to reduce its dependence on the U.S.  Thankfully Canada signed off on CETA.  Europe will be even more willing to stoke this free trade relationship after Trump's imposition of tariffs.  Great Britain has sought to boost trade and alliances within the Commonwealth since Brexit.  Now is the time.  The upsides of globalization, that the economies of low-cost developing countries would rise and eventually become markets for western goods, is slowly bearing fruit.  Whose products will they buy?  They won't buy more from belligerent countries that have imposed tariffs, because there will be counter-tariffs.  This U.S. aggression on trade damages the U.S.'s international reputation and lowers its moral authority.  The middle and small powers of the world are watching and deciding whose lead to follow.  Unless Trump's approach changes, it won't be the U.S..   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

... They won't buy more from belligerent countries that have imposed tariffs, because there will be counter-tariffs.  This U.S. aggression on trade damages the U.S.'s international reputation and lowers its moral authority.  The middle and small powers of the world are watching and deciding whose lead to follow.  Unless Trump's approach changes, it won't be the U.S..   

 

Interesting, as what does this say about Canada's "lead", a country which has sent 75% of exports to a single nation for decades...Trump's United States...not poor developing nations.

Canada exports 85% of auto/truck manufacturing to one nation...the United States.

U.S. export trade is far more diversified than Canada's.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the U.S. exports more than 50% of its steel exports to Canada.  The U.S. exports more to Canada than any other nation.  It has a trade surplus with Canada.  I agree that we lean to heavily on one export market, the U.S.  We have also relied too heavily on our natural resources, which are a strength for Canada.  I agree that Canada needs to diversify its exports.  It's a challenge for a small country (population-wise) to be strong in all sectors, yet it has done remarkably well for its size in the tech, aerospace, and biomedical fields.  The big advantage that the U.S. has had is that, because of its military might and economic influence, it can manipulate the world economy in its favour.  It shapes it.  The fact that commodities are priced in U.S. dollars is a huge hedge against inflation.  The risk for the U.S. going forward is that if its moral authority on the world stage sinks further through more retrograde policies on issues such as trade, immigration, and climate change, the international community will simply tune out the U.S., and perhaps not only politically.  It can happen culturally.  Again, this isn't about Americans.  The U.S. is a big, dynamic country.  Hopefully Trump is a passing anomaly.  Not sure though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well, the U.S. exports more than 50% of its steel exports to Canada.  The U.S. exports more to Canada than any other nation.  It has a trade surplus with Canada.  I agree that we lean to heavily on one export market, the U.S.  We have also relied too heavily on our natural resources, which are a strength for Canada.  I agree that Canada needs to diversify its exports.  It's a challenge for a small country (population-wise) to be strong in all sectors, yet it has done remarkably well for its size in the tech, aerospace, and biomedical fields. 

 

True, except that development in many such sectors has been dependent on foreign direct investment, again dominated by the United States.   American corps own 50% of Canada's manufacturing base.    No other country in the world is so dependent on U.S. investment and export market....a Canadian legacy pursued even when warned not to do so during FTA/NAFTA negotiations (e.g. author Maude Barlow).    Canada has chosen this economic path, not Trump.

 

Quote

The big advantage that the U.S. has had is that, because of its military might and economic influence, it can manipulate the world economy in its favour.  It shapes it.  The fact that commodities are priced in U.S. dollars is a huge hedge against inflation.  The risk for the U.S. going forward is that if its moral authority on the world stage sinks further through more retrograde policies on issues such as trade, immigration, and climate change, the international community will simply tune out the U.S., and perhaps not only politically.  It can happen culturally.  Again, this isn't about Americans.  The U.S. is a big, dynamic country.  Hopefully Trump is a passing anomaly.  Not sure though.  

 

Agreed, but Trump is not an American anomaly.  Previous U.S. presidents have done exactly the same thing to leverage American power, hardly impacting the growth in American influence, now the lone superpower.   Canada cannot reasonably expect to be credible when married so closely/so long to the American economy as a matter of domestic policy, only to cry foul when a new administration takes over.

Yes, Trump is just another president who will be gone in a few years, but Canada's own decisions and policies have/will last far longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you suggest?  I don't think that the conditions you're describing are the result so much of policy as of geography; or rather, our proximity to the U.S. and the reality of its influence drives our policy.  To decouple that would be unnatural and bad for business on both sides of the border, obviously.  My main point is that raising borders and tariffs will hurt both countries.  Yes, Canada will feel a greater impact, at least initially, but because of its open trade policies with other countries, it will be better positioned to make the necessary adjustments in trade.  We could buy our citrus and other sunbelt items from South America or Europe.  Tech and other items can be had elsewhere.  It will still be a challenge to find sufficient markets for some of our goods outside the U.S., but it would probably also lead to a grassroots "Buy Canadian" movement.  I'm not fundamentally worried in the long-term, but this trade war is stupid, unnecessary, and will hurt all countries involved.  Trying to parse out the Canadian and U.S. content of our auto industry and other cross-border manufacturing will be an absurdly onerous task for both countries.  I could see a Canadian company like Magna decide to manufacture cars.  It has the capacity.  There's a Stalinesque central planning quality about this retooling.  It reminds me of Mao's Great Leap Forward, which was a massive leap backwards.  I don't think Trump realizes that Canada will never accept an unfair trade agreement.  We won't lay down like that.  There are other countries that trade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So what do you suggest?  I don't think that the conditions you're describing are the result so much of policy as of geography; or rather, our proximity to the U.S. and the reality of its influence drives our policy.  To decouple that would be unnatural and bad for business on both sides of the border, obviously.  My main point is that raising borders and tariffs will hurt both countries.  Yes, Canada will feel a greater impact, at least initially, but because of its open trade policies with other countries, it will be better positioned to make the necessary adjustments in trade.  We could buy our citrus and other sunbelt items from South America or Europe.  Tech and other items can be had elsewhere.  It will still be a challenge to find sufficient markets for some of our goods outside the U.S., but it would probably also lead to a grassroots "Buy Canadian" movement.

 

It is not just geography...Canada was not so dependent before WW2 and "free trade".   Canada is a large nation with a smaller population that lacked/lacks the domestic capital to develop natural resources and consumer markets of sufficient scale.   Many Canadian governments turned to foreign direct investment to fill the gap, and that was mostly U.S. investment (e.g. automotive, oilsands, trucking, locomotives, defense contractors, etc.).

Canada has long been criticized for exporting natural resources to the U.S., only to import finished goods with much more value added.   Consumption taxes sharpen the pain.

The U.S. does not exist in partnership with Canada to save its economy.    Canada should have diversified long ago.

 

Quote

I'm not fundamentally worried in the long-term, but this trade war is stupid, unnecessary, and will hurt all countries involved.  Trying to parse out the Canadian and U.S. content of our auto industry and other cross-border manufacturing will be an absurdly onerous task for both countries.  I could see a Canadian company like Magna decide to manufacture cars.  It has the capacity.  There's a Stalinesque central planning quality about this retooling.  It reminds me of Mao's Great Leap Forward, which was a massive leap backwards.  I don't think Trump realizes that Canada will never accept an unfair trade agreement.  We won't lay down like that.  There are other countries that trade. 

 

Good for Canada...but does it take a Trump to wake Canada's governments up from such a deep, dependent sleep ?

Trump was elected to shake up and disturb the globalist, free trade status quo that even Trudeau admits has not worked out well for citizens in many nations.

Trump is a welcomed disturbance in The Force...a change agent to stop the dumping, illegal immigration, trade imbalances, and IP theft.

How many auto/truck assembly plants has Canada built in the USA ?

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's absurd to ask how many auto/truck assembly plants Canada or any other country has built in the USA.  Countries, at least capitalist ones, don't build assembly plants.  Companies do based on demand.  Because of these tariffs, American auto makers will have to pay a 25% duty on the cars they manufacture overseas and import.  Meanwhile, Japanese companies that produce their cars in the U.S. will avoid these tariffs.  Companies build plants in countries to meet local demand.  If you want to prevent American companies from sending manufacturing to low-cost jurisdictions, set up international labour standards that require countries to pay workers comparable wages to those paid in the U.S..  A better question to ask is, how many cars do Canadians buy and where are these cars made?  Canada has lost car plants in recent years in cities like Oshawa and Windsor.  The cars they produced were Canadian and American made.  Did you know that a branch of GM was originally Canadian?  Research McLaughlin.  That company essentially became Buick.  U.S. auto production and Canadian auto production grew up together and it's incredible how much ignorance there is out there on the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It's absurd to ask how many auto/truck assembly plants Canada or any other country has built in the USA.  Countries, at least capitalist ones, don't build assembly plants.  Companies do based on demand.  Because of these tariffs, American auto makers will have to pay a 25% duty on the cars they manufacture overseas and import.  Meanwhile, Japanese companies that produce their cars in the U.S. will avoid these tariffs.  Companies build plants in countries to meet local demand.

 

Agreed...EU, Japanese, and Korean auto makers all have assembly plants in the USA...and tariff barriers to U.S. auto exports.  Canada is the only G-8 nation without a domestically owned auto make....and exports 85% of auto/truck production to the U.S. market, not demand in Canada.    Ontario will continue to lose auto assembly jobs because of higher labour costs, higher energy costs, and higher taxes (thank you Kathleen Wynne).  The history of GM & Buick will not save Canada now....GM makes/sells more cars in China !

Why are Trump tariffs not acceptable, but other nation's tariffs are ?

 

 

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it's hard to maintain high wages and compete with lower cost jurisdictions for manufacturing.  Wynne's answer to the loss of manufacturing has been to go after high value add jobs in the tech and green energy sectors.  The results have been mixed, but the mindset is right.  She has also tried to make traditionally lower paying service jobs pay higher wages.  That's the idea behind the $15.00 an hour minimum wage.  Again, this policy will have winners and losers.  I'm going to put forward another premise that I think is closer to reality about the new economy:  Work as we traditionally understand it is probably going to disappear or diminish over time.  By that I mean that most of the manufacturing will be even more automated, so there will be fewer of these good middle class jobs, yet as we have learned from quantitative easing in the U.S. after the 2008 recession, countries can more or less stimulate their way out of recessions by printing money.  It's a shell game that so far has worked.  The surpluses in production of food, homes, clothing and so forth are so massive that we can feed the world and have homes and vehicles without having a lot of people doing production.  That's why countries are seriously considering guaranteed basic income.  The challenge in the future may be keeping people occupied and productive even though there isn't much required of them.  Protecting the environment in the face of all this excess production is also a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree that it's hard to maintain high wages and compete with lower cost jurisdictions for manufacturing.  Wynne's answer to the loss of manufacturing has been to go after high value add jobs in the tech and green energy sectors.  The results have been mixed, but the mindset is right.  She has also tried to make traditionally lower paying service jobs pay higher wages.  That's the idea behind the $15.00 an hour minimum wage.  Again, this policy will have winners and losers.  I'm going to put forward another premise that I think is closer to reality about the new economy:  Work as we traditionally understand it is probably going to disappear or diminish over time.  By that I mean that most of the manufacturing will be even more automated, so there will be fewer of these good middle class jobs,

 

And yet, it was the lack of automation and productivity improvements in Canada that led to a loss in competitiveness.   Productivity lags in Canada have been recognized by the OECD for many years.   The U.S. has already embraced automation and higher worker productivity.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because Canada relies too heavily on the sale of its raw materials.  We do produce high value finished products across sectors, but we can do better.  On the other hand, while high productivity does create more wealth, it can lead to other problems, such as high suicide rates (Japan).  Lifestyle matters.  If we are more productive through working smarter (better machinery and automation, for example), we probably benefit.  If we're simply squeezing people to do more with less and burning them out, that's counterproductive.  When I look at U.S. maternity leaves, average number of paid holidays, health care costs, etc., discerning productivity and its value isn't that simple.  In France people work fewer hours and have far more holidays and benefits than Americans, yet they are extremely productive.  Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes, because Canada relies too heavily on the sale of its raw materials.  We do produce high value finished products across sectors, but we can do better.  On the other hand, while high productivity does create more wealth, it can lead to other problems, such as high suicide rates (Japan).  Lifestyle matters.  If we are more productive through working smarter (better machinery and automation, for example), we probably benefit.  If we're simply squeezing people to do more with less and burning them out, that's counterproductive.  When I look at U.S. maternity leaves, average number of paid holidays, health care costs, etc., discerning productivity and its value isn't that simple.  In France people work fewer hours and have far more holidays and benefits than Americans, yet they are extremely productive.  Interesting.

 

You are conflating many other issues beyond industrial base, raw materials, manufacturing, productivity and tariffs.

Canada has lagged behind in this area for a long time, with some regions (e.g. Maritimes) becoming permanent social welfare/benefits recipients.

The world will not stand still for Canadian "values" when it comes to productivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You brought up productivity, but productivity is a messy concept to quantify, because while it's mostly a good thing, it can also mean bad things.  A sweat shop may be highly productive.  It's like measuring a country's progress strictly through GDP.  Cleaning up environmental catastrophes boosts a country's GDP, yet people aren't wishing for more oil spills like the Exon Valdez.  The most important metric overall is progress.  We can argue about what exactly constitutes progress, but if we don't agree on some fundamental benefits -- safe, humane work environments; clean air and water; good wages; health; longevity, equal opportunity, etc. -- then it's very difficult to talk about the benefits of certain trade policies or any other economic policies. 

With regard to the Maritimes, yes, some Canadian regions receive more supports than others.  There is regional disparity in Canada for a host of reasons.  We try to level the playing field with transfer payments and other redistributions, not always very well.  The U.S. has its neglected "other side of the tracks" in many cities and some regions.  I like the safety of Canadian cities.  How much is living in a palace an indicator of success if you risk getting shot going to buy milk at the corner store? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You brought up productivity, but productivity is a messy concept to quantify, because while it's mostly a good thing, it can also mean bad things.  A sweat shop may be highly productive.  It's like measuring a country's progress strictly through GDP.  Cleaning up environmental catastrophes boosts a country's GDP, yet people aren't wishing for more oil spills like the Exon Valdez.  The most important metric overall is progress.  We can argue about what exactly constitutes progress, but if we don't agree on some fundamental benefits -- safe, humane work environments; clean air and water; good wages; health; longevity, equal opportunity, etc. -- then it's very difficult to talk about the benefits of certain trade policies or any other economic policies.

 

The world does not  invest in those values just for progress.   One cannot project such values on other nations and their priorities.  Economic metrics are well defined and more importantly, drive research, development and investment.   Canada leads in none of these.

 

Quote

With regard to the Maritimes, yes, some Canadian regions receive more supports than others.  There is regional disparity in Canada for a host of reasons.  We try to level the playing field with transfer payments and other redistributions, not always very well.  The U.S. has its neglected "other side of the tracks" in many cities and some regions.  I like the safety of Canadian cities.  How much is living in a palace an indicator of success if you risk getting shot going to buy milk at the corner store? 

 

American choices are not Canadian choices, and neither are the risk/reward payoffs.    Canada can play it safe if it wishes, but it can no longer expect or demand that the U.S. or other economies provide the export markets and investment to pursue such goals.    Trudeau's feminist agenda during trade negotiations has gotten him nowhere, especially in Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm not fan of Obama, but let's be fair here. Much of the additional costs came from the financial crisis which was brought about by his predecessor's policies.

yes, that is very true, but the last thing that a change in administration should have been doing is follow the Uniparty's bosses down the "too big to fail" megatrillion dollar rat hole.  You may remember that the Obama "dream team" to solve the economic "crisis" presented to the public even before inauguration was the exact SAME bunch of Goldman Such hacks that put the country (and the world) in peril in the first place.  Their brilliant solution was to simply rob the taxpayers blind in an orgy of rape and pillage that surpassed even the dirty thirties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Argus said:

Statement of fact unsupported by evidence.

I personally always know why I buy something. I don't know anyone who is any different in that regard.

Sure you do! So why do you prefer Coke to Pepsi? Why do buy Nike instead of Reebok or Adidas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You brought up productivity, but productivity is a messy concept to quantify, because while it's mostly a good thing, it can also mean bad things.  A sweat shop may be highly productive.  It's like measuring a country's progress strictly through GDP.  Cleaning up environmental catastrophes boosts a country's GDP, yet people aren't wishing for more oil spills like the Exon Valdez.  The most important metric overall is progress.  We can argue about what exactly constitutes progress, but if we don't agree on some fundamental benefits -- safe, humane work environments; clean air and water; good wages; health; longevity, equal opportunity, etc. -- then it's very difficult to talk about the benefits of certain trade policies or any other economic policies. 

With regard to the Maritimes, yes, some Canadian regions receive more supports than others.  There is regional disparity in Canada for a host of reasons.  We try to level the playing field with transfer payments and other redistributions, not always very well.  The U.S. has its neglected "other side of the tracks" in many cities and some regions.  I like the safety of Canadian cities.  How much is living in a palace an indicator of success if you risk getting shot going to buy milk at the corner store? 

Yes, paying line workers 50 cents an hour with no benefits can really lower the cost of production!  Looking at the big picture, the problem begins with using GDP as the be all and end all for trying to quantify prosperity. 

First big problem is it based on standard practice of post-enlightenment materialist thought that applies no value to nature, except as raw materials for economic production!  So, it shouldn't be a mystery to anyone why natural habitats are destroyed at increasing rates, and more than half of the world's known animal species are facing collapse and extinction....including the human animals who will see food production crash in a couple of decades due to destruction of topsoil, freshwater supplies etc.

The almost two century-long process of "clearing the commons"---- forcing peasants and woodland dwellers off the land by creating private ownership of land and all the resources contained therein...including underground, while those forced out by landowners and government forces had no choice other than move into already growing and overcrowded slum cities to look for work as sweatshop laborers. And this process...which started in England after the invention of steam engines has continued all around the world and now, the capitalists who search for the cheapest labor are running out of these opportunities and turning more and more to outright slavery! 

With that, the increasing growth in income gaps isn't reflected in the GDP numbers which average out everyone's incomes. So, when certain CEO's are making 4000 times as much as their lowest paid employees, an increase in GDP won't tell us if the majority of workers are better or worse off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2018 at 9:23 AM, Argus said:

It's typical brainless Trump blustering and threatening, at least as far as Canada is concerned. He wants to show how tough he is to pressure us to sign off on his stupid NAFTA changes. The thing is, the US actually exports more steel to Canada than it imports from us, and we're certain to slap identical tariffs on them in response.

No. It's Trump looking after America first. Something your feminist leader does not know how to do here in Canada. The rest of the world is more important to that feminist. NAFTA worked well for Canada but not according to Trump. Trump says that America has been getting the shaft regards NAFTA. But you would not know anything about that because you listen too much to the CBC. So, why does both countries export steel to each other if each other make it themselves? Doesn't that look a bit dumb? Just wondering. 

Tariffs do not work. Competition does. Leave the business of trading and exporting up to the business people who know what needs to be done to compete and survive. Why does the government have to be involved in trade deals anyway? They only f things up in the end. Let the people who know how to do business be allowed to make their own deals with other businesses in other countries. We don't need the government to get involved in something that they know nothing about except maybe as to how to find a way to tax something. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2018 at 9:25 AM, WIP said:

You're a traitor! Get out and move to America!  

This country is full of traitors. As far as I can note Angry is not one of them. Sometimes it hurts to say and yell out the truth. Maybe you should think about leaving Canada for good? I and Angry will do just fine without you. Goodbye. :D

Edited by taxme
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2018 at 9:30 AM, Argus said:

I have pretty much zero respect for Trudeau myself. That doesn't make me blind to the lack of character, honesty, integrity and intelligence of that idiot to the south.

Trump is doing a lot more for America and Americans than the idiot that is running and ruling over this country right now into the ground. Just what has Trudeau done for Canada since he was elected that can outweigh what Trump is doing for America today? The only thing that I can see that Trudeau has done so far for Canada and Canadians is to open up the legal/illegal border gates wide open. Now those are great projects that will be creating hundreds of new jobs for the immigration lobby but not much else. Trudeau does not show any honesty, integrity or intelligence in anything he does. He just shows us what sheer stupidity looks like. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...