One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
How Norway and Sweden did it..
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Jan 14, 2019 13:10:34   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
Both these nation suffered long and hard under the ruling 1%, but they forced a change and this is how it was done...

Follow the link to read about these 2 fine examples of nonviolent change.

https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-the-power-of-the-1-percent/?fbclid=IwAR1U4u-_W2gf7uNX0QDAqriI0ohKQBKQBuVSw5vUApw-uiq6yw2xmQZCwL0

While many of us work to create a better world, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.

Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”



| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 13:25:56   #
EL (a regular here)
 
Don't think it's an enviable standard of living anymore. In a period of two weeks earlier this year, five explosions took place in the country. Swedes have grown accustomed to violent crime, witness intimidation and gangland executions. They're working on trying to regain law and order without much success.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 13:42:02   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
EL wrote:
Don't think it's an enviable standard of living anymore. In a period of two weeks earlier this year, five explosions took place in the country. Swedes have grown accustomed to violent crime, witness intimidation and gangland executions. They're working on trying to regain law and order without much success.




What??? where in the world did you ever read that??



| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 13:46:26   #
Wolf counselor (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
Both these nation suffered long and hard under the ruling 1%, but they forced a change and this is how it was done...

Follow the link to read about these 2 fine examples of nonviolent change.

https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-the-power-of-the-1-percent/?fbclid=IwAR1U4u-_W2gf7uNX0QDAqriI0ohKQBKQBuVSw5vUApw-uiq6yw2xmQZCwL0

While many of us work to create a better world, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.

Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”
Both these nation suffered long and hard under the... (show quote)



En annan dum amerikansk.

Du vet inte skit om Sverige...........Goober !

| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 16:09:58   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
Wolf counselor wrote:
En annan dum amerikansk.

Du vet inte skit om Sverige...........Goober !




gee wolf, this stupid American still can not read Norsk.. wish I could..

| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 18:57:16   #
vernon (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
Both these nation suffered long and hard under the ruling 1%, but they forced a change and this is how it was done...

Follow the link to read about these 2 fine examples of nonviolent change.

https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-the-power-of-the-1-percent/?fbclid=IwAR1U4u-_W2gf7uNX0QDAqriI0ohKQBKQBuVSw5vUApw-uiq6yw2xmQZCwL0

While many of us work to create a better world, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.

Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”
Both these nation suffered long and hard under the... (show quote)



I haven't noticed people leaving our country to avoid starvation or any other reason. As far as the norsmans and the swedes they are having they are getting caught in the economic sown turn caused by Obama. And the swedes had gun control and one creep killed 90 kids because no one had the ability
to defend them selves.

Ans as far as you insinuating socialism is the way to go ,my friendyou are a fool.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 19:01:02   #
vernon (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
What??? where in the world did you ever read that??



The bear is going to gobble them up and that will be the end of any choice they have.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 19:33:04   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
vernon wrote:
I haven't noticed people leaving our country to avoid starvation or any other reason. As far as the norsmans and the swedes they are having they are getting caught in the economic sown turn caused by Obama. And the swedes had gun control and one creep killed 90 kids because no one had the ability
to defend them selves.

Ans as far as you insinuating socialism is the way to go ,my friendyou are a fool.




come on Vern, read the damn thing before you try to twist it..

the date is around the turn of the century. 18th to 19th..

It clearly states that workers dumped the communists early on..

the 90 killed.. they were trapped on an island, they were Norwegians not Swedes.
but yes, they were defenseless..

Today, both countries have more socialism then we have in our nation, and both nations are doing very well. Both rate ahead of the United States in nearly all poll for satisfaction and well being..

It is Democratic socialism and works very well around the world..

do not be so afraid of the word Socialism.. it is not a bad thing, it is not Communism and we do have a bit of it in our nation.. and we get much good from it..



| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 20:04:25   #
Morgan (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
come on Vern, read the damn thing before you try to twist it..

the date is around the turn of the century. 18th to 19th..

It clearly states that workers dumped the communists early on..

the 90 killed.. they were trapped on an island, they were Norwegians not Swedes.
but yes, they were defenseless..

Today, both countries have more socialism then we have in our nation, and both nations are doing very well. Both rate ahead of the United States in nearly all poll for satisfaction and well being..

It is Democratic socialism and works very well around the world..

do not be so afraid of the word Socialism.. it is not a bad thing, it is not Communism and we do have a bit of it in our nation.. and we get much good from it..
come on Vern, read the damn thing before you try t... (show quote)


Good one Perm But we don't know the rest of the story after the Warden got pissed

Thanks for the post, I found it very interesting, when people work together using their minds and not their fists. I guess that 1% migrated to over here.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 23:16:27   #
CounterRevolutionary
 
permafrost wrote:
Both these nation suffered long and hard under the ruling 1%, but they forced a change and this is how it was done...

Follow the link to read about these 2 fine examples of nonviolent change.

https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-the-power-of-the-1-percent/?fbclid=IwAR1U4u-_W2gf7uNX0QDAqriI0ohKQBKQBuVSw5vUApw-uiq6yw2xmQZCwL0

While many of us work to create a better world, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.

Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”
Both these nation suffered long and hard under the... (show quote)



Please read this article from the 1600Daily:

"We estimate that if the United States were to adopt these policies, its real GDP would decline by at least 19 percent in the long run, or about $11,000 per year for the average person...."
concluding:
"GDP would fall by 9 percent, or about $7,000 per person in 2022, due to high tax rates that would reduce incentives to supply the factors of production. Evidence on the productivity and effectiveness of single-payer systems suggests that “Medicare for All” would reduce both short- and long-run longevity and health despite increasing somewhat the population with health insurance."

https://1600daily.com/2018/10/23/trump-takes-socialism/
October 23, 2018
Trump Takes On Socialism

"Today, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a report outlining the opportunity costs of socialism on the macro economy, including standards of living, and the impact on the Federal budget. Below is the executive summary. Read the full report here.
Coincident with the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth, socialism is making a comeback in American political discourse. Detailed policy proposals from self-declared socialists are gaining support in Congress and among much of the electorate.

"It is unclear, of course, exactly what a typical voter has in mind when he or she thinks of 'socialism.' But economists generally agree about how to define socialism, and they have devoted enormous time and resources to studying its costs and benefits. With an eye on this broad body of literature, this report discusses socialism’s historic visions and intents, its economic features, its impact on economic performance, and its relationship with recent policy proposals in the United States.

"We find that historical proponents of socialist policies and those in the contemporary United States share some of their visions and intents. They both characterize the distribution of income in market economies as the unjust result of “exploitation,” which should be rectified by extensive state control. The proposed solutions include single-payer systems, high tax rates ('from each according to his ability'), and public policies that hand out much of the Nation’s goods and services 'free' of charge ('to each according to his needs'). Where they differ is that contemporary democratic socialists denounce state brutality and would allow individuals to privately own the means of production in many industries.

CR postulates: The "unjust result of 'exploitation'" by capitalists is a false presumption. The EXPLOITATION is directly tied to currency manipulation by the Federal Reserve Bank incessantly devaluing the dollar by printing way too much money beyond the value of our production and dumping it at home and abroad through secret bailouts, punishing hard honest work and responsible savings at home. New businesses must hit the ground running to make a fast enough profit beating the Fed's inflation machine. We have been living under Marx's government central banking for the past century. This is socialists exploiting the poor. Put the blame where it belongs. You guys are like mad dogs chasing your own tails.

"In assessing the effects of socialist policies, it is important to recognize that they provide little material incentive for production and innovation and, by distributing goods and services for 'free,' prevent prices from revealing economically important information about costs and consumer needs and wants. To this end, as the then–prime minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher (1976), once argued, 'Socialist governments . . . always run out of other people’s money,' and thus the way to prosperity is for the state to give 'the people more choice to spend their own money in their own way.'

"Whether socialism delivers on its appealing promises is an empirical question. We begin our investigation by looking closely at the most highly socialist cases, which are typically agricultural economies, such as Maoist China, Cuba, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Their nondemocratic governments seized control of farming, promising to make food more abundant. The result was substantially less food production and tens of millions of deaths by starvation. Even if highly socialist policies are peacefully implemented under the auspices of democracy, the fundamental incentive distortions and information problems created by large state organizations and the centralized control of resources are also present in industrialized countries, as is currently the case in Venezuela. Lessons from poorly performing agricultural economies under socialist regimes carry over to government takeovers of other modern industries: They produce less rather than more.

"These countries are examples of a more general pattern of socialism’s negative output effects. Such outcomes have also been observed in cross-country studies of the effect of greater economic freedom—quantified as an index of taxation and public spending, the extent of state-owned enterprises, economic regulation, and other factors—on real gross domestic product (GDP). This literature finds a strong association between greater economic freedom and better economic performance. It suggests that replacing U.S. policies with highly socialist policies, such as Venezuela’s, would reduce real GDP at least 40 percent in the long run, or about $24,000 per year for the average person.

"lthough they are sometimes cited as more relevant socialist success stories, the experiences of the Nordic countries also support the conclusion that socialism reduces living standards. In many respects, the Nordic countries’ policies now differ significantly from what economists have in mind when they think of socialism. For instance, they do not provide healthcare for “free”; Nordic healthcare financing includes substantial cost sharing. Marginal labor income tax rates in the Nordic countries today are only somewhat higher than in the United States, and Nordic taxation overall is surprisingly less progressive than U.S. taxes. The Nordic countries also tax capital income less and regulate product markets less than the United States does. However, the Nordic countries do regulate and tax labor markets somewhat more; thus, American families earning the average wage would be taxed $2,000 to $5,000 more per year net of transfers if the United States had current Nordic policies.

"Living standards in the Nordic countries are at least 15 percent lower than in the United States.

"It may well be that American socialists are envisioning moving our policies to align with those of the Nordic countries in the 1970s, when their policies were more in line with economists’ traditional definition of socialism. We estimate that if the United States were to adopt these policies, its real GDP would decline by at least 19 percent in the long run, or about $11,000 per year for the average person.

"The Nordic and European versions of socialized medicine have been viewed as so desirable by modern U.S. socialists that they have proposed nationalizing payments for the healthcare sector (which makes up more than a sixth of the U.S. economy) through the recent “Medicare for All” proposal. This policy would distribute healthcare for “free” (i.e., without cost sharing) through a monopoly government health insurer that would centrally set all prices paid to suppliers such as doctors and hospitals. We find that if this policy were financed out of current Federal spending without borrowing or tax increases, then more than half the entire existing Federal budget would need to be cut. Or if it were financed through higher taxes, GDP would fall by 9 percent, or about $7,000 per person in 2022, due to high tax rates that would reduce incentives to supply the factors of production. Evidence on the productivity and effectiveness of single-payer systems suggests that “Medicare for All” would reduce both short- and long-run longevity and health despite increasing somewhat the population with health insurance."

Is socialism the reason the Nordic countries rose out of destitution? How much did the United States spend on the Marshall Plan rebuilding Europe and the Nordic countries after WWII to eliminate poverty?

| Reply
Jan 14, 2019 23:42:35   #
CounterRevolutionary
 
Socialism is "centralized planning" which first induces stagnation for lack of IDEAS from the masses, and then collapses for lack of problem solving from the Intelligentsia in the government.

Individual people know their own needs far better than any government "expert." This is why free men and free markets supply goods and services the public needs and wants. The structure of socialism was deliberately designed to implode and make people die fighting each-other for the last scraps. Wake up, lemmings. Look at Venezuela, look at Guatemala.

| Reply
Jan 15, 2019 08:29:57   #
moldyoldy (a regular here)
 
CounterRevolutionary wrote:
Socialism is "centralized planning" which first induces stagnation for lack of IDEAS from the masses, and then collapses for lack of problem solving from the Intelligentsia in the government.

Individual people know their own needs far better than any government "expert." This is why free men and free markets supply goods and services the public needs and wants. The structure of socialism was deliberately designed to implode and make people die fighting each-other for the last scraps. Wake up, lemmings. Look at Venezuela, look at Guatemala.
Socialism is "centralized planning" whic... (show quote)


Like the Gov. paying farmers not to grow crops.

| Reply
Jan 15, 2019 10:41:35   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
CounterRevolutionary wrote:
Please read this article from the 1600Daily:

"We estimate that if the United States were to adopt these policies, its real GDP would decline by at least 19 percent in the long run, or about $11,000 per year for the average person...."
concluding:
"GDP would fall by 9 percent, or about $7,000 per person in 2022, due to high tax rates that would reduce incentives to supply the factors of production. Evidence on the productivity and effectiveness of single-payer systems suggests that “Medicare for All” would reduce both short- and long-run longevity and health despite increasing somewhat the population with health insurance."

https://1600daily.com/2018/10/23/trump-takes-socialism/
October 23, 2018
Trump Takes On Socialism

"Today, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a report outlining the opportunity costs of socialism on the macro economy, including standards of living, and the impact on the Federal budget. Below is the executive summary. Read the full report here.
Coincident with the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth, socialism is making a comeback in American political discourse. Detailed policy proposals from self-declared socialists are gaining support in Congress and among much of the electorate.

"It is unclear, of course, exactly what a typical voter has in mind when he or she thinks of 'socialism.' But economists generally agree about how to define socialism, and they have devoted enormous time and resources to studying its costs and benefits. With an eye on this broad body of literature, this report discusses socialism’s historic visions and intents, its economic features, its impact on economic performance, and its relationship with recent policy proposals in the United States.

"We find that historical proponents of socialist policies and those in the contemporary United States share some of their visions and intents. They both characterize the distribution of income in market economies as the unjust result of “exploitation,” which should be rectified by extensive state control. The proposed solutions include single-payer systems, high tax rates ('from each according to his ability'), and public policies that hand out much of the Nation’s goods and services 'free' of charge ('to each according to his needs'). Where they differ is that contemporary democratic socialists denounce state brutality and would allow individuals to privately own the means of production in many industries.

CR postulates: The "unjust result of 'exploitation'" by capitalists is a false presumption. The EXPLOITATION is directly tied to currency manipulation by the Federal Reserve Bank incessantly devaluing the dollar by printing way too much money beyond the value of our production and dumping it at home and abroad through secret bailouts, punishing hard honest work and responsible savings at home. New businesses must hit the ground running to make a fast enough profit beating the Fed's inflation machine. We have been living under Marx's government central banking for the past century. This is socialists exploiting the poor. Put the blame where it belongs. You guys are like mad dogs chasing your own tails.

"In assessing the effects of socialist policies, it is important to recognize that they provide little material incentive for production and innovation and, by distributing goods and services for 'free,' prevent prices from revealing economically important information about costs and consumer needs and wants. To this end, as the then–prime minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher (1976), once argued, 'Socialist governments . . . always run out of other people’s money,' and thus the way to prosperity is for the state to give 'the people more choice to spend their own money in their own way.'

"Whether socialism delivers on its appealing promises is an empirical question. We begin our investigation by looking closely at the most highly socialist cases, which are typically agricultural economies, such as Maoist China, Cuba, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Their nondemocratic governments seized control of farming, promising to make food more abundant. The result was substantially less food production and tens of millions of deaths by starvation. Even if highly socialist policies are peacefully implemented under the auspices of democracy, the fundamental incentive distortions and information problems created by large state organizations and the centralized control of resources are also present in industrialized countries, as is currently the case in Venezuela. Lessons from poorly performing agricultural economies under socialist regimes carry over to government takeovers of other modern industries: They produce less rather than more.

"These countries are examples of a more general pattern of socialism’s negative output effects. Such outcomes have also been observed in cross-country studies of the effect of greater economic freedom—quantified as an index of taxation and public spending, the extent of state-owned enterprises, economic regulation, and other factors—on real gross domestic product (GDP). This literature finds a strong association between greater economic freedom and better economic performance. It suggests that replacing U.S. policies with highly socialist policies, such as Venezuela’s, would reduce real GDP at least 40 percent in the long run, or about $24,000 per year for the average person.

"lthough they are sometimes cited as more relevant socialist success stories, the experiences of the Nordic countries also support the conclusion that socialism reduces living standards. In many respects, the Nordic countries’ policies now differ significantly from what economists have in mind when they think of socialism. For instance, they do not provide healthcare for “free”; Nordic healthcare financing includes substantial cost sharing. Marginal labor income tax rates in the Nordic countries today are only somewhat higher than in the United States, and Nordic taxation overall is surprisingly less progressive than U.S. taxes. The Nordic countries also tax capital income less and regulate product markets less than the United States does. However, the Nordic countries do regulate and tax labor markets somewhat more; thus, American families earning the average wage would be taxed $2,000 to $5,000 more per year net of transfers if the United States had current Nordic policies.

"Living standards in the Nordic countries are at least 15 percent lower than in the United States.

"It may well be that American socialists are envisioning moving our policies to align with those of the Nordic countries in the 1970s, when their policies were more in line with economists’ traditional definition of socialism. We estimate that if the United States were to adopt these policies, its real GDP would decline by at least 19 percent in the long run, or about $11,000 per year for the average person.

"The Nordic and European versions of socialized medicine have been viewed as so desirable by modern U.S. socialists that they have proposed nationalizing payments for the healthcare sector (which makes up more than a sixth of the U.S. economy) through the recent “Medicare for All” proposal. This policy would distribute healthcare for “free” (i.e., without cost sharing) through a monopoly government health insurer that would centrally set all prices paid to suppliers such as doctors and hospitals. We find that if this policy were financed out of current Federal spending without borrowing or tax increases, then more than half the entire existing Federal budget would need to be cut. Or if it were financed through higher taxes, GDP would fall by 9 percent, or about $7,000 per person in 2022, due to high tax rates that would reduce incentives to supply the factors of production. Evidence on the productivity and effectiveness of single-payer systems suggests that “Medicare for All” would reduce both short- and long-run longevity and health despite increasing somewhat the population with health insurance."

Is socialism the reason the Nordic countries rose out of destitution? How much did the United States spend on the Marshall Plan rebuilding Europe and the Nordic countries after WWII to eliminate poverty?
Please read this article from the 1600Daily: br b... (show quote)




You seem to have a problem grasping the time line of what I posted.. 1905 is clearly mentioned in the first few paragraphs..

this was not intended to address to days problems in the USA..

However, as you brought up Medicare for all... in your article as in most, the cost do not address the reduction of the costs we now see.. only add on the perceived cost while maintaining the current costs.

That is so inaccurate that becomes a form of lying to you..

As for the opinion of which nation has the best life style/living standard..

no one can claim that the Scandinavian nations are not living well. Very well.

by the way, the Marshall plan had not been conceived at the time of my post..

It also was very or not at all used to rebuild the Scandinavian countries..



| Reply
Jan 15, 2019 10:47:59   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
CounterRevolutionary wrote:
Socialism is "centralized planning" which first induces stagnation for lack of IDEAS from the masses, and then collapses for lack of problem solving from the Intelligentsia in the government.

Individual people know their own needs far better than any government "expert." This is why free men and free markets supply goods and services the public needs and wants. The structure of socialism was deliberately designed to implode and make people die fighting each-other for the last scraps. Wake up, lemmings. Look at Venezuela, look at Guatemala.
Socialism is "centralized planning" whic... (show quote)



With at leas 4 types of Socialism, you need to be more specific..

Socialism does jobs for society which are needed but so expensive or low return that they are not impracticable for private investment..

Highways, sewers, water treatment, airports, electric grid the list is long and has served our nation well.

Those are some of the reasons people can never say the built something by themselves. every business reaps a great deal from our society. the could not build it alone..

Someone said words to that affect some years ago and outraged all the foolish people in America..



| Reply
Jan 17, 2019 02:32:39   #
CounterRevolutionary
 
permafrost wrote:
With at leas 4 types of Socialism, you need to be more specific..

Socialism does jobs for society which are needed but so expensive or low return that they are not impracticable for private investment..

Highways, sewers, water treatment, airports, electric grid the list is long and has served our nation well.

Those are some of the reasons people can never say the built something by themselves. every business reaps a great deal from our society. the could not build it alone..

Someone said words to that affect some years ago and outraged all the foolish people in America..
With at leas 4 types of Socialism, you need to be ... (show quote)


Cartoons aside, you missed the basic premises of the article.
Socialism does not work because there is a monopoly on IDEAS.

The wealth of the world has laid beneath our feet for 2 million years while us hominids tread the surface in chains for all but the past 200 years since the American Revolution. We were serfs and slaves under centralized planning (aka SOCIALISM).

One man nor one clique of "experts" knows it all and can plan it all. The insufferable arrogance of socialists is the Achilles' heel of the human race.

Why is not individual creativity and fair trade amongst individuals considered a far more successful means of addressing society's needs?

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.