Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Money As Debt, Fractional Reserve Banking Etc


othello

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
You're right, I should have said Bank of England. I was thinking in terms of it being publicly-created money. But I'm not confusing cash (notes and coins) with 'other forms of money' created by the Bank, because they don't create any other form of money.

Hmmmm ... yes, I suppose so - if you consider a few hundred billion shortfall between total debt and the money available to pay it as being 'broadly in line'. And if you look at the figures, you'll see that the gap has been increasing exponentially ever since debt first exceeded the money stock, back in 1985. Next year it will be even bigger.

You're right, the idea is absurd - but not wrong (except perhaps morally). Central banks 'control' money creation only indirectly, via interest rates. The commercial banks do the actual creation job for them ... at a high price. The Bank of England creates no money other than notes and coins. I am 100% sure of this. If you doubt it, write and ask them.

So the figures quoted in my previous post clearly show £1,610.6 billion in bank deposits which was not created by any public authority.

http://www.freewebs.com/whosemoney

Picking up on your point, the impression given by some people here is that there is NO correlation any more between debt and available money. That is not the case and I think you are agreeing with that although as you say there is more debt - but as I understand it , it is SECURED debt - against some tangible asset eg. a house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
Not in the slightest. To loan someone money requires that you have money in the first place to give them, otherwise it's just ********, lies and fraud.

The mortgage taker is told that existing cash has been given by the bank and handed to someone else. You've just said it never happened. That's fraud.

Banks collect interest on loans that never occur. How is this not fraud?

How could it be clearer?

Turn your example around. I go to a bank and tell them I have a great big diamond. They believe me because I am convincing and well known to have a jewellers shop. I go and spend the money, and then for some reason or the bank finds out I am lying and comes looking for the diamond. It's not there. I lied to acquire their money.

I'd go to prison for fraud.

Somehow when we reverse this procedure and the bank says it has money it doesn't have, all is fine, no fraud occurs, go back to sleep, nothing to see here....such ********.]

There is no alternative view of the banking system presented anywhere apart from the fractional reserve system. The BoE, the Fed etc all agree that the banking world operates this way.

An element of fraud exists everywhere, but that does not mean thewhole system is corrupt. If you lie about the value of your diamond it is you that is being fradulant not the bank - they are just careless. This is the sub-prime debacle in the US - and look what has happened. Got out of hand and the system corrects (credit tightening etc). That does not make the system fundementally unsound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
Yes, it is.

The value comes from the borrower. The bank has nothing until he walks through the door.

The value comes from the fact sombody has promised to go and earn the money and repay the bank.

The bank has simply trusted the individual, the ability of the Law to hold the individual to their word, and the economy in which the individual must now go and earn the money.

The bank charges interest because there is a risk something may fail them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
Not in the slightest. To loan someone money requires that you have money in the first place to give them, otherwise it's just ********, lies and fraud.

The mortgage taker is told that existing cash has been given by the bank and handed to someone else. You've just said it never happened. That's fraud.

Banks collect interest on loans that never occur. How is this not fraud?

How could it be clearer?

Turn your example around. I go to a bank and tell them I have a great big diamond. They believe me because I am convincing and well known to have a jewellers shop. I go and spend the money, and then for some reason or the bank finds out I am lying and comes looking for the diamond. It's not there. I lied to acquire their money.

I'd go to prison for fraud.

Somehow when we reverse this procedure and the bank says it has money it doesn't have, all is fine, no fraud occurs, go back to sleep, nothing to see here....such ********.]

There is no alternative view of the banking system presented anywhere apart from the fractional reserve system. The BoE, the Fed etc all agree that the banking world operates this way.

your concept of how the banking system works seems to be a bit warped.

you are also missing the point that banks dont have to match a loan with an asset value at all. if you want a loan to buy a car, decorate your house, buy some shoes, you dont need to prove any asset value. the bank is taking on the risk that you will pay them back.

mortgages are simply asset backed loans. they reduce their risk by holding some asset as collateral.

if you fail to pay back any loan, they will make a loss in the form of bad debts. but with a mortgage they have an extra security of selling your house to recover some of that loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
An element of fraud exists everywhere, but that does not mean thewhole system is corrupt. If you lie about the value of your diamond it is you that is being fradulant not the bank - they are just careless. This is the sub-prime debacle in the US - and look what has happened. Got out of hand and the system corrects (credit tightening etc). That does not make the system fundementally unsound.

Ok, so you routinely defraud your family and friends, customers, other relatives?

I know the system works, after a fashion, I just don't like everyoen on earth being a debt slave and think that lying to people is immoral. It's wrong. Sorry about that, it's a moral objection to being lied to repeatedly by a bunch of fraudsters, not a problem with whther they can get away with it or not.

I didn't lie about the value of the diamond, I lied about the fact that it existed at all. just like the banks do. They lie that they have money to lend when they don't.

I can't believe how difficult you make this out to be. You go to bank. Bank has £10,000 in cash in it's vault, that is already promised to 8 people - they have £80,000 owing but only £10,000 on them. Show me how they can make yet another loan without misrepresentation or fraud. Jesus H.

Cheers.

The value comes from the fact sombody has promised to go and earn the money and repay the bank.

The bank has simply trusted the individual, the ability of the Law to hold the individual to their word, and the economy in which the individual must now go and earn the money.

The bank charges interest because there is a risk something may fail them.

Bank tells me it has money to lend. They are already insolvent. The bank values my credulous idiocy at the amount they lend to me. Their books are balanced the moment I withdraw my cash, they can make no loss nor do they ever risk anything.

How can you say the value comes from the borrow and the bank is owed anything?

This makes no sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
your concept of how the banking system works seems to be a bit warped.

you are also missing the point that banks dont have to match a loan with an asset value at all. if you want a loan to buy a car, decorate your house, buy some shoes, you dont need to prove any asset value. the bank is taking on the risk that you will pay them back.

mortgages are simply asset backed loans. they reduce their risk by holding some asset as collateral.

if you fail to pay back any loan, they will make a loss in the form of bad debts. but with a mortgage they have an extra security of selling your house to recover some of that loss.

The banks do have to match an asset with a liability, that's how they do the bookkeeping. There is no risk. The money did not exist until you signed the promise to repay.

The bank cannot make a loss. I take out £10,000

Bank has £10,000

I take out another £10,000

Bank adds £10,000 to it's assets, now has £20,000 and allows me to withdraw £10,000 of it.

Bank now has £10,000, exactly where it started before I walked in the door.

Show me the loss here, please. My maths is shaky. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447
Yes, it is.

The value comes from the borrower. The bank has nothing until he walks through the door.

YEah yeah yeah yeah thats spot on, the banks have nothing till the customer pledges something of value, the bank then converts that into Money, seashells, dots on screen, whatever.

Of course, now this scam has been running a bit, the banks DO have some money of their own to lend, so thats where they can lend "Unsecured" if they wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
Ok, so you routinely defraud your family and friends, customers, other relatives?

I know the system works, after a fashion, I just don't like everyoen on earth being a debt slave and think that lying to people is immoral. It's wrong. Sorry about that, it's a moral objection to being lied to repeatedly by a bunch of fraudsters, not a problem with whther they can get away with it or not.

I didn't lie about the value of the diamond, I lied about the fact that it existed at all. just like the banks do. They lie that they have money to lend when they don't.

I can't believe how difficult you make this out to be. You go to bank. Bank has £10,000 in cash in it's vault, that is already promised to 8 people - they have £80,000 owing but only £10,000 on them. Show me how they can make yet another loan without misrepresentation or fraud. Jesus H.

Cheers.

Bank tells me it has money to lend. They are already insolvent. The bank values my credulous idiocy at the amount they lend to me. Their books are balanced the moment I withdraw my cash, they can make no loss nor do they ever risk anything.

How can you say the value comes from the borrow and the bank is owed anything?

This makes no sense at all.

again you seem to be suprised at even the most simple concept of banking - that a bank has less money cash in vault, than what was put in deposits.

of course this is the case. its a bank! how can you have more money in cash than you have in deposits.

someone comes in to deposit £1000. bank lends out £5 of that money.

according to you. deposits now =£995 . amount owed = £1000. bank is insolvent.

just how do you lend out money and have the same amount of cash in the bank?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
YEah yeah yeah yeah thats spot on, the banks have nothing till the customer pledges something of value, the bank then converts that into Money, seashells, dots on screen, whatever.

Of course, now this scam has been running a bit, the banks DO have some money of their own to lend, so thats where they can lend "Unsecured" if they wish.

They would be able to lend that money to you if it wasn't already promised to half the peopel on the planet. :lol:

In practice they do the exact same thing still, over and over.

A fun thing to do is ring the credit card company and ask for proof of loss, cashchanging hands etc upon receipt of which you will happily repay them :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
The banks do have to match an asset with a liability, that's how they do the bookkeeping. There is no risk. The money did not exist until you signed the promise to repay.

The bank cannot make a loss. I take out £10,000

Bank has £10,000

I take out another £10,000

Bank adds £10,000 to it's assets, now has £20,000 and allows me to withdraw £10,000 of it.

Bank now has £10,000, exactly where it started before I walked in the door.

Show me the loss here, please. My maths is shaky. :P

you have missed out the most basic principle in the fact that the bank must start off with the money in the first place.

if you want to take out £10000 the bank must have £10000 to give in the first place. if you want another £10000 the banks must also have this money. why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

the record of an asset is that instead of the bank having £20,000 in cash as an asset. that £20,000 is now recorded as an asset in the form of a loan/debtor i.e an amount owing.

Edited by mfp123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
again you seem to be suprised at even the most simple concept of banking - that a bank has less money cash in vault, than what was put in deposits.

of course this is the case. its a bank! how can you have more money in cash than you have in deposits.

someone comes in to deposit £1000. bank lends out £5 of that money.

according to you. deposits now =£995 . amount owed = £1000. bank is insolvent.

just how do you lend out money and have the same amount of cash in the bank?

Jesus wept. Why do you knuckleheads make a special case of peopel working in a bank than any other individual on earth?

Lying to people and misrepresenting is wrong in all other industries, for all other people. But..if we just put a natwest sign over the door, the moral nature of the transaction changes completely!

They are a bank! Of course the lie! It's fine, nothing to see here. Where did my savings go again? oh inflation...shame....why can't my kids get a decent house ....oh yeah can't afford it ....still banks are fine, eh!

How about this for a weird alternative banking method -

You tell the depositors you have loaned their money out and they can't access it yet?

"Hi Bill, this is Dave at the bank, we've found a great investment opportunity and are about to sink your cash into it, want to look it over or shall I just go ahead?. Ok. You won't be able to access your funds until we have been repaid, should be 12-18 months".

Wow, honesty! theres a novel concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
Bank tells me it has money to lend. They are already insolvent. The bank values my credulous idiocy at the amount they lend to me. Their books are balanced the moment I withdraw my cash, they can make no loss nor do they ever risk anything.

How can you say the value comes from the borrow and the bank is owed anything?

This makes no sense at all.

The side of the contract held by the bank says if the individual does not repay the loan the bank must incur the loss. Bad debt.

The bank must have money available to cover potential losses. That money is called a reserve.

The deposit/lending/0.9^x example is as easy to unwind as it is to accumulate, the problem is that any large and rapid unwinding leads to price errosion and the collapse of equity. Making it difficult for a bank to liquidate large volumes of assets fast enough to meet the depositors demands. Banks may need to seek aditional temporary sources of liquidity (as we saw with Northern Rock) to meet deposit redemptions in order to protect the equity and price stability in the wider economy.

Whenever there is a systemic risk to price stability it is the mission of the central bank to take control of the situation.

I am yet to see an example of this fractional reserve conspiracy that explains how bad debts fit in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
again you seem to be suprised at even the most simple concept of banking - that a bank has less money cash in vault, than what was put in deposits.

of course this is the case. its a bank! how can you have more money in cash than you have in deposits.

someone comes in to deposit £1000. bank lends out £5 of that money.

according to you. deposits now =£995 . amount owed = £1000. bank is insolvent.

just how do you lend out money and have the same amount of cash in the bank?

No thats not right either, the £5 lent is an Asset, so the bank has £1000 creditors, 995 deposited and £5.00 Debtors = £1000PLUS some interest to accrue on the £5

All is in balance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

The following is nicked from the PricedOut forum (apologies to "bankenstein"):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To communicate the malign contribution of our debt-based money system to the twin predicaments of those currently priced out of the UK housing market, and of those now deeply indebted due to recent house purchases, here are a few questions.

I have taken the liberty of answering the first lead-in question. Take your time and ponder over the other questions. Their purpose is to promote awareness and enquiry.

1. Is it necessary for a complex modern society such as the UK to have a universal means of exchange? (Answer: Yes, of course, barter is no longer even remotely feasible.)

2. Given the choice, which of the following two possibilities would you prefer?

(a) A debt-based, privately issued means of exchange, borrowed into existence by, and lent at interest to, the community of users, namely UK society. Note that this option will ensure that an unavoidable, irredeemable and ever-increasing debt burden is loaded progressively onto present and future UK citizens, distributed between personal, corporate and government debts.

(B) A debt-free, permanently circulating means of exchange, responsibly and proportionately issued by HM Government at negligible cost to UK society.

3. If your answer to Q2 was (a), then why do you support a money system which guarantees that, on average, you will be more indebted than your parents, and that in turn your children will be more indebted than you? Why are you in favour of paying private, profit-making institutions for the very existence of your fundamentally necessary means of exchange?

4. Do you consider it rational that, collectively, we users of Sterling now have debts whose total is about £800,000,000,000 greater than the amount of Sterling in circulation? How has this state of affairs come about? Is it possible, even theoretically and let alone practically, for this debt ever to be repaid? Or must it increase inexorably until eventually there is a systemic breakdown of the monetary system?

5. Even now, UK society is finding it increasingly difficult to service the totality of its debt. If interest rates are increased, these difficulties will intensify. If rates are reduced, this will encourage further debt which, sooner or later, will be even harder to service. Faced with this dilemma, what do you think will happen over the next few years?

6. Why is the financial sector of the economy so disproportionately large and increasingly dominant? Why is the money supply and manipulation business so lucrative in comparison with, for example, agriculture or manufacturing industry? Why are so many of our most academically intelligent people employed in purely financial matters, essentially trying to outsmart us and each other without collectively producing any real wealth?

Answers and comments on a postcard please to your local MP, copies to Mervyn King and Alistair Darling.

To find out more about the above and related matters, I would recommend reading The Coming First World Debt Crisis by Ann Pettifor, published by Palgrave and available from Amazon.

Edited by love Mises to pieces
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
you have missed out the most basic principle in the fact that the bank must start off with the money in the first place.

if you want to take out £10000 the bank must have £10000 to give in the first place. if you want another £10000 the banks must also have this money. why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

the record of an asset is that instead of the bank having £20,000 in cash as an asset. that £20,000 is now recorded as an asset in the from of a debtor i.e an amount owing.

This was true when money was linked to commodities. Now it's mostly numbers on a screen, of which there are an endless supply.

Now it's just promises, backed by nothing. You promise, I promise nothing of substance ever changes hands, big deal.

It's completely mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
The side of the contract held by the bank says if the individual does not repay the loan the bank must incur the loss. Bad debt.

The bank must have money available to cover potential losses. That money is called a reserve.

The deposit/lending/0.9^x example is as easy to unwind as it is to accumulate, the problem is that any large and rapid unwinding leads to price errosion and the collapse of equity. Making it difficult for a bank to liquidate large volumes of assets fast enough to meet the depositors demands. Banks may need to seek aditional temporary sources of liquidity (as we saw with Northern Rock) to meet deposit redemptions in order to protect the equity and price stability in the wider economy.

Whenever there is a systemic risk to price stability it is the mission of the central bank to take control of the situation.

I am yet to see an example of this fractional reserve conspiracy that explains how bad debts fit in.

All bank are just branches of the central bank.

That's point 1.

The bank must have money to cover potential losses. The potential losses are 9x times greater than the reerve. That's called nonsense.

Unless they have 100% reserves, they are broke and exist by lies and misrepresentation.

Lying is wrong, misrepresentation is evil and who gives a shit if it can be made to work by dicking about with the money supply?

Slavery got good cotton out of the fields. That's not an argument for chaining men, women and children together and whipping them while they work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
Ok, so you routinely defraud your family and friends, customers, other relatives?

I know the system works, after a fashion, I just don't like everyoen on earth being a debt slave and think that lying to people is immoral. It's wrong. Sorry about that, it's a moral objection to being lied to repeatedly by a bunch of fraudsters, not a problem with whther they can get away with it or not.

I didn't lie about the value of the diamond, I lied about the fact that it existed at all. just like the banks do. They lie that they have money to lend when they don't.

I can't believe how difficult you make this out to be. You go to bank. Bank has £10,000 in cash in it's vault, that is already promised to 8 people - they have £80,000 owing but only £10,000 on them. Show me how they can make yet another loan without misrepresentation or fraud. Jesus H.

Cheers.

Bank tells me it has money to lend. They are already insolvent. The bank values my credulous idiocy at the amount they lend to me. Their books are balanced the moment I withdraw my cash, they can make no loss nor do they ever risk anything.

How can you say the value comes from the borrow and the bank is owed anything?

This makes no sense at all.

I agree on us being debt slaves. We work for 12 years of our life on average just to pay back the INTEREST on our mortgages. Very little goes to savers (of course!). Most goes into profits and bonuses. Why should they get so much for ding so little. Debt slaves - absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
18
HOLA4419
Banking system has some cover in this link

who's money is it anyway if all they need to do is print more money and the money in my pocket will only buy half what it did before.

An ordinary bank cant JUST PRINT MONEY- that IS nonsense- What they CAN DO is to convert Your Assett into Money, Money is created and its value is based on the assett on which it is created- your pocketfull of gold maybe!!

A central bank doesnt just creat money either, it gets Bonds from the GOvernment (whatever THEY are) I beleive, andit from these Bonds that the new money is created- Where the Bonds come from I have no idea, maybe somebody could say please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
Picking up on your point, the impression given by some people here is that there is NO correlation any more between debt and available money. That is not the case and I think you are agreeing with that although as you say there is more debt - but as I understand it , it is SECURED debt - against some tangible asset eg. a house.

Absolutley right, debt is directly related to available money, because debt is effectively money. If everyone repaid their debts, not only would there be no money in circulation, we would still owe (as at the end of June this year - it'll be even more by now) well over £300 billion to the banking system.

As to how well "secured" this debt is: as Dabhand has just said, "the willingness to lend is what creates that asset". So when, as recently, banks have been willing to lend several hundred thousand for people to buy houses that are nowhere near worth that outside the present huge property-price bubble, those debts couldn't be called secure. When house prices fall, those properties will no longer offer adequate collateral for the overblown loans that were offered.

But the real question is, why on earth should we choose to have a financial system which depends absolutely on people going into debt en masse just to provide the country with its means of exchange?

In the words of Robert Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta during the Great Depression (just replace the word 'dollar' with 'pound'):

“We are completely dependent upon the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation … If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system…

“It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied soon.”

Years later, the system is still not understood, and its defects are still not remedied.

http://www.freewebs.com/whosemoney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
An ordinary bank cant JUST PRINT MONEY- that IS nonsense- What they CAN DO is to convert Your Assett into Money, Money is created and its value is based on the assett on which it is created- your pocketfull of gold maybe!!

A central bank doesnt just creat money either, it gets Bonds from the GOvernment (whatever THEY are) I beleive, andit from these Bonds that the new money is created- Where the Bonds come from I have no idea, maybe somebody could say please

THe high street banks take the promissory notes that customers sign to the BoE to acquire the funds, or they sell them to other people in the money markets. Either way, they get paid before they act.

Money is not legal tender. This is probably worth saying over and over. Money is anything you can use to trade with as a medium of exchange. That makes mortgage forms, loan forms and credit cards money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
I am yet to see an example of this fractional reserve conspiracy that explains how bad debts fit in.

... and while we're going down that path, the point that's eluding some of these folk is that the decentralisation of authority (in context: issuing authority) is something that results as a function of aggregate reduction in default risk.

ie: the transition from currency underwritten by rule of force to currency underwritten by rule of (hereditary) sovereign to currency underwritten by rule of law to currency underwritten, ultimately, by promissiary exchange directly between parties - is no bad thing.

"We're all more indebted than our parents". Sheesh. Our assets are "worth" more, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
Can someone recommend a good book, extensively peer-reviewed, that explains all this!?

I am fascinated and confused in equal measure.

I reckon the best book to read is "The Grip of Death", by Mike Rowbotham, because it deals with the whole question from the point of view of someone living in the UK (assuming that you do live in the UK).

The American books go on a lot about the creation of the Federal Reserve, and how it's privately owned. Over here, it's different. The Bank of England is nationalised, yet we are still in the position where over 95% of the money in circulation is created by the commercial banking sector.

Rowbotham also steers clear of the whole conspiracy/not a conspiracy complication. He makes it clear that you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to argue for money reform.

You can read the first chapter of his book here http://www.freewebs.com/whosemoney/gripofdeathchapter1.htm

Another good book, giving facts and figures from the UK perspective, is "Creating New Money", by Joseph Huber and James Robertson, of the New Economics Foundation. You can get a free download here http://www.jamesrobertson.com/book/creatingnewmoney.pdf

Lots more links, British and American, here http://www.freewebs.com/whosemoney/websitesbooksdvds.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
All bank are just branches of the central bank.

That's point 1.

The bank must have money to cover potential losses. The potential losses are 9x times greater than the reerve. That's called nonsense.

Unless they have 100% reserves, they are broke and exist by lies and misrepresentation.

Lying is wrong, misrepresentation is evil and who gives a shit if it can be made to work by dicking about with the money supply?

Slavery got good cotton out of the fields. That's not an argument for chaining men, women and children together and whipping them while they work.

They dont need 100% reserve. Because the risk of an individual defaulting is less than 100%. The risk of total systemic failure is less than 100%.

They make profits by directing otherwise un-utilised capital towards good ventures, they risk their repuatation, depositors and creditors risk their capital. They share this profit with depositors, stockholders and staff alike.

Your reference to slavery is as bizarre as it is confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
... and while we're going down that path, the point that's eluding some of these folk is that the decentralisation of authority (in context: issuing authority) is something that results as a function of aggregate reduction in default risk.

ie: the transition from currency underwritten by rule of force to currency underwritten by rule of (hereditary) sovereign to currency underwritten by rule of law to currency underwritten, ultimately, by promissiary exchange directly between parties - is no bad thing.

"We're all more indebted than our parents". Sheesh. Our assets are "worth" more, too.

Yeah that would be great. Let me know when it happens.

At the moment you join the financial system or you lose everything you own. Let me know when a free market in currency occurs, or taxation ceases.

Link to comment
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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information