There are a lot of moving parts involved in the current, sputtering condition of the economy, which can't yet be declared a recession but may well become one. I'll summarize as best I can. Very cheap credit led to a housing upturn, which became a boom, which became, in many parts of the country, a speculative bubble. The cheap credit was the result of a number of factors, including lax monetary police at the Federal Reserve, but of high importance were the huge foreign exchange reserves accumulated by a number of commodity-exporting nations, which led to a global savings glut.
Let's make this simpler still. We have been sending massive amounts of dollars overseas. Lots have gone to China to purchase manufacturing goods. Many more have gone to oil-producing nations. The countries on the receiving end of those dollars could only invest and spend so much in their own country without fueling rampant inflation, so they looked abroad for savings opportunities and found lots of them in the United States. All those foreign dollars looking for borrowers made borrowing very cheap.
Along the way, a number of unusual financial innovations created new types of mortgage securities which sped the boom along, and new mortgage products made homeowners of many families with uncertain incomes and shaky credit.
By 2005, steady increases in interest rates were making people nervous about the sustainability of the housing boom. They were also making adjustable-rate mortgages more expensive. The housing bubble peaked and began to deflate, but the real trouble started when the financial instruments used to spread the mortgage securities throughout the banking and investing world unraveled. The growing losses led to sudden global stinginess, manifesting itself as a worldwide credit crunch. The days of easy borrowing were over.
The really unfortunate thing about the credit crunch was that American consumers were no longer able to push the economy along by borrowing and spending. With credit cards maxed out and borrowing against homes now impossible, households have been forced to spend only what they have on hand. What they have on hand has been shrinking for months thanks to steady increases in the price of oil, energy, and food.
There is a kind of poetic continuity through the entire process. Our oil addiction fed the growing foreign exchange reserves of oil exporters. Those reserves fed an exurban, low-density housing boom, placing ever more families in huge homes miles away from anything. Having further committed ourselves to energy-intensive lifestyles, we found ourselves unable to avoid rising energy costs. Those costs have chewed up our budgets, forcing us to cut spending on everything else we buy, helping to suck the life out of the economy at the worst possible time.
These are difficult times for many households, but we shouldn't be too quick to overdramatize the situation. This is not a global economic calamity. This is not a depression. Most economists expect any recession to be short and mild, and then things will continue on as they did before.
That is unfortunate, in some senses. It is unreasonable to think that energy demand will shrink anytime in the near future. Economic growth in China and India has pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but it has also nudged the per capita resource use of their citizens toward developed-nation levels, significantly increasing the use and price of those resources. Demand has grown at home, as well. Our population is increasing, but the biggest contributor to increased energy use is the continued migration of households to areas where private automobiles are the only way to get around.
Energy supply is slow to respond. Our growing recognition of the peril of climate change has limited construction of some new electricity supply, and NIMBYism has limited more still. America's oil production has been falling for years, and global oil production has not matched demand growth--perhaps because producers are unwilling to bring new capacity online, and perhaps because they are not able to. Barring a serious and unexpected economic collapse, it is nearly impossible to imagine energy prices decreasing in the near future.
And efforts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels may not be much help. This week, we learned that biofuels are incredibly costly and no cleaner than the conventional fuels they replace. What's more, by competing with food production for scarce inputs, biofuel production has caused food prices to leap, further squeezing consumer budgets. Electric cars offer another option, but it's difficult to imagine how our already strained power supply and infrastructure could handle upwards of 200 million cars drawing from the grid.
The cherry on top is that any effective program to reduce carbon emissions will make the consumption of energy even more expensive. In light of these facts, we should be asking ourselves some serious questions. What is the cost of the housing boom and accompanying migrations, which have placed millions of people in homes and lives with enormous carbon footprints? How are American households going to cope with steady increases in the cost of electricity, gas, and food? What can we do to fix this mess?
What we must do is provide alternatives. It is vital to encourage the construction of quality homes in dense areas. Families can't buy well-made homes within walking distance of neighborhood amenities if they aren't built, and new housing supply is overwhelmingly not that type of housing. It is vital to invest heavily in mass transit. Families can't respond to high gas costs and choking congestion if a car is their only alternative. We must give families choices.
We have to learn these lessons. Otherwise, we'll continue to pour tax revenues into the infrastructure of sprawl, while that very sprawl becomes less affordable. It's a recipe for years of economic pain, of tight budgets and growing emissions. I think the economists are right that recovery is just a few months to a year away. If we don't alter the way we live, spend, and use energy, it may not be a recovery worth looking forward to.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
A $4 billion push to make affordable housing green
Comments
View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 3:11 am
11 Feb 2008
Re: the linking between this particular economic cycle and energy use/sprawl, I don't see it. The reasons Americans live the way they live, and in the locations they live are a complex result not just of a 10 year credit anomaly, but also our energy policy, electric regulation, transportation policy and any number of other variables, many of which have roots that reach back in some cases over 100 years. (Think "Go West, young man.") Pinning all that on loose credit isn't quite right.
That said, I agree with the need for economic cycles, and deep ones at that. A great advantage of our time is that central banks have gotten much better at taming the economic cycle, and avoided the deep cyclical busts that used to come around every 15 years or so. Since the stagflation of the 70s, we really haven't seen any kind of long (or particularly deep) downturn. From the perspective of unemployment, 401k growth and a whole host of other issues, that's good news. But from an economic efficiency perspective, it may not be ideal, since it effectively lowers the risk faced by those who put capital to work that might be exposed in a downturn. Take a really simple example: if a bank took on too much risk in the credit boom, their downside is immediately insulated when Bernarke cuts overnight lending rates. Not eliminated, mind you, but certainly insulated. So the feds essentially absorb some of the banks' downside risk, but the banks get to keep the upside gain. Any rational banker in that environment is going to develop a bigger appetite for risk than they otherwise would.
As a result, you end up with a system that really needs periodic cleaning, but the damping of the economic cycle has effectively eliminated the spring cleaning cycle and replaced it with occasional gentle dustings. (There is a riparian parallel here with respect to flood control projects...) Yes, the credit crunch right now is creating short term pain, but compare that to the massive industrial and regulatory reforms that followed the Great Depression and it becomes apparent that the damping cycle is making it less likely that we are going to address the deep, underlying issues (including those that go back hundreds of years).
But of course, the political pressure makes this ideal effectively impossible. After all, while I can argue academically that deep cycles are good, I will argue even more strongly that I will do everything in my power to make my business not go through a down cycle. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels that way! And at core, I think that political challenge is the underlying issue that drives this all. I have no idea how to solve it, but absent it's resolution, we remain stuck with a model that is prone to under-price risk, and therefore to make all sorts of mistakes of the type you point out. Suggestions?
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:46 am
11 Feb 2008
I'm big on living frugally, finding economical happiness, living sustainable, walking, biking ...
At the same time I sometimes rise to defend the suburbs. Why? It's because I think we sometimes fall into blaming the place rather than the practices.
I think I've railed against debt (public and private) in the pages before, but also talked about how nice it is to get avocados from a tree I planted 20 years ago.
Others I think have argued that the 40 foot diet (from the garden out back) beats the 200 mile diet (in most cases).
So sure, let's work out some good practices, but let's not set up walls in our minds to where those practices could take root and grow.
(Shorter: the best kind of sprawl has sprawled jobs and reduced commutes, it has gardens, fruit trees, and chickens. It doesn't have to be 40 miles to work in a Ford Tahoe.)
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:48 am
11 Feb 2008
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:05 am
11 Feb 2008
First, oil and gas don't really cost more than in the past ... the dollar is just worth less. The Saudis have told President Bush this several times, that the US has failed to control its currency, deficit, and its humongous hunger for energy. I'm with the Sauds here.
Second, the recent rise of sub-prime and lowering of mortgage rates lead to a massive construction boom all over the US. When I go back to visit friends and family in Austin, Dallas, and Houston I am just amazed at the sprawl which seemed to bound outwards by tens of thousands of acres at a time, unrecognizable even five years down the road.
Myself, I was in a perverted way glad to see the housing boom come to a grinding halt, as it was out of control. I don't care is folks are silly enough to buy $600,000 homes when they make $50,000 a year, but the fact is those concrete slabs were poured and those houses were built, much of it in what was either farmland or pristine land.
The only problem I see with New Urbanism and dense downtown dwelling is that the new units cost too much, priced well above the common person. In many cities New Urbanism has lead to rich yuppie colonies (or should I say expensive "colonias") where everyone is addicted to expensive coffee, the Internet, and fifty dollar a plate dinners ... that experiment has failed so far IMHO.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 5:25 am
11 Feb 2008
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:04 am
11 Feb 2008
-sammie
870 square foot house, $205,000
Onward through the fog
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:12 am
11 Feb 2008
It goes to the whole bond system, as The Big Picture notes today (quoting Bill Gross):
"How could Ambac (ABK), through the magic of its triple-A rating, with equity capital of less than $5bn, insure the debt of the state of California, the world's sixth-largest economy? How could an investor in California's municipal bonds be comforted by a company that during a potential liquidity crisis might find the capital markets closed to it, versus the nation's largest state with its obvious ongoing taxing authority?
As another case in point, today's news that College Loan Corp is having trouble selling some college loans.
The question was "how long can you run a country on a negative savings rate and a negative trade balance, counting on dollar recycling?"
I hope that this is not shaping up as the answer.
Permalink
Ryan Avent Posted 6:38 am
11 Feb 2008
We have eliminated a lot of the flexibility in our economy by giving ourselves only one transportation option operated by one fuel, and by racking up large personal debts. These two things are connected via massive outflows of capital to oil-exporting nations.
The outcome (probably) isn't calamity, but instead a creeping economic discomfort and malaise. It's not a good place to be in given the very serious problems we're going to need to address in the next decade.
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:03 am
11 Feb 2008
Demand for bonds in the $360 billion auction-rate securities market is waning on investor concern that dealers who collect fees for managing the bidding on the bonds won't commit their own capital to prevent failures. Reduced appetite for auction-rate debt in the municipal market also reflects expectations that the credit strength of insurers backing the securities may deteriorate.
When college loans don't move because investors are scared generally of bond issuers ... something is sketchy.
I don't have a prediction of how bad it will (or will not) get, partly because I still don't do predictions, and partly because things change.
One thing seems like a safe bet though ... American consumers will be forced to service debt, to reduce their debt, as part of this. Lenders are already closing down credit lines, capping HELOCs and credit cards alike.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:08 am
11 Feb 2008
Anyway -- when all of the financial shenanigans are shaken out, which may take even a depression, the problem in the US will remain, how do we revive the manufacturing sector? Because one of the scary things about the exurb expansion was that it took lots of capital, by which I mean real goods, and basically wasted them. Hopefully, there is enough capital left in the system, financial and real, to rebuild the cities, because I think this is where Ryan and I agree, we need to have a gazillion walkable neighborhoods in town and cities, and that will be very expensive, and in my opinion, manufacturing will be the way to provide those materials and to be able to afford to buy whatever we don't make in this country.
So, rebuilding cities and manufacturing are not only necessary prerequisites for the other, they help each other.
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:44 am
11 Feb 2008
It might be nice to see local manufacturing grow, especially if it grew out of personal wealth and savings.
But non-local manufacturing is not what made this society (and similar post-industrial societies) go nuts with debt:
What does a glamour model have in common with a man who works in a coleslaw factory? The answer is, the same thing that links a racehorse owner to a member of the ambulance service - a destructive addiction to debt.
These credit junkies are not fictional characters. They are real people, case studies in my documentary - Repossession, Repossession, Repossession - broadcast tonight on ITV1 at 10.35pm.
Our interviewees are a cross-section of modern Britain, where millions of people have been lulled into a false sense of prosperity by the soporific sound of easy money, credit on tap.
So, I think you are letting "us" off the hook to blame "them" when you try to make it into an industrial policy argument.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:03 am
11 Feb 2008
So, yes, everybody is in debt up to their neck, but when you don't make things, in order to exchange for things, you have to take on debt. smash!
By the way, here's a good paragraph from Kunstler's latest diatribe: This new depression, which I call The Long Emergency, will play out against the background of a society that has pissed away its oil endowment, bulldozed its factories, arbitraged its productive labor, destroyed both family farms and the commercial infrastructure of main street, and trained its population to become overfed diabetic TV zombie "consumers" of other peoples' productivity, paid for by "money" they haven't earned.
Let's see, used up/threw away oil (and coal), human capital, farms, main street, and factories...well, if we ever got our act together, rebuilding all of that stuff would be quite the economic "boom".
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:08 am
11 Feb 2008
Traders need to gamble, but don't take us all down with you. Pay up when you lose a bet. Don't dissappear the winnings to Dubai. These thieves need to learn a little lesson in honor. make some space available for some of the most egregious, like hedge fund inside traders and their bankers, in prison.
That will keep the rest in line, but the line needs to be reset as well. Re-regulate it all. Teddy Roosevelt/trustbuster style.
A healthy economy goes up and down responding to economic forces. An economy based on massive borrowing, outsourcing jobs, and ever increasing consumption isn't healthy.
Massive energy inflation, especially oil inflation, and massive borrowing for oil war is the calamity. Insider trading manipulating mortgage, oil, energy, food, farm land, every market you can imagine. That compounds the calamity.
Renwable energy and conservation is the cure. healthy economy restored by innovation and productivity. That's american, thanks Vespucci.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:12 am
11 Feb 2008
I write software.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:22 am
11 Feb 2008
And, conversely, if you have a healthy, growing manufacturing base, you can afford to go into debt. It CAN be a good thing, by allowing you to leverage more productive capital sooner, such that you wind up better off down the road than if you hadn't borrowed in the first place.
But in order for that to work, you need to spend the borrowed money on something productive (e.g. factory equipment, not executive vacations) and you need to pay off the debt from your enhanced productivity.
So I'd say we have two problems
1. Irresponsible borrowing and brokering of debt. 2. An economy that no longer produces much of real tangible value.
These are separate, though highly related, problems.
(Note that when I say "healthy" above, I mean economically healthy, and am ignoring environmental constraints on growth for the moment. Since the growth of our manufacturing base, even when it was "healthy" implied increasing the rate of liquidation of natural capital, that puts a whole other layer of complexity on the problem. But the basic principle I describe above remains valid.)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:24 am
11 Feb 2008
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:30 am
11 Feb 2008
We spend most of our money on luxuries rather than necessities, and much of that is financed by debt. As such, I'm inclined to say that any kind of ervice/knowledgework that doesn't enhance the provision of tangible values or critical intangibles like education is probably a waste of time and ultimately destructive in the context of the current economy. That's not to say that this sort of work is always bad or useless. It's just not worthwhile when you're deep in economic overshoot, as we currently are.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 8:30 am
11 Feb 2008
It is this corrective back & forth cycle that I was talking about when I said that cycles are good. Can financial markets exaggerate the swings? Sure. But they can also substantially bracket them if they allow people to hedge away risk. Thus, the farmer who locks in his profits next year with a forward price on his crop is only able to do so by virtue of the fact that there are brokers trading futures contracts, weather derivatives and any number of other purely financial instruments with no inherent value - but which create value for others.
And the larger point is that absent the volatility, you never get corrections. One of my favorite bits of CEO advice was from a friend who told me, early in my career that "it takes a monkey to manage a rising revenue line". Healthy businesses require periodic pruning. Yes, jobs are lost during that pruning, and pensions go down. But the alternative is fat, dumb and happy (see: any investor owned utility, your local telephone company, or Rosneft), which is far worse from a societal perspective, because it never cuts out its own inefficiencies.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:32 am
11 Feb 2008
Wealth creation is real, even when it comes from web searches, iPhones and ringtones. That wealth can fuel sustainable development ... as we see with Google's energy program.
Google is the opposite of a local manufacturing business but they have been applauded in these pages (these virtual pages).
... maybe I'm ahead on this because I've long ago given up on ideas like "real tangible value." Values, and prices, are arbitrary agreements between buyers and sellers. You can agree to buy a ringtone or a roasted corn on the cobb. That is between you, and argubaly both could be equally "sustainable" up-stream.
This is especially true if you are spending money you made (with your own bits or bricks) and not spending your debt.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:36 am
11 Feb 2008
"Information technology complicates this whole manufacturing/productivity argument, but you can still sort it out if you look at the economy as a metabolism with an energy balance."
I think that "metabolism" thing is spoken by a would-be designer, rather than an denizen.
A member of a regulated market economy such as ours, might think first of "ecosystem."
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:42 am
11 Feb 2008
If some ideologue gets to decide what is "real tangible value" where would he draw the line? Nurses yes but dog-walkers no?
Porsche mechanics are a tricky one, right? The way those things get fixed the local mechanic might end up making more than the line assembler in Germany.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:45 am
11 Feb 2008
I'll freely admit that there are grey areas, but there are also many types that are very clear cut. We all need to eat. We need water. We need clothing and shelter (most places). If we're a technological culture, we need education.
Other things, we maybe don't strictly NEED, but we really, really want. Like health care. Some of these, like education (and health care particularly) are requirements for maintaining an economic state above subsistence.
Think of it as an analogy to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. What is a "need" changes with context. A tribesman doesn't need electricity, but we certainly do. etc. The important thing is to keep the reference point in the hierarchy grounded in reality, and that's where I think we have failed.
Wealth creation is real, even when it comes from web searches, iPhones and ringtones. That wealth can fuel sustainable development ... as we see with Google's energy program.
Is it, though? Where's that money coming from? Trace it back, and it's coming from advertising, mostly for consumer goods, most of which are clearly luxuries. (As a consequence, Google may suffer greatly in a real depression, a fact of which I can only hope they are aware.)
Google makes most of their money on advertising, mostly for things that people don't need. Some of that money gets invested in meeting real future needs (e.g. sustainable electricity). But what they've done there is capture money from the luxury economy and redirect it to the necessity economy. Which is a great service, no doubt, but it's not quite the same thing as creating value directly.
Now, Google has without a doubt produced tremendous real value by providing access to information that allow people to be more productive. But they do that (mostly) through their search service, which is free. So now you have real irony: They provide a real value, which they give away, then they provide a "fake" value (connecting the buyers and sellers of mostly frivolous goods) from which they harvest money, which they then redirect (partially) into producing real value. Pretty weird, but it works, and it's definitely a net positive when it's all said and done.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:48 am
11 Feb 2008
A member of a regulated market economy such as ours, might think first of "ecosystem."
I'm not sure I follow your point here. But in answer to your question, I'm speaking this as an engineer (who works in the physical world). Metabolism wasn't the ideal term. What I should have said was "draw a control volume around your economy. now calculate the energy balance, or the closest analog..."
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:55 am
11 Feb 2008
It is sometimes useful but more often leads to (I'll use the comp sci slang here) many twisty passages all the same.
A would-be Footprint Czar could drive himself nuts doing that, and trying to decide if an iTune was better or worse than a Comedy Club.
But why bother? There is an easier, freer, and more democratic alternative. That is to simply attack the upstream evils (the pollution, the biodiversity loss, the resource depletion). Tax them or outlaw them, it doesn't matter. Then you can let the market (and the consumers) sort it out. If electricity and gasoline are priced appropriately people can decide if they drive or download.
So, thank you for your Google gazing, but to be brutally honest, I'm not really looking for an expert opinion here. I'm looking for an open and democratic framework.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:56 am
11 Feb 2008
So I think it is more useful to try to figure out a "metaphysics", or better yet, "meta-engineering", how all the pieces fit together.
I think what GreenEngineer may be getting at, or at least what the comments bring up to my mind, is the interesting idea that if people could replace their desire for a bigger car and a bigger house with a desire for ringtones and other things which are much more ecologically benign, then economic growth could be more economically benign. In other words, for instance, if by creating software, people would gain as much "utility" as plowing through hundreds of cheeseburgers a year, we'd be in better shape.
That being said, I think that software used to program machine tools, for instance, is more important than software used to make ringtones, simply because innovations in machine tools reverberate throughout the economy, as I tried to explain here. That doesn't mean that all of the pieces of the economy aren't important, just as all of the pieces (niches) of an ecosystsem are important, but some pieces are more critical for the functioning of the ecosystem/economy than others and some are more responsible for technological innovation than others.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:57 am
11 Feb 2008
Yes, your view as "architect" was coming though.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:58 am
11 Feb 2008
You really won't let go of that hammer, will you? ;-)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:06 am
11 Feb 2008
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:14 am
11 Feb 2008
I agree with Odo: eliminate the externalities, and let the market sort it out. The biggest problem we have, both economically and environmentally, is living beyond our means.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 10:41 am
11 Feb 2008
I know the China lobby sticking money in freezers had a lot to do with it but most favored nation trading status with a communist country. Its hard to do a level playing field when the country you play with does not know the meaning of the work. Big news this week about the espionage in both the military and technical sector.
Engineer drain, weak dollar, run away national debt, economic engine in other markets also make us unnecessary as the only source market to sell to. When China dumps dollars or quits buying our bonds we wont even be able to buy from them.
Its has become as economic house of cards brought about by the hollowing out of the manufacturing base and the national flea market in D.C. International Corporations owe no allegience to any particular flag and as soon as we turn over the rest of our sovereignty to the WTO we will have lost our last chance at restructuring our manufacturing base.
Tax breaks for moving production overseas was not seen as government interference, stopping that practice and giving tax breaks for manufacturing in country will be called a foul. I was a little harsh on the service sector in an earlier piece and there is no doubt as to the importance of the information technology side of the economy. There is no good reason why we can't have it all, if we do not turn our economic future over to the corporate lobby in D.C.
Jefferson warned of this, and no one since Teddy Roosevelt has dared try to take on powerful interest that are detrimental to our economic survival. Since we went off the gold standard and hocked the nation to the East and Middle East we have put ourselves in a precarious position. Even trying to unraveling it at this point could force retaliation from interest that don't see us necessary to the world economic system anymore.
We rebuilt Europe and built a national interstate highway system all the while fielding the best equipped, most advanced military in the world. Did I mention put a man on the moon and feed half the world. We did it with a strong manufacturing base and investment in capital not multi-million CEO salary's and stock options. We paid for performance and let Darwin take care of the weak and the incompetent.
It is the first time I have witnessed an economy so broke it is almost beyond fixing compounded by the fact there is no will in either political party to take the strong measures necessary to get manufacturint back.
The market is running on speculation and based on the psychology the underlaying fundamentals are still strong. The little tax rebate will keep the suckers in and pacified until in June when it is evident they did not work the market will seek its natural level. Which will not look promising long term.
Housing or the illusion of a housing market drove this engine for the last several years before that market bubble busted. What else do we have to build on now and will the world markets ever trust us again when our financial institutions have just shown how undiscliplined they are.
I know someone is going to say green technology and I hope you are right. Seriously, I don't know who will fund it, we are tapped out and even George Bush gets turned down in Saudi Arabia now when he goes begging.
The British model may look good compared to what we are going to be faced with, again I hope I am wrong.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:34 pm
11 Feb 2008
And why manipulated markets, typified by insider trading, devolve into corporate feudalism. Where for instance, gas guzzlers keep on coming off the assembley lines no matter what. No matter how much consumers clamor for something better.
There has to be a way to reconcile regulation that actually protects free markets, so that they efficiently respond to needed innovation, with the basic mistrust of government involvement in business.
How did Teddy Roosevelt do it? There's a template to trace.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:06 pm
11 Feb 2008
Permalink