Doug Casey On The Coming Financial Crisis: "It's A Gigantic Accident Waiting To Happen"


Justin’s note: Earlier this year, Fed Chair Janet Yellen explained how she doesn’t think we’ll have another financial crisis “in our lifetimes.” It’s a crazy idea. After all, it feels like the U.S. is long overdue for a major crisis. Below, Doug Casey shares his take on this. It’s one of the most important discussions we’ve had all year.

(If you missed the first two interviews from this series, you can catch up here and here.)

Justin: Doug, I know you disagree with Yellen. But I’m wondering why she would even say this? Has she lost her mind?

Doug: Listening to the silly woman say that made me think we’re truly living in Bizarro World. It’s identical in tone to what stock junkies said in 1999 just before the tech bubble burst. She’s going to go down in history as the modern equivalent of Irving Fisher, who said “we’ve reached a permanent plateau of prosperity,” in 1929, just before the Great Depression started.

I don’t care that some university gave her a Ph.D., and some politicians made her Fed Chair, possibly the second most powerful person in the world. She’s ignorant of economics, ignorant of history, and clearly has no judgment about what she says for the record.

Why would she say such a thing? I guess because since she really believes throwing trillions of dollars at the banking system will create prosperity. It started with the $750 billion bailout at the beginning of the last crisis. They’ve since thrown another $4 trillion at the financial system.

All of that money has flowed into the banking system. So, the banking system has a lot of liquidity at the moment, and she thinks that means the economy is going to be fine.

Justin: Hasn’t all that liquidity made the banking system safer?

Doug: No. The whole banking system is screwed-up and unstable. It’s a gigantic accident waiting to happen.

People forgot that we now have a fractional reserve banking system. It’s very different from a classical banking system. I suspect not one person in 1,000 understands the difference…

Modern banking emerged from the goldsmithing trade of the Middle Ages. Being a goldsmith required a working inventory of precious metal, and managing that inventory profitably required expertise in buying and selling metal and storing it securely. Those capacities segued easily into the business of lending and borrowing gold, which is to say the business of lending and borrowing money.

Most people today are only dimly aware that until the early 1930s, gold coins were used in everyday commerce by the general public. In addition, gold backed most national currencies at a fixed rate of convertibility. Banks were just another business—nothing special. They were distinguished from other enterprises only by the fact they stored, lent, and borrowed gold coins, not as a sideline but as a primary business. Bankers had become goldsmiths without the hammers.

Bank deposits, until quite recently, fell strictly into two classes, depending on the preference of the depositor and the terms offered by banks: time deposits, and demand deposits. Although the distinction between them has been lost in recent years, respecting the difference is a critical element of sound banking practice.

Justin: Can you explain the difference between a time deposit and demand deposit?

Doug: Sure. With a time deposit—a savings account, in essence—a customer contracts to leave his money with the banker for a specified period. In return, he receives a specified fee (interest) for his risk, for his inconvenience, and as consideration for allowing the banker the use of the depositor’s money. The banker, secure in knowing he has a specific amount of gold for a specific amount of time, is able to lend it; he’ll do so at an interest rate high enough to cover expenses (including the interest promised to the depositor), fund a loan-loss reserve, and if all goes according to plan, make a profit.

A time deposit entails a commitment by both parties. The depositor is locked in until the due date. How could a sound banker promise to give a time depositor his money back on demand and without penalty when he’s planning to lend it out?

In the business of accepting time deposits, a banker is a dealer in credit, acting as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers. To avoid loss, bankers customarily preferred to lend on productive assets, whose earnings offered assurance that the borrower could cover the interest as it came due. And they were willing to lend only a fraction of the value of a pledged asset, to ensure a margin of safety for the principal. And only for a limited time—such as against the harvest of a crop or the sale of an inventory. And finally, only to people of known good character—the first line of defense against fraud. Long-term loans were the province of bond syndicators.

That’s time deposits.

Justin: And what about demand deposits?

Doug: Demand deposits were a completely different matter.

Demand deposits were so called because, unlike time deposits, they were payable to the customer on demand. These are the basis of checking accounts. The banker doesn’t pay interest on the money, because he supposedly never has the use of it; to the contrary, he necessarily charged the depositor a fee for:

  1. Assuming the responsibility of keeping the money safe, available for immediate withdrawal, and…

  2. Administering the transfer of the money if the depositor so chooses, by either writing a check or passing along a warehouse receipt that represents the gold on deposit.

An honest banker should no more lend out demand deposit money than Allied Van and Storage should lend out the furniture you’ve paid it to store. The warehouse receipts for gold were called banknotes. When a government issued them, they were called currency. Gold bullion, gold coinage, banknotes, and currency together constituted the society’s supply of transaction media. But its amount was strictly limited by the amount of gold actually available to people.

Sound principles of banking are identical to sound principles of warehousing any kind of merchandise—whether it’s autos, potatoes, or books. Or money. There’s nothing mysterious about sound banking. But banking all over the world has been fundamentally unsound since government-sponsored central banks came to dominate the financial system.

Central banks are a linchpin of today’s world financial system. By purchasing government debt, banks can allow the state—for a while—to finance its activities without taxation. On the surface, this appears to be a “free lunch.” But it’s actually quite pernicious and is the engine of currency debasement.

Central banks may seem like a permanent part of the cosmic landscape, but in fact they are a recent invention. The U.S. Federal Reserve, for instance, didn’t exist before 1913.

Justin: What changed after 1913?

Doug: In the past, when a bank created too much currency out of nothing, people eventually would notice, and a “bank run” would materialize. But when a central bank authorizes all banks to do the same thing, that’s less likely—unless it becomes known that an individual bank has made some really foolish loans.

Central banks were originally justified—especially the creation of the Federal Reserve in the US—as a device for economic stability. The occasional chastisement of imprudent bankers and their foolish customers was an excuse to get government into the banking business. As has happened in so many cases, an occasional and local problem was “solved” by making it systemic and housing it in a national institution. It’s loosely analogous to the way the government handles the problem of forest fires: extinguishing them quickly provides an immediate and visible benefit. But the delayed and forgotten consequence of doing so is that it allows decades of deadwood to accumulate. Now when a fire starts, it can be a once-in-a-century conflagration.

Justin: This isn’t just a problem in the US, either.

Doug: Right. Banking all over the world now operates on a “fractional reserve” system. In our earlier example, our sound banker kept a 100% reserve against demand deposits: he held one ounce of gold in his vault for every one-ounce banknote he issued. And he could only lend the proceeds of time deposits, not demand deposits. A “fractional reserve” system can’t work in a free market; it has to be legislated. And it can’t work where banknotes are redeemable in a commodity, such as gold; the banknotes have to be “legal tender” or strictly paper money that can be created by fiat.

The fractional reserve system is why banking is more profitable than normal businesses. In any industry, rich average returns attract competition, which reduces returns. A banker can lend out a dollar, which a businessman might use to buy a widget. When that seller of the widget re-deposits the dollar, a banker can lend it out at interest again. The good news for the banker is that his earnings are compounded several times over. The bad news is that, because of the pyramided leverage, a default can cascade. In each country, the central bank periodically changes the percentage reserve (theoretically, from 100% down to 0% of deposits) that banks must keep with it, according to how the bureaucrats in charge perceive the state of the economy.

Justin: How can a default cascade under the fractional reserve banking system?

Doug: A bank with, say, $1,000 of capital might take in $20,000 of deposits. With a 10% reserve, it will lend out $19,000—but that money is redeposited in the system. Then 90% of that $19,000 is also lent out, and so forth. Eventually, the commercial bank can create hundreds of thousands of loans. If only a small portion of them default, it will wipe out the original $20,000 of deposits—forget about the bank’s capital.

That’s the essence of the problem. But, in the meantime, before the inevitable happens, the bank is coining money. And all the borrowers are thrilled with having dollars.

Justin: Are there measures in place to prevent bank runs?

Doug: In the US and most other places, protection against runs on banks isn’t provided by sound practices, but by laws. In 1934, to restore confidence in commercial banks, the US government instituted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) deposit insurance in the amount of $2,500 per depositor per bank, eventually raising coverage to today’s $250,000. In Europe, €100,000 is the amount guaranteed by the state.

FDIC insurance covers about $9.3 trillion of deposits, but the institution has assets of only $25 billion. That’s less than one cent on the dollar. I’ll be surprised if the FDIC doesn’t go bust and need to be recapitalized by the government. That money—many billions—will likely be created out of thin air by selling Treasury debt to the Fed.

The fractional reserve banking system, with all of its unfortunate attributes, is critical to the world’s financial system as it is currently structured. You can plan your life around the fact the world’s governments and central banks will do everything they can to maintain confidence in the financial system. To do so, they must prevent a deflation at all costs. And to do that, they will continue printing up more dollars, pounds, euros, yen, and what-have-you.

Justin: It sounds like the banking system is more fragile than it was a decade ago…not stronger.

Doug: Correct. So, Yellen isn’t just delusional. As I said before, she has no grasp whatsoever of basic economics.

Her comments remind me of what Ben Bernanke said in May 2007.

We believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited, and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.

A few months later, the entire financial system started to unravel. You would have actually lost a fortune if you listened to Bernanke back then.

Justin: I take it investors shouldn’t listen to Yellen, either?

Doug: No. These people are all academics. They don’t have any experience in the real world. They’ve never been in business. They were taught to believe in Keynesian notions. These people have no idea what they’re talking about.

The Fed itself serves no useful purpose. It should be abolished.

But people look up to authority figures, and “experts.” The average guy has other things on his mind.

Justin: So if Yellen’s wrong, what should investors prepare for? How will the coming crisis be different from what we saw in 2007–2008?

Doug: Well, as you know, the Fed has dropped interest rates to near zero. I used to think it was metaphysically impossible for rates to drop below zero. But the European and Japanese central banks have done it.

The other thing they did was create megatons of money out of thin air. This hasn’t just happened in the U.S., either. Central banks around the world have printed up trillions of currency units.

How many more can they print at this point? I guess we’ll find out. Plus, it’s not like these dollars have gone to the retail economy the way they did during the “great inflation” of the ’70s. This time they went straight into the financial system. They’ve created bubbles everywhere.

That’s why the next crisis is going to be far more serious than what we saw a decade ago.

Justin: Is there anything the Fed can do to stop this? What would you do if you were running the Fed?

Doug: I’ve been saying for years that I would abolish the Fed, end the fractional reserve system, and default on the national debt. But would I actually do any of those things? No. I wouldn’t. I pity the poor fool who allows the rotten structure to collapse on his watch. Perish the thought of bringing it down in a controlled demolition.

They would literally crucify the person who did this…even if it was good for the economy in the long run. Which it would be.

So, these people are going to keep doing what they’ve been doing. They’re hoping that, if they kick the can down the road, something magic will happen. Maybe friendly aliens will land on the roof of the White House and cure everything.

Justin: So, they can’t stop what’s coming?

Doug: The whole financial system is on the ragged edge of a collapse at this point.

All these paper currencies all around the world could lose their value together. They’re all based on the dollar quite frankly. None of them are tied to any commodity.

They have no value in and of themselves, aside from being mediums of exchange. They’re all just floating abstractions, based on nothing.

When we exit the eye of this financial hurricane, and go into the storm’s trailing edge, it’s going to be something for the history books written in the future.

Justin: Thanks for taking the time to speak with me about this today, Doug.

Doug: My pleasure.

*  *  *

America is in the midst of a severe financial hurricane… and it will be far more serious than what we saw a decade ago. Most investors aren’t prepared for what’s coming. That’s why we released this urgent video presentation so you can start protecting yourself today. Click here to learn more.


francis scott … peddling-fiction Sat, 12/30/2017 - 02:41 Permalink

Did somebody say "Accident?"

heh heh heh 


When Reagan brought 'the merry pack of neocons' to power

the financial problems of today were set into motion.  Once

the Reagan Administration opened the Pandora's Box of

Deficits in 1981, along with the subprime mortgage bubble

Greenspan created at the end of the 20th century, the global,

Uberrecession of 2008 was officially established.

The Wolfowitzian Neocons knew that the growth of the 

consumption of crude oil was counterproductive for their

plan for the constant and unending hegemony of the US.




Never mind how many thousands of lives the US has to take.

Never mind how many homes and dwellings are destroyed and

cities and nations obliterated.  The apostate and nullifidian

Wolfowitz, a mock Jew atheist, who believes in nothing but

his own self-worth, decided that his life was the only thing

on this planet worth saving.


And Wolfowitz, the Deep State's latter day Holofernes, gladly

accepted the task of murdering everyone who stood in the way 

of the DS (and Wolfowitz himself), and America as they

butchered their way to inviolable hegemony.


But neither the DS or Wolfowitz the Merciless were prepared

to handle the Flash Gordon of this piece:  Vladimir Putin. 


I won't trouble you with a recitation of Mr. Putin's accomplishments 

as they are too numerous and sundry; and readers of ZH ought be

knowledgeable about them or be at a site like Huffington.  


To summarize where we are today: because of Mr. Putin's threat to

respond with nuclear weapons even if there is only a conventional

attack on Russia or her allies, the DS has split between it's pragmagtic

wing and those in the DS who want to force Putin to 'show is cards'.

Needless to say, the leader of the latter wing of the DS is none other

than the hateful malfeasant, Paul Wolfowitz.  Because the pragmatic 

element of the DS is willing to accept the existence of other hegemons

while the Wolfowitzians are willing to rain nuclear war down on the

planet, Wolfowitz's head is now on the chopping block of the pragmatics

and thats where the Holofernes metaphor comes in.


                ARMA   CAEDES   VINDICTAE    FURORES 


                                                     PUTIN        TRIUMPHANS





In reply to by peddling-fiction

ZIONISM KILLS francis scott … Sat, 12/30/2017 - 03:51 Permalink

Your  summary  of  events regarding  Reagan  presidency  was  correct,  except  those  in  charge  where  actually  G.H.W. Bush. Reagen  was  not  a Rockefellar  man,  as  the  Bush  family  has  been  for  100  years  or  more.,  and  was  only  backed  by  Rockefellar  after  Reagan  made  Bush  his  v.p.  who was  really  calling  the  shots,  just  ask  Hinkley.  I  say  you  make  excellent  points  regarding  Wolfiwitz.

In reply to by francis scott …

francis scott … ZIONISM KILLS Sat, 12/30/2017 - 15:52 Permalink

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I don't think Bush Sr. isn't

one of the greatest Quisling in American history.


The attempt on Reagan's life by Hinckley was the DS's attempt to put

someone with an IQ over 105 in the oval office at a critical moment.  

Bush was Reagan's V.P. and would have been Lyndon Johnson 2.0,

but Bush had been the Director of the CIA until 1977 and was wise in

the CIA's evil ways.  


By the time Bush, Sr was elected president in his own right, America was

off the rails and it was just a matter of time before the DS pulled the plug

on the global economy.  The plan they had tasked Greenspan and the Fed

to devise slowed the growth of global capitalism, the consumption of crude

oil  --  which Hubbert had proved would 'peak' sometime in the 21st century  --

but would marvelously leave the US's upper class, upper middle class and 

a large swath of its vanilla middle class financially well-off enough to continue

its out-of-control consumption since most affluent Amricans had 401(k)s which

ballooned along with the American stock markets into which the Fed was printing

and pumping vast reserves of cash created out of thin air.








This was the DS's plan for America's Everlasting Hegemony after Y2K and would

have been successful, but for the interference of the President of Russia from 2000

until today (including 4 years as PM).


America retained it's catbird seat place all through the first decade of the 21st

century and for the beginning of the second decade.  In 2013 Snowden arrived

in Moscow carrying with him who-knows how many of the DS's secrets. Then,

only a few months later, Russia annexed the strategically located territory of

Crimea, after the Obama/Wolfowitz scheme to change the regime in Kiev

succeeded on one hand, but failed to expel the Russian military from their leased

bases there on the other.  


As a matter of fact, it failed so monumentally, the world quickly woke up to

the fact that Crimea was again ruled by Moscow, this time under the name

of the Russian Federation.  


So Crimea joined a network of China, Iran, Syria, Philippines, Egypt, Turkey

Vietnam, Sudan, India, South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, (maybe Libya and Iraq) 

etc. which were not in America's sphere of influence and operated under the 

advice of the Kremlin and its leader, Vladimir Putin. 








There will be popcorn as soon as Tyler finishes screwing around with the comments.



In reply to by ZIONISM KILLS

silverer francis scott … Sat, 12/30/2017 - 08:31 Permalink

Actually, Reagan was not the one that pumped up the government with neocons. There were many articles about this with names named. They certainly were around when Reagan was president, but that was not his goal. Clinton brought the ones back in that Reagan got rid of. As far as deficit spending was concerned, look no farther than Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic house. They were the ones that held the purse strings and put the budget together. Clinton was delivered a surplus during his administration by Newt Gingrich, the Republican speaker. It's the last one you'll ever see in your lifetime. After Gingrich got smeared and booed out of the position for not spending your kid's money and being Newt "Gingrinch", he was replaced by Mr. Republican spendathon wannabe Dennis Hastert. But Hastert had nothing no Pelosi, who broke every spending record imaginable. When Clinton was elected president, the national debt was still a manageable 4.0 trillion. He left office with it just a hair over 5 trillion. Clinton also gifted the American people with Wall St., by repealing Glass-Steagal. Nixon screwed your future family by signing away gold backing of the US currency. Kennedy, not wanting war was eliminated. So Lyndon Johnson promised and delivered a war for the industrial military complex. Lyndon of Texas fame also doomed the US by locking in the Great Society, a nice big welfare program that guaranteed votes for Democrats even to this day. Most people don't know that the black unemployment rate before Johnson was virtually zero. When your act sucks, just buy your way in with other people's money. That's been the politics from both sides for quite a few years now. No sense in trying to fix blame anymore, because now the US can't be fixed. Prepare yourself, Americans.

In reply to by francis scott …

francis scott … silverer Sat, 12/30/2017 - 22:11 Permalink

Jesus, Silverer, when did you lose your mind?  I used to agree with you from time to time.


Whose woodwork do you think that Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist and Paul

Wolfowitz came out of if not "Bedtime for Bonzo's"?   Martin Van Buren's ?

Aside from being elected, what goals do think Reagan had?  Spending more 

on defense than the government took in tax receipts?


YEAR                     NATIONAL DEBT

1981                      $998 BLN

1989                      $2,857 TN

1993                      $4,411 TN  

2001                      $5,807 TN

2009                      $12,000 TN

2017                      $20,245 TN

Nancy Pelosi didn't become Speaker of the House until January 4, 2007 long

after Dems Tip O'Neil, Jim Wright, and Tom Foley and Reps Newt Gingrich and

Dennis Hastert.





"When Clinton was elected president, the national debt was still a manageable 4.0 trillion. He left office with it just a hair over 5 trillion." 

After Reagan and Bush,Sr quadrupled the National Debt only a retarded person

would say that $4 trillion was manageable and could be eventually reined in.

The facts since 1993 prove it was not manageable.  


By the way, $5,807 trillion is not just a hair over $5 trillion.

Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall 1999 to get Wall Street to back his wife, Hillary when

she ran for the Senate in 2000.  2000 was he year of Nepotism when Bush, Sr put his 

worthless, drunkard son in the Oval Office and Clinton put his wife in the Senate.


A real conspiracy theorist might think Bill Clinton ordered the CIA to give Pat

Moynahan cancer so Hillary could get his seat.  


"Nixon screwed your future family by signing away gold backing of the US currency."

All Nixon did in 1973 was order that American imports not be paid in gold as 

they had been since Bretton Woods.   There was no gold behind the US dollar

when Nixon stopped paying foreign central banks in gold.

 In 1968 central banks stopped buying or selling gold in the open market. Only foreign central banks could then ask the US Treasury for gold. This changed the Bretton Woods system from a de facto gold standard anchored by a fixed dollar price of gold into a dollar standard...

"In August 1971iNixon imposed price and wage controls, closed the gold window to foreign central banks, and imposed a surcharge on imports"

I'm sorry you turned out to be such an idiot, Silverer.  Maybe there's a pill you can take.

In reply to by silverer

lucyvp troubadourcapital Sat, 12/30/2017 - 12:55 Permalink

What can't CB's fix with more money?

That will trigger the next crisis.

1) Peak cheap oil

2) meso or large scale hot war in a strategic area.

3) can CB's fix runaway interest  rates on long bonds  by printing???   

4) when will the oldies decide a new vacation house, and titanium golf clubs out weigh their stock portfolio, ergo putting pressure on consumer prices?



In reply to by troubadourcapital

Dickweed Wang peddling-fiction Sat, 12/30/2017 - 12:31 Permalink

No accident. A premeditated crime on humanity.


Yes indeed.  And the interesting thing is that the whole scheme (along with many of the other problems we are faced with today) was outlined in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion that was published right around the time that the Feral Reserve was created.  Just a coincidence I'm sure.

In reply to by peddling-fiction

Oldwood Giant Meteor Fri, 12/29/2017 - 23:56 Permalink

Yet he still fails to suggest when this might happen and what will trigger it. If he is waiting for a sudden world wide epiphany of economic prudence, we may be waiting a very long time. We are where we are because we have NEVER been here before, never with world wide universal money printing. This is not a place, a condition, a circumstance. This is a new way of life based upon a life completely sustained by illusion, fear and greed. We possess just enough awareness of the absolute corrupt and fragile nature of things, while also full well knowing at this late date there is no real alternative that does not include massive disruption and violence, that we will easily accept a hand with four fingers extended as counting five. If that is the worst of it, there will be no hesitancy at all. All we have to do is agree....knowing that to not agree is to ensure our demise....or at the very least, great pain and discomfort.

In reply to by Giant Meteor

Bigly Fri, 12/29/2017 - 21:52 Permalink

OT. Anyone else in this deep freeze hearing their walls pop every now and then? Is this due to the temp differential between outside and inside? It's a 70 degree swing. Maybe some MN people more used to this can answer? Anything we should do as homeowners?

Savvy Bigly Fri, 12/29/2017 - 22:23 Permalink

I think it's just expansion and contraction. Your walls are settling. Might want to check your door's headers make sure there's no buckling of the frames, that could cause structural damage. Gaps, more cold air seepage, doors harder to open or close than before indicate weight settling that has no room.

In reply to by Bigly

Bigly Savvy Fri, 12/29/2017 - 23:08 Permalink

Sure. Thx. House is 60 yrs old so I know it settled a bit already somewhere along the way but i will look at door headers.  I was wondering if that was the wood only or if it's the nails popping.

I know to open under the sink to let hot air in the space because of the pipes on the exterior wall.


Comment below....i have roof coils so no. But in the pattern it's to the shingles and some big icicles at the points. Otherwise maybe 3-4" on the roof... so not too heavy like it could be.  No ice dam inside though. Knock on wood!


In reply to by Savvy

Bobzilla. Do n… Bigly Sun, 12/31/2017 - 13:51 Permalink

I'm in Canada, and we use humidifiers in the winter to keep interior humidity levels up. It's great for hardwood floors and your skin. I had ice damming once and in the spring, when it started to melt, it went under the shingles and leaked into attic then the house. Not good! Extra roof vents and upping the attic insulation helps in reducing/preventing ice dams.

In reply to by Bigly

new game Bigly Sat, 12/30/2017 - 07:12 Permalink

80 degree difference. -14 with them at 66.

what you are hearing is contraction. homes up here take a winter set. my hardwood floors bow up in a bed room and return to normal in the spring. no bigy. go out on a a large lake and ice fish. pressure builds and form ridges and crazy cracking noise.

call us crazies up here for tolerating this cold. -40 wind chill up in the very north today. a walk in the woods is the very definition of solitude. a quiet that second to none. very cool...

In reply to by Bigly

CRM114 new game Sat, 12/30/2017 - 17:13 Permalink

Further north than you. Built my own house. No popping. Moral of story: build it properly.


as well as the useful advice others have given:

The popping could be drywall/drywall screws. Drywall is the most rigid of residential materials, so most likely to pop. Check around windows and doors especially.

The only time to get concerned is if you get loud noises under a high wind or high snow load, then it's time to investigate immediately.

In reply to by new game

Mr.Danglemeat new game Sat, 12/30/2017 - 19:18 Permalink

Agreed, -14 degrees gives a solitude unlike any,  touched off the brush pile awhile ago..25 foot flame lengths into a crystalline black night sky.  My old Springer (Gus) came and lay next to the burn.. - my best and sometimes only friend- he knows where my head goes on the nights I burn...time travellin'...other dogs, other skies...all is well,.. for the moment.

In reply to by new game

Blankfuck Fri, 12/29/2017 - 21:53 Permalink