pageok
pageok
pageok
Cautionary Lessons from the Great Depression;

Joe Biden may have gotten a few factual details wrong when he urged President Bush to act like Franklin D. Roosevelt did when he sought to counter the Great Depression. But the basic sentiment that we should now follow FDR's example and take swift, decisive action in the current crisis is one that is widely shared.

In considering this view, it's worth recognizing that many of the massive, decisive government interventions that FDR and the New Deal Congress enacted actually made the situation worse. As I discuss in in this article, the administration and various interest groups used the crisis of the Great Depression to enact sweeping legislation that benefited themselves at the expense of the general public, sometimes in ways that made the crisis worse than before. In these efforts, they were abetted by voters' sense of desperation and widespread ignorance of economics and public policy. This made it easy to portray measures that benefited narrow interest groups at the expense of the general public as "emergency measures" needed to address the crisis.

Perhaps the most egregious example was the National Industrial Recovery Act, the centerpiece of FDR's 1933 "First New Deal" (discussed at pp. 649-55 of my article). The NRA (not to be confused with the National Rifle Association) established a system of cartels to raise prices and wages throughout nearly the entire nonagricultural economy. This benefited certain big business interests and unions, which were able to suppress their competitors. But it also had the predictable result of greatly reducing economic output and increasing unemployment, especially among the poor and unskilled who were already suffering greatly. Economists estimate that it reduced GDP by as much as 6 to 1l percent (pg. 650). Co-blogger David Bernstein points out in his book Only One Place of Redress that the NRA particularly harmed low-wage black workers and that it was supported by some white labor unions in part because they hoped it would stifle black competition. The NRA - the biggest and most ballyhooed of FDR's early New Deal policies - made the Depression significantly worse than it would have been otherwise.

The NRA was the biggest and most damaging of the New Deal's harmful interest group power grabs. But it was far from the only one. For example, all law students study the Supreme Court's decision in Wickard v. Filburn, which upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act requirement that farmers limit their production in order to raise prices. Like the NRA, the AAA was a cartel scheme intended to raise prices in order to benefit big producers (AAA production quotas and subsidies were based on the amount of farmland each farmer owned, thus benefiting bigger producers who owned more land) at the expense of consumers and smaller competitors. The predictable and intended effect of the AAA was to raise food prices - this in the midst of a Depression when many people were already suffering from malnutrition and could not easily tighten their belts further.

The NRA, AAA and other similar measures were made possible by the crisis atmosphere of the time, combined with widespread political ignorance (discussed in my article) which made it difficult for voters to tell the difference between genuinely needed emergency measures and interest group rent-seeking masquerading as such. As a result, many policies were enacted that made the Depression longer,deeper, and more painful than it would have been otherwise. Today, even many historians sympathetic to FDR and his policies concede that they failed to end the Depression (unemployment remained in double digits until World War II) and that some of them worsened the lot of the poor and unemployed more than they helped. Econometric studies show that much of the increased government spending generated by the New Deal was transferred to politically powerful interest groups who could help FDR and his allies win reelection rather than to the poor and needy.

I don't claim that every aspect of the New Deal was harmful. Some parts of it were either beneficial or at least defensible given the information available at the time. Still, a great deal of extremely damaging legislation was enacted because powerful interest groups were able to exploit the combination of a crisis atmosphere and public ignorance.

Today's situation isn't exactly equivalent to that of the 1930s. The bank crisis is much less severe than that of the Depression and the bailout proposed by the Bush Administration is probably not as damaging as the NRA was. But we still could end up repeating some of the policy fiascoes of the Depression era, even if on a lesser scale. The history of the 1930s suggests that we should be skeptical when political leaders claim that we must act immediately to address an economic emergency - especially if they want to do so in ways that transfer enormous amounts of wealth from the general public to influential interest groups. Widespread political ignorance is still with us; indeed Americans' average level of political knowledge has risen very little, if at all, over the last fifty years. And political pressure to "do something" to alleviate the perceived emergency can easily be exploited by interest groups at the expense of the rest of us. Already, a variety of interest groups are trying to take advantage of the crisis atmosphere by obtaining bailouts of their own - just as happened during the Depression. We should do all we can to avoid going down that road again.

UPDATE: I have corrected a couple of typos, including one where I accidentally typed "NRA" when I meant "AAA."

UPDATE #2: I suppose it's only fair to point out that Joe Biden's remarks, linked in the first sentence of the post, only urged Bush to go on TV and explain the crisis (as Biden said FDR had done in 1929). However, this remark has to be considered in the broader context in which Biden and many others have been calling for swift government intervention similar to what was done in the 1930s. Biden has even expressed anger at John McCain for supposedly preventing the administration's massive bailout from going through fast enough. This last comment should not be read as an endorsement of McCain's own conduct, since he also strikes me as overly eager for a massive bailout.

Joe - Dallas (mail):
FDR did get two things right 1) He recognized the danger fo nazi germany &began the mobilizing the country and assisting britian after 1939, and 2) several of his policies had the effect of strenghing the industrial trade unions which had the effect of suppressing the movement toward communism that was prevelant through the world in the 20's &30's - though he got the right but for the wrong reason. Along with smoot hartly during hoover adm, most if not all of FDR's policies are what made the 1930 recession into the great depression.
9.26.2008 3:07pm
KevinM:
I take your point, but you're unduly grudging, in my view, about the New Deal: "I don't claim that every aspect of the New Deal was harmful....Today's situation isn't exactly equivalent to that of the 1930s. The bank crisis is much less severe ...."
Other readers know far more about this than I, but isn't the New Deal the main reason that the bank crisis is less severe? Look at WaMu: A bank with what, $300B in assets, just went under, and there was scarcely a blip, let alone a run on deposits. Thank the FDIC.
9.26.2008 3:09pm
Mac (mail):
Thank you Ilya. Excellent post.

I started out in favor of the bailout, but have now decided after further study, it is probably a bad idea. The fact, according to Lyndsey Graham, that the Democrats want to funnel 20% of the bailout money to ACORN, tells me it has become a big slush fund to reward those whom the majority in Congress want rewarded.

Note, if the Republicans were still in charge, they would probably be doing the same thing. It will be interesting to see if the next time the Republicans get the majority if they will have learned their lesson and will clean up their act or not.

Bottom line, it is too much money to put in the hands of a Congress that has shown to restraint heretofore.

Why can't they just repeal Sarbanes-Oxley and let the companies carry these bad debts on their books until they can sell the homes? There is an underlying value there. It seems that this is probably a bad law and that this law has caused a lot of the problem given that the banks must value the loans as if they were going to sell them today as opposed to whatever the value would be when they do sell them.
9.26.2008 3:14pm
Mac (mail):
Congress that has shown to restraint heretofore.

Should read that has shown NO restraint heretofore. Sorry.
9.26.2008 3:16pm
Angus:
While some New Deal agencies were awful, others were, I would argue, absolutely essential for short term and long term stability. Especially in the short term, when Roosevelt first took office things were at their absolute worst for the average person: unemployment was near 25%. Had the government not taken decisive action to stop the bleeding and start the healing, there was a real chance that America would have devolved into chaos, and what emerged would have been very different and ugly -- probably to one extreme or the other: fascist or communist.

You can, as I say, nitpick individual programs in the New Deal. Lord knows enough there were enough acronyms created to keep printers working for eternity. However, my opinion is that without it the country would not have survived long enough to experience the natural recovery.
9.26.2008 3:19pm
commontheme (mail):
How can the nation take decisive action when McCain has un-suspended his campaign?

He's the only one who can solve this problem, but he is putting politics before country.
9.26.2008 3:22pm
Houston Lawyer:
"Had the government not taken decisive action to stop the bleeding and start the healing,"

I think the whole point of Ilya's post is that this is not what the New Deal accomplished and that we may have been much better off without it. Before capitalism made it back into mainland China, a leftist friend of mine bragged about how much Mao had increased the wealth of the Chinese. Almost all starvation had stopped. Yes, I said, but look at Taiwan, where the same people are far richer starting from the same place at the same time.
9.26.2008 3:36pm
Mac (mail):
commontheme (mail):
H

ow can the nation take decisive action when McCain has un-suspended his campaign?

He's the only one who can solve this problem, but he is putting politics before country.


Maybe somebody "gave Obama a call" and said they needed him.

Well, probably not.
9.26.2008 3:44pm
Mac (mail):
Houston Lawyer:

Yes, I said, but look at Taiwan, where the same people are far richer starting from the same place at the same time.


Excellent point.
9.26.2008 3:45pm
SG:
However, my opinion is that without it the country would not have survived long enough to experience the natural recovery.

I won't argue the counter-factual - you may well be right. But that's a different position than arguing that the New Deal was good on its own terms. There's a lot of nostalgia for New Deal-type policies, which largely weren't successful on their merits.
9.26.2008 3:46pm
CB55 (mail):
When one looks at FDR and the New Deal one does so with a rear view mirror and the knowledge base of the Now. I'm sure were it not for the New Deal the world as we know would have a very different look and feel. Sure mistakes were made, but FDR lived in a time that the whole of America struggled not only with financial concerns but with political and government ideologies. Communism, fascism, and socialism was alive and well in Europe and was taking root in America. He choose the path of soft socialism or Liberalism American style. A style that lasted until the Saint Raygun Era.
9.26.2008 3:53pm
Angus:
I think the whole point of Ilya's post is that this is not what the New Deal accomplished and that we may have been much better off without it. If this was indeed Ilya's whole point, then he is flat out, utterly, dead wrong in my opinion.

The problem with such claims (the New Deal made the depression longer and worse) is that they are totally unverifiable. They are ideological arguments dressed up academic objectivity to make them look better. What we know for sure is what the situation was in 1933 and what the situation was in 1941. There is just as much evidence that the New Deal made things better as there is that it made it worse.
9.26.2008 4:03pm
Mac (mail):

What we know for sure is what the situation was in 1933 and what the situation was in 1941. There is just as much evidence that the New Deal made things better as there is that it made it worse.



Angus,

I am not holding myself up as an expert or anything, so don't get me wrong, but I thing it is generally accepted that the Depression ended in 1941 because of the war, not because of New Deal policies.
9.26.2008 4:08pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
So, some theorist thinks NIRA knocked 6-11% off GDP? How much did Coolidge Prosperity knock off? 75-94%?

I guess I know which I prefer.

Anyhow, the Bush bailout has nothing -- repeat, NOTHING -- to do with New Deal lender-of-last resort techniques. FDR didn't bail out any investment banks.

If you don't know that much about the New Deal, Professor, I suggest you study up.

You might begin by understanding that the problem facing the country in 1932 was reflation. Not a problem just now, although I am worried it could be soon.
9.26.2008 4:09pm
Angus:
I am not holding myself up as an expert or anything, so don't get me wrong, but I thing it is generally accepted that the Depression ended in 1941 because of the war, not because of New Deal policies.


This is not in question. However that is a totally different issue than whether the country would have come out of the Depression sooner without a New Deal than with a New Deal. Or that the depression would have been more shallow. It couldn't have gotten much deeper than it was in 1933 before the New Deal.
9.26.2008 4:25pm
Angus:
*Revision to that last.

That is, the New Deal could not have made things any deeper than they were in 1933 before it. Doing nothing might have made it deeper, however.
9.26.2008 4:27pm
Smokey:
The fact, according to Lyndsey Graham, that the Democrats want to funnel 20% of the bailout money to ACORN...
...explains why Obama lost it at the President's meeting with John McCain: no doubt Barry had already promised that $140 BILLION DOLLARS to his ACORN pals, and he didn't want to go back to them empty handed.

Forget the bailout. If things start to get bad* we can always do it later on.


[*"bad" as in 1970's bad: 9.7% unemployment, stock market down over 40%, inflation in double digits, etc. And note that without a bailout, the world didn't end in the '70's.]
9.26.2008 4:45pm
Pat C (mail):
Houston Lawyer wrote,

I think the whole point of Ilya's post is that this is not what the New Deal accomplished and that we may have been much better off without it

It didn't seem to me that Ilya was intending an overall judgement on the New Deal. But rather he was saying that many decisions were bad. Even if we grant that, does that "many" constitute the majority of New Deal decisions?
I didn't think he even implied that the negative consequences of the "bad" decisions outweighed, overall, the positive consequences of the "good" decisions.

I'd be interested in reading a good book with a comprehensive description of the Great Depresion and what was done to come out of it. Any recommendations?
9.26.2008 4:48pm
David Lupi Sher (mail):
I would probably say that the people who voted in 1932, 1936, and 1940, were a great deal happier with the New Deal than Hoover's actions (or inactions).
9.26.2008 4:59pm
Malvolio:
I would probably say that the people who voted in 1932, 1936, and 1940, were a great deal happier with the New Deal than Hoover's actions (or inactions).
This is called the Emperor's Nose fallacy (that you can calculate the size of the nose of an Emperor no-one has ever seen by asking lots of people and averaging the result.

The New Deal may have (and indeed almost certainly was) much more popular than the policies that preceded it, but that fact alone does not make it a good idea.
9.26.2008 5:09pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
The central point of the New Deal is that when confronted with a Depression, you need "bold, persistent experimentation".

Thus, even though the National Recovery Act was stupid, it was one of many experiments.

Further, I don't think there's any proof that anything FDR did "hurt" the economy. The economy was, thanks to Hoover and Coolidge, in a practically irreparable state.

The real lesson of the Depression is that if things get that bad, you might as well try anything that might work.
9.26.2008 5:25pm
Mac (mail):
Smokey wrote:

.

..explains why Obama lost it at the President's meeting with John McCain: no doubt Barry had already promised that $140 BILLION DOLLARS to his ACORN pals, and he didn't want to go back to them empty handed.


Can you source what you are referring to? I have not heard this.

I am sure Obama would be very upset, though. ACORN managed to get 5,000 fake voter registrations done in KC, MO. in 2004 elections (if memory serves re the year) before getting caught. They have similar habits in other places.

Obama, coming from Chicago, is understandably very concerned about the civil rights of dead people and people's dogs and cats (ACORN registered more than a few pets in KC before they were caught.) Of course he would want ACORN to get 20% of 700 billion.

Does anyone know the alleged rationale behind the Democrats desire to give a private group this exorbitant amount of taxpayer dollars?
9.26.2008 5:26pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
One other thing:

Angus' point about ideological arguments can't be stressed often enough. One of the worst things about ideologues is their tendency to not admit that there's no such thing as a universally effective theory.

The Depression was an extreme situation where many conventional economic and political theories were totally inapplicable. It's not the proving ground for libertarian solutions, and, by the way, the fact that it isn't doesn't prove that libertarianism isn't a good philosophy in most situations.

Ilya's post shows a desperate desire that the Depression not be used to tar the laissez-faire policies he favors. But that desire is not the same thing as an appreciation for just how bad conditions were. There were no libertarians in the soup lines or the dust bowl.
9.26.2008 5:29pm
Morat20 (mail):

Can you source what you are referring to? I have not heard this.


He can't source it, because it's unadulterated bullshit. The 20% bit was referring to subsidies of some sort to low-income housing, IIRC.

I think what bugs me most about that stupid claim of his is that a bunch of people didn't sit straight up and say "WTF?" -- the level of gullibility is just amazing.

Unless everyone's just tuning him out, 'cause of the crazy.
9.26.2008 5:58pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
H.L. Mencken on the New Deal:
"The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace."
9.26.2008 6:44pm
p. rich (mail) (www):
Morat20

the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza

From the Dodd Bill -


"TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.

1. DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

2. USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)

1. 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and

2. 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569)."

Note not less than 20%. Anyone who believes the crap weasel Dems and their sleazy candidate are in a hurry to push through a massive spending bill that is anything other than a giant pandering scheme is off their meds.
9.26.2008 7:15pm
Mac (mail):
Morat20 wrote:
He can't source it, because it's unadulterated bullshit. The 20% bit was referring to subsidies of some sort to low-income housing, IIRC.

Morat20, I wrote that part and it was a quote from Lyndsey Graham. The Dem's planned a very nice chunk of money to go to ACORN, i.e. 20%. This, I believe but am not at all certain, in the name of taking care of the mortgagees, but ACORN is hardly set up to do that and it is most unclear how they would do that. I am not sure why ACORN would get such a huge chunk of money as I stated above. I am mystified as to the rationale behind the intent. Or, I should say, I am mystified as to what possible rational the Dem's could give for this. I know why they would want to do this.

However, you stated, "The 20% bit was referring to subsidies of some sort to low-income housing, IIRC."

Why are low-income housing subsidies being included in this bill? The amount of money is stupendous as it is and may not be enough. If Congress wants to give this kind of money to low-income housing, a greater debacle historically I can't think of anyway, then fine. But, it does not belong in this bill.
9.26.2008 8:08pm
Angus:
p. rich,
I'm not seeing any mention of ACORN in there. Got anything else?
9.26.2008 8:23pm
p. rich (mail) (www):
Angus

It specifies funding for the entity from which ACORN receives federal dollars. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Buck up now and do your own research, Pookie. Try googling 'Housing Trust Fund ACORN'.

...

There. That wasn't so hard was it? 36,500 hits can't all be wrong. Dims can run but they cannot hide. I'm thinking it's the smell.
9.26.2008 8:44pm
Mac (mail):
p rich,

Take it easy. I was confused as well and I am on your side. I will google as you suggest. Was going to anyway but haven't had the time.
9.26.2008 9:10pm
Angus:
Wow, even less there than I thought. So what Republicans are complaining about is that some of the money might be given in grants to ACORN. Or maybe none of the money. Heck, some of it might even be given to Osama Bin Laden!!! He needs some houses!!!

I think Saturday Night Live should sue Republicans for stealing their "incredibly stupid talking points" idea.
9.26.2008 9:34pm
rfg:
Mr. Somin:

You are missing the point- the purpose of the bailout is not to "improve" the economy- it's to prevent the current administration's pals from losing money. I stil don't understand why failing Wall Street investment banks is so terrible.

So, of course, others are jumping on the gravy train. Unfortunately, the "conservatives" in charge aren't concerned about this- they are willing to pay the price.
9.26.2008 9:38pm
Mac (mail):
the "conservatives" in charge aren't concerned about this- they are willing to pay the price.\

rfg,

What? The conservatives are very concerned about this. They deep sixed the Dem's plan. Do you watch the news? And, oh those poor wittle Democrats who just have to jump on the gravy train because that evil Bush and his buddies are.

Go look up the top money receivers from the folks at Freddie and Fannie. See who is in charge of banking and housing. The names Frank and Dodd just may come up.

It is our money, buddy, get your head out of the partisan basket and see the world for what it is.
9.26.2008 9:49pm
Ron Hardin (mail) (www):
The result of every vast government program, indeed the point of creating them, is to create a huge cash flow from which a tiny tiny percentage can be skimmed and lived off of very nicely.

This is how they attract interest groups and activist support.

For instance health care.

There are only a few exceptions, like the military.

How to structure an exception is the question.
9.26.2008 10:01pm
davod (mail):
"However, this remark has to be considered in the broader context in which Biden and many others have been calling for swift government intervention similar to that what was done in the 1930s."

The Dems missed three opportunities in 2001, 2003 and 2005 to do something when the Bush administration tried to get changes through. Some change was just enacted in July.

Even with the situation being so "grave", and the likes of Biden wanting a quick resolution, the Democrats felt the need to load up the package with extraneous funding. 900 million for a new icebreaker, 25 billion for Detroit. 100 million for the likes of ACORN, you know, the serial voter fraud organization.
9.26.2008 10:11pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Professor Somin managed to get a lot of misinformation into a short post, and I am not prepared to run a seminar in a blog thread on the New Deal, but I'll keep picking out the lowlights.

The experimentation that Dilan referred to (NRA, AAA and others) cannot be said to have failed, since they were strangled in their cribs.

Would they have worked? Who knows?

Economists with slide rules who claim to be able to calculate that they took 6-11% out of GDP are simply fantasists.

There is a reason that we didn't have panics from 1936 until this year. Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae have nothing -- repeat NOTHING -- to do with it. They are symptoms, not causes.

If real people weren't being hurt, I would be quite enjoying the intellectual contortions of the crowd that created this mess trying to explain their way out of it, like schoolboys caught with frogs in their pockets. I am not enjoying it, but I am glad I studied the New Deal, so I can recognize phony statements when I read them.
9.27.2008 12:15am
David Warner:
The New Deal established the precedent of the government disbursing funds to particular individuals and organizations for purposes other than services rendered.

The rest is commentary.
9.27.2008 2:36am
David Warner:
Dilan,

The Fed was young and really didn't know what it was doing. Hoover instituted several key policies that were exactly anti-libertarian. If we are to consider FDR's policies experimental - a fine suggestion at this point - then given the results, his corporatism should be discredited. I place the recovery at Bretton Woods in 1945, as war-time economies are the one thing that corporatist policies do well.
9.27.2008 2:40am
David Warner:
Apologies, Bretton Woods was in July, 1944. Knew I should have checked that...
9.27.2008 2:43am
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
The Fed was young and really didn't know what it was doing. Hoover instituted several key policies that were exactly anti-libertarian. If we are to consider FDR's policies experimental - a fine suggestion at this point - then given the results, his corporatism should be discredited. I place the recovery at Bretton Woods in 1945, as war-time economies are the one thing that corporatist policies do well.

Hoover's policies weren't libertarian, but they did reflect the conservative / libertarian skepticism of Keynesian deficit spending and big government in an economic downturn.

As for the recovery, there was a partial recovery in the late 1930's which probably traces to some of the New Deal programs. The full recovery didn't happen until the war (but it happened in 1942, not 1944). But I still think you are missing the point. The Depression is a circumstance where, to borrow a line from feminism, the personal was political. Even if the CCC and the WPA didn't solve the Depression, they did put people to work. Social Security alleviated poverty to old people. These are all things you desparately want to do during the great depression, even though libertarians can't stand them. That's what I was referring to when I said there are no libertarians in soup lines. You can't maintain your population in abject poverty just because you have an ideological commitment against big government-- in a disaster of that magnitude, big government was needed due to the microeconomic effects, even if only the war got us out of the macroeconomic problems.

Finally, there's not a single thing that libertarian ideology would prescribe that would have gotten us out of the great depression any sooner. Libertarians tell us a lot about how if their beautiful and perfect policies are enacted, you never get a depression-- but there's nothing in the libertarian toolkit that gets us out of one if it happens.
9.27.2008 4:59am
Harry Eagar (mail):
Amen.

Also, the problem in the '30s was reflation. Very mysterious, reflation.

We are not (yet) faced with reflation, although I am worried we will be soon. Right now we are faced with severe inflation.

It isn't the biggest difficulty just now, but it is a problem. Mugabenomics isn't going to improve that any.
9.27.2008 1:17pm
David Warner:
Harry Eagar,

"Mugabenomics isn't going to improve that any."

As in confiscating resources from the productive to give them to the non-productive? I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I oppose the current version of the bailout and believe Social Security and Medicare should be returned to the insurance role envisioned by FDR.

The latter is only politically infeasible because so-called progressives support what has become the most regerssive policies imaginable.
9.27.2008 1:34pm
David Warner:
Oops, wrong button. Try "regressive".

Dilan,

I say 1944 because war production doesn't count. We could reach full employment and goose GDP by hiring millions to dig holes and fill them up again, but that would not be a true recovery. Bretton Woods was a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for such.

I'll also agree that wars and deep depressions (and, say, asteroid impacts) are instances in which deep interventions are warranted, as the body produces an inordinate amount of white blood cells to fight infection. The problem is when those white blood cells stick around for decades not doing much, or, worse, decide to begin attacking healthy tissue.
9.27.2008 1:40pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
As in printing paper money ad libitum.

You have a strange view of the New Deal (not unusual around here).
9.28.2008 3:42am
David Warner:
Harry Eagar,

"As in printing paper money ad libitum."

Agreed.

Truth is stranger than fiction, after all.
9.28.2008 6:02pm