Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   The IMF makes a suggestion that will cause US libertarians to crawl into a fetal position tightly clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged softy murmuring "Ron Paul will save us. Ron Paul will save us"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 388
    More: Unlikely, Atlas Shrugged, Ron Paul, International Monetary Fund, fiat moneys, intrinsic value, types of business, fractional reserve, money creation  
•       •       •

25343 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2012 at 1:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



388 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 07:36:46 PM  
"You know, when all this sh*t tanks because we essentially turned all of the real estate holdings we have notes on into debt derivatives, we're gonna have a lot of sketchy assed houses."

"So we just make a big deal out of home improvement and sell them the usual 'you don't want people to think you're not successful, do you' crapola as a motivator"

"So, they upkeep our houses out of vanity and we don't have to worry about any loss of the actual wealth value of the estate?"

"Catch up, newbie. Let the poor people deal with the vulture economy as long as they make sure we don't lose a penny."
 
2012-10-22 07:50:29 PM  
I can't believe you like money too! We should hang out!
 
2012-10-22 07:53:47 PM  

Kazan: the republican party TOTALLY hasn't been marketing their policies as "Fiscally conservative


You're right, and I blame them as much as anyone for causing the term to lose its actual meaning. I'm simply lamenting the fact that it has become synonymous with that strange and paradoxical synthesis of corporatism and minarchism which we see in today's GOP.

Kazan: fark you twatwaffle


There's no need to be upset.
 
2012-10-22 07:55:44 PM  

MacWizard: Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.

No, you're still down $20. You had an extra $20 that you lent out to Bob. You had to already have it, so you didn't create it. And if Jack changes into a pair of pants with pockets and asks for his cash before either Bill or Bob pay up, you'd better have another extra $20 because now you're down $40.


False. I did create money, exactly the same way the banks do. Well, except I don't have the 10% fractional reserve requirement. So to be like a bank, I'd have had to lend out only $18 to Bill.

That's how fractional reserve banking works. That's how it creates money. Banks don't print money. They don't create money in any other way. That's exactly what we're talking about.
 
2012-10-22 07:58:26 PM  

Elegy: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

The markets would adjust to where it wouldn't matter.

ALL HAIL MARKETS! Markets we pray to thee, and put or trust in thee. You have never failed us, o markets. You are our savior, and your invisible hands guide us. For you are the rising tide that lifts all boats....

[i.imgur.com image 202x249]


The funny thing is that fractional reserve banking is a form of government regulation that LIMITS how much money is created by the banks. With no government regulation, the de facto reserve requirement is 0%. It only goes higher if the government REGULATES the banks. So when Ron Paul asks to raise the reserve requirement to 100%, he's asking for MORE REGULATION.

The current reserve rate is 10%, but probably lowering it would create zero or near-zero money since banks will always want SOME cash on hand because otherwise customers wouldn't use them.
 
2012-10-22 08:41:16 PM  
Paying interest to private bankers on currency they print out of thin air is insane.

Since we've all been on the internet now, we know that all the currency in the US is LOANED into existence. Pay off all of the loans and there would be no money left (but you would still owe interest). This is a fact, just in case your auto-response system is saying "conspiracy theory". Look up the quote from the member of the "Fed" who said it.

The whole debt-as-money thing cannot end well.
 
2012-10-22 08:47:38 PM  
This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.
 
2012-10-22 08:54:32 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.


They're not getting RID of fractional reserve banking. They're increasing the government regulation to 100%. If they got RID of the regulation, banks would be able to make more money (but probably wouldn't).
 
2012-10-22 08:57:55 PM  

patiodragon: Paying interest to private bankers on currency they print out of thin air is insane.

Since we've all been on the internet now, we know that all the currency in the US is LOANED into existence. Pay off all of the loans and there would be no money left (but you would still owe interest). This is a fact, just in case your auto-response system is saying "conspiracy theory". Look up the quote from the member of the "Fed" who said it.

The whole debt-as-money thing cannot end well.


This is the key to why our current monetary system is doomed. The ever expanding interest must come from real growth or its just a ballooning shell game. As the aggregate balance of service grows, it consumes more of the tangible worth being generated. Once service grows beyond the ability of tangible growth to keep pace, everyone defaults.

The house (banks) always win. Its the end-game barring any substantive change in our global monetary policy.
 
2012-10-22 09:06:00 PM  

gingerjet:

/there is a reason for that - Rand was an awful writer


No arguments there.
However, I thought she had some very good ideas on the nobility of the human spirit, what should be important in how you develop and maintain your self esteem, and the dangers of the acceptance and glorification of mediocrity. It's too bad she didn't have a better editor - though perhaps one can't write the Fountainhead AND listen to someone tell you that the book is boring and painful to read because it has several hundred pages of extraneous whiny masochism.
 
2012-10-22 09:14:00 PM  

Koalacaust: Kazan: the republican party TOTALLY hasn't been marketing their policies as "Fiscally conservative

You're right, and I blame them as much as anyone for causing the term to lose its actual meaning. I'm simply lamenting the fact that it has become synonymous with that strange and paradoxical synthesis of corporatism and minarchism which we see in today's GOP.

Kazan: fark you twatwaffle

There's no need to be upset.


dude, you claimed that i was simply using the term to refer to "anything I don't like". that's pretty farking insulting. I have every right and reason to be offended by you. In reality I was using the term to mean the things that the Republican and Libertarian Parties call "fiscal conservatism", which is but one of many different 'groupings' of fiscal and socio-economic policies that I find to be pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-10-22 09:21:03 PM  
Might happen. Won't work.
 
2012-10-22 09:44:18 PM  
They have to be trolling, right? I know they're not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they'd have to be pants-on-head retarded to be seriously advocating this.
 
2012-10-22 09:46:20 PM  

BMFPitt: They have to be trolling, right? I know they're not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they'd have to be pants-on-head retarded to be seriously advocating this.


Read this thread. There are people who are, indeed, pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-10-22 09:50:51 PM  
bunner

Good show.

/That is all
 
2012-10-22 09:51:32 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Read this thread. There are people who are, indeed, pants-on-head retarded.


But I presume that none of them work in positions of authority for any major international financial institution.
 
2012-10-22 10:06:08 PM  

Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?


I've never really noticed that before - and I'm British.
 
2012-10-22 10:07:04 PM  

Nightsweat: Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?

Yes, we should bomb them immediately.


Britain has nukes.
 
2012-10-22 10:08:55 PM  
bunner
Yeah, we can make earth bigger in a few years. You left out the "of earth" part. That was sort of the point. What do you suppose the probable time needed would be to, like, invent more money to pay that back with from, you know, earth?

I cut that part because of the multiple lines. It doesn't matter. Point is, if the total worldwide debt is let's say a quadrillion dollars and total worldwide GDP is a hundred trillion dollars, it's not like everyone has to pony up a quadrillion dollars all at once. Several tens of trillions per year for a few decades is, technically, possible. Several Latin American countries have been forced to pay back their IMF and World Bank loans like that, such as Ecuador which spent iirc 60% of its government expenditures paying back odious debt (mostly for hydroelectric dams which were built on fraudulent projections by, somewhat ironically considering TFA, IMF/WB economists- but the money-maker wasn't the electricity, but the construction and the interest on debt by ripping off some third-world shiathole).

It's fine to talk about debt, but that's not a terminal problem in itself since it can theoretically be repaid. What really matters is the austerity necessary to do so.
 
2012-10-22 10:12:29 PM  

RanDomino: bunner
Yeah, we can make earth bigger in a few years. You left out the "of earth" part. That was sort of the point. What do you suppose the probable time needed would be to, like, invent more money to pay that back with from, you know, earth?

I cut that part because of the multiple lines. It doesn't matter. Point is, if the total worldwide debt is let's say a quadrillion dollars and total worldwide GDP is a hundred trillion dollars, it's not like everyone has to pony up a quadrillion dollars all at once



One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?
 
2012-10-22 10:24:47 PM  

BMFPitt: Ricardo Klement: Read this thread. There are people who are, indeed, pants-on-head retarded.

But I presume that none of them work in positions of authority for any major international financial institution.


Well, you could also read Ron Paul's stuff.
 
2012-10-22 10:25:34 PM  

Amos Quito: RanDomino: bunner
Yeah, we can make earth bigger in a few years. You left out the "of earth" part. That was sort of the point. What do you suppose the probable time needed would be to, like, invent more money to pay that back with from, you know, earth?

I cut that part because of the multiple lines. It doesn't matter. Point is, if the total worldwide debt is let's say a quadrillion dollars and total worldwide GDP is a hundred trillion dollars, it's not like everyone has to pony up a quadrillion dollars all at once


One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?


I'm not saying it's aliens, but ...
 
2012-10-22 10:32:14 PM  
Farking Hebe bankers.
 
2012-10-22 10:34:21 PM  
Most Americans have never heard of the IMF.
 
2012-10-22 10:35:21 PM  

dryknife: Farking Hebe bankers.


I hope you're referring to this.



Otherwise you're a creep.
 
2012-10-22 10:36:39 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-22 10:59:12 PM  

Slaxl: flucto: jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?

I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.

It does seem like we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Part of me thinks 'better the devil you know is going to continue farking you over at every opportunity', rather than switch to a new method that gives control over to a body that will fark you over, you just don't know how badly yet.

Or am I too cynical?


At least with Government, IN THEORY you can vote them out. Try "voting out" or boycotting Goldman Sachs or the Federal Reserve. There is literally nothing you can do to stop corporations that you don't already do business with.
 
2012-10-22 11:43:24 PM  
It seemed to me the article only suggest we only print up the fiat currency that we can back with things like bonds that we print up out of thin air to back them now with our national central banks. The difference it seemed to me was that it would the International Monetary Fund would handle the control of cash and the holding of the bonds or assets.

It is coming at a time when countries are becoming aware they need to regain control of their central banks it seems.

Would any single country then be able to stand up and demand a sound currency?

Remember one of the basic fundamentals of all of this printing; When they counterfeit the money supply they add nothing to the pile of stuff we all possess, they are just shifting the property lines.

We used to have a saying that, "He who has the gold makes the rules". It has shifted to he that controls the press. Sort of a new world order of things.
 
2012-10-22 11:52:57 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.

They're not getting RID of fractional reserve banking. They're increasing the government regulation to 100%. If they got RID of the regulation, banks would be able to make more money (but probably wouldn't).


I think you mis-read the article. FTFA: "Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air." (bold emphasis added).

In other words, private banks can loan out ONLY money that they receive in deposits.

This proposal sounds like a first step to a "social credit" type of economy. See here.

Absolutely fascinating that the IMF would be the one to propose this.
 
2012-10-22 11:52:57 PM  
Amos Quito
One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?

If I owe you $10, the total debt among "us" is $10.
 
2012-10-22 11:55:35 PM  

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


Remember back when there was a real banking system. People that had money were able to loan money and did.

The banking system is broken in both directions now. They don't pay any interest if you save it in a bank that comes anywhere near what we are inflating the currency at. Why would they when they can print it up at will for next to nothing.

If you have a lot of money and wanted to make loans that is also broken. How can you compete with the banks counterfeiting what they loan. Even with you money out and interest payments coming in can you ever be sure it will be enough to keep up with the inflation that is out of your hands.

They will eventually end up with every thing you have no matter where you have it.

It isn't just banking. Haven't you wondered why perfectly sound business practices and occupations can no longer keep up with the fake money presses? Nothing pays. People are staying home.
 
2012-10-23 12:30:02 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.

They're not getting RID of fractional reserve banking. They're increasing the government regulation to 100%. If they got RID of the regulation, banks would be able to make more money (but probably wouldn't).

I think you mis-read the article. FTFA: "Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air." (bold emphasis added).

In other words, private banks can loan out ONLY money that they receive in deposits.

This proposal sounds like a first step to a "social credit" type of economy. See here.

Absolutely fascinating that the IMF would be the one to propose this.


"If lenders are forced to put up 100%" - ie, if the government forced them to do something the free market doesn't. With no government, there's a 0% reserve requirement. The free market would stabilize with banks keeping about a 10% reserve.

Private banks ALREADY ONLY LEND OUT MONEY IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS. In fact, fractional reserve banking forces them to LEND OUT LESS MONEY THAN IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS.
 
2012-10-23 01:15:36 AM  
The IMF recommends destroying the Fed, turning money supply over to Congress, and outlawing fractional reserve banking. This is exactly what a lot of Ron Paul followers and others of libertarian ilk have been advocating for years, actually.
 
2012-10-23 01:23:09 AM  

Silly_Sot: The IMF recommends destroying the Fed, turning money supply over to Congress, and outlawing fractional reserve banking. This is exactly what a lot of Ron Paul followers and others of libertarian ilk have been advocating for years, actually.


"Outlawing" fractional reserve banking implies that it exists only because of government interference. It doesn't. Fractional reserve banking with a 0% reserve requirement is the natural free-market state of affairs.
 
2012-10-23 02:37:21 AM  

intelligent comment below: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.


How can a libertarian sit on unemployment, wait for section 8 housing, and have a wife on disability?


Sigh. There you go again, being a Wizard. When did I ever say I was a libertarian? Citation, please. Or you could just shut the fark up and go to bed.
 
2012-10-23 02:47:02 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.

They're not getting RID of fractional reserve banking. They're increasing the government regulation to 100%. If they got RID of the regulation, banks would be able to make more money (but probably wouldn't).

I think you mis-read the article. FTFA: "Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air." (bold emphasis added).

In other words, private banks can loan out ONLY money that they receive in deposits.

This proposal sounds like a first step to a "social credit" type of economy. See here.

Absolutely fascinating that the IMF would be the one to propose this.

"If lenders are forced to put up 100%" - ie, if the government forced them to do something the free market doesn't. With no government, there's a 0% reserve requirement. The free market would stabilize with banks keeping about a 10% reserve.

Private banks ALREADY ONLY LEND OUT MONEY IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS. In fact, fractional reserve banking forces them to LEND OUT LESS MONEY THAN IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS.


I've become a believer in the concept that money should be a government monopoly. Giving private banks the power to essentially print money by loaning out deposits multiple times concentrates unearned wealth (the interest on the multiple loans of money that has no physical existence except as a bookkeeping entry) in the hands of the bankers.

>>>>In fact, fractional reserve banking forces them to LEND OUT LESS MONEY THAN IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS.

I don't understand why you say this. As I understand it. fractional reserve means the exact opposite: the bank is required to keep on reserve only a fraction of the funds lent out.

Again, look that the Wiki article on Social Credit. Or read Heinlein's lost masterpiece. Read the reviews
 
2012-10-23 02:57:20 AM  
Libertarians are slippery buggers. You can never pin down what they really believe or what makes a true libertarian. Only thing they agree on is that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
 
2012-10-23 03:23:17 AM  

BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged, so I'm getting a kick out of these comments.


You poor bastard. Do yourself a favor and skip John Galt's speech. It's 70 pages of "Work good, Taxes bad."
 
2012-10-23 03:38:11 AM  

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


And give it to whom? Someone who currently doesn't care only about money, but will once they get the power?
 
2012-10-23 03:42:18 AM  

RanDomino: It's fine to talk about debt, but that's not a terminal problem in itself since it can theoretically be repaid.


True. And theoretically, Mitt Romney represents ALL Americans, and not just white people who already have money.

What really matters is the austerity necessary to do so.

Mostly because people aren't about to actually cut the sh*t, tighten their belts and actually start paying for stuff, or stop replacing that stuff with new stuff on credit. The game IS rigged and the game is "create more debt." If all the IOUs in town wind up on old man Potter's desk, the movie doesn't have a happy ending.
 
2012-10-23 03:44:10 AM  

Amos Quito: One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?


No, the world spins around handily with or without money. We've simply written more bad checks, to ourselves, than the entire planet can cash.
 
2012-10-23 03:50:08 AM  

bunner: Amos Quito: One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?

No, the world spins around handily with or without money. We've simply written more bad checks, to ourselves, than the entire planet can cash.


Well said.
 
2012-10-23 03:52:01 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?

Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.


Umm... no. That giant military is part of what's bankrupting us.
 
2012-10-23 03:55:33 AM  

YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?


Sell stock to those who want to own a piece of the business. Sell bonds to people who want to loan money to the business.
 
2012-10-23 03:58:48 AM  

DrPainMD: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Sell stock to those who want to own a piece of the business. Sell bonds to people who want to loan money to the business.


Hell, you can sell stock to capitalize something that isn't even a business at all.

blog.edisonnation.com
 
2012-10-23 04:11:50 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Has poverty increased or decreased since the advent of fractional reserve banking

start of the industrial revolution?
 
2012-10-23 04:14:52 AM  

DrPainMD: YixilTesiphon: Has poverty increased or decreased since the advent of fractional reserve banking start of the industrial revolution?


Ssshhh! Supporting growth through actual wealth creation is anti-capitalist! The 1% counts on 3 things. Selective and very short memories, covetousness and fear. Making things? That's for the new slave class is China.
 
2012-10-23 04:15:25 AM  

MacWizard: Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.

No, you're still down $20. You had an extra $20 that you lent out to Bob. You had to already have it, so you didn't create it. And if Jack changes into a pair of pants with pockets and asks for his cash before either Bill or Bob pay up, you'd better have another extra $20 because now you're down $40.


Yeah, it's more like Bob wants the bottle of whiskey from the liquor store, so you get him to sign his name on a paper that he'll pay you $20 in your currency + interest, and then give him the liquor from the money that was created by the signature.
 
2012-10-23 04:24:53 AM  
Capitalism v.2.0 has but one end game. Enslave men with paper notes. Then, you own all their work and you get everything free. Period. Same reason we're waging war in the middle east. To keep oil traded in OUR IOUs.
 
2012-10-23 04:27:06 AM  

jvowles: jigger: Elegy: You paid cash up front for ... your last car that you bought?

Yes. Is it so hard to save money?

Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.


The guy needs to get a cheaper house, not heat or air condition it so much, and cut back everywhere else. Anecdotal, but a woman who spent her entire life as a low-wage maid died a few years ago and left just under a million dollars to the local university. Priorities.
 
Displayed 50 of 388 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report