Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barkley:

"Disappoint" me?

I don't get it.

Gunnar

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
To: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Gary Santos"
<evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "EGroup PKT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Michael Hudson" <hudsonmi@xxxxxxx>; "Arno Mong Daastoel"
<arno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited


> Gunnar,
>       Sorry to disappoint you, Gunnar, but
> such remarks do not bother me at all.
> Barkley
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>; "Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> "EGroup PKT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Michael Hudson" <hudsonmi@xxxxxxx>; "Arno Mong Daastoel"
> <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
>
>
> > Barkley:
> >
> > Re. the following:
> >
> > > But we have been getting these
> > > secondary announcements from this other
> > > list for quite a long time, often delivered
> > > with a sort of "word from the mountain"
> > > atmospheric, which has seemed a bit
> > > stronger lately.  Consider it the outburst of
> > > an accumulated perception that may be
> > > unfair.
> >
> > Comment:
> >
> > No surprise here!
> >
> > Yesterday, I posted the following to Gang8:
> >
> >
> > FYI.
> >
> > I don't think for a moment that Barkley's attacks on Gang8 have anything
> to
> > do with our differences with Henry.
> >
> > However, now that Henry is no longer member of Gang8, it seems to me
that
> > PKT academics and hangers-on are letting off steam for long-pent-up
> > irritation at my matter-of-fact descriptions of their stuff as
> > non-analytical etc. etc.
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > Gunnar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
> > To: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Gary Santos"
> > <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "EGroup PKT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <Hudsonmi@xxxxxxx>; "Arno Mong Daastoel" <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
> >
> >
> > >      OK, so maybe I'm not being a very
> > > nice guy.  But we have been getting these
> > > secondary announcements from this other
> > > list for quite a long time, often delivered
> > > with a sort of "word from the mountain"
> > > atmospheric, which has seemed a bit
> > > stronger lately.  Consider it the outburst of
> > > an accumulated perception that may be
> > > unfair.  I'll try not to pick on the Gang8 as
> > > a group any more, just the individuals when
> > > they say silly things...
> > > Barkley Rosser
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: "Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>; "Gary Santos"
> <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > "EGroup PKT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: <Hudsonmi@xxxxxxx>; "Arno Mong Daastoel" <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:41 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
> > >
> > >
> > > > Barkley:
> > > >
> > > > Re. the following:
> > > >
> > > > >      If this is some kind of consensus coming out of the
> > > > > Gang8, it is severely flawed on numerous points.
> > > >
> > > > >       Anyway, if this is the current state of the Gang8 consensus,
I
> > > must
> > > > > say that it is in pretty sorry shape.
> > > >
> > > > Comment:
> > > >
> > > > This is the third time in a week or so that you attack Gang8 on PKT.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > Gunnar
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
> > > > To: "Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "EGroup PKT"
> > <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: <Hudsonmi@xxxxxxx>; "Arno Mong Daastoel" <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:01 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >      If this is some kind of consensus coming out of the
> > > > > Gang8, it is severely flawed on numerous points.
> > > > >      (First set of letters)
> > > > > (a)  When the world financial system went off gold, it was
> > > > > not decided that the dollar would be the currency of world
> > > > > trade.  It already was and simply continued to be so.  Such
> > > > > things  do not change overnight.  To the extent a decision
> > > > > was  made at that time it was by the U.S. to go off gold.
> > > > > Nobody else decided or did anything.
> > > > > (b)  Although the floating of exchange rates (which did not
> > > > > fully occur until 1973) certainly reduced international trade
> > > > > and increased general volatility, it is far from clear that it
> > > > > exacerbated global inflation.  To the extent that the inflation
> > > > > was coming out of the U.S., allowing the dollar to depreciate
> > > > > reduced broader global inflationary pressures.
> > > > >      Furthermore, the oil price increases were far in excess
> > > > > of any inflation that had happened prior to late 1973.  They
> > > > > were independent forces arising from developments within
> > > > > the oil industry, following a wave of nationalizations of oil.
> > > > > Certainly the decline in the dollar stimulated increasing the
> > > > > price, which OPEC had long wanted to do, but again these
> > > > > increases were far in excess of what was required to offset
> > > > > the decline of the dollar.  Essentially the oil price increases
> > > > > were independent and essentially exogenous inflationary
> > > > > shocks on top of all else that was going on then, including
> > > > > food price shocks in the early 1970s that most people have
> > > > > forgotten about, if they were ever aware of them.
> > > > > (e)  Japan did not encourage investment by foreigners, quite
> > > > > the opposite.  The Japanese were (and still are) very proud
> > > > > of having provided their own financing for themselves, and when
> > > > > they opened up Japan formally to foreign investment when they
> > > > > joined the OECD (I think in 1968), they engaged in massive
> > > > > cross-stock purchases among companies, especially within
> > > > > keiretsus, specifically for the purpose of preventing any would-be
> > > > > foreign investors from obtaining control of any major Japanese
> > > > > corporations.
> > > > > (f)  It was the U.S. companies that first began to open up
> > > > > production faciities abroad in LDCs, not the Japanese companies,
> > > > > who simply followed the U.S. model in this case.
> > > > > (g)  The devaluation of the yuan/renmimbi in 1994 was only
> > > > > peripherally related to the devaluations of other Asian currencies
> > > > > in 1997.  The Chinese devaluation was to retain a current account
> > > > > surplus and to maintain domestic employment.  It is true that this
> > > > > devaluation reduced the current account surpluses of the other
> > > > > Asian tigers.  But their currency collapses in 1997 reflected
sudden
> > > > > capital flight (yes, which can be labeled capital account
deficits)
> > > > > that reflected their pegging of their external borrowings to the
> > dollar.
> > > > > China avoided this crisis partly by limiting capital movements, as
> > > > > did India.
> > > > >      (second set of letters)
> > > > > (a)  Why would it not be a hegemony if gold were still convertible
> > > > > from dollars?  There certainly was dollar hegemony between 1944
> > > > > and 1971 when it was convertible.  Arguably the U.S. unhooked the
> > > > > dollar from gold because its hegemony was weakening and it needed
> > > > > to do so to retain its hegemony.  Likewise, there was certainly
> > British
> > > > > pound hegemony in the late 19th century, even during the very
height
> > > > > of the international gold standard.  The hegemony came through the
> > > > > Bank of England enforcing the gold standard.
> > > > > (b) Part of the most serious current threat by the Japanese
against
> > > > > the US in manufacturing comes from Japanese companies building
> > > > > production facilities in the US.  I am thinking here of the auto
> > > industry
> > > > > where many observers are forecasting imminent death of the US
> > > > > auto industry at the hands of these firms, not at the hands of
> > > facilities
> > > > > established in LDCs.
> > > > > (d)  I think that IMF and World Bank policies had very little to
do
> > with
> > > > > whether or not the US lent money abroad.  This arose from the US
> > > > > chronic current account deficit.  Who was/is responsible for that?
> > > > >       Anyway, if this is the current state of the Gang8 consensus,
I
> > > must
> > > > > say that it is in pretty sorry shape.
> > > > > Barkley Rosser
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: "EGroup PKT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: <Hudsonmi@xxxxxxx>; "Arno Mong Daastoel" <arno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 12:14 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > James and Arno,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We do not disagree. Nor, does the kind explanation of Michael to
> my
> > > > > > understanding of dollar hegemony give me reason to disagree with
> > what
> > > I
> > > > > > actually see in the region. I recognize the strides China,
despite
> > the
> > > > > gross
> > > > > > inequality it has fostered in its economy, has achieved
> > economically,
> > > > the
> > > > > > previous and parallel strides of the Asian Tigers and the mirror
> > image
> > > > of
> > > > > > the US and Australia exporting of manufacturing and now of
service
> > > > > > (outsourcing) industries. I merely reacted to Arno's use of
> > > "temporary"
> > > > to
> > > > > > describe the dollar hegemony. Surprised he chose that word, I
had
> to
> > > > > clarify
> > > > > > things with him since "temporary" is a rather weak word to use
to
> > > > describe
> > > > > > the situation. Hegemony appears to me as *embedded* in the
"system
> > of
> > > > > > international trade". It is embedded because it
> > > > > > is a result of historical events whose effects are not easily
> > > reversed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will assume that someone in Gang8 has already written about
> these
> > > > > > historical events. But, for discussion sake and as briefly as I
> can:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (a) In 1971, the world goes off into a period of full fiat. The
US
> > > > dollar
> > > > > is
> > > > > > chosen as the currency for international trade by default.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (b) This is followed by/results in a period of inflation which
> > results
> > > > in
> > > > > > oil being repriced several times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (c) All these oil revenue dollars find their way to US banks
> mostly
> > > who
> > > > > > lend to developing countries, later the exporters, to borrow
> > following
> > > > the
> > > > > > economic "experiment" of the time -- development by government
> > > sponsored
> > > > > > industrialization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (d) When this policy fails two things happen: First, eyes turn
to
> > > Japan
> > > > as
> > > > > > the model for development. There is even a Japanese moral
> ascendancy
> > > > over
> > > > > > American values. Second, Hayek's ideas become fashionable. The
> > > > terms"free
> > > > > > market", globalization and the Washington Consensus (which
> includes
> > > > > > privatization selling off the assets of the previous experiment)
> > > become
> > > > > > accepted as the new economic prescription to prosperity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (e) Southeast Asia as does Latin America follows the Japanese
> model
> > > and
> > > > > > invites foreign investors under increasingly liberal terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (f) America, not to be outdone, does the same thing Japan did --
> it
> >
> > > > > spreads
> > > > > > its manufacturing base away from its high labor markets but this

> > time
> > > > not
> > > > > in
> > > > > > Southeast Asia but in mainland China which offers the cheapest
> > source
> > > of
> > > > > > labor and raw materials. China is smart though and maintains
> capital
> > > > > > controls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (f) The market for these exporters based in East Asia remain
> largely
> > > US
> > > > > > based. Europe is too protective of its industries and farmers
and
> is
> > > too
> > > > > far
> > > > > > away to be in the consciousness of Asian business planners.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (g) When supply grows faster than demand, suppliers start to
feel
> > > > > increased
> > > > > > competition and, in this case, aside from keeping wages and raw
> > > material
> > > > > > costs suppressed, competition eventually came in the form of
> > exchange
> > > > rate
> > > > > > management. The devaluation of the yuan from 5.80 to 8.30 in
1994
> > set
> > > > the
> > > > > > stage for the 1997 round of devaluations as capital accounts
> turned
> > > > > > negative.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The post of Michael in Gang8 characterizes the dynamics of how
it
> > > > > > perpetuates itself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some additional comments:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (a) It wouldn't be a hegemony if gold were somehow still
> convertible
> > > > from
> > > > > > dollar financial assets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (b) It is a sad state of affairs that American manufacturing
> > > established
> > > > > > itself in China to export to the US consumer but it is exactly
> what
> > > was
> > > > > > needed for US business to remake itself in the face of a
> developing
> > > > > Japanese
> > > > > > and Asian manufacturing hegemony. It would have been underpriced
> in
> > > its
> > > > > own
> > > > > > market if it did not. The unfortunate thing about this is that
the
> > > > common
> > > > > > folk in the US lose out. But, that can be said of all common
> folk --
> > > the
> > > > > > poor have gotten poorer and the rich richer world wide. I see no
> > > reason
> > > > to
> > > > > > say that the US (business) has not invested wisely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (c) China's oligarchy remains as a winner as does American and
> Asian
> > > > > > business.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (d) It isn't totally America's fault that the world is saddled
> with
> > > > dollar
> > > > > > debt although I would fault the IMF and the World Bank in part
as
> > > their
> > > > > > policies fostered all the borrowing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (e) And, it is the continuing choice of all these exporting
> > countries
> > > to
> > > > > > hold fast to their developmental strategy for a lack of a better
> > > > > alternative
> > > > > > although everyone, including Mahathir, is wondering what to do
> with
> > > all
> > > > of
> > > > > > the dollars.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the solution solely political? Perhaps, I misunderstood
> Michael's
> > > > > > reaction but, as entrenched as the system is, it will take an
> > economic
> > > > > > crisis to change things. No politician nor economist, mainstream
> or
> > > > > fringe,
> > > > > > can do the job. Only after a crisis will some consensus,
political
> > and
> > > > > > economic at the same time, come about. Otherwise, it will be
> > business
> > > as
> > > > > > usual.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gary Santos
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "schulte-baeuminghaus" <schulte.baeuminghaus@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > To: <gang8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ""Gary Santos"" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > > > > <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 5:16 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gary,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are several elements in the deficits, "dollar hegemony"
> issue.
> > > > > > I won't go over them all again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, as I have explained before, the big consideration is
> that,
> > > for
> > > > > > example, China has got real investment, real productivity, real
> > > > > production,
> > > > > > real growth and employment, on the ground - its own ground.
Their
> > > > economy
> > > > > > has made real progress - indeed, huge progress - in ways and on
a
> > > scale
> > > > > that
> > > > > > they could never have expected twenty years or so ago.
> > > > > > They have also got some real dollar assets - plants, real
estate,
> > > > whatever
> > > > > > in the US, and of course in such a country as Australia which
has
> > > > > travelled
> > > > > > much the same path as the US.
> > > > > > Some of their surplus, the Chinese might have kept and be
keeping
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > form, for example,  of Treasury Notes. These might decline in
> value
> > or
> > > > be
> > > > > > effectively, over a long period, not convertible into real
goods,
> > > > services
> > > > > > or capital assets.
> > > > > > In the end, they might as well be thrown into a furnace or a
trash
> > can
> > > > and
> > > > > > be disposed of.
> > > > > > Even if they are, what is the bottom line for (1) China and (2)
> the
> > US
> > > > and
> > > > > > Australia.
> > > > > > China might have been left with a load of pretty useless
financial
> > > paper
> > > > > but
> > > > > > they have converted their economy - and their society and
> everything
> > > > else
> > > > > > that goes with it - into a dynamic entity, promising prosperity
> and
> > > > > > stability for their people and, gradually, conversion of their
> > economy
> > > > > into
> > > > > > an entity that can stand pretty much by itself, dependent
> primarily
> > on
> > > > > > domestic investment and growth and be much less dependent on the
> > > markets
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the US, Australia and others.
> > > > > > As for the US and Australia, they have gutted their own
industry,
> > > > reduced
> > > > > > real investment, productivity and production, frustrated their
own
> > > > growth
> > > > > > and employment opportunities and generally denied their people
the
> > > > > > prosperity and stability they could have had. Some of the bits
of
> > > > > financial
> > > > > > paper they handed over may have come to be a bit - or a lot -
dud;
> > > but,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > that "advantage," they've given themselves otherwise a pretty
> lousy
> > > > deal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do not read any of the above to mean that I do not applaud the
> > > economic
> > > > > > growth etc that China, the Asian Tigers and the rest have
achieved
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > last thirty years or so.
> > > > > > I do applaud it and hope it may continue; but, as an Australian,
I
> > > wish
> > > > we
> > > > > > Australians could have been more perceptive about where our
> policies
> > > > were
> > > > > > leading us and that we could have been a "Tiger" instead of -
> > > > > effectively -
> > > > > > their "prey."
> > > > > > If you're an American, it's hard not to believe that you should
> have
> > > the
> > > > > > same regrets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James Cumes
> > > > > > http://members.chello.at/schulte-baeuminghaus
> > > > > > http://www.authorsden.com/jameswcumes
> > > > > > http://VictoryOverWant.org
> > > > > > http://www.crystaldreamspub.com/bios/authors/A-E/cumes_j.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > To: <gang8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:23 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Arno,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doesn't this advantage vanish only when people (central banks,
> > > > > > specifically,
> > > > > > > and big speculative money to a lesser extent) decide they do
not
> > > want
> > > > to
> > > > > > > hold dollars nor US treasuries? This notwithstanding the drop
of
> > the
> > > > > > dollar
> > > > > > > versus, mainly, European currencies. It does seem that people
> > still
> > > > want
> > > > > > US
> > > > > > > assets. Dollar reserves appear to be expanding still. Until
then
> > the
> > > > > > > advantage remains even as a current account deficit and US
debt
> > > > expands
> > > > > > > (this is, I assume, what you mean by the squandering of
> > potential).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gary Santos
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Arno Mong Daastoel" <am@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > To: <gang8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:14 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > Yes, I have understood this for a long time.
> > > > > > > My point is like James', that this free ride advantage is only
> > > > > temporary.
> > > > > > > IF the US had used that advantage cleverly, it might have made
> the
> > > > > > advantage
> > > > > > > permanent.
> > > > > > > It has not. It has squandered the potential.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I cannot see any mechanism that makes this a permanent
> advantage.
> > > > > > > (See my answer to Henry.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Arno
> > > > > > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >   From: Hudsonmi@xxxxxxx
> > > > > > >   To: gang8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >   Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:15 PM
> > > > > > >   Subject: Re: [gang8] Dollar Hegemony Revisited
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Arno, you may be mis-understanding what the statistics mean.
> > > > > > >         You look at the trade and payments deficit as a sign
of
> > > > > weakness.
> > > > > > > Why not look at it as reflecting the STRENGTH of the US to get
> all
> > > > these
> > > > > > > surplus goods, services and foreign assets (entire companies)
> for
> > > > FREE?
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > parasitic ability to exploit is America's strength. It is in
the
> > > > Double
> > > > > > > Standard implicit in the dollar standard.
> > > > > > >         America is not Australia. Australia can't do the same
> > thing.
> > > > IT
> > > > > > > would have to sell off its assets, its national patrimony, as
it
> > has
> > > > > done.
> > > > > > > America has done no such thing. It just keeps supplying paper
or
> > > > > > electronic
> > > > > > > dollars to the world, laughing all the way to the bank, so to
> > speak.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         Michael
> > > > > > >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > > > >               ADVERTISEMENT
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics.
> > > > > > >   To unsubscribe, email: gang8-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics.
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, email: gang8-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> > > Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > > > > > Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's
Important
> > > > > > Questions.
> > > > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/00hrlB/TM
> > > > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics.
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, email: gang8-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>