Home > #OWS, data science, finance, guest post, hedge funds, Leon Kautsky, musing, news, statistics > Guest Post SuperReview Part III of VI: The Occupy Handbook Part I and a little Part II: Where We Are Now

Guest Post SuperReview Part III of VI: The Occupy Handbook Part I and a little Part II: Where We Are Now

March 21, 2013


Moving on from Lewis’ cute Bloomberg column reprint, we come to the next essay in the series:

The Widening Gyre: Inequality, Polarization, and the Crisis by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells

Indefatigable pair Paul Krugman and Robin Wells (KW hereafter) contribute one of the several original essays in the book, but the content ought to be familiar if you read the New York Times, know something about economics or practice finance. Paul Krugman is prolific, and it isn’t hard to be prolific when you have to rewrite essentially the same column every week; question, are there other columnists who have been so consistently right yet have failed to propose anything that the polity would adopt? Political failure notwithstanding, Krugman leaves gems in every paragraph for the reader new to all this. The title “The Widening Gyre” comes from an apocalyptic William Yeats Butler poem. In this case, Krugman and Wells tackle the problem of why the government responded so poorly to the crisis. In their words:

By 2007, America was about as unequal as it had been on the eve of the Great Depression – and sure enough, just after hitting this milestone, we lunged into the worst slump since the Depression. This probably wasn’t a coincidence, although economists are still working on trying to understand the linkages between inequality and vulnerability to economic crisis.

Here, however, we want to focus on a different question: why has the response to crisis been so inadequate? Before financial crisis struck, we think it’s fair to say that most economists imagined that even if such a crisis were to happen, there would be a quick and effective policy response [editor’s note: see Kautsky et al 2016 for a partial explanation]. In 2003 Robert Lucas, the Nobel laureate and then president of the American Economic Association, urged the profession to turn its attention away from recessions to issues of longer-term growth. Why? Because he declared, the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”

Famous last words from Professor Lucas. Nevertheless, the curious failure to apply what was once the conventional wisdom on a useful scale intrigues me for two reasons. First, most political scientists suggest that democracy, versus authoritarian system X, leads to better outcomes for two reasons.

1. Distributional – you get a nicer distribution of wealth (possibly more productivity for complicated macro reasons); economics suggests that since people are mostly envious and poor people have rapidly increasing utility in wealth, democracy’s tendency to share the wealth better maximizes some stupid social welfare criterion (typically, Kaldor-Hicks efficiency).

2. Information – democracy is a better information aggregation system than dictatorship and an expanded polity makes better decisions beyond allocation of produced resources. The polity must be capable of learning and intelligent OR vote randomly if uninformed for this to work. While this is the original rigorous justification for democracy (first formalized in the 1800s by French rationalists), almost no one who studies these issues today believes one-person one-vote democracy better aggregates information than all other systems at a national level. “Well Leon,” some knave comments, “we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a Republic with a president…so shouldn’t a small group of representatives better be able to make social-welfare maximizing decisions?” Short answer: strong no, and US Constitutionalism has some particularly nasty features when it comes to political decision-making.

Second, KW suggest that the presence of extreme wealth inequalities act like a democracy disabling virus at the national level. According to KW extreme wealth inequalities perpetuate themselves in a way that undermines both “nice” features of a democracy when it comes to making regulatory and budget decisions.* Thus, to get better economic decision-making from our elected officials, a good intermediate step would be to make our tax system more progressive or expand Medicare or Social Security or…Well, we have a lot of good options here. Of course, for mathematically minded thinkers, this begs the following question: if we could enact so-called progressive economic policies to cure our political crisis, why haven’t we done so already? What can/must change for us to do so in the future? While I believe that the answer to this question is provided by another essay in the book, let’s take a closer look at KW’s explanation at how wealth inequality throws sand into the gears of our polity. They propose four and the following number scheme is mine:

1. The most likely explanation of the relationship between inequality and polarization is that the increased income and wealth of a small minority has, in effect bought the allegiance of a major political party…Needless to say, this is not an environment conducive to political action.

2. It seems likely that this persistence [of financial deregulation] despite repeated disasters had a lot do with rising inequality, with the causation running in both directions. On the one side the explosive growth of the financial sector was a major source of soaring incomes at the very top of the income distribution. On the other side, the fact that the very rich were the prime beneficiaries of deregulation meant that as this group gained power- simply because of its rising wealth- the push for deregulation intensified. These impacts of inequality on ideology did not in 2008…[they] left us incapacitated in the face of crisis.

3. Conservatives have always seen seen [Keynesian economics] as the thin edge of the wedge: concede that the government can play a useful role in fighting slumps, and the next thing you know we’ll be living under socialism.

4. [Krugman paraphrasing Kalecki] Every widening of state activity is looked upon by business with suspicion, but the creation of employment by government spending has a special aspect which makes the opposition particularly intense. Under a laissez-faire system the level of employment to a great extend on the so-called state of confidence….This gives capitalists a powerful indirect control over government policy: everything which may shake the state of confidence must be avoided because it would cause an economic crisis.

All of these are true to an extent. Two are related to the features of a particular policy position that conservatives don’t like (countercyclical spending) and their cost will dissipate if the economy improves. Isn’t it the case that most proponents and beneficiaries of financial liberalization are Democrats? (Wall Street mostly supported Obama in 08 and barely supported Romney in 12 despite Romney giving the house away). In any case, while KW aren’t big on solutions they certainly have a strong grasp of the problem.

Take a Stand: Sit In by Phillip Dray

As the railroad strike of 1877 had led eventually to expanded workers’ rights, so the Greensboro sit-in of February 1, 1960, helped pave the way for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both movements remind us that not all successful protests are explicit in their message and purpose; they rely instead on the participants’ intuitive sense of justice. [28]

I’m not the only author to have taken note of this passage as particularly important, but I am the only author who found the passage significant and did not start ranting about so-called “natural law.” Chronicling the (hitherto unknown-to-me) history of the Great Upheaval, Dray does a great job relating some important moments in left protest history to the OWS history. This is actually an extremely important essay and I haven’t given it the time it deserves. If you read three essays in this book, include this in your list.

Inequality and Intemperate Policy by Raghuram Rajan (no URL, you’ll have to buy the book)

Rajan’s basic ideas are the following: inequality has gotten out of control:

Deepening income inequality has been brought to the forefront of discussion in the United States. The discussion tends to center on the Croesus-like income of John Paulson, the hedge fund manager who made a killing in 2008 betting on a financial collapse and netted over $3 billion, about seventy-five-thousand times the average household income. Yet a more worrying, everyday phenomenon that confronts most Americans is the disparity in income growth rates between a manager at the local supermarket and the factory worker or office assistant. Since the 1970s, the wages of the former, typically workers at the ninetieth percentile of the wage distribution in the United States, have grown much faster than the wages of the latter, the typical median worker.

But American political ideologies typically rule out the most direct responses to inequality (i.e. redistribution). The result is a series of stop-gap measures that do long-run damage to the economy (as defined by sustainable and rising income levels and full employment), but temporarily boost the consumption level of lower classes:

It is not surprising then, that a policy response to rising inequality in the United States in the 1990s and 200s – whether carefully planned or chosen as the path of least resistance – was to encourage lending to households, especially but not exclusively low-income ones, with the government push given to housing credit just the most egregious example. The benefit – higher consumption – was immediate, whereas paying the inevitable bill could be postponed into the future. Indeed, consumption inequality did not grow nearly as much as income inequality before the crisis. The difference was bridged by debt. Cynical as it may seem, easy credit has been used as a palliative success administrations that been unable to address the deeper anxieties of the middle class directly. As I argue in my book Fault Lines, “Let them eat credit” could well summarize the mantra of the political establishment in the go-go years before the crisis.

Why should you believe Raghuram Rajan? Because he’s one of the few guys who called the first crisis and tried to warn the Fed.

A solid essay providing a more direct link between income inequality and bad policy than KW do.

The 5 Percent by Michael Hiltzik

The 5 percent’s [consisting of the seven million Americans who, in 1934, were sixty-five and older] protests coalesced as the Townsend movement, launched by a sinewy midwestern farmer’s son and farm laborer turned California physician. Francis Townsend was a World War I veteran who had served in the Army Medical Corps. He had an ambitious, and impractical plan for a federal pension program. Although during its heyday in the 1930s the movement failed to win enactment of its [editor’s note: insane] program, it did play a critical role in contemporary politics. Before Townsend, America understood the destitution of its older generations only in abstract terms; Townsend’s movement made it tangible. “It is no small achievment to have opened the eyes of even a few million Americans to these facts,” Bruce Bliven, editor of the New Republic observed. “If the Townsend Plan were to die tomorrow and be completely forgotten as miniature golf, mah-jongg, or flinch [editor’s note: everything old is new again], it would still have left some sedimented flood marks on the national consciousness.” Indeed, the Townsend movement became the catalyst for the New Deal’s signal achievement, the old-age program of Social Security. The history of its rise offers a lesson for the Occupy movement in how to convert grassroots enthusiasm into a potent political force – and a warning about the limitations of even a nationwide movement.

Does the author live up to the promises of this paragraph? Is the whole essay worth reading? Does FDR give in to the people’s demands and pass Social Security?!

Yes to all. Read it.

Hidden in Plain Sight by Gillian Tett (no URL, you’ll have to buy the book)

This is a great essay. I’m going to outsource the review and analysis to:


because it basically sums up my thoughts. You all, go read it.

What Good is Wall Street? by John Cassidy

If you know nothing about Wall Street, then the essay is worth reading, otherwise skip it. There are two common ways to write a bad article in financial journalism. First, you can try to explain tiny index price movements via news articles from that day/week/month. “Shares in the S&P moved up on good news in Taiwan today,” that kind of nonsense. While the news and price movements might be worth knowing for their own sake, these articles are usually worthless because no journalist really knows who traded and why (theorists might point out even if the journalists did know who traded to generate the movement and why, it’s not clear these articles would add value – theorists are correct).

The other way, the Cassidy! way is to ask some subgroup of American finance what they think about other subgroups in finance. High frequency traders think iBankers are dumb and overpaid, but HFT on the other hand, provides an extremely valuable service – keeping ETFs cheap, providing liquidity and keeping shares the right level. iBankers think prop-traders add no value, but that without iBanking M&A services, American manufacturing/farmers/whatever would cease functioning. Low speed prop-traders think that HFT just extracts cash from dumb money, but prop-traders are reddest blooded American capitalists, taking the right risks and bringing knowledge into the markets. Insurance hates hedge funds, hedge funds hate the bulge bracket, the bulge bracket hates the ratings agencies, who hate insurance and on and on.

You can spit out dozens of articles about these catty and tedious rivalries (invariably claiming that financial sector X, rivals for institutional cash with Y, “adds no value”) and learn nothing about finance. Cassidy writes the article taking the iBankers side and surprises no one (this was originally published as an article in The New Yorker).

Your House as an ATM by Bethany McLean

Ms. McLean holds immense talent. It was always pretty obvious that the bottom twenty-percent, i.e. the vast majority of subprime loan recipients, who are generally poor at planning, were using mortgages to get quick cash rather than buy houses. Regulators and high finance, after resisting for a good twenty years, gave in for reasons explained in Rajan’s essay.

Against Political Capture by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson (sorry I couldn’t find a URL, for this original essay you’ll have to buy the book).

A legit essay by a future Nobelist in Econ. Read it.

A Nation of Business Junkies by Arjun Appadurai

Anthro-hack Appadurai writes:

I first came to this country in 1967. I have been either a crypto-anthropologist or professional anthropologist for most of the intervening years. Still, because I came here with an interest in India and took the path of least resistance in choosing to retain India as my principal ethnographic referent, I have always been reluctant to offer opinions about life in these United States.

His instincts were correct. The essay reads like an old man complaining about how bad the weather is these days. Skip it.

Causes of Financial Crises Past and Present: The Role of This-Time-Is-Different Syndrome by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff

Editor Byrne has amazing powers of persuasion or, a lot of authors have had some essays in the desk-drawer they were waiting for an opportunity to publish. In any case, Rogoff and Reinhart (RR hereafter) have summed up a couple hundred studies and two of their books in a single executive summary and given it to whoever buys The Occupy Handbook. Value. RR are Republicans and the essay appears to be written in good faith (unlike some people *cough* Tyler Cowen and Veronique de Rugy *cough*). RR do a great job discovering and presenting stylized facts about financial crises past and present. What to expect next? A couple national defaults and maybe a hyperinflation or two.

Government As Tough Love by Robert Shiller as interviewed by Brandon Adams (buy the book)!

Shiller has always been ahead of the curve. In 1981, he wrote a cornerstone paper in behavioral finance at a time when the field was in its embryonic stages. In the early 1990s, he noticed insufficient attention was paid to real estate values, despite their overwhelming importance to personal wealth levels; this led him to create, along with Karl E. Case, the Case-Shiller index – now the Case-Shiller Home Prices Indices. In March 2000**, Shiller published Irrational Exuberance, arguing that U.S. stocks were substantially overvalued and due for a tumble. [Editor’s note: what Brandon Adams fails to mention, but what’s surely relevant is that Shiller also called the subprime bubble and re-released Irrational Exuberance in 2005 to sound the alarms a full three years before The Subprime Solution]. In 2008, he published The Subprime Solution, which detailed the origins of the housing crisis and suggested innovative policy responses for dealing with the fallout. These days, one of his primary interests is neuroeconomics, a field that relates economic decision-making to brain function as measured by fMRIs.

Shiller is basically a champ and you should listen to him.

Shiller was disappointed but not surprised when governments bailed out banks in extreme fashion while leaving the contracts between banks and homeowners unchanged. He said, of Hank Paulson, “As Treasury secretary, he presented himself in a very sober and collected way…he did some bailouts that benefited Goldman Sachs, among others. And I can imagine that they were well-meaning, but I don’t know that they were totally well-meaning, because the sense of self-interest is hard to clean out of your mind.”

Shiller understates everything.

Verdict: Read it.

And so, we close our discussion of part I. Moving on to part II:

In Ms. Byrne’s own words:

Part 2, “Where We Are Now,” which covers the present, both in the United States and abroad, opens with a piece by the anthropologist David Graeber. The world of Madison Avenue is far from the beliefs of Graeber, an anarchist, but it’s Graeber who arguably (he says he didn’t do it alone) came up with the phrase “We Are the 99 percent.” As Bloomberg Businessweek pointed out in October 2011, during month two of the Occupy encampments that Graeber helped initiate and three moths after the publication of his Debt: The First 5,000 Years, “David Graeber likes to say that he had three goals for the year: promote his book, learn to drive, and launch a worldwide revolution. The first is going well, the second has proven challenging and the third is looking up.” Graeber’s counterpart in Chile can loosely be said to be Camila Vallejo, the college undergraduate, pictured on page 219, who, at twenty-three, brought the country to a standstill. The novelist and playwright Ariel Dorfman writes about her and about his own self-imposed exile from Chile, and his piece is followed by an entirely different, more quantitative treatment of the subject. This part of the book also covers the indignados in Spain, who before Occupy began, “occupied” the public squares of Madrid and other cities – using, as the basis for their claim on the parks could be legally be slept in, a thirteenth-century right granted to shepherds who moved, and still move, their flocks annually.

In other words, we’re in occupy is the hero we deserve, but not the hero we need territory here.

*Addendum 1: Some have suggested that it’s not the wealth inequality that ought to be reduced, but the democratic elements of our system. California’s terrible decisionmaking resulting from its experiments with direct democracy notwithstanding, I would like to stay in the realm of the sane.

**Addendum 2: Yes, Shiller managed to get the book published the week before the crash. Talk about market timing.

  1. Andrew Fulford
    March 22, 2013 at 6:37 am

    Thanks for the link! I confess that my post jumped off from Dray’s, rather than speaking of the particular historical moment he focussed on, but I rather thought I was ruminating, not so much ranting. 🙂

    I do maintain that what he’s talking about is natural law. A sense of justice is a sense of right, of an obligation, of something that norms us and requires to act. That fits any sensible definition of the word “law”.

    And the “intuition” involved arises in the individual when they perceive that people of African descent are of the same kind, or “nature”, as people such as themselves (whites in this case). The perception of the nature of the world, of its intelligible structure, forces them to recognize what is good, and so how they ought to behave toward their common human beings.

    What this kind of direct action appeals to is exactly what older philosophers called “natural law”, though people today may not be familiar with the terminology. Yet, they are familiar with the fact of it.

    Thanks again for the link.


  2. March 22, 2013 at 10:53 am

    “Natural law” and really all moral “ought” statements are not structured like other truth claims (Popper et. al). But natural law is particularly obviously untrue because anthro puts forth hundreds of examples of behavior I find barbaric, but all participants find appropriate, fgm, institutional warfare, polygyny. I generally find homosexual behavior and pda in general to be viscerally gross. Is “homosexuality is wrong” also a so-called “natural law”, since so many people also find it gross? I don’t think so (and neither do the homosexuals, who seem to enjoy themselves). Even in the economic sphere, there have been planned, relatively peaceful and mostly gender-equal property-less economies (feudalism in England prior to peasants being forced into cities) that seemed basically functional. Are the legal structures from this time period natural law? People who lived in these and similar regimes (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky) argued this was so and “the divine law for all mankind”! Until it wasn’t so. Millions of capitalist city-dwellers would find “natural law” from the 1600s to be oppressive, reprehensible, and unworkable.

    There are human universals – traits/behaviors and rituals common to all humans. Read Human Universals by some anthropologist whose name I can’t remember if you’re interested. You will not be more convinced of your thesis.

    Where natural law’s premise appears correct (on the basis of available evidence), that certain human opinions are innate, it often gets the content of those human preferences precisely backwards: there is mild evidence that certain violent behaviors are innate and behaviors you would say “abide with natural law as given from the LORD” are socialized, i.e. siblings of similar ages enter resource-based conflicts roughly once every 3.5 hours, children’s most violent age is 2-3, babies are predisposed to spend more time at adults of their own race – i.e. racism, empathetic thoughts and behaviors are developed at a time in children’s development that suggests that they’re a recent genetic innovation on human-existence time scales* and there are genes that cause it not to develop at all in some case, i.e. psychopathy and so-called dark triad traits.*

    This should be enough. But in general, modern science in making it increasingly obvious that things like human morality* are functions of brain structures (obvious by the late 1800s to most people who think hard about these things and are non-religious) which are functions of the environment and genes.

    More personally:

    A. I don’t believe in any kind of equality as a truth claim about human natures, talents and abilities (at best mean measurable talents are randomly distributed with standard deviations determined by genetics, and I doubt even this “liberal hypothesis” will stand the test of time). There is literally no empirical that has been sustained evidence for the left hypothesis: that we’re blank slates. B. I think equality under the law is **generally a good idea, and I can understand the tension between A. and B. and finally, C. Over the course of my day, I try to treat everyone kindly if I can. But most natural law theorists believe precisely the opposite of the first two claims and do not understand the tension between those beliefs. They also believe that that A C which leads me to:

    The worst thing about natural law:

    If we’re not equal under any criterion and some people are predisposed to foolishness, and weaknesses genetic in origin, ought they be tormented during their earthly time for their predisposition? Crypto-Christians as natural law theorists often reason as if the above claim were true and obviously so. Then they often say something equivalent to: “Fortunately, we’re all saved through our belief in Jesus Christ, thus we’re ‘equal’ in this dimension and now we can be nice to each other. Yay.”


    That said, believing that things like Christianity and natural law are true might help create pro-social equilibriums even if they’re (to me rather obviously) false (I’m going to go out on a leap and say you don’t think the is-ought problem is a problem) and I need to give that some more thought.

    I strongly disagree with the premise. Glad to give a good blog a link!

    *I’m mildly skeptical about evolutionary psychology and very skeptical about Marxist legal materialism as full explanations, but they give better explanations than magic-based theories of human behavior, which make extensive use of sophistry and wordplay (is there any behavior that Christians don’t like that can’t be hand waved with the remark “we are fallen”).
    **Obvious exception: executing the mentally disabled for crimes they don’t understand. There are actually thousands of exceptions to this principle, but they’re small enough that I can say I hold the principle as my own.


  3. March 22, 2013 at 10:56 am

    Ah, HTML ruined somethings I wrote. Natural law theorists often reason as if A was equivalent to C.


  4. Andrew Fulford
    March 22, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Thanks for the extensive reply. A few brief comments: (1) Natural law tradition makes a distinction between first and second nature, and the Christian version in particular also holds to original sin, and so can explain the anti-social behaviour of young children, etc.. (This is not an ad hoc feature of the religion, because its promulgators base the doctrine on a reading of the Bible and observation of human behaviour.) (2) NLT also recognizes that nature gives a great deal of freedom to work out its directives in a variety of ways, and so can allow many different kinds of economies, polities, etc. (3) I don’t accept Hume’s “naturalistic fallacy” argument as sound. (4) I would contend the Confederate use of the “spirituality of the church” doctrine you’re alluding to contradicts the teachings of the Bible enormously. (5) I would also argue science, in principle, can never reduce morality to brain structures.

    Thanks for your interaction!


  5. March 22, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    (1)(2) We’re not going to see eye to eye on this because NLT, by this stage, simply doesn’t meet Popperian criterion. Modern linguistics and natural language processing suggest that there are literally trillions of ways to “parse” the Bible and translations only add more. It’s statistically meaningless that many statements in the Bible line up with moral/theological theory X.

    (Not a baiting question: if the Bible is the inerrant and clear word of God, why are there so many Churches with minor-major differences? Before answering, consider:

    Different parses of the same sentence have literally lead to schisms in the Church. Presumably, God knows about this; there are grammars that human linguists have developed that have completely unambiguous parses, why not use one of those to write the Bible? Of course, the ways of God are mysterious etc. and this is similar [possibly equivalent] to asking “why is life so hard etc.” but [baiting] Christians always come up with fun ad hoc answers to these questions. Why damn millions of people who try and fail to correctly understand your writings to Hell? (I’m surely no kinder than the LORD, but I would’ve done it a little differently).


    In general, the claims of [not baiting you] “omniderigence” and omniscience with respect to God are “unBiblical” in the sense that you can find sentences where the most obvious parse leads one to conclude that “God didn’t see that one coming” or that “he wasn’t actually there at the time,” yet these are common Christian doctrines, usually justified by a different sentence with a different parse somewhere else in the text. So-called Biblical moral knowledge is not secure is in the way logic, reproducible science, or even model-based science is. And trying to “secure the reasoning” inherent to most religious doctrines often lead to bizarre statements like (3)

    (3) With respect to (3), I have no comment. This is like rejecting Ockham’s razor or the principle of induction.

    (4) I’m very curious about this? Could you explain this in some detail?

    (5) It already has in a behaviorist sense. The brains of people with psychopathic traits and killers are measurably different than more normal people and better still for science, they are different from normal people in similar ways. It is likely we’ll be able to make predictions about future behavior on the basis of childhood fMRI scans in the next ten years. We can already detect ADHD and other chronic mental conditions in early childhood. Making even slight changes to the brain/human genetics might (read: will) cause all that natural (read: held in common) morality so-obvious to you to disappear in a material sense, and barring an actual intervention from God, a moral sense.

    Where can I find the soul?

    Have a good day amigo and keep up the good blogging!


    • Andrew Fulford
      March 23, 2013 at 7:50 am

      I don’t buy the view that because communication has some imprecision, we cannot say any interpretation of a text is incorrect [Editor’s correction: communication, in general, does not have to have imprecision. There are syntactic structures with a single parse; the Bible is not written in one of those syntactic structures and so the Bible imprecisely communicates some dictums]. I think the Bible is clear enough for its purposes, and unclear in ways that force its readers to grow in various ways so they can understand it better.

      People don’t go to hell simply and only because they misunderstand a text, and the Bible doesn’t ever say that.

      Hume’s argument against classical ethics is by no means like Ockham’s razor or the principe of induction. Those are reasonable principles of thought; Hume’s argument is just that, an argument, and a particularly bad one.

      The Bible teaches that we are to do justice to all people; some in the Confederate church argued that though they were united to Christ spiritually a long with their slaves, this had no implication for how they ought to treat their slaves. This ignores the clear commands that obligated them to treat their slaves justly, even in the case where their slaves were not believers, let alone when they were. It’s pure sophistry.

      I misunderstood the meaning of your comments about neuroscience and morality. I have no doubt that some behaviour is correlated with brain states. What I meant to deny was that empirical investigation will somehow prove there is no such thing as right and wrong.

      I think I will leave the conversation here for now. Thanks for the dialogue!


  6. Mad
    April 1, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Hi there just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your post seem to be running off the screen in Ie. I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with web browser compatibility but I thought I’d post to let you know. The style and design look great though! Hope you get the issue resolved soon. Many thanks


  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: