Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Facts and statistics proving OWS is correct, plus an in-depth solution for solving the economic crisis

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 1:33 a.m. EST by BrianRogel (30)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I‘ve been extremely frustrated hearing the constant criticisms that OWS doesn’t have clear goals. I decided to write an in-depth unbiased article using facts and statistics to clarify how the unequal distribution of wealth is crippling the economy.

The article explains the following:

Why the wealth distribution negatively impacts the economy

How a drastic wealth distribution was the catalyst to the Great Depression

How an increase to top marginal taxes helped solve the Great Depression

The cause leading to the current unequal distribution

Current debt saturation and its effects on recovery

Finally, it creates an actionable solution that will solve the distribution, stabilize the economy, fix surplus government spending, spark immediate job creation, and bring finance to school curriculum

The article has no political bias and includes sources to support all facts and figures used. My plan was to submit the article as an op-ed to a large news source to help the information get passed along. The problem is the length of the article significantly exceeds the maximum length for most op-ed publications. Please help share it through social media. It’s the only way the information will be brought to light.

All critiques and suggestions are welcomed: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent

33 Comments

33 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 12 years ago

Brian, it's about time someone came onto this forum with a bounty of viable information. I sincerely appreciate and commend you for your dedication to the cause and hard work putting your article together. With the information you provide, it's hard to make a contrasting arguemnet in favor of the current paradigm. You have clearly shown how and why we are in the current situation we face.

And although everything you said is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct, it still remains my firm belief, and this is only my opinion, that the monetary system has flaws that no reform or restructuring can fix. Eventually, and this is only in the case that America and quite possibly the world would reach any real basis of equality, the monetary system must be eradicated. In the long run, it simply doesn't work. Maybe another hundred years, maybe two, but that's in a best case scenario, the monetary system will collapse, it's inevitable. It's marked in it's progression.

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

Thanks for the compliment. I entered this issue with an open mind and worked to keep any personal biases at the door. I also felt it was important to have as much tangible support as possible explaining the cause of the problem before leading into potential solutions. The more I researched, the more facts and logic seemed to line up.

I do agree with you that the monetary system has inherent flaws which will need to be addressed. I believe changes to the fiscal policy can provide the highest benefit in the short term which will then allow for time and resources to be spent on creating long term monetary changes.

[-] 1 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 12 years ago

Good point. Question is, how do we get this plan in action? Perhaps it's time we start a petition because we can get a lot more signatures backing a particular resolution than to have them all physically protest.

[-] 2 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

That's a very good question. I also think it's the same question on a lot of people's minds right now. Petitions are great for bringing awareness to a fairly unknown cause or situation. The problem in terms of OWS is that the movement in itself is a petition. It's a petition where instead of signing your name on a document you grab a tent and head into the streets.

Politicians are now fully aware of the massive amount of people who're unhappy as well as what they're unhappy about. If they fail to acknowledge what's going on as it stands, than starting a written petition will most likely see the same result.

With the current lack of political action I see few ways true change will occur without creating a new political party through OWS. Once that happens citizens are free to replace the current elected officials with people who truly care about this country and are passionate about making a difference.

[-] 1 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 12 years ago

I really like the idea of creating a political party through OWS. With delegates who are well versed in current potics and most importantly, have altruistic ideals.

I believe however, that petitions can still make a mark because I think it's easier for politicians to ignore 50,000 protestors than to ignore 10, 50, or even 100,000,000 signatures all in favor of one specific change. Also, changes more universal with all citizens will surface as people sign petitions they agree with (if for instance, there was a dozen petitions circulating). This way more people would also get to declare their position. Mainly for those who cannot be physically present at protests due to other obligations and also for those who are otherwise too lazy or skeptical of the movements potential

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

Well said. When you look at it from that perspective signature petitions are a way for a different segment of OWS to voice their opinion. People in the streets are probably just the tip of the iceberg in comparison to how many true supporters are out there. I'd completely support written petitions and would help out in anyway I could.

Also, here's an important link in reference to the political party thought process: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

This is truly impressive, and probably the most important of the many important issues facing us. We have a serious wealth distribution problem, and government has a serious revenue problem, and this is why. 30 upside-down years.

By the way, I've been trying to educate people on neoliberalism. Looking at your charts, especially the ones from The Nation, it's really so clear. The postwar liberal consensus had fallen apart by 1968, but we coasted on those policies through Nixon and Carter until 1980. The neoliberal consensus then begins with Reagan, continuing through Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama... Neoliberalism. It's what we're protesting.

[-] 2 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

Thanks for the compliment. There's definitely an equilibrium that needs to be maintained in order for capitalism to succeed. This equilibrium exists in many different levels of our economy.

Imagine what it'd look like to have a huge amount of see-saws all being balanced on top of each other. Then have this massive collection of see-saws all being balanced on top of one very large see-saw. This would be a fairly accurate representation of how the economy is set up.

A balance needs to exist between many different areas of the economy including the public/private sector dynamic, the debt/equity dynamic, and the rich/poor wealth dynamic. If a policy is enacted that unbalances one of the major equilibrium (ie. severe top marginal tax cuts) it can destabilize the entire system.

Many times when this happens the problem will run on an exponential curve until it's either resolved or collapses. Similar to how the heavy side of an unbalanced see-saw would continue to speed up until it hit the ground. Currently the national debt problem and wealth disparity problem are both running on this exponential curve heading toward collapse.

This is a historic moment for our country because we're currently sitting at a breaking point. The decisions (or lack thereof) that get enacted for these two areas will have implications for decades to come.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I'll check it out. We evidently have overlapping views.

MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – Florida is touting the new jobs it created Friday after a positive unemployment report. But based on numbers from all W-2’s filed in the country, the wages simply aren’t keeping up.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.

In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.

Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. The upper class held around 30%. The middle and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed. Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A massive redistribution of wealth. 

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause.   No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

No redistribution. No recovery.

[-] 2 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

That's a pretty good walk-through of how things progressed during the depression. The one additional fact I feel is important to point out is the large reduction in top marginal taxes leading into both the Great Depression as well as the Great Recession. This has allowed the wealth disparity to grow unchecked in both instances to levels causing both economic downturns.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

You're right. They were drastically reduced in the late '20's. I am going to add that point. It amazes me how incredibly stubborn our leaders are. They absolutely refuse to admit the similarities. Large tax breaks for the rich and heavy concentration of wealth just prior to both major events.

We need policies specifically designed to prevent a heavy concentration of wealth. Its simple math. Still, our leaders refuse to admit it. Amazing. What a bunch of sold-out pigs.

[-] 0 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 12 years ago

Well put! I'd just like to add how just before the onset of the great depression, congress reinstated the (I can't recall the jargon) international non-governmental private banking system. Where the people were duped into believing that this system would protect them from economic crashes. Which in turn deliberately caused the crash using (I can't recall the title of the loan) that was designed so that monies loaned out could be called in at any time to be paid in full. When the FED arbitrarily made the call, something like 500 smaller banks were forced to file for bankruptcy, essentially dissolving the savings of millions of people. Following that, people were again duped into giving their gold up to protect the economy. When all was said and done, gold prices went through the roof while currency value plummeted, leaving people with a pile of virtually useless paper while they cried over the gold the no longer owned. Anyone notice gold company commercials telling you to sell your gold? They'll give you top dollar! Now what do you think that is all about?

[-] 1 points by leebert (2) 12 years ago

Thank you sir!

There are compound factors in this debacle, but you've hit on some of the most salient. Understood also that historically bubbles occur from excess capital accumulation, this time it was a global phenomenon.

With Asian managers also active screwing their workers & reaping huge price-point margins we saw a classic trade surplus boomerang coming back as massive cash inflows (see also: This American Life, The Giant Pool of Money). There is nothing more dangerous to markets than depository excesses, because trickle-down becomes perversely bubble-down when it has nowhere else to go.

And this is what happened: We can overproduce, relative to the ability of global workforces to consume.

This is manifold.

The demand side has been beggared by the supply side. To the extent that capital accumulated in the hands of too few (the surplus value of productivity gains not shared with their workforces, but gleaned by their managers and investors) came the deleterious effect of inadequate gross consumption from the bottom-up - from the working classes themselves that drive a substantial part of any economy.

And with Asian trickle-down not seeing consumer expansion anywhere else, it sought some safe haven in what was purported to be the most reliable investment pool in the world: American Real Estate. But just as surely as excess deposits in the 1980's drove the Bank of New England to ease its lending policies in an attempt to keep up with its interest differentials, this giant pool of money -- on the order of $2 Trillion, flooded our real estate markets. And in typical American fashion we opened the gates wider to make it easier for that cash to flow in, leading to a bubble of increasingly mcmansed & overleveraged home owners & shoddy mortgage portfolios.

And as if that weren't bad enough, we then engaged in other perverse practices, also related to global wage suppression and skewed wealth accumulation.

We encouraged the massive offshoring of jobs in every practical way imaginable, to the extent that somewhere on the order of 40 municipal areas in the USA were already in recession by 2007 due to offshoring of commodity manufacturing.

This only rendered the demand-side bubble in real estate all the more hollow, all the more beyond the ability of personal income.

And to make it all the more brinksmanshiplike, we encouraged our working class to devote more and more of their savings in 401k's, state pensions and IRA's that themselves contributed to the investment bubbles.

But it was based on less and less supply-side production: We weren't producing widgets - what was left of Amalgamated Widgets was a brand name. Instead more and more of our investments were not in each other's productivity, but in each other's ability to service debt.

And with that we financialized the country, producing less and less while trying to float more and more profits from the extraction of fees atop more and more debt. In this type of game there can only be very few winners over the long term.

So now we have the West having had its heyday, increasingly indebted to itelf and Asia. We have Asia, which has a problem of too much thrift (a veiled term for vast oligarchy deposits resulting from wage suppression). There's a global imbalance in thrift (resulting from greed) and debt (resulting from greed) that is leading to... THIS.

Our uber-rich go to Las Vegas every day & try to beat the odds on their massive portfolios, capturing ROI from far flung investments around the globe, even if the risk is to crash the house if the bets get too big, driven by too few players who cash out with their winnings instead of staying in the game. And they've stopped tipping the croupier, the pit boss, the martini girl & the pepper boy in the restaurant.

Throw in the asinine puzzle palace of securities firms reinsuring each other with financial derivatives, with no limits as to reserve ratios or functional ability to pay, and we have a tower of cards ready to be blown over. Can you say "dominoes?" As in the etymology of the word, "Dominus" for lord, master ... the invisible hand, lady fate of chaos theory, Eris herself (all hail!).

Our suffering here is tied to the suffering of workers abroad. If they are undercutting us in terms of wage, we are allowing the undercutting of their own decent livelihoods in the forbearance we've given unfair labor practices abroad. This is what allows financial bubbles and decimation of a middle class on the demand side.

This is the stuff of 19th Century economics object lessons: The rentier rich who bet in bubbles, the indebted working & consuming class who own less than nothing, an ineffectual leadership sidelined from rational governance by obsequity to its engineers of finance.

We've been here before, and now we have to chart our way through the next phase of what appears to be a near-centennial object lesson.

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

This article was just covered by Yahoo news so I thought I'd pass along the link: http://news.yahoo.com/brian-rogel-tells-occupy-wall-street-wealth-inequality-183900601.html

[-] 1 points by e307465 (147) 12 years ago

You can be correct all you want and I believe most agree with you but that isn't going to change anything. It's sad but it is true. A movement with no direction is as good as done.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

please bring this and post it on the wiki.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA

I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.

  1. Merely protesting in the streets will not bring change. In fact merely protesting in the streets is in fact a means to the end of avoiding the real work of a revolution, which consists of the evolutionary solutions, answers, problem solving process, and new political alignment we create.
  2. This forum is absolutely disorganized. It won't be read by most people and it won't and can't function as a core organizational system.
  3. Back at the very start of this, I petitioned the admin to add multiple sub forums and a wiki. Multiple sub forums were promised but have never arrived. I think that this tells us that the intention actually of this forum is message control and containment. The entire purpose really of this forum has always been to keep us spinning in disorganization. We are hanging out on a forum that expressly exists to actually keep us confused and disorganized.
  4. The real work of a revolution isn't going to happen on forums, it needs to happen in a much more organized fashion using collaborative software.
  5. The assorted other details about how to collaborate, how to work open source direct democracy, how to focus in on science instead of isms, how to become hyper rational about this, are details which are essential and crucial, without which we can predict the movement to fail.
  6. Technically speaking we are not 99 percent, we are one tenth of one percent attempting to represent the 99 percent. Our core mission must be to communicate to and with the 99 percent, and get them to join us. This forum will not accomplish that and neither will any of the other main websites.
  7. You can follow other people out to other wikis and other websites, where they will try to get you to get involved with what they want and their program, but frankly speaking, there is no other website and no other operation out there which understands the complexities involved with meaningful organization. In short, everyones being led to get involved here there and everywhere else, scattering the movement in directions which ultimately do not gain us critical mass, criticial momentum, or critical systemic lucidity.
  8. I have managed to get a wiki put up and have already put on that wiki evolutionary details which make it more organized than anything else. I can't do this alone. There are 10 or so wikis now out there, most of which were created in response to my pleas for a wiki, and several of which are in domains owned and operated by some corporation, (wikia, etc) And which we can thus assume will simply be closed, shut down, or deleted if they become useful to the movement.
  9. Probably at least half of the invites you have to go participate at some other site are people who are scamming everyone to waste time and energy, distort the movement, co opt it, and etc. When you walk off into a closet ask yourself how you know that the closet isn't created by some fed, or by some republican, or by some democrat, in order to sway things in their direction.
  10. The only meaningful strategic option we have for real change in this country is to create a new third party, and take every political office in this country.
  11. Once that is done, we can have an article 5 convention. If we have an article 5 convention before getting rid of the oligachs, that just opens the genie from the bottle for them to abuse that process with their corruption and evil.

For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ

http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw

http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

I think you do make some good points. Protesting in the streets won't by itself bring change but it's absolutely essential at the beginning. These protests have essentially given the national mic to the 99%. It's now time we do something with it.

Like you stated, organization is key to the success of this movement. I think the forum has it's place as an idea generator and to get constructive criticism. Once statistic/fact based plans are born they should move to the next level. Your push for a wiki makes complete sense to be the collaborative point for the organizing of these plans. It would also be nice if we could incorporate some type of poll or voting ability into each section of the plans. This way we could get an estimate of individual approval percentages.

Looking at the big picture I agree with your evaluation that the only real way to implement the changes that truly need to be made is by creating a 3rd party. I have additional research and information I'll be adding to my original article. Once completed, I'll begin to help you organize information onto the wiki. Feel free to contact me to bounce ideas around. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

thanks its nice to hear so much affirmative voice when previously its been so noisy in here.

I think so many threads from here should be trimmed up and reported on at the wiki...to create an organizational review of the conversations had here ..

[-] 1 points by CarlaW (67) 12 years ago

Hey, thank you for your time and effort.

It's info like this that make me doubt the sincerity of those who claim to have an opposing view.

The only opposing view would be to call you a liar and back it up with their facts. (I won't hold my breath)

Thanks again I'll be on the look out for future forums

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

That's very true. As soon as I finished the first draft of this article I had two friends critique it. They both are finance professionals working in banks and lean Republican. I figured highly educated individuals who oppose my views would make for an extremely high quality critique. Both said they had no way to counter or disprove the argument.

It's kind of sad actually. I've had some really great suggestions of how to make improvements to the article and solidify the argument, but I've yet to have one person put together anything close to an opposing theory. If so, it means the reason behind our flailing economy is well known and intentionally not being fixed.

I stay very open minded so I look forward to hearing a quality fact based counter argument...one of these days.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Is any law cited in there that guarantees the authority needed to meet demands based on the legal duty of an official, body or office of the federal government?

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

In essence, that's what the entire constitution was created to outline

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Yes it was. And all levels of government in all states by law have to observe the US constitution. It does not contain anything counter to any states laws as far as I know.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I finished reading the whole thing and I have one criticism. You don't explain in detail how the correlation exists between your graphs. You simply show that all the graphs change when one variable is modified, however you don't explain why this is so in detail. I believe your analyses, but the result could be because of other factors or simply because of pure chance. You should explore this in more scientific detail to strengthen your theory.

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

Thanks for the insight, you make an excellent point. My first draft actually had a section dedicated to a simplistic explanation of why the correlation exists. Since I don't have a doctorate in Economics I realized this viewpoint would be quickly attacked by industry professionals based on my experience alone. That's why I tried to paint a picture using only facts.

A statistical analysis of the data used to create the charts would make a compelling argument in showing the correlation. The decrease in share of wealth for the bottom 95% in comparison to the decrease in US personal savings would be the first place to start in my opinion. Hopefully I will find additional time to run the numbers in order to strengthen my theory. Thanks again for the comment.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Yes, but even if you show that the graphs change in tandem when a common variable is modified this still doesn't explain why these changes are happening in each of the graph. This is the most important part of the theory which you must explain. Ex: I could easily draw a graph of the increase in US population in the last 100 years and another graph that shows increase temperatures in the last 100 years and declare that when the population increases the temperature of the planet also increases. Still, I wouldn't have explained why this is so, or if it is even really related. The number of pirates decreased in this period, was it because of an increase in the US population, an increase in temperatures, or for some other reason?

I think you should put out the first viewpoint in your draft and ask for the help of economic scholars. You won't find the truth if you hide stuff because you are scared it won't be accepted. You have to put your ego on the shelf, and be fair with your idea, it deserves to be unleashed in its totality even if it may be wrong.

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

It’s the classic correlation vs causation argument. There’s a simple way to clarify this issue. Most economic charts are charting the effects of certain actions. When a chart is drastically shifted or moving in a non-desired direction the key is finding out what particular decision took place that acted as the catalyst for the charts behavior.

This is why the stock market crash can’t be pointed out as the cause of the Great Depression. The stock market crash in itself is an effect of a previous decision. The decision to lower top marginal income and capital gains taxes is an action. The reduction caused the spike in wealth inequality which in turn destabilized the economy leading to the stock market crash which brought on the Great Depression. The stock market crash was simply part of a sequence of effects caused by the initial decision.

This also clarifies your example of increasing population and world climate. These are correlated effects. If a decision was mandated that led to simultaneous changes in both charts then a conclusion can start to be created.

The decreasing share of wealth in the bottom 95%, the increasing share of wealth in the top 1%, and the shift to reduced US savings are all effects of a previous decision. It’s why showing correlation between those graphs paints a picture about current issues going on, but doesn’t offer a reason behind them. A true conclusion can’t be made until a change in the same decision variable is shown to produce the same type of effects over time.

The decision to lower top marginal income and capital gains taxes to the same level they were when sparking the Great Depression is an action. That action led to the same drastic spike in wealth inequality which has again destabilized the economy and now has us in a similar situation as the depression.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I understand much better now. Indeed, economics are quite complex, and there is always a gorge between theory and practice, much more than in other scientific fields.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to write this. It's nice to see something constructive and well thought out. Cheers.

[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

You're welcome I'm glad you enjoyed it. I still have some work I'll be putting into it in terms of additional analysis and supporting facts. All I hope is it helps shed some light on a glaring problem than needs to be resolved as soon as possible.

[-] 0 points by deejayshin (16) 12 years ago

To Feds>

HSBC

Go to the ant, you lazy one, See it's ways and become (WISE)

      (not my words)
             but
         ( " HIS ")
[-] 1 points by BrianRogel (30) 12 years ago

Can you explain this comment further? I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.