|
In Japan, Germany and other industrialized nations it now is impossible to only have one bread winner per family. And if it is impossible to have kids and a job at the same time people will have less kids. Germany for example is pretty hostile for parents. There are far too few daycare facilities, working full time while having a small kid is also heavily stigmatized and daycare is too expensive anyways. I think Japan's problems are similar, but even worse. Just look at the kinds of jobs that are a available to young people in Japan, how much they pay and how secure those are. It's depressing.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately, their shrinking population is going to doom them in the long-run, but I think it is a long term problem of simply not enough productive humans alive to pay down the debt and an unwillingness to import them but there is a strong cultural bias against it. I completely agree. When I talk to someone who doesn't know the first thing about modern Japan, I start painting the picture with population rates and figures. For people living in Japan right now, it is the one factor to rule them all. The thing that will twist the knife is the baby boomers retiring. As it stands, they're right in the middle of crossing the age line of 65 that lets them claim pension benefits. Additionally, the average retirement age is 69 here, and boomers born in 1946 are 67 right now. When 2015 rolls around and the big ships start sailing, Japan will be facing smaller numbers of people entering the workforce than ever before. The birthrate in 1995 was 1.42, and it keeps sliding down from there. Kyle Bass gave them until 2015. I think he underestimates how good Japanese people can be at maintaining the status quo. But I'm betting that they'll never make it to 2020 without the yen sinking deep, whether through deliberate devaluation or (perish the thought) through default. Personally, I expect them to start sending old people to farming communes within the next 15 years, but who knows how it will really go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
Samuelthebold posted:I completely agree. Ultimately, I don't think they will allow inflation to go too far out of control. I think it is more likely once it starts becoming a real issue, their going to clamp down on rates as hard as they can and land the country back to comfortable deflation (this isn't going to solve anything). The problem is just going to worse than they started with. That said, the ultimate end game might just to call up the IMF, which will begin the austerity cycle that Southern Europe is now in. After that who knows, maybe political extremism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
They'll certainly have to keep rates low. However, assuming they do achieve inflation, then the moment when inflation surpasses interest rates is the point where it seems like the MOF and the BOJ could lose control. There's probably no turning back after that. Unlike Bass, I think Japanese institutions will willingly roll over their bonds basically no matter what. But suppose that rates are down, inflation is up, the government still runs a deficit, and yet it needs stop printing money for a while. The Japanese institutions which own all the bonds are doomed by population decline to bleed money forevermore, and they'll need to sell their bonds sooner or later. When the time comes, are they actually going to move to acquire more bonds at rates below inflation? Are they supposed to have faith that the government will right the ship? And what about the foreigners who own 9.1% of the bonds and counting? One bit of information I'd really like to know is how much leeway the big institutions currently have to buy bonds. The graph at 3:02 shows how enormously they are invested in bonds already, but it doesn't give a good idea of future buying capacity. The worst situation would be one in which the government wants to stop printing money but can't because there aren't enough buyers of bonds at low rates, and they can't afford to raise rates to attract a sufficient number of others because it would bankrupt them. It would imply permanent inflation. That would IMO be the point at which people give up on Japanese bonds, especially if rates were below inflation at the time. The only out I could see is if the fattened monetary base allows banks to go back to being net savers, but I suspect you'd have to hurt the yen's value badly for that to happen. I hope that's not the idea, because it would be deliberately screwing old people with nothing but savings. Maybe that's the choice they made, though. I could of course be totally wrong about this stuff. From the time I decided to change my money, I've been motivated to learn about finance, and the amount of stuff I still don't know is huge. So yeah, I could be missing something. Samuelthebold fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
What happens to Japanese debt under Abenomics has been the topic of some recent discussion among econ blogs. I don't understand the technicalities (I don't know finance or monetary policy either) but I think the question is whether the increased inflation swallows the increase in interest rates by keeping the real interest low and swallowing the nominal value of the debt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Samuelthebold posted:They'll certainly have to keep rates low. However, assuming they do achieve inflation, then the moment when inflation surpasses interest rates is the point where it seems like the MOF and the BOJ could lose control. There's probably no turning back after that. Well the sheer fact they are so invested in bonds already and their fate is so closely tied to the government, they may be able to accept moderate losses on their debt. Ultimately, historically the Japanese banks and the government have been on the same page as far as policy and I don't know if that type of depreciation would cause them to go rogue, at least in the medium term. One possible solution, is that the Fed might actually start subsidizing Japanese bank purchases. It is suspected the Fed might have already intervened in Europe, and it would have in interest in Japan as well in keeping the current system going. Ultimately I think in the short term it makes sense not to have too much money in Yen, the government obviously is going to try to keep inflation higher but I don't know if that will be some type of run-away scenario. Don't get me wrong, eventually the system will go off the rails because of demographics but there is still a lot of momentum to continue on the same way of managing debt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Again I agree. The chances of a runaway scenario in the short term appear quite low, and beyond the short term, I just can't say very much. But I do think that as long as they're making so many trillions of yen out of thin air, I'll leave my money in dollars. If they announce plans to prematurely scale it way back, that might be enough to get me to return to yen. Samuelthebold fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Samuelthebold posted:Again I agree. The chances of a runaway scenario in the short term appear quite low, and beyond the short term, I just can't say very much. If the fed is going to raise rates and the BOJ is moving in the opposite direct, it should be a smart move. Although currency speculation is notoriously difficult. I think the only real out for Japan is major social change and a cultural shift, maybe even a "quiet" revolution. Women and ethnic minorities need equality for Japan to move forward, and it has finally reached the point where is a dollar and cents issue. I don't think more migrant worker permits would necessarily work either, they need immigrants to come to Japan, stay and have families. Japan is more or less will have to embrace multi-culturalism or face a slow but certain demographic (and fiscal) collapse. I am also skeptical this will ever happen though. Those type of changes are difficult to change only through laws, it is going to take a very broad and radical change of societal perception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Is it not a bit late to embrace immigration, realistically speaking? On the time scales we're working with, you're talking about serious demographic as well as policy changes within the next, what, decade or two? If there's one thing I would count on in Japan, it's traditionalism over change - they'll beat the "Japan for Japanese" drum, for lack of a better term, and continue to make ridiculous immigration policies all the way to the grave, as far as I see it. There will be serious change, sure, but as usual it will be far too little far too late. Had they actually started back in the sixties and seventies, then yeah, this all could probably have been staved off, but they already took in, effectively exploited, and then tried to kick out the South American-kei Japanese, even going so far as to play the "culturally incompatible" card in a lot of cases. They've alienated East Asian workers through the slave lab, er, worker training programs and treating the domestic Korean and Chinese population like crap. The economic outlook of Japan is so poor that few long term migrants from Western nations are going to come, so what's left? Middle Easterners and Africans? Middle Easterners are already viewed as drug dealers due to some bad apple Iranians that got in under that silly visa-free policy they had way back when, and I think we all know how badly anyone of African descent has it in terms of xenophobia in Asia. What's left? Ethnic Japanese from abroad? What makes anyone think they're going to bring in other, even more culturally different people, especially long term? And why would those migrants choose Japan over other, more open countries, with more opportunities and better economic outlooks? I just don't see it happening. The immigration-as-a-fix boat sailed decades ago. Sheep fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Sheep posted:Is it not a bit late to embrace immigration, realistically speaking? On the time scales we're working with, you're talking about serious demographic as well as policy changes within the next, what, decade or two? If there's one thing I would count on in Japan, it's traditionalism over change - they'll beat the "Japan for Japanese" drum, for lack of a better term, and continue to make ridiculous immigration policies all the way to the grave, as far as I see it. There will be serious change, sure, but as usual it will be far too little far too late. This is why I am skeptical it will change, but there really isn't any other route. Implementing austerity (cutting spending) will just push the process forward even further down the road (further deflation won't save them) and neither will inflation. The only thing that could save them they have already poisoned, and it is unlikely they will change their mind. However, I think the point needs to be reinforced that attitude towards immigrants, much more than anything else will probably doom them in the end (rather anything to do with their currency or their debt which ultimately are only symptoms of a much deeper problem).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
I wish the Japanese diet spent more time openly discussing the future of the country like this. I've heard nothing since the consumption tax hike got pushed through last year(?). It makes me wonder what they're thinking, and also very hesitant to consider sticking around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
There may have been time to start the immigration thing back in the 90's, but yeah, it's far too late now. Their workforce shrank 190,000 people last year, and when things get going, it will be shrinking by over half a million yearly even by optimistic projections. To make a significant dent, you'd need to start letting in 150,000 immigrants every year, and that's just absurd for them. Instead, they'll probably try to ride the wave down to the 2050's, when the "echo-boomers" born in the early 1970's die and the inverted population pyramid stabilizes. By the way, did you guys see the special permanent resident points system that came out last year (Japanese link)? That one was personally disappointing. I've been here for years, and I was hoping they were going to make it just a little easier to get permanent residence. But basically they're saying that if you have a PhD and make a six-figure salary, they might let you in early, but otherwise, no. There's your immigration expansion. I bet it lands them all of a couple hundred more immigrants every year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Samuelthebold posted:There may have been time to start the immigration thing back in the 90's, but yeah, it's far too late now. Their workforce shrank 190,000 people last year, and when things get going, it will be shrinking by over half a million yearly even by optimistic projections. To make a significant dent, you'd need to start letting in 150,000 immigrants every year, and that's just absurd for them. Instead, they'll probably try to ride the wave down to the 2050's, when the "echo-boomers" born in the early 1970's die and the inverted population pyramid stabilizes. Doesn't that sum it up, the only thing that could majorly stabilize their long term outlook is pretty much unthinkable by both their politicians and the public.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
I think it's kind of a moot point since the economic conditions that have led to a decreased number of children being born would probably make it difficult to attract enough immigrants to fix the problem anyway, unless they were going to throw money at the problem in which case they would probably be better off putting it into daycare or whatever anyway.
mystes fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
mystes posted:I think it's kind of a moot point since the economic conditions that have led to a decreased number of children being born would probably make it difficult to attract enough immigrants to fix the problem anyway, unless they were going to throw money at the problem in which case they would probably be better off putting it into daycare or whatever anyway. I don't think a lack of economic opportunity is what is causing, it is formal and social resistance to the idea. The decreasing number of kids is for many reasons and economics is only one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Would having services for families and allowing women to stay in the workforce equally help the economic problems enough, you think? I realize there would be just as much resistance to that but it seems more feasable since it's a purely internal solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I don't think a lack of economic opportunity is what is causing, it is formal and social resistance to the idea. quote:The decreasing number of kids is for many reasons and economics is only one of them. mystes fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Would having services for families and allowing women to stay in the workforce equally help the economic problems enough, you think? I realize there would be just as much resistance to that but it seems more feasable since it's a purely internal solution. I don't think the increases in participation even with money for child care services would be enough to change the basic demographic problem. Basically, you would need women to participate much more in the workplace and have more kids at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
mystes posted:I don't understand this sentence, but if you're saying that "formal and social resistance" are the primary barriers to immigration, I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just saying that even if those barriers were eliminated and it suddenly became theoretically very easy to immigrate to Japan that wouldn't help if people didn't actually want to live there. My point is that immigration would certainly increase if formal barriers were erased and social perceptions changed. The Japanese economy is moribund but it is still a very developed country that in many ways needs a labor force for certain fields. There are openings for immigrants, especially in medical care. Obviously, Japan would face the same circumstances as other countries with immigrants but immigration is a "necessary problem" for post-industrial countries at this point. quote:There are a number of factors, but many of them come down to economics in my opinion. "マタハラ" and lack of daycare are real issues that need to be fixed, but to the extent that their effect on the number of children being born is indirect by way of reduced household incomes they may be somewhat interchangeable with other economic factors for this discussion. I think culture has to be a big part of it even if it shows up in the economics of the issue. More daycare might help some, but female participation in the work place requires a big shift about how women are valued within it. Also, Japanese women probably aren't having the kids they use to, at least in part because they aren't as interested in getting married and starting a family. Not to mention, the fiscal problems Japan is facing will likely come much sooner than these kids would be able to enter the workforce and even then I don't think it would be enough to really shift the demographics of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
mystes posted:"マタハラ" For people like me who don't know what this means, I asked a friend about it: quote:Apparently it means "maternity harassment", the pressure and bullying a woman receives when she gets pregnant and inconveniences her workplace (in Japan taking holidays and other such horribly selfish acts are frowned upon because then nobody is there to do the work). I tried searching for it first, but Google thought I was looking for Mata Hari 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
I'm skeptical of any model that requires essentially infinite population growth to work. The demographic issues are a serious problem, but when you look at energy and food independence, just throwing more people at the problem is not a silver bullet. The lack of capacity for domestic energy and food production to sustain the population at its current level leaves them extremely vulnerable to disruption of trade, and if the Strait of Hormuz is ever closed to maritime trade for any reason, they're totally hosed for oil. There's no realistic way to counter the issue of an aging population with more population growth without further exacerbating dependence on energy imports barring major advances in renewable energy technologies, and food imports are always going to be an issue. There was a huge spike in birthrates just after the war, and they have declined ever since throughout the developed world, so jettisoning sustainability in an effort to make sure that people can retire at 65 when the average life expectancy in Japan is 81 seems misguided. Pension systems were never designed to support people for an average of 16 years. Yeah, I wouldn't like to work past 65 if I was expecting to retire then either, but under the current economic system people over 65 either need to remain productive or start dying in droves. More equitable distribution of wealth would help, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Protocol 5 posted:I'm skeptical of any model that requires essentially infinite population growth to work. The demographic issues are a serious problem, but when you look at energy and food independence, just throwing more people at the problem is not a silver bullet. The lack of capacity for domestic energy and food production to sustain the population at its current level leaves them extremely vulnerable to disruption of trade, and if the Strait of Hormuz is ever closed to maritime trade for any reason, they're totally hosed for oil. There's no realistic way to counter the issue of an aging population with more population growth without further exacerbating dependence on energy imports barring major advances in renewable energy technologies, and food imports are always going to be an issue. People who live to be 65 in Japan have a considerably longer life expectancy than 16 years. As for the broader issue, there are plenty of countries that rely on imports for what they need and that doesn't cripple them. It may be bad for ~national pride,~ but that's hardly the most compelling factor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Protocol 5 posted:I'm skeptical of any model that requires essentially infinite population growth to work. The demographic issues are a serious problem, but when you look at energy and food independence, just throwing more people at the problem is not a silver bullet. The lack of capacity for domestic energy and food production to sustain the population at its current level leaves them extremely vulnerable to disruption of trade, and if the Strait of Hormuz is ever closed to maritime trade for any reason, they're totally hosed for oil. There's no realistic way to counter the issue of an aging population with more population growth without further exacerbating dependence on energy imports barring major advances in renewable energy technologies, and food imports are always going to be an issue. In any real sense it is way way too late to do anything about that, and frankly I don't know how much productivity would be to wring out of the system by forcing elderly people to work after they had been promised a pension for years (in probably a very stressful working environment). Frankly, what would probably happen is that the elderly would start taking money out of their savings in droves and push the system even farther to the brink. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Frankly, this is a pointless argument to embark on, since population growth as the most important driver of economic growth is so ingrained as a concept. Honestly, just forget I brought it up, since we'd just be wasting our time, and nobody would enjoy it. Bad idea on my part; I shouldn't have posted in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
I'm fairly skeptical about the prospects for currently unemployed women filling the workforce gap in a really meaningful way. This is of course anecdotal, but I don't see a lot of young unemployed women sitting around quietly yearning to get a full-time job or increase their workload. Nearly every woman I know is working full-time already, and the only ones who aren't are homemaking-supermoms who would probably tell you they're busy enough as it is. I don't know any women in their 20's, including two pregnant acquaintances, who aren't working. One 40-year-old woman I know found the time to work at a convenience store for 20 hours a week after her son entered elementary school. A big social campaign could get a few more to do the same. As far as I can see, that's the kind of gains we're looking at. Improving opportunities for good jobs will help, but I don't see that as improving the economy so much as just making things fairer for women. On sustainability with population losses, I do believe it's possible for a society to support itself even with an inverted population pyramid. But in order to do that, Japan will need true restructuring. The million-dollar question (all too literally) is whether they can do that without going through an economic crisis. My money's on "no". Samuelthebold fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There are openings for immigrants, especially in medical care.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Sheep posted:Yet another example of a possible bridge that Japan has pretty much burned. Yeah, which is why their best route is a route that has been already sabotaged and is a third wire in Japanese politics. My bet is nothing will be fixed, but the United States won't let the Japanese economy fully collapse for a variety of reasons and the Fed is going to very silently re-capitalize their banks through intermediaries. Although this will probably mean Japan will be even more beholden to American foreign policy than before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Samuelthebold posted:I'm fairly skeptical about the prospects for currently unemployed women filling the workforce gap in a really meaningful way. This is of course anecdotal, but I don't see a lot of young unemployed women sitting around quietly yearning to get a full-time job or increase their workload. Nearly every woman I know is working full-time already, and the only ones who aren't are homemaking-supermoms who would probably tell you they're busy enough as it is. I don't know any women in their 20's, including two pregnant acquaintances, who aren't working. The biggest argument that people have made to me is practically the Japanese version of MRA and  . ie, women actually have it super cushy and easy, they get to do anything but work, they just want to get married so that they can siphon their husband's salary and not do a drat thing for the rest of their lives, instead of properly raising a family. I mean, yeah, I can see it. There's going to be gold-diggers anywhere you go. The thing that no one seems to want to acknowledge is why would their women have been raised to think like that in the first place. There are examples of some women managers, CEOs, etc, which people like to cite as proof that Japan has no glass ceiling and that if you are genuinely ambitious you can succeed. Again, true, maybe, but that also doesn't acknowledge the sacrifices the women had to make to get there, which pretty much means they have to forgo marriage and/or childbirth. Which leads straight into biotruths; why put women to work when they're supposed to be homemakers and raising kids (never mind all of the other stuff women can do besides raise kids, never mind that maybe just maybe some women aren't cut out for raising kids and the father would actually do it better)? When the UN put out their annual report on gender equality and Japan was ranked just about dead last, all the blame went straight to Japanese women themselves. I'm not exactly a raging feminist or anything but attitudes like this are the status quo here and if that fundamental thinking doesn't change -- women have the uterus, ergo -- nothing is going to get fairer. Good luck changing it in Japan though: the country for old men by old men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Old men loving each other and everyone else. What a depressing spectacle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
I'm viewing it as an opportunity. It's rare for there to be such a homogeneous population of well-heeled retirees with a long life expectancy, all looking to just spend their remaining years enjoying the spoils of an economy they built one gambaru at a time. Are you going to ride the wave, get crushed by it, or go to a different beach? Your choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:I'm viewing it as an opportunity. It's rare for there to be such a homogeneous population of well-heeled retirees with a long life expectancy, all looking to just spend their remaining years enjoying the spoils of an economy they built one gambaru at a time. You're going to open a Thai resort hospital? I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Something like that, I have a few ideas. What do Japanese retirees want to do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:Something like that, I have a few ideas. What do Japanese retirees want to do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
Reverend Cheddar posted:The biggest argument that people have made to me is practically the Japanese version of MRA and Female employment is down around 80% compared to nearly 100% for men, but until daycare is a negligible expense and the workday ends at 6:00, somebody is probably going to be busy taking care of the home. I'm all in favor of making equal opportunities for women in Japan for the sake of basic human rights. All I'm saying is that making equal opportunities alone is not going to fix the economy; it just gets you 90/90 instead of 80/100. They need to add workers, not just redistribute, however more fairly, the workers they currently have. The point is, there aren't that many women who currently have nothing to do who, as a practical matter, are in a good position to start working. At least that's the sense I get. I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
Samuelthebold posted:the workday ends at 6:00 That's the biggie, no joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
Stringent posted:That's the biggie, no joke. That's where it has to start. You cannot have two full-time working parents in Japan until the corporate world embraces the 8 hour workday, for women and men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
Samuelthebold posted:That's where it has to start. You cannot have two full-time working parents in Japan until the corporate world embraces the 8 hour workday, for women and men. Isn't a fair amount of time for the average Japanese office worker not even getting anything done but being seen at the office for those hours? Like to them its more important that they be seen as physically present for 10-12 hours every day and only doing 5-6 hours of work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Isn't a fair amount of time for the average Japanese office worker not even getting anything done but being seen at the office for those hours? Like to them its more important that they be seen as physically present for 10-12 hours every day and only doing 5-6 hours of work. I don't think it's exclusively Japanese - I've seen some posts in the Korea thread about it as well - but yeah, basically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Isn't a fair amount of time for the average Japanese office worker not even getting anything done but being seen at the office for those hours? Like to them its more important that they be seen as physically present for 10-12 hours every day and only doing 5-6 hours of work. Japan had one of the worse (if not the worst) levels of productivity per hour worked per capita in the world due to long working hours. On the paper, it has improved but in my personal experience all the laws and regulations regarding サービス残業 are ineffective, partially due to pernicious cultural mores - like the one you're mentioning. On top of the unpaid overtime there's the whole "compulsory afterwork drinking parties" shtick which furthers removes people from their homes and families and shrinks their actual resting time. Those don't only happen on weekends, either; And tired, hungover workers tend not to be productive. Sheep posted:I don't think it's exclusively Japanese - I've seen some posts in the Korea thread about it as well - but yeah, basically. I've heard that the situation in Korea is even worse. Harder work, longer hours and even more compulsory corporate drinking. Sorgrid fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Forget the aging population! The real news isn't gateball but ballgate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 20:17
|
|