Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
Search this Thread |
05-13-2012, 05:26 PM | #31 |
First, France and the U.K. have not cut spending. Second, when spending was actually reduced—between 2009-2011 in Greece, Italy, and Spain—the cuts were relatively small compared to the size of their bloated European budgets. While Italy reduced spending between 2009-2010, it also increased spending in the following year by an amount larger than the previous reduction. Most importantly, meaningful structural reforms were seldom implemented. Whenever cuts took place, they were always overwhelmed with large counterproductive tax increases. Following years of large spending expansion, Spain, the United Kingdom, France, and Greece—countries widely cited for adopting austerity measures—haven’t significantly reduced spending since “austerity” supposedly started in 2008. Fiscal Austerity in Europe Doesn't Mean Large Spending Cuts | Mercatus Since government spending in France & in the U.K. is still rising it is hard to blame austerity for their problems. Government spending for Greece, Italy , Spain is still at 2008 levels. France is in a world of hurt because 53% of the GDP comes from government spending, which is insane. IF austerity is ever implemented in France it will be very painful. The greater the dependency on government spending the greater the pain. UK currency is under a complete different monetary set of "ground rules" than the ENTIRE EU.. THERE is NOTHING you can use to compare one to another .. WHEN will you finally understand that??? | |
05-13-2012, 06:23 PM | #32 |
Still crazy...........See the trees.. have no concept of what a forest is...... Quote: Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne may need to slow down his deficit squeeze to accommodate the weakness of the British economy, two former Bank of England officials said. “If the growth rate turns out to be lower than the government expected, then I think that they should accept that, and accept that that means that the deficit is going to be reduced in a longer time period,” former Bank of England Deputy Governor Howard Davies told Sky News yesterday. “I think that the markets will understand that.” Osborne’s deficit-reduction program will ax 700,000 government jobs by 2017 as he pushes through the deepest cuts since World War II on a country struggling to recover from the financial crisis. Britain’s economy has succumbed to its first double-dip recession since the 1970s, and may have shrunk in the first quarter by more than the 0.2 percent initially estimated because of a slump in construction. Quote: the government could spend more on infrastructure without risking its fiscal credibility—and could take advantage of low interest rates to borrow money to do so. Being a sovereign nation and monopy holder of it's currency .. it "NEEDS" to borrow "NOTHING".. pure idiocracy........of course it is "bank stimulus" or whoever buys the COMPLETELY unnecessary bonds.. Last edited by jeffkrol; 05-14-2012 at 05:33 AM. | |
05-13-2012, 06:37 PM | #33 |
What he said............. Quote: My family has a saying: "Good comes from bad." Certainly, Greece's suffering has been awful. But perhaps some good can come from it. Perhaps the world at last will understand the folly of restricted government spending and the need for Monetary Sovereignty. (U.S. Tea Party, are you listening?) BBC News, Europe EU central bankers ponder Greece euro exit European central bankers have been openly expressing views on the possibility of Greece leaving the eurozone as its leaders struggle to form a government. Germany's top banker said it was up to the Greeks to decide, but if they did not keep to their bailout commitments, they would receive no new aid. This is the best thing that could happen to Greece: Leave the euro and don't accept any more "aid" (i.e additional indebtedness, unemployment, poverty and austerity). After last week's elections in France and Greece, two things began to change in the eurozone. First was the talk that "spending" could replace "austerity" as a way out of the crisis. That's perhaps more aspirational than practical but it pleased the voters. This is news??? The voters are smarter than their leaders. Government spending is the only way out of a recession or depression. Reduced government spending (ala the U.S. Tea Party foolishness) always has the same consequences: Worse recession and deeper depression. Second was the growing confidence amongst eurozone ministers that Greece could - and maybe should - quit the euro. Some speculate it's a PR exercise to manage expectations - slowly re-introducing the notion that the 17 Euro nations could soon be 16. Others suggest it's a long overdue move, that would have eased the problems much sooner. I said this more than six years ago. If the country simply quits the euro and resurrects the drachma, while still trying to pay off its debts, an inevitable slump in the value of the drachma would make those debts even more unaffordable. Absolutely false. First, there is no evidence, one way or another, that the drachma would be valued less than the euro. I personally would rather lend to a "drachma Greece" than to a "euro Greece." More assurance of being paid. Second, even with inflation, a Monetarily Sovereign nation (which Greece then would be) can pay any debt of any size, any time. No debt is "unaffordable." Using the word "unaffordable" demonstrates ignorance of the difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty. Greek voters punished mainstream parties which backed the bailout at last Sunday's parliamentary election. As well they should have. Only the EU would call additional lending to a nation that already is unable to pay its debts, a "bailout." The U.S. banks did exactly the same thing, which led to the Great Recession. Visualize the Mafia extending additional credit to a guy who already can't pay what he owes them. Is that a "bailout"? Syriza - a leftist, anti-bailout party - firmly rejects the terms of the most recent EU-IMF bailout, which requires tough austerity measures in return for loans worth 130bn euros. They reject additional, unaffordable debt and more austerity. As the kids say, "Well DUH! On Saturday, German central bank chief Jens Weidmann said: "If Athens doesn't keep its word, it will be a democratic choice. The consequence will be that the basis for fresh aid will disappear." Translation: The basis for deeper Greek austerity will disappear, and all of us "1%ers" who foisted the euro on an innocent public, will look like total idiots, and possibly lose our jobs. Hey, are they building a guillotine outside my window? "We're a breath away from the drachma and disaster," liberal Greek daily Kathimerini warned on Saturday. Translation: We're a breath away from fiscal freedom. Within two years after Greece leaves the euro, and re-adopts the drachma, its economy will grow, while the other euro nations sink deeper and deeper into austerity. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Last edited by jeffkrol; 05-13-2012 at 06:43 PM. | |
05-13-2012, 06:47 PM | #34 |
funny......but not for the Brits...... Quote: Out-of-touch ministers' But Adam Marshall, director of policy at business organisation the British Chambers of Commerce, told the BBC: "Businesses up and down the country are busting a gut to find new growth opportunities, both at home and around the world. Foreign Secretary William Hague William Hague said expanding economies had huge potential for UK exporters "To borrow a phrase from a politician, businesses are already 'straining every sinew' to deliver growth. And many companies, both large and small, think that government could do more. "The government needs to recognise that it is a major customer, a maker of markets, and the guardian of Britain's infrastructure and skills policies. "Unless it acts boldly to discharge those responsibilities, rather than tinkering at the margins, UK business won't be able to deliver up to its full potential." Shadow cabinet office minister Michael Dugher said ministers should stop blaming other people for their mistakes. "The Conservatives said after the local elections that they had got the message," he said. "Instead, these out-of-touch government ministers are burying their heads in the sand and just want to blame everybody else for the fact their economic plan has failed. "The truth is it's ministers who need to 'work harder' - at getting an economy that promotes growth and creates | |
05-14-2012, 07:03 AM | #35 |
Loyal Site Supporter | |
05-15-2012, 10:59 AM | #36 |
Is Austerity to Blame for Europe's Economic Woes? - YouTube | |
05-15-2012, 11:45 AM | #37 |
I understand it fine. It is irrelevant to the role of austerity. Austerity involves reducing government spending or raising taxes, or a combination of the two measures. Austerity is a fiscal policy and has nothing to do with printing money which is a monetary tool. When will you understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policies. Is Austerity to Blame for Europe's Economic Woes? - YouTube Fiscal Policy - The power of the federal government to tax and spend in order to achieve its goals for the economy. Monetary Policy - Programs that try to increase or decrease the nations level of business by regulating the supply of money and credit. Tell me how they are not completely interrelated....... Quote: Fiscal Policy Actions Taxes Fiscal Policies include raising or lowering of taxes. If we raise taxes we are taking money out of circulation. When one considers the impact of taxes one must look at the sector of society being impacted by the tax hike. Does it impact on the middle class, working class or upper class. There are differing philosophies on who should shoulder the tax burden. Some feel it should be the wealthy while other look to the middle class. The reality is that the middle class pay the largest amount of taxes overall. Raising taxes to the middle class will limit consumer spending so if you are going to do that you had better have a good reason. Clearly raising taxes will slow down spending, economic growth as well as inflation. Quote: The Fed's basic monetary policy tools are: Reserve Requirements Discount Rate Open Market Operations Printing Money Each policy has one basic goal, impact the money supply http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/10/mmp-blog-18-fiscal-and-monetary-policy.html Quote: @NeilClearly the view that MMT suffers from nominalism is unwarranted. Some of its central messages are that, one, both real side and monetary side are intertwined, two, to clearly understand an economic problem one must be able to determine if the problem lies in the monetary or the real side. The clearest example of that is probably social security. The current debates are all on the monetary side (how can we make sure that social security checks do not bounce?) when the actual problem is on the real side (can we provide the goods and services retirees need?). This leads to very different policies. Quote: Statements that do not apply to a currency-issuer. Let us begin with some common beliefs that actually are false—that is to say, the following statements do NOT apply to a currency-issuing government. Governments have a budget constraint (like households and firms) and have to raise funds through taxing or borrowing Budget deficits are evil, a burden on the economy except under some circumstances Government deficits drive interest rates up, crowd out the private sector…and necessarily lead to inflation Government deficits leave debt for future generations: government needs to cut spending or tax more today to diminish this burden Government deficits take away savings that could be used for investment We need savings to finance investment and the government’s deficit Higher government deficits today imply higher taxes tomorrow, to pay interest and principle on the debt that results from deficits The "euro" is not technically a "issued currency" in the sense of the pound or US dollar, or yen ect.........i Last edited by jeffkrol; 05-15-2012 at 12:02 PM. | |
05-15-2012, 12:46 PM | #38 |
Textbook def.. Fiscal Policy - The power of the federal government to tax and spend in order to achieve its goals for the economy. Monetary Policy - Programs that try to increase or decrease the nations level of business by regulating the supply of money and credit. Tell me how they are not completely interrelated....... Just because the UK has the monetary tools does not mean they need/want/will use them. The UK does not want to devalue its currency (in relation to the rest of the world) to deal with the debt problems. Fiscal and monetary policy are two different tools that work in different ways. They have significantly different long-term/short-term effects on the economy. They can be used to try to achieve the same ends, but that does not make them "completely interrelated". | |
05-15-2012, 03:03 PM | #39 |
They are two different tools. California has a projected $16 billion dollar deficit this year. It has no monetary options. It will be forced to use austerity as a tool. It has to find some blend of spending cuts and tax increases to balance its budget. The state could sell bonds to finance the difference, but because they are such a fiscal train wreck nobody wants to loan them money at a low rate. Again, even mentioning state shows you don't quite see things the way I and MMT'ers see things. States=my check book=EU Fed=UK=Japan=Aust. Personally the 2 only differ in semantics and could all be lumped together AFAIKT... Quote: But importantly, when the government taxes they are reducing the amount of currency in circulation by exactly the amount of the tax. In this sense, taxes “unprint” money. A tax reduction is the accounting equivalent of spending more money (except the money doesn’t necessarily get allocated via the government political process as directly as it would via spending). From the perspective of the Federal budget, we can see that spending is like a tax cut (both tax cuts and spending add net financial assets to the private sector) and spending cuts are the accounting equivalents to tax hikes (as both reduce net financial assets to the private sector). Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner directly stated this in a recent media appearance: “Spending cuts are the same thing as a tax increase.” It’s important to note that the government does not maintain a coercive monopoly over the people. That is, currency viability is not merely based on the government’s ability to enforce its usage. As mentioned above, there are other components that play an equal or greater role in currency viability. But that does not mean that taxation and enforcement of taxation are not crucial in helping to sustain the viability of the system. Without rules and regulations that help sustain the fabric of the monetary system, the government that Americans have built long and hard to create would become increasingly fragile. The United States Secret Service was in fact created specifically for this purpose – to protect the US Dollar.8 There is arguably, nothing more important to government stability than maintaining the value and faith in the nation’s currency. If an economy is productive, the autonomous nation can enforce the use of said currency as the currency users will see the increases in public purpose and productivity as net benefits to their living standards. As long as the government is a sound steward of the currency there should always be demand for it. In other words, trust in the national currency is safe as long as the rule of law is maintained, government is a good steward of the currency and citizens are productive. If the government becomes corrupt, spends well in excess of productive capacity or mismanages the economy then there is an increasing chance of currency collapse (hyperinflation). Inflation becomes problematic when a nation’s spending outstrips productive capacity. This is a real reduction in our standard of living. Ultimately, the real benefit of our labor is the time it provides us. Adam Smith once said: “The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.” There is a theoretical level of infinite demand in a capitalist economy. What I mean by this is that, in an extreme sense, we can consume all that time will allow. If you were unconstrained by time you could, in theory, consume all that the producer can produce. Theoretically, this chicken and egg story can go on forever. Of course, the greatest luxury of all is quite finite. We are always constrained by time. The entrepreneur offers us the opportunity to take advantage of the ultimate luxury by giving us more time. Quote: How Could It Be Possible That Our Leaders Don’t Understand This? I believe these misconceptions persist due to three primary reasons: First of all, this is all highly complex. Understanding the functions of a monetary system is high finance. We cannot expect everyone to understand it and we should expect most theories and outlines of the modern monetary system to be somewhat incomplete due to the dynamic existence of modern economies. Second, this system in its current format is not very old and most of the people in power currently were educated by a generation in which this system was not largely applicable. Despite the fact that the world changed dramatically in 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window, we continue to work under theories and textbooks that don’t fully account for this change. Therefore, the theories of old run rampant in modern economic circles. Thirdly, politicians and ideologues have a vested interest in keeping the American public from understanding that the government is fundamentally different from a household, state or business. If the American public understood Modern Monetary Realism they might be more inclined to demand greater change – particularly in the ways that our banking system is designed. | |
05-16-2012, 02:58 PM | #40 |
And increases the cost of imports. The UK is a net importer of food, water, & energy. Just because something will increase exports does not mean it is a net gain for the country or its population. It is only a benefit for the companies in the export business. I won't argue the point though some of the perceived differences are not real.. i.e say you "bond" 100 mil in debt but decide to pay it off w/ a "money print" instead of a "tax collection".. which does less harm to the economy???? Personally the 2 only differ in semantics and could all be lumped together AFAIKT... The relentless expansion of credit by the Fed creates artificial disparities based on political privilege and economic power. David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher, pointed out that when money is inserted into the economy (from a government printing press or, as in Hume's time, the importation of gold and silver), it is not distributed evenly but "confined to the coffers of a few persons, who immediately seek to employ it to advantage." Monetary inflation is akin to counterfeiting, which necessitates that some benefit and others don't. After all, if everyone counterfeited in proportion to their wealth, there would be no real economic benefit to anyone. Similarly, the expansion of credit is uneven in the economy, which results in wealth redistribution. From the poor to the rich. The Fed doesn't expand the money supply by uniformly dropping cash from helicopters over the hapless masses. Rather, it directs capital transfers to the largest banks (whether by overpaying them for their financial assets or by lending to them on the cheap), minimizes their borrowing costs, and lowers their reserve requirements. All of these actions result in immediate handouts to the financial elite first, with the hope that they will subsequently unleash this fresh capital onto the unsuspecting markets, raising demand and prices wherever they do.” Inflation destroys debt. I think everyone can agree on that. The wealthy will have first access to the credit expansion and take on the most debt. They get to use it before prices & interest rates rise. They also benefit the most from the erosion of that debt after interest rates rise. The poor on the other hand wont have access to the new money until after prices and interest rates have adjusted up. Simply printing an extra $16 billion dollars and giving it to California does not address any of the structural problems in the state. Printing the money would actually be irresponsible. How much will California need next year? How many other states will follow California and spend beyond their means and expect the Fed to bail them out? California is not in trouble because it does not have extensive resources or wealth. California is in trouble because they are financially irresponsible. | |
05-16-2012, 03:53 PM | #41 |
blaming the victim comes to mind..... no it's because the US does not have "Universal Medicare" ect... They were responsive to people's needs.. if that is irresponsible than that is another moral NOT fiscal argument. | |
05-16-2012, 04:32 PM | #42 |
sure it would.. most is old carry over debt...and a trashed economy due to a US (not CA) economic collapse.. blaming the victim comes to mind..... now your preaching.. really????? People are "resouces" too.. hollywood and Silicone Valley also come to mind... Maybe the wealth is unevenly distributed and the tax system is regressive (just pulling your leg) no it's because the US does not have "Universal Medicare" ect... They were responsive to people's needs.. if that is irresponsible than that is another moral NOT fiscal argument. 2. No preaching. What will be the unintended consequences of bailing out California with printed money? 3. People are resources. I said California has plenty of resources. More than any other state. They don't need a bail out. 4. Really??? You want to turns California's economic problems in to a health care issue? Are you a lobbyist of the insurance industry? Neither the church nor the state gets to decide what is moral. You can not legislate morality. The very concept is completely subjective. Give me a real world example of where "print & pay" has been successful. MMT is great for the classroom, but show me where it is actually applied in the real world with success. Last edited by Winder; 05-16-2012 at 05:12 PM. | |
05-16-2012, 10:08 PM | #43 |
You may increase inflation by a hair but it beats recession. Or state bankruptcy. Neither the church nor the state gets to decide what is moral. You can not legislate morality. The very concept is completely subjective. Give me a real world example of where "print & pay" has been successful. MMT is great for the classroom, but show me where it is actually applied in the real world with success. as to MMT show me where anyone has tried without "falling back" on old misconceptions.. Japan really is as close as we can come before the "old farts" freak out (back and forth).. Say what you want about the "lost decade" but their people certainly didn't and don't suffer as much as we do...... and the yen is strong. all soviern nations use part of it.. just haven't embraced the "whole kit and kaboodle" how many people sailed to the US from mid-evil europe?? did it mean it didn't exist...... Besides the concept couldn't even work till 1972.. How fast do you think "society" changes??? NOT VERY FAST ..ever........ A Kindergarten guide to modern monetary theory Prepared by Frank Ashe Presented to the Institute of Actuaries of Australia 5th Financial Services Forum 13 – 14 May 2010 Sydney http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CFwQFjAC...vs8e30ytE7f2bQ Abstract A short guide to modern monetary theory is given. The approach is kept as simple as possible to highlight the logical coherence of the system of fiat money and its differences from a gold-standard theory of money. The role of the government is central to this discussion. Many common ideas concerning money, which are holdovers from a gold standard, do not hold under a fiat system and this has implications for financial systems. Keywords: money, gold standard, credit, modern monetary theory, fiat money When reading about modern monetary theory I suggest the following procedure: • Forget who you are. • Forget what you think of government – good or bad – unless you are going to be able to get rid of government (that is, establish pure communism) you are stuck with it. • Forget what you think of social policy – you may hate the unemployed or you may feel compassion – forget all emotions. • Forget what nation you live in – it doesn’t matter. • Forget all prior economic concepts and training (if any). • Then just try to understand what you read. Bill Mitchell1 Last edited by jeffkrol; 05-16-2012 at 10:19 PM. | |
05-17-2012, 05:56 AM | #44 |
SIDE JOURNEY............ Quote: The German chancellor was articulating the sentiments of almost the entire European political class, which is committed to the project. This view goes a long way to explaining the incompetence and ugly inhumanity with which the crisis has been handled so far. However, the reluctance of Mrs Merkel to abandon the European dream is at least understandable. David Cameron and George Osborne have no such excuse. And yet over the past few months the British Government has emerged as one of the most eloquent backers of the European project. Repeatedly, the Prime Minister has warned that it would be bad for Britain if the single currency fractured. He and the Chancellor have thrown their weight behind ever more expensive bail-out schemes. They have even encouraged the conversion of the European Central Bank from its early function as a guardian of financial stability to its new role as an activist participant in European bond markets. Mr Osborne has put our money where his mouth is, unnecessarily committing tens of billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ cash to the euro bail-out funds. [Related feature: What would really happen if the UK left the EU?] Earlier this week, the Chancellor took this approach to a new extreme. When even Mrs Merkel started to express her nervousness about saving Greece as its domestic politics descended into chaos, Mr Osborne grandly rebuked her, declaring: “It’s the open speculation from some members of the eurozone about the future of some countries in the eurozone which I think is doing real damage across the whole European economy.” As an extra gesture of support, he allows Santander, a Spanish bank, to run the accounting system for HM Revenue and Customs. Of course, Mr Osborne is right to think it would be wrong for a British chancellor to go out and undermine the economic strategy of our continental neighbours. But everyone would understand if he and Mr Cameron bit their lips and explained that we did not want to comment on private grief. Such an approach would be both diplomatic and statesmanlike. Instead, something strange has happened. Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne appear to have swallowed the official European line that unthinkable disaster will ensue when the euro collapses. And, of course, it will be messy when Greece exits the euro. But the truth is that the single currency has been calamitous for the peripheral countries of Europe, and will get more calamitous the longer they stay in. Now is the time for them to walk away. And here Britain’s traditional role should be to provide help and support for instance, by offering some of the most brilliant City minds to help the Greeks negotiate an elegant exit and plot a solvent future. Instead, the Chancellor is siding with Greece’s tormentors. Quote: ]The euro, he noted, “is the first currency that has not only severed its links to gold, but also its link to the nation”. Quote: Above all, the British Government needs to do its duty by the people of Europe. It is not Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne’s job to encourage the European political class further along the road with their demented project. It is gently to help find a way out of this monumental, self-created human tragedy. | |
05-17-2012, 10:28 AM | #45 |
Gay marriage is an excellent example of why the state should NOT be allowed to legislate morality. as to MMT show me where anyone has tried without "falling back" on old misconceptions.. Japan really is as close as we can come before the "old farts" freak out (back and forth).. Say what you want about the "lost decade" but their people certainly didn't and don't suffer as much as we do...... and the yen is strong. Japan embarked on a series of massive stimulus injections that did nothing but leave the country with a debt to GDP ratio of over 200%. Japan has to maintain a strong Yen or it is toast. A 1% increase in interest rates would make the interest payment on the Japanese debt greater than the governments budget. They are not in a happy place. MMT does not have to actually be implemented to gain credibility. The models and predictions need to be published and if these predictions and models are accurate people will become more interested. There were people who got it right and made the call as early as 1998. There were people who laid it out is amazing detail years before it actually happened. While I don't really like Schift, I have to respect him going on every TV show in the country in 2005-2008 and basically getting laughed at for screaming a loud as he could that the shit was about to hit the fan. Schift pretty much nails it. The guys on Fox Business & CNBC end up looking like total idiots in this. What can you post from the Rev. Bill Mitchell from 2005 where he lays it on the line and gets it right? Credibility is created by building a track record of making the right call. Last edited by Winder; 05-17-2012 at 02:12 PM. | |
|
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
burden, consumers, debt, uk |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
So, how's our austerity working? | Nesster | General Talk | 11 | 08-04-2011 05:02 PM |
Early results on UK austerity | jeffkrol | General Talk | 12 | 06-01-2011 08:40 PM |
Official Pentax K-5 bashing thread. | ilya80 | Pentax K-5 & K-5 II | 191 | 11-06-2010 09:13 AM |
Question Political bashing - is that OK here? | fernley | Site Suggestions and Help | 8 | 04-16-2010 01:15 PM |
K7 vs. Kx vs. K20D vs. K10D etc .. what's going on? Bashing revisited. | jpzk | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 37 | 02-08-2010 07:55 PM |