View Poll Results: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • The CE is "the man". He steers it all.

    1 3.23%
  • The CE may not be a dictator, but still desreves the bulk of the blame/credit.

    4 12.90%
  • The CE sets "the tone", but has little actual influence.

    17 54.84%
  • The CE has virtually no influence whatsoever.

    3 9.68%
  • Other?

    6 19.35%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 86

Thread: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

  1. #51
    Student Airborne375's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Last Seen
    10-21-12 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    276

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    It's not really regulation. Very few business owners are curtailing investment primarily because of that. Europe's debt crisis, low consumer confidence, coming large government cuts, Congress's inability to do anything useful all play a role.

    Citing purely regulation is a poor argument. It's more of an issue of uncertainty. You can't plan around regulation when you don't even know what it might be whether it is less or more.
    I agree with you assessment agreed.

  2. #52
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,118

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not really. I actually did a lot of that. Which I'm not proud of. But where I'm making amends and picking on people who actually deserve it.

    Note kiddies: This is what happens when a hackjob realizes he's getting his *** kicked. He starts making **** up to compensate for his lack of any skill whatsoever.

    Look Kiddies: Cpwill is either missing the point or deliberately changing the topic. Did I argue any of that was wrong? No. I merely pointed out that under Reagan, debt financing spending stimulated the economy. Cpwill argues that it doesn't and its actually a drag on the economy. Then he proceeds here to try to find a exception that proves his stated belief isn't wrong in a way that doesn't force him to completely disavow Reagan.

    Now, if Cpwill was honest (which we all know he's completely not), he'd admit that debt financed spending can and has stimulated the economy, particularly during one the presidency of a President the GOP likes to consider the Ideal Conservative.

    Yes, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.

    So you're calling the GOP Senate Minority leader, Speaker of the House and GOP House Majority leader not Conservatives? They took part in the massive spending that stimulated the economy. Let's see just what level of absurdity you're willing to go to maintain the internal contradictions you hold.

    I do agree with you on the Republicans =/= Conservatives. But some are.

    No, I merely repeat the history of Human behavior. We say one thing but when our own personal interests are threaten, we change our tune and do what serves our interests the best. Or are you completely unaware of recorded human history as you are unaware of so many things?

    Oh Look Kiddies: Cpwill is dancing around a question he does not want to answer. Everyone knows what you stated. But nothing you said addressed my point at all. Furthermore, from what we can see from your post, you are eluding to the notion that the GOP will let the economy go off a cliff merely to save their reelection chances but you seem to fail to understand the impact of a recession or a depression upon reelection chances.

    So here's a tough question which I'm betting you simply do not have the courage to answer:

    The GOP will let the economy go off a cliff rather than debt spend to prevent a massive recession?

    Yes or no. If you have the guts. Which I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt you have.

    Not when you understand how they did it. If German banks were forced to take the losses from their holdings quickly rather than have Merkel force austerity upon the nations in which they hold assets thereby granting them time to unwind their losses slowly and not at firesale prices and therefore avoid liquidity crisises within the German Banking system, they'd be in the same **** mess as the rest of Europe. Germany basically forced its pain on others so the German economy wouldn't have to suffer it. To some degree Germany is still paying for it via bailout funds, but that's very much more controlled then bank writeoffs reducing lending and liquidity within Germany. Someone made a **** load of money within the German government knowing just how long Germany would string Greece along.

    Note: It actually helps to know what is happening, rather than to operate how you do.

    Yes again, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.

    Who doesn't love a recession at the same time as increasing deficits enacted by a plan that lied about getting deficits under control? Romney lost all economic credibility when he backed that pile of turd.

    Actually I don't think stimulus is the answer. Furthermore, I have repetitively said that stimulus cannot cure a financial recession (you choose to ignore it simply because you are incredibly dishonest). Furthermore, I have constantly pointed out that the real problem is the house hold debt, primarily mortgages and the concept of deleveraging that is killing the recovery. That said, the notion that stimulus can't stimulate is to ignore economic history from Day 1.

    Making up more lies? Always fail? Really? Want to explain that to German in the 40s? How about Japan's Iron Triangle which directly lead to Japan becoming the 2nd largest economy (pre-contemporary China)?

    You posted a study that outright explicitly said that non-fiscal factors were not included. And you expect to be taken seriously for that.

    Thanks for proving you are in fact a liar. I never argued that it always works. I merely said that Kenysian does work. Does does not equate to always. I know you can read. That's why I call you a liar.

    And I did this where? Considering the fact that you had to lie about what I said, you're on incredibly shaky ground.

    And considering the fact that I have repetitively stated that stimulus spending cannot fix a fiscal crisis, you are even more on shaky ground.

    Lying about what others said is a pretty poor argument tactic there Cpwill. But thanks for providing evidence about your honesty.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/histor...post1059890996

    Does that sound like I'm arguing stimulus always works?

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058876674

    Cpwill wrong AND a LIAR?

    Whowouldthunk? Me actually.

    Why do you keep pretending you are smarter and know more than I?

    aw, look at that. for someone who claims to be such a toughie... someone sure is sensitive

    Yes again, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.
    Have you ever studied group dynamics? If so, you know how if someone has to insist that they are in charge.... it means they aren't?

    But hey man, whatever you need in order to tell yourself that You're A Big Bad Boy now. No one is ever more abusive than someone who was abused - but really, when it's spitting vitriol on an internet forum it makes you look like an emotional child. Just a heads up.

  3. #53
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    fyi Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    aw, look at that. for someone who claims to be such a toughie... someone sure is sensitive



    Have you ever studied group dynamics? If so, you know how if someone has to insist that they are in charge.... it means they aren't?

    But hey man, whatever you need in order to tell yourself that You're A Big Bad Boy now. No one is ever more abusive than someone who was abused - but really, when it's spitting vitriol on an internet forum it makes you look like an emotional child. Just a heads up.

    Im smarter than both you slugs

  4. #54
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,118

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    (I may regret doing this. Don'tfeedthetrollDon'tfeedthetroll...) But in there are a couple of nuggets worth responding to, because OC (despite his personal shortcomings) is smart - just not as brilliant as he thinks he is. Anywho, here they are:

    The GOP will let the economy go off a cliff rather than debt spend to prevent a massive recession?

    Yes or no
    The premise of the question is flawed. A significant portion of the GOP does not believe that an attempt to stimulate the economy through spending will be successful, and will therefore not see the question as whether or not to halt the economy from going off a cliff. A second - also not-insignificant portion of the GOP may believe in the potential for debt-produced keynesian spending to boost the economy, but has had their belief severely undercut by the experience of both the Bush and the Obama years. A third also not insignificant portion of the GOP may still believe that the government can net boost in the short term through Keynesian spending, but know that tying themselves to such an effort will mean getting primaried and losing the ability even to run for their seat. These three groups will prevent the remaining fringes of the GOP who may believe in the efficacy of Keynesian spending from passing Stimulus III.

    It is worth noting that of those three groups, only one of them (the first) existed during the Bush years, and it was dramatically smaller than it is now.

    Now, if Cpwill was honest (which we all know he's completely not), he'd admit that debt financed spending can and has stimulated the economy, particularly during one the presidency of a President the GOP likes to consider the Ideal Conservative.
    Reagan wasn't an ideal conservative. Only one man in history has been ideal, and He get's talked about in another forum entirely. Reagan was simply the right conservative at the right time to do some impressive things. However the theory that Reagan was a Keynesian would depend upon Reagan seeking deficit spending as a means of stimulating the economy. This is not reflected in any of Reagan's speeches or writings from that time period. Reagan took us out of a Recession and brought back impressive growth through reducing the burden of governance, particularly with regards to taxes, and breaking inflation. He considered a Deficit to be a problem, and the economic success we saw during that time period was in spite of the military build up, not because of it.


    incidentally, for everyone else, the study that OC is complaining about can be found here. In the WSJ one of the authors explains its' implications:

    ...Economic history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions. Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally been recessionary.

    My colleague Silvia Ardagna and I recently co-authored a paper examining this pattern, as have many studies over the past 20 years. Our paper looks at the 107 large fiscal adjustments—defined as a cyclically adjusted deficit reduction of at least 1.5% in one year—that took place in 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007.

    According to our model, a country experienced an expansionary fiscal adjustment when its rate of GDP growth in the year of the adjustment and the next year was in the top 25% of the OECD. A recessionary period, then, was when a country's growth rate was in the bottom 75% of the OECD.

    Our results were striking: Over nearly 40 years, expansionary adjustments were based mostly on spending cuts, while recessionary adjustments were based mostly on tax increases. And these results would have been even stronger had our definition of an expansionary period been more lenient (extending, for example, to the top 50% of the OECD). In addition, adjustments based on spending cuts were accompanied by longer-lasting reductions in ratios of debt to GDP.

    In the same paper we also examined years of large fiscal expansions, defined as increases in the cyclically adjusted deficit by at least 1.5% of GDP. Over 91 such cases, we found that tax cuts were much more expansionary than spending increases...
    Certainly many factors play into economic success or failure. That's why A) economics is not a hard science that is capable of being tested as finely tuned as, say, physics and B) you need a larger data set in order to average out those externals. I'd say 91 case studies consistently demonstrating the same effect would be fairly good enough, considering there is no better and larger available data set (that I am aware of, at least) than the OECD when it comes to taking a look at modern economies.

  5. #55
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,118

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Im smarter than both you slugs
    and the win goes to lpast

  6. #56
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    10-23-12 @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    110

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    In response to the more general question, "Does the government control of the state of economy?" the answer is "yes and no."

    "No," in the sense that in a market economy such as ours, individuals have a great degree of autonomy and choice with regard to their personal trade and investment decisions. After all, as any economics professor will tell you, "The Economy," in this sense, is a direct manifestation of the aggregate tastes and preferences of its participants. And certainly our government has neither the legal or moral authority, nor the practical capability to micromanage the multitude of transactions that comprise the American economy.

    And "Yes," in the sense that, by the same token, the powers that the government does have (independent of the question of whether or not they should have them) are fairly extensive and can be used to enact policies that do have a very tangible, real effect on the economic decision-making of millions of people, even in the absence of compulsory force. Our "free market" system, after all, is a function the government's willingness to sustain it. For instance, in an economic system devoid of any governing presence, there is no protection from deceit or coercion beyond one's own ability, yet mainstream economists emphasize this protection as an essential parameter of a "free market."

    So it can certainly be said that our government, as the entity ultimately responsible for protecting the framework of our economy, as well as the largest singular force within it, exerts a moderate degree of control.

    Now, to divide our government into it's three functional branches, I tend to conclude that the Executive is the least influential in terms of economic policy. Statutorily speaking, the veto is his only real say in the matter of fiscal policy (he is the Commander and Chief, a role from which he could potentially effect the economy substantially, but it is Congress that decides the budget of the forces he commands; and he proposes the federal budget, but, as our current situation clearly exemplifies, Congress is not obliged to take his advice). The President also, of course, indirectly controls monetary policy through the Federal Reserve, though it's been awhile since monetary policy constituted a politically divisive part of a President's platform (i.e., you'd have to go back a ways to find a runner-up in a Presidential campaign who likely would've handled monetary policy differently than the guy who ultimately won).

    Now, to the politically motivated question of "Whose mess is this?" I'll just say that I think that there's plenty of blame to go around. Republicans remain uninterested in implementing the kind of oversight of the financial sector that could help avert a repeat of 2008. Many Democrats, though not all, are likewise uninterested in consolidating the regulatory framework into one that presents fewer barriers-to-entry and continue to favor protectionist policies which serve to perpetuate our ever-growing trade deficit at the behest of organized labor and domestic businesses (simultaneously at the expense of consumers). Republicans under Bush set us on a frightening course of deficit spending, which now seems to perfectly satisfy the same Democrats who once railed against it. And we, the electorate, have demonstrated little inclination to intervene at the ballot box.
    Last edited by newfriend; 07-06-12 at 09:14 AM.

  7. #57
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    (I may regret doing this. Don'tfeedthetrollDon'tfeedthetroll...) But in there are a couple of nuggets worth responding to, because OC (despite his personal shortcomings) is smart - just not as brilliant as he thinks he is. Anywho, here they are:



    The premise of the question is flawed. A significant portion of the GOP does not believe that an attempt to stimulate the economy through spending will be successful, and will therefore not see the question as whether or not to halt the economy from going off a cliff. A second - also not-insignificant portion of the GOP may believe in the potential for debt-produced keynesian spending to boost the economy, but has had their belief severely undercut by the experience of both the Bush and the Obama years. A third also not insignificant portion of the GOP may still believe that the government can net boost in the short term through Keynesian spending, but know that tying themselves to such an effort will mean getting primaried and losing the ability even to run for their seat. These three groups will prevent the remaining fringes of the GOP who may believe in the efficacy of Keynesian spending from passing Stimulus III.

    It is worth noting that of those three groups, only one of them (the first) existed during the Bush years, and it was dramatically smaller than it is now.



    Reagan wasn't an ideal conservative. Only one man in history has been ideal, and He get's talked about in another forum entirely. Reagan was simply the right conservative at the right time to do some impressive things. However the theory that Reagan was a Keynesian would depend upon Reagan seeking deficit spending as a means of stimulating the economy. This is not reflected in any of Reagan's speeches or writings from that time period. Reagan took us out of a Recession and brought back impressive growth through reducing the burden of governance, particularly with regards to taxes, and breaking inflation. He considered a Deficit to be a problem, and the economic success we saw during that time period was in spite of the military build up, not because of it.


    incidentally, for everyone else, the study that OC is complaining about can be found here. In the WSJ one of the authors explains its' implications:



    Certainly many factors play into economic success or failure. That's why A) economics is not a hard science that is capable of being tested as finely tuned as, say, physics and B) you need a larger data set in order to average out those externals. I'd say 91 case studies consistently demonstrating the same effect would be fairly good enough, considering there is no better and larger available data set (that I am aware of, at least) than the OECD when it comes to taking a look at modern economies.




    Cp I agree with almost all your post...heres where you and I part company...what I believe is not based on theory or ideology...its based on my experience as I of course interrupt it.
    Im not real into t he belief that govt spending spurs the economy overall...if govt spending is on all levels for example public employees, they do in turn add to the economy just living their lives and spending for their needs.
    Where I parted company with the GOP after decades is the trickle down theory which I believe is a total bogus contrived con job. I do not believe that Tax cuts do a damn thing for the economy either except line the richs pockets...What spurs the economy is healthy employment and consumer buying...and employment and buying go hand in hand...but you cant have healthy employment and a healthy BUYING middleclass when the rich are so super greedy that they outsource all the jobs the can to squeeze another quick buck...
    We need more regulations not less...the banks and big business are out of control with criminality...because we lessened the regulations...Pharmacueticals paying billions in fines and big banks...the list goes on that you conveniently ignore cpwill...they steal billions up billions get a small fine in comparison and are just left to do it all over again....thats what has to stop...and the GOP will never stop it they only try to enhance it....along with taking from everyone else and giving to the rich guys in tax cuts and subsidies....

  8. #58
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,118

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Cp I agree with almost all your post...heres where you and I part company...what I believe is not based on theory or ideology...its based on my experience as I of course interrupt it.
    Im not real into t he belief that govt spending spurs the economy overall...if govt spending is on all levels for example public employees, they do in turn add to the economy just living their lives and spending for their needs.
    The problem being that this is a broken-window fallacy. That money that went to pay the public employees came from somewhere, and funneling it through public employees doesn't improve the economy any more than moving money from your money market account into cash in your wallet makes you wealthier.

    Where I parted company with the GOP after decades is the trickle down theory which I believe is a total bogus contrived con job. I do not believe that Tax cuts do a damn thing for the economy either except line the richs pocket...
    you have a real hard-on for these guys. what did successful people ever do to you?

    What spurs the economy is healthy employment and consumer buying...and employment and buying go hand in hand...but you cant have healthy employment and a healthy BUYING middleclass when the rich are so super greedy that they outsource all the jobs the can to squeeze another quick buck...
    ....



    We need more regulations not less...
    The Federal Registrar is beyond human comprehension. The States are almost as bad if not worse (depending on the state). According to the Small Business Association, the annual cost of the regulatory burden is $1.7 Trillion. We desperately need to start stripping regulation, assign clearer borders of responsibility between the different levels of governance, and reduce that burden. In addition, we need to provide some form of a "loser pays" incentive structure into the regulatory court system to incentivize regulators not to become abusive.

    the banks and big business are out of control with criminality...because we lessened the regulations...
    they are? do you have any support for this?

    Pharmacueticals paying billions in fines and big banks...the list goes on that you conveniently ignore cpwill...they steal billions up billions get a small fine in comparison and are just left to do it all over again
    You are right, I am missing it. Link it, please, so I can stop missing it.



    and you still have yet to answer my question about how you can support Obama when his plan cuts more from Medicare, and starts cutting for current seniors at that.

  9. #59
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,118

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Here is one fun example of the results of our over-regulated society: the emasculation of it.


    Two days before the Fourth of July, Lopez was fired for helping rescue a man drowning 1,500 feet outside of his designated zone.

    “It was a long run, but someone needed my help. I wasn’t going to say no,” Lopez told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and other media outlets.

    When Lopez filed his incident report, he was canned on the spot.

    “They didn’t tell me in a bad way. It was more like they were ‘sorry, but rules are rules,’” Lopez said. “I couldn’t believe what was happening.”

    The contractor that manages the lifeguard service has explained that the matter is out of its hands, too. Liability issues — i.e., fear of lawsuits, insurance requirements, etc. — demand a zero-tolerance policy for unauthorized lifesaving.

    It’s a small anecdote, to be sure. But does anyone doubt that there’s something about the legal regime in this country that’s creating a headwind against basic human decency? And I’m not just talking about trial lawyers and the politicians who love them.

    Last year, in Alameda, Calif., a man walked into the chilly — but not exactly freezing — waters of San Francisco Bay to commit suicide. It was a slow affair. The police and firefighters got there in plenty of time. But, due to union-backed rules, they simply declined to save the man’s life. They just stood on the beach and watched.

    Fire Chief Ricci Zombeck was asked what he would have done if it had been a child, rather than a suicidal adult, slowly drowning out there. He responded that if he was on duty he’d have let the kid drown, but if he was off duty he would have saved him...
    and etc. we're governed by endless little itty bitty grasping rules, and it leaves us little pawns unable to do even the most basically correct things.

  10. #60
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Which in the context of my point is irrelevant. I actually agree it wasn't primarily done for stimulating the economy. But it would take a total idiot to argue it didn't work to stimulate the economy.
    It did stimulate the economy. But it wasn't purpose of it. That was my point. It also bankrupted Social Security, escalated our debt, and put us in the situation we're in now. President Reagan began the "social security slush fund" habit and it has hurt us ever since. Thats CP's point. Stimulus works, sure. But the byproduct isn't worth it. Namely the debt we have and the dependence on future politicans to be responsible with the surplus produced. Anytime we depend on men to spend wisely later, we fail.
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Many of them perhaps, but I think there's a bigger issue here. The GOP only gives a **** about fiscal conservatism when it's the minority party. It's little more than a political tool to hammer the Democrats on. When the GOP takes power, all fiscal conservatism goes out the window and then spend like crazy with no sense of budgets.
    Actually, the Tea Party started under President Bush when he began using stimulus funds at the end of his second term in '08. That dispels the common argument that the Tea Party is simply an anti-Obama movement. At its heart, in the beginning, the Tea Party was about fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, etc. Now, its been hijacked (much like Occupy) by Christians and gun law people. That stuff is important, but not what the Tea Party is about. Fiscal conservatism isn't something that's going to go away if Gov Romney wins. Fiscal conservative Tea Partiers are replacing establishment Republicans on a pretty regular basis now. I believe Gov Romney will be attacked if he starts spending just like President Obama was.
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Look at the Ryan Plan. That doesn't even reduce the deficit in a material way for years. And it won't generate a surplus for decades to pay down the debt. Their tool to hammer the Democrats on Fiscal Conservastism doesn't even work to actually get us to the black.
    The Ryan Plan does ignore the largest problems our gov't has namely entitlements. But its better that what has been presented by the Senate and the POTUS. Which is A) Nothing and B) A plan that not even a single Dem would sponsor. The Dems are in the same boat with the budget as the GOP is with healthcare. They don't like the others plan but don't have a viable plan themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    The only real difference between an end product Republican society and a Democrat is how women get treated. We end up with big government either way and lots of red ink. The dems will enact a nanny state and the Republicans will enact a police state. Either way you don't get freedom. The only question is whether or not women end up with more rights.
    Women? You mean if they can abort or not? That's ridiculous. While I will agree with you that cookie cutter establishment GOPers are no different than Dems when speaking of spending habits, the "war on women" crap is nothing more than a re-election ploy by President Obama and his campaign staff to swing the womens vote his way.
    Last edited by MarineTpartier; 07-06-12 at 11:27 AM.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •