babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Canada housing bubble set to burst

NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

pop...!


Comments

NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Canada, Housing Bubble Set to Burst   -  by Mike Whitney

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/11/canadas-housing-bubble-set-to-burst/

"Canada's housing bubble is about to burst, and when it does, hundreds of billions in equity will be wiped out, unemployment will spike, and the economy willl sink into a protracted slump. Red alert in the great white north.."

 


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002
Often Counterpunch publishes rather strange articles and sources; I've never heard of Mike Whitney - has anyone? This has hit even the mainstream news here in Québec, with so much "growth" based on "housing" aka sprawl and real-estate speculation. There may well be a glut of condos on the market here very soon. Is that at all set to happen in the true condo-bubble-towns of Toronto and Vancouver? People do have to live somewhere, but the prices have become utterly absurd.

onlinediscountanvils
Offline
Joined: Jun 7 2012

lagatta wrote:
Often Counterpunch publishes rather strange articles and sources; I've never heard of Mike Whitney - has anyone?

 

His writing frequently appears on Counterpunch, but I'm not familiar with his work from anywhere else.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

I've seen articles written by him on other sites.  I don't mind so much reading views and opinion pieces by individuals who are relatively unknown, at least by comparison with established authors who are tasked to produce the mainstream vulgate.  The approved authors who enjoy wider exposure are assigned this status for a reason.  At least Whitney's contentions are well supported with gleanings from the horse's mouth itself, the financial press mostly.  And it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that former Goldman Sachs exec Mark Carney is quite adept at performing the 'see, hear, speak no evil' routine concerning economic bubbles.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

In his first paragraph he talks about the "same scenario" in the US, Japan, Ireland and Spain.  I am not an expert but from what I have read there seem to be many fundamental differences in what happened in those countries.  As well it seems to me that the housing market in Saint John's does not affect the market in Montreal and neither of them have any effect on the market in Vancouver.

Now if interest rates where to double in the space of a few years without a rise in incomes then a lot of people will be in trouble.  That was the scenario that caused the early '80's housing crash when rates rose about 80% from around 10% to 18% in the space of a year or two.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Whitney's article is very strange - polemical, pushy, chatty. And he lives in Washington state?

Here is an interesting 3-part series in the Globe, where they have big shots debating both sides of the housing bubble question.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

When you read articles in the mainstream press more often than not, they try to disguise any downturns or coming downturns. And then of course you also have the constant chatter of the conspiracy activists. 

Are there some good websites that give you the month to month, year to year, and decade to decade real estate prices for different municipalities/regions in Canada without all the noise from the real estate industry? 


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

NorthReport wrote:

When you read articles in the mainstream press more often than not, they try to disguise any downturns or coming downturns. And then of course you also have the constant chatter of the conspiracy activists. 

Remember that the MSM has a vested interest in being a real estate booster, as a significant part of its revenue comes from comes from real estate advertising and real estate firms have pulled advertising at times from newspapers that were critical of the industry or pessimistic about housing price trends. 


Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012

lagatta wrote:
I've never heard of Mike Whitney - has anyone?


Irrelevant. The text is the document for study, not the author, just like the Iliad is interesting but Homer isn't. And would his article be any more 'valuable' to you if it were written by Paul Krugman or someone more noteworthy?

unionist wrote:
And he lives in Washington state?


Irrelevant. Author residence has no sensible relation to the text.

unionist wrote:
Here is an interesting 3-part series in the Globe, where they have big shots debating both sides of the housing bubble question.

Thank you for the link.

First, none of these 'big shots' has expressed the basis for their predictions of the future, which explains the variance in the predictions between each pundit (e.g., non-agreement). Consider the following:

"What economic hit should Canada expect when the deleveraging and accompanying housing correction eventually set in? Pessimistically, reduced residential construction might slice 0.75 per cent off annual economic growth over a two-year period, a negative wealth effect might remove another 0.5 per cent a year, while a greater proclivity to save might subtract a further 0.5 per cent annually. When pitted against the recent trend of 2.5 per cent GDP growth, that would appear to leave only a meagre expansion."

The key word is 'expect' - expectation is a likelihood judgment - a probability. So what is the probabilistic basis for any of these predictions? There is no basis in statistical fact, only subjective impressions based on their 'feel' for the economy, sort of like someone asserting that a possibly fraudulent painting with no provinance is indeed a Van Gogh, without having specified 'reasons' why it should be so. They are selling you a fake. Why 0.75%? Why 0.5%? Why 2.5% GDP growth? Why not 2.2% growth, or 1.4%? It does matter. None of these 'uncertainties' is addressed, yet he has expressed very exact figures. Numbers are of paramount importance - he's being 'arrogant' to specify these figures - if he were 'honest' and not corrupted by the system, he'd express what are called 'confidence intervals', not ballparked numbers. He(they) give baseless hunches and we're supposed to suck it up as readers because these are prestigious bankers, and this is, after all, the very important and prestigious 'Globe and Mail'.

Second, risk is a subjective evaluation. I submit that million dollar thinkers who work for banks and financial institutions have, in virtue of their economic standing, completely different subjective evaluations of 'risk' than homeowners, and therefore are more 'resilient' to economic downturns, thus more 'risk taking' than the people for whom the 'risk' really matters - the homeowners. Furthermore, they all own stocks, and property, and they sell stocks (sometimes sell short) and they sell property, as do the firms they work for. How do they achieve objectivity when their financial worth is tied up in the very predictions they are making to a population which may be swayed by their words? In other words, why do you trust these people when you know they (very likely) stand to profit by moving the populace in one purchasing direction over another? I am not saying I 'know' they are corrupted, I'm saying it is reasonable to suspect it may be so, and my intuition that they're corrupted is at least as rooted in fact as the predictions they offer.

Third, experts are often overconfident in their predictions, and as a result, are less likely to modulate their predictions against what they do not know, and so, they tend to have predictions that are more variable (wild assed) and extreme than non experts (Kahneman). Their 'detachment' from the risk, their financial stake or entrenchment in the affairs of the economy (which can corrupt their motives) and their tendency to be extreme, makes them especially dangerous oracles.

The predictive accuracy of stock market financial experts is r = 0.01 (Kahneman) for 12 month predictions, and since a good deal of the economy rides on the stock market (+ luck) you can draw your own conclusions, and judge for yourselves whether you think these guys are full of shit.

Finally, I find it fascinating that Babble folks sniff at conspiracy notions, and question the credibility of the lesser known author on a harmless blog, are alert to his writing style and his relative obscurity, both of which are not relevant to the issue of whether or not what he says has any merit. Yet when it comes to the MSM, folks kind of 'forget' that it was the wild eyed conspiracy theorists, not the MSM, who were correct about the machinations and power mongering of Rupert Murdoch (and Mr Cameron) - conspiracy intuitions proved superior to the intuitions of experts who all crapped on the very notion of a conspiracy even though a conspiracy is precisely and exactly what existed at the time (and has been proven in subsequent committees and investigations by the UK - that's why he entered the PM residence from the rear). This is not to say expertise isn't valuable, but it is to say you should choose your experts wisely, and the Globe and Mail piece isn't the place you're going to find wise counsel.

See Kahneman (Status lovers - he's a Nobel prize winner in economics) Thinking Fast and Slow for reference.


onlinediscountanvils
Offline
Joined: Jun 7 2012

Rabble_Incognito wrote:
Finally, I find it fascinating that Babble folks sniff at conspiracy notions, and question the credibility of the lesser known author on a harmless blog, are alert to his writing style and his relative obscurity

 

You read a lot into that one question. I didn't think that's what was being implied, but I disagree with you nevertheless. I think knowing something about an author can be relevant, both to how you interpret a text, and to its credibility. 


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
 I think knowing something about an author can be relevant, both to how you interpret a text, and to its credibility. 

True enough.

 


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002
People who have read my input to babble over the years (I joined at the outset, after the Québec FTAA/ZLÉA/ALCA Summit and Countersummit - for some technical glitz reason I had to rejoin again in 2002), will remember that I am a long-term tenant association activist and certainly a person who is critical of developers and the real-estate industry, and of capitalist urban/suburban development in general. I don't think critics of the "system" are a whit less credible than bourgeois press or as one says nowadays, MSM. But I do think our writings have to be well-documented to stand up to their attacks. And just found it very odd that I had never heard of this writer. What JerryM says about developers and boosters applies equally to the car (and trucking) industry. Media are full of columns and fluff pieces worshipping the car, and it is very hard to get in enough analysis and information on the lethal effects of carcentrism, sprawl, and the choice to rely on long-haul trucking rather than rail. I'm sure we could find several other examples of business interests controlling not only outlooks, but stories chosen as noteworthy.

Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

lagatta wrote:
 I joined at the outset, after the Québec FTAA/ZLÉA/ALCA Summit and Countersummit 

Me too.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

lagatta wrote:
But I do think our writings have to be well-documented to stand up to their attacks.

It really doesn't matter because iron clad content is simply ignored and tossed into the irrelevant bin alongside everything else.  39% of Canadians either suspect or don't believe in evolution.  Interestingly, a similar percentage has provided us with the government we have today.  I'd argue that by and large, both percentages represent the same demographic.  It seems very few people are impressed or swayed by fact these days, and correspondingly, I believe people shouldn't place too much emphasis on the ability of fact to influence events.  It must be a source of continuous amusement for those who purposefully craft and trade in falsehoods and disinformation to know how diligent and quixotic the competition is.  Chasing it down to impress someone seems such a waste of time.


Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012

Slumberjack wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
 I think knowing something about an author can be relevant, both to how you interpret a text, and to its credibility. 

True enough.

Asking 'who', before assessing what is said, is a bias. And even liars can utter "1+1=2" and be correct, just like credible Prime Ministers of Canada can salute Adolf Hitler under the mistaken belief that he's 'good' for the world. Those who follow the lead of credible people spouting nonsense (or doing mischief) without appraising the act (or the text) independently of the actors, do so at their own peril.

Asking 'who', after assessing what is said, is only going to sway your views of the piece, or confirm your views of the piece, it certainly won't change the piece, it's accuracy, validity, or the predictions made therein. 

 

 

 

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

My problem with Whitney's article was not who the author is, or where he's from (except that he sounds like he's from Mars), but that it was amateurish, hyperbolic, and kind of like screaming in your face - in short, impossible to take seriously:

Quote:

Officials from the (Steven) Harper administration have repeatedly dismissed the idea of a bubble in order to lure more buyers into the market. Here’s an excerpt from an article in Reuters that makes that very point: [snip]

What a crock. Harper and his bank buddies know exactly what’s going on. They’re leading the sheep to slaughter and don’t give a damn who gets hurt. And all the nonsense about “tougher mortgage rules” is pure bunkum.

So tell me, dear reader, if the government agreed to guarantee 100% of every mortgage that you made, don’t you think you’d make a lot of crappy loans?

Of course you would, because the more mortgages you issued, the more money you’d make. It’s a question of incentives, bad incentives. That’s what’s going on in Canada.

Ummm, no, I wouldn't make a lot of crappy loans, dear author.

Then he really starts winding himself up:

Quote:

Are the officials in the Harper administration so braindead that they really don’t see the monstrous bubble right below their noses or do they have some other objective in mind, like creating the (crisis) conditions they need to rebuild the economy in a way that better serves the needs of their moneybags constituents?

Isn’t that it? Isn’t that what Bubblenomics is really all about, creating a Capitalist Valhalla where pay-for schools and pay-for roads and pay-for health care are the norm, where the old and infirm must drain their bank accounts to buy their own medication and shelter, where the sick and unemployed are left to fend for themselves, and where all the working class gains of the last century are wiped out in one fell-swoop plunging the country into a Dickensian nightmare of 7-day-16 hour-workweeks with zilch benefits and zero pension?

Very loopy.

My emphasis. Though I think the author didn't really need any more emphasis.


Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012

None of the oracles swayed me. Even the credible ones.

Predicting a bubble would require, in my mind, a considerable amount of empirical evidence to buttress one's claims, because what we're discussing is complex. And I'm not sure you can just deduce that a bubble is nigh. But if you predict it, it's incumbent on the author to specify 'when' it's gonna happen in terms of the precise circumstances required to make it happen. And then why these circumstances 'will' happen in the very near future. Still, all that work, and luck can still intervene and blow up your prediction - predictions of this kind should be expressed as confidence intervals, to my mind, for the reason I've just stated. Not attaching confidence to your prediction implies way more confidence than is credible.

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
Exactly.

NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

jerrym wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

When you read articles in the mainstream press more often than not, they try to disguise any downturns or coming downturns. And then of course you also have the constant chatter of the conspiracy activists. 

Remember that the MSM has a vested interest in being a real estate booster, as a significant part of its revenue comes from comes from real estate advertising and real estate firms have pulled advertising at times from newspapers that were critical of the industry or pessimistic about housing price trends. 

I thought that was what I was getting at with my post.

So what websites house accessable and useful historical housing price stats? 


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

Asking 'who', before assessing what is said, is a bias.

Well sure. But the fact remains that it may sometimes be relevant, and not only if it is a matter of professional credibility.

And good luck finding that exact predictor of when a bubble might burst. I suspect you might find the person with that answer lounging on a private yacht off Barbados, not giving the goods away for free.

 

 

 

 


GreenNeck
Offline
Joined: Aug 30 2005

There has been predictions of the housing bubble to burst for more than 5 years, and so far none of it happen.

One factor that keeps the bubble intact, at least in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, is the influx of buyers from abroad, particularly China.

A friend of mine who works as a real estate agent in Toronto said most of her business if for clients from China and India. They see Canada as a safe haven, in the case things go bad, and they have money - lots of it. In a recent example, my friend sold a 60-year old, 800 square foot bungalow for almost a million dollars in Willowdale to a couple from Shanghai. The new owners promptly had the small house bulldozed and are now building a mansion on the property. You see that all over Toronto.

The only thing that could precipitate a market collapse (besides an interest rate spike) would be a major downturn in Asia, which would cause commodity prices to drop. As natural resources go, Canada goes.


Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012


6079_Smith_W wrote:


Rabble_Incognito wrote:


Asking 'who', before assessing what is said, is a bias.



Well sure. But the fact remains that it may sometimes be relevant, and not only if it is a matter of professional credibility.

And good luck finding that exact predictor of when a bubble might burst. I suspect you might find the person with that answer lounging on a private yacht off Barbados, not giving the goods away for free.


Thanks for the reply. The dude on the yacht got lucky. And getting lucky is pleasurable. ;-) Until that 'fact' is quantified, credibility is a 'could be' notion. I don't like to conflate 'possible', or 'plausible', with 'probable'- to each his own. And yeah, I don't care for single factor causality, exccept say "I'm hungry therefore I eat" or "I'm horny therefore I screw". Aside from a few single cases like that, most people in the social sciences posit multiple factor causality. Kahneman has convinced me that predicting the future is a crapshoot - kind of pulled the rug out from beneath - heightened the humility factor, which is 'good' because it forces us to be more critical of the fast (and lazy) choices we make.


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

GreenNeck wrote:
There has been predictions of the housing bubble to burst for more than 5 years, and so far none of it happen.

One factor that keeps the bubble intact, at least in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, is the influx of buyers from abroad, particularly China.

A friend of mine who works as a real estate agent in Toronto said...

Facts and Anecdotes: anti-Asian racism and real estate in Vancouver

A recent BMO report blames Canada’s unsustainable household debt and world-record housing prices on an “enormous inflow of capital from non-resident Chinese nationals.” When a journalist wrote to the author of the report in search of a source for these enormous inflows, he received the following response: “It’s based on anecdotal reports; there are no reliable data on foreign-resident purchases…If you find a good source of data, please pass it on to us.”

Despite the entrenched belief that since the 1980s the Chinese have succeeded in throwing off the equilibrium of the local housing market, the reality is that the vast majority of foreign residential real-estate in Vancouver is American-owned. According to 2010 property statistics collected by BC Assessment Authority (the provincial Crown corporation that assesses all properties in B.C. for tax purposes), about 58% of foreign-owned real-estate is American. Europe and the United States together account for 70% of all foreign-owned real-estate in the city, with the whole of Asia accounting for only 22%.

In response to these numbers, commentators who hope to peg the housing crisis on Asian capital maintain that while the volume of purchases from Asia is lower, it is the nature of those purchases that matters, since Asian buyers are bidding for luxury housing at the top and dragging the rest of the market upwards with them. Again, reality disrupts the myth. In 2010, the highest recorded purchases were from the United States ($7.17m) and Europe ($7.55m), while the highest Asian purchase was a Hong Kong owner, reaching $6.84m.

Despite the facts, numbers are often not enough to compete with anecdotes. Regardless of the data, the notion of Asian capital as a dominant category for understanding the housing crisis persists, with constant statements to the effect that “despite the lack of statistical proof,” “despite the dearth of empirical data,” “despite reports that point to the contrary,” the threat is nonetheless real. These types of analysis invoke a set of signifiers – “Asian,” “foreign,” “offshore” – that in reality serve as empty signifiers: they mean nothing but can absorb whatever prejudice is found lying around. The empty signifier is a floating signifier meant to displace blame wherever necessary.


Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012

Sorry for the posting flurry...

GreenNeck wrote:

There has been predictions of the housing bubble to burst for more than 5 years, and so far none of it happen.

One factor that keeps the bubble intact, at least in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, is the influx of buyers from abroad, particularly China.

A friend of mine who works as a real estate agent in Toronto said most of her business if for clients from China and India. They see Canada as a safe haven, in the case things go bad, and they have money - lots of it. In a recent example, my friend sold a 60-year old, 800 square foot bungalow for almost a million dollars in Willowdale to a couple from Shanghai. The new owners promptly had the small house bulldozed and are now building a mansion on the property. You see that all over Toronto.

The only thing that could precipitate a market collapse (besides an interest rate spike) would be a major downturn in Asia, which would cause commodity prices to drop. As natural resources go, Canada goes.

Excellent - very interesting because the influx of foreign buyers has been a question I've had for a few years and it didn't occur to me that this could be so in Toronto (Van yes), see, I've been looking at the bottom of the market <$100K for some time, and it's been evident to me that for the past 2 years there have been a lot of fractured homes on the market, but they do get bought. Windsor market is best, Cambridge, London, the manuf belt. etc., 

I check the bottom end of MLS (wc is c. 2-3% above market $) and people are still flipping homes (thus inflating prices), plus, I suspect the Harper bank bailout means that the banks are sitting pretty, able to hold these properties and take the loss from the PrevOwnrs bankruptcy (CMHC insurance probably paid the bill for the bankruptcies, right? Not entirely sure I understand all the players - I've never bought.).

The banks didn't seem to lose - I recall a report suggesting $120B - is that right?. I think Harper wants prices high - zero market correction - it's bad politics, and Harper wants political wins. I believe/imagine/guess the banks are holding onto places and are willing to lose the houses to bugs, rot, lack of maintenance, because they can hold the property until the (land value now) = (the land plus house value of 5 years ago).

Do you think Harper is increasing the 'economic' immigrants over the 'refugee and other' immigrants so they can buy up the properties left behind by bankrupt workers? 

I have no clue whether this makes any sense - never studied economics.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

The far eastern invasion we are concerned about here is from Calgary.

VERY far east.

 


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Thanks Catchfire for dispelling that racist myth.

On the coast, especially for recreational property, many of the absentee owners are from the oil patch in Alberta


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

 - from the same paper, the same day Laughing

Risk of Canadian housing bubble appears to be easing, Fitch says

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/r...

Housing market will crash: research firm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/market-blog/housin...

521


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

The two articles are not entirely at odds. It comes down to perspective on where we are today.

If you were afraid a bubble would happen but did not think we were yet in a full blown bubble crisis the easing of the prices would give you reason to think the risk of a future bubble was going down. Certainly I'd agree that the risk of a future bubble is easing if prices are flat or going down. The disagreement is if we are already in a bubble. Even if future risk is reduced, if we are in a bubble already it can still burst even if we no longer add air to it.

The other article is taking the easing of prices as a sign that we are in a bubble already and it is now collapsing.

Either the easing of prices will prevent things from getting worse or they represent the worst that is to come.

I think that we are in a bubble-- evidenced by the home prices to wages gap which has grown over the last few years. The problem is a flat market may not be air coming out of the bubble at all because wages are also flat. If wages are flat and the bubble is there and prices are flat then this means the bubble is merely holding either to deflate or burst later.

This is the main question for those who are not biased: not if we have a bubble but how it will be reduced-- either with a painful burst or a slower deflation. I suspect that bursting is more likely than a soft landing now. If we were to have a soft landing the prices would have had to ease while there was some growth in wages. A flat market in housing while wages are growing a bit would take air out of the bubble. However once wages are flat the only way air goes out is if prices go down. It is easier for prices to stay flat than to go down a little. Once they start to slide it is difficult to stop that from being a more major drop because fears, expectations are harder  to contain when there is an actual drop and easy to contain when there is stability.Also the bubble grew far too long and the pressure is too much.

Of course there are multiple markets in Canada that do have an effect on each other but it is not a given that the whole country will go in the same direction.

All this said, I am a renter so I have the bias of hoping prices will come down so I could one day afford to own a home.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Who operates this website?

 

http://www.livingin-canada.com/house-prices-canada.html

 

Canadian Cities
Average House Prices
January 2012

City / Average House Price / 12 Month Change

Vancouver, BC / $752,000 / - 1.3 %

Toronto, Ont / $464,000 / + 8.5 %

Calgary, Alb / $382,000 / - 3.1 %

Ottawa, Ont / $350,000 /  + 6.0 %

Montreal, Que / $311,000 / + 5.6 %

Regina, Sask / $285,000 / + 9.5 %

Halifax, NS / $259,000 / + 2.9 %

Fredericton, NB / $159,000 / + 10.7 %

Canadian Provinces
Average House Prices
January 2012

Province / Average House Price / 12 Month Change

British Columbia$ / 532,000 / - 3.0 %

Ontario / $359,000 / + 6.3 %

Alberta / $343,000 / - 1.7 %

Quebec / $259,000 / + 2.7 %

Saskatchewan / $261,000 / + 5.4 %

Newfoundland / Labrador / $274,000 / + 16.4 %

Manitoba / $228,000 / + 2.6 % 

Nova Scotia / $211,000 / + 1.7 %

New Brunswick / $149,000 / - 1.2 %

Prince Edward Island / $146,000 / - 2.3 %

Canadian Average / $348,000 / + 1.2 %



Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

That website is interesting and suspect.

First there is no statement about who they are or their purpose.

Second there is no contact information or even a contact form so you can't send them a message.

Third they have picked a brand name that is completely unsearchable.

Fourth they do not cite any sources for their information.

Their information in several respects is also wildly inaccurate. (The idea that you could have a head nurse supervisor in Calgary working for under $18 an hour should tell you something).

Much of the writing seems to be cut and paste without attribution from other websites that also claimed copyright over the words.

It is possible the site is a amateur trying to generate google ad income or there is something else behind it.

Certainly the site ought to have no credibility given how it is presented.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments