tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post7594937141204866341..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Monetary versus Fiscal: an odd debateMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7277724800994799032014-01-26T16:23:03.098+00:002014-01-26T16:23:03.098+00:00Are you seriously asking why Say's Law is wron...Are you seriously asking why Say's Law is wrong? Sigh.<br /><br />Most economist (except for Post-Keynesians) actually think that Say's Law is right most of the times except during recessions. In a recession we witness two facts: output (growth) falls and millions of people become INVOLUNTARILY unemployed. Technically this means that we have an excess supply in the output and the labour market.<br /><br />By the way, there is nothing "Keynesian" about opening your eyes and seeing that even without supply side shocks like e.g. during the oil crisis an economy can enter a recession and become demand-constrained unless "Keynesian" is supposed to mean "connected to reality".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-50462748811795224622014-01-17T15:07:25.207+00:002014-01-17T15:07:25.207+00:00It's the politics, stupid (to coin a phrase......It's the politics, stupid (to coin a phrase...).<br />I simply don't understand why economics is no longer called the study of the political economy.<br />Beliefs (I am delighted that MW participated on this blog), entrenched interests, biases etc. etc. all are expressed in economic outcomes.<br /><br />I recommended a stock that was not bought, it ended up doing well. The PM blamed me - he said I didn't do my job if I couldn't get a good idea into the portfolio.<br /><br />That's the way it works - if we have bad econ policy - it's not the policy makers fault it's the economists fault. You aren't doing your job if you can't get good economic policy implemented.<br /><br />Economists have once again set themselves too easy a task by simply studying the economy and blaming someone else for the politics.<br /><br />To know and not to act is not to know. Economists don't know a thing if they can't make it happen.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15136541075745913165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-50289124529005242752014-01-13T16:23:55.099+00:002014-01-13T16:23:55.099+00:00Great post. Surely the answer you seek was given f...Great post. Surely the answer you seek was given five times by Martin Wolf? It's all about 'Belief'. <br /><br />Belief depends on how the brain's "Happy Chemicals" wired up the neurones of people's brains to avoid the stress hormone, Cortisol, or to seek the reward chemicals Dopamine and Serotonin. How their brains are wired depends on what was happening in their lives when they were pre-schoolers and again when they were teenagers when new neurone pathways were being created. <br /><br />Look at the economic and political circumstances that shaped the lives of today's decision makers and you might see why they cling to ideas that can be proven to be at odds with both facts and theory; it's got nothing to do with logic. Decisions are not made logically, they are chosen by what 'feels right' - then logic is later used to justify those decisions.<br /><br />Hence you have people such as Osborne (b. 1971) and Cameron (b.1966) who were exposed to their families' stress during the Arab oil crisis in the early 70s, and then to the Thatcherite application of monetarism and privatisation as solutions to this stress in their teenage years. Consequently, their neurone pathways will always make them uneasy about any solution that is different to those they grew up with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-62285694121484643562014-01-12T18:53:01.336+00:002014-01-12T18:53:01.336+00:00@ Alphonse, Monetary policy is indeed redistributi...@ Alphonse, Monetary policy is indeed redistributive, big time. It favours the financial sector, at least to some degree. Above all, it favours debtors in this situation.Martin Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06865994744430634646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-45710921311958522522014-01-12T18:49:52.374+00:002014-01-12T18:49:52.374+00:00@ Tim Young, I find most of this very puzzling. Bu...@ Tim Young, I find most of this very puzzling. But then, as you know, I usually do. <br /><br />We agree on the last paragraph. So there is no debate there. <br /><br />On the first paragraph, why do you say that the debt increases inexorably? In fact, it does no such thing. UK debt has exploded relative to GDP over the last three centuries in only two situations - world wars and a huge financial crisis. There is absolutely no reason to believe it rises "inexorably", because it doesn't. <br /><br />In fact, the UK public debt was extraordinarily low, by all historical standards, as the country entered into the Great Recession. I know I have made this point often. But it happens to be true. Yes, that was partly because of inflation in the 1960s-70s. But then the UK had a real mountain of debt to get rid of after WWI and WWII, not, like now, a mere molehill.<br /><br />You say that I have only "blind faith" in a sustainable upturn. Now if this were, say, 1850, that would seem a reasonable point. But we have now had two centuries of a "sustained upturn". You surely have to have "blind pessimism" to believe the economy is never going to grow strongly again. <br /><br />As to the fear of some terrible bond market crash, well I think you really have to do much much better than such vague fear-mongering. What are the probabilities, in your view, and at what point do they kick in? How much bigger are they at a net debt ratio of 110 per cent, instead of 90 per cent? What difference does it make as well if the country borrows for investment? I would have thought that if the country has been able to more-than-double its debt ratio and end up with far cheaper debt than before, you would feel that you need to produce something better than a completely unspecified bond-market bogeyman.Yes, choices have to be made. But since you haven't produced an empirically-grounded argument, it doesn't seem to me to be very difficult to make that choice. You say we are close to an irretrievable point NOW. Prove it. You can't of course, by definition. It's just scare-mongering. But I can prove that the UK has had more debt than this for much of its history without any of the catastrophic consequences you cite. Now that is a fact.<br /><br />By the way, the answer to your question on why fiscal policy works is, in monetarist terms, "velocity of circulation". The most important point about a recession, for a monetarist, is that either M collapses of V collapses (or possibly both). M did not collapse. So V did. But the government can borrow idle money and make it circulate faster.<br />Martin Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06865994744430634646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-85014989254959782332014-01-11T15:35:51.698+00:002014-01-11T15:35:51.698+00:00By the work above, you see the velocity of money(m...By the work above, you see the velocity of money(money creation), on the balance sheets between banks and corporations, or between banks and households under bubble. That is, money is created between banks and corporations, or between banks and households on the balance sheet. You will also see that central bank unable to control money creation. This all happens under people’s expectation that price of real estate should rise. The balance sheets among these three entities(banks, corporations and households) swell. This is what the monetarist suggested before. Because money creation is uncontrollable by central bank under bubble nowadays, certain new model that enables control is needed. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15895261283463889601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-76550463725409484862014-01-10T20:59:31.261+00:002014-01-10T20:59:31.261+00:00This debate is a bit like the oxbridge boat race. ...This debate is a bit like the oxbridge boat race. I'll just jump in the river, if I may. Many believe structural policies are the only thing to have a lasting impact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-47563562982029349572014-01-09T08:41:15.941+00:002014-01-09T08:41:15.941+00:00Yamada's describes the situation very well. It...Yamada's describes the situation very well. It sounds like it comes from someone who is seeing the situation first hand. It reflects a very Japanese understanding about the situation. This was the Japanese language discussion in Japan the late 90s, 2000s. (Not the English language discussion by Japanese economists, many who did their education at MIT and were probably not even in the country.) At this time, US economists, including the Great Bernanke and Krugman were saying Japan had too much debt! Anyway, both are on the right side now, and at least can admit their mistakes. What I would like a few more to do is to put the models and gimmick away and actually look at what is going on. That involves looking at bank and central bank balance sheets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-39957837420057231942014-01-09T00:12:24.067+00:002014-01-09T00:12:24.067+00:00Completely agreed that no intellectual logic appli...Completely agreed that no intellectual logic applies, although practical considerations with especially investment in infrastructure (probably the least controversial fiscal stimulus) surrounding the whole planning procedure mess in many Western countries, could play a role to. I am writing this from Singapore, where that obviously does not apply. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-79946614744479713162014-01-08T14:48:48.122+00:002014-01-08T14:48:48.122+00:00Mr Wren-Lewis,
I recommend you to write balance s...Mr Wren-Lewis,<br /><br />I recommend you to write balance sheets of entities(corporation, household, bank, central bank and government) on a sheet of paper, and guess what happened to each balance sheets before the bubble, at the peak of bubble and after the burst of bubble. This process is needed to get the whore picture.<br /><br />Banks make loans to the entities to purchase the real estate(or MBS), and the price of real estate surge. One must think how velocity of money will be described on the sheet, and how money creation under peoples’ expectation (that the price of real estate will go up) will be described. Every entities behave to maximize their profit on balance sheet. <br /><br />But once the bubble burst, every entity(corporation and household) behave to sell the real estate and minimize(repay)their debt. They don’t want to borrow money any more. Every Bank tries to collect its loan, which leads to ZLB.<br /><br />One must remember that, when bubble burst, face value of real estate will disappear from their balance sheets. Not that cash has disappeared.<br /><br />To rescue the situation, FRB, ECB and Bank of Japan had to purchase government bond and finance its government for fiscal policy. <br /><br />In this situation, for the governments to repay their government bond aftermath, they must bring <br />about bubble again, or, the new monetary policy is needed, as below.<br /><br />https://sites.google.com/site/newmonetarypolicy/<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15895261283463889601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-32929141600818342252014-01-08T12:49:41.598+00:002014-01-08T12:49:41.598+00:00Voiced concerns are not the real concerns. The rea...Voiced concerns are not the real concerns. The real rationale is simple: monetary policy is not redistributive; fiscal policy can be redistributive. The further we are down the road to plutocracy, the more opposition there will be to fiscal policy.Alphonsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02441923856941011283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-33280860437453299292014-01-08T08:40:47.502+00:002014-01-08T08:40:47.502+00:00Interesting point SpinningHugo. I also wonder, I g...Interesting point SpinningHugo. I also wonder, I guess the reason why unconventional MP at the moment is monetarising private sector liabilities rather than government debt (long or short term) is the government is cutting back (to some extent). But can you really say we have contractionary macro-policy at the moment with the BOE purchasing on the scale it has been? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-48858997665503706032014-01-08T08:21:22.512+00:002014-01-08T08:21:22.512+00:00Ironically the upswing we now have could be taken ...Ironically the upswing we now have could be taken by Keynesians as vindicating their stance. Look (they can say) the economy is now returning to trend, the previous years of growth were not after all an illusion. there was no long term risk in running a loser fiscal policy, and all you have done is delayed the inevitable.<br /><br />The real problem with fiscal policy is not theoretical, but practical. Political constraints in a democracy prevent fiscal policy being used save at the margins. So, we can bring forward or postpone infrastructure investment, or CGT a bit, but the political cost in (say) introducing a serious LVT or really cutting into the welfare budget is too high. It only ratchets one way, and all any government can do is slow its progress.<br /><br />See recent history for proof. Despite all the rhetoric about austerity in the UK (which bizarrely economists seem to have taken at face value) Osborne has hardly been able to cut anything from overall expenditure. When Labour win in 2015, we'll have a 50% top rate again, but no radical reorganisation of tax.<br /><br />Real austerity was possible in Ireland and Spain because the governments were left wiht no choice: cut or leave the euro. <br /><br />Monetary policy has its limits (see the political limit reached on Black Wednesday) but is a lever that it is politically possible to pull.SpinningHugohttp://twitter.com/spinninghugonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-77057812257128315942014-01-07T19:42:17.096+00:002014-01-07T19:42:17.096+00:00Actually I think that the deadweight loss point wa...Actually I think that the deadweight loss point was different. I would say it is about tax smoothing, meaning that having periods of low taxes in recession (assuming stimulus is carried out as lowering taxes) and periods with high taxes after recession is inferior to an arrangement with average taxes.<br /><br />So even with ideally constructed fiscal stimulus that is timely and that does not distort how ideal long-term level involvement of government in economy as is decided in political process, it is still inferior from welfare point of view. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14853090724221729923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-21284214912647137222014-01-07T18:48:29.908+00:002014-01-07T18:48:29.908+00:00Simon wants to know where the “desire to downgrade...Simon wants to know where the “desire to downgrade the usefulness of fiscal policy… comes from”. Some of it comes from the following inconsistency in one of the basic arguments behind market monetarism (at least MM a la Scott Sumner).<br /><br />In Sumner’s introduction to MM, he says (Item No.10) that “Some of us are skeptical of fiscal stimulus, partly because we think monetary stimulus is more efficient for the usual deadweight cost of future taxes reasons, and partly because the central bank might offset the effect by targeting inflation or NGDP.” See:<br /><br />http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=13353<br /><br />As to the “deadweight cost of future tax” I assume he’s referring to the fact that if those in receipt of fiscal stimulus dollars/pounds think their windfall will be confiscated by future tax, that will substantially reduce their desire to spend the windfall. Well fair point. <br /><br />But at the same time, and in reference to monetary stimulus, he says “…that monetary stimulus is only effective when it is expected to be permanent, is something I’ve been arguing since 1993, and Krugman picked up on in 1998. It’s a core component of market monetarism. Nick Rowe once said that policy is 99% expectations of the future path of policy and 1% the current stance.” See:<br /><br />http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25779<br /><br />In short Sumner is saying that fiscal policy is not too effective because windfall recipients think their windfall with be confiscated. But at the same time he admits that for monetary policy to work, the impression must be given that windfalls WON’T BE confiscated!!! Hardly a fair way of comparing fiscal to monetary policy!!<br /><br />Second, there is Sumner’s claim that fiscal policy may be ineffective because “the central bank might offset the effect by targeting inflation or NGDP.”<br /><br />Well now, to criticise fiscal policy because the central bank might negate it is not a good argument against fiscal policy. That’s like saying that turning your central heating on is a waste of time because someone might turn it off again. Alternatively it’s like saying “I’ve decided to dig a hole with a shovel rather than a spade, therefor spades are useless.” There is a choice as to whether to use monetary or fiscal measures (or some combination) just as there is a choice as to whether to use a spade or shovel.<br /><br />Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-27199088270421461412014-01-07T18:34:19.356+00:002014-01-07T18:34:19.356+00:00@Kevin and Herman, Thanks. I will read and try to...@Kevin and Herman, Thanks. I will read and try to understand!Tim Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-73755695298263982212014-01-07T18:25:15.928+00:002014-01-07T18:25:15.928+00:00The Nobel winner in question, Lucas, retreated ve...The Nobel winner in question, Lucas, retreated very quickly, claiming his views had 'evolved'. John Cochrane also later said that he did not believe in Say's law.<br /><br />The claim that Say's Law fails in a monetary economy is not controversial. <br /><br />An ungated NBER version of the Blanchard paper is<br /><a href="http://economics.mit.edu/files/656" rel="nofollow"> here.</a>Hermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-73250618956690792232014-01-07T14:53:09.446+00:002014-01-07T14:53:09.446+00:00Monetary policy can be marginally effective at the...Monetary policy can be marginally effective at the ZLB.<br />It has been tried and the results are in.<br />Monetary policy at the ZLB is woefully inadequate. Krugman is correct.<br /><br />Better to use fiscal policy to push the economy away from the ZLB into conditions where monetary policy can be more effective. Advocates of monetary policy dominance would be wise to choose an inflation rate that is farther above the ZLB than 2 percent to avoid the zone of monetary impotence. <br /><br />Monetary policy works primarily as a set of brakes on a sound economy. By applying or easing the brakes, the rate of growth can be controlled.<br /><br />In a economy at the ZLB there is inadequate natural growth. Easing the monetary brakes does not return output to capacity. Monetary policy is only useful for braking an economy. Generating demand in a slack economy requires a heavy does of fiscal intervention.<br /><br />-jonny bakhoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-31855840726810844332014-01-07T13:47:52.727+00:002014-01-07T13:47:52.727+00:00Try downloading the Blanchard paper here (works fo...Try downloading the Blanchard paper here (works for me but YMMV):<br /><br />http://www.nber.org/papers/w7550<br />Kevin Donoghuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534540865029864916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-1020920142546619362014-01-07T13:15:42.247+00:002014-01-07T13:15:42.247+00:00I think you miss the point.
1. NKs (or Krugman a...I think you miss the point. <br /><br />1. NKs (or Krugman anyway) have denied the efficacy of monetary policy at the ZLB. MMs vigorously dispute this.<br /><br />2. MM's assert that if the CB targets an NGDP level and actually sticks to the target that any fiscal policy is superfluous and will in any case be offset by a change in monetary policy in order to maintain adherence to the original target. Or to put it another way, MMs don't dispute the efficacy of fiscal policy .... just its necessity.<br /><br />3. MM's would contest the existence of what you call unconventional policy. To MMs monetary policy is very simple.... there is a target: NGDPLT; and there is tool: the exchange of money for financial assets (and it doesn't much matter whether you call the tool OMP, or QE, or asset purchases since these are primarily only differences in nomenclature).<br /><br />Dan Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01354902389242286031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-91193373750038072882014-01-07T13:05:18.209+00:002014-01-07T13:05:18.209+00:00Automatic fiscal stabilizers are the first respons...Automatic fiscal stabilizers are the first response of choice to an economic downturn; monetary policy is a second choice and slower than automatic stabilizers. Automatic stabilizers are so ingrained they are ignored in conversations about the speed of fiscal versus monetary response. Fiscal stabilizers are inadequate and should be expanded. Few would disagree about the value of automatic stabilizers (which are fiscal policy) so most everyone would agree that some fiscal policy is important. <br /><br />What about other fiscal policy (stimulus)? Milton Friedman developed his monetary policy theory in an era when fiscal policy was adequate in most economies. This gave a false notion that fiscal policy is not important. Now we are in a era when too many economies have woefully inadequate fiscal policy. Surprise: No monetary policies are adequate! All are impotent. The best monetary policy cannot fully compensate for bad fiscal policy. We are try to answer the question, "Given woefully inadequate fiscal policy, what is the best monetary policy?" This is a difficult question to answer because no monetary policy will adequately address the economic problems. The better question to ask and pursue is "What combination of fiscal and monetary policies are needed to get economies back on track".<br /><br />-jonny bakhoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-45104038157399781732014-01-07T12:36:24.518+00:002014-01-07T12:36:24.518+00:00Well, if it is so obvious to you, but apparently n...Well, if it is so obvious to you, but apparently not to various Nobel-winning economists, why Say's Law is false, perhaps you would care to contribute to the related discussion a couple of posts ago: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2014/01/economic-standards.html?showComment=1388918031566#c4378291938584780069<br /><br />As I said there, something that annoys me about Keynesians is their jibes, like yours here, that doubters are just wrong, apparently without feeling the need to offer any kind of supporting argument (I cannot access the Blanchard article). The tale of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.Tim Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15552758795100732332014-01-07T10:42:01.724+00:002014-01-07T10:42:01.724+00:00Two questions:
1) What is "unconventional mo...Two questions:<br /><br />1) What is "unconventional monetary policy"? Is monetary policy targeting 2% inflation unconventional? Is practice of central bank to print money unconventional?<br /><br />2) What is "interest rates"? Did you mean real interest rates? Is central bank unable to lower or at leat to threaten to lower real interest rates by inducing inflation?<br /><br />The most frustrating aspect of comments by people who are much into fiscal stimulus is hopping from one concept to another to prevent direct discussion.<br /><br />Or do you mean that "conventional" monetary policy just setting s nominal short term interest rate? Then there was no "conventional" monetary policy in USA for last 5 years or so and in Japan there was no monetary policy in last 20 years. All those meeting of FOMC that caused turmouil in markets were only figments of our collective imagination, no change in "conventional" short-term nominal interest rate means there is nothing to see. How dumb a definition of monetary policy has to be so that countries can go decades without having any change - despite of things actually happening in real world?<br /><br />So to end this tirrade sooner - by far your biggest sin is you insisting on a particulary maddening framing of discussion. It goes by using these claims <br /><br />1) "Monetary policy is about setting interest rates, and we are at ZLB now!<br /><br />Answer: is it not real interest rates that matter? Is it not true that CB can print money to increase inflation so that real interest rates go down?<br /><br />2) "No, no. Monetary policy *IS* 2% inflation target. You go above that an it is "unconventional"<br /><br />What the heck? How is then fiscal stimulus supposed to work? If fiscal stimulus stimulates economy so that it produces above 2% inflation does it not mean that monetary policy has to tighten? And why should we even start to engage in fiscal stimulus (assuming below 2% inflation) when we can get there by, you know, conventional money printing? <br /><br />This is what the whole debate of monetary offset was about. Just look at Japan: 2 decades of brutal fiscal stumulus and the inflation was still right where Bank of Japan wanted it to be - at 0%. Monetary policy trumps fiscal policy if it is set to be so - for instance by targeting inflation. <br /><br />If there is any one sentence that characterizes monetary offset theory it is this: <br /><br />FISCAL MULTIPLIER IN AN ECONOMY WITH INFLATION TARGETING CENTRAL BANK IS ALWAYS ZERO<br /><br />or this one <br /><br />FISCAL MULTIPLIER IN AN ECONOMY WITH INFLATION TARGETING CENTRAL BANK IS MEASURES CENTRAL BANK INCOMPETENCE TO REACH ITS OWN TARGET Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14853090724221729923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-5960665674097860052014-01-07T10:40:10.365+00:002014-01-07T10:40:10.365+00:00Martin Wolf misrepresents number 4 on his list. W...Martin Wolf misrepresents number 4 on his list. What people (like me) say in comments on his columns is that Britain may be close to a difficult-to-retrieve situation NOW. Assuming fiscal policy works (see previous debate), it would be nice to use it countercyclically, but the problem is that in practice, the economy has never been quite strong enough for politicians to espouse contractionary fiscal policy, meaning that the debt increases inexorably. At some point, you - if not the bond market - have to say "that is far enough", and inevitably you are going to crash into that point during a time of economic weakness, so the decision is not going to be easy. But such are the choices that need to be made if Britain is to remain stable and acceptably prosperous. While Martin Wolf and Keynesians reasonably argue that it is unwise to tighten fiscal policy during a downturn, they can offer little but blind faith and questionably relevant history that a sustainable upturn is coming.<br /><br />This is often perceived as a right-wing argument, but that is certainly not my position - my choice would be to tighten fiscal policy with taxes on wealth, such as site value taxation and increased inheritance tax. In fact, the Tory welfare cuts are so crass that, given what we know about deprivation leading to delinquency and poor health, they might be better characterised as another form of borrowing.Tim Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-59093886533550787442014-01-07T10:21:06.846+00:002014-01-07T10:21:06.846+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14853090724221729923noreply@blogger.com