|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 07 2015 23:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The relevance is in responsibility and self-serving thought. The 2010 bailouts were not the product of a short-sighted German master plan to bolster its exports sector, contrary to the blather of pundits. In 2010 the debate was over the stability of the Euro, whether that warranted the deliberate violation of the Maastricht treaty, and whether the belief in the “European” project could be pushed through the German parliament in face of public hostility to the bailouts. If there had been no austerity agreement, the bailouts would never have happened. To say five years down the line, after Germany had spent nearly 80 billion Euro bailing out Greece, that actually, Germany bears moral responsibility for imposing the disastrous deal which you (not your country, not bad economic theorists, but you as a private thinker) were begging her to sign five years ago, is considerable feat of ethical dexterity.
Five years ago, you thought it was a good idea for Germany to loan Greece her share of a 110 billion Euro bailout package at 5% interest, since it was a guaranteed profit-making scheme for Germany. You were not naïve; you recognized that austerity would be imposed on Greece as a corollary, and presumably you either believed that “growth” would be viable under such conditions, or you did not, in which case you were cynically advocating sovereign theft backed by a collective lie, so that your country could hobble along for a few more years.
Assuming that you really did believe what you claimed to believe back then, you were presumably misinformed by the self-serving illusions conjured up by your press, and felt that instead of using common sense and “only look at the numbers, after all,” you had to surrender to a collective partisanship on behalf of your nation’s parochial interests. Back then, Germany was going to serve its own “interests” by using her investments in Greek debt as a passive piggy bank. Today, Germany should do what you want because she needs to refill her piggy bank after the previous deposits fell out of a hole. The idea that your benefactor was really benefiting himself all along, the belief in his selfish selflessness, are probably cognitive biases necessary for the maintenance of your own selfless selfishness. But in the end, Germany is not better off: her private debt-holders have already lost better than half the value of their investments, and you would be perfectly happy to see them lose the remainder. Every German taxpayer has loaned nearly two thousand Euro to Greece, which will be a complete loss. Five years ago, I have no doubt you would have argued that Germany should commit public money to save private money in Greece, while you would have had no problem with Germany losing all her private investments as long as she infused bailout money under any pretext. I have no doubt that when the European governments infuse further money into Greece to repay themselves, that when 5 years down the line, repayment of that not availing, you will again advocate a haircut on the principal.
Whether you have fallen victim to a collective cognitive bias, or whether you are speaking out of cynical self-interest is actually irrelevant. The argument as a whole is unconvincing to anyone who can “only look at the numbers.”
Right. 91% of the bailout funds went to debt financing, 9% to Greek spending. Reexamine your argument. You may also need to consider who exactly held Greek debt in 2010 and who holds it now, and in that light consider leadership stance then and now.
Lastly, please refrain from moralizing arguments. I know perfectly well just how corrupt my leaders were (whether the current crop is any different is up for debate) and I have my own particular views about debt repudiation (hint: I don't buy it, Greek leaders were elected fair and square) - this is what you refer to when you claim I'd be perfectly fine with leaving the tab on other taxpayers. Debt write off driven by economic reality (see Germany post WW2) is vastly different from debt repudiation driven by moral arguments (see Equador, most recently).
And a question for you: Does it matter whether the debt collector agrees or not on the matter of repaying if the debtor can't pay?
And a last point: Would Greece agreeing to whatever proposition creditors make actually solve the damn problem? It sure didn't the last time around.
|
The total size of the bailout packages in given and promised loans now total a quarter of a trillion Euro over 5 years. What else would such sums be spent on if not outstanding obligations? The problem with the suggestion that German tax payers were bailing out French and Swiss banks back in 2010 is that there is no evidence backing the claim. You are essentially inviting me to commit the same post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which you have assumed, because it will unburden your conscience to believe it to be true.
In any case, the bailout in no way improved Germany’s position with regard to exposure, since, mutatis mutandis, even a direct German bailout of the exposed banks would have been cheaper, both for the government and for the banks, than the road which really was eventually taken.
In case I did not make it clear, my issue was not with the corruption of leadership. We are not accountable for their mistakes. My issue is with the corruption of self-serving arguments, and a refusal to take personal responsibility for having made the same arguments in the past. We here on Theorycraft Island are blessedly released from the burdens of responsibility which must be grasped by those who wield power. What we can do for our countries, and for the world in these confinements is irrelevant next to what we can do for ourselves, and our personal development as intellectually honest human beings. Otherwise none of this matters.
As to your last question, it was in Solon’s constitution that the liability of person for debt was outlawed in civil society. Internationally, the Article I of the Second Hague Convention forbids the forcible extraction of sovereign debts by one country from another. Germany happens to have ratified Article I, while Greece never did. Thereafter, sovereign debts deprived of collateral, and the civilized world having renounced their enforced collection, became matters of greater hazard to the lender than the borrower. Under such circumstances, it seems to me that the promissory obligations of one state to another would only have substance on the basis of trust.
On the 1953 London Conference: the debt in question was the inheritance from the Weimar Republic of the punitive obligations issuing from the Treaty of Versailles, an obligation imposed under duress on a morally questionable premise, namely Article 231’s assignment of war guilt. This, along with many other articles of Versailles were swept away by the National Socialist government, and what happened in 1953 was a negotiated resettlement of the issue. Germany was not doing badly in 1953; she was riding the export boom induced by the Korean War, and was herself in the centre of the Cold War. Today Greece is shrinking and is geopolitically peripheral.
In 1953 the Germans would have stood on firm ground had they refused to pay the debt at all. Today you are asking more money for your country because, let us say, you really believe that this will in the end benefit the grandchildren of the German taxpayer. That is to say, that Greece will be able to sustain a perpetual annual interest repayment amounting to 5% of present GDP, and maintain reasonable “growth” in the process and a balanced budget in the long-run. To soften public opinion, creative accounting has managed to conjure the illusion of a primary surplus in Greek finances in the past two years. The entire perception syncs very well with wishful and short-term thinking. If only the Germans will pay a little more money today, they’ll get more back tomorrow. The problem is we have heard it all before.
|
Off-topic:
Guys...
We are going to get rid of AKP here (Turkey). Unfortunately Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will stay with us for 4 more years but its a begining.
|
On June 08 2015 02:18 Aceace wrote:
Off-topic:
Guys...
We are going to get rid of AKP here (Turkey). Unfortunately Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will stay with us for 4 more years but its a begining.
Got rid off = Is not ruling alone anymore but still has ~4X% and is the by far strongest party?
|
He means AKP doesn't have enough votes to change the constitution so that's a win considering their position in Turkey.
|
AKP will stay but Kurds have a powerful stand in their parliament. We can still say it is a dominating result for AKP with %40-41, its a victory for Kurds with %12 for the first time in their history, thanks to leftists and liberals.
But its again up to Erdogans will, re-election or he will unite his party with right nationalistic party MHP to get enough seats to establish an administration, government - whatever you name it. (worst case )
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32993721
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33042284
right centrist movement AKP with 254 seats = %40
secular nationalistic CHP with 132 seats = %25
right nationalistic MHP with 82 seats = %16
lefty-liberal-kurdish nationalistic HDP with 82 seats = %12
If it is true. In short, Turkey will be still nationalistic. : D
|
On June 07 2015 21:04 Taguchi wrote:
The current situation is this: Greece cannot pay back its debt. No fucking way in hell. This is true today and it was true 5 years ago. And?
News Flash: Germany will never pay back its dept, US will certainly never ever pay its back!
We are talking about macroeconomics here, unless you are Saudi Arabia or Norway 'paying back your dept' is non-achievable.
What you are aiming for is an interest rate of 5% or lower for your new loans to serve your old ones.
|
On June 08 2015 04:44 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 02:18 Aceace wrote:
Off-topic:
Guys...
We are going to get rid of AKP here (Turkey). Unfortunately Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will stay with us for 4 more years but its a begining. Got rid off = Is not ruling alone anymore but still has ~4X% and is the by far strongest party?
Well, this does throw a spanner into the works what Erdogan's plans are concerned.
|
On June 08 2015 15:46 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 04:44 Velr wrote:On June 08 2015 02:18 Aceace wrote:
Off-topic:
Guys...
We are going to get rid of AKP here (Turkey). Unfortunately Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will stay with us for 4 more years but its a begining. Got rid off = Is not ruling alone anymore but still has ~4X% and is the by far strongest party? Well, this does throw a spanner into the works what Erdogan's plans are concerned.
I know, but his post sounded like the AKP was actually out of the Parlament... Which is a slight overstatement  .
|
On June 08 2015 06:52 lastpuritan wrote:AKP will stay but Kurds have a powerful stand in their parliament. We can still say it is a dominating result for AKP with %40-41, its a victory for Kurds with %12 for the first time in their history, thanks to leftists and liberals. But its again up to Erdogans will, re-election or he will unite his party with right nationalistic party MHP to get enough seats to establish an administration, government - whatever you name it. (worst case ) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32993721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33042284right centrist movement AKP with 254 seats = %40 secular nationalistic CHP with 132 seats = %25 right nationalistic MHP with 82 seats = %16 lefty-liberal-kurdish nationalistic HDP with 82 seats = %12 If it is true. In short, Turkey will be still nationalistic. : D
-AKP isn't a right centrist movement. They are a political islamic movement. They supported ISIS, Erdogan used Quran to get votes for AKP. He wanted to have 400 (!) seats for AKP to remove democratic system and seperation of powers, to become a president like Putin
-CHP used to be secular nationalistic party for 80 years. After their old leader Deniz Baykal removed by his position thanks to his sex tapes (which was a huge buff for AKP) Kemal Kilicdaroglu took the party more social democrat line. A lot of their supporters vote for HDP to pass bullshit %10 election threshold (Seriously if someday we can get rid of this stupidly high threshold.....)
-You are right about MHP.
-HDP is changing. They have support of extremely Kurdish nationalists but they also have support of main left movement of Turkey. Kurdish nationalist have %5-6.
@Velr
AKP won't have majority of seats in parlament. This is big. This is probably the biggest hit Erdogan ever faced. It isn't over yet. But it will be beginning.
|
the big picture which is not on international media about HDP (pro kurdish party) passing election threshold is their votes are not solely based on their kurdish voters only. The only solution to make AKP (leading islamic right party) stepping down and forcing them to form a coalition was to support HDP since in last presidential election they were close to %10 so letting HDP get more than %10 votes was the main subject of politics recently. Among the 2 opposition parties since MHP (right nationalistic) is directly rivals with kurds, CHP (secular left) was the only option sharing more or less same idealogy. The important part here HDP is aware of this support (small but criticical) and acknowledged officialy and will not be acting so much in a seperatist way like they used to in order not to lose that support.
Another point to be mentioned is in case people do not know, HDP is the political arm for kurdish movement and are directly affiliated with PKK (kurdish workers party) a terrorist group who fought a bloody war with the state since 80s. Even for the last 2 terms (i might be mistaken) kurds are represented more or less with independent MPs (MPs fearing in case they run the election under a party name and the party fails to pass the threshold) in parliement, they were always playing the same card that they have no voice in parliament and government is not investing to kurdish majority area which used to be true until peace negotiations before which PKK used to kidnap or kill teachers, soldiers or damaging schools etc. After this peace negotiations and selected MPs officialy under kurdish name they have no excuse left. This time they really have to accomplish something good for that region. We will see what will happen after they rised with all so called peace slogans.
|
That was covered perfectly fine here? HDP = Kurds + Liberals
As for the rest of your post. What about the bombings at that HDP Rally just before the elections? Your view seems a bit one sided?
Btw: Fun fact. German-Turks seem to have mainly voted AKP, Swiss-Turks HDP.
|
On June 08 2015 18:39 Aceace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 06:52 lastpuritan wrote:AKP will stay but Kurds have a powerful stand in their parliament. We can still say it is a dominating result for AKP with %40-41, its a victory for Kurds with %12 for the first time in their history, thanks to leftists and liberals. But its again up to Erdogans will, re-election or he will unite his party with right nationalistic party MHP to get enough seats to establish an administration, government - whatever you name it. (worst case ) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32993721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33042284right centrist movement AKP with 254 seats = %40 secular nationalistic CHP with 132 seats = %25 right nationalistic MHP with 82 seats = %16 lefty-liberal-kurdish nationalistic HDP with 82 seats = %12 If it is true. In short, Turkey will be still nationalistic. : D -AKP isn't a right centrist movement. They are a political islamic movement. They supported ISIS, Erdogan used Quran to get votes for AKP. He wanted to have 400 (!) seats for AKP to remove democratic system and seperation of powers, to become a president like Putin -CHP used to be secular nationalistic party for 80 years. After their old leader Deniz Baykal removed by his position thanks to his sex tapes (which was a huge buff for AKP) Kemal Kilicdaroglu took the party more social democrat line. A lot of their supporters vote for HDP to pass bullshit %10 election threshold (Seriously if someday we can get rid of this stupidly high threshold.....) -You are right about MHP. -HDP is changing. They have support of extremely Kurdish nationalists but they also have support of main left movement of Turkey. Kurdish nationalist have %5-6. @Velr AKP won't have majority of seats in parlament. This is big. This is probably the biggest hit Erdogan ever faced. It isn't over yet. But it will be beginning.
right centrist is still islamic movement when their "right" is rooted on islam. though i agree their main concern resembles with UR -both putin and erdogan are dictators- AKP was the only party carrying liberal thoughts for years, mostly economically and then socially, otherwise denial of kurdish nationality would continue by CHP's and MHP's instrumentality.
i did not know about current CHP, thanks for correcting but you are the first one who says CHP supporters voted for HDP. according to media HDP stole kurdish votes from Erdogan in East with an unexpected jump from %5-6 as you said. Erdogan used to hold at least 10 millions of kurdish votes in his hands. hope this will effect Erdogan's harsh stand against opposition and eu.
elections 2011 (kurds are blue colored)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tW7VjpY.jpg)
elections 2015 (kurds are green colored)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OYKyOHt.jpg)
Im guessing you are turkish, who did you vote for and what are your thoughts about kurdish movement, peace process and country's rising islamic inclination?
|
Red CHP, Orange AKP and blue MHP in that picture then right? Looks like they also lost votes to CHP then.
|
On June 08 2015 22:15 Velr wrote:
That was covered perfectly fine here? HDP = Kurds + Liberals
As for the rest of your post. What about the bombings at that HDP Rally just before the elections? Your view seems a bit one sided?
Btw: Fun fact. German-Turks seem to have mainly voted AKP, Swiss-Turks HDP.
You might categorize like that sure.
Point of view wise, well as a Turkish citizen i support different aspects of 2 main opposition idealogies. Personaly i am not a supporter of HDP but this does not mean that i wrote that post one sided. There are many scenarios specifically about that rally bombing but it is not the only terror incident happened so far nor it will be the last. As i said this struggle has been going on since 80s and frankly speaking each side had its right reasons to fight. This subject goes really deep and beyond the aim of this topic if you want we can pm about this.
My point is since PKK is like hibernating (there are still turkish soldiers being ambushed in those areas but rarely) and HDP securing seats, now they really need to show some effort to develop that region. Being opposition for so many years without actually producing anything but terror (right or wrong) and becoming responsible from that region all of a sudden is a heavy burden.
People living Germany. Netherlands etc. (countries requested for labor force from Turkey around 60s) are mainly voting for AKP. Those minorities are the people living in Europe since 60s still they are not fully adapted to western lifestyle but at the same time they describe themselves as muslims first therefore vote for the conservative religious parties even they are not following what actually is going on like corruption in the country.
|
Very interesting reading peoples view points of elections I don't know anything about.
If AKP Push's for a separate kurdish state with Iraq kurds syrian kurds and turkish kurds would that give them an overwhelming political position? Or does their politics not allow them to support the kurdish population from their past actions?
Would be a nixon level politic prying away the oppositions major swing demographic.
|
On June 08 2015 02:10 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The problem with the suggestion that German tax payers were bailing out French and Swiss banks back in 2010 is that there is no evidence backing the claim. You are essentially inviting me to commit the same post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which you have assumed, because it will unburden your conscience to believe it to be true.
Sorry I cannot take your post seriously after this. I know you like to indulge in philosophical morality debates but if you're this uninformed about the subject... there's just no point.
Lehman collapse was worth 2 bn and it triggered a chain reaction in financial institutions the world over, bringing about the Eurocrisis, among others (prime example: Ireland, an otherwise model of economic governance, had to bailout its own banks that suffered because of the financial crisis, which caused Ireland itself to become insolvent in the short term and thus require troika assistance). Greek collapse in 2010 would've been worth tens of billions in the short term and trigger multiples of that in CDS. German and French banks were the major holders of Greek debt at the time. Their bailout was of the essence if a repeat of Lehman was to be avoided - but politically unmanageable since taxpayers would have to pick up the (quite large) tab. Much easier to blame the lazy Greeks for everything (instead of blaming them for a majority of things, mostly electing corrupt politicians that drove the country to the wall). You can find the information easily enough, if you care to do so.
edit: Also glad for my Turkish neighbors that decided against getting themselves a new sultan  Hopefully Cyprus gets solved too, there's some good vibe coming from there these days!
|
On June 09 2015 00:23 Sermokala wrote:
If AKP Push's for a separate kurdish state with Iraq kurds syrian kurds and turkish kurds would that give them an overwhelming political position? Or does their politics not allow them to support the kurdish population from their past actions?
From my understanding AKP fights tooth and nails against an official Kurdish state and especially against a separatist state on Turkish soil.
Remember most ISIS fighters enter Syria/Iraq via Turkey and ISIS exports goods through it as well. On the other hand Turkey stopped Kurdish fighters from crossing the border into Syria and were categorically against arming the Kurds (Let that sink in, US supposedly ally in the region helped ISIS while obstructing anti-ISIS forces).
Erdogan is equally afraid of two things: for now it's ISIS suicide bombs but in the long run it's Kurdish separatists.
|
On June 08 2015 22:54 lastpuritan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 18:39 Aceace wrote:On June 08 2015 06:52 lastpuritan wrote:AKP will stay but Kurds have a powerful stand in their parliament. We can still say it is a dominating result for AKP with %40-41, its a victory for Kurds with %12 for the first time in their history, thanks to leftists and liberals. But its again up to Erdogans will, re-election or he will unite his party with right nationalistic party MHP to get enough seats to establish an administration, government - whatever you name it. (worst case ) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32993721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33042284right centrist movement AKP with 254 seats = %40 secular nationalistic CHP with 132 seats = %25 right nationalistic MHP with 82 seats = %16 lefty-liberal-kurdish nationalistic HDP with 82 seats = %12 If it is true. In short, Turkey will be still nationalistic. : D -AKP isn't a right centrist movement. They are a political islamic movement. They supported ISIS, Erdogan used Quran to get votes for AKP. He wanted to have 400 (!) seats for AKP to remove democratic system and seperation of powers, to become a president like Putin -CHP used to be secular nationalistic party for 80 years. After their old leader Deniz Baykal removed by his position thanks to his sex tapes (which was a huge buff for AKP) Kemal Kilicdaroglu took the party more social democrat line. A lot of their supporters vote for HDP to pass bullshit %10 election threshold (Seriously if someday we can get rid of this stupidly high threshold.....) -You are right about MHP. -HDP is changing. They have support of extremely Kurdish nationalists but they also have support of main left movement of Turkey. Kurdish nationalist have %5-6. @Velr AKP won't have majority of seats in parlament. This is big. This is probably the biggest hit Erdogan ever faced. It isn't over yet. But it will be beginning. right centrist is still islamic movement when their "right" is rooted on islam. though i agree their main concern resembles with UR -both putin and erdogan are dictators- AKP was the only party carrying liberal thoughts for years, mostly economically and then socially, otherwise denial of kurdish nationality would continue by CHP's and MHP's instrumentality. i did not know about current CHP, thanks for correcting but you are the first one who says CHP supporters voted for HDP. according to media HDP stole kurdish votes from Erdogan in East with an unexpected jump from %5-6 as you said. Erdogan used to hold at least 10 millions of kurdish votes in his hands. hope this will effect Erdogan's harsh stand against opposition and eu. elections 2011 (kurds are blue colored) elections 2015 (kurds are green colored) Im guessing you are turkish, who did you vote for and what are your thoughts about kurdish movement, peace process and country's rising islamic inclination?
Even though I live in Izmir (Most of people claim Izmir as "The Castle of CHP") and I'm a Turk (not Kurd) I voted for HDP. I see myself as a social democrat. CHP's election campaign was great. Probably the best campaign i ever saw for whole my life. (I'm 28 years old. And I am a reporter at one of the biggest local newspapers in Izmir.)
I voted for HDP for 3 reasons. First and the most important factor is "stopping terror in my country". There is an organic connection between HDP and PKK. No one denies it. Nationalists (All of MHP, most of CHP and AKP) hates HDP because of this reason. If somehow someday PKK give up terrorist attacks on Turkey that will be because of HDP. Kurds suffered a lot of pain for 90 years. Older governments pressured them a lot. They cannot educate in Kurdish, they cannot defend themself at court in Kurdish, they even cannot give their children Kurdish names. (Just think like no Jose's, no Fernando's no Miguel's on USA. That would be ridicilous) Kurds should defend their opinions and ideas in parlament not on top of mountains with AK-47's...
Secondly HDP changed a lot. Untill 2010, HDP predecessors (Kurdish movement had to found a lot of parties. Hadep, Dehap, DTP, BDP, DEP, HEP...) wasn't the same political line with HDP. HDP represent the highest women percentage (48 man 32 woman), HDP has 2 Armenian , 1 "süryani" (not the same as Syrian), 2 "ezidi" (These are minorities in Turkey) and 1 gay congressmans. They are not trying to divide. They are trying to resolve issues with minorities. Their predecessors was not.
Thirdly and the most funny thing is... HDP co-chairman Selahattin Demirtas is a different figure in Turkey. After 2002 (first victory for Erdogan) Turkey's politics changed. Erdogan used everything to get power.
Corruption, Using Quran at meetings,
+ Show Spoiler +
Using media to giving false information on citizens, pressuring every opposition on media
+ Show Spoiler +7 newspapers with the same headline (Demokratik taleplere can feda= We would die for democratic demands. LOL) ![[image loading]](http://www.sendika.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/medyamymni.jpg)
Demirtas isn't like Erdogan. He is clever enough to use humor, he is respecting all other leaders and he is doing good job calming down both Turkish and Kurdish nationalists. After they pass stupid %10 election threshold he asked their supporters not to celebrate their victory at streets. That would provoke both nationalist sides.
Your second question was Kurdish movement. They are changing very slowly but surely. At the begining of Gezi Park Protests Kurds didn't join. After 2 or 3 days they join the protests. Even though most of Turks hated to see Abdullah Ocalan (leader of PKK, he is in prison) posters at the streets, a lot of Turks understands their suffering for 90 years. Kurds was using weapons against Turkish government because government was using weapons too... As you know. Weapons didn't solve anything.
Especially after ISIS threat and Erdogan's reluctancy against ISIS, AKP lost a lot of support from Kurds. I would like to show you a video, a truck going to Syria with full of heavy ammo which was stopped by police.
+ Show Spoiler +
Erdogan and AKP government always refused weapons. After this video, they said they were helping Turkmens in Syria. As expected no one believed it.
(I know my English doesn't reflect my job. I suck at English. If you want clarification I would try to help.)
|
You are saying that it's likely an ISIS truck and Erdogan had always claimed he didn't let weapons go through the country, and that this truck actually did get through or at least is evidence that ISIS thinks they can get weapons through, but after this video was exposed, Erdogan used the excuse that it was to defend Turkish people in Syria? Is that correct?
Thanks for the perspective, by the way, I've been getting very interested in all the elections in the last year or so and this was one I was very afraid would end with HDP failing to get the 10% and AKP at least getting a majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.radikal.com.tr/620x332/2015/05/04/fft107_mf4395872.Jpeg)
