When Americans remember the Great Depression, they picture Dust BowlDust Bowl Full Description:The Dust Bowl refers to the devastation of the Great Plains, where millions of acres of farmland were rendered useless by massive dust storms. While triggered by drought, the disaster was fundamentally man-made. Driven by high wheat prices and real estate speculation, farmers had removed the native deep-rooted grasses that held the soil together to plant monocultures. Critical Perspective:This event illustrates the “metabolic rift”—the rupture between human economy and natural systems. The market demanded maximum yield without regard for soil health, leading to desertification. It forced the displacement of hundreds of thousands of impoverished families, creating a class of climate migrants who were exploited as cheap labor in the West refugees, breadlines in Chicago, and Hoovervilles on the outskirts of cities. The narrative is deeply national—a story of American crisis and American response. Yet the Depression that began in 1929 was anything but a purely American affair. It was a global catastrophe that touched every continent, every economy, and every society. Between 1929 and 1932, world trade fell by approximately 66 percent . Industrial production collapsed in country after country. Unemployment reached catastrophic levels from Germany to Japan, from Britain to Brazil.
The global nature of the Depression was not coincidental. It reflected the deep integration of the world economy that had developed over the preceding half-century—an integration built on trade, capital flows, and a monetary system centered on gold. When the American economy faltered, the shock waves traveled through these channels with terrifying speed. And when national governments responded with protectionismProtectionism Full Description:Protectionism involves the erection of trade barriers ostensibly to “protect” domestic industries from foreign competition. As the global economy contracted, nations panicked and raised tariffs to historically high levels in a desperate attempt to save local jobs. Critical Perspective:This created a “beggar-thy-neighbor” cycle of retaliation. When one dominant economy raised tariffs, others followed suit, causing international trade to grind to a halt. Instead of saving industries, it choked off markets for exports, deepening the crisis. It illustrates how the lack of international cooperation and the pursuit of narrow national interests can exacerbate a systemic global failure. and competitive devaluations, they magnified the crisis rather than containing it.
This article examines the Great Depression as a global phenomenon. Drawing on scholarship in international economic history—including the foundational work of Barry Eichengreen on the gold standardGold Standard Full Description:The Gold Standard was the prevailing international financial architecture prior to the crisis. It required nations to hold gold reserves equivalent to the currency in circulation. While intended to provide stability and trust in trade, it acted as a “golden fetter” during the downturn. Critical Perspective:By tying the hands of policymakers, the Gold Standard turned a recession into a depression. It forced governments to implement austerity measures—cutting spending and raising interest rates—to protect their gold reserves, rather than helping the unemployed. It prioritized the assets of the wealthy creditors over the livelihoods of the working class, transmitting economic shockwaves globally as nations simultaneously contracted their money supplies., Charles Kindleberger on international leadership, and recent research from the International Monetary Fund on interwar debt networks—we explore how the Depression spread from the United States to the rest of the world, why some countries suffered more than others, and how the crisis reshaped the global order in ways that would culminate in World War II.
The Architecture of the Interwar Global Economy
To understand how the Depression became global, one must first understand the international economic system that existed in the 1920s. That system was built on three pillars: the gold standard, war debts and reparations, and an increasingly integrated network of trade and capital flows. Each pillar proved fatally weak.
The Gold Exchange Standard
The international monetary system of the 1920s was a reconstructed version of the pre-1914 gold standard. Under this system, countries pledged to maintain the convertibility of their currencies into gold at fixed rates. This commitment was supposed to ensure price stability, balanced trade, and confidence in international transactions.
But the interwar gold standard differed from its prewar predecessor in crucial respects. As Barry Eichengreen has documented, the prewar system had functioned because of two conditions that no longer existed: the credibility of governments’ commitment to gold, and the willingness of central banks to cooperate in times of crisis . Before 1914, investors believed that governments would defend their gold parities at any cost, which meant that capital tended to flow in stabilizing directions. When a country ran a trade deficit, speculators bought its currency, betting on recovery rather than devaluation. Central banks, particularly the Bank of England and the Banque de France, stood ready to support each other in emergencies.
World War I shattered both foundations. The war left governments with vastly expanded debts, weakened fiscal positions, and domestic political pressures that made the defense of gold parities less credible. The war also poisoned international relations, making the kind of central bank cooperation that had sustained the prewar system politically impossible.
The interwar system was also a “gold exchange standard” rather than a pure gold standard. Countries were permitted—indeed encouraged—to hold international reserves not only in gold but also in foreign currencies, particularly the U.S. dollar and the British pound . This introduced what one contemporary called “a new psychological element never present before the war.” The system’s stability depended on confidence in the key currency countries, a confidence that would prove tragically misplaced.
The Web of War Debts and Reparations
Compounding the fragility of the monetary system was an intricate network of international debts arising from World War I. The Allied powers—Britain, France, Italy—owed vast sums to the United States, which had financed their war efforts. Germany and the other defeated powers owed reparations to the Allies, as specified in the Versailles Treaty.
These obligations created what the IMF has described as “a complex financial web” linking the world’s major economies . American banks lent money to Germany, which used the funds to pay reparations to France and Britain, which in turn used the money to service their war debts to the United States. As one historian summarized, “everything depended on the continuous flow of American capital” . When that flow slowed, the entire structure trembled.
The Dawes Plan of 1924 and the Young Plan of 1929 had attempted to regularize these flows, but they did nothing to address the fundamental instability of the system. Germany remained dependent on foreign borrowing to meet its obligations. The Allies remained dependent on German payments to service their debts. And American investors remained exposed to the creditworthiness of all parties.
The Integration of World Markets
The 1920s had also witnessed a dramatic expansion of international trade and investment. American banks and corporations had become major players in global markets, lending to foreign governments, building factories abroad, and financing commodity production from Brazil to the Dutch East Indies. European economies, still recovering from the war, depended on exports to the United States to earn the dollars needed to service their debts.
Primary producing countries—Argentina, Australia, Canada, and dozens of others—had expanded production dramatically during and after the war, borrowing heavily to finance infrastructure and land development. They counted on continued access to American and European markets to service these debts.
This integration meant that a shock in one part of the system would rapidly transmit to others. When American demand collapsed, commodity prices plummeted, throwing primary producers into crisis. When American lending stopped, debtors could not roll over their obligations. When the American banking system failed, it pulled down banks in Europe that had lent to American institutions.
The Transmission of Crisis: From Wall Street to the World
The stock market crash of October 1929 was the trigger, but the mechanisms of transmission were already in place.
The Collapse of American Lending
Throughout the 1920s, American banks had lent heavily to foreign borrowers—governments, corporations, and municipalities. These loans had financed infrastructure projects, stabilized currencies, and sustained imports from the United States. But as the American economy weakened in late 1929 and 1930, lending abruptly stopped.
The sudden stop in capital flows had devastating effects. Borrowers who had counted on refinancing found themselves unable to roll over maturing obligations. Countries dependent on American loans to finance trade deficits saw their foreign exchange reserves drain away. Central banks struggling to maintain gold convertibility faced impossible choices: raise interest rates to attract capital (deepening domestic depression) or abandon gold (breaking their international commitments).
Germany was particularly vulnerable. By 1929, the German economy depended heavily on American loans channeled through the Dawes and Young plans. As one historian notes, “The German government’s debt to the victorious powers shifted towards American bankers, who, under the auspices of the Dawes plan, assumed the debt along with the dangers of default” . When American lending stopped, Germany faced an impossible squeeze. It still had to service its American loans while continuing reparations payments, all while export markets collapsed and domestic unemployment soared.
The Collapse of Trade
Even more devastating than the halt in lending was the collapse of international trade. Between 1929 and 1932, the value of world trade fell by roughly two-thirds. This was not merely a passive reflection of declining incomes; it was actively exacerbated by policy choices.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff ActSmoot-Hawley Tariff Act Full Description:A piece of US legislation that raised import duties to historically high levels in an attempt to protect domestic farmers and manufacturers. It is widely cited by economists as a disastrous policy error that triggered a global trade war. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act represents the height of economic nationalism. In a misguided effort to shield American jobs from foreign competition during the downturn, the US government taxed imported goods. This provoked immediate retaliatory tariffs from other nations, effectively shutting down the global trading system.
Critical Perspective:This act illustrates the danger of “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies—strategies that seek to improve a nation’s economic standing at the expense of its trading partners. Instead of protecting jobs, it destroyed the export markets that industries relied on. It serves as a historical lesson on how a lack of international cooperation and a retreat into isolationism can transform a recession into a global catastrophe.
Read more, signed by President Herbert Hoover in June 1930, raised American duties on over 20,000 imported goods, some to as high as 60 percent . The act was intended to protect American farmers and manufacturers from foreign competition. Instead, it triggered a wave of retaliation. Canada, Europe, and eventually more than two dozen countries imposed their own tariffs, targeting American goods. Within two years, global trade had entered a death spiral.
The consequences were catastrophic. American exports to Europe fell from $2.3 billion in 1929 to $784 million in 1932 . Farm prices, already depressed, collapsed further. Unemployment, already high, soared to 25 percent. And the contraction fed on itself: less trade meant less income, which meant less demand for imports, which meant even less trade.
For primary producing countries—Argentina, Brazil, Australia, and dozens of others—the collapse of commodity prices was devastating. Countries that had borrowed heavily in the 1920s based on expectations of continued export earnings suddenly found themselves unable to service their debts. Defaults spread across Latin America and Eastern Europe.
The Banking Contagion
The collapse of the American banking system, detailed in previous articles, did not remain confined to the United States. European banks that had lent to American institutions, or that had invested in American securities, found themselves exposed when those investments turned sour.
More important, the banking crisis spread through the web of international debts and interbank deposits. When American banks failed, they pulled funds from European correspondents. When European banks came under pressure, they called in loans from Germany and Central Europe. The panic fed on itself.
The crisis reached its peak in the summer of 1931. In May, the Creditanstalt, Austria’s largest bank, collapsed, revealing massive losses and triggering a run on Austrian banks. The Austrian government, attempting to stem the panic, imposed capital controls and sought international assistance. But the Bank for International Settlements, established just a year earlier, lacked the tools to intervene effectively .
The Austrian crisis spread to Germany. In July, the Darmstädter und Nationalbank, one of Germany’s largest banks, failed. Runs spread across the German banking system. The Reichsbank, Germany’s central bank, provided emergency liquidity but could not stem the panic. In an attempt to stop the outflow of capital, the German government imposed exchange controls and effectively abandoned the gold standard.
The German crisis in turn threatened Britain. British banks had substantial loans to Germany, and the collapse of the German economy threatened those loans. Moreover, the crisis undermined confidence in the pound, which had been restored to its prewar gold parity in 1925—a decision many economists later judged to have overvalued the currency. Speculators began selling pounds, and the Bank of England burned through its gold reserves defending the exchange rate.
In September 1931, Britain abandoned the gold standard. The pound depreciated by 30 percent against the dollar and the franc. Other countries, particularly those in the British Empire and trading orbit, followed. By the end of 1931, more than two dozen countries had left gold or imposed exchange controls .
The United States, still on gold, now faced even greater pressure. As the dollar appreciated against sterling, American exports became less competitive, deepening the Depression. And as European countries liquidated their dollar holdings to obtain gold, American reserves drained away. The stage was set for the final banking panic of 1932–33.
Varieties of National Experience
While the Depression was global, its effects varied enormously across countries. Some economies collapsed completely; others suffered but survived. Some turned to radical political solutions; others muddled through. Understanding this variation illuminates both the nature of the crisis and the possibilities for response.
Germany: The Most Catastrophic Collapse
No major economy suffered more than Germany. By 1932, industrial production had fallen by nearly 50 percent from its 1929 peak. Unemployment reached 30 percent, with more than six million Germans out of work. The banking system had collapsed. The political system was disintegrating.
Germany’s extreme suffering reflected its unique vulnerabilities. The economy had never fully recovered from the war, the hyperinflation of 1923, and the burden of reparations. It depended heavily on American loans, which stopped in 1929. It depended on export markets, which collapsed with world trade. Its banking system was highly leveraged and interconnected with the American and Austrian banks that failed.
The political consequences were catastrophic. As the historian Gordon Craig observed, the Weimar government was “deeply in debt, yet it tried to maintain high levels of unemployment benefits to forestall growing dissatisfaction among the lower classes” . When the crisis forced spending cuts, Chancellor Heinrich Brüning resorted to emergency decrees, earning him the nickname “the Hunger Chancellor.” The political extremes—Communists on the left, Nazis on the right—gained steadily at the expense of moderate parties. In January 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor.
Britain: Muddling Through
Britain’s Depression was severe but less catastrophic than Germany’s. Unemployment reached 22 percent in 1932, but the social safety net, meager as it was, prevented the kind of destitution seen in Central Europe. Industrial production fell, but less dramatically than in Germany or the United States.
Britain’s relative resilience reflected several factors. The economy had been depressed through much of the 1920s, so the crash from a lower base was less dramatic. The decision to abandon gold in 1931 allowed monetary expansion and protected the economy from further deflationary pressure. And the British Empire provided sheltered markets for British goods, cushioning the blow from the collapse of global trade.
But the British response also reflected political choices. The Labour government that took office in 1929, like its counterparts in Australia and elsewhere, responded to the crisis with orthodox deflationary policies—cutting spending, balancing budgets, defending the currency. As one scholar notes, these parties missed “a historic opportunity” to chart a different course . When the government fell in 1931, it was replaced by a conservative-dominated national government that continued essentially orthodox policies.
France: Delayed Crisis
France experienced the Depression later than other major economies, and less severely at first. The economy had grown strongly in the late 1920s, benefiting from postwar reconstructionReconstruction
Full Description:The period immediately following the Civil War (1865–1877) when the federal government attempted to integrate formerly enslaved people into society. Its premature end and the subsequent rollback of rights necessitated the Civil Rights Movement a century later. Reconstruction saw the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and the election of Black politicians across the South. However, it ended with the withdrawal of federal troops and the rise of Jim Crow. The Civil Rights Movement is often described as the “Second Reconstruction,” an attempt to finish the work that was abandoned in 1877.
Critical Perspective:Understanding Reconstruction is essential to understanding the Civil Rights Movement. It provides the historical lesson that legal rights are fragile and temporary without federal enforcement. The “failure” of Reconstruction was not due to Black incapacity, but to a lack of national political will to defend Black rights against white violence—a dynamic that activists in the 1960s were determined not to repeat.
Read more, the recovery of Alsace-Lorraine, and a competitive exchange rate. French banks were less exposed to American and German loans than their British counterparts.
But the delayed crisis was ultimately severe. When it came, it was prolonged by France’s stubborn adherence to the gold standard. The franc, devalued in the 1920s, was stabilized at a competitive level, and French policymakers were determined to defend that parity. As other countries devalued, the franc appreciated, pricing French exports out of world markets. Industrial production fell, unemployment rose, and political instability mounted. By 1936, when the Popular Front government finally devalued, France had suffered years of unnecessary depression.
The Dominions and Latin America
Primary producing countries experienced the Depression through the collapse of commodity prices. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and dozens of others saw the prices of their exports—wheat, wool, beef, coffee, copper—plummet by 50 percent or more. Terms of trade turned violently against them.
The responses varied. Australia and New Zealand, like Britain, eventually devalued and adopted some measure of protectionism and domestic stimulus. Canada, divided regionally and politically, pursued more conservative policies, leaving recovery to the later 1930s .
In Latin America, the collapse of export earnings triggered debt defaults across the continent. Brazil, Colombia, and others turned to import-substituting industrialization—building domestic industries to replace goods that could no longer be imported. These policies, born of necessity, would shape Latin American development for decades.
The Soviet Exception
The one major economy untouched by the Depression was the Soviet Union. Isolated from global capital markets and pursuing a program of forced industrialization under central planning, the Soviet economy grew rapidly through the 1930s—at the cost of immense human suffering under StalinStalin Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December 1878 – 5 March 1953) was a Soviet politician, dictator and revolutionary who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. Read More’s collectivization and terror.
The Soviet exception was not lost on contemporaries. While capitalist economies collapsed, the communist system appeared to offer an alternative path. The appeal of planning, of insulation from global markets, of state control over economic life, grew across the political spectrum. The Depression delegitimized capitalism and legitimized state intervention in ways that would shape politics for generations.
The Failure of International Cooperation
The Depression was global, but the response was national. Time and again, opportunities for coordinated action were missed. Time and again, countries pursued “beggar-thy-neighbor” policies that worsened the crisis for all.
The Absence of Leadership
Charles Kindleberger, in his classic study The World in Depression, argued that the Depression’s severity reflected the absence of a hegemon—a country willing and able to stabilize the international system. Britain, the prewar hegemon, was no longer powerful enough. The United States, the postwar hegemon, was unwilling to act.
The consequences of this vacuum were everywhere visible. No country provided countercyclical lending when private capital flows stopped. No country maintained open markets when protectionism spread. No country provided liquidity when banking crises struck. The international system, lacking coordination, spiraled downward.
The League’s Impotence
The League of NationsLeague of Nations
Full Description:The first worldwide intergovernmental organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. Its spectacular failure to prevent the aggression of the Axis powers provided the negative blueprint for the United Nations, influencing the decision to prioritize enforcement power over pure idealism. The League of Nations was the precursor to the UN, established after the First World War. Founded on the principle of collective security, it relied on moral persuasion and unanimous voting. It ultimately collapsed because it lacked an armed force and, crucially, the United States never joined, rendering it toothless in the face of expansionist empires.
Critical Perspective:The shadow of the League looms over the UN. The founders of the UN viewed the League as “too democratic” and ineffective because it treated all nations as relatively equal. Consequently, the UN was designed specifically to correct this “error” by empowering the Great Powers (via the Security Council) to police the world, effectively sacrificing sovereign equality for the sake of stability.
Read more, established after World War I to prevent precisely such catastrophes, proved powerless. The United States, whose participation was essential, never joined. The League could convene conferences and issue reports, but it could not compel action. When countries sought emergency assistance, they turned not to the League but to private bankers like J.P. Morgan, who “stepped in to fill the vacuum and informally represented the United States” .
The League’s failure to manage the crisis discredited the entire project of international cooperation. For nationalists and fascists, it demonstrated that nations must look after themselves. For those who dreamed of a different international order, it demonstrated the need for stronger institutions—institutions that would emerge only after another world war.
The Lausanne Conference and the End of Reparations
By 1932, it was clear that the system of war debts and reparations had collapsed. In June, the Lausanne Conference effectively ended German reparations, reducing the remaining obligation to a symbolic payment that was never made. But the conference did not address interallied war debts, which remained outstanding.
When Britain and France sought to link war debts to reparations—arguing that they could not pay the former if Germany did not pay the latter—the United States refused. The debts, Washington insisted, were separate obligations. The impasse poisoned relations between the Allies and undermined any possibility of coordinated recovery.
In 1934, the Johnson Act prohibited American loans to countries that had defaulted on their war debts. Britain, France, and others, unable to pay, were cut off from American capital markets. The financial cooperation that might have aided recovery was replaced by recrimination and isolation.
The Political Consequences: The Rise of Extremism
The global Depression did not merely impoverish millions; it destabilized political systems and empowered extremists of left and right. The connection between economic crisis and political radicalism was nowhere clearer than in Germany, but it was visible across Europe and beyond.
The Collapse of Democracy in Central Europe
Germany was the most dramatic case, but not the only one. Austria, Hungary, Poland, and the Baltic states all moved toward authoritarianism in the 1930s. Democratic institutions, fragile at best, could not withstand the pressures of mass unemployment, social conflict, and international isolation.
The Strengthening of Communism
For the Soviet Union, the Depression appeared to vindicate the communist path. While capitalism collapsed, socialism built factories and dams. Communist parties across Europe gained members and influence. In France and Spain, popular front governments brought communists into governing coalitions for the first time.
The Rise of Fascism
But the main beneficiary of the Depression was not communism but fascism. Hitler’s rise in Germany, Franco’s in Spain, and the strengthening of authoritarian movements across Eastern Europe reflected not working-class radicalism but middle-class fear—fear of communism, fear of social disorder, fear of economic ruin. Fascism promised order, national unity, and a scapegoat for suffering.
The connection between depression and war was direct. A world of closed markets, competitive devaluations, and economic nationalism was a world primed for conflict. The Depression did not cause World War II, but it created the conditions in which aggression could flourish and in which the liberal democracies were too weak, too divided, and too fearful to respond.
Lessons for the Present
The global Depression of the 1930s offers enduring lessons for our own time. The most obvious is the danger of protectionism. When the world’s largest economy raises tariffs, others retaliate, trade collapses, and everyone suffers. The Smoot-Hawley tariff did not protect American jobs; it destroyed them .
A second lesson concerns the importance of international cooperation. The Depression was global and required a global response. In the absence of cooperation, each country’s efforts to save itself made the crisis worse for all. The institutions built after World War II—the IMF, the World Bank, the GATT/WTO—were designed precisely to prevent a recurrence of the 1930s. Their weakening in recent decades should concern us all.
A third lesson concerns the political consequences of economic failure. When capitalism fails to deliver, people turn to alternatives—some democratic and reformist, some authoritarian and murderous. The Depression’s legacy included not only the New DealThe New Deal Full Description:A comprehensive series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It represented a fundamental shift in the US government’s philosophy, moving from a passive observer to an active manager of the economy and social welfare. The New Deal was a response to the failure of the free market to self-correct. It created the modern welfare state through the “3 Rs”: Relief for the unemployed and poor, Recovery of the economy to normal levels, and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. It introduced social security, labor rights, and massive infrastructure projects.
Critical Perspective:From a critical historical standpoint, the New Deal was not a socialist revolution, but a project to save capitalism from itself. By providing a safety net and creating jobs, the state successfully defused the revolutionary potential of the starving working class. It acknowledged that capitalism could not survive without state intervention to mitigate its inherent brutality and instability.
Read more but also the Holocaust, not only social democracy but also world war. The stakes of economic policy could not be higher.
A final lesson concerns the limits of national solutions in a global economy. Even the most powerful country cannot fully insulate itself from global forces. The Depression that began in America devastated Germany and Argentina, Japan and Brazil. Recovery, when it finally came, required a transformation of the entire international system—a transformation that war, not wisdom, ultimately achieved.
Conclusion
The Great Depression was a global catastrophe because the world economy had become global. The gold standard, the web of war debts, the integration of trade and capital markets—all ensured that a crisis beginning in one country would spread to all. And the policy responses—protectionism, competitive devaluations, the abandonment of international cooperation—ensured that the crisis would deepen and persist.
For Americans, remembering the Depression’s global dimensions is essential. It reminds us that the United States, however powerful, is not immune to global forces. It reminds us that American policies—tariffs, monetary policy, financial regulation—have consequences far beyond American borders. And it reminds us that the institutions of international cooperation, for all their flaws, are precious achievements, hard won from the disasters of the 1930s and 1940s.
The Depression ended not with the New Deal alone but with war—war that destroyed economies even as it mobilized them, war that killed tens of millions even as it ended mass unemployment. That is not a model to emulate. The challenge, then and now, is to find ways of managing global capitalism that spread prosperity rather than poverty, that build peace rather than war, that include the many rather than enriching the few. The Depression’s deepest lesson is that this challenge, unmet, can have catastrophic consequences.
References
De Broeck, M. (2018). Sovereign Debt and Financial Crises: An Historical Analysis. IMF Finance & Development .
Eichengreen, B. (1990). The gold-exchange standard and the Great Depression. In Elusive Stability: Essays in the History of International Finance, 1919–1939. Cambridge University Press .
Eichengreen, B. (1992). Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and the Great Depression, 1919–1939. Oxford University Press .
Kindleberger, C.P. (1973). The World in Depression, 1929–1939. University of California Press.
Kumar, A. (2025). From Nixon to Trump: How US shocks keep resetting the global economic order. Business Standard .
Rothermund, D. (1996). The Global Impact of the Great Depression, 1929–1939. Routledge.
Türegün, A. (2021). Class, Politics, and Economic Policy at a Critical Juncture: Canada and the Anglo-American ‘Family of Nations’ in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Studies in Political Economy .
Virginia Tech Digital History Reader. (n.d.). The End of Optimism? The Great Depression in Europe .
Xinhua News Agency. (2025). World Insights: Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies repeat a century of failed protectionism .
Zhang, T., & Helmers, C. (2021). Financial factors and the propagation of the Great Depression. Journal of Financial Economics .
Leave a Reply