Money creation by bankers, central banks or individuals

That the Swiss are going to have a referendum on changing the way in which they create money is great news. That the referendum is certain to fail is even greater news.

(First link and second link.)

As regular readers of Economics 102 will know this blogger is extremely committed to reforms in how we create money. You will also know that I am strongly opposed to state control over the economy. I also believe there is an urgent need for reforms in the way we produce and exchange goods and services. There is a 99.99 percent probability of economic turmoil as the economy continues its downward decline and without major changes there will be a lot of human suffering.

CurrencyThe Swiss proposal is that the creation of money be restricted to the central bank rather than the current fraction reserve process in which money is created when banks make loans. The authors of the proposal should be lauded for recognizing that there are big-time problems with money based on debt and that charging interest on money created makes our economic problems even worse.

My problem with the proposal is that it wants all money creation to be in the hands of the central bank. The central bank would have direct control over lending. “The money created by the monetary authority would be transferred to the Treasury and would come into circulation by public spending; thus, it would benefit the public purse and contribute to the reduction of national debt. ” Money creation and this type of spending would also mean a lot of economic control by the government.

The essay about this proposal lists private control as one of the problems with the current system. Control is a major economic issue and I can see where a lot of people are strongly opposed to anything but “public” control.  However “public” control is just control by different people with slightly different interests from the bankers. They will still be acting in their own interests – such as getting re-elected. I want an economic system in which control and decision-making is by individuals and I believe the way to get this with a true competitive market economy which we do not have. I also figure the current system is marginally better than money creation in the hands of a government agent.

The authors also point out there is a need to “secure the independence of the monetary authority.’ This is a serious concern as the people who control money creation get to determine which economic projects go ahead and by whom. There are very few prime ministers of any political leanings who would allow that kind of power into any hands but their own.

There is an alternative to money creation by a central bank and that is to combine money creation with a guaranteed annual income scheme. This would solve the problems of lots of people without jobs and it would put primary economic decision-making into the hands of all of us as individuals.

This guy has written extensively about this on this weblog and in an e-book Funny Money: Adapting to a down economy. The book is available free by following the link on the sidebar.

Any changes in how money is created, whether to a central bank or to an income scheme, would hit the profits and power of bankers. Expect them to be more than just vocal in their opposition if either becomes a serious threat.

I figure economics is largely about relationships and to be satisfactory relationships need to be based on a more or less equal two-way exchange. I also believe money should be considered a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services and it should encourage good relationships rather than be an instrument for exploitation. To maintain good relationships money should not give power to some people over others. I fear that giving a central bank the sole right to create money would make it easy for governments to exploit their citizens.

There are lots of serious problems with the fractional reserve way of creating money and there is an urgent need for reform. The big question is what the reforms will do to the way in which we exchange goods and services and how we relate to each other.


Who is afraid of nuclear war?

The Economist recently published a series of articles about the potential for a nuclear war between great powers.  A nuclear war is a major threat to the existence of mankind on this planet but it is only one of several threats and some of the others may be greater, in part because they are less well understood.

Other threats  include famine, climate change, overpopulation, uncontrolled migration and disease.  All of these have been a part of human history.  The most intriguing threat comes from the potential for an electromagnetic pulse which could wipe out all of the computer chips in the area it hits.  This could come from a solar flare or from the discharge of a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere above the target.  For more on this  read the novel One Second After by William R. Forstchen .

nuclearProbably the greatest risk of nuclear war is that some lunatic will push the button.  My sense is that the current occupant of the White House is more interested in saying things that will please the people who voted for him and are likely to vote for him again and doing things, like opening parks for development, that will please his business friends.  Unfortunately there are other lunatics in this world with different interests.

This writer is not terribly worried about a nuclear war between the United States and Russia because I can not see either country gaining anything.  Both countries have used up their most easily accessible resources and modern technology is such that slaves are redundant.  A few people might get some enjoyment from bullying, terrorizing or raping the losers but would probably not get away with it for long.  In any case there are adequate opportunities at home.  Both countries have considerable social problems and I doubt any leader would want to take on the others problems as well as his own.

Since the end of the Second World War there have been no wars between great powers.  There have been lots of internal and regional conflicts and there will probably be enough more to keep the threat alive and allow the generals to test their toys.

The main benefit of war is in the preparation. A lot of people have well-paying jobs supplying military kit.  Not many politicians will vote to reduce arms spending in their constituencies.
The world economy is on a down trend and lots of spending agencies are competing for funding – education, health, transportation and military.  The military can makes a very strong case with the threat of nuclear annihilation.  It is sad that Canadians and other people around the world are going hungry and sleeping rough so that generals can play games.

Nuclear war is very much a possibility but it is just one of several things that could destroy the world as we know it.  The danger in focusing on any one threat is that another one may sneak up on us.  We need to be watching all of them and seeking ways to protect ourselves.

Let’s put some ‘civil’ in civilization

Over the past few weeks I have been reading some anthropology about hunters and gathers and have decided these so-called primitives are really the most civilized Peoples of all times.  I absolutely do not want for myself or anyone else to go to that life style but I do think we should evaluate their cultures for ideas we could adopt.  We need to put the civil in civilization.

In this post I propose to look at some of the things that make our society uncivilized and contrast these with what we know about hunters and gathers. A lot what makes us uncivilized are sources of in justice –  overpopulation, forcing people to do things according to the values and morals of others and exploitation of people and resources.  Generally these injustices are not a part of the lifestyle of hunters and gatherers.

59889This guy used to think that violence was a natural part of human nature and we  just have to live with it.  After reading about hunters and gatherers I am not so sure.  These people are generally known for being peaceful and non-violent.  One group, when threatened by some war-like neighbors just disappeared into the forest.
It would be interesting if an anthropologist would do a detailed study of this aspect of their lives.

Hunters and gathers must be expert psychologists as they have to teach their young to kill animals while remaining non violent in their human relationships.  There often appears to be a spiritual aspect to their hunting.  Apparently a lot of social control is with verbal tactics such as teasing or ridicule.

In contrast most civilized countries maintain standing armies, sometimes used for social control of populations and in some places it is acceptable for agents of the state to execute innocent people who happen to be in their way. Some people claim the right to force others to live by their values and morals and are often very successful at getting state support in the form of legislation.  Our civilizations are also very tolerant of psychological violence. In spite of all the feminist propaganda we hear, women are very skilled at this type of violence.  Violence is so pervasive in our societies that very few people get through their lives without experiencing some of it.

History tells us that so far all civilizations have failed although many people believe our own will last forever.  As so many civilizations have failed this is a major issue.  One theory is that previous civilizations have failed because they have depleted their topsoil.  If this is true we need to proceed with caution as a lot of our food supply is dependent upon adding chemicals to the soil.  We need to put a lot of effort into studying agriculture.  It is too important to leave to people who make their living from it.

This blogger believes the major threat to our way of life is that we have used up most of the easily accessible energy and mineral resources on the earths crust.  Yes, there are lots of resources left but cost of extracting them is such they are mostly useless unless we have some major technology breakthroughs.
In  contrast there is archeological evidence that the bushmen of the Kalahari desert have maintained their civilization for up to 200,000 years.  They did this by living hand to mouth, seldom  having more than a day or two of food on hand and not over exploiting resources.

A significant feature of hunting and gathering is that most decision-making is by individuals.  Leadership is low-key and individuals can easily move from one small group to another. The bushmen’s  time came to an end when their territory was taken over by farmers and herders with the help of modern technology such as boreholes to provide reliable water supplies.

It is not clear if there was a natural transition from hunting and gathering or if farming and herding developed independently.    What is significant is that the latter made for different social dynamics in that some people could make decisions that affected others.  As these other types of food provision involved food storage they also led to residence mostly in one location, more and more complex tools and a more material lifestyle.  This was probably the start of the decline into our uncivilized history.

Probably the most important of all freedoms is the right to make decisions according to our own values and morals. In our society this is a complex issue with many limits.
The first limitation, shared by hunters and gatherers, is the need to provide ourselves with food and shelter. We must spend some time on this although most hunters and gatherers devote far less time to this than we do. Anthropologists have found that a lot of them devote only 15 to 20 hours a week to this basic activity. The rest of the time they spend socializing, performing rituals, doing crafts or sleeping and being lazy.

The rest of the limits on freedom to make decisions follow from our economic organization often with religious sanctions. Modern technology and the use of oil in agriculture probably means we only need to work two or three hours a week but the work ethic requires us to work 40 to 60 hours a week. If one does not do this much work one is a deadbeat on not doing ones share. This is great for those people who want others to support their empires but not so great for the environment and the resource base and our right to decide for ourselves what we want to do.

Possession of money gives us freedom to make decisions but the way in which it is created is a limitation. Most of the money used in our exchange of goods and services is created when banks make loans in what is known as fractional reserve banking. This is a complex but easy to understand process that is fully explained in many places on the FunnyMoneyArtPowell-finalinternet including this weblog and the e-book by this writer, Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy. As money is created by bankers they determine who gets it and what projects are undertaken. Creating money with an income scheme and national exchange trading scheme as proposed in my book would mean a major transfer of decision-making power to individuals.

Another limit on our ability to make independent decisions is the extensive use of marketing techniques by major corporations. I have often thought the best psychological insights come from marketing people and they do not hesitate to use their knowledge to influence how people think and what they do. Sadly, we have got to the point where a lot of people consider exploitive marketing to be normal, legitimate and even desirable. Some major Canadian companies have recently made the news because of the pressures put on their sales people, like to sell expensive internet or phone services to people who will never use them.

It is amazing how easily so many people get hooked into agendas set by others. It is easy to avoid being influenced by the marketers; just avoid television and social media. It is also easy for me to say that as I left home before my parents bought a television.
Not only are hunters and gatherers known for their peacefulness, they are also known for their equality. If people are not trying to aquire lots of material things, then economic equality becomes natural.

In our own culture we are aware of increasing inequality as more people suffer from the falling economy but we do not know how to change things. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to have the same standard of living as everyone else. It is painful to see people homeless and having to rely on food banks.

This writer believes inequality could be corrected with an income scheme and a true market economy. One of the features of a market economy is that competition wipes out the profits that allow some people to become rich.

The books I have read say little about sexuality but it appears most hunters and gathers are casual and accepting. Nor do they appear to have the sexual problems which plague so many people in our societies. It could be that we have something to learn from them about sex .

The key to what we call civilization is the agricultural surplus which is the food production in excess of what the producer needs for his own survival. Generally hunters and gathers do not have an agricultural surplus because once they have enough food for a day or two they stop working knowing that more is easily available when they need it.

The agricultural surplus is a two-sided coin. It releases people from food production to do other things some of which are positive and some of which are destructive. It can be the start of the decline onto the slippery slope into uncivilized behaviors,
The agricultural surplus presents a people with two questions; what to do with it and who makes the decision. These questions open up opportunities for people whose personality is to tell others what to do. This writer believes each of us should have to right to decide how his/her share of the surplus should be used.

Some economists like to tell students consumers control the economy in their spending decisions. This is correct so long as we make the right decisions. Many people want to go off the grid and live the simple life in the bush but that is not easy to do. The people who create the money want the rest of us to work at their projects rather than our own.

We have good material standards of living because our economy has been labor intensive and the demand for bodies has allowed us to extract from the elite a nice portion of the agricultural surplus. As technology increases and robots do more and more of the labor we are losing our bargaining power. The rich get richer and more people become poor. Frightening and uncivilized.

There is a slight ray of hope in our two or multi party electoral system. Some politicians are realizing tha to get votes they have to allow voters some share of the agricultural surplus.

There are lots of anecdotal evidence that our economy is on a down trend. Lots of people are suffering and lots more are likely to suffer. There are many unknowns in the future and most of them are frightening. Our goal should be to minimize the suffering and maximize the enjoyment of living.

We are unlikely to ever get consensus on how to deal with this situation as many people have a strong vested interest in the status quo. However, if we do not try, there will be no progress.

I once heard an engineer say, “If it is working, it is not complex enough.” I was not impressed with his engineering and I do not want to apply his principle to economics. Let us keep it simple. The challenge is to get the best out of technology without the technologists telling us how we should live to meet their goals.

This post has focused on some of the negative features of our civilization. I want to continue to enjoy the positive things, like being able to write this weblog, but I also want to correct some of the injustices and uncivilized behaviours. Genius is 90 per cent plagiarism and we should look for good ideas wherever we can find them.
The hunting and gathering lifestyle appears to be a lot simpler than what we have and it also appears to be a lot more civilized. Let’s put the civil back in civilization.

Note: Once upon a time this blogger took a course in Economic Anthropology and since then I have frequently read books on anthropology and especially economic anthropology. Prior to writing this post I read the following books:

Affluence without Abundance: The disappearing world of the bushmen, By James Suzman, 2017.

Hunters and Gathers: History, Evolution and Social Change, Edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodburn, 1988.
Politics and history in band societies, Edited byEleanor Leacock and Richard Lee, 1982

Daydreaming reform: basic income, money and work ethic

To say we face an economic crisis is hardly controversial but the crisis is so severe that the reforms needed make Karl Marx look a part of the establishment.   The changes needed are radical beyond the comprehension of many people as they require more than just tweaking what we already have.

The basic problem is that we have used up most of the easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  Those that are left require so much energy to extract that they are almost useless.  There have been other times in economic history when humans have had to cope with resource shortages but these were temporary as more resources were waiting to be discovered.  This time the problem is not knowing where the resources are located but the cost/energy required to extract them.

The three basic changes are a basic universal income, the way in which we create money and overcoming the work ethic.  To accomplish anything all three reforms will be needed at the same time.  As there are so many conflicting vested interests this will be an impossibility.  Prove me wrong.  While these appear to be radical ideas, this writer did a degree in conventional economics at the University of British Columbia and has a strong commitment to a market economy.   The radical comes from wanting a market economy when a major feature of the current economy is that competition is restricted by government legislation.

The basis for an income scheme is the agricultural surplus resulting from all the technology which has developed at least since a farmer discovered he could produce more by using a collar on a horse rather than a harness on an ox.  Through the centuries the elite have confiscated most of the surplus with the use of force. Since the industrial revolution psychological tactics such as legal restrictions on competition,patents, copyright and the work ethic have been less messy.  The need for labour to man the empires has allowed workers to claim a share of the surplus.  As robots replace workers it will be interesting to see what happens to the agricultural surplus – and workers.

This writer would like to see the agricultural surplus treated as an inheritance to be shared equally by all the people of the world.  The way to distribute this inheritance is with a basic income scheme.  Some ideas as to how to do this are in the free e-book, Funny Money: Adapting to a Down economy, available from this weblog.

One of the advantages of an income scheme is that individuals would be able to take action on social and environmental issues related to their employment.  Workers would no longer have to work for exploitive employers and people who disagreed with a firm’s social or environmental policies would not have to bite their tongues for the sake of a pay check.

There is an old saying that money is the root of all evil.  When I studied the economics of money and banking I decided it was the lack of money that is the root of all evil.  I now think the way in which we create money is the root of all evil.

In most of the world’s economies money is created when the banks  make loans and because banks are generally required to keep a fraction of their deposits on reserve most loans become additional deposits in the banking system.  This is called fractional reserve money.  It is a problem because loans that have to be written off reduce the amount of money available, with a multiplier, and because interest is charged on the loans.  A sudden reduction in the money supply is the most difficult of all economic crises.   If all the loans outstanding had to be repaid at the same time there would not be enough money to repay the principle and the interest.  We would recognize the problem as a financial crisis.  This is why I titled my book Funny Money.  I encourage you to get a free copy from Smashwords for an explanation of this problem.

Money is useful because it is a tool which facilitates the exchange of goods and services especially when a lot of our exchanges are with strangers.  We have traditionally used gold or other material items as a basis for money.  Some people still talk about the gold standard although fractional reserve money is based on faith rather than gold.

A few small groups around the world have established what they call Local Exchange Trading Systems.  These people base their exchanges on credits.  You get a credit when you sell a good or service to another member and use credits when you purchase something.  I like this system because the credits are a form of money without the problems of fractional reserve and interest.  In my book I propose we adopt a national exchange trading system and combine it with credits from a guaranteed income scheme.  This would be using money as a tool rather than a commodity.  See the book for more details.

Adopting this system would be revolutionary because it would be a transfer of decision making power from bankers to individuals.  Under fractional reserve bankers get to make decisions about what projects get funded and who gets to do them.  A National Exchange Trading System would allow individuals to make these decisions as they decided what to do with their share of the agricultural surplus.  Some of us would use our share to vote for zero economic growth and more leisure activities.

Many people feel guilty if they do not work continuously.  The work ethic and a distribution of the agricultural surplus via employment are the main motivators that keep our economy going. But the truth is that we do not need everyone to work full-time to provide foods, shelter and entertainment to everyone.  Most of the work people do is work for the sake of work and to maintain the empires of the one per cent.

The bushmen of the Kalahari desert in Africa are/were known for not being interested in material things and for not working hard.  But as hunters and gatherers they had no need to store food.  Any day of the year they could go out and collect the food they needed for that day.  When our ancestors moved to agricultural pursuits, they had to store food and this meant working at least at some times of the year.  We have now taken this need to an extreme.

One of the reasons work is so important is that most of us get our self-identity from our employment.  To save our resource base and to preserve the environment we will have to get our self-identity from other activities.  How about a leisure ethic which encourages people to perform operas, write poetry, write economic weblogs or many other useless things.

This blogger keeps by his computer a little statue of the Laughing Buddha to remind him not to take life too seriously.  Most of the time it works but when thinking about the current economic outlook it is hard to laugh.  Most of us think and act in our own short-term interests as opposed to the long-term in interests of our selves or our communities.  So long as that holds true the outlook is for a lot of human suffering.  But  what does it matter.  To quote a famous economist, in the long term we will all be dead.


The next economic crisis: financial or real?

A few people are prepping themselves for the next economic crisis and speculating about what will cause it.  This blogger thinks there are several possible causes.  It is about 99.99 per cent certain there will be another crisis.

Even if somebody does make an accurate prediction it will probably do no good because there are so many vested interests there will be no consensus about the cause and about what to do to prevent it.  However, for some of us there is some fun in trying to think out economic problems and we might be able to improve our understanding of economics.  So, here goes.

The possibilities are for the cause to be within the financial system or for the cause to be within the physical or real side of the economy.  As the two are interconnected it may be difficult to determine just what is happening.

Problems within the financial system relate to money. Either there is too much money or not enough.  Ideally the available money supply needs to be just right for the quantity of goods and services exchanged and as this varies it needs to be flexible.  When there is too much money available there is potential for inflation and this is a problem for people with invested savings as they lose some of their purchasing power.  Deflation is a problem for lenders as the money they have loaned out will have less purchasing power when it is returned, if it is returned.

The really serious problem comes when there is not enough money as this curtails economic activity.  Most of the money supply is based on loans made by the financial industry and involves a multiplier.  When the industry has to write off a large quantity of loans, as with the recent subprime housing crisis, the money supply goes down, again with a multiplier effect.  Without money the exchange of goods and services becomes difficult and lots of people lose their jobs. Big time suffering.

Currently it appears there is lots of money floating around the economy.  Lots of firms are reported to have piles of cash on hand and are probably unable to see investment opportunities.

On the real side of the economy, many people assume there are lots of energy and mineral resources available and therefore no physical restraints on the exchange of goods and services.   This may not be true.

A common argument is that as resources are consumed higher prices will bring on a greater supply which happened with oil and lots of minerals.  The problem is that they also require more energy to extract which reduces the energy available for other activities and at some point the value of the energy exceeds the value of the resources.  This blogger figures there are lots of energy and mineral resources available on the earth’s crust,  but the cost of getting them makes them useless.  This could be changed by technology and the decreasing cost of solar energy will make the high cost of oil irrelevant.

Children, workings in a vegetable garden.

However there may be some economic  disruptions in the transition.  How much oil infrastructure will have to be written of and what would that do to the money supply? Also there are all the other minerals for which there are no clear cheap substitutes.

This guy fears the greatest threat to our economic well-being is from resource restrictions on the physical side of the economy.  An even greater threat is that too many people will not see the problem because they analyse problems only in financial terms and will be looking for solutions on the financial side.  Changes in how much money is available or even in the way in which we create money will not add to the resource base or make it cheaper to extract them.

I fear for the future of my grandchildren.




Recycling is not enough

In this corner of the world recycling is almost universal.  Plastics, glass, metals, compost and drink containers are separated from the rest of the garbage.  Some people also take their own shopping bags to the supermarket.  The exceptions are that we have not mastered the technology of recycling energy and most of us continue to drive a lot

Unfortunately we are still experiencing environmental degradation, inflation and unemployment.  Recycling is not enough.  Its main function is to allow us to feel we are doing something. It allows us to ignore the real issues –  population levels and values.

I believe the most important way in to protect the environment is to reduce the number of people trying to live on this planet.  There are just too many people and I do not like the idea of saying some people should not have the same standard of living as others.  Who is to decide who gets shorted?

I also recognize it is a near impossibility as we cannot tell people not to have sex and not to have children.  What are the consequences of not taking action to reduce the population?  When the Europeans came to North America they brought with them some new diseases and close to 90 per cent of the native population died.  I understand there is some archaeological evidence that there was a similar population reduction in the Mediterranean some millenia ago.  If these precedents hold for us, then there is likely to be one hell of a stench.

We also need to get over our fear of death as so much energy and resources go into prolonging life.  Quite a few years ago The Economist reported that 80 per cent of health care spending is in the last six months of life.  I do not want to go into the 80 per cent and I hope that when my time comes I and those close to me will be able to accept it gracefully.

The other big challenge to protect  the environment deals with values many of which are a part of our committment to economic growth.

According to anthropologist James Suzman who recently published the book Affluence without Abundance, the most successful and long-lasting civilization was that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert.  These hunters and gatherers “worked” only ten to 15 hours a week.  As they relocated up to ten times a year they had little interest in material things and their society had high equality.  We cannot all go back to being hunters and gathers but we can choose some of their values and apply them to our daily lives.

If we really want to protect the environment then we should have fewer children, live in place, live a healthy lifestyle, have fewer and smaller toys, drive less, go easy on the travel and work as little as possible.  Recycling may make us feel we are doing something but it is not enough.



Trade, foreign exchange and big hamburgers

Foreign exchange and trade is hardly a sexy subject and it is one most of us would prefer not to think about. However, when people get excited about globalization or fear their jobs are threatened by trade, then we need to take it seriously.

Foreign exchange involves the financial transactions which go with trade with other countries.  Economics is a social activity and involves relationships even if some are very fleeting.  For any relationship to be satisfactory there needs to be a more or less equal two-way exchange.  This applies to trade with people from other countries.  Trade should be a two-way.

In analysing economic issues it is important to distinguish between physical transactions and financial transactions because sometimes the physical analysis gives a clearer picture than the financial analysis.  If this world had a perfect market economy each physical trade with a foreigner would be matched by a financial transaction.   Changes in prices would reflect changes in supply and demand and would be signals to producers to increase or decrease production or to even stop producing an item. This is true for domestic trade as well as international trade.

As exchange rates are based on supply and demand for currencies, financial only transactions distort the exchange rate and therefore distort prices. Not good.

An interesting approach to foreign exchange is the Big Mac index created by The Economist. I like this because it is based on a physical item, the big mac hamburger,  sold around the world.  If we had international perfect competition and everything were equal a big mac would cost the same in each currency.  The Economist compares the costs at current exchange rates to determine if a currency is over or under valued.

Obviously the world is not equal. Different countries have different values, different resources and different access to energy and mineral resources.

What happens if money is loaned or gifted from one country to another.  If the recipient uses the money to purchase goods or services from the first country, then the money becomes a part of the foreign exchange calculations.   If it is kept in foreign currency reserves,  it is removed from the money supply of the first country until it is used. If the money is exchanged and used to purchase local goods and services, it distorts the exchange rate.  If the money is kept and used to purchase local goods and services, it adds the second country’s money supply and subtracts from that of the first country.

Another complication is that a lot of people speculate about what will happen to the price of one currency in terms of another.  These transactions will be financial only in that they do not match exchanges of goods and services.  It could be that speculation smooths out fluctuations or they could distort prices.  It is hard to know as we do not know which transactions are speculative.  We do know that the volume of foreign exchange trades is massive. This writer suspects that if all financial transactions matched physical trades there would be little fluctuations in exchange rates as changes would take time.

This blogger has spent a lot of time and effort in trying to understand the economics of money, including a degree at the University of British Columbia.  Foreign exchange and trade are difficult probably because there are problems in the way in which we create money.  For more on this please get a free copy of my e-book Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy.  One of the problems is that our way of creating money gives some people a lot of power and control over others.  Vested interests are difficult to deal with.






%d bloggers like this: