Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

The REALLY ANNOYING Don’t-Wanna-Subsidize-Wealthy-Kids’-College-Tuition Canard [With fun update!]

Hillary Clinton’s performance wasn’t as clean or as crisp as her last one. Among other things, she invoked 9/11 in order to dodge a question about her campaign donors. But she effectively made the case that, though Sanders speaks about important questions, his solutions are ultimately simplistic and hers are better. Instead of railing about breaking up the big banks, focus on identifying and moderating the biggest risks to the financial system. Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids’ tuition.

Can anyone really imagine Bernie Sanders in the White House?, Stephen Stromberg, Washington Post, Nov. 15

Stromberg, a Washington Post editorial writer who also blogs there, is an all-but-official Clinton campaign mouthpiece who last month, in a blog post and (unforgivably) a Post editorial (i.e., commentary with no byline, published on behalf of the Post’s editorial board) baldly misrepresented what Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon on Tuesday misrepresented about Sanders’ single-payer healthcare insurance plan, but from a different angle: Stromberg said that the cost of the single-payer plan would be in addition to the cost of healthcare now.  Actual healthcare, not just insurance premiums.

According to Stomberg and the Post’s editorial board then, hospitals, physicians and other healthcare provides would receive full payment from private insurers and also full payment from the government.  And employers, employees and individual-market policyholders would continue to pay premiums to private insurers while they also paid taxes to the federal government for single-payer—double-payer?—insurance.

A nice deal for some but not, let’s say, for others.  Also, a preposterous misrepresentation of Sanders’ plan.

Fast-forward a month and Stromberg, this time speaking only for himself (as far as I know; I don’t read all the Post’s editorials) and for the Clinton campaign, picks up on Clinton’s invocation of the horror of the public paying college tuition for Donald Trump’s kids.  But since he probably knows that Trump’s kids no more went to public colleges than did Clinton’s kid, he broadens it.

Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids’ tuition.  Good line!  At least for the ears of voters who are unaware that public universities, like private ones, quietly skew their admissions processes to favor the kids of parents who likely can pay full tuition simply by switching the funds from a CD or other savings account into a checking account at the beginning of each semester, thus removing the need for the school to dig into its endowment fund to provide financial assistance.  Or to worry about whether the student will have that loan money ready at the beginning of each semester.

Which is why Jennifer Gratz, salutatorian at her working-class Detroit suburb’s high school, whose extracurriculars included cheerleading but probably not a summer in Honduras assisting the poor, was denied admission to the University of Michigan back in 1995.  And why she sued the University in what eventually became a landmark Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality under the equal protection clause of UM’s affirmative action program.

She did not challenge the constitutionality of the U’s almost-certain, but unstated, admissions policy that would ensure that the freshman class had a substantial percentage of students from families wealthy enough to pay the full tuition.

Y’know, the ones wealthy enough to pay for SAT tutoring, SAT practice course and if necessary more than one SAT exam.

What especially angers me about this let’s-not-subsidize-wealthy-kids’-college-canard is that it uses disparities in ability to pay the tuition as a clever way to ensure the admissions status quo.  Or something close to the status quo.

In her and her campaign spokesman’s statements in the last several days—most notably her “Read My Lips; No New Taxes on the Middle Class, Even $1.35/wk to Pay for Family and Medical Leave” declaration, but other statements too—she’s overtly declaring herself a triangulator.  And some progressive political pundits are noticing it.  Yes!*  They!**  Are!***  And Sanders needs to start quoting these articles, in speaking and in web and television ads.

I said here yesterday that Clinton is running a Republican-style campaign.  But it’s not only its style–its tactics–that are Republican. Watch her edge ever closer on substance as well.  Which is the way she began her campaign last spring and early summer, until it became clear that Sanders’ campaign was catching on.


*Hillary Clinton Attacks Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda: Why is she talking like a Republican?, Jonathan Cohn, Senior National Correspondent, Huffington Post, Nov. 17

**Hillary Clinton Hits Bernie Sanders on Taxes, Paul Waldman, Washington Post, Nov. 17

***Under attack at the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton plays EVERY POSSIBLE CARD, Alexandra Petri, The Washington Post, Nov. 14


Edited for clarity, typo-correction–and the addition of the last sentence.  11/19 at 8:23 pm.  [Oh, dear.  That’s addition, not edition. Can’t seem to avoid the typos.  I need an editor!]  Corrected 11/20 at 9:52 a.m, after Naked Capitalism linked to the post.  Damn!  

Oh, well.

FUN UPDATE: Yves Smith was kind enough to republish this post on Naked Capital this morning, and there are a few terrific comments to it there.  But I can’t resist reprinting this one, from rusti, as an update the post here at AB:

rusti November 20, 2015 at 5:07 am

We can’t, in good conscience, continue to pay for public works projects knowing that The Donald’s kids are driving on these roads, getting their electrical power from these lines, sourcing water from the same pipes and so forth. A few (moderate) tax rebates to impoverished families to allow them to build out their own infrastructure ought to do the trick.

Perfect.  Question to self, though: Why didn’t YOU think of that, Beverly??

Added 11/20 at 10:18 a.m. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (27) | |

Oscar Landerretche on Inequality

Oscar Landerretche is an awesome economist from Chile. Below is an excerpt of his participation in a video forum with Brad DeLong on the Politics of Inequality in 2012. Since then he has become the President of the Board of Directors for Codelco, the largest copper producer in Chile. He is currently dealing with the problems in the copper industry. His views help us understand the growing inequality in the US.

Oscar Landerretche on inequality. (48 minute point of video)

“The context of this is that Chile has always been a very unequal society, which is a striking difference with the United States which has had historical periods of relative equality. So, let’s say that somebody came up with a magical policy formula and actually managed to improve our Gini coefficient by 15 points or something like that… which is what we would need to become something like a European country… the structure of the economy would be very very different, in every single sense… it would be extremely different from what we have today. You would have to have other economic sectors that do not exist right now. You would have to have a different political structure. You would have to have a different labor structure… “

Keep in mind that the Gini coefficient in the US has moved toward Chile’s. The structures of our politics and economy have become more like Chile’s. We have lost economic sectors.

“So it’s very hard to promise someone… “you know what?, We’re going to do these things that are going to make dramatic changes in our economy and you’re going to come up a winner.” It’s very hard to make that promise, because a lot of things we have to do is really answer questions. Like, What else are we going to produce besides commodities, food stuffs and copper?… and depending on what sectors are going to come up first, the structure of society and the economy are going to be very different.”

People begin to lose sight of the work they can do for their local community, because local demand for goods and services dries up. As well, economic development concentrates in the hands of fewer people. Grassroots’ endeavors fade away.

“On the hand, the losers are very clear. Chile is a very small country. It’s markets are very concentrated. It’s basically controlled by just a handful of very large family conglomerates. And they are going to lose.”

As inequality concentrates wealth and income, it also concentrates the markets of production. Fewer labor hours are needed to serve the demand of those with the concentrated wealth. Just as we see in the US, underemployment increases with more inequality.

If you were to spread income more evenly throughout society, you would see a broader demand base. Each community would be able to develop more work opportunities.

“It’s easier for the losers to coordinate their strategies to defend what they have. than the winners. The winners don’t really know who they are. It’s very theoretical. It’s sort of an abstract notion. These abstract notions usually get defeated in politics unfortunately…”

Oscar Landerretche is describing the present and future of the US.

Comments (8) | |

Clinton Campaign Spokesman Brian Fallon Says Healthcare Insurance Premiums Aren’t Paid by Families and Employers, Because They’re Paid to Private For-Profit Insurers. Seriously.

“Bernie Sanders has called for a roughly 9-percent tax hike on middle-class families just to cover his health-care plan,” said Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon, referring to legislation Sanders introduced in 2013, “and simple math dictates he’ll need to tax workers even more to pay for the rest of his at least $18-20 trillion agenda. If you are truly concerned about raising incomes for middle-class families, the last thing you should do is cut their take-home pay right off the bat by raising their taxes.”

Clinton hits Sanders on middle class tax hikes, Annie Karni, Politico, yesterday

No, actually, that’s the third-last thing you should do.  The very last thing you should do is fail to recognize that money is fungible.  And the second-last thing you should do is ignore simple math.

As in: If you and your employer are no longer paying exorbitant premiums to Anthem Blue Cross, and are instead paying significantly less for your healthcare insurance in the form of a tax, you’ll end up with more, y’know, income.  Especially if your employer uses the savings to increase your salary or wages.

Last weekend, the big read-my-lips-no-new-taxes-on-the-middle-class Clinton line was about the horror of Sanders’s plan to pay for guaranteed family-and-medical leave was through a payroll tax.  But then Sanders pointed out that this would be a tax of (I think he said) $1.35 a week.  Which, to many Democrats, sounds like a good deal.

So it was on to Plan B for the Clinton folks.  Then again, Clinton really does seem to be a fan of Anthem Blue Cross, United Health Care, Humana, et al.  And math is not her forte.

Yesterday, in a response to a comment to this post of mine, I wrote:

And, yes, I wish she would talk less like a Madison Avenue copywriter and more like some semblance of someone who can speak in normal and logical statements.

Either she’s trained her spokesman well or he’s trained her well.  In any event, it’s a hallmark of the Clinton campaign.

But I doubt that misrepresenting to the public that Sanders’ single-payer healthcare tax would be in addition to premiums paid to private insurance companies is a very viable campaign tactic. Clinton is running a Republican-style campaign but she is not running for the Republican nomination.  And this is, after all, 2015.

Tags: , , , , Comments (31) | |

High slack or Low slack?

One has to be crazy to disagree with Brad DeLong. Then, I must be crazy. He said…

“After being wrong for eight straight years, critics of expansionary macro policies in a high-slack low-inflation economy–” Link

It is true that if we look across America, we will see lots of slack and underemployment. Labor force participation is low. Labor hours are at the same level as 15 years ago. (link) Part-time work is higher than in the past.

So why do I disagree with Brad?

Monetary policy is coordinated with the hope that the high-slack will eventually be utilized. In the words of my daughter, “Not gonna happen”. Much of the labor force is simply not going to be needed for the equilibrium economy. Much of labor has been cut out (marginalized) from the equilibrium economy.

The reason is growing inequality…

more concentrated wealth and income = more concentrated consumption demand = more concentrated production

We need fewer labor hours to serve those with the concentrated wealth. The equilibrium level of labor is lower. So we will now always see slack and more underemployment, because the labor force is being concentrated due to income inequality.

The hope of low interest rates is for lower-level businesses to hire the marginalized labor and tighten the labor market so that inflation will return. But the larger marginalized labor force sitting outside the equilibrium economy helps keep wages down. So inflation will stay weak. The low Fed rate is in a delusional attempt. The Fed rate will stay low for a long time until it recognizes that a significant portion of the high-slack is simply gone causing inflation to remain weak.

The Two Groups within Slack

When you look at the high-slack, a relatively smaller portion of it currently will be utilized to bring the economy into an “equilibrium” state of full-employment. The slack that we see is comprised of two groups.

  1. Those who will be utilized.
  2. Those who will not be utilized… the marginalized.

The “true slack” only corresponds to the first group. It is an error to put both groups into the potential slack to be utilized, because as the second group grows relative to the first, you drive down the Fed rate unwisely… unless you see institutions and policies reversing inequality. But inequality in the US is not reversing.

It is like expecting 100 people to come to a party, so you make enough food for 100 people. But then, really only 50 people have any chance of getting to the party. It was an inefficient error expecting 100 people. Too much food will be prepared. Too many people will be hired to prepare the food. Yet, businesses are smart. They know to hire enough labor to prepare food for only 50 people. That is what the “true demand” is.

Brad DeLong should know that inequality marginalizes portions of the labor force. He works in an organization that deals with inequality. And he sponsored a forum on inequality with Oscar Landerretche (economist from Chile who speaks against inequality) Youtube video link. In the video link Oscar Landerretche seeks to articulate his direct experience and deep insights of inequality.

Inequality produces higher levels of underemployment within the effective demand limits. I wonder if Brad DeLong has any measure of an effective demand limit upon an economy as Keynes tried to describe it. (link)


As the Fed rate rises, the marginalized workers will become more visible as to what they really are… marginalized. The marginalized workers really are unusable, unprofitable and unneeded slack. “True” slack in the economy is actually low. The unemployment rate would most likely rise as the Fed rate normalizes trimming out the weakly-incorporated marginalized.
At some point though, the Fed rate will have to let go of these marginalized workers as dead weight on the equilibrium economy so that it can normalize… Otherwise a way has to be found to reverse the trend of inequality.

Comments (7) | |

ISIS: Rogue State or Organized Crime Gang/Mafia

The West has been at ‘war’ with the Mafia and other organized crime gangs for over a century now. And nobody really thinks there will be some final ‘victory’. On the other hand the Mafia is at one of its lowest ebbs in both the United States and Italy. And who among us really remembers the days when Baader-Meinhoff terrorized Germany or the Red Brigades Italy. Or the Manson Family southern California – ooops, that is everybody because they made books and movies about it and the primary victim was a pregnant movie star. But all of which makes the point – horrible people have been doing horrible things to more or less innocent peoples since forever. And there is nothing that ISIS did in Paris that exceeds what the Manson Family did in 1969 or Al Capone’s guys in the Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929. It was all brutal and evil and fully justified the full application of the force of the State to suppress it, up to and including deadly force as necessary. But only as necessary. Al Capone died in prison and Chuck Manson will too, there was no need to carpet bomb Chicago or the California desert.

ISIS are not world history’s worst monsters. On the other hand they are pretty damn monstrous. On balance are they worse than the worst branches of the Mafia over its several century history? I don’t know, on the other hand I am not going to pre-judge the State’s attempt to ruthlessly crush them. Now lots of mockery has been expended on the notion that ‘terrorism’ can be addressed as a criminal justice matter rather than some matter of existential war of civilizations. But calling these matters ‘crimes’ rather than ‘war’ is important. In WWII we declared war on Japan and Germany declared war on the U.S. and this war was considered on both sides a war of country vs. country and people vs. people with the result of really terrible acts perpetrated by both sides against an amorphous enemy. In the context of total war firebombing Tokyo and Dresden were considered simple acts of war. And if anyone objected the answers were easy: “Coventry”, “Pearl Harbour”, “The Bataan Death March”.

But we don’t need to adopt the model of ‘Total War’. ISIS is not Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. On the other hand it is a little harder target than the Detroit Purple Gang of the 20s and 30s or the Gambino Family of the 70s and 80s. All of which means that we need to calibrate our violence to the actual threat. We can take the War to ISIS without taking it to the entire Islamic World. Just as taking the War to the Mafia didn’t require carpet bombing every Sons of Columbus Hall and blowing up the Vatican. In both cases you need to keep focus on the Bad Guys. And regard collateral damage as a tragedy and not as we too often did in World War Two as a payback.

Maybe the Italians will never extirpate every trace of the Mafia from Sicily. In fact I will bet big money that not. And I predict that 100 years from now, and despite all the efforts of Batman, er I mean the NYPD Gang Squad, there will still be organized crime in Gotham/The Big Apple. Even though there will be episodes of Good Guys shooting down Bad Guys. And Bad Guys killing Innocent Civilians. And so too for ISIS. We can never defeat the underlying forces that lead to criminality. Which doesn’t mean we can’t cheer the day that Seal Team Six put bullets in Osama bin Ladin’s head or the day, hopefully soon, when a Hellfire Missile takes out the top leadership of ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh. But Christ Almighty can we keep the fire bombings and nuclear attacks in our back pocket? Taking out criminal leaders of criminal regimes while understanding that not every person under the power of that regime is a legitimate target is not some wimpy response, some lightweight attempt to ignore the fact that “we are at war” and not busting people for jay-walking. But there is a middle way that has us targeting the actual bad guys as criminal thugs who may require lethal justice. Without carpet bombing Palermo or the Bronx.

Tags: , Comments (35) | |

Why Tyler Cowen Doesn’t Understand the Economy: It’s the Debt, Stupid

In a recent post Tyler Cowen makes an admirable effort to lay out his overarching approach to thinking about macroeconomics, revealing the assumptions underlying his understanding of how economies work. (Even more salutary, this has prompted others to do likewise: Nick Rowe, Ryan Avent.)

Cowen’s first assertion:

In world history, 99% of all business cycles are real business cycles.

This may be true, but it is almost certainly immaterial to the operations of modern, financialized monetary economies. He acknowledges as much in his second assertion:

In the more recent segment of world history, a lot of cycles have been caused by negative nominal shocks.  I consider the Christina and David Romer “shock identification” paper (pdf, and note the name order) to be one of the very best pieces of research in all of macroeconomics.

That paper, which revisits and revises Friedman and Schwartz’s Monetary History, is clearly foundational to Cowen’s understanding of how economies work, so it bears examination — in particular, its foundational assumptions. The Romers state one of those assumptions explicitly on page 134 (emphasis mine):

…an assumption that trend inflation by itself does not affect the dynamics of real output. We find this assumption reasonable: there appears to be no plausible channel other than policy through which trend inflation could cause large short-run output swings.

This will (or should) raise many eyebrows; it certainly did mine. Because: it completely ignores the effects of inflation on debt relationships.

It’s as if Irving Fisher and Hyman Minsky had never written.

Assuming “inflation” means roughly equivalent wage and price increases, at least over the medium/long term (yes, an iffy assumption given recent decades, but…), inflation increases nominal incomes without increasing nominal expenditures for existing debt service. (Yes, with some exceptions for inflation-indexed debt contracts.) Deflation, the reverse. Nominal debt-service expenditures are (very) sticky. Or described differently: inflation constitutes a massive ongoing transfer of real buying power from creditors to debtors — and again, deflation the reverse.

“No plausible channel”?

Excepting one passing and immaterial mention of government debt, the the words “debt” and “liability” do not appear in the Romer and Romer paper, and it has only two passing mentions of “assets.” It’s as if balance sheets did not exist — which in fact they do not in the national accounting constructs then existing, that the Romers, Friedman, Schwartz, and presumably Cowen today are using in their mental economic models and in the “narrative” approach to explaining economies that Friedman, Schwartz, and the Romers explicitly champion.

If you go further and allow that wages and prices can inflate at different rates (which you must, given recent decades), you have extremely large and changing differentials between price inflation, wage inflation, and (especially) asset-price inflation.

All of these inflation dynamics are assumed away, made invisible and immaterial, in Romer and Romer — hence largely, at least presumably so, in Cowen’s understanding of economies. It is explicitly assumed (hence concluded) that those dynamics have no “real” effect. As in Romer and Romer, the words “debt,” “liability,” and “asset” are absent from Cowen’s “macroeconomic framework.” (Though he does give a polite if content-free nod to Minsky in his ninth statement.)

This explains much, in my opinion, about Cowen’s — and many other mainstream economists’ — flawed understanding of how economies work.

Cross-posted at Asymptosis.

Comments (5) | |

Catching up to the Natural Real Rate

This is a comment on an article that came out yesterday called The equilibrium real funds rate: Past, present and future by James D. Hamilton, Ethan Harris, Jan Hatzius and Kenneth D. West. They talk about how difficult it is to determine an equilibrium real interest rate which is the real rate at full employment or the natural level of real GDP.

Yes, it would be difficult to estimate the natural real rate when one does not have an estimate of an effective demand limit for a business cycle. One has a vague idea what the output gap could be. It is like a blind person groping not knowing where a wall is.

My way to determine the effective demand limit may not be the best way, but it is the only way so far. No one else talks about one. So far the economy is following my theories. I hope to be opening some insights that economics has not seen before.

The authors of the referenced article say that the equilibrium real rate is somewhere between 0% and 2%. The wide range is based on uncertainty surrounding many factors. Based on the effective demand limit which sets the natural level of real GDP, I say the equilibrium real rate is in the upper range of their estimate, between 1.5% and 2.0%.

projected fed path1

In the graph, I determine the natural real rate by first estimating potential real GDP with relation to an effective demand limit. (see this link) Then I take a 2-year, 3-year and 4-year annual growth rates of that potential real GDP. Then I average these 3 rates.

My sense though is that the authors agree with a natural real rate at least above 1.5% because they show a graph where the Fed rate normalizes a bit above 3.5%. This is based on an inflation target of 2.0% plus a natural real rate of 1.5%. It seems they expect the natural real rate to revert towards its mean.

projected fed path

However, this graph implies that the Fed rate could rise from 0.5% to 2.5% through 2016. In order to do this, the Fed rate would have to rise at least 0.5% every quarter after sitting at the ZLB since 2009. The markets would be shocked. The Fed seems too far behind the curve. Such a fast rate rise would be hard for the markets to stomach. But since the Fed does not see an effective demand limit, they estimate more available capacity than I and others do.

Comments (2) | |

Growth in the Emerging Market Economies

by Joseph Joyce

Growth in the Emerging Market Economies

In recent decades the global economy has been transformed by the rise of the emerging market economies. Their growth lifted millions out of poverty and gave their governments the right to call for a larger voice in discussions of international economic governance. Therefore it is of no small importance to understand whether recent declines in the growth rates of these countries is a cyclical phenomenon or a longer-lasting transition to a new, slower state. That such a slowdown has wide ramifications became clear when Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen cited concerns about growth in emerging markets for the delay in raising the Fed’s interest rate target in September.

The data show the gap between the record of the advanced economies and that of the emerging markets. I used the IMF’s World Economic Outlook database to calculate averages of annual growth rates of constant GDP for the two groups.

The difference in the average growth rates was notable before the global financial crisis, and rose during the crisis. Since then their growth rates have fallen a bit but continue to exceed those of the sclerotic advanced economies. Since the IMF pools emerging market economies with developing economies, the differences would be higher if we looked only at the record of emerging markets such as China, India and Indonesia.

Comments (3) | |

Hillary Clinton’s Interesting New Math. (It doesn’t appear to have been devised by academics, and hopefully it will not become part of public school curriculums.)

Defending herself from claims that she’s too cozy with Wall Street, Clinton responded, “Not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small….”

The Federal Election Commission defines a small donation as less than $200. Her campaign has received $13.3 million in small donations, just a fraction of her total haul of $76.1 million this cycle. There’s no way to know how many individual donors made up that group, percent, because they don’t have to be disclosed. But her statement is certainly misleading. Her money comes from chiefly big donors.

—     Clinton’s money isn’t from “small” donors, Isaac Arnsdorf, Politico, today

Hmmm.  And how many of the big donors are from the private-prison-industrial complex—directly and indirectly?  How sick.  Good thing Bernie Sanders made private for-profit prisons an issue back when Clinton was losing ground to him.  After all, Clinton probably will be the nominee, and then (hopefully) the president.  And now she’s promised to … something about them.  The something probably isn’t aggressively supporting enactment of a law prohibiting them federally and in state and local systems, but we can’t have everything, can we?

And how many of her “bundlers” are lawyers or lobbyists for the finance industry?

And how long does she expect to get away with her version of the new math, in which, y’know, $76.1 million is wayyyy less than $13.3 million, and in which long division doesn’t exist?  As in, the fewer the number of people who provided the donations in the $76.1 million group, the more influence those folks are likely to have over her?

Just askin’.

Also wonderin’ how many people out there think the big finance guys who’ve maxed out their direct donations and are supporting her two super PACs are doing this in gratitude for all that federal assistance she helped obtain for Manhattan after 9/11, as she (dismayingly) claimed last night.  And how many people think the federal government wouldn’t have provided extensive recovery assistance to Manhattan were it not for Clinton’s absolute insistence that it do so.

I think AB should take a poll on this.

UPDATE: So Clinton’s fondness for ridiculous non sequiturs has finally caught up with her. Usually she uses these as cutesy slams against her campaign opponent, these days Bernie Sanders.  But this time it was in defending herself against the charge that she is compromised by her acceptance of huge amounts of money in donations from the finance industry, and it was so transparently absurd that no one needed to explain the background of the falsity, or whatever.

This penchant of hers for non sequiturs suggests she thinks that most of the public won’t catch on because the public will learn of the underlying facts only later.  And, y’know, … women.  But catching on to this one didn’t require some background information.  So now I’m wondering: How stupid does she think the public is?

Added 11/15 at 8:59 p.m.

P.S. Was I the only one who was surprised that Clinton mispronounced Paul Krugman’s name?  I said when I heard that, “Okayyy. She’s definitely not Jewish.” But she also is definitely not someone who’s ever watched or listened to him being introduced.

Just sayin’.

Added 11/15 at 9.29 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (6) | |