*Rich People Poor Countries*

by on February 12, 2016 at 1:36 pm in Books, Data Source, Economics | Permalink

That is the new and excellent book by Caroline Freund; the subtitle is The Rise of Emerging-market Tycoons and Their Mega Firms.  It looks at the rise of billionaires in emerging markets, offers a new data base on how they earned their wealth, and takes a generally “pro-billionaire” stance, at least relative to many other sources.

Here is a tape of yesterday’s session on the book.  The author summarizes, I give my comments a smidgen after 35:00, and then there is more.  Here is also a new and related working paper by Freund and Sarah Oliver.

1 Thor February 12, 2016 at 2:14 pm

To be truthful, I’m intrigued by the notion of “taking a pro-billionaire” stance. It’s not a stance one sees taken every day.

2 msgkings February 12, 2016 at 3:28 pm

I dunno, guys like Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, Larry Page, etc. have plenty of ‘fans’

3 Steve Sailer February 12, 2016 at 3:32 pm

The New York Times is constantly denouncing telecom monopolist Carlos Slim for getting vastly rich off of the average people of Mexico.

Oh, wait, sorry, that doesn’t much happen.

I wonder why?

4 Thiago Ribeiro February 12, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Why should it? It is not the Ciudade de México Times.

5 msgkings February 12, 2016 at 5:03 pm

As if an actual paper in Moscow could ever condemn Putin, or say anything at all bad about him.

6 TMC February 12, 2016 at 6:38 pm

Because Slim owns a chunk of the NYT

7 Jan February 12, 2016 at 6:59 pm

@TMC that is a weak argument. Jeff Bezos also owns a big chunk of the Times and they absolutely demolished his company with their story, The Amazon Way, last year.

8 JWatts February 12, 2016 at 7:08 pm

“Jeff Bezos also owns a big chunk of the Times”

Cite?

9 TMC February 12, 2016 at 7:29 pm

Jan, Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the Times.

10 Sam Haysom February 12, 2016 at 7:39 pm

I agree with Jan- assuming we pretend that Jeff Bezon owns a big chunk of the NYT then yes that argument doesn’t make sense. Then again if we don’t falsely assume that it seems like a pretty good argument. Jan did you mean this as a hypothetical exercise? Surely you wouldn’t get the facts this completely wrong.

11 Cliff February 13, 2016 at 12:59 am

Jan, journalist killings are actually down under Putin compared to years previous though, right?

12 Thiago Ribeiro February 13, 2016 at 4:24 pm

“As if an actual paper in Moscow could ever condemn Putin, or say anything at all bad about him.”
Yeah, the Mexicans are terrorized by their government…

13 Thor February 12, 2016 at 6:39 pm

Sure, there are fans out there. But presumably this book is the work of an economist who makes a substantive case for the benefits that accrue to an economy from its billionaire(s). Benefits that are systemic, and not due to the philanthropy of the billionaire in question.

14 prior_test February 13, 2016 at 5:40 am

‘and takes a generally “pro-billionaire” stance, at least relative to many other sources’

Thankfully, there exist outposts of well financed billionaire sympathy like the Mercatus Center. Though it is really hard to miss the anti-billionaire bias so evidently on display at the WSJ, FT, Fortune, Bloomberg, Fox, Forbes, and so many other extreme left publications, isn’t it?

Maybe someone should acquaint Prof. Cowen with that center, located at a university but not in any sense part of that university, and its tireless efforts in this area. Possibly, he could even consult with the chairman and general director, maybe at one of those ever so collegial lunches at GMU.

15 The Cock Brothers February 13, 2016 at 1:18 pm

We fund the Mercatus center so we can go in there and cock slap the nerd glasses off any economist who isn’t towing the long thick line and if you don’t like it we can slap you around with our big cocks you little small cock wennie

16 rayward February 12, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Of course, increasing inequality in China worked, until it didn’t. Inequality in China is higher than in the U.S.; indeed, inequality in many emerging economies is higher than in the U.S. Is it a problem in the U.S.? If it’s a problem in the U.S., then it’s a problem in emerging economies. I believe excessive inequality is a problem, an economic problem, but that’s a view not shared by those at this blog. Secular stagnation, financial instability, the correlation with excessive inequality is undeniable if one is willing to look at the data. I’m pro-billionaire too, but not pro-excessive inequality. There’s a big difference.

17 Cooper February 12, 2016 at 4:01 pm

Inequality also spiked during the early 20th century at the same time that massive technological changes were sweeping the country.

The problem is when those newly minted billionaires start sawing the bottom rungs off the ladder by blocking competition for their protected monopolies, (see Slim, Carlos)

18 Nathan W February 12, 2016 at 5:57 pm

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

Inequality doesn’t bother me all that much. But the ladder must remain firmly in place, so we can all enjoy the freedom of being able to climb it if we want to try, and have the same chances as someone else of similar ability.

19 JWatts February 12, 2016 at 7:09 pm

Agreed.

20 So Much For Subtlety February 12, 2016 at 7:12 pm

Although that just raises the obvious question of what ladders exist. That becomes a question of political orientation. From where I sit the most important ladder looks to be selective education. The US is not good at social mobility because education is not rigorous and not selective. Europe and East Asia do select and social mobility is usually much higher. The second one is a free-ish relatively-unregulated market. Regulations always reward incumbents. They usually write them. They always make it tough for new entrants into the marketplace. Europe has consistently come up with technological break throughs but it has also consistently failed to provide them with a chance. They have protected their older companies very nicely though.

So from where I sit, it looks to me as if you support a watered down no-child-left-behind education system and are in favor of regulating the market to death. So you oppose any meaningful means of upward mobility for the poor. No doubt that is not fair, but what meaningful means of social mobility do you support?

21 Nathan W February 12, 2016 at 8:29 pm

“what meaningful means of social mobility do you support”

I would like to give a more thoughtful answer than simply education and moderate redistribution (think of the children). I’m all ears if you have better/other ideas.

If there was one single “tiny” and specific thing I would change in the USA, it would be that school funding formulas would not be based on local tax inputs, but rather that they be calculated per student and according to other needs, aggregated at a higher political level than is presently the case.

I admit that I do not have well established thinking on what now appears to me as a question that obviously is worth more detailed thought. Thus, I could ramble for a while, but I’m more interested in what some others might have to say on the matter. I’ve read a decent amount of stuff on social mobility, but the economics stuff on it mostly deals with ways of calculating various descriptive statistics, and I do not recall stuff that makes any convincing case for some innovative way at promoting social mobility.

Of things that I would NOT do to improve social mobility – I would accord standardized tests very small relevance, since they are virtually certain to be poorly targeted to things that are most relevant in the workplace, such as getting along with people, working on teams, interpersonal communication, etc.

(Also, where you represent what I’m saying, you are misrepresenting it almost completely. “No child left behind” sounds like precisely the right idea, but not the actual policies as implemented under the that slogan – I am not aware of any revolutionary ideas to actually accomplish “no child left behind” for $5. The ideal and social/economic benefits of fluid social mobility costs money to put into action, and this must be set against the fact that the necessary taxation to do so would negatively affect incentives for non-beneficiary groups of social mobility enhancers.)

22 Nathan W February 12, 2016 at 9:23 pm

Harding, I’m hardly presenting these as scientific truths, but don’t they pass the smell test of common sense?

The notions that “getting along with people, working on teams, interpersonal communication”, etc. are critical in the workplace is … debatable? What are you asking for, coefficient numbers from empirical studies on soft concepts?

You might like to extend the list, but I’m hardly saying things that require scientific proof. It’s common sense. If you can’t get along with people, you will do worse at work than otherwise. If you suck at working on teams, you will do worse at work than otherwise. If you have poor interpersonal communication, you will do worse at work than otherwise.

Yeah yeah yeah, some exceptions of jobs where these are less relevant. Big pictures. People stuff matters at work, no matter how IQ you are. Since most jobs don’t actually require particularly genius levels of ability, the people stuff is generally most relevant once you’re sitting in a pool where everyone has already jumped all the hoops.

23 So Much For Subtlety February 12, 2016 at 9:32 pm

Nathan W February 12, 2016 at 8:29 pm

If there was one single “tiny” and specific thing I would change in the USA, it would be that school funding formulas would not be based on local tax inputs, but rather that they be calculated per student and according to other needs, aggregated at a higher political level than is presently the case.

Which is pretty much what has happened. Baltimore is the second highest spending education authority in America – after New York. Federal money has flowed into the inner cities in particular. But it is pointless. It doesn’t work. This has been tried:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

I would accord standardized tests very small relevance, since they are virtually certain to be poorly targeted to things that are most relevant in the workplace, such as getting along with people, working on teams, interpersonal communication, etc.

In the end, getting on with people is nice, but we need people who know things. Also, of course, you are privileging Social Capital over actual knowledge. “Tim Nice But Dim” is a UK parody of the sort of nice Upper Middle Class boy who would do well by this measure. It is anti-mobility as the rich will do better. You are just saying that the system should reward nice Anglo-Saxon boys who play sport over those chippy immigrant types.

The ideal and social/economic benefits of fluid social mobility costs money to put into action

I don’t think it does. A selective education system might well save money.

24 Nathan W February 13, 2016 at 12:18 am

“Baltimore … it is pointless. It doesn’t work.”

Baltimore is one of the most fucked up places on the planet, outside of active war zones, and is in fact probably more dangerous than a lot of active war zones. I’m hardly going to take a counterexample from such places as evidence that equal school funding across jurisdictions is a hopeless proposal that would eternally fail and just waste money.

“we need people who know things”

We’re talking about grade school and high school teachers man. They need to be able to relate with kids, organize classes do basic administrative stuff. No genius whatsoever is needed. Whether the gym teacher has advanced grammer or the math teacher has a PhD in physics is pretty irrelevant. They’re ability to teach is what is relevant. And their ability to get high scores on a standardized test of various knowledge is basically irrelevant to their ability to teach.

If you had ever organized a few classes as a teacher, you would see that requiring high scores for general knowledge is pretty irrelevant to good teaching. Maybe sometimes you forget some basic stuff, but if you are prepared for class it doesn’t matter. And while it might be romantic to imagine all those free flowing classes where your extensive knowledge on absolutely everything is going to bestow an amazing education, in reality, you have a curriculum and there’s not much of any time for extras.

“you are privileging Social Capital over actual knowledge”

You could put it that way. But in fact I am saying that they are both relevant, whereas you seem to prefer the absolute exclusion of the social. Also, I’m not referring to “social capital”, which is generally used to refer to things like having good connections, etc. I’m talking about the ability to work well with people in general. You could call it a form of human capital as well if you want, but human capital is usually defined in terms of years experience and formal schooling, not softer stuff.

” A selective education system might well save money.”

Arew you talking about streaming by ability? This is probably one of the most discussed issues in education ever, whether to group together children by ability or have them all learn together. It is also one of the most obviously unresolved questions in teaching. While some winners and losers might be identified in various approaches, no one approach is obviously better than the other.

But the sense in which I anticipate that it would cost money, not save money, is that presumably it involves a lot of public spending on education. Relative to the status quo, this might indeed involve savings, but relative to the purely non-intevenionist state, this is a rather large expenditure.

25 Cliff February 13, 2016 at 1:06 am

Nathan,

Have some humility and accept you are coming at this from a position of ignorance. There is a rich literature on school funding (modest impact on outcomes at best), there is a rich literature on what factors predict workplace success (#1 factor: IQ).

At the #1 public high school in the U.S., NAM groups complained there was discrimination because the admissions were based mostly on a standardized test and few NAM made the cut. So the school among other things made the admissions more holistic, to incorporate passion for STEM, extracurricular activities, and the like. These changes did not improve the situation (now Asians are about 70% of the admits) and were also decried as racist since NAM “don’t have time to do extracurricular activities because they are so busy babysitting their siblings while their parents work a second job” etc. That’s basically a quote from the lawsuit that was filed, which personally I thought was significantly more racist than the admissions policy could be.

26 Nathan W February 13, 2016 at 4:40 am

“Have some humility and accept you are coming at this from a position of ignorance”

Well, having worked as a teacher I took it upon myself to read a lot on these subjects some years back. Do you wish to specifically take issue with some specific things I said, instead of trying to broadly tar me as ignorant?

I don’t pretend to have all the answers or know all of the literature, and moreover the USA is a big country and there is a large diversity of approaches being taken in many places, and so any sort of generalization can be countered with a contrary example or two. But to propose that a failure to have mastered all knowledge on a subject is synonymous with ignorance on the subject makes it easy to observe that you simply don’t like my perspective and are searching for ways to discredit what I have to say. And moreover dude, fuck you for turning it that way because the first thing I said was very humble with respect to my knowledge in this area, hoping to elicit some novel ideas to interact with on the question.

You introduce precisely one anecdote. What was supposed to be relevant about it? A school tried precisely two admissions approaches, both of which were unsatisfactory to people worried about the level of black admissions, and so we can conclude … ? What can we conclude? Black people complain too much for nothing? Black people complain too much for something? Cliff doesn’t like it when black people point out that a given system isn’t working very well for them?

Question. Why did you find that quote racist? It seems common these days to call non-white people racist in various ways which bear no relation whatsoever to any definition of racism in any dictionary that I’m aware of.

Another question: In high school, did you ever have to work more than one or two shifts per week or put in more than 5-10 hours of child care in any week ever? In weeks where you worked 3-4 shifts or did 20 hours of child care, did you have time for extracurriculars? How did you do on your tests those weeks?

Man, there are some pathways up, but it is ridiculously hard to climb out of poverty, and the way you present your favoured anecdote exudes deep ignorance of the ways in which this is true.

27 So Much For Subtlety February 13, 2016 at 4:54 am

Nathan W February 13, 2016 at 12:18 am

Baltimore is one of the most fucked up places on the planet, outside of active war zones

The link was not about Baltimore. Read it and learn. And the fact remains that the government has taken your advice. It has not worked.

We’re talking about grade school and high school teachers man.

I mean to become doctors and engineers. Steve Jobs may have been a sociopath who did not play well with others, but he was useful none the less.

And their ability to get high scores on a standardized test of various knowledge is basically irrelevant to their ability to teach.

Umm, no. If all they are doing is entertainment, they should be in show business. Ultimately they are there to teach and impart knowledge. That may not be all they should do but it is a big part.

If you had ever organized a few classes as a teacher, you would see that requiring high scores for general knowledge is pretty irrelevant to good teaching.

You are in Asia. Asians disagree.

But in fact I am saying that they are both relevant, whereas you seem to prefer the absolute exclusion of the social.

No, I am saying that a focus on actual knowledge benefits social mobility.

Also, I’m not referring to “social capital”, which is generally used to refer to things like having good connections, etc. I’m talking about the ability to work well with people in general.

Which is invariably interpreted to benefit the wealthy. Good manners is, after all, a matter of breeding.

Arew you talking about streaming by ability? This is probably one of the most discussed issues in education ever, whether to group together children by ability or have them all learn together. It is also one of the most obviously unresolved questions in teaching.

It is not unresolved. It is merely politically unpopular. Its success is undeniable.

While some winners and losers might be identified in various approaches, no one approach is obviously better than the other.

Everyone who does it has social mobility. Countries that don’t, don’t have much.

28 Nathan W February 13, 2016 at 9:36 am

The CATO article re Kansas program – yes, I’ve heard of this many times before. I am unwilling to disregard it, as it appears to be very inconvenient to certain perspectives. I am not one of those people who disregards important contrary information.

But this is to be filed in the category “important contrary anecdotes”, not “clear generalizable evidence”, as the Cato article portrays it.

Let me go out on a limb. Someone tried something for the first time ever, spent a lot of money, and it didn’t work very well.

What do you think of my entirely plausible alternative explanation to “therefore spending more is always pointless in matters of education”? Sure, in taking this position you can identify the preference that I HOPE more money might be help (cause if not then what the check else might we do?). But I’m quite open minded about the matter.

“I mean to become doctors and engineers.”

Your point is well taken. I add some personal experience. I’m back from overseas for a short stint and got to deal with a Canadian doctor for a very rare change. HOLY SMOKES. When you’re used to dealing with doctors in your 3rd or fourth language, MAN does it feel like a Godsend to speak with a doctor with good communications skills (in English too).

For engineers – I did my first year of unvirsity in education. I tell you, one of the biggest things they really drummed into us was that people always complain that engineers are poor communicators and there are lots of problems in many organizations where the accountants and marketing team have major communication problems with engineers. The fact of poor communication among engineers was THE critical secondary factors motivating the design of most assignments in first year engineering. How to speak to a group, how to write to a non-engineer, lots of group work. Genius is useless without good communication skills. Sometime, somewhere, to get the hen in the bag, you will need to communicate a complex idea to someone and you will have to work on a team, no matter that you’re Einstein or better. Waterloo University. One of the highest employment rates of any engineering program around, and graduates are working at Microsoft and Bombardier et al, not the local pickle manufacturer. I’m pretty sure they know of what they speak in highlighting this as an issue.

” If all they are doing is entertainment…Ultimately they are there to teach”

How does a standardized test of ANY sort assure positive movement in the desired direction? I mean, you want to give a literacy test? OK, let’s ban illiterates from the teaching profession. But how does testing kindergarten teachers on university level materials or general knowledge tell us anything about whether they will perform will in the classroom? I promise you, it won’t.

Again, it is 100% unnecssary that the teacher has perfect recall of all the details, for example on a standardized test. What matters is that you PLAN an effective class and are able to deal with students in a way that can impart the material.

“Asians disagree” (on standardized test for teachers, generalized knowedge as relevant or not to teaching).

They don’t think it’s better than the Canadian system, which does not include standardized tests. But they recognize that corruption exists in their countries and that standardized tests are a solution to evaluation needs. I’ve had this conversation with quite a lot of Asian teachers. They all think the Canadian way would be better … if they didn’t view it as a virtual certainty that people would son be buying their promotions. It is the corruption that necessitates the standardized test, and no one remotely pretends that it’s actually all that good of a way to evaluate things. Practical, not idealistic consideration, are driving practice in Asia, and you are mistaking actual practice (yes, you are very right) for a belief that that practice is the best one available (I’ve never heard an Asian who argues that they think their way is better, except necessary due to corruption).

“actual knowledge benefits social mobility”

Yes. So do actual skills, where “skills” are much different from “knowledge”, such as related to giving presentations, group work, creating an environment where idea can be openly debated, etc. This line of argumentation is essentially identical to those which say that vocational college is better for getting a job than going to uni. Practical skills are not learned by accumulating facts, but accumulating facts might help to apply those practical skills more sensibly.

In the internet age, I don’t think it makes sense to see the goal of education as to fill heads with knowledge. Rather, they have to be have to collect information, discuss it, and put it to use.

“Its success [streaming] is undeniable.”

How do you define success? I remember reading all sorts of stuff about this when trying to decide whether to pull some remedial kids from class for extra help, and whether to always keep them in the regular class. And man, I could find nothing, NOTHING conslusive on the matter. Sure, one study says one way, another says the other ways, and probably the difference can be explain be context and methods. But undeniable? no. NO NO NO NO NO. Not. At all.

Or …. PLEASE show me this undeniable evidence and a double sweat promise to put it into action at the soonest possible moment.

“Everyone who does it [streaming] has social mobility. Countries that don’t, don’t have much.”

I’m pretty sure that you’re completely fabricating things. I hope you will prove me wrong.

29 So Much For Subtlety February 13, 2016 at 5:44 pm

Nathan W February 13, 2016 at 9:36 am

I am not one of those people who disregards important contrary information.

Well of course you are, but that was funny. Thank you for that. Especially as you proceed to disregard it. The Kansas City effort was the largest attempt to solve the problem with money I know of. The most seriously, most expensive, longest running program. It did not shift the needle at all. Education outcomes may even have got worse. You cannot claim that throwing more money at the problem is the solution when every single effort to that end has failed. Especially as you are not even willing to think about why they might have failed.

Insanity as Einstein probably did not say, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Engineers in the West have built everything that needs to be built. So they are looking around for something else to do. That means the environment and Social Justice all too often – but usually it means management. That is irrelevant to the basic problem that we need engineers who actually know how to build things. Not communicate well.

Tests show if children have learned anything. As most teachers don’t much like teaching and will avoid it if they can – put on a video or talk about sex or something else. They have to be kept to the mark and to do that you have to be able to measure what they have added in value. Testing is the only way. Otherwise no one knows if they have imparted information or not. The rest is just the fragile egos of the intellectually mediocre who become teachers consoling themselves that they may have been C- students but boy all those smart people couldn’t handle a class room of seven year olds. And, boy, are their classes planned well. When teachers start talking about the planning you know you are dealing with people too boring for middle management.

All over Asia testing is just corrupt too. It is no solution.

Yet again you come back to defend upper middle class Anglo students over those chippy immigrants. Or to put it more simply, people like you. That you prefer the skills you possess is not a surprise. But I don’t see why the rest of us have to. Modern teaching is not even remotely interested in imparting facts. As you seem to acknowledge. That is why we need more testing and streaming of students. Precisely because the nice middle class dim students who go on to become teachers will make things as easy for themselves as possible – by not teaching anything that can be tested for instance – regardless of the damage it does to children.

You show the problem. In theory you are all in favor of social mobility. In practice you would end it.

30 Nathan W February 13, 2016 at 7:51 pm

“The Kansas City effort was … The most seriously, most expensive, longest running program.”

How’s an Olympic Size pool and trips to Mexico going to create better students?

I conclude that it was a wasteful program. Not that it is impossible to use money to improve educational programs.

Maybe they didn’t use the money to do things that would have been effective?

Na. Impossible. That would suggest that spending money on education is useful in some way.

I accept that it is definitely contrary information, but this is lacking both smoking guns and repeatability. Thus, it fails both legal (no smoking guns) and scientific standards (not repeated) in establishing that it is particularly relevant.

Try something other than 5 star pools and foreign trips. Like hire a teacher’s assistant or something.

“As most teachers don’t much like teaching and will avoid it if they can – put on a video or talk about sex or something else ”

Are you drinking?

“Yet again you come back to defend upper middle class Anglo students over those chippy immigrants.”

Definitely drinking.

“we need more testing and streaming of students”

I’m certainly not going to say you’re wrong. But this is among the most disputed points in teaching. is streaming a good idea and how useful are standardized tests?

You are taking pure orthodoxy in both regards.

“You show the problem. In theory you are all in favor of social mobility. In practice you would end it.”

Well, I personally think that most of what you wrote is only marginally relevant and/or basically incorrect. But if this is a case that would be a stunningly big problem.

Perhaps you can use something chronological or a list of key steps or something for understanding how following through on my general outlook would end social mobility?

31 Brian Donohue February 12, 2016 at 4:34 pm

We should put all the rich people in one country and all the poor people in another country. Voila! We have eliminated inequality.

32 Jan February 12, 2016 at 7:02 pm

Unfortunately Brian forgot about the inequality that Tyler Cowen says is more important (and apparently declining)–global inequality.

33 JWatts February 12, 2016 at 7:10 pm

Global inequality wouldn’t be directly affected one way or the other by Brian Donohue’s suggestion.

34 Brian Donohue February 13, 2016 at 9:54 am

Wow, Jan, you usually don’t swing and miss so badly.

Allow me to clarify: the fact that 500 million earthlings have clawed their way out of poverty in the past 30 years dwarfs any of your hand-wringing over inequality.

35 Josh February 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

Tarun references a talk with the novo nordisk founder about how wealth plays into european sensibilities.

Anyone have a link?

36 Ray Lopez February 12, 2016 at 9:35 pm

Surprised nobody has commented on the well known fact that fifty leading families control most of southeast Asia’s economies, which is the subject matter of the book. Then again, most of you all have a myopic First World bias…zing!

37 carlolspln February 12, 2016 at 11:59 pm
38 Ray Lopez February 13, 2016 at 12:57 am

Amy Chua – Battle Hymn Of The Tiger Mother …a lawyer journalist author…pass.

39 Ricardo February 13, 2016 at 12:22 am

Joe Studwell’s “Asian Godfathers” covers this ground pretty well, as does Amy Chua.

40 Ray Lopez February 13, 2016 at 12:57 am

Joe Studwell has a very ideological lens, but he maybe is worth a read….but pass anyway, as likely too much prose will be wasted.

41 jorod February 13, 2016 at 3:26 pm

Russia is heaven on earth.

42 Routing February 13, 2016 at 5:41 pm

Just before Tyler speaks, Freund goes off on an ill-considered and misleading anti-inheritance jag. Going to have a much harder time now trying to fit this book into my reading.

43 LR February 14, 2016 at 12:29 pm

Is zero real per capita economic growth a crisis for rich countries?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: