Is the Fed favoring seniors?

by on March 20, 2016 at 3:23 pm in Economics, Political Science | Permalink

If low interest rates have posed a challenge for seniors, why then have they done relatively well in terms of consumption and income? I can think of at least four reasons:

  • The disappointingly slow wage and employment growth of the past decade has had less impact on seniors than on younger folks.
  • Seniors’ social-security income rises with inflation, maintaining their purchasing power. It doesn’t, however, decline when prices fall — a feature from which they profited (modestly) last year.
  • Many seniors own annuities or bonds that provide them with fixed payments. Because inflation has been surprisingly low, they’ve gotten more purchasing power from these fixed payments than they could have expected.
  • Seniors hold more assets like stocks, bonds, and homes than do younger folks. All of these assets have appreciated a lot over the past seven years, providing seniors with a source of spending money that offsets some of the effect of low interest rates.

That is from Narayana Kocherlakota, there is more at the link.  I am pleased to see a commentator make progress on this all-important problem.

Do you know what?  Most other government programs favor seniors too.

1 Ray Lopez March 20, 2016 at 3:57 pm

Seniors vote more than juniors, hence they are favored. Good night.

2 dearieme March 20, 2016 at 8:31 pm

Spot on.

3 Ray Lopez March 20, 2016 at 11:27 pm

Well, I disagree with myself. I wrote this without thinking, trying to be first. For this statement to be true, it assumes: (1) the Fed is not politically independent, and looks to see how its actions might influence politics, and, (2) money is not neutral, so what the Fed does matters to seniors

I think (1) is probably true but (2) is not that true (Google Ben S. Bernanke’s 2002 FAVAR paper) so on balance I think my OP is probably false.

4 dan1111 March 21, 2016 at 9:28 am

You were right the first time. Seniors can want a certain Fed policy and exert influence to get it, even if the policy doesn’t actually work. It happens all the time. That’s why we have so many bad policies.

5 Ken in NH March 21, 2016 at 2:30 pm

Exactly. That’s why I propose that we have people who receive any kind of funds from the government, even a paycheck, be relieved of their suffrage. One should not be allowed to vote on their own income when it comes from other people’s pockets at the point of a gun.

I know, I know, I am a dreamer.

6 mulp March 21, 2016 at 4:22 pm

Boomers who voted for Reagan who made sure boomers got their Social Security today, 33 years later, should not have been allowed to vote?

Before Reagan and Greenspan, Social Security went from crisis to crisis with Congress reacting at the last minute to bailout Social Security, but Reagan issued an executive order to get a fix from technocrats led by Alan Greenspan, and the result was the law saving Social Security signed by Reagan on April 20, 1983.

Read Reagan’s statement here:

“Today, all of us can look each other square in the eye and say, “We kept our promises.” We promised that we would protect the financial integrity of social security. We have. We promised that we would protect beneficiaries against any loss in current benefits. We have. And we promised to attend to the needs of those still working, not only those Americans nearing retirement but young people just entering the labor force. And we’ve done that, too.”

I’d love to have universal support for the idea that voting for President Reagan was bad for America because a vote for Reagan was a vote to steal other people’s money with a gun for personal gain.

7 Brian considine March 22, 2016 at 6:09 am

“One should not be allowed to vote on their own income when it comes from other people’s pockets at the point of a gun”

Included here would also be defense contractors, those who have licensed occupations, IP owners, those that rely on contract law for their income?

8 BC March 20, 2016 at 3:58 pm

The key sentence is here: “Unduly tight monetary policy has systematically shifted the distribution of resources toward people who are not working and who receive payments that are, in large part, not indexed to inflation — that is, toward retirees.”

Loose monetary policy has not harmed seniors because low interest rates are an indication that monetary policy has been tight. The lower than expected inflation has increased the purchasing power of their nominally fixed payments such as payments from bonds and annuities.

9 Yancey Ward March 20, 2016 at 8:24 pm

The non-elderly are going to get the lash the other way round, too. With rates so low, buying a fixed income for the future is quite a bit more expensive than it was just 10 years ago. However, I am quite sure Krugman will be along and remind us that our debts are owed to ourselves, so they don’t really matter.

10 Larry Siegel March 20, 2016 at 10:57 pm

That could change before the non-elderly try to lock in their liabilities. Let’s hope so. Meanwhile, the elderly and those approaching retirement (that’s me) are the ones stuck with the problem of trying to annuitize at zero interest rates.

Bad monetary policy is bad for everybody, including those on the receiving end of a transfer. It makes those on the receiving end think the transfer is permanent when they’re as vulnerable as anyone else.

I don’t listen to anything PK says. He can occasionally be right, but so can monkeys trying to type out Shakespeare.

11 JWatts March 21, 2016 at 3:15 pm

“I don’t listen to anything PK says. He can occasionally be right, but so can monkeys trying to type out Shakespeare.”

PK is often quite insightful on the rare occasions when he keeps politics out of his column.

12 Ted Craig March 20, 2016 at 4:02 pm

How about this: Low interest rates allow seniors to liquidate their biggest their asset (their houses).

13 Larry Siegel March 20, 2016 at 10:57 pm

And live where?

14 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 12:02 am

Anywhere, including selling their home in an explicit arrangement to rent it back until they die, in order to access the capital.

15 A March 21, 2016 at 8:04 am

Not a strong relationship between interest rates and housing prices empirically, and theoretically it’s reasoning from a price change.

16 Lord Action March 21, 2016 at 9:50 am

This is both true and a bit weird.

17 The Anti-Gnostic March 21, 2016 at 9:16 am

Part of my retirement plan is I will have paid off my mortgage when I can no longer work. No thanks.

18 Lord Action March 21, 2016 at 9:49 am

He means you or your heirs will get a better price when you sell because mortgage rates are low. Old people own more real estate and therefore benefit from high prices.

19 The Anti-Gnostic March 21, 2016 at 11:21 am

Then I’ll have to move and pay rent. Again, no thanks.

20 Lord Action March 21, 2016 at 11:38 am

I’m not defending the argument, I’m clarifying it.

You could also move and buy something cheaper. Many old people downsize. You could also keep the mortgage, which may make sense depending on what your retirement income looks like.

21 Noumenon72 March 21, 2016 at 2:40 pm

You are paying rent now, to yourself. That doesn’t factor into it, except that you have better maintenance costs.

22 carlolspln March 20, 2016 at 5:14 pm

“Seniors hold more assets like stocks, bonds, and homes than do younger folks. All of these assets have appreciated a lot over the past seven years, providing seniors with a source of spending money that offsets some of the effect of low interest rates”

Stating the obvious.

“I am pleased to see a commentator make progress on this all-important problem”

You are eleven days early [April 1st]

23 Mike W March 20, 2016 at 5:54 pm

Wouldn’t those same forces favor tenured public employees as well?

24 Harun March 20, 2016 at 8:06 pm

Yes, of course. California public employees often call in to financial radio shows and discuss how they plan to retire at age 57 with a massive pension, a huge 401K, etc.

Their main problem is health care until age 65.

Its a bit like Greek style retirements.

25 Bob Knaus March 20, 2016 at 6:04 pm

Relevant article in today’s WSJ about how seniors have done better with income than other age groups since the recession:

26 JWatts March 21, 2016 at 3:26 pm

That’s an interesting article.

27 Doug March 20, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Globalization has probably had a much larger aggregate effect than monetary policy on millennials. Older workers are more likely to work in mature industries and long-running enterprises. Labor substitution by immigration and outsourcing tends to be concentrated in new projects. There’s less risk to disrupting an existing operation with cheaper labor than there is to starting a new one at a lower cost basis. Also older workers tend to hold jobs that either have legal barriers or bespoke job skills. That makes them harder to commoditize on a global labor market. For example a web developer is more replaceable than a programmer maintaining some legacy software system that’s 40 year olds and no one trains on any longer.

Globalization squeezes young Western workers in another way by raising living costs in major economic centers. A traditional route to higher paying jobs is to enter work at a prestigious firm, accumulate human capital, then move to a senior position at a second-tier firm. Usually the former tend to be located in major city centers, whereas the latter tend to be in lower-cost peripheral areas. The archetype would be someone who works as an analyst at a New York investment bank, then goes on to a senior executive track at a regional bank. Wealthy foreigners, particularly those in corrupt and unstable countries, prefer to hoard real estate in globally central Western cities.

That bids up the cost of living in major economic hubs, which in turn prices many young workers from gaining best-in-class entry level experience. Existing older workers are harmed much less, as they’re already developed their human capital at a time when city living was cheap. Vancouver seems to be on the bleeding edge here. The city is increasingly empty as absentee foreign homeowners price out the normal residents of the city. Vancouver has tons of world-class biotech and tech firms, which would provide very valuable experience for newly graduating Canadian workers. But they can’t access these jobs, so they’re forced to take positions with much lower value of experience. That ultimately impacts aggregate long-term economic productivity. All so corrupt Chinese billionaires can have an escape plan when they Party decides to crack down.

28 Harun March 20, 2016 at 8:09 pm

Corrupt Chinese billionaires are few in number.

I think you mean corrupt Chinese government officials and those who fear their property will be seized by said officials.

29 Mike W March 21, 2016 at 11:38 am

The corrupt Chinese billionaires are the corrupt Chinese government officials.

30 mulp March 20, 2016 at 8:14 pm

“There’s less risk to disrupting an existing operation with cheaper labor than there is to starting a new one at a lower cost basis.”

Selling at high prices to the boomers with high labor costs which means they have lots of money to spend compared to the average young person.

Of course, selling to young kids with solid income boomer parents allows selling to a young impulsive consumer but getting paid by boomers. If nothing else, young workers live off boomer welfare, living at home and eating their elders food.

Nothing could be better than selling $100 of stuff to consumers you pay only $50 in wages.

The bad old days when tax and spend liberals governed meant you could only sell $40 of stuff to workers paid $50 and then sell $10 to government workers as employees or consumers.

31 Josh March 20, 2016 at 8:33 pm

this is borderline unintelligible

32 chuck martel March 20, 2016 at 10:45 pm

So is Doug.

33 carlolspln March 21, 2016 at 12:58 am

Au contraire-Doug’s comment is nuanced & sensible.

34 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 12:07 am

It’s just the classic leftist view that aggregate demand relies on workers having sufficient income to drive consumption demand in the economy, stated less intelligbly than it could be.

Indeed, there is a whole class of workers whose low income is effectively subsidized by their ability to live at home and raid the fridge – absent which opportunities they would surely be clamouring for higher wages to a greater extent, on average. A lot of people don’t have that situation, probably contributing to the Trumps and Sanders of the world, to some extent.

35 mulp March 21, 2016 at 4:35 pm

So, conservatives argue that spending far more than you earn is conservative fiscal policy aka household budgeting?

36 Nathan W March 22, 2016 at 1:49 am

mulp – the data reflects that they have more money after receiving social transfers, not that they are indebting themselves to engage in such spending. Debt spending is not “income”, but welfare, disability payments, etc. etc. ARE income.

37 Reed March 20, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Labor force participation has increased among the 65-74 cohort too, especially at the high end of the income distribution.

38 Dotplot March 20, 2016 at 7:36 pm

Wage growth is deadly for older folks who need labor intensive care

39 Alain March 21, 2016 at 2:51 am

Good point.


40 mulp March 21, 2016 at 4:50 pm

Given most older folk never need labor intensive care for long or at all, and of those who get it, many do not want that labor intensive care, but would rather die peacefully at home, what most older folk want is income sufficient to live in old age and do what they want.

To be assured of the income older folk want and need, a great economy for their kids and grandkids is what is needed, economies that pay them all good wages so they pay good amounts into Social Security. And if older folk need to pay more for food and gasoline and cars, which in general they consume less of as they get older, that seems to me to be a good tradeoff.

I find it odd that anyone thinks is makes sense to make the food Trump and Buffett and Gates cheaper by giving tax rebates to subsidize food production with a bigger and bigger EITC, which seems to be the conservative solution to low wage workers providing goods and services to high income people at subsidized prices.

In what economy does the utility of a TV show exceed the utility of fresh produce? Based on the pay offered workers, one might believe that not having The Apprentice to watch will lead to death, but food is purely optional.

41 mulp March 20, 2016 at 7:45 pm

“Seniors hold more assets like stocks, bonds, and homes than do younger folks.”

That is based on them being boomers or older where debt was a necessary evil, and most retirees were denied credit during the most important years for getting a good start on life.

I, now 68, remember finding it frightening that anyone could get a 7-8 year mortgage on a car or truck, thinking that 3 year car loans for new was taking a risk unless a large down payment had been made. Athe a 4 year loan and minimal downpayment, a car accident that totalled the car in a year means you owe the bank money without owning a car to drive to work. With a 3 year loan, insurance will pay off the loan.

And refinancing a mortgage without reducing the term of the mortgage is insane to me, except in the most extreme cases. If refinancing and extending the term and principle, you do not qualify as an investor, but are a borrow and spender.

My parents and most of my peers held something like these views and consumed less than they earned, except in the most extreme cases, when savings were used to just survive a bad time, followed by continued sacrifice with higher income funneled to savings.

Boomers and older workers had to unionize and strike to be able to consume more because no one lent money that was not repaid with high reliability, unless it was loan charges with enforcers who would hurt family members to ensure interest was paid promptly.

Things definitely changed as conservatives won politically and economically in public policy. Not much income? No problem, borrow to wealth.

42 Harun March 20, 2016 at 8:11 pm

Its called GAP insurance.

43 DF March 21, 2016 at 4:19 pm

For accidents, yes, there’s gap insurance.

Even with gap insurance, though, there’s the issue that people will still be making payments on cars that are getting old enough to require major repairs/maintenance. I strongly suspect that most of the people taking out 8-year car loans did it because that’s the only way they could afford that car, and they probably don’t have any spare cash lying around to pay for a $1000 car repair.

44 Yancey Ward March 20, 2016 at 8:32 pm

I simply submit that this was the plan all along. A great deal of the developed world’s promises in entitlements and pensions of various kinds are unfunded today- a situation made worse by falling asset prices. I think all of the central banks are now trapped by their asset markets because it was those markets that the policy was targeting the entire time. It isn’t any accident of timing that the Fed suddenly turned dovish again this past week.

45 8 March 20, 2016 at 10:30 pm

There are so many people holding junk bonds who do not want the risk associated with junk bonds, but to get 5% interest you have to move beyond investment grade or increase duration a lot. The risk in the system is far greater. In 2008, most investors and seniors told their broker to sell stocks. In the next major bear market, they will tell their brokers to sell everything.

46 Lonely Libertarian March 20, 2016 at 10:35 pm

Some thoughts.
1. Food prices HAVE moved up a good bit – but we Seniors eat a lot less.
2. While gas prices have been low recently – when they were $4+ they hurt us less – we don’t commute and generally drive 6K miles a year instead of 12K+
3. As the housing market has rebounded we are able to be mobil. We had a PA house that was rather modest – but had property taxes around $4K a year – sold and now live FT in FL. And we have no income tax or inheritance tax exposure.
4. FL is doing well generally – but it is still possible to find affordable – nice livable homes below $100K
5. 30+ years ago communicating with family was by voice and expensive. We just spent an hour on FaceTime with our Grandsons for “free”

I am not sure it is the Fed that has worked to make our situation better than our son and daughters – technology has played a role….

47 chuck martel March 20, 2016 at 10:49 pm

“Most other government programs favor seniors too” Of the four reasons given, only one is a government program, social security.

48 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 12:37 am

Seniors in Western countries are wealthier than ever before, and meanwhile enjoy a bedrock state pension that is generally more generous than ever.

Mlilenials face more competitive and often lower wage labour markets (while corporations enjoy record profits and the 1% sees their share of income increasing persistently), housing markets which are essentially unaccessible until well into one’s career, and are expected to finance these state pension obligations despite being an increasingly lower share of the population AND lower real income.

It seems to me that seniors, having indebted most countries to build infrastructure which benefitted them greatly, then proceeded to let the infrastructure crumble while leaving millennials to foot the bills for the original costs, in addition to removing many of the benefits available to their own generation (less so in the USA, which seems to have moved slightly in the opposite direction), while voting for tax cuts which largely benefit the high earning boomers but nothing for early career millennials, and also voting themselves a variety of entitlements which bear virtually no prospect of contributing to future productivity.

I am committed to the principle of elderly people living in dignity regardless of whatever success they may have achieved in the labour market. As it stands, poorer millennials are subsidizing richer boomers, who partially dismantled many of the ladders that they built for themselves but left to future generations to pay for, and it will only get worse unless something changes. Meanwhile, they become an ever larger share of the voter pool.

It is time to start guilt tripping the hell out of the elderly, but no politician is willing to touch that file because seniors are many in number, and vote.

I advocate for delayed state pension entitlements – concerns about wearing out the body in manual jobs can be easily addressed through existing disability programs. However, the Canadian government recently took the opposite approach, out of concern for those aged 65-67 who would be poor due ot lack of a state pension. If that was the concern, they should have targeted poor 65-67 year olds, not a handout accruing to those earning upwards of $117,000.

49 mulp March 21, 2016 at 5:09 pm

Most of US infrastructure was built and paid for buy older people before Reagan became president.

The water and sewer systems that need trillion dollar investments, which are likely underestimates, we’re built and paid for by workers who are mostly dead. Rather than hike water rates to track inflation in labor costs, rates lagged, being hiked only to cover increased labor costs of operations including bandaid repairs, but not enough to cover ongoing investment to offset depreciation in paid off capital assets.

Ditto transportation infrastructure. Ditto power grid infrastructure. Ditto communication infrastructure.

This has benefitted about half the boomers who paid less for essentials at the expense of others who got paid less because of lack of labor demand to maintain capital asset values.

Economists seem to be hoping for tech innovation to deliver water over the internet, and dispose of waste the same way, along with transportation over the internet. Ie, Scotty, beam me to work! Scotty, beam those turds away!

None seem to argue for higher prices to pay for investing in labor building water, sewer, rail, highway, bridge, power grid, nuclear power plant, etc capital assets.

50 Cooper March 21, 2016 at 7:59 pm

So which is it?

Do we pay higher prices for labor or do we invest in infrastructure projects?

Right now our infrastructure projects suffer from huge cost overruns and general bureaucratic bloat. Building a subway line in the US costs 2-3X more than it does in Canada or Europe. That’s unsustainable and it explains why Americans aren’t especially supportive of new projects.

We’re being asked to pay a lot of new taxes to get relatively little in the way of public works. If we could get costs down to German levels, taxpayers might be more willing to agree to that 0.5% sales tax hike.

51 Nathan W March 22, 2016 at 1:56 am

Competitive bidding for public works projects can get around some of these issues. In particular in front-line labouring jobs, the unions can lead to massively overpriced projects. I avidly support the right to negotiate collectively, but equally support the right to, not hire scabs, but just hire an entirely different body to do the project.

Easier in construction that, say, teaching. Massive construction firms exist in the private sector who can pull of these jobs on short notice. In teaching, preventing political interference in the classroom makes things more complicated, and is among reasons that teacher’s unions, I think, should be less subject to the reasoning that would be applied to construction firms.

52 rayward March 21, 2016 at 7:24 am

War is peace, oppression is freedom, success is failure. Obamacare was supposed to be a failure because nobody would sign up. When millions did sign up, Obamacare was a failure because so many signed up. Social security and Medicare are the most successful government programs ever, virtually eliminating poverty among seniors, who at one time had the highest poverty rate. Of course, social security and Medicare are at the same time a failure because they are a success. It’s not as confusing as it seems. Ask Megan McArdle, she’s the expert, having authored the Up Side of Down. I was especially impressed with her when she and Cowen were interviewed several years ago by Tim Carney from AEI. Fresh from the financial meltdown, Carney asked Ms. McArdle if there was upside for bankers. Bankers, what bankers?

53 TMC March 21, 2016 at 10:49 am

An expansion in medicaid handled 80% of the good done by ACA. We could have done just that without all the regulatory expenses and turmoil.

It’s going to take at least a decade to unwind all the garbage brought by ACA and the medicaid expansion will stay in place, which is OK with me.

54 mulp March 21, 2016 at 5:15 pm

So, expanding Medicaid to cover anyone without someone else paying for their medical bills up to a wage of, what $200,000, was the better solution? (The phase out of subsidies for buying insurance was criticized for failing to subsidize middle class workers, which seems to run up to $200,000 single, $250,000 couple.)

Isn’t that like government to single payer like Bernie wants?

55 JWatts March 21, 2016 at 3:51 pm

“Obamacare was supposed to be a failure because nobody would sign up.”

Obamacare has been neither an outright success nor an outright failure. It’s managed to sign up a large number of people who mostly get free or highly subsidized health care insurance, but failed to do nearly as well among those who are paying mostly out of their own pocket.

It failed to reduce healthcare insurance by $2,500 per year per family. It failed to allow people to “keep their own doctor”. Many of the Obamacare exchanges have gone bankrupt and most of the rest are shaky. Several large private companies are signalling that they will either a) completely pull out of the market or b) reduce their exposure or c) significantly raise their prices. It’s likely that will see the prices of Obamacare policies go up much faster than the private market over the next few years.

Furthermore, Obamacare is scheduled to cut $800 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years. If it goes through with the cuts, the US is likely to see a significant decline in the quality of care that Medicare delivers. If it does not go through with the cuts, then Obamacare is substantially adding to the deficit.

56 mulp March 21, 2016 at 5:24 pm

Given the high rate of insurance or benefit cost increases, the $2500 savings is from the rate of increase slowing, not from costs not continuing to increase.

And based on my personal experience paying for health insurance from 2001 to 2009, what has happened since means that if I had continued buying the same individual coverage, the savings would have been more than $2500.

What’s odd is I’m now getting government run health care that when all the costs are included for much better coverage, the total cost to the economy of my coverage is the same as private insurance with a $5000 deductible would have been based on the year after year for a decade premium increases I did pay before turning 65, which was before Obamacare would have had much impact for me.

57 Signer March 21, 2016 at 9:30 am

“Seniors hold more assets like stocks, bonds, and homes than do younger folks. All of these assets have appreciated a lot over the past seven years, providing seniors with a source of spending money that offsets some of the effect of low interest rates.”

Seniors are definitely more likely to have homes than younger folks but they are also much more likely to be paying on a mortgage. This is the greatest contributor to their increasing rates of consumption: “In 2012, interest payments were 4.3 percent of overall expenditures for 65 to 74 year olds, up from 2.7 percent of expenditures in 1990. For those 75 years old and older, the increase was greater, from less than 0.7 percent of expenditures in 1990 to 2 percent in 2012.”

Increases in educational expenses were also a leading contributor to overall increased rates of consumption: “Younger seniors are paying for more education expenditures. The fastest-growing expenditure category for 65 to 74 year olds is education.This spending includes costs associated with tuition, books and supplies for college, public or private nursery schools or elementary, middle and high schools. While the expenditure share for 2012 was still small (less than 1 percent) seniors are paying more of these expenses than in the past. Some seniors have established 529 college savings plans for their grandchildren (to pay tuition tax-free), while others struggle to pay student loans they co-signed themselves.” (Both quotes from: ) The vampiric education industry thus absolves the Fed of some fault for this national scourge of increased senior consumption.

58 Formed March 21, 2016 at 10:48 am

And yet despite all those greedy geezers gobbling up the national nest egg, 9% of millennials in Arlington, VA, home of the fabulous Mercatus Institute, manage to pull down over $350k annually. Just what does Arlington VA (located across the Potomac from DC) contribute to the national welfare? Other than being at the heart of the rent-seeking industry, not much. One would think more would be returned by the study of this phenomenon than from finding new ways and reasons to punish saving.

59 HSS March 21, 2016 at 11:18 pm

Great Read!

Success isn’t riches or money, it is your mindset. Your mindset is more powerful than any money in the world. A healthy mindset can obtain money anywhere it goes, a weak mindset will lose irrespective of what is given to them.

60 Tiya March 22, 2016 at 2:28 am

I don’t really know, but to be honest we need to be very careful when it comes to Fed and all that, I am always taking decision with been sure. I work with OctaFX broker and with them, I am always in great benefits which is a lot to do with their daily market news and analysis service, it is effective yet free too, so works very nicely for me and always give me great benefits all the time without trouble.

61 Ekim April 6, 2016 at 9:10 am

Narayana has got to be kidding. Inflation has greatly harmed seniors by slowly confiscating their corporate pensions, annuities, and bonds. Inflation would have to be zero just to be neutral toward seniors. Only CPI deflation would help seniors. Home price inflation doesn’t help seniors, since it just means property taxes take more away from their food budget. Creating a stock market bubble just means that future real 10 year return is likely to be zippo. Social Security is adjusted by the CPI, not the CPI-E that more accurately tracks senior inflation, so it lags elder inflation.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: