Monday assorted links

1. Cosmos and Taxis symposium on Boettke and Hayek.

2. Justin Fox on the economics of textbooksGreg Mankiw comments.  I think OER [open educational resources] will do better, and is already doing better, than Greg suggests.  A lot of “OER” is simply a mix of unmeasured uses of Google, Wikipedia, and YouTube, rather than a formal non-profit outcompeting the for-profit suppliers on their own terms.  I do agree with Greg that “In any event, it is not a good time to be entering the market with a new textbook.”

3. Rain as a source of renewable energy.

4. The problem with immigration is political, not economic.

5. Christopher Balding on health services in China.


This will be the highest quality comment on the post

I'm sorry that this post turns your post into a close second.

It appears I can't access either #4 or #5, but here goes:

#4 It is most definitely not either/or, it is both/and + cultural. Sorry, Niall Ferguson is absolutely correct linking cultural traits to decidedly economic and political decisions and results throughout history.

#5 I've lived and traveled in China extensively. First, it is somewhat disconcerting how much TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) is used either stand-alone or in concert with Western medicine. People will often go to a TCM specialist immediately after receiving modern medical care. Second, preventative medicine is really not a 'thing' over there and behavioral healthcare as a way to offset serious future medical problems just doesn't enter peoples' thinking. Third, if you have means and get sick, you will most likely figure one of the foreign hospitals in country or even going abroad for medical care.

It is economic for the guy who loses his job to an H1b.

This is the land of opportunity not the land of “cushy gig with no productivity expectations from the age of 22-65.”

More immigrants please. We don’t need to turn every corporation into General Motors.

The same reasoning used by slaveowners so they didn't have to employ native white workers.

You must be a democrat.

Slaves were brought here against their will. The more appropriate historical example are the Northern labor recruiters who got millions of blacks to move from the South to the North during the Great Migration. The Great Migration of course vastly improved the lot of the blacks who undertook it, helped end Jim Crow in the South, and helped turn the US into an industrial powerhouse as labor was moved from low productivity share cropping jobs into higher productivity industrial ones. Of course many northern whites opposed the Great Migration due to job competition and attempted to stop it through many forms of legal and private discrimination but they are now rightfully regarded as being on the wrong side of the history.

And on a slightly longer timescale, check out the beauty of all those Northern cities with their gentrified African Americans...

"helped turn the US into an industrial powerhouse as labor was moved from low productivity share cropping jobs into higher productivity industrial ones"

Between 1900-1940, Black American % of population in the Northeast moves about 2% from 1.8% to 3.8% -

Probably not decisive on the emergence of US industry as dominant, which happens in the early 20th century.

OTOH, the real *big* increase in population from 4% to 11% from 1940-1980 does not cause declines in US industrial activity, but happen at just the right time to unfortunately combine with them.

Similar to the migration of Pakistanis to the UK to "mill towns" in the North of England, just about before massive exposure to world trade turned their former workers into static recipients of social programs.

(Many Libertarians will at this point say "So much the worse for social programs", but this lacks realism.)

That we have skill barriers preventing low skilled migration that will turn into a long term lump of unemployment or underemployment as we automate and offshore is of course then, a good and proper thing.

Gastarbeiters in Germany another example (and probably Chinese on the railroads etc, before that).

Why import low skilled immigrants and deal with welfare transfers to any legal relatives and expensive education for their kids? Furthermore, a higher low skilled population puts downward wage pressure on the entire group resulting in higher welfare payments to the natives in that group. This is certainly a factor in the 30 years of wage stagnation the US is seen in the lowest wage quintiles.

Why import low skilled immigrants ....?

What is a "low skilled immigrant"?

An immigrant who doesn't have a skill set good enough to secure a high paying, long term job.

In the US median male earnings are $39.4K. So anything under that limit, would be low skilled.

I've argued a better dividing line is "will pay their own way on taxes, NPV," which pushes you into the low-six-figures and has implications for ages you'd prefer. 28 is great. 4 or 64 are not great.

Ergo, skill translates as income. That's the Puritan Yankee thought process in action. Steve Schwarzman must be one of the most skilled people on earth but it's doubtful if he knows how to sharpen a knife, start a balky outboard motor or cut his wife's hair, activities that require not only intelligence but tactile skills that don't involve abstractions. It's all part of the worship of Mammon, the wealthiest have received the most spiritual grace.

Well, it's cultural in the sense that it's socially acceptable to blame immigrants for taking one's job in a way that would never be acceptable to blame some other groups such as say women. Culture is what dictates the social expectation that job market competition from women is legitimate, but job market competition from immigrants is not, even though women take up far more jobs than immigrants. And culture can change; decades ago, women *were* blamed for taking jobs from men.

Many on the left remain nostalgic for the 1950s expressly because of the notion that back then, one income could support a middle-class family. It's a mindset that women having to work is a tragedy, and an acknowledgement that supply and demand applies to labor like anything else.

This is a "left" thing?

One income can still support a middle-class family. But most middle-class families now don't want a 1960s living standard, and a working class salary was never enough to support a family. Working class women and teenagers always used to have to work.

+1, this is the big change. A 1960's living standard, including 1960's healthcare, is easily affordable today for someone making a median male income wage ($39.4K). We just expect a lot more today.

The average square foot per person of living space in 1973 was 507. That was the average space. Obviously people living in urban areas didn't have that much space.

My dad describes growing up in Chicago in the 1940s. They lived in an apartment with a bedroom, a bathroom, and a living/dining room. His parents slept in the bedroom, he slept on a Murphy bed that came down from the closet, and his sister slept in the living room recliner.

And he didn't think of his upbringing as poor. It was pretty middle class, maybe on the low side. They never went hungry or didn't have heat or light, they just lived in a small space for a while.

People once blamed child labour for taking work away from them. Thank god we do not exist in such a time.

5 is gone. Did he expound on this theory that the coronavirus was 100 times more lethal than the WHO and China said it was?

Estimate on the high end is around 15%. An "unmodified" stat accidentally posted on Tencent corroborates with this estimate, but who knows what the reality is....

I do wonder why the post no longer appears. It's cached at

I merely skimmed it, it seemed to say exactly what one would guess from the title. Not very complimentary to the current Chinese regime, but there are many such posts that do not get censored (as long as the author is not actually in China, and I think Balding is in Taiwan now? Haven't bothered to look).

Anyway, it's a decent but unsurprising article based on my glance at it, not sure why it's no longer up.

Thanks for the link, which I failed to find earlier. I agree that it is an unshocking, merely interesting, short backgrounder.

#3 (power from raindrops) is simply awful, and it is depressing that anyone would write this or link to it without asking the basic question *how much* power could be generated. I also would hope any science writer would be able to estimate this from high-school level physics, but I know that's asking for a lot...

Even worse, the author writes " a single drop can muster 140V" . This is like saying my mass is 2 meters. Volts are a measure of voltage, not power. One can have millions of volts and little power, if that voltage is applies for a short time (e.g. a lightning bolt). What matters for generating power is, in fact, power.

I'll perhaps write this up later, but my rough estimate of moderate rain (10 mm/hr) falling with a terminal velocity of 10 m/s gives, even with perfect efficiency, about 0.1 Watts per square meter. This is pathetic. A decent solar cell gives a few hundred Watts per square meter. A monkey turning a crank gives about 100 Watts.

I often teach science classes for non-science majors, and it is astonishing (and by the end of the course the students are astonished too) how awful popular media / internet writing about science is. I expected better of Tyler, though!


It would make more sense to put micro hydropower turbines in drain pipes.

I debunk that below. Efficiencies aside, there's not enough energy to do anything useful.

The level of scientific literacy here is appalling.


Illiteracy is considered intolerable but inumeracy and ignorance of science is widely accepted. Sometimes a back of the matchbook computation reveals much , but too many people can't do even that. Many even proudly declare "I'm terrible at math" as if it is a badge of honor. It isn't.

John Allen Paulos has written two excellent, highly-readable books: Innumeracy and Super Innumeracy on the topic.

Also, affecting Math innumeracy is the fact that it is racist.

+1 Innumeracy is a great book.

Illiteracy is not intolerable; it is rather a mandate for a substantial increase in Federal control of education. Which in turn produces a very slight increase in illiteracy.

Reminds me of companies a decade back that raised venture capital by promising appliances powered by wifi. A quick back of the envelope calculation should wake up anyone from that dream. Theranos was just larger, not sillier than a lot of other things going on.

It reminds me of the companies pushing electric cars. Transportation uses 40% of fossil fuel consumption. Electricity to replace that would magically appear I assume.

Before that was fuel cells. Hydrogen is everywhere and the fuel cell produces clean water. Amazing. Except when you start trying to figure out where the hydrogen is supposed to come from.

If a country has an electricity market or markets, then yes, the electrical energy required to replace fossil fuels will "magically" appear. (Especially since what is generally required is energy and not power transmission capacity which doesn't market good.) But a point that is often overlooked is that electric vehicles are more than 3 times as efficient as gasoline ones so total energy use will decline as electric transport replaces internal combustion engine transport.

I know one person with an electric car. For normal use he charges it with energy from solar panels on his roof. This is a much cheaper option than using the grid. (Note: This is in Australia.)

Electric cars are viable. Even if the electricity is primarily from natural gas, it's still more efficient and thus less polluting and cheaper than gasoline powered commuting vehicles.

Hydrogen, however, is just a less efficient battery. There's really no need for it at this point, and I'm surprised companies are still spending money on it.

But Ivo, Australia is planning to be wifi powered in the future!

I saw Volts and then looked for Amps to determine actual power. It was missing. Probably because this is a really silly idea. We already collect electricity from rain, they are called hydro plants.

Going to the actual Nature article:

"Focusing on an individual DEG indicates that the open-circuit output voltage and short-circuit current were about 143.5 V and 270.0 μA."

So, 0.038745 watts per drop.

LOL, so of course the Amperage is micro level, leading to no usable power.

5. Blank
Implying that there are no health services?

There is nothing on his site

The most intense competition to textbooks used to be the used textbook market. That was destroyed by the avalanche of new editions, truly spurious product differentiation.

This strategy could have worked only because instructors are lazy. Changes in editions are minimal, sometimes even restricted only to renumbering the end of chapter problems. Nothing easier than to give students a typed version of the problems to be solved and teaching the little bit of new material in class.

The time for a new textbook comes when there is lots of new knowledge.

3. I have higher hopes for the "darkness" power.

Not least because we don't see much rain round these parts.

Note that this one "works" in practice, but by a pretty low bar for "work."

"This is just a proof of concept. With more insulation and in more optimal conditions, like a drier climate, the researchers think they’d be able to bring this up to 0.5 watts per square meter of disk. With larger disks, they might be able to light a home continuously."

It lights 1 led with 1sq meter of aluminum.

I doubt it would generate enough power over it's life to smelt the aluminum it is made of.

Right. I'm assuming they can scale up to the claimed 0.5 watts/m2, and beyond.

As far as their test "LED" that could be anything right now, down to milliwatts.

All this kvetching and ill fated boondoggles. Thorium power is staring us in the face.


"Right. I'm assuming they can scale up to the claimed 0.5 watts/m2, and beyond."

This is a boondoggle for gullible people. A normal bank of solar cells produces about 150 watts per square meter. Even if the dark panels were free the net cost would be ridiculously expensive.

What boondogle? It costs most of us absolutely nothing, and someone probably just a little, for basic research in heat transfer and electricity generation.

Thermoelectrics are a big and interesting field.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is basic science.

Even at theoretical perfect efficiencies, there isn't a significant amount of energy available from a temperature differential of a few degrees (assuming a few means 5 deg C or less).

This would be useful to power remote instrument that draw a very small amount of power, but not for anything on the order of what a human would find useful.

Miss. is right behind the UK and above the EU average.

#4 It's the culture stupid! In fact, it is the pace of immigration and it's perceived impact on culture change that causes problems.

How insulated do you have to be to keep getting this wrong?

Had the laws in Simpson-Mazzoli been enforced we wouldn't be in this mess.

What, me worry?

The establishment GOP wants it for cheap labor. The Democrats want it for votes and fundamental transformation.

How is mass migration microeconomics?

It's not economics or politics. It's cultural destruction/devastation.

Of course, the West and, especially, the unjust, racist USA are the sources of all that is evil on the Planet and deserve to be wrecked.

Vote for me. I'm a war hero. I was an REBF with the US Navy in Afghanistan.

He’s at 8% nationally. Why bother?

It’s the Sanders Party now.

It might become the Bloomberg party pretty quickly.

Oh my. What I'm looking forward to is watching the Democrats dust off their long unused racial epithets when Trump wins with 40% of the black vote.

Come to Virginia, our Democrats never gave up their racial epithets or the KKK.

you broke
denial of service attack by linking.
tyler cowen is a hacker now

#4 If you get the politics wrong, it's definitely economic.

People have been concerned about the wrong immigrants coming here for.. well since there were immigrants. Jews, catholics, Eastern Europeans, "orientals", etc.

looks like the comment I was responding to was deleted

It's his web blog. Libertarians get to be libertards.

A couple of years ago, Tyler mentioned a billionaire, who was in China in his 20s in the 1980s and got Hepatitis C after being treated there with a dirty needle, was not doing well. Does anyone know how he is doing?

3. In the version of this that is scaled to actually be economically feasible, we call it hydroelectric power.

No, he's talking about some sort of electrostatic effect, that the rain drop releases stored static electricity from PTFE. Not water turning turbines.

The problem is that there's no explanation of where the energy comes from - it appears to be stored in the PTFE material. In which case the rain is just acting like a switch that is discharging a chemical battery.

Perhaps he'd counted to three too many times to count to four, anyhow. Rather spurious as it were, but Caroline thought in the interim, while the trumpet flower was alive as her, only just as uprooted, breathing with might, she figured the man whom held it in his hand must live in some kind of home where the rooms are all the same

In defense of 3, the professional article on which it is based is written in an extremely awkward manner. What they are doing is extracting a bit of the kinetic energy of the droplet as is splatters across a charged surface. They are able to do this because the raindrop briefly acts as a charged capacitor, and one way to add or remove energy from a charged capacitor is to change its shape. They claim 2% conversion. Clever, I suppose, but I don't see what use this has even with 100 % conversion. There just isn't that much kinetic energy in raindrops. I'm astonished Nature published it, especially given how it is written.

The problem is that there's no explanation of where the energy comes from

Well, not until you trace back to the Nature article.

The source of the power in this system is the same as the source of the power in any other hydroelectric system; the kinetic energy of water that was raised by solar evaporation as it moves under the force of gravity. Replacing turbines with field-effect transistors as the conversion mechanism doesn't change the source of the power; it simply allows conversion at water volumes far too small to move turbines. It's still just hydroelectric power.

And the problem is that the low water volumes inherently mean low power density, even if you manage high conversion efficiency.

1. Would Hayek have been as excited about the financial collapse in 2007-08 as Boettke? I'm actually sympathetic to Boettke, but for reasons that are different from Boettke (at least I think they are different). I've always been amused by the expression "you never let a serious crisis go to waste". If one doesn't know the Austrians' appreciation of misery as the sina qua non of prosperity, you don't know the Austrians. To repeat, I am sympathetic to Boettke.

#3. How much energy goes into producing PFTE, and what exactly does "quasi permanent" mean? Let's not be violating the second law of thermodynamics here.

Also, what might actually be feasible (and not a perpetual motion machine) is small hydroelectric generators that run off of the rain water running down your gutters. You could even have a storage tank somewhere around your roof that could hold rainwater and then release it as needed.

Alas, the math doesn’t work there either. PE=mgh. Let’s say you’ve got real big gutters, so m = 1000 kg, g = 9.8 m/s^2, and h = 10 meters.

PE = 100,000 joules, or about 0.028 kWh.

I have to say I knew the number would be low, but I’m surprised just how low it is.

+1, it's always good to look at the math.

The potential energy is only mgh if there's no air friction. The actual energy carried by the droplet is 1/2 mv^2, where v is the terminal velocity of the droplet falling through air.

My calculation was for Hazel's proposal; you can tell because it was in reply to Hazel. The drops are stopped by the roof and catch basin and you run a turbine on your downspout. So the drop velocity in air is irrelevant.

Hah, yeah that does seem trivial. I would have thought it would do better if you stored all of the water. Interesting. I mean, a decent sized reservoir can power thousands of homes, so you would think a reservoir 1/1000th of the size would power one home, right?

I guess the intuition there is that the square/cube law is deceptive. 1000 kilograms of water is only a cubic meter, and reservoirs have length, width, and depth, so it doesn't take much linear dimension to have a lot of cubic meters of water.

1/1000th the linear dimension is 1/1,000,000,000th the mass. Even if they aren't as deep as they are broad, it's a big difference.

You DO NOT own the rain that falls on your roof! If you impede "natural drainage" (rain barrel on roof) you can be fined and impaled.

heh heh.

More precisely, your roof is non-permeable, so you're responsible for getting the water that falls on it into the ground somehow, and not running off the property. At least if you have a commercial property. You can run your gutter downspout into a catch basin or drainage pond or something like that to give it time to seep into the ground or evaporate away.

All those little engineered swamps you see near highway off-ramps and parking lots are designed to let the dirty, oily runoff get cleaned up a bit by the biology before it reintegrates with the water table.

You can run your gutter downspout into a catch basin or drainage pond or something like that to give it time to seep into the ground or evaporate away.

No, these, usually municipal, regulations prohibit impeding natural drainage which includes water running off property. I fear you may be impaled.

I'm experimenting with an OER world history textbook (very banal, but wasn't the one I was using?) in combination with pdf versions of handouts and powerpoints of all the images I show in Art History 101. We'll see.

The link for "Christopher Balding on health services in China." doesn't work.

Hi, fellow freedom-lovers. Famous economist Mr. Caplan has estimated in about one to six the chances leading Democratic presidential pre-candidate Senator Sanders being a communist mole, a kind of Manchurian Candidate.

We might be one election from communist totalitarianism. Think about it.

I did not know things were so bad.

You're saying that if the President voted to change the constitution to create a Communist totalitarian government it wouldn't be possible to get a two-thirds majority in congress to block it? This in a country where my friends were charged $1,500 to get their son's leg x-rayed after an accident?

Get your diapers on! Its bedwetting time!

#4 What is called "free trade" and open borders for immigration are sacralized among orthodox American macroeconomists.

But what we see with increased globalization is increased income stratification and also increasing political repression. This may be because income stratification exacerbates tensions by class, religion, ethnicity.

In terms of repression, China, India, Southeast Asia, and perhaps Eastern Europe are going backwards. Populism is ascendant in developed nations. In Mexico politicians shoot journalists as a hobby.

Across the globe, multinationals have a stake not in democracy, or better societies, but rather regime stability. Ponder the posture of Apple in regards to Beijing, or the mouthpiece-commentaries heard from the US Chamber of Commerce.

In 2020, US voters may select a populist, that is Trump, or a socialist, that is Sanders, to be President. I do not blame the voters for this outcome.

> The problem with immigration is political, not economic.

And there's your dopey sentence of the day.

Any political problem is explicitly caused by the economic problem.

1. Cosmos and Taxis symposium on Boettke and Hayek.

Cliff notes, please.
Life is not that complicated.

4. Hence, promoting the cultural assimilation of immigrants and reducing the (actual or perceived) distance between immigrants and natives may be at least as important as addressing the potential economic effects of immigration.

Neither the immigrants nor the natives are interested in being assimilated. A reduction of distance can't happen either. The natives circle of acquaintances is small even among themselves and they won't be forced to associate with the immigrants who generally feel unwelcome and naturally hang around with their own. This study was already refuted by the failure of mandated school busing.

4. The problem with immigration is political, not economic.
Yes. The immigrants are leaving a poor political environment, generally one they allowed, by mistake. They escape the past but bring the philosopher and repeat. It does not take much to crate a failed state, especially in a fragile state system like we have. The 5% of failed staters concentrate in three or four of the big states.

Failed staters, out to get us, AOC is one. The ones who want to try the same failed politics over and over, waiting for their Marxist Godot who never shows.

The immigrants are leaving a poor political environment, generally one they allowed,

Sure, those immigrants were personally in control of the government of wherever they came from, just like you've allowed to exist in wherever you live. They get to determine police policy and behavior just like you do. If you don't approve of some arbitrary government policy it's no problem to get it changed. That's all they needed to do.

The worst part is that these non-assimilants insist on sending US funds to their relatives back in Squalorville, draining the national economy of its political pictorial paper.

If you look at Bull Run, it explains a lot of American History. So does that soccer ball that rolls down from the tree. Collusion distills for a moment the daemon of that failed experiment. And while three or four big states are real, there's only one that matters. North Korea.

2. I'm in the process of writing a text on the design of automation for process plants for chemical engineers. It's a topic that needs a book, but the potential market is chemical engineering students and maybe some engineers in the field. So this is not at all like Mankiw selling economics textbooks to tens of thousands of economics students. This book would be for a course which should be taught in chemical engineering schools, but which isn't currently taught anywhere but where I teach, in part because there isn't a book, in part because design is a topic about which engineering academics know little or nothing, and aren't comfortable teaching (I'm a full time lecturer, former professional).

Given that there's not a huge market for the book, I doubt that finding a publisher to print the book is ever going to make me a fortune. Further, if it is priced like most texts, the price will actively discourage people finding the material and starting to teach it.

I was debating two approaches:
a) Self publish as an ebook for a reasonable price, like $20. After Amazon takes a cut, the rest goes to me. It's inexpensive enough that people will be more likely to try it out.

b) Present the material in a web page, mostly for free. As a web page, I can record lectures to accompany parts of it, and present it as a course to teach as well as a book. To generate revenue, sell problems and solutions, or offer a certificate for those who write a test and pay a course fee.

Any constructive suggestions?

Do both. Publish the book and make it available at cost plus make it available on the internet. The benefit to you will be the boost to your reputation from maximizing the number of people who benefit from it.

As Crikey said, do both.

This is coming from an e-commerce information products prospective.

Free tier
Record yourself lecturing at a whiteboard, whether in 15 minute, 30 minute or hour long segments. Post these *on your website*. Each lecture can have a very bare bones description or lecture notes, up to you.

Student tier-$30
The pdf of the lecture notes mentioned above, expanded so it’s more textbook, less lecture notes. Three to five problems at the end of each chapter. One worked solution.

Student plus-$60
All of the above plus a physical book.

Professional Tier $200
More and more detailed videos working through more complicated problems plus all of the above.

Instructor Tier-$0
All of the above plus more questions with worked solutions, including the ones on the textbook that aren’t provided and a test bank. Available to professors who want to teach your course.

Private training-$$$Call me.
I will train your new graduate chemical engineers in this course for YOU, large profitable chemical engineering company. I have literally written the book. Sure, you have senior engineers who know all this stuff already, but they’re working making you money, and they have no idea how to teach. I can give the one week or two week version.

That’s what I’ve got. If you want to learn more about info products Nathan Barry has a book on them called “Authority”. To make the most money you need to do everything yourself, on your own website, not through Amazon. That’s how you make real money on info products.

Thank you, Barry. That's very helpful. I had been thinking in that direction, but need to clarify and make a plan. The Barry book/course looks like a useful resource. I'm curious if "Barry" is actually Nathan Barry, or just an admirer. I've started posting on the internet only using my full name. It keeps me from writing things I'm not prepared to defend in person, which is a useful self-discipline.

Barry is my given name rather than my family name.

2. One big problem with trying to move away from textbooks is that professors are given textbooks for free by publishers, so feel none of the pain of paying for them. They don't actually know the price of the textbook they can specify for a course, unless they trouble themselves to find out. So professors, who drive demand by choosing a text for a course, feel no price pain. Like some parts of health care, textbooks are a three party problem, with decision makers, buyers and sellers separate. It'a very imperfect market.

This is spot on. It is similar to the problem where physicians prescribe pharmaceuticals and tests they don't know the cost to the end user for, they don't experience those costs (or don't have recent experience with them), and perhaps don't care. There are no incentives in the academic system for professors or college deans to be fiduciary of the payers of their services

#2. I learn better from a textbook than any media source.

Back in the day, we (students) didn't exactly "buy" textbooks, like Paul Samuelson's Principles of Econ. We paid to use it for one semester, then sold it back. It was already used hence cheaper. The next student bought it It was already used. Hence the so-called "Samuelson Shuffle", aka frequent minor revised editions. Also some revolutionarily minded students stole copies and sold them at a steep discount. This was real-life economics in action.

the answer is always be happy with America, like thomas Jefferson, its never exactly what you want but its always better than everywhere else

my days are the death showing me whos going to die and then confirming it seeing it on the internet, a whisper xyz is gonna die sometimes a first name, etc then I see the news or some strange robot scene (like a chuck e cheese band) and then something happening somewhere in the world, anyway after afghan war it'll be tv shows and anything useful will be turned into a few jobs here or there

now that Americas economy is only 20 pct of the worlds the world can bail out trump for a huge deficit tax cut, I guess everyone decided to make money in Americas markets and decided against trying to sabotage trump, false intel and satellites running a coercive empire of happy enough regional allies or half coercion and half debt collections and half people accepting trump actually doesn't do a bad job except for the rhetoric

ok, don't say I didn't tell you the truth
ha actinades lanthinades nm revelations field
why is nm a sun flag az a sun flag and right next to the west coast of the periodic table?

difficult not to feel a little bit disappointed and passed over but I threw you the obvious see you naked but oblivious, and you don't see me

the states an asshole sometimes, very good music

So glad to see you well
Overcome and completely silent now
With heavens help you cast your demons out
And not to pull your halo down
Around your neck and tug you off your cloud
But I'm more than just a little curious
How you're planning to go about making your amends
To the dead
To the dead

hellboy and golden west coast cold war army, red or Redmond (all big tech is govt research funded satellite seeded, google chrome is halo video game light orb the great journey is launching revelations via old white strict Christians mad about queers and arrogant politicians, google is Livermores networks)

Redmond got Linux friendly a surface tablet and then basically decided to sell users data, and I finally get to live a little, introverted maybe I can read and learn again

Comments for this post are closed