JBS News

It's your right to be informed!

Will Global Sustainability Ever Be Possible?

| 2 Comments

by John Brian Shannon

If you haven’t seen these two short videos on demographics and sustainability from Professor Hans Rosling take the time to do it now. Hans at his best!

If you prefer to watch video 1 at www.ted.com click here>> “Hans Rosling Shows the Best Stats You’ve Ever Seen”

If you prefer to watch video 2 at http://www.ted.com here>> “Hans Rosling on Global Population Growth”

Bonus video from The Economist: “VideoGraphic: Global Fertility”

Bonus article from The Economist: “Go Forth and Multiply a Lot Less”

John Brian Shannon

John Brian Shannon

ABOUT JOHN BRIAN SHANNON

I write about green energy, sustainable development and economics. My blogs appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, United Nations Development Programme, WACSI — and other quality publications.

“It is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.”

Green Energy blog: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Economics blog: http://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Twitter: @JBSCanada

 

This gallery contains 0 photos

United Nations Development Programme Report Due in September

| Leave a comment

by John Brian Shannon

I have recently had the honour of being asked to submit one of my articles to the United Nations Development Programme – which is preparing a 60-page report summarizing the implementation of sustainable energy world-wide.

This report will be made available to the public in September and mine is one of the featured articles. Many thanks to Danielle Crittenden my Managing Editor at Huffington Post Canada who was the first editor to approve and publish the first version of this article which was titled As China Goes Green What Is Canada Waiting For?

I also owe thanks to Emma Ellwood-Russell, my editor at EcoPoint™ who published a later version of this article titled China Goes Green and to EnergyBoom.com which also published the last variant of this article.

Specifically, the UNDP has decided to publish the energyboom.com version which was titled China Motivated to Adopt Sustainable Energy Solutions crediting me as the authour and generously providing a link to the energyboom.com website in the UNDP report.

Congratulations to my Managing Editor at EnergyBoom – Nathanael Baker, who has researched and reported on the issues of renewable energy, sustainability, and climate change for over two years. He has provided research to the New York Times and The Economist, as well as being published on different media outlets including, The Energy Collective.

To read the article, as it appears at the energyboom.com website, please click on this link: China Motivated to Adopt Sustainable Energy Solutions

John Brian Shannon writes about green energy, sustainable development and economics from British Columbia, Canada. His articles appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint Asia, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, the United Nations Development Programme - and other quality publications.

John believes it is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.

Check out his personal blog at: http://johnbrianshannon.com

Check out his economics blog at: http://jbsnews.wordpress.com

Follow John on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

 

 

This gallery contains 0 photos

JOBS: The Key to Capitalism’s Success

| 1 Comment

by John Brian Shannon

As we all know, several political/economic models are in use in the early 21st century. A little refresher for you first, if your high-school political science classes didn’t especially thrill you.

The capitalist system employed by the Western nations and some other nations, is often referred to as the Free Enterprise system, the Free Market system, Wealth Accumulation, Capital Accumulation or the Open Economic model – depending on the context of a conversation. Politics can vary within capitalist systems – which are often a variant of democracy (civil rights enshrined in a constitution, the right to vote, rights to property and person and freedom of expression) form part of this model. Socialist parties represent the “left wing” and conservative “right-wing” parties are represented along with independent candidates as elected by the registered voters.

In the capitalist system, greed is the primary agent of economic change. If you want to eat, you work for money to buy your food. If you would rather drive to work than walk, you work for money to buy a car and insurance. An individual “works” to earn “profit” to purchase goods or services. The underlying premise being, that if an individual has a decent education and works “smart” and “hard” you will accumulate wealth over time. Western corporations and governments operate in a similar fashion.

So, why isn’t it working?

“It IS working!” wealthy Western individuals emphatically state.

“It IS working!” Western corporations emphatically state.

“It IS working!” Western governments emphatically state.

And in those cases, it most emphatically IS working!

But the rest of us are not. Working, that is. You know… jobs, working, making a living, paying the bills, making the rent… and all the rest of it.

You will recall my words from a previous paragraph; “An individual “works” to earn “profit” to purchase goods or services. The underlying premise being, that if an individual has a decent education and works “smart” and “hard” you will accumulate wealth over time.”

All good there. Except what happens in the capitalist system when there aren’t enough jobs?

The short answer is; A failed economic system. Ever more wealth becomes concentrated in a ever smaller percentage of the general population. You guessed it — 1% of the Western population will always agree that the Open Economic system works well for them.

For Western nations it is death by a thousand cuts and only in the interests of economic survival will our present system evolve into something very unlike the present model and it may take as long as 50 years to do so.

Let me back up a bit.

I promised you a political science refresher and here is the other half of it. The Communist system, sometimes called the Statist model, the Centralized Economic model, or the Closed Economic model, does not employ greed as the primary driver of human activity. Profit, either at the individual or corporate level is unknown and all economic activity is considered the property of the state. The only things that really matter to a communist is the national GDP and the sovereignty of the country. Of course, civil rights and personal freedoms are enshrined in the constitutions of communist countries – although at the end of the day personal rights can be and often are subjugated in the best interests of the state.

For one example of this, in the former USSR alcoholism rates were astonishingly high. But this was never reported in the Soviet media as it was thought that publicizing this knowledge would emotionally depress workers across the nation – and thereby suppress economic output. Therefore and officially, in the former USSR there was no alcoholism – and hence, the government-owned hospitals failed to devise a treatment for a disease which only occurred in the decadent West! If a citizen of the former USSR arrived at a hospital or doctor’s office for treatment of his alcoholism, he was told that he suffered from “an imaginary disease” and was counseled to stop “trying to get attention” by emulating Western behaviors. And no doubt put on some sort of watch list for good measure.

Eventually the former USSR collapsed mainly due to internal forces. However, some communist nations remain and are thriving. China has surpassed India, France, the UK, Germany, Japan and every other country except for the United States in GDP and accumulated wealth – and has done so by employing the statist economic model. According to most economics Professors, China will surpass the United States GDP by 2040. That’s 28 years from now in case you are a Chinese economist counting the days.

The main reason for the dramatic growth-driven economic performance in China is that many Western corporations have chosen to do business in China rather than the West – due to lower land and construction costs, lower labour rates, the lower costs associated with a relaxed or non-existent regulatory environment (depending on the industry and region of the country) and other cost-lowering factors associated with operating a business in China.

Beginning about 1999, U.S. corporations especially, have embraced the opportunity to lower their costs by closing their North American factories and building brand-new factories in China – sometimes with significant communist Chinese government assistance! Other western corporations too, have been closing our factories by the thousands in America and Europe and relocating their manufacturing operations to China – and on account of this economic activity, the Western economies combined are at present, 150 million jobs short of full employment. This trend of creating jobs in communist China whilst simultaneously creating higher unemployment in the Western democracies will continue as long as Western voters don’t complain too much.

By 2030, the Western democracies will be much-weakened in comparison to a still-booming China and the other Asian nations. At that time, Asia will be supplying almost all the manufactured goods for the Western economies which will by then, have lost 300 million jobs to Asia.

Also by 2030, perhaps as many as 700 million Westerners will be retired persons receiving some form of Social Security – while millions of younger people won’t be old enough to join the workforce. It will be a time when less than half of the West’s population will be employed and able to support the Western economies. From the Western point of view, this trend gets worse until 2060 when economic performance is expected to plateau in Asia.

A paradigm-shift has been taking place right under our Western noses for three decades now and we have just now begun to notice. China will soon be the dominant world power – and we handed it to them in exchange for higher profits for Western corporations.

It’s said; “He who has the gold makes the rules” – and it is shaping up to be a very different world indeed.

Follow John Brian Shannon on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

This gallery contains 0 photos

The Economist Asks: Does Britain need a fiscal boost? — MY COMMENT

| Leave a comment

Just as a matter of principle, the UK should not be running deficits. It is  unconscionable for any 1st world nation, especially one with so many gifts, to NOT spend within it’s means.

Running deficits year in and year out, is the kind of undisciplined behavior we expect from the most primitive undeveloped economies, not the UK, for goodness sakes!

Legislation should be passed in the UK (and independently in all other 1st world nations) banning deficit spending by the federal government except during wartime, or other significant emergencies.

Whether it is affordable or not, is irrelevant as it is simply morally wrong to mismanage, when sound management would suffice.

Mismanage how?

Every pound that is borrowed when in deficit, and then later tacked onto the federal debt of a nation, takes food out of the mouths of the citizens – as each individual pound borrowed carries with it a borrowing cost (compound interest) which, any banker can tell you will end up costing you very many pounds in compound interest.

Which would be almost fine, I suppose, if that interest was staying in the country. But it’s not.

International lenders carry shiploads of money out of the UK and other Western economies every single year in the form of interest paid on government deficits and accumulated deficits (debt) from years and decades gone by.

It is a travesty and it’s immoral to give away the wealth of a nation in slow motion. That money is gone forever.

For now, to solve the immediate problem, the UK as it is sovereign in it’s own currency, should print more than enough money to pay the deficit — PLUS 20% — and that 20% could be used as a stimulus fund on “shovel ready” infrastructure money in the highest unemployment regions of the country.

Instantly, that money would begin working to return the economy to a better place and through taxation (employed people spend more and pay more income-tax) lift the government’s revenues.

Not only would the government save the cost of the compound interest for this year’s deficit, they would receive much of it back through various taxation, further removing stress from the government’s accounts. Let alone continuing to pay interest on it for a decade or two, before finally getting this year’s deficit paid off.

And while they are at it, they should invoke a slight devaluation of the pound, to enhance exports, to further stimulate the economy, adding jobs in the process, which means adding more taxpayers to the government revenue stream.

To read the original article and to vote in the poll, visit:

http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/does-britain-need-fiscal-boost

Follow John Brian Shannon on Twitter: https://twitter.com/@JBSCanada

This gallery contains 0 photos

The Debt of Democracy!

| 2 Comments

Democracy is, by definition, always a work in progress. That’s not a knock against democracy, for every other system so far, has turned out to be worse. But it is a realistic appraisal of our system.

One of the things about the democratic system which is in drastic need of improvement is the present election cycle which rewards politicians with more terms in office for tossing unaffordable goodies at taxpayers, usually just before each election.

We keep falling for it! Is is “their” fault, or is it “our” fault?

Well, we keep re-hiring them! So, it’s our fault!

Not only that, it’s worse than that! Remember former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his Finance Minister Paul Martin?

Weren’t those the two that took Canada from near ‘junk-bond’ status – well on-track to be in worse shape than Greece (!) is now, and within 6 years returned Canada to a zero-deficit condition AND… AND(!) with significant government debt pay-downs?

Well, yes they were.

For that stellar accomplishment Jean Chretien and then Paul Martin were booted out of office!

I say we get the governments we hire, the governments we deserve, and the governments that spend more than we can afford, because that is who we as a people are – rotten little children. And then we compound that by being profoundly ungrateful towards those who actually do something to restore our fiscal balance.

Until we grow up as a society and learn enough to know better than to hire over-spending politicians we will ever be in a state of near-economic peril.

In the meantime, I’m a big fan of balanced-budget legislation for all levels of government. Not only that, Canada’s total accumulated debt is obscene for a first-world nation with uncountable resources and a small population, we must do better than merely balancing our budgets every year, we must pay down our debt to reasonable levels.

My goodness, little Leichtenstien with next to no resources nor territory runs zero deficits and has no debt at all!! Many other well-run countries do well with tiny deficits for convenience-sake, not for the sake of crisis management and barely noticeable government debt. None of them has Canada’s advantages – for crisis’ sakes!

Wikipedia has some good but basic information on this, check Wikipedia “Economy of Sweden” “Economy of Norway” Economy of Australia” – same goes for Leichtenstien, Oman, Qatar, Argentina (yes, Argentina), South Korea and many others.

Apart from having 40% debt-to-GDP ratios, or less, and low government debt, all of the following countries are otherwise “normal” having excellent growth, low inflation and unemployment figures, they score well on the global competitiveness index and their citizens enjoy good-to-excellent living standards . They also have low per capita crime rates and fine health care systems. Two, effectively have 0% debt-to-GDP.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Liechtenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Qatar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Oman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Kuwait

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Argentina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand

Finally, the best link on global debt belongs to The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

For plenty of links on these topics visit my blog:
http://www.scoop.it/t/politics-in-the-21st-century

This gallery contains 0 photos

Europe’s Economic Suicide by Paul Krugman — MY COMMENT

| Leave a comment

The Euro was doomed to failure from the start IF all of Europe did not convert to the Euro early on. Having a centralized currency in some parts of Europe while national currencies operate in other parts of Europe (operating together and against each other) in some jurisdictions is unworkable.

It would be the equivalent of having an Eastern U.S. dollar and a Western dollar in the U.S.A.

Obviously, both regional currencies would trade at a different value and compete against each other with the goal of defeating the competing currency. Effectively, one region of the U.S. would be at economic war with another region of the U.S.!

Currency speculators worldwide would be quick to make that opportunity work for them – regardless of the economic consequences to either region!

Which is exactly what has been happening to Europe since 2000 and to think otherwise is to be looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

The quiet, almost polite, currency/economic war raging in Europe over the past decade increased unemployment, lowered profits, decreased confidence domestically and abroad and charted an erratic path for the often different national economic systems there.

This wound in the very fabric of Europe won’t heal until the decision is made to either drop the Euro completely – or the European nations embrace one currency.

If that decision is deferred much longer, Europe will continue to lose economic power, until there is complete and utter economic failure there.

To read Professor Paul Krugman – visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/krugman-europes-economic-suicide.html?_r=1#comments

Follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@JBSCanada

This gallery contains 0 photos

Government deficits and debt: Unsafe at any level?

| Leave a comment

by John Brian Shannon

Some countries do not have much debt, therefore they do not need to reduce their government debt.

At the other end of the scale there are nations which have far too much government debt – and although borrowing rates are presently low for governments in heavy debt, one day that debt will face much higher interest rates – making it much more difficult to pay off.

If they can’t presently pay for current spending and therefore need to run deficit after deficit – resulting in an ever-growing pile of debt, how will they pay the interest on all their accumulated debt once interest rates start to skyrocket! See Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Spain and Italy fall backwards (faster than they are doing now) at that point!

My own country, Canada has an 81.6% government debt to GDP ratio (all levels of government) this year according to The Economist’s Economic Intelligence Unit, which is an unacceptable level of debt, for three reasons:

1) it has in the past affected our credit rating with the credit rating agencies,

2) the debt chokes off growth as the government is constrained by that debt – and can’t borrow more money in order to stimulate the economy,

3) and the interest rate on that debt WILL increase over time which steals a nation’s wealth.

Many government’s with obscene debt levels are also (surprise!) in economic peril – so they must very carefully go about eliminating any deficit financing and paying down their debt.

If only they would pay it down during the “good economic times” then it wouldn’t pile up as it does.

The first rule then, is to not damage the economy further. Second, lower the amount of deficit spending until there is no more deficit.

Even this may take years to accomplish. The U.S. deficit is 1.4 trillion dollars this year, to suddenly cut that to zero would cause more damage than it would solve.

Third, growing the economy will generate much more revenue for the government in the form of taxes, some of which can be used to lower the deficit and once that is done, lower the existing debt. Exports help the economy directly as it is “new” money coming into the country.

Fourth, raising taxes also helps a government raise revenue to help with the deficit and debt picture, but this must be carefully done as it can prevent or slow recovery.

Fifth, lowering spending (austerity) helps to stem the economic bleeding, but governments can not afford to be clumsy about this, as it can wreak havoc with society.

Sixth, legislation passed to not allow deficit financing will prevent over-financing from occurring again.

Regarding the Canadian federal government budget announced yesterday: To balance the country’s books and to take care of the most important matters, here is how to do it:

A) Increase the HST by 1%, use that one percent increase for job creation ONLY. That would have stimulated the economy generally and that of families and individuals.

B) Inform every ministry and government crown corp, etc… that their budgets would face a one-time cut of 5% (every business person knows there is ALWAYS 5% “fat” which can be cut with minimal impact in any organization).

C) Inform MP’s that starting the day after the next election, there will be a new pay package – one which requires them to pay 50% of their pension contributions themselves.

D) Delay indefinitely, the F-35 fighter and purchase 20 ready-to-fly F-18 SuperHornets, or SAAB Grypen fighters or BAE Hawks – to replace the 20 worst condition CF-18 fighter jets and put them in a museum, where they belong.

E) Set up a 1-800 number so that citizens can suggest ways that any level of government can save money. If any ideas turn out to be viable, citizens should receive a $500.00 reward.

See, it’s easy to balance the budget over three years!

How does that compare to what the Harper Government actually has done with it’s latest federal budget?

Here are the highlights of yesterday’s federal budget as announced March 30, 2012 by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. (Courtesy CBC News)

Canada (March 29, 2012)

This budget was aimed at reducing the federal deficit, and it brought cuts to everything from Old Age Security to a range of federal departments.

Return to budgetary surplus forecast by 2015

Budget balance for 2012: $21,100,000,000 deficit

Federal debt: $602.4 billion ($581.3 billion in 2011/12)

Public debt charges: $30.8 billion ($31 billion in 2011/12) This is the cost of financing ALL federal government debt

Debt to GDP ratio: 34.4%

Real GDP growth (this year): 2.1%

Revenue (per cent change): +2.9
Program spending: (per cent change): +1.4

Total expenses: $276.1 billion ($272.9 in 2011/12)
Key policy initiatives:

The federal government is cutting $5.2 billion in spending over the next three years. The government will ask people younger than 54 to wait an extra two years for old age security benefits, is killing the penny, and will trim the operating budgets of federal departments, resulting in 19,200 federal public sector job cuts over three years. Among those hardest hit are the Department of Finance, the Privy Council Office, Transport Canada and the Treasury Board.

National Defence lost the most money overall, with cuts reaching $1.1 billion by 2014-15. The CBC’s base funding was cut 10 per cent over three years, a reduction of $115 million by 2014-15. Elections Canada funding will be cut by $7.5 million a year, starting in 2012-13. Foreign aid and international development assistance across several departments and agencies is being cut by $377 million by 2014-15, with the Canadian International Development Agency to bear the brunt at $319.2 million.

There were no significant tax changes for individuals.

—————————————————————–

If you want some easy to understand and up-to-date information about the U.S. deficit and debt – along with many excellent links, please see:  http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

Here is some of the information you will see there:

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 29 Mar 2012 at 09:20:15 AM GMT is:

$15,595,309,331,866.20 ($15.6 trillion dollars by the time you read this)

The estimated population of the United States is 312,486,603
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $49,907.13.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$4.01 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

———————————————————————

To see The Economist’s Global Debt Clock – an excellent resource with complete researchable database visit:

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

———————————————————————

If you are looking for general articles about government debt by respected Economics Professor’s, with some practical comments and good quotes and charts, see my blog at:
http://www.scoop.it/t/politics-in-the-21st-century

———————————————————————

To see the letter President Barack Obama sent me last week, visit:

http://johnbrianshannon.com

———————————————————————

This gallery contains 0 photos

The Economist: China and Europe’s emission-trading scheme – MY COMMENT

| 1 Comment

Not free to fly  – Feb 8th 2012, 18:55 by J.A.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/02/china-and-europes-emission-trading-scheme

Why not the simplest solution of all?

Every country should copy the EU law and apply it in 2013.

To eliminate double-charging, the fee need only be charged to each airplane at landing, (or, at take-off) but not both.

Airlines, such as Virgin and others which already use a 50/50 blend of biofuel, should receive a ‘free pass’ regarding this program – everywhere they fly.

Net reduction of emissions is the goal – after all.

The difference flying with biofuel? Reported up to 80% reductions in CO2 according to Boeing. See: http://johnbrianshannon.com/ for more information.

johnbrianshannon@gmail.com

AFP Photo

This gallery contains 1 photo.

Panetta believes Israel may strike Iran this spring — MY COMMENT

| Leave a comment

My comment to an Arab News article featured on February 2, 2012

Article caption reads: ”WASHINGTON: US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, US media reported on Thursday.”

———————————————————————

Bombing Iran is not the way to solve this problem.

Whatever problem exists now, it will become an intractable problem after any Israeli attack on Iran. Unsolvable perhaps.

There are approximately 1.7 billion Muslims living all over the planet now, according to The Economist and they, as a demographic are younger than western society – and unlike westerner’s Muslims are growing their population yearly.

Does Israel really want 2.2 billion angry Muslims on their hands by 2030? Because that’s how many they will be then – a full 26.4% of the world’s population.

Thus far, Israel and the west have only had to endure small numbers of fanatical (so-called Muslims) attacking them in the name of previous maltreatment. How many more would you like to anger? One billion, or two?

How many do you think you might handle? The words ‘eternal imbroglio’ come to mind. It may never end. Think about what you are doing now, before you commit.

The problem is not that Iran may have fuel enough to construct 4 nuclear bombs that it will never use. Nuclear bombs are useless – as any retribution for using them would be nuclear, swift, and complete. Iran would cease to exist as a nation or a place that anyone could visit for at least 100 years – other than for scientific isotope-survey purposes.

All world leaders know this equation. If you attack with nuclear weapons, expect an overwhelming nuclear response. Eye for an eye, city of 10 million for a city of 10 million.

I suspect if Iran didn’t feel threatened it wouldn’t speak with such bellicosity in the media. That is what the Israeli government is reacting to. Then, Iran reacts to that reaction! On and on it goes, the self feeding machine.

Just like the suspected WMD program in 2003 Iraq, there was no evidence beforehand nor afterwards – the Iraq Study Group itself concluded that there was never a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

None of the imaginations of Iran’s detractors has even a shred of evidence to back up their claims. Not one shot has been fired by Iran. And that’s the real point here.

johnbrianshannon@gmail.com 

 

 

 

This gallery contains 0 photos

How Fares the Dream? – by Paul Krugman — MY COMMENT

| Leave a comment

My comment to an article in the New York Times by:

Professor Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/opinion/krugman-how-fares-the-dream.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

—————————————————————————–

Professor Krugman can be counted on to deliver excellent columns with alarming regularity, but is ‘nailing it’ evermore powerfully these days.

He and a few others, have become the antidote to the wrong-headed thinking that has misled America in recent years – let’s hope it’s not too late for a course correction.

It’s not just Americans that want a stable and healthy United States, half the world depends on America’s economy to a significant degree. Even as some nations compete with the U.S. in the international marketplace they simultaneously want and need America to stay economically viable.

If a social ill becomes widespread throughout the states, it will affect more than just the 335 million who are American citizens.

One of the social ills I refer to is one that plagued the former Soviet Union; low worker morale resulting in ever-lower productivity, which was caused by poor management.

For years prior to the collapse of Soviet communism, the most commonly used phrase among workers was; “As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work!”

In a rich nation like the U.S. – low income earner’s with little upward mobility should be the exception, not the rule. Those old Soviets would, of course, disagree.

johnbrianshannon@gmail.com

 

This gallery contains 0 photos

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers