• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you give up a significant amount of your first world comfort to elevate the rest of the world?

Would you give up your comfort for equality?


  • Total voters
    68
I would be willing to give up a little comfort.

But I have no illusions about the rest of the world.

There is nothing especially nice about Americans, let alone the rest of the world.
 
I guess I must have a different outlook on the world. I do not see people as parasites that need others to tend to their needs. In fact, this world has existed and thrived for thousands of years fueled by people taking care of themselves and their families.

Over the last century there have been several social experiments where armed thugs have taken control of countries and redistributed the wealth. They call this social movement Communism. In every case, without exception this has failed miserably. Instead of elevating the poor it has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. Instead of increasing the wealth of the poor it has totally eliminated all wealth.

Empirical evidence has proven that giving people handouts does not improve their long term lives. It does just the opposite. It makes them dependent on those handouts and causes them to lose the ability to cope for themselves.
 
........ Empirical evidence has proven that giving people handouts does not improve their long term lives. It does just the opposite. It makes them dependent on those handouts and causes them to lose the ability to cope for themselves.

Your past postings indicate that you believe that helping any poor person with anything=a hand out:
Temporary aid to tide a family over when both parents are out of work = a hand out.
College entrance for a minority student with tuition aid=hand out
Low interest loan to small businesses in underserved minority areas=handout
Unemployment insurance=handout
Subsidized health insuranace=hand out
Soup kitchens = handout
Warming stations for the homeless on cold nights=handout
Non-discrimination laws=handout
Equal pay laws =handout


Tax cut to the wealthy 10% = well earned reward for providing so many jobs
Tax loop-holes to permitting corporations to escape all taxes = a necessity to keep their profits high

Your empirical evidence that shows aid destroys poor people but not rich people would be interesting to see.
 
Your past postings indicate that you believe that helping any poor person with anything=a hand out:
Temporary aid to tide a family over when both parents are out of work = a hand out.
That is why you live within your means. Then you have savings to fall back on in tough times.
College entrance for a minority student with tuition aid=hand out
Millions of students work their way through college. Not needed.
Low interest loan to small businesses in underserved minority areas=handout
All businesses should be treated the same.
Unemployment insurance=handout
Unemployment insurance is earned, ergo can not be a handout.
Subsidized health insuranace=hand out
Yes, why should struggling workers foot the bill for some lay around.
Soup kitchens = handout
Where are there soup kitchens? Beyond that they were paid for by charity. Not with unwilling tax payer money.
Warming stations for the homeless on cold nights=handout
Get off drugs and alcohol and get a job. Pretty simple.
Non-discrimination laws=handout
Has nothing to do with subject.
Equal pay laws =handout
Has nothing to do with subject.


Tax cut to the wealthy 10% = well earned reward for providing so many jobs
Everyone deserves to keep more of what they earn. It is not for some clown in government to decide how much you should make. And yes the person who spent a small fortune earning an education, setting up a business, working 12 hour days deserves to live a lot better than some lay about.
Tax loop-holes to permitting corporations to escape all taxes = a necessity to keep their profits high
You obviously have no idea how tax laws work. Only a fool thinks any company escapes all taxes. A total fool.

Your empirical evidence that shows aid destroys poor people but not rich people would be interesting to see.
Every person controls their own future. Those who decide to waste theirs have no one to blame but themselves.
 
I am fully aware of how executive level jobs are compensated. Every statistic shows that these salaries are detrimental to society and wage workers.
You dismiss the labor of the "have nots' as work anyone can do and worthy of less than subsistance pay. If you look at statistics you will find that the 'have nots' are working, at jobs that are essential: garbage collection, bed making, dish washing, ditch digging, baby sitting, day care, LPN, receptionist, waiter, stock-boy, teacher aid, lawn-mowing, night watchman, etc. The list is long. And the pay is demonstrably unfair.

On your broader points I'm not weighing in, but on this one I disagree with your examples. Most of these "essential" jobs can be fairly easily replaced by current or imminent technology plus minor adapting if the "have nots" aren't cheap enough. Others are largely optional ("bed making" ... ?). The modern economy simply does not need as much human labor.
 
On your broader points I'm not weighing in, but on this one I disagree with your examples. Most of these "essential" jobs can be fairly easily replaced by current or imminent technology plus minor adapting if the "have nots" aren't cheap enough. Others are largely optional ("bed making" ... ?). The modern economy simply does not need as much human labor.
. I agree technology is making jobs disappear. The problem is that an equal number of people have not disappeared. In fact the world's population is growing rapidly.

People need to work. They need the money but more importantly working is essential to being part of society: one's contribution to the making of the products or services that society uses helps make one a part of the society. Doing work is important. We need to be creating new jobs and/or revaluing the jobs that involve working directly with people that many think of as women's jobs and can't be replaced by technological advances.
 
Society evolves and jobs evolve with it. 80% of the jobs in this country used to be farm jobs. Now less than 10% of the jobs are farm jobs. That other 70% didn't starve to death. They moved on to other employment. The same can be said when cars replaced horses, internal combustion replace steam, railroads replaced stage coaches, telephones replaced telegraphs, and electricity replaced oil lamps. People adapted and the standard of living grew.

New technologies create new opportunities for jobs. Usually those jobs pay much better than the jobs they replace. The catch is they require an education. Just like when cars replaced horses. The guys who used to shoe horses needed to learn how to work on cars.

The only difference is now we have a nanny state who think those who think those who are too lazy or stupid to change with the times should be rewarded for their failings.

Second, by far the largest biggest reason for a decline in wages at the lower end of the job scale is the large number of illegal aliens who have come to this country. There are way more applicants than jobs due to this. As long as this invasion is allowed to continue these people will continue to pull down the wages on these jobs.
 
Society evolves and jobs evolve with it. 80% of the jobs in this country used to be farm jobs. Now less than 10% of the jobs are farm jobs. That other 70% didn't starve to death. They moved on to other employment. The same can be said when cars replaced horses, internal combustion replace steam, railroads replaced stage coaches, telephones replaced telegraphs, and electricity replaced oil lamps. People adapted and the standard of living grew.
New technologies create new opportunities for jobs. Usually those jobs pay much better than the jobs they replace. The catch is they require an education. Just like when cars replaced horses. The guys who used to shoe horses needed to learn how to work on cars.
The only difference is now we have a nanny state who think those who think those who are too lazy or stupid to change with the times should be rewarded for their failings.
Second, by far the largest biggest reason for a decline in wages at the lower end of the job scale is the large number of illegal aliens who have come to this country. There are way more applicants than jobs due to this. As long as this invasion is allowed to continue these people will continue to pull down the wages on these jobs.

I agree, in the past technology eliminated jobs and created new ones. Building car bodies was similar to building buggies and smithing was a transferable mechanical talent. The leap into new jobs was not huge. Today, the bolting on of a fender does not transfer into programming robots. Technology today is designed specifically to eliminate workers while creating only one or two new jobs. This is not good news especially if the population is growing fast and most believe that schools have nothing to offer except anti-Americanism.

Illegal aliens have not had a part in the reduction of wages. They do not work for the big manufacturing corporations I had a front row seat in Maine watching wood products corporations threaten mill closure and loss of jobs to manipulate workers into leaving the union. Their other tactic was to declare bankruptcy, close the mill then after a significant period of no work, sell the mill to another corporation that agreed to reopen only if the union was disbanded. These same techniques were used in steel mills, coal mines, and in the wood products industry in the south.

I'd be curious to know where you think all the new jobs are that these workers could apply for and what retraining they would need?
 
Last edited:
Society evolves and jobs evolve with it. 80% of the jobs in this country used to be farm jobs. Now less than 10% of the jobs are farm jobs. That other 70% didn't starve to death. They moved on to other employment. The same can be said when cars replaced horses, internal combustion replace steam, railroads replaced stage coaches, telephones replaced telegraphs, and electricity replaced oil lamps. People adapted and the standard of living grew.

New technologies create new opportunities for jobs. Usually those jobs pay much better than the jobs they replace. The catch is they require an education. Just like when cars replaced horses. The guys who used to shoe horses needed to learn how to work on cars.

The only difference is now we have a nanny state who think those who think those who are too lazy or stupid to change with the times should be rewarded for their failings.

Second, by far the largest biggest reason for a decline in wages at the lower end of the job scale is the large number of illegal aliens who have come to this country. There are way more applicants than jobs due to this. As long as this invasion is allowed to continue these people will continue to pull down the wages on these jobs.

The difference is both globalization and outsourcing/work imports (i.e. H1B Visas and the like) has meant a labour pool that is unprecedentedly large and competitive, as well as the nature of modern day automation in that it is, as weaver pointed out, explicitly designed to minimize the need for labour. Taken together, the impact they've had on wages is painfully obvious: stagnation and a squeezing of the middle class in the developed world in favour of the poor in the developing world and the uber rich.

Speaking to the retraining you've mentioned, America does a far worse job of it than just about any other developed country out there on a per capita basis; again, as mentioned previously Germany has one of the highest STEM grad rates in the world, and a huge chunk of the reason that is so is because it pays for the higher education of its students. See, it's not that people should be 'rewarded' for their failings (nor do we do actually do that; we have one of the least generous social safety nets in the developed world), it's that the government should actively strive to ensure that it is adequately educating its people for participation in a knowledge based skills economy, and thus far, the US has done an abysmal job at it for a rich, developed first world country.

Furthermore, while I do agree that illegals probably impact wages on the lowest end of the economic spectrum, that doesn't nearly explain the real wage declines and stagnation for just about everyone else who is not in the top 20%.
 
. I agree technology is making jobs disappear. The problem is that an equal number of people have not disappeared. In fact the world's population is growing rapidly.

People need to work. They need the money but more importantly working is essential to being part of society: one's contribution to the making of the products or services that society uses helps make one a part of the society. Doing work is important. We need to be creating new jobs and/or revaluing the jobs that involve working directly with people that many think of as women's jobs and can't be replaced by technological advances.
We're definitely in a tough spot. Happiness studies agree, humans NEED to work. Yet our work is largely not valuable anymore; robots are more cost-effective (and this keeps getting more true). How on earth do we transform society to collectively pay people to do things we don't really need humans to do? Does human psychology also require that we trick us into thinking that our labor is somehow needed and important instead of another form of welfare?
 
We're definitely in a tough spot. Happiness studies agree, humans NEED to work. Yet our work is largely not valuable anymore; robots are more cost-effective (and this keeps getting more true). How on earth do we transform society to collectively pay people to do things we don't really need humans to do? Does human psychology also require that we trick us into thinking that our labor is somehow needed and important instead of another form of welfare?
There are actually quite a number of jobs that we need humans to do but our society has deemed. them unimportant, relegated them to women and low pay. They are the jobs that involve direct contact with people, child care, elder care, teaching, cleaning, cooking, counseling, social work, nursing. These are the jobs that can never be taken over by technology. Unless we are going to evolve into a society of indentured servants to the top 10% holding all the wealth these jobs need earn salaries that show they are valuable to society.
 
I agree, in the past technology eliminated jobs and created new ones. Building car bodies was similar to building buggies and smithing was a transferable mechanical talent. The leap into new jobs was not huge. Today, the bolting on of a fender does not transfer into programming robots. Technology today is designed specifically to eliminate workers while creating only one or two new jobs. This is not good news especially if the population is growing fast and most believe that schools have nothing to offer except anti-Americanism.

Illegal aliens have not had a part in the reduction of wages. They do not work for the big manufacturing corporations I had a front row seat in Maine watching wood products corporations threaten mill closure and loss of jobs to manipulate workers into leaving the union. Their other tactic was to declare bankruptcy, close the mill then after a significant period of no work, sell the mill to another corporation that agreed to reopen only if the union was disbanded. These same techniques were used in steel mills, coal mines, and in the wood products industry in the south.

I'd be curious to know where you think all the new jobs are that these workers could apply for and what retraining they would need?
Illegal aliens have not had a part in the reduction of wages? Are you serious or are you just uninformed? Do you understand the concept of supply and demand? Here is how it works. If an employer has a need for 100 new employees and there are only 80 applicants the employer has to increase what he is paying to attract and retain employees. On the other hand if he has 300 applicants, he has no need to offer more, in fact he can offer less. Illegal immigrants have flooded the unskilled and semi-skilled markets with millions of applicants. You can easily see the effects of this in the meat packing industry, where workers now make less than they did 30 years ago.

Cherry picking one situation and trying to imply it covers all cases is a fools game. Your scenario actually proves my point. How can a mill that pays high union labor cost compete with a mill that uses low paid immigrant labor? Unions only have power when the company has little access to alternate cheaper labor.

Every robot or computer or other advanced technology created needs people to build, maintain, program, sell, and support their use. Take computers for example. When they came into use they replaced the typewriter and some clerical jobs. However, they created millions of high paying jobs. At the corporation where I worked they eliminated low paying administrative jobs and created an IT department with hundreds of high paid employees. Many of them were former stenos and administrative aids who learned new skills.

Technology is designed to stream line and reduce costs. My grandfather owned a gas station. He used to employ people to pump gas. If the guy didn't show up he was forced to leave his mechanic job and pump gas. He eliminated the job and let people pump their own gas. He saved money, the customer saved money, all were happy. Because the guy who pumped gas was able to do other things, he found different employment.

You whole hypothesis is ignorant and easily disproved. Over the last 50 years there have been more advances in technology than any other time in history. Over that same period the worker participation rate in the US has increased from 62% to 67%. The standard of living has increase and except for the semi-skilled and unskilled job market, worker wages have grown significantly.
 
You whole hypothesis is ignorant and easily disproved. Over the last 50 years there have been more advances in technology than any other time in history. Over that same period the worker participation rate in the US has increased from 62% to 67%. The standard of living has increase and except for the semi-skilled and unskilled job market, worker wages have grown significantly.

Not true; timestamp to about 24:50; the majority of people's real incomes have barely increased at all over the past 30 years or so.

 
Not true; timestamp to about 24:50; the majority of people's real incomes have barely increased at all over the past 30 years or so.


Dude, we are talking about US not global. You do understand the difference?

Fact US Median Household Income 1990 $28,838 Inflation adjusted $59,498.
US Median Household Income 2020 $68,400

Easy to see the US Median Household Income has increased by about $9,000 over that 30 year period.

Household Income by Year: Average, Median, One Percent, and Calculator (dqydj.com)
 
Dude, we are talking about US not global. You do understand the difference?

Fact US Median Household Income 1990 $28,838 Inflation adjusted $59,498.
US Median Household Income 2020 $68,400

Easy to see the US Median Household Income has increased by about $9,000 over that 30 year period.

Household Income by Year: Average, Median, One Percent, and Calculator (dqydj.com)

Continue watching; he's talking about median hourly income gains in real terms post inflation/cost of living for 5 different quintiles from 1979 to 2016; this is his source (also these gains aren't annualized; they're total):



Some notable caveats from the paper:

1. The figures we use have been generously provided to us by Jay Shambaugh and Ryan Nunn of the Hamilton
Project at the Brookings Institution (Shambaugh et al. 2017). Wages are deflated by the CPI- U- RS in figure 1. The
CPI- U- RS is not constructed to accurately measure cost- of- living differences over such a long time. Thus, it is
more appropriate to compare the pace of real earnings growth over short periods. Note, however, that real wage
trends using other price indices, like the chain- weighted GDP deflator for personal consumption expenditures
show qualitatively similar though somewhat larger real wage increases over time (Holzer and Hlavac 2014).

2. The stronger real wage growth we observe in the mid to late 1990s occurs due to a temporary confluence of
strong productivity growth, tight labor markets, and low inflation that have not been observed at any other time
in the past four decades.
 
Last edited:
There are actually quite a number of jobs that we need humans to do but our society has deemed. them unimportant, relegated them to women and low pay. They are the jobs that involve direct contact with people, child care, elder care, teaching, cleaning, cooking, counseling, social work, nursing. These are the jobs that can never be taken over by technology. Unless we are going to evolve into a society of indentured servants to the top 10% holding all the wealth these jobs need earn salaries that show they are valuable to society.
These are not jobs that can never be taken over by technology. Robots are in development that can do many of these things. There is at least one pizza place in California where the pizzas are made by robots; a Roomba cleans quite well in many households; etc. That's just what is existing or imminent ... think on a bit longer timeframe, and most of what humans do at work is going to become obsolete.
 
Some people seem like they will never be satisfied with the world because things are unequal. How many of us here on this forum are benefiting unequally from the first world? I know I am.
I mean yeah.

I kept my job and am able to work from home in this pandemic, so I'm luckier than a huge number of people just here in the USA.
Outside the USA I'm luckier than a bunch of other people as well, for various reasons.
I could probably live a more frugal life if I had to, but I'm not sure it's necessary or whether doing so would help anything.
 
Continue watching; he's talking about median hourly income gains in real terms post inflation/cost of living for 5 different quintiles from 1979 to 2016; this is his source (also these gains aren't annualized; they're total):



Some notable caveats from the paper:
Again you post the opinion of one economist and try to make it a universal truth. That is a fools game. My charts are adjusted for inflation and provided by the US government and sanctioned by hundreds of economists. This guy is only trying to sell his books. His "pace of real earning growth" is total nonsense. That is just a factor he throw in to skew the data to show what he wants. Anyone with a working brain can see that.
 
Again you post the opinion of one economist and try to make it a universal truth. That is a fools game. My charts are adjusted for inflation and provided by the US government and sanctioned by hundreds of economists. This guy is only trying to sell his books. His "pace of real earning growth" is total nonsense. That is just a factor he throw in to skew the data to show what he wants. Anyone with a working brain can see that.

Your chart is looking at growth over a more limited period of time which featured a time of exceptional income growth for the lower/middle classes (the 90s) as noted in the paper Mark Blyth is quoting (which is not authored by academics looking to 'sell books') that informs a third of the dataset vs a fourth with a measure of inflation that is limited in scope, and fails to consider inflation of things such as healthcare and education which have both run rampant in the United States.

Even in the case of your own numbers over the same period of time that considers more limited inflation factors, we're looking at a mere $1251.25 or 2% increase from 1979 ($58,887.47) to 2016 (the same range as studied in the paper) $60,138.72. 2% over 37 years; a pathetic annualized 0.05% YoY increase.

2020 numbers aren't finalized yet (and suffer from potential data skew due to response bias https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/15/incomes-rose-in-the-us-last-year-but-a-closer-look-reveals-little-to-cheer-about.html#:~:text=The real median household income,U.S. Census Bureau released Tuesday ), so the latest reliable data we can pull is 2019 which is $64,201; a higher but still low $5,313.53 difference, or a pitiful 9% real increase over 40 years; a still laughable 0.216% annualized increase, lol.

We're talking serious stagnation at a bare minimum.
 
Last edited:
Your chart is looking at growth over a more limited period of time which featured a time of exceptional income growth for the lower/middle classes (the 90s) as noted in the paper Mark Blyth is quoting (which is not authored by academics looking to 'sell books') that informs a third of the dataset vs a fourth with a measure of inflation that is limited in scope, and fails to consider inflation of things such as healthcare and education which have both run rampant in the United States.

Even in the case of your own numbers over the same period of time that considers more limited inflation factors, we're looking at a mere $1251.25 or 2% increase from 1979 ($58,887.47) to 2016 (the same range as studied in the paper) $60,138.72. 2% over 37 years; a pathetic annualized 0.05% YoY increase.

2020 numbers aren't finalized yet (and suffer from potential data skew due to response bias https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/15/incomes-rose-in-the-us-last-year-but-a-closer-look-reveals-little-to-cheer-about.html#:~:text=The real median household income,U.S. Census Bureau released Tuesday ), so the latest reliable data we can pull is 2019 which is $64,201; a higher but still low $5,313.53 difference, or a pitiful 9% real increase over 40 years; a still laughable 0.216% annualized increase, lol.

We're talking serious stagnation at a bare minimum.
More BS. Any time your real income exceeds inflation, you are getting ahead. It shows people have 9% more disposable income. I doubt if any other developed country can match that.
 
More BS. Any time your real income exceeds inflation, you are getting ahead. It shows people have 9% more disposable income. I doubt if any other developed country can match that.

Lol, more BS? Bruh, median real incomes have increased by a tiny fraction of a percent YoY per your own numbers that use constrained definitions of inflation that are, again, exclusive of such essentials as healthcare and education, so Mark Blyth's fundamental argument, that real incomes for most Americans have barely increased over the past 30+ years, is entirely correct.

Also, you're wrong; meanwhile, uber egalitarian Norway is leading the pack by far:

DAaB94YXsAQSCXI
 
Lol, more BS? Bruh, median real incomes have increased by a tiny fraction of a percent YoY per your own numbers that use constrained definitions of inflation that are, again, exclusive of such essentials as healthcare and education, so Mark Blyth's fundamental argument, that real incomes for most Americans have barely increased over the past 30+ years, is entirely correct.

Also, you're wrong; meanwhile, uber egalitarian Norway is leading the pack by far:

DAaB94YXsAQSCXI
Norway? Norway has a population of 5 million all white. We have cities bigger than that.
 
Norway? Norway has a population of 5 million all white. We have cities bigger than that.

There are plenty of factors more relevant than population explaining this, like say, global unionization, a sovereign wealth fund, universal higher education and healthcare, egalitarian distribution of economic gains, etc and so on.

Beyond that though, your uninformed opinion on America's pitiful income growth not being outperformed is explicitly contradicted by the facts: other developed countries have done better than us in terms of engendering median income growth and in many cases they've done far better.
 
Illegal aliens have not had a part in the reduction of wages? Are you serious or are you just uninformed? Do you understand the concept of supply and demand? Here is how it works. If an employer has a need for 100 new employees and there are only 80 applicants the employer has to increase what he is paying to attract and retain employees. On the other hand if he has 300 applicants, he has no need to offer more, in fact he can offer less. Illegal immigrants have flooded the unskilled and semi-skilled markets with millions of applicants. You can easily see the effects of this in the meat packing industry, where workers now make less than they did 30 years ago.

Cherry picking one situation and trying to imply it covers all cases is a fools game. Your scenario actually proves my point. How can a mill that pays high union labor cost compete with a mill that uses low paid immigrant labor? Unions only have power when the company has little access to alternate cheaper labor.

Every robot or computer or other advanced technology created needs people to build, maintain, program, sell, and support their use. Take computers for example. When they came into use they replaced the typewriter and some clerical jobs. However, they created millions of high paying jobs. At the corporation where I worked they eliminated low paying administrative jobs and created an IT department with hundreds of high paid employees. Many of them were former stenos and administrative aids who learned new skills.

Technology is designed to stream line and reduce costs. My grandfather owned a gas station. He used to employ people to pump gas. If the guy didn't show up he was forced to leave his mechanic job and pump gas. He eliminated the job and let people pump their own gas. He saved money, the customer saved money, all were happy. Because the guy who pumped gas was able to do other things, he found different employment.

You whole hypothesis is ignorant and easily disproved. Over the last 50 years there have been more advances in technology than any other time in history. Over that same period the worker participation rate in the US has increased from 62% to 67%. The standard of living has increase and except for the semi-skilled and unskilled job market, worker wages have grown significantly.

You seem to dismiss the fact that about 30% of American's have not increased their standard of living even though the other 70% are enjoying increased standards. Why is that? Why should unskilled and semi-skilled workers be denied success. They work, probably just as hard as skilled and professional workers.

Yes, meat packing plants hired illegals, broke the union and reduced wages. Illegals are in building industries, notably drywall installation, but the critical timing of hanging drywall in the building process and the boom in building keeps the wages high for legal and illegal workers.

Since federally subsidized irrigation in the west farm workers have almost always, except during the Depression years of the 1930s, been Mexican. From 1917 to 1921 and again from 1942 to 1964 immigration laws did not apply to Mexicans crossing the border to work in agriculture. Their status was neither legal nor illegal. In 1964 Chavez unionized the grape pickers, agricultural wages went up, farmers went to contract labor, immigration laws tightened, people started claiming that illegals were taking farm work from Americans and conservatives began to consider illegals one of Americas biggest problems. They aren't.

Our problem lies with the Congressmen who changed the immigrant worker laws for corporations in the professional job sector.

In spite of what you claim technology has not created jobs equal to the number of jobs eliminated. The only thing keeping the economy going is the increasing population.
 
So basically you a government-managed economy.
I think there is no problem with limited and active involvement in the economy to manage it toward certain ends. Every government dollar spent is social engineering of one way or the other,

I would for example tax divorce lawyers at 80% on all dollars and use the revenue to create a department of moral propaganda.
 
Back
Top Bottom