The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Economics Page 2 of 88

The “China Cycle” Is Mostly A Thing Of the Past

So, this was true once:

The Chinese learned a lot from Western Joint Ventures, and I remember talking to a consultant back in the early 2000’s about tech transfer. He said it was very clear: you got into the Chinese market and/or used their lower cost production and what they got in exchange was tech transfer. This isn’t some evil conspiracy, back in the 80s when the US fell behind on cars they basically forced Japanese car companies to set up factories in the US, and yeah, there was transfer of knowledge to American companies.

Now, for the West, what Western companies and the West in general got in return for their tech was not worth the cost: it was stupid and short-sighted, but companies were lining up to do it and economists and business gurus and politicians in the West were for it: the only thing that mattered was making more short to mid-term profits and all sorts of nonsense about it not mattering where goods were produced was espoused by very important intellectuals and officials. There was no attention to the long term cost in terms of loss of technological lead and moving the industrial base to China. I know: I was one of the voices warning, publicly, to stop taking short term profits by selling China our future.

But at this point it’s no longer accurate. Chinese car companies are more advanced than Tesla: they have better batteries, better HUDS, better auto-pilots and they also have faster product cycles.

Again, in most fields the Chinese are now more advanced than the West: the remains are important but in a minority—things like lithography and aerospace, but they’ll catch up in both in time and for Aerospace I’d already buy a jet-liner from China before Boeing, and Boeing’s problems have nothing to do with China. Airbus is still clearly better, but it won’t be in twenty years, and possibly not even in ten.

The West was 100% complicit in the “China Cycle”, but that cycle is almost entirely over and China is now just straight up more advanced and out-competing us.

The West made this choice. We could have maintained our tech lead for another fifty years or so if we wanted to and followed the necessary policies. We didn’t, and to expect China to not use the same methods every other major country used to industrialize is insane. Every accusation made in the “China Cycle” is something the US did to Britain back in the 19th century.

Perhaps China could have industrialized without it being disastrous for the West, but not under any sort of laissez-faire or neoliberal international trade regime.

If you’re young, learn Mandarin. Maybe even if you’re not young.


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

How Europe Could Reinvigorate Their Economy

Every once in a while it’s important to do a policy piece, to show how society could work if we wanted to do the right things. Not because I think anyone in the West will implement enough good policy to matter, but to show that it is possible.

Back at my last corporate job I did a major workflow redesign. In the notes to management, along with the technical details were two highlighted lists. I noted that in order to receive the benefits of the change:

  1. Do these things, and;
  2. Don’t do these things.

Management appears to have reversed the lists. I left not long thereafter, and I was one of only two people who understood the entire workflow of the department. (I accept plenty of the blame, I didn’t play politics well or understand the sheer cupidity of management. I should have understood the second at least.)

The point is that policy often requires a number of actions to be taken, and that opposing action not be taken. You can’t just pick and choose: policy actions must support each other.

Big Picture On The European Economy

Europe is in decline.

  • Energy costs are too high for their heavy industry and many modern internet and computer technologies.
  • They are not in play when it comes to scientific and technical research.

  • They don’t produce significant raw or refined resources compared to other regions, with the single exception of basic agricultural crops, and the end of AMOC will smash European agriculture, probably sometime between 2025 to 2075;
  • The Chinese are pulling ahead in major export fields, like automobiles;
  • They import much of what they need, and pay for it with exports;
  • They aren’t creating a lot of new companies with new products and are, generally, falling behind in old technology;
  • Much of their industrial base is moving out of Europe (Germany, mainly). Much of that to the US.
  • Their cost structure is too high,

European prosperity was based on being able to sell advanced tech to less-developed country. Until recently, if you wanted that tech you could get it from Europe, the US, or other Western allies like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. But now that tech can be bought from China, who almost never sanction, don’t lecture and sell and finance for less while not telling less-developed countries how to run their internal economy.

The IMF was the main economic enforcer in Western hegemony. These austerity policies in developing countries were generally a direct result of IMF requirements, or undertaken due to general financial pressure:

But this ability to force the third world into selling cheap resources to the West in exchange for Western tech and finance is coming to an end. Burkini Faso recently declined an IMF loan which was contingent on austerity measures, for example.

So Europe is in serious decline, and the structure of the world economy is moving from one designed to support it to one that no longer needs it. To put it in market terms, they’re actually going to have to compete again, and can’t keep coasting on advantages created generations ago.

Like this lists I produced for my ex-bosses, the policies which follow are intended to work in concert. Each of them is required, not optional. It will be obvious that his wish list is politically impossible, which is part of why European decline will continue.

End Austerity

Europe still has a fair bit of room to maneuver. They produce plenty of food and they still have a fair bit of industry left. Austerity needs to end. Government needs to spend. What it should do is arrange that spending to be used mostly on internal goods: if you give money to people for food, you want them to buy what Europe produces. Domestic production must be ramped up for what people and companies need and the necessary tariffs, barriers and subsidies put in place so that government spending mostly creates European demand. (Many further policies are based around making this happen.)

End Neoliberal Taxation

This means high marginal tax rates on income, including corporate income. High estate taxes. High corporate taxes on profit not reinvested. End all stock buybacks and stock options and end the doctrine of shareholder supremacy.

Institute excess profit taxes on all old products, probably basing profit levels on 2019. New products will be allowed to make higher profits, perhaps as much as 30%, with the amount of time dependent on how new they are. A product which is only a minor upgrade or alteration will not qualify.

Understand that government’s job is to create positive externalities. Government can fund actions, like good education and health and industrial subsidies because it doesn’t care who makes money from them. But this is only true if it recaptures that money from whoever is making lots of money. You let ordinary people keep most of their income but you take most of the money back from winners, then plow that money into further policies which create positive externalities.

So high marginal tax rates are necessary to run good industrial and social policy.

You also need to ensure that companies are using their profits to reinvest into the business, especially with reference to creating new products.

While you’re at it, you must put an end to moving money offshore to avoid taxation. No significant amounts of money moves outside of Europe without being taxed first. Criminal sanctions for anyone who tries and anyone who makes it possible.

End Sanctions and Sanctimony

Unilaterally end all sanctions against China and other countries, including Russia. You need their cooperation to fix your economy. Stop lecturing other countries on human rights, unless they reach severe heights like genocide.

Cut deals with China and Russia

From Russia you need cheap resources. Force the Ukraine war to an end, fix the pipelines and be good business partners.

China’s a harder nut: China is now ahead of Europe. What Europe needs is deals to allow it to keep some of its advanced areas. To get these deals they’re going to need to let China into the European market in other areas. Where Europe is behind, but wants to catch back up (electric vehicles, for example) they should bargain for branch plants in exchange for market access.

End Imposed Third World Austerity and Forgive Debt

Since the ability to coerce the third world is ending relationships will have to fairer. Forgive most of their debt, get rid of the IMF as it now exists and reform the World Bank. Cut deals for needed resources without requiring control over internal politics. Europe now has to compete with China to buy what it needs from the third world and thus will need to offer actual good deals. An end to third world austerity will also lead to better markets for any European goods.

Reform World Trade Laws and Learn How to Tariff and Subsidy

Europe will need to produce what it can domestically because it isn’t going to be able to buy much of what it needs from foreign countries. To make European goods competitive will require tariffs and subsidies. This will have to be negotiated with other countries and if Europe wants to do it, they have to allow others to do it as well.  The idea that “foreign made” is cheaper is only true if you have enough money to buy foreign made and remember that they have to want your currency. The Euro is going to be worth less and less until or if Europe creates enough tech that others must have and can’t get cheaper elsewhere.

If you can’t reform the WTO and so on, then leave and make a new organization or bilateral treaties, especially with China.

And get rid of almost all ability for private companies to sue countries for domestic laws. Countries need to have policy freedom and other than branch plants and so on Europe will require that most business is domestic.

Reduce the Cost Structure

Economic rent must be hunted down and killed. Landlords should make a decent living but not get rich. Housing should be turned into a utility: relatively cheap and easy to afford. (Some European countries are close to this already, some aren’t.) High returns on financial games must be ended: move to public (postal) banking. End high returns on financial companies. Break up the big financial firms, and make the new smaller banks and finance companies loan to new businesses. End stock market bubbles and enforce 50s style financial regulation.

Where utilities, roads, trains and so on have moved into the private sector, nationalize them.

As a general rule no one gets wealthy without creating new products for export or creating products which reduce the need to import, and billionaires become a thing of a past.

Kill Admin Bloat

Pull out your favorite admin bloat chart, look at what the administrative percentage was back in the 60s, and aim for that. The teeth to tail ratio needs to become much higher. If you aren’t doing the actual work of an organization, what you do to support it must be actually necessary. In general to receive subsidies you must reduce this bloat or your funding is cut off. There are a lot of subsidies already and in such a regime there will be much more.

We don’t want to be paying for useless jobs.

Reform tax codes to make them far simpler. Go thru the extensive regulations Eurocrats love to much and change most of them to ends, not means, then hire lots of inspectors and auditors. “We don’t care how you achieve the following environmental or workplace safety metrics, but we will check to see if you do and if you don’t we’ll fine you first (actual decision makers, not the companies), then put you out of business and if you hurt people, put you in prison.”

End Corporate/University Research Partnerships

University researchers should be government funded. Corporations who want product research should pay for it themselves, and generous subsidies should exist.

Fix Universities and Colleges

A lot of this comes ending admin bloat. Start there. Faculty should teach, some should research as well as teach and faculty must be forced to take control of universities again, with significant power for students. Administrators must have no significant policy power.

Academic publishing as it exists now must end. All academic publishing must be free and online.

All patents that are a product of government funded research are free for domestic use and available for foreigners with a fee.

Academics must no longer be judged based on volume of research. Their work must actually be read, those who hire or promote them must sit in their classes and witness their teaching. Replication of results must be emphasized and funded.

Research funds must be spread around far more, with fewer and weaker “principal researchers.”

Ties with advanced universities in foreign countries must be emphasized and student exchanges encouraged. Yes, this means China, which has most of the world’s best universities for science and technology now.

Kick NATO out and Form a European military

If you want to avoid further forced centralization form it from national units. Europe needs to make policy America isn’t going to like, it can’t do that while occupied.

Force the US to reduce embassy staffs by 90% and remove all US NGOs and similar organizations.

Same reasons. As the joke runs, “why doesn’t America have coups? Because it doesn’t have an American embassy.” America has too much influence in Europe. Reduce it.

Vastly reduce lobbying

Entrenched interests can’t be allowed to control government

Allow national subsidies to Mitigate the Effects of the Euro

For some countries the Euro is too high, and that makes their industry uncompetitive. For others it is too low and this gives industry a subsidy. Allow countries to subsidize industry to make up the difference if necessary and perhaps tax countries which are benefiting.

Make Creating New Companies Easy

Easy business loans, easy registration and removal of barriers of industry are key here. The policy of regulation by results will also help, since it reduces the massive burden of endless regulation with a simple “make sure you’re meeting our regulatory goals.” Subsidize chosen industries and make those subsidies easy to get, but audit for results and cut off those who aren’t making it.

Subsidize new companies, reduce their subsidies over time.

Make bankruptcy easy, frequent and painless. If a company fails, it fails. You keep your home and enough money to get by on for a couple years.

Final Remarks

We could go on, or each point could have its own full article, in many cases an article many thousands of words long. There’s little point in doing all that work now, since implementation is impossible. But it’s important to lay down the marker that good policy is possible and to show, generally speaking, what it would look like.

By the time Europe is willing to consider good policy its position will be far worse and digging out of the hole (when in a hole, stop digging) will be far harder. The most likely outcome is that Europe returns to being what it has been for most of history: a backwards peninsula on the edge of Eurasia, largely meaningless to anyone but themselves.

The world is changing, in huge ways, bigger than any changes since the industrial revolution, most likely even bigger than those. Europe is no longer the world’s leader, nor is it any longer the favored vassal of a super-power. It can adapt or see an end to the European garden.

So for it is choosing to see an end to the “garden.”

So be it.


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

AI Dynamic Pricing

Allow me to venture a prediction. If AI dynamic pricing is adopted by corporations, especially grocery store chains, it will cause just-in-time supply-chain chaos and profits to be unpredictable by two or three standard deviations outside the bell curve. All of which will then result in stock and bond market carnage worse than 2008. Moreover, this kind of short-sighted innovation, just the kind Silicon Valley adores, is untested and untrustworthy and will cause a societal meltdown that will make the results of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans look like Sunday school, possibly ending in a near-famine if adopted. Finally, it’s the kind of intellectual irresponsibility that will propel already Burj Khalifa levels of stupidity out into the cosmos, ultimately ushering in chaos and revolution.

Big Picture Financial Collapse

Though newer readers will be forgiven for disbelieving it, during my early online career I was primarily considered a finance and economics blogger, though I’d write about almost anything. Among other things, I predicted the financial collapse, including the DOW bottom and the month it would happen in. A correspondent once went thru the Wayback machine and found that there were less than forty people who made the prediction in advance.

I lost interest somewhere around 2010 and moved my primary focus to other topics: at the time mostly ideology and how it interacted with the political economy. There was no reason in continuing: my goal had always been change, and the Fed, Congress and Obama had all confirmed that the only change was to be the end of any real spar of capitalism.

So I’m not going to write about the proximate cause of the current financial collapse, but instead look at the bigger picture that lead here.

First we have the offshoring of real industry, primarily to China. There is a real economy, and financial skyscrapers, no matter how high, are based on them. The bottom line is that the West no longer has the industry to hold up the skyscraper.

Second is that the 80-now long bull market was entirely a creation of government policy: mostly thru the Federal Reserve, but with serious assists from Congress and the President. There was a time when stock buyback were illegal, for example. There was a time when the Fed didn’t run a “the markets must always go up” policy: in fact, during the 50s and 60s the stock market traded sideways, even though real economic growth was, by every measure, higher than in the post 80 period.

Third is the response to the 2008 financial collapse. Not the collapse itself, but the response, which was to bail out the people and institutions which had caused the crash, to immunize thru fines and agreements those who had engaged in massive and widespread fraud, to force the burden onto homeowners by allowing banks to steal houses; and in general terms to ensure that the same people who had caused the crisis were in charge afterwards, but more powerful and controlling larger institutions.

Then they patted themselves on the back and said they’d saved the world. Capitalism isn’t a system I like, but one of its virtues is that if you fuck up you go out of business: if you’ve made a lot of bad decisions you aren’t allowed to keep making bad decisions. Bernanke, the Fed, Congress and the Presidency put an end to that dynamic and essentially ended even the shadow of real capitalism in America, and indeed, in the West.

This meant that resources were terribly misallocated, and that further economic decline was inevitable, since there was no possibility of a new economic elite rising based on actually producing good products and solving real problems. It also mean that further financial crises were inevitable, and that in the end those crises would not be able to be papered over, because, Virginia, there may be no Santa Clause but there is a real economy where things have to actually be made and built and grown and dug up and refined.

The fourth factor is the decline of US dollar hegemony. It isn’t obvious in the numbers yet, but it’s real and those who are making long term bets against it will regret doing so. I won’t go on about this, since I’ve written a dozen articles or so on the topic in the last two years.

We’re at the end of somewhere between two and five centuries of European/Western world superiority and dominance. It’s going to suck for Europe, the Anglosphere and most of our allies. There’s just no way around that, and the decision points are past. A recovery is theoretically possible, and I could even write an article giving the outlines of what’s necessary, but there’s no political possibility of doing it and our current elites are too incompetent to make it work anyway. A revolution which throws out our entire leadership class is a pre-condition and by the time we got that done, the day would have passed anyway.

All of which is, I suppose, just a long way of saying “economic decline sucks and isn’t going to stop,”


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

Scratch A CEO, Find A Fascist

Not that they require fascism, but they’re OK with it:

David Zaslav, the CEO of CNN’s parent company, at the Allen & Co. media conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, on Tuesday:

Asked about the upcoming Presidential election, Zaslav said it mattered less to him which party wins, so long as the next president was friendly to business.

“We just need an opportunity for deregulation, so companies can consolidate and do what we need to be even better.”

One of the few things Biden has been good on is anti-trust, so this means Trump.

In a similar vein:

The pull quote:

“France’s corporate bosses are racing to build contacts with Marine Le Pen’s far right after recoiling from the radical tax-and-spend agenda of the rival leftwing alliance in the country’s snap parliamentary elections”.

The left, and real left, not the so-called “Center Left” will always be opposed by corporations, just as most of them opposed FDR. They want to get bigger and richer, whether that’s good for the country or not. High marginal tax rates, vigorous anti-trust and high corporate tax rates with laws forbidding stock options and other nonsense produced America and Western Europe’s best economy in history—the post-war states from 45 on.

Of course, during that time period the CEO/Worker pay ratio tended towards 30/1 or so.

But, as we all know, workers made enough so that a single wage-earner could support a family, and as for GDP growth rates, well:

These charts are pretty clear. Consolidation and deregulation do not lead to higher GDP growth, and that’s leaving aside redistribution.

This is important because the argument for deregulation and allowing consolidation was that it would make growth better and that there would be a “trickle down” which would leave everyone better off even if inequality soared.

Well, we did get trickled on, I suppose


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

The Dollar Is Impregnable & The West Will Always Control International Banking (Honest)

What is geopolitical risk, you ask, and the Saudis answer:

Saudi Arabia warned it could sell off some European debt holdings in retaliation to a move by the G-7 to seize almost $300bn in frozen Russian assets, according to a report by Bloomberg.

The veiled threat was passed along from Saudi Arabia’s finance ministry earlier this year to some G-7 counterparts, as the group weighed seizing Russian assets designed to support Ukraine.

Saudi Arabia specifically signalled out the euro debt issued by France, according to Bloomberg.

Riyadh has been concerned about western efforts to seize the Kremlin’s assets for months. In April, Politico reported that Saudi Arabia, along with China and Indonesia, was privately lobbying the EU against confiscation.

Notice that Indonesia is also involved. China is less surprising, they know that freezing and even confiscation is in the cards for them when things heat up between the West and china.

China has been reducing its risk:

Edit: (Or perhaps they aren’t?)

No one wants to do business with nations that will simply take away their money. Freezing was bad, but normal. Seizure is not. Since no one seized or freezed America’s overseas assets when it invaded, say, Iraq, and no one ever seizes or freezes West European assets, it might be thought that this isn’t about “law” but about “power.” For that matter, why haven’t Israel’s overseas assets been seized?

The level of geopolitical risk from doing business in the dollar or using the Western banking system is just too high. Freezing, seizure and sanctions, plus the US applying its law extra-territorially simply because a transfer happened to go thru an American bank even though the sender and end party were both outside of America.

This abuse is long-standing, you can read accounts from the fifties, but it really picked up in the 90s. Indeed there’s an entire book, Treasury’s War, about the phenomenon.

And this is what all the economists and similar pundits who go on about how the dollar can’t be replaced don’t understand: that they are right that the costs of replacing the dollar are significant; that it’s hard, and that it’s not really worth it.

Except it is worth it, because if the cost of trade and money transfers goes up slightly under a non-dollar regime, and even a slight increase is massive when multiplied by the number and amount of transactions, it’s still worth it because of the massive reduction in geopolitical risk. And nattering on about how the Yuan can’t be used because the Chinese can’t accept the costs of using the Yuan is stupid: that’s not what the BRICS are trying to do: the idea is to create a central, multinational currency, and to simply use local currencies whenever possible, while avoiding the Western banking system entirely.

Everyone knows that the dollar and the Western banking system are guns, and that everyone who uses the dollar and the Western banking system are under those guns and can be hit at any moment if D.C. or Brussels desires it.

When this was hardly ever done, it was a risk worth taking. When China was the main industrial power who you could buy almost everything you wanted from, and the West was the only option for most technological goods, well, you had no choice.

But now nations see a way out from under the guns, and they’re going to take it, even if it costs them, because the potential cost of not doing so is catastrophic.


IanWelsh.net is supported by readers. Please subscribe or donate, and please share articles. The more you help, the more I can write.

Open AI Pulls Out Of China In Another Boneheaded Move

The effect of chip sanctions was to create a Chinese chip industry which now controls the low-end of the chip market, and which is coming on strong. The effect of Huawei sanctions was to make Huawei stronger, end Android support and gut Apple’s market share in China.

Now we have this brilliance from “Open AI”, presumably at US government behest:

Chinese attempts to lure domestic developers away from OpenAI – considered the market leader in generative AI – will now be a lot easier, after OpenAI notified its users in China that they would be blocked from using its tools and services from 9 July.

“We are taking additional steps to block API traffic from regions where we do not support access to OpenAI’s services,” an OpenAI spokesperson told Bloomberg last month.

OpenAI has not elaborated about the reason for its sudden decision. ChatGPT is already blocked in China by the government’s firewall, but until this week developers could use virtual private networks to access OpenAI’s tools in order to fine-tune their own generative AI applications and benchmark their own research. Now the block is coming from the US side.

Generative AI isn’t like lithography machines. It takes vast amounts of data and a bunch of coders and scientists, and China has plenty of both. In fact, it’s limited mostly by access to data: social media, websites, books, art work and so on.

There’s no particular reason to think China can’t catch up and exceed in generative AI.

It’s interesting, though, that China’s government was already blocking Chat-GPT. Clear protectionism meant to help the internal market. China’s decoupling as much as America is.

My guess is that in five to ten years the most advanced generative AI will be in China. Just as Tesla was once the world leader in electric-vehicles, then Chinese companies ate its lunch (you can get a decent EV for 14K$ in China and at each price point the quality is better than Tesla), Chinese AI companies will out-perform Open AI.

It’s China’s world now. We just live in it.

IanWelsh.net is supported by readers. Please subscribe or donate, and please share articles. The more you help, the more I can write.

The UK’s Housing And Immigration Crisis In Charts

Here’s the TLDR: the UK has a housing crisis because it is bringing in way more immigrants than usual and not building way more housing.

(Most of the charts from Simulcrax.)

For a long time Britain was building more housing than it had population increase. This was good, because as anyone who visited England in the 50s or 60s will tell you, it didn’t start with an excess.But starting around 2000AD it increased immigration and didn’t increase how much housing it was building, and after a while that caught up.

The chart only goes till 2019, though. Let’s see what happened afterwards.

 

Wow. That’s pretty ugly, and hey, it happened under the anti-immigrant Conservative party, and after Brexit, which was supposed to reduce immigration. Anyone wonder why Reform is challenging the Conservatives for second party status?

Now let’s be clear: immigration can be good, bad or mixed. If your economy is doing really well, you have low inequality and high wages and not enough workers and an economy which makes most of what you need domestically, then immigration is going to be good: the immigrants will get good jobs, increase demand and the economy will expand. But if you’ve gotten rid of your industry, have high inequality and an economy which is sucking wind then immigration is going to take jobs from natives and keep wages lower. And if you aren’t building enough housing and don’t do something about that, it’s going to raise housing prices, especially at the bottom and middle, which is going to hurt people.

The people it will hurt most, of course, are:

The chart pretty much speaks for itself. Let’s look at one more chart:
Ouch. I mean, it’s not like the situation is good in the US, is it?

Let’s be clear about what’s happening: it’s not that the UK can’t reduce immigration, it can, especially post-Brexit. Like Canada, however, it wants to increase GDP and keep wages low, so it’s bringing in as many people as it can, as deliberate government policy and doing so, without a booming economy, is hurting people who already live in Britain.

You don’t have to be racist or xenophobic to believe, accurately, that too much immigration is bad if there isn’t enough housing and jobs to absorb the immigrants. Problem is, given how people are, they will blame the immigrants and become racist and xenophobic, when the correct response is to hate the government and ruling class.

Britain, having deliberately de-industrialized, especially since Thatcher, can’t absorb this many people without causing extreme harm to people already living in Britain, especially if the government doesn’t move, massively, to social housing. People who want less immigration are correct, the only way to absorb this sort of influx without harm would be an entirely different set of government policies, even then, the immigration surge wouldn’t make sense until the policies take effect.

Unfortunately the only chance of pursuing anything like those policies was to elect Corbyn, and that chance has passed.

The sun always sets, and now it sets on Britain.

Addendum: Stumbled on this after writing the article.

He continues: “According to the Government’s own methodology, we needed to expand the housing stock by around 3.4 million homes over the last decade: 2.2 million to meet existing housing pressures, and 1.2 million to cope with net migration. We increased the number of homes by only 2.1 million.”

So, without immigration, they’d only be down 100,000 over the last twent years, rather than 1.3 million.

Your support makes it possible for me to write, by helping pay my rent and buy my food, if you like my writing and want more, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Page 2 of 88

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén