This chapter, is fully entitled, Each Issuer's Limit, with this subtitle;
Determination
of Each Person's Limit of Money Issue and its Redemption and the
Maintenance of Adequate Supply Without Inflation and Deflation.
We
commence with Riegel giving examples explaining his two account
solution for exchange B member businesses,
An
example: An employer has 50 employees and their total pay per month
is
5,000 valuns or a total of 15,000 valuns over three months. Besides
this debit power on his payroll account, he would have 7,500 valuns
debit power on his commercial account or a total of 22,500 valuns.
Only his employees could draw against
the payroll account. At the end of the three months his payroll debit
power would be exhausted; and, to continue the power of his employees
to draw against his payroll account he would have to transfer to it
from his commercial account enough to provide for the next three
months. Employees would have a permanent debit power equal to three
months salary.
I've
always read this as exactly equivalent to our stated notions of
proposed Labour Contracts. It could as easily be implemented using
one account per B member business. But our solution looks far more
straightforward; Labour Contracts represent an offer by a possible
employee to be employed for a term of time by an employer and as
it was done in olden times, the employee would provide the money for
his eventual pay. The transaction would begin on the first day of
work with the issuance by the employee of the entire amount to be
paid back to him to the employer. This would go into the employer's
payroll balance in his account. As the contract ran, the employee
would be paid back his Valuns that he issued and in so doing cancel
his issuance with the work he accomplished. Our definition of work
holds throughout.
Employers
would have a debit power the first three months equivalent to 1 1/2
times the three month's payroll during the first three months, and
one third of such sum permanently.
I
think he was just trying to sketch it out. The proposal would have
the employer getting the float from the Labour Contracts from the
start of work and the employer pays all of it back to the end of the
term of the employee's contract. It's simple. Schedules can be
devised to meet the individual needs of any employment situation.
Riegel continues,
As
stated, the proposed debit limits are merely an estimate of what
would provide sufficient circulation for a start. Demand for
additional debit power would not be a matter of individual request,
but rather the determination from the industry study of turnover,
which industries required more [deeper debit
limits] and how much. The determined amount would be
allotted to every member within the particular industry in ratio to
his sales for the previous year or six months.
This
conforms to consuming what you produce and producing what you consume
in the previous post. Riegel here uses the word member in an
ambiguous way though, as if B members get the right to issue money
when as we see it and as Riegel explains elsewhere, they do not. B
members derive their Valun float from the A members that are employed
by them. They have no other way to issue Valuns, since they are
concerns, organizations, operations, corporations of people, but not
everyman, which is an ordinary individual.
The
industry study of turnover gets at finding ways of self financing
businesses throughout cycles of production, etc. that perhaps do not
require borrowing money from a VEN financier, who would be another B
member business. Notice that our proposal very importantly separates
the money lending from the transaction clearing money functions in
typical banking operations.
As
for employees, the debit limit for each would be automatically
adjusted by the wage or salary, with the only question being, whether
the three month period is adequate.
This
is exactly what our proposal does, but makes a six month contract a
standard, at least to start. There may be reasons however where an
employer is not sure whether someone will work out. We might make a
rule that if the employment arrangement is the first time for either
A or B member, that the first contract might run for as short as a
month.
Persons
who are not on a salary basis, such as the commission salesman, the
news dealer on the corner, and others who are neither employer nor
employee would come under the minimum debit limit which might be,
say, 100 valuns. Professional persons, such as doctors, lawyers,
ministers, architects, engineers, etc., like farmers, would be
classified under the industry survey with an appropriate debit
allotment assigned.
We
can see here that he intends for us to figure out how much each of us
is to be allowed to issue through our labour commensurate with our
position, responsibilities, skills, dangers to be endured, etc. All
governments publish salary ranges for their various occupation
categories. The comparison in Valuns is real easy to figure out.
But the real limiting question remains how much extra taxes will
Valun creation subject one to?
Each
member, with his debit limit assigned, could then, within such limit,
create fountain-pen money by the mere writing of checks. If any
currency be required, he would present his check to the nearest
Currency Counter dealer and receive bills and coins as desired. If he
should exceed his debit or over-draft limit, his check would be
returned just as it now is when he exhausts his credit balance in a
bank.
Yes,
well we may be able to come up with a few more off the shelf, open
source ways of making this kind of data available, so you would know
how many Valuns were in your 3 balances; your Valun issuance
permits, your regular balance and your escrow account
balance. These are just three fields on a date stamped record in
a computer database. Riegel knew nothing of any of this, but he
notably would have understood the importance of printed reports and
each exchange will need to produce and keep enough of them to recover
quickly from any interruptions.
There
would be no payroll problem for either employer or employee. The
Exchange would automatically credit the prescribed pay to each
employee's account each pay day and the employee would enter his pay
in his check book. Of course, any check received by any member would
have to be mailed by him to the Exchange for credit to his account
and debit to the account of the check writer.
Yes,
this would all be handled according to the stipulations on the Labour
Contract. We explained a regular work type and an artisan/craftsman
work type Labour Contract. Self-financing of labour removes the
cost of labour from the back of business and places it directly on
the employees themselves. It would create a brand new work
ethic, as everyone would have to understand just where the money was
coming from to sustain their job. They would literally be working
for their own money, and that would include everyone from the top on
down.
This however affects accounting on the Valun side,
such that the Valuns paid cannot exceed the revenue in Valuns
expected by the business. If you do that, you go broke. Since the
Labour Contract begins with a credit to a B member's business account
(paid without interest – as a loan without interest), that the
business must still pay back, all of that still falls under the
expenses of the business.
The
balance between the cost of Labour and the costs of materials, etc.
must still be evaluated to come up with a reliable and acceptable
return from revenue from sales. Then this must be reduced by cost of
goods sold to obtain the margin of profit. This could be retired
into the retained earnings balance on the business account on
some regular time basis. Any distributions to members of the
business might come from here, but more likely this would serve as a
business sinking fund to expand or improve the business.
Under
this plan of employee money creating power, employment is given a
stimulus; because each employee brings to his employer his own debit
power, and the employer has a three months deferment of wage
payments. This is a vital contribution toward the sale of labor
services because it makes the payroll less forbidding. Each
employee becomes a capitalist who brings not only his services but
his own financing. Each employee in effect buys his own services.
This puts money power at the most vital point. It also cushions
unemployment; because an employee laid off need not stop buying
unless he has exhausted his debit limit.
Well,
of course, everyone was sold on the idea that capitalism, an ism with
capital, was a good thing, whereas we have pointed out that all of
that was propaganda by the capitalists to allow them to make money on
money without work, as the capitalists never had to relinquish very
much or any of the time out of the rest of their lives to barter for
their existence. Their money places them above all this. Therefore
we regard a capitalist as a rich person by definition; no poor
person can or would ever be a capitalist. The lie at the heart of
the system was selling people on the idea that if they just stuck
with “the system” that they too could one day become capitalists.
The catch always was that the money was always someone else's not
yours.
Stated differently, each employee becomes a source
of income (through their innate wealth) who brings not
only his services but his own financing. Each employee in effect buys
his own employment and the VEN Labour Contract is the vehicle used to
accomplish this.
Once we have
established the principle of debit power for employees, we have
released a power for stability that is not possible when this power
is confined to employers or sellers of goods. How far we may go in
this direction can not be forecast but it is plain to be seen that
debit power at this point can positively prevent depression because
sustained purchasing power means sustained employment demand.
We
have brought up various parallels to plumbing and electrical flow
that illustrate better what money is and where it goes. The money
issuance power is the force of the money equivalent to
voltage or water pressure. The current or flow is determined
by the standard on which the money is based, so that everyone
using it knows what it's expected to measure so that a method of
stating a value determined by exchange is possible worldwide.
The resistance to money occurs when prices for things
are too high for them to sell; goods or services.
Now
hear what Riegel says about the cost of labour, which was the reason
he determined on a complementary or alternative monetary system as a
solution,
When
goods show a tendency to accumulate in warehouses, it indicates that
employees have not been paid wages high enough to buy the goods they
have produced. Reduced production then ensues; which means reduced
employment, and this in turn implies reduced purchasing - thus
accentuating the unbalance between goods supply and money supply.
Perfect competition should preclude this unbalance between goods
supply and money supply because it would compel adequate wages. But
can we hope for perfect competition? While the political money system
is the greatest disturber of competition, there are other disturbing
influences, also attributable to political intervention.
If
there be no recourse other than to introduce a compensatory force to
balance the inequities of imperfect competition, the valun system
will be found ideally suited therefore by reason of the simple
measure of continuing debit power even with a discharged employee.
This would prevent the depression spiral from forming, and would nip
a threatened depression in the bud.
This
is one very good reason why we may insist on the monthly income
standard for determining eligibility to issue Valuns. Each member
will have V200 they can issue to start. Then if they already have
jobs, whether their employer is a member or not, the number of Valuns
they may issue is determined largely on their ability to pay taxes on
the extra Valuns they earned. Should they fall into unemployment,
their debit limit is established, based on where they are living and
they may have recourse to that in order to subsist between jobs.
A
depression means shortage of employers and surplus of employees; but
is it not made less menacing when money creating power resides on the
employee side of the employment line? Would it not induce some
employees to step across the line and become employers (since
employment does not mean an immediate drain upon available funds)
thus tending to restore the balance between employers and employees?
The
aim of the valun system is to establish a true money system, and to
rely on competition to keep the economy on a steady keel. It is not
inspired by the aim to establish a compensatory system for
inequalities that may exist in exchange; but we point out that, if a
compensatory program must be pursued, the valun system supplies the
need effectively.
… and
our implementation of it will too; we dubbed it “natural socialism”
or the community taking care of its own. I'd like each of you to
pause and consider for one moment an incontestable fact; the
present system places value on stuff, the Valun system places it on
everyman. People are more valuable than things and until we get
over our brainwashing to the contrary, expect very little to change.
Indeed
for the most part, most of people's problems stem from the belief
that human life is so abundant that it is almost worthless, or just
another resource to be used by the oligarchy as it sees fit; cannon
fodder, slave trafficking, drug addiction, etc. Since people do not
have the money power, it matters little to nothing whether they can
say what they please, write as they please, publish what they please,
congregate with whomever they please or believe what they please.
Without power over the issuance of money, none of the other freedoms
are frankly worth very much at all.
Now
Riegel delves into a subject he calls constant demand,
Since
constant employment, with resultant constant production and constant
consumption, is the ideal of an economy, may we not resolve to make
it actually so by regarding the employer-employee relationship as
existing between the whole body of employers and the whole body of
employees rather than between individual employers and individual
employees?
If
we take this attitude it is simple to provide - in the Valun Exchange
- a central employment bureau where employee-members are
registered with full information of their qualifications. Should
any be laid off, they could continue to draw on their account to the
extent of 1/2 or 3/4 of their recent salary until some other employer
or their former employer reengaged them.
This
policy can be justified on the ground that there would be no
disemployment unless employees had been underpaid - thus making it
impossible for them to buy the goods they had produced - and the disemployment
compensation is to correct this previous inequality.
We
intend this too and have from the beginning. Our independent
exchanges or IE's would be far more than what most people assume.
They will not be banks in the traditional sense as none of them will
ever be in the business of loaning money. Their principle job is to
manage the transaction clearing functions which includes making sure
that all labour and credit contracts are satisfied on schedule.
BUT we intend to be a center for local awareness of each
other's innate wealth. Each member will probably fill out a brief
questionnaire that describes what their capabilities are. The
businesses would list what they are too. Employers would post
positions when available with acceptable bids for labour expressed in
Valuns right on each ad. Members could walk into any IE and search
these ads that would not be available to the general non member
public. You cannot have your own money without work although
we will offer less of it for those who are still poor or disabled
among us, but we fully intend to make our money worth working for and
saving, etc. Now then, Riegel said this at the end of the second
paragraph above,
Should
any be laid off, they could continue to draw on their account to the
extent of 1/2 or 3/4 of their recent salary until some other employer
or their former employer reengaged them.
The
default is there; the unemployed member can fall back into
subsistence. But that's not why people work and what they do with
what they work for is usually to build up something that is theirs
above and beyond their current monthly expenses. There are other
forms of savings, usually involving purchases of larger ticket items.
We therefore might issue a rider on all labour contracts allowing a
kind of limited issuance from one's innate wealth, but these
allowances would not be allowed but for a few months. After that one
drops back into issuance for subsistence. See, we really do want to
encourage people to work, though at this point we cannot do anything
about income taxes, which must still be paid in their money,
not ours. So, even payment for employment by contract in Valuns,
needs supplementation in whatever the local currency is that will
cover the income taxes on the whole, both dollars and Valuns. I see
no way around this under the present regime. You simply must or they
will FORCE you to pay your taxes to them in their money.
During
the disemployment period consumption would be continued while
production would be retarded, thus tending to restore the balance
between production and consumption. The employee in effect would buy
himself back into employment; because his consumption would induce
demand for production, just as his previously stinted consumption had
brought about his disemployment.
Serious
update on Riegel here: the balance between consumption and production
has been purposely perverted by special interests down through time.
Until most things people want and need are once again produced
relatively locally, these imbalances will occur and recur and those
with more money than they need to live on will stay with the
globalist scheme to render each country a specialty producer at the
lowest possible labour price so that “the problem of production is
solved,” and since no one but a special few ever have jobs,
everyone else gets everything by someone else deciding the
terms of barter for everyone's very existence; yes, we're talking
about government determining that those who have already shall get
more since it is theirs, beginning with the money they used to buy it
all, and what's left will be doled out to the rest of us under their
terms of equality, liberty and fraternity. Understood? You will
need your own money, not theirs.
Would
this issuance of new money during non-employment be inflation? No, it
would not. Inflation is the issuance of money against a non-value.
Here we have the issuance of money against values previously produced
and priced abnormally high, so high in fact, that there was not
sufficient money supply in the hands of employees to purchase them.
In other words, the condition of unemployment was produced by an
inflation of goods supply - causing prices to decline - and the
action proposed is a deflationary influence upon goods, causing
prices to return to their norm.
Update
here as well: Riegel's economic reasoning is perfectly logical. But
we live in a financial world that runs in defiance of any of this.
There are two phrases to get to know well; one is “mark to market”
- denoting or relating to a system of valuing assets by the most
recent market price - means that the prices of anything are
determined by the market for them, whether that market be an “open”
one or a closed one open only to members, such as the one we propose.
The alternative is “mark to model” - “the practice of pricing
a position or portfolio [or anything else] at prices determined by
financial models, in contrast to allowing the market to determine the
price. Often the use of models is necessary where a market for
the financial product is not available, such as with complex
financial instruments.”
We
say this: if you will not sell for the prices determined by the
market (mark to market), whatever or however imperfect that market
might be, if your prices are too high (mark to model), then as we say
of all things, “the seller isn't really interested in selling.”
Such practices indicate precisely the nature of the scheming and
scamming that has replaced honest finance. They also of course
represent a resistance in the monetary system; we called this
resistance to money; the seller is asking too much for whatever is
“said” to be for sale. These practices are frank admissions that
what they want to sell dear is not worth the money they say it is.
If,
however, we must choose between a higher price level, with continuing
employment, and a lowered price level with unemployment, the choice
would be unanimously for the former.
Riegel
would rather that more people were employed and prices remain high
than fewer employed with prices low, and no one has enough money to
sustain even those prices. Recall folks, money
itself, contrary to all the kooks,
weirdos and other predators that people the halls of economic power,
has now value in itself.
What did Riegel say it was used for? He said that money was a
method of stating a value determined by exchange. The problem has
been that in the present system the distribution of money has never
been fair, not even in their economic terms; certain people have
always managed to get their hands on more, or force their subject
populations to rely on money that was based on a scarcity. Once this
is done, those who have the scarcity rule those without it and there
are some assholes out there that intend on FORCING society back into
this slavery! They dare call it liberty and freedom too, the LIARS!
We
can resolve the membership of the valun system into a community
within the general community - an inner community where the evils
of the political money system are barred; and where other evils,
that may be inescapable, are compensated for, and the economy thus
kept on an even keel.
Right.
And before continuing, look what Riegel has explicitly stated as a
pencil sketch model; an inner community, a private membership, which
nevertheless might be quite large and whose spread is designed to be
universal.
It
is not the purpose of this study to outline arbitrarily a debit
policy. Debit policy is the vitals of the whole system and if the
principle of the democracy of the money power is respected, all
else is a matter of judgment and preference as willed by the members
through their elected servants.
We
remind some of our friends that what Riegel meant by “democracy”
had everything to do with the promotion of the importance of everyman
when it comes to the issuance of money, not the agendas the word has
since received which are all corruptions of this essential democracy.
It
is possible not only to assure continuity of prosperity of all
employed members of the Exchange, but also to even absorb gradually
the unemployed from among the non-members. The cycle of production
and consumption need not begin with production; it can begin with
consumption. An unemployed person may actually buy himself into a job
by consuming existing goods, thus inducing demand for labor. Since
a person having valun debit power can spend his valuns only with
suppliers who are members of the Valun Exchange, his demand can be
directed only within the system; and thus all reaction remains within
the valun community.
This
will gradually happen as what Riegel is describing here is in the
same category as the force of gravity when it comes to natural law.
The more who join and tend to buy within the community the more
stable prices become.
We
shall not have fully comprehended human rights until we recognize the
right of every man to proffer his services to society by the
practical means of requisitioning the services of others through his
power to issue money. In an exchange
society man's only means of employing himself is to employ others and
thus induce the reaction of demand for his own services. In sheer
justice, therefore, we cannot deny to
any man the right to issue a draft upon his own energy, even though,
at the time of such issue, he is unemployed.
Indeed!
And this too is in accordance with natural law and what we have
dubbed “natural socialism” which arises among ourselves and is
certainly not subject to the dictats of states or the schemes of
capitalists whether they be bankers or other speculators. Notice we
didn't really make much of a distinction based on policies of recent
times.
The
fear of moral delinquency, as a hazard to debit power exerted by
individuals without discrimination, can be dismissed because of the
unity of the accounting system. A Valun Exchange would be a St.
Peter's ledger on earth which could condemn a faithless man to
economic perdition.
Again,
this is a “fair” system. It offers a practical end to poverty,
but it will also show the differences between those who work and
those that don't with the latter remaining poor. Our intention is to
solve the inflation issue so that prices remain stable over very long
periods of time so if you are poor at least you can survive.
Under
the political money system, every bank is an individual issuer of
credit and there is no central ledger; and one may default repeatedly
and still remain in the economic community.
Let's
stop here and consider just what Riegel has said. In the present
system, lending is leveraged (risked) against reserves in deliberate
violation of natural law for the sole purpose of enriching the
lenders. At present this arrangement makes it impossible for anyone
to get anything done without going into debt. Money is always kept
artificially scarce and no matter how much of it is ever created by
the present methods there can never be enough of it. This
perpetuates debt. We know all this, but Riegel is pointing out is
that
1) Each lending institution is operating under its own
ledger, and
2) This practice allows repeat defaulters of credit
contracts to continue in the economy.
It's a strongly moral
statement he's making here. I'm mindful of a discourse by Stefan
Molyneux on just how effective private organizations can be in
enforcing contracts.
We
wonder openly that if most social matters can best be handled by
private organizations, just who's interests does the current regime
of governments as fronts for banks and the public corporations that
have sprung up to absorb more wealth than they can possibly
represent, etc. benefit? What are the characteristics of these
people? We're taking about people with criminal intent, to steal
under various covers from others, to have without paying for it in
kind. We know all that. But it used to be possible for one person
to work and the rest would be provided for. That too is a cultural
thing that the present commercial order has pulverized with its
purposely inflationary money and criminal corruption of governments.
Our
mission is to build an honest monetary system that would run
in parallel with theirs with the full intention of renouncing
theirs when it fails, and not accepting any more of their
illegitimate money when it does fail!
We reassert that
money is fundamentally the token representation of an accounting
machine. The central ledger is the book where all transactions are
recorded in that machine. The machine consisted purely of pen/pencil
and paper until electronic media came about. Now we have electronic
media. We will still require printed reports. We can have a system
using open source, “off the shelf” electronic media for very
minimal cost.
We mentioned yearly dues in the “public”
currency of the countries where we set up equal to V1 (1 Valun) per
year. Right now that's $2.65. Most people spend more then that for
a meal these days.
Since
membership makes a market, we need lots of members before we can
bring about anything. A drive to sign up 100,000 A members (We'd
need at least 400 B members and hopefully as many more as possible)
would give the organization that conducts the drive the ability to
raise $250,000 very easily. It's important where this money goes and
how it's accounted for because every one of those contributing
dues paying members is an OWNER of the organization that sponsors
this drive. It is also very important to understand what Riegel
took for granted in his day; that every A membership in this
organization is PRIVATE and nobody's business. This is a PRIVATE
solution not a public one. Anyone signing up with us understands
that all personal identification will be respected and protected. We
even kicked around the idea of making even personal checks basically
demands to move Valuns from one account to another and the numbers
for the accounts are the only identifications on these checks.
Not
so in the valun system. There is only one ledger of debits and
credits. Nothing is expected of any one who issues valuns through
his debit power other than that he will accept valuns when tendered
for goods or services at the current market price. If he fails in
this, it will soon show up on his account. If he has been willing to
deliver his wares or work at competitive prices and has found no
takers, the fault is not moral. If he willfully refuses to accept
employment or patronage, he automatically brings upon himself
ostracism from the entire valun community.
He's
basically talking about a member who spends his Valuns but has no
interest in earning them or taking them in trade for goods or
services.
This
self-imposed injury is much greater than any harm to the remaining
reputable membership - which will go on functioning without noticing
his departure.
He's
right, there really is only one ledger, but it will be held and
administered locally not centrally – although the proposed
organization that will serve all the independent exchanges throughout
the proposed Valun exchange network, not a directorate but a servant,
will probably also be the repository for what Riegel would regard as
the one ledger. It will greatly matter that each A member can only
be an A member of one exchange, though they can change exchanges and
their A membership moves with them. Under the proposal, only A
members have the right to issue money. B members do not, but
they can establish as many accounts in many exchanges. Again,
businesses that lend money will lie outside the exchanges as B
members and they will operate through credit contracts.
Each A
or B member will get a rating within the entire VEN and will be
affected by it within the VEN. It is not only worthwhile to have
your own money, but also to maintain and improve one's reputation in
one's local community. If you get into trouble in one community,
merely moving somewhere else and taking your A membership with you
may not help you as your reputation follows you. You want an honest
and fair system? That's what it takes.
We
can promise you this though: the existing system claims it has ways
of getting you out of debt and keeping you out of debt yet it is
based on usury the taking back of that which was never created and
compound interest which is usury on steroids. They never even
compute their interest rates in a fair, CONSISTENT, open or honest
manner. They have so concocted things that it is getting harder all
the time to be able to go into any business without assuming a lot of
debt in their money. Debt is a form of slavery. Want your
own money yet?
There
will be honest failures - since men will continue to be fallible -
and the system should provide some way of reestablishing the debit
power of such persons; but this is one of the matters that may be
left to the common sense of the members to decide.
It
will be. Among members, when it comes to money, people will deal
fairly and honestly or others will soon find out. It IS about money,
but it is also about eliminating the things that make the present
order “unfair” and crooked.
The
question as to what becomes of unsatisfied debits that result from
failures, is not one that is peculiar to the valun system. Losses in
business are absorbed in the price of goods and this is one of the
influences that tend to raise prices. There are, however, other
influences that tend to reduce prices - notably the loss of currency,
which in turn is countered by the presence of counterfeits. These
factors are not serious and may for the purposes of this study be
ignored.
Business
losses are sometimes written down against taxes. The risk to money
lenders must be their own and the only basis they will have is
completed labour and credit contracts. Per usual,
We
may assume that every issuer of valuns will redeem with goods or
services all the valuns he issues; and the failure, for whatever
reason, to do so can not be as harmful to the economy as is a
pessimistic policy which would hamper exchange. It is far better
that money be issued beyond its actual redemption than that it be
issued below its possible redemption - since the latter course
hampers exchange, and this in turn retards the production of wealth.
Idle man hours are a more serious loss than unredeemed money and the
former must never be hazarded by pinching the latter. Interrupted
production is the only loss that is a net loss.
We
want to state here what is certainly NOT obvious to most people who
really fail to grasp a monetary system as a whole, a totality; those
who fear inflation from money that circulates around that is not
redeemed – money was paid by someone who didn't accept any back
because maybe they were poor and couldn't – don't understand that
under present circumstances most money that governments or central
banks issue is spent by states in ways in which that money DIES AND
NEVER RETURNS. They never think about that. It's called
depreciation and it is the result of governments spending HUGE SUMS
OF ILLEGITIMATE MONEY on things which none of us would even want.
Why did Riegel's prediction of inflation take 70 years?
Depreciation, simple as that. Money has a source and it dies.
Therefore it must be replenished from a source. It should be well
understood by now that any ideas that honest real legitimate money
can ever be considered a fixed quantity of anything are doo doo!
Deprogramming
takes a long time.
David
Burton
No comments:
Post a Comment