January 20th, 2010
I’ve been following the conversation that’s been going on Blake’s blog and on twitter about entrepreneurship in Philly and I wanted to vent because the ’state of Philly’ is something that I think about a great deal, being a Temple University student and all. Let me preface my comments with: I greatly respect my startup buddies here in Philly and it’s a fact that if I weren’t in school still I would be at a startup – with that said, I want to express my current opinion on the situation in Philly and disgree about Philly being a prime place for entrepreneurship.
In a nutshell: What is necessary for economic growth?
- Institutions – Law and Order, Protection of private property (basically, a framework for markets to work within)
- People – The more talented, more intelligent, more skilled and hardworking the better. They develop the ideas and make them a reality. Additionally, people with incomes are a requirement because they provide the demand for products and services. This is less important for dot-coms, but still matters for those wishing to pursue the ‘Philly as home base, branch out from there’ type strategy.
- Capital – Access to savings which can be used for ventures and for entrepreneurs to survive on while not earning income.
Does Philly have these attributes? Of sufficient quality and in sufficient quantities?
Capital: Not a whole lot of it.
It’s no secret that Philadelphia is not the epicenter of Venture Capital. There are firms which fund the area, but relatively speaking this area is not particularly fund-happy compared to NY, CA, etc. No need for me to get into this deeply because I’m writing this for Philly entrepreneurs which means you already know this all. There are angels locally but they tend to be risk-averse and hesitant about seed stage companies.
While recently reading a good article by the SEOMOZ guys (in Seattle) about their funding process I came across this nice graph they made of all the reasons they got rejections from funding sources. Note what I have circled in red. Even coming from Seattle, the biggest complaint they heard was that they weren’t located in the right place to be fundable.
People: Could be better…
If you live in Philly, it’s more likely you are a high school dropout (22%) than a college graduate (21%).
The city has 600,000 less residents then it did in 1950.
There are about 115,000 college students (undergrad & grad) in Philly, but many leave Philly after graduating due to lack of job opportunities. Jobs have decreased by 3.9% over the past 7 years leaving Philly with 631,000 jobs. Those jobs that remain, 30% are comprised of ‘meds and eds’, meaning the Pharmaceutical companies and the colleges.
Arguably, one could say ‘What do these averages have to do with the ability of individual people to ‘make it’? Well, I’m certaily not saying Philly has no smart or talented people; what I am trying to convey is that those hoping to start companies in Philly are dealing, relatively, with less qualified individuals then they would have access to in other major cities.
Institutions: ‘toxic business environment’
Without getting too political, I would just say that Philadelphia specifically and PA generally have not been beacons of pro-market reforms. Philly citizens have to deal with a tax burden above the national big city average. Business taxes are harsh, and though Mayor Nutter ran on the premise of decreasing them – the recessions and subsequent budget problems caused them to remain just as harsh – and actually the sales tax was increased to 8%. There has been efforts to create ‘economic development zones’ but these are restricted to very specific areas (sometimes even as arbitrary as the ‘3rd floor of the so-and-so building’) and tend to apply primarily, if not entirely, to biotech.
Then, there is crime… While its likely not operationally affecting your dot-com startup at first (like getting your servers stolen), it does matter in terms of the willingness of people with the skills you desire to move to and work in the area. The crime factor can affect your access to human capital. That’s all I’ll say on that.
Parting comments:
While I am aware of the several Startup and independent freelancer focused organizations – I don’t think Philly is a good place to start a company, and I certainly wouldn’t advise Californians, Seattle tech rockstars, or any other hotspot of tech activity and entrepreneurship to come here to startup. You will isolate yourself from the majority of funding, and set up HQ in a growingly worse city (if it’s any conciliation, the Pew Study has Philadelphians on average being optimistic about Philly’s future).
There is also this funny argument I want to throw out there: Since Philadelphia has a relative lack of opportunity, entrepreneurial people in Philly have a relatively low opportunity cost for their time (as opposed to, say, New Yorkers or Californians). This low opportunity cost makes it much more appetizing to ‘go it alone’ and try a hand at starting a company.
So what I would advise, don’t come to Philly to start a company. If you are already in Philly, and not really willing to relocate, then starting up may not be a bad option compared to the alternatives but its going to be relatively harder then it would be in other cities. There’s a tight group of entrepreneurs whom do alot to support one another, and from what I’ve gleaned they really love Philly and want to help the city (and state) improve and become more conducive to small business. I would like Philly to be a Silicon Valley in the future as much as the next guy, I’m just trying to diagnose the situation realistically as it stands today.
Of course, I’m glossing over things, a person could spend their entire career trying to find out why Philly is how it is and how to change it, but I think these 3 areas are hurdles for creating a pro-market city which makes it easy, and common, for small businesses to thrive. I look forward to seeing if anyone agrees or disagrees with me – I won’t take it personally.
Source: Here’s the Pew Study that has been posted around lately: http://bit.ly/5ClVFV, the statistics used above are from this study.
Categories: Entrepreneurship, Opportunity Cost, Philadelphia, Role of Government
December 8th, 2009
I’m doing alot of research into rationality lately. Specificaly into looking at how people percieve reciprocity, altruism and punishment. I personally am not convinced of a human tendency to become altruistic, as is Herbert Gintis and some other folks involved with behavioral econ. I have recently dl’d a whole lot of the journal articles having to do with Kahneman and Tversky’s prospect theory. I am not convinced, in the least, by their theory but I am very interested in understanding it. Thus far I am thinking of writing a research paper arguing that prospect theory can align with the rational choice model but I am a bit away from this paper, still have much literature to review.
Just wanted to drop this post to let readers know what I am up to:
- Game Theory
- Altruism/Reciprocity/Punishment
- Rational Choice Theory
- Decision Theory
These are my major areas of interest at the moment. I am hoping to get funding to do research in one or several of these areas but we will see. I am hoping to get into to the Temple Diamond Research Scholars Program, but if that doesn’t work out I will be just as happy to get into the Mises Institute Summer Fellowship program. I plan on applying to several of these type of programs, and we’ll see how it turns out. I am working on a theory that reconciles rational choice with some of the ‘irrational choices’ made in the Kahneman and Tversky, and other Behavioral econ studies, including Dan Ariely. So we will see how it goes. I need a little more free time than the regular school semester offers in order to write a paper about this topic because of the massive scope and all the literature review which it entails.
Categories: Uncategorized
November 9th, 2009
I was roaming the econo-blogosphere the other day and happened across one of the “lists o’ links” that Tyler Cowen dumps on occasion. One link in particular caught my eye, “How to increase altruism in toddlers“. Being very interested in altruism (not so much being altruistic as much as trying to understand it..) I went to the link and read about a study they did on toddlers. The gist of which I’ll quote here:
Sixty 18-month-old infants were shown eight photos of household objects, such as teapots, books or shoes. Crucially, infants were divided into four groups, with each group shown one of four versions of these photos. One “affiliated” version featured in the background two dolls standing together side by side; another version featured a doll in the background on its own; the third version featured two dolls facing away from each other; and the final version merely had toy bricks in the background.
After they’d been shown these photos, another experimenter walked over to the infants and dropped a bunch of pens on route. Amazingly, the infants who’d seen the photos with the companionable dolls in the background were three times as likely as the other infants to help the experimenter by spontaneously picking up one or more sticks and handing it to the experimenter.
…
“Our data suggest that surprisingly subtle changes to our social environment may promote prosocial behaviour in our children.”
The bold is my doing, it’s the most important part. So, after reading this I said to myself ‘ok, so being shown pictures of dolls made these subjects more likely to help someone pick up pens after dropping them..’ but.. the name of the article is “How to increase altruism in toddlers”. Maybe the name came from the editors of the blog (very likely) but maybe it’s from the people who conducted the study…
This prompted me to ask myself, How do we know it was altruistic behavior? Sure I agree it is ‘prosocial’, but altruistic… I don’t know. This brings up the question – when is ‘prosocial’ behavior altrusitic? It seems to me that a great deal of ‘prosocial’ behavior is done for self-interested reasons.
Just because someone does something which doesn’t pay them, or give them tangible profit (like a piece of candy, or award), doesn’t mean it’s altruistic behavior. Here’s the definition of altruism from some popular sites:
Merriam-Webster says Altruism is:
unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
Wikipedia says Altruism is:
Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others.
Dictionary.com says Altruism is:
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others
So, I think it’s safe to say that Altruism is behavior which is not self-interested. My problem here is, how can we tell when behavior is self-less? Just because no money, prize or gift changes hands doesn’t mean their aren’t other self-interested motives for behaving a certain way. It seems to me that Altruism is entirely subjective, and unless someone is a mind-reader – then we are unable to ever deem for certain that a behavior was altruistic.
Take this toddler study for example:
Couldn’t the toddlers have helped the adult pick the pens up for many (some would say infinite) self-interested reasons:
- Maybe the toddler thought the adult would think more highly of them (psychic profit)
- Maybe the toddler thought they would somehow ‘do good’ on the study/test they were undergoing
- Maybe the toddler thought the goal of the study could be affected by what they did, thereby they tried to ‘win’
- Maybe they became more aware of social mores/norms after seeing the picture, and in wanting to personally fit-in and be thought of as a ‘good person’ by their parents/on-lookers they decided to help the adult (social profit? psychic profit from knowing you have a positive reputation and for ‘fitting in’ to society?)
My interpretation of this study: seeing the certain pictures of dolls made toddlers more likely to be aware of the intangible gain from ‘prosocial’ behavior, which made them more likely to help the adult pick up pens just after seeing these pictures. I think seeing the picture of the dolls holding hands, or w/e, subconsciously made these toddlers aware of the intangible gains of ‘prosocial’ behavior -> thus making them helping the adult actually self-interested behavior.
To answer my posts title: When can we call behavior Altruistic? Once we can read minds. Unless we know the motivations behind a given behavior then we cannot know whether or not the intentions were self-interested or self-less.
Categories: Altruism
November 1st, 2009
Just got back from the Austrian Student Scholars Conference at Grove City. It was a great time, met a lot of interesting people and caught up with some buddies I met this last summer at Mises University @ the Mises Institute. While I didn’t place in the top 3 for my paper I’m really not dissappointed at all, all the winners were graduate students (which I am not) and this was my first conference/econ. research paper so I wasn’t really expecting anything. That’s not to say I did poor, I think my paper was fair but oddly enough I think my presentation of my paper was probably better then the paper itself because I was forced to make my arguments more concise and because I made a real effort to rid my powerpoint of normative-ness, because I kind of felt like my paper had gotten a little messy towards the end with my urging privatization and whatnot (that part I cut out of the presentation).
For anyone who is interested, you can download the version of my paper which I sent in to be judged: pdf file
Additionally, here is the powerpoint I used for my presentation: pptx file
I’m not sure but I may do a little more work on this subject (State Monopoly & Bureaucracy) in the future, but definitely in the short term I will be taking a step back from this topic in order to pursue some other areas of interest.
Of course, feel free if anyone wants to quote something – just give a citation or link, w/e
Categories: Austrian Student Scholars Conference
October 24th, 2009
So, I’m pretty sure about going to grad school for Economics (maybe Masters first then PhD, maybe just PhD). I’ve been doing my research and I decided to do a little writeup on my findings.
First things first, in order to be prepared for good PhD programs it’s nescessary to take a lot of Maths – at minimum:
- 2 semesters Calc
- 2 semesters Stat
- 1 semester Linear Algebra
- 1 semester Econometrics
In addition… it’s suggested to take
- Calc 3
- Real Analysis (called Advanced Calc at my school, and it’s suggested to take as much of this as you can)
- Probability
- Topology (if you have the time, seems to be more of a luxury then the rest from what I’ve read)
Now if there are any potential econ grad students reading this, you may now be feeling that same feeling of despair I felt when I realized this. Like they say, if you know you want to go to grad school for econ you are really better off going for a Mathematics undergrad rather then Econ – as ass-backwards as that sounds. Being an econ major myself it feels kind of wrong, but hey I can always hope that I will have a better understanding of economics then the math majors just starting to learn about econ by way of derivatives and by doing obscene things with matrices.
Above are the required and suggested maths, so now you may be asking – what other feats of intelligence are there for gaining admittance to good PhD programs?
- Get as near perfect, 800 out of 800, on the GRE quantitative portion as you can.
- Get a good gpa (duh), I’ve seen 3.6 as the average at some schools – but if you are a top 15 type of student then you are looking at even higher average gpas.
*The above info is based on my own research, I am not currently (as of 10/25/09) a graduate student.
Categories: Grad School
October 13th, 2009
I’ve been working on an economic paper for the Austrian Student Scholars Conference held at Grove City on October 30-31st, and finally… I’m ready to do a Beta release. The finished paper is due the 15th, so I really haven’t given anyone much time to give me a peer review – but I wanted to get it out there all the same.
I really felt like I could’ve edited this paper endlessly, so today I just had to put an end to it and print it to PDF and put it up here.
You can download the whole paper here, it’s 21 pages which isn’t too bad. I don’t think it’s too opaque either, as you’ll see this isn’t your ordinary econ paper…. There are no mathmathics, no graphs, no charts, no nada.
Critiques and comments are welcome, feel free to email me at: joe (at) jnort.com
Categories: Austrian Student Scholars Conference, Working Papers
September 30th, 2009
Here’s an incredible lecture given by John Allison given at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. This is probably the best lecture I’ve heard on the current economic crisis. Being the former CEO of a gigantic financial firm, BB&T Corporation, he is able to provide a unique, insider perspective to what went wrong.
Essentially his take on the crisis is very Austrian in nature, it discusses how both malinvestment and overinvestment were able to occur and were incentivized by many forms of government intervention. He discusses how the subprime mortgage market came about, how that damage spread to the capital markets, why lending froze up, and eventually – at the tail end of his lecture, provides some really great ideas for what to do to fix the problem both in the short-term and in the long-term. I especially like his philosophical point at the very end of his lecture about the real problem being philosophical disputes in America. He explains how if we truly want to fix our economic problems in the long-run then we’re going to need to fix these problems – he highlights the disturbing idea in America that there is such a thing as a ‘free lunch’.
Again, it’s a must see lecture if you want to know the truth about how this economic crisis began and who is at fault. I’ll give you a hint: Government, government, government…
Seriously watch it. Listen to it. Know it.
John Allison on How did the Economic Crisis begin, and what to do about it
Categories: Economic Crisis
September 26th, 2009
I’ve recently been thinking about this issue and I wanted to pour out my thoughts and see what ends up on the page. My problem with communtiy service/donations/volunteering is 3 fold. Keep in mind I am not saying that unequivocally volunteering/service/donating is bad, just when it has to do with one of the following 3 scenarios then I would give it pause…There is room for some ‘good’ volunteering in section 2 of my argument, but I think there is no room in section 1 or 3.
Section 1) The idea that entreprenurs ‘owe it to society’ to ‘give back’
Section 2) How volunteering causes someone to subsidize the costs of another’s behavior so they don’t incur full costs of their behavior
Section 3) Mandatory Service = Slavery
Section 1
This section deals with a particular problem of mine with community service, and volunteering, and it stems from the idea that well-off entrepreneurs need to ‘do good’ and ‘give back’. This assumes that somehow they have ‘taken’ from society and ‘owe it’ to the community to produce something of value for them.
Getting paid for something means you are ‘taking’ from the community? So earning a profit is evil?
When you trade voluntarily, it is mutually beneficial.
Every time a sale occurs, whether for a purchase of a product/service or for the wages for labor, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement (both sides gain from the transaction, it is not zero sum, at least in the ex ante sense). A businessman ‘does good’ everytime he sells a product/service. The only time this doesn’t hold true is in the rare occasion when ex post someone regrets the trade and thinks they were misled prior to the trade, and this informs the persons involved so that next time they are more careful about who they trade with.
Example: I trade you this dollar for that tie. The only way this trade can happen is if you decide you like my dollar more than your tie, and likewise, if I like your tie more than my dollar. When this happens voluntarily, both parties profit in some form, either monetarily or psychically, w/e.
Profit is the reward given to entrepreneurs for meeting consumers demand.
What makes profit emerge is the fact that the entrepreneur who judges the future prices of the products more correctly than other people do buys some or all of the factors of production at prices which, seen from the point of view of the future state of the market, are too low. Thus the total costs of production— including interest on the capital invested—lag behind the prices which the entrepreneur receives for the product. This difference is entrepreneurial profit.
…
It is silly that some people try to defend American capitalism by declaring: “The record of American business is good; profits are not too high.” The function of entrepreneurs is to make profits; high profits are the proof that they have well performed their task of removing maladjustment of production. (Profit & Loss by Ludwig von Mises)
I can’t describe profit any better than Mises so I didn’t want to try here, I suggest all who don’t believe me when I say ‘profit is good’ — please read the above linked PDF by Mises. It’s free. Only 57 pages. First work of Mises that I ever read and it’s just fantastic.
Now back to my point. I am disturbed when I here that so-and-so, former founder of XYZ Inc., is donating a large chunk of his money to some non-profit institution. If the service offered by the non-profit was in sufficient demand wouldn’t it be offered by a for-profit? Companies who are beholden to profits, are by definition beholden to consumers. This is not so for government or non-profit firms. They need not concern themselves with anticipating what consumers want in the future, because they don’t get paid for pleasing consumers like all other companies.
Example: Mr. Altar from Advanta donated a boatload of money to Temple Unviersity in order to partially fund the new mega-huge Business school. Even though I benefit from the use of this new building, Altar Hall, I still wish he wouldn’t have done that. This is an entrepreneur, who earned his money by profits. He succesfully anticipated consumer wants and reallocated societies resources before other entrepreneurs or existing businesses to adjust the factors of production to what society was going to want in the future. He made his money by helping society allocate it’s resources to it’s most urgent needs. Now he is told it’s time to ‘give back’, that all that time he was earning profits was time he was ‘taking from society’? This is incorrect. In fact, Mr. Altar has shown he does a very good job helping society by reallocating the factors of production in anticipation of future wants. In fact, Mr. Altar could have done society a great deal more good by using his money to start/fund more businesses and, if he continues to successfully help society by reallocation factors of production, he will earn more profit. Instead, now he gives his hard earned profits to Temple University. A non-profit who is not beholden to consumers. Temple gets donations from private individuals and government funding, and some of it’s money from tuition. Temple doesn’t have to correctly anticipate student wants and needs because they don’t really rely on our money. I’ll stop there (don’t even get me started with Temple…)
So we see now, that a successful entrepreneur who earned a lot of money from their business has already done society a great ‘good’ and that them giving away this money, instead of using it for further entrepreneurial endeavors, is a big mistake and costs society as a whole.
Section 2
I will now move on to my 2nd ‘beef’ with community service. The subsidization of others costs.
On this point I think their is room for both ‘good’ subsidizing of costs, and ‘bad’ subsidizing of costs. So I am not saying categorically that ‘helping people is bad’, what I intend to say is that in many cases helping people is actually counterproductive to getting people to help themselves. When we subsidize the costs of peoples decisions, they don’t incur full costs of their decisions. So, if a person is repeatedly making bad decisions, but their mistakes are constantly subsidized — they may never change their behavior because, as economists say, the Marginal Benefit exceeds the Marginal Costs.
Example: Walking to the train station from Temple Unviersity everyday I pass through a section of HUD housing. HUD housing, for those who don’t know, is the government owned and subsidized housing for low-income folks. I have a whole different problem with this particular HUD development, but thats for a different blog post… Anyway, this section of HUD housing is always littered with trash. Keep in mind this is not trash from college students, this is trash from the residents of the HUD housing. I can’t offer empirical proof of this point, but by looking at the trash and the types of products thrown here, I think it looks like it is not from college students walking in between train station and the campus but more like household products. SO, back to the story, one day I was walking by here and I saw a lady picking up trash and throwing it in a bag. She was an adult white woman, so it’s safe to assume imo that she was a professor at the University (I later saw her waiting at the train, saw her TU ID pass). Well, this got me thinking. Sure she has nice intentions, she perhaps wants to help the campus look a little bit better, perhaps she wants to clean up the HUD housing area, perhaps she is trying to help the environment? Anyone of these is surely a noble cause. However, what are the effects of her actions? She is subsidizing the costs of the HUD housing residents. They throw their trash all over the place, and then just let the woman volunteer pick up the trash. Why should they change their behavior? They aren’t having to deal with the yard getting knee-high thick of trash they threw there, it’s getting cleaned daily by the free-maid. There is far less incentive for these folks to stop littering because of this persons generosity.
So, like the example above, I think a great deal of volunteering efforts may actually distort incentives and allow people to continue in destructive behavior because the burden of their behavior is being at-least partially (sometimes, entirely) paid for by others generosity.
Section 3
This will be short. Mandatory service is slavery. There is no other way about it. If it is not voluntary, and you cannot come to a arrangement on terms/payment/etc. then it is not any form of service at all — it is absolutely slavery.
Example: Now my mom didn’t complain about this, she’s far too nice, but I’ll complain for her. My mom went to Nursing school at Roxborough in Philadelphia. On Martin Luther King Day there was mandatory service or all Nursing students. If it’s not voluntary, and someone is forced to do something against their will then what is it other than slavery? If it’s a nice gesture then let people opt-out, making ‘nice gestures’ required kind of defeats the purpose don’t you think? Especially if this nice gesture coincides with a form of service like that mentioned in Section 2. In that case it can actually end up downright counter-productive.
Someone might say, “hey, maybe they don’t mind doing it!”, well then I would say, maybe some of the Hebrew slaves of the Egyptian times didn’t really mind hauling giant rocks all over the place building pyramids and the sphinx, does that make it not slavery? It’s still slavery whether or not the person being forced to do something is angry about the mandatory service or not.
Thus ends my rant about community service. Interested in getting peoples feedback. Like always, don’t consider anything written here as written in stone, I am constantly working with ideas in order to find ‘truth’ and I will not be offended if I discover in the future that I was incorrect here because it’s all an intellectual journey and we have to start somewhere.
Categories: Service
September 17th, 2009
In a predictable move, due to facing a massive budget deficit, the city of Philadelphia has been working it’s butt off to lobby the PA house and senate for permission to raise the sales tax. Eventually, they caved and now the sales tax in Philly will go up from 7% to 8%. Though this at first may seem trivial, this sales tax increase amounts to a drastic tax increase for anyone who wants to buy or sell anything in the city. It goes without saying, but increasing taxes will negatively impact investment and jobs in the region to some extent. (Theory: Maybe it’s this kind of “tax our way out of the hole” attitude that helped Philly become Detroit #2… just saying…).
It’s a funny thing when the government is completely unable to maintain a budget. Whenever they come to grips with their striking inefficiency and wastefulness they have no alternative but to raise taxes, cutting costs is just too logical a move for a bureaucratically controlled agency.
Naturally, the news is spinning this as positive. “Budget deal averts massive layoffs, service cuts“. What the article’s title doesn’t mention, but the body does, is how exactly the administration came across this giant bag of money – tax increases. The most notable one being Sales Tax. I tried to read the bill (HB1828) in order to give a more detailed account than the news article gave, but it’s 91 pages of legalese b.s. and I couldn’t handle it after a while…You know, for a split second I actually believed that Mayor Nutter would do the right thing and cut costs. What’s that? Their’s “Gullible” written on the ceiling? *Looks up*
As soon as the bill got through the State senate, Mayor Nutter declared victory and sent out a Letter to City Employees praising their ability to ‘overcome’ these drastic budget shortfalls. Here’s an excerpt:
I am so proud of how we have weathered this storm as a city, with a typical fighting Philly spirit. Just think of what we can achieve together when we turn that resilience, that determination, that teamwork towards the tremendous opportunities and endless possibilities that lie ahead.
Really Nutter? You weathered the storm thanks to your resilience and fighting spirit? You “weathered the storm” by deciding it was easier to coercively take more money from your citizens than it is to run a tight ship. Did ‘determination’ really help you? Or was it your lack of care for Philadelphia consumers and producers? I just don’t understand this guy. What big bad monster does he think he fought off? The Big Bad Taxpayer wanting to keep what’s left of his own pacheck?
Anyway…
While doing a quick search on this bill I found some Union folks who had some serious beef with it. Apparently, there was a bit of a compromise and the unions tended to get some terms they aren’t found of, the Union blogger said that the bill would fix benefits and pensions to certain levels which make it dangerous should inflation occur. I guess there is a silver lining afterall. Since I believe some strong inflation is on the way (and there may be signs it is already kicking in, as Bob Murphy notes) there is a possibility for some governmental pain afterall!
Categories: Philadelphia
September 17th, 2009
Even I was getting terribly annoyed by the daily twitter updates, and I wrote them! Starting now, I reset the plugin to no longer do daily updates, but weekly updates. All those twitter updates start to flood away my articles and clog up the ‘recent posts’ widget on the right sidebar. No more!
Categories: Uncategorized
