All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
31:43
120 Socialist Calculations Part 1: Price

An analysis of priceless catastrophes

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody.
I hope you're doing well.
It's Steph.
It is March the 1st, Wednesday.
Pinch-punch first day of the month.
Hope you're doing well.
I am heading into work.
It is 8.36am and I have a topic this morning, which is a nice tasty break from the issues of the family.
It's a nice tasty break from psychology and questions of forgiveness and child abuse and motherhood and fatherhood and all of those juicy topics that we've been chatting about for the last little while.
And I'd like to talk about the problems of economic calculations.
So we're back into the tasty and surreptitious world of economics and this is sort of prompted by a question on the board which was related to Praxeology.
There's a fine gentleman with a razor-sharp mind asking questions about at least my relationship to Praxeology or if not the theory of morality that we've been talking about of the moral argument for morality.
And its relationship to Praxeology.
Now, I'm no expert on Praxeology, but this is sort of what I've been gleaming from my readings.
That Praxeology is the study of human action.
What von Mises in his famous and rather forest-busting book on human action was focused on.
Which is that the results of moral choices or of social circumstances or of economics in general can be predicted, engaged and measured in terms of results.
So a simple example would be that if I pay people a million dollars to smoke for a day, that it's quite likely that most people will smoke for a day.
So you can predict human action based on circumstances and rewards and punishments and so on.
And they would, if I understand the Austrian or the Miesian theory correctly, then their approach would be to something like communism to say that if you want to figure out whether communism can work or will work then you can do that but what you have to do is you have to figure out what the incentives are what the punishments are And from that you can figure out how people are going to behave, whether it's going to work, and so on.
And I think that's a fascinating topic.
Now, I have some skepticism, I guess you could say, towards the efficacy of using what I call the argument from effect, which is to say we should get rid of the welfare scheme because it traps people in poverty.
Because I don't find that it works.
As I've mentioned before, you have to run around being some godlike all-knower of everything, all statistics, all causes and effects.
And it's impossible to specialize as a generalist.
And if you're talking about morality, you are almost by definition a generalist.
And if you are Talking about the free market, you're also, by definition, a generalist.
And you simply won't be able to argue against people who've spent their graduate school years studying a particular topic.
They're going to bring up all these counterexamples, all these skewed facts, and you're just never going to be able to win.
And of course, even if you do win, even if you do prove to people that the free market is more efficient, it really doesn't matter, because people don't care that much about efficiency.
As I argued before, if they did, they wouldn't have children.
And they would simply spend, you know, 16 hours a day working and accumulating capital.
And people don't live for that.
Obviously, they're interested in efficiency, but what people live for is ethics, is morals.
And that's why our fine friends in the state apparatus, the first thing that they did was to take over the public school system because they knew, you get them while they're young, they're yours for life.
So that's been talked about in a podcast, I think, late last November or early December.
So I won't go into that into great detail.
But I will say that the study of cause and effect, which was brought up by this gentleman on the board, is very interesting.
And I think it's worthwhile to study and to understand, not from the standpoint of convincing others, but for double-checking your own premises.
So for instance, We, I would say, don't want to be free marketers, that we don't want to be libertarians, that we don't want to be objectivists, that we don't want to be anarchists, or anarcho-capitalists, or atheists, or any of those things.
What we want to be is happy, and what we want to be is consistent, because consistency and logic lead to happiness.
Simply because happiness is the alignment of the mind in its right relationship to its primary function.
Its primary function is to understand the nature of reality and to act efficaciously within that realm.
I mean, that's sort of what the mind is there for in terms of survival.
So in the same way that your lungs are acting according to their right nature, When they are correctly and efficiently processing air and turning oxygen into oxygen and disseminating it through the veins and so on.
Then we don't feel any pain.
Of course, when they stop working efficiently, you get emphysema or something, then you're going to feel rather less comfortable with your lungs and not be happy thereby.
And it's the same thing with the mind.
We could go into a long discussion about this and perhaps it would be worth it at some point.
But suffice to say that we aim towards happiness.
Happiness does have something to do, pleasure does have something to do with biological organs working in their right capacity.
Given that the mind automatically absorbs the facts of reality or the evidence of reality that is transmitted through the senses, we have a sort of continuous movie, except while we're sleeping, of consistent and objective material reality, and therefore, given that the mind is bombarded with all this evidence, to set up
A moral theory or an epistemological or metaphysical or ethical theory that is completely counter to the facts of reality that are constantly streaming into our minds would be to damage the mind or to turn it against its proper use and to create a series of abstractions directly opposed to the continual evidence streaming in through the senses and to the way that we actually live our life in general.
So, overall, that's not the right way to approach things like moral theories and so on.
So, that having been said, if we are coming up with a theory called the free market and no state and property rights that are absolute and the argument for morality that all moral theories have to be universally applicable to all people at all times and in all places and no violence and all of the goodie bag that we have in terms of a consistent worldview and a moral approach to reality,
We don't want to end up like the Marxists who themselves felt that they had an effective and scientific and provable and predictive methodology for understanding macroeconomics or the nature of society or the nature of power relations between classes and so on.
So I think it's great that we come up with a logically consistent theory.
We do, for our own scientific validation, have to dip into the facts of reality and ensure That although our theory may be logically consistent, it also has to predict and explain and understand the facts of reality.
So I think that it's well worth understanding certain aspects, well, all aspects of free choice, the free market, ethics, history, and all those good things.
Just don't use them in my humble opinion as the basis for an argument with people.
That's my critique of things like the 9-11 theories and my critique of things like who shot JFK and all those other things, which is to say...
Well, let's say that we did prove that the government was behind 9-11, that would not necessarily lead people to believe that we should get rid of the government.
But whereas if you make the argument for morality, then people either have to accept that they're supporting evil, or they have to accept that the government is an evil to be gotten rid of.
There's no capacity for interpretation in a sufficiently defined theory.
There's no interpretation of 2 plus 2 is 4 versus 2 plus 2 is 5.
It's not like, I really like the color and swish of 2 plus 2 is 4, whereas the accent of 2 plus 2 is 5 is displeasing to me!
That's the wonderful thing about logic and sensual evidence and validation through empirical observation.
It's really not subjective.
It's how you transform things from subjectivity into objectivity, and that's, I think, where we're trying to get to.
So that having been said, let's spend a few minutes talking about one of the central problems of central planning, which is the problem of economic calculation.
Oh, doesn't it get you blood-rushing just to think about such a gripping topic?
I hope so.
I certainly find it interesting, but then I'm a total economics geek, so that might just be me.
So let's look at some basic economic principles and how central planning, which is that the government is the one that sets the goals and figures out how things should work and taxes or organizes or legislates or bureaucratizes the economy so that it says here's how resources should be spent or accumulated or dispersed or moved or bought or sold or any of that sort of stuff.
So, to take a simple example, in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, after a brief fling with this new economic policy, which Lenin came up with, to help the Soviet Union survive the initial catastrophes of central planning, he allowed a small amount of market forces to play, particularly within agriculture, and it was the new economic plan, or the NEP, And there were the NEP men, the people who made their living trading in this sort of quasi-free market.
I mean, they never got as far as instituting anything as sensible as a stock market, but they did allow for some market fluctuations in prices and supply and demand to operate to a limited degree, because when they first began the process of collectivizing the farms, it was a complete disaster and everyone just up and rebelled and began to starve to death.
So they relinquished for a while and they said, well, there's a class consciousness in these kulaks which is generated from the old system.
Yeah, maybe we can't blame them completely.
Let's wait for the 1930s to kill them all.
But we'll back off a little bit because there's no point taking power of a state and then having it turn to, you know, starvation skeleton.
It's an army of starved skeletons under your first watch.
So they did let some market forces play and then what they did in the 1930s was they completely collectivized the farms.
So you had your own little farm and you were growing and you were selling on the market as a Russian peasant and then you suddenly got a letter or somebody came by if you couldn't read and said this farm is now owned by the state.
Everybody's going to get herded into common living quarters.
The state is going to tell you what to grow.
The state is going to tell you what to send to quote market which is basically just the state.
And you're no longer going to be able to make any decisions regarding your own lives, your own land, your own crop, because none of them belong to you anymore.
So the government would say, you need to plant this, you need to grow that, we're going to distribute it this way, and they were centrally planning all of the activities that occurred in the economy.
I mean, to the extent that they could.
Russia has survived, as to some degree Canada survives, with a grey market.
Now in Canada, the grey market is 15-20% of the entire economy, which is the only, and the black market of course, Which is the major reason why we're still functioning as an economy.
And then Russia was even larger, but to the degree that the state could collectively centralize and command the economy, they attempted to do so.
And you can see this kind of stuff going on in the West as we speak.
Farming subsidies and tariffs and particular taxes on particular goods and subsidies for corporations and Fixed price controls such as the minimum wage.
There's lots of ways in which the government attempts to command and control the flow of goods and services and capital in the economy.
The largest of one, as I've mentioned a couple of times, is the herding of tens and hundreds of billions of dollars into the stock market for pillaging by stock market experts.
So that's an example of the kind of centralized command and control that we're talking about.
Let's just take the sort of Russian farming situation to begin with.
Now, one of the major problems that occurs when you centralize the distribution or transfer of goods, services, and capital within an economy through state control Is you completely destroy the mechanism of price.
That's absolutely fundamental.
It's absolutely fundamental and it took people quite a while to figure this out.
And this is something that Mises has argued, Rothbard has argued, Hayek has argued.
And Hazlitt has argued, and lots of free market or Austrian economists have argued this point, it has not become part of the general consumption because it's not something that you would ever get really heavily taught in a state school because it indicates that the government is not only immoral but impractical.
And people don't mind impractical if they consider it moral.
I mean, look at religion.
But they won't take immoral and impractical.
They will always take morality over practicality, but if you can prove impracticality with immorality, so much the better.
Always start with immorality, in my view.
So what happens with prices?
Well, let's just look at an acre of wheat.
What should you make that acre of wheat into?
Well, you can turn it into a number of things.
You can turn it into bread.
You can turn it into beer.
You can turn it into scotch.
You can turn it into decorative bric-a-brac by drying out the stems and tying them together and having pretentious yuppies put them in their hallway.
I mean, you can take the wheat and sell it to churches for their Easter festivals or the Lent festivals where you're at the end of Lent festivals I think Shrove Tuesday I think it's called or something like that where you begin eating again the sort of mini Ramadan that Christians do and I remember as a kid you'd always have these sheaves of wheat stuck in the pews between the pews to show the abundance of God that we have now turned to decorative emptiness that can't be eaten and of course the question is even within bread but what kind of bread do you turn it into?
Do you turn it into that Horrible cardboardy pumpernickel that my mother used to jam down my throat when I was a kid.
Or do you turn it into that fluffy white bread horrible goodness that she hated so much because it just wasn't nutritious.
And even if you're going to turn it into scotch, what kind of scotch are you going to turn it into?
I'm sure you get the idea.
And this is just one example.
If you take wood, right, you can take wood and just about anything.
You can turn it into beans for a house, a pencil, you can turn it into paper, you can turn it into gold posts, you can turn it into wood chippings for the... or wood shavings or sawdust for the bottom of a butcher... of the floor of a butcher shop.
You can turn wood into thousands or tens of thousands of uses.
So, let's say that you're Joe Central Planner, JCP as he's called, and you say, well, we need a certain amount of wood to be grown.
Well, how much wood are you going to know how much needs to be grown?
A thousand acres?
Ten thousand acres?
A million acres?
Ten million acres?
And, of course, you're going to maybe have to plan if you're just starting to plant this stuff.
You're going to have to start to plan this stuff many, many years in advance.
But let's just say that you've got some magic wand and you can create forests out of thin air.
Well, how many square miles of land should you turn towards the growing of trees?
It would be kind of like a guess.
Because what you're attempting to do is you're attempting to guess the current and future demand for a commodity.
And it's really impossible to do that without the mechanism of price.
So the way that we know, in a market situation, the way that we know that demand has peaked is price goes down.
So if there's some insatiable demand for trees, Then what's going to happen is people are going to bid up the existing trees, and so people are going to start growing more trees, or they're going to take over existing forest land and turn that to the production of dead trees, or however you want to put it.
And I apologize for picking an example that has a time lag to it.
When you start planting trees, you're probably not going to harvest them for 10 years.
So please, if you don't mind, and I'm sorry that I chose this topic, but it's juicy because a tree can be put to so many uses.
Just forget about the time factor just for now.
Let's just say you can magically create trees.
So if there's a huge demand for trees, let's say somebody invents a time machine that runs on sawdust and no other substance, and everybody wants to go back in time to pay their taxes in 1922, then everybody's going to want trees, and the demand for trees is going to go up enormously, and we know that because of price.
And so then people are going to produce more trees, and then let's just say everybody gets really bored of the time machine and doesn't want the sawdust anymore, then the demand for trees is going to collapse.
And we know that because the price of them is going to go down, because people aren't bidding up the price.
But in fact, since demand has collapsed, the price is also going to collapse.
And this is how the market figures out how much to produce of things.
And if you look at something like the futures market, the futures market is a very interesting aspect or instrument within the free market wherein people will attempt to make money off future demand.
And you do this basically by promising to pay a certain amount for a commodity in the future.
So if you saw That Eddie Murphy movie.
Trading places.
They're pork belly futures or orange futures.
They're trying to figure out, and they're trying to make money off the future demand of oranges.
And so, very briefly, what happens is, let's say oranges are trading for a buck a bushel.
I'm just making stuff up.
I have no idea what oranges trade for.
Or even if they're traded by the bushel, probably not.
But let's say it's a buck a bushel now.
But you have incredible knowledge.
You have a computer simulation that's going to accurately predict that two months from now there's going to be a terrible frost.
It's going to wipe out half the oranges in the world.
It's really quite a powerful program you've got.
And so the price of oranges is going to go to $2 a bushel.
Now, let's say that your neighbor thinks that oranges are going to spontaneously mutate into two oranges because he's got some computer model about the random genetic mutations that occur in fruit.
And so he thinks that the price of oranges in the future is going to go to 50 cents a bushel.
Well, both of these people can make money if their predictions turn out to be correct.
And what they do is they buy futures.
So if I think it's going to go to $2 a bushel, then what I do is I will promise to buy a bushel of orange in two months from you for $1.50 a bushel.
So I'm going to pay above market price because I'm absolutely convinced it's going to go to $2 a bushel.
So I'm basically going to get $1.50 worth of oranges when the price is $2, and we make this a contractual agreement up front.
So when I sell them, I instantly make a profit of $0.50 per bushel on the oranges.
So I would buy, for me, at least three, to cover the cost of my computer program.
So what's that old Steve Martin joke?
It's pretty funny about a guy who's trying to impress a woman.
He's like, yeah, I play the stock market.
I trade in cardboard.
And I bought cardboard when it was selling at $0.04 a ton.
Now it's selling at $0.06 a ton.
And I bought three tons.
So that's, well, you do the math.
And I made this extra special deal with the guy, so I only have to keep two tons of it at my house.
That's pretty funny.
Anyway.
And you can also make the same money if it's selling at $0.50.
So if it's selling for $1 right now and you think it's going to go down to $0.50, then you're going to be able to make money the opposite way.
You're going to be able to make money by putting a future out there that I'm going to sell you oranges at $0.90.
So they're currently trading at $1 and I'm going to sell you oranges in the future, two months from now, at $0.90.
And I don't buy them yet.
I just say that I'm going to have a contractual arrangement to sell you oranges at $0.90.
And so what's going to happen is that I'm going to, if I know it's going to be $0.50, when I'm selling you the oranges at $0.90, I'm going to buy them at $0.50 and sell them to you at $0.90, as we've contractually agreed to do.
So I'm instantly going to make $0.40 on the transactions.
So this is a very simple example of very complicated mechanisms that you can imagine.
But this is how people protect themselves from wild oscillations in the market.
So, for instance, I worked at a stockbroking company for about a year when I first started my programming career.
And I wrote a foreign exchange trading system.
And what they did, of course, was they had hedges.
You've probably heard of hedge funds.
So they would bet that the price of oranges is going to go up, but they would also put in contrary bets that the price of oranges were going to go down, and they'd have to have to bet to some degree or another.
But you don't want to end up in that bearing situation where, I think it was Nick Leeson, a trader out in Hong Kong, put options on the Japanese yen that was so extravagant and had no hedging, that when the Japanese yen collapsed, the whole 170-year-old bank went down with it because it simply couldn't meet any of its obligations.
So, you're not going to get price mechanisms if you have a centrally-commanded and controlled economy, and you're also not going to get things like futures, which is going to allow people to have a strong understanding of future demand.
So, obviously, the growers of crops watch the futures market very closely to figure out, because if people are betting with their own money on the future demand for a particular product, you really want to pay attention to that, because that's going to be a strong indication for you About how much you need to plant, how much you need to grow.
So it's a mutually beneficial relationship.
I don't think they pay each other, except in very corrupt situations, but it's a great thing for the farmers to know what people are betting on in terms of future demand for their crops.
Or at least it would be if the government didn't hurl hundreds of billions of dollars at them to keep them from driving their trucks and tractors down to Washington.
So if you eliminate the free market, then you eliminate price sensitivity in terms of supply and demand.
So you really can't figure out how many trees to grow if you have a centrally commanded and controlled economy.
So if you're a geo-resource planner trying to figure out how many acres of land to devote to the production of trees sitting there in your office, I mean you can sort of call up a bunch of people and say, well how many trees do you think you're gonna need?
But, of course, they're in the same situation.
So, let's just say you call up the sawdust factory and you say, well, how many trees do you think you're going to need over the next couple of years?
They'll be like, I don't know.
I mean, I don't have any more access to price information than you do.
I don't have any more access to the futures market than you do.
So, I really have no clue.
I have no idea if somebody's working on a time machine that's going to need sawdust as its fuel.
I have no idea whether or not people are going to need more or less sawdust in the future.
So, I got a good idea.
Why don't you tell me?
And it's a really significant problem.
You can spend quite a bit of time pondering this issue and really working it out.
And it doesn't require absolute control over the market.
When you start to interfere with the signals of price, even if you have a stock market and a nominally free economy as we have in the West for the most part, you are still throwing an enormous spanner into a highly energetic, fast-moving and sophisticated machine.
It's very similar to introducing some insect into a complicated ecosystem in nature.
You're just doing one little thing, but it can throw the entire thing out of whack.
So even if you don't have a completely centrally commanded and controlled economy, when the government begins to mess with incentives and to transfer resources and capital and people and labor through force, It completely destroys the price mechanism in those particular areas.
And it destroys it, sorry, not completely, but to the degree with which it uses force, it undermines and destroys that aspect of the economy.
Now, the wonderful thing about the free market is that it is an ecosystem.
You can't touch one part of it without touching an enormous amount of other parts of it.
Because everything is interrelated.
There's no such thing as an isolated field of activity in the free market.
So if you do something to mess up the price of wood, while you're messing up pencil factories, and paper factories, and businesses that rely on selling those things, so your business depots are going to get messed up, and people who are considering going into a field because of the cheap price of paper are not going to go into that field, and so jobs are going to be lost.
I mean, the ripple effect of using coercion within the free market is almost incomprehensible and completely untraceable in the large sphere.
You could spend your entire life tracing the effects throughout the economy of one decision made by a central planner, which is enforced through coercion.
So that's one very important aspect of understanding the effects of coercion within the free market in the centrally planned economic scenario.
So really, when you're trying to figure out how much of your resources to apply to the growing of trees, you really don't have a clue.
There's no way to judge it whatsoever, because there's no price sensitivity.
So what do you end up doing?
And this was completely predicted by early free market theorists.
It has been completely validated every single time it's practiced, which is why you can have some respect for free market theories, because they're predictive and their predictions come true, not to an absolute degree, because again we're talking about biology, a human choice, rather than physics, so they only have to become true to a certain degree.
And what happens is when it comes time to figuring out Joe Timberland tries to figure out how many trees to grow, well, what does he do?
He can't just make up a number because he has no clue.
And he's also competing with land resource for everyone else who wants it turned to wheat or who wants it turned into playgrounds or who wants it turned into all this other stuff.
And all of these people are going to have political connections and ways of getting about things and bribing people and whatever, or being bribed by the people who want to use that land for something else.
So you're not going to be able to sort of double the size of your timberland, because there are all these other people competing for resources in a political manner, not in a price manner.
In a price manner, it's all perfectly resolved very easily.
But if you're Joe Timberland, well, how much are you going to be able to predict?
Well, you can't.
So what are you going to do?
Well, you're going to say, well, last year, there were 10 million acres devoted.
The last time we had a free market situation, there were 10 million acres devoted to the production of trees.
So, you know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to come up with, because communism or socialism or the planned economy is so much better, I'm going to do 110 million and then you're going to run into all these bumps with other people who also want those 10 million acres of land for other things.
And so you're not going to be able to do that.
So then you're going to have to start doing things like monkeying around with production numbers.
So if you have... I'm going to switch to widgets because I have no idea what the productivity of Treeland is.
So let's say you have a factory that under the free market situation was producing 10,000 widgets a year.
When you sort of say, well, how many widgets should we produce now under this magic socialist or communist regime?
You're going to say, well, under capitalism it's producing 10,000 widgets.
Under communism Let's say, because communism is so much better, it's going to produce 120,000 widgets per year.
I think I just went up by 10, but that's alright.
It's going to be more.
So you're going to have a 20% increase in production.
That's going to be your goal.
And is it based on any market demand?
No, it's just based on taking a number and running it through a calculation of increase.
20% increase.
So much better!
We have a massive tenfold increase in production!
You always get this kind of stuff in socialist magazines, these famous five-year plans that were particularly popular under the Stalinist era, not, of course, among consumers who had nothing to eat, but it was pretty popular among central planners.
So you start to end up with this numbers game.
So you say, well, under capitalism, we had 100,000 widgets a year.
Now under socialism, we're getting 120,000 widgets.
Next year, 140.
Next year, a million.
So you just start to make up these numbers, and you publish them, and everybody says, well, look how efficient socialism is.
It's out-producing capitalism.
But it's just a numbers game.
Nobody's actually validating any of these things.
And even if you do magically find some way to increase production, there's still no reason to believe that all the labor, energy, time, money and resources that's being put into producing these widgets is actually what people want.
I think the purpose of the market is to satisfy human desire.
It's not to produce more widgets.
I mean, if I came up with some magic way of producing Horse and buggies at the rate of 10 per second, so what?
Nobody wants them.
It doesn't really matter.
If I came up with some magic way of producing Commodore 64s for a buck a shot, a couple of people would sort of pick one up out of nostalgia, but it's not really a great way of using resources.
Commodore 64s are really old computers for those who weren't geeks in their teens.
This problem of price calculation is absolutely essential.
It's absolutely central to the problem of central planning, and why socialist or centrally-controlled economies simply don't work.
Why they don't work.
The amount of meshing that has to occur within The free market, or within any kind of economy, for goods to be produced to the right degree, in the right time frame, for the right price, delivered to the right people at the right time, with well-predicted market demand, all this kind of stuff.
You simply can't get that.
No matter how brilliant your bureaucrat is, you simply can't get that from somebody sitting in an office saying, hmm, I wonder what people want?
And that's just sort of one of the many problems that occurs with the problem of socialistic calculation, or the problem of a centrally planned economy.
Another problem, and this is purely logical, I mean, you could say moral as well, and I certainly would argue for it, but we're just talking about the praxeological implications of a centrally planned economy, is that Communism doesn't eliminate property.
You can't eliminate property.
You cannot eliminate property rights, because somebody is going to control resources.
People want to eat.
People want to have a place to live.
People want to have clothing.
People are going to have to use property.
You can't survive as a human being without claiming property rights, without claiming ownership, even if it's just ownership over the air that you're breathing.
or the food that you're eating.
You simply can't have a species that survives without the use of property, without material object use.
So communism does not get rid of property at all.
What communism does is it eliminates property rights for the vast majority while centralizing property rights in a small elite of political power, some of those who inhabit the sort of higher echelons of party power.
So it's not that there are no property rights in communism, it's just that the property rights are handed over to the state, to hand it over to bureaucrats, handed over to sort of Joe Timberland we've been talking about.
He's the one who gets to determine how the property gets allocated.
So he has property rights, and this is sort of the logical problem I'm talking about.
You can't eliminate property rights.
So, the bureaucrat has property rights, but nobody else does.
So the people who actually work the land don't have the property rights, the people who used to own it don't have the property rights, but the bureaucrat does.
And so you have a logical problem within communism, I mean, other than the practical problems, which we'll talk a little bit more about this afternoon, you have a problem based just on pure logic, which is, why do only some people get property rights and not others?
And if you're going to say that some people get property rights, i.e.
bureaucrats, but other people don't, Then you better figure out why, and you better have a logical reason as to why otherwise you're just making up silly opinions as I've mentioned maybe a number of times before.
Thanks so much for listening.
▲
Export Selection