It certainly does for the small guys. In all my years of dealing with small businesses, I've found that most of the gig guys and start up guys are unaware of the money requirements of being one's own business. They often don't understand how businesses work and what is needed to survive. It is more of an education problem than a tax problem. They suddenly discover while doing their taxes that they owe taxes they have mostly ignored while working for others. The free SBA consultants would help them in this.
 

Best Buy to stop selling DVDs and Blu-Rays as of next year​

Electronics retailer moving away from sales of 'physical media'

Best Buy is saying goodbye to movie-watching with physical discs.
The consumer electronics retailer plans to phase out its DVD and Blu-ray sales by early 2024 — with physical movies set to be sold in-stores and online as they are today through the holidays, Best Buy confirmed to The Associated Press Friday. Video games will not be impacted.
"To state the obvious, the way we watch movies and TV shows is much different today than it was decades ago," the company said in an emailed statement. "Making this change gives us more space and opportunity to bring customers new and innovative tech for them to explore, discover and enjoy."
Best Buy isn't the only company to start moving away from physical media in recent months. Last month, Netflix's DVD-by-mail service, for example, officially came to a close as the company's iconic red-and-white envelopes made their final trip.
Speculation about the fate of Best Buy's physical movies began swirling around this week after several media outlets reported on the company's plans.
Entertainment blog The Digital Bits was the first to share the news Thursday, citing sources familiar with the matter. And according to Variety, which also cited industry sources, Best Buy made the initial decision to end DVD sales nine months ago.
Minnesota-based Best Buy earned $274 million US, or $1.25 per share, during the second quarter of 2023. That topped Wall Street expectations, but was still below the $306 million US the company earned in the same period last year.
Second-quarter sales fell 7.2 per cent to $9.58 billion US, slightly better than analyst estimates. Comparable sales — sales from physical stores open at least a year, and digital channels — fell 6.3 per cent, dragged down by declines in computing and appliances. While appliance and electronic sales fell, the entertainment category increased by 9.1 per cent.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/best-buy-dvd-blu-ray-1.6995380
Welcome to the age of "you'll own nothing and like it"! :vomit:
 

NR Narayana Murthy: Why Indians are debating a 70-hour work week​

How many hours should a person work in a week?
That's the question being asked in India over the past few days after software billionaire NR Narayana Murthy - the father-in-law of UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak - said that young people should be ready to work 70 hours a week to help the country's development.
"India's work productivity is one of the lowest in the world," he said on a podcast recently. "Unless we improve our work productivity... we will not be able to compete with those countries that have made tremendous progress."
"So, therefore, my request is that our youngsters must say, 'This is my country. I'd like to work 70 hours a week'," he added.

After the comments went viral, Mr Murthy received both support and criticism as people on social media and the opinion pages of newspapers debated "toxic" work cultures, and what employers can expect from the people they hire.
Some of the criticism came from people who pointed out the starting salaries - typically on the low end - for engineers in Indian technology companies including Infosys, which Mr Murthy co-founded.

Others focused on the physical and mental health issues that could arise from working without a break.
"No time to socialise, no time to talk to family, no time to exercise, no time for recreation. Not to mention companies expect people to answer emails and calls after work hours also. Then wonder why young people are getting heart attacks?" Dr Deepak Krishnamurthy, a Bengaluru-based cardiologist, wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
And some pointed out that most women worked much more than 70 hours a week - at both the office and their homes.

The debate comes at a time when around the world, the Covid-19 pandemic has made people re-evaluate their relationship with work. Many felt that they were more productive when they worked from home while others advocated for a healthy work-life balance.
Experts say there are benefits to this, not just for employees.
"Companies that implement work-life balance policies benefit from increased retention of current employees, improved recruitment, lower rates of absenteeism and higher productivity," said the International Labour Organization (ILO) in a report released last year, citing a study of 45 companies in the US.

Indians already work long hours - according to the ILO report, Indians worked an average of more than 2,000 hours every year before the pandemic, much higher than the US, Brazil and Germany.
"Boosting productivity isn't just about working longer hours," Indian entrepreneur and film producer Ronnie Screwvala wrote on X. "It's about getting better at what you do - upskilling, having a positive work environment and fair pay for the work done. Quality of work done > clocking in more hours."
The topic is a sensitive one in India - the country has strong labour laws but activists say officials need to do more to implement them strictly.
Earlier this year, protests from workers and opposition leaders forced the Tamil Nadu state government to withdraw a bill that would have allowed working time in factories to increase to 12 hours from eight.
Mr Murthy had earlier faced criticism in 2020, when he suggested that Indians work for a minimum of 64 hours a week for two to three years to compensate for the economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus lockdown.
Last year, another Indian CEO was criticised for suggesting that young people work 18 hours a day at the beginning of their careers.

But some business leaders in India agree with the advice.
CP Gurnani, CEO of IT company Tech Mahindra, said that Mr Murthy might have intended for the comment to be taken in a more holistic way.
"I believe when he talks of work, it's not limited to the company. It extends to yourself and to your country. He hasn't said work 70 hours for the company - work 40 hours for the company but work 30 hours for yourself. Invest the 10,000 hours that makes one a master in one's subject. Burn the midnight oil and become an expert in your field," he posted on X.
"A five-day week culture is not what a rapidly developing nation of our size needs," said Sajjan Jindal, chairman of the JSW Group of companies.
While India debates longer working hours, some developed countries have been experimenting with four-day work weeks.
In 2022, Belgium changed laws to give workers the right to work four days a week without a salary reduction. The country's prime minister said that the intention was to "create a more dynamic and productive economy".
Last year, several companies in the UK participated in a six-month trial scheme, organised by 4 Day Week Global which campaigns for a shorter week - at the end of the trial, 56 of the 61 companies that took part said they would continue with the four-day week, at least for now, with 18 saying they would make it a permanent change.
A report assessing the scheme's impact in the UK found that it had "extensive benefits", particularly for employees' well-being.
Its authors argued it could herald a shift in attitudes, so that a mid-week break or a three-day weekend would soon be seen as normal.
A similar experiment is now being held in Portugal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-67269976
 

Bond. World's oldest living bond.​

November 8, 20236:45 PM ET
By
Wailin Wong
,
Brittany Cronin
,
Kate Concannon
LISTEN· 11:3211-Minute Listen


A photo of the world's oldest living bond, issued in 1624.
Photo provided by the New York Stock Exchange/

Hidden deep in an archive in New Jersey is the world's oldest living bond. Originally issued to fund a dike in the Netherlands after a big flood, these days, it's gearing up for its 400th birthday and still paying interest. Today on the show, we visit this elder bond and hear its story.
 
Berlin Builds New Tactics For Housing
Construction push comes as rules written to curb gentrification fail
BY BERTRAND BENOIT

BERLIN—The German capital has long been a lab for daring experiments in tackling the crisis of affordable housing that is plaguing city dwellers from San Francisco to Hong Kong. Anti-gentrification rules are so strict that in some neighborhoods, luxury renovations such as walk-in showers, balconies or cement tiles are turned down. Airbnb is tightly restricted while rental caps have forced thousands of landlords to slash rents. But the measures have largely failed to stop rents— currently rising at a record pace—from nearly doubling in the past 10 years. Instead, the rules have made it harder for newcomers to find affordable housing in Berlin. Now, authorities acknowledge that their efforts to shield tenants from market forces may be doing more harm than good. And they are trying a new approach: Build more.

Berlin is one of the fastest-growing capitals in Europe, yet since 2008, it hasn’t built enough to keep up. Since 2014, the number of available rentals has dropped by half. The vacancy rate is under 1% and economists think the city needs some 200,000 additional apartments. As a result, rents in June were up 16% from a year earlier, according to real-estate service company Jones Lang LaSalle. Higher interest rates and rising building costs have contributed to the crunch. But developers, economists and now politicians blame Berlin’s myriad rules aimed at keeping rents low. “There is this saying that the best way to destroy a city, short of bombing it, is through overregulation,” said Olivier Bourdais, co-founder of Bertrange Capital Group, an investment and asset manager. “That’s what we’re seeing in Berlin.…People aren’t moving, the market has seized up. It’s become petrified.” German tenants enjoy unrivaled protections. Once a lease is signed, strict limits kick in on how much the rent can increase every year. Landlords here can terminate only a lease if they or their close relatives want to move into the place. In Berlin, the asking rent on new leases generally can be no more than 10% above the neighborhood’s average. In 2020, Berlin shocked the property world by capping all rents for buildings built before 2014, forcing thousands of landlords to cut rents, sometimes substantially. The German constitutional court struck down the most aggressive piece of rental legislation ever enacted by a large West-ern capital two years later.

Strict anti-gentrification rules force owners in in-demand districts to consult with local authorities before conducting renovations. Anything considered luxury routinely gets turned down. After renovating an apartment and renting it out three years ago, Bourdais said he was contacted by the local authority demanding he strip out a wall-mounted toilet in the apartment and replace it with a more humble model. In another case, Bourdais took the district to court after it rejected his plan to widen a narrow bathroom in an old apartment by 8 inches so occupants could reach the shower without climbing over the toilet. He won the case after 18 months, during which the place stayed empty. “You have civil servants who actually spend their days on online marketplaces looking for this stuff,” he said. In 2021, Berlin prohibited building owners from splitting them into condos. The ban was intended to prevent longtime tenants from being squeezed out by out-of-town buyers. Instead, it drastically cut the supply of single apartments for sale. Berlin’s cocktail of hyper-regulation and undersupply has fractured the market.

On one side there is the official market for new leases, where rents are highest and rising the fastest. On the other are occupied apartments, where rents have risen only modestly. It isn’t uncommon for tenants who have lived in their homes for more than a decade to pay a few hundred euros a month for large apartments in central districts. Between the two is a growing gray market where leases are hoarded and traded, often illegally. Contracts are unwritten, rents are paid in cash and tenants can be evicted overnight. Many tenants who move out of their apartments hold on to their leases and sublet, often at a hefty, tax-free profit. If they ever move back in, they can do so at the old rent level, not at the higher market price. “It isn’t a gray-market situation, it is a black-market situation,” said Roman Heidrich, lead director of residential valuation at Jones Lang La-Salle in Berlin.

One reason market rents are rising fast is that two-thirds of rental apartments currently listed in Berlin are now furnished, short-term rentals. These are exempt from rental caps, and their proliferation has been a big factor in driving up new rents. Christian Gaebler, the state minister who oversees housing for the city of Berlin, agrees that the city’s political climate hasn’t always been friendly to property developers and that some districts have been overzealous in implementing rules like the bans on luxury renovations.




Berlin is one of the fastest-growing capitals in Europe, yet since 2008, it hasn’t built enough new housing to keep up. KRISZTIAN BOCSI/ BLOOMBERG NEWS

“Slowing gentrification is important, but it shouldn’t be pursued ad absurdum,” he said. “We can’t fight exclusion by sticking to communal toilets and coal ovens.” So Berlin’s new left-right coalition government is putting aside attempts to regulate rents and trying to encourage construction instead. Gaebler is streamlining the building code, creating incentives to build social housing and working on a “build-faster act” that aims to expedite planning applications and work permits. Still, economists doubt Berlin can reach its goal of 20,000 new apartments a year soon.

And not everyone is happy with the build-more approach. One group of activists wants to stage a referendum on a bill that would force the government to seize some 240,000 apartments from large private- sector investors. If they do, they could win: A nonbinding version of the referendum got 57.6% of votes in 2021. Critics have said such a vast-scale expropriation may be illegal—or at the very least cost Berlin tens of billions in damages while not adding a single new home.
 
And they are trying a new approach: Build more.
I do not quite know where bloomberg gets its history from, but this is not actually a new idea. Believe it or not, cities did not actually start big. They started small and then grew as more people moved there and built houses. If anything the new thing is restricting building, not building new housing to meet the needs of an urbanising population.
 
The article, btw, is from the WSJ. I think that Berlin has been restricting building for a "long time" as a way to keep housing costs under control. Since that has stopped working, they are trying "something new": allowing more construction.

Berlin is one of the fastest-growing capitals in Europe, yet since 2008, it hasn’t built enough to keep up. Since 2014, the number of available rentals has dropped by half. The vacancy rate is under 1% and economists think the city needs some 200,000 additional apartments.
 
they are trying a new approach: Build more.

[...]So Berlin [is] trying to encourage construction instead.
I really believe it's this simple. Every other thing people have tried in all of these cities around the world all dance around the core problem: There isn't enough housing. Of course there are myriad challenges to achieving that, and in some cases it's a real Gordian Knot, but those tangled threads, when you look at them, always seem to be the products of systems designed to make constructing new housing harder, and in many cases it was deliberate (e.g. century-old prohibitions on multi-family housing, which were intended to keep immigrants out). It's frequently about protecting property values of existing homes, which leads to NIMBYism. People might say it's about preserving the culture or tradition or character of a city or neighborhood - for example, limits on buildings above a certain height - but don't let that fool you, it's about maintaining the value of the existing properties. And in almost every place where the housing supply is falling short of demand, the problem has gone unaddressed for decades, and the shortage is now in the tens or hundreds of thousands of units. An article I read about Boston said the shortage was ~40,000 and growing, and it's not even a huge city (~5m in the metro area). That article mentioned that the metro area had added almost 300,000 jobs in the previous decade, but had built a little over 100,000 new housing units in that same period. This article was from 2019, so it's surely gotten worse since then, while newspapers and radio stations have published article after article about the housing crisis. Talking about rent control or the number of people living alone today or AirBnBs is just fiddling while Rome (and Paris and London and New York and...) burns. Build. More. Apartments. You. Dolts. It's not easy, but it is simple.
 
Every other thing people have tried in all of these cities around the world all dance around the core problem: There isn't enough housing.

The core problem is that housing is treated as a commodity to be sold for profit, to be owned as an ever-appreciating asset. The imperative of profit leads to all the other problems including undersupply, because as long as housing is privately owned it is in the interest of those who own it to restrict the supply.
 
Last edited:
The core problem is that housing is treated as a commodity to be sold for profit.
Yes. It's one of the things that a free market economy seems incapable of providing, both in theory and in practice. Transportation infrastructure is another one, and of course housing and transportation infrastructure are inextricably linked, so problems in each exacerbate problems in the other. And like housing, insufficient and failing infrastructure is a problem that's gone unaddressed for decades, so the mole hill has become a mountain. Now, we can add water to the list of concerns that's only going to get worse. We need water for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people, for at least the next century; there's almost no money to be made off it, and we have to do it anyway.
 
And at the other end of the spectrum, China has solved its housing problem (and many transportation problems too) and people are still upset because the excess housing problem has decreased the value of the houses they own. Neither system works well. Billions of dollars (Yuan) of resources have been wasted on housing projects that will never be used. In each case the priorities are wrong. Nobody wants to just provide affordable housing to the bottom half of the social order.
 
And at the other end of the spectrum, China has solved its housing problem (and many transportation problems too) and people are still upset because the excess housing problem has decreased the value of the houses they own. Neither system works well. Billions of dollars (Yuan) of resources have been wasted on housing projects that will never be used. In each case the priorities are wrong. Nobody wants to just provide affordable housing to the bottom half of the social order.
It would not be half as bad if they had personal bankruptcy. Over in the US you do not even need that, if you get into negative equity you can just lkeave the house with the bank, right?
 
It would not be half as bad if they had personal bankruptcy. Over in the US you do not even need that, if you get into negative equity you can just lkeave the house with the bank, right?
Yes, you can just walk away from a mortgage and the bank will take it and sell it. Our daughter bought their house from a bank that had taken it over from a delinquent owner. I do not know about personal bankruptcy in China or what "walking away" would mean. I'll ask my friends.
 
I do not know about personal bankruptcy in China
It seems there is some but not national.

Among the world’s top ten economies (2018), only China mainland, Brazil, and China’s Macao region used to not have personal bankruptcy systems. But Shenzhen, a Special Economic Zone of China mainland first provides legal rescue for honest but unfortunate individual bankrupts by enacting the Personal Bankruptcy Regulation of Shenzhen Special Economic Zone (hereinafter “Regulation”) on August 31, 2020.​
 
I sent a message to one of my China friends to get their take on how it actually works.
 
WSJ today on Chinese housing market.

It’s Too Soon to Bet on China’s Housing Turnaround

China’s troubled property market remains on shaky ground despite a raft of government policies to stabilize it—and a big jump in property developer stocks today. Beijing still needs much more forceful measures if it wants to turn around the market and stabilize the economy.
Residential home sales in China kept contracting last month, data released Wednesday showed. They fell 3.7% year over year in the first 10 months of 2023, compared with a 3.2% decline in the first nine. Property investment also remains depressed: It dropped 9.3% over the same period. That persistent and deepening weakness shows that this summer’s seemingly aggressive measures from local governments— such as lowering mortgage rates for second-time home buyers— aren’t enough to stabilize the market.
For one thing, high mortgage rates or home-purchase restrictions aren’t really the reason potential home buyers have stayed away. Instead, they have lost faith in the housing market itself and in the safety of housing as an asset class—thanks to the collapse of major property developers such as Evergrande , and the struggles of others such as Country Garden to deliver presold apartments. That has led to a vicious cycle as property developers are starved of presales revenue, pushing them further into financial difficulty.

The confidence problem extends to developers’ bankers, too. China’s central bank created a 200 billion yuan, equivalent to $28 billion, lending facility late last year to provide interest-free funding for banks willing to support developers to deliver unfinished apartments. But so far, only 5.6 billion yuan has been used, according to research company Gavekal. With all major funders for property developers—households, banks and bond investors—refusing to play ball, there is really only one source left that could revive the market smartly: the government.
That is why property stocks jumped Wednesday—Country Garden surged 7%, while Longfor rose 6%—after an unconfirmed Bloomberg report that Beijing is preparing to flex its own muscles more directly. Bloomberg said China’s central bank may provide 1 trillion yuan of funding for the country’s affordable-housing programs and urban-village renovation, mediated through policy banks and trickling down to households.

Investors are excited because there is a clear parallel with a previous policy that was key to reversing China’s last major property downturn in 2015 and 2016: a “shantytown redevelopment” program that funneled trillions through policy banks. That cash was used by local governments to subsidize households—who had their “shanties” knocked down—to buy apartments directly from developers as a replacement. The program, along with improved capital controls and abundant mortgage finance, was essential to turning around the market last time. It was also a big sop to both households and developers and rewarded the latter for their overbuilding and excessive risk taking—one reason Beijing has, presumably, been so reluctant to roll out a similar program this time around.

There are important differences this time though and an immense amount of uncertainty. It is still unclear whether such a program, if indeed it materializes, would directly help developers clear their inventories such as in 2015. And unless local governments are allowed to somehow put households with presold but undelivered apartments under the rubric of “affordable housing” or “urban village renovation,” it might not help much with the primary issue clouding the market: the delivery of unfinished housing projects.
In the past, that kind of local policy experimentation was often tolerated. But another downside of the endless corruption probes and recentralization of power under Xi Jinping is probably reduced willingness by local officials to stick out their neck.


China’s housing market is struggling as home buyers have lost faith in it. A property sales office in Qingzhou. CFOTO/ DDP/ ZUMA PRESS

Ultimately, the government may need to provide direct funding for developers to complete presold but undelivered properties. Nomura estimates that would require about 2.7 trillion yuan—nearly two orders of magnitude more than the sum of one trillion yuan in Bloomberg’s report in any case.

To put a floor under the housing market, Beijing needs to directly address households’ plummeting faith in housing as a reliable store of wealth—or allow local governments to do the same.
—Jacky Wong
 
To put a floor under the housing market, Beijing needs to directly address households’ plummeting faith in housing as a reliable store of wealth—or allow local governments to do the same.
As I understand it, in previous years the CCP had a slogan that went something like "Housing is for living in not investing". This is kind of opposite to that. right? This sort of downturn is only a problem if you view the home as a store of value. If homes are a necessary resource that we must "consume" then lower prices should be good for most people.

There is not much I agree with the CCP on, but that emphasis seemed a good one to me.
 
As I understand it, in previous years the CCP had a slogan that went something like "Housing is for living in not investing". This is kind of opposite to that. right? This sort of downturn is only a problem if you view the home as a store of value. If homes are a necessary resource that we must "consume" then lower prices should be good for most people.

There is not much I agree with the CCP on, but that emphasis seemed a good one to me.
Yes that was a slogan. Nonetheless, the Chinese housing market has been driven for years by homeowner speculation. Buying homes was the best way for people to grow their wealth so they bought one or more houses (apartments) and kept feeding demand and rising prices. When coupled with the government efforts to move rural folks into cities by building and over building even more homes, they reached the peak when the pandemic hit and everything fell apart. Xi has hundreds of millions of people who have their wealth tied up in housing. He cannot have that many folks upset. His slogan was just an attempt to cool the speculation and redirect people's thinking. It hasn't worked very well. There are plenty of houses but too many people have invested in homes that are not completed yet and the developers have no money complete them because the cash to complete them was supposed to come from new purchases. With no new demand, the developers have no cash to finish what they have started which lessens demand. It is almost a pyramid scheme. Cities are involved because they need money from fresh land sales to replenish their finances. Does that make sense?
 
Your House Made You Rich. Now Sell It.

Lots of baby boomers are going to sell their homes in the years ahead. The trick is to beat the crowd. Forget the old slogan about there never being a better time to buy a home. For baby boomers, there might never be a better time to sell. The kids are gone, the stairs aren’t going to get easier to climb, and downsizing with home prices up so sharply since the pandemic could pad out those retirement savings. Many boomers have little or no debt on their current homes and, as an added bonus, it is easy to find ready buyers with so few homes on the market. The key is beating the crowd. If boomers decided to sell en masse, the prices they would get would be a lot lower than what their home appears to be worth on paper today. Even if they can avoid it now, most are going to have to sell in the years ahead. That could put downward pressure on the prices of the types of homes they live in. Then it might not be a good time to sell anymore.

Ever since they began buying homes in the 1970s, boomers’ effect on the U.S. housing market has been profound. Because it was much more populous than the so-called silent generation that preceded it, the baby-boom generation— typically defined as those Americans born from 1946 to 1964—drastically increased the country’s need for homes. Construction ramped up, suburbs spread and home prices rose. Many boomers didn’t stop with their first home, either, opting to move into ever larger, more expensive homes as their families, and wealth, grew. Helping the process along: Through much of their prime earnings years, mortgage rates went lower and lower. In the years before the pandemic, this dynamic appeared to be shifting. An analysis from Inter-national Monetary Fund economist Marijn Bolhuis and Harvard University lecturer in economics Judd Cramer conducted just before Covid-19 hit showed that the larger homes that many boomers owned, and for homes in neighborhoods with more boomers in them, price growth and sales were underperforming other types of homes.

Then everything changed. A newfound desire for living space among younger generations, sub 3% mortgages and the boost to household balance sheets from government relief pushed demand and prices for homes—particularly those in the suburbs—skyward. And even as the pandemic faded, those price gains stuck: As of August, the S& P CoreLogic Case-Shiller national home price index was 46% above its February 2020 level. Time marches on, though, and the desire and ability of the Generation- X and millennial cohorts to ladder up into the homes the boomers will eventually vacate might be constrained.

The apparent preference many millennials, in particular, had for more urban lifestyles might have gone by the wayside. But they aren’t having as many children as boomers did, reducing the need for those extra bedrooms. Moreover, millennials and Gen Xers who are already homeowners typically still owe money on their homes at mortgage rates that are much lower than what is on offer today. Moving into a more expensive home and having to pay even more interest each month won’t work for them. Meanwhile, younger millennials and other first-time buyers are typically looking for less expensive starter homes.

A boomer selling wave won’t happen all at once, though. People are healthier in their old age than they used to be, and relative to the generations that both preceded and succeeded them, boomer balance sheets are in good shape. Having spare bedrooms for when the children and grandchildren come to visit ain’t a bad thing. “They don’t feel the pressure to move at this point,” says Cramer. The idea of “aging in place” is easy to like, but accomplishing it might not prove so easy. For some boomers, the reasons to sell, either for financial or health reasons, will come sooner rather than later. When that happens, they will need to not only find someone to buy their old house, they will need to find someplace to move into.



ANDY WARD

Jennifer Molinsky, who directs the Housing an Aging Society Program at Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, thinks there won’t be a “great senior selloff” in the housing market, but she worries about where aging boomers are going to live. Many people over 75 don’t have the financial wherewithal to move into assisted living, and the supply of age-appropriate homes is limited. Even now, rather than aging in place, many older boomers might be more accurately described as stuck in place. “Smaller, accessible stuff is hard to find,” she says.
Housing bottlenecks could ensue as more big homes come on the market, and the supply of smaller, accessible ones strains to meet demand. Boomers who are able to make the move now could be happier for it.
—Justin Lahart



generations.jpg
 
Top Bottom