From a classical-liberal, Austrian, and free-market perspective, many will agree with the general framework that the Pope has outlined above, particularly those who accept an Aristotelian, Thomistic, and Rothbardian approach to the ethical foundations of voluntary exchange. However, when Benedict transitions from a philosophical framework to specific economic analysis and policy recommendations, particularly as he tries to carefully maintain a “middle of the road” approach to the logic of the market and economic crises, many will take exception. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10378/caritas-in-iustitia-distributiva/
Caritas in Iustitia Distributiva
Previous post: Shocking News: People Take Free Money!
Next post: Hangover Theory: How Paul Krugman Has Misconceived Austrian Theory
{ 45 comments }
Here is an office which opposes every scientific discovery, from heliocentrism to evolution to gene sequencing and life extension (until all the heretics are long dead and the truth blinding), which proclaims that condoms cause AIDS, that young girls who are impregnated by their fathers should not be allowed abortions, and that life on earth is (and ought to be) miserable, sinful, and irrelevant.
Is anyone surprised that this evil, vicious, anti-life, half-embalmed creep is wrong on economics too?
I’m going to report my earlier comment since it’s just as relevant:
If you ignore the context of a document and of the author’s beliefs, you can find a quote to support just about anything. I’m sure I could find excerpts within the Communist Manifesto which can be twisted to appear to support capitalism. However, the reality is that the Vatican combines a Marxist European political philosophy with the evil moral philosophy of the bible. No the Pope not going to come out for socialism outright – 100 million dead victims of Communism make that a difficult evasion to state outright. But the moral philosophy of Christianity will always lead Christians to support principles which hold socialism as morally superior to free markets and individual rights.
His Holiness should pray to his statues, talk about his myths and legends, and otherwise keep his thoughts to himself.
I was with him up to “”to love someone is to desire another person’s good” (#7)”. After that I lost him, especially when he used Love, the highest value known to Man, as a tool or a device. I wonder if he gingerly makes the sign of the cross everytime he walks by a copy of Atlas Shrugged. It’s probably banned at the Vatican.
As a Catholic, it is very sad to see comments which disparage the Sign of the Cross, which is a sacramental. I have many issues with the current regime in the Vatican, I have serious doubts about their legitimacy, yet I have attained the wisdom and understanding to know that you don’t reject or disparage the Christian faith just because you have legitimate issues with the people in the Vatican.
Recall the politician in the White House who made a comment about how a crisis should always be put to good use. This is EXACTLY the same formula that was used, by the financiers, at the time of the Protestant Revolution.
Personally, I see Benedict as a pawn in the same old financial game, though now the financiers are technically bankrupt. Bankrupt organizations have but two options – default and restructure or use every tactic in the world to make your group larger. Should the financiers and their political cronies lose their positions and offices, and if investigations follow, it is probable that many of the holders of high office would be found guilty of criminal activity. This is why we are witnessing the insane push for larger government, at a time when the government faces default and the only viable course is the reduction of federal spending and the downsizing of federal government.
Caritas in Iustitia Distributiva
Latin is often used by Church leaders as a good cover for the contradictions presented.
The church is not in the business of producing the goods but ‘expert’ in how they should be distributed.
I am surprised by the author of this article to bring in the Pope in a discussion of economics.
Church leaders who profess to be experts in Ethics and Economics first should take lessons in logic or keep quiet, of course they will do neither. As a last bastion of their ‘reason’ they will always fall back on Faith.
So this Pope person, who is in no way a respectable social scientist, actually deducts the wrong social and economic analysis from his ethical framework, which is in no way special to the Catholic Church and/or Catholicism as a religion?
It is interesting to see how high placed religious people cannot uphold the ethical doctrines they promote. Especially in organized religion through the ages this is an unique event indeed.
@ Anna who said “yet I have attained the wisdom and understanding to know that you don’t reject or disparage the Christian faith just because you have legitimate issues with the people in the Vatican.”
So true, instead one just rejects and/or disparages the Christian faith with stone-cold science. Which logically means one can take issue with the people in the Vatican and/or any organized religion representative at the same time and/or that taking any issue with these people is legitimate.
It’s always depressing to see supposedly independent thinkers lamely adopting the Establishment view when it comes to the Church. Anyone who seriously argues that the Church “opposes every scientific discovery” is an uneducated propagandist (to put it extremely kindly) who knows absolutely nothing about the history of science apart from what he heard some guy on TV say. Try reading the actual scholarly literature on the history of science sometime, as opposed to the cartoon version you got in second grade and are for some reason hanging on to for dear life.
@David V
Here is a lecture you might find instructive on the historical relationship between the church and science: Origins of Science in the Age of Faith.
Tom Woods, the catholic church IS the establishment. The catholic church is a state and has been a partner of other states for almost two thousand years.
“However, the reality is that the Vatican combines a Marxist European political philosophy with the evil moral philosophy of the bible.”
Backs away slowly…
Tom,
Hasen’t the Church opposed at least some of them, and held illiberal views on the marketplace of ideas?
Dr. Woods wrote an excellent book to expose prejudices against the role of the Catholic Church in the progress of mankind:
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387
Instead of passing judgement and attacking the Church with antiquated propaganda, some readers would benefit from reading first this enlightening book.
I take the point here to be that value is created merely by exchaging things, and that this point, even if understood by central planners, can’t be taken into account because it requires knowing the individual values each person places on everything at the present time (which changes constantly). If so, excellent point.
“she does have a mission to truth to accomplish”
Good one, sir.
Of course the “scientists” in the Middle Ages through the Renaissance were usually in the Church, so in that sense the Church did further science. But in those days, almost all truly educated people were in the Church, because the Church had a monopoly on education. This is the same Church at one time presided over by Pope Gregory, who considered studying Latin or Greek grammar to be a frivolous waste of time. Not exactly a valuer of learning for its own sake, Pope Gregory. This is also the same Church that sentenced Galileo to house arrest, censored his “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems”, and found him suspect of heresy after he continued to defend heliocentrism after it had been declared contrary to the Scriptures by the Church.
The Church also opposed usury, of course, until 1830, and furthered the idea of the “just price”, which has a certain intellectual resemblance to the labor theory of value, at the very least.
It’s hard to say that the state of learning would be better had the Church never existed, basically because a Europe without the Church would have been so different there is no telling what history would have had in store for us. But saying that the Church has always been the unalloyed friend of science, free trade, or learning in general, is ludicrous.
My own analysis of why and how Pope Benedict thinks:
After an official of the Roman state ordered the execution of Jesus (Yeshua or Yahshua in the English transliteration of his Hebrew name.), a group of his ardent, mostly Jewish disciples formed a voluntary movement that sought to incorporate his teaching and way of living into their own lives. The group or movement eventually became known as the Christian church. It was never perfect, as no human institution ever is.
As the church grew in size, fewer and fewer of its members had first-hand knowledge of Jesus. The written record of his life was sparse, and his wisdom was perhaps subject to dilution and even distortion due to weaknesses of the oral tradition and flaws in human nature. I think it is only natural that some of Jesus’ principles were misunderstood entirely by the church, even soon after he was no longer with them to correct their erroneous thinking, as he so often did while he was with them.
Early in its history the church was considered dangerous and proscribed by the Roman state. Many Christians suffered the same fate as Jesus at the hands of Rome, which was indubitably the most violent institution in the world at the time.
A watershed event in the history of the church occurred when the emperor Constantine subsumed the church into the violent Roman empire. Although it surely didn’t happen overnight nor with the stroke of a pen, in due course the church was transformed from the state’s proscribed enemy and victim of its violence into a beneficiary of the empire’s violence, happily sharing in its tax booty as the now-official church of Rome. For a long time thereafter, and even to this day in a few remaining places around the globe, the Christian church has been officially allied with the violent state. It is ludicrous to think that seventeen-hundred years of colluding with government and sharing in its forcibly obtained revenues hasn’t warped the character of the church and the thinking of church members and church leaders.
Today the Christian church, including the Catholic branch, traces its lineage both to Jesus and to the official church of Rome under Constantine and thereafter. Unfortunately, the pacifistic principles Jesus taught are incompatible with the principle of power and force upon which all state governments are erected, One need only read the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels to know whether the church of today is more like Jesus or its Roman precursor.
Here are a couple of examples of things Jesus enunciated, which seem to have been lost by the modern church that claims him as its inspiration:
Matthew 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Matthew 23:5-6 (Jesus referring to “the teachers of the law and the Pharisees.”)
“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues.”
“How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”
It didn’t.
bedwere
Recommends the book, ‘How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization’. No doubt they have impacted the Western civilization in both positively and negatively, but to say they built it is an exaggeration.
Anyway the readers have left their comments on amazon. So I was curious and I tried to read the book. It was disappointing. It looks like a book written by an apologist for Catholicism. Thomas Wood seemed to have a conclusion in mind and selected specific truths from history specifically to support it, while ignoring truths that do not.
But do not take my word for it. I am not without bias. But then neither is Thomas Wood, he is a convert to Catholicism and likes to think he made a good decision.
Yet the book will I am sure expose one to interesting lesser known aspects of history.
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387
For those who have not advanced beyond Intro 101 to Anarchocapitalism:
1) The puzzle is not how a supposedly illiberal office produces illiberal thinking–a first grader can do that–but how the institution without which the development of the marginalist revolution and capitalism would have been impossible recommends interventionist economic policies.
2) The only way to cleanse the Catholic tradition from this contamination is to expose the internal inconsistencies of the Social Doctrine of the Church and show how the essence of Catholicism is theologically not only perfectly compatible with but that it will lead to anarchocapitalism. (Would attacking and dismissing the very institution that made anarchocapitalism possible not be a performative contradiction of sorts?)
3) The historical origins of capitalism itself can be traced at least partially to the balance of power that existed in the Middle Ages between the Catholic Church and the centers of political power. Without the Church, such development would have been impossible. Ralph Raico has lectured and Hans Hoppe has written about this topic.
4) From a theoretical perspective, the intellectual origin of the marginalist revolution is solidly anchored in the writings of Mediaeval Spanish Jesuit priests and Dominican monks, all of them Catholic. Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, Frederick Hayek, Emil Kauder, Murray Rothbard, Alejandro Chafuen, Thomas Woods, Guido Hulsmann and Jesus Huerta de Soto have written extensively about this topic. Indeed, the Mises Institute is holding a conference this year in Salamanca to celebrate this connection.
Benedict is one with the church hierarchy that presided over a millenium of economic stagnation, and tortured people like Galileo for seeking truth that was inconvenient. All we have here is an isolated economic illiterate who has never had to deal with the modern world or earn a living.
I’m surprised he doesn’t run for office.
Since several posts seem to be quick to condemn the errors of the Church, in particular the Galileo affair, may I remind readers that not all historians and philosophers of science agree that Copernicus & Co had proposed a better or more accurate theory of the cosmos and that therefore there was no good scientific reason at the time to accept helio-centrism.
Thomas S. Kuhn has explored this approach in detail in his books “The Copernican Revolution†and “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,†making a strong case that when scientific revolutions like this one take place, advocates of rival theories fail agree on common scientific standards within which to evaluate their observations; therefore, the shift from one standard to the other (a “paradigm shiftâ€) obeys imprecise values rather than objective rules.
Ludwig von Mises himself claims that the data collected from experiments in the natural sciences can be used to make certain inferences about nature but not with full certainty in the direction of causality, making them epistemologically unsatisfactory (see page 31 of Human Action).
Clearly, not only is there enough room to reject the incursion of the cult of the scientific method in the social science of Economics, as the Austrian School loudly asserts, but there is additional room to reject it as absolute even in the temple of the natural sciences.
At least Galileo was not burn at the stake…unlike Giordano Bruno. Oops.
There you have it. The catholic church building civilization by murdering philosophers.
burnt* sorry
allow me to give ned netterville (above) a plug for his masterful “jesus of nazareth – illegal-tax protester”.
click on his name and then download the paper.
he’s too modest by half. the work deserves exposure to the mises’ community.
This is the best analysis of the encyclical that I have read. Thanks! It’s a shame that socialists believe that the document supports them totally. That is a result of the vague language and attempt to stay in the middle between socialism and capitalism.
It’s clear from some of the comments that many atheists want no one in the libertarian movement but other atheists. Their attitudes drive Christians away. Atheists seem to enjoy being part of a small, insignificant but pure movement. As long as their hatred of religion is pure, they don’t seem to care whether they have any influence on society or not.
Those of us who want a libertarian movement that will influence America, and not just a self-congratulatory men’s club, want every liberty-loving individual we can get. So we feel the pain of libertarian Catholics who are torn between loyalty to the Pope and the truth.
Gabriel: “4) From a theoretical perspective, the intellectual origin of the marginalist revolution is solidly anchored in the writings of Mediaeval Spanish Jesuit priests and Dominican monks, all of them Catholic.”
Excellent point! Those among us infected with the “scientist” virus think that our modern freedoms are the inevitable result of the evolution of societies and thought. But that flies in the face of history. China and the Ottoman Empire stood a much better chance of developing modern science than backward, unwahsed Europeans of the 16th century. Against all odds, freedom from tyranny and capitalism were born in Western Europe in the 16th century. Why there and not the world centers of wealth and science at the time in China and Instanbul?
The answer lies in culture, and religion is the chief determinant of culture. The late Scholastics laid the foundations for our modern liberty and capitalism. The Protestant Dutch Republic instantiated those principles and created the first modern, capitalist state.
As a non-Catholic Christian I find one of the Pope’s thoughts very disturbing on a theological basis – “there is urgent need of a true world political authority.” This is a precursor for the appearance of the Antichrist. Has the Pope gone stark raving mad? This should be the last thing he advocates.
The fact that science is always a work in progress doesn’t remotely excuse attempts to suppress scientific or philosophical thought of any kind. In fact, the younger scientists and “amateur” scientists like Galileo are always discovering facts and ideas that older established scientists find threatening and offensive, which is why Russell and others have observed that science advances as older scientists die off.
At essay’s end, there is a “…” from Deus Caritas Est
[Note (8)] which pontificates:
“we…(need) a State which…combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need…”
State spontaneity? Come ON! This could give Ivory Towerism a bad name! With the Papal State as the benchmark, however……(nuf sed).
The quote from Deus Caritas Est ends with the well-worn canard to the effect that we shall NEVER make social structures, or rules, so perfect that we can cease to do good. Unmask that materialism. Go ahead–make my day!
Hi Ho!
“It’s clear from some of the comments that many atheists want no one in the libertarian movement but other atheists. ”
Or perhaps it’s clear that some people are not interested in historical facts, but propaganda. This is not about atheism, but about the actions of the state-like entity known as “catholic church”
How interesting, Gabriel Vidal is actively participating in the blog about his own article. Every topic that touches the relationship of religion to economics is bound to be hot. I have one point to make with regards to the Copernican heliocentric theory. If at the time it did not seem a more accurate description of the universe then there was no need for an inquisition, if it did, then the inquisition would have been necessary, but also wrong.
Now as for the relationship between religon and Capitalism, Hans Herman Hoppe has an interesting lecture on that.
http://media.mises.org/mp3/hoppe/5.mp3
There is high compatibility between Christianity and Capitalism. Hinduism and Islam it seems are the dominant religions that are the less compatible with Capitalism. Traditional religions of the far east including Taoism, Shintoism and Confucianism are much more compatible. But all this is in history. We live in a much freer world where such norms do not hold out that well. The Middle East is oil rich, and India is one of the world’s fastest growing economies.
But still I find it interesting that the predominantly Catholic countries of today are in Latin America and all these countries have very socialistic leaning. Latin Americans apparently does not find any incompatibility between their Catholicism and their socialism. Catholic Americans do not see any incompatibility between their capitalism and their catholicism. I suppose the most faithful would even claim that their faith informs their views. The word ‘versatility’ comes to mind but so does the word ‘inconsistency’. It could just be that people are doing what they intuitively feel is right and then finding justification for it in their faith. Faith and intuition have very similar meaning.
Juan,
I mean this in the kindest and gentlest way-Perhaps you should take a time out for a while. You will be in a much better position comment about the Catholic Church after taking 10-12 years off from your public commentary and instead dedicate yourself to researching the Church’s history and teachings…please start with the books by Dr. Woods and Dr. Raico’s lectures…although then again, 10 years is probably not even enough time to speak authoritatively on this institution that has been around for 2,000 years and has made it’s mark on nearly every aspect of life…Myself, I am in year 3 of studying the Church…and it is the most exciting and thrilling intellectual experience of my life! And i’m not even Catholic but man do I want to be!
Here’s a little note from Adam Smith, Dan. Maybe you should keep it in mind when reading apologists for the catholic church.
“In the state in which things were, through the greater part of Europe, during the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, and for some time both before and after that period, the constitution of the church of Rome may be considered as the most formidable combination that ever was formed against the authority and security of civil government, as well as against the liberty, reason, and happiness of mankind, which can flourish only where civil government is able to protect them.”
italian taxpayers are forced to devolve “l’uno per mille” (one in a thousand) towards charity. unless otherwise specified by the taxpayer, the recipient of this “charity” is the vatican. this amounts to a state subsidy of billions of euro. so the vatican has a conflict on interest in pronouncements on the state.
to abhilash nambiar:
i too have often mused over the reasons why the catholic colonies have done poorly (philippines/sick man of asia, and latin america), but maybe it was the way spain and portugal administered the colonies, and not religion as such.
fundamentalist wrote:
“It’s clear from some of the comments that many atheists want no one in the libertarian movement but other atheists. Their attitudes drive Christians away.”
Au contraire, mon frere. I don’t care what a person’s religion is, as long as it can be integrated in his mind with the Western tradition of freedom. I am actually of the opinion, though, that some people do want to drive atheists out of the libertarian movement. I am so tired of people telling me that if I am an atheist then I can’t consistently be a (classical) liberal, or that we will never get back to a truly liberal tradition without going back to the old-time religion. This is all so much nonsense.
Abhilash Nambiar wrote:
“Latin Americans apparently does not find any incompatibility between their Catholicism and their socialism.”
I find Christianity very compatible with socialism. After all, Jesus said that the way to follow him is to give away all of one’s worldly goods. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)
Interesting to note how ignorant, anti-Catholic invective is tolerated here, yet any discussions of racial differences leads to the thread being immediately closed down and the posts flushed down the memory hole.
Let us return to the sheep. Churches have traditionally relied on voluntary contributions to fund their works of charity. If they made the contributions compulsory members would vote with their feet leaving in flocks. Distributive justice is where voluntary members are free to give or not.
The American garage or yard sale is a wholesome modern example of the free market at work. Owners and holders of goods and services trade honestly when a contract is made without coercion. Commutative justice is where trading is free of coercion by either party or any third party.
The American Garage Sale Market has been quite strong this year in this area. Open access to this market involves only a garage or yard or the willingness to strike a deal with a garage owner to include your goods. Opportunity Justice is where participation is voluntary without prejudice.
Criminal and civil justice insists that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Justice applied locally under the rule of just laws builds and respects the sovereignty of the community.
Socialism, marxism, fascism and mercantilism are philosophies of oppression. These philosophies involve using the coercive forces of government often in the name of the greater good or the common welfare. The force of laws, regulations, and taxation backed with fines, imprisonment, and violence too often oppress one to the benefit of another. Oppression never improves everyone’s welfare. It is never for the common good.
Capitalism is the embrace of freely made transactions between individuals free of coercion by either trading party or third party. One purpose of the Constitution was to limit government interference in the free movement of capital in the form of coin, goods or services.
No human organization is without human failings. One redeeming aspect of churches in the United States is their volunteers. Can many other volunteer organizations boast a similar longevity?
Mr. Vidal, thank you for this thought provoking post. I have been passing it around. I am not sure I have the definitions of these types of justice correct. So I went with the literal meaning. Paul.
Very nice article. I specifically enjoyed the observation that the “general framework” is very much compatible with austro-libertarian thought. Also thanks for spelling out the exact points in the current encyclical where these pricinples get abandoned.
It would be interesting to see the church turn and follow through on that framework, build on the tradition of the late spanish scholastics, and draw the ethos it preaches to its honest austro-libertarian consequences.
Of course, for some of the commenters here that’d be like the worst nightmare coming true.
I believe the history of science within the catholic civilization is mixed. Certainly it was retarded with respect to medical science, not only by the prohibition of autopsies but by rigid adherence to the writings of Galen and the theories of humors.
Practical physicians such as barbers were socially ostracized and women who practiced herbal medicine and advanced their craft through experimentation were always under the threat of being prosecuted for witchcraft.
Did anyone really expect a man of authority to think authority wasn’t the solution to the world’s problems?
Give me a break!
This is as unsurprising as Pope Innocent III’s reaction to the Magna Carta.
The only moral authority anyone needs is that of a sound moral argument. The rest is just fancy hats
The comment about the only moral authority anyone needs is amusing. This authoritative statement fits into the austro-libertarian position about as well, as the church policies “fit” with their own ethos. There’s very special kind of sad irony in all the anti-church posts here.
I wonder what part of the libertarian worldview makes some people feel entitled to all the rants. And how comes together their know in the economics, with them bringing up the sunken costs of Galileo and other historical events.
I mean, call the encyclical for what it really is: a terribly vasted opportunity. As is also each day that goes by, with church keeping its burden of logical errors stuck between their basic principles, which most of us could sign onto, and the actual policies that the hierarchy pursues.
In theory, it should be enough to call christians out on simply sticking to what they preach. This would either demask it all as dishonest, as not following through on the stated principles, or it would help to allign the actual policies to match with the ethos.
As an austro-libertarian, the latter is all I can ask for.
When it comes down to it, Wood’s book is just pro-catholic propaganda. The fact of the matter is that the catholic church is a corrupt institution and always has been, and that catholicism is a false ideology. This is true independantly of political questions.
Benedict XVI pontificates that “Economic life…needs…forms of redistribution governed by politics”, and that “action is required …implanting public welfare structures…increasing openness… to forms of economic activity marked by quotas…â€
He advocates “distributive justice” and “political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution”. Finally, he calls for “world political authority”
There’s no question that this Encyclical is dangerous.
Pope Benedict writes that “Love is God’s greatest gift to humanityâ€. This is true to the extent that God is Love and Christ redeemed the world, but I submit that free will is God’s greatest gift to humanity – Love is made present to man and woman as he/she freely chooses Love. Caritas in Veritate is dangerous because it imperils free will by subordinating the individual to the will of the state.
President Obama – on a telephone conference yesterday with religious leaders – said that it is the “moral obligation†of the nation to provide universal health care.
On the Bill O’Reilly show yesterday – go ahead and laugh if you will, but arguably, it’s the case of Fox News v. MSNBC where policy is made in America and not in any case before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court as now Justice Sotomayer so infamously remarked – on the Bill O’Reilly show on a segment he called “what would Jesus do†about health care, a woman introduced as a “progressive catholic†referenced the Pope’s Encyclical as support for nationalized medicine and explained that the Pope called for government(s) to step in where the marketplace has failed.
Salvation history teaches that the fall of humanity was caused by the individual acts of disobedience of Adam and Eve and that our redemption is the result of individual acts of charity. Fallen man and woman were saved by the acts of obedience and love of our Redeemer and co-Redemptrix – “be it unto me according to thy word†(Luke 1:38); “not my will, but thine, be done.†(Luke 22:39).
A catholic talk show host can inform the public that increased government intervention in the free market (see the Social Security Act of 1935, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, the Employment Retirement Security Income Act of 1974) is the cause of higher cost and reduced access to health care in the United States – that civil authority is the problem not the solution….
And the lay ministry can work to set the record straight that Christ’s exhortations to charity were at once volitional and individual – never once in His infinite Wisdom did Christ implicate the state in His ministry – or call for state action in the service of God’s Will.
This latter task though is the charge of the Church. In this latest Encyclical, by urging that society be reformed by the power of the state, I respectfully submit that Pope Benedict fails the faithful in the Church’s essential salvific mission.
I like the valuable info you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently. I’m quite sure I’ll learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!
Comments on this entry are closed.