Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks

Calls for a Universal Basic Income have been increasing, most recently as part of the Green New Deal introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and supported in the last month by at least 40 members of Congress. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a monthly payment to all adults with no strings attached, similar to Social Security. Critics say the Green New Deal asks too much of the rich and upper-middle-class taxpayers who will have to pay for it, but taxing the rich is not what the resolution proposes. It says funding would primarily come from the federal government, “using a combination of the Federal Reserve, a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks,” and other vehicles.

The Federal Reserve alone could do the job. It could buy “Green” federal bonds with money created on its balance sheet, just as the Fed funded the purchase of $3.7 trillion in bonds in its “quantitative easing” program to save the banks. The Treasury could also do it. The Treasury has the constitutional power to issue coins in any denomination, even trillion dollar coins. What prevents legislators from pursuing those options is the fear of hyperinflation from excess “demand” (spendable income) driving prices up. But in fact the consumer economy is chronically short of spendable income, due to the way money enters the consumer economy. We actually need regular injections of money to avoid a “balance sheet recession” and allow for growth, and a UBI is one way to do it.

The pros and cons of a UBI are hotly debated and have been discussed elsewhere. The point here is to show that it could actually be funded year after year without driving up taxes or prices. New money is continually being added to the money supply, but it is added as debt created privately by banks. (How banks rather than the government create most of the money supply today is explained on the Bank of England website here.) A UBI would replace money-created-as-debt with debt-free money – a “debt jubilee” for consumers – while leaving the money supply for the most part unchanged; and to the extent that new money was added, it could help create the demand needed to fill the gap between actual and potential productivity.

The Debt Overhang Crippling Economies

The “bank money” composing most of the money in circulation is created only when someone borrows, and today businesses and consumers are burdened with debts that are higher than ever before. In 2018, credit card debt alone exceeded $1 trillion, student debt exceeded $1.5 trillion, auto loan debt exceeded $1.1 trillion, and non-financial corporate debt hit $5.7 trillion. When businesses and individuals pay down old loans rather than taking out new loans, the money supply shrinks, causing a “balance sheet recession.” In that situation, the central bank, rather than removing money from the economy (as the Fed is doing now), needs to add money to fill the gap between debt and the spendable income available to repay it.

Debt always grows faster than the money available to repay it. One problem is the interest, which is not created along with the principal, so more money is always owed back than was created in the original loan. Beyond that, some of the money created as debt is held off the consumer market by “savers” and investors who place it elsewhere, making it unavailable to companies selling their wares and the wage-earners they employ. The result is a debt bubble that continues to grow until it is not sustainable and the system collapses, in the familiar death spiral euphemistically called the “business cycle.” As economist Michael Hudson shows in his 2018 book And Forgive Them Their Debts, this inevitable debt overhang was corrected historically with periodic “debt jubilees” – debt forgiveness – something he argues we need to do again today.

For governments, a debt jubilee could be effected by allowing the central bank to buy government securities and hold them on its books. For individuals, one way to do it fairly across the board would be with a UBI.

Why a UBI Need Not Be Inflationary

In a 2018 book called The Road to Debt Bondage: How Banks Create Unpayable Debt, political economist Derryl Hermanutz proposes a central-bank-issued UBI of one thousand dollars per month, credited directly to people’s bank accounts. Assuming this payment went to all US residents over 18, or about 241 million people, the outlay would be close to $3 trillion annually. For people with overdue debt, Hermanutz proposes that it automatically go to pay down those debts. Since money is created as loans and extinguished when they are repaid, that portion of a UBI disbursement would be extinguished along with the debt.

People who were current on their debts could choose whether or not to pay them down, but many would also no doubt go for that option. Hermanutz estimates that roughly half of a UBI payout could be extinguished in this way through mandatory and voluntary loan repayments. That money would not increase the money supply or demand. It would just allow debtors to spend on necessities with debt-free money rather than hocking their futures with unrepayable debt.

He estimates that another third of a UBI disbursement would go to “savers” who did not need the money for expenditures. This money, too, would not be likely to drive up consumer prices, since it would go into investment and savings vehicles rather than circulating in the consumer economy. That leaves only about one-sixth of payouts, or $500 billion, that would actually be competing for goods and services; and that sum could easily be absorbed by the “output gap” between actual and forecasted productivity.

According to a July 2017 paper from the Roosevelt Institute called “What Recovery? The Case for Continued Expansionary Policy at the Fed”:

GDP remains well below both the long-run trend and the level predicted by forecasters a decade ago. In 2016, real per capita GDP was 10% below the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) 2006 forecast, and shows no signs of returning to the predicted level.

The report showed that the most likely explanation for this lackluster growth was inadequate demand. Wages have remained stagnant; and before producers will produce, they need customers knocking on their doors.

In 2017, the US Gross Domestic Product was $19.4 trillion. If the economy is running at 10% below full capacity, $2 trillion could be injected into the economy every year without creating price inflation. It would just generate the demand needed to stimulate an additional $2 trillion in GDP. In fact a UBI might pay for itself, just as the G.I. Bill produced a sevenfold return from increased productivity after World War II.

The Evidence of China

That new money can be injected year after year without triggering price inflation is evident from a look at China. In the last 20 years, its M2 money supply has grown from just over 10 trillion yuan to 80 trillion yuan ($11.6T), a nearly 800% increase. Yet the inflation rate of its Consumer Price Index (CPI) remains a modest 2.2%.

Why has all that excess money not driven prices up? The answer is that China’s Gross Domestic Product has grown at the same fast clip as its money supply. When supply (GDP) and demand (money) increase together, prices remain stable.

Whether or not the Chinese government would approve of a UBI, it does recognize that to stimulate productivity, the money must get out there first; and since the government owns 80% of China’s banks, it is in a position to borrow money into existence as needed. For “self-funding” loans – those that generate income (fees for rail travel and electricity, rents for real estate) – repayment extinguishes the debt along with the money it created, leaving the net money supply unchanged. When loans are not repaid, the money they created is not extinguished; but if it goes to consumers and businesses that then buy goods and services with it, demand will still stimulate the production of supply, so that supply and demand rise together and prices remain stable.

Without demand, producers will not produce and workers will not get hired, leaving them without the funds to generate supply, in a vicious cycle that leads to recession and depression. And that cycle is what our own central bank is triggering now.

The Fed Tightens the Screws

Rather than stimulating the economy with new demand, the Fed has been engaging in “quantitative tightening.” On December 19, 2018, it raised the fed funds rate for the ninth time in 3 years, despite a “brutal” stock market in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average had already lost 3,000 points in 2-½ months. The Fed is still struggling to reach even its modest 2% inflation target, and GDP growth is trending down, with estimates at only 2-2.7% for 2019. So why did it again raise rates, over the protests of commentators including the president himself?

For its barometer, the Fed looks at whether the economy has hit “full employment,” which it considers to be 4.7% unemployment, taking into account the “natural rate of unemployment” of people between jobs or voluntarily out of work. At full employment, workers are expected to demand more wages, causing prices to rise. But unemployment is now officially at 3.7% – beyond technical full employment – and neither wages nor consumer prices have shot up. There is obviously something wrong with the theory, as is evident from a look at Japan, where prices have long refused to rise despite a serious lack of workers.

The official unemployment figures are actually misleading. Including short-term discouraged workers, the rate of US unemployed or underemployed workers as of May 2018 was 7.6%, double the widely reported rate. When long-term discouraged workers are included, the real unemployment figure was 21.5%. Beyond that large untapped pool of workers, there is the seemingly endless supply of cheap labor from abroad and the expanding labor potential of robots, computers and machines. In fact the economy’s ability to generate supply in response to demand is far from reaching full capacity today.

Our central bank is driving us into another recession based on bad economic theory. Adding money to the economy for productive, non-speculative purposes will not drive up prices so long as materials and workers (human or mechanical) are available to create the supply necessary to meet demand; and they are available now. There will always be price increases in particular markets when there are shortages, bottlenecks, monopolies or patents limiting competition, but these increases are not due to an economy awash with money. Housing, healthcare, education and gas have all gone up, but it is not because people have too much money to spend. In fact it is those necessary expenses that are driving people into unrepayable debt, and it is this massive debt overhang that is preventing economic growth.

Without some form of debt jubilee, the debt bubble will continue to grow until it can again no longer be sustained. A UBI can help correct that problem without fear of “overheating” the economy, so long as the new money is limited to filling the gap between real and potential productivity and goes into generating jobs, building infrastructure and providing for the needs of the people, rather than being diverted into the speculative, parasitic economy that feeds off them.

___________________

This article was first published on Truthdig.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. A 13th book titled Banking on the People: Democratizing Finance in the Digital Age is due out early next year. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

44 Responses

  1. There are those who argue that a job guarantee program should precede a UBI. I have found those arguments to be very persuasive.

  2. […] Ellen Brown Web of Debt […]

  3. Always clear, incisive, relevant and solving the countries problems in healthy proven ways. Thank you, Ellen.

    • As far as I have been able to find out from internet research, UBI–the counter-intuitive idea of not requiring the masses to work for a living– has not been proven to work, much less to be healthy. It was tried as a small scale experiment with 2000 people in Finland but discontinued in favor of other welfare methods. We already know that our “capitalist” system of welfare only for the rich, the dregs, and immigrants does not work well. Moving to public banks to turn off the flow of free money to rich parasites by that avenue has been proven to work, as shown in Ellen Brown’s The Public Bank Solution. Guaranteed work for all proposals, such as that of Warren Mosler, seem more promising than UBI.

      • Many studies have proven it to work. The idea is not for people to quit working but to have a cushion for security, allowing them to start their own small businesses, change jobs, take time off when emergencies happen, etc. A better term is actually “national dividend.” Alaska has had one for years and it is very successful. Studies in India have found that supplementing incomes makes people MORE productive. See this from Wikipedia (violating my own rule with a long entry!) —

        The findings show numerous improvements in health, productivity, and financial stability. . . . Families receiving cash transfers had more livestock, which helped improve health and financial stability. Additionally, productivity rates increased, as children in recipient villages had higher rates of school attendance. Villages receiving cash transfers had higher expenditures on schooling and agricultural inputs, promoting better education and higher agricultural yields. Some concerns of the universal basic income are that it will discourage labor and encourage consumption of alcohol. However, cash recipients had higher rates of labor and work, especially in self- employed contexts. And, there was no evidence of higher alcohol consumption in recipient villages than control villages; in fact, in the recipient tribal village, alcohol consumption actually decreased. The effect on labor productivity was especially strong for women and tribal communities. Financial stability improved significantly in villages receiving cash transfers. Households with cash grants were three times more likely to open a new business or take on a new production activity than households that did not receive the cash transfer. These households also decreased their indebtedness and increased their savings, and some were even able to open bank accounts to remit the cash grants.

        • “Many studies have proven it to work.” Please cite a few. I didn’t come across any other than trivial and dubious examples. I can see how having a little money can help villagers in Alaska. If it is just a dividend, not intended to be enough to live off of, it shouldn’t be called UBI. Apparently it didn’t work well enough in Finland to be continued.

          • One advantage of UBI over jobs guarantee is that it requires much less political wrangling, i.e. deciding which projects will the jobs be focused on, who runs them, how many greasy politicians will siphon off money before it begins, etc. With the UBI, it is much more of a private sector, “capitalist” solution as the money will sort itself out however the people choose.

            Also, as automation and robots continue to be developed, there simply won’t be as much work that needs to be done. There is actually a reason humans have been slaving away for centuries increasing productivity, so that we can stop one day and focus on other things – creative pursuits, community building, travelling, exploring, or just sitting still and meditating without having to worry about how you’re going to pay for rent next week. 😉

            • I like Warren Mosler’s proposals for guaranteed work better than UBI, tho this http://moslereconomics.com/2012/01/10/proposal-update-including-the-jg/ is a little outdated. I don’t believe that robots will put us all out of work. If “the private sector” can’t provide work for anybody wanting it, govt. can, as FDR did. There’s plenty to be done in this country! UBI, if enough to live on, would taint the basic aspect of the “work ethic” of people standing on their own two feet and supporting themselves, which is important for human dignity. A national dividend like Alaska’s would be okay though.

            • Precisely. Technology’s whole point was to reduce labor. We should reward those whose jobs have been made redundant. Bully for them! Then retrain them at low or no cost for something that is more fulfilling or needed in society as well.

          • America, I believe , was instituted by people who did stuff – made things – adventured into parts unknown and unsettled, and upgraded others and situations to solve problems – our inheritage set in motion as never before in the history of the world. Preceding that, those acts were carried out by people following orders from the ‘rulers’. So if that was the basis that our nation was fostered upon, why start ‘paying’ people to sit on their fingers and dull their minds with irrelevant T V shows and drugs(?), where the ‘money’ provided to them ultimately ends up in the coffers of the high priests of banking or other obnoxious financial brokers, etc. Why not return to a Hamiltonian National Banking system the provides the fundings to allow people to work at rebuilding our decaying nation and building for the future as our Founding Fathers bequest to us?

            • Yes, the economy would be better without the utterly parasitic private banker monkey on its back. Further, without the rentiers (rich people) and their free money via interest and inheritance. Down with the parasitic rich. General justice requires that people work for their money and sustenance.

      • Ernie – UBI is what the establishment sociopaths are pushing in order to keep us desperate and working for crap wages. There is a FAR superior proposal by professors of economics, a Job Guarantee plan that would improve lives, communities, the country and the economy – the establishment knows the professors AND the proposals, and has been working hard to hide them from the public so that we get duped into going for UBI. Basic Income can NEVER be a living wage, it can be only about $500-$1000 per MONTH, and our sociopathi oligarchs have already been quoted MANY TIMES as saying they will use Basic Income to ELIMINATE all other social programs. The EXCELLENT Job Guarantee proposals by professors of economics are intentionally hidden – the politicians know the professors and are working hard to HIDE their proposals, which would improve lives, communities, the country and the economy.
        https://whatifitoldyouthis.blogspot.com/2018/09/federal-job-guarantee-and-cancellation.html

  4. I definitely support the Universal Basic Income! Read this to see if you can honestly say you don’t agree. We know Fed’l Reserve’s actions create the debt bubble. We know their policy of removing money supply gives rise to inflation. This explains how increasing BOTH supply & demand “would just allow debtors to spend on necessities with debt-free money rather than hocking their futures with unrepayable debt.. The central bank, rather than removing money from the economy (as the Fed is doing now), needs to add money to fill the gap between debt and the spendable income available to repay it.”

    • marlene – there is a FAR SUPERIOR proposal by economics professors. Keep in mind that Basic Income can NEVER give us a living wage, as it would be inflationary VERY quickly. If Ms Brown does not know this, perhaps she is not proficient in macroeconomics (the economics of a country). Also, her explanation about ‘how to pay for’ is highly convoluted.
      See Pavlina Tcherneva or Stephanie Kelton or Randall Wray re the excellent federal Job Guarantee – the establishment knows of them AND their proposals but is intentionally hiding them, hoping to dupe the public into supporting Basic Income, which will keep us desperate and working for crap wages, since BI can NEVER be more than about $500-$1000 per month, and the sociopathic establishment has already said that if BI is implemented they will ELIMINATE all other social programs! Please check out the professors of Levy University and also Stephanie Kelton (formerly of Levy U) and all the info about the terrific Job Guarantee, that would pay a living wage plus benefits for helping neighbors, helping our communites, and more, until and unless the ‘profit sector’ has jobs that need us to do – in which case they must meet or exceed what the JG offers in order to hire us.

      • It’s not about a living wage.

  5. I agree that the current economy could absorb a lot of new demand, which is yet another reason to support UBI.

    But I don’t understand the “every year” in this:
    “In 2017, the US Gross Domestic Product was $19.4 trillion. If the economy is running at 10% below full capacity, $2 trillion could be injected into the economy every year without creating price inflation. It would just generate the demand needed to stimulate an additional $2 trillion in GDP.”

    After the first year, wouldn’t the newly-added 2T of GDP close that 10% output gap? So that in subsequent years, with no gap, the added monetary stimulus of the UBi would be inflationary.

    • If the economy needs $2 trillion more in “supply” to reach maximum GDP, it’s going to need that every year — $2 trillion more in food, cars, clothes, etc. — and it will need $2 trillion more in demand each year to pay for it. We’re now producing $19.4T in GDP every year; we are capable of producing $21.4T every year. Ya?

      • Ya. But not my point.
        At year two, we’ve closed the output gap no? The demand from the year one UBI was satisfied by expanding production to potential. We are now producing 21.4.T by reaching full employment; demand (from salaries) should (in theory only, but that is another discussion!) be sufficient to maintain that without the UBI.

        So in year two, the argument that the UBI is not inflationary because there is an output gap does not apply.

        (Not to say there are not plenty of other good arguments for the UBI, I just don’t follow this one).

        • Julio, your math is fuzzy. Ellen is saying that the economy is short $2 trillion in “supply” each year. You can’t inject $2 trillion into the economy only for one year and expect this to fill the gap for all subsequent years. There will be another gap of $2 trillion in the second year. Thus, the economy will need need an additional $2 trillion to fill the gap every year.

          • Yes, the Federal Budget is an annual accounting of the flows of taxes and spending. If there is a surplus that says more tax flowed in compared to spending [‘surplus’ of tax] The difference has to come from savings in the non government sector so it all balances to zero. A budget deficit says the spend is greater than the tax received [tax ‘deficit’] So the extra currency is fed into the economy which boosts spending and creates more jobs. A surplus is not saved or unspent money. The deficit spend creates money by buying government debts.The spend extinguishes all debt the government has current for the target of the spend.

          • By attempting to solve the problem within the matrix of the existing British (rules based) financial system based on monetarism, this is a “logical” conclusion on how to “care for” the “excess population”. America was established by a bunch of “DIY’ people following Plato and Leibnitz what can be called, in the vernacular, ‘voluntarism’. In other words, the use of curiosity, adventure, morality, and wisdom to go forth and populate the earth and conquer it,.going into areas never populated, and by very ingenious ideas and hard work, developing a herebefor area conducive for human occupation but never developed suchly. Our DIY Founding Fathers developed an ECONOMIC system, put together by Alexander Hamilton based upon a National Bank issuing long term low interest known as a crew\dit system that enabled all our proactive citizens to do the ‘Going Forth” and allegedly has produced too many people. However instead of paying them not to work , but employing them to rebuild this crumbling Nation with re-establishing Hamilton’s system ( that the British banking Empire destroyed) to fund a rebuild for the future, much more value would be received then simply doling out $ for TV games and drugs that ultimately slither back into the Lords of Banking pocket books. I believe Americans are much smarter (and ambitious) then those who have have come up with the UBI proposal.I believe that they must have been Rhodes Scholars.I think one has to look at the big picture, the complete picture (history, economics, finance, philosophy, and the current political events) to original a correct solution and this one proffered falls in line with “what must to keep the ancient British Empire intact”. A ‘benevolentEmpire that caters to the poor (that their financial system created based on the value of gold rather then the value of flesh and blood human, creative and ‘can do’ people, as our Nation was founded upon).

      • Hello, Ellen and Julio.
        I am Japanese. I am reading and writing with machine translation.
        I think the Julio Kaplan’s view is correct.

        I think that Ellen ‘s view explains the current situation. But, if 2 trillion dollars is dealt to the people, the current situation will change.

        I think as follows.

        There is an output gap of 2 trillion dollars in the first year. But, if 2 trillion dollars are dealt to the people, that gap will disappear. In order to distribute 2 trillion dollars in the second year, the potential output (maximal output) must further grow by 2 trillion dollars. If that happens, the output gap will be 2 trillion yen in the second year, so we can distribute 2 trillion dollars to the people.
        In other words, to distribute 2 trillion dollars to citizens every year, the potential output (maximal output) must also increase by 2 trillion dollars each year.

      • Hello Ellen.
        I’m sorry to suddenly. there’s something I’d like to ask you.
        Is there a sentence about basic income in your book “web of debt”?

  6. Excellent article. Very well explained with the banking fundamentals but I think the political overtones need this UBI scheme to be treated with caution. How nice if everyone received a generous UBI. But this does nothing to stop the increasing inequality and the state will use it as a bludgeon, as China is doing in their black listing of those deemed ‘untrustworthy’. No goodies if the state does not approve of you, with more and more loops to jump through…

    • Thanks. Agreed there are political issues. I was just addressing the economics of it.

  7. […] Ellen Brown Writer, Dandelion Salad The Web of Debt Blog December 29, […]

  8. I personally favour a hybrid system. A job guarantee for those who want and can work and a UBI for those who cannot work. I assume the pension would be scrapped although there was no mention of that? The wage and UBI would be a living wage figure. A UBI would go to everyone on top of their other money or it’s non U. Perhaps there could be a cut off for those who belong to the rentier class? I cannot imaging the Koch Brothers needing it
    Tax needs an overhaul as well. While federal taxes are never used for revenue, taxing land will reduce the extremes of inequality of today. That would be the only tax. Taxes could be passed down to the states as they need income. But there would be no income or sales taxes.

    • This I can get behind. Jobs are plenty but not many people want it. I could see a UBI helping small companies since they could lower the wages they pay but at the end of the day the UBI would come from tax payers. Most can’t take yet another tax so it would bring more people into poverty.

      But what you propose shouldn’t be too different from social security?

      • Javy, here in the USA the federal govt has a fractional employment policy enforced under the Fed’s “dual mandate” and that needs to change. The policy leads to the wasting of our most valuable resource, labor. U6 is now in excess of 10 million persons.

      • Fine, Javy. Just drop the tax funding expenditure idea. Federal taxes don’t pay a dime towards any federal spending. That tax funding spending idea went out years ago. Every tax payer is off the hook today. You could drop all taxation and it would not impeded government spending at all. Money creation through deficit spending also cancels all the debts involved.

        • I referred to tax as a burden to the people. UBI would be yet another tax.

          • I don’t follow that. UBI comes from the govt to you. A tax only destroys money.

            • UBI must come from somewhere. Either some sort of tax or something. Printing money out of thin air is part of the issue.

              • No, you’re missing the main point of the website. Printing money out of thin air is not an issue if it is done by the govt. to grow the real economy, put people to work, and improve the general welfare. It is an issue if the rich people who own the banks do it to further enrich themselves and enslave the economy, which is what we have now.

                • Now it makes sense. I’m against the current system.

          • No, It would not. It would be deficit spent into being, which means the money is created to pay for it. Completely normal process.

  9. This idea won’t be appreciated by the extreme far-right misanthropes of the alt-right, who believe altruism and utilitarianism, equates to socialism and communism.

  10. I’ve always thought that a UBI will just raise prices since there would be more people able to purchase items negating the benefit.

    If it’s too low it won’t help almost anybody. If too high this would increase the welfare state.

    • The UBI that the establishment sociopaths push can NOT EVER be a living wage. They push it because it would keep us desperate and working for crap wages, and many have been quoted saying they will use UBI to eliminate all other social programs! Yet the maximum they ‘offer’ with UBI is $500-$1000 a month. smdh

      And that is why the excellent federal Job Guarantee proposed by professors of economics Pavlina Tcherneva, Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray, Scott Fulwiler and others is intentionally HIDDEN by the establishment – it gives PEOPLE the power and control, provides a living wage plus benefits for shorter hours, part time can be chosen, and communities decide what they would like – assistance for seniors, community gardens, errands for shut ins and post op patients, creating and sharing art and music, and so on. Those who do not wish to work will get a BI that is lower than living wage, those who CANNOT work get living wage plus the benefits they need.

      • Still this would probably raise the cost of goods and services.

  11. […] Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks […]

  12. Here are a coup;\le of articles that support the Job Guarantee ideas.

    View story at Medium.com

    http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/the-job-guarantee-design-jobs-and-implementation

    ilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36105&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicoutlook%2FFYvo+%28billy+blog%29

    Plenty more where these come from!!!

  13. […] Posted on December 28, 2018 by Ellen Brown […]

  14. […] by Ellen Brown […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: