Russell Roberts's Blog, page 160
March 23, 2022
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 99 of F.A. Hayek’s last book, his 1988 The Fatal Conceit:
The creation of wealth is not simply a physical process and cannot be explained by a chain of cause and effect. It is determined not by objective physical facts known to any one mind but by the separate, differing, information of millions, which is precipitated in prices that serve to guide future decisions.
DBx: Hayek (1899-1992) died on this date 30 years ago.
March 22, 2022
Some Non-Covid Links
Richard McKenzie offers to the White House some basic economics lessons about oil prices. A slice:
When the Biden administration took over on January 20, 2020, it immediately began a “war on fossil fuels” under its green agenda, heavily weighted toward substantially reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. One of President Biden’s first acts was to terminate by executive order construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. He wrote, “Leaving the Keystone XL pipeline permit in place would not be consistent with my administration’s economic and climate imperatives.”
What Ms. Psaki and the President have overlooked is that termination of the pipeline construction reduced the anticipated domestic and global supply of oil in the future and, therefore, increased future oil prices above what they would have been (as economists Dwight Lee and David Henderson argued years ago). The hike in anticipated future prices likely caused producers in the United States and around the globe to hang on to their current oil reserves in anticipation of higher future profits. They can do this by reducing their current and future drilling, leaving their easily accessible known reserves in the ground, and holding on to a greater fraction of their stored output.
The resulting domestic and global market outcome from the pipeline cancellation? Higher current gasoline prices than Americans (and everyone else) have faced since President Biden first occupied the Oval Office.
If the Biden administration announced a restart of the Keystone pipeline, oil producers would reverse their thinking, because anticipated future oil prices would fall with the greater future supply at lower cost, which can be expected when the Keystone becomes operational. This means they could anticipate that they future profits would fall below levels previously anticipated. Producers could be expected to increase current market supply drawn from reserves, which would put immediate downward pressure on the current price of gasoline at the pump.
Scott Sumner exposes some of the flawed reasoning of industrial-policy advocates.
Dan Mitchell rightly applauds states that cut taxes.
Eric Boehm decries the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s disdain for the role of Congress. A slice:
Every member of the progressive caucus in Congress is, by definition, a member of Congress capable of writing and introducing legislation. If these lawmakers want to see changes to existing laws like the Affordable Care Act or want to create more laws to limit gas drilling, abolish student loans, or change the immigration system, they should work with their colleagues to pass those pieces of legislation.
The executive branch does not exist so ideas that cannot get the requisite votes in Congress can become national policy anyway. This is exactly backward. Presidents are supposed to take their agendas before Congress to get approval or denial by the representatives of the American people. Isn’t that the whole point of the State of the Union dog and pony show we had to sit through last month?
“It’s a sad commentary on our current Congress that its members would invite and even urge the executive branch to arrogate legislative power to itself,” writes David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute. Boaz notes that Trump accused [former President Barack] Obama of taking “the easy way out” and promised to do away with executive orders—only to then issue 220 executive orders in four years compared to 276 issued by Obama over eight years. Biden, despite frequently talking about the necessity of political consensus, has already issued 85 executive orders, putting him roughly on pace to match or exceed Trump’s one-term output.
Like watching an infant eat pureed spinach, watching senators question Supreme Court nominees is not for the squeamish. But beginning Monday, the confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson can be instructive if she is asked:
In the 1978 decision that permitted racial preferences in university admissions, Justice Harry Blackmun said, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.” Do you agree? By what criteria should the nation decide that it has arrived “beyond racism”? Or does the “diversity” rationale mean race-based admissions are forever?
…..
Article I “vested” legislative power in Congress, making Congress the mandatory location of this power. So, presumably there are some congressional grants of discretion to executive agencies that are unconstitutional delegations of legislative power. Is the separation of powers compatible with Congress’s constantly giving administrative state entities vast powers to write rules regulating private conduct? Should courts or Congress decide whether Congress violates the non-delegation doctrine? Is consent — democracy’s foundational concept — attenuated almost to disappearance if it means merely consenting to Congress consenting to administrative agencies regulating our lives?
…..
In 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld an Oklahoma law forcing online casket retailers to have (expensive, time-consuming) funeral licenses. The court acknowledged that the law punished one faction (online retailers) to enrich another (funeral directors) but breezily said “dishing out special economic benefits” is “the national pastime” of state and local governments. Should there be some judicial supervision of such practices? Should courts take cognizance of obvious rent-seeking (wielding the law for private economic gain by abridging the liberty of competitors) motives? Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick, authors of “The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment,” say the guarantee of “due process of law” (emphasis added) proscribes “legislative action that deprives people of life, liberty, or property without a permissible legislative purpose.” Is gratifying rent-seekers such a purpose? So, do Oklahoma’s law and a zillion other rent-seekers’ delights violate the 14th Amendment?
James Madison said the powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government “are few and defined.” If, however, Congress “finds” that broccoli enhances public health, and that health has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, may Congress constitutionally mandate buying broccoli? If not, why not?
Here’s part 16 of George Selgin’s brilliant series on the New Deal.
The Julian Simon Supply Curve
In this just-published paper – available here to read free of charge – I explain how one of Julian Simon’s most important insights might be incorporated into an ECON 101 course. Here’s my opening:
Very few ideas shift paradigms. Yet what’s remarkable about many paradigm-shifting ideas is how simple they are revealed to be once they come to be widely understood and incorporated even into introductory textbooks. Consider a few chronologically listed examples:
– Adam Smith explaining that money is not wealth.– David Ricardo explaining that specialization according to comparative advantage is mutually advantageous.– Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection.– William Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger, and Leon Walras identifying economic value as being determined by the subjective evaluation of the importance of the ‘marginal’ unit.– Ronald Coase pointing out that externalities are always bilateral.– Richard Dawkins explaining that the truly selfish creature in nature isn’t the organism – the individual human, horse, housefly, or hyacinth – but, instead, each of the genes out of which each organism is built.Each of these ideas, once grasped, is simplicity itself. And it’s not terribly difficult to grasp any of these ideas. Even the principle of comparative advantage – often described as counter-intuitive – becomes intuitive when explained correctly.
Julian Simon’s identification of the human mind as “the ultimate resource” is one such paradigm-shifting idea, or at least potentially so. This idea is at once so pro- found as to be paradigm-shifting, yet it’s also simplicity itself.
Of course nothing – no raw material, no labor service, no unit of time, not even land – is useful unless and until some human being figures out not only how to use it technologically, but also how to make its use worthwhile economically. While nature has mashed atoms together in countless varieties and forms, nothing formed by nature becomes a resource until it is transformed into one by the creative human mind.
Once you grasp Simon’s insight, you can never again see the world in the same way that you saw it before your enlightenment.
Some Covid Links
Surprising choice of @ashishkjha [Ashish K. Jha] as @JoeBiden‘s new Covid coordinator. Not only was he wrong promoting lockdowns, school closures and vaccine passports, he mischaracterized and bullied other scientists by calling them “clowns”. A clown would do a better job as Covid coordinator.
David Henderson and Ryan Sullivan explain that the kids are not alright. A slice:
Once these earning losses take hold, they lead to lower life expectancies. This connection was highlighted most prominently in a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that analyzed data on school shutdowns early in the pandemic. The authors found that missed instruction in the United States could be associated with an estimated 13.8 million years of life lost.
What makes these outcomes even more tragic is that they were experienced by children who, as was known early on, never had a significant risk of dying from COVID-19. As of the first week of March 2022, out of the nearly 950,000 Covid-19 deaths, only 865 were children under the age of 18. That amounts to about 433 children annually. This is comparable to a bad flu season in the US. For example, the CDC estimates that the actual number of flu deaths for children in the 2017-18 flu season was about 600.
Moreover, the school closings and lockdowns have led to a noticeable loss in children’s mental health. This was apparent early in the pandemic. In a CDC report released in November 2020, researchers reported that the proportion of mental health-related visits from April to October 2020 for children aged 5-11 and 12-17 years had increased by approximately 24 percent and 31 percent, respectively in comparison to 2019 data. In a follow-up CDC report, researchers found that emergency department visits due to suspected suicide attempts were 51 percent higher among girls aged 12-17 years during early 2021 in comparison to the same period in 2019; among boys aged 12-17 years, suspected suicide attempt emergency department visits increased 4 percent.
“The mental health of young people is almost visibly unravelling.” (HT Jay Bhattacharya)
However, after we released the ILI paper on the preprint server, the paper got picked up by a brilliant team of data journalists at the Economist and went viral. As the paper went viral, the onslaught reputational and professional threats I’d feared began to materialize.
Colleagues said I risked being “responsible for the deaths of millions” (a crime on par with genocide, if the comment is taken literally), that I had blood on my hands, that I was “disrupting the public health message,” that I was “not an epidemiologist,” and more. The verbal stones came from all sides, from people who were once colleagues and friends to members of the scientific community I’d never heard of before saying I killed thousands.
…..
By creating a research environment hostile to evidence of a lower-severity pandemic, the science people read on the news to inform their beliefs and actions of overestimated Covid risk. That science was not the result of a fair competition of ideas won by evidence and logic, but a silencing of ideas by federal officials coordinating devastating takedowns of competing views, by biased social/mass-media amplification of one theory, and by a norm of private and public hostilities enforcing a particular theory of Covid-19.
…..
Throughout 2020, I witnessed how social media platforms and mass-media became tools to manufacture the consent of the public to agree with a powerful clique of epidemiologists. These epidemiologists claimed their science was uncontested and protected their scientific theories from contest by public broadcasting of sanctions against fellow scientists. Shame, criticism, ridicule, disapproval, and other checks on deviance from norms and values of publishing work in agreement with this clique of epidemiologists, or from experts they approve of.
Such informal social control on scientific findings has no place in any reasonable ideal of science in a society. If we allow scientists to take down other scientists through personal attacks, if we fail to disentangle a complex of close associations between scientists and the mass media they use to manufacture belief in their own theories, then what we call “science” would be battle over belief mediated not through the peaceful and cooperative ideals of evidence and reason, but by the savage violence of cultural warfare. It becomes a barbaric media battle to achieve scientific dominance by ridiculing dissidents and suppressing dissent through informal social control.
Many Germans, alas, prefer unfounded fear to freedom.
That Anthony Fauci mischaracterized the @gbdeclaration as akin to “AIDS denialism” shows his fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of focused protection of the vulnerable, his blindness to lockdown harms, and his ignorance of the basic principles of public health.
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 299 of David Boaz’s excellent 2015 volume, The Libertarian Mind:
The libertarian solution starts with renewing our effort to build a society based on the virtues of choice, responsibility, and respect for self and others. Government needs at least to give all people, regardless of color, as much opportunity for choice and responsibility – in schools, housing, neighborhoods, and so on – as possible, and then society should grant all people the dignity of being held responsible for the consequences of their actions.
March 21, 2022
Change the Design
D__ isn’t the only person to write to me with this concern.
Hi D__:
Thanks for your e-mail about my new essay on what Christopher Snowdon calls “public health paternalists.”
You’re correct that taxpayer-subsidized health care transforms many private choices into ‘public’ ones. And so, for example, when Jones’s penchant for eating poorly and not exercising lands him in the hospital, taxpayer Smith is understandably angry at having to help pay for the ill-consequences of Jones’s choices.
Yet I do not believe that this reality justifies public-health authorities proscribing and prescribing actions that would be private in the absence of government’s policy of collectivizing the provision of health care. With collectivized health care – as with collectivized anything – the problem is real of Jones and Smith free riding on each other and, hence, behaving in ways that are collectively harmful. Real too is the resulting pressure for government to reduce this harm by micromanaging personal choices.
But to ask a now-popular question: What’s the limiting principle? Where does the assault on individuals’ freedom to choose end? The problem exists only because government collectivized an activity – the provision of health care – that can and should remain privately supplied and demanded. With health care forcibly collectivized, rather than call for – or even to tolerate – government restrictions on personal behavior, the better course is to demand an end to the forced collective provision of health care. Otherwise, additional government intervention is summoned to ‘solve’ a problem that exists only because of earlier government intervention. And these additional interventions will themselves create spillover effects that are sure to fuel calls for yet further control by the state over private choices.
If you discover that your house is structurally unsound because its design is faulty, you don’t summon the same incompetent architect to use his same flawed design principles to patch up the evident problems. You change the design.
Sincerely,
Don
Some Covid Links
The Sunshine State is bucking the public-health consensus again. “The Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children,” Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced March 7.
Cue the outrage. The American Academy of Pediatrics called the recommendation “irresponsible.” The Infectious Diseases Society of America accused Dr. Ladapo of putting “politics over the health and safety of children.” White House press secretary Jen Psaki jabbed: “It’s deeply disturbing that there are politicians peddling conspiracy theories out there and casting doubt on vaccinations.”
Dr. Ladapo is doing no such thing. He is merely acknowledging the abundant scientific evidence that Covid-19 poses a negligible risk to healthy children, which makes it impossible to know if the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risk.
…..
But this makes vaccinating children even more senseless. The vast majority have already been infected. The CDC estimates that 58% of children under 18 had infection-induced antibodies as of January, based on commercial laboratory blood samples.
This is almost certainly an underestimate. Antibodies have probably faded in those who were infected earlier in the pandemic, and a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found 63% of children under 18 who tested positive for the virus on PCR tests didn’t generate antibodies in their blood. Unlike the current crop of vaccines, prior infection stimulates mucosal immunity—including antibodies in the saliva and nasal passages—that can provide a strong barrier to infection.
…..
The public-health consensus has been wrong time and again during the pandemic. When it comes to vaccinating children, especially the youngest, Dr. Ladapo is right.
Here’s an excellent letter in today’s Wall Street Journal:
Each of us must decide which principled stands to take in life, and mask-querade mandates sometimes force us to choose between convenience and conviction. Even before mandates were lifted last month in California, I entered many retail establishments without harassment from staff or management, and only slight frowns from other customers. But other venues tested my principles: barefaced, I could not enter restaurants, theaters, libraries or museums. I am still barred from airports, public transit and doctors’ offices.
This virus era will be over when we, as a people, stand up and determine that it’s over. Ms. Sugar is correct that those who do not act on their principles are the reason that mask mandates still exist, since it’s now clear that “the science” offers no valid justification for these questionable, confusing edicts.
Jane Johnson
Ventura, Calif.
China’s domestic growth will take a hit. The Communist Party regime recently announced a GDP growth target of 5.5% for the year, but that will be impossible to achieve if major commercial centers are locked down. Another risk is consumer confidence, which already was under threat from the property-market slowdown President Xi Jinping has orchestrated over the past year. Beijing claims it’s pursuing a “shared prosperity” agenda in which ordinary households will earn—and then spend—a greater share of the country’s income. But first they need to be let out of their apartments.
Mr. Xi appears to be waking to the economic and political dangers. He instructed officials on Thursday to reduce the cost households bear for Covid controls. Vice Premier Liu He this week promised measures “that are favorable to the market” to stabilize equity prices roiled by Covid fears and worries that Beijing’s long-running regulatory crackdown on tech companies could stifle growth.
Even as the lockdowns become more contentious with the public, Beijing shows little sign of abandoning its zero-Covid fixation. That policy stubbornness, combined with Beijing’s apparent failure to devise an alternative in the two years since the pandemic began, is a danger to the health of Chinese citizens and the prosperity of China and the rest of the world.
Writing at City Journal, Nicholas Wade decries the credulity of many science reporters. A slice:
Why are science writers so little able to report objectively on the origin of the virus? Innocent of most journalists’ skepticism about human motives, science writers regard scientists, their authoritative sources, as too Olympian ever to be moved by trivial matters of self-interest. Their daily job is to relay claims of impressive new discoveries, such as advances toward curing cancer or making paralyzed rats walk. Most of these claims come to nothing—research is not an efficient process—but science writers and scientists alike benefit from creating a stream of pleasant illusions. The journalists get their stories, while media coverage helps researchers attract government grants.
K. Lloyd Billingsley wonders if Fauci will get the downsizing that he deserves. A slice:
Senator Rand Paul will introduce an amendment to eliminate Dr. Anthony Fauci’s position as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and establish three new institutes headed by presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, and serving a term of five years.
“We’ve learned a lot over the past two years, but one lesson in particular is that no one person should be deemed ‘dictator in chief,’” Paul wrote in a Fox News commentary. “No one person should have unilateral authority to make decisions for millions of Americans.”
Paul, a physician for more than 33 years, says he “never encountered someone with the gall to proclaim himself ‘the science’ and portray anyone opposing him as ‘attacking science.’ That is until Dr. Fauci became the COVID dictator-in-chief.” Paul mourns “those we lost to the crushing and overbearing lockdowns and mandates that were based on junk science.”
Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but if he ever practiced medicine it was only for a short time. In 1968, Dr. Fauci was hired on with the National Institutes of Health and he has headed NIAID since 1984. Dr. Fauci’s bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry.
By far the more disturbing insight offered by [New South Wales premier Dominic] Perrottet was the abuse of the state’s children to make the Education sector ‘feel better’.
‘When we announced schools going back, the media would rush to find the scariest epidemiologist who was out there saying “every child across New South Wales would die”. And that was a problem, because we had to instil confidence. So what did we do? Together we agreed we would go and get all these Rapid Antigen Tests – which was a massive fee,’ said the Premier.
Instead of standing his ground and defending the much-lauded ‘science’ of NSW Health – something that citizens were told that they could not question when it was destroying their businesses and holding them hostage in their homes – Perrottet implemented measures to keep the media quiet.
Here’s a report from last week’s gathering, at Hillsdale College’s DC campus, of some of the relatively few scientists, academics, and journalists who wisely counseled caution against Covid hysteria and warned of Covidocratic tyranny. (HT Jay Bhattacharya, who was among the participants in this event) Three slices:
Johns Hopkins medical professor Marty Makary, a National Academy of Medicine member, said the New York Times functionally blacklisted him after he went on Fox News, and his department “started to squash” critics like him early in the pandemic. He compared Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, and former NIH Director Francis Collins to “African presidents” who rule for decades.
Epidemiologist Sheila Weiss said her company, which has close Stanford ties, wouldn’t let her publish a commentary on “booster mandate madness” because it was “too much of a political or corporate risk.” An investigative journalist declined her offer to run with the story because “Fauci’s goons” already targeted him, Weiss said.
Cal Poly microbiologist Pat Fidopiastis, who leads its COVID wastewater testing lab, explained how he became the campus villain for refusing to wear masks “unless required,” challenging mask efficacy and referring to COVID’s origin in Wuhan, which drew student accusations of racism. He voted for Barack Obama twice and Hillary Clinton, but “they made me” a Trump supporter.
…..
Bioethicist Aaron Kheriaty, fired by UC for refusing COVID vaccination, said public health has morphed into seeking “behavioral outcomes” through moralistic framing and frowns on objective data that could give “false reassurance.” To Kheriaty, “that’s the definition of propaganda.”
…..
Former NYT science columnist John Tierney blamed the “crisis crisis” on Fauci, who first rose to prominence in the AIDS crisis. The media have perverse incentives to indulge alarmism on scientific issues, from overpopulation to energy shortages and now COVID, because it increases readership.
“You have to do counter-scares” such as the Great Barrington Declaration, which emphasized collateral damage from lockdowns, he said.
“Add 12 months or so” to right-wing COVID coverage and Leonhardt’s daily NYT newsletter will validate it, giving liberals permission to acknowledge reality, according to Maxwell Meyer, former editor of The Stanford Review. He pointed to a “series of very conspicuous coincidences” in which the CDC revised guidance following a Leonhardt column.
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 268 of Herbert Spencer’s insightful July 1853 Westminster Review essay, “Over-Legislation,” as this essay is reprinted in Liberty Fund’s 1981 collection of some of Spencer’s writings, The Man Versus the State, with Six Essays on Government, Society, and Freedom:
Ever since society existed Disappointment has been preaching, “Put not your trust in legislation”; and yet the trust in legislation seems scarcely diminished.
March 20, 2022
Beware Public-Health Paternalists
In the minds of public-health paternalists, the body politic becomes almost a literal body. The aggregate (as described by statistics) is treated akin to a sentient entity that suffers health problems, many of which can be cured by this entity’s team of physicians – namely, public-health paternalists. And in a country with a population as large as that of the United States, the number of different health problems suffered by absolutely large numbers of individuals will be enormous, thus ensuring no end of opportunities for public-health paternalists to use the power of the state to proscribe and prescribe individuals’ behaviors.
But as Snowdon notes, public-health paternalists sense that, to justify their interventions, they need more than to point to scary statistics drawn from a large population. At least in societies with a liberal tradition – in societies that historically accord some deference to individuals to freely make their own choices – public-health paternalists must bolster the case for their officiousness by convincing the public that seemingly private decisions are not really private. Public-health paternalists thus insist, for example, that obese people are innocent victims of predatory marketing by companies such as McDonald’s, while smokers have been trapped by the vile tactics of Big Tobacco as well as by the peer pressure of simply being surrounded by friends who smoke.
According to public-health paternalists, therefore, almost no decisions that affect individuals’ health are truly ‘individual.’ Nearly all such decisions are either heavily determined by the actions of third parties, or themselves affect the choices of unsuspecting third parties.
Nothing is personal and private; everything is political and public. Because, according to public-health paternalists, a vast array of seemingly ‘private’ decisions are both the results of “externalities” and themselves the causes of “externalities,” the work of public-health paternalists is plentiful, while the power these ‘experts’ require to protect the health of the body politic is vast.
This perversion of classic public health into public-health paternalism is alarming. As public-health paternalism comes to dominate the field, persons attracted to study and practice public health will be, in contrast to traditional public-health scholars and officials, far more insistent on expanding public-health’s domain. Public-health paternalists will excel at the dark art of portraying as ‘public’ – and, hence, as appropriate targets of government regulation – many activities that traditionally and correctly are understood as private and, hence, as not appropriate targets of government regulation.
How much of the overreaction to COVID-19 is explained by the rise of public-health paternalism? I suspect an enormous amount. Public-health paternalists are not only already primed to misinterpret private choices as ones that impose ‘negative externalities’ on third parties, they are also especially skilled at peddling their misinterpretations to the general public. And so although the quite real contagiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus renders it a valid concern of classic public-health scholars and officials, the contagiousness and ‘publicness’ of other aspects of COVID were exaggerated in attempts to justify excessive government control over everyday affairs.
The most obvious example of an activity traditionally regarded as private and, thus, not properly subject to government control is speech and writing. Of course, no one has ever denied that speech and writing have effects on others; indeed, changing other people’s minds and hearts is the very purpose of much speech and writing. But in liberal civilization the strong presumption has been that individuals are to be trusted to judge for themselves the merit or demerit of whatever expressed thoughts they encounter. We’ve long recognized, and rightly feared, the danger of allowing government officials to superintend and suppress peaceful expression.
Yet with COVID, this presumption was significantly weakened, if not (yet) reversed. The US Congress held a hearing to investigate “the harm caused by the spread and monetisation of coronavirus misinformation online to try and identify the steps needed to stop the spread and promote accurate public health information,” while high-ranking US government public-health officials tried to orchestrate an effort to discredit the Great Barrington Declaration. A Cornell Medical School official, writing in the New York Times, openly called for suppressing the speech of physicians who dissent from the prevailing ‘expert’ consensus.
Peaceful expression and the exchange of ideas are now regarded by many elites as sources of potentially dangerous ‘externalities.’ And in the minds of public-health paternalists, the only way to protect the body politic from becoming lethally infected with what public-health paternalists themselves deem to be misinformation is for government to suppress the spread of viral ideas no less than it suppresses the spread of viral molecular structures. This ominous development during COVID surely was encouraged by the rise over the past few years of public-health paternalists.
Bonus Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 228 of Lionel Shriver’s great 2016 novel, The Mandibles:
All governments rob their people. It’s what they do.
Russell Roberts's Blog
- Russell Roberts's profile
- 39 followers
