Home > Uncategorized > Summers​ shameless assault on MMT

Summers​ shameless assault on MMT

from Lars Syll

First,​ it was Paul Krugman. Then came Kenneth Rogoff. And now Lawrence Summers has felt the urge to attack MMT and defend mainstream economics:

summersThere is widespread frustration with the performance of the economy … Altered economic conditions have led to the development of new economic ideas … And now, these new ideas are being oversimplified and exaggerated by fringe economists who hold them out as offering the proverbial free lunch: the ability of the government to spend more without imposing any burden on anyone …

Modern monetary theory is fallacious at multiple levels. First, it holds out the prospect that somehow by printing money, the government can finance its deficits at zero cost … Second, contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default …

For neither the right nor the left is there any such thing as a free lunch.

Larry Summers

Now compare that to what the same Summers wrote​ just a couple of years ago:

IMF asserts that properly designed infrastructure investment will reduce rather than increase government debt burdens. Public infrastructure investments can pay for themselves … Infrastructure investment actually makes it possible to reduce burdens on future generations.

In fact, this calculation understates the positive budgetary impact of well-designed infrastructure investment … The IMF finds that a dollar of investment increases output by nearly $3. The budgetary arithmetic associated with infrastructure investment is especially attractive at a time when there are enough unused resources that greater infrastructure investment need not come at the expense of other spending. If we are entering a period of secular stagnation, unemployed resources could be available in much of the industrial world for quite some time …

What is crucial everywhere is the recognition that in a time of economic shortfall and inadequate public investment, there is for once a free lunch – a way for governments to strengthen both the economy and their own financial positions.

Larry Summers

Now isn’t that strange? What appeared to be a great idea less than five years ago, all of a sudden turns out to be bad. The free lunch is not — after all — free …

When the economics establishment is questioned and challenged, the high priests close ranks. Ideas that were considered great transmute into bad when they turn out to be connected with heterodox theories that challenge the hegemonic theory …

  1. lobdillj
    March 10, 2019 at 3:47 pm

    Larry Summers was one of the engineers of the 2008 crash and its bailout.

  2. Mike Ryan
    March 10, 2019 at 5:09 pm

    MMT is the new voodoo economics. Mainstream economics is the old voodoo economics. It is starting to look more and more like the Mayan Priesthood. And we all know what happened to the Mayan’s.

    Larry Summers and Robert Rubin were out to line their own pockets. Just like everyone else in Washington. Just like the Mayan priesthood.

  3. Craig
    March 10, 2019 at 7:02 pm

    The dust up between neo-classicalism and MMT is a side show, a false duality between the old/present paradigm and another tweek of same. In order to actually have progress and integration/synthesis you have to have the right chemicals that will render such. As in chemistry, so in economics and paradigm changes. Wisdomics-Gracenomics should be out on Kindle by Tuesday.

  4. March 10, 2019 at 9:05 pm

    All economic systems are based on theory, mostly aimed at trying to predict the outcome of a combination of events that is, usually, quite random. Likewise, all the current economic systems have a “money system” at their taproot but almost none of the theoretical deliberations go into the fundamental issues surrounding the purpose and need for such a system.
    In the real world of today, “money” really has no other purpose than to represent an acceptable and guaranteed medium of exchange. Can anyone imagine what it would be like if there were no “money system” available for the essential day to day buying and selling of goods and services?
    From this perspective, the idea of “money” provides a very sound argument that it is simply an essential and very convenient tool that a rational society needs for its daily functioning. As long as the “money” is legitimate and comes with a guarantee that it is not false “money” then people need no coercion to use it for their daily survival. Unfortunately, MMT makes the quite ridiculous claim that a Government needs a tax regime to force the people to use the Government declared “money” in order to pay the tax imposition.
    “Money” today, for almost everyone on this planet, is really an essential tool for survival.
    “Money” does need to be guaranteed in the sense that whatever is declared as legal tender, it is not a false token and any attempts to counterfeit “money” can be punished. The declared “money tokens” themselves do not need to have any intrinsic “value” as whatever “value” is involved only pertains to the goods and services on offer for purchase. The “money tokens” are really just the measure of how the buyer and seller “value” the goods and services involved. If the price is right a trade will occur, if not, no exchange will happen.
    From this point of view, it seems obvious that every society needs an acceptable medium of exchange and providing that medium is an essential responsibility of good government. As the Government is the only entity with the authority to declare what shall be the nation’s legal tender, it should be the only source for creating the money supply needed by the nation.
    While it is true that anyone can create a “money” system, which in truth, is nothing more than a “ticket” system that people can use to exchange for something they need or want. There are two major problems with allowing multiple “tickets” to be used in any given closed society. The first is getting the “ticket/tokens” accepted, and secondly, in comparing one token against however many other tokens are created. It would be quite ridiculous for any nation to allow anyone to create whatever type of “money” tokens they want, as it would destroy the convenience and certainty in having one token that can be guaranteed as legitimate and acceptable by everyone in the given society.
    I’m sure Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild was fully aware that there definitely is such a thing as a “free lunch” when he is reported to have said in 1791, ‘Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws’. As a banker, he reinforced the long-standing practice that only the “rich and powerful” should control a nation’s money supply and he backed up the practice with the statement “’The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
    Thus, the people seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that the power to create and control a nation’s money supply, is really an essential duty and responsibility the people delegate to their Government. The creation of a nation’s money supply should never be handed over to any elite group of bankers to create it as interest-bearing debt in the manner that Summers is endorsing.

  5. March 12, 2019 at 1:39 am

    Thanks for this. It is very important right now with the Green New Deal proposals dominating public policy discussion – since November of 2018. The defenders and theoreticians of MMT need a ten page manifesto of what they are about in the current context, signed by as many supporters as possible. It needs as much publicity as the Green New Deal Resolution itself. These sniping attacks and brief rejoinders do not cut it at the intellectual level required. There is a lot at stake. Debt, deficits and their relation to GDP, historical comparisons to England 1815-1850, the US in WWII…Japan…and what happened at the Fed in the wake of the 2007-2008 crisis all need to be worked in. No small order to find a learned polemicist who can write on the level of Marx, Keynes and with the common touch displayed by someone from the “other side,” Milton Friedman. Calling Yanis Varoufakis…report for duty…

  6. March 13, 2019 at 11:07 am

    Stephen Hail said MMT is ” the economics of sustainable prosperity” Is that voodoo enough for Mr Ryan [above]?
    Here’s Summers talking about secular stagnation” The defining macroeconomic challenge of our times” His solution where the age old trick of lowering interest rates failed was for governments to SPEND MORE!
    He can’t have it both ways and be consistent.

  7. steven jennings
    March 14, 2019 at 5:41 pm

    @ guggzie201
    actually governments do use taxation to give money value and have it accepted, it is not an accident or a lottery like cybercash. The issueing government insists that its citizens pay tax to it in the currency it issues, and you can only get that currency by working for the government hence you do so. Once this situation has stabilised and everyone accepts it as normal then the threat of taxation recedes, it is however still there…just in case.
    This is how the british coerced the africans to work in their mines and plantations, and the Scottish to work in the mills.


    • March 14, 2019 at 9:08 pm

      What you say about the British is very true, Stephen, and it is one way, even though it is incorrect, of thinking about the Government’s approach to money. However, I would suggest you give a bit of thought to my question, “Can anyone imagine what it would be like if there were no “money system” available for the essential day to day buying and selling of goods and services?”
      Surely, it is obvious that in today’s world, “money” has become an essential tool for survival. I would be pretty sure in saying that very few people, if any, agree to accept a nation’s legal tender just because they have to use it to pay taxes. They use money because they have to use it to survive.

      Maybe, it would help to look at the history of “taxation”?

      Taxation started off as a way for the people at the top of the food chain to steal from the weaker people at the bottom of the chain. In other words, the least productive people in a community used force to steal from the people who actually worked to produce something.
      Originally, the theft only involved goods and chattels, or where needed, the enforced obedience and labour from slavery.
      Naturally, the weaker segment of the society had little choice but to comply when the option was either life or death.
      There is nothing natural or inevitable about taxes. It is simply a historical practice that has been imposed on people over such a long period of time that people have become brainwashed into accepting the concept as immutable.

      That is really stupid.

      This historical devotion to paying taxes has become so imbued into the human psyche that it seems almost impossible to wean people off the addiction.

      This is where MMT contradicts itself. On one hand, they say a monetary sovereign Government doesn’t really need to raise any taxes at all – and then, on the other hand, they say there must be a tax system to force people to use a legitimate and very convenient token as their essential tool for their medium of exchange. They also claim they need a tax system to control an “overheated” economy but completely ignore the fact that it is the monetary sovereign Government that is in control of the money supply. The only way the economy can “overheat” under that circumstance is through poor or corrupt management. If the Government were to balance the quantity of money against the productive capacity of the nation and its consumption capacity but in relation to its population levels, there would be no risk of any economy “overheating”.

    • March 14, 2019 at 10:01 pm

      There were a couple of things in your reply, Stephen, that I omitted to comment on. As I said in my earlier post. “money”, especially fiat “money” does not have any intrinsic value – the “value” is always in the goods and services on offer. What good, or what “value” is there in money if there are no goods or services to buy?
      I don’t think your statement, “you can only get that currency by working for the government hence you do so” is correct, or more likely, not really what you intended to imply.
      The “threat of taxation” never recedes, as it is the major tool available to every Government for controlling their people.
      Taxation, like inflation, is really just a man-made construct, and if man can make it he can also unmake it.
      Actually, “economics” is really simple. Inflation and deflation occur when there is an imbalance between the quantity of money available to a society in relation to the goods and services available. Most “economists” have convinced Governments that a little bit of inflation is good for the economy as it gives the illusion of increased “wealth” when the “value” of assets increase.
      On the other hand, the man-made disasters of recessions and depressions occur when there is not enough money available to consume the goods and services that are available. Every business knows that production does not produce one dollar of profit unless the products are consumed, hence, the desperate need to offload stock at any price rather than have it sit on shelves and not be consumed.
      Here’s an extract from a paper I wrote earlier.

      Who benefits from inflation and who loses from deflation?

      One thing is for sure, rising prices will not benefit the consumer but falling prices definitely will.
      So, what about the producer, do they benefit from rising prices? Almost certainly because the rising prices can mean greater income, and if the profit margin is related to a percentage of the price, then the profits will increase.
      But won’t there be offsets, for example, increased wages and taxes?
      Not really, because both those elements are calculated in the price so, it is the consumer who will ultimately pay.
      But what about the Government; will inflation benefit the Government?
      Most definitely in almost every way. Inflation will result in greater returns from income tax as the wages rise, more revenue from payroll tax, and corporate taxes as profit increases, and much more from goods and services taxes as the prices rise.
      Thus, it would seem that a Government has a vested interest in ensuring inflation is an ongoing feature of the economy, albeit, to a controlled limit that it does not cause unacceptable distress to the population.
      From discussing the benefits of inflation it becomes obvious which groups are mostly disadvantaged by the effects of deflation; the producers and the Governments.
      In other words, what is good for the people is bad for the corporate world and the Governments. Of course, the reverse also applies; what’s bad for the people is good for the corporations and Governments.

  8. Paul Meyer
    March 14, 2019 at 5:42 pm

    Question (two actually). Isn’t this the piece that has a reference to the experience of the SPD and French Socialist experiences in the 80’s, claiming that they contradict the MMT view? And if so, does anyone know a reference discussing this assertion. Thanks!

  9. March 15, 2019 at 3:26 am

    Guggzie. MMT is not contradictory. Both arguments apply. The coercive use of taxation is not now linked to revenue, which comes from spending it into existence. The MS government does not control the amount of the money supply, only its part, as most of the money in circulation has come from bank lending, even though over time it adds to Zero. I think the reserve bank does look at comparing the economy with the amount of capital is in it, but it’s too complex to know with any certainty. It just sets interest rates as an imperfect influence.

  10. Craig
    March 15, 2019 at 6:36 am

    MMT like all of the other heterodox reform movements is correct about wanting to increase the amount of money in the system. It’s problem is it’s still just a tweak and doesn’t terminatedly handle inflation. It’s hobby horse riding that in reality goes no where.

    Pitiful. No one seems to be willing or able to think on the paradigmatic level.

    • March 15, 2019 at 10:58 am

      Economics is about increasing the money in the system. That’s how economies expect to grow. Inflation is very much a political manoeuvre, done by the economy with an eye to the politics.It looks like your hobby horse is for 5 year olds. they will put it to good use.

      • Craig
        March 15, 2019 at 3:38 pm

        Inflation isn’t actually primarily about the money, but rather a scarcity system that makes it the most “rational” decision to raise your enterprise’s prices. Once one realizes that, they can begin to hunt for and craft an actually rational and more beneficial system.

        Inversion is a primary signature of creative thinking and of paradigm changes, and the mental inversion above enlightening the true character and primary cause of the inflation problem is an excellent example of paradigmatic thinking….which is what is desperately needed in economics. Why? Because both wisdom and paradigmatic thinking are are integrative processes. In fact paradigms themselves are integrative “things”. It is a singular concept that defines an entire pluralistic pattern, so its both simplicity and complexity at the same time, mental perception of essence and expression of its temporal effects.

        If you want to really understand you have to “up your game” from the level of theoretics to philosophy and then to the level of paradigmatic/integrative/wisdom thinking. Otherwise you’re just an accountant, a fragmented scholar or “an economic scribbler”.

      • March 17, 2019 at 4:15 am

        I’m an economic nobody, but that’s better than being a graduate from one or other schools of economics since I don’t have to unlearn the extraordinary nonsense that pervades them almost without exception. .They are rapidly becoming worse than useless and urgently need transforming into something based on reality. Most of my knowledge comes from the internet plus a friend or two in the profession, Bill Mitchell in particular. I hone my responses with correspondence on the Conversation and Quora where the most illiterate economics ideas get time to play out,

        Having come across MMT with its evidence based work it instantly sent it into orbit for me. It supplants theory and examines reality. Lars knows. Understanding MMT is a bit of an epiphany moment when it suddenly all adds up. It’s spreading now, vehemently opposed by the economic giants of old., but with a voice in Congress, [AOC is no expert but she’s on track
        Ellis Winningham now dares to say we have them on the run, which is a bit premature, Bill Mitchell said to me it wont happen in his lifetime, but he can be more favourable now.

        Look at Summers tripping over his own feet with contradictory messages. one OK, the other downright. Krugman skirts it engages, disengages. Soon they all will see what it has to say and applaud. Politicians will fall in line too, but not before the public pushes it onto the stage.

        What I say is that you Craig can do better than to lose yourself in arguments that are peripheral, with its wordy grammar deliberately masking understanding a-la- Mises. in particular. Cheers

      • Craig
        March 17, 2019 at 5:51 am

        I like MMT. It’s intention is to defeat austerity by injecting more money into the system and feels that inflation will not raise its ugly head. The last is probably safe for now because of the tremendous amount of personal debt left over from the GFC and the mountains of student debt continually building up as well. But it’s not a paradigm changing theory. It doesn’t meet the requirements for that.

        You’re right I try to explain difficult concepts just like everyone else here. Let’s try explaining it this way.

        Retail sale is the ending point of every consumer item or service including homes, autos and other big ticket items. The proof of this is that you and no one else has ever gotten a call from a retailer after you got home from the store you just purchased something from and they said they needed another $30 dollars for what you just bought. Never. Why? Because retail sale is where production becomes consumption. So if you implemented a 50% discount at the point of retail sale and had the central bank rebate every cent of the discounts they gave to their customers the effect would be an immediate doubling of everyone’s purchasing power. In other words if you make $40,000/yr you would then be able to purchase $80,000 worth of goods and services or maintain your present lifestyle with $20,000 and save $20,000 that would purchase $40,000 worth of a $40,000 car. These are empirical facts. What other economist or pundit has ever crafted a policy that beneficial for both the individual and for enterprise who also benefit from the immediate doubling of potential business revenue? Has anyone else beneficially integrated price deflation into profit making systems? That’s with one policy. With a second policy you can get rid of all transfer taxation for both employees and employers. Inversions and transformations of current realities is a cardinal signature of paradigm changes. That’s what the two policies of a 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale and a universal dividend do….they invert and transform realities. So what the hell is everyone prattling on about MMT which is definitely on the right track….but doesn’t come close to doing what these two policies will do?

      • March 17, 2019 at 6:34 am

        Not sure how you would/could achieve it. You could hardly imagine the paperwork. What if you returned the goods? Price deflation goes with recessions/depressions as vendors try to stay afloat. You could do something like that which was only on paper and just pay the final price, which happens already in the normal course of setting a sale figure. Since Taxes only take spending power away[federally] and don’t raise federal revenue you could just whatever the economy afforded, like now. Tax is a very slow way to adjust the economy. You could just give everyone a UBI and watch what happens, See how many would gamble it, how many would save it or how many would invest it. I prefer a Job Guarantee myself, but a UBI would be oK if it was a BI without the U. on top of the JG.

      • Craig
        March 17, 2019 at 7:17 am

        “What if you returned the goods?”
        That’s what the accounts Returns and Allowances and Credit For Damaged Goods are for and they are an extremely small percentage of 1 percent of total transactions.

        “Not sure how you would/could achieve it.”
        A mass movement communicating the obvious benefits to the cross political constituencies of the individual and the small to medium sized business community in whose interests the policies obviously are. Everything is eventually a political fight. Go with those normally opposing but now integrated by self interested constituencies.

        “You could hardly imagine the paperwork.”

        No problem, accounting is mostly an automated system of algorithms, and if forensic accounting is the new growth area for the economy….for the potential benefits….so be it.

        “See how many would gamble it, how many would save it or how many would invest it.”

        That inevitably happens any way and that objection is merely anecdotal. The positive effects for everyone will be so dramatic and nearly universal that once the program takes effect it will never be ended.

        “I prefer a Job Guarantee myself, but a UBI would be oK if it was a BI without the U. on top of the JG.”

        You’ve got it the wrong way around. In my book I integrate an option for a JG into the rest of the new paradigm policies and structural changes. Employment as a solution is not up to the task of making the economy truly free flowing, and AI which is just getting started as a disruptive force reducing employment/aggregate demand will defeat the purpose of a JG. The real problem we face is not realizing that employment is only a subset of the larger set of human purposes. With a 50% discount/rebate and universal dividend policies there will be more jobs than if we simply tweak the system monetarily as most heterodox economists think is the only way possible to do things.If everyone has the purchasing power and the leisure time to enjoy it….that is the greater and better actual solution.

        We must finally have a paradigm change which is an actual solution…instead of another palliative.

      • March 17, 2019 at 1:11 pm
      • Craig
        March 17, 2019 at 7:12 pm

        I’ve been reading Bill Mitchell’s blog for years now, and while I like his and MMT’s primary thrust toward more monetary abundance Mitchell is the most orthodox progressive advocate of MMT.

        Orthodoxy is the death of wisdom. The very process of wisdom is the continual and thorough integration of only the truths in opposite perspectives and so is the resolution of orthodoxy.

        MMT is a theory and because theoretics are below both philosophy and paradigm perception on an epistemological scale it falls easily into obsessive and unnecessary contention. Mitchell’s alleged de-bunking of UBI (the better term is universal dividend) is an excellent example of such errant contentiousness. Mitchell also is largely unaware of the paradigm changing retail discount/rebate policy, except where I have suggested it on his blog, and by all appearances it has gotten lost in the complexities of his theoretics. The pungently insightful simplicity of paradigm perception is what is needed much more than the figure, figure, figure of mere theoretical complexities.

        I’m progressive, not only from a theoretical, but from a philosophical and paradigmatic perspective.

      • March 18, 2019 at 11:36 am

        Mitchell is happy to be shown where he is wrong. I don’t think I’m in his orbit at all compared to his encyclopaedic understanding of the Mainstream and MMT..The mainstream is theoretical but… MMT is NOT a theory. Let me repeat, NOT A THEORY>It is an explanation of modern macroeconomics. You are having yourself on if you think it is a theory. There is nothing to test that is hypothetical. One observes and discovers what is real. This is the very opposite of all the mainstream efforts. Bill goes into detail in his daily blog because he is discussing it in the light of the heavy on theory of his opponents covering all the objections he can think of from the Mainstream Just today Zero called top economists all came out against AOC and her mention of MMT. [Business Insider] So it’ll be egg on face soon enough for all of them, ho, ho! They are on the losing side of history.

      • Craig
        March 18, 2019 at 6:13 pm

        It’s a correct theory of how money/credit is created today….ONLY AS DEBT. It’s problem is it is incomplete. That and its flimsy (like all other liberal leaning economic theory) belief that inflation will behave under its tenets. Why? Not because increasing money in the system isn’t a factor in inflation. It is, but it’s not THE PRIMARY FACTOR. The primary factor? The unregulated scarcity system ITSELF that makes inflation in order to garner more business revenue the rational thing to do.

        Also, MMT like Social Credit is still unconsciously hung up on classical notions of equilibrium when the goal needs to be the higher disequilibrium of abundance for all regulated by the beatific and fully conscious chains of the unimpeachable ethic og grace as in monetary gifting.

      • March 18, 2019 at 7:22 pm

        Glad toI see you are gradually making progress towards understanding MMT. Yes, Money comes from debt. So, NO DEBT = NO MONEY. MMT says that government spending is related to resources. That is your next hurdle. Inflation is all about how much money is in the economy compared to the fiscal gap between that and the economy at full employment with no idle resources. Spending also pays down debt as it goes ahead and until it reaches full employment there will be little inflation. I have no idea what you are trying to say on this but it sounds irrelevant, Who supports your theory?

      • Craig
        March 18, 2019 at 11:34 pm

        “NO DEBT = NO MONEY”

        Correct….under the current paradigm of Debt ONLY.

        And the new paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting at the point of retail sale breaks up that presently dominating monopoly paradigm.

        It also does in spades what every heterodox economist and theorist including MMT wants to do, that is, inject more money into the economy in a way that doesn’t cause inflation …..because they haven’t cognited on the significances of retail sale and crafted a policy to take advantage of them to benefit every agent.

        You and everyone else here IS NOT LOOKING AT THE 50% DISCOUNT/REBATE POLICY AND UNDERSTANDING IT. Retail sale is the ending point of the entire productive process WHERE PRODUCTION BECOMES CONSUMPTION. AFTER YOU’VE BOUGHT IT YOU OWN IT!!!…NO ONE CAN CHARGE YOU ANYTHING MORE FOR IT (Except for things like autos and homes and another of Wisdomics-Gracenomics’ policies handles that).


        This single policy doubles everyone’s income and integrates BENEFICIAL price DEFLATION into profit making systems.

        Look at it. Keep looking at it until you see it and recognize how paradigm changing it is. Read my book available on Amazon and see how it fulfills every signature of historical paradigm changes and evolves the economy and money system.

  11. lobdillj
    March 18, 2019 at 12:12 pm

    John Doyle is correct. Bravo, John!

    • Craig
      March 18, 2019 at 6:14 pm

      Sorry, cheer leading won’t complete MMT.

  12. lobdillj
    March 18, 2019 at 8:34 pm

    John Doyle is correct.

    • Craig
      March 18, 2019 at 11:41 pm

      Slogans will never complete an incomplete theory or system, and everything adapts to a complete system like a paradigm change.

    • March 19, 2019 at 12:42 am

      Craig is on another wavelength. It has nothing to do with MMT or even the mainstream.

      • Craig
        March 19, 2019 at 5:10 am

        You’re right. MMTers and every other heterodox mere theorist is caught up in the complexities of the economy and is on the wavelength of tweaking and palliation of the problem.

        I’m on the wavelength of paradigm change which is a single concept that defines and affects an entirely new pattern/way of looking at an area of human endeavor.

        All of the best minds tweaked Ptolemaic cosmology FOR CENTURIES and made incremental changes that appeared to fix its problems. Then Galileo viewed the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter and he knew Heliocentrism was true. He then knew all of the epicycles and perturbations of Mars were BS. It was all too simple and an insult to the intellectual vanities of the advocates of Ptolemy….but it changed everything about cosmology.

        There are signatures of imminent and accomplished paradigm changes. Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting exists within every one of the former and fulfills every one of the latter.

        Read the short ebook for free if you have Amazon Prime. You too can be a Galileo.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.