Connect with us

Economics

Stockman Warns “Buckle Up!”, May’s Soaring CPI Print Was No ‘Transitory’ Blip

Stockman Warns "Buckle Up!", May’s Soaring CPI Print Was No ‘Transitory’ Blip

Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

The Fed’s…

Share this article:

Published

on

This article was originally published by Zero Hedge
Stockman Warns "Buckle Up!", May's Soaring CPI Print Was No 'Transitory' Blip

Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

The Fed’s destructive money-pumping has many victims, but chief among these is the Wall Street financial narrative itself.

It emits not a whiff about the patent absurdity of the Fed’s monthly purchase of $120 billion of treasury and GSE debt under current circumstances; and treats with complete respect and seriousness the juvenile word game known as “thinking about thinking about tapering” by which the clowns in the Eccles Building fearfully attempt to placate the liquidity-intoxicated speculators on Wall Street.

So it’s not surprising that today’s 5.0% CPI reading was made inoperative within minutes after the BLS release by a chorus of financial pundits gumming about “base effects” and ridiculing outliers like soaring used car prices (up 29.7% YoY), which, of course, Bloomberg reporters never see the inside of anyway.

Then again, that’s why we look at the two-year stacked CAGRs, which smooth the ups and downs of the worst lockdown months last spring; and also why we use the 16% trimmed mean CPI, which eliminates the highest 8% and lowest 8% of items in the overall CPI each month (both sets of deleted outliers are different each month).

In the present instance, therefore, off-setting the used car prices in the highest 8% of items during May is the -5.0% YoY drop in health insurance costs (if you believe that BLS whopper) and the -5.3% drop in sporting event prices, which, of course, have been largely zero since last April.

In any event, the 16% trimmed mean CPI for May was up by 4.7% annualized versus the April number and was higher by 2.62% on YoY basis.

Still, the more salient point is that on a two-year stacked basis the plain old CPI—used car prices and all—leaves not a scintilla of doubt: Consumer inflation is accelerating and rapidly.

During the last eight months the growth rate for the two year stack has risen from 1.48% to 2.55% per annum. And we don’t recall a word in May 2019 about that year’s reading being particularly deflationary. It was actually up 1.83% from May 2018.

Per Annum CPI Increase, Two-Year Stack:

  • October 2020: 1.48%;

  • November 2020: 1.59%;

  • December 2020: 1.78%;

  • January 2021: 1.92%;

  • February 2021: 1.99%;

  • March 2021: 2.07%;

  • April 2021: 2.23%;

  • May 2021: 2.55%.

Still, according to the Fed apologists there’s nothing troubling about the above because the Fed is now only trying to hit its 2.00% inflation target “averaged over time”.

Let’s see. Here are the CPI growth rates going back to May 2014. It turns out you have to average back seven years before you have a shortfall from the 2.00% target!

CPI Increase per Annum To May 2021 From:

  • May 2018, 3-Yr, average: 2.31%;

  • May 2017, 4-Yr. average: 2.42%;

  • May 2016, 5-Yr. average: 2.31%;

  • May 2015, 6-Yr. Average:2.10%;

  • May 2014, 7-Yr. Average: 1.81%

You get the scam. These mendacious fools will just keep averaging back in time until the get a number that’s a tad under 2.00%, smack their lips loudly and then pronounce the current inflation to be “transitory”.

And they will also toss out any inflation index that undercuts their MOAAR inflation mantra—like all of the data reported above!

So we will say it again: The CPI is a highly imperfect general price measure owing to its one-sided treatment of quality (hedonic) improvements, wherein some reported prices are adjusted downward for improved product features like airbags and more powerful PCs, put few prices are adjusted upward for the junkie toys, towels, kitchenware, appliances and furniture that comes out of China.

But with the 8% highest and 8% lowest prices dropped out monthly to filter out the short-run noise, the 16% trimmed mean version of the CPI at least purports to be a fixed basket price index, not a variable weight deflator like the Fed’s beloved PCE deflator.

In short, the 16% trimmed mean CPI puts paid to the “transitory” scam. Come hell or high water, this serviceable inflation measure has been rising at 2.00% per annum since the year 2000, and even more than that during the 1990s.

Thus, during the 112 months since the Fed formally adopted inflation targeting in January 2012, it has risen by 2.03% per annum and by 2.15% per annum since January 2000.

Equally significantly, there have been only a handful of times during the 256 monthly readings since January 2000 when the year-over-year measure dropped materially below 2.00%.

YoY Change, 16% Trimmed Mean CPI, 2000-2021

For want of doubt, here is the Fed’s preferred short-ruler—-the core PCE (personal consumption expenditure deflator less food and energy). And the Fed’s case for its insane money-pumping essentially boils down to the dueling information covered by the red bars above and the purple bars below.

As it happens, the one-year change in the core PCE deflator is 3.1% and the stacked two-year gain is 1.99% per annum. That latter is apparently not close enough to 2.00% for government work, meaning that the Fed needs to get more years into its average.

Even then, you have to be trained in the medieval theology of counting angels on the head of a pin to ascertain the purported earth-shaking “shortfall” from target. Compared to April 2021, here are the multi-year CAGRs on an April-to-April basis:

  • 2019-2021: 1.99%;

  • 2018-2021: 1.89%; 

  • 2017-2021: 1.92%;

  • 2016-2012: 1.86%:

  • 2015-2021:1.82%

That’s right. For the five year-pairs shown above, the average CAGR for the core PCE deflator was 1.90%. It seems that “lowflation” amounts to that which you need a magnifying glass to ascertain— 10 basis points of shortfall.

Of course, our monetary bean counters are not done “averaging”, either. If you go back to January 2012 when the Fed officially adopted inflation targeting, the core PCE deflator is up by 1.69% per annum, and since January 2000 it has risen by 1.75% per annum.

So there you have it. For want of 25-31 basis points of annual inflation—-averaging back to the beginning of the current century—you have a camarilla of central bankers giving deer in the headlights an altogether new meaning. That is to say, they are apparently not even thinking about thinking about tapering their massive bond-buying fraud owing to the barely detectable differences between purple and red bars of these dueling charts.

As we said a few days back, would that they had applied the 25th Amendment to the Federal Reserve Board.

These sick puppies are in urgent need of palliative care.

YoY Change In Core PCE Deflator, 2000-2021

They are also in need of a dose of realism, and on that score there are three figures in the May CPI report which tell you all you need to know. To wit, compared to May 2020, durable goods prices were up by 10.3%, nondurables were higher by 7.4% and services less energy gained 2.9%.

In fact, in the recent history of these three figures lays a stinging refutation of the entire “lowflation” scam promulgated by the Fed money printers and their acolytes and shills on Wall Street and in Washington, too.

On this matter, the Donald was right, even if by accident or for the wrong reasons. What we are referring to, of course, is the “Shina” factor.

Beijing’s form of state-controlled printing press capitalism has systematically drivendown the cost of manufactured goods and especially durables by, in effect, draining the rice paddies of China’s great interior and herding its latent industrial work force into spanking new factories which paid wages less than meager. And CapEx costs were rock bottom, too, owing to $50 trillion of central bank-fueled domestic debt and the greatest cheap capital-driven malinvestment spree in human history.

The result was an intense, multi-decade long deflation of manufactured goods as the high labor costs embodied in US and European manufacturers were steadily squeezed out of global prices levels as production shifted to China and its East Asian supply chain.

That impact is patently obvious in the composition of the CPI among the three components which were flashing warning lights in today’s inflation report.

Composition of CPI By Major Components, 2000-2021

In the first place, the core of domestic inflation lies in the 58.8% weight of the CPI consisting of mainly domestically supplied services. The 2.9% YoY gain reported for May for CPI services less energy was essentially par for the course.

That is, during the last 21 years (since January 2000) this component (black line) has risen by 2.71% per annum, and since January 2012 it has gained a similar 2.63% per annum.

Needless to say, if there is any part of the inflation rate that the Fed can most powerfully impact, it is domestically supplied services like health care, education, housing, entertainment, travel and foods services. So where’s the “lowflation” in that part of the CPI basket?

Alas, we don’t have lowflation in services at all, but a stubborn 2.6%-3.0% upward price drift in domestic service components which account for nearly three-fifths of the household budget.

By contrast, the durable goods component (brown line) accounts for 11.1% of the CPI, and it’s been an anchor to the windward for more than two decades. As of May 2021, prices were still 8% below their January 2000 level.

The truth is, the alleged lowflation on the top line CPI has been heavily attributable to the deflationary durable goods sector, but, alas, that era is apparently over. The Chinese rice paddies have been drained on a one-time basis and its labor force is now actually shrinking, while the Donald’s ill-timed tariff barriers have forced production to move to higher cost venues, albeit not necessary the USA of A.

Either way, the anchor to the windward is largely gone, meaning that rising durable goods prices going forward will no-longer weigh as heavily on the CPI.

It should be further noted that during the past two-decades nondurable prices have also held-down the CPI top line—again in large part owing to the “Shina” factor and downward pressures from cheap apparel, footwear, home furnishings and the like.

During the past 21 years, the nondurables component (yellow line) of the CPI rose by 1.99% per annum, which is as close as you please to the target, but was also on anchor on the overall CPI top-line ( purple line) which increased by 2.19% per annum.

Alas, during the period since January 2012, nondurables rose by just 0.63% per annum owing to flat-lining energy and commodity prices, thereby pulling the overall CPI down to 1.80% per annum, where it too fell awry of the Fed’s sacred 2.00% target.

But here’s the thing. A smattering of surging nondurable goods prices in the May 2021 report are a stark reminder that the times they are a changin’.

On a YoY basis, these components suggest that “lowflation” in durables may have passed its sell-by date and that the 7.4% YoY gain in nondurables overall may be lifting, not suppressing, the CPI top-line going forward.

YoY Change In Major Nondurables Components:

  • Energy commodities: +54.5%;

  • Apparel: +5.6%;

  • Home furnishings and supplies: +3.7%;

  • Footwear: +7.1%;

  • Food away from home: +4.0%

  • Household furnishings and operations: +4.6%.

In sum, the chart above captures the one-time history of the Fed’s phony “lowflation” narrative—an aberrant condition that is now fading fast. Sooner or latter they will run out of excuses and back inflation reports to average down. And that, in turn, means tapering of the Fed’s great bond-buying fraud—the lynch pin of the greatest bond and stock bubble in recorded history.

Do we think that will trigger the greatest financial asset value collapse in modern times?

Why, yes, we do!

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/12/2021 - 10:35

Economics

How Science Becomes Religion

How Science Becomes Religion

Authored by Sheldon Richman via The Libertarian Insititute, 

The popular slogan today is "Believe in science."…

Share this article:

How Science Becomes Religion

Authored by Sheldon Richman via The Libertarian Insititute, 

The popular slogan today is "Believe in science." It’s often used as a weapon against people who reject not science in principle but rather one or another prominent scientific proposition, whether it be about the COVID-19 vaccine, climate change, nutrition (low-fat versus low-carb eating), to mention a few. My purpose here is not to defend or deny any particular scientific position but to question the model of science that the loudest self-declared believers in science seem to work from. Their model makes science seem almost identical to what they mean by, and attack as, religion. If that’s the case, we ought not to listen to them when they lecture the rest of us about heeding science.

The clearest problem with the admonition to "believe in science" is that it is of no help whatsoever when well-credentialed scientists–that is, bona fide experts–are found on both (or all) sides of a given empirical question. Dominant parts of the intelligentsia may prefer we not know this, but dissenting experts exist on many scientific questions that some blithely pronounce as "settled" by a "consensus," that is, beyond debate. This is true regarding the precise nature and likely consequences of climate change and aspects of the coronavirus and its vaccine. Without real evidence, credentialed mavericks are often maligned as having been corrupted by industry, with the tacit faith that scientists who voice the established position are pure and incorruptible. It’s as though the quest for government money could not in themselves bias scientific research. Moreover, no one, not even scientists, are immune from group-think and confirmation bias.

So the "believe the science" chorus gives the credentialed mavericks no notice unless it’s to defame them. Apparently, under the believers' model of science, truth comes down from a secular Mount Sinai (Mount Science?) thanks to a set of anointed scientists, and those declarations are not to be questioned. The dissenters can be ignored because they are outside the elect. How did the elect achieve its exalted station? Often, but not always, it was through the political process: for example, appointment to a government agency or the awarding of prestigious grants. It may be that a scientist simply has won the adoration of the progressive intelligentsia because his or her views align easily with a particular policy agenda.

But that’s not science; it’s religion, or at least it’s the stereotype of religion that the "science believers" oppose in the name of enlightenment. What it yields is dogma and, in effect, accusations of heresy.

In real science no elect and no Mount Science exists. Real science is a rough-and-tumble process of hypothesizing, public testing, attempted replication, theory formation, dissent and rebuttal, refutation (perhaps), revision (perhaps), and confirmation (perhaps). It’s an unending process, as it obviously must be. Who knows what’s around the next corner? No empirical question can be declared settled by consensus once and for all, even if with time a theory has withstood enough competent challenges to warrant a high degree of confidence. (In a world of scarce resources, including time, not all questions can be pursued, so choices must be made.) The institutional power to declare matters settled by consensus opens the door to all kinds of mischief that violate the spirit of science and potentially harm the public financially and otherwise.

The weird thing is that "believers in science" sometimes show that they understand science correctly. Some celebrity atheists, for example, use a correct model of science when they insist to religious people that we can never achieve "absolute truth," by which they mean infallibility is beyond reach. But they soon forget this principle when it comes to their pet scientific propositions. Then suddenly they sound like the people they were attacking in the previous hour.

Another problem with the dogmatic "believers in science" is that they assume that proper government policy, which is a normative matter, flows seamlessly from "the science," which is a positive matter. If one knows the science, then one knows what everyone ought to do–or so the scientific dogmatists think. It’s as though scientists were uniquely qualified by virtue of their expertise to prescribe the best public-policy response.

But that is utterly false. Public policy is about moral judgment, trade-offs, and the justifiable use of coercion. Natural scientists are neither uniquely knowledgeable about those matters nor uniquely capable of making the right decisions for everyone. When medical scientists advised a lockdown of economic activity because of the pandemic, they were not speaking as scientists but as moralists (in scientists’ clothing). What are their special qualifications for that role? How could those scientists possibly have taken into account all of the serious consequences of a lockdown–psychological, domestic, social, economic, etc.–for the diverse individual human beings who would be subject to the policy? What qualifies natural scientists to decide that people who need screening for cancer or heart disease must wait indefinitely while people with an officially designated disease need not? (Politicians issue the formal prohibitions, but their scientific advisers provide apparent credibility.)

Here’s the relevant distinction: while we ought to favor science, we ought to reject scientism, the mistaken belief that the only questions worth asking are those amenable to the methods of the natural sciences and therefore all questions must either be recast appropriately or dismissed as gibberish. F. A. Hayek, in The Counter-Revolution of Science, defined scientism as the "slavish imitation of the method and language of Science."

I like how the philosopher Gilbert Ryle put it in The Concept of Mind: "Physicists may one day have found the answers to all physical questions, but not all questions are physical questions. The laws they have found and will find may, in one sense of the metaphorical verb, govern everything that happens, but they do not ordain everything that happens. Indeed they do not ordain anything that happens. Laws of nature are not fiats."

"How should we live?" is not one of those questions which natural scientists are specially qualified to answer, but it is certainly worth asking. Likewise, "What risks should you or I take or avoid?" There is a world of difference between a medical expert’s saying, "Vaccine X is generally safe and effective" and "Vaccination should be mandatory." (One of the great critics of scientism was Thomas Szasz, M.D., who devoted his life to battling the medical profession’s, and especially psychiatry’s, crusade to recast moral issues as medical issues and thereby control people in the name of disinterested science.)

Most people are unqualified to judge most scientific conclusions, but they are qualified to live their lives reasonably. I’m highly confident the earth is a sphere and that a water molecule is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. But I do not know how to confirm those propositions. So we all need to rely on scientific and medical authorities–not in the sense of power but in the sense of expertise and reputation. (Even authorities in one area rely on authorities in others.)

But we must also remember that those authorities’ empirical claims are defeasible; that is, they are in principle open to rebuttal and perhaps refutation, that is, the scientific process. Aside from the indispensable and self-validating axioms of logic, all claims are open in this sense. That process is what gets us to the truth. As John Stuart Mill pointed out in On Liberty, even a dissenter who holds a demonstrably wrong view on a question might know something important on that very question that has been overlooked. To our peril do we shut people up or shout them down as heretics. That’s dogma, not science.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/31/2021 - 13:00
Continue Reading

Precious Metals

Constant Inflation Doubletalk from Fed Erodes Confidence

The summer doldrums in precious metals markets have tested the patience of bulls. The silver market has been hit especially hard…

Share this article:

Welcome to this week’s Market Wrap Podcast, I’m Mike Gleason.

The summer doldrums in precious metals markets have tested the patience of bulls. The silver market has been hit especially hard in recent weeks, but price stayed above the $24 level and avoided dipping to new lows for the year.

Nervous and frustrated investors who bailed out this summer may have made a huge mistake. Gold and silver markets appear to now be catching a break on the upside.

On Thursday, gold gained 2% to record its best close since mid-June. As of this Friday recording, the monetary metal trades at $1,830 an ounce and is up 1.1% for the week.

Turning to silver, prices are advancing by 1.4% this week to check in at $25.62 per ounce. Platinum, which was basically flat through Thursday, now shows a weekly loss of 1.8% to trade at $1,056. And finally, palladium is drifting slightly lower by 0.9% to come in at $2,682 per ounce.

Metals markets stand to benefit from renewed weakness in the dollar.

Since late May, U.S. dollar strength versus foreign currencies had put downward pressure on hard assets. The U.S. Dollar Index rallied from about 89.50 to just over 93 before momentum waned in recent days.

The Index failed to make a new high for the year on its summer rally, setting the stage for a potential bearish reversal. That reversal appears to have taken place this week, with the Dollar Index breaking down below 92 yesterday.

Currency traders were unimpressed by the Federal Reserve’s latest policy briefing. On Wednesday, the Fed announced it would leave its benchmark Funds rate unchanged and continue its $120 billion in monthly asset purchases.

No tapering was on the table, though there was some taper talk. It amounted to vague indications of future tightening after the U.S. economy attains "substantial further progress."

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell tried to quell inflation concerns. He reverted again to his “transitory” claims, but in remarks to the media he seemed confused about what his own definition of transitory inflation means.

Jerome Powell: The increases will happen. We're not saying they will reverse. That's not what transitory means. It means that the increases in prices will happen. So, there will be inflation, but that the process of inflation will stop, so that there won't be ...

When we think of inflation, we really think of inflation going up year, upon year, upon year, upon year. That's inflation. When you have inflation for 12 months, or whatever it might be, I'm just taking an example, I'm not making an estimate, then you have a price increase but you don't have an inflation process. And so, part of that just is that if it doesn't affect longer term inflation expectations, then it's very likely not to affect the process of inflation going forward.

So, what I mean by transitory is just something that doesn't leave a permanent mark on the inflation process. Again, I don't mean that producers are going to take those price increases back; that's not the idea. It's just that they won't go on indefinitely. We have two mandates, maximum employment and price stability. Price stability for us means inflation average of 2% over time. And so, we've got to be very careful about that, but I think it's a good point that it's a term, what it really means is "temporary." But then you've got to understand that it doesn't mean that the increases will be taken back. Some of them will be, but that's not really what it means.

Well, anyone wants to make sense out of all that would need a degree in Fedspeak. We are supposed to believe that stable prices actually means prices rising at a 2% average rate – except when the Fed wants inflation to run higher. But when it does, it’s only transitory – except when it affects the inflation process, which happens when long-term inflation expectations rise, which the Fed says won’t happen but at the same time doesn’t really know what will happen in the future.

Maybe what the Fed says matters less than what economic realities say. Investors would be better served focusing on fundamentals than trying to decipher central bankers’ forecasts.

Unfortunately, investors can’t ignore the Fed entirely. Since its monetary policy decisions can and do drive financial markets, it is necessary to pay attention to what the Fed is actually doing.

Right now it is still stimulating rather than fighting inflation, still holding interest rates artificially low, and still offloading negative real yields upon savers and investors.

That puts both the bond and stock markets in precarious positions. If inflation expectations were to shift to rising prices being a long-term rather than a transitory problem, a dramatic downside readjustment in interest-rate sensitive financial assets would commence.

There would also likely be a dramatic upside revaluation of hard assets including precious metals.

Whether investor psychology shifts suddenly or gradually toward an inflation-protection mindset remains to be seen. Metals markets tend to move slowly at the beginning of bull markets, then rapidly and even violently toward the end.

Market timing is an impossible task given the unpredictable nature of people and circumstances. What is possible is to capitalize on opportunities when markets are over-pricing financial assets and under-pricing hard assets.

The opportunity exists now, but it won’t last forever. There may even come a day when the opposite is true – hard assets are overpriced with inflation expectations running way ahead of actual inflation realities and financial assets offering tremendous value as a result.

Yes, that could happen. It did in the early 1980s.

But the early 2020s look more like the start of a new inflationary cycle rather than the unwinding of one.

Well, that will do it for this week. Be sure to check back next week for our next Weekly Market Wrap Podcast. Until then this has been Mike Gleason with Money Metals Exchange, thanks for listening and have a weekend everybody.

      

Continue Reading

Economics

Michael “Big Short” Burry: This Is The Greatest Bubble Of All Time In All Things “By Two Orders Of Magnitude”

Michael "Big Short" Burry: This Is The Greatest Bubble Of All Time In All Things "By Two Orders Of Magnitude"

Earlier this year, none other…

Share this article:

Michael "Big Short" Burry: This Is The Greatest Bubble Of All Time In All Things "By Two Orders Of Magnitude"

Earlier this year, none other than Michael 'Big Short' Burry confirmed BofA's greatest fears, as he picked up on the theme of Weimar Germany and specifically its hyperinflation, as the blueprint for what comes next in a lengthy tweetstorm cribbing generously from Parsson's seminal work, warning that:

"The US government is inviting inflation with its MMT-tinged policies. Brisk Debt/GDP, M2 increases while retail sales, PMI stage V recovery. Trillions more stimulus & re-opening to boost demand as employee and supply chain costs skyrocket."

#ParadigmShift

 "The life of the inflation in its ripening stage was a paradox which had its own unmistakable characteristics. One was the great wealth, at least of those favored by the boom..Many great fortunes sprang up overnight...The cities, had an aimless and wanton youth"

"Prices in Germany were steady, and both business and the stock market were booming. The exchange rate of the mark against the dollar and other currencies actually rose for a time, and the mark was momentarily the strongest currency in the world" on inflation's eve.

"Side by side with the wealth were the pockets of poverty. Greater numbers of people remained on the outside of the easy money, looking in but not able to enter. The crime rate soared."

"Accounts of the time tell of a progressive demoralization which crept over the common people, compounded of their weariness with the breakneck pace, to no visible purpose, and their fears from watching their own precarious positions slip while others grew so conspicuously rich."

"Almost any kind of business could make money. Business failures and bankruptcies became few. The boom suspended the normal processes of natural selection by which the nonessential and ineffective otherwise would have been culled out."

"Speculation alone, while adding nothing to Germany's wealth, became one of its largest activities. The fever to join in turning a quick mark infected nearly all classes..Everyone from the elevator operator up was playing the market."

"The volumes of turnover in securities on the Berlin Bourse became so high that the financial industry could not keep up with the paperwork...and the Bourse was obliged to close several days a week to work off the backlog" #robinhooddown

"all the marks that existed in the world in the summer of 1922 were not worth enough, by November of 1923, to buy a single  newspaper or a tram ticket. That was the spectacular part of the collapse, but most of the real loss in money wealth had been suffered much earlier."

 "Throughout these years the structure was quietly building itself up for the blow. Germany's #inflationcycle ran not for a year but for nine years, representing eight years of gestation and only one year of #collapse."

His punchline: the above was "written in 1974 re: 1914-1923" and then makes the ominous extrapolation that "2010-2021: Gestation" adding that "when dollars might as well be falling from the sky...management teams get creative and ultimately take more risk.. paying out debt-financed dividends to investors or investing in risky growth opportunities has beaten a frugal mentality hands down."

And, as if reading from the same playbook, Paul Tudor Jones warned yesterday that things are "bat shit crazy" and if Jay Powell

“The idea that inflation is transitory, to me ... that one just doesn’t work the way I see the world."

All of which led to Burry's latest tweet warning this morning...

"People always ask me what is going on in the markets. It is simple. Greatest Speculative Bubble of All Time in All Things. By two orders of magnitude. #FlyingPigs360"

In other words: "Brace!"

So what are you going to do about it?

Tudor Jones had some simple advice: "buy commodities, buy crypto, buy gold."

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/15/2021 - 11:10

Continue Reading

Trending