We Are All Venezuelans

 Posted by on 6 October 2008 at 12:40 am  Economics, Finance, Politics
Oct 062008

There’s a Barney Frank before, and a Barney Frank after. No, the pork-belly king hasn’t gone on a diet. But Americans probably will have to go on one, now that the $700 billion bailout has been hastily rammed down the country’s throat.

All I can say is, “Bad, Bush!” “Bad, Barney!” for taking such a hard left turn to the land of socialism when they were warned about the crisis in the housing markets years ago.

Furthermore, “Bad, Democrats!” for blaming the whole thing on the Republicans, when the Clinton administration helped stage the inevitable fallout by legislating irrational lending to facilitate home ownership among people who otherwise wouldn’t qualify.

And “Bad, Bolivia!” “Bad, Brazil!” for blaming the whole financial crisis on capitalism.

Dr. Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute, provides a good explanation of the real underlying causes of the biggest financial threat to this country since the Great Depression. This whole greasy mess is a direct consequence of a conglomeration of governmental initiatives such as: artificially-low interest rates set by the central planners at the Federal Reserve; politically-motivated lending standards set by the social planners in Congress; and the artificial profit opportunities created by the financial planners at Freddie and Fannie and the SEC. It is a conspiracy of irrational market manipulations that preclude any corrective forces that would have kicked in long ago in a truely free-market.

At some point, the houses of cards had to fall down. And now we’re stuck with a botched emergency Financectomy performed on Wall Street’s bleeding wallet by a panic-stricken Treasury Secretary, President, and Congress.

And it doesn’t matter who takes over the care of this patient in November because both candidates were right there in the operating room agreeing with the chief surgeon’s basic care plan. And both blamed the crisis on some entrenched greediness of businessmen.

Hugo Chavez must feel vindicated. He even says that it’s so bad over here, America needs a new Constitution to free itself of the tyranny of big banks and corporations.

Thanks for the advice, Hugo, but I think the Constitution–even with its flaws–is pretty good already. It’s just that our leaders don’t like to follow it. It’s like they’ve missed the whole essence of it. Ayn Rand clarifies that the “Constitution is a limitation on the government…(it is) a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.”

While Hugo confuses American political power with the economic power of our quasi-capitalist system, he hasn’t missed the chance to enhance his own economic power by exercising his monopoly on political power in Venezuela. And America has been inexorably following suit.

This bailout is just the latest in a long string of Venezuelanesque growth in government: from Medicare/Medicaid/FDA…to public schooling… to Social Security…to limitations on abortion..to special programs this..to special programs that…to subsidized industries in agriculture/autos/airlines/Savings and Loans….and now to the big kahuna bailout of October 3. The greed of capitalism? I don’t think so.

But if we did follow Hugo’s advice and make a new Constitution, maybe it should start with, “We The People of the United States, who don’t want our freedoms mucked up by a bunch of central planners in Washington, want a Constitution that really means it when we say limited government…”

Hsieh LTE on the Bailout

 Posted by on 3 October 2008 at 9:34 am  Activism, Economics, Finance, Politics
Oct 032008

The September 30, 2008 Denver Post did publish my LTE on the proposed bailout, but only in the online edition, not the print edition. (All of the LTE’s on this topic were online-only.)

It’s the second LTE on the page:

The current financial mess is not the fault of the free market, but rather of government interference in the free market. It’s clearly not in the interest of banks to loan money to people who can’t pay it back. The government created artificial incentives (such as the Community Reinvestment Act) that rewarded lenders for doing so, with the implied promise that taxpayers would pick up the tab if anything went wrong. The current mess is exactly the result one would expect.

To blame the free market for problems caused by government interference in the free market is like blaming one’s automobile accident on the car, rather than the fact that one was driving while yakking on a cellphone while looking at the onboard GPS system while reaching for a stick of gum in the glove compartment…

Paul Hsieh, Sedalia

For a longer discussion of this issue, see “The Long Road to Slack Lending Standards” by Steven Malanga. Here’s an excerpt:

Many defenders of the government’s efforts to prompt banks to lend more to minorities have claimed that this effort had little to do with the present mortgage mess. Specifically they point out that many institutions that made subprime mortgages during the market bubble weren’t even banks subject to the Community Reinvestment Act, the main vehicle that the feds used to cajole banks to loosen their lending.

But this defense misses the point. In order to push banks to lend more to minority borrowers, advocates like the Boston Fed put forward an entire new set of lending standards and explained to the industry just why loans based on these slacker standards were somehow safer than the industry previously thought. These justifications became the basis for a whole new set of values (or lack of values), as no-down payment loans and loans to people with poor credit history or to those who were already loaded up with debt became more common throughout the entire industry.

What happened in the mortgage industry is an example of how, in trying to eliminate discrimination from our society, we turned logic on its head. Instead of nobly trying to ensure equality of opportunity for everyone, many civil rights advocates tried to use the government to ensure equality of outcomes for everyone in the housing market. And so when faced with the idea that minorities weren’t getting approved for enough mortgages because they didn’t measure up as often to lending standards, the advocates told us that the standards must be discriminatory and needed to be junked. When lenders did that, we made heroes out of those who led the way, like Angelo Mozilo, before we made villains of them.

Now we all have to pay.

A deliberate policy of elevating “lack of value” above value sounds almost like something from Atlas Shrugged. The end results certainly looks like it…

Berton Braley on the Bailout

 Posted by on 2 October 2008 at 11:00 am  Economics, Finance, Poetry, Politics
Oct 022008

Berton Braley was a very popular early 20th century poet; his writings often extolled the virtues of capitalism, industry, success, and the like. Here’s a particularly apt poem, sent to me by Boaz Arad:

The Profits and Loss
By Berton Braley

From New Deal Ditties: or, Running in the Red with Roosevelt, 1936

When “planned economy” first began
It looked like a swell “idea” –
Until we learned it had no plan
And wasn’t economee.

For the taxes rise and the budget’s shot
And the New Deal costs are met
By spending money we haven’t got
For things that we never get.

The Billions roll in mighty stream,
A regular tidal flood,
With the net result that each spending scheme
Bogs down in a sea of mud.

When plans and programs go all to pot
Do the New Deal planners fret?
Why no, they think up a brand new lot
Of schemes to spend what we haven’t got
For things we will never get!

The House is scheduled to vote on this new bailout plan on Friday. It might well pass this time, in part due to all the special-interest pork added to the bill. (UGH!) Please tell your representative that you still oppose the bailout. You might wish to mention that your vote in November will be influenced by their vote tomorrow.

More Bailout-O-Rama

 Posted by on 1 October 2008 at 6:51 am  Activism, Economics, Finance, Politics
Oct 012008

The Senate has a new $700 billion bailout plan that they’re voting on today:

Top lawmakers said the Senate proposal, worked out after a day of behind the scenes maneuvering, would include tax breaks for businesses and alternative energy and higher government insurance for bank deposits.

We do need to speak up against this new bailout plan. The market crash after the defeat of the bill in the House caused some to think that a bailout would be a good idea:

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate banking committee, said the Senate decided to move quickly, citing signs of regret from some House members after the markets plunged in response to their initial vote.

“I think their will is coming back having heard from their constituents,” Mr. Dodd said.

Lawmakers said the stock market response to the rejection was a sobering experience that could enhance prospects for a revised plan. Some anxiety lifted on Tuesday, as the Dow Jones industrial average rose 485 points, regaining more than half of the 778 points it lost on Monday.

On the morning after the sell-off on Wall Street, Congressional offices reported a shift in angry calls from constituents, with some now demanding that lawmakers take some corrective action — a distinct change from the outpouring of public opposition that contributed to the defeat of the plan.

“I started hearing from a lot of people who lost money on their investments thanks to the big drop on Wall Street yesterday,” said Representative Steven C. LaTourette, Republican of Ohio, who voted against the plan.

So even if you already wrote or called your Senators, contact them again to tell them that you still oppose the bailout.

Also, the Ayn Rand Center has created a page of great resources on the bailout:


Feel free to make good use of it in your activism on this issue — not only by informing yourself but also by posting the link in comments on news articles, forwarding it to friends, including it in e-mails to representatives, and so on. Here’s ARC’s announcement:

The Ayn Rand Center Responds to the Financial Crisis
September 30, 2008

Americans are now facing an historic economic crisis. What was the cause? What is the cure? How do we prevent it from happening again?

While pundits and politicians blame the current housing and financial crisis on “greedy” businessmen and lax regulators, and are frantically urging the government to expand its control over our economic lives, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights has launched a new Web page to defend a different view–that the actual cause of the crisis is government intervention, and the only cure, laissez-faire capitalism.

We invite you to check out our collection of essays, op-eds, lectures, and interviews arguing for a rational approach to this crisis–an approach you will not find anywhere else.

The Bailout Made Easy

 Posted by on 30 September 2008 at 5:03 pm  Economics, Finance, Politics
Sep 302008

The cover from this week’s edition of The Economist reduces the bailout to its essentials:

(Unfortunately, the article itself supports the bailout.)

In contrast, 8 years ago Howard Husock wrote the following about the Community Reinvestment Act in “The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities“:

…Even without a no-down-payment policy, the pressure on banks to make CRA-related loans may be leading to foreclosures. Though bankers generally cheerlead for CRA out of fear of being branded racists if they do not, the CEO of one midsize bank grumbles that 20 percent of his institution’s CRA-related mortgages, which required only $500 down payments, were delinquent in their very first year, and probably 7 percent will end in foreclosure. “The problem with CRA,” says an executive with a major national financial-services firm, “is that banks will simply throw money at things because they want that CRA rating.” From the banks’ point of view, CRA lending is simply a price of doing business—even if some of the mortgages must be written off.

…Looking into the future gives further cause for concern: “The bulk of these loans,” notes a Federal Reserve economist, “have been made during a period in which we have not experienced an economic downturn.” The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America’s own success stories make you wonder how much CRA-related carnage will result when the economy cools.

I think we’re finding out exactly how much right now…

More Analysts Blaming Government For Economic Crisis

 Posted by on 30 September 2008 at 3:00 pm  Finance
Sep 302008

Here are a couple more articles in which non-Objectivists are correctly putting the blame for the current mortgage crisis on government policies, not the free market.

In “Credit Crisis Not a Free-Market Failure“, Thomas Sowell writes:

…Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been that the government would step in with a bailout to prevent chaos in financial markets.

… If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

In “Reject bailout rush to socialism“, David Littmann writes:

…Washington does not want you to remember the four ways it has brought us to this unfortunate moment. Let’s review:

* The Community Reinvestment Act (approved in 1977 during the Carter administration) compelled banks and other lenders to loan money and grant mortgages in areas where they would have never dreamed of making such loans because of the exceptional risks of default. Banks were denied charters for growth and geographical expansion if regulators found them to be out of compliance with these politically correct regulations, enforced by the Federal Reserve and others.

* Government-sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) received taxpayer subsidies to provide mortgages and are favored by politicians and regulators with the privilege of maintaining very thin capital reserves as buffers against losses that result from defaulting on delinquent mortgages.

* Insane accounting rules, the Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory regime and Securities and Exchange Commission rules have contributed to the mess, especially the devastating “mark-to-market” requirement. The financial reports of firms and financial organizations must carry assets on their ledgers as though they were forced to sell them immediately into distressed markets, rather than at book value…

* And the Federal Reserve spurred subprime lending by pursuing inflationary money policies that dropped bank-borrowing rates to 1 percent.

To avoid greater government involvement and messes in the future (think Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security), Washington must extricate itself from the market. As real estate prices become more affordable, credit-worthy firms and individuals throughout the nation and world are ready to pounce on bargains that will appreciate.

The government got America into this situation. The solution is simple: Government, get out.

I’m heartened to see this idea in circulation. We should continue to stress this point when we discuss this issue with legislators as well as others.

To keep things simple and easy-to-understand, I’ve been using the three key points that Tony Donadio mentioned in his earlier comment:

(1) The current crisis was created by government interference in the housing market.
(2) Further interference will only make things worse.
(3) It is unjust to make innocent people who did not make or take out irresponsible loans pay for the mistakes of those who did.

Bush Vs. Ott On The Bailout

 Posted by on 30 September 2008 at 12:15 pm  Economics, Finance, Politics
Sep 302008

As one would expect, President Bush called for a massive financial bailout in his recent speech to America. So much for fiscally conservative Republicans.

I prefer this fictional Bush speech from satirist Scott Ott a lot better. Here are a few excerpts:

Bush: Congress Must Act to Save Stupid People

…”To sustain this shining city on a hill,” Mr. Bush said, “we need to rescue the ignorant, irresponsible folks — from Wall Street to Capitol Hill to Main Street — who got us to where we are today. We must guarantee that no American suffers the soft bigotry of being forced to live with the consequences of his bad decisions.”

…”If these giant companies fail, then America will be left with nothing but thousands of small to mid-sized financial firms that made prudent investment decisions during the past 15 years.”

…”It is a moral imperative that we guard the civil rights of these idiots,” he said. “If we fail, then we face the specter of free market capitalism run amok, and millions of Americans will feel the painful lash of personal responsibility across their backs.”

Correspondence on the Bailout

 Posted by on 29 September 2008 at 11:31 pm  Economics, Finance, Politics
Sep 292008

Objectivist historian John Lewis recently sent his representative a terse note against the bailout. His representative responded with the pro-bailout crap. And Dr. Lewis wrote a lengthy, informative, and very pointed reply. He has given me permission to reproduce the whole correspondence, but you might just want to skip down to his reply. Then you might want to forward it to your representatives in Washington.

Here’s the first letter:

From: John Lewis

Dear Speaker Pelosi and all US Representatives:

I oppose all bailouts of financial institutions by the US government.

Government regulation and meddling is solidly to blame for this crisis.

We must reduce government involvement in the economy now.

Dr. John David Lewis
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University
Senior Reasearch Scholar, Social Philosophy and Policy Center

Here’s the reply from Representative David Price of North Carolina:

Date: September 29, 2008
From: Congressman David Price
To: Dr. John David Lewis
Subject: Reply from Congressman David Price

Dr. John Lewis

Durham, NC 27705

Dear Dr. Lewis:

Thank you for contacting me about our country’s financial crisis and the proposed recovery legislation. Today the House defeated this legislation, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, by a vote of 205 to 228, despite my support.

Like you, I do not have any interest in “bailing out” Wall Street firms and business leaders who have speculated recklessly, endangered our country’s consumers and homebuyers, and resisted regulation that would protect the public interest. My concern is for Main Street – for the people depending on a sound economy and the availability of credit to buy a house or car, to run their business and meet payroll, and to save for college and retirement.

Like it or not, we are all in this together, and the entire economy is threatened as we teeter on the edge of a 1929-style meltdown. Today Wachovia Bank, a North Carolina mainstay, collapsed. But this goes much deeper than bank failures. Last week, the City of Raleigh could not find a buyer for a $300 million bond, and Wake County cancelled its planned $472 million bond issue for school construction, Wake Tech, libraries, and open space acquisition. Both have AAA bond ratings.

Although President Bush lacks the credibility to be of much help, I take the dire warnings of economic analysts very seriously, particularly in light of everything that has happened in the last few weeks. But I could not support Secretary Paulson’s request for a blank check for $700 billion to purchase mortgage-backed securities and stabilize the markets.

I thus became part of the intensive discussions over the last ten days to rewrite the Treasury plan in several critical respects. The legislation which came before us today would:

o Provide strict independent oversight and accountability for all activities undertaken by the US Treasury

o Release the $700 billion in installments, with multiple reviews along the way

o Make certain that the entire $700 billion is recaptured by the Treasury and thus by the American taxpayer, by requiring that taxpayers share in any profits resulting from the government’s help and providing for assessment of the financial industry for any remaining losses

o Forbid “golden parachutes” and limit other compensation for executives of participating financial institutions.

o Require the government to work with participating institutions and loan servicers to help deserving homeowners negotiate reasonable repayment terms and stay in their homes

The defeat of the bill prolongs and perhaps deepens the crisis. Coordinating with the Senate, the House will need to return within days to try again. Perhaps the economic situation will then lead some members to reconsider. Perhaps the bill can be changed in ways that attract a majority; I certainly have a list of improvements I would like to see. But considering the members who voted “no,” I will want to scrutinize carefully any changes designed to attract them.

I am committed over the next few days to continue working to avert financial collapse and get the best possible deal for America ‘s taxpayers and homeowners. I welcome and share your concern about this situation and will be glad to hear from you at any time.



Member of Congress

Here’s Dr. Lewis’ stellar response:

Date: Monday, September 29, 2008
From: John Lewis
To: Congressman David Price of North Carolina
Subject: Reply from Congressman David Price

Dear Congressman Price;

Thank you for your frank and fast response. I should be clear. I am opposed to bailing out these firms. But what I am more opposed to is the entire political culture of regulation–including manipulation of interest rates, Sarbanes-Oxley, changes in accounting rules, the Community Reinvestment Act, and a scad of others–that has fostered this mess. Two weeks ago no politician in Washington knew this was coming. Suddenly, after several all-nighters, they have enough knowledge to grant a quarter of a trillion dollars to a government bureaucrat, to dole out as he sees fit–and to promise another half-trillion, should his actions make it worse.

Meanwhile, the country focuses on the allegedly evil CEOs, “speculators” (read “investors”), and loan initiators who were earlier damned for NOT making loan money available to high-risk borrowers. I remind you that the Community Reinvestment Act penalizes firms for not making such risky loans. Now, suddenly, those firms are villified for following the law. Well, that’s government–it faces no penalties, except a periodic popularity contest, and can contradict itself with impunity.

Most of all, I resent the politicians and punditrs who are claiming, contrary to evidence, that it is now “impossible to get a loan” on Main Street. It is impossible to borrow millions on Wall Street, but regional banks that made prudent investors are not in danger–unless the government further coerces them.

The government is not saving Main Street–it is nationalizing it. Is it not true that, with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government now holds paper on tens of millions of American mortgages? What does granting American citizens “equity positions” and “profits” in companies seized by the government mean, except communism? Don’t we condemn Hugo Chavez for nationalizing oil companies?

I will also recall, as a student of economics, that the Great Depression was caused by a string of obnoxious legislation, and was then cruelly extended by massive government interference. Contrary to prevailing, but long-discredited, opinion, the government did not save us from that mess. It created, and prolonged, it. Twenty years earlier, JP Morgan ended the panic of 1908 in a few weeks–bankers in 1929 could not so act. Today, Morgan would have been jailed for the private pooling of assets he arranged. Is it not true that AIG was told by the Attorney General of New York that it would not be allowed to sell sound assets in order to save the holding company? Who is to blame for the collapse of a huge, and largely sound company, excpet those who forbhid its executives from acting?

You will forgive me if I have no respect for the likes of Senator Schumer, who started a run on a bank with his irresponsible statements and then claimed virtue for them, or Senator McCain, up to his neck in the Keating scandal, or Senator Dodd, whose reputation was on the rocks until this crisis saved him, or Senator Obama, who had not a clue at a White House meeting last week, and then went on-script before the press to cover his ignorance. You will please forgive me if promises of “oversight” by these PR men do not instill confidence.

I much more respect the CEOs who have spent their years in the business, and who face actual consequences for their errors. They do not have access to hundreds of billions of dollars of other people’s money–and they do not expect their stockholders to approve busines plans that cannot foretell whether they will lose three-quarters of a trillion dollars, or get some of it back in five or twenty years. They do not have their hands in the pocket of every person who produces in this country.

The truly brave politicians are those who recognize that the government is largely to blame for this mess, and should start emergency repeal of regulations now. Only this can allow responsible CEOs to start making decisions based on sound economics, rather than fear of breaking a law.

John Lewis

Dr. John David Lewis
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University

Thank you, John!

Keep Up the Pressure

 Posted by on 29 September 2008 at 1:51 pm  Election, Finance, Politics
Sep 292008

The proposed bailout plan has failed in the House of Representatives.

The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans joining 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans.

HOORAY! As a result, the plan is stalled, at least for the moment:

Supporters vowed to try to bring the rescue package up for consideration again as soon as possible, perhaps late Wednesday or Thursday, but there were no definite plans to do so.

That’s great news. But I’m not terribly surprised, I must say. (I can’t claim credit for the following insight, however. A friend suggested it to me last night.) Why not?

People are inundating their representatives with strong opposition to the bailout. Mark Udall, a representative from Colorado running for Senate reported: “People are mad. My calls are mixed, between people who say ‘No’ and people who say ‘Hell no.’”

Members of the House of Representatives are vulnerable to political discontent. Unlike in the Senate, the whole bunch (except those retiring) is up for re-election in just over a month. So as this vote indicates, many do not wish to risk their seat by voting in favor of wildly unpopular legislation — despite all the pressure from party leadership.

So what does that mean for us? It means: keep up the pressure. If you representative voted “no,” call or e-mail him to give your moral support. If he voted “yes” (as mine did; he’s retiring), then call or e-mail to tell him that you’re upset with him. You can find out how your representative voted here.

Unfortunately, the web site for the House (including their contact form) seems to be down, as does Congress.org. Does anyone have a working link to suggest?

Update: Reading that NY Times article in full, I’m impressed by the seemingly principled opposition to the bailout. See these descriptions and quotes:

Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said he intended to vote against the package, which he said would put the nation on “the slippery slope to socialism.” He said that he was afraid that it ultimately would not work, leaving the taxpayers responsible for “the mother of all debt.”

Another Texas Republican, John Culberson, spoke scathingly about the unbridled power he said the bill would hand over to the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., whom he called “King Henry.”

A third Texan, Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, said the negotiators had “never seriously considered any alternative” to the administration’s plan, and had only barely modified what they were given. He criticized the plan for handing over sweeping new powers to an administration that he said was to blame for allowing the crisis to develop in the first place.

In contrast, consider what the supporters of the bailout are saying:

When it comes to America’s economy, [Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Democratic Majority Leader] said, “none of us is an island.”

Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat, said the measure was vital to help financial institutions survive and keep people in their homes. “There’s plenty of blame to go around,” she said, and attaching blame should come later.

Adopt an Investment Bank

 Posted by on 29 September 2008 at 1:43 pm  Finance, Politics
Sep 292008

Via Bill, a funny column on the bailout from Joel Stein in the LA Times:

Even though I understand so little about economics that much of my long-term investments are tied up in Costco products, I feel pretty sure that letting Congress give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson $700 billion to buy super-crappy mortgages is not the right call.

Sure, like any American, when I see a photo on the Internet of an adorable little investment bank and find out it’s at risk of being put to sleep, I want to throw in $2,000 to $3,000 of my own money to adopt it. But instead of jacking up inflation, letting the dollar sink further and paying higher taxes so we can keep up cheap borrowing — which is what this plan amounts to — I think we need to let those who made bad loans get burned. We need to accept that credit will dry up and that maybe — for just a bit — we’ll have to stop buying more than we can afford.


So let’s not stop the short-selling of financial stocks — the only brake on overindulgence — as Paulson did last week. Let’s not strip Congress of yet another power by giving the Treasury secretary the right to decide where to dole out a large portion of our budget. Let’s not encourage more risky loans by making profits private and losses public. And let’s not create some bastardized form of communism in which the new rule is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to the size of the investment bank he owns shares in.”

I don’t agree with the whole column. He fails to recognize government regulation as the root problem of the current crisis, instead claiming that “we’ve got basically sound banking system that got a little under-regulated during the Clinton administration.” However, I do appreciate his insistence that the people and corporations who took the risks assume the responsibility for their losses. And I liked his humor: it highlighted the absurdity of treating corporations as objects of government charity.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha