Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




IS PRIVATIZATION answer to......

Is PRIVATIZATION answer to most of the problems....
I am living in India. Many people here advocate privatization as solution of many of our, if not all, problems.
Are these people right when they say so?
Are there any long-term harm and drawbacks of Privatization?
In which scenario, sectors does privatization delivers best? 

Any thoughts...

A young learner
Saturday, July 31, 2004

This is a hot topic in Pakistan too.

Just to make it a bit more clear to others on the board - many organizations, etc. here are under the governments control. For most of the markets, there is only one state- owned organization, company or corporation. So, the original poster probably wanted your opinion on what if these state-owned monopolistic organizations were privatized (i.e. sold to private sector).

I personally feel it wouldn't help much. The government can and does make money by selling out these organizations. But before they sell them, they make an authoritative entity above it - this new authoritative entity assumes all the power which was once attributed to the *now* privatized organization. This still doesn't promise competition.

Anon
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Like many great concepts, success depends on implementation.

At the very core, socialism and government-controlled economy only work well in a very particular set of circumstances. Norway is the socialist poster child, but they have oil, an aluminium processing industry and not a lot of mouths to feed - so they have money to spend. Countries which do not have objective natural resources which can sustain a social experiment for a long enough time will not succeed.

At the end of the day, a country needs to find an edge that its economy has over its competitors. In India, it's apparently quality labor on offer to American corporations. This edge cannot be successfully utilized in a government-controlled economy, it's just not going to happen. So while privatization is likely to lead to a lot of bad things in the near term (look at Russia in the early-mid 90s), it is the only way for the country to develop.

IMHO.

Flasher T
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Young learner, in India's case the answer is probably no. Privatization is often a code word for making greedy bastards richer.

They do this by sacking lots of people, creaming the profits, compromising safety standards, letting workers get killed, etc. They claim to have made the enterprise "more efficient," but what they really do is shift the costs to other parts of society, including the workers without jobs, the villagers who have no water, the customers with cancer.

India has a lot of learning to do and is on the way. But tell the privatization pricks to go back to America.

Been there
Saturday, July 31, 2004

By "go back to America", I am referring to the fact that most privatization fans are NRI's. (Overseas Indians - the rich ones.)

Been there
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Thanks!, Anon  :-)

A young learner
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Flasher;

"So while privatization is likely to lead to a lot of bad things in the near term (look at Russia in the early-mid 90s)"

"Lot of bad things" like?

And will India be able to afford it !?

A young learner
Saturday, July 31, 2004


One of the *nice* things about Privatization is that you actually have a group/organization responsible for things.

When the government is in charge of somethnig, everyone is in CYA-mode.  I've worked at numerous government agencies in the US and *few* employees ever risk their own asses to do the right thing.  They don't want to risk their jobs/career and what are you going to do, sue the government?

KC
Saturday, July 31, 2004

More or less what Been There said. Privatization introduced to a country with a long-standing tradition of planned economy leads to the few smart, lucky and ruthless people getting most of the wealth and disregarding consequences. When wealth becomes available to people who previously did not have the chance to acquire it, these people tend to kill the cow for the hide instead of starting up a dairy.

In the early days of Russian independence, the industry and the natural resources were taken over by a handful of people who sold off anything they could find a buyer for and leave the rest to rot. As a result, the average person's main concern was finding their next meal. It also lead to the national default of '98.
Still, over a decade later things look like they're becoming more civilized, although I am extremely suspicious of what Putin's actions are leading up to.

The main reason why markets work and planned economy doesn't is because the former is self-regulating and, more importantly, natural. If the Indian government truly embraces free markets and eliminates all but the absolutely necessary government control, there will certainly be a period of turmoil, but it will level off eventually. In fact I'd go as far as to say the transition will be easier than it was for Russia. One, Russians are extremely aggressive people by nature (although I do not know enough about Indian society to really compare), two, India has a history of fairly good times under fairly civilized rule in the Empire, and three, Western free-market-based companies have an enormous stake in India's economy at this point.

As for whether India can afford it or not, I don't think that's even relevant - it has to do it, otherwise it will never develop into a First World country. Globalization means every single economy needs an edge, and since India's is tied into the free market economy of the US and Europe, it needs to have the same base to protrude the edge from - planned economy is too inefficient for free markets to bother with, however glorious the talent pool may be.

Flasher T
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Young learner, I hope you take that name seriously and take some time to learn about economics.  A free market economy would improve any country's situation, but privatization by itself won't do much to get you there.  Too many people believe you can just get rid of some specific problem with a country, say send in an army to overthrow a dictator, and the future will be wonderful.  It doesn't happen that easily.

Z
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Low standards of living
Poor education
Safety problems
High crime rates
etc, etc, etc

All these things can be solved via social engineering. The problem is that it takes a strong visionary at the top steering the way, and it takes TIME. I'm talking about generations. You need an entire generation of children raised to make each transitional phase to enable the next phase.

One of our big problems in the US is this pervasive belief that anything can be fixed within four years if the federal government just throws money at it; but nobody is willing to do the real work where it's necessary.

It takes time, effort, and commitment to make change.

This is a very hard problem.

Philo

Philo
Saturday, July 31, 2004

-----"India has a history of fairly good times under fairly civilized rule in the Empire, "-------

Ah, yes, the good old British Empire where the sun never set and the blood never dried.

The problem with Russian privatization was that the process was introduced by a load of theorists funded by the USA and they just blindly rushed into it. They also botched the process, and the result was that the workers found themselves cheated out of their shares; one trick was for the company bosses to withold salaries so that the workers were forced to sell their shares for a cash advance.

Going back to your question it all depends on the individual country and the individual industry. To give you one example fo privatization working Sri Lankan Airlines flights have the prefix UL. This was generally considered to stand for "Usually Late". I read this at Kuwait airport and five minutes later an announcement came over the tannoy that the plane had been delayed. We eventually left 24 hours later, since they couldn't be bothered to send over a reserve crew, and the incoming crew had exceeded their flight hours. You have to reconfirm a flight; I did this by fax, and they evidentally just threw the fax in the trash. When I got to the airport they simply claimed I couldn't have sent the fax because I wasn't on the flight list.  A few years back, around 1999, I think, they sold around 50% of the shares to Emirates and gave them the right to manage the airline. Since that time I have caught Sri Lankan Airlines ten times and the flight has never been more than a few minutes late. The service is also excellent (it was voted the best airline in Asia for onflight service some time ago) and you can reconfirm directly at the airport or by means of a simple phone call.

On the other hand lets take the question of the Sri Lankan bus companies. They had a central bus company in Colombo in the 50's and 60's called the CBT. Buses were clean, normally used London double-deckers, and people old enough to remember tell you they were a pleasure to travel on. Now, as being an Indian you will well be aware, there is such a thing as "goonda" politics, and the CBT became the dumping ground where politicians would give jobs to their bodyguards cum henchmen. The result was that it became bloated and unmangeable. In 1977 the UNP government came in and decided to set up private bus companies in competition. This was part of a policy that got the name of "crony capitalism" and the result was that private bus routes were given to the friends of those in power, and the drivers chosen from among the henchmen/bodyguards of those "businessmen" or their political sponsors. The result is that travelling in a private bus in Colombo unless it's late at night or first thing in the morning is the kind of thing you would not wish to repeat, whether by private or state-owned transport.

To go back to the Indian situation I would say that privatisation is no panacea. But there are certain inefficient, bloated sectors, where it really would do some good. If you have ever had the misfortune to travel on the domestic carrier, Indian Airlines, which manages to have the worst inflight food in the world, you will know what I mean. And of course it is well-known that when you go to a State Bank in India you will wait the first forty-five minutes after opening while staff arrrive, or not as the case may be, and then proceed to chat and read the newspaper. Of course, privatising these behemoths will mean that the newspaper reading staff and kickback taking procurement officers will lose their jobs and so will a lot of less innocent people, but in the long run it does not help an economy to have a bloated workforce that does nothing.

In general I would say that there are one or two general rules.
1. Monopolies should not be privatised; there is unlikely to be an efficiency gain
2. Sometimes it does not matter too much. Peugot-Citroen is a gevernment company; Volkswagen is a private company owned mainly by the Unions and the State governments; General Motors is entirely private. It really makes little difference.
3. Privatization is not a panacea. It will not cure corruption, extortion, greed, or rampant commercial dishonesty, which are some of the major ills of South Asia, and until they are cured spectacular, just and sustainable development will not be possible.
4. Most importantly, economies do not like abrupt changes. 'Shock therapy' normally  only  causes trauma.  The collapse of the Iron Curtain caused severe problems for Eastern Europe because the old economic system was destroyed at a stroke, but nothing was in place to substitute it. So the policy in India of 'softly, softly, catchee monkey' is to be applauded.
5. If you see somebody complaining about selling the country's soul off to foreigners automatically support the thing he's attacking. Firstly in most First World countries few know or really care what is the nationality of the owners of their core industries, or even much of thier real estate, and secondly, the Indian poor would probably be no worse off exploited by foreiogners than they are by their fellow countrymen as happens at present.

Just a few thoughts anyway

Stephen Jones
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Once you strip away political rhetoric you see all nations run mixed economies, providing government sequestered funds for their voting constituents on one hand while attempting to trade advantageously with the outside world on the other.

That's if they are functioning nations. Not all national populations are allowed to vote effectively and outside worlds may not run along national boundaries.

Planned economies don't work unless they win. Look at Russia, China, Europe, India, USA,  Australia, Israel, Brasil,  Iran -- and Hungary. Which of these is going to be left standing in 20, 50, 100 years? All run planned economies to some degree for different reasons. The arguments start about what constitutes planning.

here's the list;
Russia:      busted, population KO'd lots loot, some v. rich individuals
China :      booming, not much room for Gwailo.
Europe:    cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Nice cheese.  Good national servicies. 
India:      biggest disparity between rich and poor outside the USA - quote from Boolywood starlet "it's nice seeing 700 years of human development at once" Sheesh.
USA          LLL. Lockheed. Smith+Kline. Enron. The VP ...
Australia  Australian Wheat Board. National Health. CSIRO.
Israel      your pick
Brasil      slavery. Mardi Gras.
Iran        who cares? ... they've got buckets of oil.

Hungary? Coincidentally has the median world income and least internal income disparity. No idea how.

If you see a personal benefit from proposed change then go for it otherwise question proffered flannel before providing support.

daddywarbux
Saturday, July 31, 2004

"India:      biggest disparity between rich and poor outside the USA"

?

Is there some qualifier here you use to discount nations where the leadership has gold-plated toilets but 3/4 of the population are starving to death?

Philo

Philo
Saturday, July 31, 2004

No country has 3/4 of its population starving to death.

There probably are a few hundred deaths a year in India related to starvation out of a population of a billion. There are also a much larger number of deaths related to weakened immune systems as a result of malnutrition.

The only times India is known to have suffered widespread famine was under the British in 1879 and 1943 when there were tens of millions of deaths as a result of deliberate government policy.

Stephen Jones
Saturday, July 31, 2004

It almost does not matter, as Stephen Jones points out, who owns the industry, so long as competition is allowed to thrive.

Its fine to have large stake holders be government entities, just so long as no favors are given to the government industry.

The problem, is that in practice, its hard for a government not to legeslate in favor of its state industry.  Perhaps impossible.

Until you see governments abandon farm subsidies, which is arguable the most decentralized, commoditized, competetive industry in the world, then you know they are not serious about free markets.

hoser
Saturday, July 31, 2004

>>Peugot-Citroen is a gevernment company;

Nope, it's Renault. Peugeot has always been a private (er... its traded at the stock exchange, so it's technically public :-)) company, and the original family still owns a good chunck of it.

As for Renault, I think the government still owns 50% or something, and intends to sell those shares when the market picks up.

Fred
Saturday, July 31, 2004

"The collapse of the Iron Curtain caused severe problems for Eastern Europe because the old economic system was destroyed at a stroke, but nothing was in place to substitute it."

Funnily enough, most of Eastern Europe is now at a level where Western Europe feels cautiously optimistic about letting them play in their sandbox. Also, as part ethnically Russian (I live in New Europe), I resent the implication that Russians need America to f* up their country. I assure you, they are totally capable of doing it themselves.

I also fully expect America, Russia, Europe, China and India to be around a hundred years from tomorrow, somewhat changed but fundamentally similar.

Flasher T
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Problem is, here the politicians and bureaucrats first kills and distroys the public sector company/organisation. And then they are the first to advocate privatisation.

A young learner
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Thanks Stephens,

"This was part of a policy that got the name of "crony capitalism" and the result was that private bus routes were given to the friends of those in power, and the drivers chosen from among the henchmen/bodyguards of those "businessmen" or their political sponsors. The result is that travelling in a private bus in Colombo unless it's late at night or first thing in the morning is the kind of thing you would not wish to repeat, whether by private or state-owned transport."

Same is the case here in Delhi. We are having private blue-line, white-line buses and DTC buses ( Delhi-Transport-Corp.) running on roads. Believe me, they have created a mess. We had to wait till the DTC bus arrives because travelling in any other private bus was very un-safe.

You are absolutely right when you say, for airlines, privatisation may work out good but not as much, for Buses. Often these things are not taken into consideration.

Here the lower, lower-middle and some what middle class population have a fear of lossing jobs. They feel that this is a planned move to further crush them. Apart from this the reservation factor plays an important role as it is only restricted to the public sector.

A young learner
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Philo:

"The problem is that it takes a strong visionary at the top steering the way, and it takes TIME. "

And this is almost impossible, atleast in a democracy like our's! And even if a visionary get's at the top, he/she would be having just 5 years at his/her disposal. Sometimes even less. Isn't it!

A young learner
Saturday, July 31, 2004

At the same time, we are having law enforcement agencies, just not working properly as would have been expected. You have agreements with governments which are just not been taken care of by the private sector.

Ex.
Few years back, government gave acres of land at very cheap prices near Delhi for constructing a hospital to a private sector company. They promised to provide good health care facility. Indeed! They are providing it. But they also had an agreement that the hospital will have saperate 100 beds for patients from poor background and that they would be treated for free. But this is not just the case. Instead no one from a middle class family can go there for check-up as it is too costly.

So we are just having AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) for poor section of our society because it is a government institute which provides reasonably good health care facility at a very cheap rates.

What I fear is, if implementation of rules and regulations, agreements are not being met then will it not be a total Disaster! It is not as simple. Isn't it! 

So for health-care sector, privatisation may not be a good option here in India. Isn't it.

A young learner
Saturday, July 31, 2004

Taking the present country scenario into consideration,

Can we say privatisation is a good option for, say service industry...like Airlines, Hospitality, Tourism, or for that matter Banks which basically caters to upper class population.

Whereas, for say Health-care which caters to wider cross section ( from poorest of the poor to richest) of the society, the privatisation may/may-not be a good option.

A young learner
Saturday, July 31, 2004

In Australia all our banks are privately owned, and they've closed hundreds of branches in country towns, sometimes leaving towns without any bank at all.

They've also slashed staff so that customers who go into a branch usually have to wait some time to be served. Queues of up to half an hour occur in some city branches. The banks don't care about those queues because they know the customers don't have much choice.

One of those banks used to be government owned, but it was privatized to "improve service." That means it also sacked 1000's of people and closed hundreds of branches. When it was in government hands, that bank could provide competition to the private banks, and keep them honest.

When our half-private telco Telstra sent hundreds of jobs offfshore, it claimed it has a right to do this because it's a private business. Well, it was a business created with taxpayer money, and it still enjoys a lot of government monopolies.

Aussie bloke
Saturday, July 31, 2004

The key to privatisation is to avoid simply transferring  ownership of a monopoly. Opening the market to competition is critical and has to happen in tandem with the privatisation effort. It's also important to do these things in phases, to prevent the dislocation that can occur with any major economic change.

.
Saturday, July 31, 2004


---"The problem with Russian privatization was that the process was introduced by a load of theorists funded by the USA and they just blindly rushed into it. They also botched the process, and the result was that the workers found themselves cheated out of their shares; one trick was for the company bosses to withold salaries so that the workers were forced to sell their shares for a cash advance."---

You forgot to mention that industry before privatization was very centralized; there were some very large scale enterprises.
So _after_ privatization the same stuff had to end up as a centralized entity; only this time they had to find new owners.

also, i think that Russia isn't really doing _that_ bad; when the Soviet Union collapsed it was a bancrupt country, now it isn't.

Michael Moser
Saturday, July 31, 2004

-----" also, i think that Russia isn't really doing _that_ bad; when the Soviet Union collapsed it was a bancrupt country, now it isn't. "----

The average life expectancy in Russia declined by some eight or nine years, and this is before AIDS really starts to hit in.

The government is bankrupt. This is why it has forced the bankruptcy of Yukos, so that it can be sold back to Gazprom for the government to get the oil revenues.

Stephen Jones
Sunday, August 01, 2004

Flasher,

"As for whether India can afford it or not, I don't think that's even relevant - it has to do it, otherwise it will never develop into a First World country. "

Every "Third World Country" would like itself to be called as " First World Country". No doubt about it! And it will take lot of time before a significant change is visible on the surface.

But what I meant by "Can India afford it " is if this process costs  millions of lives and if it makes the life of weaker section of the society even more miserable and unbearable, then ofcourse I would prefer being called a citizen of "Third World Country". And not to go for privatization and improve the present system slowly and gradually.

A young learner
Sunday, August 01, 2004

Young learner, thank God that Congress got back in.

Been there
Sunday, August 01, 2004

>>>And not to go for privatization and improve the present system slowly and gradually. <<<

Young learner,  I reread Flasher T's post and I think he is referring to establishing a free market or a freer one then they have now, not privatization.  You need to be a learner and try to figure out the difference.

Z
Sunday, August 01, 2004

"also, i think that Russia isn't really doing _that_ bad; when the Soviet Union collapsed it was a bancrupt country, now it isn't."

Russia officially declared itself bankrupt in August 1998, defaulting on all foreign debt. The national currency lost 9/10ths of its worth, a lot of foreign investment vanished. The only reason why the country made it through was because most Russians already had a custom of keeping their money in foreign currency. Some people say that at the height of it all, there was more cash dollars in Russia than in the US. Even today most prices for expensive goods in Russia are marked in "arbitrary units" - the day's rouble equivalent of the sum in USD or Euros.

"The government is bankrupt. This is why it has forced the bankruptcy of Yukos, so that it can be sold back to Gazprom for the government to get the oil revenues."

The government forced the bankrupcy of Yukos for the same reason that the government issued an international Wanted order for Boris Berezovsky: Putin will not allow anyone to get enough power to challenge him. That is why Roman Abramovich, who is the governor of one federal district in Russia, is taking his money abroad. He knows that he can only continue doing business as long as he makes it plainly clear that he has no intentions of going into politics on a serious level. (The district he runs is basically a poor version of Alaska, he apparently spends a lot of his own money on social programs there.)

Flasher T
Sunday, August 01, 2004

"farm subsidies, which is arguable the most decentralized"

Does this explain how in the US most subsidies go to the corn and sugar industries. The sugar industry is represented by two multinational corporations, the corn industry is represented by two multinational corporations. These corporations, all Fortune 500, are the largest recipients of US government welfare in the world.

So I would say that the farm industry that recieves subsidies is not decentralized, nor is it commodity -- markups on sugar are ten thousand times higher than production costs.

Monsanto Alert
Sunday, August 01, 2004

Z;

>>>Young learner, I hope you take that name seriously<<<

>>>You need to be a learner and try to figure out the difference.<<<

I am Z!. I am!.
If I don't take your advice, then who else!
You seem to be a great learner and well-wisher of all since childhood.....
Carry-On your service for whole humanity! May God Bless You! Amen! ( I hope this is spoken and written after every prayer). 


Flasher;

Sorry, Flasher...I probably misunderstood your post and took it in different context. But in India also many people give the same argument in favour of "Privatisation".

Sorry!

A young learner
Sunday, August 01, 2004


---""also, i think that Russia isn't really doing _that_ bad; when the Soviet Union collapsed it was a bancrupt country, now it isn't."

Russia officially declared itself bankrupt in August 1998, defaulting on all foreign debt. The national currency lost 9/10ths of its worth, a lot of foreign investment vanished. "---

The point is that there has been a recovery since (oil prices have gone up, you see). Also the default/bancrupcy of 1998 fueled demand for domestic goods - which put some people to work.

Anyway, my point was that Russia wasn't doing that bad; given that in Soviet Union about _half_ of all industry was producing useless military output; heavy stuff that cannot be put to civilian use.
Closing down half of industry puts any economy into chaos; it was direct result of the decision to get Russia out of the cold war. Given this legacy, i find it is a great achievment that they are still afloat.

Michael Moser
Sunday, August 01, 2004

"One of the *nice* things about Privatization is that you actually have a group/organization responsible for things. When the government is in charge of somethnig, everyone is in CYA-mode."

And meanwhile, back on earth, every corporation on the planet is overflowing with people who are oficially responsible for all sorts of things and in practise find that CYA mode is much more effective than actually doing anything about all that responisbility. Ack any CEO on the planet if they'ld rather spend large amounts of money on pollution control or smaller amounts of money blaming the problem on their competion or customers or predecessors or whoever else is handy. While you're at it, go check with Arthur Anderson about their commitment to trustworthy accounting.

It's amazing how many people think that if you take a typical inefficient CYA-oriented beauracratic government official and put them in a for-profit company that they'll suddenly develop a sense of community spirit and personal standards that had been quashed by the Evil Government Beauracracy.

Governments are not the problem. People are the problem. Assuming that the same people who cause government problems will somehow be model citizens if they're working in a company is slightly nuts.

It's also amazing how many people still think that Enron was a model of corporate responsibility and ethics, but would have a full scale panic attack and run for their weapons cache in the mountains if the government acted that way.


Monday, August 02, 2004

Employees are ultimately responsible to shareholders through a shit rolling downhill methodology.

No one is saying that corporate employees behave more nobly than government sector employees. Except to say that in a for profit company, someone will take the consequences for poor performance (state of the spotted owl not being factored into performance criteria).

While public employees generally behave like the folks down at the license branch.

Go figger.

hoser
Monday, August 02, 2004

Fact is, India is a currupt society and we lack sensitivity toward each other and what-not.

What I wanted to ask is that in the present scenario is "Privatization" a good option?

If yes, which are the sectors which one can look into?

If extended to all sectors will it not crush the lower, lower-middle class population of India?

Recently, 1000 employees, in a small scale textile factory in Surat, Gujarat  lost their jobs(They use to produce hand-made "Sarees") because they could not face the compitition of big companies who produces sarees with machines in thousands and at a cheaper rates! 

And same with health care, where will lower, and lower middle class people go!

Law enforcement agencies are good for nothing, will that not encourage the unreasonable practices on the part of private sector which can be really disaster for one section of the society which are somewhat being taken care of by public sector organisation?

Privatisation may work out well for Australia or US but it may not work out well for India. Isn't it? 

A young learner
Monday, August 02, 2004

Dear young learner,
                              The first thing you must do is learn not to confuse distinct things (or to confuse your 'arse with the clouds as the Spanish say).

                                  If a sari company in Gujarat goes bankrupt because it can't compete that has to do with mechanization and not privatization. I don't really understand the point because the garment trade is inherently labour intensive, thousands and thousands of workers on their individual sewing machine, but that is beside the point.

                                  The privatization of health care is in my opinion a recipe for disaster, but you probably know as well as I do the immense amount of pilfering that goes on within the Indian health services.

                                  The real problem in India, as in the ex-URSS, is institutional corruption. Without a good and functioning legal framework in place, then any system will ensure the weaker lose out.

Stephen Jones
Monday, August 02, 2004

After privatisation in Britain we have:

1. A worse, and more expensive, rail network
2. A worse, and more expensive, gas supply
3. A worse, and more expensive, water supply
4. A worse, and more expensive, electricity supply
5. A worse, and more expensive, telephone service

Draw your own conclusions.

Mr Jack
Monday, August 02, 2004

Stephens Jones,

"The first thing you must do is learn not to confuse distinct things (or to confuse your 'arse with the clouds as the Spanish say)".

"Sorry", I mixed up 2 things here.
This is why I am a "Young Learner" !  ;-)
I hope not to commit this mistake again!

"The real problem in India, as in the ex-URSS, is institutional corruption. Without a good and functioning legal framework in place, then any system will ensure the weaker lose out. "

Thanks! This answers the thing, I was looking for!!!

A young learner
Monday, August 02, 2004

I once heard a commentator on the radio say something to the effect of "Private companies have always excelled over the government in effeciency.  And they thing they have learned to do most efficiently is rip off the government."

Keith Wright
Monday, August 02, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home