Kevin Hassett: “Trump is Serious About Additional China Tariffs”…

White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett squares-off against Fox Business crew on trade tensions with China, the state of the U.S. economy, the outlook for Federal Reserve policy and his upcoming departure from the White House.

Steve Forbes is disconnected from the reality of what happens with tariffs on China. Beijing first responds to off-set the tariff by lowering the value of their currency, and/or subsidizing the targeted products. There is no price increase to U.S. consumers (check inflation).

.

Apparently President Trump was watching the segment, and had a word for Maria Bartiromo, Dagan McDowell, Steve Forbes and Stuart Varney:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Auto Sector, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, China, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Economy, Legislation, Live Streaming, media bias, President Trump, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, US dept of agriculture, US Treasury, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Kevin Hassett: “Trump is Serious About Additional China Tariffs”…

  1. 6X47 says:

    By imposing tariffs on Chinese goods President Trump is recapturing the subsidy China places on its products and putting it into the US Treasury.

    And China responds by INCREASING the subsidy to offset the tariffs.

    President Trump has engineered a way to claw back the wealth taken out of the USA back from China.

    MAGA!

    Liked by 17 people

    • William Moore says:

      Um…not sure it works that way. Companies RECEIVING are the ones who pay. So if “revenue” is produced it comes from the importers (US) not China. How does that recapture China’s subsidy? Seriously — this is a question that needs to be clearly answered somewhere. It is a bit confusing.

      Like

      • BigTalkers says:

        It’s also a powerful incentive for importers to switch to alternative suppliers.

        Liked by 3 people

      • patsfaninpittsburgh says:

        Uhhh the importer pays a lower price to offset the “increase” in cost made by the tariff.

        $1= $1

        $1 with 25% tariff = $1.25

        $0.80 with 25% tariff = $1

        Liked by 3 people

      • MILupper says:

        Pre-tariff Target buys a Chinese made broom for $10 and sells it for $12.50.
        Post 25% tariff China subsidizes the broom company $2 per broom allowing them to sell to Target for $8. Target buyers pay $8 for the broom + 25% tariff($2) for a total cost of $10. Same as pre-tariff cost. Target sells broom for $12.50. Same as pre-tariff.

        Even though Target pays the tariff, their cost for the broom remains $10 because of the Chinese subsidy to the broom company. Effectively China pays the tariff.

        Liked by 23 people

        • Signed, sealed and delivered.
          Well done!

          Liked by 3 people

          • geoffgo says:

            Some tend to forget that prior to the income tax, all of the Gov’t expenses were paid by tariffs. President Lincoln said (paraphrasing): “Tariffs are far less intrusive to consumers and are are cheaper to collect.” Think about that, and how much you now pay in taxes.

            Liked by 9 people

            • geoffgo says:

              second are is supposed to be FAR.

              Like

            • Pyrthroes says:

              Pays to recall Henry Clay’s post-Jacksonsian, long pre-Income Tax (and thereby paradoxically egalitarian) “American System”: Protective (not retaliatory) tariffs foster internally competitive, free-market commerce and industry; use of tariff receipts plus broad-based, minimally disruptive Consumption Taxes to capitalize a National Bank financing domestic infrastructure projects; tax subsidies (not by contribution but default) with specified expiration dates to promote self-reliant yeomanry production, effectively low-cost futures/options insurance to farmers, fishermen, and ranchers against market downturns destructive of working-folks’ cyclical and seasonal well-being.

              Outside the ante bellum (slave-State) South, these powerfully benign measures needed no pretentious doctrinal label, then or now. Let economists stew in their anarcho-syndicalist juices… what matters in the real world is competitive pricing via comparative advantage, marginal utility; supply-and-demand; personal/private wealth-incentives to innovate for civic/public commercial/industrial purposes, all without Old World caste-and-class distinctions outweighing “what you do” by “who you are”.

              For very telling reasons, celebrated academics as “experts on the future” are worth precisely nothing [Tetlock, 2004]: All anyone can ever do is avoid obvious pitfalls, not leap from crag-to-crag like some soi-disant (self-credentialed) mountain goat. Andrew Carnegie arrived in South Street Seaport with pennies to his name; in 1994, five –count ’em!– Nobelists on the advisory board of Long-term Capital Management (LTCM) lost billions overnight when short-term yield-curves inverted, making nonsense of their manipulative quant-model interest-arbitrage.

              Liked by 5 people

            • Iwasthere says:

              And when grant raised tariffs after the civil war – to ‘pay for’ reconstruction – the US economy took off like a rocket.

              Liked by 3 people

            • Steve Herman says:

              Also in 1860 most products imported to USA where luxury items, French wines, olive oil, silk, etc. So most tariffs were paid by the wealthy.

              Liked by 1 person

        • deepdivemaga says:

          Great explanation, I am going to save this!

          Liked by 1 person

        • fred5678 says:

          I LOVE clear and concise examples!!!

          China government is eating the tariffs — chew well, Panda!!

          Liked by 2 people

        • grlangworth says:

          I don’t understand why people are confused by this. Plain as the nose on your face. Stop repeating the “tariffs are taxes” mantra, Steve Forbes. It is not applicable in PDJT’s world.

          Like

        • livefreeordieguy says:

          Plain and simple, MILupper… Thanks for that. Even ‘Sleepy Joe’ would grasp it.

          Like

        • Thank you for this excellent explanation on how tariffs work!

          Like

      • Bert Darrell says:

        William Moore: the way I see it, this is an import tax which China pays; not a sales tax, which the consumer pays, even if the car is made in the USA). Isn’t PDJT always saying that “when the USA exports a car to China, China CHARGES US a 45% import tax?”

        Why would it be different the other way around?

        Like

        • Steve Herman says:

          in many ways this is a tax on the Chinese people, Chinese currency is devalued resulting in higher costs of products the Chinese purchase regardless of who manufactures the product.

          Like

      • 6x47 says:

        China subsidizes exports: Imposing a tariff on those goods offsets that subsidy. So, the buyers actually pay something closer to the fair market value of the goods in the form of taxes. When China responds by INCREASING the subsidy, the buyer is not harmed, the treasury still gets its taxes, and China takes it in the shorts.

        Or to look at it another way – China reimbursed the buyer for the cost of the tariff, which means China pays it both ways.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dallavise says:

        True, but companies in China will lower their price to stay competitive, knowing the buyer pays a tariff. So it is literally a transfer from the Chinese govt to USA govt. Sure, there are marginal increases in cost to the consumer, but most is taken on the chin by the Chinese govt. They cannot afford to lose the business.

        Liked by 2 people

        • dallasdan says:

          “They cannot afford to lose the business.”

          Your point is powerful. In a highly competitive market place, be it local or international, business lost is very often not regained. SD has been accurately emphasizing the acute and severe impact on China of companies rushing to alter their supply chains, as the risk of doing business with China increases by the day. SD is absolutely on-point by stating that XI and China are “in a trap.”

          Liked by 2 people

      • Razor1 says:

        William I’ll explain it then. We’ve had a 2.5% receiving costs for years. That’s always included in cog…(costs of goods). So first and foremost whatever you sell it has to be competitively priced to move the product in the marketplace. That’s why China devalued there currency to cover the cost of tariffs. Product won’t sell if cost is above what buyer will pay. So if someone else can supply the product at a lower cost…us, Vietnam, India then who loses…China.

        Now let’s talk tariffs…it’s no different than what Walmart, Home Depot or any large retailers…you want shelf space, you pay for it. You give payment terms, discounts, return rights, your employees stock shelves, lower upfront cost…all goes to cog and then what Walmart charges you. This is exactly why we’re not paying for the tariffs. You’ll hear the old saw “free trade” thrown around…but can you name ANY countries that we have a real free trade agreement with…I can’t.

        As a final note, until 1913 tariffs is how the federal government was funded…another great idea by our founder! Last week I was talking with a hardware supplier, who moved an $800m factory from China and did so in 90 days this is killing them, they will fold. As a final note remember most of the tariffs money we are now collecting to the federal treasury was just going out in bribes to politicians and others previous to Trump.

        Liked by 4 people

      • As a man thinkth says:

        The biggest receivers of China goods are Cosco and Walmart…

        Like

    • allbeckyb says:

      Perfectly stated 6X47!

      When President Trump says, “America First”, he absolutely means it!

      MAGA!

      Liked by 4 people

  2. The Boss says:

    Steve Forbes sold out to the Chicoms years ago. I canceled my subscription to Forbes, and have done just fine without it, thank you very much. As for the rest, they get it. but they have to deal with the Murdoch spawn.

    Liked by 7 people

    • GB Bari says:

      I so wish someone on these shows would just throw that whine back in Forbes’ face and say:

      “OK Steve, what do you propose we do, drop our pants and bend over waiting for China’s economic rape like we have been doing for the past 25 years? Do you think we should just shut up about the forced technology theft, the IP theft, the lopsided tariffs as all existed when President Trump was elected? If not, what powerful leverage do you propose the President use if tariffs aren’t your preference?

      “Steve, what’s YOUR magic bullet suggestion that puts millions of Americans back to work now but doesn’t stop China from dumping cheap goods on this country that were made in China using slave wage level labor?

      “Steve, is everything all about your corporate CEO’s wages & stock options, your Boards of Directors’ stock portfolios’ appreciation, your USCOC-backed multinational corporations’ maximum profits via control over the global economy regardlesss of how it affects American consumers? What about Main Street middle class Americans and the Rust Belt cities and towns who had all been horrendously decimated by those prior policies, Steve?”

      Well, that’s what I’d ask him and keep asking until he gave a coherent answer that wasn’t loaded with BS platitudes.

      Liked by 15 people

      • Steve Herman says:

        this part of your comment “Main Street middle class Americans and the Rust Belt cities and towns” reminded me of a friends comment. Friend said the Main Street economy is currently doing well, even very well. But when companies start locating their factories in towns with 20-50k in population due to lower property costs and available workforce, this will result in epic expansion. To the point that if you don’t have a job, it’s because you don’t want to or need to be employed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • livefreeordieguy says:

        Mic drop, GB…

        Liked by 1 person

    • Kevin Hassett handed Forbes his own rear end.
      Crushed him.
      Then Varney added the exclamation mark!

      Liked by 6 people

    • dallasdan says:

      I quit watching Fox long ago, and I am surprised that the harlot Dagan McDowell is still employed there. As a regular on Imus in the Morning, she reported every tawdry, titillating, sexually-oriented story and clearly found delight in doing so, and reveled in exchanging double entendres with Imus and his guy pals. I quit the show after her description of the the activity benchmarks for compensation of porn actresses.

      I suspect she knew Roger Ayles very well.

      Like

  3. Senator Rick Scott on Varney
    [Worthy of a Sundance Video]

    “I personally do not believe we’ll ever get a deal with China.”
    “I told Bob Lighthizer that last night when I saw him.”
    “I think its clear that we’ll never get a deal with them [China].”

    “… when you negotiate a point, you agree, and the other side backs off, you lose all the trust.”

    “We’ve gotta STOP BUYING CHINESE GOODS.”

    “They are OUR ENEMY.”

    “They’re NOT SUPPORTING US.”

    “They are HELPING MADURO in Venezuela.”

    “They’re SELLING FENTANYL into OUR COUNTRY.”

    Liked by 12 people

    • Perot Conservative says:

      1. Why not QUADRUPLE our technology and animal (dogs) detection of this killer drug? (And keep quite about how we do it.)

      2. Add MASSIVE penalties for importing this drug. STEP 1: heavy penalties. Step 2: DEATH SENTENCE for importing into America.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Esther says:

        The drug is not ‘imported’ via usual legal channels, hope you understand that it is snuck in. Think why he is called “Cocaine Mitch”, why his wife and he insisted on her being secretary of Transportation. Why did Obummer allow our ports to be run by foreigners. Why they don’t want a wall. There is a whole lot coming through our ports and over our open borders than people understand. Think of the worse things and its coming in due to the weaknesses the Dems created at the border and ports.

        Liked by 9 people

    • sundance says:

      Agree with Rick Scott….. However, he forgets one key detail:

      Liked by 11 people

      • Daniel says:

        And to Kim Jong Un, it will not actually BE a defeat — it will be a new North Korean rebirth into a bigger, more prosperous world. Not sure where the face saving will be under that light unless China presses North Korea to do something really unexpected. Trump has clearly been grooming North Korea’s leader to become a more independent dictator.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Nice timing, Sundance …
        POTUS just brought DPRK back to the fore during his Marine One presser!
        [“Nice letter” from Chairman Kim]

        Liked by 4 people

      • It’s a complex issue for us lower Branch Hangers to comprehend. But, I have a feeling the Chinese are very concerned about the possibility of millions of starving Koreans storming their common border – each looking for a handful of rice.

        Like

  4. Perot Conservative says:

    Open to it. Wait until USMCA passes, and we ink a deal with China?

    Like

  5. Maga Truth Seeker says:

    The biggest part of the deal hasn’t been revealed….maybe the wall or the seizure of cartel money to assist in the funding?

    One could only wish.

    Liked by 2 people

    • USTerminator says:

      Like business NDA, you do not let the third party know the term of the deal so you can get a better deal next time

      Liked by 1 person

    • allbeckyb says:

      Possibly foreign aid?

      US foreign aid to Mexico:

      2017 $290M
      2018 $69M
      2019 (not complete) $2.3M

      We could keep cutting or give back some aid?

      Side note: Obama 2015 $581M

      Liked by 4 people

    • ristvan says:

      Word this afternoon on NBC (dunno if correct) is that Mexico has agreed to be a ‘safe third country’ —which means they have effectively agreed to be the country of first asylum. Since they don’t want the burdens of triangle country ‘refugees’, what that concession really means is that they are serious about sealing their own southern border with Guatemala.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Imagine this:
        Mexico has agreed to subcontract INCARCERATION of ALL USA Criminal Aliens originating from Mexico and Central America in tent cities (conducive climate … we could even credit “global warming”) for the FULL TERM of their sentences, followed by DEPORTATION to their countries of origin … for TEN CENTS on the DOLLAR.

        Then we start the GREATEST ROUND-UP in Global history!
        [Bounties funded by the other 90 Cents on the Dollar that our prisons will be saving]

        Liked by 5 people

      • dallasdan says:

        Thanks for sharing, and I pray it is so.

        It would be laughable to re-print the statements and re-play the videos circulated last week regarding Mexico’s adamant refusal to consider accepting the “Safe Third Country” agreement. Unfortunately for them, they had no credibility to lose with their flip-flop.

        I presume this would require approval by the Mexican Congress, which is consistent with our President’s comments on his anticipation of a “favorable vote” on the unspecified, additional element of his agreement with AMLO.

        Like

  6. Susan Utzinger says:

    I understand that China has ordered the representatives of big tech companies that have manufacturing in China – ordered them to disregard President Trump, and threatening every one of them that if China sees any signs that the companies are considering relocating to the US, the Chinese government would confiscate all of their manufacturing in China.

    That’s what happens to companies that move their manufacturing to China to receive many benefits (cheap labor, no need to supply health insurance, probably no need for paid vacation, paid maternity, sick leave, etc).

    That’s also what happens to greedy people who dance with the devil.

    I expect POTUS Trump is prepared for threats like this – I guess we’ll see. Meanwhile big tech is caught between a rock and hard place. Sort of like the deranged Dems.

    Liked by 2 people

    • deplorable says:

      That’s what happens to companies that move their manufacturing to China to receive many benefits (cheap labor, no need to supply health insurance, probably no need for paid vacation, paid maternity, sick leave, etc).

      – more lax environmental laws
      – fewer labor laws to adhere to
      – poorer working conditions, longer hours, workers stuffed into dorm rooms, …

      http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/report/109

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582640/Open-sewers-mildewed-walls-one-toilet-FORTY-people-Shocking-pictures-dirty-dormitories-Apple-s-iPhone-workers-live-like-animals.html

      Like

    • Petrel says:

      Susan Utzinger — Apple manufactures phone components in Korea and elsewhere. Then, Apple assembles the phones in China, in climate – controlled warehouses. Should Apple move assembly operations elsewhere, China is left with some climate – controlled warehouses, assembly desks, stools AND a great many unemployed / discontented former phone assemblers.

      Of course, the Chinese Communist Party would be minimally impacted by Apple closing its Chinese assembly plants. But their working classes might begin murmuring that Party Bosses have lost the “mandate of Heaven,” which bodes ill for a very visible elite.

      Like

      • TarsTarkas says:

        Xi by making himself effective Emperor took the Mantle of Heaven away from the Party. The trade war is all on him. The subordinates can remove him and make a deal with Trump without losing face.

        Like

    • dallasdan says:

      “Meanwhile big tech is caught between a rock and hard place.”

      They are, and they can assign any blame to only themselves. IMO, they have no other choice, economically and politically, than to follow the President’s lead.

      The “big cigars” running those companies have much of their compensation packages tied to stock price, and the stocks will be pummeled by any investor perceptions of either recalcitrance in supporting the President or outright defiance of him. Institutional investors will lead the way if cracks appear in the production and distribution elements of their business models.

      IMO, Silicon Valley will not square-off against Main Street.

      Like

  7. lansdalechip says:

    Over 40 years ago, a prospective client told this newly minted Financial Advisor, “you will be astounded at the economic ignorance of the majority of US citizens”. He was an International Sales manager for a large US computer company. It is sad to see that ignorance he recognized has spread to the US “”Financial News”” outlets and their talking heads.

    Liked by 2 people

    • GB Bari says:

      Two generations of leftwing, anti-American public school education accompanied by leftwing college education produces exactly what we have today throughout the halls of government, across the MSM, and throughout far too many corporations.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Bert Darrell says:

      lansdalechip: you seem to be assuming that “Financial News talking heads” have intellect. Perhaps they do but that is not why they are hired. I take for granted that they are humanized parrots, on salary, hired to say as they are told and push commanded view points . They have to have some basic financial knowledge to avoid embarrassment but that’s all.

      Every single day, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and other financial media “explain” why the market went up, down or nowhere. The fact is those explanations are pedestrian guesses, mostly wrong, and often politically motivated.

      Liked by 3 people

      • El Torito says:

        Bert I agree with your thinking and it also reflects one of many reasons I voted for Trump. The talking heads that Trump named are just speaking what is, and what is already known.

        You don’t ask the the person(s) who steered you into the iceberg to save the ship.

        Liked by 1 person

    • El Torito says:

      So having the title of International Sales Manager somehow makes him an expert on the economic ignorance of the majority of US citizens? And also this qualifies him to give advice to a Financial Adviser how? I’ve worked directly with a number of Sales Managers (in the computer and Networked Storage fields, no less) and I assure you almost all of them were simply skillful liars. I used to be afraid to attend meetings they were at, because I’d usually be the one who had to tell them which of their promises (if any) we were able to keep. Still not sure where the title qualifies economic prowess. Just liars in 3 piece suits.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Daniel says:

    Tariffs are NOT “sales taxes.” That’s utterly BS. It’s an import tax and only an import tax. I would love to have seen this clown get taken to task with that ridiculous statement.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. ristvan says:

    All part of the pre G20 messaging to China. Like yesterday’s ‘surprise’ phone interview on CNBC.
    Since there are direct backchannels to Xi, this public stuff is probably for the Politbureau.

    Liked by 7 people

  10. Curt says:

    One of the interesting aspects of this tariff strategy is how tariffs have been previously perceived in this country and in the business community. In the past, tariffs were used to gain economic advantage even if the playing field was level or relatively so. The well known Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a disaster because the trading partners that it was directed against were in the same economic boat as the US. Its was stupid and ill advised, making the Great Depression even worse, because it hurt everyone across the board. That was never the intent of tariffs anyway! In Trump’s case the trade imbalance is so great, and the myriad abuses by China so egregious, that the Chinese really cannot retaliate tit for tat so to speak. So this anti tariff response is predictable. Currency manipulation, internal pressure on manufacturing and political pressure are China’s response. Meanwhile, America benefits because these tariffs are bringing one sided Chinese trade practices to a halt and the residual benefit to the US in the form of billions of dollars. Is there some pain for Americans? Sure, but it is not catastrophic. It’s up to American citizens to understand what’s at risk here and not be swayed by globalist interests and fear of these tariff. Americans MUST stay the course to break this chain of one sided trading agreements that previous administration have allowed to foster and even encouraged. These ill advised agreements have allowed our country to be taken horrible advantage of in a most frightful way. The Chinese will NEVER agree to fair and verifiable trade until the pain for them is such that they clearly see an advantage in negotiating. This may take awhile but so what!

    Like

    • Esther says:

      ” It’s up to American citizens to understand what’s at risk here and not be swayed by globalist interests and fear of these tariff. Americans MUST stay the course to break this chain of one sided trading agreements that previous administration have allowed to foster and even encouraged.”

      This is true. But when you have 60 million illegals and almost as many brainwashed ( too many of whom are recent citizens via payoffs to corrupt immigration officials) the sanity and logic of your rational arguments are unfortunately, lost on them.

      So its up to MAGA citizens i.e. Trump supporters, to rally together and let their voices be heard. If social media blocks conservative opinions and content, taking to the streets en mass with the message is looking like the most impactful resource. Hong Kong just made an internationally covered loud statement to China by doing just this.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Imagine the reactions when POTUS ADDS sanctions for Currency Manipulation.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. schizoid says:

    In theory free trade should lower prices for consumers but in reality the Fed ensures that prices rise 2% per year no matter what. Any time there is an efficiency gain that causes prices to fall the Fed offsets this by printing money and giving it to the Big Club to lift prices back up. So all of the benefits of free trade go to the Big Club (in the form of free Fed money), while the costs (job losses) are borne by ordinary Americans.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

    When some fat cat on the tube begins whining how tariffs hurt the American people, automatically assume he feels that 4” wallet he’s sitting on is deflating.
    He may have genuine “concern” but it’s not for you and me.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. So what are s the biggest detail w/Mexico that hasn’t been revealed?

    Like

  14. Jim T says:

    Long time lurker, but I’m not sure if I’ve ever posted here before. I actually buy seasonal goods (bathing suits) from a Chinese company. We’ve been buying from them for several years now. The prices started off extremely low, and have been going up much higher than inflation, but have still been quite profitable.
    The way it works is, they show us their new styles and/or new colors/patterns in the 1st quarter, our purchase orders are due mid-June, and we start getting delivery in February and March of the following year.
    This year (ordering for next year), their prices went up even faster than last year. We decided to cut back on what we were going to offer, but still go forward with most (maybe 80%) of our ‘normal’ sized order. Last week (roughly a week and a half before the POs were due to be submitted), they came back to us with NEW prices for the upcoming year’s delivery – significantly higher prices.
    We have been in business for almost 20 years, and we have never had someone come to us after we’ve had the next season’s prices and say that they have changed. NEVER.
    If we order anything from them, it will be a small fraction of what we did for this year’s deliveries.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ad rem says:

      Welcome to the Treehouse Jim! 😀

      Like

    • Parker Longbaugh says:

      I now understand why the Chinese prefer to market their products outside of China. It would appear that they know none of their contemporaries can be trusted to keep their word.

      How could any business survive unless both are back by the CCP? Only a fool would do a deal if not a member of the party since the court system is controlled by the party. A mostly unbiased third party resolution system must be in place to resolve disputes.

      This communism with two systems only fosters good old fashioned crony fascism. Which can never meet the needs of a middle class.

      It is the middle class who are the glue stabilizing the majority long term successful civilizations.

      China has no future.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Mike says:

    I read somewhere that China has about 3.75 Trillion socked away. Most of that probably came from the U.S. As they continue to devalue their currency to subsidize the tariffs that money should find it’s way back into the economy / U.S. I don’t think the goal for Trump was ever to have a trade deal with China (even if they agreed to one they would break the terms and Trump knows that). It was set up to give a reason to curtail trade with China.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s