I really thought I had a good handle on the basics of investing until I heard a speech by Peter Schiff. He has a really great way of speaking about basic investing in a way that really exposes what I think most people take for granted.
His first example was in the stock market. There are two basic ways to make money on a stock, through dividends and through appreciation. There are also basically two different kind of people in the market. Investors look at the price they need to pay for a stock, and then predict how much that stock is likely to pay out in dividends over a period of time, and calculate a rate of return to figure out if the stock is a good deal or not. Speculators don't care so much about dividends, but instead try to predict whether they'll be able to sell the stock to someone else later at a higher price. There's nothing wrong with speculation, but I think a lot of so called investors are truly speculators. I personally always considered myself an investor, but I'm now pretty sure what I was really doing was speculating.
Schiff's actual example was concerning the IPO of a startup during the .com boom. He was approached as an investor in this company. The company was selling the shares at a price that put the value of the company around $20 million (this isn't the right figure, but it doesn't really matter here). The company had no customers, no profits and very few real assets. So why was this company worth $20 million, when someone else could have started exactly the same company for nothing? When faced with this question, they replied that "he didn't understand how the stock market works!" They said that he would make his money because he'd be able to sell his stock to someone else for a higher price. But if the stock wasn't a good deal now, why would someone buy it at a higher price? The answer was that the market was not dominated by investors, but by pure speculators. The problem is that when speculators bid prices up beyond the fundamentals, it can't continue forever. It eventually became so ridiculous that bond holders were making much more money than stock holders were making on dividends, even though stock holders assume a higher risk. Of course, this came crashing back down soon after.
His second example was in housing. If you can rent a nice apartment for a cheaper price than you could own it, then why would you choose to own? The answer from a realtor in the height of the housing bubble was, "You just don't understand how the housing market works! You'll make money because you'll be able to sell it to someone else later for a huge profit." But again, if you can't make any money on a property at today's prices, why in the world would someone buy it from you for an even higher price? The answer again was that the market had become dominated by speculators, and as we now know that didn't last forever.
For me, the issue was that I always thought of speculation as something someone else did. I had several friends who bought houses on little income and assumed that price of their house would always go up. They were speculators just as much as if they had bought gold or paintings or anything else. It's easy to forget that investing is based on fundamentals. In stocks, it's the dividends that you expect it to pay; in real estate, it's the amount of rental income you can earn based on the property. Speculation is a fun game, but I don't think it's one that most of us are truly ready to play.
I highly recommend listening to Schiff's speech as well as searching for his books and writings online. He's one of the few people to accurately predict both the stock market bubble and the housing bubble.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
What is Savings?
Because money dominates our lives, it's easy to forget that savings isn't actually about money. When you produce more than you consume, the difference is the amount you saved. Thomas Woods demonstrates this really well in his book, Meltdown. I'll summarize it briefly.
Imagine a simple economy with no money, and a baker who is able to produce 10 loaves of bread per day. He has a big family, so he needs to consume 8 of those loaves to feed his family. Now let's say he wants to buy shoes from a shoemaker. The shoemaker needs to eat, so he agrees to make a pair of shoes for 10 loaves of bread. The baker saves his extra 2 loaves until he has ten, and then gives it to the shoemaker who later gives the baker a pair of shoes. Here it's clear that savings is not money, but real goods.
Introducing money into the picture doesn't change anything. Let's say a loaf of bread is worth one dollar. The baker could then sell his loaves of bread to someone else, and then use the money to buy a pair of shoes. The shoemaker would then trade his dollars for the bread he needs. The shoemaker is still funded by the real bread savings of the baker. Money is just facilitating the transactions.
To really make this clear, imagine if a third party counterfeited an extra 10 dollars, and paid it to another shoemaker for a pair of shoes. Now there would be two shoemakers with 20 dollars total, but there still are only 10 loaves of bread savings. There is no way for both shoemakers to both buy 10 loaves of bread. This new counterfeiter has now consumed without producing, and it's pretty clear that this is not going to be beneficial to the economy.
None of this changes when you move to the much larger real economy. It also doesn't change when you replace our individual counterfeiter with the Federal Reserve printing money. Savings is not about the money, it's about producing more than you consume.
Imagine a simple economy with no money, and a baker who is able to produce 10 loaves of bread per day. He has a big family, so he needs to consume 8 of those loaves to feed his family. Now let's say he wants to buy shoes from a shoemaker. The shoemaker needs to eat, so he agrees to make a pair of shoes for 10 loaves of bread. The baker saves his extra 2 loaves until he has ten, and then gives it to the shoemaker who later gives the baker a pair of shoes. Here it's clear that savings is not money, but real goods.
Introducing money into the picture doesn't change anything. Let's say a loaf of bread is worth one dollar. The baker could then sell his loaves of bread to someone else, and then use the money to buy a pair of shoes. The shoemaker would then trade his dollars for the bread he needs. The shoemaker is still funded by the real bread savings of the baker. Money is just facilitating the transactions.
To really make this clear, imagine if a third party counterfeited an extra 10 dollars, and paid it to another shoemaker for a pair of shoes. Now there would be two shoemakers with 20 dollars total, but there still are only 10 loaves of bread savings. There is no way for both shoemakers to both buy 10 loaves of bread. This new counterfeiter has now consumed without producing, and it's pretty clear that this is not going to be beneficial to the economy.
None of this changes when you move to the much larger real economy. It also doesn't change when you replace our individual counterfeiter with the Federal Reserve printing money. Savings is not about the money, it's about producing more than you consume.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Meltdown
I just finished reading Meltdown by Thomas Woods. It's a look at the causes of the current economic crisis. It's written for the layperson, so anyone should be able to pick up and find out more about why we got into the mess we're currently in.
Unlike most of what you hear in the media or from the government, Woods doesn't offer up the flimsy arguments that point the blame at the unregulated free market. He first outlines the various government interventions into the economy, and then shows how each of them contributed to the crisis. He puts particular blame on the current system of banking including the Federal Reserve system. He makes a compelling argument that the right way forward is not to increase taxes, spending and regulation, but to reduce them.
Woods backs all of this up with well-reasoned arguments and historical examples. He spends extra time discussing Keynesian economics, which is the system of economics that has been guiding the federal government since the 1920's. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the causes and solutions of the current economic crisis.
Unlike most of what you hear in the media or from the government, Woods doesn't offer up the flimsy arguments that point the blame at the unregulated free market. He first outlines the various government interventions into the economy, and then shows how each of them contributed to the crisis. He puts particular blame on the current system of banking including the Federal Reserve system. He makes a compelling argument that the right way forward is not to increase taxes, spending and regulation, but to reduce them.
Woods backs all of this up with well-reasoned arguments and historical examples. He spends extra time discussing Keynesian economics, which is the system of economics that has been guiding the federal government since the 1920's. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the causes and solutions of the current economic crisis.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Not the Free Market #3: FDIC
The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is the government agency that insures deposits at almost all banks. It's clearly not a free market institution since it's a government agency, and there is an explicit guarantee that the FDIC will pull money out of the general fund even if the FDIC fund runs out.
The FDIC is designed to protect banks, although it does this by protecting depositors. Banks don't actually have all your money. They lend it out to others, and only keep enough on hand to deal with normal day-to-day deposits and withdrawals. In a bank run, too many people come asking for their money at once, and these funds are drained. At this point the bank fails, and the remaining assets are liquidated and distributed to the depositors, however they would typically only get a fraction of the money they had deposited.
This precarious nature of fractional reserve banking puts a natural, free-market check on how much of your money the bank will be willing to lend out. In order to get around this check, the banking industry proposed the FDIC. Now, people can always count on the government to bail them out, so they no longer have to worry about the solvency of their banks. This allows the banks to lend out much more money, and ultimately make much more money. This results in yet another distortion to the normal market process.
The FDIC is designed to protect banks, although it does this by protecting depositors. Banks don't actually have all your money. They lend it out to others, and only keep enough on hand to deal with normal day-to-day deposits and withdrawals. In a bank run, too many people come asking for their money at once, and these funds are drained. At this point the bank fails, and the remaining assets are liquidated and distributed to the depositors, however they would typically only get a fraction of the money they had deposited.
This precarious nature of fractional reserve banking puts a natural, free-market check on how much of your money the bank will be willing to lend out. In order to get around this check, the banking industry proposed the FDIC. Now, people can always count on the government to bail them out, so they no longer have to worry about the solvency of their banks. This allows the banks to lend out much more money, and ultimately make much more money. This results in yet another distortion to the normal market process.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Curling Club Nationals
Seattle currently has two teams playing in the Club Nationals tournament in Utica. You can track their progress here.
The Club Nationals is a confusing event for those not in the know. There are basically two sets of nationals. One of them leads to Worlds and the Olympics and is only open to US citizens. "Club Nationals" is open to any US resident with the additional requirement that all the team members must come from the same club. Club Nationals isn't quite as prestigious as the other event, but the competition is still very high, and lots of teams from around the country try to get in and win the event.
The Club Nationals is a confusing event for those not in the know. There are basically two sets of nationals. One of them leads to Worlds and the Olympics and is only open to US citizens. "Club Nationals" is open to any US resident with the additional requirement that all the team members must come from the same club. Club Nationals isn't quite as prestigious as the other event, but the competition is still very high, and lots of teams from around the country try to get in and win the event.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Not the Free Market #2: Fiat Money
One of the largest distortions in the market is our use of fiat money, i.e. money that has no intrinsic value. In the free market a commodity such as gold or silver would be used as the medium of exchange. There are natural limits on how much gold and silver can be mined at any given time, which is not the case with the government-created money we have today. Whether you think a return to a gold standard is a good idea or not, the current system is not market based. Many economists who accurately predicted the current depression point to government manipulation with the money supply as the primary cause of our current predicament.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Not the Free Market #1: Fannie and Freddie
A lot of people, including the Obama administration, are laying 100% of the blame for this current crisis on the "free market policies" of the previous administration. They claim a lack of regulation is what's responsible, because the unbridled free market just can't work. They then point to the Bush years as proof of this. The problem with this argument is that there were many government interventions in this period, and it's not at all clear those interventions are blameless. Here's intervention #1: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by the government in order to provide more credit for people buying homes. They are both pseudo-governmental organizations. They were created by the government and enjoy special government privileges, but are publicly owned and traded on the stock market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in the secondary mortgage market. They don't lend any money themselves, but instead buy mortgages from other lenders. When they purchase a mortgage from another lender, that lender then has more money to lend to someone else, and so the overall effect is to increase the amount of credit available to home buyers.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac partially through special government privilege and partially because of the (accurate) assumption that they would be bailed out if they went bankrupt were able to buy a lot more mortgages than if they were normal companies. The government's intent was to expand lending to people who normally would not have qualified. This effort was successful. It destroyed the normal balance between risk and reward. It made lenders willing to take on much more risk for a lower reward (interest rate), because they would be able to turn around and sell the loan to Fannie or Freddie for an immediate profit.
Overall, much more risk ended up in mortgages than would have normally been there. It only took a few minor shocks to send large numbers of these sub-marginal borrowers into default. Does that mean the lenders didn't have any responsibility in the mess? No, they certainly share in the blame, but Fannie and Freddie were massive players in the industry, greatly manipulated the market, and would not have existed without government intervention.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by the government in order to provide more credit for people buying homes. They are both pseudo-governmental organizations. They were created by the government and enjoy special government privileges, but are publicly owned and traded on the stock market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in the secondary mortgage market. They don't lend any money themselves, but instead buy mortgages from other lenders. When they purchase a mortgage from another lender, that lender then has more money to lend to someone else, and so the overall effect is to increase the amount of credit available to home buyers.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac partially through special government privilege and partially because of the (accurate) assumption that they would be bailed out if they went bankrupt were able to buy a lot more mortgages than if they were normal companies. The government's intent was to expand lending to people who normally would not have qualified. This effort was successful. It destroyed the normal balance between risk and reward. It made lenders willing to take on much more risk for a lower reward (interest rate), because they would be able to turn around and sell the loan to Fannie or Freddie for an immediate profit.
Overall, much more risk ended up in mortgages than would have normally been there. It only took a few minor shocks to send large numbers of these sub-marginal borrowers into default. Does that mean the lenders didn't have any responsibility in the mess? No, they certainly share in the blame, but Fannie and Freddie were massive players in the industry, greatly manipulated the market, and would not have existed without government intervention.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Good Summary of the Global Warming Sceptical Position
This page does a great job of summarizing the arguments against the mainstream view of global warming. If you've never been exposed to these ideas before, it's definitely worth a read.
Rewriting is More Expensive than You Think
There always seems to be a strong desire in software developers and managers to completely rewrite systems. People just love creating something brand new without the burden of worrying about existing code and architecture. I share this desire myself, but I find it hard to believe how often companies look at a giant system that's been developed over a decade or more, and think they can pull off throwing it out and rewriting it.
When developers and outsiders first see a system, it's easy to write it off as "crummy code" or "way too complicated". They develop a rosy picture of the way the system should work, and then come up with a rough estimate of the work involved based on that rosy picture. Based on these idealistic estimates it seems like a good idea.
The first problem is that they've completely discounted the effort that went into the existing system. The first system could have been developed over 10 years by 100 developers, but they now estimate that they can completely recreate that in 1 year with only 20 developers. Those 100 developers were actually doing something over those 10 years, and it's huge mistake to discount all that work. Upon closer examination, all of that "crummy code" usually is dealing with all the real world scenarios that don't fit into the rosy picture. The original code is probably complicated, because the problem it's trying to solve is complicated.
The second problem is that people usually grossly exagerate the benefit of the rewrite. Take Expedia's web server as an example. Development started on it in the mid nineties before most of the web server technologies people use today had even delivered their first versions. It uses a custom template language, and is backed by C++, which very few people use for the web today. The web server contains both display code, and business logic. It would be very tempting to rewrite it thinking you could make your developers much more efficient.
When you actually look at where the developers spend their time though, you find that about 50% of the time is spent on the middle tier servers, which wouldn't be affected by this; 15% of the time is spent writing HTML and JavaScript, which also wouldn't be affected; and 20% is spent on business logic, which won't get any simpler by having a new web server. Even if you assume a completely unrealistic 50% efficiency gain, your developers are only getting around an 8% improvement overall. If you assume a more realistic 10% efficiency gain, then the overall gain drops to an unimpressive 1.5%.
Imagine launching a huge multi-million dollar project that will seriously reduce your output for multiple years for a 1.5% efficiency gain. People who launch these kinds of projects typically grossly underestimate the costs, and grossly overestimate the benefits or they would never had started it in the first place. In fact, the history of software development is full of examples of leading companies that were overtaken by a competitor when they made the mistake of trying to rewrite everything.
When developers and outsiders first see a system, it's easy to write it off as "crummy code" or "way too complicated". They develop a rosy picture of the way the system should work, and then come up with a rough estimate of the work involved based on that rosy picture. Based on these idealistic estimates it seems like a good idea.
The first problem is that they've completely discounted the effort that went into the existing system. The first system could have been developed over 10 years by 100 developers, but they now estimate that they can completely recreate that in 1 year with only 20 developers. Those 100 developers were actually doing something over those 10 years, and it's huge mistake to discount all that work. Upon closer examination, all of that "crummy code" usually is dealing with all the real world scenarios that don't fit into the rosy picture. The original code is probably complicated, because the problem it's trying to solve is complicated.
The second problem is that people usually grossly exagerate the benefit of the rewrite. Take Expedia's web server as an example. Development started on it in the mid nineties before most of the web server technologies people use today had even delivered their first versions. It uses a custom template language, and is backed by C++, which very few people use for the web today. The web server contains both display code, and business logic. It would be very tempting to rewrite it thinking you could make your developers much more efficient.
When you actually look at where the developers spend their time though, you find that about 50% of the time is spent on the middle tier servers, which wouldn't be affected by this; 15% of the time is spent writing HTML and JavaScript, which also wouldn't be affected; and 20% is spent on business logic, which won't get any simpler by having a new web server. Even if you assume a completely unrealistic 50% efficiency gain, your developers are only getting around an 8% improvement overall. If you assume a more realistic 10% efficiency gain, then the overall gain drops to an unimpressive 1.5%.
Imagine launching a huge multi-million dollar project that will seriously reduce your output for multiple years for a 1.5% efficiency gain. People who launch these kinds of projects typically grossly underestimate the costs, and grossly overestimate the benefits or they would never had started it in the first place. In fact, the history of software development is full of examples of leading companies that were overtaken by a competitor when they made the mistake of trying to rewrite everything.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Government Jobs Don't Create Jobs
(originally posted on Facebook on 2/1/2009)
It's common to hear commentators and politicians talk about creating jobs in this down economy. One of the most common ideas is to create some big government project that will employ a bunch of people, and then say that the project has created a whole bunch of jobs. This sounds right on the surface, but it's just another version of the classic broken window fallacy where a mistake is made by only looking at what is obvious and not following the non-obvious reverberations.
The broken window fallacy goes like this: imagine a boy playing baseball hits a ball through a window. At first, you might think this is a bad thing, but then the owner will have to spend money on a new window. The glazer then gets that money and can spend it on something else, and that person can also spend it on something. In this way, the broken window stimulates a beneficial cascade of spending throughout the economy.
The problem in the story is that the owner is now poorer and can't spend that money somewhere else. Maybe he would have bought a new suit, but now has to spend that money on a window instead. The money not spent on the suit will ripple through the economy in the same way as the money spent on the new window. Focussing on both effects, it becomes clear that the economy as a whole is no better off. Money has just been moved from one area to another. The glazer is richer, but the tailor is poorer. In addition, with the broken window the owner is also poorer since he is now down one suit, and so as you would have originally guessed, the broken window is in fact a bad thing.
Now let's imagine a government is going to build a bridge which will require 1000 people to complete at an average cost of $50,000 per employee. What's obvious is that 1000 people will now be working on building the bridge. However, the government has to get the money from somewhere to pay these workers. Ultimately, in one way or another (taxes, borrowing, inflation, etc.) that money will come from the people. Assuming perfect government efficiency, that means the people as a whole will have had $50 million extracted from them to pay the 1000 employees. That's $50 million they will no longer be able to spend or invest, and that reduction in funds will ripple through the economy just as in the case of the broken window. Other businesses will have to reduce hiring or lay off other employees to account for the reduction in business and investment.
Once again, you've just shifted resources around with no net gain or loss. In reality though, the government isn't close to perfectly efficient, and so the long term effect will actually be a loss of jobs, since money and resources will be wasted in the transfer. This isn't to say the bridge shouldn't be built. It may serve a useful purpose in its own right. Just don't believe it when someone tries to tell you it will create jobs.
(Henry Hazlitt's great little book, Economics in One Lesson, is a great read for anyone interested in more.)
It's common to hear commentators and politicians talk about creating jobs in this down economy. One of the most common ideas is to create some big government project that will employ a bunch of people, and then say that the project has created a whole bunch of jobs. This sounds right on the surface, but it's just another version of the classic broken window fallacy where a mistake is made by only looking at what is obvious and not following the non-obvious reverberations.
The broken window fallacy goes like this: imagine a boy playing baseball hits a ball through a window. At first, you might think this is a bad thing, but then the owner will have to spend money on a new window. The glazer then gets that money and can spend it on something else, and that person can also spend it on something. In this way, the broken window stimulates a beneficial cascade of spending throughout the economy.
The problem in the story is that the owner is now poorer and can't spend that money somewhere else. Maybe he would have bought a new suit, but now has to spend that money on a window instead. The money not spent on the suit will ripple through the economy in the same way as the money spent on the new window. Focussing on both effects, it becomes clear that the economy as a whole is no better off. Money has just been moved from one area to another. The glazer is richer, but the tailor is poorer. In addition, with the broken window the owner is also poorer since he is now down one suit, and so as you would have originally guessed, the broken window is in fact a bad thing.
Now let's imagine a government is going to build a bridge which will require 1000 people to complete at an average cost of $50,000 per employee. What's obvious is that 1000 people will now be working on building the bridge. However, the government has to get the money from somewhere to pay these workers. Ultimately, in one way or another (taxes, borrowing, inflation, etc.) that money will come from the people. Assuming perfect government efficiency, that means the people as a whole will have had $50 million extracted from them to pay the 1000 employees. That's $50 million they will no longer be able to spend or invest, and that reduction in funds will ripple through the economy just as in the case of the broken window. Other businesses will have to reduce hiring or lay off other employees to account for the reduction in business and investment.
Once again, you've just shifted resources around with no net gain or loss. In reality though, the government isn't close to perfectly efficient, and so the long term effect will actually be a loss of jobs, since money and resources will be wasted in the transfer. This isn't to say the bridge shouldn't be built. It may serve a useful purpose in its own right. Just don't believe it when someone tries to tell you it will create jobs.
(Henry Hazlitt's great little book, Economics in One Lesson, is a great read for anyone interested in more.)
Monday, March 2, 2009
How I Got Started Curling
I actually knew nothing about curling until about 10 years ago, even though my mother's side of the family is Canadian and from one of the major curling provinces (Saskatchewan). My mum knew about the sport, but they were just more into hockey. So it was completely random when I was flipping through channels on a Saturday afternoon, and happened to see curling and decided to check it out. It was the Canadian Junior Nationals, and it was a lot more interesting than I was expecting. That day was the women's final, and I watched the men's final the next day.
After that I looked through the CBC listings to see if anything else was coming up (in Seattle our cable picks up the major Canadian network), and sure enough the Tournament of Hearts (Women's National), and Brier (Men's National) were coming up. For a few years, I just watched these major tournaments as they came up, but didn't do anything else. I looked up curling in the Seattle area, and found out we had a club, but didn't call them or drop by.
It was a happy coincidence that the dance company I was in at the time, Enertia, rehearsed about two blocks away from the curling club. Traffic from Microsoft to rehearsal was typically really bad, and so I usually allowed for over an hour to get there. One day, the traffic was completely clear, and I arrived in about 20 minutes. Having an hour to kill, I decided to check out the curling club. That weekend they were having an open house, and so Audra and I planned to try it out.
The open house went really well. They basically put you in groups of around 8, and take you onto the ice with an instructor. You go through a few drills, and then start throwing rocks. After everyone feels pretty comfortable, you play a few ends to get a feel for what a game is like. We both had a great time and signed up for a league right away. I was drawn in by throwing rocks, but there are many other aspects of the game that have kept me going.
If you're interested and in the Seattle area, visit Granite Curling Club. If you're not in Seattle, the USCA keeps a list of clubs in the US. If you're in Canada, just walk down the street, and you'll eventually find one!
After that I looked through the CBC listings to see if anything else was coming up (in Seattle our cable picks up the major Canadian network), and sure enough the Tournament of Hearts (Women's National), and Brier (Men's National) were coming up. For a few years, I just watched these major tournaments as they came up, but didn't do anything else. I looked up curling in the Seattle area, and found out we had a club, but didn't call them or drop by.
It was a happy coincidence that the dance company I was in at the time, Enertia, rehearsed about two blocks away from the curling club. Traffic from Microsoft to rehearsal was typically really bad, and so I usually allowed for over an hour to get there. One day, the traffic was completely clear, and I arrived in about 20 minutes. Having an hour to kill, I decided to check out the curling club. That weekend they were having an open house, and so Audra and I planned to try it out.
The open house went really well. They basically put you in groups of around 8, and take you onto the ice with an instructor. You go through a few drills, and then start throwing rocks. After everyone feels pretty comfortable, you play a few ends to get a feel for what a game is like. We both had a great time and signed up for a league right away. I was drawn in by throwing rocks, but there are many other aspects of the game that have kept me going.
If you're interested and in the Seattle area, visit Granite Curling Club. If you're not in Seattle, the USCA keeps a list of clubs in the US. If you're in Canada, just walk down the street, and you'll eventually find one!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Start of a New Experiment
I've been occasionally posting notes and links on my Facebook profile. Typically, I'll write about economics, curling, or occasionally the software development process. A friend recently suggested that I should start a bona fide blog to gather all these thoughts together. It seemed worth a try, especially since I never really felt comfortable with Facebook for these notes.
So for now at least, I'm considering this an experiment. I'll start by writing about the things that interest me. Eventually, it may be that one of the topics comes to dominate.
So for now at least, I'm considering this an experiment. I'll start by writing about the things that interest me. Eventually, it may be that one of the topics comes to dominate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)