Donald Trump

Protectionism Was Costly in the Past, And The Future Won't Be Any Different

Spending $500,000 per year to save a $50,000 per year factory job might make sense politically, but only if the true cost of saving those jobs is hidden.


In the name of putting "America First," the Trump administration seems determined to pursue a course of economic protectionism.

As one of his first actions in office, Trump on Monday issued an executive order pulling America out of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation free trade deal left unfinished by the Obama administration. Later on Monday, Trump's spokesperson suggested that the new administration might soon withdraw from NAFTA, the 1994 free trade deal signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Other protectionist policies could be coming. Trump has promised to punish businesses that move jobs out of the United States and has already been making "deals" to keep others from offshoring production.

That might be a winning strategy for Trump politically, but it will leave the country poorer in the long run, says Mark Perry, an economist at the economically conservative American Enterprise Institute. For Perry, that's not an opinion but a reading of empirical economic history.

Perry tweeted this chart on Monday morning (and later expanded the argument in a post at his Carpe Diem blog):

Mark Perry, American Enterprise Institute

The chart is based on a 1986 study published in the Institute for International Economics examined 31 case studies of protectionist trade policies in the United States. Across 19 different manufacturing sectors, the study found that the costs of protectionism outweighed the benefits, sometimes by a wide margin.

"I think it's a good reality check to demonstrate that even though protectionism might sound good in theory, and might in fact save some U.S. jobs, it will never pass an empirical cost-benefit analysis, which always shows that the costs to consumers are always greater than the benefits to producers, making us worse off on net," Perry said in an email interview.

A lot has changed since the 1980s, of course, but there's little reason to think that the basic rules of trade and economics have gone the way of Members Only jackets and Bananarama.

Not only does protectionism make all of us worse off, but the added costs are huge. When looking at manufacturing jobs, one area where Trump has focused, and updating the 1986 analysis to account for inflation, Perry concludes that it could cost as much as $500,000 per job saved.

"Spending $500,000 to $600,000 per year to save a $50,000 to $60,000 per year factory job might make sense politically, but only if the true cost of saving those jobs is hidden," Perry said.

That last part is important. These costs are never going to be seen on a price tag or a receipt, but are buried within a million transactions that take place all over the country every day. Increasing the cost of manufacturing products or importing them into the country, as Trump has promised to do, will result in those higher costs being passed along the supply chain to consumers.

The supposed benefits of protectionism can be trumpeted—or, perhaps, tweeted—in a far less subtle way.

On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer addressed some criticism of Trump's "deal" with Carrier by doing exactly this.

"He's not focused on statistics so much as he is whether the American people are doing better," Spicer said of Trump's economic views. "Too often in Washington, we get our heads wrapped around a number and a statistic, and we forget the faces and the families and the businesses that are behind those numbers."

Yes, that's a good political talking point—one that I suspect we'll hear a lot more often from the Trump administration in the coming years—but all it does is obfuscate and dismiss very legitimate criticisms, like the one raised by Perry, about the economic consequences of political meddling in the economy.

Read more about Trump's efforts to bribe, bully, beg, borrow, and steal jobs in the newest edition of the print magazine.


NEXT: Let's Avoid Fake Outrage over Madonna's Violent White House Fantasy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Commentariat, we need to talk. Per my usual routine, I sat down today to enjoy the PM Links like every other member of the community here. But my day was quickly ruined when I noticed the user Col. Chestbridge, well, I’ll let you read for yourselves:

    Your AddictionMyth impression needs work. And while you’re practicing it, for the love of freedom kill Hitler. I’ve seen the juice-hating bastard posting around here far too often.

    Like, seriously? What have I ever done to you, guy?

    1. Oh and FYI, this is Hitler with an L.

      1. He wasn’t responding to you. He was responding to the guy who said “Good for you!!” Here’s the back story: He was confused – I responded to CX with “Look at you!” because he used to respond to me with “Look at me!” So basically everyone is completely confused. Either that or they missed me – I was busy today (sorry!). Bottom line: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

          1. You got bored with sucking Ken’s dick, kb?

            1. WTF are you smoking, retard?

              1. Dude, he has a fucking blog where the only thing that happens is all of his socks pretend to argue with each other. That’s what he’s doing. Shreek is off his meds again.

                1. Dude, he has a fucking blog where the only thing that happens is all of his socks pretend to argue with each other.

                  Well, that might explain why 90% of what he posts is utterly incoherent.

            2. Oh, FFS. Are you still butthurt about getting banned from Popehat? Go whine somewhere else. Anywhere else.

    2. Well, you did kill him.

      1. Well look who slithered over here today.

        1. KB destroying your idiotic posts is a pleasure to read. Don’t know why he does it, but if he has the time…

        2. You disgusting piece of fucking shit. I just went to your dumbass blog to dig up whatever hilarious bullshit you’re spewing and the first item is you fucking doxxing Pat (PM).

        3. Your “thesis” reads like fucking TimeCube. Is that you in there, Eugene Ray?

          1. It reads more like he was fantasy-molested by Bill W. than like he has any insight into addiction or the lack thereof.

    3. Crikey, shreek, another sock? Take your meds.

      1. Too erudite for shriek.

        1. AddictionMyth is shreek, so is dajjal.

          1. I have my doubts on that. But I was referring to the commenter calling himself Hitler.

            1. There’s nothing to doubt. I’m 100% sure of it.

  2. I may as well get this TPP joke out of the way.

  3. Interestingly, New Zealand media is reporting that the executive order also instructs officials “to begin pursuing, wherever possible, bilateral trade negotiations to promote American industry, protect American workers, and raise American wages.”

    Now, who knows what the details will be, but a NZ trade expert quoted in the article: “expected that New Zealand would respond quickly and positively to an approach from the US for a bilateral. ‘I think if they came and asked for a bilateral discussion I’m sure they will get on the plane ASAP.'”

    1. PM Zoolander actually has to do something work-seeming this week!

      Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is holding a three-day retreat in Calgary with his inner circle to map out strategy on trade relations with the new U.S. administration.
      Stephen Schwarzman, who is the chief executive of the U.S. investment firm Blackstone Group and was appointed in December to head Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, met with Trudeau early Monday in Calgary and told him Canada is not in the president’s crosshairs, as trade between the two countries is largely balanced.

      1. I’ve been shocked to learn that all my Obama-bot friends are great fans of Trudeua (even while admitting they don’t know much about Canadian politics).

        1. Doonsbury is horrible.

        2. That’s what fricken pisses me off. Image is greater than substance to lefties.

      2. Trudeau…Freeland….yeh, this won’t end well.

        1. Can you imagine Freeland having to be in the same room with Trump for three hours?

          Jesus, Belgians made the woman cry! Belgians!

          1. And they’re not even a real country!

    2. As I understand it, their proposed trade agreement is they’ll drop any and all tariffs if Peter Jackson starts filming the Silmarillion for HBO.

      1. If that happens, Impeach Trump!

        Desolation of Smaug, never forget! *crying bald eagle*

      2. Please keep Peter Jackson away from, well, everything.

    3. Has anyone noticed that tariff predictions, like climate predictions, are couched in prophesy that relies on necromancy? It’s almost like an organized conspiracy to back up and prove Ayn Rand’s claims about death being the standard of value that motivates intellectuals of the looter persuasion.

  4. Millenials just need to get off their asses and get a job. We’ll be fine.

  5. You want to create jobs here? Slash taxes and regulations. It’s a joke. We’re going to add millions to your cost of business but you can avoid those cost by moving your business across the border and shipping product back in. Fuck trade agreements. Unilaterally eliminate tariffs and subsidiaries. You don’t need an agreement to do that.

    1. I don’t think that’s even enough unless a significant increase in automation happens also. Which means jobs for robots and 3D printers, not so much jobs for humans. But since they’ll be the ones programming and maintaining the robots and 3D printers, those few jobs will actually pay well.

      1. State and local governments are a huge hindrance to employment with their fees and occupational licensing schemes, regulations, prohibitions, etc. Get out of peoples way so they can make money. After you make it easy for everyone who wants to earn money to do so, then make it harder to not work. Unfortunately going in the wrong direction with minimum wage hikes and and all of the rent seeking but we can create jobs if the governments get out of the way.

        1. And what’s in that for parasitical politicians and bureaucrats? Nothing. Which is why it’s so hard to do. The rent seeking shitheads want their protection money.

      2. If you squash regs and taxes, you get more capital in the hands of the people and take your boot off the neck of entrepreneurship. Small business owners aren’t as inclined to use robots to put themselves out of a job, and even if they do, they keep the profit.

  6. “He’s not focused on statistics so much as he is whether the American people are doing better,” Spicer said of Trump’s economic views. “Too often in Washington, we get our heads wrapped around a number and a statistic, and we forget the faces and the families and the businesses that are behind those numbers.”

    Yay, my pick and shovel business is about to explode as soon as Trump orders that all bulldozers, earth movers, and other labor saving devices be banned from federal infrastructure projects. And, while he’s at it, time to bring back sweatshops, ban forklifts, and ban ATMs.

    1. And, while he’s at it, time to bring back sweatshops, ban forklifts, and ban ATMs.

      It’s been suggested.

  7. So trade is one of the things I’ve never agreed with Trump on. At least his rhetoric. We don’t know what he’s actually going to do, so we’ll see what happens. But if we’re going to actually bring back mfg to Murika, that mfg has to be automated. There is simply no way we can pay line workers $25 or more an hour and the compete with Japan or South Korea. So you keep jobs here and you automate, or you make stuff in China and ship back. There’s no other way. And protectionism sucks. Brazil does it and guess what? Consumer electronics are so expensive there that people living there who can afford it, fly here to the US to buy that stuff and they still save money. No one’s paying 3 grand for their iThingy just because it’s made in Murika.

    1. Look, you can disagree with the Go-Pee puppet all day and nobody cares. The Kleptocracy passes the laws and the Prez murders all furriners that get in the way. Eventually the Prez becomes the goat, leaves office in shame and contempt, (see Harding, Hoover, Nixon, Carter, Bush, The Kenyan) and the DemoGOP Kleptocracy hires another actor to do their bidding. The difference is that this one has an almost Hitleresque gift for convincing religious buffoons that he is Christ. The upside is that at least central casting didn’t send them another inbred Washington insider.

  8. Really what ar eprogs complaining about? This protectionism shit is right up their alley.

    1. Wasn’t Bernie babe preaching that same message?

      1. But Trump has an “R” next to his name, so anything he does is bad, even if it’s stuff they do. Just like Bush going to war was evil and horrible, but Obama going to war was just fine.


    It’s the right thing to do. It was never meant to be.


      Yep, two nights running.

      1. But the weather is better tonight.

  10. Blah, blah, blah. Isn’t there somebody here who can tell me what stock(s) to buy? That’s all I need to know.

    1. Buggy whip manufacturers

  11. Yeah, protectionism has never been a winning strategy.

    1. Unfortunately, free shit is often a winning strategy.

  12. “He’s not focused on statistics so much as he is whether the American people are doing better,”

    Four more years of this.

    1. I don’t mind a statistical focus. It’s the part where they ignore statistics they don’t like.

      Unemployment is down, all hail the great economist Obama!

      But what about LFPR?

      Shut up, all that matters is a number that we totally didn’t game!

      1. Or non-farm labour hours! Or population boom!


        1. That is, if you create X jobs but your population exceeds the jobs created then job growth is not as strong as you think it is.

          So, they’ll say something like ‘7 million jobs created!’ and end it there.

          Yeh, but how many people were added to the population?

          1. We can learn from the Europeans about this. You know, the European population was actually shrinking. True story. So they figured they should import millions of folks from the middle east to solve the problem. So then those guys didn’t want to work, so then they had a different sort of problem. But then the guys from the middle east, blew up some people. So Europe had an epiphany and decided that they should import more of those guys because if you blow up enough people, there will be more jobs for the ones who are left. The ones who don’t want jobs. But they’re getting there, they’ll figure this out soon.

    2. Statistically speaking, 73% of statistics are simply made up, 17% are ‘open to interpretation’ and 99% required some degree of subjectivity to calculate.

      1. Don’t make fun of statisticians. I had an uncle who was a statistician — he drowned while crossing a creek with an average depth of 3 feet.

  13. Hey Reason, your site is taking forever to load on mobile.

    And the swipe to navigate articles still sucks Alec Baldwin’s Swedi balls.

    1. Get a real computer.

      1. The wife complains when I bring the Optiplex tower to bed.

        1. That is one esoteric euphemism.

        2. You’re posting from bed? I don’t want to know.

  14. “Bacon strips left at Islamic center probed as hate crime”…..877639.php

    Man eating ham sammich questioned as accessory!

    1. Mama Cass was unavailable for questioning.

    2. MONSTERS!

      Bacon should NEVER got to waste.

  15. …NAFTA, the 1994 free trade deal signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

    I enjoyed Peter Klein’s take this morning on free trade vs “free trade” over at Mises.

    HT (((Renegade)))

  16. Absolutely.

    However, you do have to realize that it does end up hurting some people and those people voted in their own economic interests, not for the rest of the country.

    1. “However, you do have to realize that it does end up hurting some people and those people voted in their own economic interests, not for the rest of the country.”

      Pretty sure this is a small number of employed; you’d have to work in a plant, producing products easily shipped. Supposedly, there are very few who still do so.
      I’d bet there were far more who favored this because of econ-illiteracy and general ‘America First’ sentiments.
      The one exception to the above are, of course, tech workers whose jobs can be done anywhere in the world, but they are claimed to be ‘liberal’ in political sentiment and I don’t think Trump’s protectionism could possibly help them anyhow.

  17. Correct me if I’m wrong… But is it not mathematically impossible for this to work as suggested above? The increased consumer prices MUST balance out with the amount of money that STAYS IN THE COUNTRY. Note I do not say in WAGES. But simply the amount that stays in the country.


    1 Billion in widget imports a year.

    Slap a 20% tariff on widgets because the increased cost of making widgets in the US is 10% higher than importing, hence nobody will want imported widgets anymore at 20% tariffs.

    Now consumers must pay 1.1 billion for American widgets, or let us even say 1.2 billion because the US companies realize they can price gouge due to the tariff rate.

    Ok, so we now have 200 million in additional consumer expenses. Let’s say that only creates 100 million additional dollars a year in WAGES.

    By necessity that other 100 million a year MUST be staying in the country in the form of increased profits/return on capital, OR increased raw materials costs down the line (like widgets need plastic in their manufacture, but US plastic costs 100 million more than it would have cost the Chinese or whatever etc).

    There is no other way for it to be. So while WAGES in and of them self might not be 100% made up by the increased consumer costs, there is now 1.2 BILLION dollars more GROSS sloshing around in the economy. Wages, profits, increased material costs etc MUST balance out with the extra paid by consumers. It’s just math.

    1. *This DOES assume the stock owners of said companies are based in the US, if it is foreign owned some of that COULD still flow abroad of course. *

      While I’m on this point I will mention the known and accepted fact that every dollar generated in manufacturing (or other productive industries that create “new” value, not just shifting money around like service jobs) circulates around the economy numerous times and creates a “virtuous cycle.” If you switch 1 billion in imported goods production with 1.2 billion in US production you’ve just shifted 1.2 billion dollars to sloshing around HERE, instead of 1 billion being sent abroad. That creates a LOT of secondary jobs, which I would bet my life those statistics completely ignore.

      Like all those down stream jobs from suppliers/raw materials companies. Chinese widget makers don’t import US plastic to make widgets, but a US widget maker is a lot more likely to use US made plastics. You dig? Even if not ALL components are sourced from being made in the USA SOME likely will be, which is SOME more than in a Chinese product in most cases, AND even if ZERO US materials are used all the other secondary jobs like baristas, and restaurants, and auto dealers etc etc etc exist that wouldn’t have without that money sloshing around in the domestic economy.

      1. Do you believe that dollars sent out of the country just disappear from the earth? Are they simply burning our dollars for heat?

        1. Nope! They’re actually doing even worse. They’re bringing them back here to the US and buying our own assets from us because we’re consuming more than we’re producing. As with an individual who spends beyond what he earns eventually it catches up with you. We’re masking many of the effects because we have a fiat currency system which allows us to endlessly print more money, but if we had a hard currency the situation would be far different, and we’d have had to balance out our trade by wages falling rapidly here.

          If China peels off 400 billion a year from the US economy for a decade that’s 4 trillion in capital they must either be sitting on doing absolutely nothing with, or more likely they invested it in US denominated assets which produce them a return. Maybe real estate? Stocks? Businesses based in the US? These all generate additional USD denominated income for them to purchase still more US based assets. Over time we become less wealthy and own fewer of our own assets and they own more. We’re a rich country but sooner or later it’s not good to be a debtor because the piper must always be paid in the end. You can’t live beyond your means forever, and every country that’s ever tried it has fallen flat on its face, just like every individual does. I want our country to be Warren Buffett, not MC Hammer.

    2. This is where a good chunk of the hardcore free trade thing breaks down mathematically in my mind. The truth is in a lot of cases we do exactly that. We throw away 1 billion in initial economic activity from manufacturing something so that we can save 10-20% in that initial products cost… But we also lose out on all the secondary use of that money flowing through the economy.

      If we had a truly robust economy at maximum employment, with people moving up the latter to higher paying 150 grand a year IT jobs or whatever I’d say that’s a good tradeoff. That’s how comparative advantage is supposed to work… The problem is in the real world what we’ve seen is tens of millions of people simply becoming unemployed, a lot fewer people moving up the latter thanks to our outsourcing the “low end” jobs, and the economy simply sputtering and failing miserably.

      I’m not in favor of fucking with the market too much, and would prefer his “cut taxes and regulations to the bone” approach and just see how that goes… But I don’t buy into the doom and gloom from MODEST tariffs. China has high ass tariffs on our goods as is, so I don’t see how playing a little more fair is going to completely hose us given how much secondary GDP is generated from every dollar of manufacturing output.

    3. You are neglecting the high probability of a reduction in US exports.

      You slap on the import tariff and then everyone else goes and does the same for imports from US producers.

      1. You’re neglecting that everybody else ALREADY DOES THIS. They COULD jack them even higher out of spite, hence the “trade war” phrase, but I don’t see where it would matter much since they’ve already placed their tariffs at points where they feel they’re greatly stifling the likelihood of their populace importing American made products anyway. That’s the whole point of them having high tariffs on us in the first place!

        That said if you’re looking at this strategically I still wouldn’t be worried about what little impact that has. Our economy is so decimated in terms of manufacturing that we’re not really in the “commodity product” business anymore. Even companies that do make fairly common items are generally in the high end and have a special place in the market. Think Redwing Boots or Gibson guitars that are made in the USA or something. Yes increased tariffs could hurt these brands even further abroad, but they’re already niche and priced higher than the competition by virtue of their branding/quality.

        MOST of our exports are in things that other countries largely don’t make, because they can’t. We own the patents or the expertise required is simply too high and nobody can touch us. That’s most of what we have left at this point. So we have a somewhat captive market.

      2. A semi strong case for this would be Boeing. They have Europe’s Airbus as a competitor, but that’s pretty much it in the whole world. If China jacked their tariffs on their airlines buying Boeing planes it could hurt (I live in Seattle, so it could finally help pop the housing bubble here!)… But there’s only so much production capacity in the world between Boeing and Airbus, and you don’t exactly ramp up jumbo jet production overnight, and once Airbus was drowned with orders in such a hypothetical situation people would either need to start buying Boeing planes again despite the cost, OR suffer a 10 year waiting list with Airbus. Not to mention that Airbus would be likely to jack their own pricing “because they can” to bolster their bottom line anyway if tariffs were broadly raised against Boeing by a lot of countries in a wide scale trade war. Over a long enough period of time Boeing’s position could seriously deteriorate, but it wouldn’t happen overnight, nor do I realistically think every country on earth would slap on tariffs overnight once we “went to war” with China or whatever.

  18. Then there’s the simple calculus of the situation: When we’re the ones importing far more than we export we don’t have a lot to lose. Ok, you take away 100 billion a year of our exports… Well we just shit canned 400 billion a year worth of your imports… So piss off China! Consumers are spending more, but it’s staying in the local economy sloshing around creating secondary jobs. 400 billion vs 100 billion. Which one is likely to generate more economic activity domestically?

    I think the basic flaw in the hard line modern free trade scenario is thinking that a country can ALWAYS find a comparative advantage activity to move on to that is “better” than the low wage job that was replaced. In theory we should have millions more programmers or WTF ever… Unfortunately this simply hasn’t happened. What we’ve ended up with is many millions of unemployed people, which instead of moving into higher paid positions that are “better” than working in a factory are in fact a drag on society via the welfare system.

    When an economy is at full employment I think subbing out low end labor makes sense… But I think in the current real world it simply hasn’t worked out as the theory says it should. The problem is we literally just aren’t competitive in a true sense with enough stuff to make our economy function… SO it’s collapsing.

    1. Old school free market free trade doctrine never covers the possibility that one trade partner is completely unable to compete in any given field, or take into account the SIZE of industries where one country may have an advantage vs another and how that plays out in the real world. Ok we own the jumbo jet market. That’s cool. Problem is people spend more money on tennis shoes and t-shirts than jumbo jets a year… So our comparative advantage is not enough to make up for the lost domestic production. Hence big ass trade deficit.

      What would happen in a true free market economy is our wages would fall, which has been happening… But it’s been stopped by the welfare state from reaching true parity (which would be near slave wages as they have in China and elsewhere) that would reset the “balance” of trade naturally.

      The other NEVER talked about thing is how our fiat money policy is THE ONLY reason we’re being able to run such massive deficits for such a long period of time. With real currency having to be physically exported we’d basically be out of gold long ago. So applying free market free trade principles to a rigged NON free market is what is not working if you want to get down to brass tacks.

    2. The reason people cared so much about balanced trade in the olden days is because countries LITERALLY ran out of gold and silver when they were running big trade deficits, and when you have real currency it becomes an issue. Just because we’ve conned other countries into taking our paper money for the moment doesn’t mean it’s going to continue like that forever… Or that it is healthy to trade away your nations accumulated savings so that you can live beyond your means, which is exactly what is happening now. We’re trading away our future for current consumption. That is never a good habit whether on an individual level (credit card debt is GREAT!) or on a national level.

      Whatever the case we have millions of unproductive people that we either need to support on the dole, or give them jobs. Between the two I’d say it’s better for them to have jobs. In effect it’s a wealth transfer scheme between the people that are currently productive (programmers, engineers, etc) and doing well in the current paradigm (AKA that were able to make the comparative advantage type shifts that are supposed to happen in free trade), and the millions that got kicked in the nuts by outsourcing low to mid level jobs.

    3. I think with MODEST tariffs we don’t have to worry about any apocalypse. I don’t know that we’ll see a ton of real net gains or anything, but it will reshuffle money away from welfare and towards more productive activities like people actually working. Another little aside here is that with wages rising quickly in most of these poor exporting countries this situation of us being uncompetitive will not last forever. This is a well accepted fact in industry. Stagnant wages for us + higher automation for us in the future + rising wages for them + increased shipping costs for them = US and Europe have been becoming more attractive naturally all on their own for years. Many industries are already at parity vs China that weren’t just 5 years ago. Many more will be in 5 or 10 years. Fudging the math via tariffs will only “smooth” the curve out of when a lot of this stuff shifts back to being more economical to produce here by a few years anyway.

      Long and the short of it is these actions likely won’t change things hugely, but they probably won’t hurt us much if any either. It all comes down to the specifics of the situation. We have virtually nothing to lose, and a moderate chance at modest gains. So whatever.

  19. Yeah pretty much. Is everyone still happy that Trump was elected to the Presidency? Can everyone say “Hoover and tariffs brought about the Great Depression?” Along with tight money policies of course.

  20. Free trade is a 10% revenue-only tariff according to the man who wrote the Second Tariff of Abominations–the one that passed after Lincoln was elected and thus touched off the Civil War. Furthermore, tariff experts like Taussig calculated that since freight was not free, shipping stuff to America from other than Canada or Mexico already added roughly 10% to its cost of production by the time it arrived. Anyone who demands more than 20% tariff protection is thus at best a parasitical bottlenecker seeking to eliminate choice and replace it with coercion and confiscation by libel, and at worst another tax-and-spend lamprey.

    1. You make ?37/h that’s great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online , seriously I couldn’t be haappier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in ?35/h and sometimes even as much as ?85/h?Heres a good example of what I’m doing,,,,,,, ??.>>>>>


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.