Posted by: Millard J. Melnyk | December 24, 2012

The Scarcity Myth

If there is one belief that everyone I know seems to subscribe to, it’s scarcity. It drives people to do their best and their worst. Scarcity is one of the most widely accepted and firmly embedded bricks in the foundations of our political, social, economic, and psychological theories. And, oddly enough, it’s one we’ve barely bothered to question, let alone test, until recently.

This much human history had to pass before the notion of abundance for all this side of the pearly gates stopped tripping our ridicule reflexes. As we realize what’s actually possible, given a relatively simple mix of cheap technology and the will to make good use of it, we’re starting to wonder whether it was foolish to hope that scarcity could be ended or to have believed so firmly for so long that it was an unavoidable given. At least now we can ask the question without eyes rolling and snickering:

Is scarcity a genuine problem forced on us by the nature of our situation in the world, or is it and was it contrived?

Dig a Little Deeper

No one would seriously argue against the fact that scarcity is a devastating problem for far too many. For 80% of the world’s population living on less than $10 per day, scarcity is all too real.[1] The important question is not whether they suffer from lack of scarce necessities, but whether they need to. Is there that much “not enough to go around,” really?

Few informed people would maintain that there’s only enough good stuff in the world for less than 20% of us. (I think that we should exclude those who live on $15 or $20 or even $40 a day from any list of “those who have enough.”) With 0.3% controlling 40% of the action, and only 1.7% controlling a full 80%, some level of contrivance and collusion must be going on.

No, those weren’t Occupy Wall Street numbers. Those are the research findings recently released by Swiss economists about the Big Boys, revealing the teensy fraction of transnational corporations (TNCs) that control the lion’s share of global business, for the most part through corporate nepotism.[2] OWS’s numbers look forgiving in comparison. Not only are these the richest and most powerful entities on the planet, they are also the most inbred. The network of cross-ownership between corporations in this miniscule elite looks like the traffic patterns in a colony of rutting bunnies. Check it out here. Not enough data? How’s “£13tn hoard hidden from taxman by global elite,” a story run last July by The Guardian on the more than $21 TRILLION (possibly as much as $32 trillion) stowed away globally in offshore accounts to evade taxation?[3]

Notice also that, at any time in history, less than 10% of the world’s population controlled 80% or more of the available resources.[4] We’re to believe that scarcity is the cause of this incessant disproportion, or is it more likely (and reasonable) that resource hoarding caused scarcity to be a huge problem for the 90% who are left with 20% or less to fight over? When Jesus said, “You always have the poor with you,” he wasn’t making a comment on the inevitability of poverty; he was pointing out that some of us want it that way, and the rest of us let them have their way.

Gods of Industry Keep It All In-house

We hear numbers today like 1% or 10% or 20% control most of the wealth in the world. What we rarely consider are the interdependent relationships between those in the 1%, 10%, or 20%. We’re hopelessly naïve to think that they don’t talk, plan, and party together. Ever see a state dinner laid out, ready for “dignitaries” to enjoy themselves? What does eating delectables with goldware (not silverware) and drinking $2,000 bottles of champagne have to do with running nations? It isn’t all infighting on Mt. Olympus, not even between left and right, North and South, black and white, or whatever contrived polarity you prefer. In fact, most of it is theater staged for us mere mortals, a way to raise flags to rally us around and set us against each other. It wouldn’t do to let us unite and eventually give them the boot.

The gods only recognize one side: theirs. To them, all other “sides” are incidental to their plans. Thinking that they fight their “battles” in perennial halls of power and fields of slaughter for our sakes is as sensible and sane as a night on peyote. Actually, tripping on psychedelics makes more sense and is far less likely to disappoint.

During my school days in the 60s and 70s, “population control” was a hot topic and a huge concern. My God, we were 3 billion strong on the planet, pushing 4 billion! Where would all the food come from if we didn’t put a lid on it? Today we’re pushing 7 billion, and no one has shown that starvation is almost twice as bad now than it was then. So where did all that food come from?

Who says that there isn’t enough to go around? The only ones who have the facts are the hoarding “global elite.” The rest of us aren’t privy to data that would tell us exactly what we can’t have. Those who know don’t want us to, so we’re forced to guess how much they deny everyone else. If it was all good and understandable, why hide the information? That’s right. No good reason.

All Those Faithful Minions

I can’t tell you how often conservative minions of the opulent elite whip out anti-wealth-redistribution guns when I write stuff like this. Arguing that there are reasons for intolerable inequities only implies that we want it to stay this way, or that we’re incompetent to solve it. I say “bullshit” to both. Let’s stop justifying those who screwed things up and start fixing it instead.

Conservative “arguments” are getting old and incredibly thin. Let me spare everyone the wasted effort. I’ve advocated a Jubilee-like, one-time wealth redistribution before, but not this time. I’ve argued against the lame contention that any amount of “merit,” whether in terms of guts, savvy, or good ol’ hard work, entitles the privileged to hoard and withhold while people around them starve or try to cope by popping Prozac–if they can afford it, that is–but not this time. I’ve pointed out the lamer assumption that guts, savvy, or good ol’ hard work are ever key to hoarding obscene wealth, but not this time. This time I only have a question. What if the bastards just spent their filthy cache–just the excess? I wonder how far a twenty to thirty trillion-dollar infusion would go towards stimulating the global economy. Just wondering. It certainly wouldn’t hurt their lifestyles. What exactly would the downsides be? It might even be fun; but maybe that’s the rub.

Scarce Reason for Scarcity

Every theory of economics rests on scarcity as a huge, untested, unverified premise. (Except–at last!–post-scarcity theories, aka., economics of abundance.) For centuries, our best thinkers (most of them well-funded by the rich) have told us that scarcity is a given, and the vast majority of us look at ourselves and all around us, shrug, and conclude that they must be right, because it sure looks that way from our lowly vantages. That’s the incredible bias power of unknown unknowns: you’re on tilt, but since you lack other reference points, you’ll never know because so is everything you see. What if what we don’t know–because those who do know make sure that we don’t–would prove that scarcity is not a given, but a myth? What if there has always been enough to go around? What if the problem is hoarding, not scarcity? Until we stop pig-headedly assuming what we’ve never bothered to test, and until we do some science on the subject, (what a novel idea!) we’ll never really know. Instead of giving scarcity no more scrutiny than a Sunday school dogma, maybe we need to ask some critical questions.

Blithely swallowing the scarcity myth says a lot about the “knowledge” we have developed on its premise. And we don’t need critical thinking and science to show us that scarcity is a myth in at least one respect: precisely because we believe it so soundly in spite of insufficient critical thinking, questioning, and scientific research to support our belief. We do plenty to figure out what we should do about scarcity, but only after assuming it as a given. What studies have we done to figure out scarcity’s root causes that honestly question its necessity? You can’t do science by presuming outcomes before you start. Scientific inquiry requires testable hypotheses. Testing implies that the results could go either way. When we already know the answers before we start, our “science” doesn’t prove fact; it just confirms propaganda.

We don’t have data on the origins of scarcity, because we assume what we should have gathered data about, and yet we believe we know. That indicates a dogma, not a reasoned conclusion. How could we have sound reasons if we haven’t seriously asked questions yet? OK, so let’s ask questions and test hypotheses. Let’s test the hypothesis that scarcity might be contrived by the wealthy. Oops–sorry! Cant, for three reasons. First, we need data, and those who have it won’t share. Second, we need funding, and those who have it won’t share. Third, we need institutional cooperation, and those who could give it, won’t.[5] The data is proprietary, the funds are offshore, and cooperation would undermine corporate–if not national–“security.”

Don’t despair, though! One question can be asked, tested, and answered without help from the rich, because we can handle it among ourselves. It is so simple and obvious that it debunks the scarcity myth in one of its most potent forms, exposing the bullshit it’s based on. It also uncovers our negligence, because only negligence could account for our failure to ask this question and recognize its obvious answer.

Never Never Land of Conflict

Consider the role of scarcity as a root cause of conflict. When someone asks why humans have fought, hurt, and killed each other, seemingly from the start, “scarcity” is a favorite excuse. There isn’t enough to go around, so some have to do without. They don’t like that, so they fight. Someone’s got to give, because someone else decides to take, and they can’t agree who will be which, so conflict is the result. Nothing else can be expected when there’s no more to be had. Sure.

Scarcity as a cause of conflict makes sense in only a very superficial way. And consider the source. The rich tell us that scarcity causes conflict, because the poor know that it doesn’t. Conflict among the poor has other causes besides mere scarcity, ones that are much more important. Frustration is a big one, thanks to the manifold ways that legally make it difficult for the poor to rise above their circumstances. Lack of knowledge and training about how to avoid and resolve conflict is another. Even the rich screw up on that point. And poor men who–frustrated, without other opportunities, not knowing a better way, and inclined to take advantage of others–decide to rise above their circumstances at the expense of their fellow poor are another. These, like the rich, are willing to oppress others in order to get ahead. Did scarcity make them do that, or rather a psychology that they share with the rich? To wit: they are special; they are worth more; they deserve better; they are willing to be forceful, even violent; and so they justify hurting others to get what they want. Only some poor people do that. On the other hand, whether aggressively or tacitly, by callousness or by cruelty, almost all rich people do that.

Am I saying that violence among the poor is not their fault, but the fault of inequitable circumstances that victimize them? No, I know better than that. I am, however, pointing out how obstinately (and ignorantly) conservatives who justify the currently atrocious circumstances refuse to recognize important, relevant factors that don’t support their myth of “meritocracy,” while they overemphasize less important, tangential factors that “prove” their case. Violence is not something that normal people choose when they have other options. Psychopaths do that, and studies are showing that the rich–not the poor–have a higher percentage of psychopaths than the rest of the population.[6] Scarcity is not responsible for that deviation.

It would be so easy to test out the merits of the meritocracy myth: just eliminate scarcity on a short-term, one-time basis like I advocated in my “Jubilee” post. Then we’d see whether the lazy, ignorant, stupid, criminally prone poor continue to be their lazy, ignorant, stupid, criminally prone selves or surprise us (or at least “surprise” the rich) by behaving like normal, conscientious human beings, maybe even happy ones. Or maybe the rich would not be surprised. Maybe they already know that relieving the stress would shatter the meritocracy myth and shine a light on why wealth inequality really exists. The only way to know is to try it. What odds would you lay on the rich financing that little experiment?

Questionable Qualifications

Besides, how do the rich claim to know anything about scarcity? When was the last time that they lacked luxuries, let alone necessities? They don’t rub shoulders with scarcity nor the people that struggle with it. They don’t even like those people. Neither factory workers nor miners nor truck drivers nor any other hard-working, underpaid person coined the phrases “business is war” and “war is hell.” We have rich men who engaged in those hells to thank for such gems of insight. If you want to know about the necessity of scarcity and its role in conflict, ask the poor; but who listens to them?

If scarcity causes conflict, why do only rich men start wars? And why have wealthy, powerful nations always been the ones to build empires by brutal aggression–not weak, impoverished ones? Poor people scraping to get by tend to avoid conflict as best they can. They have neither interest nor energy for a fight unless they’re cornered and find no way out. Only people who can afford the implements and casualties of conflict actually want to engage in it. Everyone else gets conscripted or duped with patriotic or machismo bullshit. With the exception of hooligans, gangsters, and athletes, the ones who think that fights and wars are good ideas are those who have no intention of fighting or dying in the ones they start.

The rich tell us that scarcity causes conflict, but history calls them liars. History tells us that the opulent start wars, except for those who revolt against the opulent who start wars. Anyone who has done just a little traveling knows that the poor and humble in any country welcome and befriend poor and humble foreigners, while the rich disdain each other and everyone else regardless where they are or where they hail from. The rich plan brutal takeovers, finance colonialist occupations, ravage and poison vast areas and the people who live in them, murder by the thousands and millions, pass laws to get away with it, and rape the resources of every land on the globe (except Antarctica, so far, but just wait!) all in the name of “development.” And they are always on the prowl for more.

The rich not only know nothing about scarcity, they don’t know the meaning of enough–just two disqualifications that remove their right to claim what scarcity does or doesn’t do, as well as indicate the psychopathic ground that their all-for-me agendas sprout from. History shows that scarcity among poor majorities is not a cause, but a consequence. A deeper and more obvious problem is hoarding by a relative few who can never get enough, coupled with oppression of everyone else to ensure the security of their hoards. I wonder why those problems get so little air time on the media that the wealthy control, when it’s happening right in front of our noses, everywhere. Not “news” enough for the news, or too much for them to handle?

Wealth: The Sacrosanct Source of Sheepskin Virtue

I love it when middle and lower-middle class conservatives rush to the defense of the rich–such faithful minions they are! Their misplaced loyalty is almost cute. I’d like to point something out to those who love to point to rich philanthropists as “proof” that anti-rich sentiments are misguided, even implying latent envy the part of the anti-rich. Sorry, there’s a big difference between obsessing over money because you don’t have enough and obsessing over it because you can never get enough. The latter is a pathological problem that most of us aren’t afflicted with, as can clearly be seen by two facts. First, once we get enough money to stop obsessing over it, we enjoy life. Second, once rich psychopaths get ten, twenty, a hundred times or more the amount of money that would easily satisfy the rest of us, they only obsess over it more. It’s a disease. One day it will be diagnosed as such. We might even find a cure. Today, we put their smug mugs on the covers of Forbes and ask them to give us jobs.

The philanthropy argument suffers from a little too much cart before the horse. Rich philanthropists didn’t get rich by philanthropy; not even by civility, much less by virtue. Becoming generous after clawing one’s way to the top and hoarding much more than one could ever use–let alone enjoy–doesn’t prove one to be a good person; it just shows that one is not an incorrigible psychopath. Would a normal person–even a normal poor person–refuse to be philanthropic if he, too, had loot to burn? Generosity and care for fellow-men after they can easily afford it proves little about the characters of rich philanthropists and says nothing about what they did to accumulate so much wealth that philanthropy makes sense even to them.

Getting to the top by merit and hard work is the exception, not the rule, in any context–especially highly competitive ones like business and politics. What do all but saints do when stakes are extremely high and competition is fierce? We cut corners and cheat, even if we don’t want to and try not to. Ethical, compassionate people might get rich too, just rarely. Believing that obscenely rich people got there meritoriously assumes levels of compassion and virtue that Mother Teresa would envy. We’d have to conclude that obscenely rich people are the next best thing to angels, rising to the top with ethics and morals intact, against all the odds. Or, we’d have to conclude, together with researchers from the University of Michigan, that they got there by cutting corners and cheating better than anyone else.[7]

Conservative blind faith in the “industry” and “merit” of the rich, as well as the stupidity and laziness of the poor, has nothing to do with the facts of the matter, because those “facts” don’t exist; other facts do. On the other hand, the dogged and baseless faith of conservatives–in utter lack of factual basis–has everything to do with bolstering their hope to grab another piece of the pie or hang onto those in hand. Silly. Anyone who has first-hand experience with real politics in business or government knows what kinds of species prowl and prey in those jungles. They don’t cross-breed with strangers. To know them, you must become one of them. That’s when the transformation happens. Donning philanthropic and other kinds of sheep’s clothing afterwards does not transfigure ravenous wolves back into sheep, it just enables easy access to virtually endless supplies of wool and meat.

What Makes Us So Sure?

The scarcity/conflict myth is so thin and its advantages for the purpose of perpetuating the current state of affairs are so transparent, there must be some strong, non-rational motive that accounts for our denial of the key role of hoarding in the mess. Until we actually test alternatives to the age-old hoarding fiasco, denials of hoarding as a key cause of scarcity, and so a key contributor to conflict, warrant about as much credence as Sasquatch sightings. Actually, I think we have more evidence for the dear ol’ big-footed guy. Until we do some science…

But wait! How can we scientifically study whether hoarding is a root cause of scarcity and human conflict when our sciences get funded by same people who hoarded the wealth we’d be studying? Do we really think that they’ll pay someone to out them? We’d have to resurrect Hemingway or Dickens to write a grant proposal with that kind of persuasive clout. But there’s actually a more basic, straightforward reason that such studies will never be conducted. Science projects that make no sense simply don’t get funded. The rich get rich because they know how to accumulate wealth, not squander it. They know that any decent study would show that scarcity is a myth. Why waste money making clear what they already know and would rather we didn’t?

Speculating on the designs of the rich is fun, but far from proof. There’s always a second side to the coin. Myths can be detected at their sources, but also at their destinations. Myths behave differently in our heads than facts do. Watch and you’ll see: when people mention the myth of scarcity as a reason for conflict, they use it just like any other programmed, sub-rational notion, like the kind of thing ingrained by endlessly regurgitating slogans at school or church, just like any other dogma. The way that they bring it up, their timing, and their purposes for mentioning it are no different than what Robert J. Lifton, in his landmark study of “thought reform,” (aka. brainwashing,) called “thought-terminating clichés.”[8]. Regardless of whether or not the scarcity/conflict dogma has basis in fact, we use it as if it didn’t–just like a myth–so somewhere deep down we clearly feel that myth is exactly what it is.

Watch when people invoke the scarcity/conflict dogma. First, they aren’t talking about themselves; they mean that scarcity drives other people to fight over things they need. How many of these needy unfortunates do they know and how well? Few and little, because of course they prefer to associate with better company than that. That kind of irrational behavior goes on in slums or ghettos or “poor areas,” quite unlike the shrewd, adroit plotting and outmaneuvering that makes politics so fun. (sic) So if they don’t hang in the ‘hood, whence comes their certainty?

Familiarity with a topic makes us knowledgeable. Knowing things leads to saying things. In contrast, scarcity as the cause of conflict typically ends discussion, not starts it. People blame scarcity as the cause of conflict when they reach the limits of their understanding, not when they’re just warming up. Why? Because they assume that scarcity is and was and always will be. Since they don’t know any better, that’s the end of the matter as far as they are concerned. Further discussion or consideration is unnecessary. “There you have it: scarcity is the culprit.” Sip, sip; next topic. These are signs of dogmata internalized by rote conditioning, not opinions reasoned out as a result of experience, evidence, and critical thinking. Scarcity is an “everyone knows” kind of thing; but “everyone” is always a myth. Unless someone knows something and we know them, no one really knows anything.

What Elephant in the Room?

Need proof? Prove it to yourself. Just ask yourself a question: When resources are scarce, wouldn’t cooperating to meet everyone’s needs instead of fighting to meet just the needs of some always result in a better net outcome for all parties involved? If your answer is, “No,” think about it a bit more. See if you can think of a realistic situation where cooperation would fail to benefit everyone more than fighting would. If you came up with one, you probably assumed, one way or another, that the benefitting parties got others to incur the cost and risk of fighting and insulated themselves from same. Yep. Getting someone else to do the dirty work is the only way that dirty work like fighting ever makes sense.

Now try to think of a historical case, for example a war, that was ever fomented otherwise. Tough assignment. No one starts a war without considerable means, and no one starts one sure that they’ll lose. Those who already have more than enough start wars to get even more. War profiteers don’t fight, and they always win, because they play both sides. In other words, the ones who benefit from a fight are those with no interest in the question of scarcity, except as a great way to foment a profitable conflict. On the contrary, from situations of abundance, rich and powerful people fomented wars not to deal with scarcity, but to acquire resources in excess of the wealth they already had. If you think that there is a difference between that and hoarding, I dare you to specify what the difference is.

So much for war-mongering psychopaths. What about the rest of us? If you were ready to fight about some scarce necessity and someone walked up saying, “Just a moment. I can show you how to resolve this without conflict and ensure that everyone gets what they need.” Of course, that would mean that you were wrong about the scarcity thing. What would you do–ignore the busybody and land the first punch? Hopefully ego alone isn’t worth a fight. Only people who get off on conflict opt to fight when peaceful, equitable solutions are possible. Their psychology as a whole might not qualify them as psychopaths, but the parts that opt for conflict do. Sure, the interloper might be lying or naïve or cocky. It might in fact have to come down to winners and losers, but how often do we even bother to pause and wonder? How capable are we of asking questions and engaging in creative thinking by the time we’re ready to square off? Just ask a counselor or a mediator: at best, just shy of not at all.

If you were faced with scarcity and you thought that there was an alternative, would you prefer to fight? I’m guessing that you wouldn’t. In other words, when an alternative is possible, scarcity doesn’t make otherwise healthy people fight. We fight when we believe there’s no other way, but who decides that for us? Who forces us to conclude that we’ve exhausted alternatives, or is that our decision alone? What’s more, even if faced with scarcity as dire as it is real, do you truly believe that winning a fight over slim pickings would leave you better off than would cooperating and working together to, for example, help each other look for more or make do with less?

That’s just considering a single situation. What about next time and the next? What about the long run? What about long-term threatening, intimidating, violent behavior and its effects on ourselves and those around us? Still think that fighting and winning are preferable to cooperation and compromise (if you ever did)? So, if we don’t want to fight, and cooperating always yields a better net result for everyone involved, why fight, ever? Scarcity might force us into making that decision, but it doesn’t choose fighting for us, not unless we’re poor, powerless victims of circumstance unable to choose for ourselves.

Is This Really What We Want?

So what possesses us to fight if we know that cooperation and compromise would produce better results? Again, the answers usually offered–egotism, narcissism, greed, fear, rage, sadism, domination lust, etc.–sound like programmed clichés, dogmas serving to close inquiry rather than spark it. What’s up with all the excuses? It’s as if we aren’t really interested in alternatives, like we want to retain the right to fight, so we grasp at any available straw of justification and terminate discussion. When we investigate real cases and the actual–not the mythological–factors that contributed to psychologies characterized by what we label as egotism, narcissism, greed, fear, rage, sadism, domination lust, etc., we invariably find that a history of abuse created outlooks which made conflict seem preferable or made looking for alternatives seem ridiculous. That’s a far cry from good reason to fight.

Scarcity does not create conflict, it only creates situations which make the choice between conflict and cooperation relevant. We, not scarcity, are responsible for the choice. And given that cooperation would result in far better outcomes than conflict ever could, the choice to engage in conflict is always a bad one, a psychopathic, dysfunctional, self-defeating one. The fact that we see no other option is a bad reason, a victim’s reason, an excuse to avoid looking for alternatives and solutions. Scarcity itself might be a myth. I think we’ll find out one way or the other soon. Regardless, scarcity as an excuse for conflict is a blatant myth and, if we hide behind it once we’ve seen that, a hypocrisy that enables conflict to continue.


[1] From article “Poverty Facts and Stats”> (continue reading…)

[2] Pasted from Who Runs the World? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control (continue reading…)

[3] The story reports a study by James Henry, former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, conducted for the Tax Justice Network, “The Price of Offshore Revisited.” See “Main Report 1.” (continue reading…)

[4] With the latest available information, as of 2007, the richest 20% of Americans controlled 93% of the nation’s wealth, leaving the rest of us to fight over 7%. See “The Wealth Distribution” heading in the excellent article, Wealth, Income, and Power by William Domhoff (UCSC) (continue reading…)

[5] “There is a very large literature on the important role of psychopathy in the criminal justice system. We know much less about corporate psychopathy and its implications, in large part because of the difficulty in obtaining the active cooperation of business organizations.” See abstract for “Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk” by Babiak, Neumann, and Hare, April 2010. (continue reading…)

[6] Canadian researcher Robert Hare’s work shows that almost all serial killers and most dangerous offenders are psychopaths, but that violent criminals are just a “tiny fraction of the psychopaths around us.” Hare estimates that 1 percent of the population — 300,000 people in Canada — are psychopaths. Canadians are such nice guys; maybe the American percentage is somewhat higher? See interesting interview of Hare, “PSYCHOPATHS AMONG US.”

Further, the results of a study of a non-representative sample of corporate professionals, showing that they are 4 times as likely to be psychopaths as the rest of us, have been widely reported. While the experts argue about the precise order of magnitude, William Deresiewicz of the New York Times raised the obvious point in his excellent May 2012 article, “Capitalists and Other Psychopaths” when he commented: “The only thing that puzzles me about these claims is that anyone would find them surprising. Wall Street is capitalism in its purest form, and capitalism is predicated on bad behavior.”
(continue reading…)

[7] Seven studies using “experimental and naturalistic methods” reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. See abstract for “Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior” by Piffa et al, University of Michigan, January 2012. (continue reading…)

[8] From Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of brainwashing in China. UNC Press. p. 429. ISBN 978-0-8078-4253-9.

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”
— Lifton, Robert J. (1989).

See also Wikipedia article Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.
(continue reading…)

Please let me know what you think!

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: