Thursday, December 13, 2007

Interventionist solution to the Subprime Crisis?

Some time ago you might have come across a news peice that the president of the US, George W Bush announced a major plan to help those house owners in the US now in serious debt due to the sub-prime lending problem.

The plan entails significant tax exemptions and aid packages to be offered by the Bush government to these afflicted house owners. Now, this was, to put it in a subtle way, a 'radical' move. Firstly, because this was a major shift in the Republican Party policy, which is a mainly conservative. Moving away from a policy leaning towars the free market, laissez faire approach; to a more government intervention based Keynesian policy. Typically, the Democrats are more Keynesian in their approach. Secondly, on further analysis of the new plan, it becomes clear that this tends to constitute what we learn in a Basic Economics course, called as a 'Moral Hazard'. Think about it, by giving tax cuts and aid to those sub prime borrowers (those who have a poor credit rating) and bailing out those sub prime lenders (banks and money instruments which did not sufficiently investigate the credit worthiness of their borrowers) what the plan intends to do is reward the people who made the mistake once by allowing them to wipe their slate clean. This might even encourage them to think that such a bail out might happen in the future too, thus constituting a moral hazard. This is counterintuitive to the 'let there be a market solution to the issue' approach of laissez faire capitalism.

Exactly 100 years ago in 1907, the famous and wealthy banker, J Pierpont Morgan bailed out the US government during a credit crunch by committing his personal finances to save an economy slipping into recession. What happened soon after in the early 1920s when JP Morgan was not around anymore is for you to guess! Similar speculation ensued, but the US Federal Reserve did not support the banks this time around and issue more currency to help against the bank runs, leading up to the Great Depression! Now this new plan to resolve the sub prime crisis is being touted as the 'Paulson Plan' after the current US treasury secretary Henry Paulson. I recently had a chance to attended a guest lecture by Dr. Shailesh Jha, Director, Credit Suisse. He predicted that a global recession was looming large in the near future mainly due to the slowing down of the globalization pace. I feel that the Paulson plan will act as a catalyst to that end! 2008 is election year in the US and politicians need to be forgiven for pre election jitters which cause them to take up such policies.

But then it is a chicken and an egg story. If the politicians did not have to govern masses of people who find it difficult to believe in the mechanics of the free market, they will have to yield to such interventionist policies to assuage the 'vote banks'! 'Vote Bank Politics', does this word sound familiar? This is again a similar situation in our own India but the contexts are defined differently. I think it is imperative on us educated Indians at least to get our Economics right! If you think that a market economy is a better option and need more 'understanding' I suggest you browse the various clips on and by 'Milton Friedman' on YouTube. Its good learning! I particularly like the lucidity of his explanations.

I also found this interesting article on the 'Paulson Plan' which is sceptical about the new policy, but gives it a much more credit! But a balanced view may not always be the right one!

Monday, October 01, 2007

Evolution: Is it Progress?

The following dialogue is a conversation I had with a friend of mine over the internet. She had written an article about the need for uplifting the status of women in Indian society where she positively advocates affirmative action. The way this dialogue developed into a very fruitful conversation and how interestingly it got us both to think about so many related topics was fascinating enough for me to present it here. I have edited out the smiley characters and certain irrelevant details usually associated with an online conversation, but maintained the overall chronology and flow of thought. It makes interesting reading for me every time I re-read it!

ME: Hey, I was reading your article about women’s plight in India and the need for equal rights. Do you actually believe in affirmative action??


ME: Hmm… I see.

FRIEND: Why do you ask? I also believe that the world tends towards undoing itself

ME: Explain?

FRIEND: I mean that in any given environment things break down, rather than fix themselves

ME: They tend towards chaos you mean?

FRIEND: Right. But society is a different ball game, and that’s why we need affirmative action. We're animals after all!

ME: Why do you say different ball game?

FRIEND: Oh! I meant different from nature.

ME: So u mean to say chaos theory does not apply to society but to nature... hence in society we need affirmative action. Am I right?

FRIEND: Yes! But I am just a simple wanderer

ME: Wanderer where? In what realm?

FRIEND: In my head, silly!

ME: Oh! Hah ha… but your assertion isn’t it counterintuitive though?

FRIEND: How so?

ME: When you said "I also believe the world tends towards undoing itself" do you mean society or nature with regards to the word ‘World’?

FRIEND: I mean nature, sorry I should have specified

ME: So if get your reasoning right, in nature things tend towards chaos rather than fix themselves.... and in society it is the opposite? If so why do you need affirmative action in a society?

FRIEND: No, society does not naturally tend towards anything.

ME: Oh!

FRIEND: When I say society I am talking about society guided by a force. Are you getting what I am saying?

ME: No actually, I see a few contradictions.

FRIEND: Where?

ME: Wait; let me understand what you are saying properly. You are saying that nature tends towards chaos and that society is not opposite but rather it does not tend towards anything, so to push it towards non-chaos you need affirmative action. Have I got it right?

FRIEND: No. To push nature towards non-chaos you need affirmative action. Society is guided by a set of rules; nature is not (except by the supernatural force of course)

ME: So the supernatural is guiding nature towards chaos and mankind through acts like affirmative action is guiding nature towards non-chaos, which in its guided form is called society?? Is this what you are saying?

FRIEND: Yes. See, it is like a kindergarten and the children that go to it. The kindergarten is the world, the children are the people and the teacher is the government. During the break the children are left unattended. What do you think happens?

ME: I see. But why should mankind go against the supernatural and natural scheme?

FRIEND: Mankind doesn’t but society does go against it, because society isn’t part of nature. It is man made and by the way when I say society, I mean government-led groups of people.

ME: Wait a minute. So is there a qualitative factor when you differentiate society and nature. Is one a better form of the other?

FRIEND: Ok let me explain. For example, do you think we were made to be monogamous?

ME: No, it is by individual choice.

FRIEND: Yes. Society is a civilised form of nature. Like what John Nash said, we can’t ALL have the best, so we have to compromise with just what is good. That’s why we need society! Other wise the stronger and more equipped could just go around killing the rest!

ME: So is civilized form of nature a better or worse state than nature?

FRIEND: It is better, because of our highly developed brains. We have the power of judgment which makes us want to improve things around us.

ME: But if so, why do you then say that we are all animals anyway? Animals lack the power of judgement don’t they? Also animals cannot appreciate pleasure, while they maybe able to experience it. It is hardwired in their brains; what is good and bad.

FRIEND: I said we are all animals AFTER ALL because our psyche can be divided into two things - instinct and judgment. They are completely different. Society controls instinct and makes us pay a price for doing what we truly want to do and make pleasure seem bad.

ME: Isn’t appreciation a form of judgement?


ME: So why do we aspire towards society if it makes pleasure seem bad especially when nature in its unguided form does not pose these problems?

FRIEND: Because we don’t want to follow the principle of survival of the fittest, this is paralysing evolution if you ask me. We're trying to make room for all.

ME: But aren’t you, in the pursuit of ensuring equity towards the weak, denying the gifted the utility of their natural endowments?

FRIEND: Yes! Exactly! That is why I said it paralyses evolution in its natural form. But there is a problem in this whole thing; the problem is we can think. And that may not actually be a problem, but a part of evolution in a larger sense.

ME: Hmm… Can you explain what you mean when you say "problem is we can think and that may not actually be a problem"?

FRIEND: Think of it this way time goes on no matter what; and we as humans are on top of the pyramid, right?

ME: Ok.

FRIEND: Now our brains developed through evolution?

ME: Yes

FRIEND: And society had nothing to do with it.

ME: To a large extent.

FRIEND: So isn’t government and making room for the weak also part of "natural" evolution in a larger sense? Let’s face it, if it is on this Earth... its NATURAL

ME: But wait! Isn’t that a contradiction? When you say "so isn’t government and making room for the weak also part of "natural" evolution in a larger sense" then by your definition of society being constituted by government, shouldn’t the policy of making room for the weak or “actions of society" be moving away from the natural order of evolution and survival of the fittest etc ??

FRIEND: Yes! That is what I said. What I am saying is that isn’t this moving away from the natural order? A part of evolution in a larger sense?

ME: Hey! But isn’t that a contradiction?

FRIEND: Ok, let me explain. Do you think civilisation would have happened anyway? Or is it a permutation or combination of several factors?

ME: No it would not. Civilization is a process of refinement... of evolution

FRIEND: But no, could it not have happened differently?

ME: No! Because it is following a natural order; survival of the fittest.

FRIEND: But, how does society promote survival of the fittest?

ME: Ok tell me, in a society is competence rewarded? What happens to the incompetent or the unfit?

FRIEND: yes it is. But incompetents are taken care of. They are given chances.

ME: Not at the behest of the competent but!

FRIEND: Then how do you explain taxes? Why do I pay my money for the betterment of the poor?

ME: That is why in the future with more evolved societies economic policies will tend towards laissez faire and the anti Robin Hood will prevail!

FRIEND: But you have to admit this is paralysing evolution in its narrow sense.

ME: According to me, evolution is like a scatter plot there are 'experiments' on either side of the trend line, but the trend in this case is towards refinement. A Society based on communism is one such experiment, where the fit person is expected to pay for the unfit person’s survival. But as communism is being phased out so will other counterproductive societal influences.

FRIEND: Are you saying that as a whole we are average in to refinement?

ME: Yes.

FRIEND: So you are saying that we are getting there, our children are getting smarter and so on. And if so what is perfect?

ME: The trend is towards superior intellect.

FRIEND: Then how will society erase the lesser mortals?

ME: Alvin Toffler in his famous book "Future Shock" says that more has been achieved in the last 3 generations than the whole 800 lifetimes of mankind.

FRIEND: But isn’t this acceleration in progress largely due to technology?

ME: Considering that average human life is 60 year, we have had approximately 800 ancestors, as Homo sapiens. Consider this, 750 of them were spent in caves, only the past 50 have lived in society. Only the last 5 that have seen the printed word and only the last two that have understood electricity! So to answer your question, society will not erase the lesser mortals, it will create through the progress of the competent few, enough to make the lesser mortals better off. To give them a chance not through subsidizing or through affirmative action, but through improving the overall standard of living! Not by giving the man fish, but rather by teaching him how to fish.

FRIEND: Do you really think so?

ME: Yes.

FRIEND: But technology is making us do less!

ME: Exactly! By providing us with something which even you mentioned keeps on moving, irrespective of anything else. Time.... time to better utilize our mind for other productive things.

FRIEND: But that is for a fraction of the world’s population the rest either live of these few people or have enough money to buy their way through and there is a whole class of people who lose out in the bargain

ME: When u say that there is a fraction of the worlds population that is enjoying the benefit consider this. John D Rockefeller who is considered the richest American ever to live did not even have the luxury of using electricity in his house. None of the creature comforts we have today which we take for granted. Simple medicines for common ailments even! Despite his $200 billion estimated wealth! Aren’t we better off than the richest American of all time?

FRIEND: But Rockefeller did not need these conveniences at that time.

ME: Are you denying that there has been any progress altogether?

FRIEND: No. I am denying the fact that we're better off now! Tell me, do u measure progress by the things we can afford?

ME: Is the ability to take the cholera vaccine to remote parts of Africa better than not being to?

FRIEND: Yes but what is technology helping us to have? A better life in what way-medicines when we need it? But does modern society allow for equitable distribution of medicines? Only the rich can afford medicines for cancer and HIV.

ME: Through the advancement in technology the basic standards of living are improving. In the past there were the super rich and the super poor. And even the super rich lacked basic comforts of life. Coming to your question of AIDS and Cancer vaccines and the lobbyists who are working towards preventing the poor from getting these easily; think about when penicillin and anaesthetics was discovered. They were premium products and only the super rich could afford them. Over time and with the technological advancement even poorer people can afford them now. It is like in the scatter plot example I talked about; there will always be deviations, failed 'experiments', but slowly it will tend towards affordability for the poor and eventually like polio or plague... may even be wiped off the face of the earth!

FRIEND: So are you saying that we are moving to an age where everyone will be able to afford everything?

ME: NO! There will always be a hierarchy.... the fit and the unfit... the competent and the incompetent. Because if there is no dichotomy.... there will be status quo and no progress!

FRIEND: But if so where is the progress? And for whom?

ME: Consider this, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists"


ME: When you ask for who is the progress, I'll ask u this question, which is better?
Increasing the share of the pie ... increasing the market shares by actions which help the weak at the behest of the strong.... equitable distribution or letting the strong increase the size of the pie... the market size itself through their competence and capability thereby helping the weak enjoy a better quantity of the pie in all?!

FRIEND: Hmm... Tricky one!

ME: Aha! So have I CONVINCED you about this?


ME: Yahoo! I win; I win; I win!

FRIEND: Oh! How presumptuous! Dude, no you didn’t convince me! All I meant was that I accept your points. That’s all!

ME: Who? What? How? Why?

Sunday, September 09, 2007


Why does the Superglue not stick to
the tube in which it comes?

When a friend recently asked me this rather ubiquitous yet ambiguous question, it got me thinking; about Catalysts. The simple textbook answer to this question would be that, the chemical in Superglue requires moisture to harden and as moisture is not available inside the tube, it does not harden and does not stick to the walls of the tube. Here, moisture is the catalyst for the reaction which causes the ‘trigger’ leading to the chemical bonding and hence when the superglue comes into contact with the moisture in the air, adhesion takes place.

A catalyst, as defined by the dictionary, is a person or thing that precipitates change. A catalyst also aids in the speeding up of a reaction thereby causing the change to take place. Deconstructing the question on the verbal elements I observed that the question had an adjective-Super, for glue. Would this question have made the same impact on my mind, had my friend not added this adjective? The adjective added potency to the question, which in itself was the catalyst to my thought process. Common glue also requires a catalyst to trigger the process of adhesion but because of the adjective ‘super’ the question assumes a rather nagging dimension. Does something superlative also require an external aid to help it achieve its objective? The adjective also necessitates the question about the quantity of the catalyst required.

Moving away from the realm of glue and adhesion, to the implications of these questions when posed in a human context? What triggers humans to achieve what they set themselves as targets? As moisture in itself is not responsible for the adhesion, this discussion here is about external catalysts, and will not delve on the topic of essential requirement of the ‘chemical’- the target which the human wants to achieve and will to do it, but only on what triggers this process. Motivation, appreciation, recognition etc can be considered as some examples which usually are cited as the catalysts which trigger performance among humans. It is also evident that companions and teams play the important role of catalysts for most men and women. Connecting with the right companion, or working in a right team is many a times a very significant performance trigger for humans.

But just as the adjective ‘super’ necessitated the question of the amount of catalyst required, this questions also pops up when superlatives among men were involved. There are an exceptional few, who among men have the unique distinction of being able to command the adjective of being super. If these superlative few also require an external catalyst, what is its nature and what quantity of it is required when compared to normal men and women?

As an answer consider this unusual twist. The chemical compound out of which Superglue is made out of also has moisture (the catalyst) in it, albeit in a different chemical form. All it needs is that little extra of one of its own ingredients to be realized externally to create the superlative adhesion. Similarly, the ‘ingredients’ which constitute supermen, already have all that is required within them, and the only catalyst they require for their superlative achievements, is to find that little bit of themselves (or their greatness) in others!

Monday, July 02, 2007

Acquired Competence or Instinct?

“How Hardwired Is Human Behaviour?” asks Nigel Nicholson, professor of Organizational Behaviour at London Business School in a Harvard Business Review article (July-August 1998). The theme of the article analyzes aspects of evolutionary psychology and its implications on “how the human mind came to be constructed”. It contends that the evolution of the human mind through the ages leaves behind ‘traces’ of the dominant psychology of the era, and how those behaviours manifest themselves in current day organizations and society in general.

So, it contends for example, that the reflexes developed by the human mind as a requirement of the physiological situation during the Stone Age are still remnant in our minds today, and that we are born with these qualities, pre-programmed into our brains.

After being introduced to this article and subsequent discussions on the same in the classroom during an Organizational Behaviour course, I have been trying to resolve conflicts in my mind about this. Its implications bother me, as it does not gel with my personal views on one the fundamental tenets of philosophy; epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, which studies man’s means of cognition. “Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses – or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born” asks Ayn Rand on epistemology. And, being a strong believer in the advocacy of ‘reason’, as a basis of understanding, the idea of being hardwired seems incorrect to me.

Photograph courtsey Amartya De

I watched the tribal dance show put up at the Singapore National Zoo today, and observed reactions of the audiences’ fascination of the performer, who (during the show) accurately managed to puncture balloons from a distance by shooting darts through a ‘pea-shooter’. It got me wondering if this concept of ‘hardwired brain’ also extended to the realm of ‘skills’. Are we naturally gifted with certain kind of survival skills or does man have to gain these through the employment of sensory stimuli to a rational exercise of practice?

It also got me wondering if the audience would appreciate the performer being naturally gifted with these hunting skills, or if he had gained the same through practice. Personally, I believe it should be the latter, appreciation for competence gained through the application of reason, rather than it being available as an innate pre-programmed instinct.


1. “How Hardwired Is Human Behaviour”, Nigel Nicholson – HBR July-August 1998
2. “Philosophy: Who Needs It”, Ayn Rand

"It's just so perfect!"

Civilization is a movement and not a condition, a voyage and not a harbour
- Arnold Toynbee

Given my limited travels around this world, it’s in this harbour city of Singapore, that I have realized how true this above statement is. But hang on, one will need another adjective when it comes to Singapore, and that would be “Synchronized Movement”. The sheer scale of this synchronism boggles the mind! Call it culture shock or an alien milieu, for someone who comes from beautiful chaos of India, this place presents a paradigm change. So much so, that one feels a sense of aversion for the perfection; as a friend commented,

Why would you want to stay here? It’s just so perfect!

Singapore harbour as seen from the cable car

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Rose for your girlfriend, sir?

Church Street, the narrow road between the Brigade road and St. Mark’s road; parallel to MG Road in Bangalore’s bustling up-market area. It is late evening on a dry summer’s day. The sun has set and the light from the many buildings, billboards and the street lights illuminate most of the street, but still leave certain sections of the street, dark.

The lady, who sells assorted dry fruits on a push cart by the parked cars, is counting the day’s earnings. There has been a good sale of the cashew today but the walnuts, chestnuts and almonds are not sold. Her daughter has not persisted in pestering the Chinese couple who had bought some cashew that afternoon to buy other items. She looks for her daughter now and realizes that it is evening and the sale of ‘rose flowers’ must have started.

A shapely young girl of about 22 years stands waiting on the narrow pavement, beside the pushcart with her back to the two wheeler parking lot of a dingy, cream colored six storey building.

Her fair complexion, accentuated with generous amounts of make-up causes the crimson lipstick to stand out. She has shoulder length brown hair with streaks of gold recently colored into them. Her ears sport a light weight, yet prominent designer ornaments which almost reach up to her shoulders.

She is wearing a knee length black skirt and a sleeveless zebra stripped top. She is a tall girl, but still wears dainty little black shoes with three inch heels. She is clutching a black handbag close to her body with her left hand, even while the strap of the handbag is slung over her shoulder. Her right hand clutches a black Nokia mobile phone.

It is getting late and he has not even bothered to call, yet. The two service messages she got from her network provider turned out to be false alarms. Her face betrays the irritation. She jerks her head away from the sight of a couple walking arm in arm.

At the other end of the street a young man on a purple colored ‘macho’ Pulsar motorbike turns into Church Street from Brigade Road. He is tall, sports an unshaven look and is rather muscular. He wears a brown leather jacket. Despite the helmet rule imposed by the government, he does not wear one; rather it is hung on his left forearm. It is uncomfortable, but it is at hand and if a police man decides to move towards him, it can be worn at short notice. More importantly, he wants to avoid ‘helmet hair’.

His face is lost in deep thought and there is a sense of urgency on it. But, somehow he is not able to bring himself to ride any faster. He pulls over to the left and is lucky to find a narrow parking slot. He manages to maneuver the bulky motorbike into the narrow space between whole rows of tightly parked two wheel vehicles but is unable put the side-stand, let alone alight from the motorbike. Irritated, he looks for someone to come help him hold the motorbike while he alights or make space for him to do so.

Another man wearing a red cap, un-tucked brown check shirt and with grease stained hands comes and starts moving the vehicle to the right of the young man. The young man can now alight, but still with some difficulty especially as he does not want to stain or tear his khaki trousers. He gives the man with the red cap two rupees and reaches for his mobile phone which is in a small leather pouch hung from his brown trouser belt.

At the other end of the street the dry fruit lady lifts her head from the counting as she hears an attractive jingle. She can’t recognize the tune which is from Mylo’s ‘Drop the pressure’, and just looks for the source of the sudden melody. The young girl looks at her mobile phone and is relieved but she waits a few moments before answering it.

“Where are you?” he asks in an Indian language before she can say ‘hello’.

“Hello!” she replies with a hint of sarcasm in her voice. “It’s been 30 minutes, you know!” then she continues in vernacular “Where are you? I am in front of Kaati Zone”

“Kaati Zone? Okay. I could not find parking space.”

“Are you still looking for parking? Why didn’t you come here directly? I told you, I would be waiting here, in front of Kaati Zone”

“No. I just found a space. I’m walking towards Kaati Zone now.” He replies leaning against his motorbike.

The guy with a red cap who is still moving an adjoining vehicle looks in the direction of Kaati Zone, searching for someone. It is quite a distance, he wonders. If only his daughter knew that this guy was going to walk all the way there, she might be able to approach him on the way.

“Why are you walking till here? Where have you parked? Anyways, come quick” she hangs up and reaches for something inside her black purse.

The lady selling dry fruits, who’s been distracted from her counting by the ringtone, now wonders how many roses has been sold that evening.

The young man is now walking towards Kaati Zone. He is now feeling very uncomfortable. He is wondering if it was worth all this. She had actually asked him to send her a Valentine day’s card by post on February 14th, even though he had met her that day! “I mean, who does that” he thought. He had half a mind to stop at the vendor selling pirated books by the street side and delay reaching Kaati Zone some more time. “I wonder if she has ever read Jonathan Livingstone Seagull” he wonders as he sees the book. He continues walking.

Meanwhile, “I am sure he will notice it. He always notices this kind of stuff” the young girl has got a Maybelline Moisture Extreme lip gloss and is contemplating if she should use it. “I am sure he has discussed how luscious my lips look, with his creepy friends.” Instead, she gets a tissue paper and deftly starts removing the gloss from her lips. “Creep!” she thinks aloud and discards the tissue paper.

He notices her standing from a distance. “Wow!” he thinks, his face shows the exclamation. “Nice choice of clothes, madam!” he thinks and hastens his pace. “What was I thinking? Someone, this ‘interesting’ has to be given more consideration!” he chuckles to himself. “And besides, she is one hell of a dancer. And look! No ugly shiny lipstick also today!” Finally!

“Hi!” he says grinning cheerily, approaching her from behind.

She has noticed him coming, but turns a little slowly and maintains a poker face. With one hand on her hip she asks him without blinking her large eyes, “How come so late?”

“Sorry, sorry!” he replies eagerly “Friday evening is bad for the parking scene, Madam”

Madam!” she is amused by the way he always calls her that. “So what?” she asks.

He did send me two Valentine’s Day cards, and did not act smart about it when I asked him for it” she is thinking “Surely, he would have had to stand in the queue for an hour at Archie’s gallery to buy those cards

“Sorry, sorry. I got a little delayed and thought it would be best to park my bike in the first spot I could find. Did you wait long?”

“Hello! It has been one hour, been standing here” she vehemently argues.

He looks lost. “How stupid of me, I was worried if she read some lousy book” he thinks “How am I going to salvage this?”

“Rose for your girlfriend, sir? Red rose, Sir. Please buy!” a noisy voice interrupts him. A little girl of ten is standing between them looking up, holding a bunch of red roses with small thorns still in their long stems. The lady selling the dry fruits is looking at them with unabated curiosity.

Both of them look at the little girl and then look at each other. He looks inquiringly, she avoids his eyes and tries to look away.

“How much?” he asks the little girl.

“Just fifteen rupees for two, Sir.” She replies looking at the girl. “How many you want madam?”

She looks at him with a mischievous inquiring look. “How much are you going to buy for me, ‘Sir’” she wonders.

He hesitates. “How many do you have?” he asks the little girl in all earnest.

“I have ten rose, Sir. That will be seventy five rupees”

He shifts his focus from the flower girl to the ‘madam’ who is now giggling. “Give me the ten!” he says to the flower girl and the ‘madam’ bursts out laughing.

The dry fruit seller smiles at a person wearing a red cap who is now standing beside her.

The giggling is now interrupted by the ringtone again,

“…… gonna drop the pressure”.

‘Madam’ waits for a moment and then disconnects the call.

Custom Search