
Mark Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income - imartin2k
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/mark-zuckerberg-universal-basic-income-harvard-commencement-speech-facebook-president-bid-a7757781.html
======
dyarosla
I love the idea of a universal basic income. It makes sense from a
humanitarian standpoint, an automation taking away jobs standpoint and a
minimizing bureaucracy standpoint.

But I have to admit, if you look at it from a pure numbers perspective, it
does not make sense financially, even with simple back of the envelope
calculations. Take the population of a country. Multiply that by, say
something as little as $1000 a month, per person. $12,000 per year.

Completely discard any systems in the government budget that would no longer
be needed due to UBI- You'll STILL come up way, way short. This is true even
if you completely zero out all the additional services that would become less
needed (ie less money to Medicaid because people would be healthier, etc). And
this is for just the $1000 dollars a month variant.

Could someone please point me to what kind of tax structure a country would
need to have to realistically be able to afford UBI? I would love to see UBI
become a reality.

~~~
carpdiem
Generally, UBI schemes advocate some sort of drop-off in payout as people earn
money outside of the program (but structured in such a way as to ensure no
sticking points of greater than 100% effective marginal tax).

So in net you're not actually giving that $1k/month out to everyone, only the
people who don't otherwise make anything. Then someone who makes $1k/month
from other sources might pay $500/month in tax, thus reducing their effective,
net UBI payment. (note, I made up these numbers completely off the top of my
head)

Someone who makes much more than that would also pay much more taxes.

So in the end, UBI needs to be accompanied with some sort of tax reform, and
isn't just about sending out checks to everyone (including Warren Buffet) on
top of the existing system.

~~~
maratd
> Generally, UBI schemes advocate some sort of drop-off in payout as people
> earn money outside of the program

That's the first time I've heard of this. Everything I've seen, everybody gets
the same check.

Problem with tracking based on income, you're right back to the same welfare
system we already have. You'll need a bureaucracy to track income and
eligibility, deal with fraud, etc.

~~~
maxerickson
Yes, everybody gets the same payments.

But some combination of 2 other things also happens, the tax regime changes
(to fund the checks) or money is printed.

There's no avoiding it.

~~~
maratd
> There's no avoiding it.

I haven't seen the math. I imagine it depends highly on the amount you want to
pay out, savings due to cutting away current programs, etc., but it's
certainly a wonderful opportunity to redo our tax structure, which is
unnecessarily complex.

------
nebabyte
Frankly I figured bezos or etc would've been the first tech leader on that
train.

After all, when you're in the business of (A) optimizing every nook and cranny
and (B) selling to the masses new luxury technologies, it's in your interests
to see that they have the money to waste on such excesses and/or can afford
you optimizing away their sources of income.

~~~
electrograv
But that's exactly the opposite of what universal basic income should be used
for (waste on excesses/luxuries before basic needs are met).

I grew up in a household with relatively little income, where you barely have
enough for food and housing. I cannot imagine being in that situation and
spending much on random next day delivery luxuries from Amazon - you literally
would starve. The first thing on my mind would be upgrading from beans and
rice to other foods, etc... that sort of thing.

Buying into luxuries only really occurs when you exceed the ability to provide
for basic needs. Basic income if implemented will be tuned to provide basic
needs, not luxuries -- the only time I see this changing is in a distant
future post-scarcity economy.

~~~
mi100hael
Sure, there are extreme levels of poverty where you have to scrounge for spare
change just to get one meal per day. Most people would argue that's what
existing welfare and unemployment programs should be tuned to better solve.

UBI goes further than those programs, but how many times have you driven past
a trailer park or dilapidated rural home or inner city building with plywood
on the windows and see a new Silverado or CTS parked outside? There are a lot
of people for whom living on credit is already the norm. Giving them
additional cash per month isn't going to fix the fact that the US as a whole
is already conditioned to buy everything with debt.

------
PKop
Still don't understand how UBI is not inflationary?

No real value is created since its not tied to any productive work. So supply
of real good remains static, and in a local market, won't there be sudden
increased demand for housing, for example?

What will happen to apartment prices?

~~~
nothrabannosir
It's redistribution of wealth, not quantitative easing.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Those are the same things, just different methods and targeting different
economic cohorts.

QE vastly inflated equity and real estate values, benefiting the wealthiest
(at least in the US).

~~~
bogomipz
Can you explain why you believe Quantitative Easing is a redistribution of
wealth?

QE is the creation of something new i.e money supply. A transfer of wealth is
ex post facto(that wealth already exists somewhere.)

~~~
PKop
It could be described as a transfer of wealth from creditors to debtors.

Or from savers to debtors, no?

The wealth existed in the dollars saved, and the loan asset that was devalued
and transferred to the debtor

Why governments love doing it so much because they are the biggest borrowers,
and corporations don't mind inflation because it's a cut to real wages.

~~~
bogomipz
Interesting, I hadn't thought to view it as such before. I'm glad I asked.
This makes sense as the rich hold assets and the poor hold debt.

I found this article which is an interesting read on QE as a means of wealth
transfer if anyone else is interested:

[https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/how-quantitative-
eas...](https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/how-quantitative-easing-
contributed-to-the-nations-inequality-problem/)

~~~
PKop
I'm saying that large businesses, governments, banks etc. are able to borrow
in large quantities, at relative lower rates.

Governments often borrow in astronomical numbers.

Anyone who does this (think of taking on massive debt to finance a real estate
business, building apartment complexes for example) has incentives to prefer
inflation, QE, devaluing the currency.

Over the course of lets say 30 years, they collect rents from tenants. They
can increase the rents over time. Their payment on that debt will stay the
same. So in "real" terms, the payments decrease over time, while the rent
collected at least matches inflation.

Do you see now how those with ability to borrow large amounts to finance..
whatever.. have incentives to prefer inflation.

Think about the renter. Or the saver. Their dollars are going down in real
value. The renter's monthly rent goes up.

Wages? They are sticky. They stay flat for long periods, which in real terms
implies a wage cut.

"Inflation is taxation without legislation"

\- Milton Friedman

“the arithmetic makes it plain that inflation is a far more devastating tax
than anything that has been enacted by our legislature. The inflation tax has
a fantastic ability to simply consume capital. It makes no difference to a
widow with her saving in a 5 percent passbook account whether she pays 100
percent income tax on her interest income during a period of zero inflation,
or pays no income taxes during years of 5 percent inflation. Either way, she
is 'taxed' in a manner that leave her no real income whatsoever. Any money she
spends comes right out of capital. She would find outrageous a 120 percent
income tax, but doesn't seem to notice that 5 percent inflation is the
economic equivalent.”

― Warren Buffett

~~~
bogomipz
>"Anyone who does this (think of taking on massive debt to finance a real
estate business, building apartment complexes for example) has incentives to
prefer inflation, QE, devaluing the currency."

I understand why they might prefer devaluation and QE but not why anyone would
prefer inflation. Can you explain? Inflation means that I need to borrow that
much more.

------
xd
Basic requirement for UBI would be for Facebook to pay their fair share of tax
first, surely.

------
ZanyProgrammer
It would be nice to break the link between work and survival.

Because there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs in the future (automation,
etc).

~~~
ekianjo
> Because there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs in the future
> (automation, etc).

Folks said the same thing before for every industrial revolution. I'd like to
see more facts than religion on this matter.

~~~
lbrandy
> Folks said the same thing before for every industrial revolution. I'd like
> to see more facts than religion on this matter.

I agree with you that the "jobs are running out" is an argument that requires
evidence, given its history of being wrong, but there are good reasons to
believe it's going to be true, eventually. To be clear "because it's never
happened before" is -also- an argument that's always right, until its wrong.

For example, if you look at the list of most widely held jobs that don't
require a college degree and pay middle class salary. It's a rapidly dwindling
list and has been declining for a long time. Of the ones that employ many of
people, there's basically one left: truck driver. That's the reason that the
rise of automated automobiles is coinciding with this conversation.

~~~
mi100hael
I don't think that argument holds true for anything other than "automated-away
factory worker." There is an increasing demand for most trade jobs like
plumbers & electricians as boomers start to retire and fewer people are
entering the trades. Someone's always going to have to be there to run wiring
in a new building or hook up the gas line when you buy a new stove.

~~~
gremlinsinc
This is something a robot could eventually do, I don't see any reason a bot
can't fix plumbing issues... It'll start out as a bot that goes in and sprays
something on pipes to repair them, or goes into the drains itself and drills
out muck to clear clogs, then the bots will show up via delivery drone and be
able to do all that on their own without a plumber, and you just ship back
when the issue is fixed...

------
mcbruiser3
UBI is supposed to be some kind of safety net, is that right? Isn't that what
savings are for? i.e. you're supposed to have 3 months emergency savings,
which falls under the personal responsibility category. If you remove personal
responsibility, what happens?

Any any rate, I don't think the numbers will ever pencil out, end of story.
It's a non starter.

And of course Zuck advocates a UBI, so more people stay at home surfing FB!

------
edoceo
Gotta make sure folks fired for spending too much work time on your platform
still have money to buy the crap advertised on said platform

~~~
jondubois
Haha, that's extremely cynical but it actually makes sense.

------
grabcocque
He's running.

~~~
tyingq
I wonder how much of a deal breaker his lack of charisma is. Certainly people
have been elected without it, but it's a nice equalizer if you're short in
other areas, like experience.

~~~
pythonaut_16
On the experience front he'd be stuck with the Trump Paradox.

Either Trump's lack of experience will prove to be a huge negative and hurt
Zuckerberg due to his similar lack of experience, _OR_ Trump will somehow turn
things around and be successful enough to be competitive in 2020 and Trump can
claim he has more experience.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Have you seen Trump? Every day is another fuck up...this is as good as it gets
with him... Assuming he isn't impeached by Christmas.

------
trevex
There was a very interesting article in the german business-magazine "brand
eins" [1]. The article is not yet available for free (always released for free
a few weeks after the magazine).

But the gist was that UBI is only possible with a substantial tax reform. In
the article an example of 1000€ per month is presented and a universal
"commerce" tax of 50% used (no other taxes just taxing money going out of
businesses, e.g. earnings, salaries).

Several examples are presented: Low income of 24000€, 12000€ - 12000€ = 0€ in
taxes. Higher income of 100000€, 50000€ - 12000€ = 38000€ in taxes.

It concludes that basic income in Germany is therefore great for everyone with
salaries below 240000€ compared to the current taxation system.

Calculations for the amount of money necessary were also included, but I am
unable to recall them from memory. Looking up the article online revealed a
report by the interviewee from the magazine article [2], which states that a
UBI of 800€ per month (including major reforms) would cost around 454.10
billion €, which would be about 2/3 of Germany's current tax income.

[1] "Wie überlebt der Sozialstaat die Digitalisierung?"
[https://www.brandeins.de/archiv/2017/fortschritt/](https://www.brandeins.de/archiv/2017/fortschritt/)

[2]
[http://www.hwwi.org/fileadmin/hwwi/Leistungen/Gutachten/Grun...](http://www.hwwi.org/fileadmin/hwwi/Leistungen/Gutachten/Grundeinkommen-
Studie.pdf)

------
whataretensors
I like Zuckerberg because he understands technology, but I'm worried about
UBI.

UBI is based on the assumption that everyone will take basic income money and
use it responsibly. But we know that's not true for a large part of the
population. Gambling and drugs exist, for example. That's not to mention other
short term rewards that hurt people in the long term.

UBI in its most corrupt form turns into communism. And we know from the 20th
century that communism is corruptible almost by default. We've paid for this
knowledge with 100s of millions of humans dieing in multiple countries.

I think of capitalism as a type of learning system that depends on a
individual reward signal. Government can also be thought of as a learning
system.

In a corrupt system capitalism stops learning and even regresses. People stop
participating. In a corrupt government, the government mandates based on
really bad abstractions.

So the question becomes "how do we prevent, measure, and fix corruption" than
which system we should live by.

Having said that, I'll end up voting for anyone who understands technology. I
think it will disrupt employment for essentially everyone, given enough time.

~~~
dragonwriter
> UBI is based on the assumption that everyone will take basic income money
> and use it responsibly.

No, it's not; neither the libertarian nor the progressive arguments for UBI
assume that.

> UBI in its most corrupt form turns into communism

Wait, what? Perhaps some form of communism, by the broadest definition, could
be linked to UBI, but even then you'd be equivocating at best when you say:

> And we know from the 20th century that communism is corruptible almost by
> default. We've paid for this knowledge with 100s of millions of humans
> dieing in multiple countries.

Since in that bit you are clearly narrowly referring to what has been learned
specifically about _Leninist vanguardism_ in the 20th Century (which,
actually, plenty of people—including many other communists—observed about its
structure and departures from Marxism even before practical experience
underlined the problems.)

> I think of capitalism as a type of learning system that depends on a
> individual reward signal.

Capitalism is an politico-economic system in which, by way of a particular
model of property rights, society is ordered to favor the interests of a
particular class, the owners of capital ("capitalists"). Hence the name given
to that system by its critics when it was the dominant world system.

Now, arguably, the politico-economic systems of modern representative
democracies with mixed economies combine a base drawn from 19th Century
capitalism and its basic model of property rights with various redistributive
and power-limiting mechanisms to implement a "learning system" of the type you
describe, but UBI is essentially a retuning and streamlining of some of the
redistributive mechanisms in modern mixed economies, not a fundamental change.

------
Balgair
Though interesting, there remains a large sticking point that is more of a
'second order' effect not often thought of: the effects on marriage and child
birth:
[https://www.nber.org/papers/w23408?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medi...](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23408?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw)

"There has been a well-documented retreat from marriage among less educated
individuals in the U.S. and non-marital childbearing has become the norm among
young mothers and mothers with low levels of education. One hypothesis is that
the declining economic position of men in these populations is at least
partially responsible for these trends. That leads to the reverse hypothesis
that an increase in potential earnings of less-educated men would
correspondingly lead to an increase in marriage and a reduction in non-marital
births."

Based on this (single) study, it is reasonable to hypothesize that UBI would
have an adverse effect on marriage rates and would increase the number of
bastard children. The societal norms that we have about manhood, family, and
marriage are somewhat based on economic models and radically changing those
models may introduce severe disruptions in our social norms and family
structures.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, the 'economic status' that men in these regions have
is a _relative_ measure. Meaning that the researchers found that the men were
being judged based on their status relative to other men in the area to
determine if they were marriageable. UBI, by definition, would level out the
playing field. If the means then that all men would become more attractive for
marriage or all of them would become unattractive is an open question that
needs to be studied more before UBI would be implemented.

------
paddy88
I am not fan of Zuck. Have never used FB. But I think it was a good speech. He
doesn't have to do this. He can be like Larry Page and disconnect from the
world and no one is going bother him. But he seems to have some ideas that I
am not going to discount. The point about helping others find purpose and the
role of community resonates deeply with me. I wouldn't be where I am without
it. Most of our successful open source work happens exactly this way. Allowing
people to discover purpose and feel part of a community. You will constantly
hear these words from people at Mozilla or Wikipedia or Khan Academy to pick
just places where corporate robots aren't driving the usage of words.

With religious institutions in the west loosing their influence, with
capitalism, consumerism, individualism having a cost and being antithetical to
solving global problems...talking about helping others find purpose and
creating a sense of community feels at least better than anything else I
usually here from politicians.

------
joobus
Divorce work from income and you will also divorce value from the currency.

~~~
epistasis
UBI does not eliminate work-based income.

~~~
lolsal
It does in whatever amount is mailed out to everyone every month in the form
of a UBI check. That is literally money earned without work or without
creating value.

------
alphonsegaston
It would be great if these tech scions spent as much time defending our
existing social insurance programs (e.g. food stamps) as they did with these
utopian fantasies. UBI will never become a reality in a cultural context that
constantly paints any kind of floor on poverty as parasitism and moral
failure, which is where we are right now in the US.

~~~
sharemywin
They should focus on Universal health first. Or at least a public option with
premium caps based on income.

------
pg_bot
The premise on which the Universal Basic Income is being sold is that in the
future there will be fewer jobs due to automation and therefore we will need
to increase the welfare state to compensate. In my opinion that premise is
incredibly pessimistic; I don't believe we will ever run out of productive
uses for labor. In either case implementing a Universal Basic Income on a
national level seems like a logistical and fiscal nightmare. In a world where
more countries are attractive places to live, will the rich want to stay in
the USA if you can live a better life elsewhere?

------
I_am_neo
Poverty payments, come and get 'em

~~~
devopsproject
There will be a day when "just go flip burgers until something better comes
along" will no longer be a valid retort.

Jobs are vanishing and no amount of bootstraps will change that.

~~~
mcbruiser3
> Jobs are vanishing...

No, jobs are changing. Adapt or die.

~~~
Turing_Machine
You might be surprised at who actually dies, should things get bad enough that
people are starving in the streets.

The French aristocracy circa 1789 was certainly surprised. Likewise the
Russian aristocracy circa 1917.

~~~
mcbruiser3
right because it's always the case that those who do and have got to their
situation unfairly, not due to hard work and intelligence or looking for
opportunities, and that's the reason those who don't are poor, and therefore
they deserve to die.

~~~
Turing_Machine
I'm not saying anything about "right" or "fair", or what people "deserve". I'm
just pointing out the pragmatic consequences of your attitude.

~~~
mcbruiser3
yes, the pragmatic consequences of not adapting are being left behind. life is
not fair, and it never will be. even if we implemented a UBI, there would be
some other "injustice" to complain about or excuse for inequality. there is no
end to it. the only fair system is one where you make your own way.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"yes, the pragmatic consequences of not adapting are being left behind."

The pragmatic consequences of ignoring the people who are "left behind" are
guillotines and scaffolds.

"the only fair system is one where you make your own way."

Once again: "fair" doesn't enter into it.

------
theseatoms
Is UBI just re-branded welfare reform?

~~~
devopsproject
They are solving two different problems.

Arguments to its effectiveness aside, the current welfare systems seem to have
the primary goal of providing for citizens until they can reenter the
workforce.

UBI seems to have the primary goal of making sure people can maintain basic
living standards when the jobs vanish. There will be a day when "just go flip
burgers until something better comes along" will no longer be a valid retort.

------
danans
Not to imply that UBI doesn't have its implementation issues, or that the
country is culturally prepared to support it, but Kudos to Mark Z for using
his platform to move the discussion out of the narrow spaces of tech and
economics communities and into the general conversation.

The spirit of his statements is in direct opposition to the spirit of the
recently released white house budget proposal. Hopefully the timing triggers a
transformative debate.

------
AnimalMuppet
Something nobody has mentioned so far: Immigration control. If you have UBI,
you probably have to either restrict it to citizens, or control immigration.

~~~
mcbruiser3
I don't think you understand.. some folks in the gov't want to have as much of
the population dependent on the gov't as possible. The more people dependent
on the gov't the better.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That doesn't change the issue I was mentioning, which is sustainability. And
creating a bunch of dependents, then going bankrupt and having to cut off the
dependents, won't work out well politically in the long run...

~~~
mcbruiser3
Of course it's not sustainable, that's obvious. But that never stopped idiot
politicians who just want votes from the plebes... just look at obamacare.

------
chromaton
Gross world product is about $16,000 per capita. So that's about how much your
income would be if it was all evenly distributed. That's actually enough to
boost you over the poverty line in the US. But people in the US also receive
other benefits from the government.

However, given 50 years of modest 2% economic growth, you'd be up to a
respectable $43,000 per person.

~~~
jondubois
I don't think it would make sense to have a single equal UBI for the whole
world - Not initially at least.

To a poor person in Africa, 16K per year would be like winning the lottery -
This is not the case for someone living in a developed country. We should take
into account that poverty is relative. UBI is not about making everyone equal
(not yet at least), initially it's about giving everyone the freedom to do
what they really want.

------
gremlinsinc
well, now I might be convinced to vote for him -- might.. Not a huge Zuck fan,
I think he means well. But I AM a big advocate for UBI, and think we
definitely need leaders who support it in all areas of government.

Though I think Zuck would have a better chance at President if he ran and won
Governor of California first and worked up the ladder.

------
Overtonwindow
Perhaps if Mark was willing to put up the billions in his fortune we could do
a lot. If anyone knows him perhaps they could politely ask that he send out a
universal check to everyone in America, and let's see how it goes.

------
SN76477
I'm not interested in a man that sells personal data as a president.

~~~
arjie
Does he sell the data? My impression was that Facebook generally hoards the
data and then sells products that use it. The data itself stays inside and
then you can use it in very specific ways by using Facebook tools. So you
could use Facebook's users' data to target them on Facebook but Mark
Zuckerberg isn't giving you the data.

~~~
mcbruiser3
splitting hairs much?

~~~
arjie
A fair complaint. Let me attempt to justify the difference:

If the data is kept within, then there's a reasonable chance that I'm
functionally anonymous to people using Facebook's products. I'm all right if
people target ads and stuff. That's cool. It wouldn't bother me.

If they give people access to the raw data, FB'd have to anonymize well, or
I'd have to trust all their clients to make sure they don't do anything
nefarious. Now I don't like this second part. This would bother me.

That's why I made the distinction. But I understand if you don't and therefore
see it is as nitpicking.

------
aplomb
I'd be willing to pay for UBI if the people receiving perform work for it at
market rates (not artificial minimum wages). Otherwise it's armed robbery​.

------
mcbruiser3
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has
a cushion to try new ideas,”

rubbish. trust me, not everyone is an unrecognized genius.

------
deevolution
Is a ubi sustainable?

~~~
mcbruiser3
No, it's a redistribution of wealth and will lead to a massive dichotomy just
like any third world country.

~~~
criddell
Why do you think that? I'd hope that it would lead to outcomes similar to
those achieved by some Scandanavian countries with their big social welfare
programs.

------
kapauldo
why do we ascribe undeserved expertise like this?

------
eip
The problem with stabilizing the economic system is that there is too much
demand on account of (1) too much greed and (2) too much population.

This creates excessive economic inductance which can only be balanced with
economic capacitance (true resources or value - e.g., in goods or services).

The social welfare program is nothing more than an open-ended credit balance
system which creates a false capital industry to give nonproductive people a
roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. This can be useful, however,
because the recipients become state property in return for the "gift," a
standing army for the elite. For he who pays the piper picks the tune.

Those who get hooked on the economic drug, must go to the elite for a fix. In
this, the method of introducing large amounts of stabilizing capacitance is by
borrowing on the future "credit" of the world. This is a fourth law of motion
- onset, and consists of performing an action and leaving the system before
the reflected reaction returns to the point of action - a delayed reaction.

The means of surviving the reaction is by changing the system before the
reaction can return. By this means, politicians become more popular in their
own time and the public pays later. In fact, the measure of such a politician
is the delay time.

The same thing is achieved by a government by printing money beyond the limit
of the gross national product, and economic process called inflation. This
puts a large quantity of money into the hands of the public and maintains a
balance against their greed, creates a false self-confidence in them and, for
awhile, stays the wolf from the door.

They must eventually resort to war to balance the account, because war
ultimately is merely the act of destroying the creditor, and the politicians
are the publicly hired hit men that justify the act to keep the responsibility
and blood off the public conscience. (See section on consent factors and
social-economic structuring.)

If the people really cared about their fellow man, they would control their
appetites (greed, procreation, etc.) so that they would not have to operate on
a credit or welfare social system which steals from the worker to satisfy the
bum.

Since most of the general public will not exercise restraint, there are only
two alternatives to reduce the economic inductance of the system.

1\. Let the populace bludgeon each other to death in war, which will only
result in a total destruction of the living earth.

2\. Take control of the world by the use of economic "silent weapons" in a
form of "quiet warfare" and reduce the economic inductance of the world to a
safe level by a process of benevolent slavery and genocide.

The latter option has been taken as the obviously better option. At this point
it should be crystal clear to the reader why absolute secrecy about the silent
weapons is necessary. The general public refuses to improve its own mentality
and its faith in its fellow man. It has become a herd of proliferating
barbarians, and, so to speak, a blight upon the face of the earth.

They do not care enough about economic science to learn why they have not been
able to avoid war despite religious morality, and their religious or self-
gratifying refusal to deal with earthly problems renders the solution of the
earthly problem unreachable to them.

It is left to those few who are truly willing to think and survive as the
fittest to survive, to solve the problem for themselves as the few who really
care. Otherwise, exposure of the silent weapon would destroy our only hope of
preserving the seed of the future true humanity.

\--Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

