Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on October 10, 2012 By Draginol In Business

This week, the hard hitting reporters from Gawker bring you:

“The CEO Who Built Himself America’s Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama’s Elected” [actual headline]

http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

This bad BAD man also has a LARGE house. What a monster.

[editor’s note: Sure, we could have simply stated that this man sent an email to his employees explaining that if the company’s taxes go up that it will reduce working capital which could result in job cuts but we’re all about the page views]

UPDATE:

Now that everyone has finished writing their hate male to this guy we have the actual email. Unfortunately, it’s long and nuanced so we have taken the liberty of highlighting the parts that should make you very VERY mad.

“Huge mansion. Huge fortune. Profitable company. What could David Siegal have to complain about? Well, the demonization of the 1% by Barack Obama, for one thing. This truly amazing email went out to all Westgate employees yesterday. Bolding is ours.”

Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

COMING UP NEXT on “THE BAD BAD CEO”

The BAD BAD CEO who went on a VACATION to a FOREIGN COUNTRY while raising insurance premiums on his employees.

Remember readers: Rich, Successful people are BAD people and we will continue to dig deep to show you just how terrible they are. How dare people start their own businesses and believe they have any rights to express their opinions.  We will continue our hard-hitting reporting that we expect will damage those businesses through ill-informed boycotts by making sensational, irrelevant headlines.


Comments (Page 5)
on Oct 14, 2012

taltamir
The so called "poor" in america can afford a car, entertainment, video games, computers, and as much food as they want to get obese on.

There's working poor, like your comment may reflect upon and then there is also the real poor, who are homeless and jobless.  To which that comment is very insensitive. 

taltamir
The so called "robber barons" are real but they are NOT Mitt Romney and his kind (honest businessmen)...

Granted he is not of the scale and gross malfeasance of a robber baron,  but I would call him "robber baron lite".

 

I do for one agree with you just said about cronyism and regulations. 

 

on Oct 14, 2012

Supreme Shogun
Granted he is not of the scale and gross malfeasance of a robber baron, but I would call him "robber baron lite".

Based on? Don't get me wrong I'm not American and I don't like the man, mostly because he changes his position on issues every 5 minutes, but what I have read from neutral sources reveals that to be baseless slander. Seriously do you even have any real knowledge of his work history? 

on Oct 14, 2012

When you're a socialist, it's exploitation to make money by investing in others.  You're supposed to just give them the capital they need out of the goodness of your heart, or by way of force.

on Oct 15, 2012

Frogboy
The gulf between the rich and the poor is only going to get larger and larger with more automation and globalization.  I'm not sure how that can be helped.

 

Education, on how powerful environmental conditioning is in defining individuals, and in turn, how much of an impact one individual can have on the group; through intelligently designed games.  Just keep doing what you're doing. [e digicons]'[/e]

on Oct 15, 2012

Frogboy
The gulf between the rich and the poor is only going to get larger and larger with more automation and globalization.  I'm not sure how that can be helped.

 

I do agree if conditions end up laissez-faire crony capitalism, that is precisely what will happen.  We have a battle right now between large corporations and large governments to see who will dominate the 21st century.

 

That's the role of government.   And this has to be done, or else you may not like the alternatives- which is a group of people who will have no respect for  society, for valid and justified reasons.

 

Even the poor understand economic interest- and when they have no reason to invest or believe in the system, they will work to destroy it.   This is what caused the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt.  (unsure about Libya)

 

I'm not saying we're going to have that in the US anytime soon, but we did have Occupy protests last year, those were economic.

 

The thing that makes it worse, is that we've got a bit of a global race to the bottom, due to billionaires being able to shop between countries for the "best deals" on their wealth.

 

 

When I say I worry about these things- that does not mean that I oppose all capitalism, or even multinational capitalism.  It means that I oppose the ability of power of large multinational corps to influence the government.   Governments are at least in theory responsible to the people, corporations are only responsible to the shareholders, and are incapable of acting in any way other than short-term self-interest.   This is why you need governments to keep businesses in line.

 

(Note: Companies like yours are not included in this large category, folks like you are the folks we should be encouraging over the large multinationals)

on Oct 15, 2012

Increases in a company's running costs, whatever the origin endanger the company's survivability.  A known and entirely LEGITIMATE stop-gap solution is to reduce the company's expenses...one of which is their employment/salary expenditure.

Sorry for not replying earlier, haven't been checking the forums much. But I've got to say I disagree with your statement. Taxes are not a typical increase in a company's running costs and it would be rare for taxes to endanger a moderate sized company's survivability. To reiterate, if a company's survival is in danger then pretty much by definition it is NOT making a profit therefore it is irrelevant whether taxes are high or low. Sure there are cases where this is not true (eg small companies where the proprietor needs after tax profits to live and seasonal companies who are operating on dangerously low equity) but neither applies in the case of Siegel's company.

As for the suggestion that Siegel will fire people if taxes go up, that is unlikely to help him make more money, quite the opposite. Unless his organisation is either badly run or has shrunk recently and has staff who aren't really doing much he probably can't increase his profits by firing people. It might work in the very short term but in the medium term having less staff is likely to instead reduce profits by reducing turnover one way or another. To put another way, if Siegel could reliably increase his profits by firing some employees he didn't really need, don't you think he would have already done so?

So in Siegel's case it is quite literally as I said that he wants X million profit per year rather than X-20% million profit. That is entirely what this is about and the arguments in Siegel's letter which suggest it goes much deeper than that are pure scare tactics to try to persuade his employees to vote a certain way.

This is all basic mathematics and basic understanding of how taxes work. I'm surprised there is so much debate and confusion!

 

on Oct 15, 2012

Alstein
When I say I worry about these things- that does not mean that I oppose all capitalism, or even multinational capitalism.  It means that I oppose the ability of power of large multinational corps to influence the government.   Governments are at least in theory responsible to the people, corporations are only responsible to the shareholders, and are incapable of acting in any way other than short-term self-interest.   This is why you need governments to keep businesses in line.

Well said. Capitalism works well for me, I run a software business and (apart from being way too much work at times!), it makes money and I'm happy doing it. But capitalism being a good economic system doesn't make it a good system of government! Having a government controlled by capitalism would be an unmitigated disaster over the medium and long term for the reason you stated.

on Oct 15, 2012

Unless of course I'm misunderstanding how the proposed company taxes will work and they are a tax on turnover or something? If so then please let me know!

on Oct 15, 2012

Alstein

I do agree if conditions end up laissez-faire crony capitalism, that is precisely what will happen.  We have a battle right now between large corporations and large governments to see who will dominate the 21st century.

That's the role of government.   And this has to be done, or else you may not like the alternatives- which is a group of people who will have no respect for  society, for valid and justified reasons.

 

You said this before and I asked: how.  What can government do?

The increasing gap between rich and poor has very little to do with government and a lot more to do with automation and globalization.

In 1950, if I wanted to run a business, everything had to be done by humans and local humans at that.

In 2020, if I want to run a business, I can automate significant parts of it and contract labor intensive parts to the lowest bidder on earth.

Let me use a common example: Your local grocery store.  

Even in 2012, you are seeing more and more self-checkout lines.  The goods on the shelves are increasingly being made overseas.

If I own that grocery store, with a modest capital investment, I can have extremely high margins.  But what happens to all those people who used to make the goods and used to work there?  By 2020, most of the cleaning will be done by bots of various kinds. I'd be surprised if shelving wasn't increasingly handled by bots (RFID would make placement relatively easy and inexpensive).

What can the government do about that? Tax people higher? Ok. Then what? When we talk about rich and poor we don't factor in government hand outs. We always compare pre-tax earnings of the rich and poor and that will continue to rise. And even if we raised taxes, how does that help the poor? Give them more hand outs? That won't solve anything. In fact, it'll be businesses lobbying for that kind of thing (of course, done selectively) to get more buyers for their wares (while lobbying to keep their special tax breaks in place).


Even the poor understand economic interest- and when they have no reason to invest or believe in the system, they will work to destroy it.  

What, exactly, are they going to destroy? The problem isn't that they're being cheated or screwed, it's that there is simply - at this time in history - the ability for some people to make a lot of money through capital investment that does not directly benefit other people.  We haven't seen anything like it since the beginning of the industrial revolution.


 
I'm not saying we're going to have that in the US anytime soon, but we did have Occupy protests last year, those were economic.

That is true. But they're definitely not your avatars for the poor. Those were people looking for hand outs.  They can only exist in a society in which the majority is highly...highly tolerant. Their complaint was that banks got bailouts -- where was their bail out?   


The thing that makes it worse, is that we've got a bit of a global race to the bottom, due to billionaires being able to shop between countries for the "best deals" on their wealth.

And not just billionaires. Everytime you or I buy something made in China, we've outsourced.  But you hit the nail on the head: We're in a global race to the bottom. That is the problem. And there's nothing we can do about it.



When I say I worry about these things- that does not mean that I oppose all capitalism, or even multinational capitalism.  It means that I oppose the ability of power of large multinational corps to influence the government. 

It's not government influence that causes our issues. It's way..way worse than that. If it were government influence, we could fix it by some sort of political reform.  But there's no reform to fix what is occurring and, I might add, accelerating.

In 50 years, we'll look back at this time as a historic moment when you the haves -- the people with capital -- could essentially make their wealth while bypassing the have-nots.  It's a serious problem, one in which the government is not equipped to handle unless we roll back globalization and automation.

It's not a liberal or conservative issue. The gap is widening because of unprecedented changes in our society. There is nothing a Democrat or Republican can do about it. 

 

on Oct 15, 2012

Supreme Shogun
There's working poor, like your comment may reflect upon and then there is also the real poor, who are homeless and jobless.  To which that comment is very insensitive. 

Before the obama depression, the only way to be homeless in america is to have serious mental issue and not WANT help.

Granted he is not of the scale and gross malfeasance of a robber baron,  but I would call him "robber baron lite".

Its not a matter of scale its a matter of actions. Romney is not a robber baron because he is not a government crony.

Cronies get massive funding from the government which they burn away but a good amount is funneled back to the politician as campaign donations. Wealth "redistribution" (the theft and awarding it to your supporters) is bad regardless of whether the target is a few rich men or a million of poor ones.

Government cronies are the only people who actually fit the description of robber barons without having to lie to yourself about the state of reality

I do agree if conditions end up laissez-faire crony capitalism, that is precisely what will happen.  We have a battle right now between large corporations and large governments to see who will dominate the 21st century.
 
Stop calling it crony CAPITALISM. It is an anti capitalist behavior that results from SOCIALISM. Socialism is confiscating money from "the rich" (businesses) to spend on "the good of society" aka cronies of whatever politicians are currently in power (as proven by both parties in the USA... and pretty much everywhere else)
 
Full Laissez-faire does not cause cronyism, it causes collusion, price fixing, trusts, and other forms of monopoly abuses. (which are also destructive to the economy).

The solution is minimal regulation meant to stop such monopoly abuses but OTHERWISE be hands off.
on Oct 15, 2012

Frogboy
If I own that grocery store, with a modest capital investment, I can have extremely high margins.  But what happens to all those people who used to make the goods and used to work there?  By 2020, most of the cleaning will be done by bots of various kinds. I'd be surprised if shelving wasn't increasingly handled by bots (RFID would make placement relatively easy and inexpensive).

What can the government do about that? Tax people higher? Ok. Then what? When we talk about rich and poor we don't factor in government hand outs. We always compare pre-tax earnings of the rich and poor and that will continue to rise. And even if we raised taxes, how does that help the poor? Give them more hand outs? That won't solve anything. In fact, it'll be businesses lobbying for that kind of thing (of course, done selectively) to get more buyers for their wares (while lobbying to keep their special tax breaks in place).

The fact technology displaces people means that people are available to do other jobs. If we ever reach infrastructure that is so cheap then necessities would be free (like tap water is today).

Not to mention more and more people will be pushed towards education based jobs.

The socialist movement is about giving people EXPENSIVE things. Things that require significant human investment.

Socialism is also about making things "fair" by making it too expensive to employ humans via a variety of "fairness" laws.

The luddites opposed new and more advanced tech because they said it is putting people out of work... It does. But historically that has been a good thing and everyone benefitted in the long term; as humans were able to invest less and less time in the necessities and more time in advancing society.

The theory that one day we would have no more need for human workers is absurd, it would require true AI and can easily be prevented by granting true AI rights and preventing their enslavement. So building a million dollar THINKING android and then paying it the same as a human is not economical.

on Oct 15, 2012

I'm taking Brad's assumption that we are in a global race to the bottom, and there's nothing the market can do about it.   Governments can redistribute wealth.  Flat out , handouts and redistribution is what is needed to compensate for this race to the bottom.   You may be philosophically opposed to this, I'm not really super in favor of this, but I'm thinking it might be necessary given the alternatives.   We are heading to a society where fewer people need to be employed.   People do need to consume/be happy, and they need to feel invested in society, otherwise they will act in their economic interests and act outside of society.

 

There is a lot of outrage over the bank bailouts, they are the one bailout I opposed, as I think banks in this country (and worldwide it's worse than the US) are too big.  I'd actually go back to the old days and ban interstate banking if I could.

 

As for the statement on what they would do: mass protests, and then when that fails, terrorism.  There are a lot of guns in the US, lots of explosives, and lots of folks who have military training.  It just takes a few nutjobs to do a lot of damage.  It's not like CEOs are hard targets.  Sure, the folks will get caught and sent to prison/killed, but when your life is that miserable, you have less to fear.

 

 

What good is technology if the impact makes people's lives worse instead of better?

on Oct 15, 2012

taltamir


The fact technology displaces people means that people are available to do other jobs. If we ever reach infrastructure that is so cheap then necessities would be free (like tap water is today).

Not to mention more and more people will be pushed towards education based jobs.

Yes. That is all true and is also what leads to the gap. There are significant segments of our society that will not be able to adapt to that kind of job.

The theory that one day we would have no more need for human workers is absurd, it would require true AI and can easily be prevented by granting true AI rights and preventing their enslavement. So building a million dollar THINKING android and then paying it the same as a human is not economical.

That is a strawman. No one is suggesting we won't need human workers. You will always need human workers.  But it doesn't change the reality that those who cannot adapt to the information economy are going to be left further and further behind.

Moreover, let's not forget that with globalization we increasingly can outsource those lower layers out of American society out to other countries.

Using the grocery store example (and feel free to poke holes in it)

With a decent amount of capital investment, I can, today, start grocery store in which most of the check out counters are self-check out and nearly all the goods on the shelves have been outsourced. I still need workers at the store but I don't need to buy my goods from American labor.  This is a bad thing if you're looking to have less wealth inequality.

IF wealth inequality is a bad thing, then we're going to be seeing a lot more of that bad thing. If, however, you consider quality of life to be better, then it's irrelevant.  The American "poor" of 2012 are far far better off than the American poor of 1972.  But the gap between them and the richest is much greater.

 

on Oct 15, 2012

Alstein
I'm taking Brad's assumption that we are in a global race to the bottom, and there's nothing the market can do about it.   Governments can redistribute wealth.  Flat out , handouts and redistribution is what is needed to compensate for this race to the bottom.

Why? Why are hand outs a good thing? Are you suggesting that simply being born in the United States entitles you to the earnings of your fellow citizen?

 

   You may be philosophically opposed to this, I'm not really super in favor of this, but I'm thinking it might be necessary given the alternatives.  

People need a purpose. Someone without a job getting hand outs won't stop the revolution or whatever it is you are trying to prevent.  

We are heading to a society where fewer people need to be employed.   People do need to consume/be happy, and they need to feel invested in society, otherwise they will act in their economic interests and act outside of society.

I'm not sure if people need to "consume" to be happy. In fact, studies indicate that's not the case at all.  What people need is a purpose. And if they don't have a purpose (like a job) they will find something else, something more violent possibly, to be their purpose.  

Giving people cash won't make them feel invested in society.

 



There is a lot of outrage over the bank bailouts, they are the one bailout I opposed, as I think banks in this country (and worldwide it's worse than the US) are too big.  I'd actually go back to the old days and ban interstate banking if I could.

You'll get no argument from me on that.  
 



As for the statement on what they would do: mass protests, and then when that fails, terrorism.  There are a lot of guns in the US, lots of explosives, and lots of folks who have military training.  It just takes a few nutjobs to do a lot of damage.  It's not like CEOs are hard targets.  Sure, the folks will get caught and sent to prison/killed, but when your life is that miserable, you have less to fear.

Absolutely. But giving them cash won't solve it. People need to have a purpose. To feel like they're part of something. Checks in the mail won't make them feel like they're part of it.
 

 

What good is technology if the impact makes people's lives worse instead of better?

I agree - consumption (getting gadgets and such) won't make your life "Better". It'll increase your standard of living but it won't bring happiness or purpose to someone.  And if they don't feel like they have a vested interest in society, they'll destroy it eventually (which is what I think you're suggesting).

The problem is, you can't just give people money and expect that will satisfy them. People will still feel powerless and purposeless and that is what will lead to the downfall of a society if we don't address it.

on Oct 15, 2012

Alstein
I'm taking Brad's assumption that we are in a global race to the bottom, and there's nothing the market can do about it.   Governments can redistribute wealth.  Flat out , handouts and redistribution is what is needed to compensate for this race to the bottom.

We aren't in a race for the bottom. Humanity as a whole is improved via automation.

And in a hypothetical race to the bottom flat out handouts and redistribution causes producers to RELOCATE to other countries. you CANNOT have a sustainable welfare state that isn't also a prison state. (see iron curtain)

Frogboy
With a decent amount of capital investment, I can, today, start grocery store in which most of the check out counters are self-check out and nearly all the goods on the shelves have been outsourced. I still need workers at the store but I don't need to buy my goods from American labor.  This is a bad thing if you're looking to have less wealth inequality.

Only in a local scale. In global terms you are reducing wealth inequality via outsourcing.

Those nations it is outsourced to are the poorest in the world and their poor are much poorer than our poor. And via outsourcing we finance their industrialization. Eventually they become industrialized and it no longer makes sense to outsource to them.

That is a strawman. No one is suggesting we won't need human workers.

You didn't suggest it but others DO suggest it.

And its not a strawman because if we do not have laws requiring that AI be treated as people WE WILL have AI slavery and very soon (displacing people from jobs)

IF wealth inequality is a bad thing, then we're going to be seeing a lot more of that bad thing. If, however, you consider quality of life to be better, then it's irrelevant.  The American "poor" of 2012 are far far better off than the American poor of 1972.  But the gap between them and the richest is much greater.

And that is the crux of the matter. The ever increasing gap is in the number of dollars the richest has to the number of dollars the poorest has. But what of the quality of life? No matter how rich you are quality of life caps out at a certain wealth level. Capitalism, technology, and automation means that ALL PEOPLE have a better quality of life. The choice is between:

1. Huge gaps in dollar amounts between richest and poorest but higher quality of life for all.

2. Shorter, less fulfilling, harshes life for all... but no large gaps between rich and poor.

This is why people say that communism brings equality by making everyone poor. Its not the dollar amounts they are looking at but overall quality of life

Meta
Views
» 74113
Comments
» 207
Category
Sponsored Links