From a Shot in the Arm to a Shot in the Foot — Biden’s Vaccine Blunder

In the event the tax plans fail to provide sufficient evidence that the Biden government barely understands the value of incentives, its proposal to forego intellectual property protection on COVID-19 vaccines confirmed the message that it was not an economically productive act should go unpunished.
The New York Times provided some background information:
The United States was a major contributor to the World Trade Organization over a proposal to suspend some of the World Economic Authority's intellectual property protection that could give drug manufacturers around the world access to the closely guarded trade secrets of making viable vaccines. But President Biden had come under increasing pressure to throw his support behind the proposal, which was worked out by India and South Africa and supported by many Congress Democrats.
Scroll down a little further to see that angry Uncle Sam hadn't exactly taken this position alone:
White House support is no guarantee that a waiver will be accepted. The European Union has stood in the way too, and changes to international intellectual property rules require unanimous agreement. Ms. Tai said the United States would be participating in negotiations on the World Trade Organization on the matter but "taking its time given the consensus-based nature of the institution and the complexity of the issues involved".
And when we talk about the EU, here (via The Guardian) are some arguments from Germany:
Angela Merkel's government spoke out against a waiver on Thursday.
"The US proposal to remove patent protection for Covid-19 vaccines has a significant impact on vaccine production as a whole," said a government spokeswoman.
"The limiting factors in manufacturing vaccines are manufacturing capacity and high quality standards, not patents," she added, arguing that the companies have already worked with partners to increase production capacity.
"The protection of intellectual property is a source of innovation and must remain so in the future."
Just because these comments are from Angela Merkel's government doesn't mean they're wrong.
Return to the New York Times and scroll down even further to see that the UK is also listed among the "other opponents" of the idea.
But Elizabeth Warren was predictably delighted with the announcement and, of course, didn't miss the opportunity to talk about "billions."
Yahoo! Finances:
The news came in the middle of a Yahoo Finance interview with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
"Fantastic!" she said when she heard the news, and raised her hands in the air in a double fist pump. . . . "I am delighted."
Shares in COVID-19 vaccine makers Moderna (MRNA) and BioNTech (BNTX) fell as much as 8% and 6%, respectively, on Thursday morning.
Warren, who was previously asked about a potential patent waiver, said, "This is not the time to protect these billions of dollars in profits for these companies."
Well, if we're talking about time and billions, as Tom Chivers noted in the Post, there's also a presentation by Michael Kremer, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, in October 2020 in which Kremer stated that the World Bank had $ 12 trillion Dollar estimated losses in 2020-2021 due to COVID-19, meaning a "gain of approximately $ 500 billion from accelerating vaccine development by one month," before taking into account "mortality and health losses."
The stock price sell-off didn't earn company shareholders much sympathy from Democrat Mark Pocan, who tweeted:
It's almost like Big Pharma relies on keeping life-saving drugs inaccessible.
Some might say that when it comes to providing life-saving drugs, Big Pharma has done quite a bit in an astonishingly short time.
Perhaps it is worth adding, like Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal, that "Moderna spent 10 years developing its mRNA technology and only made its first profit this week".
Or maybe you read this from Moderna back in October (my emphasis added):
While the pandemic continues, Moderna will not enforce our COVID-19 patents against those who make vaccines to fight the pandemic. In order to remove perceived IP barriers to vaccine development during the pandemic, we are also ready, upon request, to license our intellectual property for COVID-19 vaccines to others for the time after the pandemic.
So much for "inaccessible".
By the close of trading on Friday, Moderna stock had rallied but remained far from where it was trading before the government announced its support for a waiver. The same applies to shares in BioNtech and Pfizer.
To get back to this New York Times story, it wasn't surprising to read:
Stephen J. Ubl, President and CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, described the announcement as "an unprecedented move that will undermine our global response to the pandemic and put safety at risk".
"This decision will create confusion between public and private partners, further weaken already strained supply chains and encourage the proliferation of counterfeit vaccines," he said in a statement, adding that the move would have the effect of "handing over American innovation to countries [ Could China be one of those looking to undermine our leadership in biomedical discovery? "
The pharmaceutical industry has argued that suspending patent protection would undermine risk-taking and innovation.
"Who will do the vaccine next time?" Brent Saunders, the former general manager of Allergan, now part of AbbVie, wrote on Twitter.
But that these comments weren't surprising didn't make them wrong.
Letter on capital matters, Alden Abbott:
Patent rights were key to the unprecedentedly rapid development and adoption of COVID-19 vaccines in 2020. A number of very successful COVID-19 vaccines (including the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines) arose from previous innovative mRNA research driven by patents has been. Indeed, patent experts recently indicated that patent-inspired "mRNA vaccines could open the door to approval of other mRNA-based drugs and create a wide range of new markets."
This point was underlined by Matthew Lesh in CapX:
We are facing technologies that could end the plague. However, this requires efforts to understand viral threats, prepare vaccines, perform early-stage testing, and develop manufacturing and logistics in advance. This investment is only made if vaccines are also profitable.
Abbott:
Significantly, patents have not affected the mass production of key COVID-19 vaccines. As former US Patent and Trademark Office chief Andrei Iancu explains, vaccine manufacturers already have a network of agreements with countries around the world, and "almost every factory on the planet that can make these vaccines is already doing so . "
In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal added some numbers:
Pfizer and BioNTech announced this week that they would be dispensing three billion doses this year, compared to an estimate of 1.2 billion last summer. Moderna increased its supply forecast for this year from 600 million to 800 to one billion. AstraZeneca claims it has built a supply network with 25 manufacturing companies in 15 countries to produce three billion cans this year.
And (added my emphasis):
AstraZeneca and Novavax have relied heavily on manufacturers in India to produce billions of cans reserved for lower-income countries. But India has curtailed vaccine exports to feed its own people. IP just doesn't limit vaccine production.
Back to Abbott:
Patents are needed to provide the future funding that is critical to incentivizing the tremendous amount of R&D required to create new medical treatments that will improve the lives of millions of people. Developing new drugs and vaccines is very risky and costly. The cost of developing a new market-approved prescription drug has risen to an average of $ 2.6 billion, and the success rate in clinical trials has dropped to 12 percent, according to a study by the Tufts Center for Drug Development.
Due to the long delays in regulating and testing drugs, the actual patent protection period for the few highly profitable pharmaceutical products is often relatively short. This means a premium for realizing substantial financial returns over the rather limited patent term.
In conclusion, waiving COVID-19 patent rights would send a signal that pharmaceutical-related patents are not reliable, which could potentially have an impact on less investment in drugs and vaccines across the healthcare system. The long-term effect would be a reduction in the future quality and outcomes of health care.
Not doing it could also cause short-term damage to the health of the millions of people affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This could be achieved by reducing the quality control effort of new COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers that are not under the supervision of patent holders.
Norman Baylor, former head of the Office of Vaccine Research and Review for the Food and Drug Administration, recently stated, “The manufacture of vaccines requires hundreds of process steps and thousands of checkpoints for testing to ensure the quality and consistency of manufacture. You can transfer the IP, but the transfer of skills is not that easy. “Without quality assurance, the frequency of ineffective or harmful vaccine administrations could increase significantly, harm people directly and potentially deter many people from receiving vaccine shots.
There is certainly an argument that more could be done to accelerate vaccine production even faster. As CapXs Lesh pointed out:
Doing so would save lives and be in our own best interests, causing the world economy to recover faster while reducing the risk of vaccine resistant strains.
This goal is so important that we should be willing to pay whatever it takes, including making sure that all the companies involved make a healthy profit, in order to expedite the process. . .
In Lesh's view, however, the administration's move was "more of a lazy, virtuous signal stunt than a sensible solution." It's hard to disagree. And even if the waiver fails to materialize, the signal the proposal has sent to the government, be it contempt for private property, contempt for incentive, or a willingness to ruin (another) successful American industry (remember that Steps) This is unlikely to be forgotten - with results stunting American innovation, trashing American jobs and, in due course, costing lives not just in America but around the world.
Of course, no one should doubt for a moment, to quote the United States sales representative, Katherine Tai, that the pandemic is a "global crisis" and that these are "exceptional circumstances". But at a time when the White House is also heralding climate action as just another global crisis, the implied assurance that this is a one-off affair is less than comforting, and good for the means by which the administration is proceeding. . .
Strassel in the Wall Street Journal:
The move is also in line with the government's stance that the sole purpose of Congress is to stamp its spending proposals. Congress has argued for decades over the contours of patent protection, creating bipartisan laws from the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 to the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 to the Leahy-Smith Act of 2011. Mr Biden is proposing that all of these laws ignore the wave of an executive memo to the WTO - as he has already done through dubious executive regulations on immigration, mask mandates, pipeline cancellations and health care. Mr Biden will use Congress when reconciliation makes it convenient. But what Congress will not give him, he will decide unilaterally.
This country shouldn't be here. This is not what this country should be.
The capital record
We released the latest in a series of podcasts called the Capital Record. Follow the link to learn how to sign up (it's free!). The weekly capital record is supposed to use another medium to ensure the defense of the free markets by Capital Matters. Financier and NRI trustee David L. Bahnsen hosts discussions on economics and finance on this National Review Institute-sponsored podcast on National Review Capital Matters. The episodes include interviews with the country's leading business leaders, entrepreneurs, investment professionals and financial commentators.
In episode 16, David Bahnsen spoke to Larry Kudlow about tax rates, energy policy, and more. But what David and Larry were really talking about was an incentive-based economic system.
And that was Capital Matters Week. . .
The week started with Joseph Sullivan (our chart guy) who argued that Trump's tax overhaul had boosted investment:
After the Trump administration's corporate tax cuts, investment's share of GDP was the highest in the last four quarters of a business cycle since 1990. 13.16 percent was 3.63 percentage points higher than the first quarter of the business cycle, the second quarter of 2009, when it was 9.53 percent were. Yes, the increased level of investment in the late stages of the dot-com boom, which went bankrupt in the second quarter of 2001, is close to 3.42 percent. . .
We have published an excerpt from Steven Koonin's new book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters.
Here is an excerpt from the excerpt:
I am a scientist - I work to understand the world through measurements and observations and then clearly communicate both the excitement and implications of that understanding. At the beginning of my career, I had great fun doing this for esoteric phenomena involving atoms and nuclei using high-performance computer models (which are also an important tool for much of climate science). But as of 2004, I've spent about a decade applying these methods to the issue of climate and its impact on energy technologies. I did this first as chief scientist at oil company BP, where I focused on promoting renewable energy, and then as undersecretary of state for science in the Obama administration's Department of Energy, where I led the government's investments in energy technologies and climate science. I found great satisfaction in these roles and helped define and catalyze measures that would reduce carbon emissions, the agreed need to "save the planet".
But then the doubts began. . .
Kevin O’Connell and Alexander Salter discussed the great power competition at the last frontier:
The competition for great powers is back and is going to the stars again. On one side is a United States-led international coalition dedicated to exploration and commercial development. On the other hand are the rogue states of Russia and China. Russia's glory days in space are behind it, but it still has the potential to harm US interests. China, on the other hand, is an emerging space power determined to expand its sphere of influence both on and above the earth.
Last October, eight nations - the United States, Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom - signed the Artemis Accords, a cooperation agreement for the peaceful uses of space. Russia and China were decidedly unimpressed. You recently signed a memorandum of understanding to become a partner in building a lunar research base. As President Biden reaffirmed America's commitment to the Artemis Accords as the basis for future lunar missions, the Russia-China deal is a clear challenge to the vision of the US and its allies.
Realpolitik is a fundamental fact of international relations. We can't get rid of it. But we can tone it down by creating governance institutions for space that encourage governments to play nice. What we need is a clear and effective regime of ownership of heavenly resources. . .
Matt Weidinger explained how state "allowances" are the new good:
Washington appears to have developed a "allowance" fetish, and it has nothing to do with parents paying their children to do chores: a series of new government "allowances" would distribute shiploads of taxpayers' money to tens of millions of households.
First came a proposal, now required by law, to temporarily convert the longstanding federal child tax credit into what supporters refer to as “child benefit”. As the name change suggests, the new payments have little to do with whether a parent pays taxes. This year, parents do not need to have paid any tax at all to receive an annual allowance of up to $ 3,600 per child. In fact, the only parents not eligible for the allowance are the relatively few high earners who pay most of federal income taxes. According to the New York Times, "over 93 percent of children - 69 million" will benefit from the new federal gift. . .
Jessica Hornik Evans reported from her grocery store:
The self-service olive bar is back in my supermarket. The one-way street signs have been removed from the aisles. The cashiers no longer have to clean the belt between customers. After a year of loss and misery, small restorations mean a lot. . .
Jerry Bowyer asked some awkward questions:
My company, Bowyer Research, has created a database of the companies we have invested in that have been identified as endorsers of the Equality Act by the human rights campaign. I then signed up for and attended the annual meetings of these companies. I have asked each company, in turn, through the due, formal procedure for submitting questions at the beginning of each meeting, to explain their support for this law. So far I've visited and asked this question from Exelon, Cigna, Ameriprise, and Corning. What happened? My questions were just ignored. It's actually worse than that. In the Exelon case, after reading and answering several other shareholder questions, it was suggested that there were no more questions. And in the case of Cigna and Corning, it was at least arguably stated (the imminent publication of minutes of the meeting will allow readers to choose for themselves) that there were no more questions, although mine had not been answered. In other words, my question was not only thrown in the memory hole, but also in another memory hole. . .
Robert VerBruggen discussed the last turning point in the "Mommy Wars":
For couples with young children, work and childcare can be incredibly difficult topics. There are no perfect options, just compromises that value different couples with different values ​​and different work situations differently. Sometimes it makes most sense for both parents to work while the children go to daycare. In other cases, it is best for one parent to stay at home or work part-time. Still other couples can rely on family members to watch the children instead of using day care.
Joe Biden's American Families Plan would put the government's thumb to one side of the scale heavily, using tax dollars to massively subsidize childcare for the working and middle classes. Parents who stayed at home and watched their own children so that no one else had to do it would no longer pocket the resulting savings for their families. This is way outside of the real role of government, contrary to the values ​​of many American parents, and is potentially harmful to children. . .
But Ramesh Ponnuru questioned one aspect of Robert's reasoning:
Robert VerBruggen strongly opposes Biden's childcare proposal, and I agree with all but one. While the proposal piles the deck against families with stay-at-home parents (mostly mothers), it writes that other existing policies in the opposite direction are unfair: “In some ways, the status quo is quite favorable to stay. Home parents who, for example, get a lot from Social Security and Medicare. "
However, policies that transfer money to these earning couples are overshadowed in size by policies that have a strong tendency to move money away from them, making them subsidizers rather than net subsidies. And there are also guidelines that, while not transferring resources between households, have a major negative economic impact on large households (e.g. modern requirements for child seats). . .
Iain Murray argued that labor law should adapt to the gig economy - not the other way around:
The idea that a master-servant relationship with an employer is somehow best for the employee is still widespread. This was the motive for various attempts, notably the California AB5 bill, to forcibly convert gig workers into salaried employees. These attempts have resulted in many traditional freelance jobs that survived the 1930s legislation being converted into employment. This helped bring down the California attempt. Voters recognize that some people do not want employment and are interested in freelance work - which would not exist in a world only with employment. So many people were affected by AB5's broad brush that California voters voted against AB5 by a large majority in an election initiative.
However, Secretary Walsh's remarks suggest that the Biden administration may try to repeat AB5's mistakes. For example, the PRO Act, which President Biden has touted as an integral part of his infrastructure package, aims to qualify all gig economy and freelancers for union formation, a first step towards AB5 and the establishment of a master servant relationship neither the workers nor the platforms want. Rather than trying to force everyone into an outdated model, Secretary Walsh and his department should study how the work has changed and make proposals to the President to be sent to Congress to reflect those changes.
Veronique de Rugy investigated a case of cronyism:
It is rare for us taxpayers to see crony deals made in Washington. What follows is an example provided to us by the Export-Import Bank.
Take me with you while I give you background information. In January, ExIm announced an agreement to extend a 90 percent guarantee on a $ 50 million supply chain finance facility from Greensill Capital to Freeport LNG Marketing, LLC, a Texas-based company. The loan was extended by supply chain finance provider Greensill.
This was the result of a massive $ 4.7 billion ExIm deal to support the development and construction of an LNG project in Mozambique. Ahead of this project, the U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry warned that its own government would kill a foreign LNG project, and ExIm analysts warn the agency of safety concerns in the country that could lead to it the downfall of the project (that means the loss of taxpayers' money). That didn't matter. . .
Marc Joffe questioned the idea of ​​a Postbank:
Without a large tax-funded grant to offset the losses associated with providing more favorable terms on these loans, the market for a Postbank would be significantly smaller than the $ 63 million quoted by Senator Gillibrand. And even if there is a legitimate need for better access to these services, other institutions intervene to serve potential users of a Postbank. In recent years, a group of venture capital-backed companies has been formed to meet the needs of the unbanked. These “neobanks” have no physical branches, but are available to customers around the clock via smartphone apps. Leading neobank, Chime, has raised $ 1.5 billion in venture capital and is valued at $ 14.5 billion. It offers an online account with a debit card and no fees, minimum or credit checks. Chime has several well-funded competitors including Dave, N26, and Varo. Even Robinhood, the online stockbroker for younger customers, is now offering cash management services. . .
As noted above, Alden Abbott was unfazed by Joe Biden's proposed intellectual property waiver for COVID-19 vaccines:
The waiver of intellectual property protection (including patents) for COVID-19 vaccines, which U.S. Sales Representative Katherine Tai announced on Wednesday, is backed by the Biden government, will prove disastrous for the government if implemented American innovation will prove - and also adversely affect public health. . .
Brian Riedl responded to some of the reactions to the disappointing number of jobs:
If Congress spends trillions and the economy reacts positively, they'll credit stimulus spending and say we should have done more. If Congress is spending trillions and the economy doesn't react, the same proponents argue that stimulus spending must have been too low and Congress should double its spending and debt. In this context, the case of stimulus spending cannot be falsified. Every possible economic outcome is considered evidence that stimulus works.
Something similar happened during the "Great Recession" of 2008-2009. President Obama's $ 800 billion stimulus plan didn't end the recession - the economy was out of recession as early as the summer of 2009, before more than a small piece of the law was even enacted. . .
Charles Cooke wasn't that surprised by the job shortage:
Many people said they were "shocked". But why exactly? Did you believe Joe Biden made gravity optional? This is what you get when you pay people not to work. It is what you get when you send check after check after check to people who, if allowed to do so, would be perfectly capable of regaining employment. This is what you get by allowing teachers' unions to close schools ad nauseam and keep working parents long-term. There's nothing magical about 2021, or about Joe Biden, or that group of lawmakers, commissioners, and special interests. The same rules apply to them as to their predecessors. You can't spend what you don't have. You cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity. And people cannot be programmed to respond to clear incentives. Call your plans what you will - better back down, modern money theory, fairness, the left-handed teacup initiative - it doesn't matter. Branding doesn't care about reality. . .
And I don't believe Noah Williams either:
In den letzten Monaten gab es immer mehr Berichte über Unternehmen, die Probleme bei der Einstellung hatten, insbesondere in der Restaurantbranche. Diese Branche war von der Pandemie am härtesten betroffen, da Schließungen, Kapazitätsbeschränkungen und Änderungen im Essverhalten vorgeschrieben waren. Es ist auch der größte Sektor, in dem Niedriglohnarbeiter beschäftigt sind, was ihn in direkten Wettbewerb mit einem verbesserten Arbeitslosengeld bringt. Obwohl die Stellenangebote gewachsen waren und neue Online-Stellenangebote weit über dem Niveau vor der Pandemie lagen, wurden die Berichte und Umfragen, die auf Arbeitskräftemangel und Einstellungsschwierigkeiten hinwiesen, als anekdotisch abgetan. Das alles endete mit dem Beschäftigungsbericht vom April.
Wohin soll die Politik gehen? Wie so oft sind Staaten führend. In der vergangenen Woche haben zwei Bundesstaaten, Montana und South Carolina, die Ausweitung der Bundesarbeitslosigkeit abgelehnt. Von diesen scheint Montanas Entscheidung, vier Wochen der Ausweitung der Bundesarbeitslosigkeit in einen Wiederbeschäftigungsbonus umzuwandeln, der einen direkten Anreiz für die Rückkehr zur Arbeit bietet, die vielversprechendste zu sein. Frühere Versuchsprogramme haben ergeben, dass Wiederbeschäftigungsprämien die Dauer der Arbeitslosigkeit verkürzen, soziale Gewinne erzielen, indem die Arbeitnehmer wieder an die Arbeit gehen, und sogar die Kosten für Arbeitslosenprogramme senken.
Robert Smullen und Jonathan Williams richteten ihre Aufmerksamkeit auf New Yorks Leiden:
Selbst wenn die COVID-19-Pandemie zu einer fernen Erinnerung wird, werden die Amerikaner immer noch für die rekordverdächtigen Staatsschulden bezahlen, die durch zu hohe Staatsausgaben entstehen - von denen die überwiegende Mehrheit leider wenig oder gar nichts mit pandemiebedingten Gesundheitsbedürfnissen zu tun hat. Obwohl die Pandemie jeden Amerikaner in irgendeiner Weise negativ beeinflusste, war sie glücklicherweise keine existenzielle Bedrohung für die freie Welt - und es erforderte keine Staatsverschuldung des Zweiten Weltkriegs, um die Amerikaner auf Trab zu halten. Doch die New Yorker sind mehr als alle anderen im Land kurz davor, das wahre Gewicht und die Kosten der Pandemie zu spüren.
Die New Yorker Steuer- und Fiskalpolitik ist nicht unbemerkt geblieben. In der Tat hat die US-Volkszählung kürzlich berichtet, dass New York bei der Neuverteilung des Kongresses 2020 einen Sitz verlieren wird, da Tausende und Zählungen den Empire State verlassen haben. Während Demografen nun versuchen, einige Diskrepanzen zwischen den jährlichen Schätzungen der Volkszählung im letzten Jahrzehnt, die in den letzten Jahren einen noch größeren Verlust zeigten, und den tatsächlichen neuen Zahlen zu beseitigen, ist eines klar: Die Bevölkerung New Yorks wächst weiterhin erheblich langsamer als die Nation als Ganzes.
Das eigentliche langfristige Problem in New York ist die Akzeptanz von Steuern und Ausgaben im Stil einer großen Regierung. Es ist schwer zu verstehen, aber New Yorks Budget für 2021 war mehr als doppelt so hoch wie das von Florida, obwohl es nur 2 Millionen Einwohner weniger gab. . .
Robert Brooks unterstrich die Bedeutung des Vorrangs der Aktionäre:
Unternehmen sind im Besitz ihrer Aktionäre und sollten daher ausschließlich auf der Grundlage des Treuhandvertrauens verwaltet werden, das den Managern gewährt wird. Das Betreiben eines Unternehmens im Namen eines anderen Stakeholder ist ein Verstoß gegen die Treuhandpflicht. Offensichtlich erfüllt die Behandlung von Mitarbeitern, Kunden und Lieferanten mit Integrität und Respekt lediglich die Treuepflicht der Manager, da dies direkten Nutzen für die Aktionäre bringt. Die Aktionäre sollten sich jedoch aktiv gegen Manager wehren, die auf Kosten ihres Unternehmens ideologische Ziele verfolgen, nicht nur, weil dies ihren Geldbeutel schädigt, sondern auch, weil dies die gemeinsamen Prämissen untergräbt, die für eine funktionierende Wirtschaft erforderlich sind.
Wenn sich das Gewicht der Großaktionäre bei Versuchen, das Management zu beeinflussen, als unüberwindbar erweist, besteht eine Alternative darin, Kapital nur für Unternehmen bereitzustellen, die nachweislich dem Vorrang der Aktionäre verpflichtet sind. Je mehr Macht die Amerikaner an ideologisch motivierte Vermögensverwalter abtreten, desto wahrscheinlicher ist es, dass wir die enormen Gewinne an Wohlstand und Technologie opfern, die durch traditionelle Werte erzielt werden. . .
Folgen Sie diesem Link, um sich für den Großbuchstaben anzumelden.
More from National Review
"Wie kann ich mehr aus meinen Morgen herausholen?"
Besondere Folge: Steven Koonin
Cyberattack schließt US-Pipeline, die 45 Prozent des Kraftstoffs an der Ostküste transportiert

You should check here to buy the best price guaranteed products.

Last News

McDonalds customer spits at 1 employee, shoots another during pick-up window argument: Police

Heartbreaking video shows the moment an Indian elephant bids farewell to his beloved master who died of cancer

Asians in U.S. share reasons they're now looking at opportunities abroad

Candytopia, The Candy-Themed Funhouse, Is Back And Feels Like A Real Life Willy Wonka Factory

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s War With the Royals Hits Fever Pitch Over Lilibet

At least 12 people injured in overnight shooting in Texas