You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ category.

Then and Now:  Evacuating Vietnamese (1975), Evacuating Afghans (2021)

By Shlomo Maital

A Huey Helicopter

   At the end of April 1975,  the US evacuated its Saigon embassy, as North Vietnamese forces rapidly approached.  Thousands of Vietnamese also sought to leave, to reach safety, and besieged the Embassy.  US Marines and the US Navy went into action.  The US Navy aircraft carrier Midway was positioned offshore, in the South China Sea.  Its fighter aircraft had been replaced with Chinook and Huey helicopters. Helicopters flew to the roof of the Saigon embassy, filled their cabins with evacuees, and deposited their precious cargo on the deck of the Midway.   They flew in daylight and through the night.  

    An eyewitness account of this mission was reported today on the BBC World Service by a navy officer and a Marine who both took active parts.  The Navy officer reported that on the Midway, helicopters that landed on the deck took up space that other helicopters needed to land.  He made a decision – push some of the inactive helicopters into the sea, to make room.  (Each Huey or Chinook could take up to  50 people, for the short journey.)   People’s lives are worth more than helicopters, he said.

     Marine soldiers on the ground defied State Department orders to process and transport only Americans  — and loaded Vietnamese as well into helicopters.   When the last helicopter took off, there were still Vietnamese awaiting rescue – 420 of them.  We felt bad, the Marine said, we felt terrible – but it had to end then. 

     Fast forward.   The United States opened its doors.  Large-scale immigration from Vietnam to the United States was facilitated, and in total the U.S.-sponsored evacuation brought an estimated 125,000 Vietnamese refugees to American shores.  Among other immigrant groups, they have been ambitious, creative hard-working citizens. 

     I’ve been to Vietnam.  I have good friends there and have had Vietnamese students who studied abroad.  These are resilient hard-working people, who have created high value for their adopted country and of course, for their own. 

      I have not visited Afghanistan, and do not know Afghans personally.  But I have no doubt, that if America opened its doors to those Afghans who wanted to emigrate, and used its vast military and civilian resources to bring all those who wish to leave, to safety —  and if it gave the US military an order,  do what it takes to bring all those who wish to leave out to safety, beyond August 31 —   the US would gain a valuable tranche of human capital,  and there would be no more concern about America’s declining birth rate.     

        My evidence?  My own mother and father, and grandparents,  immigrants to Canada.  Immigrants bring hope, aspiration, gratitude, resilience and love of adopted country. And second-generation immigrants (me) — the same or more so. Why is that so hard for Americans to understand?

     United States,  Saigon 1975.

     United States, Kabul 2021.

     What in the world has happened to America? 

How the Embryo Protects Its Mother –

Another Miracle of the Human Body

By Shlomo Maital     

   A small item in today’s Hebrew newspaper, Haaretz, caught my eye.  It is about another miracle of the human body — 

   Jordan McCarthy moved from Boston to Israel some months ago, to do graduate studies in biology at my university, Technion.  He is working with Dr. Yaron Fuchs.  (The tuition is more affordable than in the US, he reports).   Here is what Jordan recounts.

    “I’m researching stem cells during pregnancy.  We discovered that women who had a  heart attack when they were pregnant had a small advantage in recovery, and we wanted to understand why. It turns out that when a pregnant woman is injured, the embryo will send stem cells to the injured part of her body, which expedites the recovery. [Stem cells are human cells that are capable of becoming any type of specialized cell – muscle, heart, bone, brain, etc.]. 

    How did they discover this?

    “That was discovered, because a woman usually has two X (female) chromosomes, but if she is pregnant with a male, both an X chromosome and a Y (male) chromosome will be found [in cells]  in the injured area.  It’s insane!  I’m astounded that we discovered that.  We don’t know how they move to the injured part and we don’t know what brings them there, but we know that they’re there.”

    Jordan explains why stem cells are an exciting frontier in biological research.

     “Each of us has billions of stem cells right now. They’re in the skin, liver, brain.  It is a mistaken conception that stem cells are only in the embryo”. 

      The human body is truly miraculous – even though we humans mistreat it, often, in what we eat and drink and do (or don’t do).  And apparently, it can heal itself, if we just help it along a bit….. or at least, do no harm. 

The Collapse of the American Family & The Rise of Trumpism: They ARE Connected!

By Shlomo Maital

   From Wikipedia:   “Trumpism is a term for the political ideologies, social emotions, style of governance,[9] political movement and set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping power that are associated with Donald Trump and his political base.  …Some commentators have rejected the populist designation for Trumpism and instead view it as part of a trend towards a new form of fascism, with some referring to it as explicitly fascist and others as authoritarian and illiberal.   Others have more mildly identified it as akin to fascism.

 For a very long time now, I’ve been trying to understand how 74 million people (!) voted for Trump, this evil ignorant self-seeking kleptocrat.  Finally, New York Times columnist David Brooks arrives with some help.

   Brooks notes, in his July 29 column, “what’s ripping American families apart?”,  that at least 27 per cent of Americans are estranged from a member of their own family, and about 40 per cent of Americans (two in five) have experienced estrangement at some point.  Most commonly – estrangement between adult children and one or both parents, usually initiated by the child.  Brooks quotes one woman as saying “I did not get the mother I deserve!”

   Why?  Joshua Coleman, a psychologist, explains that in our individualistic culture, “it’s all about me!”, family has become a launchpad for personal fulfillment, where once it was a bond of mutual duty and obligation.

    It must be quite terrible to lose the love and support of a family.  It leaves a vacuum, a large empty ache.  And hence – enter politics.  Joining a tribe of Trumpers can replace a ravaged family.  And it has nothing to do with the behavior or views of the terrible individual at the center of it.  It is about the other Trumpers, who become a united family, join rallies, join social media, buy in to conspiracies, reject masks and vaccines.  THEY become family, in lieu of genetic ones. 

  And here is the basic problem.  Trumpism will not go away.  The disastrous failure of Trump to manage his country is irrelevant.  As long as Trumpers have their ‘family’,  it is here to stay.  Brooks quotes a Franciscan friar, who said, “if we do not transform our pain, we will most assuredly transmit it.”   Trump supporters have pain.  White people see their supremacy fading.  Poorly educated see their jobs taken by immigrants.  Religious Christians see their faith threatened by ‘separation of church and state’.  They have pain.  And indeed, they will assuredly transmit that pain, (stop the steal!), and will continue to do so,  when the pain cannot be transformed.

  When political affiliation replaces (to some degree) family affiliation,  emotion dominates.  And when emotion dominates, policies, achievements, competence, all become irrelevant.  It’s all about our ‘tribe’.  This is a massive threat to American democracy, and to democracy elsewhere (because Trumpism is being replicated in Brazil, Hungary, and elsewhere).   

Is Bhutan Smarter Than America?

By Shlomo Maital

    Bhutan is a small (fewer than 1 million inhabitants), relatively poor ($3,000 per capita GDP)  mountainous Buddhist nation nestled in the Himalayas.  It is famous for its use of GDH  Gross Domestic Happiness, in place of Gross Domestic Product.

     Bhutan has now vaccinated 90% of its population.  In doing so, it becomes the nation with the highest percentage of its population vaccinated.  This, despite the immense difficulty in reaching tiny outlying communities.

    Howe did they do it?  According to press reports:  More than 2,400 health workers fanned out from July 20 to July 26 to administer second doses, said a release Tuesday from the U.N. Children’s Fund.    “The Royal Government of Bhutan made exhaustive efforts to reach all target groups,” according to UNICEF. “Health workers organized vaccinations at community centers but also conducted home-visits to vaccinate the elderly and people with disabilities and trekked to higher altitudes to reach the nomadic herders.” 

     In contrast, only half of the US population has been vaccinated – and that % is basically stable, stuck.  Cases are rising, as the Delta variant sweeps through mainly southern states – Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi.    

     The US is a very wealthy country.  Its GDP per capita is 20 times that of Bhutan.  You do not have to climb mountains, to reach nomadic herders.   Yet – despite President Biden’s efforts, vaccinating the remaining anti-vaxers is stagnant.

      OK – it is easier to vaccinate a small country, with fewer people than, say, Greataer Peoria, ILL.   But why is it that the people of Bhutan, with far less education, relatively, than the people of the US, have rapidly and gladly embraced vaccination?  And hence saved lives?

      The US CDC, in a leaked document, has stated that the Delta variant is as transmissible as chickenpox (the MOST virulent virus), and that it is basically a game-changer.  Yet there is no sign that those who refuse to be vaccinated are changing their minds.  Moreover, again wearing a mask has become political – even though it is proven that those who ARE vaccinated, can also spread the virus to others, not just the unvaccinated.

       Bhutan 1,  America zero.  It’s a shame.   

How NOT to Choke!

By Shlomo Maital

    Like many kids, I had dreams of being an athlete.  I used to rise early and spend hours on the tennis court practicing serves.  But I never got to even ‘mediocre’.  And I know why. I choked.  “Choke” is performing way below your ability, because of self-doubt, tension, stress, worry, distraction…. And we see it on TV every day.  I choked, because as a son of immigrant parents, I was driven by high aspiration – and that meant constant worry over failing, losing, not performing well.  And that led to ‘choke’.    

    If only I could have read Sian Beilock’s new book 65 years ago.  Beilock is a cognitive psychologist,  President of Barnard College, and recently was interviewed by Shankar Vedantem  on the Hidden Brain podcast.  The ‘choke’ topic also was featured in Stepen Dubner’s Freakonomics Radio podcast.   And behavioral economist Uri Gneezy has done pathbreaking research on ‘choking’ in India. […’ the findings were striking.  You see reduction in success rates across the board. All six games that we played (in India) results in lower success rates [ often, a whole LOT lower!]  when the incentives were really high.’].

    Beilock explains that we have “working memory”,  memory, for instance, that NFL quarterbacks use to place a forward pass precisely where the receiver will be, with outstretched arms…    Having done this so many times in practice, the brain and muscles remember how – and if Tom Brady thought about it, he would probably underthrow or overthrow by a wide margin…and anyway there is no time to think about it, you have maybe 3-4 seconds to fire.   We ‘choke’ when we interfere with working memory, and overthink it.  I have done this so many times….

    There is also procedural memory.  Driving is a procedure.  We do it pretty much automatically – because we do it so often, so much.  But what if we are also driving and talking on our cell phones?  Some of that procedural memory of our brains is being taken up by ‘cell phone memory’ or cell phone cognition —   and the distraction that results has cost many lives all over the world. 

      Math anxiety is a great example.  Beilock explains very simply:  people (especially young girls and young women) do poorly in math —   they are anxious about math NOT because they are poor in math   — they are poor in math BECAUSE they are anxious.  Reduce the anxiety, with a variety of tricks – and you improve greatly.  

      High achieving people may tense up before a performance test.  If only I had known this key principle:  Hey, relax!    Think about something else.  Beilock listens to a favorite song, in her head, by The Eagles, before a big presentation.  Let your body do its thing… you’ve practiced, you’ve worked hard —  just let it roll.  I used to have trouble catching a ball – because my hands would tense up, before it arrived, because I was afraid I would drop it.  Solution:  SOFT HANDS!  Relax.  Let your brain do its thing.  HARD HANDS drop the ball.  SOFT hands envelop it.  

      Beilock’s book got some critical reviews.  But one review stands out – on Amazon.  An airline pilot, who is tested in simulators every six months, with impending-crash situations, high stress, high anxiety, and his future depends on performing well.   Before reading the book, he talks about the ‘fog’ in his brain – his brain is worrying about other things, rather than the task at hand.  Now, with the tips in the book, he says he “can continue to develop my brain to ensure a free and focused thinking and reasoning when presented with complex failures.”   

Big IS Bad!  

By Shlomo Maital   

An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook’s Battle for Domination.  By Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang. 2012.

     One of the principles of anti-trust legislation (“trust” from Trustees, the original Standard Oil Trust monopoly set up by John D. Rockefeller) is that big is not necessarily bad.  Just because a business is really ‘big’,  it does not mean it is predatory, nefarious, and monopolistic.  You have to prove it does harm, not just that it is big. 

      I think this is proven wrong.  Big is bad.  Why?  Because there is something about big that drives businesses to become bigger, and to use its power to destroy competition.  It seems inevitable.  Even the ‘good guys’ fall prey. I have taught in a dozen business schools all over the world — my MBA students were bright young people, good people — and yet I know, when they are thrown in with sharks they become like them.

      Take Mark Zuckerberg.  Nice Jewish boy from a good home, Harvard grad….   And now, President Biden says Facebook is killing people (with false anti-vax propaganda).  And it is indeed.  Why?  Because to grow big, Facebook uses algorithms that drive ‘emotion’, to make its pages and groups ‘sticky’ and ‘attractive’ – and emotion drives this, not facts,  and emotion feeds on those, who often seek conspiratorial or nefarious posts by others. 

Read Sheera Frenkel’s and Cordelia Kang’s new investigative book, if you are still doubtful. “….sealed off in tight circles of advisers and hobbled by their own ambition and hubris, Zuckerberg has stood by as their technology is coopted by hate-mongers, criminals and corrupt political regimes across the globe, with devastating consequences. In An Ugly Truth, they are at last held accountable.]

     Google?  Now being sued by the US Justice Dept.  It started with “do no evil” on its masthead – and removed it in May 2018.  Why? Because it is doing a lot of evil, for sure – like Facebook, swallowing smaller competitors, and collecting vast amounts of our personal data, for use by advertisers. 

    Amazon?  Apple?   And so on….

    So yes, big is bad – because when you become big, you want to stay big – and to stay big, you have to do things that destroy your competition, because often your competition is faster, more agile, more creative, and has disruptive technology – so you buy it, and as Exxon often did,  put it unused on the shelf. 

     And Exxon, by the way —   stonewalling efforts to move it toward renewable energy, helping to ruin our planet by continuing to push fossil fuels…  and a few other Big Oil firms with it.

     Maybe we need to rethink anti-trust legislation. Maybe big is indeed bad.  Maybe there is a reason why ‘do no evil’ got scrubbed from Google’s website.   Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos —  they are not evil.  But the context of capitalist business leads them to do actions that in the end are definitely evil.

      Let’s help them out by not letting businesses become killer whales.

How to Change the World – And Lift 6 Million Children Out of Poverty

By Shlomo Maital  

Representative Rosa DeLauro

   How do you change the world?  Specifically – how do you lift 6 million children out of poverty, in the US  (out of 12 million poor kids?   

   With money, of course.  Under the American Rescue Plan, passed by Congress in March, the child tax credit will give parents with two kids $600/month for six months, then they’ll get a $3,600 refund when they file taxes next year. 

The federal child tax credit (CTC) is a partially refundable credit that allows low- and moderate-income families to reduce their tax liability dollar-for-dollar by up to $2,000 for each qualifying child.      

How did this happen?

First – it could not happen under Trump. The Trump tax cut of 2017 cost an estimated $2.3 trillion (over 10 years) and redistributed income from middle-income to top-income.

 Second:  it happened because of Rosa DeLauro – whom I had never heard of until lately.[1]

  Rosa’s mother was a garment worker, who worked hard in a sweatshop.  Her father sold insurance.  They were very poor. One day she came home from school, age 10,  and found “all our furniture out on the street”.   But DeLauro studied hard,  went to the London School of Economics, and entered politics.  She won a House of Representatives seat in Connecticut (New Haven district, a district with many poor children).  She began promoting the CTC Child Tax Credit in 2003.  But George Bush was President, and the Republicans controlled the House.  Nonetheless, she got the CTC on the agenda, and for years in the political wilderness kept pushing the idea.  She did not meet real opposition – who can oppose lifting kids out of hunger and poverty? —  but worse than that, indifference.  Republicans didn’t care. Poor kids? They’re not our voters. 

    After Biden became the Democratic candidate for the 2020 election, she enlisted Chris Dodd, former long-time powerful Connecticut Senator.  She built a team of legislators – Cory Booker (NJ), and Michael Bennet and Sherrod Brown (Senators); and Suzan DelBene and Ritchie Torres, in the House. 

    The CTC expansion was not in the original American Rescue Plan bill.  But DeLauro called Jared Bernstein (Biden economic advisor), Ron Klain (his eventual Chief of Staff), and others.  “The moment is now!” she said.  And very soon after that call – her CTC plan was “in” – in the Bill!

    But there is one another person involved.  Again, you’ve never heard of her.  Sophie Collyer is a Research Director at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University.   Her research focuses on anti-poverty policies at the national and local levels, with a particular interest in child allowances, federal and local minimum wage policy, and housing policy.  Her current work looks at the impacts of reforms to the Child Tax Credit.

    Rep. DeLauro credits Sophie with supplying the artight, irrefutable scientific evidence that the CTC would indeed help poor families, and lift millions of kids out of poverty.  Policy is, despite QAnon, Trump, Fake News, FoxNews, and Mitch McConnell,  still partly driven by evidence-based legislation.  And DeLauro had the evidence.  Thanks to Sophie. 

    So —  how to change the world?  Dogged persistence.  Study (LSE is a great school).  Politics.  Persistence.  Life experience (DeLauro knew poverty firsthand, and when she spoke about child poverty, she spoke first-hand, when she was 10).   And data/evidence.

  But the story is only half complete. The CTC provision expires at the end of this year.  There is an intention to make it permanent – or at least, extend it for five years.  The Democrats can do it, with their slim 50-50 plus VP Harris tie-breaker in the Senate. (Spending bills are not subject to the Republican filibuster).   

   Why in the world should a provision that feeds hungry kids be controversial?  Why should 50 Republicans vote against it, against feeding and clothing kids? 

    Ask the arch-autocrat, Trump.  And friends, he will run again in 2024.  Rosie DeLauro?  Or The Donald?      

[1]  See Michael Tomasky,  “This is an important week:  Thank Rosa DeLauro”.  New Republic,   July 12, 2021.

“Pancho” Speaks – Without Speaking

By Shlomo Maital     

New York Times

   From The New York Times, July 14:  by Pam Belluck:   

   “He has not been able to speak since 2003, when he was paralyzed at age 20 by a severe stroke after a terrible car crash.  Now, in a scientific milestone, researchers have tapped into the speech areas of his brain — allowing him to produce comprehensible words and sentences simply by trying to say them. When the man, known by his nickname, Pancho, tries to speak, electrodes implanted in his brain transmit signals to a computer that displays his intended words on the screen.    His first recognizable sentence, researchers said, was, “My family is outside.”

   “The achievement, published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, could eventually help many patients with conditions that steal their ability to talk.  “This is farther than we’ve ever imagined we could go,” said Melanie Fried-Oken, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University, who was not involved in the project.

    “Three years ago, when Pancho, now 38, agreed to work with neuroscience researchers, they were unsure if his brain had even retained the mechanisms for speech.   “That part of his brain might have been dormant, and we just didn’t know if it would ever really wake up in order for him to speak again,” said Dr. Edward Chang, chairman of neurological surgery at University of California, San Francisco, who led the research.

      “The team implanted a rectangular sheet of 128 electrodes, designed to detect signals from speech-related sensory and motor processes linked to the mouth, lips, jaw, tongue and larynx. In 50 sessions over 81 weeks, they connected the implant to a computer by a cable attached to a port in Pancho’s head, and asked him to try to say words from a list of 50 common ones he helped suggest, including “hungry,” “music” and “computer.”    As he did, electrodes transmitted signals through a form of artificial intelligence that tried to recognize the intended words.”

. . . . . .

   There are perhaps 100,000 people in the US alone who suffer long-term disability related to traumatic brain injury, including inability to speak.  Perhaps one day, this amazing breakthrough will restore their ability to communicate. 

   Special congratulations to the creativity and audacity of Dr. Edward Chang, who led the research. 

The Little Engine that Could!

By Shlomo Maital    

   Remember the wonderful children’s book, by Watty Piper, about the little engine that could – I think I can, I think I can, I think I can…I KNEW I could!  (In pulling a heavy load up a steep hill)?

    The real-life version just happened.

     According to Matt Phillips, writing in the New York Times:  “Exxon’s Board Defeat Signals the Rise of Social-Good Activists.   The energy giant’s stunning loss was the work of a tiny hedge fund that believes investing for social good is also good for the bottom line.   An activist investor got three directors elected to the company’s 12-member board.   Wall Street has seen its share of strange bedfellows, but a recent alliance of investors that took on Exxon Mobil was unprecedented.  Last week [mid-June], an activist investor successfully waged a battle to install three directors on the board of Exxon with the goal of pushing the energy giant to reduce its carbon footprint. The investor, a hedge fund called Engine No. 1, was virtually unknown before the fight.   The tiny firm wouldn’t have had a chance were it not for an unusual twist: the support of some of Exxon’s biggest institutional investors. BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street voted against Exxon’s leadership and gave Engine No. 1 powerful support. These huge investment companies rarely side with activists on such issues.  The stunning result turned the sleepy world of boardroom elections into front-page news as climate activists declared a major triumph, and a blindsided Exxon was left to ponder its defeat.”

    Exxon-Mobil has been doing everything possible to maintain the hegemony of Big Oil and fossil fuels, while the world sizzles and parts of the Western US burn. And its Board of Directors has been culpable.   Now, three of the 12 board members will be present to put up a fight.   All, thanks to the quixotic efforts of the little Engine No. 1 that thought it could – and it did!   

     Others will follow.  This is the path to real climate crisis policy change.  Get people on the Board of Directors, and even as minorities, let them put up a real fight against corporate stonewalling. 

      Say, are there any other little Engines out there, who want to take on Shell?  Chevron?   BP?    

What Is Driving the Inflation?

By Shlomo Maital   


  Just hours ago, the US Labor Department released June inflation figures.  Consumer prices rose by 5.4% in June (annual, over June 2020), the biggest monthly rise in prices since August 2008.   Used car and truck prices comprised about one-third of the total Consumer Price Index rise.  In other words, without the ‘used car’ effect, the CPI would have risen by 3.6%.   Without food and energy (core inflation),  the CPI would have risen by 4.5% (highest since Sept. 1991).  

   Consumers think inflation will continue to be around 5% for the coming year.  Economists mainly disagree.  And they are wrong.

    How should we react to this?

    The main driving force of rising prices is suppy-side.  Chip shortages and the pandemic cut vehicle production.  So people buy used cars.  That’s supply-side.   Reluctance to rejoin the labor force causes wages to rise – that is supply-side.  Nearly all the proximate causes of the inflation are on the cost and supply side (Supply curves are cost curves, economists explain).

    We had supply-side inflation in 1973/4  and in 1979/80.  It was driven by higher oil prices.  It led to ‘stagflation’ – higher prices, and stagnating economies.  Inflation plus recession.  It will not have this impact this time.  Because —  demand is also recovering and in some cases, booming, as people play ‘catch up’ with their consumption.  So contracting supply curves and expanding demand curves both generate higher prices. 

      There is a real danger in all of this.  We know how to manipulate demand – taxes, interest rates, govt. spending.  We do NOT know the first thing about how to influence suppy curves, which in the end are driven by productivity.   If you try to treat supply-side inflation with demand-curve tools, you get recession or slower growth.    

       There is growing pressure on central banks to tighten their interest rate policy, to battle inflation.  This will choke demand and slow the recovery.  Big mistake. 

        Let’s learn from history.  In the US,  the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis was very slow, because the Obama Administration buckled under Republican pressure and shut down expansionary spending far too soon.  Biden, as Vice-President at the time, was part of this policy.  He studies history.  He knows that was a mistake.  And I believe, he will not repeat it.  The Biden Administration has administered massive, but responsible, stimulus to the US economy and it is working.  He needs to continue this policy, and not be deterred by the inflation hawks.

     There is another risk.  Inflation psychosis.  As people see prices rising, they rush to buy stuff, and this adds fuel to the fire.  I don’t think this is likely.  Over the coming year, supply chains will be re-established, ports and shipping will become much smoother, the Trump-era tariffs will start to come down (they already have), and gradually, the supply-side inflation will abate, while the demand-side expansion will continue apace, as it should. 

     In 1981, under President Reagan,  a massive tax cut (two of them, actually) was motivated on supply-side grounds – pamper the rich, they will invest the money they get to keep, supply curves will expand.  It didn’t happen.  They spent the tax cut. And that fueled a demand-side Keynesian expansion that lasted for a decade and got Reagan re-elected in 1984 in a landslide. 

      Let’s face it.  Demand curves are docile, subject to policy.  Supply curves?  They are like wild mustangs.   Keep demand growing, let the global economy boom (as it is),  let China pull Asia with its 8.4% GDP growth, and let the IMF be right with its global GDP growth forecast of 6%.    

Blog entries written by Prof. Shlomo Maital

Shlomo Maital