crystal liu

The 1940s Debt-To-GDP Playbook
0:00
Between 1942 and 1951, the United States
0:03
ran a playbook that took debt from 120%
0:06
of GDP down to only 35%. But the thing
0:09
is, they didn't pay the debt back. They
0:11
inflated away. They're running the same
0:14
playbook again right now. Now, if you
0:16
were using the most popular investing
0:18
strategy that your maybe financial
0:19
adviser pushes today, you would have
0:21
gotten completely destroyed. And it's
0:23
not because you picked bad stocks
0:25
because the strategy itself was designed
0:28
to lose under those conditions. But the
0:30
thing is that now most people who figure
0:32
this out, they know they need, you know,
0:34
outsiz returns to beat it. So they start
0:36
day trading. They start, you know,
0:38
complex option strategies. They're
0:40
chasing crypto. They're chasing meme
0:41
stocks. And most of them blow themselves
0:44
up. But there's a strategy the top 1%
0:46
use to take on far less risk with much
0:49
better performance. It's got nothing to
0:51
do with picking the right stock. So, in
0:53
this video, I'm going to break down the
0:55
exact mechanism they used in the 1940s,
0:58
why it's being run again right now, and
1:00
the strategy that puts you on the right
1:02
side of all of this. So, let's go. All
Financial Repression: How Governments Erase Debt
1:05
right. So, let me show you where all
1:06
this comes from. Now, the International
1:09
Monetary Fund, they published a paper in
1:11
2011 titled the liquidation of
1:14
government debt. Now, this isn't some
1:16
conspiracy, right? This is not a blog or
1:18
fringe theory. The IMF, they documented
1:21
this. The BIS also put this white paper
1:23
out. And the IMF documented exactly how
1:26
governments erase debt through what they
1:28
call financial repression. And they put
1:31
numbers on it. Now, the numbers that are
1:33
pretty brutal. Now, post World War II,
1:36
the United States had debt of 120% of
1:38
GDP, and they couldn't pay it back, at
1:41
least, not honestly, right? Because the
1:43
numbers didn't work. So, they ran the
1:45
playbook. In 1942, the Federal Reserve
1:47
pegged Treasury bills at 38ighs of 1%
1:50
and long-term bonds at 2.5%.
1:54
That's called yield curve control. Now,
1:56
they did that to maintain the peg. The
1:57
Fed had to buy unlimited quantities of
2:00
government securities. The Treasury
2:01
issued the debt and the Fed absorbed it.
2:04
But here's what happened on the other
2:05
side of that. You see, inflation ran
2:07
hot. Inflation ran 8%, 14%, even as high
2:10
as 18%. So, your bond paid 2.5%, your
2:15
savings account paid maybe 1%. But if
2:18
inflation is running 14% and your return
2:20
is 1%, that means you're losing 13% per
2:24
year. That was the policy, right? That's
2:27
not volatility. That's what they meant
2:28
to do. But it was that gap between what
2:31
you earned and what inflation cost you
2:33
transferred silently from the savers to
2:35
the government. Now, of course, nobody
2:37
announced this. Nobody voted on this to
2:39
happen, but it did happen year after
2:42
year after year. Now, the IMF calculated
2:45
that between 1945 and 1980, the United
2:48
States liquidated debt at a rate of 3 to
2:51
4% of GDP per year through these
2:54
negative real rates alone. That's how
2:56
the debt went from 120% of GDP down to
2:59
35% over just three decades. Again, not
3:02
because they paid it off, because they
3:04
inflated it away. Now, the US held the
3:06
peg from 1942 to 1951. It was about 9
3:09
years. And by February of 1951,
3:12
inflation was raging. Inflation hit 21%
3:15
annualized. And of course, that caused
3:17
the Fed to finally break. So, they had
3:20
to restructure and they reached what's
3:22
called the Treasury Fed Accord. Now, the
3:25
Fed regained independence. Uh rates were
3:27
allowed to finally start moving again.
3:30
But by then, the job was already done.
3:32
Financial repression works by keeping
3:34
interest rates lower than inflation.
3:37
Now, when that happens, the real value
3:39
of debt shrinks, which is great, right?
3:41
But it's a transfer. It's a tax. It's a
3:43
tax that nobody voted for that nobody
3:46
calls it even a tax. Now, let's uh fast
Four Ways To Reduce National Debt
3:48
forward to today cuz what does that have
3:49
to do with today? Well, today in the US,
3:52
the debt is now 123% of GDP. About the
3:55
same same starting point as 1945. But
3:58
now, what are we going to do? Well,
4:00
there's only four ways that a government
4:02
can reduce debt to GDP. The first one is
4:05
they could run a surplus, right? So,
4:07
they could uh grow their way out of it.
4:08
They could make more money than they
4:11
spend, but that's not happening. We're
4:12
running trillion dollar plus deficits
4:14
every single year. So, that's not
4:16
happening. Number two, well, you could
4:18
just default, right? Just say you're not
4:20
going to pay back the money. But, of
4:21
course, that's off the table. A US
4:23
default collapses the entire global
4:25
financial system. And of course, we have
4:27
a money printer. So, why would we? Well,
4:29
there's a third option, and that's grow
4:31
faster than the debt. And so maybe GDP
4:34
could just grow naturally faster than
4:35
the debt's going up. That might be good.
4:37
Maybe AI could accelerate this. Maybe we
4:39
might see more productivity, but it's
4:41
uncertain and it's slow. Finally, the
4:44
fourth option, the one they all choose,
4:46
is inflate the debt away. That's the
4:48
only realistic option that's left. Now,
4:50
look at what's happening here, right?
4:52
The Fed is again right now cutting
4:53
rates. Real inflation, food, healthcare,
4:56
housing, it's all running hot, right?
4:58
It's about 50% above what the official
5:00
numbers wanted to be. And every
5:02
structural advantage that the US had in
5:04
the 1940s, um, younger populations,
5:07
industrial dominance, you know, 15 to
5:09
20% saving rate, it's all gone. Now,
5:12
today, the savings rate in the US is
5:14
about 3 to 4%. So, there's no there's no
5:16
cushion there. Now, the 1940s version of
5:19
this playbook, it was improvised, right?
5:21
They were figuring it all out as they
5:23
went along back then. But today's
5:24
version, it's deliberate. It's fixed. is
5:27
optimized. They've had 80 years of data
5:30
proving it works and now we can see this
5:32
is exactly shaping up. We can see the
5:34
new Fed chair nominee Kevin Worsh. He's
5:36
been nominated and he's publicly calling
5:39
for a new Fed Treasury accord. Same
5:42
thing. Now again in 1951 that accord
5:45
ended yield curve control. Now why would
5:47
he be talking about that unless the same
5:49
structure is already being considered?
5:51
Well, that's the same playbook being
5:54
dusted off. And the vehicle this time,
5:56
it's your retirement account. It's your
5:58
brokerage. It's your bond holdings. It's
6:00
anything denominated in dollars that's
6:02
supposed to be safe. Okay. So, now most
The Failure Of Popular Investing Strategies
6:04
people hear what I just explained and
6:06
they do one of a couple things. Uh the
6:08
first group, they're probably not even
6:10
paying attention. They don't they don't
6:11
even know. So they just continue to do
6:13
what their financial adviser tells them
6:14
to do, maybe what their plan
6:16
administrator does, and that's most
6:18
commonly something either called a 6040
6:21
portfolio. So that's uh 60% stocks, 40%
6:24
bonds, or maybe it's something more like
6:26
Ray Dallio's all-weather portfolio. The
6:28
thing is for both of those is they have
6:30
significant bond exposure. And as I just
6:32
explained that this the way this
6:34
playbook works is by crushing bond
6:36
holders, liquidating them. So the
6:38
portion of your portfolio that's
6:39
supposed to be safe, the bond part, it's
6:42
not protecting you. That's the part
6:43
that's being liquidated intentionally.
6:46
So whether you're on a basic 60/40, you
6:48
know, or you're spread across 17
6:50
different asset classes that you
6:51
probably don't understand, your safe
6:53
money is funding that liquidation, the
6:55
deleveraging. So while it looks
6:57
responsible, you're thin everywhere and
6:59
you're deep nowhere. All right. Now
7:01
there's a third group. Now they're
7:03
probably watching these videos. Maybe
7:04
you're watching Lyn Alden or Luke
7:06
Groman, right? and they figured out a
7:08
system. They they know it's rigged,
7:09
right? They understand what I'm talking
7:11
about. They understand that they're
7:12
going to need huge returns to offset
7:14
this massive liquidation of debt. And so
7:16
those people, they start chasing trends.
7:18
They buy pumps. They, you know, start
7:20
day trading. They're doing some complex
7:22
option strategies. They're looking for
7:24
meme stocks, right? Small crypto coins
7:26
that can pump. Whatever they could do to
7:28
try to outperform this inflation. But
7:31
they're swinging for the fences with no
7:33
structural edge here, right? Most of
7:35
them give back everything, right? They
7:36
make some maybe and then some they give
7:39
it back. All right. And then there's a
7:40
fourth group that actually gets it at
7:42
least partially right. So they go buy
7:44
the assets, right? They hope those
7:45
assets are going to outperform inflation
7:47
on their own. So let's take a look at
7:49
what this looks like. So let's say here,
7:51
if you look at my screen, you can see,
7:52
you know, I have, I don't know, $100,000
7:54
to invest. And so what I'm going to do
7:56
is I'll say, well, I guess I'm going to
7:58
buy some real estate here. So I'll buy a
7:59
$500,000 home here. Uh maybe I'm going
8:02
to buy some Bitcoin here. and then I'll
8:04
buy some NASDAQ stocks right here. So
8:07
now I have three different assets. I
8:09
split this money up and I have three
8:11
assets that are giving me a blended
8:14
return. Okay, but the thing is here is
8:16
that every dollar they invest is doing
8:18
one job. So you have $1 in Bitcoin and
8:21
that's in Bitcoin and that's great. You
8:22
have $1 in real estate and it's in real
8:24
estate and that's fine. But as you can
8:26
see this is all horizontal investing. So
8:28
it works but you're limited by how many
8:31
dollars you have. Now, if you're trying
8:33
to outrun a government printing press,
8:34
but you have a fixed stack of dollars
8:36
with each dollar doing only one thing,
8:38
then the math isn't going to work long
8:40
term. So, the question is, what do the
Horizontal vs. Vertical Asset Stacking
8:42
top 1% do differently? Well, they don't
8:45
diversify wider. They stack deeper.
8:48
Instead of spreading across 17 things
8:50
like Ray Dalio may recommend, they only
8:53
pick two or three assets, two or three
8:55
that they understand. And they get each
8:57
dollar doing multiple jobs. You see, $1
9:00
buys real estate. the equity in that
9:02
real estate. You could buy Bitcoin. The
9:03
Bitcoin could collateralize into more
9:05
assets. And that is not horizontal.
9:08
That's vertical. And that's the
9:10
difference in outcome over 10 or 20
9:12
years. It's not incremental. It's
9:14
exponential. Let me show you the math.
9:16
Now, if you're already thinking like,
9:17
hey, I want to actually do this. Well, I
9:19
am hosting a free live presentation
9:21
where I'm going to break down the entire
9:23
system, how we stack assets. We'll do it
9:25
all together. We'll do it step by step.
9:26
There's a link in the description down
9:28
below. We'll put a QR code on the screen
9:29
right here. and uh just go register now.
9:32
I'll wait. Okay, for everyone that's
9:33
still here, let me show you how the math
9:35
works. Let's just jump in right here.
9:37
I'll break all this down for you. Okay,
9:39
so most people invest horizontally, as I
9:42
said. So, they put $1 and they split it
9:45
among a bunch of different assets like
9:47
this, all horizontally. But what we want
9:50
to do is we want to learn how to invest
9:52
it vertically so we can get each dollar
9:55
doing multiple work. So, let's say that
9:57
we'll continue to use those same assets,
9:59
real estate. So, over here, we're going
10:01
to have
10:03
real estate, and let's call that a
10:04
million dollars of real estate, and it's
10:06
growing at 5%. All right, let's call it
10:08
5%. That's about the national average.
10:11
Um, then we might have another asset
10:12
like Bitcoin. Now, uh, currently it's
10:15
not doing so well, but historically over
10:17
the last two years it's averaging about
10:18
50%. Over the last 3 to 5 years, it's
10:20
like 75%, but let's just call it 25%.
10:24
Okay, over here we have, let's say,
10:26
stocks. So, we have like the NASDAQ, the
10:27
tech stocks, and they're doing about 15
10:30
to 17% right now. Let's just call it
10:32
12%. So, instead of putting um if I had
10:35
$10, putting, you know, $3 to $4 here,
10:38
putting$1 to $2 here, and putting the
10:40
rest here, we could do that, but again,
10:42
that's horizontal. What the top 1% have
10:45
done is they figured out how to make the
10:47
same dollar work through all three of
10:50
them simultaneously. So, let me show you
10:52
what that looks like. Okay. So, let's do
10:53
the tail of two different investors
10:55
here. Each one with the starting point.
10:57
So, let's say that we have two investors
10:59
and each one has a $1 million home.
11:04
Now, both of them have about $300,000 in
11:07
equity on a $1 million home. Now, here's
A Math Breakdown Of Vertical Investing
11:10
the thing. Since they each have a home
11:12
that's worth 1 million and they each
11:14
have about 300,000 in equity, if neither
11:16
one does anything different, then they
11:18
end up in about the same place. So let's
11:20
say over here we have investor A and
11:22
they decide to just let this play out
11:24
over a long period of time. They do
11:25
nothing. But investor B realizes that
11:27
hey this is a big problem. They
11:29
understand that financial repression is
11:30
real and they understand that a money
11:32
printer is trying to take away their
11:33
wealth and they don't want that to
11:35
happen. And so what they want to do is
11:37
they want to activate this 300,000 right
11:39
here. What they understand is that these
11:41
homes are going to go up by 5% a year
11:44
each of them regardless if this 300,000
11:48
sits there or not. So whether this
11:50
300,000 is there or I take it out, the
11:52
home is still going up $1 million times
11:55
5%. Okay. So what we want to do right
11:56
now is we want investor B, they decide
11:59
they want to activate this 300,000. But
12:02
again, they want the same dollar doing
12:04
multiple jobs. So what we can do more in
12:05
a layered approach, a vertical approach,
12:08
is we could take this 300,000. I don't
12:10
have a lot of room here. Uh but we have
12:11
300,000 and we can now move that into
12:13
another asset. Let's call that Bitcoin,
12:15
my favorite. Over the last two years,
12:17
it's been averaging about 50% per year.
12:19
The last year, it's down. Uh over three
12:21
years, over five years, it's about 75%,
12:23
but let's just call it 20% just to be
12:25
safe. So, I can put the 300,000 in
12:27
Bitcoin. And now I have the $300,000
12:29
still in the home, but it's also growing
12:32
in Bitcoin at the same time. Two jobs at
12:34
the same time. Now, I could borrow some
12:36
of the money out of Bitcoin. Let's call
12:38
it uh I'm going to take 40% out of that,
12:40
and I'm going to move that into another
12:42
asset. Let's call that stocks. We'll put
12:43
it here into the NASDAQ. and it's been
12:45
averaging about 15 to 17%. Let's just
12:48
call that 12% return. So now I have a
12:51
dollar here in the home and layered
12:54
layer two it's now working in Bitcoin at
12:56
the exact same time. And then the third
12:57
job is it's sitting here in the NASDAQ
13:00
at the exact same time. Three jobs
13:03
happen simultaneously. Still back in the
13:05
home right through its mortgage it's
13:07
compounding. In Bitcoin it's now
13:09
compounding. And now through stocks it's
13:12
doing the same thing. same dollar,
13:14
multiple turns. Now, let's run the math
13:16
on this. Okay, so let's check this out.
13:18
So, we have a million-dollar home and
13:20
let's say that it appreciates at 5%,
13:22
right? Per year, it's compounding at
13:24
that. Again, Bitcoin, it's averaging,
13:26
you know, 50% last two years, but we're
13:28
going to call that 20% and again, stocks
13:30
are 15 to 17% last couple years. We're
13:32
going to call that 12%. You can run your
13:34
own numbers, but this is just so we can
13:36
run some math here. Okay. Now, what
13:38
happens over 10 years? Let's compare
13:41
what happens between investor A and
13:43
investor B. Okay, so remember we have A
13:45
and B. Investor A and B, they're about
13:47
the same. They both have a $1 million
13:49
property. They both have $300,000 in
13:52
equity. So they're in the exact same
13:54
starting point. But investor A just lets
13:56
that ride for 10 years. But investor B
13:59
wants to then put it into another asset,
14:01
which then puts it into another asset.
14:04
And we're going to let that ride for 10
14:05
years. So let's check this out. Over the
14:07
course of the next 10 years, investor
14:09
A's 1 million * 5% grows to a total of
14:13
$1.63
14:15
million. Not bad. Pretty good. Now, you
14:19
subtract the $700,000 mortgage. So,
14:21
minus $700,000 that they owe and they
14:24
end up with about $929,000
14:27
of net worth. Okay, not too bad, right?
14:29
That's been a solid return for basically
14:31
doing nothing sitting in a home. But
14:33
let's take a look at what investor B has
14:35
done by making just a couple small
14:36
moves. Now, the key piece I want to um
14:38
bring up again is that they didn't make
14:40
any more money. They didn't work harder.
14:42
They didn't add any more dollars. But
14:44
here's what they did. Now, the same
14:45
million-doll mortgage has also grown to
14:48
about 1.63 million. Same house, same
14:50
growth. However, it's a little bit
14:52
different because now they also have
14:54
Bitcoin. And during that time, the
14:56
Bitcoin has grown to 1.83 million. And
14:59
then they have the stocks and that's now
15:01
grown to $373,000.
15:05
Now, in order to true up this math, we
15:07
remember that investor B took some of
15:09
their equity out. So, at this point,
15:11
they don't have as much equity.
15:12
Currently, they have about 629,000
15:15
equity in their home. Uh, at this point,
15:18
they also have now the 1.83 million in
15:20
Bitcoin and 373,000 in stocks, but they
15:22
did borrow against that. So, we have to
15:24
subtract the 120,000 from the loan as
15:26
well. Now, what that gives us is a now a
15:29
new total of $2.74
15:31
million
15:33
total. Same starting point. They both
15:36
had the same $300,000 in equity, but now
15:40
investor B, instead of $900,000, they
15:42
now have 2.75
15:45
million. It's about a 3x return for just
15:49
making a couple moves. Now, this is only
15:51
10 years, but would you imagine what
15:54
could happen in 20? Let's take a look at
15:55
that real quick. Okay, so we're going to
15:57
look at it in 20 years. Again, we have
15:58
investor A, investor B, right? They both
16:00
have a million-doll home, 300,000 of
16:02
equity again. Uh, but let's take a look
16:05
at it over 20 years. So, again,
16:06
remember, investor A lets it ride 20
16:08
years. Investor B though wants to take
16:10
it out and put some into Bitcoin and
16:12
then we'll take some out and put it into
16:14
stocks. And again, we'll see what
16:16
happens over 20 years. And you won't
16:18
believe this. Okay, let's check this
16:19
out. So, investor A again, they did
16:21
nothing. And now at this point, their
16:23
home has grown from 1 million all the
16:26
way down, you won't believe this, to
16:28
$2.65
16:30
million. Amazing. But we do have to
16:32
subtract the mortgage, right? So we
16:34
subtract the mortgage and they have
16:35
about now $1.95
16:38
million. That's how much equity they're
16:40
sitting on after 20 years just for
16:42
paying down the home. Not bad. Okay, but
16:44
remember investor B started the same
16:47
place, but they decided to mobilize part
16:49
of their money. All right. So, they have
16:51
about the same thing. Their house also
16:52
grew, but because they use the debt,
16:54
they don't have as much equity. So, now
16:56
their home after 20 years is now only
16:59
has about $1.65 million equity, right?
17:02
About $300,000 less as you can see. But
17:05
the Bitcoin over 20 years, remember, at
17:07
20%, has now grown to 11.5
17:11
million. And the NASDAQ, would you
17:13
believe, has grown to 1.16 million. Big
17:17
numbers, all of that. Now, we do have to
17:19
remove the loans. And if we remove the
17:21
loans, we end up with $14.2
17:24
million.
17:26
Think about that for a second. Investor
17:28
A did nothing. They did the same thing.
17:30
They let their equity ride. They started
17:31
with a million dollar home, 300,000
17:33
equity, and they end up with 2 million.
17:34
Not shabby. Okay, that's a good place
17:36
for anybody. However, investor B started
17:38
in the same place. didn't earn a dollar
17:40
more, didn't work an hour longer, but
17:42
they did do a couple of moves. And
17:44
instead of 1.9 million in equity, they
17:47
now have 14.2
17:49
million in equity, a seven times wealth
17:53
increase from the same started position.
17:56
That's a blended return on that capital.
17:58
Okay. Now, again, investor A, they
18:00
compounded at about 10% a year. Again,
18:02
not bad. Investor B compounded at over
18:04
21%. Same dollar, stay same same
18:07
starting equity, but completely
18:09
different architecture. Now, I know what
Managing Leverage And Invisible Market Risk
18:11
you're thinking. Hang on, let me just
18:12
let me just answer this real quick.
18:14
Leverage risk. What if a crash in the
18:16
market happens? What about margin calls?
18:19
Right? Okay, that's fair. Let's talk
18:21
about this honestly though for a second.
18:23
Yes, stacking assets like this, it does
18:26
add leverage risk. It does. That's real.
18:28
However, risk compared to what? Let's
18:31
think about this for a second. Compared
18:32
to what? the 6040 portfolio where 40% of
18:36
your money is guaranteed guaranteed to
18:38
be liquidated by the exact same policy
18:41
we just started about. The all-w
18:42
weatherather portfolio spread across 17
18:44
positions that you can't even monitor.
18:46
Day trading options where one bad week
18:48
could wipe out six months of gains.
18:51
Those are all risks, too. All right. So,
18:53
the difference is those risks, those
18:55
risks are invisible. So, you kind of
18:56
feel like they're safe. They look
18:58
responsible on a statement, but under
19:00
financial repression, they're guaranteed
19:02
to underperform. So the risk is in the
19:05
stack that you have right there. It's
19:07
visible to you. I can know what my
19:09
collateral ratios are. I can monitor it.
19:11
I can manage it. I could adjust it. So
19:13
that's not reckless. It's engineering.
19:16
Now, one risk is hidden. It's almost
19:18
guaranteed to hurt me. The other one is
19:20
visible and it's manageable. So I know
19:22
which one that I would rather take.
19:23
Okay. So financial repression, it's
19:26
documented, right? It's it's math. It's
19:28
already in motion. It's here. The the
19:30
IMF told us. And most people are never
19:32
going to see it. So, they'll keep their
19:33
same 60/40 portfolio. They'll keep
19:35
listening to their adviser and they'll
19:37
fund the deleveraging without ever
19:39
seeing a single bill, right? But the
19:41
ones who figure it out. They're going to
19:42
go buy good assets and they're going to
19:44
do okay. They're going to do fine, but
19:45
they'll be investing horizontally, every
19:48
dollar doing one job, but they're trying
19:50
to outrun the printing press with a
19:52
fixed stack of capital. But the ones who
19:54
build the stack, who go vertical, who
19:56
layer it, those are the ones who come
19:58
out on the other side of this with
20:00
generational wealth. Now, I showed you
20:01
the architecture, I showed you the math,
20:03
but there's a piece that I can't fit
20:05
into this YouTube video cuz I can't go
20:06
on forever. And I'm talking about the
20:08
collateral ratios, the sequencing, the
20:10
tax treatment, and specifically what I
20:12
call the four layer liquidity system.
20:14
That's how you mitigate all of this risk
20:17
of stacking so that you're not exposed
20:18
when volatility hits. Because leverage
20:21
without a liquidity system, that's not a
20:23
strategy. That's a gamble. Now, comment
20:26
down below if you want me to go ahead
20:27
and make a whole another video breaking
20:29
all that down in more depth, right? If
20:31
so, I'll plan a whole another video.
20:32
I'll break it down for you. Or you can
20:34
come join me for a free live
20:35
presentation. We'll go for about an
20:37
hour. Uh I'll show you how we build the
20:39
stack, how we layer the collateral, how
20:41
we use four layers of liquidity to
20:42
protect you when markets move against
20:44
you, and then we'll do a live Q&A.
20:46
Right? And I want to make sure at the
20:47
end that you have got all your questions
20:49
answered. Do you know what we're do
20:50
doing right here? I'm going to go ahead
20:51
and put a link in the description down
20:52
below. We'll put a QR code on the screen
20:54
right here. It's totally free. So, go
20:56
register. Come hang out. It's going to
20:57
be super fun. Now, want to ask this
21:00
video changed how you think about
21:01
investing? Would you share it with
21:03
somebody who's still sitting on an
21:05
advisor managed account and doesn't even
21:07
know what's coming? As always, like I
21:09
always like to say, to your success, I'm
21:12
out