DOCSLIB.ORG

AN ANALYSIS of the ENACTMENT of ANTI-PRICE GOUGING LAWS by Cale Wren Davis a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AN ANALYSIS of the ENACTMENT of ANTI-PRICE GOUGING LAWS by Cale Wren Davis a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requ AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENACTMENT OF ANTI-PRICE GOUGING LAWS by Cale Wren Davis A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Economics MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana January 2008 ©COPYRIGHT by Cale Wren Davis 2008 All Rights Reserved ii APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Cale Wren Davis This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citation, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Division of Graduate Education. Dr. Randal Rucker Approved for the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics Dr. Wendy A. Stock Approved for the Division of Graduate Education Dr. Carl A. Fox iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copying is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder. Cale Wren Davis January 2008 iv ACKOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my advisor Randal Rucker for encouraging me to study anti-price gouging laws. I also thank Prof. Rucker and my committee members, Andy Hanssen and Douglas Young, for their insightful comments and criticisms. Lastly, I thank my family for their love and support throughout graduate school. v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 2. THEORY OF PRICE CONTROLS...............................................................................4 The Effects of Price Controls.........................................................................................4 Why States Enact APG Laws ......................................................................................12 3. HISTORICAL REVIEW .............................................................................................17 4. ANATOMY AND HISTORY OF APG LAWS..........................................................22 Overview of APG Laws...............................................................................................22 Case Studies.................................................................................................................34 Case Studies of States With APG Laws ................................................................35 New York.........................................................................................................35 Hawaii..............................................................................................................40 Connecticut ......................................................................................................41 Mississippi .......................................................................................................42 Massachusetts ..................................................................................................46 Florida..............................................................................................................47 Louisiana..........................................................................................................55 California .........................................................................................................58 Missouri ...........................................................................................................61 Georgia.............................................................................................................63 Texas................................................................................................................66 Alabama ...........................................................................................................68 Arkansas...........................................................................................................70 Oklahoma.........................................................................................................71 New Jersey.......................................................................................................71 Idaho ................................................................................................................73 Indiana..............................................................................................................73 Kansas..............................................................................................................75 South Carolina .................................................................................................76 Tennessee.........................................................................................................78 West Virginia...................................................................................................79 North Carolina .................................................................................................80 Kentucky..........................................................................................................83 Virginia ............................................................................................................85 Utah..................................................................................................................87 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS – CONTINUED Maine ...............................................................................................................88 Pennsylvania ....................................................................................................88 Vermont ...........................................................................................................89 Wisconsin.........................................................................................................89 Oregon..............................................................................................................91 Case Studies of States Without APG Laws ...........................................................92 Illinois ..............................................................................................................92 Minnesota.........................................................................................................94 Colorado...........................................................................................................94 Maryland..........................................................................................................95 Michigan ..........................................................................................................95 North Dakota....................................................................................................95 New Hampshire ...............................................................................................96 Nevada .............................................................................................................96 Montana ...........................................................................................................96 New Mexico.....................................................................................................97 Ohio..................................................................................................................97 Arizona.............................................................................................................98 5. STATISTICAL MODELS AND RESULTS Predictions....................................................................................................................99 Previous Literature.....................................................................................................101 Background on Hazard and Logit Models.................................................................105 Hazard Models.....................................................................................................105 Logit Models........................................................................................................115 Description of Data....................................................................................................116 Hazard and Logit Model Results ...............................................................................120 6. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .....................................................................133 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................136 APPENDIX A: Data Descriptions and Sources ........................................................137 APPENDIX B: Additional Covariates ......................................................................140 REFERENCES CITED....................................................................................................144 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Wtp and MC Values...............................................................................................9 2. Wtp, Wtw, and CS values....................................................................................10 3. Wtp, Wtw, and CS information for ten additional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ch 5 NC Legislature.Indd
    The State Legislature The General Assembly is the oldest governmental body in North Carolina. According to tradition, a “legislative assembly of free holders” met for the first time around 1666. No documentary proof, however, exists proving that this assembly actually met. Provisions for a representative assembly in Proprietary North Carolina can be traced to the Concessions and Agreements, adopted in 1665, which called for an unicameral body composed of the governor, his council and twelve delegates selected annually to sit as a legislature. This system of representation prevailed until 1670, when Albemarle County was divided into three precincts. Berkeley Precinct, Carteret Precinct and Shaftsbury Precinct were apparently each allowed five representatives. Around 1682, four new precincts were created from the original three as the colony’s population grew and the frontier moved westward. The new precincts were usually allotted two representatives, although some were granted more. Beginning with the Assembly of 1723, several of the larger, more important towns were allowed to elect their own representatives. Edenton was the first town granted this privilege, followed by Bath, New Bern, Wilmington, Brunswick, Halifax, Campbellton (Fayetteville), Salisbury, Hillsborough and Tarborough. Around 1735 Albemarle and Bath Counties were dissolved and the precincts became counties. The unicameral legislature continued until around 1697, when a bicameral form was adopted. The governor or chief executive at the time, and his council constituted the upper house. The lower house, the House of Burgesses, was composed of representatives elected from the colony’s various precincts. The lower house could adopt its own rules of procedure and elect its own speaker and other officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Preemption and the North Carolina Predatory Lending Law C
    NORTH CAROLINA BANKING INSTITUTE Volume 8 | Issue 1 Article 17 2004 Preemption and the North Carolina Predatory Lending Law C. Bailey King Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncbi Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons Recommended Citation C. B. King Jr., Preemption and the North Carolina Predatory Lending Law, 8 N.C. Banking Inst. 377 (2004). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncbi/vol8/iss1/17 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Banking Institute by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Preemption and the North Carolina Predatory Lending Law I. INTRODUCTION "This [North Carolina law] is the toughest law against predatory lending in the country. I am confident this will be a model law for all state legislatures."' When former North Carolina Attorney General Mike Easley made this statement, it embodied his belief that the North Carolina Predatory Lending Law,2 passed on July 22, 1999, would not only protect North Carolina home buyers, but also lead the nation in fighting predatory lending. It appears, however, that the North Carolina predatory lending law may be vulnerable to a claim of preemption by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") with respect to national banks.3 Despite questions about the constitutionality of preemption in state consumer protection laws,4 history shows that the OCC has a predetermined course of action - preemption of state law.
    [Show full text]
  • Orleans Parish Prison Intake Processing Center After the Storm
    Orleans Parish Prison Intake Processing Center after the storm 12 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION a whole, a country with the highest national incarceration rate in the world.4 What makes OPP’s massive expansion so surprising is the fact that it happened during a period of time when the population of Orleans Parish decreased by over 100,000 peo- ple. During Sheriff Foti’s tenure, the capacity of OPP increased nearly 1000% (from 850 to 8500), while the popu- lation of Orleans Parish decreased over 18% (from over 593,000 in 1970 to under 485,000 in 2000).5 Prior to Hurricane Katrina, 60% of OPP’s population on any given day was made up of men and women arrested on attachments, traffic violations, or municipal charges6 — typi- cally for parking violations, public drunkenness, or failure to pay a fine. Most of the prisoners at OPP were pre-trial detainees, meaning they had not been convicted of any crime. Thus, aside from its enormous size, OPP’s population made it resemble a local jail rather than a prison, which generally holds individuals convicted of crimes that carry a sentence of more than one year of incarceration.7 I. ORLEANS PARISH PRISON As OPP’s population exploded, the categories of persons held at the jail changed. In 1970 there were only four to ten women in the jail at any given time. At the time of Hurricane Katrina, OPP held approximately 670 women.8 A. The Unchecked Growth of Orleans Like women, juveniles were also initially held in the Old Parish Prison Parish Prison.
    [Show full text]
  • Allen Hewitt Wellons NC State Senate (SD 11) Background Research Report
    TEL: (916) 476-6647 // FAX: (916) 720-0334 // WEB: www.mbpublicaffairs.com Allen Hewitt Wellons NC State Senate (SD 11) Background Research Report May 2020 1415 L Street #1260, Sacramento, CA 95814 SD 11 – Allen Hewitt Wellons 5/8/2020 Version Summary of Chapters SECTION A: BACKGROUND & PUBLIC RECORDS ....................................................... 12 A.1 – General Background – Previously Served as an NC State Senator from 1997-2002 ....... 13 A.2 – Social Media/Internet Video Profile .............................................................................. 16 A.3 – Voter Registration & Voting History ............................................................................. 18 A.4 – SEIs & Business Filings ................................................................................................. 23 A.5 – Property Ownership & Property Taxes .......................................................................... 35 A.6 – Court Records & Other Public Records ........................................................................ 42 A.7 – Record as an Attorney/ Wilkins & Wellons Law Firm .................................................. 48 SECTION B: POLITICAL HISTORY .................................................................................. 62 B.1 – Summary of 2020 SD 11 Campaign ................................................................................. 63 B.2 – Wellons Touts His 2020 Campaign as Key to Flipping the NC Senate to Dems.......... 67 B.3 – Wellons Is Part of the Liberal “Now or Never
    [Show full text]
  • National Prison Project
    COVER PHOTOGRAPH: A/P WIDE WORLD PHOTOS 1 Joyce Gilson AUTHORS National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU National Prison Project Founded in 1972 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Prison Project (NPP) seeks to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement Washington, DC 20005 and strengthen prisoners’ rights through class action litigation and public educa- Tel: (202) 393-4930 tion. Our policy priorities include reducing prison overcrowding, improving pris- Fax: (212) 393-4931 oner medical care, eliminating violence and maltreatment in prisons and jails, and www.aclu.org minimizing the reliance on incarceration as a criminal justice sanction. The Pro- ject also publishes a semi-annual Journal, coordinates a nationwide network of liti- gators, conducts training and public education conferences, and provides expert advice and technical assistance to local community groups and lawyers through- out the country. CO-AUTHORS & CONTRIBUTORS American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana ACLU of Louisiana The ACLU of Louisiana has protected traditional American values as a P.O. Box 56157 guardian of liberty since its founding in 1956. Our mission is to conserve Amer- New Orleans, LA 70156-6157 ica’s original civic values embodied in the U.S. Constitution and the Louisiana Tel: (504) 522-0617 Constitution by working daily in the courts, legislature, and communities. We Toll Free: (866) 522-0617 defend the rights of every man, woman, and child residing in this state against Fax: (504) 522-0618 attempts by the government to take away or limit civil liberties and personal free- www.laaclu.org doms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, as well as federal and state laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution Honoring Sam "Jimmy" Ervin, IV of North Carolina
    Resolution Honoring Sam "Jimmy" Ervin, IV of North Carolina WHEREAS, Fifty three years ago today, on November 18, 1955, Sam "Jimmy" Ervin, IV was allegedly born in Morganton, North Carolina; and WHEREAS, Commissioner Ervin, given his distinguished namesake, begin at an early age to prepare for a lifetime of public service, attending public schools in Burke County, North Carolina, graduating from Freedom High School in 1974, Davidson College in 1978 (with an A. B., magna cum laude), and Harvard Law School in 1981 (with a J.D., cum laude); and WHEREAS, Ervin practiced law in Morganton from 1981 until 1999, handling a wide range of civil, criminal, and administrative matters, including many appeals to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and WHEREAS, As a practicing lawyer, Ervin developed a reputation as a thorough, careful, knowledgeable, and ethical advocate who was devoted to the best interests of his clients; and WHEREAS, In 1999, Ervin was appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Governor Jim Hunt and reappointed by Governor Mike Easley in 2007; and WHEREAS, At the NCUC, Ervin participated in many important decisions, including the Utilities Commission's decisions to require rate reductions for Dominion North Carolina Power and Duke and to implement the energy legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 2007; and WHEREAS, Ervin has also been active in national energy policy debates – serving from 2004 until 2007 as Chairman of the Committee on Electricity of the National Association
    [Show full text]
  • P.O. Box 82531 | Baton Rouge, La 70884 Phone: 225-767-7640
    P.O. BOX 82531 | BATON ROUGE, LA 70884 PHONE: 225-767-7640 | FAX: 225-767-7648 www.LACDL.org | [email protected] www.lacdl.org/sexoffenseseminar SEX OFFENSE SEMINAR & SOCIAL AGENDA Thursday, October 29, 2015 (6 CLE Hours Total) 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. Registration & Refreshments 8:15 - 8:30 a.m. Welcome 8:30 - 9:30 a.m. Theories in Contact & Non-Contact Cases, Franz Borghardt, Baton Rouge, LA 9:30 - 9:45 p.m. Break 9:45 - 11:45 a.m. Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Ask a SANE Nurse, Kim Basinger RN, CA-CP SANE, SANE-A, SANE-P, CFN CFC DABFN, DABLEE, FACFEI, Mt. Vernon, TX 11:45 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. Lunch (on your own) 1:15 - 2:15 p.m. Victims Rights Gone Wrong, Elton Richey, Shreveport, LA 2:15 - 2:30 p.m. Break 2:30 - 4:30 p.m. Legislative Update & Case Law Update, David Anderson, Covington, LA & George Steimel, LACDL Lobbyist, Baton Rouge, LA 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. LACDL Sex Offense Social at Merci Beaucoup Friday, October 30, 2015 (6 CLE Hours Total) 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. Registration & Refreshments 8:15 - 8:30 a.m. Welcome 8:30 - 10:30 a.m. Forensic Psychology, Dr. John Simoneaux, Pineville, LA 10:30 - 10:45 a.m. Break 10:45 - 11:45 a.m. Registration A-Z, E. King Alexander, Lake Charles, LA & Danielle Brown, Shreveport, LA 11:45 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. Luncheon with Keynote Speaker, A.M. “Marty” Stroud, III, Shreveport, LA (Additional cost required; no CLE offered) 1:15 - 2:15 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina: Major Education Initiatives (1999-2009) and Statistics
    Offices of Research and Education Accountability OREA TENNESSEE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, JUSTIN P. W ILSON North Carolina: Major Education Initiatives (1999-2009) and Statistics Prepared for the House Education Committee, Chairman Harry Brooks February 2010 North Carolina’s ABCs of Public Education program has been the state’s major education initiative over the past decade. The ABCs of Public Education was initiated under former Governor Jim Hunt, passed in 1996 by the North Carolina legislature, and expanded upon by former Governor Mike Easley. The program has focused on strong accountability, teaching the basics with an emphasis on high educational standards, and maximum local control. Outlined below are the main elements of the ABCs program, as well as other notable education initiatives that took place over the past decade. Broad coalition of state leaders, sustained focus on education reform For at least two decades, North Carolina’s elected officials, state leaders, policymakers, educators, and the business community have consistently made education one of the state’s top priorities. The Public School Forum was created in 1986 to bring business, political, and education leaders together as “a standing blue ribbon commission on education and the economy.” With a 60-member board that includes an equal number of business, political, and education leaders, the Forum sponsors yearly study groups that develop recommendations around specific education policy issues. These recommendations are often implemented into law in a form very near to what was proposed by the study group. In addition to the Public School Forum, a succession of education reform-minded governors have focused on education from the highest levels of state government.
    [Show full text]
  • GOVERNORS' PAPERS James B. Hunt, Jr. SPEECHES, 1997-2001
    GOVERNORS’ PAPERS James B. Hunt, Jr. SPEECHES, 1997-2001 Accession Information: May 27, 1999, February 22, 2000, February 25, 2000, January 5, 2001 Arrangement: Chronological Processed by: James Mark Valsame Finding Aid prepared by: James Mark Valsame MARS Number: 374.5 Date: February 5, 2008 These records contain copies of speeches given at various media events and meetings by Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. during his fourth administration between 1997 and 2001. Research notes, rough drafts, logistical plans, handouts, brochures, memos, and correspondence concerning the planning of each speech are also sometimes included. Date Event 1997 Box 1 1/6/1997 NC School Boards Association, Winter Leadership Conference 1/7/1997 Soil and Water Conservation Annual Meeting 1/6/1997 Governor’s Award for Excellence in Education 1/8/1997 Salute to Community Colleges 1/10/1997 Student Government Assembly 1/10/1997 Young Citizen’s Forum 1/11/1997 Inaugural Address 1/15/1997 Martin Luther King, Jr. Observance 1/17/1997 Cabinet Press Conference 1/22/1997 Legislative Briefing for Non-profits 1/23/1997 NC Press Association Awards 1/23/1997 12th Annual Triangle Commercial Real Estate Conference 1/27/1997 Winter Storm 1/28/1997 Advisory Budget Commission 1/28/1997 Wilson Chamber of Commerce 1/28/1997 State Utilities Commission Nominees 1/30/1997 National Governors Association/National Education Goals Panel 1/30/1997 Audio and Video Greetings, APT Studios 2/4/1997 National Governors Association/Smart Start 2/5/1997 NCCBI Luncheon, Raleigh, NC 2/7/1997 NC Tobacco
    [Show full text]
  • Voting Rights in Louisiana 1982-2006
    VOTING RIGHTS IN LOUISIANA 1982-2006 A REPORT OF RENEWTHEVRA.ORG PREPARED BY DEBO P. ADEGBILE MARCH 2006 VOTING RIGHTS IN LOUISIANA 1982-2006 DEBO P. ADEGBILE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION OF THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 1 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction to the Voting Rights Act and Executive Summary 3 I. Overview of the History of Racial Discrimination in Louisiana 5 II. Overview of Louisiana’s Demographics and Politics 8 A. Demographics 8 B. Minority Office Holding 9 III. Racial Discrimination in Voting In Louisiana Since 1982 13 A. Voting Discrimination in Orleans Parish 13 1. Dilution of African American Votes in Orleans Parish Pre-Katrina 14 a. Section 5 in Orleans Parish 14 b. Section 2 in Orleans Parish 16 2. African-American Voting Issues in Orleans Parish Post-Katrina 17 B. Voting Discrimination Throughout Louisiana 19 1. Section 5 Violations Overview 19 2. The Impact of Section 5 Since 1982 22 a. Redistricting 22 b. Old Poison into New Bottles: Mergers, Annexations, Reductions, and Other Ways to Reduce the Impact of New Majority-Minority Districts 23 c. Old Poison into New Bottles: The Persistence/Reemergence of At-Large Voting Arrangements 25 d. Repeat Offenders 26 e. Inconsistent Standards 28 f. Manipulative of Standards on a Statewide Basis: 1 This report was prepared with the generous and dedicated assistance of Darin Dalmat and Bryan Brooks (Columbia Law School J.D. candidates 2006), and Michael Grinthal and Tara Curtis (Harvard Law School J.D. candidates 2006). The Section 5 Violations of the Louisiana House of Representatives 29 g.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Files; Folder: 8/17/78; Container 89
    8/17/78 Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: 8/17/78; Container 89 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES) FORM OF DOCUMENT CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE DATE RESTRICTION MellD James Mcintyre to Pres. Carter, 6 pp., re:Defense Appropriations 8/16/78 A MeiTO Kraft & G�ill to Pres. carter, w/attadhments 13 }?p., re:Overseas Investment 8/16/78 c ' '\' o, ,. FILE LOCATION carter Presidential Papers-Staff Offices, Office of Staff Sec.-Presidential Handwriting File, 8/17/78 Box 100 RESTRICTION CODES (A) Closed by Executive Order 12356'governing access to national security information. (B). Closed by statute or by the agency which originate<:! the document. (C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift. ADMINISTRATION. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS NA FORM 1429 (6-85) •" ,;,. I .• .... : j ... ·•. I THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE Thursday - August 17, 1978 8:00 Dr. Zbig_niew Brzezinski - The Oval Office. I 9:13 Mr. Jack Bass, Congressional Candidate, (2 min.)2nd-District, S.C. (Mr. Frank Moore). The Oval Office. 11:30 State Constituent Briefing/Louisiana. (20 min.) (Mr. Tim Kraft) - The State Dining Room. 12:30 Lunch \vith Hrs. Rosalynn Carter - The Oval Office. (60 mi.n.) 4:00 Nm.;rs Conference.· (Hr. Jody Pmvell). (30 min.)· Room 450, OEOB. 4:45 Vice President Walter F. Hondale, AdMiral (30 min.)Stansfield Turner, Dr. Zbigniew Brze�inski and Mr. Hamilton Jordan - The Oval Office. ....-u� CoprMade ............... ...... H.'· ·ll<l.;).j.t!LIII dli\11.1 ·l-1\l;llt' ,pRESS CoNFERENCE SJATEMENT THURSDAY , AUGUST 17, 1973, 4:00p.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana LOUISIANA LITIGATORS: While People Leave the Pelican State, Attorneys Thrive
    C L P CENTER FOR LEGAL POLICY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE No. 7, December 2008 Louisiana LOUISIANA LITIGATORS: While People Leave the Pelican State, Attorneys Thrive The troubled state of Louisiana has lost 200,000 squeezed by comprehensive tort reform in neighboring residents in the years since Hurricane Katrina devastated states such as Texas and Mississippi. New Orleans.1 But the state had been having a hard time attracting workers and others, as well as holding on to those That plaintiffs’ lawyers would find the Bayou State a good it had, even before the hurricane struck. While the national place to sue is unsurprising. In a 2008 survey conducted trend in population growth in the previous five years was 4.6 by Harris Interactive for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce percent, Louisiana grew by only 0.6 percent in that period Institute for Legal Reform, corporate litigators ranked the (see graph).2 Even so, one segment of the population—trial fairness of Louisiana’s judicial system next-to-last among the lawyers—is finding the state to be an excellent place to hang fifty states (see map).3 The state ranked among the bottom out and do business. Long a lawsuit-friendly jurisdiction, three in every category surveyed, and Louisiana was deemed Louisiana has become a magnet for mass tort lawyers the worst state in the nation in its treatment of scientific Louisiana Population Growth Has Trailed That of The U.S. as a Whole 5.0 310 4.9 305 ) 302 4.8 ) ons 299 300 ons illi 4.7 296 illi (M 293 295 4.6 (M on Louis iana ti 290 on la 290 4.5 ti la U.S.
    [Show full text]