It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 62 richest people have as much wealth as half the world

page: 12
43
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,


So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?


For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?


I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell



Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.


No, scarcity is a fact of the natural world.


So you would think we would have an economy which can fluctuate with said scarcity. But we don't. Monetary economics as we all know and see it, doesn't (seriously) take into account finite resources of the planet. Only profit, at any cost.

Ever see a parking lot at a car factory? Usually hundreds of brand new cars of that years models. These aren't made to order. There is a significant amount of waste, thus causing, "natural scarcity" in monetary economics.

Scarcity of resources is manufactured by the economy. Finite resources are natural to our planet.

There is in fact an abundance of food, yet people still starve on this planet. That is scarcity. Not a result of finite resources.


The market dictated that food be grown. To accommodate the rising demand, supply was expanded.

It was capitalism that has fed the world and lifted everybody out of abject poverty.

If everybody demanded those cars they would be sold. You are putting the cart before the horse. Customer demand is the ultimate last word because it is the only word. Attempts to subvert any aspect of it hamper the ability of the free market to provide a competitive environment. It doesn't become instantly unfree, just progressively less free.

Entrepreneurs never really go away, they just alter their investments according to the likelihood of confiscation.


My problem with the market is it is an inanimate construct that does not possess a brain, a conscious or any logic.

I think basing whether or not a person will eat or parish or a construct is not a firm basis for morality, society or governance. This is not to say that the market is not important, rather, that the market is worshiped like a god, it is the sum of chaos, greed and competition, base constructs IMO.


I consider the myth of the autonomous market fallacious myself. It is what we call everybody doing what is in their own best interests.

"The market is a social body; it is the foremost social body. The market phenomena are social phenomena. They are the resultant of each individual's active contribution. But they are different from each such contribution. They appear to the individual as something given which he himself cannot alter. He does not always see that he himself is a part, although a small part, of the complex of elements determining each momentary state of the market. Because he fails to realize this fact, he feels himself free, in criticizing the market phenomena, to condemn with regard to his fellow men a mode of conduct which he considers as quite right with regard to himself. He blames the market for its callousness and disregard of persons and asks for social control of the market in order to "humanize" it. He asks on the one hand for measures to protect the consumer against the producers. But on the other hand he insists even more passionately upon the necessity of protecting himself as a producer against the consumers."

-Ludwig von Mises




posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,


So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?


For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?


I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell



Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.


No, scarcity is a fact of the natural world.


So you would think we would have an economy which can fluctuate with said scarcity. But we don't. Monetary economics as we all know and see it, doesn't (seriously) take into account finite resources of the planet. Only profit, at any cost.

Ever see a parking lot at a car factory? Usually hundreds of brand new cars of that years models. These aren't made to order. There is a significant amount of waste, thus causing, "natural scarcity" in monetary economics.

Scarcity of resources is manufactured by the economy. Finite resources are natural to our planet.

There is in fact an abundance of food, yet people still starve on this planet. That is scarcity. Not a result of finite resources.


The market dictated that food be grown. To accommodate the rising demand, supply was expanded.

It was capitalism that has fed the world and lifted everybody out of abject poverty.

If everybody demanded those cars they would be sold. You are putting the cart before the horse. Customer demand is the ultimate last word because it is the only word. Attempts to subvert any aspect of it hamper the ability of the free market to provide a competitive environment. It doesn't become instantly unfree, just progressively less free.

Entrepreneurs never really go away, they just alter their investments according to the likelihood of confiscation.


My problem with the market is it is an inanimate construct that does not possess a brain, a conscious or any logic.

I think basing whether or not a person will eat or parish or a construct is not a firm basis for morality, society or governance. This is not to say that the market is not important, rather, that the market is worshiped like a god, it is the sum of chaos, greed and competition, base constructs IMO.


I consider the myth of the autonomous market fallacious myself. It is what we call everybody doing what is in their own best interests.

"The market is a social body; it is the foremost social body. The market phenomena are social phenomena. They are the resultant of each individual's active contribution. But they are different from each such contribution. They appear to the individual as something given which he himself cannot alter. He does not always see that he himself is a part, although a small part, of the complex of elements determining each momentary state of the market. Because he fails to realize this fact, he feels himself free, in criticizing the market phenomena, to condemn with regard to his fellow men a mode of conduct which he considers as quite right with regard to himself. He blames the market for its callousness and disregard of persons and asks for social control of the market in order to "humanize" it. He asks on the one hand for measures to protect the consumer against the producers. But on the other hand he insists even more passionately upon the necessity of protecting himself as a producer against the consumers."

-Ludwig von Mises


There is certainly a duplicity that possesses all people, I know I possess some of these paradoxical qualities myself.
I am a very strong entrepreneurial spirit myself, but I think there is way to mitigate the suffering that is the byproduct we have all come to except. For example, if everyone received the exact same basic stipend to survive in equal portions, there would be equity and allow business and individuals to earn an unlimited amount of wealth beyond that. However I am also aware that attempts to corrupt such a system would begin immediately.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

I don't actually disagree when you get down to very local situations. We just don't want this stuff to be determined at the national level. This is up to states, counties and municipalities so we can vote with our feet.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

So we need to train a secret society of assassins designated with the sole job of eliminating all who oppose morality, God, and humanity.

Make it incorruptible by having the right of passage be like that of a navy seal but harder.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
Much sicker to always be screaming that people should be taking the other guy's chocolate....instead of working for an hour and buying some.

chocolate means sharing an intimate moment with someone, but while they (lover) lay asleep and dreaming about sharing chocolate-someday, their 'lover' eats not just his portion- he eats the entire storehouse...she dreams of intimacy, he leaves her hanging on a dream.

to be only intimate to ones'self is such an empty life that he needs greater voids filled by the greater lacking of true intimacy...



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
www.theatlantic.com...

The Wealth of the Rich Keeps Climbing




There are several reasons for this growing problem according to Deborah Hardoon, Sophia Ayele, and Ricardo Fuentes-Nieva, the study’s authors. The first is the disconnect between work and earnings. The share of national income going to workers has been falling while the share of income given to owners and top executives is rising, a phenomenon that can be seen in the stagnant wage figures of workers around the world despite growing corporate profits and productivity.


The answer to this world-wide rape of the system by what amounts to human pigs must be dealt with one way pr the other.



Persistent patterns of wage inequality, especially among the poorest workers, can seriously damage global efforts to eradicate poverty. The study notes that between 1990 and 2010, in many developing nations, the bottom 40 percent of earners saw their wages grow more slowly than the national average. Had their wage gains simply kept pace with the national averages, 200 million fewer people would be living in extreme poverty around the world. Currently, the number of people classified as living in extreme poverty, which amounts to surviving on less than $1.90 per day, is around 700 million.


It’s the system stupid

The macro economic system has been high jacked by a Masonic like secret economic cabal of corporate greed and massive extortion of politicians in power in the Western world, particularly the US.



Taxes also play a pretty big role in the discrepancies, according to the report. Wealthy clients can hire financial advisors, accountants, and other pricey professionals to help them navigate the tax system, using loopholes to sock their money away in tax havens. Such efforts have helped keep nearly $8 trillion of money untaxed in offshore accounts, the study finds. Taxing that money isn’t just a matter of fairness, the report argues: The lost public revenues means less money for government programs that aid the poorest and neediest, allowing gaps in education, health care, and quality of life to persist and even grow.


Indeed this system of offshore tax shelters is another form of bribery that the elite maintain by supporting the countries and intuitions that run this whore house of money laundering that keeps the wagon train of greed going full bore.



Taxes also play a pretty big role in the discrepancies, according to the report. Wealthy clients can hire financial advisors, accountants, and other pricey professionals to help them navigate the tax system, using loopholes to sock their money away in tax havens. Such efforts have helped keep nearly $8 trillion of money untaxed in offshore accounts, the study finds. Taxing that money isn’t just a matter of fairness, the report argues: The lost public revenues means less money for government programs that aid the poorest and neediest, allowing gaps in education, health care, and quality of life to persist and even grow.
Indeed this system of offshore tax shelters is another form of bribery that the elite maintain by supporting the countries and intuitions that run this whore house of money laundering that keeps the wagon train of greed going full bore.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
HOW UNEQUAL IS THAT?




Picture it this way: The 62 wealthiest people could fit, seated and standing, on a single Toronto streetcar





WHERE DO THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE LIVE?
Almost half the super-rich individuals are from the United States, 17 from Europe, and the rest from countries including China, Brazil, Mexico, Japan and Saudi Arabia.


WHO ARE THEY?



Oxfam’s statistics are based in part on analysis of the Forbes billionaires list, which in 2015 ranked Bill Gates as the world’s wealthiest person, at $79.2-billion (U.S.). Fifty-three of the 62 wealthiest people are men.


WHERE DOES THEIR MONEY LIVE?



About $7.6-trillion of individuals’ wealth sits in offshore tax havens, and if tax were paid on the income that this wealth generates, an extra $190-billion would be available to governments every year, Gabriel Zucman, assistant professor at University of California, Berkeley, has estimated. As much as 30 per cent of all African financial wealth is held offshore, costing about $14-billion in lost tax revenues every year, Oxfam said, referring to Zucman’s work. This is enough money to pay for healthcare that could save four million children’s lives a year, and employ enough teachers to get every African child into school, Oxfam said in its report.


WHERE DO THE POOREST PEOPLE LIVE




Most of the world’s poorest no longer live in the poorest countries, but in middle-income countries like India, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said in a recent report. The inequalities are partly to do with differences in income, especially between urban and rural areas, but also differences in access to healthcare, education and jobs, the OECD said.


WHAT’S THE HUMAN COST OF SO MUCH ECONOMIC INEQUALITY?



Edelman’s annual “Trust Barometer” survey shows a record gap this year in trust between the informed publics and mass populations in many countries, driven by income inequality and divergent expectations of the future. The gap is the largest in the United States, followed by Britain, France and India


Where evolving to a new serfdom civilization. The opposite of freedom.

This is worst because its economic slavery

People trusted the system and it burned them through the avarice greed of people like this 62 group and the people under them who empower them.

The system deceived us, exploited us, and destroyed the middle class.

They did that because its known that ALL revolutions come from not the poor but the middle class, but now th middle class has been depleted so much their are no more leaders like Fidel Castro, Malcolm X, MLX, and other great men and woman who have led revolts and people to freedom.

They have killed them all, brainwashed the millenniums into loving iphones, bs technology and have no political sense or sense of history...therefore no leadership is coming forth to fight this cancer in the world of greed.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Well to be honest.

It's probably fewer people. What about the Rockefeller and Rothchild families?



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: onequestion

Total wealth of the richest 62 (and the poorest 3.5 billion): 1.76 trillion

If you crunch the numbers, it works out that Bill Gates, the current richest person in the world ( $79.2 B), is worth about as much as 160 million people in the bottom economic half of the world's population and the 62nd richest person, Robin Li, has the wealth of about 30 million ($15.3 B).

a reply to: Staroth

I hope everyone realizes you're being sarcastic!


So he should give all his money to that 160 Million? That's a whole $494 each.
But remember that to do that he liquidate all companies.

So 10's of THOUSAND put out of work and with no job.
No more Microsoft to make windows 11
No more ... (what ever comppany it is)

And the result?

160 Million people get a WHOLE $494 each.

Oh don't forget all the other issue.
- no more tax income from those companies
- all the subs that those companies use to buy stuff from will have to down size or close. (IE more THOUSANDS of jobs gone.)
- etc etc



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




The world's 62 richest billionaires have as much wealth as the bottom half of the world's population


Yeah...but does it make them happy?

Are they immortal?

Less vulnerable to disease and disability?

Nope, nope and nope again.

They live a lavish lifestyle obviously...but they age and die just like us poor people without two coins to rub together do.

Being so ridiculously wealthy, they probably live with significantly higher levels of fear than most do...sounds strange doesn't it, but think how stressful it must be, knowing you, your family, your friends and just about anyone or anything you get emotionally close to, is a daily target for kidnap for ransom, murder because of envy and never knowing if people genuinely like you, or they just genuinely want to get their hands on your wealth?

But, while we'd all like to be comfortable, have the best of everything, and never have to demean ourselves slaving for some arse of an employer...ultimately, it really makes no difference...they, like us become ill, suffer tragedy, lose loved ones and die.

So really...what the hell difference does being wealthy or poor really make? Apart from people wasting their entire lives, and corrupting their souls in the endless and ultimately pointless pursuit of ever greater economic wealth..i prefer not to play the my wallet is significantly larger than your wallet game..and i'm pretty content with that choice.

At the very least, i probably won't die of a stress related disease, unlike those who dream only of aquiring ever more wealth probably will.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: Staroth
a reply to: theantediluvian

And they are what keeps us all going. Without them and their money there would be no us. No food, no business, no cloths, no health care, nothing!


No, they are the ones removing money from the economy, avoiding paying tax back in and then stashing it. It sickens me to the core when you see poeple fighting for survival every day because they have nothing.


So how many people do you employee; pay insurance Social Security and income tax for?

If you thing all the rich people just remove money from the economy thn you are deranged.

How many Millionaires or higher do you know? I know a few. For the most part they had less cash then most middle class I know. It was all reinvested into the companies in one way or other. New hardware, new software, new employees to help expand. Yes they had nicer houses and cars, but they also paid higher personnel property tax and actual cost for those was more then my house and car.

And why should they pay more tax then you? They actually should pay less, they take less out of the system then someone with a low income. They don't use public transport. They don't use public hospitals. They don't use public schools. They don't get WIC, or Welfare or any other public support money. They use the road just like you do so the tax for road use should be the same as you pay.

They DON"T OWE YOU anything. Just because they make more does not mean the OWE anything more then you do to the system. Now if they fell like giving back to society that great. Most of them do in a number of ways.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrcSo how many people do you employee; pay insurance Social Security and income tax for?


They only do so if they can make a profit. If they had it their way, they would not pay Social Security, nor income tax, so they could make an even bigger profit.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: dismanrcSo how many people do you employee; pay insurance Social Security and income tax for?


They only do so if they can make a profit. If they had it their way, they would not pay Social Security, nor income tax, so they could make an even bigger profit.


Hell if I had my way I wouldn't pay SS. I'd do better putting that money in my own retirement then letting the government have it.

I would scrap SS so fast if i had the chance. Government is NOT responsable for taking care of you when your old. That's your and youre family responsablity.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

They make money by enslaving people and thus slave masters are your friends?

What are you then?
Kings entertainer?

Don't you dare to type here that your millionaire friends pay a fair salary to their workers. Don't you dare go this path.

At least you millionaire friends have money, what do you have coming here defending this slave master and trying to dig deeper in theirs asses? Will they give you few coins?
Ohh poor soul, ohh poor soul...



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: dismanrc

They make money by enslaving people and thus slave masters are your friends?

What are you then?
Kings entertainer?

Don't you dare to type here that your millionaire friends pay a fair salary to their workers. Don't you dare go this path.

At least you millionaire friends have money, what do you have coming here defending this slave master and trying to dig deeper in theirs asses? Will they give you few coins?
Ohh poor soul, ohh poor soul...

lol, no, everyone who disagrees with you is not an ally to slavers, or a poor poor soul. Nice self justification though.

The only people that are truly hurt by rich people....are those whose lives will be wrecked and racked by jealousy.

And really they deserve it.

Be your own man. Work and prosper. Don't spend your life envious of somebody who worked.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: onequestion

Total wealth of the richest 62 (and the poorest 3.5 billion): 1.76 trillion

If you crunch the numbers, it works out that Bill Gates, the current richest person in the world ( $79.2 B), is worth about as much as 160 million people in the bottom economic half of the world's population and the 62nd richest person, Robin Li, has the wealth of about 30 million ($15.3 B).

a reply to: Staroth

I hope everyone realizes you're being sarcastic!


So he should give all his money to that 160 Million? That's a whole $494 each.
But remember that to do that he liquidate all companies.

So 10's of THOUSAND put out of work and with no job.
No more Microsoft to make windows 11
No more ... (what ever comppany it is)

And the result?

160 Million people get a WHOLE $494 each.

Oh don't forget all the other issue.
- no more tax income from those companies
- all the subs that those companies use to buy stuff from will have to down size or close. (IE more THOUSANDS of jobs gone.)
- etc etc




Yeah, don't tell them about Zimbabwe's or Cuba's seizure of property and money from the evil rich, and how the people they gave it to were too stupid and incompetent to do anything but crash the countries' economies.

Don't tell them about that, Their brains will melt.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

There is a deep seated belief that destroying wealth and punishing producers will somehow transform the natural world into the land of Cockaigne. That denying meritocracy will somehow promote more productivity.

I have very little confidence in our ability to dispel this harmful misunderstanding.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: onequestion

Total wealth of the richest 62 (and the poorest 3.5 billion): 1.76 trillion

If you crunch the numbers, it works out that Bill Gates, the current richest person in the world ( $79.2 B), is worth about as much as 160 million people in the bottom economic half of the world's population and the 62nd richest person, Robin Li, has the wealth of about 30 million ($15.3 B).

a reply to: Staroth

I hope everyone realizes you're being sarcastic!


So he should give all his money to that 160 Million? That's a whole $494 each.
But remember that to do that he liquidate all companies.

So 10's of THOUSAND put out of work and with no job.
No more Microsoft to make windows 11
No more ... (what ever comppany it is)

And the result?

160 Million people get a WHOLE $494 each.

Oh don't forget all the other issue.
- no more tax income from those companies
- all the subs that those companies use to buy stuff from will have to down size or close. (IE more THOUSANDS of jobs gone.)
- etc etc




Yeah, don't tell them about Zimbabwe's or Cuba's seizure of property and money from the evil rich, and how the people they gave it to were too stupid and incompetent to do anything but crash the countries' economies.

Don't tell them about that, Their brains will melt.


maybe a good thing?

But for most it has already been melted



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc
People have wealth only because we have a system. Goods need transport using roads that exist because of the system. The workers they employee have the education that allow them to be useful employees because of system. They have property and other legal rights that protect their wealth. We have functional currencies that allow them be wealthy because of the system. Any wealth they have is only possible because of the system, so yes wealthy people do owe more back into the system.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Be your own man. Work and prosper. Don't spend your life envious of somebody who worked.


Yep, I agree with this.
Trouble is, we have very different ideas of what "work" means.
I'm not envious of the ultra-rich, I f*cking HATE them. Not for the wealth itself, but for what they have done to society and people and this planet to obtain and maintain that wealth.
People like Oprah are pretty much fine, though. The Queen, too, I guess, even if her throne is built on blood and bone.

a reply to: greencmp

Producers? What the hell are you talking about? No one on this list is a producer, they are a "receiver." They are leeches, draining all the vigor of life away 'till naught but a decrepit husk remains of this once-beautiful and bountiful planet. Hell, in the case of Oil tycoons this analogy is LITERAL.

When was the last time Bill Gates did any programming?

You call them "producers", but if I sliced off the head of every last one of them tomorrow morning I doubt much harm would come to production.


meritocracy


Meritocracy? The US isn't a meritocracy, it's an Oligarchy.


I have very little confidence in our ability to dispel this harmful misunderstanding.


Yes, I agree with you. The misunderstanding that the ideals of Reaganomics actually function is quite hard to dispel, and many people seem to firmly believe that cutting corporate and individual taxes will somehow result in anything but corporate profits growing and individuals hoarding more and more.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join