Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

867
Banjo Lovers Online


Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Jun 13, 2021 - 11:56:23 PM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

It's fascinating to see how ground-up environmental economic influence is driving global change in aspiration and goals in the younger generation. We are also seeing how the widespread altered personal circumstance due to the pandemic have functioned as a catalyst for a shift in attitudes despite the pre-pandemic social mantra and top-down dogma as so what constitutes 'success'.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-57328508

This BBC article relates the experiences of young Chinese entrepreneurs disillusioned with the economic realities of being 'too late to the race' - corporate domination undermining the viability of the small business and learning through hard experience to find alternatives to the rat race. In effect the hamsters identifying the wheel for what it is and seeking what has more meaning. In China this spiritual and practical change in attitude has a name: Tang Ping or 'lying flat'; synonymous with simplicity and aspiring to sufficient and balance/wellbeing in preference to the wasteful acquisition of material surplus: aka involution.

Interesting too that this organic change alters peoples willingness to buy in to the superficial and unnecessary. And that fundamental cultural shift in attitude by definition signals trouble ahead for capitalist economies that survive on the creation/maintenance of a superficial consumerist mentality. Material aspiration that was once universally believed to be the foundation of a 'dream' can quickly become a liability.

It does seem that as well as having lived through the extraordinary times of pandemic we are also witnessing the shift to different approaches to the way the younger generation wish to live.

On the same BBC page is an article relating the significant reduction in rental costs in comparison to buying a home. Lower rental costs create the freedom to live differently: bbc.co.uk/news/business-57464534

Are we now seeing the disconcerting fact (for those in debt to old 'ideals') that when the privileged pull the ladder up behind them, we cannot assume that those that come after will desire the out of reach rungs. What is the fallout when the 'advantage' - and economic and social control - the older generation designated and ring-fenced for themselves loses currency? When 'exclusive' morphs unexpectedly into obsolescence? While the powerful have always reinforced against revolution, the actual change coming is likely via an involution of their own making.

It appears that as the song lyric reminded - times they are a-changin' To experience emerging grass roots change can be an exciting and inspiring period in which to be alive.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 00:47:55

Jun 14, 2021 - 12:42:02 AM
like this

3724 posts since 4/29/2012
Online Now

quote:
Originally posted by m06

....
On the same BBC page is an article relating the significant reduction in rental costs in comparison to buying a home. Lower rental costs create the freedom to live differently: bbc.co.uk/news/business-57464534

Are we now seeing the disconcerting fact (for those in debt to old 'ideals') that when the privileged pull the ladder up behind them, those that come after no longer desire the out of reach rungs? What is the fallout when the 'advantage' - and economic and social control - the older generation designated and ring-fenced for themselves loses currency? While the powerful have always reinforced against revolution, the actual change coming is via an involution.

It appears that as the song lyric reminded - times they are a-changin'...


I too get a lot of my news from the BBC website. But they do have a lazy habit, especially on the business pages, of presenting rehashed press releases as news.

This article is a rehashed press release from the notoriously 'say whatever makes a profit' Hamptons estate agents. So apart from the actual numbers being suspect it also completely ignores the fact that if you rent you end up with nothing but if you buy you end up with a valuable and appreciating asset asset.  It claims that it's £215 cheaper per month to rent in London than buy. That's £2580 a year. The Average London property costs £501,000 and appreciated by 5.3% over 2020. That's £26,533.

I assume that Hamptons currently see their rental arm as more lucrative than their sales arm.

Jun 14, 2021 - 12:50:54 AM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by AndrewD
quote:
Originally posted by m06

....
On the same BBC page is an article relating the significant reduction in rental costs in comparison to buying a home. Lower rental costs create the freedom to live differently: bbc.co.uk/news/business-57464534

Are we now seeing the disconcerting fact (for those in debt to old 'ideals') that when the privileged pull the ladder up behind them, those that come after no longer desire the out of reach rungs? What is the fallout when the 'advantage' - and economic and social control - the older generation designated and ring-fenced for themselves loses currency? While the powerful have always reinforced against revolution, the actual change coming is via an involution.

It appears that as the song lyric reminded - times they are a-changin'...


I too get a lot of my news from the BBC website. But they do have a lazy habit, especially on the business pages, of presenting rehashed press releases as news.

This article is a rehashed press release from the notoriously 'say whatever makes a profit' Hamptons estate agents. So apart from the actual numbers being suspect it also completely ignores the fact that if you rent you end up with nothing but if you buy you end up with a valuable and appreciating asset asset.  It claims that it's £215 cheaper per month to rent in London than buy. That's £2580 a year. The Average London property costs £501,000 and appreciated by 5.3% over 2020. That's £26,533.

I assume that Hamptons currently see their rental arm as more lucrative than their sales arm.


Agreed. But nevertheless it signals a change regardless of Hampton's motive for highlighting it. Greater latitude in housing options increases young people's confidence and freedom to live how they choose.

Its also interesting how the pandemic-influenced surge for outside space has altered the urban housing market.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 00:56:54

Jun 14, 2021 - 1:15:34 AM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by AndrewD
 

The Average London property costs £501,000 and appreciated by 5.3% over 2020. That's £26,533.


That current financial benefit for privileged (mostly) older home owners is not in doubt.

The interesting aspect are emerging signs of a shift in attitude and behaviour among those younger generation who are not home owners and are excluded from that financial benefit.

Hampton's spokesperson's claim that there will be a swing back toward buying as 'mortgage rates come down' is questionable. Most wider economic indicators are forecasting a rise in interest rates in the next 12 months which wil make borrowing more expensive. The instinct to create a home will not change; what appears to be changing is the extent that younger people will allow an aspiration to home-ownership at grotesquely inflated cost to entirely dominate their life.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 01:29:21

Jun 14, 2021 - 2:21:14 AM

3724 posts since 4/29/2012
Online Now

quote:
Originally posted by m06
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewD
quote:
Originally posted by m06

....
On the same BBC page is an article relating the significant reduction in rental costs in comparison to buying a home. Lower rental costs create the freedom to live differently: bbc.co.uk/news/business-57464534

Are we now seeing the disconcerting fact (for those in debt to old 'ideals') that when the privileged pull the ladder up behind them, those that come after no longer desire the out of reach rungs? What is the fallout when the 'advantage' - and economic and social control - the older generation designated and ring-fenced for themselves loses currency? While the powerful have always reinforced against revolution, the actual change coming is via an involution.

It appears that as the song lyric reminded - times they are a-changin'...


I too get a lot of my news from the BBC website. But they do have a lazy habit, especially on the business pages, of presenting rehashed press releases as news.

This article is a rehashed press release from the notoriously 'say whatever makes a profit' Hamptons estate agents. So apart from the actual numbers being suspect it also completely ignores the fact that if you rent you end up with nothing but if you buy you end up with a valuable and appreciating asset asset.  It claims that it's £215 cheaper per month to rent in London than buy. That's £2580 a year. The Average London property costs £501,000 and appreciated by 5.3% over 2020. That's £26,533.

I assume that Hamptons currently see their rental arm as more lucrative than their sales arm.


Agreed. But nevertheless it signals a change regardless of Hampton's motive for highlighting it. Greater latitude in housing options increases young people's confidence and freedom to live how they choose.

Its also interesting how the pandemic-influenced surge for outside space has altered the urban housing market.


Nah - Their 'Research department' was told by their marketing department that sales didn't need a push this month but rentals were a bit sticky. They're also keener on rentals as it's recurring income. So they wrote a press release and lunched a lazy BBC journalist.  They could have just as plausibly written a press release showing that buying was still the sensible option if that had suited their short term targets. 

Jun 14, 2021 - 2:47:05 AM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

Shifts in attitude occur when ‘sensible’ for many isn’t possible.

An ‘average’ London house price of £500,000 equates for many as ‘isn’t possible’.

Free market economics assumes that would push the cost down. But consistently that is not what we see happening.

As a homeowner myself I would be very wary if I were a first time buyer facing a 90% or 95% loan to purchase at £500,000+ in our uncertain and newly changing world.

Without need to refer dramatically to 'bubbles bursting' there is the historical reality that cultural attitudes and social behaviour undergo change influenced by circumstance, opportunity and environment.

We appear to be seeing emerging worldwide signs of a significant shift in attitudes and behaviour partly as a result of the catalyst effect of the global pandemic.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 02:56:05

Jun 14, 2021 - 6:44:49 AM
likes this

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11263 posts since 2/22/2007

We also have young people "lying flat". Most are supported by their parents. That article's tone was that "success" meant "billionaire". For some, a modest self sufficiency---including providing for your own old age---equals success. I agree with not killing oneself for meaningless consumerism, but I would bet that most young Chinese "lying flat" still look like workaholics compared to our home grown slackers living in Mommy's basement playing video games. Moderation is the always-elusive goal.

Jun 14, 2021 - 6:51:41 AM

Tony S

USA

65 posts since 11/28/2015

tang (2nd tone) means to fall on one's face; ping (2nd tone) = flat. Not quite the same as lying passively.

Jun 14, 2021 - 8:35:52 AM

10335 posts since 8/22/2006
Online Now

quote:
Originally posted by Tony S

tang (2nd tone) means to fall on one's face; ping (2nd tone) = flat. Not quite the same as lying passively.


I knew a few guys that would get a little tang pinged during the weekend after a 12 pack.. if you know what I mean..

Jun 14, 2021 - 8:57:33 AM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

We also have young people "lying flat". Most are supported by their parents. That article's tone was that "success" meant "billionaire". For some, a modest self sufficiency---including providing for your own old age---equals success. I agree with not killing oneself for meaningless consumerism, but I would bet that most young Chinese "lying flat" still look like workaholics compared to our home grown slackers living in Mommy's basement playing video games. Moderation is the always-elusive goal.


Why do you feel it necessary to disparage by using a negative extreme and the term 'slacker'? As if not creating surplus is somehow deficient or lazy when in truth it is just a different approach to life. The concept of sufficient doesn't require dependence on parents or anyone else; it is a personal attitude toward what is needed to live a good and balanced life. 
 

It was also the model natural to the rural folks in the Appalachians and elsewhere including rural England until those people were bullied off their land and dispossessed. Those folks were independent and hardworking and anything but 'living off their parents'. The key difference is balance, an absence of waste and a life where creating surplus serves little purpose. The scope for a resurgence of that approach in a modern form I find hugely inspiring.

Ironically your example of young adults 18-35 stuck in their parents basement (in unprecedented numbers in recent times) are there through a failure of a system, not through active choice. Mostly those financially trapped youngsters are still attempting to pursue conventional careers and not yet redefining their aspirations and philosophy of life. But they potentially present as a generation looking for change when they too realise, as have their contemporaries in China, that they are 'too late to the (rat) race'.

I'm certainly in favour of choice. Using the fact that an average house in London is now £500,000 how does a young adult today choose balance ' and not 'killing themselves' for even the basic necessity of a home as you advise?

Smart young folks are realising they are done with hamster wheels and the futility of a rat race that is loaded against them.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 09:13:16

Jun 14, 2021 - 9:09:25 AM
like this

10335 posts since 8/22/2006
Online Now



Your example of young adults 18-35 stuck in their parents basement (in unprecedented numbers in modern times) are there through a failure of a system, not active choice.

Failure of a system? “Look mom and dad I can’t get a job haven’t you heard the system,it failed. Besides I can stay on your insurance policy while you pay the premium until I’m twenty six.” I don’t think that excuse would have been acceptable in my youth but hey why not try now. One could always become a paid provocuture. Maybe a social media influencer.

Jun 14, 2021 - 9:17:03 AM
like this

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11263 posts since 2/22/2007

They are not trapped by anything other than their own mindset, Mike. I disparage them because they will not do what I and many others did to have anything and they sit and whine about it. While they talk about "no opportunity" immigrants are starting businesses and owning houses and building strong families.
These victims are only trapped by the mantra of failure that they hear from all quarters until they internalize it and repeat it mindlessly, but it is a lie, plain and simple. Today as yesterday there are opportunities for the taking for those willing to delay gratification and put forth the effort.
And yes, if you are unwilling to produce any surplus for yourself then you will have to live off of the surplus produced by others. Perhaps "deadbeat" is a better term than "slacker"?

Jun 14, 2021 - 9:31:52 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13463 posts since 5/24/2005

I believe it was one of your guys back in the 1800s describing his idea of the problem and creating the term "Tragedy of the commons". Something like that. Instead of reading about this, just watch movie on Netflix : "The Platform" yikes.

I realize I am now a dinosaur, without many creative juices left, or desires for change. I still hunger for freedom(s) more than most other desires. But the youth, in the end, will reap whatever the sow.

Brad

Jun 14, 2021 - 9:33:49 AM

6679 posts since 7/24/2013

quote:
Originally posted by 5B-Ranch



Your example of young adults 18-35 stuck in their parents basement (in unprecedented numbers in modern times) are there through a failure of a system, not active choice.

Failure of a system? “Look mom and dad I can’t get a job haven’t you heard the system,it failed. Besides I can stay on your insurance policy while you pay the premium until I’m twenty six.” I don’t think that excuse would have been acceptable in my youth but hey why not try now. One could always become a paid provocuture. Maybe a social media influencer.


America is unique in it's need to immediately disperse the family. I was born in a place were generations lived together and no one was thought of as a failure because they didn't immediate leave home upon turning 18. 

Jun 14, 2021 - 9:36:35 AM

12233 posts since 1/15/2005
Online Now

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

They are not trapped by anything other than their own mindset, Mike. I disparage them because they will not do what I and many others did to have anything and they sit and whine about it. While they talk about "no opportunity" immigrants are starting businesses and owning houses and building strong families.
These victims are only trapped by the mantra of failure that they hear from all quarters until they internalize it and repeat it mindlessly, but it is a lie, plain and simple. Today as yesterday there are opportunities for the taking for those willing to delay gratification and put forth the effort.
And yes, if you are unwilling to produce any surplus for yourself then you will have to live off of the surplus produced by others. Perhaps "deadbeat" is a better term than "slacker"?


Exactly right Bill.  I do not know the people who Mike associates with and what their goals are and what they want to achieve.  I would think they would be a lot like the ones we are around, but maybe not.  I know those (my nephew for one) who wanted to "make it" in New York,  spent three years there sharing a flat with two other guys, and eventually came home and took a job where they could buy a house and support a family.  If you can't afford to live in London or New York, go somewhere else.  It isn't that hard.  My daughter, age 40, has earned and saved enough since she started work to buy a house in London for cash, and survive quite well.  Guess how she did it.  She paid off $54,000 of student loans in two years after getting a good job and working hard.  Then she saved.  And guess what ...... she actually majored in subjects that had some relevance to the work force.

Personally, I don't like to be surrounded by people whose ambition is to lay flat ..... or anywhere near them quite frankly.  I had much rather associate with people who have a more balanced outlook on life and their future.  Moderation is a great thing, so I am not advocating that everyone's goal should be to become rich.  It was never mine.  My goal was to accumulate enough wealth to never have to depend on the government nor anyone else when I was no longer able to work.

Jun 14, 2021 - 10:11:36 AM

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11263 posts since 2/22/2007

Nothing at all wrong with the multi-generational household. In fact there are solid advantages to having three generations under one (big) roof. But in the old model of that, all generations were productive and through the years the old would take care of the young until it was time for the young to take care of the old. But today's version is the kids do little to nothing, maybe a part time job to buy weed, and live off of the parent's retirement income, while contributing nothing to the household or to society. And that is a disgrace.

Jun 14, 2021 - 12:32:07 PM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Nothing at all wrong with the multi-generational household. In fact there are solid advantages to having three generations under one (big) roof. But in the old model of that, all generations were productive and through the years the old would take care of the young until it was time for the young to take care of the old. But today's version is the kids do little to nothing, maybe a part time job to buy weed, and live off of the parent's retirement income, while contributing nothing to the household or to society. And that is a disgrace.


That's not an accurate picture of the young folks that I know. A closer description is of people doing all the things we did - study, work hard, gain and hold down full-time jobs, some setting up their own business, but unlike us (or our parents) still unable to viably afford their own place. I personally know 2 employed people in their early 30's who financially had to give up their rented accommodation and move back in with their parents.

In contrast I left the family home when I was 18 and owned a house when I was 29 but I can see quite clearly that the stepping stones and route I took simply would not create the same outcome today. Nowhere near. To say otherwise would frankly be dishonest and deceiving.

Too many decent, hard-working youngsters are today locked out of the route to home ownership and subject at best to overpriced, substandard rental accommodation. It is a social ticking time bomb, or it would be if young folk were dumb enough to keep faith in a system loaded against them. The smart ones are evolving alternative approaches to life. And that will have economic ramifications for all of us.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 12:38:58

Jun 14, 2021 - 12:42:01 PM
likes this

12233 posts since 1/15/2005
Online Now

Mike ..... what is the difference between the many that can make it and those that can't? There must be something, as there are just too many success stories to discount them. I am not completely discounting those that can't either, as there are some circumstances that would cause that to happen ..... I suppose. My children, and those that they grew up with never got the message that they could not make a living, own homes, and start families. What a terrible message to send to young people that they are doomed and can't achieve those goals. Thank goodness for the positive reinforcement for those who have done well.

Jun 14, 2021 - 12:48:39 PM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

Ask yourself how many older folk (the ones usually smugly regailing all who will listen with how they ‘succeeded’) could in fact not nearly afford to buy their current house on their current salary.

Therein lies the answer.

Is it sane that a tiny 2-bedroom terraced (row) house in a very unremarkable area of south-east London is priced at £520,000? I don't think so.

I live in rural Somerset far from London. I'm fortunate to run my own business, earn a comfortable salary and yet if I were a buyer reliant solely on a mortgage I wouldn't be able to raise a mortgage large enough to afford to buy the house I now own outright. That's crazy. That's wrong.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 12:59:57

Jun 14, 2021 - 1:04:43 PM

Owen

Canada

8976 posts since 6/5/2011

I suppose this is off onto a tangent.   Bill-e mentions, "While they talk about "no opportunity" immigrants are starting businesses and owning houses and building strong families.'  Just yesterday, I was talking to my brother-in-law who made it known that Canada is being run into the ground by the cost of supporting immigrants.   

I find it all so confusing.   wink   ..... now back to regular programming.

Edited by - Owen on 06/14/2021 13:05:52

Jun 14, 2021 - 3:14 PM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink

Mike ..... what is the difference between the many that can make it and those that can't? There must be something, as there are just too many success stories to discount them. I am not completely discounting those that can't either, as there are some circumstances that would cause that to happen ..... I suppose. My children, and those that they grew up with never got the message that they could not make a living, own homes, and start families. What a terrible message to send to young people that they are doomed and can't achieve those goals. Thank goodness for the positive reinforcement for those who have done well.


We need to be comparing like for like.

Houses were traditionally considered affordable if they could be purchased via a mortgage that is 3X of a person's/couple's annual salary. My father advised a maximum of 2.5X my salary. Back then those ratios were typical.

Here in the UK the average salary is £31,000 per annum. Nationally the average house price is £250,000.

Do the maths.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 15:28:07

Jun 14, 2021 - 3:31:59 PM

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11263 posts since 2/22/2007

No, I could not buy my first house with the same job that I had at the time. But I could buy a different house. I could spend a year of my spare time researching the local real estate market before making a huge financial investment and discover which areas of town are getting better and which are getting worse. Informed people can get into up and coming areas before the price boom if they are willing to invest time and effort to become knowledgeable. I could choose to focus my efforts on what is possible for me, right now, instead of complaining about all that I had missed out on by not being born thirty years earlier.
But if London is too damn expensive then get the hell out of London! There is a world of opportunity out there, but flexibility is required.

Jun 14, 2021 - 11:43:26 PM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

We also need to consider house building - provision of stock - to meet need. In the UK that has been neglected for a decade. Local councils are now trying to play catch-up.

We also need to consider a balanced economy and the welfare and wellbeing of all strata of employment. Our American friends here mostly view the subject through a simplistic ‘me’ lens; the concept of a single individual's ability to get a better paying job, mobility to go where property is cheaper etc. That is, in a non-pejorative sense, an entirely selfish outlook and solves nothing when related to a social issue. Why? Because the lower paid jobs in the locations with high property prices still have to be done. London cannot function without nurses, cleaners, sanitation teams, cooks, care-workers, teachers, administrators or couriers and delivery drivers.

‘I’m all right Jack’ is not a solution for a societal problem at a societal level. It's simply a myopic, self-centred attitude that disregards other people's circumstance as long as opportunities for 'me' are available. And should said American friend fall ill on a vacation in London they still expect to be moved by porters, treated by nurses in a hospital that is cleaned by 'invisible' staff, be fed from a hospital menu, and have their test results couriered to where they need to go. Me, me, me again.

Edited by - m06 on 06/14/2021 23:57:53

Jun 15, 2021 - 12:49:37 AM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

In terms of housing it's fascinating how some particular of our American friends also overlook their dumb luck in having the happenchance of geographical greater access to land and hence even today, comparatively cheaper real estate outside of specific economically defined hotspots. The benefit of the availability of land and the opportunity to self-build or access lower cost real estate they seem to confuse solely with their 'unique ability' and propensity to 'succeed'. Land that was in the first instance appropriated and propertised from the original inhabitants, whom were dispossessed, systematically marginalised and then denigrated in the 'me' rush and growth of the culture of the individual. Interestingly and coincidentally original inhabitants who themselves had long lived sustainably in a manner traditionally centred around a concept of what is sufficient rather than a motivation to exploit and accrue vast surplus.

Edited by - m06 on 06/15/2021 00:56:50

Jun 15, 2021 - 2:41:31 AM

3724 posts since 4/29/2012
Online Now

quote:
Originally posted by m06

We also need to consider house building - provision of stock - to meet need. In the UK that has been neglected for a decade. Local councils are now trying to play catch-up.
 


It's been a lot more than a decade. It dates back to the Housing Act of 1980 and the virtual removal of involvement by state actors (i.e us) in the housing 'market'.

So councils can't play catch up as they are no longer allowed to raise funds on the capital markets and are required to follow 'right to buy' rules (in England - The more civilized countries of Scotland and Wales have removed this right). The not-for-profit self-funding local authority housing of the post-war period  that fueled a massive improvement in housing and put a lid on excessive rents and  house price inflation is a thing of the distant past. There's a building boom in my local area. But these will mostly be bought by overseas buy-to-let investors as an off shore stash hole for their surplus funds. They won't necessarily even  let them, as that just adds hassle to owning an asset that will appreciate in value. The planning consent on these does require a derisory number of 'affordable' units. But 'affordable' is broadly defined as 'not more than 80% of local rent levels'. So for many people (including those working long hours in low paid but necessary jobs - not 'slackers')  not affordable.

Jun 15, 2021 - 3:00:01 AM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink

Mike ..... what is the difference between the many that can make it and those that can't? There must be something, as there are just too many success stories to discount them. I am not completely discounting those that can't either, as there are some circumstances that would cause that to happen ..... I suppose. My children, and those that they grew up with never got the message that they could not make a living, own homes, and start families. What a terrible message to send to young people that they are doomed and can't achieve those goals. Thank goodness for the positive reinforcement for those who have done well.


I utterly reject the term 'make it' in relation to a life basic such as home ownership. As if a home is 'optional' or a 'reward' and obtaining one is a version of economic musical chairs in which getting one at all is a game in which only some can attain the desired outcome.

Everyone who works should have the opportunity to acquire a decent, affordable home as a right. A roof and four walls are not a commodity that should be traded in a way that prioritises surplus over need. Those who are unable to work should be eligible for available subsidised housing. These should be two of the cornerstones of a healthy society.

Greed turns what are universal requisites into tradeable assets and surplus. Greed has no moral boundaries.

Edited by - m06 on 06/15/2021 03:10:07

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.296875