How can we abolish poverty?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by zedeneye1
1.
a. Use tor browser.
b. I didn't even watch that video, just made it available to you. Argue with original poster.
2. I don't laud capitalism as efficient. Efficiency is irrelevant. There will always be inefficiencies in any system. Even communism is inefficient.
3. Go ahead. Debate is always good.
4. There are classes, states, money in communism as well. But restricted to an even fewer elite with no(or extremely reduced) chances of the ordinary people joining them. You don't have that problem in the free market, everyone has the oppportunity to get rich.
5. Where there is no government, that is the free-est possible market. Where you can do what ever you want to do and take control of anything you can take control of. That is infact a libertarian's dream. How you can have a concept of common ownership without having to enforce it is beyond me.
The difference between communism and the free market is quite obvious. Opportunity vs no opportunity. You get nothing more for working harder in a communist economy and there is no incentive in working harder thus and that just creates a sad state of affairs for everyone. In capitalism you have something to look upto. You look upto a rich person and want to be like him, so you work harder and smarter.
a. Use tor browser.
b. I didn't even watch that video, just made it available to you. Argue with original poster.
2. I don't laud capitalism as efficient. Efficiency is irrelevant. There will always be inefficiencies in any system. Even communism is inefficient.
3. Go ahead. Debate is always good.
4. There are classes, states, money in communism as well. But restricted to an even fewer elite with no(or extremely reduced) chances of the ordinary people joining them. You don't have that problem in the free market, everyone has the oppportunity to get rich.
5. Where there is no government, that is the free-est possible market. Where you can do what ever you want to do and take control of anything you can take control of. That is infact a libertarian's dream. How you can have a concept of common ownership without having to enforce it is beyond me.
The difference between communism and the free market is quite obvious. Opportunity vs no opportunity. You get nothing more for working harder in a communist economy and there is no incentive in working harder thus and that just creates a sad state of affairs for everyone. In capitalism you have something to look upto. You look upto a rich person and want to be like him, so you work harder and smarter.
2. Well, the point I was arguing with the Toothpaste example is that it's inefficient but you don't care about efficiency. I could also argue from that example that capitalism is immoral. The rationing function of money restricts essentials for the majority of the world, meanwhile the wealthy elite have almost infinite consumer choice. So rich people's choice of toothpaste is more important than feeding starving people. If capitalism isn't efficient or moral what is the advantage of it? Freedom?
3. Where do I begin. How do I even begin to explain the New Imperialism and the devastating effect it had on the economies of African countries such as the Congo. That is too much work man, I'm not getting paid for this ****. But basically, the European powers arrived and divided Africa up amongst themselves, sometimes for political reasons such as inter-colonial rivalries but mostly for economic reasons such as natural resources, getting access to rubber, ivory, diamonds and the like. And these countries were plundered, King Leopold II even committed genocide against the Congolese. So if a country is very poor, has no resources to invest in infrastructure or in capital, how is it supposed to become rich? The food crisis in Africa is not due to poor soil quality, it's because of crumbling African infrastructure in post-colonial nations.
4. You're a libertarian, we're coming from radically different perspectives here. One of them is definition. Marxists define Communism as a classless, moneyless, stateless society which is post-scarcity hence eliminating the need to work. Socialism is defined as the transitory period to that, where there is still a state but it is composed of workers self-management/control. We'll likely not see Communism in this century as the technology we have isn't advanced enough but we have seen socialism and may see it again. An important aspect of deciding whether a country is socialist or not is whether it is attempting to destroy class structures, end scarcity and destroy money. These are the definitions introduced by Marx and elaborated upon by Lenin, hence the ones that most Marxists use.
See this is a debate people had during the Cold War too. Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Sure hypothetically anyone could become rich but how likely is it that a broke kid living in the slums of Rio is going to make it big? And for every bootstraps success story there's a thousand kids working in sweatshops to make that happen. Which leads into your point about the state. I know you libertarians don't like the state and a stateless society would be your dream, but without the regulation of the state capitalists would exploit workers even more. It wasn't so long ago that we didn't have an 8 hour work day. And capitalists didn't give us the 8 hour workday out of the kindness of their hearts, they were forced through strikes and campaigns and are now kept in check by the state.
Before you come at me with the non-aggression principle: If the state didn't enforce that the workers wouldn't be able to do anything, they'd have to work 11 hours because poverty is coercive. No work, no food. You work or you die. The decision of a worker to work in a firm is not an equal transaction, the levels of power between a worker and their boss are radically different. A worker is hence coerced into agreeing to poor working conditions. If one firm is having workers work 11 hour shifts, other firms will have to match that to stay competitive. So you can't say "if a worker doesn't want to work long hours, don't work there." Since the worker has no choice and the other firms have the same situation.
Now with that said, I am sinking way too much time into this discussion. Since we're both working with definitions that don't fit each other and both strongly believe in what we're saying, let's just agree to disagree. I do respect you libertarians for sticking to your guns about NAP, I've found your lot to be much better about US imperialism than liberals.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Niassuh
2. Well, the point I was arguing with the Toothpaste example is that it's inefficient but you don't care about efficiency. I could also argue from that example that capitalism is immoral. The rationing function of money restricts essentials for the majority of the world, meanwhile the wealthy elite have almost infinite consumer choice. So rich people's choice of toothpaste is more important than feeding starving people. If capitalism isn't efficient or moral what is the advantage of it? Freedom?
3. Where do I begin. How do I even begin to explain the New Imperialism and the devastating effect it had on the economies of African countries such as the Congo. That is too much work man, I'm not getting paid for this ****. But basically, the European powers arrived and divided Africa up amongst themselves, sometimes for political reasons such as inter-colonial rivalries but mostly for economic reasons such as natural resources, getting access to rubber, ivory, diamonds and the like. And these countries were plundered, King Leopold II even committed genocide against the Congolese. So if a country is very poor, has no resources to invest in infrastructure or in capital, how is it supposed to become rich? The food crisis in Africa is not due to poor soil quality, it's because of crumbling African infrastructure in post-colonial nations.
4. You're a libertarian, we're coming from radically different perspectives here. One of them is definition. Marxists define Communism as a classless, moneyless, stateless society which is post-scarcity hence eliminating the need to work. Socialism is defined as the transitory period to that, where there is still a state but it is composed of workers self-management/control. We'll likely not see Communism in this century as the technology we have isn't advanced enough but we have seen socialism and may see it again. An important aspect of deciding whether a country is socialist or not is whether it is attempting to destroy class structures, end scarcity and destroy money. These are the definitions introduced by Marx and elaborated upon by Lenin, hence the ones that most Marxists use.
5. See this is a debate people had during the Cold War too. Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Sure hypothetically anyone could become rich but how likely is it that a broke kid living in the slums of Rio is going to make it big? And for every bootstraps success story there's a thousand kids working in sweatshops to make that happen. Which leads into your point about the state. I know you libertarians don't like the state and a stateless society would be your dream, but without the regulation of the state capitalists would exploit workers even more. It wasn't so long ago that we didn't have an 8 hour work day. And capitalists didn't give us the 8 hour workday out of the kindness of their hearts, they were forced through strikes and campaigns and are now kept in check by the state.
6. Before you come at me with the non-aggression principle: If the state didn't enforce that the workers wouldn't be able to do anything, they'd have to work 11 hours because poverty is coercive. No work, no food. You work or you die. The decision of a worker to work in a firm is not an equal transaction, the levels of power between a worker and their boss are radically different. A worker is hence coerced into agreeing to poor working conditions. If one firm is having workers work 11 hour shifts, other firms will have to match that to stay competitive. So you can't say "if a worker doesn't want to work long hours, don't work there." Since the worker has no choice and the other firms have the same situation.
7. Now with that said, I am sinking way too much time into this discussion. Since we're both working with definitions that don't fit each other and both strongly believe in what we're saying, let's just agree to disagree. I do respect you libertarians for sticking to your guns about NAP, I've found your lot to be much better about US imperialism than liberals.
3. Where do I begin. How do I even begin to explain the New Imperialism and the devastating effect it had on the economies of African countries such as the Congo. That is too much work man, I'm not getting paid for this ****. But basically, the European powers arrived and divided Africa up amongst themselves, sometimes for political reasons such as inter-colonial rivalries but mostly for economic reasons such as natural resources, getting access to rubber, ivory, diamonds and the like. And these countries were plundered, King Leopold II even committed genocide against the Congolese. So if a country is very poor, has no resources to invest in infrastructure or in capital, how is it supposed to become rich? The food crisis in Africa is not due to poor soil quality, it's because of crumbling African infrastructure in post-colonial nations.
4. You're a libertarian, we're coming from radically different perspectives here. One of them is definition. Marxists define Communism as a classless, moneyless, stateless society which is post-scarcity hence eliminating the need to work. Socialism is defined as the transitory period to that, where there is still a state but it is composed of workers self-management/control. We'll likely not see Communism in this century as the technology we have isn't advanced enough but we have seen socialism and may see it again. An important aspect of deciding whether a country is socialist or not is whether it is attempting to destroy class structures, end scarcity and destroy money. These are the definitions introduced by Marx and elaborated upon by Lenin, hence the ones that most Marxists use.
5. See this is a debate people had during the Cold War too. Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Sure hypothetically anyone could become rich but how likely is it that a broke kid living in the slums of Rio is going to make it big? And for every bootstraps success story there's a thousand kids working in sweatshops to make that happen. Which leads into your point about the state. I know you libertarians don't like the state and a stateless society would be your dream, but without the regulation of the state capitalists would exploit workers even more. It wasn't so long ago that we didn't have an 8 hour work day. And capitalists didn't give us the 8 hour workday out of the kindness of their hearts, they were forced through strikes and campaigns and are now kept in check by the state.
6. Before you come at me with the non-aggression principle: If the state didn't enforce that the workers wouldn't be able to do anything, they'd have to work 11 hours because poverty is coercive. No work, no food. You work or you die. The decision of a worker to work in a firm is not an equal transaction, the levels of power between a worker and their boss are radically different. A worker is hence coerced into agreeing to poor working conditions. If one firm is having workers work 11 hour shifts, other firms will have to match that to stay competitive. So you can't say "if a worker doesn't want to work long hours, don't work there." Since the worker has no choice and the other firms have the same situation.
7. Now with that said, I am sinking way too much time into this discussion. Since we're both working with definitions that don't fit each other and both strongly believe in what we're saying, let's just agree to disagree. I do respect you libertarians for sticking to your guns about NAP, I've found your lot to be much better about US imperialism than liberals.
2. Communism isn't efficient either. Will making USA communist feed people in africa? Or will making africa communist feed everyone in africa? I don't think so. So what's the advantage of it ? No competition means there's no incentive in innovation and technology development. The only reason even USSR got to where it did was US competition.
3. Pakistan/India was also plundered, so were many other countries. How did they get back on their feet ? Also take a look at USA. What did they have ? Nothing. From nothing to what it is today, and using what economic system ? What's happening today cannot be blamed on events that happened 100 years ago. Japan and Germany were ruined in WWII, now look, they've worked hard and fixed it. If there is a shortage of food, no matter what way you distribute it, people will die.
4. Are you watching that zeitgeist thing ?
5. It's simple demand and supply. There's more supply of workers available so naturally the going rate for a worker would fall. How can communism solve an oversupply of workers? In capitalism, the wages fall and workers have lesser incentive in staying in that trade and would likely get into a different better paid trade or start their own business. That's a self-fixing, low maintainance system that works and has been shown to work.
6. That's simply not true, please look deeper into the economics of the labor markets. Firms compete for working conditions too, again depending on supply of workers. If there is an over supply of workers, firms have the upper hand and workers have lesser incentive working in that trade. If there is a shortage of workers, then workers have the upper hand and now there's incentive for more people to get into that trade. That's a system that automatically fixes labor over supply or shortage.
7. I'm not a complete hardcore libertarian. I would prefer a basic government system that has courts, police, basic infrastructure such as roads etc and runs all that on a minimal tax. Education/Health etc not included. A tax minimalization approach, you could call it. And minimal regulations removing barriers to entry in markets, ensuring maximum competition.
Original post by Joyful_soul
Is there a way in which poverty and world hunger can be abolished?
Inorder to abolish poverty, we need to know the basic reason of poverty and the basic reason is Economic inequality. Hence, when we talk of economic developement of a country, we have to acknowledge the fact that the rich and poor alike form a nation and when economic equality is concerned, it should be equal and not of the type in which the rich get richer and the poor much poorer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Niassuh
Actually, the Naxalites hold a chunk of India known as the "red corridor" and the Indian government considers them a bigger threat than Muslim terrorists [X].
So there's that.
The Kurdish Workers Party is abbreviated PKK, if you've seen any articles on Kobane in Syria you'll know that the PKK or Peshmerga as they're known are heroically resisting ISIS across a huge front. They already have an autonomous zone known in Rojava [X] Put your red shirt on because the revolution is here already :P
I forgot to mention the Communist Party of the Philippines, which released their statement on LGBTQ rights recently [X].
I respect you for taking on zedeneye about Africa. I usually give up on people like that.
So there's that.
The Kurdish Workers Party is abbreviated PKK, if you've seen any articles on Kobane in Syria you'll know that the PKK or Peshmerga as they're known are heroically resisting ISIS across a huge front. They already have an autonomous zone known in Rojava [X] Put your red shirt on because the revolution is here already :P
I forgot to mention the Communist Party of the Philippines, which released their statement on LGBTQ rights recently [X].
I respect you for taking on zedeneye about Africa. I usually give up on people like that.
Ha-- me too but was feeling particularly preachy last night.... interesting stuff about 21C Marxism... cheers
Original post by zedeneye1
3. Pakistan/India was also plundered, so were many other countries. How did they get back on their feet ?
3. Pakistan/India was also plundered, so were many other countries. How did they get back on their feet ?
"The highest levels of inequality are to be found in 15 Sub-Saharan African countries and in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-multidimensional-poverty-index-rising-poverty-and-social-inequality-in-india/5398001
They're rocking it over there after our interference... yup
Original post by mazzletazzle
"The highest levels of inequality are to be found in 15 Sub-Saharan African countries and in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-multidimensional-poverty-index-rising-poverty-and-social-inequality-in-india/5398001
They're rocking it over there after our interference... yup
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-multidimensional-poverty-index-rising-poverty-and-social-inequality-in-india/5398001
They're rocking it over there after our interference... yup
Poverty figures for Pakistan/India are significantly better. And I mentioned these two because that person was from Pakistan and knows first hand.
Original post by Niassuh
Actually, the Naxalites hold a chunk of India known as the "red corridor" and the Indian government considers them a bigger threat than Muslim terrorists [X].
So there's that.
The Kurdish Workers Party is abbreviated PKK, if you've seen any articles on Kobane in Syria you'll know that the PKK or Peshmerga as they're known are heroically resisting ISIS across a huge front. They already have an autonomous zone known in Rojava [X] Put your red shirt on because the revolution is here already :P
I forgot to mention the Communist Party of the Philippines, which released their statement on LGBTQ rights recently [X].
I respect you for taking on zedeneye about Africa. I usually give up on people like that.
Haha, yes. Thank you for pointing that out!
I mean it takes a while to start up and I couldn't be bothered, ok. Not a fan of the Beatles, could care less what they have to say about Communism.
Capitalism is lauded as efficient but efficient at what? Feeding people? Guaranteeing a good standard of living for people? Nope. As a system, capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production, the function of money as a rationing device makes it impossible for a hell of a lot of people to get food. Under capitalism, there are a lot of redundant brands of products while a lot of people don't get even the essentials. Do you get me?
Actually I was going to respond to this and was digging out my effects New Imperialism sources when I read how you responded to mazzletazzle and decided it's not worth it.
No, the main difference between capitalism and communism is that in capitalism there are classes, states, money etc while that all doesn't exist in communism. The main difference between the free market and socialism is that in capitalism the factors or means of production are owned privately while in socialism they are held in common.
In communism there is no government. You get what is produced. In socialism, the transitory phase between capitalism and communism, you get what the government says, I suppose. The government being Workers Councils of course. Don't define socialism by the USSR, I have stated multiple times in this thread that they made the huge mistake, that 21st century Marxists acknowledge, of crushing workers councils/the Soviets and merging the Party and the state.
Same as disabled people, elderly people and anyone else unable to work. They live off welfare. The goal is 100% unemployment anyway! Post-scarcity society, full automization etc. Hopefully, a century into the future no one will have to work.
Btw, I appreciate the support! Thank you
So there's that.
The Kurdish Workers Party is abbreviated PKK, if you've seen any articles on Kobane in Syria you'll know that the PKK or Peshmerga as they're known are heroically resisting ISIS across a huge front. They already have an autonomous zone known in Rojava [X] Put your red shirt on because the revolution is here already :P
I forgot to mention the Communist Party of the Philippines, which released their statement on LGBTQ rights recently [X].
I respect you for taking on zedeneye about Africa. I usually give up on people like that.
Haha, yes. Thank you for pointing that out!
I mean it takes a while to start up and I couldn't be bothered, ok. Not a fan of the Beatles, could care less what they have to say about Communism.
Capitalism is lauded as efficient but efficient at what? Feeding people? Guaranteeing a good standard of living for people? Nope. As a system, capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production, the function of money as a rationing device makes it impossible for a hell of a lot of people to get food. Under capitalism, there are a lot of redundant brands of products while a lot of people don't get even the essentials. Do you get me?
Actually I was going to respond to this and was digging out my effects New Imperialism sources when I read how you responded to mazzletazzle and decided it's not worth it.
No, the main difference between capitalism and communism is that in capitalism there are classes, states, money etc while that all doesn't exist in communism. The main difference between the free market and socialism is that in capitalism the factors or means of production are owned privately while in socialism they are held in common.
In communism there is no government. You get what is produced. In socialism, the transitory phase between capitalism and communism, you get what the government says, I suppose. The government being Workers Councils of course. Don't define socialism by the USSR, I have stated multiple times in this thread that they made the huge mistake, that 21st century Marxists acknowledge, of crushing workers councils/the Soviets and merging the Party and the state.
Same as disabled people, elderly people and anyone else unable to work. They live off welfare. The goal is 100% unemployment anyway! Post-scarcity society, full automization etc. Hopefully, a century into the future no one will have to work.
Btw, I appreciate the support! Thank you
How can you create a classless society without a Government?Those who were more skilled in producing goods would get more and class divides would get very large without a Government to stop this.The ideal version of Communism is where the Government redistributes all wealth/wages evenly around the country.People say that this would remove the incentive to work would it? they can be other rewards like breaks from work for those who do the most/punishments for those who don't do enough work like sanctions from certain luxuries and people would still have to work unless disabled even if they were unemployed in training schemes.
Original post by zedeneye1
Poverty figures for Pakistan/India are significantly better. And I mentioned these two because that person was from Pakistan and knows first hand.
So because they are less poor you are right? less poor than who?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html
Here's a list of where we have invaded... see if you can find a pattern... (I'm not a Telegraph reader btw)
http://rt.com/news/india-independence-britain-dehli-681/ "The Indian economy was the second-largest in the world – until the British arrived. In fact, British economist Angus Maddison argues that India’s share of the global income went from 27 per cent in 1700 to 3.8 per cent in 1950."
I' m sure that was just a coincidence though right? And Pakistan and Bangladesh are tickety-boo aren't they... ???? yup
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/abhaey-singh/the-greatest-coverup-in-h_b_3721099.html
Still think "they did it too themselves" ???? Then the conversation ends...
(edited 9 years ago)
BY increasing the wealth gap. Duh.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
BY increasing the wealth gap. Duh.
Hey... explain?
Moved to society
Original post by The_Internet
Moved to society
thanks
poverty is required for the current economic system
Original post by unfathomablee
poverty is required for the current economic system
So change the system then.
The truth is, poverty will remain a massive problem and wealth inequality will continue to get worse as long as humanity continues it's destructive obsession with short term monetary and material gain. We need a worldwide movement, an awakening of some description a revolution of the conscious in order to redirect our goals into more self-sustainable, altruistic and community related goals.
Original post by mojojojo101
So change the system then.
The truth is, poverty will remain a massive problem and wealth inequality will continue to get worse as long as humanity continues it's destructive obsession with short term monetary and material gain. We need a worldwide movement, an awakening of some description a revolution of the conscious in order to redirect our goals into more self-sustainable, altruistic and community related goals.
The truth is, poverty will remain a massive problem and wealth inequality will continue to get worse as long as humanity continues it's destructive obsession with short term monetary and material gain. We need a worldwide movement, an awakening of some description a revolution of the conscious in order to redirect our goals into more self-sustainable, altruistic and community related goals.
How can we change the system when it's run by the 1% who own nearly 50% of the wealth? See the problem?
Unless there's a revolution of some sort as you said then there'll always be inequality. The only 'political' system were I see people sharing and distributing the wealth equally is anarchy but that causes even bigger problems.
Capitalism may have its con yet it also has its benefits.
It depends on the definition of poverty.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes finish secondary school, be in a job for 1 years and get married. Then it is almost impossible for you to be poor.
Original post by mazzletazzle
So because they are less poor you are right? less poor than who?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html
Here's a list of where we have invaded... see if you can find a pattern... (I'm not a Telegraph reader btw)
http://rt.com/news/india-independence-britain-dehli-681/ "The Indian economy was the second-largest in the world – until the British arrived. In fact, British economist Angus Maddison argues that India’s share of the global income went from 27 per cent in 1700 to 3.8 per cent in 1950."
I' m sure that was just a coincidence though right? And Pakistan and Bangladesh are tickety-boo aren't they... ???? yup
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/abhaey-singh/the-greatest-coverup-in-h_b_3721099.html
Still think "they did it too themselves" ???? Then the conversation ends...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html
Here's a list of where we have invaded... see if you can find a pattern... (I'm not a Telegraph reader btw)
http://rt.com/news/india-independence-britain-dehli-681/ "The Indian economy was the second-largest in the world – until the British arrived. In fact, British economist Angus Maddison argues that India’s share of the global income went from 27 per cent in 1700 to 3.8 per cent in 1950."
I' m sure that was just a coincidence though right? And Pakistan and Bangladesh are tickety-boo aren't they... ???? yup
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/abhaey-singh/the-greatest-coverup-in-h_b_3721099.html
Still think "they did it too themselves" ???? Then the conversation ends...
What happened decades ago is not your fault.
The people responsible are long dead.
India's share went down, because western countries went through the industrial revolution which made them wealthier. India's share falling was not entirely the invasion etc.
Sure, what the British did in India was wrong to a certain extent, but Britain or France etc of today owe nothing to Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc.
What is happening there today is their own business. They are responsible for what's happening in their countries.
And I'm not a part of your "we". I am from Pakistan in Pakistan.
If you are still interested in paying a compensation for what your ancestors may or may not have done, I'll send you my bank details.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
