Simple Solution for Inflation

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is a silly thread... what they are arguing for is.

- Fewer jobs

No, more jobs with fewer hours per job.

Quote:

- Lower wages

Not lower when adjusted for deflation.

Quote:

- Hampered ability to borrow money for a house or a car.

True, spending and investing borrowed money drives inflation. Fiscal conservation means save first and spend after you've saved up, and even then only conservatively. Conservative spending disciplines pricing, preventing inflation and stimulating deflation, ideally.

Cars are generally not good economically or environmentally, though. They are expensive money pits that depreciate unless they are a very special model that is preserved in showroom condition. They consume energy unsustainably and their infrastructure causes deforestation. So they are as much a waste of trees and natural land as they are a waste of fuel and money, not to mention commuting time, etc.

Quote:

- Decreasing value of money.

Inflation decreases the value of money. Deflation increases its value.

Quote:

- Lowered inflation with increasing prices (I don't understand how this happens).

Inflation is when prices all rise together, though you can call basically any form of price appreciation that's not connected with value addition "inflation." E.g. when a house 'appreciates' in market value without actually being improved in any tangible way, that is just price-inflation.

It results in the house gradually becoming overvalued and eventually a buyer would get stuck in an underwater mortgage when the market crashes for whatever reason.

Quote:

These not just the negative consequences of their economic policy.... this is what LivingLava says are the goals of his economic policy.

I kind of like how the economy works now.

I've noticed that socialists love implying their desired economy is the status quo. It's like because you are left wing, you like manipulating the idea that conservative ideas are shifts away from the status quo in order to turn conservatism against itself.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I think it is funny that you are railing against "socialism" in the same post that you are suggesting that people should be limited in the number of hours we work, or the amount of money we can demand.

When I want more money, I can go in an ask for a raise and if my employer isn't willing to pay what I am worth, I can find an employer that will. I recently did this, I demanded a large raise and when I didn't get it I found a new job.

In the past, when I wanted more money and didn't have the experience I have now, I had the option of getting a second job. If you want more money, working more hours is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Restricting people from demanding the highest salary possible, or working as many hours as possible, is the government control of the free market.

I think you are a socialist.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think it is funny that you are railing against "socialism" in the same post that you are suggesting that people should be limited in the number of hours we work, or the amount of money we can demand.

Socialism is about demanding money. There is nothing 'free market' about it. In a free market, money is offered and not demanded. If you don't want to work for the money being offered, you don't.

In terms of the number of hours worked, it's just senseless to have unemployed people while others work many hours per week. Why waste all those people's potential? They can learn skills and share in the work that needs to be done. The benefit to other working people is that they can work less hours and have more free time.

It's just senseless to waste some people's time so others can get more money by working more hours. It indicates a form of economic failure that the economy can't adjust to producing sufficient goods and services for everyone at lower levels of per-capita time-investment where efficiency in mass-production enables businesses to produce large if not huge numbers of goods with relatively little human time input.

Quote:

When I want more money, I can go in an ask for a raise and if my employer isn't willing to pay what I am worth, I can find an employer that will. I recently did this, I demanded a large raise and when I didn't get it I found a new job.

Ok, but then if your employer becomes uncompetitive because they pay employees like you too much, don't expect the government to bail them out and/or stimulate the economy to save your job. If you can change jobs to make more money, then you can also take pay cuts to keep your employer from going under.

Quote:

In the past, when I wanted more money and didn't have the experience I have now, I had the option of getting a second job. If you want more money, working more hours is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I supposed, but if I am unemployed I should have the ability to match your skills and then undercut what you are willing to work for in order to get your job from you. If you were always favored because of years of experience or whatever other criteria blocks me from entering the job market, that's unfair.

Quote:

Restricting people from demanding the highest salary possible, or working as many hours as possible, is the government control of the free market.

I think you are a socialist.

You assume I want the government to enforce these things I'm suggesting. Really I want it to happen because people use their minds to figure out the most responsible way to live and manage societies/economies by/for the people. It is a hard question what to do when the people fail to take the responsibility to prevent social problems from occurring, though. At that point, no one wants to be blamed for the failure of liberty, but the fact remains that there are social problems and they have resulted from various failures of independent free choice and personal resolve to achieve a good society/economy.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are arguing that the free market is socialism. This is silly beyond belief.

I work hard because I have a few moderately expensive vices that make me happy. I have found a career that pays me very well, and I have negotiated my services to get the highest price.

Economically speaking, I believe that the free market does a fairly good job of setting the value for my work. I ask for as much as I think I can get, and my company pays me enough that they are pretty sure I will stick around for as long as they value my service. If these prices diverge, I look for another company and they look for another employee... and I can't find myself another company who is willing to pay the ridiculous amount I think I am worth, then I face reality and accept the lower pay. It all balances out.

In economics, I am a capitalist. I work to make myself more valuable so I can have more money and pay for the things that make life more fun for me. I look out for and take responsibility for my own self-interest. I demand to be paid fairly. I negotiate for good conditions. This is capitalism.

Of course there is another side. I do care about my society and think about the effects my capitalism has on other people. Sometimes, my socialist side comes into conflict with my capitalist side... and sometime I will make a decision that is not in my economic best interest.

Under capitalism workers demand to be paid as high a prices as they can get. We go to the highest bidder (not just money, also conditions and happiness... but self-interest is the key in capitalism). Under capitalism, companies compete for workers and the best companies thrive by producing value. Competition drives wages as much as cost, and the market finds a balance that allows the best companies to survive.

You are arguing for socialism by suggesting that people shouldn't be primarily working for their own economic self-interest.

Our present capitalist system works very well for me. Capitalism inspires my best work. I work very hard to make myself valuable both by studying to stay on top of my field and I will work extra hours when needed to provide value for my employer. Capitalism also has provided a very nice income for me, I can travel, buy the Scotch I like, take my daughter to Broadway plays.

Our economic system works pretty well.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are arguing that the free market is socialism. This is silly beyond belief.

The only way to clarify the matter is to establish clearly what socialism is and what it isn't. If all you do is tweak the free market here and there to protect what you want while subjecting others to market forces, that is just selective use of the free market to give socialist protections extra power against competition.

Quote:

I work hard because I have a few moderately expensive vices that make me happy. I have found a career that pays me very well, and I have negotiated my services to get the highest price.

Economically speaking, I believe that the free market does a fairly good job of setting the value for my work. I ask for as much as I think I can get, and my company pays me enough that they are pretty sure I will stick around for as long as they value my service. If these prices diverge, I look for another company and they look for another employee... and I can't find myself another company who is willing to pay the ridiculous amount I think I am worth, then I face reality and accept the lower pay. It all balances out.

I read an article last week explaining an economic theory (sorry I forget whose) that says corporatism evolves within a free market because the costs of having a totally free and competitive marketplace makes things inefficient.

If that is the case, and it seems logical, then that doesn't make corporatism into a free market competition. Corporatism is a form of private market control exerted within certain markets to partially and temporarily block certain forms of competition for the sake of stability. It is thus a form of private socialism, but maybe a necessary one to prevent the free market from consuming itself with unethical forms of competition, provocation, and other unproductive business tactics.

Quote:

In economics, I am a capitalist. I work to make myself more valuable so I can have more money and pay for the things that make life more fun for me. I look out for and take responsibility for my own self-interest. I demand to be paid fairly. I negotiate for good conditions. This is capitalism.

Not necessarily. By discussing it in a feel-good-about-yourself way, you're basically just taking the economic norms you like and labeling them 'capitalist' to avoid questioning the possibility of socialism.

If we are going to be honest, we can't just pin the socialism label on others and deny it in ourselves. It may be that some forms of socialism are good and others less good, but we shouldn't like and deny that the good ones are still in fact forms of socialism.

Quote:

Of course there is another side. I do care about my society and think about the effects my capitalism has on other people. Sometimes, my socialist side comes into conflict with my capitalist side... and sometime I will make a decision that is not in my economic best interest.

Under capitalism workers demand to be paid as high a prices as they can get. We go to the highest bidder (not just money, also conditions and happiness... but self-interest is the key in capitalism). Under capitalism, companies compete for workers and the best companies thrive by producing value. Competition drives wages as much as cost, and the market finds a balance that allows the best companies to survive.

But workers can also compete for employers, and such competition is averted in many ways, by unionism, etc. because individuals are weak and prone to accepting socialism where it increases their personal/household income level.

Quote:

You are arguing for socialism by suggesting that people shouldn't be primarily working for their own economic self-interest.

In liberty, people can are supposed to, without government intervention, make sacrifices for the greater good. That is the reason a republic can function without a king. If economic self-interest was the only motivation within a society of liberty, government would have to step in to correct for problems that result from people only pursuing economic self-interest and failing to exercise the liberty to govern themselves, including their economic pursuits, in the interest of a greater good.

Quote:

Our present capitalist system works very well for me. Capitalism inspires my best work. I work very hard to make myself valuable both by studying to stay on top of my field and I will work extra hours when needed to provide value for my employer. Capitalism also has provided a very nice income for me, I can travel, buy the Scotch I like, take my daughter to Broadway plays.

Our economic system works pretty well.

This "our system works well" crap is nothing but fascist propaganda designed to attack anything that gets labeled as a challenge to the status quo. If you're not interested in assessing problems with the status quo and making things better, stop engaging in political discussion because all you are doing is contributing to obstruction of problem-solving.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

If economic self-interest was the only motivation within a society of liberty, government would have to step in to correct for problems that result from people only pursuing economic self-interest and failing to exercise the liberty to govern themselves, including their economic pursuits, in the interest of a greater good.

This is the key statement you are making. It is an inherently socialist statement. I don't think you will find any conservatives agreeing with you on this. The people who feel this way support Bernie Sanders and AOC. Conservatives like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would be aghast by this statement... they would call this "collectivism".

I have no problem being labeled as socialist or a capitalist. My actual economic beliefs fall somewhere in between the two labels, and I don't see either as an insult.

You just made me chuckle by using "socialist" as a generic insult when you are far more of a socialist in your actual beliefs than I am. You can call me a "socialist" if you want, coming from you I don't deserve the label.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
If economic self-interest was the only motivation within a society of liberty, government would have to step in to correct for problems that result from people only pursuing economic self-interest and failing to exercise the liberty to govern themselves, including their economic pursuits, in the interest of a greater good.

This is the key statement you are making. It is an inherently socialist statement. I don't think you will find any conservatives agreeing with you on this. The people who feel this way support Bernie Sanders and AOC. Conservatives like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would be aghast by this statement... they would call this "collectivism".

"Collectivism" is something else, which is related to another aspect of socialism, i.e. the idea that individuals should coordinate their actions to support social collectives.

What I am saying is the fundamental principle of liberty that makes it possible for free individuals to regulate themselves better than a king/monarchy or other authoritarian structure can. Unless you can argue that all possible outcomes of free individuals will necessarily result in a good society, then you recognize the importance of self-governance, self-discipline, or whatever you want to call it among people of liberty.

Maybe you are equating liberty with libertarianism, where society is just supposed to be a free-for-all, but liberty doesn't refer to laissez faire. It refers to people being free to take responsibility for themselves and their societies without the need for external regulation.

Think of it in terms of children in a classroom or workers in a factory. If students/workers understood the need and value of learning/productivity and good behavior, they could manage their own time and effort and achieve productive educational/economic results. However, when they shirk and misbehave and otherwise fail to act responsibly, they can cause a lot of harm to themselves and others.

Liberty is not arguing that everyone should just be free to do whatever they please no matter how much harm it causes. It is the ideal that people CAN think for themselves and regulate their own actions according to good sense and conscience with societal results as good or better than what can be achieved by a good king/government who regulates the people in their best interest for them.

In short, we don't need a king/boss if we can manage ourselves as well or better as we would be managed by external governance/authority. Still if we shirk the responsibility to manage ourselves properly, how long should others respect and protect our freedom?

Quote:

I have no problem being labeled as socialist or a capitalist. My actual economic beliefs fall somewhere in between the two labels, and I don't see either as an insult.

You just made me chuckle by using "socialist" as a generic insult when you are far more of a socialist in your actual beliefs than I am. You can call me a "socialist" if you want, coming from you I don't deserve the label.

I am just trying to have a clear discussion; not compete for the status of 'more socialist' or 'less socialist.' The bottom line is liberty and responsibility. You can't have one without the other. Ultimately, liberty is the ideal we should be striving for, though. It is not good to have a society of managed people who are dependent on government for their well-being collectively or individually.

[/quote]

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Nope. Liberty means I have no responsibility to anyone but myself. I can choose to value other people or things, but I have no responsibility accept the responsibility I choose to take on.

I do my job because it pays very well and I like it. This is in spite of the fact that my job is designing artificial intelligence that is replacing workers in a job that used to be done exclusively by human beings. The work I do costs jobs.

I don't feel to bad about this because I trust the market to work everything out. In this case artificial intelligence is much cheaper and faster than human beings. I make the companies who buy our product a greater profit, and they in turn have less costs which means they can (if they choose) offer you their product at a lower price. It isn't for me to judge whether artificial intelligence is more valuable than human beings in this specific role. That is a decision for the market to make.

In a free market, everyone acts in their own self-interest... yet this often (not always, but often) leads to a result that is a net positive for society. The system works when it rewards people for doing things that benefit society as a whole.

I develop new technology because they pay me very well for doing so. I am helping create progress, and I think this is a good thing... but the reason I am doing it is for the money.

The basic premise of capitalism is that when everyone acts in their own self-interest, the result is good for the society. This is not always true... but it is quite often true.

But sorry, I feel zero responsibility to you.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Nope. Liberty means I have no responsibility to anyone but myself. I can choose to value other people or things, but I have no responsibility accept the responsibility I choose to take on.

Right, but the question is how long to respect someone's liberty if they are failing to take responsibility for what they should.

E.g. if your neighbor has the liberty to collect stray cats, but he/she collects so many it starts causing problems around the neighborhood, how long to you continue to respect his/her liberty?

Without responsible behavior, liberty degenerates into dysfunction and conflict. It's that simple.

I believe in liberty, but I know that it is within the margins of human possibility to mess things up by behaving irresponsibly.

Quote:

I do my job because it pays very well and I like it. This is in spite of the fact that my job is designing artificial intelligence that is replacing workers in a job that used to be done exclusively by human beings. The work I do costs jobs.

So what? So does every other technology and method of accomplishing productive work more efficiently. Should we all work as inefficiently as possible to maximize the ratio of labor hours to units productivity?

Quote:

In a free market, everyone acts in their own self-interest... yet this often (not always, but often) leads to a result that is a net positive for society. The system works when it rewards people for doing things that benefit society as a whole.

That's too vague and general a conclusion, which is really just a traditional way of legitimating laissez faire economics. In reality, there are specific consequences that result from various configurations of economic activities.

Quote:

The basic premise of capitalism is that when everyone acts in their own self-interest, the result is good for the society. This is not always true... but it is quite often true.

But sorry, I feel zero responsibility to you.

We all have responsibility to future generations. We have no right to leave the planet it worse condition than we inherited it from past generations. If anything, we should leave it in the best condition we can leave it in. If you shirk that ethic, you're just not a good person.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I agree with you on the balance between liberty and what you are calling "responsibility". The way we fix that in a free society is laws. The reason I don't collect stray cats is self-interest... people can take legal action. Most people still act mostly out of their own self-interest.

Quote:

You're not a good person.

Liberty means I don't have to be a good person. I am not arguing for a lawless society where everyone can do what ever they want. In real life I choose what I think makes me a "good person", what anyone else thinks doesn't matter. There are a lot of people who don't think I am a good person. Liberty means they can **** themselves.

You have an amusing way of changing the meaning of words.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I agree with you on the balance between liberty and what you are calling "responsibility". The way we fix that in a free society is laws. The reason I don't collect stray cats is self-interest... people can take legal action. Most people still act mostly out of their own self-interest.

In order for people to take legal action, there have to be laws and enforcement mechanism to back them up. In a less-organized society, the same people might just corner you and tar and feather you. Either way, the point is it's wrong to use force against someone who uses their liberty responsibly and is open to reason. The least-violent correction is always the best, and that's why democracy is supposed to function as a way for free people to confer with each other about how to act responsibly and then take the liberty of acting right.

Quote:

Liberty means I don't have to be a good person. I am not arguing for a lawless society where everyone can do what ever they want. In real life I choose what I think makes me a "good person", what anyone else thinks doesn't matter. There are a lot of people who don't think I am a good person. Liberty means they can **** themselves.

You still don't get it. Why would anyone respect your liberty if you are not a good person? What reason would they have to honor liberty for people who shirk the responsibility to govern themselves with a high ethic?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Bullshit! Liberty is something I have whether or not you respect it.

I don't care if you honor my liberty. I don't care if you respect my liberty. Sure, you can pass laws to take away my liberty and have the police enforce them. Sometimes I think laws that take away liberty are appropriate... by it isn't liberty. I have no reason to care at all what you think, or respect, or honor, or judge. It doesn't impact me at all.

I have no obligation to "act right" according to anyone's judgement. I do several things of which decent, responsible Americans don't approve. I have sexual tastes that some people would frown upon that I exercise outside of marriage. I enjoy Scotch, and gambling. This is what liberty means and if someone doesn't approve, that is their problem not mine.

But no... I have zero responsibility to to act ethically. I often choose to act ethically... and sometimes acting ethically is in my self-interest. But this is my business, and outside of legal restrictions I am at liberty to act as I see fit.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Let's have a current example. One leading Democratic nominee for president says that we should legalize prostitution.

Prostitution is a service for which a lot of people are willing to pay. However, there are laws prohibiting prostitution in every state (there is one that allows it in a couple of counties)... and yet the business of consensual prostitution (where both buyer and seller are willing participants) continues.

Liberty will allow people (both buyers and sellers) to choose for themselves whether prostitution is ethical.

The law is preventing people from doing what they would have done naturally, or punishing people for doing something they choose to do anyway. There are arguments for why society might want to restrict the practice. But it isn't liberty.

Preventing one person from doing what he or she wants because another person feels it is unethical is the opposite of liberty.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Bullshit! Liberty is something I have whether or not you respect it.

Take another example you might be able to understand: let's say I decide that history is unfair and you have benefited from it while I have not, so I take the liberty of taxing you by burglarizing your home or manipulating you business/employment or otherwise redistributing your assets to me.

Would you accept that exercise of my liberty, or would you seek to intervene and recover your stolen assets and punish me?

Quote:

I don't care if you honor my liberty. I don't care if you respect my liberty. Sure, you can pass laws to take away my liberty and have the police enforce them. Sometimes I think laws that take away liberty are appropriate... by it isn't liberty. I have no reason to care at all what you think, or respect, or honor, or judge. It doesn't impact me at all.

You're right, it isn't liberty when liberty is disrespected, and dishonored, and taken away. But when that happens, the question becomes whether the intervention is justified or abusive.

Put another way, no government is perfect. Governance is decided and executed by human beings, who are prone to flawed judgement due to all sorts of reasons. So, let's say some people decide there has been social injustice that justified redistributing assets from some people to others and so they take action in defiance of the property owners. They can claim that their redistributive actions are justified by reference to the presumed failure of liberty to be sufficiently respected and honored for all in the past. At that point, such 'social justice warriors' are not honoring or respecting liberty, but they feel justified by the fact that the liberty of historically-exploited people wasn't honored in the past.

So the question is do we honor and respect liberty in all cases, or are there cases where we can legitimate governmental action in defiance of liberty's principles for the sake of correcting and/or preventing various injustices? It is a tricky question, because we are supposed to honor "liberty AND JUSTICE for all" but how can liberty and justice co-exist where some people exercise their liberty in an unjust way?

Quote:

I have no obligation to "act right" according to anyone's judgement. I do several things of which decent, responsible Americans don't approve. I have sexual tastes that some people would frown upon that I exercise outside of marriage. I enjoy Scotch, and gambling. This is what liberty means and if someone doesn't approve, that is their problem not mine.

I don't believe there are crimes/sins that are 'victimless,' as some would say. If the vices you describe are truly vices, then some one or more people are getting abused; and the question then becomes when intervention is justified. You are responsible for yourself, but why shouldn't others have the liberty of disciplining you or others when you fail to discipline yourself to behave responsibly? Liberty can't be a one-way street, or every form of abuse and exploitation would be legitimated under the general umbrella of liberty.

Quote:

But no... I have zero responsibility to to act ethically. I often choose to act ethically... and sometimes acting ethically is in my self-interest. But this is my business, and outside of legal restrictions I am at liberty to act as I see fit.

Consider this excerpt:

Quote:

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1199

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Let's have a current example. One leading Democratic nominee for president says that we should legalize prostitution.

Prostitution is a service for which a lot of people are willing to pay. However, there are laws prohibiting prostitution in every state (there is one that allows it in a couple of counties)... and yet the business of consensual prostitution (where both buyer and seller are willing participants) continues.

Liberty will allow people (both buyers and sellers) to choose for themselves whether prostitution is ethical.

The law is preventing people from doing what they would have done naturally, or punishing people for doing something they choose to do anyway. There are arguments for why society might want to restrict the practice. But it isn't liberty.

Preventing one person from doing what he or she wants because another person feels it is unethical is the opposite of liberty.

Sexual abuse and exploitation is no different from any other form of addictive substance abuse. Exploitation of addictive habits for profit is a breach of liberty because addictive compulsions undermine the capacity of individuals to engage in free decision-making.

The mind is only able to pursue and rationalize what it's addicted to, so it loses the capacity to take a step back and reflect on the negative consequences of what it is doing. That is the reason external intervention is necessary and important.

Leaving people to their own devices in such matters is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Liberty means leaving people to their own devices.

If people can:t make their own decisions, including when. You don't approve, then they don't have liberty.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Liberty means leaving people to their own devices.

If people can:t make their own decisions, including when. You don't approve, then they don't have liberty.

Everyone has liberty. It is inalienable. The question is when to honor and respect it vs. when to intervene to prevent and/or correct harm.

The ideal of liberty is that people can govern themselves responsibly, rendering the need for external governance unnecessary. If the reality doesn't live up to that, the question is what to do about it.

The ideal of liberty is a very different goal from what structural socialists envision, which is strong governmental structure designed and implemented in such a way that no one has to concern themselves with how to regulate their own behavior responsibly because their only responsibility to is follow rules and obey appointed authorities. They want everything codified into laws and organizational structures so that people can do whatever they feel like, as long as they obey commands and follow instructions, and the government will prevent and solve problems by controlling the centralized command structure.

That structural-control benevolent government ideology not only shirks individual responsibility, it simply doesn't work because individuals are always smart/clever enough to work around government regulation and/or manipulate it to their advantage against others.

Responsible self-governance is the only thing that works, but the question is how to achieve it in people who reject the responsibility to do anything with their freedom besides pursue narrow self-interest.

0 Replies

So much could be said about this important topic. I wish I had joined able2know earlier, or "Simple Solution..." had been posted more recently. Smile

1 Reply

@forthisit,

Quote:

So much could be said about this important topic. I wish I had joined able2know earlier, or "Simple Solution..." had been posted more recently.

Oh dear, dear, dear.

Now mankind, nay the entire planet must struggle on bereft of what you otherwise would have said.

And all because of the effluxion of time from March to December.

Wouldn't it give one and forthisit the (1+i)^t's

1 Reply

@knaivete,

Wow. OK, never mind.

0 Replies

Simple Solution for Inflation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know