Global Debt is "Sinking" Economy as Populations Age in Rich Countries


The image above charts the ratio of national debt to GDP in countries around the globe.

As the U.K. Telegraph reports:

The world is sinking under too much debt and an ageing global population means countries' debt piles are in danger of growing out of control, the European chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management has warned.

Andrew Wilson, head of Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), said growing debt piles around the world posed one of the biggest threats to the global economy.

"There is too much debt and this represents a risk to economies. Consequently, there is a clear need to generate growth to work that debt off but, as demographics change, new ways of thinking at a policy level are required to do this," he said.

For all the discussion of rising debt levels over the past several years, austerity, and whether Carmen Reinhart, Kenneth Rogoff, and Vincent Reinhart's observations about debt and economic growth rates are meaningul (short answer is yes), very little has changed in many countries. For all the talk about draconian cuts in spending in the name of bringing government balance sheets into order, very little actual year over year spending cuts have been made anywhere even as taxes have been increased.

Regardless of your view on the correlation between growth rates and total public-sector debt (and the progressive economists at University of Massachusetts who supposedly unmasked decisive flaws in Reinhart, Rogoff, and Reinhart's research came up with exactly the same correlation between debt overhangs and growth rates), carrying a lot of debt gives countries less ability to move and try new things. As Nassim Taleb told Reason in 2013, debt "fragilizes" systems and makes them less resilient. This is easy enough to understand in a personal context: If your debt service is 10 percent, 15 percent or more of your income, you've got that much less money to use elsewhere, especially for long-rage investments that will help build your ability to earn or save more over the long haul.

On top of that, as the Telegraph notes, the population is aging in developed countries, which means that the sort of population-based increases in economic growth are likely harder to come by in the future even as more folks are retiring and living off old-age entitlements that cost more and more.

The combination of the two developments—large and growing debt levels and aging/retiring populations—are a real double whammy that deserve attention and the right type of public-sector austerity.

Here's Taleb talking to Reason. It's a sharp interview that's well worth watching.

NEXT: This is Why High School Sucks for so Many Kids: 16 Yr Old Photog Threatened by Admin for Selling Pics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction.

    Congress; “Hell no.”

    1. turd:
      Fuck off.

      1. What the fuck is wrong with you, Sevo?

        Are you retarded?

        1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

          1. Aha, you two occupy the same nuthouse. That explains much.

            1. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that’s OK. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

        2. Palin’s Buttplug|5.26.15 @ 10:23AM|#
          “What the fuck is wrong with you, Sevo?”

          You’re a laugh riot, turd!
          Fuck off.

    2. PB, or someone else, can you please explain? I don’t know a great deal about this deal, and I would be interested to hear the issues.

      (Also, on a side laugh, the Wikipedia article referrs to Ezra Klein as an analyst, rather than a “blogger, and liberal columnist” like his own Wikipedia page. /facepalm)

    3. Yeah, except that the Senate was controlled by Dems when Simpson-Bowles was completed and Obama failed to endorse it.

      So, yeah, Bo, I mean BP, I mean Tupla.

  2. What? Madness. We can do this forever, spending money we don’t have, running up debt to quadrillions, infinity, and beyond. In fact, we should do much more of it, since there are Americans who lack a gold-plated Rolls Royce.

    1. Remember the holy truth of the reverse Stein’s law: What cannot go on forever will do so anyway.

      1. It’s easy enough to address by making it illegal to not believe in our infinite debt capacity.

        1. Just make it a hatecrime against Keynesians

      2. It already exists. Financial institutions can remain irrational longer than their participants can remain solvent.

        1. Bingo

        2. It’s like this new housing bubble. This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.
          This time, it’s different. Please bail us out again.

    2. I looked into it. All the money is owed to one Scrooge McDuck, quadrillionaire. He has something called a ‘money bin’. Reports say while it used to be filled with gold coins, diamonds, jewels, etc., it is now filled with IOU’s from all the socialist countries.

      It is rumore he will have his nephews soon repossess all those countries.

      1. And Donald in particular has a bad temper and will be seriously breaking some legs.


  4. That is one rotten piece of “visual aid” up there.
    First, the colors on the map don’t seem to match the colors on the chart. And if you’re going to put it on a screen, for pete’s sake, differentiate the colors.

    1. And why restrict the colors to 390 to 700 nm in wavelength? Some of us can see far into the ultraviolet band.

      1. Check your privilege, shitlord. Light is a gendered conception of reality.

        1. The Roy G. Biv Foundation for the Narrowly Spectrumed. Won’t you give?

        2. Stop microaggressing bees, you chordate-centric insectophobe.

    2. I’m pretty sure it violates the ADA provisions of Obamanet to post the color red or green. Those among us who are suffering colorblindness may not be able to see those hues, the freaks.

  5. Gun laws in Chile anyone? It looks like the last refuge in the West.

    1. Exactly!

      In the Western hemisphere, Chile looks great–and there’s a reason for that: they effectively privatized what we would call social security. #Pension_reform_of_1980.2F81

      +1 to Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys.

      -1 million to progressives, Democrats, and other idiots.

      1. SHOCK DOCTRINE! Milton was throwing students out of helicopters!

        1. Well, Pinochet was throwing students from helicopters. But, theoretically, we could reform Social Security without the assistance of a vicious dictatorship. I think I would prefer it happened that way.

          The Chileans certainly kept the pension reform even after they got rid of the dictator. In fact, part of the problem was that they let people stay in the old social security like system if they wanted–and the people who elected to stay in that were mad as hell because the returns people in the private system were getting were much higher–and the contributions they were required to make to the privates system were lower than what you had to pay to stay in the old social security like system.

          There is no reason why we couldn’t let people keep their own money in a private system like that–and not let them touch it until they meet the same requirements Social Security uses now. Social Security makes up, what, like a third of the federal budget? What if Congress and the President couldn’t use our Social Security contributions as a slush fund anymore? That would crimp spending, and take pressure off of our income and corporate tax rates to make up for Social Security shortfalls in the near future, too.

          It’ll never happen with a Democrat in the White House, though, that’s for sure.

          1. You just don’t get it Ken. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot murdered hundreds of millions and bankrupted their countries but their economic/political philosophy is totally legit. Pinochet killed thousands and his country isn’t broke, but all of capitalism is forever tainted.

            1. Because as we all know, the actions of an institution funded exclusively by taxation is a direct indictment of all the institutions funded ostensibly by voluntary transactions.

              1. I like the way you think.

            2. There’s another point I’d like to see people grok, and it’s that when the policies are kept by everyone that comes afterwards, it isn’t necessarily tainted by association of the people who made it happen in the first place.

              For instance, how many times have we heard it said that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the homeless crisis because he cut so much funding for psychiatric care and made it harder for mental hospitals to commit (and fund) people who aren’t a danger to themselves or others?

              That was 30 years ago! And no one has changed those policies back to the way they used to be. They could implement those funding changes in Democratic strongholds like California if they wanted–but for 30 years, no one has because no one wants to change it back to the way it used to be. How many more decades have to pass before that change is no longer “tainted” by its association with Ronald Reagan?

              Over the past 30 years, every Democrat President, every Democrat Governor, every Democrat Congress, and every Democrat state legislature has effectively endorsed Reagan’s changes by not changing things back to the way they used to be. And yet not institutionalizing people against their will unless they’re a danger to themselves or others is still somehow all Reagan’s “fault”?

              1. I’m going to say the same thing about Pinochet. It isn’t just that Pinochet was right about pension reform even if he was wrong about everything else. It’s also that every non-dictator and Chilean legislature for the past 35 years, since Pinochet privatized their social security system, has effectively endorsed the changes Pinochet made. I don’t think you can “blame” it all on Pinochet anymore!

              2. “For instance, how many times have we heard it said that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the homeless crisis […]?”

                We’ve “heard it said”, but it is bullshit:
                “In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ”They’ve gone far, too far, in letting people out,” he said in an interview. ”

                1. More:
                  ” From the mid-70s to mid-80s there was a strong ‘patients rights’ movement generated by the mental health advocate community. Although there were many facets to this movement, one of the primary elements was a re-examination of the criteria for institutionalizing patients.
                  The point of contention revolved around interpretations of what it meant for a patient to be able to ‘take care of himself.’ Prior to this the interpretation was rather strict; if a patient could not earn an income and provide shelter and food for himself (and if there were no family members able to care for him), then he would normally be institutionalized.
                  Begining in the late 70s, the advocacy groups began to demand a lower standard. As long as a patient could merely wash and dress himself, and could perform the mechanical tasks of shovelling food into his mouth, then every effort was made to force the institutions to release them. My wife’s boss spent many months both in court and testifying before the state assembly trying to stop this lowering of standards. Unsuccessfully.”

          2. Wither on the vine! Wither on the vine!

          3. Since the begining of this administration there have been ideas floated about the Fed Gov taking over all private pensions and 401Ks. In the last two weeks I have seen 3 articles floating this trial balloon measuring resistance.

            With a group in power that even entertains the idea of such you can bet that there is no chance of them turning loose of the SS slush fund much less privatizing those accounts.

            1. Quit listening to redneck AM radio for news.

              1. What a stupid troll you are, Shrike.

                Classic elitist, too?

                And you’ve been having your stupid shit called out, every day, for…how many years now?

                You probably pay prostitutes to beat the shit out of you, don’t you?

                Is there something sexual about having your (lack of) intellectual shit beat out of you by mostly guys every day?

                Because it’s pretty sick to watch. Seeing your stupid posts is like stepping in dog shit.

              2. Right. Just listen to the trusted George Stephanopolous, or the good folks at MSNBC. Clearly intelligent and trustworthy.

    2. P.S. The gun laws suck.

  6. But, but, but we owe it to ourselves so it doesn’t matter!

    1. That, and there’s a contract among the generations. Yes, you did sign it, so don’t lie.

      1. You tacitly consent by continuing to reside here. “America, love it or leave it” is the new anthem of the left circa 2008.

        1. America, love it or surrender your belongings on the way out.

          1. Wait…

            America, surrender your belongings, we don’t give a shit what you do after that.

            1. America, we’ll take your stuff and that’s all.

  7. Break some windows.
    With enough broken windows, we can do a re-set.
    Or have a Jubalee Year.
    The Commie Pope would be into that.

    1. You bet! Why, I’ll wager you didn’t know that lower energy prices hurt the economy:

      “”Consumers have been very reluctant to spend (savings from cheaper gas), because they view that as fleeting,” says Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at”…

      Those darn consumers are saving it! Why, if we just raised the taxes and had the government spend it for us, we could put all the glaziers on overtime!

  8. Society is rich. Unfortunately, much of that wealth has been unfairly diverted into private hands, but this artifact of unenlightened historical economic dogma can and will be rectified.

    1. Render unto Caesar bitches

      1. keep that pinko stinko communist hippy shit to yourself !

      2. This is more entertaining without the comma. And put a colon after the penultimate word? Even more delightful. And historically accurate.

  9. Isn’t it all just a scam, really? The people who finance the debt are beholden to the debtor to such a level that it makes no sense to allow default. Also, they make money off the debtor in exchange for financing the debt. It’s a… what is the term?… circle jerk?

    1. Sounds like a scam to me.

      1. The shit that’s being perpetrated by central governments and central banks is rank amateur crap only perpetuated by generous helpings of coercive state violence. Any comparison to hardworking private-sector scam artists is an insult to the latter.

    2. Maybe. At some point people not dependent on debt are going to stop investing their excess capital in debt instruments.

  10. Has anyone tried reversing the aging? You know, legally declaring everyone to be 16?

      1. What’s the Spanish word for straitjacket?

        1. el straighto jacketo.

    1. Carousel! Carousel!

    2. “aging population” is code word for falling birthrate and depopulation. The Left declines to admit that overpopulation was a phony threat and depopulation is a real one.

  11. You know what really undermines an argument that excessive debt is hurting the economy? A map where all the developed countries are high debt and the low debt countries are places like Liberia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan…

    1. Government debt is a promise to tax future generations. Logically there must come a point when the government must fleece the people to pay its debts, or inflate the currency into worthlessness. Either way that’s going to kill the economy.

      1. Whether the government takes half your money by threat of violence, or achieves the equivalent by reducing its value by half due to inflation, makes no real difference, does it.

        1. This is a concept completely lost on modern society.

          1. Which is why the 20th century had such a huge body count. Central banking enables all sorts of catastrophes to be funded well past the point that even taxation could not allow.

            1. Sincerest thanks. That is a new meme to me. Beautiful! *wanders off rethinking the Rothschilds and the Napoleonic Wars*

      2. I’m not disputing the argument we need to lower I debt. I’m disputing the decision to include that stupid map.

        1. Without the map, how will we know where the zombie apocalypse happens first?

          1. We’ll just have to figure it out using our braaaaiiinnnnsssss…

  12. What is needed is a monetary system that is based on soaking up surplus production (ie coinage and equivalent) NOT on loans to produce more in future (ie banking system and debt).

    Stop freaking messing with the market. And damn it you libertarians – stop ignoring the biggest distortion of all. There can be no such thing as a free market pricing system where the cost and supply of money itself is distorted for the sole purpose of cronyist advantage. Stop pretending you can have a market system without completely overhauling the monetary system first.

    1. Jesus, we’re trying. But I’m working with a city council that believes the economic earth is 6000 years old. Baby steps.

      1. The baby step is to create a local money supplement – not try to argue for a global money substitute. If your local economy produces some commoditized product, chances are that it can be monetized. Even grain in a farming community can be monetized by using unleveraged silo receipts as (short-term) ‘value exchange’ (money without using the word ‘money’).

        1. Don’t try to coopt the brandnames of the US Mint or Federal Reserve – ‘dollar’, ‘eagle’, ‘coin’, ‘money’, ‘note’, or the artwork. Otherwise, Treasury will pounce on your town for counterfeiting

        2. Sell it as ‘helping money to stay within the community’ and ‘becoming less dependent on decisions in DC’.

        3. What % of your city council spending actually goes to pay for commodities of various sorts? How much benefit is there to aligning local tax revenues with those spending fluctuations? All it takes is one bright spark in your town to figure out how to diversify that monetary backing – and a council decision to accept it in lieu of taxes/fees/etc – and your town has a reasonably stable monetary system that is almost completely local.

    2. I wasn’t aware Libertarians were opposed to monetary reforms.

      1. Not opposed. Just pretty much ignoring them.

        And whenever monetary reform is mentioned, it pretty much encompasses the phrase ‘gold standard’. With no mention of and no apparent understanding that that late 19th century universal gold standard (every country using the same thing) was the main cause of the death of coinage and the growth of banking/debt money.

        1. Not opposed. Just pretty much ignoring them.

          That’s a lie.

          And whenever monetary reform is mentioned, it pretty much encompasses the phrase ‘gold standard’.

          That’s another lie.

          19th century universal gold standard (every country using the same thing) was the main cause of the death of coinage and the growth of banking/debt money.

          That’s just retarded.

          1. Thank you for your cogent arguments. My dog will be by shortly to respond

            1. Thank you for your cogent arguments.

              You stated things that are simply not true and provided nothing in the way of proof that is incumbent upon the person making the claims. Shall I go find negative evidence on your behalf, or is your dog going to just post unsubstantiated generalizations again?

          2. 19th century universal gold standard (every country using the same thing) was the main cause of the death of coinage

            So the universal use of the gold standard was the main cause of the death of the gold standard?

            And this is an argument for reinstating the universal use of the gold standard?

            Perhaps you could elucidate.

            1. So the universal use of the gold standard was the main cause of the death of the gold standard?

              Which is the same thing as saying that the free market gave us central banks and government fiat money. The claim is self-refuting and defeated by logic alone.

            2. I oppose the universal gold standard. It didn’t work then because it was universal. William Jennings Bryan was correct in his observations in Cross of Gold speech. 20 years too late – but correct.

              There is only one functional use of a universal money standard – to make it easy to reconcile trade imbalances among differing local markets. So yeah – it will always appeal to international/intermarket bankers. But no market can be based on ONE thing. Prices are always relative to something else – and money itself also always has conflicting functional value. Sometimes money needs to be extinguished (paying off debt). Sometimes money needs to be spent. Sometimes it needs to be hoarded/saved. All three of those happen simultaneously in any pricing system.

              The sound monetary system ended in 1873 when we gave up trimetallic gold/silver/base system. It was deemed more important then that our government debt (including overtly fiat greenbacks) be internationally tradeable. Govt put its financing interests ahead of its role of ensuring a stable monetary system. Which was in turn a consequence of the National Bank Act which required that all ‘national banks’ (which would include all the ‘international trade’ ones as well) use govt debt for their reserves. The result was that gold disconnected from the economy. And when the base of the monetary system disconnects from the economy, Say’s Law can’t work anymore – and ‘economic cycles’ get more extreme and don’t necessarily self-correct.

              1. I oppose the universal gold standard. It didn’t work then because it was universal.

                It didn’t work because it was universal? You’ll need to demonstrate that it didn’t work and then you’ll need to demonstrate how universal consumer preference denotes something that doesn’t work.

                There is only one functional use of a universal money standard – to make it easy to reconcile trade imbalances among differing local markets.

                Sound money that is more acceptable in more places is better money. Avoiding the necessity of a ‘double-coincidence of once’ is the whole appeal.

                So yeah – it will always appeal to international[…] bankers.

                The universal gold standard arose out of consumer demand. International bankers love a system of fluctuating fiat money which they can manipulate to circumvent consumer demand, as it is not tied to anything intrinsically scarce.

                But no market can be based on ONE thing.

                Who’s claiming that a gold standard would entail that everyone everywhere would be forced to use a gold backed currency? That’s certainly not how gold became universal and it’s not how free markets function. Even in the height of the universal gold standard, there were other precious metals being used in exchanges, in addition to other commodities and financial instruments. Gold won the contest and then government colluding with some rather sinister interests rigged the contest.

                1. Gold didn’t win some free market contest. Britain went on the gold standard to stabilize its government debt after Napoleonic Wars. Prussia beat France in a war and demanded reparations in gold. That forced France off its traditional silver standard. After that Europe went entirely to gold. Silver coins in the US were only legal tender in amounts less than $5 after 1873 – and their production was limited as well. All commodity markets and financial instruments were explicitly prohibited from being legal tender – which is precisely why commodity markets became leveraged dollar-denominated debt instruments instead. India was forced off its traditional silver standard via colonial diktat.

                  And in fact going back thru history, most monetary standards have been silver – NOT gold. Because silver is far more useful in the main function of money – to facilitate everyday exchange via coinage. Gold is simply too geologically rare to serve that function – so coinage ends up being simply an invitation for thieves. Gold has never been used for that unless a)forced by a govt looking to stabilize excessive debt or b)in some city-states that are highly global trade-oriented.

                  Gold has always been A currency. It remains so even today. So the phrase ‘gold standard’ is either meaningless (since gold exists as A currency even today) or it is a deceitful attempt to invoke some peaceful non-cronyist ‘free market’ era that never existed.

        2. This is all pointless discussion until it is acknowledged that we must deal with our progressives first. They really are to blame. Until then there is not much fixing anything. Their kind never stop.

          We should be addressing that first. Once they’re gone the rest is relatively easy.

          1. ^ I was thinking this exact same thought as I listened to the interview. ‘pointless discussion’. There are no solutions to economic problems as long as leftists have the power to screw things up.

    3. Yeah, it’s not like some prominent libertarianish guy has been calling the audit the Fed or anything.

      1. Yes – and he failed. And unfortunately he was also completely in thrall to the phrase ‘gold standard’ (the legal definition of the US dollar was to silver – NOT gold – for the 1st century of the US) and in thrall to a school of economists who are almost fatally allergic to everything that is remotely empirical.

        At some point, you gotta attach the word insanity to any expectation of change here. Do you want change? Or do you want virginal purity?

        1. My point being – if libertarians as a whole were seriously interested in dealing with this issue, there would be a slew of alternative approaches continually being advocated. Not some uberreliance on one mostly ineffective guy in Congress. Alternatives – choice – competition. That’s kind of a core piece of libertarian and classical liberal economic thinking right? Not some reliance on an old guy on a white horse riding in to save us.

          1. No true libertarian…

          2. My point being – if libertarians as a whole were seriously interested in dealing with this issue, there would be a slew of alternative approaches continually being advocated.

            There absolutely is. Maybe you’ve heard of cryptocurrency, competing bank notes, commodity portfolios and yes, gold and silver to name a few. It’s not everyone else’s fault that you don’t read enough to know how ridiculous your claims are.

            1. Leave him alone. He’s got the straw man on the ropes.

              1. Ok. That was funny

                1. How in the world you can possibly claim that libertarians don’t care about monetary reform, or even to say that they only advocate gold. I can think of half a dozen libertarian authors I’ve read in the last year who’ve advocated a number of different monetary reforms. The only way you can make that claim in good faith is if you really are profoundly ignorant about the whole spectrum of what libertarians actually say about money and economics. In which case; read a fucking a book.

                  1. I’m commenting on a libertarian website that rarely addresses this sort of issue. Instead preferring to tilt at symptoms that the status quo system creates.

                    And no – one shouldn’t have to need to read a book. This ISN’T rocket science – and the changes advocated affect everyone everyday. It does not require technocrats to either understand it or implement it. And if the change is gonna happen it is gonna require that someone get up on stage and simplify it a bit (or create some rhetorical hooks) for an audience of millions. THAT is what libertarians should be trying to make happen. That is what is obviously not happening.

                    Hell I wouldn’t mind if someone somewhere occasionally used the phrase ‘silver standard’ to summarize the reform. At least I’d know that that person is advocating coinage – not some potentially (and probably) deceitful prop/subsidy for bank debt.

                    1. ^ This guy doesn’t read books.

                    2. Libertarians had the best chance in decades to reform/supplement/change the monetary system in 2008. The existing system was failing. Everyone was panicked about the existing system. No one liked the TARP ‘solution’.

                      Libertarians were, as usual, completely freaking silent. Perhaps they were still reading books then? More likely, the ‘gold standard’ folks were silent because they knew it was no solution to anything at all back then. And that’s it for ‘libertarian monetary reform’.

        2. Virgins are overrated. I’d rather have a chick with some experience.

  13. 62 comments and nobody points out how low debt is in Somalia? Probably because they don’t piss away money on expensive infrastructure projects.

    1. somalian orphan exchange rate is quite reasonable as well.

  14. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  15. A bit off-topic,some wonder if South Africa is heading towards an IMF bailout?

  16. I wouldn’t worry too much. The damage that this debt is doing, namely diverting money from individuals and companies to public sector spending has already been done. People agreed to this kind of damage in hopes of getting a better retirement later, but that’s a fiction: in the end, their retirement benefits are determined by demographics, not fictitious debts.

  17. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  18. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ??????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.