Crony Capitalism

What Makes a Billionaire Bad? Just Add Government.

Cronyism, not the free market, is what makes income inequality harmful.

|

You can't have a monopoly without the government regulating the competition away.

"Income inequality" is one of the populist issues du jour, even if there is a certain logical incoherence in believing that the growing income of rich people is somehow necessarily bad for poor people.

A new economic study suggests that, actually, we can calculate when a billionaire's riches harm the poor and when they're helpful. The "bad" billionaires aren't the ones who flood the marketplace with cheap goods and jobs that some folks want to blame for all our ills. Those billionaires help the poor (by providing cheap goods and jobs, obviously). It's the billionaires who get and keep their riches because of their connections to the government and through crony capitalism who create the most harmful consequences of income inequality. From the Washington Post:

Specifically, when billionaires get their wealth because of political connections, that wealth inequality tends to drag on the broader economy, the study finds. But when billionaires get their wealth through the market — through business activities that are not related to the government — it does not.

The idea is perfectly logical. Billionaires who get their wealth through the market have to provide a good or a service others find valuable and they have to do so efficiently and at a price their customers can afford. When the prices are low, the poor are able to get the goods that they need to thrive and still keep more of their own money. When the customer is the government those market efficiencies just often are not there or not as pronounced. Government is not spending its own money. It has much less of an incentive (if any) to be careful. It shrugs off cost overruns (or embraces them since government employees are often the beneficiaries), allowing crony billionaires to cash in by taking more of the money of the citizenry yet not having to care as much about efficiency or pricing as their market-oriented brethren. Thus, the economic multiplier is subverted. Citizens are forced to give money to the government, who gives it to cronies (and themselves), who then provide inefficient and costly goods and services that are actually worth less than what was paid for them.

The researchers for this study went global to try to quantify this logic. It would be tough to try to calculate this impact in America and other Western countries because there's a complicated mix of market and crony capitalism. In countries like Russia and India, it's a lot easier to observe:

The researchers used a very conservative standard for classifying people as politically connected, only assigning billionaires to this group when it was clear that their wealth was a product of government connections. Just benefiting from a government that was pro-business, like those in Singapore and Hong Kong, wasn't enough. Rather, the researchers were looking for a situation like Indonesia under Suharto, where political connections were usually needed to secure import licenses, or Russia in the mid-1990s, when some state employees made fortunes overnight as the state privatized assets.

Using such a calculation, the United States actually ranked surprisingly low. The researchers calculated that only one percent of America's Gross Domestic Product owned by billionaires is a direct result of political connections. Compare that to 84 percent of Colombia's GDP or 66 percent of India's GDP. That America's number is actually a lot lower than we might think could explain that, despite all the populist complaints about income inequality, our low-income citizens still have access to goods and services and parts of the marketplace that would have turned their great-grandparents green with envy. But in countries like Colombia and India:

When the researchers compared these figures to economic growth, the findings were clear: These politically connected billionaires weighed on economic growth. In fact, wealth inequality that came from political connections was responsible for nearly all the negative effect on economic growth that the researchers had observed from wealth inequality overall. Wealth inequality that wasn't due to political connections, income inequality and poverty all had little effect on growth.

"The negative effects of wealth inequality are largely being driven by politically connected wealth inequality. That seems to be the primary channel that drives this relationship," [researcher Sutirtha] Bagchi said in an interview.

And here is your libertarian, free market "OF COURSE, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS" moment:

Politically connected business elites can charge consumers higher prices for services, control access to bank loans and other funding, and prevent outsiders from starting competing businesses. "One of the things that shocked us is that once the billionaires had a significant amount of wealth, they would often take steps to try to limit the amount of competition," Bagchi said.

I'm shocked that anybody who studies economics would be shocked by this.

Read more about the study and other examples here.

(Hat tip to Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute and Atlas Network)

NEXT: Pro-Choice Group Takes Down Story Slut-Shaming Pro-Life Activist

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The solution is to scale down government influence in the marketplace to the point it’s not worth it for billionaires to buy politicians. WHY IS NO ONE BUT ME SAYING THAT?

    1. Because you post the first comment on every thread and then move on to furiously hit F5 until the next article posts. If you actually read other comments, you would see that that is actually a fairly common sentiment here.

      1. Fist has tapped the tachyon stream emanating from the Reason server room.

        1. Fist lives in the server room.

          1. Fist is a squirrelz?

    2. I told a progressive this a few months back. A teacher/professor, actually. She replied that that’s one line of thought, but she repeated she thinks we just need to get the money out of politics. There was no argument to be had. Money corrupts politics rather than politics are not inherently prone to corruption.

      Also, from the WashPo article:
      “They say that since the rich are able to save the most, they can actually afford to finance more business activity, or that the kinds of taxes and redistributive programs that are typically used to spread out wealth are inefficient.”

      Nothing about progressivism is against centralization of wealth and resources because its the only way they can have any hope of establishing control. The same teacher above ranted about the coorporitization and centralization of food production. It didn’t matter that it could be shown that this happened only after massive government intervention and was part of a deliberate government policy. The solution to the new problem was more government.

      Beyond that, color me skeptical of studies that pretend to be able to show what demographics hold what percentage of the total world’s wealth and then also have a control group with which to compare that to to show growing income inequality.

      1. Don’t use the term “politics”, use “power” instead. Because government is not politics, it is power.

        1. People on the left equate money with wealth, and wealth with power. They simply cannot comprehend that businesses can neither force you to buy their products nor force you to work for them. No force, no power. But people on the left cannot understand this.

          1. It’s because they take the government for granted. They assume a large, powerful government and start reasoning from there.

        2. Well, that’s part of what I get at it with the point. I actually did specifically use the word power in that discussion and raised the human nature question. I pointed out that government employees have self-interest, too. But most people in the West no longer view government as force. Not directly. The worship of democracy deludes people into thinking government serves them.

          1. The worship of democracy deludes people into thinking government serves them.

            The Will of the People is the new Divine Right of the King. You couldn’t argue with the king because he was doing the will of God, and you can’t argue with today’s government because it is doing the will of The People.

            Same mentality, different costumes.

          2. The worship of democracy deludes people into thinking government serves them.

            Delusion is the correct term. Democracy has become a totem.

          3. Actually, I’m impressed you managed to start each of the last three lines with the same word.

          4. The worship of democracy deludes people into thinking government serves them.

            That’s the reason taxes were dramatically lower under a monarch. A king would have been hard pressed to raise taxes above the historical royal average of less than 4% because they had no silk glove called democracy to conceal the iron gauntlet that is taxation.

            1. Partially on that point: after the Glorious Revolution in England, William found it easier to raise taxes & go to war. Parliament argued that, since they invited him to become king, they needed to support his policies.

              1. And then they beheaded him.

            2. Interesting point. I was not aware of that figure.

            3. Of course, some of that could be that a lot more people under monarchies are practicing subsistence living. Nowadays we have all sorts of expendable income that we can “afford” to fork over without too much pain.

              It’s a lot easier to tax away someone’s movie ticket, than someone’s rice ticket.

              1. Subsistence farmers are less taxable by definition, since they don’t produce any substantial surplus to tax, so that argument doesn’t really apply. Taxes by the monarch usually involved taxes of the landed gentry or consumption taxes paid by the merchant class, the costs of which may have been passed down the line, sure. But there was to my knowledge, no subsistence peasant tax levied by the monarch.

                Thomas Jefferson or Samuel Adams were not subsistence farmers and they lost their shit and shot some red coats when taxes went up a few percent. The taxable people were precisely the ones the monarch was careful not plunder too hard. Kings don’t get voted out of office, they get beheaded, stabbed or otherwise violently dethroned.

                1. I get where you are coming from, though I think there is more to this. Yeah, low taxes but the king also required his court to basically provide a well trained military. The cost of equipping and training a medieval army was largely born by the feudal vassals and that was a tax in and of itself. The king didn’t collect gold but services.

                  It isn’t just the perception of who was being served by the ruling class, but the reality. There are more people demanding more services, so the tax rate is higher. 75% of our budget is consumed by transfer payments to the elderly. There is no fiction of people’s will there. It is the truth. The monarch gets his 4% still, but the vassals get their due as well.

                  1. The cost of equipping and training a medieval army was largely born by the feudal vassals and that was a tax in and of itself. The king didn’t collect gold but services.

                    In the early medieval period yes. But that was also a period when states as we know them did not exist. They were more correctly described as ‘realms’ whose subunits were the vassals who pledged fealty only to the extent that the king was protecting their property rights. This was also a period when allodial titles held by landowners was much more common and involuntary taxation by the king was as rare as a universally binding edict or statutory law (very rare).

      2. she repeated she thinks we just need to get the money out of politics.

        When people say this, this usually means they support “Clean Election” laws, which simply mean that candidates who please the political machine get their campaigns funded by tax dollars obtained by coercion instead of voluntary donations.

        1. At least Seattle has recently put in place the least harmful method for this (everyone gets a voucher and they get to decide who’s campaign the money goes to). For a while I was worried that a law would get passed where the elected officials got to decide who qualified as a candidate.

      3. It’s because in order to make the political power not worth buying, we’d have to live without a massive regulatory state. And then SOMALIA! Progs can’t conceive of not having regulations. They throw around the word deregulation like it’s a dirty word, that everyone just knows is automatically bad.

        Better to put common sense limits on political speech than to be literally Somalia, right? Plenty of smart people put limits on political speech.

      4. Or, to paraphrase her idea so it sounds appropriately stupid, we need the corrupt, incumbent politicians selected by the wealthy to write laws that restrict speech in a way that checks the influence of their wealthy patrons and corrupt insiders. And obviously they won’t do so in a way that instead shuts out and silences everyone who might challenge them and particularly disadvantages non-incumbents.

    3. Because the rest of us don’t hate children, old people and the poor like you apparently do.

      1. I actually do hate all of those groups.

        1. *puffs pipe* I dare say Brochettaward that such an aside is in utterly poor taste. If it werent for the children, elderly and wretched who would polosh our monocles, or sweep our chimneys? You are probably too young to remember a time when a gentleman would be compelled to wipe his own arse for lack of an honest hired hand. I daresay there is no need for hatred when paternalistic condescension will do, old chap.

  2. “One of the things that shocked us is that once the billionaires had a significant amount of wealth, they would often take steps to try to limit the amount of competition,” Bagchi said.

    I’m shocked that anybody who studies economics would be shocked by this.

    Nice article, Scott. Be a shame if anything happened to REASON….

    /Libertarian Writers Cartel

    1. In order to be a cartel we need enforcers.

      Who will do the enforcing on our behalf?

      Attempted Murder Inc.?

  3. So according to this study, Trump might actually be worse than Nicole?

    1. I thought Nicole was an absolute, like zero Kelvin.

  4. How come no one is talking about THE Gap?

    1. Probably because their jeans and khakis aren’t as good as they once were.

  5. On the study’s methodology – it’s a lot harder to show regulatory capture when the relationship between a corporation or a wealthy individual with bought politicians and influenced regulators isn’t enshrined or part of official policy. America’s regulatory bodies don’t come out and say they favor x corporation, but the wealthy don’t give massive amounts of wealth to politicians for the hell of it or just because they are so politically opinionated. It’s an investment on their end.

    It also doesn’t seem to look at corporations, but instead only incredibly wealthy individuals. So, how about cable and internet providers who can effectively squeeze out competition through their cozy deals with local governments?

    1. This. Our version of cronyism is shrouded by tens of thousands of pages of regulations.

      1. In the name of protecting consumers, regulators protect their cronies.

        1. I would guess most of them don’t even realize they are doing that.

      2. Corporations are people too!!

        1. Just like Soylent Green!

  6. In a free market economy, the only way for someone to accumulate wealth is for them to create it. They create something of value, then trade it for something else of value. The only way to get rich is to make others richer. A non-crony capitalist’s fortune represents a roughly equal amount of wealth that was dispersed throughout society. That’s why this notion of “giving back” just pisses me off. Whenever someone says that I ask “What did they take?”

    Thing is, most people see the economy as a zero-sum game. So for one person to get rich another must be made poor. The fact that both people become richer just does not compute.

    1. This fixed-pie myth needs to die. I’ve seen so many otherwise reasonable people salivate over Bernie “Deodorant-Slayer” Sanders that I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way for democracy to work is if the populace had some semblance of economic literacy. Thanks, public education!

      1. Yep. Trump is an idiot (correct) but Bernie is a wise politician that thinking people can support.

      2. The myth has been around for about as long as the species. It’s an instinct we developed during our nomadic, tribal times. Back then if you wanted something you had to take it by force. Then you had it and the other guy didn’t. Zero sum. It’ll take a long time to get rid of this mind set.

        1. Which is a great analogy because if zero sum was true we’d still all be fighting for our piece of the gazelle, right?

        2. Back then if you wanted something you had to take it

          Even THAT’S not true. If you wanted something you had the option of procuring it yourself, without force. Hell, you could obtain two and trade the second to your rival for something else you need.

          The fallacy is, that it’s easier to steal it, but that’s certainly not true. There is a price for theft and that is the chance that your rival will kill/hurt you in retaliation. Much easier to trade.

          Isn’t it funny, which modern day political groups favor peaceful exchange of goods and services and which favor theft?

          1. In between the raping and pillaging, nomadic or barbarian groups tended to do a lot of trading with their settled neighbors. Warfare wasn’t the norm unless one side became too weak to fend the other off. I don’t know how far back one wants to go, but this applies in nomadic societies, as well. The Arabs were traders well before Islam even if they still had bedouins and raiding.

            The Greeks founded colonies throughout the Mediterranean because plenty of those barbarians wanted Greek trade. The only way to keep getting those goods was to allow the Greeks to stay.

            1. So parties that are mutually dependent on each other for the “stuff” they want don’t fight each other?

              Whoda thunk?

    2. Yes – only government and their sponsored free-riders truly remove value from the economy without ever “giving-back”.

    3. “Thing is, most people see the economy as a zero-sum game. So for one person to get rich another must be made poor. The fact that both people become richer just does not compute.”

      The problem is not that wealth is a zero-sum game. The problem is that POWER is a zero-sum game. That’s the problem you and Shackford seem intent on ignoring.

        1. “?”

          This is called a straw man. You are setting up an imaginary opponent, one who believes that the economy is a zero-sum game. Nobody is arguing this as a quick review of the article and the comments will confirm. Granted you are just aping Shackford who starts in with the straw-man before the end of his first paragraph, but you should be warned. A straw man is an example of a fallacious argument, not one to copy.

          The problem is that power is zero-sum. That’s been recognized since ancient times.

          1. This is called a straw man.

            You’re an idiot.

            The very notion of income inequality REQUIRES those espousing its demise believe the economy is a zero sum game. There is no straw man about it. If you believe income inequality is an issue, you believe the economy is zero sum…PERIOD!

            1. “The very notion of income inequality REQUIRES those espousing its demise believe the economy is a zero sum game.”

              No, I disagree. The very notion of income inequality REQUIRES the belief that incomes are unequal. It says nothing about game theory. The issue of income inequality has been around since ancient times, centuries before game theory came into being. You need to step back and rethink this, if you are interested.

              1. No, I disagree.

                And hence, you are an idiot.

                In order for income inequality to be a “bad” thing, something to care/worry about or act upon, it must somehow harm someone. The only way income inequality can harm anyone is if you believe that in order for one to become wealthy another must become poor, which is fucking ridiculous to anyone who has the slightest grasp of economics.

                1. “The only way income inequality can harm anyone is if you believe that in order for one to become wealthy another must become poor”

                  Nobody is professing these beliefs besides the voices in your head. I said it’s about power, which is zero-sum. Think about that rather than trying to read the minds of those concerned with income inequality. You can be thankful you are not an idiot. That doesn’t make you a good mind reader, however.

                  1. What the fuck are you talking about? This was your claim:

                    This is called a straw man. You are setting up an imaginary opponent, one who believes that the economy is a zero-sum game.

                    EVERYONE who believes income inequality to be a problem is professing this belief. BY DEFINITION!

                    Exactly WHY would IE be an issue if someone wasn’t claiming it does harm?

                    1. “EVERYONE who believes income inequality to be a problem is professing this belief. BY DEFINITION!”

                      Everyone but me, apparently. But I’m an idiot.

                      What you are doing here is insisting your caricature of an opponent’s position is the true picture. Shackford is doing it right out of the starting gate. Sarcasmic is doing it.

                      I keep telling you. Wealth is not the issue. It is power. If one man or woman had all the wealth in the world, and the rest of us had nothing, we could still lead productive, interesting and challenging (especially challenging) lives. The same cannot be said if it were all power being concentrated in the same degree.

                    2. If one man or woman had all the wealth in the world, and the rest of us had nothing, we could still lead productive, interesting and challenging (especially challenging) lives.

                      No one person could have “all the wealth in the world” as the vast majority of it is distributed by nature. You might be able to claim the entire land area of the Earth as yours, but you can only see and do something with a few square miles of it at any one time. You might be the only person with books in his library, but you will only know a few things well at any one time. So on and so forth. And if you were the only person with any money and everybody else had practically nothing, then all of the money would be worthless. Money is a social good; without the society to spend it in, it’s just a piece of cloth paper with some ink on it.

                      The thought experiment isn’t even worth conducting because of the sheer absurdity of it. The only plausible “extreme inequality” scenario is one in which a small oligarchy lives high on the hog at the expense of everyone else; we call this communism.

                    3. “The thought experiment isn’t even worth conducting because…”

                      Am I wrong or did you completely miss the point? Once more for the sheer stubborness of it all. You ‘make money’ but you ‘take power.’ Making wealth is not zero-sum. Taking power is zero sum.

                    4. What is power? How is it measured? Under what mechanisms does it transfer from one person to another? What relationship does it have to wealth and income?

                      In order for me to get your point, you have to actually make one.

                    5. “What is power?”

                      Ability to assert your will and prevail.

                      “How is it measured?”

                      Different ways. Not necessarily monetary.

                      “Under what mechanisms does it transfer from one person to another?”

                      It can be given, taken or shared.

                      “What relationship does it have to wealth and income?”

                      A complicated one. In a society where things are measured by the price it will fetch in a marketplace the relationship between power and money is intimate.

                    6. In a society where things are measured by the price it will fetch in a marketplace the relationship between power and money is intimate.

                      What society exists where things are not measured in some way by their social worth? That’s all prices are. How is this “relationship” intimate? In what ways does power beget money or money beget power?

                    7. “What society exists where things are not measured in some way by their social worth? ”

                      You misunderstand. In a market society the standard of measure is money. A non-market society may have other standards.

                      “In what ways does power beget money or money beget power?”

                      What do you mean by power?

      1. You’re right. The government has it all, and we are all left scurrying to buy its favor. So why do you support an ever expanding government?

        1. “The government has it all”

          That’s just defeatist grumpy old man talk. I know the government has most here living in fear and resentment, it’s understandable. But people can overcome their fear, confront the government and win. That’s precisely because they are not powerless and the government doesn’t have it all.

          “So why do you support an ever expanding government?”

          Out of fear and conformity. Why do you?

          1. But people can overcome their fear, confront the government and win.

            How does that work, exactly?

            1. Several ways.

              Convince enough people to constrain the government through the vote/amendments. (peaceful)
              Mass civil disobedience. (semi-peaceful)
              And as a last resort, tyrants fertilizing the tree.

              ALL of which have happened before and can happen again.

    4. Whenever someone says that I ask “What did they take?”

      They used THE ROADZ.

  7. DOW off another 300+ today. Are we officially crashing yet?

    1. Yup.

      I heard some asshat on the radio say that the China crash was coming at an inopportune time because the US stock market was so high. ?????

    2. The amount of capital destruction going on in the oil markets is massive. There are a lot of private equity firms that have significant holdings in that sector. Combined with their emerging markets investments, it’s going to be ugly.

      1. Cheap oil is a stimulus…ALWAYS.

        1. Not during a cycle of debt destruction.

          1. ALWAYS.

            Cheap energy invigorates every single part of an economy except those who deal in it. Sure, energy companies will suffer. Everyone else should rejoice. Net positive.

            The economy is about to implode, but it has nothing to do with cheap oil.

    3. Summer of Recovery VII – this time is for REALZ.

      1. Yellen better push a little harder on the gas pedal or its all coming to a halt.

  8. “The researchers calculated that only one percent of America’s Gross Domestic Product owned by billionaires is a direct result of political connections.”

    This kind of ignores the indirect effect that the regulatory state and labor laws benefit bigger players, encouraging consolidation and making starting up more difficult. There’s a reason Walmart supports minimum wage hikes.

    It’s very complex and difficult to quantify, but props for trying I guess.

    1. To add to that, I would argue that most progressives focus more on what they believe to be sticking it to corporations than anything else. The small businesses just get in the way of the real fight they want to have. It doesn’t register that many of their policies perversely help them.

      This is why you’ve seen the development of the ridiculous argument that if you can’t afford to pay a living wage to your employee, you shouldn’t be in business in the first place. They want to explain away the obvious results of their policies on small businesses they would otherwise at least nominally support.

      1. More consolidation means more billionaires. Less competition fucks over the poorest consumers. The regulatory state is partially responsible for growing inequality. Along with quantitative easing, occupational licensing, and so on. Libertarians should be making this argument because progs don’t have the moral high ground on income inequality. Their own policies continually exacerbate it.

        1. Note that the growth of “income inequality” has risen the most while the prog’s biggest hero has been President. And yet he keeps talking about it as if he’s going to solve “the defining issue of our time.” How oblivious are people to miss this?

  9. Hm. No Tony yet, but he usually can’t resist this topic so I’ll go ahead and post my usual request for him.

    Tony, name me one monopoly that has persisted for more than one generation of the product/service without government support of said monopoly.

  10. Citizens are forced to give money to the government, who gives it to cronies (and themselves), who then provide inefficient and costly goods and services that are actually worth less than what was paid for them.
    .
    It makes me crazy(er) to know there are people out there who are either unwilling or unable to believe this.

  11. Yellen better push a little harder on the gas pedal string/b or its all coming to a halt.
    .
    CLAP HARDER.
    Tinkerbell’s losing altitude.

  12. Tag fail.

  13. That America’s number is actually a lot lower than we might think could explain that, despite all the populist complaints about income inequality, our low-income citizens still have access to goods and services and parts of the marketplace that would have turned their great-grandparents green with envy.

    Yes – and another important point on this FTFA:

    While the U.S. scored relatively well in this ranking, it’s worth asking how the connection between wealth and politics might have changed since 2002, the last year that the researchers studied. Post-financial crisis bailouts and the rise of Super PACs that can raise unlimited money may be creating a closer connection between the wealthy and the politically powerful than ever ? perhaps with negative implications for economic growth.

    1. “our low-income citizens still have access to goods and services and parts of the marketplace that would have turned their great-grandparents green with envy.”

      This is not an unalloyed good. More complexity in the market place demands more time and effort on the part of the consumers who want to master its nuances. Time and effort are finite things and might be more productively spent on other pursuits than shopping. Green with envy? How about overwhelmed by complexity.

      1. More complexity in the market place demands more time and effort on the part of the consumers who want to master its nuances.

        No, it doesn’t. If the array of choices is so daunting, just grab the first thing you see. Nobody is forcing you to contemplate the existential consequences of the multitudinous varieties of deodorant.

        1. “just grab the first thing you see”

          A free market is only worthy of the name if the customers are well informed.

          ” Nobody is forcing you to contemplate the existential consequences of the multitudinous varieties of deodorant.”

          The problem is that it’s not in your best interest to ignore them. And the onus is on the customer to keep him or herself informed. That demands time and effort, both commodities once spent, you’ll never see again.

          1. A free market is only worthy of the name if the customers are well informed.

            A free market is entirely worthy of the name if the customers are free to be as informed, or not, as they choose to be. That’s what freedom is.

            The problem is that it’s not in your best interest to ignore them.

            Why?

            And the onus is on the customer to keep him or herself informed.

            What onus? Where does it come from?

            That demands time and effort, both commodities once spent, you’ll never see again.

            Who is placing all these demands? From what source is all of this pressure to spend time and effort coming from?

            Buy the fucking deodorant. Or don’t. It is entirely up to you, which means it involves exactly as much time and effort as you choose to put into it.

            1. “A free market is entirely worthy of the name if the customers are free to be as informed, or not, as they choose to be.”

              Efficient markets, which reward the good and punish the bad, require participants to keep themselves informed about conditions that affect the market. Not to be informed is to put yourself at a disadvantage. It’s not so much that customers are free to be informed, it’s that they’re incentived to be informed.

              1. What is an effective market? What is this punishment being meted out? You use words in ways that reflect no understanding of their meaning.

                1. “You use words in ways that reflect no understanding of their meaning.”

                  Sorry that’s all you have in response to me. You don’t seem all that interested in conversing.

  14. I think that wealthy people are quite different, and unfortunately many of them are really not good persons, as they are concentrated only on money and have no other priorities in life. But I think that it’s not money that makes them so bad, it’s just their nature. So from such point of view not all wealthy people are bad and create problems for ordinary and poor people. It’s not a rule, but it think that the government and mass media create such attitude to wealth on purpose. This makes ordinary people think only about short-term financial issues and rely only on best payday loan UK that has no perspective for future, but gives definite possibilities for development.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.