Inequality increasing? BOLLOCKS! You heard me: 'Screw the 1%' You can't have failed to notice those massed ranks of people stamping their feet and going blue in the face as they shout about how inequality is rising and something, anything, really must be done to stop it. However, you may not have noticed those arguing the opposite, that inequality is falling, which is why we should carry …
Wealth is relative. I read somewhere that in 1900 England had one of the highest per capita income in the world and the workers were paid very well compared to other countries. My grandfather told me that when he was growing up in Hungary the dream of the workers was to live and get paid as well as the English workers. In inflation adjusted constant pound Bangladesh is about at the same level as England was in1900 and is regarded as one of the poorest most miserable country..
Income study is correct, the conclusions by Mr Worstall are a bit different from what I would have made out of it.
1. The study shows what we have noticed all along - that income rise is slowest in the 60-90 percentile band. That is what used to be called the "white collar" - engineers, qualified labour, professionals. Globalization or not, this continues to be decimated. Some of it is natural - you used to need a tehcnically qualified person for each 20-30 workers. You now need one per thousands (if not tens of thousands). Technology has allowed it and the graph reflects that.
2. Blue collar (or its replacement - the zero contract floater) average income as a statistic when averaged across whole of the world has increased. Again, nothing new here. Globalization has clearly played the part here - if we redo the same graphic for let's say UK it will be different. We will see a _NEGATIVE_ growth in absolute dollars (this is what the national statistics say) growth across 0-97% percentile over the last decade. Moving the stats to wo decades may bring things above 10-20%, but not more. The sub-3% to percentile will however have not 100%, it will have 500%+ rise. This is also what the stats say. If we go to anywhere else in Western Europe it will not be any different either.
> The difficulty here is not that one side is wrong. It's that both sides are correct: inequality within countries is rising. However, inequality across the global population is actually falling.
That simply means that income inequality is rising.
The measure has no meaning outside the country being measured, it's deleterious effects are psychological and result from comparing self to those at the top in your community and country. The only importance is your relative wealth in society.
That inequality between countries is dropping is nice, but has none of the positive effects on society which reduced inequality within a country does: reduced crime, reduced mortality, reduced child mortality, reduced unrest, increased trust, increased well-being, increased longevity.
"That simply means that income inequality is rising.
The measure has no meaning outside the country being measured, it's deleterious effects are psychological and result from comparing self to those at the top in your community and country. The only importance is your relative wealth in society.
That inequality between countries is dropping is nice, but has none of the positive effects on society which reduced inequality within a country does: reduced crime, reduced mortality, reduced child mortality, reduced unrest, increased trust, increased well-being, increased longevity."
This just sounds like rubbish. Reduced inequality across the globe has far better effects *for the average human* than keeping most people poor so a few working-class people in Europe can keep getting tax credits. Of your list, reduced mortality and reduced child mortality, increased well being and increased longevity are far better served on a global scale by taking money from the 80-90 decile and giving it to the bottom 50%. This will increase unrest and crime in the rich countries, but obviously reduce crime and unrest in poor countries, so again we are better globally.
Sure, your country or city will be in flames, but there won't be a war in Syria killing hundreds of thousands, so as a globe we are still doing better.
It's OK to be selfish, we have to be otherwise we'd give all of our money to poor countries, but we should also recognize that we can be selfish even while seemingly being selfless, because we are also generally ignorant of the big picture. Of course, taxing the 1% in the West and giving that money to the poor in the West doesn't appear to stop companies doing very well, and hence standards rising in poor countries as well, so we can maybe even do both!
But I want to take special issue with this line of rubbish: "The only importance is your relative wealth in society." That is complete garbage, as it is only true once you don't really have any problems. Poor people have to worry about clean water, shelter, food, how they would feed themselves if they get ill, access to medicine, etc. That you have to worry about whether you can afford a second flat screen, and you should because everyone else on your street has two, means that you don't have any actual real problems, and should shut up on a global scale. On a local scale, you might be right, but clearly what is important to *you* might not be important to *everyone else on the planet*. You getting that second flat screen might feel important to you, but is it worth killing a thousand children in Mozambique? You might think so, but morally surely it isn't.
> This just sounds like rubbish.
Yeah, I know, it is unintuitive, but it is the probably only really well-supported finding of socioeconomics ever.
You're right that first the basic necessities of life must be filled: income inequality in society means little until everyone has sufficient food and housing, but once they do it comes in to play. Even in poor countries like Cuba.
I refer to for instance Richard Wilkinson: https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
> That's a difficult one to maintain. Because you're trying to straddle "community" and "country". And they're not actually the same thing. We could obviously say that my community is "Bradford Road, Doncaster" and it's the inequality in that which is important. At which point the inequality between my bit of Doncaster and Bradford isn't all that important. Or we could say that my community is Bradford, and it's the inequality in that which is important.
The real issue is that the country's laws and taxes constrain the reality and economic situation and how it relates to others outside that country. Yes, I feel for my brothers and sisters in poor countries who are far poorer than I, but there is a reason why countries have such radically differing economic situations.
Our countries are fairly isolated silos of development. Globalisation is making this situation leak somewhat as is the wealth redistribution policies of the EU. This is why countries are desparate to get into the EU. It pulls them up as much as it pulls down the others. You just cannot compare radically different countries in such a superficial way and draw from it any inference about what we perceive in our localised economic climate. The economic and political drivers are so different. Some face problems of war, some face poverty because of drought. Some, like the US, face obscene tax and the problem of an out-of-control government run almost exclusively by corporate interests.
It is an interesting question of how to guage the condition of people across the globe and how we can help them and something that should concern us all. But beware of drawing too much from the figures.
Yes: http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.cz/
Not written by me although I orginally made a couple of the points that it then picks up.
Perhaps the most important one to make is that the very start of the Spirit Level is looking at the Easterlin Paradox. That, past a certain point (some $15,000 a year in GDP per capita is the usual identified point, this being where the basics of Maslow's Heirarchy are covered) greater wealth or GDP in the society doesn't seem to increase happiness very much. This is in fact wrong, as it does, just not very much. But let's go with the idea that it's correct. It's at that point that inequality, according to Pickett and Wilkinson, becomes the defining issue.
But please do note: this is them stating this. Growth to beat absolute poverty is great, it's only when we get above that Paradox level that inequality becomes so important. That's why all of their comparisons are with OECD countries only.
I am comparing matters across global levels of poverty: including many countries that are quite clearly well below that $15k a year standard. Even by the Spirit Level arguments raising incomes there in an absolute sense is more important than inequality.
Further, I'm discussing something, globalisation, that has different effects on the two things. It increase the incomes of the absolutely poor. It also increases inequality within the rich countries. We thus do face a moral point. Should we continue for the good being done to those absolutely poor? Or should the harm done to the relatively poor outweigh that?
It's not explicitly stated in the Spirit Level that the gains of the absolutely poor are worth more in terms of human happiness or utility. But it's certainly a possible outcome of their analysis.
> Yes: http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.cz/
Ta for that. Though maybe it's just my own biases, but I'm highly sceptical of any "scientific" argument (or rebuttal, for that matter) made via sales of a book. Especially if its (sub)title refers to "the left" or "the right" as if that means anything.
> Further, I'm discussing something, globalisation, that has different effects on the two things. It increase the incomes of the absolutely poor. It also increases inequality within the rich countries.
This is my other point of contention. Is this necessarily the case? Are the two really inextricably entwined? Are there not governmental mechanisms which can be used to reduce national inequality, without lowering the demand for international trade?
I would guess that the money/trade going from the wealthy nations to the growing ones is generated from goods and services in demand by the general public, moreso than those just the very wealthy demand. So would it not be logical that more wealthy-nation people with more money to spend (via closer income/wealth equality) would increase the demand for such goods, thus increasing global trade, and reducing global inequality further?
I'm also idly curious as to how global inequality is affected by clamp-downs on grey-market imports (an anti-globalisation policy, AFAICT), but that's an aside.
"This is my other point of contention. Is this necessarily the case? Are the two really inextricably entwined? Are there not governmental mechanisms which can be used to reduce national inequality, without lowering the demand for international trade?"
Sure, there are other policies that can be used to change inequality. But the effects of this particular one, globalisation, will be as advertised.
I'm not particularly opposed to reducing within rich country inequality either (I don't think it's very important and I might well oppose certain methods of doing so for the side effects of those methods, but no great ideological objection to the idea). I would be greatly opposed to choking off globalisation for the sake of reducing that inequality though. Precisely because the effect on hte absolutely poor is directly linked.
".....but did you see the bit where most of the world thinks you're wrong on that?" And I assume you took the time to go round the World, interview everyone (sorry, I must have missed your call), and got everyone's opinion on the matter, before proclaiming that you knew what the whole World thinks? No, I didn't think so.
No, it's still rubbish.
That decrease in global inequality means billions more people with access to food, clean water, healthcare, education, family planning, electricity, internet, telecommunications....
That is what actually matters, not the fact that some relatively rich middle class people in the west resent some other middle class westerners getting richer faster than themselves.
"That inequality between countries is dropping is nice, but has none of the positive effects on society which reduced inequality within a country does: reduced crime, reduced mortality, reduced child mortality, reduced unrest, increased trust, increased well-being, increased longevity."
Assumes facts not in evidence.
That said:
If the top 20 % of earners, who btw pay north of 80% of all taxes in the US, had every dime confiscated from them and redistributed, it wouldn't make any significant difference in equality.
If the goal is to raise all ships, then hitting the rich isn't gonna get it done. What might get it done is to draw substantially more from a pool of people with enough members to make a difference, the middle class. This would have the effect of lowering most people's boats.
If the goal is to punish the rich, the idea has merit. I don't care for this approach, rich people have always kept me employed at good salary through the years. Me and many others, say the middle class...
> If the goal is to raise all ships, then hitting the rich isn't gonna get it done.
Actually yes, it does. It turns out that it doesn't matter how you compress the income structure, by very high progressive taxation (like Sweden does) or by reducing difference in wages (like Japan does), as long as the result is shorter distance between the well-off and the less-well-off, you get the positive effects for society.
The reason is because the effect is psychological: if you earn 15000 pounds/year in the UK you're not starving, but you see around you that you are obviously poor, and suffer the downsides and stress of being poor. If you earn 15000 pounds/year in Bangladesh you can't buy your own island in the Caribbean, but you can see around you that you're a comfortably wealthy man, and have the contentment which comes from that.
bollocks! the top percent pay most of the taxes , true BUT the top percent take most of the income!!!.
the real issue is not "soaking" the rich(even though the rich have soaked the poor for ever) but a change in the political and economic systems that impoverishes an increasingly larger percent of our citizens wile lavishing unlimited wealth on a small percent of the population.
one example capital gains for the wealthy are taxed at a lower % than the working persons income, how in the hell does that make sense considering the lower 90% of income earners have virtualy no capital gains ever and the wealthiest take home almost ALL of the capital gains generated!!!???!!!
"If the goal is to raise all ships, then hitting the rich isn't gonna get it done. What might get it done is to draw substantially more from a pool of people with enough members to make a difference, the middle class. This would have the effect of lowering most people's boats."
That might have been true back when the middle class collectively actually had a bigger slice than the 1%, but that's not the case any more: The whole outrage the last few years, with "Occupy Wall Street" movements and so on, is because the very few richest people actually own MORE than the large masses below them -- not just per capita, but compared to the WHOLE middle class or working class or unemployed class.
In order to have missed that, one must either have been hiding under a rock, or... Idunno, pretend to an ignorance one doesn't actually possess?
"The measure has no meaning outside the country being measured, it's deleterious effects are psychological and result from comparing self to those at the top in your community and country."
That's a difficult one to maintain. Because you're trying to straddle "community" and "country". And they're not actually the same thing. We could obviously say that my community is "Bradford Road, Doncaster" and it's the inequality in that which is important. At which point the inequality between my bit of Doncaster and Bradford isn't all that important. Or we could say that my community is Bradford, and it's the inequality in that which is important.
In either case the inequality between my community and the bankers of London isn't all that important. Or we could say that it's English, or UK inequality that is: but then that's not really a "community". And if there's something special about the political entity that we belong to then why is Scottish v English inequality important? Or why isn't entire EU inequality important (and worth noting that if we did measure that then it would be considerably worse than US).
I'm entirely willing to believe that there's gradations in this: perhaps it depends upon quite how in your face it is. Meaning that local inequality in a village is more pernicious than the same level across a country perhaps. But if that's true then that does leave room open for it to still have some importance, even if less, across the world.
Basically this article was written by a US conservative who wants to justify further tax cuts for the 1%. The reality is that in the US the income for the bottom 90 has fallen dramatically while the income for the upper 3 percent has grown dramatically. I think that this whole thing can be interpreted as the conservatives in the US has screwed the lower 90 percent blue!
Lovely argument concluding that the poor have only themselves to blame (would they just be more skilled, they'd be positively swamped in money - or so we're told).
Me, I'm less concerned with the well-being of other countries (although I do wish them good luck), I'm simply making the argument that no-one needs to own luxury yachts, barns full of Veyrons and zip around in Learjets between their various palaces and penthouses (unsurprisingly, those possessing said items seem to disagree). I'm looking forward with great interest to hearing your argument that conversely, those generally not in possession of said items really, really, really don't need plentiful food, a roof above their head they can call their own, or affordable healthcare and education (we don't want them skilled after all do we - it's more money for us!).
Eh?
"Lovely argument concluding that the poor have only themselves to blame"
I thought I wrote a piece pointing out that we've got to decide which poor we want to help before we can decide our policy. Because this globalisation thing is great for the global poor but not for the rich world poor locally on our doorsteps.
I can't quite see the leap from that to the idea that poor have only themselves to blame. Could you point it out to me?
I already did, right after the end of that sentence (in parentheses like these, in case you missed them). And I do believe (beside failing to address my point following that controversial bit) you're conflating issues (like the effect of globalization on developing countries and the way we currently understand to handle distribution of wealth within a single country) that are in my opinion quite tenuously connected.
While it is true that no one needs any of the Learjets/Veyrons, etc. in order to live a whole army of other people do need someone to buy those things, So never mind let us take them out of the equation. Now we have a group of unemployed who are struggling to eat in a high price economy. So they will no longer buy the clothes, luxuries and even necessities they need. So a whole other group of lower paid have no income, but never mind the 1% no longer have it all. Sadly neither does anyone else. One really serious issue is that a $1.00 income in a $1.00 economy is at least passable. A zero cost for food economy does even better for those with no income other than the direct effects of their own labour, since they can grow it all themselves. In short monkey with any key aspect and expect to get bitten by the law of unintended consequences.
Not for nothing do aid workers, genuine aid workers say give a man a bag of food and feed his family for a day, teach people how to grow or harvest food and feed them for life. It is useful, more useful if no money changes hands, as that way nothing is left about for the other scourge of poor countries their corrupt leaders to steel.
One of the complexities of all economic models is that they only account for the known economic factors. So, get rid of the economic leaders, (which as the article points out includes 100% of the readers here) and what happens, frankly not a great deal. Sure they stop spending so money velocity slows down, so more people often have less, but people do not always react as you expect and who can blame them. For a start unless you kill off the entire 1% rather you just rob them and sad to sad waste your money, a large number will get the urge to reclaim what they feel they are owed It is not all going to be replaced by the penniless tribesmen of the Kalahari. The world will have a reduced value, and possibly a few million less people but apart from not having diversions like The Register and the internet to absorb weekend down time will anything much have changed.in the world order frankly no.
One example of the law of unintended consequences came clear a few years ago. Young women from villages flocked to work at factories making clothes. Sure the conditions were not always wonderful but, in many cases the girls did get (a) paid, (b) fed and (c) some education. New employment laws/rules saw them sent back to their villages without food, education and money, who gained? (I am not talking about the frankly crap buildings used in several countries which did need to be closed down before they fell down or were burned down)
Frankly beggar thy neighbour is never a recipe for harmony or success, but as the Ebola problem is showing, it can be hell trying to teach and help some people. Just getting some to accept healthcare, e.g. polio vaccines can be an uphill struggle or do such things not count.
Dropbear, I am sorry for you but I guess that simple minds can only deal with simple things. I never once mentioned trickle down though I did mention that a number of people are required to build complex things or do you believe in cargo cults. Still if you are happy to be part of the sacrificed 1%, please do not let me stop you. Go right ahead now if you do not mind, just please do not make a mess for others to clear up.
You sound as though you have no experience of other poorer countries, you might like to correct this on the way out.
Goodbye
"I did mention that a number of people are required to build complex things or do you believe in cargo cults"
I think he meant if society decides that it doesn't really need rich people to have "barnfuls of Veyrons and Learjets to zip between their palaces", then no, we *don't* actually need anyone to build Veyrons and Learjets and palaces, either.
"I think he meant if society decides that it doesn't really need rich people to have "barnfuls of Veyrons and Learjets to zip between their palaces", then no, we *don't* actually need anyone to build Veyrons and Learjets and palaces, either." I think the non-rich people employed to make the Learjets and Veyrons, who depend on such for the money that pays their bills, might like to tell you which bodily orifice you can insert that theorem into.
Oh, sorry, of course. How silly of me. How could I not realise that those are the only possible jobs ever for those people? How could I think that in a society where there was less demand for these things from fewer rich people because more of the total wealth were transferred to other, poorer people (among them, possibly, precisely these builders of Veyrons and Learjets), the increased demand for other, more modest goods would lead to more jobs building those goods in stead of Learjets and Veyrons.
Silly me, and stupid Adam Smith and J.M. Keynes, for ever thinking that employment would follow demand. Thank you so much for pointing out the errors of my ways to me, oh Grand Moff of economics Bryant.
Or something.
"...,Silly me.... ". Yup.
"....and stupid Adam Smith and J.M. Keynes...." You are simply misapplying their writings. In a stupid way.
"...for ever thinking that employment would follow demand...." Yes, you failed to notice the 'follow' bit, as in 'take away Learjet and Veyron builder jobs and theirs current income and force them to retrain and wait for new jobs that may come about, and just hope they manage for that gap without an income whilst the demand adapts'. Strangely enough Lefties have no problem asking the employees of 'luxury goods' companies to swallow such a loss of income and job security, but seem to get very upset when it is applied to more traditional socialist voting groups such as miners, steelworkers, shipyard workers, dockers, etc., etc. Their hypocrisy is quite marked - whilst they have no problem removing the livelihoods of workers for luxury car manufacturers such as Bugatti, they are all out to support 'the comrades' when it is more commoner fare such as British Leyland. Beyond duh!
"....Really...? Are we still beating that "trickle down" dead horse?...." Seeing as El Mod rejected my appraisal of your denying trickle-down, maybe you should actually provide some form of actual and reasoned argument that trickle-down is a 'dead horse'. If you can, that is.
> it is true that no one needs any of the Learjets/Veyrons, etc. in order to live a whole army of other people do need someone to buy those things
If there is one thing the post-Reagan era has taught us, it is that trickle-down economics do not work.
What actually happens when the very rich get more money, is that they hoard it. Because there are only so many things to spend on. If you want to stimulate the demand and economy, you make sure that the middle class gets money.
"If you want to stimulate the demand and economy, you make sure that the middle class gets money."
Especially THIS part of the middle class. I've got this compelling evidence that giving money to me is more effective at stimulating the economy than giving it to anyone else.
More seriously, if you're mega-rich, then you might spend a million on another jewel-encrusted skull (it's art, innit!), making a starving artist rich. However, that same million spread among the middle class buys 2000 fridges, keeping a whole factory of workers and their suppliers working.
" However, that same million spread among the middle class buys 2000 fridges, keeping a whole factory of workers and their suppliers working."
Finally someone sez, sorta, what the core issue is here:
Who do we take money from to give to others? How much do we take? Do we set an amount above which no one can keep another unit of money?
Will this apply equally to all? Will the movie stars and sports heroes also be forced to a limit? Special exemptions for the politically connected based on need? Will some people's income caps be more equal than others?
Politicians make these appeals for income equality/redistribution based on the average voter's propensity to vote their self interest, taking from the rich to give them more has appeal and keeps politicians in power.
The question really is "By what moral authority do we take legal earnings from one group to give to another?"
For all the noble bleatings these appeals make, we are talking about "from each according to ability and to each according to need." It won't work today, it will result in a larger gap just as it has in the past. It merely changes who the elites will be. If you think crony capitalim is bad, try living under crony communism. And forget any notion that "This time we'll get it right", we won't...
Let us call these plans and notions what they are, the idea that some have the right to take and give what they didn't produce. Put the altruistic platitudes aside and defend this theft...
This post has been deleted by its author
That right there is your problem. The rich don't spend a million on another jewel-encrusted skull. They spend it on another factory to make fridges for the middle class. Maybe 2000, maybe more, maybe less. But they're the ones who build and manage the factories where the middle class works.
Yes, the children of the rich may spend a million on another jewel-encrusted skull, but not the rich themselves. And those children, absent a tax free trust fund, will rapidly find themselves in the not rich group if they don't revert to the investment modes of their parents.
"That right there is your problem. The rich don't spend a million on another jewel-encrusted skull. They spend it on another factory to make fridges for the middle class. Maybe 2000, maybe more, maybe less. But they're the ones who build and manage the factories where the middle class works.
No they don't. They spend YOUR pensions plans and savings and your small self trading investment accounts. OPM. Ever heard of it? Other Peoples' Money.
Did everyone here completely miss the last 6 years? COMPLETELY?!
Noble rich? Kiss that arse some more! Go on, you know you want to!
@Tom 13 - re: the rich are "the ones who build and manage the factories where the middle class works"
Well, I'd say most of the jobs in the factories would be working class, and the middle class would be the factory managers, but that's a minor quibble.
What you're saying is that some rich people buy the luxuries and others do the investing, but I think that applies at any level of society. If people have a surplus, some will fritter it away on frivolities, others (or, perhaps, the same people at a different time) will invest it in the future - maybe a few shares, or a pension fund, or a tractor. We don't need rich people to provide investment if there is a surplus among the lower classes.
So, the problem is not a problem after all.
> If there is one thing the post-Reagan era has taught us, it is that trickle-down economics do not work.
I see lefties make this claim from time to time (usually verbatim, interestingly (is there a manual or something?)), and find it frankly baffling. What we've seen in the post-Reagan era is more of the planet than ever before drag more of its people further out of poverty than the wildest dreams of our ancestors ever envisaged. (OK, maybe not the very wildest. Some of our ancestors were crazy.) And it's not thanks to Communism, is it?
> What actually happens when the very rich get more money, is that they hoard it.
No, they invest it. They may well invest it out of pure selfishness, because they want it to breed more money, but that doesn't matter to those who are invested in, does it?
There may well be a handful of crazy super-rich people who convert all their money into cash or gemstones or whatever, place it into big wooden chests, then bury it. I agree that such people's wealth is not trickling down (unless a poor person finds one of their maps). I don't agree that such people are representative of the economy or significantly influential on it.
"You need rich people in your society not so much because in spending their money they create jobs, but because of what they have to do to get rich. I'm not talking about the trickle-down effect here. I'm not saying that if you let Henry Ford get rich, he'll hire you as a waiter at his next party. I'm saying that he'll make you a tractor to replace your horse."
-- Paul Graham
paulgraham.com/gap.html
paulgraham.com/wealth.html
And to follow up on that - it is actually a good litmus test for judging the 'filthy rich' types. Some of them have got their riches by providing useful improvements for the society. Like better tools that are enhancing our productivity. Some provide entertainment, which is not so clear cut anymore. There are, to put it mildly, those who will part fools from their money. Even some outright leeches abusing their power to the detriment of many.
"That right there is your problem. The rich don't spend a million on another jewel-encrusted skull. They spend it on another factory to make fridges for the middle class. Maybe 2000, maybe more, maybe less. But they're the ones who build and manage the factories where the middle class works."
NO. Most of them got it by lying, cheating and stealing and lobbying.
Or did you forgot about some recently failed government IT projects? Defense contracts? Insider trading? Market gaming? Rate rigging? Let us know when one these sounds familiar.
> Or did you forgot about some recently failed government IT projects? Defense contracts? Insider trading? Market gaming? Rate rigging? Let us know when one these sounds familiar.
You seem to be implying that, because some rich people are corrupt and/or criminal, they all are. That's the same as saying that all poor people are burglars.
>> No, they invest it.
> Oh they do, do they?
> From FT. You know, that bastion of lefty ideologues.
I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make there. There's certainly nothing in that FT piece suggesting, for instance, that Asian billionaires refuse to use banks. In fact, it says:
Yet, one of the common characteristics of the world’s billionaires is their entrepreneurialism.
So that's job creation. And:
Billionaires increased their holdings of cash and cash equivalents such as shares or bonds in the period to an average of $600m each from $540m last time. ... Wealth-X and UBS said the level of cash held signalled that many are “waiting for the optimal time to make further investments”.
So they've invested lots of money and are intending to invest even more.
What did you think the article said?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
