What a ridiculous assertion. So the implicit claim is that 60 billion (per year?) is all it takes to end extreme poverty. Does anyone actually think increasing aid by that amount would actually have that effect? Is it really as simple as writing a cheque?
You could spend 50 times that and not reach the claimed outcome.
Helping someone perpetually exist is not the same as teaching them how to thrive.
Not to mention the biggest problem the poorest on earth have, is not a lack of money, but a lack of right to their own lives and property (via protection by a functional judicial & police system). The poorest on earth have in common a near complete lack of basic freedoms. Rivers of money won't save them from that, it's a fairy tale in the sense that the money would never reach them and or stay with them.
Back of the envelope calculations, grabbing some numbers off of Wikipedia:
"In 2005, 43% of the world population (3.14 billion people) have an income of less than U.S. $2.5/day. 21.5% of the world population (1.4 billion people) have an income of less than US$1.25/day."
So the bottom 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25/day.
1/4 of the $240 billion annual income cited is $60bn a year, spread amongst 1.4 billion people yields $0.117 a day.
Assuming that the average income of that 1.4 billion is half of $1.25, that would give us an ~18% boost to income (not necessarily livelihood).
Which is a surprisingly high figure. Why the hell wouldn't they lead with that? The title is clearly a fairytale to anyone with any sense.
The problem is that things like phones and fuel (anything that requires human effort to make or extract) will face an 18% increase in salary costs because everyone expects to take home 18% more each month. So most things will be more expensive -- whether 18% more or not, I don't know.
Phones and lights haven't exactly been going up in price with GDP. Stoves in the valleys I saw in Nepal were mainly affected by distance travelled by dzos.
Throwing your hands up in the air, pronouncing the problem too complex sounds like a really convenient excuse to do nothing.
Dire poverty is self-inflicted. Corrupt, heavy-handed governments, pursuing illogical economic policies or deliberate starvation of opposition tribes. You could write that check tomorrow and the day after, Zimbabwe or North Korea or Somalia or even India would be the same. There are places in the world where the locals are killing people for offering the polio vaccine to children.
Corrupt, heavy-handed governments inflict wealth on themselves, but necessarily inflict poverty on most of the common people in the territory they control. Unlike most Americans, I actually lived in a third-world dictatorship when it was still a dictatorship, and I know that the process of the coming people gaining freedom from dictatorial rule is not an easy process. Yes, people who seek freedom and fair administration of justice eventually find that they gain prosperity too, but in the short term it can be frightening to seek freedom when the secret police can suddenly assassinate or imprison regime opponents. I am glad that the dictatorship I used to live under (that of Taiwan) had fallen by the second time I lived there, and I hope the dictatorship of (for example) North Korea falls soon, but the condition of many common people around the world is not aptly described as "self-inflicted."
Self-inflicted? That is a bullshit western justification. Those poor peoples have been milked to extinction by colonial overlords and left do die.
Not to mention that their very countries were designed and drawn on the map by colonial powers, like dividing loot, with no respect to local populations and tensions (or with full intent to exploit them, in a "divide and conquer" move).
Or that even today the governments of those countries are appointed and remotely controlled by western powers, with everything from under the table deals to open military support for their cronies.
Calling poverty in those places "self-inflicted" is like saying a raped woman "deserved it".
>Religion and ignorance go a long way. You can't throw money to the problem
Those places have been far more tolerant before they had colonial overlords and post-colonial interventions. Islam in particular was nowhere as strict and even more progressive that the feudal European populations of the time (and developed math, poetry, etc).
(And it's not like the Bible Belt for example is a paradigm in the case of "religion and ignorance").
>Now try teaching people about safe sex and AIDS. Try teaching people about the importance of an education.
You cannot teach them in abstract. You have to build the foundations to teach them. And all the foundations that we took for granted in the western world have been either destroyed or not developed in the past in those countries.
Note also that when people say "try teaching people about the importance of an education", they mostly mean: try teaching people about WESTERN style education and western work ethic / values, etc.
So a tribe in Africa that lived perfectly fine in a relative balance, Amish style, for millennia, has the modern world (in the form of the colonial and post-colonial powers) invade in it's culture, their farmland or hunting places destroyed etc, and they are left to adapt to this new context or die. So they have to be "educated" to get some mind-numbing soul-crushing job as a factory worker, reject their culture, etc.
The same thing happens in Latin American tribes.
We adapted to the modern world by choice and by developing it (and over centuries at that). They are FORCED to "adapt to it or die, pronto". It's not at all the same.
"And all the foundations that we took for granted in the western world have been either destroyed or not developed in the past in those countries."
I agree with this. But "try teaching people about WESTERN style education and western work ethic / values, etc." Yes, cultural relativism only goes so far. But one could try teaching them japanese values as well, it would be good.
A society can only progress with certain values and rules, and what we call "western civilization" is pretty much that, otherwise, we would be maybe talking about tribes in Europe being conquered by who knows (not that tribes in Europe didn't exist).
But of course, as you said, it needs a foundation, and this took a long time even in the case of Europe.
"So a tribe in Africa that lived perfectly fine in a relative balance... and they are left to adapt to this new context or die."
This has happened how many times in world history again? Oh and "relative balance" may be an exaggeration. Old "innocent" tribes could and have destroyed their habitat. Example: Easter Island. That also happens in South American tribes.
"We adapted to the modern world by choice and by developing it (and over centuries at that). They are FORCED to "adapt to it or die, pronto". It's not at all the same."
I agree. But see, several countries are already adapting. Angola for example.
>Those places have been far more tolerant before they had colonial
Stop right there. Before colonization those lands were dominated by the ottoman empire, which exported "black gold" from there. By which I mean that they'd ride into the villages on horseback, kidnap the young into slavery, to be exported into North Africa, the Middle East or Asia. Similar things happened in India. They left the old or infirm to die of hunger and thirst, wounded and alone.
Coming out of ottoman domination, the indigenous population was literally worse off than in the stone age.
Colonization, which of course was not free of exploitation, was a massive improvement of these people's situation. Yes it was not perfect, far from it. That is a bit like criticizing George Washington for being a slaver. In the 6 cities in Congo that I visited that were colonized after WWI, the older generation says that the current situation is worse than colonization. In places where the old wars have resumed, like near the Sudan border, it is much worse.
Unless, of course, you count the muslim conquest of Africa/Middle East/Asia as the vast bulk of colonization. Then, maybe, you have a point.
Before that, during Roman times, Africa (esp. North Africa) was a lot better off than Europe and massively better of than North America. Africa was called the bread basket of Europe in Roman times, although that did not include anything south of the Sahara where we don't seem to really have historical records for.
>So a tribe in Africa that lived perfectly fine in a relative balance, Amish style,
There is a huge difference between tribal life in a hostile environment and Amish life in contemporary America. In every Amish village you easily find people aged 70 and over, thanks to modern medicine. In regions of Africa were tribal life still exists, you won't find a single soul over 35.
In an African village there's lots and lots of easy ways to die, and it's just a part of life there. They are trying to fix this, but it'll be decades or centuries before it's done. If you go outside of villages without backup, nature will kill you. It may be hunger, germs, it may be poison plants (who kill people who think hunger is easily solved), it may be poison snakes, it may be other snakes (you best pray if you die from snake attack, it's poison that kills you), it may be large animals (although they've been hunted to near-extinction in many places, they remainder still kills lots of people), it may be people from other villages (they are not friendly towards one another, though during peace time they'll generally let people who wander off go with a beating or a wound). And if you stay inside of the village, you may still get killed by hunger, thirst, germs or snakes, and there are regular fights for tribal leadership that "usually not everybody survives". Most kids do not live to see their fifth birthday (most are never recorded, and thus not in anyone's statistics).
And that's ignoring the larger wars, that are usually between ethnicities, like the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. These wars are uncoordinated, it's just one ethnicity expanding by moving it's outer villages in a particular direction, and they know full well there's exactly one way they can get access to other's hunting/farming grounds. These wars are slow-moving, taking decades to move a few dozen kilometers (because even a village at war, without supplies, still has to farm and hunt while also killing any neighbour they come across). But slow-moving enemies doesn't help you if you don't have intelligence going further than the next village.
>Stop right there. Before colonization those lands were dominated by the ottoman empire, which exported "black gold" from there. By which I mean that they'd ride into the villages on horseback, kidnap the young into slavery, to be exported into North Africa, the Middle East or Asia. Similar things happened in India. They left the old or infirm to die of hunger and thirst, wounded and alone.
Coming out of ottoman domination, the indigenous population was literally worse off than in the stone age.
My country was a subject of Ottoman domination. The Islamic world was far more progressive a lot before the Ottoman rule you mention. And even the ottoman domination, cruel as it was, was nothing like the colonial situation. Only white people, and far away from there, would ever think it was any better.
>In the 6 cities in Congo that I visited that were colonized after WWI, the older generation says that the current situation is worse than colonization. In places where the old wars have resumed, like near the Sudan border, it is much worse.
The current situation is not the old situation. It's the post-colonial situation, and colonialism (and subsequent interventions) is what shaped the current mess.
Like the bloody divisions the British Empire ensured they left behind wherever they left (Israel/Palestine, Ethiopia/Erithraia, Cyprus/Nothern Cyprus, India/Pakistan, etc).
Congo, for one, was no actual country, with history, sovereignity etc. It was a claimed property by Europeans in Africa, that was made into a country. They drew their plot on the map and took over, not caring about what tribes it contained, what the local tensions were, etc. Of course the resulting country would have a problem after they leave.
It would be like an invader coming and making a "country" out of Texas and part of southern Mexico. He rules with iron fist (and guns and tons of blood) and keeps things stable. What will happen when he leaves? Are the Texans and the Mexicans going to enjoy peace in that BS "country" he designed, or fight for control?
"Those poor peoples have been milked to extinction by colonial overlords and left do die."
That's bullshit anti-Western propaganda. Those "poor peoples" as you call them are responsible for their own fates, just as all of us are, no matter the situation we're born into.
Pity won't save them, and neither will trillions in charity as has been demonstrated for decades. There has been no improvement from the trillions in redistributed wealth from first to third world. The only major improvements have come through vast system improvements, such as in China (and spill over effects, such as Chinese investment).
They have to take control of their own destiny. They have to fight for their own freedom, their own property rights, their own right to exist and pursue their own lives. The West is now very bankrupt, it will soon have no more trillions to throw at the global poverty issue, it's sink or swim time.
You don't get to have colonies all other the world, exploit people, invade their countries, have millions of black slaves, and then dimiss the effects of this as "anti-Western propaganda".
>Those "poor peoples" as you call them are responsible for their own fates, just as all of us are, no matter the situation we're born into. They have to take control of their own destiny.
Easy for the 200-pound armed-to-the-gills bully that keeps them down to say that. But yes, it would be nice if they managed to get control of their own destiny and pay back some justice. Like take 20-30 million white western people to use as slaves in their fields.
Ah, said by a dude on hacker news. I'm sure that a bunch of people in shitty situations so the west can exploit them will appreciate your inspiring advice. It's naive reductionistic right wing garbage like what you just posted that fucked the world up so bad in the first place.
The larger issue is that programs to end poverty haven't done what they have advertised to do. Poverty in Africa is getting worse in many areas as the level of aid has increased. I hesitate to start taking people's money who I don't know and just assume aren't doing anything better with it to fund programs that have poor track records. It'd be more exciting if they tried to fund these things voluntarily and then people can decide freely if they think someone can end poverty. They won't but it'd just be more interesting.
The other more obvious point is that this nonprofit is claiming the world is under serious problems and that taking money from others to give to them will fix it. That is sort of a naked appeal to tax others and put it in their pockets.
People in the first world don't appreciate what a huge diverse place is Africa. Things are getting better in some places, worse in others but there is lots of reason for optimism overall. Unfortunately, the bad news tends to get all the attention, so people here get the idea that development money doesn't do any good, period.
I recently spent 2 days working on a renovation project at a local slum here in Hungary. The slum is a couple hundred gipsy families, living in unfinished/abandoned houses without water, gas/heating, they steal electricity off the grid. This was during the winter, so most houses just had one heated room, using wood. The houses didn't have bathrooms, everything smelled of urine, thrash was left all over the place, inside, outside, everywhere. Since the locals steal from each other, there were very few movable/valuable objects, like tables or chairs. Interestingly though, most houses had an LCD TV, which was surreal, poeple living in quasi-homeless conditions but watching TV all day. Many families had 5-10 kids, possibly because of lack of protection and because wellfare is linear in the # of kids here. Many kids were at home all day sitting around in dirty clothes. I heard one father argue with a kid and threaten him with school as punishment. According to locals drugs are a huge problem, with most teenagers having tried out drugs or being users. Adults were also at home, obviously uneducated and unemployed, possibly without acceptable "work ethics". The experience was a bit like a post-apocalyptic movie.
One of the aid people said in an interview that to "fix" this, ie. to reintegrate this group of people into society will take 2 generations in her opinion, because the social patterns in their heads have to change (don't steal, go to school, work, keep a tidy house), and that takes time. I agree.
I don't think just money would help. After I came back the 2nd day, I tried to imagine what would happen if one of these families got a really nice house and a bunch of money to go along with it. But since they lack the social skills to handle property and a law-abiding, "civil life", I think many would gradually destroy the house, spend/lose the money, and then end back where they started.
TLDR: Ending poverty involves changing people, which takes generations.
An interesting (perhaps) afterthought I had after the renovation work was whether trying to change people (the gipsies in Hungary) is moral. As a group I believe gipsies have always lived a different life, navigating at the edge of society, living in their own communities. Maybe it's just us who should change and just accept that they want to live a different life? I don't know, this line of thinking reminds me of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, where the author argues that perhaps our way of life is only special because it's aggressive, in that we annihilate or assimilate other cultures and cannot live alongside them.
It doesn't necessarily take generations. Google projects like Al-Azhar park, Nizamuddin Basti and you would see that these renovation projects completely overturned the economic lives of the poor people who live around the area. The public private partnership between the government and the private agency went in to these areas to renovate the historical structure, but they ended up taking the poor out of poverty.
The word "gypsy" is denigrating and they call themselves Roma. You don't call black people niggers, do you? It's kind of telling that you spent two days on an aid project for them without getting that.
The discrimination against minorities like Roma and Jews in Hungary is severe. So it's not fair to blame all the problems on themselves.
Fact: They call themselves gipsies ("cigany") when they talk among each other. You hear it all the time on the subway, and I heard it several times while working there.
You are right, the PC term right now is "roma". But the distinction between these two words here in Hungary is nothing like "black" vs "nigger", so your blaming tone is unjustified.
No, "gipsy" is not a denigrating term. At least those "roma" coming from Spain and Portugal call themselves gipsies. It is true that there is strong discrimination in Hungary though.
Seems most people have a trouble with the number and the report because it is from Oxfam? The UN came out with a similar number years ago (http://www.fao.org/Newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html) $30 billion to end world hunger. Other NGO:s (which I'm to lazy to google) have come out with other figures in the same ballpark over the years.
I.e if you yourself are not an expert on the global poverty problem then it takes more than "they are wrong" to refute their conclusions. The report is downloadable so just check the numbers yourself.
The references makes it clear that the original figure is $175 billion spread out over two years and is produced by economist Jeff Sachs. His book "The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time" probably contains details on how it was calculated.
In the linked report, Oxfam suggests even more radical things, like closing tax havens and taxing the capital gains. [sarcasm]Sadly, they do not want to arrest or kill all those rich people.[/sarcasm]
I'm not sure which one you're calling a straw man - my jest, or the entire original article. I'm going to assume both. Only one of them is intentionally a straw man.
A good portion of the wealth of the 100 richest people in the world was rather more "illegitimately" earned. Look up the history of Carlos Slim or the Al Sauds, say.
Of course not; that is never the prescription. Because if you keep the institutions in place, gross inequality would simply reemerge.
Like if you toppled the kings while keeping a feudal system, or freed all the slaves while keeping slavery intact. You have to alter the system to one which doesn't doesn't have these outcomes.
Obviously, the powerful elites don't like this, as they correctly perceive this as "revolution": a fundamental change to the institutions. (An egalitarian society by definition means they won't have massively greater power than others.) So they will predictably respond with violence. (Note that the police and military effectively work for them.)
I don't think so. I know a number of wealthy people, and they are very open about how to make money, how to maintain wealth, and so on. Many of them have even decided that the best way to spend their time now that they're wealthy is to teach others how to get there too.
Of course, teaching 7 billion people how to behave in economically sensible ways is a pretty arduous, long-term task, so it'll take a while for the effect of this to be visible... but I don't think the "elites" are in the way of lifting everyone else up - so long as the method isn't principally to pull them down.
Equalisation by bringing everyone up to the highest possible level is a worthwhile goal. Equalisation by bringing every down to the lowest possible level is not.
if you got 100 000 cakes that you must eat them all in 1 month and i take away from you 10 cakes or even 1000 did it really matter to you?
if you got 2 cakes for a month and i take away 1 does this matter?
All of these "100 richest people" probably give away more than 100x what you earn in a year already. Are you honestly going to call them selfish?
If you are, then you are saying everyone should give away as much of their "cakes" as possible. Can you afford to give away an extra "cake"? Probably. Then you are selfish too, by your own logic.
and you know ALL the 100 people and they ALL give away so much? this is a fact for you?
and you know that i don't give away my cake? this is a fact for you?
what logic? you are just guessing...
A quote from Charlie Chaplin:"
The way of life can be free and beautiful. But we have lost the way.
Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate... has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed."
>All of these "100 richest people" probably give away more than 100x what you earn in a year already. Are you honestly going to call them selfish?
Yes. Charity is a feel-good hypocrisy (or worse, just a tax saving measure).
Nobody made huge tons of money without other people's blood under it. And especially not the top 1%.
Even a record artist that makes money from his songs (so he doesn't hurt anyone personally) is taking advantage of a huge system of that makes possible the money his audience spends (e.g from the stealing of the native indian lands to the US invading other countries for cheap oil, to the domestic market taking advantage of sweatshop labour in third world --that the colonial powers have first razed--, etc).
>If you are, then you are saying everyone should give away as much of their "cakes" as possible. Can you afford to give away an extra "cake"? Probably. Then you are selfish too, by your own logic.
Maybe. But:
1) being selfish for your 1 extra cake and being selfish for 1,000,000 cakes is hugely different.
2) being selfish is a personal moral issue that is insignificant compared to the systemic problem of mass wealth accumulation.
>Overly dramatic sensationalism - ripped straight from a first year college pamphlet on how to be angry at the man - at its best.
No, actually pretty much pragmatic and casual. That's how the work works (at least as it is).
Unlike your ad-hominen attack, which was childish ("oh, a stereotypical fake college revolutionary", etc).
>And all it warrants is a simple: prove it. Such an extraordinary claim, you should do it the justice of demonstrating it as fact.
Nothing extraordinary about it.
And you even missed the example I gave. Here are a few other examples, barely scratching the most obvious facts:
(1) Large part of the Southern US GDP was for centuries based on slave labour. Today's fortunes, nicely paved streets, etc.
(2) The wealth of European societies has been subsidized from 1500 to 1950 from colonies and occupated land all over the third world.
(3) If you have a home anywhere in the US, is because some people back in the day took the land of previous inhabitants.
(4) Cheap oil in the West depends on military and political pressure (instead of open market exchange) from toppling Iran's elected government back in the day to invading Iraq et al.
So what? The annual income of the rest of the world is distributed among 7 billion people -- not 100 people.
So even if it could "end world poverty more than four times over" the amount per person gets negligible. You cannot get much from the already poor to give it to the already poor.
A better example would be the richest 10% of adults, which accounts for 85% of the world total assets (so the other 90% has just 1/5 what they have).
The thing is, just getting 1/4 of the property of the richest 100 persons could save hundreds of millions of lives and improve billions, while it would leave those 100 perfectly fine.
The reason we don't do it is because we value private property (especially of the rich) more than millions of human lives.
(We think nothing of overtaxing or working to the bone the poor on the other hand, or stealing their natural resources and land -- as centuries of colonialism has shown).
Everyone commenting on here wants to believe that they will become one of the top 1%.
No one here wants to contemplate what would happen if they fell to the bottom 1%.
"The bottom 1%" is a bit of a useless demographic to contemplate, because of power-law distributions. The bottom 1% will be dead within about 1.5 years[0].
How's that for contemplation?
[0] rough estimate from current world pop and global death rate, rounded up, can't be too far off
This strongly depends on the definition of poverty. If poverty is:
a) Objectively defined, such as "no person goes hungry"
... then I think this statement may be true.
However, if poverty is defined as:
b) Look at all these poor people! They can barely afford their cell phones!
... then it will never be eliminated, because there will always be a bottom 5%, even as the wealth of that bottom 5% continuously increases. The poor in the U.S., for example, have never been better off then they are today. And it may well turn out that living in an unequal society (U.S.) results in more wealth for the poorest even over living in a society where everyone is equal (Soviet Union)--but is equally poor.
Oxfam is a variable charity at best. Oxfam India, for example was found to spend 70% of what it received in donations on fundraising[1]. In the UK it spends a significant volume of money on fundraising, paying a company called Tag Campaigns to raise money in the streets, not without controversy[2][3].
Oxfam GB also acts as a lobbyist in the UK, receives large amounts of funding from the government and has particularly close ties to the Labour party[4].
I realise that this is easy to construe an attack on Oxfam rather than the crux of the post, but my point here is that Oxfam have a vested interest in highlighting such things, regardless of whether or not there's anything tangible that can be done in order to raise funds. I would encourage anyone looking to donate to charity to do some basic due diligence on their charity of choice, and to preferably donate to a smaller local charity first.
I think focusing on these 100 individuals is counterproductive, as is saying that their money can magically fix poverty.
If we focus on the demonstrable, then we can say this: (1) income inequality is increasing, and (2) excessive income inequality lowers the quality of life of everyone, even the rich ( http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Strong... ). So, purely out of shared self-interest we shoud all be figuring out how to reduce the inequality, by whatever mechanism.
The solutions needed to structurally change inequality have to do with trade policies, laws, political coalitions, borders, cultural interaction, and many other things which have very little to do with these 100 people and how much money they have. If we could solve the underlying causes of inequality, then we wouldn't need to figure out income redistribution schemes that compensate for a broken socio-economical system.
In control systems we learned about positive and negative feedback systems. Capitalism is an example of "positive feedback" and without correct governance (or destruction) is effectively an unstable system, which just leads to a massive divide between people who got rich and those who are stuck being poor.
Well, only 19 people have given more than $1bn to charity http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/05/19/the-worlds... which leaves a lot of people not giving much away. The Russian oligarchs seem to like to spend money on football teams and mansions not alleviating poverty, while the Chinese rich do not seem to give much away either.
Well, running football teams and building mansions aren't necessarily wealth destroying activities. Football teams can be relatively big employers plus distribute lare amounts to players who then also buy expensive things putting more money back into the economy.
Many Chinese rich would be very large employers. Also their culture of saving allows the US to continue spending outside of their means, for now.
The Fed is the only thing that allows the US to continue to spend outside its means for now (including the biggest spendthrift of all, the US Government), and more specifically the dollar global reserve currency (or FRN).
The Chinese aren't buying any meaningful amount of our new debt these days. Mostly they just cycle existing debt, from long to short etc as it makes sense. Ditto the Japanese, who hold almost as much junk US debt as the Chinese.
Ah, I am certainly no expert on the subject. Just trying to make the point that even these rich that generally are holding onto their wealth for themselves would be actively attempting to destroy wealth and it has to be stored somewhere doing something.
Why is this not on the front page of HN anymore? Currently has 35 points and is 3 hours old. Vs an article "Math in Fiction - over 1000 short ..." that has 22 points and is 5 hours old?
The underlying assumption of the above headline is that the same amount of goods will be produced, even if you take the rich'es revenues away from them.
Well, false. Without proper incentives innovation will decline, and the average purchase power will decrease.
Marxism has been tried and failed.
Perhaps the rich should be taxed differently, but the simplistic assertion (ending poverty four times over) is obviously false.
yes, what we forget is that poor people are just as self-centered and greedy and profit-motivated and 'evil' as every rich guy out there. What do the people in nation A need money for? I'd guess the main focus has to be in infrastructure development: 1. electricity generation and distribution 2. transportation 3. telecommunications.
What can we do to make these three things as "cheap" as possible? The answer won't just help the developing countries. It will help everyone.
this Article is about that the richer People are getting richer and the poor people poorer...
and this is a problem!
I live in germany a "rich" country you may think...
There is a growing part of people how have a fulltime job but they are getting not payed enough and must go employment agency to get subvention from the state...
