Visualizzazione post con etichetta jason brennan Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta jason brennan Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. Mostra tutti i post

mercoledì 6 luglio 2016

Poveri noi

Chi accoglie l’idea che le regole debbano essere uguali per tutti respinge l’idea che un’ istituzione coercitiva come lo stato sia tenuta ad aiutare gli ultimi.
SE la ricchezza è distribuita in modo diseguale non deve interessarci, dobbiamo concentrarci invece su COME è stata distribuita. Una volta che le procedure sono corrette siamo tenuti ad accettare l’esito finale.
La ricchezza si distribuisce tra gli uomini così come si distribuiscono gli amanti, i meriti, le mogli e gli amici: attraverso accordi volontari. E’ assurdo e ingiusto penare ad un’autorità centrale che proceda in modo coercitivo.
Nessuno pensa che la super-modella venticinquenne debba dormire col verginello quarantenne al fine di correggere chissà quali ingiustizie.
Non viviamo nel mondo ideale, il BENE non coincide col GIUSTO, noi possiamo/dobbiamo agire solo sul secondo e rimetterci a Dio sul primo.
Detto questo, nessuno puo’ essere sicuro al 100% di avere in mano la verità, per quanto suoni bene la teoria. A volte si trova di fronte a situazioni talmente imbarazzanti da sentirsi in dovere di abbandonare temporaneamente i propri principi. E’ lo stato di eccezione.
In virtù dello STATO DI ECCEZIONE anche il liberale puo’ indulgere verso misure che prevedano un aiuto di stato ai poveri. Come procedere in questo caso?
In genere ci sono due inefficienze: l’aiuto genera opportunismo nell’aiutato e burocrazia nell’aiutante.
L’opportunismo potrebbe essere combattuto da aiuti temporanei e incerti.
La burocrazia potrebbe essere combattuta limitandosi a garantire un minimo in contanti a tutti.
Purtroppo le due soluzioni si escludono a vicenda.
In generale, i poveri andrebbero aiutati ampliando le opportunità a loro disposizione. Per minimizzare le interferenze sarebbe meglio avvicinare le opportunità ai poveri anziché avvicinare artificialmente i poveri alle opportunità.
Al mondo molti poveri vivono con 5 euro al giorno, da noi sarebbe impossibile. Chiediamoci il perchè! Evidentemente le nostre città offrono loro poche opportunità. Bisogna cambiare questo stato di cose.
pov
Respingere gli aiuti coercitivi non significa disinteressarsi dei bisognosi, al contrario, la generosità è sempre benvenuta ed apprezzabile.
Se un mio amico bisognoso mi chiede un passaggio all’aeroporto che senso ha obbligarmi con la forza ad aiutarlo? Ma questo vale anche se mi chiedesse dei soldi  per una necessità impellente. Ora, se lo stato non puo’ obbligarmi ad aiutare un amico o un parente, è ancora meno legittimato quando mi obbliga ad aiutare uno sconosciuto. 
Inoltre, è lecito ritenere che esistano esistano vie più efficaci e più giuste per alleviare le pene degli ultimi. Per esempio la crescita economica: in un paese che si arricchisce la povertà diventa un problema secondario.
E poi basta guardare alla storia: come è uscito dalla povertà l’ Occidente? Non certo attraverso i sussidi di disoccupazione. Come è uscita dalla povertà la Cina? non certo attraverso politiche di welfare. Un mix di buone istituzioni e di libertà economica rende i paesi ricchi e combatte al meglio la povertà.
I governi, spesso non sono la soluzione ma il problema. In che senso?
Ostacolano la libera immigrazione, per esempio. L’immigrazione è forse il mezzo più efficace per alleviare la povertà nel mondo. Si calcola che una libera immigrazione potrebbe raddoppiare il PIL mondiale, e i maggiori beneficiati sarebbe proprio chi ora è costretto ai margini.
Impongono regole e licenze particolarmente onerose per i piccoli affari dei poveri, spesso relegati in un mercato nero nel quale è impossibile fiorire.
Assicurano sussidi e prebende ai gruppi dell’establishment con i quali sono ben connessi, ma questi ultimi vedono come fumo negli occhi la fastidiosa concorrenza dei piccoli.
Gli aiuti all’agricoltura sono un classico: oltre ad aumentare i prezzi dei beni primari (la spesa dei poveri è concentrata lì), ostacolano l’importazione dai paesi più poveri infliggendo loro un duro colpo.
piani regolatori e i limiti all’edificabilità fanno impennare i prezzi delle case relegando i poveri nei ghetti.
Negare i buoni scuola su impulso della lobby sindacale impedisce ai poveri di accedere agli istituti privati costringendoli nelle terribili scuole pubbliche dei quartieri periferici.
povert
Ma per comprendere le storture basta osservare da vicino la tipica politica di aiuto ai poveri: il salario minimo. Si tratta di una misura che in realtà colpisce chi vorrebbe aiutare a parole. La logica è semplice, basta ingigantirla affinché tutti la comprendano: se dovessi pagare una baby sitter minimo 65 euro all’ora, molto semplicemente non richiederei più i suoi servizi. E così farebbero tutti generando una disoccupazione generalizzata presso le baby sitter, e/o un gran mercato nero.  Man mano che il minimo si abbassa le baby sitter escluse saranno quelle con meno competenza. Da qui si comprende come il salario minimo veda l’esclusione dei lavoratori meno specializzati, ovvero i poveri. La Francia ha un salario minimo e una produttività molto elevati: non c’è da sorprendersi, la prima misura esclude dal mercato i lavoratori meno produttivi! 
I programmi statali di welfare trasferiscono parecchia ricchezza ma di solito non verso gli ultimi, bensì verso quei gruppi sociali con potere di voto. A chi ha fatto la sua elemosina di 80 euro il governo Renzi? A molti, ma è stato particolarmente attento ad escludere gli ultimi (che se per caso li hanno incassati hanno poi dovuto restituirli). C’è chi pensa che questa logica distorta possa essere invertita. L’unica risposta che mi viene in mente è un “buona fortuna!”.
I mantenuti del welfare precipitano spesso nella TRAPPOLA DELLA POVERTA’. Una condizione di dipendenza dalla quale è difficile sottrarsi. Tra di loro depressione e altri disturbi mentali prosperano. Ma uscire dalla “trappola” diventa anche poco conveniente! In casi del genere la cosa migliore è costruirsi un’attività fuori dalla legge – con di rado criminosa - continuando a percepire i sussidi dovuti. Lo si puo’ fare perché l’elemosina a pioggia non distingue tra POVERI MERITEVOLI e POVERI NON MERITEVOLI, una distinzione un po’ fastidiosa ma imprescindibile.

7 SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE POOR

7 SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE POORRead more at location 2028
Note: 7@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit
75. What is social justice?Read more at location 2029
Note: TITOLO. DEFINIZIONE Edit
Advocates of social justice believe the moral justification of our institutions depends on how well these institutions serve the interests of the poor and least advantaged.Read more at location 2031
Note: POVERI CON DOPPIO STANDARD Edit
76. Do most libertarians reject social justice?Read more at location 2033
Note: TITOLO. LIBERTARI E SS Edit
The hard libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick argues that we cannot ask how we should distribute wealth unless we have the right to distribute it.Read more at location 2036
Note: COME O SE? Edit
Nozick says this applies to governments as well. Nozick says that we live in a world with a history. People have prior claims over their wealth.Read more at location 2039
Note: UN MNDO CON UNA SUA STORIA Edit
Nozick says the term “distributive justice” connotes that wealth is like manna fallen from heaven,Read more at location 2044
Note: MANNA Edit
there is no more of a distribution of wealth in society than there is a distribution of sexual partners, spouses, or friends. As a matter of fact, some people have more and better friends than others. Some people have more and better sex with more desirable partners than others. We might feel bad for the people who do badly. Still, it makes no sense to talk about fair or unfair distributions of sexual partners, spouses, or friends.Read more at location 2047
Note: DISTRIBUZIONE DELLE FIDANZATE Edit
No one advocates making supermodels sleep with 40-year-old virgins in order to correct unfair distributions of hot sex.Read more at location 2053
Note: VERGINELLO Edit
Even if you think it would be better if everyone had equal access to good sex, you have no right to redistribute sexual access.Read more at location 2055
Note: BENE E GIUSTO Edit
So, for example, suppose in some society, the top 1% have 100 times the income of the bottom 10%. This fact alone tells us nothing about whether that society is just or unjust.Read more at location 2059
Note: COSA CI DICE SE UNA S. È GIUSTA? Edit
Nozick argues that justice is about how people acquire their wealth.Read more at location 2061
Note: COME Edit
Nozick argues that we should not try to make the distribution of wealth fit some preconceived pattern. Instead, we should ensure that people only acquire wealth through just procedures.Read more at location 2066
Note: FINALISMO E TEORIA DEI DIRITTI Edit
It has three main principles: 1. The principle of justice in acquisition:Read more at location 2068
Note: GIUSTA ACQUISIZIONE Edit
2. The principle of justice in transfer:Read more at location 2071
Note: GIUSTO TRASFERIMENTO Edit
3. The principle of justice in rectification:Read more at location 2073
Note: GIUSTA PENA Edit
The entitlement theory says that if the history of acquisitions and transfers is just, then the current distribution is just. But, of course, the history of acquisitions and transfers has been highly unjust. Much of the land we own was seized by conquest from people who had themselves seized it through conquest.Read more at location 2077
Note: STORIA Edit
Thus, Nozick’s entitlement theory does not justify current inequalities, because current inequalities did not arise through just steps.Read more at location 2082
Note: DISEGUAGLIANZA GIUSTIFICATA? Edit
Some anti-libertarians say Nozick just assumes people have the right to acquire wealth for themselves no matter what the consequences may be. Contrary to Nozick, they see property rights as sets of conventions.Read more at location 2083
Note: PROP. COME CONVENZIONE Edit
77. Do all libertarians reject social justice?Read more at location 2086
Note: TITOLO. SOFT LIB Edit
Neoclassical liberals believe just social institutions must tend to benefit all, especially the most vulnerable members of society.Read more at location 2089
Note: OBIETTIVO POVERTÀ Edit
Neoclassical liberals believe that liberal market societies are the best means to realize the goals of social justice.Read more at location 2090
Note: MERCATO COME MEZZO Edit
Neoclassical liberals agree with hard libertarians that everyone has a right to acquire and use property. However, they add that reasonable people dispute the exact nature and scope of property rights. Property rights are sets of conventions, and there are many different conventions any group of people could live under.Read more at location 2092
Note: PROP. COME CONVENZIONE Edit
Thus, if one set of property rights conventions tended to immiserate the poor or leave innocent people without any wealth or opportunity, that would be reason to reject those property right conventions.Read more at location 2097
Note: IN CASI ESTREMI LA CONVENZIONE VA ABBANDONATA Edit
Libertarians add: Even if the point of government is to promote the general welfare, this does not imply we should have a welfare state. A government might try to promote welfare directly, by creating welfare offices, offering subsides, providing basic income, providing tax-subsidized health care, promoting or providing employment, and attempting macroeconomic adjustments. Or, a government might try to promote welfare indirectly, by providing a basic institutional framework—such as the rule of law, representative democracy, courts, and a well-functioning property rights regime—within which people will spontaneously act in ways that promote the general welfare. It’s an open empirical question about how much promoting the general welfare depends on direct methods.Read more at location 2099
Note: L OBBIETTIVO FINALE Edit
78. What do libertarians think about economic inequality?Read more at location 2107
Note: TITOLO. DISEGUAGLIANZE Edit
This does not mean that libertarians believe all or even any existing inequalities are therefore just. For instance, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) lobbies the government for corn subsidies. ADM makes money because the government rigs the market in its favor.Read more at location 2109
Note: LE DISEGUAGLIANZE INGIUSTE Edit
Most reflective people on the left now reject strict material egalitarianism. Nevertheless, they continue to recognize some pull toward material egalitarianism. In particular, they tend to regard material equality as a baseline from which all departures must be justified.Read more at location 2117
Note: EGUAGLIANZA DI OPPORTUNITÀ Edit
A material egalitarian might say, “Some are rich and some are poor, so we should try to be more equal.” In contrast, libertarians say, “The problem isn’t that some people have more; it’s that some people don’t have enough.Read more at location 2124
Note: AVERE A SUFFICIENZA Edit
Classical and neoclassical liberals are not material egalitarians, but are instead welfarists, sufficientarians, and/or prioritarians.Read more at location 2127
Note: PRIORITARIANS Edit
Welfarism holds that part of what justifies social institutions is that they promote most people’s welfare.Read more at location 2128
Note: WELFARISTI Edit
Sufficientarianism holds that all people should have enough to lead minimally decent lives.Read more at location 2130
Note: SUFFICIENZA Edit
Prioritarianism holds that when considering changes to current institutions, all things being equal, we should give more weight to the interests of the worst off members of society.Read more at location 2132
Note: PRIORITARI Edit
Classical and neoclassical liberals hold that welfarism, sufficientarianism, and prioritarianism capture all of the moral force of egalitarianism.Read more at location 2133
Note: PROBLEMA RISOLTO Edit
many libertarians also argue that there is no measurable relationship between economic freedom and inequality. For instance, the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation annually rank countries by their level of economic freedom. If we graph countries’ economic freedom scores against their Gini coefficients (a statistical measure of income inequality), we find no significant relationship between the two. Switzerland, Singapore, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand each have both higher levels of income equality and higher levels of economic freedom than the United States.Read more at location 2139
Note: LIBERTÀ E DISEGUAGLIANZE Edit
79. Why do libertarians oppose welfare states?Read more at location 2143
Note: TITOLO. WELFARE Edit
Instead, most libertarians dispute that welfare states work as well as the Left believes they do.Read more at location 2147
Note: IL WELFARE NN FUNZIONA Edit
Left wants to rescue the poor with welfare programs. Libertarians want to enrich the poor through high-growth economies.Read more at location 2148
Note: CRESCITA VS WELFARE Edit
They think that welfare states transfer money not to the truly needy and desperate, but instead to strong voting blocs.Read more at location 2149
Note: CLASSE MEDIA VS POVERI Edit
You might think: This just shows we need to fix the welfare state. Libertarians say, “Good luck with that.”Read more at location 2152
Note: GOOD LUCK Edit
Libertarians worry that welfare states create perverse incentives and poverty traps.Read more at location 2153
Note: POVERTY TRAPS Edit
most people underestimate the costs and overestimate the benefits of their bad decisions. It also shows that the poor and uneducated are especially prone to this problem. The economist Bryan Caplan says that if so, when the state offers welfare programs designed to rescue people from their bad choices, it at the same time makes it more likely they will make these bad choices and need to be rescued.Read more at location 2154
Note: CATTIVE SCELTE Edit
If the ant saves food for winter while the grasshopper plays, when winter comes, the hungry grasshopper has no right to demand the ant feed him.Read more at location 2161
Note: NESSUNA DISTINZIONE TRA POVERI MERITEVOLI E NO Edit
Most libertarians believe we should be charitable to others. However, our moral duties to provide charity and to rescue others are usually not enforceable. For instance, suppose my parents have money trouble. Even if I should help them, the state may not force me to help.Read more at location 2166
Note: CARITÀ NJN FORZOSA Edit
Some libertarians argue that if the state may not force us to rescue our parents or our friends, then the state certainly may not force us to rescue distant strangers.Read more at location 2169
80. How can you be a welfarist without advocating a welfare state?Read more at location 2170
Note: TITOLO. WELFARISTI SENZA WELFARE Edit
Libertarians add that regardless of how we evaluate the effectiveness of such programs, welfare programs are not the primary reason the people of the West are as rich as they now are. The West got rich because it had a good mix of stable institutions and relatively high economic freedom.Read more at location 2187
Note: CRESCITA Edit
Poor, middle-class, and rich Americans are each much richer than their counterparts 100 or 200 years ago.Read more at location 2190
Note: STORIA Edit
Libertarians thus say that in the long term, helping the poor is not about giving them handouts. It is about expanding their available range of opportunities available so that they do not need handouts. In the long term, helping the poor requires serious economic growth.Read more at location 2190
Note: OPPORTUNITÀ Edit
Sophisticated critics respond that while economic growth is of course the solution to poverty in the long term, in the short term, there is no good alternative to state welfare programs.Read more at location 2192
Note: EMERGENZA A BREVE Edit
81. Are all libertarians opposed to the welfare state?Read more at location 2195
Note: TITOLO Edit
welfare state forces some people to work for others. Hard libertarians believe we have moral duties to provide aid for the desperately poor, but we may not be forced or coercedRead more at location 2198
Note: TESI HARD Edit
Note that libertarians do not necessarily reject all aspects of the welfare state. Robert Nozick, a hard libertarian, says that the current distribution of wealth in any given society arose in unjust ways,Read more at location 2199
Note: ORIGINE Edit
Rectifying this injustice may require a (temporary) welfare state with some redistribution.Read more at location 2201
Note: TEMPORANEITÀ Edit
for them, the extent to which a society may have a welfare state depends in significant part on how well markets work and how well the welfare state works.Read more at location 2205
Note: LIBERALI CLASSICI E NEOCLASSICI Edit
A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and John Tomasi, among others, each advocate some form of guaranteed income for the desperately poor.Read more at location 2206
Note: REDDITO MINIMO Edit
they believe welfare functions of the state should be minimized.Read more at location 2208
They distinguish between a welfare state, which provides social insurance, and an administrative state, which tries to regulate and manage the economy.Read more at location 2210
Note: ASSICURAZIONI SOCIALI E STATO AMMINISTRATIVO Edit
Consider countries such as Denmark or Switzerland, which have effectively separated their welfare state from the administrative state. The Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation annually rank countries by their level of economic freedom.Read more at location 2212
Note: SVIZZERA E DANIMARCA Edit
Hard libertarians would regard Denmark as unjust because it taxes some to provide for others.Read more at location 2216
Note: HARD VS DENMARK Edit
82. How do libertarians propose to end poverty without an extensive welfare state?Read more at location 2218
Note: TITOLO. POLICY Edit
Libertarians believe open and free immigration would help alleviate the world’s most severe poverty.Read more at location 2219
Note: IMMIGRAZIONE Edit
Economists conduct studies to estimate the costs of international barriers on labor mobility (i.e., immigration restrictions). On average, they estimate that eliminating immigration restrictions would double world GDP. Poor immigrants would gain the most.Read more at location 2220
Note: FREE TRADE Edit
The main way libertarians propose to end remaining poverty is to continue doing the thing that has ended poverty in previous eras. As late as 1800 AD, the average person lived on a dollar a day. However, the West grew richRead more at location 2223
Note: CRESCITA Edit
good mix of open markets, the rule of law, respect for private property, cultures of tolerance,Read more at location 2225
Even today, people around the world (such as in China) lift themselves out of poverty not through redistribution, but because of economic growth.Read more at location 2226
Note: CINA Edit
One way to understand the value of growth is to imagine what would have happened in its absence. Using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA),Read more at location 2227
Note: SENZA LA CRESCITA Edit
Redistribution can sometimes help the poor. But redistribution is a short-term solution to poverty at best. Suppose we liquidated all of the wealth (income, stock, land holdings, and all other assets) of the 400 richest people in America. Suppose we then distributed that money equally among the bottom 30% of Americans.Read more at location 2233
Note: WELFARE RADICALE. ESP. MENTALE Edit
83. Why do libertarians claim that governments tend to hurt the poor?Read more at location 2240
Note: TITOLO. GOVERNI Edit
Imposing licensing schemes and heavy regulations on small businesses,Read more at location 2242
Note: REGOLE Edit
Providing subsidies and monopoly privileges to the well-connectedRead more at location 2243
Note: WELL CONNECTED Edit
Creating subsidies in order to help agribusiness, when such subsidies drive up the cost of food and basic goodsRead more at location 2245
Note: AGRICOLTURA Edit
Waging the drug war, which is disproportionately fought against poor minorities (though minorities do not use drugs more than whites),Read more at location 2246
Note: DRUG WAR Edit
Engaging in “smart growth” urban planning,Read more at location 2249
Note: PIANI URBANISTICI Edit
Placing heavy restrictions on immigration,Read more at location 2250
Note: IMMGRAZIONE Edit
Overregulating, when the costs of compliance with regulation fall disproportionately on small businesses,Read more at location 2253
Note: ANCORA ATTIVITÀ Edit
Providing the poor with terrible schools, forcing good students to be stuck with terrible teachers and with peers who teach them dysfunctional social norms,Read more at location 2255
Note: TERRIBLE SCHOOL Edit
unwilling to provide vouchers for students to attend well-functioning and disciplined privateRead more at location 2257
Creating welfare programs that create “moral hazard,” that is, in which people cannot risk getting a job and supporting themselvesRead more at location 2258
Note: DIPENDENZA Edit
So, for instance, the progressive Left might agree that inner-city public schools produce poor results. However, they claim there is no better alternative.Read more at location 2264
Note: ALTERNATIVE? Edit
some examplesRead more at location 2266
Note: ESEMPI Edit
An African American woman might lift herself out of poverty by offering eyebrow threading or hair weave services. However, she faces zoning restrictions plus rules requiring her to attend expensiveRead more at location 2267
Note: PARRUCCHIERA Edit
Another poor inner-city African American might want to provide a service shuttling customers around his part of town, a great opportunity given that the taxis stay away.Read more at location 2270
Note: TAXI Edit
Or, a group of poor Jewish immigrants might band together to create a tontine—a communal annuity and social insurance scheme in which all members pay in and receive death and old-age benefits. However, private insurance companies have, in the past, lobbied the government to outlaw such practices,Read more at location 2273
Note: ASSICURAZIONI PRIVATE Edit
Or, a group of factory workers might band together to hire a doctor to provide health services at a reduced cost to all members. In fact, this was common practice in the past. However, in the past, the American Medical Association faced competition from theseRead more at location 2276
Note: DOTTORE DI FABBRICA Edit
84. Why do libertarians oppose minimum wage laws?Read more at location 2279
Note: TITOLO MINIMUM WAGE Edit
minimum wage laws cause unemployment among the poor and unskilled.Read more at location 2280
Note: POVERI E NN SPECIALIZZATI Edit
Imagine the government passed a law saying that no one could hire a janitor at less than $1 million/year. This law would not turn any janitors into millionaires. It would put janitors out of work.Read more at location 2290
The economists William Evan and David Macpherson argue that minimum wage laws hurt poor African Americans more than they hurt poor whites.Read more at location 2294
Note: NERI E BOANCHI Edit
Suppose Wal-Mart decided to pay all of its employees at least $20/hour, nationwide. In the short term, that might help the people who currently work at Wal-Mart. But in the long term, this policy is unlikely to make the least skilled workers rich. If Wal-Mart started to pay high wages, Wal-Mart jobs would become attractive to skilled workers. People who currently work as medical assistants or car mechanics would want Wal-Mart jobs. Since they are more productive and have more skills—since their labor is worth more—they will outcompete the kind of people who currently work at Wal-Mart.Read more at location 2298
Note: GENTRIFICATION Edit
They say, if minimum wage laws put the least productive workers out of work, so be it. We could just give them welfare checks as compensation.Read more at location 2305
Note: SUSSIDI DI DISOCCUPAZIONE Edit
Even with welfare benefits, unemployment undercuts people’s sense of self-worth.Read more at location 2307
Note: DIGNITÀ Edit
Many economists argue that minimum wage laws at least do not cause huge losses in efficiency. For instance, France has high minimum wage laws, while the United States has low minimum wage laws. French worker productivity is still about 85% of American worker productivity.Read more at location 2309
Note: FRANCIA USA Edit
However, this is not surprising. When minimum wage laws are high, this excludes the least productive members of society from the market.Read more at location 2311
Note: PRODUTT. ALTA E MINIMUM Edit
85. Do libertarians support international aid?Read more at location 2318
Note: TITOLO. INTERNATIONAL AID Edit
Libertarians respond that this is the wrong question. If we really want to help the rest of the world, we shouldn’t open our wallets to provide foreign aid. We should instead open our borders to allow free immigration.Read more at location 2319
Note: APRORE LE FRONTIERE PIÙ CHE IL PORTAFOGLIO Edit
When economists estimate the welfare losses from immigration restrictions, they tend to conclude that eliminating immigration restrictions would double world GDP. The poorest immigrants would benefit the most.Read more at location 2322
Note: DOPPIO Edit
First world governments send money to third world governments. Third world leaders tend to take the money to support their own and their supporters’ interests, rather than their people’s interests.Read more at location 2326
Note: NN FUNZIONA! Edit
Foreign aid to the third world has no history of success. Since World War II, the first world has given Africa about $1 trillion, and yet incomes in Sub-Saharan Africa are lowerRead more at location 2329
Note: STORIA AIUTI AFRICA Edit