|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
 Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:21 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia Yeah, I kinda left off some of my points before I clarified. I too was pretty tired. stare (damn storms)One of the points I was trying to make was that politically, we are not Capitalist, politically we are Republic (In the USA). Economically we are Capitalist. Our economy is a Capitalistic economy, and to truly understand why we are in the position we are in, society needs to understand the distinction. Communism as a political institution (such as Russia and China) is the only governmental set-up that incorporates its economical fixture into its political definition. Now, the point I was trying to make based on these facts was that it is not the Capitalistic economy that is failing us now, it is the way that our Government is failing us. The people that are in power now are doing their best to wrest government away from the people. If we can fix our Republic, then we can turn Capitalism to the good of the people, very easily. Capitalism is not reliant on any resources. Capitalism is just the way we exchange goods. Instead of exchanging goods for goods, we set a price for each item, and sell it for currency instead of trading other goods for those items. There is still a Market for any economic system, Global Capitalism just gives us a foundation to monitor and predict what trends the market will face. If our governments would use this information jointly, then they would be able to avert several problems, or at least buffer the damage, before they occurred. Right now, all our governments are still trying to be top dog. If we went back to Mercantilism, or even primitive bartering, we would still be using those resources. We just wouldn't have any solid way to track where those resources were going by the time they made it to the end of their journey. Our Governments and their people are what is going to determine what resources we use or do not use, not our economy. If people would stop using oil, then companies would find something else to sell or go out-of-business. In fact, Capitalism gives us a way to fight back. If we avoid giving currency to things we don't want to thrive, then those businesses suffer. Even in a Communism, people would need heat, so oil would be used. The harsh and double-edged reality of the fact is this, if everyone had a "right" to what everyone else has, then EVERYONE would get just as much oil as everyone else. That would increase our oil consumption several fold, because everyone would be entitled to it. It would be harder to make a change because even if some people rejected using a resource, there would still be enough of that resource alloted to that person in case they should need it. ... And yes, I wanted to point out the brainwashing that the politicians allow to infiltrate our schools that convinces (or at least attempts to) us early on that we are being protected by our government. It will take people's realization that we are being dominated before we can change anything for the better. When my husband and I were out of work, it wasn't Capitalism that failed us, because the resources were there for us if the Bureaucracy would have approved them for us. It was the Government who failed us, because they were to hung up on their regulations (and Affirmative Action). The policies and programs that I really needed are Socialists programs. They are in place to redistribute money, the problem is, they are regulated to be too "fair". That is what Communism attempts, "Fairness". The problem with fair is that everyone has a different definition, and when those definitions get processed through the scope of Government and Bureaucracy, then we end up with something that is useless, bigoted, and the extreme opposite of fair. hmm... ok, so what i'm getting the idea of is that we all here agree that the problem is strict government micromanaging. that definately needs to end. the power isn't with the people anymore, and that means that america is not the Democracy it claims to be. it is a highly regulated grid instead. we all have varying ideas of what the best economic system is, but all have a similar hatred of strict government regulation. question is, in what way would capitalism work for everyone? i can't imagine that happening. it's a system of competition, which weakens the community in favour of the individual. someone will always have alot less, and the "middle class" is realy just a joke, because it's just a temporary bridge between the lower and upper classes. nobody is middle-class for long, and when they are they are always lower-middle-class or upper-middle-class. there are huge gaps between the wealthy and the poor, and it's a very thin line. now, in the Communist and socialist nations around th world, those allocations are as you describe them. but just as it's not capitalism that was the root of your problems, it isn't Communism that is the root of the problems you mention. in a nation without strict government regulations, there would be no "allocations" of resources. the people would generate the resources however they do (farming, drilling, mining, fishing, ranching) and then share what they had with everyone at least on a local level. it's been proven that in systems like these the consumption rate per person greatly shrinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:17 pm
Y Halo Thar Comrade! xd
Anyway i believe that Communism couls like work and stuff if the leaders stopped playing it to their advantage... and stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 3:10 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia Yeah, I kinda left off some of my points before I clarified. I too was pretty tired. stare (damn storms)One of the points I was trying to make was that politically, we are not Capitalist, politically we are Republic (In the USA). Economically we are Capitalist. Our economy is a Capitalistic economy, and to truly understand why we are in the position we are in, society needs to understand the distinction. Communism as a political institution (such as Russia and China) is the only governmental set-up that incorporates its economical fixture into its political definition. Now, the point I was trying to make based on these facts was that it is not the Capitalistic economy that is failing us now, it is the way that our Government is failing us. The people that are in power now are doing their best to wrest government away from the people. If we can fix our Republic, then we can turn Capitalism to the good of the people, very easily. Capitalism is not reliant on any resources. Capitalism is just the way we exchange goods. Instead of exchanging goods for goods, we set a price for each item, and sell it for currency instead of trading other goods for those items. There is still a Market for any economic system, Global Capitalism just gives us a foundation to monitor and predict what trends the market will face. If our governments would use this information jointly, then they would be able to avert several problems, or at least buffer the damage, before they occurred. Right now, all our governments are still trying to be top dog. If we went back to Mercantilism, or even primitive bartering, we would still be using those resources. We just wouldn't have any solid way to track where those resources were going by the time they made it to the end of their journey. Our Governments and their people are what is going to determine what resources we use or do not use, not our economy. If people would stop using oil, then companies would find something else to sell or go out-of-business. In fact, Capitalism gives us a way to fight back. If we avoid giving currency to things we don't want to thrive, then those businesses suffer. Even in a Communism, people would need heat, so oil would be used. The harsh and double-edged reality of the fact is this, if everyone had a "right" to what everyone else has, then EVERYONE would get just as much oil as everyone else. That would increase our oil consumption several fold, because everyone would be entitled to it. It would be harder to make a change because even if some people rejected using a resource, there would still be enough of that resource alloted to that person in case they should need it. ... And yes, I wanted to point out the brainwashing that the politicians allow to infiltrate our schools that convinces (or at least attempts to) us early on that we are being protected by our government. It will take people's realization that we are being dominated before we can change anything for the better. When my husband and I were out of work, it wasn't Capitalism that failed us, because the resources were there for us if the Bureaucracy would have approved them for us. It was the Government who failed us, because they were to hung up on their regulations (and Affirmative Action). The policies and programs that I really needed are Socialists programs. They are in place to redistribute money, the problem is, they are regulated to be too "fair". That is what Communism attempts, "Fairness". The problem with fair is that everyone has a different definition, and when those definitions get processed through the scope of Government and Bureaucracy, then we end up with something that is useless, bigoted, and the extreme opposite of fair.
That said, capitalism definitely percolates into politics. To deny this is quite silly. If a country, such as the US, is as controlled by profit motives for any given corporation, the reasons for this are obvious, and this is absolutely the way things work in the US. US corporations have far more power than the elected government. Appeasement is inevitable. The recent efforts at bail-outs have given ample evidence for this, but economics are tied to virtually everything.
Capitalism is no less of a political system than communism is.
Capitalism is by definition reliant on resources. Capitalism implies goods being produced, refined, processed and in most cases shipped, for the sake of profit. Every single stage of this relies on resources. The means by which goods are exchanged is often reliant on resources too (money).
Capitalism, because it's based almost exclusively on monetary value, is by definition competitive, and monopolizing on many areas of production and distribution as well as control over resources is a result of this. I don't really understand how this is used to predict market trends.
The monetary value for many things is inherently useless, particularly in the instances in which people's means to carry out life (food and water) is given a price, paid for at half the cost of what those resources will cost to attain. This is alienation of labour in its most extreme form, but the idea has been taking place for a very long time. Capitalism provides a new avenue for this to take place.
Just to say: heat =/=oil consumption. Where I live most people either use biomass (wood stoves) or electric heating. The power for this area is provided almost exclusively by hydro-electric.
One of the biggest parts of restructuring economics is introducing resources that are renewable. Power in this form (hydro) isn't ideal, but it's certainly better than using oil.
Many regions have the means to provide a sustainable mode of energy. If there was an effort being made to convert houses to provide their own electricity (solar, wind, geothermal), the amount of energy being consumed would go down substantially. The profit motive for oil sales is an enormous impediment to this effort on any wide scale.
I don't really get how the government is dominating. All in all, it doesn't really do that much. Again, corporations have far more power because of their enormous monetary wealth and their current necessity to economics.
Corporations are not interested in providing for people. All they will do without regulation is try to become more wealthy. There isn't any other point in their existence. I don't really get the blaming of affirmative action for anything. It really hasn't done a lot.
Fairness implies providing resources as they are needed. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Socialism and communism is an ideal, and as I said before, isn't possible without some refining.
Capitalism itself, though, is a huge impediment on potential socialist functioning. During every attempt at communism, the major capitalist nations did all they could to ensure that communism failed (sanctions, proxy wars, etc.) in the name of containment. I don't know if it could work on any large scale (nation states are kinda retarded anyways), but at any rate it wouldn't be allowed to exist with the west's hostility toward the ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:07 pm
i do feel though that there has been a certain amount of open-ness to socialist incorporations to a capitalist america... the problem however is that the two simply don't mix. and i have been gettng very frightened of the rising tea party movement, and the current dissillusionment with president obama (who, though i do not terribly like, still has policies that rightnow are integral to america's continued survival and dominance).
another problem i have recently learned. the oil industry belongs to the international market. all this talk of "foreign oil" vs "local oil" is bullshit, because no matter where you drill it, we all have to buy it from outside ourselves anyway. there is no Iraqi oil, there is no American oil, there is no Brazilian oil, there is no Chinese oil. there's just oil. simple as that. and we don't buy it from nations, we buy it from corporations, and that's even ifwe drill it close to home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:02 am
so, another idea Model i am toying with. xd i'll just paste the random responce i made to something i read in Gaia's CB. Chieftain Twilight i wish i could have all of the Awesome of Canada without any of the cold.... like, a Carribean Island where i could have a Canadian Government! biggrin or better yet, turn the U.S. into the first ever Liberal Socialist Confederacy! whee each State would have it's OWN Executive Branch, complete with President, Vice President, Cabinet, and Joint Chiefs of Staff! biggrin the entire nation would have a Senate, a Council of Executives, and a Supreme Court, and we would eliminate the House of Representatives and the Federal Reserve, and go back to a Barter System! whee ah, the Anarchist's Dream.... ^///^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:18 am
(About the welfare thing in the first post)
It isn't the welfare kids that are more likely to not go to college, it is children who's parents didn't go to college. Also, there are scholarships for people who try and there is financial aid for people who don't get scholarships. (Chances are if your family is on welfare, you qualify. My family wasn't on welfare and I didn't have to pay tuition and I got $1,500 TWICE a semester. More than enough for books.) You can also sign up for the work study program. (Another $320 a month which I used to get a BMW.) They work around your college schedule. Yes, the financial aid is only good for the first few semesters but it is a start.
There is nothing wrong with working for minimum wage. If you know how to live within your means there is plenty of money. With one minimum wage job me and my husband have: a decent place to live, enough food to keep us comfortable, a phone, cable television, and high speed internet. As soon as I get my job (probably minimum wage) we are going to move into a house. We have one all picked out. So then you can add a two bedroom house to the list.
Besides we need people to do those minimum wage jobs. Someone needs to stock our grocery stores, clean our hotel rooms, and flip our burgers. It is necessary to have some people not go to college and just work at a crappy job. Otherwise, who would? If I spent 7 years in college to be a doctor I certainly wouldn't be picking corn or something like that.
-----------------
I'm going to go read up on communism vs. capitalism. I'll post what I think whenever I get around to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:50 am
Eltanin Sadachbia .....My husband and I were both out of work for 9 months, and we tried hard to find jobs, and we couldn't. We used up our savings, and when we had no more, we went to try for temporary assistance. It is DAMN hard not to get violent when you see the neighborhood, unemployed, drug dealer pull up to the Social Service Office in a Mercedes; flash his gold-toothed smile as he walks through the door; get approved in 5 minutes for every financial and other aid under the sun; and walk back out to the parking-lot talking on his I-phone; when I leave, they tell me they will see what they can do (for my family of 4; 2 children). I hear from them 2 weeks later and they tell me that we don't qualify because $800/month unemployment puts us over the limit for any aid but food-stamps, but we will get $140/month towards groceries. Thanks for the groceries, but I don't have the money for gas to go grocery shopping after I pay our mortgage and utilities! I second this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:07 am
Eltanin Sadachbia Yeah, I kinda left off some of my points before I clarified. I too was pretty tired. stare (damn storms)One of the points I was trying to make was that politically, we are not Capitalist, politically we are Republic (In the USA). Economically we are Capitalist. Our economy is a Capitalistic economy, and to truly understand why we are in the position we are in, society needs to understand the distinction. Communism as a political institution (such as Russia and China) is the only governmental set-up that incorporates its economical fixture into its political definition. Now, the point I was trying to make based on these facts was that it is not the Capitalistic economy that is failing us now, it is the way that our Government is failing us. The people that are in power now are doing their best to wrest government away from the people. If we can fix our Republic, then we can turn Capitalism to the good of the people, very easily. Capitalism is not reliant on any resources. Capitalism is just the way we exchange goods. Instead of exchanging goods for goods, we set a price for each item, and sell it for currency instead of trading other goods for those items. There is still a Market for any economic system, Global Capitalism just gives us a foundation to monitor and predict what trends the market will face. If our governments would use this information jointly, then they would be able to avert several problems, or at least buffer the damage, before they occurred. Right now, all our governments are still trying to be top dog. If we went back to Mercantilism, or even primitive bartering, we would still be using those resources. We just wouldn't have any solid way to track where those resources were going by the time they made it to the end of their journey. Our Governments and their people are what is going to determine what resources we use or do not use, not our economy. If people would stop using oil, then companies would find something else to sell or go out-of-business. In fact, Capitalism gives us a way to fight back. If we avoid giving currency to things we don't want to thrive, then those businesses suffer. Even in a Communism, people would need heat, so oil would be used. The harsh and double-edged reality of the fact is this, if everyone had a "right" to what everyone else has, then EVERYONE would get just as much oil as everyone else. That would increase our oil consumption several fold, because everyone would be entitled to it. It would be harder to make a change because even if some people rejected using a resource, there would still be enough of that resource alloted to that person in case they should need it. ... And yes, I wanted to point out the brainwashing that the politicians allow to infiltrate our schools that convinces (or at least attempts to) us early on that we are being protected by our government. It will take people's realization that we are being dominated before we can change anything for the better. When my husband and I were out of work, it wasn't Capitalism that failed us, because the resources were there for us if the Bureaucracy would have approved them for us. It was the Government who failed us, because they were to hung up on their regulations (and Affirmative Action). The policies and programs that I really needed are Socialists programs. They are in place to redistribute money, the problem is, they are regulated to be too "fair". That is what Communism attempts, "Fairness". The problem with fair is that everyone has a different definition, and when those definitions get processed through the scope of Government and Bureaucracy, then we end up with something that is useless, bigoted, and the extreme opposite of fair. * applauds* Very well put.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:41 pm
I'm not going to quote cause it would just be a big mess. sweatdrop
@ Figuren- I don't deny that Capitalism effects Politics, and Politics Capitalism. I just wanted to point out the difference. To try to put them together as 2 side of the same coin leaves allot of things unaddressed.
...And Communism as what many people envision it today has never existed. Let's just say that the idea and theory of Communism has evolved.
It might lie in the fact that there has not yet been a smooth way for implementation of such a system to eliminate the power vacuum between Anarchy and the Communist state. I would also blame the fact that too many people would rather let others make their decisions for them, and complain about the fact that they didn't like what happened later.
Capitalism isn't reliant on resources, progress is. Capitalism is reliant on trade, and so is the progressive human existence. Capitalism doesn't just exchange goods and resources, it also allows for the exchange of services.
Capitalism is competitive, but it is that competitive nature that has ushered us into the Industrial age and directly into the Space age, and now into the Information age in just over a century.
I really don't feel like going into establishing and predicting market trends tonight, but shortly put, capitalism doesn't thrive on monopolies, it thrives best on continued trade and more competition. Right now there is a little heard word, but a well known trend called Monopolism, and it is a parasite of Capitalism.
The government is dominating because the voters have voted in people who are involved in these corporations. So, yes the corporations are controlling the government, but if people would wake up and actually take a stand and put others in office who aren't bought into big business, then we could possibly have a very different world. People haven't done that yet because it's just to easy to vote for the guy who has the most TV time before election day.
And as to fairness, everyone defines their needs differently. I like hot water, but I don't think I need a hot water heater. I like my washing machine, but I know how to wash my clothes by hand. Others would say they need these things, and they probably would be lost as to what they could do without them. Just because I don't need a washing machine or a hot water heater, as I have the ability to boil water and scrub skivvies, does that mean I would have to go without so those who don't know how to do those things could have them? (ok, yes I know that it's an absurd argument, but I used it to express my point). If individuals have such different definitions of needs, then they will never be able to agree on what is needed for everyone.
I am also not saying everything is peaches, in fact, they are very far from it. I just think that Communism has allot more questions to answer before I buy in. I don't want to trade in one failing system for another. Even if they don't fail in the same ways, they still fail.
I am actually all for creating a new system that has the Socialist policies to cover everyone's need, yet reward those who work harder, and still keep the competitive drive in society that leads us to advance as fast as we can. I wouldn't call it Communist though, because that name has been so stigmatized anyway, that when it did finally encompass all the answers, people wouldn't listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:51 am
Vengeful Elegance (About the welfare thing in the first post) It isn't the welfare kids that are more likely to not go to college, it is children who's parents didn't go to college. Also, there are scholarships for people who try and there is financial aid for people who don't get scholarships. (Chances are if your family is on welfare, you qualify. My family wasn't on welfare and I didn't have to pay tuition and I got $1,500 TWICE a semester. More than enough for books.) You can also sign up for the work study program. (Another $320 a month which I used to get a BMW.) They work around your college schedule. Yes, the financial aid is only good for the first few semesters but it is a start. There is nothing wrong with working for minimum wage. If you know how to live within your means there is plenty of money. With one minimum wage job me and my husband have: a decent place to live, enough food to keep us comfortable, a phone, cable television, and high speed internet. As soon as I get my job (probably minimum wage) we are going to move into a house. We have one all picked out. So then you can add a two bedroom house to the list. Besides we need people to do those minimum wage jobs. Someone needs to stock our grocery stores, clean our hotel rooms, and flip our burgers. It is necessary to have some people not go to college and just work at a crappy job. Otherwise, who would? If I spent 7 years in college to be a doctor I certainly wouldn't be picking corn or something like that. ----------------- I'm going to go read up on communism vs. capitalism. I'll post what I think whenever I get around to it. ... did you realy just argue that it's good that the "peasant-level" jobs are doled out to economic losers, while the winners of the rat race enjoy the benefits of all those hard workers' efforts!? o_O; i will not hesitate to say how disgusted i am with that! that is exactly my point as to why capitalism is so horrid! i know that hard work is nessesary, but my model for Socialism would be based entirely on that kind of hard work. it is just that the people who do that work get what they earn. they deserve to harvest the riches and enjoy the fruits of their labor! not some fat ******** with cigars wrapped in hundred dollar bills!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:35 am
um...that's not what I meant at all. I don't see anything bad about people working minimum wage jobs. At least we have minimum wage. Some people in the world work 10 hour days for a total of $12, if that. It is more than enough for a person to live on if they know how to handle their money. Hell, me AND my hubby are living quite comfortable off of ONE minimum wage job. All I was saying is that SOMEONE has to do it. Do you have any idea how screwed we would be if everyone refused to do that kind of work. We CHOOSE our jobs. No one is forcing anyone to do those jobs. I honestly don't understand why you chose to use the terms "peasant-level" and "economic losers". Nothing that I said was even close to that. What do you mean by that? Yes, jobs that you have to go to college for pay more. It should be that way. That gives people an incentive to go to college. If doctors made the same amount of money as garbage men, I doubt we would see ANY garbage men. Besides a lot of teenagers and college students work. They need to start somewhere. I don't think that there is ANYTHING wrong with paying people with no experience and no skills minimum wage. I would be pretty upset if I worked somewhere my whole working life and some 16 year old with no experience waltzed in and was paid the same amount I was getting. Frankly, I would quit. Also, I don't see the problem with capitalism. I LOVE capitalism. I like being able to spend the money I have on whatever the hell I want. For that matter, I like HAVING money. If I feel that I don't have enough money, I can get another job. No one is stopping me doing ANYTHING. If I wanted to be one of those fat cats smoking cigars with 100s what is stopping me? Nothing. That is the idea of capitalism. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/communism.htm Communism has ten essential planks: Abolition of Private Property. Heavy Progressive Income Tax. Abolition of Rights of Inheritance. Confiscation of Property Rights. Central Bank. Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation. Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture. Government Control of Labor. Corporate Farms and Regional Planning. Government Control of Education. I am not okay with most of those things. I like to own things, most people do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:43 am
Eltanin Sadachbia And as to fairness, everyone defines their needs differently. I like hot water, but I don't think I need a hot water heater. I like my washing machine, but I know how to wash my clothes by hand. Others would say they need these things, and they probably would be lost as to what they could do without them. Just because I don't need a washing machine or a hot water heater, as I have the ability to boil water and scrub skivvies, does that mean I would have to go without so those who don't know how to do those things could have them? (ok, yes I know that it's an absurd argument, but I used it to express my point). If individuals have such different definitions of needs, then they will never be able to agree on what is needed for everyone. this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:12 am
Chieftain Twilight i know that hard work is necessary, but my model for Socialism would be based entirely on that kind of hard work. it is just that the people who do that work get what they earn. they deserve to harvest the riches and enjoy the fruits of their labor! not some fat ******** with cigars wrapped in hundred dollar bills! They DO. That get PAID! The fat ******** worked hard to get where that are too (unless the inherited the company. Even then, they didn't drive it into the ground). They are reaping the rewards for the company that THEY built. Why shouldn't they be allowed to sit back and relax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:23 pm
There are allot of manipulations between Monopolies and Government now that are making the rich richer and the middle and lower-classes more stuck. These aren't the fault of Capitalism, they are the fault of people. These manipulations are actually beginning to destroy Capitalism.
You can blame Capitalism as the incentive for people to act that way, but just because you eliminate Capitalism won't mean that you have eliminated all reasons for people to be greedy assholes. What needs to be looked for is incentives for people to NOT be greedy assholes. I think it would be easier to tailor Capitalism into an positive incentive program than it would be to tailor Communism from its necessity based system.
There are still ways for people to change how our governments interact with companies, but it requires EVERYONE to wake up, take a stand, and be responsible for their own voice.
You are never going to eliminate classes. People need to stop focusing so much on class terms, they aren't derogatory. Besides, we aren't discussing religion here.
Even if we converted to Communism as most people envision it now, there will still be classes of people, they just won't be upper-, middle, and lower- class. They will be laborers, servicers, disabled, and authoritarians, to name a few. Just because they don't have the word "class" suffixed to their ends doesn't make them any less segregated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
