Quote of the Day
Capitalism lifts people out of poverty. And that’s the only thing it does.
But that’s the only thing that really matters.
Imagine 100 kids who have to cross France to visit their sick grandmother. In 1800, they’re all on foot. Equal. Except half will never make it. Disease, exhaustion, accident. The others will take 3 weeks.
That’s the “equality” we miss.
Then capitalism arrives. The smartest ones build carts. Then trains. Then cars. Then planes. Then Elon Musk launches SpaceX and works on rockets that will do Paris-Tokyo in 40 minutes.
At every step, the gap widens between the one who can pay the most and the one who takes the cheapest option. Always.
And at every step, today’s cheapest is better than yesterday’s most expensive.
A minimum-wage worker in 2026 takes a Ryanair flight from Paris to Marseille for 30 bucks. Louis XIV, the most powerful man in France, took 5 days by carriage for the same trip, risking death from an infection upon arrival.
Today’s poor travels better than yesterday’s king.
Today’s poor eats better than yesterday’s king (scurvy was common at Versailles).
Today’s poor has access to more information in 10 seconds on his phone than all of Europe’s royal libraries combined in 1700.
And here comes the socialist. He looks at Elon Musk in his rocket and says: “That’s outrageous. We need to tax it.”
He doesn’t look at the minimum-wage worker on his Ryanair. He doesn’t look at the kid from Bangladesh escaping extreme poverty because he works in a textile factory exporting to Europe. He looks at the top. And he calls that “fighting inequality.”
That’s the intellectual scam.
Because what he calls “reducing inequalities” is really preventing the boat from rising while pretending to lower the yacht.
The numbers are there, indisputable. In 1800, 90% of humanity lived in extreme poverty. Today, less than 8%. That drop is the greatest moral victory in human history. It wasn’t produced by a revolution. Not by a government program. Not by a manifesto.
It was produced by people who had the right to create, sell, keep what they earned, and reinvest.
And that’s precisely the engine that socialist bureaucracy has captured in France.
The mechanism is simple. Capitalism produces wealth. Then the state arrives, takes 57% of GDP, redistributes a portion, and tells you: “See, without me you’d have nothing.” As if the baker should thank the guy who steals half his batch every morning.
Worse: it gradually forbids people from creating that wealth. It smothers startups under regulations, payroll taxes, permits, lifetime contracts, 50-employee thresholds. Then it wonders why growth is zero. And concludes that it needs to tax even more.
That’s exactly what Hayek described in 1944. A country that confuses “equality of outcome” with “justice” always ends up poorer and less free. France is the textbook case.
Meanwhile, in Poland, Estonia, Ireland, Singapore, they did the opposite. Low taxes, strong property rights, light state. Result: they catch up to us or surpass us in living standards in 30 years.
Capitalism isn’t a system that creates the rich. It’s a system that destroys poverty.
And the only reason we still doubt it in France is that we’ve handed economic discourse over to people whose job is to live off other people’s money.
Brivael Le Pogam @brivael
Posted on X May 13, 2026
The original post was in French and was automatically translated to English thanks to the fruits of capitalism. But the really important point is far, far more important.
Anyone who expresses concern about the gap between the rich and the poor needs to be given a harsh lessen in reality. They somehow believe that, as I have said before, equality of poverty and misery is more desirable than a range of prosperity and happiness. Even the most poverty-stricken people in our country have access to medicines that cure infections that killed a large percentage of even the wealthiest people of 500 years ago. The infant mortality and the percentage of women who died in childbirth was frightening just 150 years ago. And as pointed out in the QOTD the ability to travel by the poor of today exceeds the ability of kings a few hundred years ago.
Worldwide, free markets have essentially eliminated hunger. What would have been regarded as an unimaginable food supply 80 years ago is now taken for granted. When I was growing up it was common to have a parent in the U.S. tell their child, “Finish the food on your plate, children are starving in India.” * That doesn’t happen anymore. India now exports food. Look at the pictures of people in poverty around the globe from 100 years ago. They have shrunken faces, ribs resembling a skeleton, and children have bloated stomachs. Today, the poor in the U.S. are frequently obese from recreational food consumption.
If someone whines about the gap between the rich and the poor, they need to be told something. Tell them that gap, as seen in today’s capitalist society, is not just an indicator, but a blaring locomotive whistle of a signal. That signal is that the “poor” have wealth beyond the dreams of nearly all kings who have ever walked the earth.
* Sure, that doesn’t make any sense. What difference does it make to children thousands of miles away whether I finished the string beans on my plate or not? But they did say that. Perhaps it was to indicate we should be thankful for our situation rather than complain about the taste/texture/etc. of our bountiful food.
Margaret Thatcher had the right answer for that – she was responding to someone complaining about the wealth gap, and she pointed out that he wanted the poor to be poorer so long as the rich were less rich. It’s a great video.
She made a lot of great points in that speech. Along with the one you mentioned (which she repeated a few times for emphasis), was the one that says socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.
Because socialism (and government in general) do not create. They do not earn. They do not innovate. They can only take from the people who do.
So what happens when the people who create, earn, and innovate have nothing left after everything they earned was taken? What do the socialist and government do then?
The answer, as Thatcher’s quote implies, is that the system stops working. It cannot continue without a constant influx of other people’s money, so it breaks down. At that point it only perpetuates itself by force of arms, violence, and open tyranny and totalitarianism; as an ideology, it would rather murder its own citizens by the millions than admit it’s wrong and give up power.
And it has, to the tune of (by some estimates) 160 million people in the 20th century alone.
Couple things:
– The idea that even a majority of liberals think it’s better that everyone be poor than allow rich people to exist is demonstrably absurd. Are there people on the left who say that? Sure. I can find people on the right saying outrageous things as well. It’s not representative of the whole. Or even a significant part. It’s just provocative rhetoric, not observable reality.
– The gap does matter if the end result is less freedom. Yes, capitalism has done lots of good, and is clearly the best system we have for economic development. At the same time, leaving it unregulated to the point where a small group of people can *control* the government as a result isn’t good for freedom. I’m thinking in particular of the development of Palantir and the panopticon of the surveillance state, coupled with the tech bros who are “post-humanist” and think we need to go extinct in favor of AI. There are now cities whose power is being restricted to the humans in favor of data centers because…that’s what the rich guys want. And the surveillance state overall? I have no idea how folks who claim to be pro-liberty support that. Palantir is creating a folio for every human in the country (and I’m guessing their end goal is worldwide), and coupling that to a surveillance apparatus that will make your ability to move outside government control a thing of the past.
Capitalism is great, we should keep it. We should also regulate it so power isn’t concentrated into the hands of a few megalomaniacs who think they know what’s best for the rest of us and can force us into their vision of the future without option. Money=power. Always has. Allowing it to be massively concentrated in the hands of a few means less power and control for the rest of us, and ultimately the end of real freedom.
“The idea that even a majority of liberals think it’s better that everyone be poor than allow rich people to exist is demonstrably absurd.”
And yet, that’s what *nearly* all complaints about the wealth gap reduce to.
MAYBE that’s not intentional. Maybe. But it is what is actually said.
“The gap does matter if the end result is less freedom.”
While you are not wrong that such a thing is a risk, nearly every suggestion for how to deal with that problem instead gives power to the politicians, who have a much worse track record of abuse than mere rich people.
It’s a bit like the saying “penny wise, pound foolish” (which is British, and the “pound” being referenced is their currency, not the unit of weight). You’re worrying about the lesser risk more than the greater one.
How do I know you are? Right here:
“Allowing it to be massively concentrated in the hands of a few means less power and control for the rest of us, and ultimately the end of real freedom.”
That first word – “allowing”. “Allowed” by whom? We already have laws about a LOT of things, and if I accumulate wealth legally and morally, who else should there be to “allow” me to do so?
Money can be used as power, yes, but POWER already is power. Worry about that first.
Also, as a free bonus, I find it downright Orwellian that you are listing things the *GOVERNMENT* is doing (Palantir and the “surveillance state”) and your worry is not the state but the wealthy. The STATE is doing it. The state has its own reasons to do that things, its own abuses it is tempted to enact. That the ultra-wealthy might have some influence there is a much lesser point than the state can do those things (and abuse them for its own purposes) to begin with.
Normally I think it’s foolish and useless to engage with John, but, in this case, well done!
Palantir isn’t a government agency, it’s a private corporation. As is Flock. As is Anduril. As are all the AI companies demanding the power grid be available for their use first and people second, and who are putting the entire economy (and potentially humanity) at risk by creating tools they can’t control. Peter Thiel isn’t an elected official, he’s a private citizen. The state isn’t doing much other than serving as a funding source for these private corporations. No free bonus for you.
As for who’s “allowing:” allowing is by us, the citizenry. We are the ones who (in theory) hold the power to decide how regulations are written to mitigate the behavior of social predators.
“nearly every suggestion for how to deal with that problem instead gives power to the politicians” I’ve seen many solutions that don’t give power to politicians. In fact, all the good solutions push politicians as far away from the center as possible. You should rethink using “nearly every” in that sentence.
“But it is what is actually said”
By a majority of liberals? That’s a quantitative assertion, so feel free to show your statistical data, because I see no evidence that even the Bernie Sanderses of the world are saying “bring everybody down to poverty so we’re all equal” much less a significant percentage of liberals overall.
” because I see no evidence that even the Bernie Sanderses of the world are saying “bring everybody down to poverty so we’re all equal” much less a significant percentage of liberals overall.”
Of course they never say that. But that is where human nature always drives that way of thinking.
And if they did say it. They would get destroyed.
Control by election or bureaucrat isn’t going to change if or how we get AI.
We’re going to get AI because nobody taught rich-ass morons that people will kill them for trying to build such a thing.
And it requires giant amounts of power. So the price of power is going up no matter the source derived.
Coal, LNG, hydro, nuke. Don’t matter.
Consumers are going to pay the bill.
Elected bureaucrats are just an added expense.
The only thing that stops that crap is the will to stop that crap. In whatever form that takes.
“I see no evidence that even the Bernie Sanderses of the world are saying “bring everybody down to poverty so we’re all equal” much less a significant percentage of liberals overall.”
As I explicitly said, that’s what the things they say *reduce* to. That’s the logical requirement, the bedrock of what they say. None of the them say it flat out, of course – that would be electoral suicide, even now.
“Palantir isn’t a government agency, it’s a private corporation.”
Perhaps I have confused the names, as I don’t follow them all closely – there was a government program going with some code name, as well.
But that still ignores the actual point for semantics and dodges… unless you’re going to say that the “surveillance state” (direct quote from you) is also private, somehow, despite that being an explicit reference to government.
“The state isn’t doing much other than serving as a funding source for these private corporations.”
Wait, I thought you were worried about the ultra wealthy? If it’s the STATE funding it, THE STATE is the problem.
“Oh no, the government is doing X, so we need to stop those evil rich people over there!” Um, John? Have you listened to yourself? The STATE power is the problem, *even in your examples of the wealthy being the problem*.
“As for who’s “allowing:” allowing is by us, the citizenry.”
Yes, yes, just like “the people” own everything in communism. In practice, short of entirely extrajudicial means, having “regulations” means the politicians are in charge of it, since they are ones who actually write the regulations. You “in theory” claim is… well, “in theory”, communism works.
“I’ve seen many solutions that don’t give power to politicians.”
Could you list even one? Because I haven’t seen even one that passes even the vaguest sanity check.
“You should rethink using “nearly every” in that sentence.”
You’re right on that. I should stop being nicely generous and just use “every” by itself. Again, unless you’ve got one you can list. Should be easy, from what you’ve just said.
“As I explicitly said, that’s what the things they say *reduce* to. That’s the logical requirement, the bedrock of what they say. None of the them say it flat out, of course”
So…you’re psychic? How is it you know what people are thinking without them saying it? Particularly when they say things that are different from what you have decided they think?
“Wait, I thought you were worried about the ultra wealthy? If it’s the STATE funding it, THE STATE is the problem.”
I said the state is “a” funder, not “the” funder, but yes, the state is also a problem, mostly because it’s fully captured by the billionaire class. All three branches are fully bought and paid for, doing the bidding of Thiel and Musk and Altman and Koch and Adelman and all the rest.
“having “regulations” means the politicians are in charge of it, since they are ones who actually write the regulations.”
That’s a weird way to look at it. So, don’t have the rule of law because to do so you have lawmakers, and lawmakers are bad? I don’t understand your point.
“Could you list even one?”
The biggest one is: vote libertarian. You want less government power? That’s the way to do it. Specific solutions that get the government out of the way are, well, specific to the scenario, so pick one and I can give you examples. Though mostly I’m going to be posting articles from Reason magazine…
“How is it you know what people are thinking without them saying it?”
Thinking? One never knows for sure, of course, though there are ways to at least get a pretty good idea.
But no, that’s not what I was talking about. If I said, “I have been around the world,” what is the bedrock requirement of what I have just stated? What have I stated without directly stating it? “The world is round.” Well, or at least some 3-dimensional shape – *not flat*. That is *required* for my claim.
Even if I claim not to believe that, I clearly do, or I am lying about having been “around” the world (either to you or myself).
No psychic powers required.
MANY things can be deduced in this way, such as the idea that people compare the gap in wealth now and the gap in wealth years ago and say things are worse now are saying that it is better for the poor being poorer as long as the rich are less wealthy. That’s the logical requirement for their claim. It’s what they believe, unless they are lying in their statement (even if they are lying to themselves first), just like my claim about having been “around” the world, above.
“All three branches are fully bought and paid for, doing the bidding of Thiel and Musk and Altman and Koch and Adelman and all the rest.”
If the state were weaker, sticking to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, they wouldn’t capturing it – not enough return for the effort. They might do other things, yes, but not with the power of captured law to back them up (or, if they still went to the trouble, not with the power of captured law because the law wouldn’t have those powers – either way works).
“So, don’t have the rule of law because to do so you have lawmakers, and lawmakers are bad? I don’t understand your point.”
If you have the government involved, you have the politicians involved. That’s the point. As I explicitly stated, unless you are going for *extra judicial* solutions, which seems… bad.
“The biggest one is: vote libertarian. You want less government power? That’s the way to do it.”
Well, in practice, the Libertarian Party is a joke, but I do already vote for those with more libertarian leanings, regardless of party (in practice, in the last few decades, that means Republican, for many reasons, but that’s a *relative* ranking, not an endorsement of the party).
But that’s going back to “shrinking the government” and “not having the government involved at all”, which does NOT do anything about “allowing” or “not allowing” people to have whatever you might decide is “too much money”. That’s not a solution to what you are claiming you want a solution to.
That’s the sort of thing *I* was talking about – not having ANYONE make regulations about how much money one is “allowed” to have, because that’s not the government’s job.
What mechanism are you referring to that would “not allow” people to have “too much money” other than government? Because right now, your answer to my question, “Can you list even one?” seems to be a resounding NO – you responding by listing ways to limit government, exactly what I’m talking about and wanting to do, but not a way to “not allow” people to have too much money.
“What mechanism are you referring to that would “not allow” people to have “too much money” other than government?”
See my reply to SDN above (or maybe below, not sure)
“if I accumulate wealth legally and morally”
John believes (because there is no actual basis) that it’s impossible to accumulate wealth morally, and therefore wants to make it illegal to do so.
There sure are a lot of psychics in this comments section. I’m perfectly happy for people to get filthy rich. I’d like to be that myself. But there’s a difference between “filthy rich” (a few hundred million) and “rich enough to buy the government” (a few hundred billion). It’s the latter I want to prevent. Seems reasonable to me, but apparently not to others, which I find perplexing.
As for the mechanism, taxation seems to work fine for individuals, and trust-busting for corporations. Certainly worked fine in the 1950s, when taxes were at their highest, and economic prosperity was as well…
Where’s Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
“So…you’re psychic? How is it you know what people are thinking without them saying it? Particularly when they say things that are different from what you have decided they think?”
That’s easy.
Because their brainwashed communists, that’s how.
Ever heard of Yuri Besmenov? He explained the phenomenon quit well.
Their so demoralized mentally that they are the first people real communists line up over the ditches after they helped them finally take over.
You call it psychic.
We call it being moderately well read.
OK, let’s follow the logic. I said this:
“What mechanism are you referring to that would “not allow” people to have “too much money” other than government?”
To emphasize the bit that’s important here, OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT.
John’s reply:
“As for the mechanism, taxation seems to work fine for individuals, and trust-busting for corporations.”
Both are government actions. I repeat, BOTH ARE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. Both give the power to the politicians.
I actively want the government out of the “deciding you have enough money” business (though somehow, the politicians never have “enough money”…), and you make noises like you agree…. but then, your solutions are all government actions.
So, quoting myself, “right now, your answer to my question, “Can you list even one [solutions that don’t give power to politicians]?” seems to be a resounding NO”.
And you keep reinforcing that answer.
“Certainly worked fine in the 1950s, when taxes were at their highest”
And that had ALL KINDS of secondary effects that we didn’t see until after the “the US is the only major economy in the world that didn’t get bombed to bits” era.
In fact, the single biggest problem with health care (the tying of health insurance to employment) came out of that, as a way to give additional remuneration that wasn’t taxable pay. Many such distortions and stupidities came from seeking ways to pay people without paying people – that whole scheme did not remotely “work fine”.
Those high tax rates? Essentially NO ONE paid them, but people were still receiving benefits in excess of the rates that should result in paying them. When tax rates get too high, people put extra effort into dodging them (including legal dodges, which are always inefficient and wouldn’t be done without the tax incentive), which produces lots of distortions and stupidities.
US founders limited government so that the mess we have would not have been possible. Lincoln’s war changed that.
Preventing and breaking up monopolies is one of the VERY few regulatory powers and responsibilities to our Republic as a whole, the federal government should have that is not explicitly defined in our Constitution. It’s a scandal how little the existing anti-trust laws have been effectively enforced in the last 50 years or so. I blame corrupt politicians, prosecutors and the judiciary for the rise of obscenities like Microsoft, Google, all of big pharma, and the few bloated remaining US defense contractors like Lockheed and Raytheon. We were much better off with 8 or 10 major military aircraft manufacturers than having basically only two
Good article. And agreed.
And as already argued, the names we give a certain system or group think, matters little.
To me the freedom to live and build is never found in a system or ideas of how to run society.
It’s found in the heart of the people. Certain people will naturally build and work toward a common good. Others just never give a dump. So where they live and go always looks like one.
That’s why Jesus said “you will have the poor with you always”. Cause some are forced to live like that by power. Others are just like that because they just don’t care about being poor or want to help make things better.
Some are ants, some are grasshoppers.
As Jesus called them in his parable. Human “wheat and weeds”.
Society will always be what it’s people will tolerate.
The largest most powerful armies in history are defeated by the will of the people they clash with time and again.
1776 was our time. No one could conquer well armed freedom demanding people. And we got our ass-kicked in both Vietnam and Afghanistan.
That lack of will murdered millions in Russia and China. And will in the USA if we let it.
Systems all will always end in corruption. But they grow into corruption by the lack of will of the people they govern.
But as Jesus said again. “Either make the fruit good or make it corrupt.”
The choice is up to us.
And right now our yard is getting close to being full of weeds, not wheat.
P.S. And yes, I’m a racist.
Rich v poor is Marxist thinking and vulgar Marxism at that. The key group is the middle class or Marx’s bourgeoisie. They were the engineers of progress as Western society emerged from the Middle Ages. The more talented became rich but all that were reasonably competent lived decently and could aspire to more. The worrisome gap is between the middle class and the super rich. Emiseration of the middle class is a culture destroyer.
I have a quote from a book – a small speech given by one of the characters (who intends to take over the whole country and maybe the world). I will copy it in here – it’s a small bit, a great quote, and I believe it to be reasonable “fair use” (and I’ll even recommend the full book to help the author).
It’s about wealth, and I think it applies nicely to the idea here, when talking about the “wealth gap”:
“What do you think wealth is? … Gold is not wealth. And wealth is not finite. If someone lives in a nice house, one that doesn’t leave them wet when it rains and keeps them warm in the winter, if they have no fear of going hungry, if they know they’ll have access to healing should an accident or illness befall them, then would that person not meet the criteria of wealth to you? Regardless of whether they’re paying for these things in gold coins or bird feathers?”
“I posit that wealth is nothing more than a raised standard of living. From there, I propose that what people really need is more jobs—jobs that pay well enough to live on, not simply work themselves into the grave over—more affordable goods and services, and access to education. If you look around you, it’s obvious that my people have many jobs in need of doing, many things they would pay for, if they could afford it. I can attest that there are also plenty of people willing and eager to provide honest labor. The inability to pay for what they need leads to a lack of jobs that pay enough to get by, and so it becomes a vicious cycle.
“You’re very right that this isn’t by coincidence. Opportunities are provided for the few at the expense of the many. But you’re wrong if you think this is the inherent state of reality. You yourself are a good example of this. You deserve opportunity, and are willing to take it when it is presented, even if you weren’t born into it. How many others like you would set their minds to learning, to innovation, if they had the opportunity? The resources of the city—the true resources, the people—are simply being mismanaged. Or, some might say, purposefully restricted by people who are either shortsighted, or those who can see, but are afraid.”
This is from A Practical Guide to Sorcery, book 1, by Azalea Ellis .
And that’s the thing about wealth that gets left out when worrying about the “wealth gap” – EVERYONE can be “wealthy” by historical standards. That some people have MORE doesn’t mean the people at the bottom aren’t in MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better conditions than they were before.
And if you’re worried about the rule of the wealthy, historically, it was *even worse* than it is today – the wealthy could (and did) have de facto standing private armies, were able to easily buy their way out of essentially any violation of the law, no matter how flagrant (save against the actual rulers of the country… and sometimes, even then with a big enough bribe).
Even today, when the wealth gap is supposedly so much worse, the actual abuses of the wealthy are much lesser than they were.
Of sure, “Epstein Island” and such… but the lengths they have to go to for such things is MUCH MUCH larger than it was before (making sure they only do things in other countries that care less, for instance… usually because they are so much poorer that it’s more like the “bad old days”). And of course, even then, it does catch up with them significantly often – eventually, no amount of money could keep Epstein from paying the piper (even if most of the others involved got away with it in the end, as certainly appears to be the case).
Even 100 years ago (and certainly 200 or 300 years ago), stuff like “Epstein Island” just HAPPENED, without regard for jurisdiction, and, unless they offended some politically powerful person….. NOTHING happened over it. Poor people could just disappear at the whims of the wealthy and powerful, with no repercussions.
The “little people” being actually wealthy themselves now on the historical scale is a large part of what caused that change, even if the gap between them and the ultra-wealthy is larger on paper. The “little people” are less vulnerable now.
“What do you think wealth is? … Gold is not wealth. And wealth is not finite. If someone lives in a nice house, one that doesn’t leave them wet when it rains and keeps them warm in the winter, if they have no fear of going hungry, if they know they’ll have access to healing should an accident or illness befall them, then would that person not meet the criteria of wealth to you? Regardless of whether they’re paying for these things in gold coins or bird feathers?”
Actually, that’s pretty much plagiarized of King Solomon in the bible.
Where he said there was nothing more for a man than to enjoy a comfortable home and the fruits of his labor daily. To have his children with him. And one woman that loved him.
For every laborer in his kingdom slept well at night. And for all his riches. He couldn’t buy a good night’s sleep.
Paraphrasing all, of course.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » EQUALITY IS NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS TO HAVE EVEN THE POOR LIVE LIKE THE RICH OF OLD: The Gap
Paris-Tokyo in 40 minutes?
Wow, that’s even better than 90 minutes from New York to Paris (undersea by rail).
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free
The gap shouldn’t matter. The real measure of the success of an economy should be the quality of life of the lowest of the low.
As pointed out, the poorest people in our nation have roofs over their heads, clothing on their backs, food in their bellies, access to the entire accumulated knowledge of the human race in the palm of their hands, and the ability to work to make their lives better if they so choose.
250 years of capitalism built that.
Compare and contrast with every truly nation that existed in the 20th and 21st centuries. The top perhaps 10% have/had food consistently; everyone else had days where there was none to be had at any price — the lower you were on the scale, the more hungry days you had (low enough, and you stopped having days). Same for clothing that had to be repaired many times over — shoddily, if you lacked the skill — rather than replaced. Nobody was allowed to know too much or ask too many questions, and working to improve your lot in life was and is viewed as unfair to your neighbors and harshly punished.
Socialism assumes a zero-sum game; a finite amount of wealth that must be shared and apportioned among everyone. Doing well for yourself means taking from someone else. When nothing is allowed to be created or innovated, they’re not entirely wrong, but that’s a limitation on what the government allows, not a limitation of human ingenuity.
Capitalism allows that ingenuity to thrive without artificial and arbitrary limits, and EVERYONE benefits, even the poorest of the poor.
Pingback: “The Gap Doesn’t Matter” – Newmark's Door
Pingback: The Gap Doesn’t Matter | The Elegant Ungulate