When Biden took office, one of his first acts was the elimination of our border security. Like a power-hungry dictator, Biden simply decided to ignore our immigration laws. His catastrophic border policy resulted in untold millions of unidentified foreign citizens from around the world pouring into our country. Its impact is now being felt in cities across the country. The worst is yet to come. PETER LEMISKA - AND WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!
Friday, December 15, 2017
RICHEST ONE PERCENT CAPTURE ! TWICE ! AS MUCH INCOME GROWTH AS THE BOTTOM HALF - OBAMA-CLINTON-TRUMPERNOMICS
...ask yourself when, if ever, you have heard even one pol talking about the staggering degree of economic inequality, homelessness, jobs insecurity or poverty in the country!
ALL THEY TALK ABOUT IS BANKSTER BAILOUTS AND AMENSTY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS
"Additionally, the report found that concentration of wealth in the
hands of the top one percent has risen sharply, particularly in the
US, Russia and China. In the US, the wealth share monopolized by
the top one percent rose from 22 percent in 1980 to 39 percent; in
China it doubled from 15 percent to 30 percent; and in Russia it
went from 22 percent to 43 percent."
HOMELESS AMERICA’S HOUSING CRISIS as 40
million illegals have climbed U.S. open borders.
OXFAM reported that during Obama’s
terms, 95% of the wealth created went to
the top 1% of the world’s wealthy.
EVEN BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE, BARACK OBAMA HAD SUCKED IN
MORE BRIBES FROM CRIMINAL BANKSTERS THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!
Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors
are employees of financial industry giants -Goldman Sachs
($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207)
and Citigroup ($358,054).
World’s richest one
percent capture twice as much income growth as the bottom half
By
Niles Niemuth
15 December 2017
The inaugural World Inequality Report published on Thursday by
economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman, Facundo Alvaredo and
Lucas Chancel documents the rise in global income and wealth inequality since
1980.
The report covers up to 2016, leaving out the last year, in which
the stock market has soared on the expectation that the US will enact massive
tax cuts, providing yet another windfall for the rich.
The report found that between 1980 and 2016 the world’s richest
one percent captured twice the income growth as the bottom half of the world’s
population, contributing to a significant rise in global inequality.
The data shows that the world’s top 0.1 percent alone captured as
much growth as the bottom half, and the top 0.001 percent, just 76,000 people
worldwide, received 4 percent of global income growth. Meanwhile those in the
50th to 99th percentiles worldwide, which the report refers to as the “squeezed
bottom 90 percent in the US and Western Europe,” encompassing the working class
in the world’s advanced economies, experienced anemic growth rates.
The report is based on tax data and other financial information
collected for the World Wealth and Income Database by more than 100 researchers
in 70 countries. It shows that income inequality has either risen or remained
stable in every country.
Additionally, the report found that concentration of wealth in the
hands of the top one percent has risen sharply, particularly in the US, Russia
and China. In the US, the wealth share monopolized by the top one percent rose
from 22 percent in 1980 to 39 percent; in China it doubled from 15 percent to
30 percent; and in Russia it went from 22 percent to 43 percent.
In terms of income, the top ten percent captured 37 percent of
national income in Europe, 41 percent in China, 47 percent in the United
States-Canada, 54 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, 55 percent in Brazil and
India, and 61 percent in the Middle East.
Notably, Russia, when it was still part of the Soviet Union, had
the lowest level of inequality in 1980, with the top ten percent accounting for
20 percent of income. There was a sharp spike in inequality following the
dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, with half of all national income
going to the top ten percent in less than five years. Russia has now reached
parity with the United States, returning to levels of inequality that prevailed
a century ago under the rule of the tsar.
The report also shows that there has been a significant divergence
in inequality levels between the United States and Europe since 1980, when the
top one percent claimed 10 percent of income in both regions. As of 2016, the
top one percent in Europe claimed 12 percent of income, while in the United
States its share had doubled to 20 percent.
The top one percent and the bottom half of the American population
have essentially flipped positions. While the bottom 50 percent received 20
percent of national income in 1980, that figure declined steadily to just 13
percent by 2016. Conversely, the top one percent steadily increased their claim
on national income, from 10 percent to 20 percent in less than two generations.
Average annual income for the bottom half of the US population,
adjusted for inflation, has remained at $16,500 for the last 40 years, while
the top one percent have seen their average income triple from $430,000 to $1.3
million.
The report’s authors note in an op-ed published in the Guardian that the United
States is an outlier among the advanced economies, with a surge in income and
wealth inequality over the last four decades that has developed into a “second
Gilded Age.”
The authors attribute the dramatic difference between the US and
Europe to a “perfect storm of radical policy changes” in the US. They argue
that the growth of inequality in the US has been exacerbated by a number of
factors, including a tax system that has become less progressive over time, a
federal minimum wage that has not kept up with inflation, shrinking unions,
deregulation of the finance industry and increasingly unequal access to higher
education. They warn that the Republican tax cuts will “turbocharge” the
further rise of inequality.
Despite its explosive content, the latest report on inequality was
buried by the media, relegated to a small headline in the Business Day section
of the New York Times and
posted well down the Guardian’s
front page in the world news section. The vast and ever-growing level of social
inequality around the world is not what the ruling classes in the US, Europe
and elsewhere want to talk about.
Social inequality in the United States is being ignored and
covered up by the political system. The Democrats are entirely focused on
issues of sex and the anti-Russia campaign, even as the Republicans are pushing
to finalize tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy by the end of the year.
However, under the surface of official life, class conflict is
growing. The World Inequality Report reveals that the contradictions of the
capitalist system find expression in every country.
In concluding their report, the authors refer to policy decisions
that could be adopted to reverse the growth of social inequality, promoting the
illusion that a fair distribution of resources can be achieved under capitalism
through various liberal reform measures and appeals to capitalist governments
to enact progressive tax measures.
There is, however, no “reform” faction in the ruling class. The
growth of inequality in the US has been carried out under both Democrats and
Republicans, aided and abetted by the trade unions. In Europe, the ruling elite
is moving rapidly to catch up to the United States through the implementation
of labor “reform” measures, the destruction of social programs and the
redistribution of wealth to the rich.
The response of the ruling class to growing social opposition is
not reform, but repression. A movement against inequality requires the building
of a socialist movement of the international working class on the basis of a
socialist program to appropriate the wealth of the corporate and financial
oligarchy, transform the banks and giant corporations into democratically
controlled public utilities, and reorganize economic life on the basis of
social need.
Portland billionaire
attacks city’s homeless
By Hector Cordon
14 December 2017
With last month’s publication in the opinion section of The Oregonian of an
anti-homeless rant by Columbia Sportswear president and CEO Tim Boyle, an
effort has begun to shift the response to city's the homeless crisis to a
more open policy of criminalization.
Days after Boyle's
op-ed was posted, Portland's Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, who has been barred
by multiple court decisions from using sit-lie laws which ban sitting or lying
on sidewalks or in other public spaces, side stepped the issue by implementing
an eight-block “pedestrian use zone,” restricting the use of sidewalks to
pedestrians and mobility devices only.
The mayor's
bureaucratic maneuver effectively accomplished the aim of sit-lie laws:
excluding the homeless from an area. This fact was emphasized by Wheeler’s
assigning implementation of the measure to the Portland Police Bureau rather
than the Transportation Department. The eight-block zone manages to encompass
Boyle’s Columbia Sportswear downtown flagship store.
While Wheeler has issued statements and tweets insisting that
“homelessness is not a crime” and “it’s irresponsible to conflate homelessness
and crime.” However, the duplicitous content of these progressive-sounding
phrases was revealed by an article in the Guardian, which noted that Boyle wrote his op-ed
at Wheeler's urging. “[I]n Boyle’s telling, [Wheeler] is hoping to gain
momentum to get more police on the streets.” Wheeler’s office Tuesday demanded
a “correction” of this statement by the Guardian,
denying any such request to Boyle.
However, in an
interview with Oregon Public Radio on December 6, Boyle asserted that Wheeler
had asked his help in promoting the view that “we need more police on the street
in Portland.” He went on to say that he volunteered to “help him do that.”
Boyle’s op-ed piece makes clear his solution to homelessness is to criminalize
the victims.
He wrote, “Wheeler
has put forward a proposal to the Portland City Council to add 80 police
officers. Frankly, based on our employees’ experiences, we would suggest even
more support for the Portland police, but Wheeler’s proposal is an important
step and something that deserves prompt support.”
Boyle, with a net worth of nearly $2 billion, was a significant
donor to Wheeler’s election campaign. He took the opportunity provided by the
intransigently right-wing Oregonian to,
indeed, conflate homelessness with crime, at one point describing thefts from
employees’ cars as “our laptop donation program.”
Since then, he has attempted to deny that his opinion piece—in
which he threatened to move his Sorel business out of the city—was
anti-homeless. However, his reference to “individuals camping in our doorway”
cannot be interpreted as anything but hostility to homeless people. Boyle’s
specific and immediate call for deploying increased numbers of police against
the homeless on Portland’s streets contrasts sharply with the vague and
completely vacuous “liberal solution” he offered in a follow-up article in
the Oregonian.
“We cannot solve all problems, and we will likely never address all the needs
related to homelessness, but as Oregonians we can make meaningful progress if
our leaders (business, government, non-profits and others) have the will to do
so,” he wrote.
The latest “point
in time” count of homelessness—conducted nationally every two years—shows that
Portland’s homeless population has increased by 10 percent from the 2015 count.
Notorious for carrying out the count in January, when most homeless seek
whatever accommodations can be had in order to avoid freezing in the winter
weather, the count nonetheless shows a shocking number of 4,177 homeless.
In the midst of
skyrocketing housing costs, alongside stagnant and low-wage jobs, both Section 8
and Public Housing lists are shown as closed on the Home Forward web site. In
cold bureaucratic language, it informs those unfortunate enough to be
ill-housed or homeless that “Home Forward (HF) is not accepting Public Housing
waiting list applications at this time. This waiting list was last open for
specific properties for three days in June 2016. There is no notice of when
this waiting list will reopen.” The same canned message was repeated for
Section 8 housing.
The City Council’s answer to homelessness is to implement
market-based principles—normally an approach associated with the Republican
right. According to Portland’s Homeless
Challenge magazine, “‘We can’t just put people in housing,’
says Commissioner Saltzman. ‘It wouldn’t be sustainable. We have more of a
balanced approach.’ The best solution, Saltzman believes, is getting
real-estate developers to set aside units for low-income people.” A “balanced
approach” that harmonizes well with the lack of regulation over rent increases
and evictions. Oregon law prohibits the imposition of rent controls.
A report by the
Oregon Employment Department illustrates the growth of social polarization,
alongside homelessness. “The fastest growing sectors, over the last ten years
in the Portland region, are low wage jobs ($21,000 for the average hospitality
position) and the high wage jobs ($133,000 for the average high tech
manufacturing position), growing at 18 percent and 13 percent respectively.”
The author, Christian Kaylor, added, “It’s a classic tale of economic divide.
And that divide is growing.”
According to Forbes,
there is one other billionaire in Oregon in addition to Boyle, Phil Knight of
Nike. His worth is $28.2 billion. The cost to fully resolve Portland’s homeless
crisis over the next 20 years is estimated at $500 million per year, or one
third of the combined wealth of these two individuals. Meanwhile, the combined
wealth of the three richest billionaires, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Bill Gates
(Microsoft) and Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway) exceeds that of the bottom
half of the US population.
Currently, the city
is encouraging the homeless to find shelter as nighttime temperatures plummet
to below freezing levels, in order to avoid the nation- and worldwide scandal
that plagued Portland at the beginning of the year. In the first ten days of
2017, four homeless people and one newborn froze to death as the Democratic
Party-dominated City Council failed to anticipate and make plans for the
readily predictable disaster.
POST ON YOUR FACEBOOK AND EMAIL THIS LINK TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
"Today, each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as
750 million people, more than the total population of Latin
America and double the population of the US."....AND THEY
ALL WANT AMNESTY, OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY
AND NON-ENFORCEMENT TO KEEP WAGES
DEPRESSED!
Portland billionaire attacks city’s homeless
By Hector Cordon 14 December 2017
With last month’s publication in the opinion section of The Oregonian of an anti-homeless rant by Columbia Sportswear president and CEO Tim Boyle, an effort has begun to shift the response to city's the homeless crisis to a more open policy of criminalization.
Days after Boyle's op-ed was posted, Portland's Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, who has been barred by multiple court decisions from using sit-lie laws which ban sitting or lying on sidewalks or in other public spaces, side stepped the issue by implementing an eight-block “pedestrian use zone,” restricting the use of sidewalks to pedestrians and mobility devices only.
The mayor's bureaucratic maneuver effectively accomplished the aim of sit-lie laws: excluding the homeless from an area. This fact was emphasized by Wheeler’s assigning implementation of the measure to the Portland Police Bureau rather than the Transportation Department. The eight-block zone manages to encompass Boyle’s Columbia Sportswear downtown flagship store.
While Wheeler has issued statements and tweets insisting that “homelessness is not a crime” and “it’s irresponsible to conflate homelessness and crime.” However, the duplicitous content of these progressive-sounding phrases was revealed by an article in the Guardian, which noted that Boyle wrote his op-ed at Wheeler's urging. “[I]n Boyle’s telling, [Wheeler] is hoping to gain momentum to get more police on the streets.” Wheeler’s office Tuesday demanded a “correction” of this statement by the Guardian, denying any such request to Boyle.
However, in an interview with Oregon Public Radio on December 6, Boyle asserted that Wheeler had asked his help in promoting the view that “we need more police on the street in Portland.” He went on to say that he volunteered to “help him do that.” Boyle’s op-ed piece makes clear his solution to homelessness is to criminalize the victims.
He wrote, “Wheeler has put forward a proposal to the Portland City Council to add 80 police officers. Frankly, based on our employees’ experiences, we would suggest even more support for the Portland police, but Wheeler’s proposal is an important step and something that deserves prompt support.”
Boyle, with a net worth of nearly $2 billion, was a significant donor to Wheeler’s election campaign. He took the opportunity provided by the intransigently right-wing Oregonian to, indeed, conflate homelessness with crime, at one point describing thefts from employees’ cars as “our laptop donation program.”
Since then, he has attempted to deny that his opinion piece—in which he threatened to move his Sorel business out of the city—was anti-homeless. However, his reference to “individuals camping in our doorway” cannot be interpreted as anything but hostility to homeless people. Boyle’s specific and immediate call for deploying increased numbers of police against the homeless on Portland’s streets contrasts sharply with the vague and completely vacuous “liberal solution” he offered in a follow-up article in the Oregonian. “We cannot solve all problems, and we will likely never address all the needs related to homelessness, but as Oregonians we can make meaningful progress if our leaders (business, government, non-profits and others) have the will to do so,” he wrote.
The latest “point in time” count of homelessness—conducted nationally every two years—shows that Portland’s homeless population has increased by 10 percent from the 2015 count. Notorious for carrying out the count in January, when most homeless seek whatever accommodations can be had in order to avoid freezing in the winter weather, the count nonetheless shows a shocking number of 4,177 homeless.
In the midst of skyrocketing housing costs, alongside stagnant and low-wage jobs, both Section 8 and Public Housing lists are shown as closed on the Home Forward web site. In cold bureaucratic language, it informs those unfortunate enough to be ill-housed or homeless that “Home Forward (HF) is not accepting Public Housing waiting list applications at this time. This waiting list was last open for specific properties for three days in June 2016. There is no notice of when this waiting list will reopen.” The same canned message was repeated for Section 8 housing.
The City Council’s answer to homelessness is to implement market-based principles—normally an approach associated with the Republican right. According to Portland’s Homeless Challenge magazine, “‘We can’t just put people in housing,’ says Commissioner Saltzman. ‘It wouldn’t be sustainable. We have more of a balanced approach.’ The best solution, Saltzman believes, is getting real-estate developers to set aside units for low-income people.” A “balanced approach” that harmonizes well with the lack of regulation over rent increases and evictions. Oregon law prohibits the imposition of rent controls.
A report by the Oregon Employment Department illustrates the growth of social polarization, alongside homelessness. “The fastest growing sectors, over the last ten years in the Portland region, are low wage jobs ($21,000 for the average hospitality position) and the high wage jobs ($133,000 for the average high tech manufacturing position), growing at 18 percent and 13 percent respectively.” The author, Christian Kaylor, added, “It’s a classic tale of economic divide. And that divide is growing.”
According to Forbes, there is one other billionaire in Oregon in addition to Boyle, Phil Knight of Nike. His worth is $28.2 billion. The cost to fully resolve Portland’s homeless crisis over the next 20 years is estimated at $500 million per year, or one third of the combined wealth of these two individuals. Meanwhile, the combined wealth of the three richest billionaires, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway) exceeds that of the bottom half of the US population.
Currently, the city is encouraging the homeless to find shelter as nighttime temperatures plummet to below freezing levels, in order to avoid the nation- and worldwide scandal that plagued Portland at the beginning of the year. In the first ten days of 2017, four homeless people and one newborn froze to death as the Democratic Party-dominated City Council failed to anticipate and make plans for the readily predictable disaster.
"Today,
each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, morethan
the total population of Latin America and double the population of the
US."
Wealthy CEOs Lecture Americans To Show ‘Courage’ by Submitting to Diversity and Amnesty
Americans should have the courage to ignore their written laws, to amnesty DACA illegals and accept an open-borders world, says an op-ed by two wealthy CEOs who stand to gain more wealth in a labor market flooded by low-wage migrants.
The op-ed by Tim Cook (CEO of Apple, wealth $800 million and growing) and Charles Koch (Koch Industries, $49 billion and growing) was posted in the Washington Postnewspaper owned by Jeff Bezos (owner of Amazon, $98 billion and growing). Under the headline “Congress must act on the ‘dreamers,’” it declared:
We must do better. The United States is at its best when all people are free to pursue their dreams. Our country has enjoyed unparalleled success by welcoming people from around the world who seek to make a better life for themselves and their families, no matter what their backgrounds … each successive generation — including, today, our own — must show the courage to embrace that diversity and to do what is right.
For the Union-breaking billionaires, the 690,000 illegal immigrants are not the migrant citizens of a foreign country; they are “our neighbors, colleagues and friends.”
Moreover, the law demands that the immigration laws must be subordinated to a former president’s campaign-trail promise, regardless of the voters’ opinions, the billionaires declare:
Another foundation of our country’s success is our consistent and equal application of the law. In a free nation, individuals must be able to trust that when our government makes a promise, it is kept. Having laws that are reliable is what gives people the confidence to plan their futures and to invest in their businesses, their communities and themselves.
The United States should not hold hard-working, patriotic people hostage to the debate over immigration — or, worse, expel them because we have yet to resolve a complex national argument.
The illegals “have done their part,” so Americans have a moral obligation to submit, the billionaires insist to their non-billionaire readers:
Dreamers are doing their part. They have shown great faith in the United States by coming forward, subjecting themselves to background checks, and submitting personal and biometric data. Now, the rest of us need to do our part. Congress should act quickly, ideally before year’s end, to ensure that these decent people can work and stay and dream in the United States.
In fact, the illegals are vital to the economy, says the op-ed, which ignores the contributions made by Americans and their children, and the fact that a huge number of Americans don’t even have $400 in their savings accounts:
No society can truly flourish when a significant portion of its people feel threatened or unable to fulfill their potential. Nor can it prosper by excluding those who want to make positive contributions. This isn’t just a noble principle; it’s a basic fact, borne out through our national history.
Koch and Cook seem to be unaware of a recent admission by the Migration Policy Institute that DACA illegals graduate from college at one-quarter the rate of Americans. But they likely know that the Congressional Budget Office reported in 2014 that the proposed ‘Gang of Eight” amnesty would have shifted a huge amount of income from wage-earners to wealthy investors over 20 years, simply because more amnesty means more cheap workers and more welfare-aided customers.
Voters tend to think that lower wages are bad for them and their kids. The Atlantic.com reported in 2016:
The [Federal Reserve Board] asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?
Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.
I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5—literally—while I wait for a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs
In contrast, President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 to curb migration and to help ordinary Americans. His immigration priorities are listed here.
Many polls show that the Democrats’ calls for amnesty are unpopular because they contradict Americans’ sense of fairness to other Americans.
Business groups and Democrats embrace the misleading, industry-funded “nation of immigrants” polls which pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants. The alternative “fairness” polls show that voters put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors, and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. The political power of the voters’ fairness priorities was made clear during the GOP primaries and again in November 2016.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.
But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.
The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.
Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a large percentage of the nation’s annual income has shifted to investors and away from employees.
We would also be ending the TRILLION DOLLAR LA RAZA ANCHOR BABY WELFARE STATE!
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa….. Members of the racist, violent, fascist M.E.Ch.A. separatist movement.
NO E-VERIFY, NO ENFORCEMENT, NO (real) WALL and NO LEGAL NEED APPLY to keep wages depressed….. but isn’t that the Democrat Party’s amnesty plan in a nutshell???
"Today, each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, more than the total population of Latin America and double the population of the US."
SQUANDERING AMERICA!
Endless wars for Muslim dictators while the Mexican drug cartels expand from border to open border.
HOMELESS IN AMERICA
WHERE 40 MILLION ILLEGALS HAVE JOBS, AND SUCK IN BILLIONS IN WELFARE!
With last month’s publication in the opinion section of The Oregonian of an anti-homeless rant
by Columbia Sportswear president and CEO Tim Boyle, an effort has begun to
shift the response to city's the homeless crisis to a more open policy of
criminalization.
"Today, each of
the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, more than the
total population of Latin America and double the population of the US."....AND THEY ALL WANT AMNESTY, OPEN
BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY AND
NON-ENFORCEMENT TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED!
For all of his talk about leading “political revolution” against
the “billionaire class,” Sanders backed Clinton, a shill of
Wall Street and
the Pentagon, who has nothing but contempt for the tens of
millions
of workers devastated by the 2008 financial crash and Obama’s
pro-
corporate policies.
MARK ZUCKERBERG AND OTHER TECH BILLIONAIRES SAY
HELL NO TO PAYING LEGALS LIVING WAGES… not when there’s boatloads of Chinese
ready to take our tech jobs and work cheap!
1)
Mexico ended legal immigration 100 years ago, except for Spanish blood.
2) Mexico is the 17th richest nation
but pays the 220th lowest minimum wage to force their subjects to invade the
USA. The expands territory for Mexicans, spreads the Spanish language, and
culture and genotypes, while earning 17% of Mexico's gross GDP as Foreign
Remittance Income.
No comments:
Post a Comment