Sign InMy Account

Governments and Prosperity

Posted By: Randy GageSeptember 29, 2012

One of the most important prosperity lessons every society must learn is that governments don't really create prosperity.  In fact, they usually squander or obstruct it. 

At their best governments can facilitate an environment that allows free enterprise to prosper – and free enterprise can create true prosperity.

People who look to the government for their prosperity inevitably become victims.   People who take responsibility for their own prosperity are the ones who actually manifest it.

- RG

48 comments on “Governments and Prosperity”

  1. GREAT article Randy. LOVE this "People who take responsibility for their own prosperity are the ones who actually manifest it."

  2. GREAT article Randy. LOVE this "People who take responsibility for their own prosperity are the ones who actually manifest it."

  3. Blablablabla......Whatever, they don't all become victims.  Some people are victims, get assistance, move on, and then take care of themselves.
     
    Although you are right, there are people with victim mentality and entitlement consciousness and it doesn't benefit them. 
     
    Let's play fair, and have real discussions about these topics.   Instead of furthering right wing agendas, or left wing agendas, let's have discussion's where the middle ground is present.  Where truth is present, and people talk about solutions that can actually work.  As a "tropical prosperity guy" I would think you would be all for that. 

    1. @Annieb Middle ground? That is like saying we want to live in a society without theft and Rape but we are too extreme and need a middle of just a little theft and rape. The money taken by governments does not help the poor. It goes to politicians, wall street, lobbyists, Rich farmers in Subsidies, unions, universities at the expense of the students, the weapon companies, and the private Federal reserve. If the money actually went to help poor people then I don't think many would object except that it gets people dependant and it needs to be set up in a way that gets them back on their feet. Private charity is always more effective and there would be far fewer poor people if the big companies didn't lobby for laws that kill their small competition. They would have to compete fairly in the free market and when they fail the small companies take their market share.

      1.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb Private charity is effective, however it is not necessarily going to be able to take care of all the impoverished that need help.  Right now, it is a very good thing that there is both governmental help and private charities, without both many more would be homeless, hungry, maybe even dead.
         
        Right, again David that too many of the government welfare subsidies goes to places it shouldn't. And, I think it is probably true that corporations get more money than individuals in need.  But, let's be realistic, I know for sure here in America, individuals who  need help get government subsidies for housing, gas and electric bills, food, and other necessities. Also, for medical care.
         
        They way to get people from being dependent is for governments to stop being so stingy with the people who need help.  If people got to save the money the government gives them of they didn't have such stringent means testing for medicaid, that would help people lots.  That is one of the reasons I am such an advocate of a government subsidized health care program.

        1. @Annieb In the UK we could give every poor person around £40k-£50k per year if the money collected for them actually was for them. Governments are corrupt. They force poor an middle class people to subsidise corrupt rich people, then feed the scraps to the poor so people call for higher taxes to send more to the poor which never goes there. We all like helping those less fortunate but it sucks when half of our income is stolen to fund bombings and Goldman Sachs. Let us choose who we want to help and we will all give much more. I don't like to pay for a government to attack people I don't know and would probably like if I met them.

        2.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb We had many flood victims in Aug./Sept. of 2002 in Dresden and all the money collected from all over the world FOR THEM mostly didn´t get to those victims & their destroyed biz´ but suddenly a certain building was finished in DD.... I heard that directly from someone who communicated with those flood victims. Sad as well!

        3.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb Government is comprised of people and people are flawed, but government does lots of good things too.  I think many would love to share even if they were not taxed, but still I think we have to do it.  It would be too much of a gamble otherwise.
           
          I don't like war either, but it is a necessary evil sometimes.  So, I think the military should stay.  We here in America owe them lots.

        4. @Annieb @WDavidCz
          Of course keep a Military for defence. Not for offence against innocent people who have never attacked anyone. The gamble you are talking about was tried from 1776-1913 and created the largest and richest middle class in all history. Poverty was eliminated in a way never seen anywhere in the world. The the government introduced the Federal Reserve and income tax and then the wars and booms and busts started to be common. Freedom creates wealth not theft and redistribution because criminals do the redistribution to themselves.

        5.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb  @WDavidCz I'm not literate enough in economic history of that period to argue, however, I do know for sure that poverty was still around.  A huge chunk of that time, slavery was also around.  I do think we can agree it is always important to be a compassionate citizen.
           
          As far as the criminals redistributing to themselves, yes I'm sure plenty of that goes on, but it is a rather negative spin, don't you think?

        6. @Annieb Yes it is negative that we are forces to send our money so criminals can send it to themselves in the name of helping the poor and it is accurate. It is crazy to keep sending it to them so that we can fantasise that it is going to poor people when it clearly isn't. Simple math will tell us that. When America was eliminating poverty when the markets were the freest other countries were full of poor people except the Royals and the Politcians. Capitalism destroyed the Royal monopoly and created the largest middle class of all time. No people ever risked their lives to get out of Capitalism into Socialism or communism. But millions risked their lives to escape socialism/ communism into capitalism.

        7.  @WDavidCz Well, I do know for sure, that here in America people who need help are getting it to some degree.  I just wish it were more.  I think what people risk their lives for is freedom, which is more about democracy rather than totalitarian rule.  I think true communism might be a form of anarchy.
           
          My belief for today, is that capitalism injected with some socialist programs is probably the best scenario for true democracy.

        8. @Annieb I fully support your desire to help those less fortunate but not sure why you think people need to be forced to help each other. If more than 50% want to help each other then that is enough to make it happen without force or violence. America was founded as a republic because the founders hated democracy. Democracy is just mob rule. 3 men and a women on an island have a vote if men should be allowed to rape women. 3-1 majority says yes so now it is moral and legal in a democracy. In a republic it is still immoral and illegal because each person has individual rights which cannot be voted away. Right to life, liberty and property. Social programmes help the providers much more than the receivers. Corrupt charities go bust but corrupt social programmes keep growing.

        9.  @WDavidCz  Well, if I am ever on an Island with 3 men, I will remember to quickly establish myself as Queen.  My first edicts will be to one: to outlaw rape, and two: to create a holiday in my honor. 🙂
           
          Well, thank you for the interesting conversation.  I will have to give that some thought.  That is, democracy being mob rule, and the founders hating it.  I can honestly say I don't think I could make a clarification right now between a republic and a democracy.

  4. Blablablabla......Whatever, they don't all become victims.  Some people are victims, get assistance, move on, and then take care of themselves.
     
    Although you are right, there are people with victim mentality and entitlement consciousness and it doesn't benefit them. 
     
    Let's play fair, and have real discussions about these topics.   Instead of furthering right wing agendas, or left wing agendas, let's have discussion's where the middle ground is present.  Where truth is present, and people talk about solutions that can actually work.  As a "tropical prosperity guy" I would think you would be all for that. 

  5. @Annieb Middle ground? That is like saying we want to live in a society without theft and Rape but we are too extreme and need a middle of just a little theft and rape. The money taken by governments does not help the poor. It goes to politicians, wall street, lobbyists, Rich farmers in Subsidies, unions, universities at the expense of the students, the weapon companies, and the private Federal reserve. If the money actually went to help poor people then I don't think many would object except that it gets people dependant and it needs to be set up in a way that gets them back on their feet. Private charity is always more effective and there would be far fewer poor people if the big companies didn't lobby for laws that kill their small competition. They would have to compete fairly in the free market and when they fail the small companies take their market share.

  6.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb Private charity is effective, however it is not necessarily going to be able to take care of all the impoverished that need help.  Right now, it is a very good thing that there is both governmental help and private charities, without both many more would be homeless, hungry, maybe even dead.
     
    Right, again David that too many of the government welfare subsidies goes to places it shouldn't. And, I think it is probably true that corporations get more money than individuals in need.  But, let's be realistic, I know for sure here in America, individuals who  need help get government subsidies for housing, gas and electric bills, food, and other necessities. Also, for medical care.
     
    They way to get people from being dependent is for governments to stop being so stingy with the people who need help.  If people got to save the money the government gives them of they didn't have such stringent means testing for medicaid, that would help people lots.  That is one of the reasons I am such an advocate of a government subsidized health care program.

  7. @Annieb In the UK we could give every poor person around £40k-£50k per year if the money collected for them actually was for them. Governments are corrupt. They force poor an middle class people to subsidise corrupt rich people, then feed the scraps to the poor so people call for higher taxes to send more to the poor which never goes there. We all like helping those less fortunate but it sucks when half of our income is stolen to fund bombings and Goldman Sachs. Let us choose who we want to help and we will all give much more. I don't like to pay for a government to attack people I don't know and would probably like if I met them.

  8.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb We had many flood victims in Aug./Sept. of 2002 in Dresden and all the money collected from all over the world FOR THEM mostly didn´t get to those victims & their destroyed biz´ but suddenly a certain building was finished in DD.... I heard that directly from someone who communicated with those flood victims. Sad as well!

  9. I agree. I would also add that there are just as many victims blaming the government for their lack that there are looking to government for a hand out. It goes both ways.

  10. I agree. I would also add that there are just as many victims blaming the government for their lack that there are looking to government for a hand out. It goes both ways.

  11.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb Government is comprised of people and people are flawed, but government does lots of good things too.  I think many would love to share even if they were not taxed, but still I think we have to do it.  It would be too much of a gamble otherwise.
     
    I don't like war either, but it is a necessary evil sometimes.  So, I think the military should stay.  We here in America owe them lots.

  12. @Annieb @WDavidCz
    Of course keep a Military for defence. Not for offence against innocent people who have never attacked anyone. The gamble you are talking about was tried from 1776-1913 and created the largest and richest middle class in all history. Poverty was eliminated in a way never seen anywhere in the world. The the government introduced the Federal Reserve and income tax and then the wars and booms and busts started to be common. Freedom creates wealth not theft and redistribution because criminals do the redistribution to themselves.

  13.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb  @WDavidCz I'm not literate enough in economic history of that period to argue, however, I do know for sure that poverty was still around.  A huge chunk of that time, slavery was also around.  I do think we can agree it is always important to be a compassionate citizen.
     
    As far as the criminals redistributing to themselves, yes I'm sure plenty of that goes on, but it is a rather negative spin, don't you think?

  14. @Annieb Yes it is negative that we are forces to send our money so criminals can send it to themselves in the name of helping the poor and it is accurate. It is crazy to keep sending it to them so that we can fantasise that it is going to poor people when it clearly isn't. Simple math will tell us that. When America was eliminating poverty when the markets were the freest other countries were full of poor people except the Royals and the Politcians. Capitalism destroyed the Royal monopoly and created the largest middle class of all time. No people ever risked their lives to get out of Capitalism into Socialism or communism. But millions risked their lives to escape socialism/ communism into capitalism.

  15.  @WDavidCz Well, I do know for sure, that here in America people who need help are getting it to some degree.  I just wish it were more.  I think what people risk their lives for is freedom, which is more about democracy rather than totalitarian rule.  I think true communism might be a form of anarchy.
     
    My belief for today, is that capitalism injected with some socialist programs is probably the best scenario for true democracy.

  16. @Annieb I fully support your desire to help those less fortunate but not sure why you think people need to be forced to help each other. If more than 50% want to help each other then that is enough to make it happen without force or violence. America was founded as a republic because the founders hated democracy. Democracy is just mob rule. 3 men and a women on an island have a vote if men should be allowed to rape women. 3-1 majority says yes so now it is moral and legal in a democracy. In a republic it is still immoral and illegal because each person has individual rights which cannot be voted away. Right to life, liberty and property. Social programmes help the providers much more than the receivers. Corrupt charities go bust but corrupt social programmes keep growing.

  17.  @WDavidCz  Well, if I am ever on an Island with 3 men, I will remember to quickly establish myself as Queen.  My first edicts will be to one: to outlaw rape, and two: to create a holiday in my honor. 🙂
     
    Well, thank you for the interesting conversation.  I will have to give that some thought.  That is, democracy being mob rule, and the founders hating it.  I can honestly say I don't think I could make a clarification right now between a republic and a democracy.

  18. Government by the people for the people...there is no government if there are no people...and we need the people to be heard...

  19. Government by the people for the people...there is no government if there are no people...and we need the people to be heard...

  20. Buckminster Fuller mentioned that there are 2 groups of people who don't add value to the world. Government and Bankers. I find that is somehow true.

  21. Buckminster Fuller mentioned that there are 2 groups of people who don't add value to the world. Government and Bankers. I find that is somehow true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Stay Connected

    Subscribe to Randy’s Blog via Email

  • Recent Posts

  • 48 comments on “Governments and Prosperity”

    1. GREAT article Randy. LOVE this "People who take responsibility for their own prosperity are the ones who actually manifest it."

    2. GREAT article Randy. LOVE this "People who take responsibility for their own prosperity are the ones who actually manifest it."

    3. Blablablabla......Whatever, they don't all become victims.  Some people are victims, get assistance, move on, and then take care of themselves.
       
      Although you are right, there are people with victim mentality and entitlement consciousness and it doesn't benefit them. 
       
      Let's play fair, and have real discussions about these topics.   Instead of furthering right wing agendas, or left wing agendas, let's have discussion's where the middle ground is present.  Where truth is present, and people talk about solutions that can actually work.  As a "tropical prosperity guy" I would think you would be all for that. 

      1. @Annieb Middle ground? That is like saying we want to live in a society without theft and Rape but we are too extreme and need a middle of just a little theft and rape. The money taken by governments does not help the poor. It goes to politicians, wall street, lobbyists, Rich farmers in Subsidies, unions, universities at the expense of the students, the weapon companies, and the private Federal reserve. If the money actually went to help poor people then I don't think many would object except that it gets people dependant and it needs to be set up in a way that gets them back on their feet. Private charity is always more effective and there would be far fewer poor people if the big companies didn't lobby for laws that kill their small competition. They would have to compete fairly in the free market and when they fail the small companies take their market share.

        1.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb Private charity is effective, however it is not necessarily going to be able to take care of all the impoverished that need help.  Right now, it is a very good thing that there is both governmental help and private charities, without both many more would be homeless, hungry, maybe even dead.
           
          Right, again David that too many of the government welfare subsidies goes to places it shouldn't. And, I think it is probably true that corporations get more money than individuals in need.  But, let's be realistic, I know for sure here in America, individuals who  need help get government subsidies for housing, gas and electric bills, food, and other necessities. Also, for medical care.
           
          They way to get people from being dependent is for governments to stop being so stingy with the people who need help.  If people got to save the money the government gives them of they didn't have such stringent means testing for medicaid, that would help people lots.  That is one of the reasons I am such an advocate of a government subsidized health care program.

          1. @Annieb In the UK we could give every poor person around £40k-£50k per year if the money collected for them actually was for them. Governments are corrupt. They force poor an middle class people to subsidise corrupt rich people, then feed the scraps to the poor so people call for higher taxes to send more to the poor which never goes there. We all like helping those less fortunate but it sucks when half of our income is stolen to fund bombings and Goldman Sachs. Let us choose who we want to help and we will all give much more. I don't like to pay for a government to attack people I don't know and would probably like if I met them.

          2.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb We had many flood victims in Aug./Sept. of 2002 in Dresden and all the money collected from all over the world FOR THEM mostly didn´t get to those victims & their destroyed biz´ but suddenly a certain building was finished in DD.... I heard that directly from someone who communicated with those flood victims. Sad as well!

          3.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb Government is comprised of people and people are flawed, but government does lots of good things too.  I think many would love to share even if they were not taxed, but still I think we have to do it.  It would be too much of a gamble otherwise.
             
            I don't like war either, but it is a necessary evil sometimes.  So, I think the military should stay.  We here in America owe them lots.

          4. @Annieb @WDavidCz
            Of course keep a Military for defence. Not for offence against innocent people who have never attacked anyone. The gamble you are talking about was tried from 1776-1913 and created the largest and richest middle class in all history. Poverty was eliminated in a way never seen anywhere in the world. The the government introduced the Federal Reserve and income tax and then the wars and booms and busts started to be common. Freedom creates wealth not theft and redistribution because criminals do the redistribution to themselves.

          5.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb  @WDavidCz I'm not literate enough in economic history of that period to argue, however, I do know for sure that poverty was still around.  A huge chunk of that time, slavery was also around.  I do think we can agree it is always important to be a compassionate citizen.
             
            As far as the criminals redistributing to themselves, yes I'm sure plenty of that goes on, but it is a rather negative spin, don't you think?

          6. @Annieb Yes it is negative that we are forces to send our money so criminals can send it to themselves in the name of helping the poor and it is accurate. It is crazy to keep sending it to them so that we can fantasise that it is going to poor people when it clearly isn't. Simple math will tell us that. When America was eliminating poverty when the markets were the freest other countries were full of poor people except the Royals and the Politcians. Capitalism destroyed the Royal monopoly and created the largest middle class of all time. No people ever risked their lives to get out of Capitalism into Socialism or communism. But millions risked their lives to escape socialism/ communism into capitalism.

          7.  @WDavidCz Well, I do know for sure, that here in America people who need help are getting it to some degree.  I just wish it were more.  I think what people risk their lives for is freedom, which is more about democracy rather than totalitarian rule.  I think true communism might be a form of anarchy.
             
            My belief for today, is that capitalism injected with some socialist programs is probably the best scenario for true democracy.

          8. @Annieb I fully support your desire to help those less fortunate but not sure why you think people need to be forced to help each other. If more than 50% want to help each other then that is enough to make it happen without force or violence. America was founded as a republic because the founders hated democracy. Democracy is just mob rule. 3 men and a women on an island have a vote if men should be allowed to rape women. 3-1 majority says yes so now it is moral and legal in a democracy. In a republic it is still immoral and illegal because each person has individual rights which cannot be voted away. Right to life, liberty and property. Social programmes help the providers much more than the receivers. Corrupt charities go bust but corrupt social programmes keep growing.

          9.  @WDavidCz  Well, if I am ever on an Island with 3 men, I will remember to quickly establish myself as Queen.  My first edicts will be to one: to outlaw rape, and two: to create a holiday in my honor. 🙂
             
            Well, thank you for the interesting conversation.  I will have to give that some thought.  That is, democracy being mob rule, and the founders hating it.  I can honestly say I don't think I could make a clarification right now between a republic and a democracy.

    4. Blablablabla......Whatever, they don't all become victims.  Some people are victims, get assistance, move on, and then take care of themselves.
       
      Although you are right, there are people with victim mentality and entitlement consciousness and it doesn't benefit them. 
       
      Let's play fair, and have real discussions about these topics.   Instead of furthering right wing agendas, or left wing agendas, let's have discussion's where the middle ground is present.  Where truth is present, and people talk about solutions that can actually work.  As a "tropical prosperity guy" I would think you would be all for that. 

    5. @Annieb Middle ground? That is like saying we want to live in a society without theft and Rape but we are too extreme and need a middle of just a little theft and rape. The money taken by governments does not help the poor. It goes to politicians, wall street, lobbyists, Rich farmers in Subsidies, unions, universities at the expense of the students, the weapon companies, and the private Federal reserve. If the money actually went to help poor people then I don't think many would object except that it gets people dependant and it needs to be set up in a way that gets them back on their feet. Private charity is always more effective and there would be far fewer poor people if the big companies didn't lobby for laws that kill their small competition. They would have to compete fairly in the free market and when they fail the small companies take their market share.

    6.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb Private charity is effective, however it is not necessarily going to be able to take care of all the impoverished that need help.  Right now, it is a very good thing that there is both governmental help and private charities, without both many more would be homeless, hungry, maybe even dead.
       
      Right, again David that too many of the government welfare subsidies goes to places it shouldn't. And, I think it is probably true that corporations get more money than individuals in need.  But, let's be realistic, I know for sure here in America, individuals who  need help get government subsidies for housing, gas and electric bills, food, and other necessities. Also, for medical care.
       
      They way to get people from being dependent is for governments to stop being so stingy with the people who need help.  If people got to save the money the government gives them of they didn't have such stringent means testing for medicaid, that would help people lots.  That is one of the reasons I am such an advocate of a government subsidized health care program.

    7. @Annieb In the UK we could give every poor person around £40k-£50k per year if the money collected for them actually was for them. Governments are corrupt. They force poor an middle class people to subsidise corrupt rich people, then feed the scraps to the poor so people call for higher taxes to send more to the poor which never goes there. We all like helping those less fortunate but it sucks when half of our income is stolen to fund bombings and Goldman Sachs. Let us choose who we want to help and we will all give much more. I don't like to pay for a government to attack people I don't know and would probably like if I met them.

    8.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb We had many flood victims in Aug./Sept. of 2002 in Dresden and all the money collected from all over the world FOR THEM mostly didn´t get to those victims & their destroyed biz´ but suddenly a certain building was finished in DD.... I heard that directly from someone who communicated with those flood victims. Sad as well!

    9. I agree. I would also add that there are just as many victims blaming the government for their lack that there are looking to government for a hand out. It goes both ways.

    10. I agree. I would also add that there are just as many victims blaming the government for their lack that there are looking to government for a hand out. It goes both ways.

    11.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb Government is comprised of people and people are flawed, but government does lots of good things too.  I think many would love to share even if they were not taxed, but still I think we have to do it.  It would be too much of a gamble otherwise.
       
      I don't like war either, but it is a necessary evil sometimes.  So, I think the military should stay.  We here in America owe them lots.

    12. @Annieb @WDavidCz
      Of course keep a Military for defence. Not for offence against innocent people who have never attacked anyone. The gamble you are talking about was tried from 1776-1913 and created the largest and richest middle class in all history. Poverty was eliminated in a way never seen anywhere in the world. The the government introduced the Federal Reserve and income tax and then the wars and booms and busts started to be common. Freedom creates wealth not theft and redistribution because criminals do the redistribution to themselves.

    13.  @WDavidCz  @Annieb  @WDavidCz I'm not literate enough in economic history of that period to argue, however, I do know for sure that poverty was still around.  A huge chunk of that time, slavery was also around.  I do think we can agree it is always important to be a compassionate citizen.
       
      As far as the criminals redistributing to themselves, yes I'm sure plenty of that goes on, but it is a rather negative spin, don't you think?

    14. @Annieb Yes it is negative that we are forces to send our money so criminals can send it to themselves in the name of helping the poor and it is accurate. It is crazy to keep sending it to them so that we can fantasise that it is going to poor people when it clearly isn't. Simple math will tell us that. When America was eliminating poverty when the markets were the freest other countries were full of poor people except the Royals and the Politcians. Capitalism destroyed the Royal monopoly and created the largest middle class of all time. No people ever risked their lives to get out of Capitalism into Socialism or communism. But millions risked their lives to escape socialism/ communism into capitalism.

    15.  @WDavidCz Well, I do know for sure, that here in America people who need help are getting it to some degree.  I just wish it were more.  I think what people risk their lives for is freedom, which is more about democracy rather than totalitarian rule.  I think true communism might be a form of anarchy.
       
      My belief for today, is that capitalism injected with some socialist programs is probably the best scenario for true democracy.

    16. @Annieb I fully support your desire to help those less fortunate but not sure why you think people need to be forced to help each other. If more than 50% want to help each other then that is enough to make it happen without force or violence. America was founded as a republic because the founders hated democracy. Democracy is just mob rule. 3 men and a women on an island have a vote if men should be allowed to rape women. 3-1 majority says yes so now it is moral and legal in a democracy. In a republic it is still immoral and illegal because each person has individual rights which cannot be voted away. Right to life, liberty and property. Social programmes help the providers much more than the receivers. Corrupt charities go bust but corrupt social programmes keep growing.

    17.  @WDavidCz  Well, if I am ever on an Island with 3 men, I will remember to quickly establish myself as Queen.  My first edicts will be to one: to outlaw rape, and two: to create a holiday in my honor. 🙂
       
      Well, thank you for the interesting conversation.  I will have to give that some thought.  That is, democracy being mob rule, and the founders hating it.  I can honestly say I don't think I could make a clarification right now between a republic and a democracy.

    18. Government by the people for the people...there is no government if there are no people...and we need the people to be heard...

    19. Government by the people for the people...there is no government if there are no people...and we need the people to be heard...

    20. Buckminster Fuller mentioned that there are 2 groups of people who don't add value to the world. Government and Bankers. I find that is somehow true.

    21. Buckminster Fuller mentioned that there are 2 groups of people who don't add value to the world. Government and Bankers. I find that is somehow true.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    © 2022 Prosperity Factory, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Legal Information, Sitemap, Site by PrimeConcepts