Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
unit:  , aC[1C[t€ 
PSCI 485

Prof.  Meyer
10 April 2006

THE FAILING MERITOCRACY OF CAPITALISM: 
INHERITANCES WITHIN THE U...
“+2.2

-. a*

progressive in democratic ideals,  then the urgency to address injustice of

overwhelming wealth cannot be i...
'3i. ')‘v’2'5'}; i$.7's‘~‘l}' 3
work and their right to work as much as they do entitles them to corresponding

pay.  Howe...
In this question of inherited productivity lies a deeper implication for rewarding
labor——it implies those who do not work...
T 5
an individual’s wealth,  then also this worth would be as good as what is done
with it. 

Surely if a person strives h...
‘V! :‘2'<5iin'3’, ’A! ¥.li‘f6
the 19d‘ century argues that through this evolution of inequality,  “The poor

enjoy what th...
ti  7

needed for society and who could feasibly enforce any type of redistribution of
wealth to society-—the government, ...
Imus

Capitalism.  Yet as much as this system of ‘just’ rewards in theory is successful, 
its necessity as a system is nev...
attaining wealth,  inheritances by the same means cannot qualify as one’s reward
for work that was never inputted.  Even w...
T10

If capitalism holds that a non-worker produces no capital worth then
each non working person would be “worthless” for...
$11

wealth in the form of inheritances can be any more accurate and just,  especially
if the original wealth can be conte...
:. *?*‘; it*f; +:; -12
people?  If one wants low taxes to open up the market and create more fluid
opportunities for acquir...
~*; F£i ‘”i’. ”’i*51?? t.!  1 3

the work acquired for this success.  Many times people claim to have “earned”
their inher...
‘M14

bloodline?  Perhaps it is the nostalgia of one’s familial connect,  however many
large estates passed on through gen...
.7}": r31 5

There are many millionaires in the Union with but few heirs at law. 

Such estates have been accumulated out ...
,a-v«

 ‘L:  " i’. ;:‘«. r> 16
the community is that “needs” among classes of individuals differ upon
economic status.  A ...
M17

is that trends within inheritances change to create different roles as time passes. 
This may explain why some inheri...
18

Carnegie,  one of the wealthiest Americans of all time would believe so,  but he
also donated millions of dollars back...
-T19

Works Cited

l3rittain, _]ohn ! .,  l977. .  Washington D. C.: 

The Brookings Institute. 

Carnegie,  Andrew.  1965...
You’ve finished this document.
Download and read it offline.
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

Share

Academic: The Failing Meritocracy of Capitalism: Inheritances Within the U.S (2006)

Download to read offline

This is an academic paper from my time at Humboldt State University as a Political Science major (2004-2006). The paper is an exploration on true forms of Capitalism and its view on inheritance particularly related to wealth and tax law. Thoughts from Andrew Carnegie, Stephen Hawking and John Stuart Mills countered with modern practice

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Academic: The Failing Meritocracy of Capitalism: Inheritances Within the U.S (2006)

  1. 1. unit: , aC[1C[t€ PSCI 485 Prof. Meyer 10 April 2006 THE FAILING MERITOCRACY OF CAPITALISM: INHERITANCES WITHIN THE U. S. “The problem of our age is the proper administration of Wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and the poor in a harmonious relationship. ” —Andrew Carnegie, 1889 Unfortunately after monumental disasters like Hurricane Katrina in the southern region of the U. S, it is apparent that in such a modern and wealthy country like the United States many people outside of the upper class are left to fend for themselves in times of absolute need. While the U. S maintains its __: __: :_ stronghold of influence internationally, the overall status of average Americans are perpetuated by the continual inheritances of wealth among a small fraction o of persons. How in such a wealthy country are so many people without health insurance, clean environments, and olitical voices? Within a democratic constitutional government the needs of the public good are often set aside for the rights of the wealthy to acquire and attain masses of wealth. When, in a democracy, is there a point where the public good supersedes the individual’s right to inheritances? Is there even a right to inheriting the fruits of someone else labor? If the U. S chooses to hold itself as
  2. 2. “+2.2 -. a* progressive in democratic ideals, then the urgency to address injustice of overwhelming wealth cannot be ignored. To many political scientists and economists there are three types of inheritance: residence, occupation, and income. (Brittain 1977:15) While residence and occupation are usually dictated in a person’s life by their parents and are not as negotiable like one’s material wealth (or income) it becomes important to examine how people, in regards to large estates, propagate this material wealth. As a relatively new government, the United States should surely face the conflict existing between “the people” and the wealthy. To further investigate the justice or injustice of perpetual wealth carried among several generations, the legitimacy of inheritances should first be questioned before any solutions to either outcome explored. In an economy based upon capitalism there is a structural meritocracy for rewarding those who mix their labor for capital. Creating such a system that treats labor as a commodity is not always negative, as each person in society has a different role to give into a community. Some people are thinkers, some farmers, and some organizers. Under capitalism each of these persons are rewarded by a common denominator: time. Most wage labor is based upon a person’s worth for an hour of their time and the value of their output, whatever output it may be determines the worth of this hour. The pay of wage each person earns is directly correlated to the quantity of time that they
  3. 3. '3i. ')‘v’2'5'}; i$.7's‘~‘l}' 3 work and their right to work as much as they do entitles them to corresponding pay. However when this worker acquires more wealth than his or her work at all or can’t physically? John Stuart Mills questions the justice of wage labor under capitalism stating, “All persons are not equally fit for all labour; and the same quantity of labour is an unequal burthen on the weak and the strong, the hardy and the delicate, the quick and the slow, the dull and the intelligent. ” (Mills 1978: 82) If inheritances stem from the quantity of labor productivity to amass wealth to be passed on, then the original worker acquiring this wealth is already beginning a system unequal for individuals, in a sense exploiting the fact that not all people can work as hard or as long. And yet even labor is something that is seen by some as inherited. According to econornistjohn A. Brittain, he argues that when evaluating inheritance, productivity is just as much inherited as material wealth, “. . . the most vexing question is raised by the tendency of real productivity also to be inherited by children from their parents. . . Certainly no one believes "it is ‘unfair’ for parents to develop the productivity of their children. Still, the fact that these competitive advantages or disadvantages are inherited makes them relevant to an evaluation of the whole process [capitalism]. ” (Brittain 1977: 8)
  4. 4. In this question of inherited productivity lies a deeper implication for rewarding labor——it implies those who do not work, for instance the disabled, have nothing marketable for worth and nothing to contribute to society, and those who could have inherited this trait automatically creating inequality. Imagine if two farmers in the same area spend their entire lives milling their stock while one farmer always has bountiful harvests and the other does not and starves most seasons. Is it the successful farmer’s right to ignore the starving farmer’s needs in order to benefit from a larger surplus and attain greater fortune? Perhaps in this situation applied under capitalism, there is no obligation for one farmer to feed another, but suppose the successful farmer only bears one child and at death gives all of his fortune to a person who has never mixed their labor with capital and upon inheritance never will. Now there would be a starving farmer, perhaps with multiple children because the extra help was needed on the farm, and the only child of a successful farmer left with more wealth than ever imaginable. Under the rules to which capitalist meritocracy functions, is this successful farmer’s child rewarded for anything legitimate? At what point is economic inheritance legitimate? If this situation of inheritance is indeed legitimate, then if the entire village dies and only the wealthy farm boy survives, who will be his market to sell goods? Wouldn’t his wealth be ultimately dependent and relative on the status of the community? If there is a relationship between the community and
  5. 5. T 5 an individual’s wealth, then also this worth would be as good as what is done with it. Surely if a person strives hard in a meritocracy to succeed and acquire wealth it would be their individual right to do with this wealth as they please. Yet acknowledging the relationship between merchant and consumer and the dependence of each to one another, avoiding the responsibility to contribute back to this relationship will prove less fruitful if one cannot supply or consume—the cycle to which wealth is generated would be weakened if not broken. The existence of this bond is not a question of one’s moral values (the merchant or the consumer) but rather how one reacts or contributes in this relationship is. If the relationship between the wealthy person and the poor is not in someway allocated to assist both parties then eventually the relationship will cease by death or revolt. Under the inequalities of capitalism there reaches a threshold to which economic relationships are nurtured. Taking a deeper look into the inevitable inequalities that exist in present capitalism, both parties must have their needs examined. While one party may be in less need (traditionally the wealthy merchant) within the economic relationship, it can be argued that whether or not the wealthy wish to contribute back to the community, this evolution of progressive human living situations is unavoidable. Andrew Carnegie, a wealthy American steel baton of i
  6. 6. ‘V! :‘2'<5iin'3’, ’A! ¥.li‘f6 the 19d‘ century argues that through this evolution of inequality, “The poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford. . . the laborer has now more comforts than the landlord had a few generations ago. ” (Carnegie 1965: 15) Carnegie fails to answer who pays for this material—status upgrade, but if the poor have no money or means, this upgrade must slowly be an expense of the wealthy; consciously or unconsciously. Supposing a wealthy tycoon, like Carnegie, did not want to contribute back to society, are there any guarantees it wouldn’t happen ultimately as time passes? If this slow trickle of wealth will naturally occur, why would one want to halt or avoid giving back to the community? Even with unquestioning the legitimacy of original shareholder wealth, if redistribution on a small scale is unavoidable why not receive credit for this good deed as a person with something to give and do it in a way that appears responsible and unselfish? As a capitalist, the best customer is a happy one; one who could also supply more potential revenue. In a capitalist market there needs to be consumers to fuel this system of meritocracy, wouldn’t the public good and safety need to be ensured to sustain the wealth to which others have earned? In assuming the answers to all these questions are yes, then it appears at some point in capitalism the public good should outweigh the individual’s right. Specifically within the United States, whose obligation would it be to recognize the time to which redistribution is
  7. 7. ti 7 needed for society and who could feasibly enforce any type of redistribution of wealth to society-—the government, the church, the communities? The role of legitimacy to inheritances and levels of injustice within the U. S should be governed by society and should not have to be enforced by administrations but rather wanted by the wealthy to secure the good of humanity as an investment, if nothing more than a potential market to assist in securing wealth. Equity Theory: An Explanation of Wealth in Relationships Many political theorists believe that Equity Theory best explains relationships between people. It is the idea that relationships only exist for one’s benefit, or at least a perceived benefit. In order to have distribution within a society (say to maintain wealth) the first step in examination is to recognize the economic relationships that exist, for instance between a merchant and the patron———assuming people are either producers or consumers. However as economic relationships in the U. S become more complex, sometimes even fluid, viewing these relationships as first equitable help unveil what is being exchanged—wealth. Equity Theory helps understand economic relationships as they progress and explains meritocracy in terms of just distribution; thus those who contribute more shall receive more. There is a level of fairness and justice implied within Equity Theory that reflects much of Western ideals in
  8. 8. Imus Capitalism. Yet as much as this system of ‘just’ rewards in theory is successful, its necessity as a system is never questioned against its objectives. (Deutsch 1985: 28) Without questioning why there needs to be such a system to reward those who “work harder” it fails to explain community or familial relationships. As an expert in distributive justice, Morton Deutsch explains ‘“equity’ tends to be the predominant value in impersonal relationships. ” (Deutsch 1985: 30) But what happens when wealth does become personal like with inheritances? Within a modern world of globalization, where much of international trade can be more or less exchanged within personal relationships, if the Western world accepts Equity Theory as a just means for distribution, then how do large inheritances follow these guidelines of just output for a certain input? In fact, almost against every principal of meritocracy, inheritances do not qualify as a just distributive reward for someone’s output, especially if the input is nothing. At this point in Equity Theory, inheritances no longer function as an economic relationship, but a personal gift at the expense of a previous economic relationship. One could argue that perhaps an heir of an estate worked (or input) was caring for the elder whom the inheritance originates. Yet this can only be applied in a limited circumstances and it assumes the elder did not work at all to raise or assist the heir into adulthood. Even if capitalism, meritocracy, and Equity Theory are all based on how hard one works for
  9. 9. attaining wealth, inheritances by the same means cannot qualify as one’s reward for work that was never inputted. Even within seeking distributive justice and Equity Theory, the legitimacy to inheritances is questionable, for in order to be rewarded for hard work there has to be the presence of work to begin with. Failing Meritocracy—Gaps in Capitalism The problem within the meritocracy of capitalism is that it assigns a worth to those who work and bow much they work. In creating a system that rewards those who work, the structure already punishes those who do not. Wealth, something mostly seen as a reward, actually becomes held as something people chose not to want. The flaw with this system is that fundamentally it creates a false meritocracy in rewarding people, as all labor is not equal and while some citizens may work daily on a farm, their investors or farm owners can take more profit from harvests than the farmers themselves. Notwithstanding the rights of the property owners, there are several risk factors that are ignored within the theory of capitalism: 1) The ill or disabled 2) Natural disasters 3) Long-term stability 4) Death Not acknowledging these factors create an un-human system to run human interactions. Looking at the economy through a non—emotional lens may provide more accuracy but it does not show consistency within wealth. .
  10. 10. T10 If capitalism holds that a non-worker produces no capital worth then each non working person would be “worthless” for society. Yet stay-at-home mothers who raise children (future workers) and provide support to the husband (current worker) are seen as no capital worth but in fact the output that can be created from this interaction is very much productive. Did each person in this family equally contribute to the economy? Probably not, however the monetary value assigned in this example would go to the father and ignore all other factors to success. This meritocracy fails in recognizing all who do work hard and therefore becomes inconsistent. Capitalism also assigns potential worth to physically healthier persons over the disabled by attaching one’s worth in relation to labor. Astro—physicist Stephen Hawking, has not left his wheelchair in nearly thirty years and has no ability to communicate through his mouth, but has won many awards for his work with black holes and relativity and is currently a professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University in England (Hawking 2006: 1) If one were to merely pass Mr. Hawking in the hall or were interviewing him for a job under capitalism, his merits would go unnoticed because his labor has no capital, but surely after being internationally praised for his research, one could realize the worth of a human is not always derived by physical status. Certainly if a system of rewarding people who contribute to society is inconsistent and unfair, there cannot be any guarantees that the distribution of
  11. 11. $11 wealth in the form of inheritances can be any more accurate and just, especially if the original wealth can be contested by an unequal foundation it was built upon. Stepping back from a gap in capitalism that threats the individual, there is also a large gap to which threatens whole cities and structures: natural disasters. For example if a large scale natural disaster, say a roaring hurricane, struck the United States, say head on with a metropolitan area, who is to pay for the repairs when the major trade city becomes destroyed? Hypothetically the government would bare the burden of funding the cleanup and rebuilding that would be needed, but in this same situation this assumes the ‘government is not under—funded with the power to delegate means to provide safety to citizens. In regards to society, for instance in the United States, who pays for the structure to which capitalism functions, the low taxes? By individuals stepping aside to have the government intervene with the responsibility of handling a natural disaster it by every means defies the principal of capitalism to which the country follows. Within the U. S there appears a dichotomy of understanding wealth: on the one hand there are low taxes to allow freedom within markets to have commerce dictate supply and on the other when a community need surfaces, the government is expected to regulate. Which is it, a country based on capitalist meritocracy of labor or a welfare state to provide the needs to the
  12. 12. :. *?*‘; it*f; +:; -12 people? If one wants low taxes to open up the market and create more fluid opportunities for acquiring wealth, do they also want the responsibility to take care of the community when times get bad? Certainly a wealthier person has no obligation to take care of a community, but if an entire area is destroyed it is no longer a functioning market and therefore cannot produce any profit for its investors—-or the wealthy. Suppose our hypothetical city hit by a large hurricane is destroyed. Were the wealthy merchants who sold products “wealthy” when their homes were under water and the only need within the society was drinkable water? Ones wealth is directly dependent on the situation of those being profited from. No structure and stability creates an environment non-conducive to the economy. Without economy there is no function for acquiring wealth. Sustaining wealth is crucial under capitalism, because without any assurance of stability what would be the point of acquiring wealth if it would be worthless in the future? This point is important to understanding inheritances. If one wants to pass wealth along to further generations there must be some guarantee of stability within society as a whole before this transfer can even be contemplated. Setting aside the complicated inefficiencies within capitalism, the question of inheritances and their legitimacy still remains. The most popular claim to a large estate is familial ties. While someone’s grandfather worked very hard to attain wealth, someone two generations away has no claim to assisting
  13. 13. ~*; F£i ‘”i’. ”’i*51?? t.! 1 3 the work acquired for this success. Many times people claim to have “earned” their inheritance. Did they really? Surely an heir did not labor or risk investments as their predecessors might have a hundred years ago, so what did they contribute? Again, _]ohn Brittain claims that economists find this grounds for challenging legitimacy of inheritances, “However, many economists still find it difficult to justify the reward to material inheritances, since it represents no effort on the part of the owner of the capital and he has made no contribution to its accumulation. ”(Brittain 1977: 29) If looking at inheritances as an unjust reward for little to no output, is legal lineage enough to claim another’s wealth? If legal lineage is enough to justify the rewards of inheritances, then why are young wives of old super wealthy millionaires seen to not have a claim within U. S society? Usually these women are referred to as “gold-diggers” just hungry for someone’s money, yet their connection to wealth is more direct legally to the originator of an estate than thatlof a great grandchild. Despite this frequent double-standard of entitlement to inheritances, in cases similar to Mar shall et. Al v. Smith (Kass 2006: 1) there is still debate around the spouses’ “rights” to hundreds of millions of dollars: how much money is a person entitled to receive from the deceased? Is there a limit to how much inheritance can be earned or received? Looking at marital inheritances, why is there a negative stigma associated with in comparison to that of a inheritance within 2.
  14. 14. ‘M14 bloodline? Perhaps it is the nostalgia of one’s familial connect, however many large estates passed on through generations are so disconnected they serve more like a corporate entity. Opposed to this argument of the rights of an potential heir, there is also the argument that the deceased have a right to do with their money as they wish, including in the case of Marshall et. Al V. Smith where a Chicago Tribune article states, “He [Mr. Marshall] knew what he was paying for. ..” (Kass 2006: 1) As in cases of divorce within large estates, many times allocation of funds given to a wife are seen as “too large, too much money” and blasphemous. Why aren’t these same claims raised for great grandchildren? Most importantly in probate cases, why aren’t agencies, like the state or government, viewed as potential heirs with a stake of legitimacy? Acknowledging the inequalities regarding inheritances also require the identification of the large role which the government did play in facilitating one’s wealth. The minimum regulations of the market and the low taxing of income (in the U. S comparatively to other countries) and the discounted services like utilities and education all contributed to a person in the U. S having the flexibility to acquire large masses of wealth in a short period of time. Is the government owed nothing for this facilitation? In 1919 the Mississippi State Tax Commission indeed found that the state had entitlement to one’s estate on similar grounds:
  15. 15. .7}": r31 5 There are many millionaires in the Union with but few heirs at law. Such estates have been accumulated out of the pockets of the citizens of several states. . . Where profits are so enormous, they cease to be profits simply, but they are nothing other than a tax. The citizenship, that has paid them, is more entitled to the benefits than the heirs at law. (Mirrirrippi State Tax Commixrion, Chester 1982: 70) Throughout the history of United States Economics there has been seen a lack of legitimacy of inheritances by the government. Yet in most recent decades there has been an expectation of the government to serve as a shell, even if there are needs and externalities of the people to be met. With “Death Taxes” being debated in Congress as not legitimate, the question of inheritances within the U. S becomes a debate around how the government wishes to address the needs of the people (who are not trustees and are hurting from inequalities) while protecting an individuals choice to acquire wealth. If the responsibility of taking care of humans in need shifts away from the government, then it leaves society as a whole to take care of itself. With large profits being passed on to future generations, how will this need be met if it is not being done voluntarily by those who have the means to fulfill it? If one member of a community is wealthier and donates to its surroundings then when that person passes it leaves a deficiency within a community that may or may not be met by the member’s predecessor. Taking a step back from community or society needs as a whole, what about the needs of individuals? The problem with examining need outside of
  16. 16. ,a-v« ‘L: " i’. ;:‘«. r> 16 the community is that “needs” among classes of individuals differ upon economic status. A community may need a hospital, a school, a water facility; all these needs are easily measured—as they are dependent on the size of the population. Individuals may need a house, a form of transportation, and food sources, but this is where distribution becomes entangled. How big of a house does someone need, how luxurious of a means of transportation do they need, and how much food does a person need to eat? Needs once examined on an individual level soon become wants and luxuries, and who has any right to dictate this consumption? Especially within the United States, which nationally encourages consumption for its economy, it is very difficult if not unconstitutional to govern another person’s consumption. Wealth, both in materialistic and monetary terms on individual levels are completely unregulated within the United States, so how can one argue that inheritances can be limited? The question that lies behind regulating inheritances no longer becomes a question of legitimacy, as the laws are quite clear on estates within the U. S, but rather a question of WHEN the individual right subordinates to the public good. Looking at inheritances as not a source of perpetuated inequalities within the United States J. Bradford DeLong, an economics-professor at UC Berkeley argues that “Bequests influence, but do not decisively determine, both wealth accumulation and wealth inequality. ” (Munnell 2003: 4) His reasoning for this
  17. 17. M17 is that trends within inheritances change to create different roles as time passes. This may explain why some inheritances within families will be larger in certain centuries than other, but it does not discredit the fact that no matter the portion, wealth is still being passed through generations. While the amounts of bequests can change over time, the fact that wealth is being transferred from one body to the next already creates an unequal environment to those who have not received anything. Conclusion: There Should Be Redistribution Supposing the wealth attained by a person (especially through an inheritance) is held as an important value, redistributing or contributing this wealth back into society may not be a priority-but it should be_ If the wealth acquired by someone is held highly, then securing this economic position would be a better investment long term as it would mean stabilizing the surrounding community. While inequalities will always exist in society due to unpredictable externalities, along with predictable measures, maintaining this imbalance is crucial to preventing an rebellion or overturn of the su-ucmm within the society that allows a person to acquire their wealth Inequalities not addressed within a society, as shown through different historical events like that of the French Revolution often mean a threat of destroying one’s wealth 'f ’ i socie is not reserved. D ' ' ' ‘ W P oes redistribution occur naturally? Perhaps Andrew
  18. 18. 18 Carnegie, one of the wealthiest Americans of all time would believe so, but he also donated millions of dollars back to charities within the United States which certainly would have facilitated this “natural” form of redistribution. Put in most simple forms, without examining charitable contributions in particular, the best way to preserve one’s wealth is to donate it to others, even in the smallest of terms. If perception is reality to many, as a wealthy icon society should perceive you as charitable. Say there are two merchants in the same area of society, selling the same product, even at the same price, the consumer naturally will be attracted to the merchant within whom is seen as more worthy or likely to contribute back to the community———as seen in Equity Theory; relationships are most beneficial for stakeholders involved if there is a benefit for the relationship to exist and most importantly, even if there is a perceived benefit to that relationship.
  19. 19. -T19 Works Cited l3rittain, _]ohn ! ., l977. . Washington D. C.: The Brookings Institute. Carnegie, Andrew. 1965. “Wealth” The G el of ealth and Other Timel I; i,§§ays, ‘ . Ed. Edward C. Kirkland. Cambridge: Belkap Press of Harvard University Press. Pgs. 14-30. Chester, Ronald. 1982. Inheritance, Wealth, and Socieg. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Deutsch, Morton. 1985. l2istributive Iusticez A Socialpsychologcal Eerspegtive. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hawking, Stephen. 2006 “Stephen Hawking——My Experience with ALS. ” http: / / w3m. hawking. org. uk[ disable [ dindex. html 20 March. Kass, ]ohn. 2006 “Plenty of Wrinkles in Anna Nicole’s Story. ” Chicagg fig. ht : .chica otribune. com news columnist chi- §l§Q3Q1Q1§§ marO1,1,2882348.column? co1l= chi—navrailnews -nav. Munnell, Alicia Haydock, Sunden, Annika. 2003. Death oll : e 01 of Gifts and Bequests in America. Washington D. C: Brookings Institute Press. Mill, ]ohn Stuart. 1978. “Of Property” . Ed. C. B MacPherson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Pp. 77- 99.

This is an academic paper from my time at Humboldt State University as a Political Science major (2004-2006). The paper is an exploration on true forms of Capitalism and its view on inheritance particularly related to wealth and tax law. Thoughts from Andrew Carnegie, Stephen Hawking and John Stuart Mills countered with modern practice

Views

Total views

950

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

19

Actions

Downloads

5

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×