Jump to content

Why does Boston always beat us out?


FALLEN594

Recommended Posts

Boston spent how many billions of dollars for the big dig. Just think what Philly could have done with that. Like dropping I95 underground between the Ben franklin Bridge and Washington Avenue. This would allow a grand park space or a "Champs Elysee" type boulevard above and extend the city grid toward the waterfront. Boston has their politicians working for them. What are ours doing? Casinos? We know where that money will be really going, eh Ed?

I don't even think that it would even cost billions of dollars just to cover up I-95 from Market to Washington, or in this case, from Chestnut to South since I-95 ascends and descends from the former two streets. As a matter of fact, parts of that stretch are covered. The problem is that it's not completely covered. If it were, you'd have another park connecting CC with Penn's Landing, and Penn's Landing could be this waterfront destination if not for the parking lots which make up a greater part of PL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Philly really needs to look to its college's to improve the neighborhoods around them. Overbrook and Wynfield should be overflowing with people taking the R5 into center city for their white collar service jobs. But, Saint Joe's likes to buddy up with Merion rather than West Philly.

I also believe that John Street's corrupted administration is one of the primary factors of decay in the city. The guy needs to go. At least he hasn't messed up center city yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Woon thank you for that opinion, being from a post-secondary education rich region yourself you probably realize the importance that the colleges and universities actively give back to their communities (the same communities that helped them become the successes they now enjoy). Pittsburgh as well has this debate raging, and too often some of the institutions are seen as "too good" for the city? Beats me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often wonder why Philadelphia, isn't given more props. It's a large densely populated culturally diverse Metropolis. I do believe I read somewhere that for a long time there were height restrictions on Philly. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but from what I gathered, Philly's skyline is big, however average. Media types that hype cities tend to go for the cities that are tall and easily recognizeable. Philly doesn't get much attention. You never seem to hear much about it. I think that works against it. Whereas you're always hearing about places like LA, San Fran, New York, Chicago. ect ect. Hell I hear about Boston all the time. Philly has for a long time been one of the cornerstone cities of our culture. I doesn't get it's props. What really annoys me is when I see people trying to put places like Minneapolis in a league above places like Philly. That's just Miseducation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the biggest miseducation I've ever heard is how some people insist that Atlanta and Miami are bigger than Philly - and I mean INSIST. One guy from Atlanta wouldn't even back down and insisted that Atlanta was "much bigger" - let's see 400,000 or so vs. 1.5 million? Even in metro area populace that's 4.7m vs. 5.8m (and I think the 4.7m figure is overstated since it basically includes all of North Georgia). Then there was a girl (from Orlando) who insisted that Miami was the third largest city in the country, after only NYC and LA. I said "what about Chicago" and she didn't even think Chicago was a big city. The sad truth is that most Americans aren't educated as to geogrpahy or population figures or even history. Sure, they teach it in the schools, but people promptly forget. Instead, what gets into teh national conscious is what gets often repeated day in and day out. Thus college kids and those bound for college often hear about Boston day after day. However, Boston hold lower prominance for those over 30. Also, because Miami is once again the "it" city (after another stint in the 80's, it is also larger than life.

Anyway, in terms of being underrated, I don't think you can get more underrated than Chicago. Its the third largest city in the U.S. and the metro area has around 9m. It has many of the things NYC has and is far more urban than LA, more big city than SF, and more sophisticated than Miami. The way people talk, you'd think Atlanta is bigger (because it is the "New York of the South").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^I agree urban, Atlanta though has recently pulled off the coup with the airports, ATL overtaking ORD. I think a lot of it is just that, the NY of such and such a region. I get the impression that those from the Rockies think Denver is in the top 5 same with Dallas or Houston in Texas.

I think in the Philly and Boston dynamic I think it is much of the same, though NYC is close, Boston is basically the economic, cultural and educational capital of everything from central CT to the Canadian maritimes and to Albany or even Syracuse and Montreal, plus whereas Philly has to put up with us Pittsburghers (and vice versa :P) Boston is pretty much a pure city-state. The region overall has an overwhelming 12 U.S. Senators all seeing Boston's growth as a GOOD thing for their constiuents (sp). Philadelphia has 4-5 U.S. Senators with a steak in it's development but all distracted by Baltimore-Washington (those in Delaware), NYC (the two from Jersey) and Pittsburgh (Santorum/Specter). As diluted as federal representation is for Philly, it is reflective of the proximity of Wash-Balt and NYC to outshine it even regionally. Boston basically owns much of New England when anyone needs a trauma center, major private university, big city newspaper, or TV/Radio, as well as pro sports. Philly has no such hold when up against the economic and cultural capital of North America and then the political capital of the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PghUSA, you always impress me with your knowledge. I enver thought about things in terms of how many senators are involved. Its true, cities that dominate more states do get more clout. In New England, Boston pretty much dominates MA, NH, ME, and RI (I think CT is NYC territory and VT doesn't see itself as part of anything). Philly? I don't think any senator really represents Philly. The PA senators (both Republicans, as you know) pretty much consider the city to be enemy territory and even the suburbs are considered suspect by them (since both can probably float their way to victory by garnering votes in the rest of the state alone). The NJ senators are pretty much NYC-lackies (as is the entire state of NJ). DE? De marches to the beat of its own drum.

I guess Philly is in the never-never land since cities like Boston that dominate several states can call upon more sentaors and cities like Chicago, whose metro resides primarily in one state and thus its population dominance of that state is ensured, can count on two sentors to cater primarily to its needs. With at least 1/3 of the Philly metro area in NJ and another part in DE, the influence of the Philly metro is diluted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^thanks for the compliment! The older I get the more I realize how much of what succeeds or fails depends on who on capitol hill or your state's assembly picks up that phone call from you. From infrastructure being built to lure high tech companies to R&D funding at universities that lead to breakthroughs and attract private investment, to business laws and regulations that punish or protect certain industries in your region.

Congress is much more powerful in our daily lives then the average American realizes but beyond that Boston also serves as the cultural, medical, academic and economic capital of all those states and it's region, it having pure power over state and states governments and all the privileges that go with it, is the cherry on top. Good example for Chicago being another city-state, though Boston has even more pull with NH, RI, ME and I would contend CT and VT more then they would admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess Philly is in the never-never land since cities like Boston that dominate several states can call upon more sentaors and cities like Chicago, whose metro resides primarily in one state and thus its population dominance of that state is ensured, can count on two sentors to cater primarily to its needs. With at least 1/3 of the Philly metro area in NJ and another part in DE, the influence of the Philly metro is diluted.

Technically S.jersey makes up 22% of the Philadlephia metro area. Pa 66% Del. 9% Md. 1%

I have no idea why Cecil County Md. (pop 95,000- located 40 miles sw of Philly) is included in the Philly metro but Mercer County NJ(pop 366,000) which is about 8 miles from Philly is not.

No question though that metro Philly has been cannibalizing each other for the past 50 years. Bad blood and fierce competition between PA. NJ and DE., bad blood between Pa. suburbs and Philly. It's gotten better in the past few years but this region still has a very serious identity crisis nationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea why Cecil County Md. (pop 95,000- located 40 miles sw of Philly) is included in the Philly metro but Mercer County NJ(pop 366,000) which is about 8 miles from Philly is not.

Blame it on the federal government workers in Mercer County who, in the late 80's, clamored to be on the higher NYC pay scale and thus got the government to redesignate Mercer County as part of the NYC-North jersey-CT CMSA. In effect, Mercer County was stolen away. All that said, The area north of where the old East/West Jersey colonial line (basically Princeton and its surrounding area) leans more towards NYC and the area south of that line (Trenton) leans more towards Philly.

As for Cecil County, MD, I imagine that it got included not so much because it is a suburb of Phila (it is not) but because it is an exurb of Wilmington and the metro area is the Phila-Wilm metro area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having grown up 50 miles south of Boston, and now going to college in Philadelphia, I suppose I have a unique view on the "rivalry" or "competition" that exists between the two towns. I see a HUGE difference in how ordinary residents of metro Philly and metro Boston think about their respective cities, and I believe that their own opinion influences the national mindset toward the two towns. It is absolutley true that Boston acts as a city-state within New England. New Englanders see it as mecca; the center of our culture and what we perceive as the rest of the nation's opinion about us. Our opinion of Boston is generally positive, and we see it as a cosmopolitan, vibrant city.

I was completely surprised when I began meeting metro Philly residents during my freshman year at Saint Joseph's University. According to them, Philly is a giant ghetto, which is slowly crumbling amongst the other big east coast cities like New York and Washington. I heard nothing of Center City's renaissance, nor of the dynamic communities of newly arrived immigrants in places like the Northeast or University City who continually add to the city's urban fabric.

Just like with individuals, one's own self confidence creates the confidence of others. Bostonians think their city is (in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes) "the Hub of the Universe," thus causing a positive image around the country. Philadelphians seem to be down on their city, and I truly think that it causes people around the country to think worse of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the "Negladelphian" attitude - the same attitude that prompted the city to have, as a tourism slogan (in the 70's): "Philadelphia: It's not as bad as Philadelphians say it is."

I attribute it to the fact that Philadelphia's suburbs are pretty suburban as compared to the suburbs of Boston. The people in the suburbs might as well live in a generic suburb or any other city. True, the Philly suburbs have more character than the suburbs of any other city in the country outside of Boston and NYC. However, something about them makes the people who live in them to be 100% suburban. I'm not jsut saying that they avoid the city because they perceive it to be dangerous. Rather, they avoid the city becuase the city doesn't offer them the types of things they like out in the suburbs (a TGI Friday's, Ruby Tuesdays, Boston Market, Panera Bread, or Olive Garden within a 5 mile radius of everywhere). The whole Center City rennaissance is lost on them because they could care less about the new Stephen Starr restaurants or the shopping boutiques and the presence of dynamic immigrant communities is lost on them too since many think the best Mexican food is found at Chichi's. When I go to the subrubs of NYC and Boston, I do get the sense that people in those suburbs are more urbane and thus see the corresponding city as being where it's at. Philly suburbanites, on the other hand, are your stereotypical middle American SUV driving Red Lobster patronizing crowd. The fact that Center City has boomed in spite of the anti-urban nature of the surrounding suburbs is probably a testament to how resilient the city actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^I agree urban, Atlanta though has recently pulled off the coup with the airports, ATL overtaking ORD. I think a lot of it is just that, the NY of such and such a region. I get the impression that those from the Rockies think Denver is in the top 5 same with Dallas or Houston in Texas.

I think in the Philly and Boston dynamic I think it is much of the same, though NYC is close, Boston is basically the economic, cultural and educational capital of everything from central CT to the Canadian maritimes and to Albany or even Syracuse and Montreal, plus whereas Philly has to put up with us Pittsburghers (and vice versa :P) Boston is pretty much a pure city-state. The region overall has an overwhelming 12 U.S. Senators all seeing Boston's growth as a GOOD thing for their constiuents (sp). Philadelphia has 4-5 U.S. Senators with a steak in it's development but all distracted by Baltimore-Washington (those in Delaware), NYC (the two from Jersey) and Pittsburgh (Santorum/Specter). As diluted as federal representation is for Philly, it is reflective of the proximity of Wash-Balt and NYC to outshine it even regionally. Boston basically owns much of New England when anyone needs a trauma center, major private university, big city newspaper, or TV/Radio, as well as pro sports. Philly has no such hold when up against the economic and cultural capital of North America and then the political capital of the nation.

Actually, Specter is a Philadelphian, while Santorum can claim Pittsburgh and Western PA.

I understand that Boston is clearly the undisputed center of NE while Phila has to deal with NYC (financial) and DC (government). I really don't believe that Pittsburgh has any negative effect on Phila, but rather the central and rural parts of PA, as Pittsburgh and Phila are really in the same boat regarding state politics.

To be honest, I'd say that the Delaware Valley and Greater Boston is pretty much the same, with both metros having a great deal of diversity (although I personally think that Phila needs to still attract more immigrants to get to even Boston's level), with fringe areas such as Central PA, Scranton-WB, and even downstate DE for Phila, and ME, VT, Providence, and parts of CT for Boston.

The only difference is that Boston has more financial and political power than Phila, which is why it can make such projects such as the Big Dig at the expense of MA and the Gov't and have more say since NE is made up of six states while Phila has to struggle and the fact that NJ has two senators from North Jersey doesn't help our region at all.

And regarding urbanophile's opinion, I feel the reason why Boston's and NYC's suburbs are considered urbane is because of the vast mass transit system that currently exists in the two cities. If Philly had such a system externding to West Chester, Reading, the Jersey Shore (Cape May and Ocean City), SJ, and even the Lehigh Valley, we would be completely tied with our region, but we're not, hence the divisions between the different regions of the Delaware Valley.

And my opinion is that I believe that NJ needs two senators, one for North Jersey, and another one for the southern part, for equal representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston spent how many billions of dollars for the big dig. Just think what Philly could have done with that. Like dropping I95 underground between the Ben franklin Bridge and Washington Avenue. This would allow a grand park space or a "Champs Elysee" type boulevard above and extend the city grid toward the waterfront. Boston has their politicians working for them. What are ours doing? Casinos? We know where that money will be really going, eh Ed?

Philly's already got a Champs-Elysee-type boulevard. It's called the Ben Franklin Parkway. Also, Philly connected its two separate commuter rail systems back in 1984 and it didn't cost $15 billion to do it. What Philly should try to do is extend its Subway-Surface lines to the Delaware River Waterfront. They should look to San Francisco's MUNI Metro extension to the Embarcadero as an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the "Negladelphian" attitude - the same attitude that prompted the city to have, as a tourism slogan (in the 70's): "Philadelphia: It's not as bad as Philadelphians say it is."

I attribute it to the fact that Philadelphia's suburbs are pretty suburban as compared to the suburbs of Boston. The people in the suburbs might as well live in a generic suburb or any other city. True, the Philly suburbs have more character than the suburbs of any other city in the country outside of Boston and NYC. However, something about them makes the people who live in them to be 100% suburban. I'm not jsut saying that they avoid the city because they perceive it to be dangerous. Rather, they avoid the city becuase the city doesn't offer them the types of things they like out in the suburbs (a TGI Friday's, Ruby Tuesdays, Boston Market, Panera Bread, or Olive Garden within a 5 mile radius of everywhere). The whole Center City rennaissance is lost on them because they could care less about the new Stephen Starr restaurants or the shopping boutiques and the presence of dynamic immigrant communities is lost on them too since many think the best Mexican food is found at Chichi's. When I go to the subrubs of NYC and Boston, I do get the sense that people in those suburbs are more urbane and thus see the corresponding city as being where it's at. Philly suburbanites, on the other hand, are your stereotypical middle American SUV driving Red Lobster patronizing crowd. The fact that Center City has boomed in spite of the anti-urban nature of the surrounding suburbs is probably a testament to how resilient the city actually is.

I lived in Boston for 2 1/2 years. I can honestly say that Boston suburbanites are no more urbane than Philly suburbanites and many of them have no use for visiting Boston, except for Red Sox, Celtics or Bruins games. Maybe a few go to see a play or a symphony show. They are defintely the "sterotypical middle American SUV-driving" crowds that you just mentioned. They like their Panera Breads, Olive Gardens and Wal-Marts just as much as Philly suburbanites do. Believe me, Boston is not any better than Philly in this regard. I've lived in both cities and spent a lot of time in their suburbs.

However, I will agree with you that if Center City Philly's booming in spite of its narrow-minded, anti-urban suburbanites, then it really is a resilient city, one that I need to go back and visit. It's funny, but when I lived in Philly during my freshman and sophomore years (1996-98) at Drexel U, I felt like there wasn't much to do at night, because this was during the transition period when the seeds were being planted for today's growth. I sometimes feel like I didn't give Philly much of a chance back then. I lived in Boston, while attending grad school at Suffolk U (2003-05), and I felt that you have to like drinking if you want to go out to have a good time in Boston, because bars are the backbone of Boston's nightlife for young people. They are far more prevalent than clubs are, even in the Landsdowne St/Fenway Park area. There are great restuarants too, but if you're a poor grad student, like I was, you're not going to blow $50 on dinner at them. And that's pretty much it up in Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just got back from a visit to Boston. No offense to Philly (I live in Philly), but its easy to see why Boston beats Philly each and every time. True, both cities have ample historical and cultural attractions. True, Philly's ethnic neighborhoods are more authentic and better defined. True, Philly is a much larger city/metro. However, here are several areas in which Boston is the unequivocal winner.

ECONOMY - No doubt about it, Boston is a top tier city. In finance, medicine, law, business, pharmaceuticals, high tech, education, and everything else top level, Boston is at the pinnacle. Phila, on the other hand, doesn't really lead in any of these areas except for pharamceuticals. Boston's prominence in each of these fields (in fact, I think they have more top level prominence than any other city outside of NYC - pretty substantial for a city of its size), makes it an "it" destination for many highly motivated and well-educated young people. This, in turn, breeds more economic development. In short, the rich get richer.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - Boston's T may be the nation's oldest subway but it is also one of the cleanest. Plus it's very safe, everyone uses it, it goes to many of the places peope want to go, and they've installed debit/credit card machines to pay for the fare (Philly still relies on tokens). Philly's subway is pretty underutilized and not as big. Plus, its dirty and parts are unsafe.

ROAD TRANSPORTATION - Philly is in PA and under the jurisdiction of PennDOT - 'nuff said.

SENSE OF SAFETY - I don't know about actual statistics. However, the areas in which most newcomers and tourists are likely to see in either city is the central area. As far as that is concerned, Boston's central area just feels more pleasant. In Philly, there are panhandlers all over and some of them are quite aggressive. In Boston, I saw just one panhandler. Granted, panhandling doesn't necessarily lead to higher crime. However, it does degrade people's sense of safety. Also, a city's willingness to allow panhandling to go on unabated can lead to other things. I've been propositioned by people selling drugs in Center City Phila several times, for example.

SHOPPING - A huge part of the urban experience is the ability to get what you want without having to leave town. You can get pretty much everything in Philly. However, the range of selection is more limited here than in Boston. Even the sheer number of department stores in central Boston (5 vs. 1 for Philly) speaks to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
I don't even think that it would even cost billions of dollars just to cover up I-95 from Market to Washington, or in this case, from Chestnut to South since I-95 ascends and descends from the former two streets. As a matter of fact, parts of that stretch are covered. The problem is that it's not completely covered. If it were, you'd have another park connecting CC with Penn's Landing, and Penn's Landing could be this waterfront destination if not for the parking lots which make up a greater part of PL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good point. Philadelphia's waterfront area (on both rivers) is cut off by major interstates and railways. You need to find a better way around this to help boost Philly's image. I know that its not impossible to cover up interstates that area already sunken into the ground.

To be fair to Atlanta, the City itself is very small, so you really have to compare metros (or look at the core Atlanta counties), and also, the City is nearing 500k these days (its back up to its 1970 population). Atlanta is also closing the gap with Philly in its metro population. They are expected to top 5 million by 2010. Also, Atlanta is bigger when it comes to land area- like you said, it takes up most of the northern portion of Georgia. But that translates to one of the three things Atlanta is best known for: sprawl. Philadelphia has a more traditional urban core (which is much much larger than Atlanta's), so you have a much more compact city. Atlanta is making progress in this area, but its not even comparable to Philadephia (at least not yet). The sprawl in Atlanta is rediculous to be sure. Go to the Atlanta forums and read any thread related to transportation or growth and you will very often see the traffic/sprawl problems come up.

I agree than a majority of Americans do not know their geography and general population figures at all. You don't have to know what Atlanta's population is versus Philadelphia, but its important to know that Philadephia is a larger and denser city and metro.

Compared to Boston, I am not sure Philadelphia's offereings are as well known. As an outsider, I know of Society Hill, but other than that I can't name any neighborhoods in Philadelphia- and I know there has to be lots of great ones. Boston on the other hand.....

If you haven't started a thread that focuses on neighborhoods, and the happenings there, you should definitely consider it. If you have, then I will probably find my way to it eventually. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a non-Philadelphian and having only visited once over 10 years ago, the only neighborhood I'm familiar with in the city is the West Mount Airy neighborhood, only because I'm reading a book in which the author recounts some of his experiences growing up in that neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Right but Philadelphia also has 1,000,000 more people in that same space within the city. Its much, much denser. Boston is too. I am willing to wager there is a lot of undevelopable water/marsh/industrial area there. I've been to Boston, and it is unquestionably more dense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

("I think Boston's reputation stems from people who go there during college (or who want to go there for college) and I've heard its a great college town. It also stems from the yuppies who frequent only places like Newbury Street and never venture into "Southie". Then there are the tourists who see Fanueil Hall and think that that's representative of the city.")

I couldn't agree with this statment anymore. I lived in The South End of Boston last year and could not wait to move to DC. Boston is WAY over hyped. The tourists and college kids never leave Back Bay, Beacon Hill and South End and think the rest of the city is like those neighborhoods. WRONG! The rest of the city is relatively run down. We lived on a "nice" street in the South End and had problems with muggers, thugs and gangs. I know of several friends and co workers that were mugged and beaten and some of those crimes happened during the day!! As for Philly vs Boston, give my Philly any day! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Well put. Having gone to college in "Cowhampshire", I have to agree that Boston doesn't have such a good image among New Englanders. In fact, I get the sense that many see Boston as being a crime-ridden blight on thier landscape (not that it is crime-ridden, but New Hampshirites see it as being so - I guess its all relative).

Boston is an odd city. It has the whole college preppy plus yuppie atmosphere and then the rest of the city is very provincial and by provincial I mean something akin to an urban Appalachia. Alot of the people there seem to have never left their neighborhood and don't take too kindly to outsiders moving in. Of course other east coast cities have that too but it seems to be more pronounced in Boston. Boston seems to be more separate and apart - perhaps because of their location at the NE tip of the county where they are the last major city before you hit the Ocean or Canada.

I think Boston's reputation stems from people who go there during college (or who want to go there for college) and I've heard its a great college town. It also stems from the yuppies who frequent only places like Newbury Street and never venture into "Southie". Then there are the tourists who see Fanueil Hall and think that that's representative of the city. Philly would never get as good of a reputation from these groups. As a college town, its not in the same league as Boston (or Pittsburgh for that matter) since the colleges and universities are spread apart from each other so there isn't one neighborhood with critical mass. Maybe West Philly with Penn and Drexel but even there the critical mass isn't there (though that area is improving by leaps and bounds). As far as yuppies are concerned, I actually think Philly has much more to offer (better restaurants, more entertainment options, etc.) by virtue of it being a bigger city and being infleunced greatly by NY but, unlike Boston, there isn't this one yuppified area that's separate and apart from the rest of the city. Center City is *the* yuppie area but its also Center City meaning that people of all walks of life go there. So for the yuppies who are looking for their own environment (like Georgetown in DC), I can see why they might prefer Boston. As for the tourists, historiclaly Boston has marketed itself to tourists more than Philly. However, that seems to be changing and I think Philly actually surpassed Boston in tourism last year.

I think its because of all these factors that Boston gets more curb appeal. However, often times people who actually have lvied in both cities prefer Philadelphia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got back from a visit to Boston. No offense to Philly (I live in Philly), but its easy to see why Boston beats Philly each and every time. True, both cities have ample historical and cultural attractions. True, Philly's ethnic neighborhoods are more authentic and better defined. True, Philly is a much larger city/metro. However, here are several areas in which Boston is the unequivocal winner.

ECONOMY - No doubt about it, Boston is a top tier city. In finance, medicine, law, business, pharmaceuticals, high tech, education, and everything else top level, Boston is at the pinnacle. Phila, on the other hand, doesn't really lead in any of these areas except for pharamceuticals. Boston's prominence in each of these fields (in fact, I think they have more top level prominence than any other city outside of NYC - pretty substantial for a city of its size), makes it an "it" destination for many highly motivated and well-educated young people. This, in turn, breeds more economic development. In short, the rich get richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.