Rebane's Ruminations

Demise of Capitalism?

George Rebane

The world’s population is stabilizing, if not starting to ‘stagnate’, and will soon start declining.  This argument and its impacts on humanity are presented in two newly published books – The Human Tide: How Populaton Shaped the Modern World (2019) by Paul Morland, and Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline (2019) by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson.  As a result, capitalism as we know it will disappear explains Zachart Karabell who reviews the books in the Sep/Oct issue of Foreign Affairs – ‘The Population Bust – Demographic Decline and the End of Capitalism as We Know It’.

The crux of that striking conclusion rests on the theory that capitalism remains viable only in an environment of eternal growth; once growth stops or reverses, then capitalism, as we know it, will collapse.  “If global population stops expanding and then contracts, capitalism - a system implicitly predicated on ever-burgeoning numbers of people - will likely not be able to thrive in its current form.”  But I have no idea where this ominous ‘predicate’ comes from.

Capitalism is fundamentally based on human nature organizing economies in an environment of open markets in which prices effectively communicate the supply and demand for goods and services.  Therefore, if demand slows down and then contracts, so long as open markets are allowed to operate, capitalists will adjust their enterprises accordingly.  The only aspect of such a contraction of available services and things for sale is its impact on the value of money. 

The value of any given supply of money depends on the amount of available goods and services it can command in transactions.  Its value, as reflected in open market discount (i.e. interest) rates will track the size of the economies in which it is used as the unit of account, medium of exchange, and store of value.  For example, the value of a lot of fiat dollars will decline if there is less to buy or build with them.  But again, such values will adjust accordingly as central banks ply their wily ways of taking money out of and injecting it into economies.  Granted, if human perceptions about markets change rapidly, then there will be financial shocks as the value of monies held by governments and the public also changes rapidly – after all, we must always remember that fiat money by its very nature is strongly faith-based.

So here we are in the pre-Singularity years as birth rates all over the world are dropping and populations are aging (older folks don’t consume as much as younger ones).  Advances in healthcare and productivity promoted through capitalism are making poorer countries richer, and encourage the richer countries to maintain growth through immigration. The current world population of approximately 7.6B will probably not exceed 10B by mid-century before it starts pulling back.  And given the impact of accelerating technology on systemic unemployment and income inequality, global population pullback is not something to be feared, but to be managed through judicious wealth distribution so as to maintain civil societies that continue to provide an increasing quality of life.  And once the Singularity does occur, all bets are off, as most then alive scramble to become trans-humans (q.v.).  For an entertaining and stimulating treatment of such a plausible future, I recommend Childhood’s End (1953) by A.C Clarke.

Dropout Derby - 15aug19 update

George Rebane

And now Hickenlooper has hit the silk.  The results gentlemen.

Steven Frisch answered, yet again (updated)

George Rebane

Mr Steven Frisch is one of, if not the, leading leftwing intellectuals in the northern Sierra.  He earns his keep as CEO of the Sierra Business Council, a cynically named non-profit, progressive NGO that promotes all manner of leftwing policies and causes in this part of California.  SBC also consults to regional government jurisdictions and agencies in their implementation of ‘sustainable development’ as most easily discerned by the recommendations contained in the UN’s Agenda 21 objectives and the initiatives promoted by its derivative ICLEIs across the land.  RR has covered A21 issues for many years and devotes an entire category to it under which are gathered the relevant commentaries and postings.

Mr Frisch has seen fit to visit these pages with some regularity to debate issues with which he does not agree in my commentaries and in the attendant comment streams.  As a liberal and progressive, his approach to debate is primarily to either misrepresent what has been written, or to attack strawmen that he constructs with the standard liberal shibboleth, ‘We know what he really meant.’  The sequel of this post amply illustrates this mode of attack.

In past screeds Mr Frisch has called me ‘unpatriotic’, ‘un-American’, ‘traitor’, ‘racist’, …, and recommended my departure from everywhere that ranges from Nevada County all the way to shores of the USA.  In my turn, I consider the two of us to have been brought up and now live in different universes.  With some assuredness, lavishly documented here over the years, I can state that Mr Frisch knows next to nothing of the areas in which I claim some expertise.  I’m sure he reciprocates that sentiment.

My response to Mr Frisch here is motivated by an extensive comment that he saw fit to post this morning under ‘Scattershots – 12aug19’.  It is reproduced hereunder in its entirety, along with my responses interleaved in italics.

The Lone Wolf Killers

George Rebane

[This is the addended transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 14 August 2019.]

Each spate of mass shootings reveals yet another aspect of current American politics and how easy it is to manipulate the country’s masses.  As a result of the El Paso and Dayton massacres we are drenched in daily calls to ‘do something’, anything to stop rightwing ‘racists’ and ‘white supremacists’ from continuing their reign of terror wherever innocent people gather.  The ‘do something’ cries have reinvigorated our Second Amendment opponents to take more “common sense” steps on the road to total confiscation of guns.  Currently these steps involve more background checks, red-flag laws, and, of course, the ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’.  (more here)

Non-political experts continue to tell us that neither the current background check laws on the books, nor the newly House-passed Background Checks Act would have stopped any of these killings by first-time lone wolves with clean police records.  Nor would red-flag laws, already on the books in many states, provide any guarantee of prevention, since people naturally hesitate to apply them because of their high false alarm rates and their impact on personal relationships.  This latter point was highlighted by psychiatrist Richard Friedman in a recent NYT op-ed where he stated that “experienced psychiatrists fare no better than a roll of the dice at predicting violence. The evidence suggests that while red-flag laws do stop suicides, it isn’t clear they prevent mass shootings.”

And our progressives, including the Democratic candidates, declare that the real problem for such indigenous terror is the presence of a persistent and burgeoning number of ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ Americans.  According to these leftwingers, the problem now is so bad that all of President Trump’s supporters can be classed as ‘white supremacists’.  It is this massive body of misfits that spawns the killers of innocents among us.  For such progressives, America is still a racist country overrun by white supremacists who continue to deny people of color their legal and constitutional rights.  These assertions are ludicrous on their face as argued by among others, historians such as Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institute and David Harsanyi of the Federalist.  America is the overwhelming destination of emigrants from all over the world, and over 90% these emigrants are people of color, most of whom clamor for entry from Hispanic America and Africa.  So, what do all these would be immigrants know about white supremacy in the United States that Democrats don’t know?

Scattershots – 12aug19 (updated 14aug19)

George Rebane

A long march to protest over-regulation in California is planned to start on 13 August in Vinton (the northern terminus of Hwy 49) and wend its way through 300 miles of rural mountain and hill country roads to end in Oakhurst on 25 August.  It will be done in daily segments which takes it through Nevada City/Grass Valley on 16 August.  People are asked to join it and/or encourage the marchers as it passes through their communities.  This grass roots civic action is the latest expression of desperation with encroaching governments at all levels that daily increase their constraints and constrictions of movement and use of public lands a la A21.  It’s to be seen how such efforts will be received and persist in a state that no longer reflects our inherited culture and values from a fast-fading America.  More here.

President Bill Clinton’s 1995 SOTU speech to Congress on his “illegal alien” policy.  Since Clinton spoke, the situation has gotten orders of magnitude worse with today’s unlawful ‘undocumented immigrant’ policies and programs promoted by our anti-American Left.  Take a look at this 90 second video, it is one that Republicans should play continuously until November 2020, if they had the balls.  Sadly, that will never happen.

[13aug19 update]  ‘Never Again’ Means Nothing If Holocaust Analogies Are Always Off Limits. This WaPo op-ed is one of the most ignorant pieces of writing I have read in a coon’s age.  Author Danya Ruttenberg attempts to excuse AOC’s comparison of our deporting illegal aliens to Hitler sending Jews to their deaths in concentration camps.  Such comparisons are especially damaging and divisive to the mildly educated minds that populate our land and now embrace socialism, they don’t have the historical background to parse the ridiculous analogies Ruttenberg presents in her column.  You have to read it yourself to understand the new directions of the Left’s propaganda machine.  Is this another one of their Big Lies?

[14aug19 update]  That Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a good looking yet abysmally ignorant shill for the DNC’s radical left wing is known to all who pay attention.  She was elected by the fewest of voters from her district, and receives campaign contributions from fewer still – 10 in the first half of 2019.  Her re-election campaign is funded by unknown sources outside her district, and she is handled by equally mysterious agents who consider her and her ‘Squad’ as extremely useful idiots used to manage the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party in fashioning its image as the election season heats up.  (More here)

Sandbox - 11aug19

[Gun confiscation in disguise is the topic du jour, and the disguise has now become a very thin, translucent veil still useful for fooling some of the people all of the time.  gjr]

Democrats’ Big Lie #3671 – America’s economy

George Rebane

In the lead-up to the 2020 election, our Left has marshalled their legion of liars to spread the word to the lightly read that Trump’s revamping of our economy to historical levels has not happened, and that only the top 1% derived any benefit from the tax cuts and regulation rollbacks.  This kind of concerted lying campaign does immeasurable harm to the lower half of the IQ curve, causing these folks to vote against their own self interests.  But that makes no never mind to our progressive Democrats; do whatever keeps and increases your power, and bamboozling the snuffies has always been part of the drill.

It’s instructive to take a look at the magnitude of this particular stream of lies from the Left that started back in Obama’s time when we were assured that a max of 2% annual growth was going to be “the new normal”.  And, of course, Team Obama demonstrated that dictum over his tenure which averaged growth under 2%.  These people pulled every trick in the book to stifle the economy and keep workers’ wage growth essentially flat, all the while lying that they were helping the little guy and middle class.  The little guys took it in the shorts also as the Dems boosted the minimum wage wherever possible so as to make the lower rungs of the economic ladder ever more inaccessible to our unskilled and youngest workers starting their careers.

Conservatives and capitalists have known for generations that a rising tide lifts all boats, in direct contradiction to the Left’s teaching that the only friend of the poor and unskilled is big and bigger government.  Here’s a graphic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to demonstrate the difference between Obama and Trump (filched from the 5jul19 WSJ).

By 2012 it was clear to most Americans that Obama was a socialist who had little interest in implementing demonstrated economic principles to recover the economy from its 2009 Great Recession lows.  I waxed eloquently on this in my ‘What Recovery?’ essay.  In that piece I presented a clear and concise systems flow diagram for how the GDP is calculated from its major components.  It even pointed out how and where the government just pisses away generated wealth.

Most of us don’t have a clue when talking about economic recovery and growth.  Recovery is in the eyes of the beholder, and economic growth is not experienced as a one size fits all – different sectors benefit differentially from any given level of quoted aggregate growth, as the following graphic illustrates.

America’s economy has grown in a remarkably constant range of 3.3-3.4% annually from 1880 to 2008 on the eve of the Great Recession.  To explain the different recovery flavors, I indicated such an exponential growth as the green line in the above graph taken from ‘The Recovery Rigamarole’.  The arbitrary GDP amounts shown vary as a function of time, say, in years.  At year 40 a recession/depression occurs that takes the GDP from around 225 down to 135 over a ten year period.  At year 50 the economy begins to recover.  But from there several 'recovery' paths are possible, three of which (R1, R2, R3) are shown.  At this point it’s important to keep in mind that if the economy’s dip (red line) did not occur, then it would have continued growing at its long term (green line) rate – e.g. at year 50 it would have been about 265.

R1 is clearly a true recovery that regains the long-term growth curve.  R2 is a more tendentious recovery that does achieve the pre-recession growth rate, but perennially lags the sans recession GDP growth trend.  And finally, R3 is at best a propagandized faux recovery, achieving neither the pre-recession growth rate nor its long term trend.

The continuing dissemination of this Big Lie about Trump's economy by the lamestream is one of the most visible pieces of evidence for the ongoing progressive propaganda onslaught through the auspices of fake news.

 

The tragically populous tails of terror (updated 10aug19)

George Rebane

Last weekend’s El Paso and Dayton shootings are today’s national conversation, a conversation that does not yet communicate much beyond the emotional demand that something must be done.  The conversation is yet a babble that has little reason, meaning, or direction in either working toward a shared understanding of the problem, and most certainly not toward any shared understanding of possible solutions, were they even to exist.

The little contribution here is only to record my own perceptions and feelings, and not offered as some definitive insight, the application/adoption of which would miraculously relieve our national pain.  The overarching insight is that all these nativist massacres (as opposed to those motivated by foreign ideology/theology) are the inevitable result of a growing cultural deficit.  The population distribution of cultures has become flatter as the former dominant cultures are practiced by ever fewer people – in a statistical sense, the tails of such distribution of multiple cultures are becoming fatter, and therefore more populous.  This means that the number of people who invent, join, practice new and extreme cultures and belief systems is rapidly growing.  The inevitable result of such an amalgam is that more and more individuals are out there on the borderline of doing something to act out their recently acquired and strongly held beliefs about what is wrong with the society in which they find themselves.  And with more on the borderline, more are likely to cross it with the results we see.

Sandbox - 6aug19

[We will now have to dissect the when and how President Trump was the prime cause of all these massacres.  And one thing is clear to many of our tight thinkers, the man is able to make such things happen in cities where he previously held a campaign rally.  So finally, after all the years of mass shootings, we have identified their cause.  Socialist science marches on.  gjr]

Scattershots – 6aug19 (updated 11aug19)

George Rebane

The true costs of ‘renewable energy’ are both unaffordable and hidden. Those of us who can do arithmetic have known the unreported high costs of renewable wind and solar power for years, and how the climate calamity acolytes and the lamestream have suppressed reporting the costs of making the world work with renewable energy.  Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute writes a short, fact-filled piece on the matter in the 6aug19 WSJ (here).  He cites the work of the International Renewable Energy Institute based on the demand forecasts of the International Energy Agency.  The bottom line is that if you take into account the ‘cradle to grave’ costs and environmental impacts of spreading solar and wind power production worldwide, then humanity will have an existential disaster on its hands.  The amount of mining, transport, construction, and waste elimination required swamps all conceivable benefits from such ‘clean power’ which will turn out to be the dirtiest and most expensive that we can attempt to buy.  As an example, “building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic.  And these materials will have to be mined, manufactured, and assembled in not so very nice places according to the Sydney-based Institute for a Sustainable Future.  None of this is known to our garden-variety progressives (some in these pages) who continue to mindlessly tout subsidized ‘clean energy’ and claim its unrealizable economic benefits.

‘1984’ has arrived on campuses.  “Bias response teams” are now an established institution on most college campuses, and the disease is spreading rapidly.  Christian Schneider reports (here) on “a chilling look inside colleges’ systems for reporting and policing offensive speech.”  The growing archive of such petty incidences of one student snitching on another, often unsuspecting, student is testimony to another of the progressive-promoted illiberal insanities in our society.  Reading the record of cited incidences is simply mind-boggling to most of us.  The accused offenders are then required to present themselves to the schools’ administrative “diversity” panels for examination of their violations.  As with sexual abuse allegations, there is no appeals process, and such allegations go on the students’ records which may later be used to impact careers and other life-opportunities in these looney tunes times.  For all this, go thank your local leftists who have enthusiastically made all this possible, and continue to do so with every ballot they mark.

[update]  Tonight on FN we saw an ugly leftwing mob assembled across the street from Majority Leader McConnell’s house with signs and flood lights screaming unspeakable epithets at the senator and people to “Stab him through the heart!” and “Cut his fucking throat!”.  How many lamestream outlets showed this?  How many rightwingers have gathered to put on a scene like that in front of Democrat politician’s house?  Biden and Booker both stated that they want to “beat up” President Trump; how many Republican politicians have ever come even close to such violent language against a Democrat President.  And none of these are isolated incidents carried out by some backwater communists, these are carried out regularly by mainstream leftists all across the country.  In progressive circles and in their lapdog lamestream media President Trump is regularly referred to as a “white supremacist”.  Where is the evidence for that?  I join with Victor Davis Hanson and most other conservative commentators in declaring that I have never met a rightwing white supremacist, nor do I know of anyone who has ever met such a person.  Yet the lunatic Left continues to accuse all of us daily of being white supremacists.  (check RR comment streams)  It is these insanely cynical asymmetries that confirm our having passed the tipping point and promoting the Great Divide.

[8aug19 update]  To further confirm the tsunami of censoring conservatives that is sweeping the country’s media, Twitter concluded that the video I reference above was too damaging to the progressive narrative about who actually are purveyors of hate and violence.  CNBC reports that “Twitter locked Mitch McConnell's campaign Twitter account, Team Mitch, for posting a video of a profanity-laden protest outside of McConnell's home in Louisville, Kentucky.”  (more here)  You literally cannot make this stuff up – politically motivated censorship is now a daily happening, most of it not visible.

[10aug19 update]  ‘Shaming’, even FN doesn’t understand the meaning of the word, and plays patsy to the Dem candidates’ attempt at that in their desperate attempts to intimidate President Trump.  These political sleazebags, now joined by Uncle Joe, are all claiming a direct causal relationship between Trump’s public speech and the El Paso and Dayton killings.  This is supposed to shame the president.  People who still care about the language know that a person accepts shame only when 1) he acknowledges the veracity of the allegations against him, AND 2) the society around him also embraces the same allegations.  Neither of those conditions exist for Trump re the massacres, nor the 100M+ Americans who are paying attention.  The desperate scumbags who seek to make such ludicrous claims stick don’t have a clue about this, and are mainly relying on the segment of their constituents who are innocent of current events and most other things that quality education delivers.

[11aug19 update]  Leftwing dumb is definitely a terminal mindset. Any kind of discussion with them is nigh impossible because they fail the basics of an IQ test that asks questions about whether this is like that, and if not, what is the difference.  Years of examples of such deficit thinking are archived in RR comment streams, and today we see it in the comments under Jo Ann’s recent Union piece (here) about the treatment LaMalfa received at the hands of the leftists when he visited here.  The Union leftwing commenters equate the crowd’s cries of ‘Lock her up!’ at Trump rallies with their own thuggish behavior of shouting down a congressman of the opposite party.  They haven’t a clue that one set of voices is in support of the speaker, and the other set of voices is meant to disrupt a speaker trying to respond to his audience.  To those pinheads these two situations are identical, and they consider their loutish behavior as Democrats to be a proper response to the Republican audience’s behavior at a Republican rally.  Is there someone with even garden variety smarts on the other side who can see a profound difference here?  Exit question: how often do you see Republicans do that when a Democrat comes to speak?  (I don't usually comment on Jo Ann's columns, but this time the number of butt-stupid responses was overwhelming.  H/T to GregG and ToddJ for their valiant attempts to explain the matter in that comment stream.)

The Lamestream’s Russia Collusion Illuminated

George Rebane

Holman Jenkins in his ‘What Ails the US Press?’ expands the strong point, much massaged in these pages, that “the media’s lack of interest in the Steele dossier amounts to collusion in a coverup.”  In this 3aug19 WSJ piece he lays it out so well that I decided to let RR readers crawl under the paywall and read the whole thing themselves

Dropout Derby Updated 3aug19 (addended)

Dropout Derby update.  As of 3 August 2019 with Democratic candidates 20 and 24 having bailed, the following is the cumulative score tally (bottom row).  The number/name key is found in bottom figure.

[Addendum]  One of the participants requested that I reprise the scoring algo with examples for a couple of the participants.  The indicated ‘CumScore’ line contains the updated cumulative scores of the participants that account for all the dropouts to date – currently #20, then #24 as shown in the ‘Actual’ column.  CumScore is the sum of the individual scores for each predicted dropout candidate.

A perfect prediction occurs when the participant’s dropout location matches the actual location in the sequence of dropouts.  When there is a difference between a candidate’s predicted location and the actual location, then the prediction error is the (absolute value of the) difference between the two locations.  The maximum possible difference value with 26 candidates is 25.  So if a participant missed it by, say, 5 = predicted position minus actual position, then the relative error is 5/25 = 0.2, and the score for that prediction is the complement, 1 – |5/25| = 0.8.  This yields a perfect score of 1.0 if the two positions match, and 1 - |25/25| = 0 if they maximally mismatch.  CumSum is then the cumulative sum of all the participant’s individual candidate scores.

As examples, we’ll calculate the indicated CumSum scores for EstFox (1.40) and WaltB (1.24).  For EstFox the first dropout difference is |7-1| = 6.  Therefore 1 – 6/25 = 0.76.  The second dropout yields a difference of |11-2| = 9, giving the candidate score of 1 – 9/25 = 0.64.  The sum of these individual scores is the indicated 1.40 = 0.76 + 0.64.  For WaltB we have the first score as 1 – |19-1|/25 = 0.28, and the second as 1 - |1-2|/25 = 0.96, for a total of 1.24 = 0.28 + 0.96.  A perfect score at this point in the dropout sequence would be 2.0.  This says that at the end of the competition when the last candidate ‘drops out’ to be the party’s nominee, a perfect score would be 26.

Along the same vein, we can also compute the ‘normalized score’ at every dropout in the sequence by dividing the participant’s CumScore by the perfect CumScore to date.  The perfect normalized score would then always be 1.0 as the competition proceeds.  Using the above examples, the normalized scores would be for EstFox 1.40/2.0 = 0.70, and for WaltB 1.24/2.0 = 0.62.  The above table has been updated and corrected to show both the CumScore and NormScore for each participant.  (H/T to commenter who noticed error in calculating the CumScore of participants who did not update their dropout lists when the last three Dem candidates entered the race.  Such missing entries will receive a zero score for the dropped out candidate.)

Ruminations – 3aug19

George Rebane

Our favorite double-dummy communist, Umair Haque writing in Medium, continues his dive into the abyss of ideological idiocy with his latest essay attempting to explain ‘fascism’ to American readers.  In a piece titled ‘America Is Collapsing Into Fascism Because Americans Still Don’t Understand Fascism’ he does a great job of confusing the matter even further on his journey into regions of history and semantics in which he is a complete naif.  It’s worth a read though, if only to understand how our lightly-read are swayed.

George Will’s The Conservative Sensibility is the latest book to go on my reading list.  The sometimes conservative commentator has enjoyed a long career purveying his right of center ideology in the media (a regular on NBC, MSNBC, WaPo, and the National Review).  Will is both an anti-Trumper and an anti-Republican who shares my belief that our country’s march to collectivism has passed the tipping point, and that conservatism is in a terminal decline – the “Right’s losing battle against progressivism.”  (more here)

For a little light-hearted, local comical relief, I direct your attention to Terry Lamphier’s ‘Grass Valley’s burning desire for growth’.  There I challenge you to discover Mr Lamphier’s point of the article, save his eternal opposition to the county’s growth.  The man continues his established tradition of writing articles both long-winded and opaque.

Sandbox - 2aug19

[Interesting discussion from the last sandbox on Baltimore, shithole cities, and the misguided attack on Kushner and other investors in companies willing to provide housing in crime and drug infested ghettos.  The simple-minded accuse such investors of being "slumlords" with the same logic that investors (like me) can be accused of causing the opioid epidemic by investing in pharma companies or killing women and children in the mid-east wars by investing in defense industries.  Go figger.  gjr]

Tariffs – who really pays

George Rebane

President Trump’s current tariff wars are definitely having a mixed impact on economies in the US and around the world.  His claim that ‘China is now paying us billions in tariffs’ is patently false.  But most people still think that tariffs on Chinese imports now consist of the imported goods plus a check for the tariff amount written by someone in China.  And that a 25% tariff on Chinese imports will increase their price for such goods by 25%.  Not so.

Tariffs on imported goods are paid for by the US registered importers to our Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency within 10 days of the goods landing in the US, which monies go into the Treasury's general fund of tax collections.  That, of course, increases the cost of doing business since the importer must now increase his, usually financed, operating capital by the amount of the tariff, thereby increasing both the direct cost of what he buys, and also adding the cost of financing the tariff amount. (more here)

To see how the tariff impacts us on the receiving end, consider the rule-of-thumb breakdown of end-user price.  For most things the ‘one-thirds rule’ applies – 1/3 to the manufacturer, 1/3 to distribution, 1/3 to the retailer (end-seller).  That means that the distributor (distribution channel) charges the end-seller twice its cost(s) for the item, and the end-seller then adds 50% of his cost to arrive at the price the end-user must pay.

So, let’s look at a pair of athletic shoes for which the consumer pays a pre-tariff $100.  The Chinese manufacturer sells these out the door for, say, $32.  The importer (distributor) must pay, say, a 25% tariff on the goods, or $8 to the CBP for a total cost of $40 for the shoes at the port of entry.  Now how much of that additional $8 cost he passes on to the retailer depends on what kind of a hit he’s willing to take on his profit margin.  Say, he’s willing to swallow half the increased cost, so he sells the shoes to the retailer for 2*($32 + 0.5*$8) = $72.  If the retailer now followed the one-third rule, then the price for the end-user consumer would be 1.5*$72 = $108, or an 8% price increase.  Being sensitive to the price-demand curve (you sell less of what costs more), the retailer may decide to swallow, say, 25% of his increased cost, or 0.25*($72 - $64) = $2.  This brings the consumer price of the athletic shoes to $106 or a 6% increase to the American end-user that was caused by imposition of a 25% tariff on such imports.

You can, of course, play this game with different numbers, for example starting with the Chinese manufacturer also discounting his out-the-door price of $32 to keep his shoe sales volume up.  Anyway, this should give us all an idea how and where tariff charges impact everyone in the process of getting imported stuff into the hands of end-users.  (Those wanting to play with these numbers can now see the effect on end prices by also considering the slightly more complex intermediate ‘end pricing’ of imported components ordered by US manufacturers making goods for US and foreign markets.)  And when all is said and done, everyone in the described chain will hold their breath to see how much the end-user will balk at paying the increased price and thereby lower the sales volume for the shoes, which effect will ripple up the chain impacting all kinds of decisions about what to pay, what to charge, and from where to buy.

In sum, the penalty that China (or any tariff assessed country) pays is that 1) they will sell less of the stuff to end users who have to pay a higher price, and/or 2) manufacturers and distributors on the receiving end will inevitably try to obtain the same stuff from countries that are not tariffed so as to regain their profit margins while lowering end user prices.  When, like China, you have entire industrial sectors geared to make goods for the single largest market in the world, tariffs on the receiving end do impose many forms monetary and financial penalties at the source end.  But make no mistake, the pain of tariffs is felt by all sides, and Trump needs to make that clear instead of spewing only the ‘China pays’ bullshit to the American electorate.  (Don’t mistake this screed as an assessment of the strategic wisdom cum effectiveness of today’s tariff trade wars; that is another discussion altogether.)

Subliminal Manipulation of Votes (updated 8aug19)

George Rebane

This is possibly the scariest post to date on RR.  Dr Robert Epstein’s congressional testimony about the vote manipulation antics of Google and Facebook are jaw-dropping.  Epstein is the former editor-in-chief of the prestigious Psychology Today and continues as Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research & Technology.  In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, this self-avowed liberal Democrat and strong Hillary supporter recounts numerous incidents of subliminal and so far unstoppable vote manipulation by the named tech giants.  As an example of an experimentally demonstrable vote manipulation effort Dr Epstein recounts that Google swung an extra 2.6M to over 10M extra votes for Hillary and the Democrats.  And to date there is not a thing anyone can do about this kind of activity which Epstein says will definitely be the deciding factor in the 2020 election.  We are reminded during the testimony that Alphabet – Google’s parent – was the single largest contributor to Hillary’s 2016 campaign. 

You wanna see what vote manipulation really looks like, then watch the goddam 7-minute video before someone takes it offline!  (H/T to correspondent)

[8aug19 update]  For a recent example of how these social media giants manipulate public attitudes, see the report in 'Scattershots - 6aug19' for what Twitter quietly did so as not to damage the progressive narrative about who are nation's haters and promoters of polarization.

Scattershots – 30jul19 (updated 2aug19)

George Rebane

SB27 just signed by Sleazebag Newsom. Just when you think it can’t get worse, something occurs that shows there is still a long way for us to go down from the dire straits in which we already find ourselves.  Newsom and his single party super socialists just made a law in CA, specifically targeting President Trump to keep him from appearing in our state’s primary next spring.  From now on you can’t appear in a CA primary, specifically for POTUS and governor, unless you have filed your recent years tax returns with the CA SecState.  This is so blatantly unconstitutional as to invite an immediate suit against such obvious mischief, a most fiendish form of federalism practiced by America’s leading klatch of collectivists who want nothing to do with federalism.  And the CA GOP is filing exactly such a suit, but the real legal counter should come from the DoJ.  Candidates for federal office appearing on state ballots should have uniform requirements under the Constitution, and it’s the AG who should bring and argue the case in the SCOTUS.

Split Pill Problem.  Here’s a change of pace for some of you puzzlers and critical thinkers out there.  Suppose a patient is given a pill bottle with N pills in it.  He’s told to take ½ pill per day until the bottle is empty.  When he dispenses a whole pill into his palm, he is to split it, take a half, and put the other half back in the bottle.  When he shakes out a half pill, he takes it and recaps the pill bottle.  He knows that every whole and half pill in the bottle has an equal chance of being dispensed.  He continues in this manner until the bottle is empty after 2N days.  Then he wonders, what is the average (or expected) number of days that must pass before the bottle only contains split pills, and he doesn’t have to do any more pill splitting.  Can you help him figure it out?

[31jul19 update] Last night’s Democrat debate left me with the feeling that half the gaggle of assembled candidates was going through a kabuki performance, while the other half tried to bring the dialogue back to something that more closely matched things possible on this Earth and this universe.  They didn’t have a chance as the CNN lamestreamers kept tossing puffballs at the progressives.  Seeing people like Reps Delaney and Ryan gave me momentary hope which quickly faded as we saw the kabuki performances overwhelm their voices.  And the last vestige of hope was dashed later when, in a more sober moment, Jo Ann and I considered their chances of making it to the convention.  From reading first person histories of 1932 Germany – e.g. Der Führer (1944) by Konrad Heiden (more here) - there sure are a lot of comparisons that can be made with our electorate today, the overwhelming numbers of whom don’t know history, current events, geography, economic basics, and to boot are totally innumerate.  And then there are the Silicon Valley vote vultures well-practiced in turning out the correct constituent cohorts on election day (more here).

[1aug19 update]  The second half Democrat debate was populated by solid progressives, not many leavening opinions were heard.  But we did learn that progressives are strong believers in race-based criminality, and race-based punishments – colorblind application of ‘you do the crime, you do the time’ is racist and must no longer be applied.  And it also became clear that when our Left calls for ‘unity’ and ‘let us come together’, that means what the Left has always defined it to mean – party line opinions only, dissent not allowed.  Examples of that in practice are emerging from leftwing corporatist entities like Google which has been shunning then quietly firing conservative employees when they make their views known to fellow employees.  Cory Booker came out as the fastest and smoothest talking mouth on the stage; DeBlasio showed his true colors as radical wingnut; Biden and Harris faded; and all of them called each other liars.

Russ Steele has assembled some revealing temperature data for all you climate crusaders. (here and here)  As usual, the government’s (NOAA) hanky-panky on reporting global warming goes on unabated.  The full court press on the looming climate catastrophe – they can’t agree whether it’s in 10, 12, or 30 years, but it’s a’comin’ – has been heightened recently as the Dems are using it to rally their true believers.  The rest of us would still like to see a public debate on the matter that features their vaunted climate mavens defending their narrative viz data measurements, data manipulation, data availability, atmospheric physics (e.g. earth’s carbon cycle), the estimation problem, climate model designs, climate model programs, replicable computer runs, … .  So far, none of them want to show up to defend the Gospel according to Gore.

[2aug19 update] Wow, ‘lamestream media’ is now a national meme that President Trump broke out in a tweet (here) about the withdrawal of Rep John Ratcliffe as nominee for DNI, and then FN reported on his use of it this afternoon  Not sure if it’s true, but IMHO I came up with that pejorative for journalism on RR years ago.   My earliest use that I could find was in a 21jan11 post (here).  It didn’t take off too quickly, even with RR readers.  But then readers started using it (ToddJ introduced it on his blog in Nov 2011), and now and then I started seeing it used on other blogs – things can go viral at various speeds, it doesn’t have be overnight.  And lately it has cropped up pretty regularly in unexpected places on the web.  So out of curiosity I’m asking readers to see if they can find, either on RR or elsewhere, a confirmed use of ‘lamestream media’ that pre-dates 21 January 2011.

Natural size limit of a corporation (updated)

George Rebane

After some considerable thought, we are adding the criterion for the natural size of a corporation to Rebane Doctrine.  To keep it short and simple, a corporation becomes too large to manage when its manager cannot be reasonably held accountable for the corporation’s major violations of law and regulations.  In short, when the corporation becomes criminally culpable, and no one can reasonably point a finger at any people in management who should be held accountable, then there is a problem.  When that occurs, then the appropriate regulatory agencies, overseen by the Executive, should file suitable anti-trust suits to break up the corporation.  In this case, the offending corporation should be given six to twelve months to come up with a ‘breakup plan’ that it considers acceptable to the regulators and shareholders so that the surviving entities may still be viable in the marketplace.

The acid test of such a break up is whether the new CEO nominees (or management committees) will accept their positions, given that they will be held personally culpable if their corporation goes off the legal or regulatory rails.  If no one is still willing to take the job, then it’s clear that smaller pieces of the original corporation are called for.  Management should have no excuse in copping the pleas that ‘it was too big and complex for me to keep track of it’.  If corporations are to be treated as legal entities with rights and privileges, then they must also be liable for screwing up.  And since corporations as legal entities per se can suffer neither pain nor celebrate joy, that feedback must fall to the humans who can.  That is Rebane Doctrine.

All this comports with the long-held Rebane Doctrine principle that government is not the only kind of large bureaucratic organization that can regularly screw up – all large organizations in which feedback paths become dysfunctional or cease to exist are liable.  Recall that when corporations become leviathans unable to compete in open markets, they use their cash reserves to buy politicians and transform themselves into the corporatist mold in which they invoke the government gun to keep competition at bay.

[update]  The Cato Institute just released a recent policy analysis regarding how government should treat 'tech giants' that have a potential of acting like monopolies in their respective markets.  It's an area where government should provide oversight but tread lightly when it comes to dictating the structure and operational limits for private enterprises.  Economist Ryan Bourne explains in 'Is This Time Different?'

And as radical leftwing and unapologetic as one can get, here is a missive from Umair Haque, currently one of our favorite communists, on the “awesome plan” Elizabeth Warren has “to save America”.  To keep up with great thoughts from our Left, especially on how to treat America's businesses, this piece (here) is assigned reading.

Sandbox - 28jul19

[Was going to intro this sandbox with a comment on the current Trump/Cummings imbroglio, but reader Todd Juvinall's comment in the last Scattershots covers it pretty well.  "Elijah Cummings district is truly a shithole district. Most of the urban blight is contained in the areas represented by the Con Black Caucus. With over 40 members I have watched them most of my political years and they are as impotent (as) Steve Frisch. Their districts are shitholes. We see the same thing now in LA with the Hispanic Caucus. If they would cast off their leftist robes of failure and embrace Republican values and ideas they could revitalize their shitholes. But they won't. The press is siding with these failed politicians against Trump. He sure says what is true."  gjr]

Some Journalistic Jollies

George Rebane

Readers know that today’s professional journalists comprise one of my favorite foils.  Perusing the morning papers, I ran across three doozies that brought on a spate of self-satisfying chuckles.  First, let’s start with Don Rogers’ essay in his 26jul19 Union.  The newspaper’s publisher is an irreconcilable ‘never Trumper’, and promises to cut off your nose to spite your face.  He observes the national scene and laments that “no one truly acts for the common good.”  But in the sequel he doesn’t seem to understand that in today’s America we no longer have a ‘common good’, all the polarizing evidence withstanding.  Let me begin by acknowledging that Mr Rogers is a likeable man of good character and an intellectual leader of our community

In today’s essay he claims to like “some actions” of Trump “almost exclusively in economic matters”, and brushes off the historic sea change from Obama years as something “any decent Republican could have accomplished”.  But they didn’t, Trump did.  Society correctly credits the individuals who actually accomplished a notable thing, good or bad, and doesn’t withhold accolades or accusations with the excuse that someone else could just as easily have done it sooner or later.  Einstein discovered relativity, Lucky Lindy was first to solo the Atlantic, and Stalin killed tens of millions of his own citizens.  It wasn’t just anyone doing those things.

Mr Rogers joins his legion of liberal colleagues in calling Donald Trump “Racist? Sure, of course, but we’ve known that for a while.”  And along with them he offers no definition of the ‘racism’ to which he hews; Trump is “of course” racist for the reason that Rogers simply echoes that accusation – for a liberal, that is more than enough to make it so.  Consensus ignorance becomes common wisdom.

Our publisher’s main complaint in his ‘Impeach me, please’ is that Trump is flying solo in wanting the House to impeach him as part of some self-serving “thuggery” in his re-election strategy.  Apparently, Mr Rogers has not been exposed to the last two years of news about how Democrats, high and low, are in an all-out assault to impeach and discredit the president based on no culpable evidence, and ONLY as a blatant tactic to end his presidency in 2020.  The long litany of investigations, hearings, conspiracies, criminality, along with gratuitous and baseless accusations in the Democrat-compliant media, to Rogers somehow fall short of thuggery - actions and behaviors which for the rest of us overfill its most basic definition.

Don Rogers would rather vote for the Democrats’ “wrong-headed” and “ill-advised” legislation and policies and deny us the demonstrated benefits of Trump’s policies, why? because he doesn’t like the wrapper in which they are delivered.  And there we have a sterling example of a journalist promoting the common good. 

With a mild segue we now encounter Aaron Zitner, WSJ editor for digital innovation, who discovers the independent voter as those who actually swing elections one way or t’other.  He breathlessly reports the news of both parties having the dilemma of spending campaign funds to nail down their core voters or spend it trying to convince those yet to make up their minds.  His report (here) in the 26jul19 WSJ has got to be evidence of a slow news day.  Why?  That decision and its cash allocation dilemma is as old as electioneering.  Anyone familiar with how America has voted for the last couple of centuries knows the 40-20-40 rule.  We have reported on it extensively (here, here, and here) starting with The Myth of the Rational Voter (2007) by Bryan Caplan, who covered the large body research which demonstrated that the minority ruled, and did so until politicians discovered mass media in the 1920s.  This caused voters to succumb to the guile of political sound bites in their number and recency.  And that, of course, brought the whole thing back to which party and candidates could buy more eyeballs and earballs on the media.  So we’re back to the ‘middle minority’ as the swing votes who always determine elections.  But then, you knew that, and so should have Aaron Zitner.

OK, we’ll end with a real subtle knee-slapper.  How many times have you been told about investors moving into this or that investment?  The image painted by these financial reporters is of a mass of agitated people moving en masse from, say, stocks to bonds or vice versa, or to some other area like commodities or real estate.  ‘Investors give up on gold!’ is a regular headline in this genre.  Today we read Jessica Menton’s breathless report (here) about investors pouring money into bonds at a “record pace”.  Apparently investors are forsaking stocks as being more risky and going into the perceived less risky debt instruments.  Well, no they aren’t.  No investor threw their gold bars or stocks into the gutter; no one left their corporate stocks lie fallow in some drawer or some broker account when they switched their investment focus.  Every investor sold their old investments to whom?  Rumor has it that these buyers have always been (seatbelts please) other investors – imagine that.  Just as much money was coming out of one pile of investments as was going into another pile or two.  These monies don’t move by abandoning what was previously valued; they can’t.  Never are there discarded piles of share certificates found in dumpsters when monies move.  For some reason, this important little aspect of investor monies moving around is never mentioned.  You gotta sell stuff before you can buy other stuff.  And if investors are buying something else at a record pace, other investors must also be buying what was sold at a record pace.  Reporters should point this out now and then. 

Pricey Parking Problem Postponed

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 24 July 2019.  An edited version of it (here) was published in 22jul19 edition of The Union.]

You’ve heard Nevada City recently announce that it intends to expand metered parking in its downtown area and make it considerably more expensive.  The town’s left-lurching governance has been comedy central for as long as people can remember – it is always short of money and has very little idea about what makes an economically vibrant community.  Its city council mamas and papas see every financial shortfall as a problem solved with more fees and taxes.  As all of our pro-socialist neighbors, the town’s leadership doesn’t seem to understand that people’s economic activities are affected by the taxing of those activities.  Neither do they understand that you get less of what you tax more.

Scattershots – 23jul19 (updated 24jul19)

George Rebane

Marxist-Leninist ideology has proven itself as the world’s most toxic way to organize society, primarily because of its appeal to the simple-minded and uneducated (according to Rebane Doctrine).  Today the so-called Justice Democrats have joined with Our Revolution to form the most prominent ‘legitimate’ political organization to promote an M-L future for America.  Our Revolution is the front for the three most influential Marxist organizations in America – Democratic Socialists of America, the Communist Party USA, and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.  This is what you will get when you back Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the Squad.

‘Can’t We All Just Get Along?’ Here’s Victor Davis Hanson putting many things from the Obama years in perspective, things that our liberal contingent shows us daily that they have forgotten, if they ever even noticed such happenings in the first place.  As VDH reminds us, the Democrats have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.  (H/T to reader)

Fire Team (a squad is divided into two fire teams) Tlaib and Omar are heading for Israel and the West Bank with the blessings of President Trump and the welcoming Prme Minister Netanyahu.  They will be there to promote their anti-Israeli BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) bill that Pelosi will never allow on the House floor.  That doesn’t matter, the Squad has become the mind and message of the Democratic Party whose more politically astute members are trying to stifle before the election season gets too far along.  Every Republican considers those brainless broads to be the gift that keeps on giving – long may they wave.

Puerto Rico’s hot summer continues as San Juan’s citizens by the tens of thousands demonstrate to get their governor Rossello to resign after some revealing tweets of his were made public.  But the question I ask readers to consider is why Puerto Rico continues to flirt with being a banana republic.  Why has that island remained a corrupt and essentially dysfunctional state after enjoying more than a century of being a succored territory of the United States with special dispensations for its citizens, trade relations, investment sources, economic aid, … ??  I suggest again that it is their culture that keeps them in their perennial dire straits; a culture that they share with much of the western hemisphere south of our border, and the same culture that most on our Left are trying to infuse into our land with its porous borders.

[update]  Seven Dems on the House Judiciary Committee floated fake Russiagate stories. Tomorrow they get to quiz Mueller.  Such is the nature of the carnival that was once known as the world’s greatest deliberative body.  No more deliberation allowed, just time-worn, disproved allegations and outright lies.  There is the cast of characters ready to expose their character and show their prowess in questioning Special Counsel Mueller in the fervent hope that he will break and tell everyone that Trump was really guilty as sin, his report was a whitewash, and now he is sorry. (more here)

[24jul19 update]  The Mueller testimony to Congress is over. The man came across confused, timid, and uninformed – the Dems ‘movie’ to follow the ‘book’ was a bust.  But au contraire, to hear the Dems on the media outlets tonight, they had a great victory – now the American people know that Trump colluded with the Russians to assure his election victory, and then partook in numerous criminal acts to obstruct subsequent justice.  This is straight out of the Stalinist/Leninist playbook – just counter with bigger lies that contradict truth.  Mueller found no evidence for collusion or obstruction; had he done so, he, who set a new standard for RINO, would have said so.  Instead, his best efforts against Trump was a lame statement, never before heard from a prosecutor, that he “did not exonerate” Trump from the obstruction allegations, having yet to find any evidence of support – a non-news statement first made public in AG Barr’s letter summary of the report over three months ago.  So all the Dems are now busy in the political sweatshop trying to sew silk purses out of sows’ ears.  Only Pelosi is justifiably happy that, no matter the further efforts of Nadler’s nitpickers, the butt stupid effort to impeach the president is dead.  As a footnote, one of my liberal friends assured me today that Mueller’s 17 crack lawyers only included 4 Democrats, when in reality they were 13 Dems, 0 Repubs, 6 Hillary donors, and most having being associated with Team Clinton in one way or another.  But all that only underlined that Mueller’s obvious unfamiliarity with his own investigation and report, strongly indicated that he did little to lead the investigation which was conducted and reported by his ‘never Trump’ troops (e.g. "not familiar with Fusion GPS").

Racism and Racists revisited (updated 24jul19)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

George Rebane

In a more learned time ‘racism’ was defined by first class dictionaries like the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged) 2 ed as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.”  Today, Dictionary.com still posts that same definition verbatim.  Unfortunately, that’s where it ends.

In days of yore, and perhaps still among the more precise speakers and writers, a ‘racist’ was a person who embraced such a belief or doctrine.  No longer.  Today in the public forum ignorance and political cynicism rule the day, and are reinforced by the hour in print, online, in schools, and by politicians of both parties.  Racist can be an indictment of someone's comments that have absolutely nothing to do with racism, simply on the invocation of 'We know what he really meant'. It is of a piece of our declining culture that does not bode well for America.  One of my early commentaries on racism was ‘Who is a Racist?’; there I particularly call your attention to the intense and self-assured responses from our liberal commenters.

Today, racist is a label publicly, cynically, and even gratuitously hung around the neck of –

1. Anyone who disagrees with your speech or opinion;
2. Any white person who disagrees with the speech or opinion of a non-white person;
3. Any white person who describes a non-white person in any but the most salutary terms;
4. Anyone who tells a non-white to ‘go back where you came from’;
5. Anyone who describes radical Islam in their own terms;
6. Anyone who opposes illegal entry into the US;
7. Anyone who opposes taxpayer funded succor and sanctuary to illegal aliens;
8. Anyone who calls a shithole country a shithole country;
9. Anyone who wants illegal aliens deported according to our laws;
10. Anyone who wants to enforce our immigration laws;
11. Anyone who cites the race-based IQ testing results published by the American Psychological Association;
12. Anyone who points out the cultural deficits of a non-white country;
13. Anyone who identifies a mulatto as a mulatto;
14. Any white person who disagrees with an elected politician, official, teacher, … of color;
15. Any white person who criticizes the government sponsored demise of the black family;
16. Anyone who points out that overwhelmingly and obviously people like to live among cultural likes;
17. Anyone who points out the failure of certain non-white groups to assimilate;
18. … .

The list goes on indefinitely as expressions and behaviors are uncritically labeled ‘racist’.  What they all share in common is that each has absolutely nothing to do with the original precise definition of racism.  In spite of this, for the Left 'racist' has long become the preferred pejorative with which to tar their political opponents.  So today ‘racist’ can mean anything, when it actually means nothing.  The danger to our republic is that the Humpty Dumpty approach to semantics has now been baked into our justice system.

[24jul19 update] The national press is taking up the points of my above commentary.  To wit, that the media offer no proof or basis for charging President Trump’s tweets to have been ‘racist’.  They just continue to pile on empty moralizing, repeating the racist charge with no accompanying reasoning or evidence whatsoever.  In the comment stream below, we see the echoes of this from our local liberal light-thinkers who have never been able to go beyond the lamestream’s talking points.  To their benefit we beseech, ‘Lord, forgive them for they know not what they say.’

An example of this appears in ‘Prove the Tweets Were Racist’ by WSJ editorial board member Holman Jenkins.  Excerpts from his piece follow –

• Numerous outlets this week deceived themselves when they referred to Mr. Trump’s “racist tweets” as if their racist nature was an established fact that good reporting had nailed down. They think they are being brave when they are being the opposite. Brave was a dissenter: Keith Woods, National Public Radio’s diversity chief, who argued on NPR’s website that reporters should report facts and do interviews and leave the moralizing to people they quote.

• (The media sought) to incriminate Mr. Trump with words and actions of people who are not Mr. Trump. Media outlet after media outlet confidently asserted that Mr. Trump was speaking in racist code. But if it’s code, its meaning cannot be detected in the plain words, so we must rely on the media’s anointed code breakers to tell us what Mr. Trump really meant. (emphasis mine)

• Trump makes a great deal of trouble for himself because he insists on free-associating in public. He won’t, like other politicians, stick to scripts carefully scrubbed of ambiguity. But the press does not make truth out of ambiguity by putting words in his mouth. (emphasis mine)

• If they acquired a bit of political realism (from Trump’s election), reporters might even notice something about Mr. Trump’s “make America great again” slogan. It gives a large and ineradicable part of the electorate a way to frame their interests and discontents without reciprocating the identity-based claims of those they see (not altogether inaccurately) as assailing them.

• Frankly, some humility is also in order from a press that has displayed a more than usual amount of gullibility, conformism and poor judgment on just about every matter that has come before them in the past few years. If the media’s not-so-secret agenda is to defeat Mr. Trump, they might consider the possibility that they are (again) going about it in exactly the wrong way.