patrick.net

indigenous says

This process of creative destruction is what creates jobs. The pie gets bigger through comparative advantage as long as the government stays out of the economy.

That's BS. Comparative advantage is (mostly) nonsense. Yes, some countries have advantages in climate for growing produce. But, lower wages or poor working conditions are NOT a comparative advantage.

Sears and Walmart didn't create any exchange. They stole existing exchange from other companies. It's debatable if they create (net) jobs. Jobs were lost at other companies and created at Walmart. I would highly doubt that any net jobs were created because Walmart pays their workers so bad that the velocity of money has gone down.

indigenous says

Would banks willing make loans to people who are not qualified for the loan? NO The CRA forced them to make the loans

My lord. There are still people that believe this shit?? Banks ABSOLUTELY made loans to people that weren't qualified of their own accord. Please don't get me started on this topic. CRA loans defaulted at LOWER rates than non-CRA loans. That should end all discussion.

indigenous says

Would people willingly pay higher prices for medication in the U.S. if they could buy them cheaper in Canada if not forced? NO

That's an entirely different discussion. If you want to discuss the merits/problems with the patent system, start a thread on that. It has nothing to do with the current subject.

indigenous says

You don't get this and I'm not going to waste time going back forth over your mundane points because you will never get it.

Oh, I get it. You cannot logically defend your position so you want to run away.

tatupu70 says

Oh, I get it. You cannot logically defend your position so you want to run away.

Exactly, have a nice day...

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

Oh, I get it. You cannot logically defend your position so you want to run away.

Exactly, have a nice day...

You too.

indigenous says

Sears created exchange by building stores in growing cities and replace
Montgomery Ward.

tatupu70 says

Sears and Walmart didn't create any exchange. They stole existing exchange
from other companies. It's debatable if they create (net) jobs. Jobs were lost
at other companies and created at Walmart. I would highly doubt that any net
jobs were created because Walmart pays their workers so bad that the velocity of
money has gone down.

tat, The quote at the top should've been enough info to know what knowledge level that you're dealing with.

tatupu70 says

but you cannot answer how an entrepreneur creates money for people that have none.

Money is only a medium of exchange (and store of value when not being inflated away). What people really want are goods and services (both for now, and for the future).

People having no money, in a normal relatively free market, would be a very strong incentive for them to seek out work and earn money, so they can buy goods and services. The entreprenuer can be a milk farm owner, hiring people to milk the cows, with each hired hand producing more milk from the cow than he/she would personally need to consume, thanks to the capital called the cow; the entreprenuer ca also be Henry Ford, whose production line turn out far more cars than the workers would need for personal use. Both the milk farm owner and Henry Ford had plenty competition, so the working men and women with no money could choose for whom they would work for in order to get the maximum amount of milk, cars and other consumer goods and services that they want. Yes, sometimes some production lines become obsolete compared to other competitors, so they had to be shut down and the workers would go to new jobs at the competitors who can put the labor to better use.

That's how division of labor and creative destruction (of capital) work in a competitive free market place. It is a wealth creation machine. Money is only an accounting unit to this process. It could easily be boxes of milk powder or cartons of cigarette or bottles of vodka, all of which historically served as money at times when the fiat money systems became too predatory and failed.

tatupu70 says

There is no shortage of investors and investment money--the problem is there is no demand.

There are plenty "wants." The apparent lack of Qualified Demand is simply due to input factors for production being too high. These input factors include: natural resource prices, labor cost, regulator compliance cost, tax burden. When the cost of these input factors are lowered, as in a typical technological breakthrough (using less natural resources, less labor, and the politicians are too dumb and slow to catch up with it immediately), people do buy very quickly.

The problem with a typical Keynesian inflationary policy is that:

1. The newly printed money do not go into the randomly distributed glass jars waiting to be discovered, but overwhelmingly go to the super rich. That exacerbate the lack of return-on-capital problem as well as wealth inequality.

2. What little money does go to the poor and middle class, go to the wrong hands creating wrong incentives: welfare systems that encourage people not to work, thereby increasing labor cost in the input factors, further preventing the market from clearing.

Reality says

That's how division of labor and creative destruction (of capital) work in a competitive free market place. It is a wealth creation machine. Money is only an accounting unit to this process. It could easily be boxes of milk powder or cartons of cigarette or bottles of vodka, all of which historically served as money at times when the fiat money systems became too predatory and failed.

OK, but how does that solve the problem of nobody having any money (or vodka, or milk powder)? Ford creates the assembly line and hires a bunch of workers. His workers can now (maybe) afford to buy a car, but nobody else can. Why would he make them?

Reality says

The apparent lack of Qualified Demand is simply due to input factors for production being too high. These input factors include: natural resource prices, labor cost, regulator compliance cost, tax burden.

lol. The race to the bottom, huh? 1900s sweatshops, here we come! That's the ticket!

Give me a break. We have a distribution problem, not a wealth problem.

tatupu70 says

lol. The race to the bottom, huh? 1900s sweatshops, here we come! That's the ticket!

Give me a break. We have a distribution problem, not a wealth problem.

The problem with a typical Keynesian inflationary policy is that:

1. The newly printed money do not go into the randomly distributed glass jars waiting to be discovered, but overwhelmingly go to the super rich. That exacerbate the lack of return-on-capital problem as well as wealth inequality.

2. What little money does go to the poor and middle class, go to the wrong hands creating wrong incentives: welfare systems that encourage people not to work, thereby increasing labor cost in the input factors, further preventing the market from clearing.

Reality says

The problem with a typical Keynesian inflationary policy is that:

Who's talking about Keynesian inflationary policy? Try to stay on topic, please.

Let's agree on the problem before we move on to best solutions.

tatupu70 says

OK, but how does that solve the problem of nobody having any money (or vodka, or milk powder)? Ford creates the assembly line and hires a bunch of workers. His workers can now (maybe) afford to buy a car, but nobody else can. Why would he make them?

He made them because his cars rolling off the production lines were much much cheaper than competitors' handicraft assembled cars. Consumers flocked to his cheaper cars.

Reality says

He made them because his cars rolling off the production lines were much much cheaper than competitors' handicraft assembled cars. Consumers flocked to his cheaper cars.

It was a hypothetical. You didn't answer the question.

tatupu70 says

Who's talking about Keynesian inflationary policy? Try to stay on topic, please.

Let's agree on the problem before we move on to best solutions.

Your focus on "lack of demand" and "having no money" hence the need to print more money is typical Keynesian diagnosis and prescription. I may be mistaken in assuming you knew what Keynesianism is. Perhaps you heard so many bits and pieces of it that you are thinking you are inventing it and calling it "tatupuism." Incidentally, Keyneisianism was not original either, John Law had something similar to it more than a century earlier than Keynes.

tatupu70 says

He made them because his cars rolling off the production lines were much much cheaper than competitors' handicraft assembled cars. Consumers flocked to his cheaper cars.

It was a hypothetical. You didn't answer the question.

What hypothetical? What question? You asked why he would make cars, the answer is always the same in the absence of government subsidies: consumers want what he is selling. Why consumers want what he is selling? In the absence of government subsidies, the answer is still the same: what he is selling is a better bang for the buck.

All this may sound strange to minds that are so steeped in Keynesian money printing that they are ready to live off government issued coupons.

Reality says

Your focus on "lack of demand" and "having no money" hence the need to print more money is typical Keynesian diagnosis and prescription

You obviously didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said there is a distribution problem. Not a lack of money problem.

Reality says

I may be mistaken in assuming you knew what Keynesianism is.

Nope--I understand. I doubt you do, but that's beside the point, because we're not talking about Keynes.

tatupu70 says

You obviously didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said there is a distribution problem. Not a lack of money problem.

Consumer choice (aka "free market") is the most efficient and "leveling" wealth distribution system . . . as a crony can not get rich by making friend with a "Head Consumer" like he can with the head money czar in a central banking system, and there is no politician (and their guns) to lobby. The reason why cronies prefer the political system of "redistribution" is precisely because they then have the connections and levers to pull, in order to preserve their privileged positions and prevent their own capital from becoming obsolete by consumers choosing the upstart competitors.

Reality says

Consumer choice (aka "free market") is the most efficient and "leveling" wealth distribution system

That is absurd. The exact opposite is true.

The rest of your post about cronies is the same BS that you and others have been posting here for awhile.

The reason some people prefer a highly progressive tax system to redistribue wealth is because it has been proven to work historically.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Consumer choice (aka "free market") is the most efficient and "leveling" wealth distribution system

That is absurd. The exact opposite is true.

What evidence do you have for that? Every single government controlled economy (aka "central planning") has worked to be extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the political families at the expense of the masses.

The rest of your post about cronies is the same BS that you and others have been posting here for awhile.

That's just another content-free personal attack from you.

The reason some people prefer a highly progressive tax system to redistribue wealth is because it has been proven to work historically.

Progressive tax schemes are just a way of long term tax raising through bracket creep. As some of the super rich famously said, only the little people pay taxes.

What's more, you are willfully blind on how the tax money is then spent. Bureaucrats have spending patterns that entrench existing capital: they tend to give contracts to either those with personal political connections or to big existing businesses. Individual consumers spending their own money are the ones who ferret out the latest improvement in economic efficiency: by taking chances with new upstart innovators because they offer better bang for the buck.

Taking money from the private individuals and let the bureaucrats spend it is inherently Regressive!

The best way to have equitable distribution of wealth is collective bargaining right for employees. Companies are naturally able to collectively bargain via presence of HR departments that report to senior management. So workers should be able to collectively bargain as well to balance the scales instead of only 7% being in the unions in the private sectors like we have now. This would be much more efficient that raising taxes. For instance lets assume that a hypothetical worker gets $10 per hour with no health coverage. Assume if he/she were in a union and would get paid $17 per hour with health benefits. That would be the most just outcome. Conversely, if the taxes on the rich were increased from lets say 39% to 45%, there's no mechanism to ensure that this new money would find a way to the worker to get their $7 extra per hour with health benefits. Thus, in my opinion, the answer lies in enhanced collective bargaining rights, not higher taxation.

Collective bargaining creates labor relationships that are inflexible. Almost all unions are only possible in industries where the workers are already over-paid (hence the ability to afford hundreds if not thousands per yr union dues). Union contracts would just drive such disparity all the more out of whack.

In the long run, no long term union contract can survive time and consumer freedom to shop elsewhere instead of being fleeced by the union and management in collusion. Whoever plan their own lives according to long term union contracts are screwed after the union bosses and politicians harvest their pound of flesh.

The US no longer is a pure form of Capitolism. Massive outsourcing without due diligence (Ross Perot forecasted) created a plurality of Ponzi Schemes and Bubbles.

At the same time, Unions have been consolidating power, because the people were lied to as the loss of all middle class jobs at all levels.

At this point in history, after 100 years of technology enlightenment, all societies will have their prosperity linked to continual improvements in technology. The US with the massive humanities and arts has denied this once, twice, thrice, so that even now I hear humanities majors say "why did I get this degree" in chorus.

Many of my friends who are Asian are scientists, Many of the scientists are Engineers. Any group who tries to improve their contribution, and their own standards bless them. Any group who tries to inflate bubbles, does not contribute to society - well the curse is they dont contribute.

Reality says

What evidence do you have for that?

US from 1940 - 1980. Reality says

Every single government controlled economy (aka "central planning") has worked to be extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the political families at the expense of the masses.

Again--try to stay on topic. Nobody is advocating a government controlled economy. How in the world did you get there?

Reality says

Progressive tax schemes are just a way of long term tax raising through bracket creep. As some of the super rich famously said, only the little people pay taxes.

Again--history disagrees.Reality says

What's more, you are willfully blind on how the tax money is then spent. Bureaucrats have spending patterns that entrench existing capital: they tend to give contracts to either those with personal political connections or to big existing businesses.

I'm not blind to it. It's just not part of the current discussion. I agree governments are not usually first adopters of new technology, but it's not relevent here.

Reality says

Taking money from the private individuals and let the bureaucrats spend it is inherently Regressive!

Nope--it's not. And don't confuse spending and taxation--they are two entirely separate issues.

tatupu70 says

What evidence do you have for that?

US from 1940 - 1980

That's completely false. The published brackets that nearly nobody paid made no difference. The actual income tax collected, e.g. the top quintile paid as percentage of total income tax collected, is far more "progressive" today than it ever was before 1980.

Again--try to stay on topic. Nobody is advocating a government controlled economy. How in the world did you get there?

The "exact opposite" (your words) from Consumer Choice (i.e. Free market) is government central planning.

Progressive tax schemes are just a way of long term tax raising through bracket creep. As some of the super rich famously said, only the little people pay taxes.

Again--history disagrees

Not at all. History shows that when the top brackets were set sky high (like 90%), hardly anyone paid those rates.

I'm not blind to it. It's just not part of the current discussion. I agree governments are not usually first adopters of new technology, but it's not relevent here.

Of course it is. Unless you think the purpose of tax collection is wealth destruction (pure envy), how the tax money is spent and its effect on the economy vs. how it would have been spent in private hands, is extremely relevant . . . and the crux of your seeming paradox: the more government tax and spend to "level the field" since the late 60's, the more un-level the society has become!

The most powerful leveling action in a market economy is creative destruction of existing capital (aka Upward Mobility). Government taxing and spending get in the way of that natural market leveling action.

tatupu70 says

Taking money from the private individuals and let the bureaucrats spend it is inherently Regressive!

Nope--it's not. And don't confuse spending and taxation--they are two entirely separate issues.

No they are not. Taxation is not about taking wealth from someone's home and burning it, but about how the resources of the society are differently directed according to different spending patterns: private individuals vs. bureaucrats spending the money. A rich person has to spend money to make his foot print felt in the economy; a rich person that doesn't spend simply yields that spending power ("richness") to someone else (be it a successful entreprenuer or someone who borrows to spend then declare bankruptcy).

Reality says

That's completely false. The published brackets that nearly nobody paid made no difference. The actual income tax collected, e.g. the top quintile paid as percentage of total income tax collected, is far more "progressive" today than it ever was before 1980.

Because that's the wrong metric to use. You have to normalize the income disparity.

Reality says

The "exact opposite" (your words) from Consumer Choice (i.e. Free market) is government central planning.

Correct. But you didn't apply the opposite correctly. You said that free choice is the best wealth distribution mechanism. The opposite would be that free choice is the worst distribution mechanism.

Reality says

Not at all. History shows that when the top brackets were set sky high (like 90%), hardly anyone paid those rates.

Sure. And that's a good thing. It means that distribution was working well and we didn't have such high inequality.

Reality says

Of course it is. Unless you think the purpose of tax collection is wealth destruction (pure envy), how the tax money is spent and its effect on the economy vs. how it would have been spent in private hands, is extremely relevant . . . and the crux of your seeming paradox: the more government tax and spend to "level the field" since the late 60's, the more un-level the society has become!

No--I disagree. Clearly, there is almost no correlation between revenue and spending in the US. Even if there were, you design the revenue portion to accomplish whatever goals you set irregardless of how the money is spent.

And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe defense spending is designed to "level the field" so I'm not sure why you think the increased spending since 1960 is relevent. The increased spending is for defense, plain and simple.

Reality says

No they are not. Taxation is not about taking wealth from someone's home and burning it, but about how the resources of the society are differently directed according to different spending patterns: private individuals vs. bureaucrats spending the money. A rich person has to spend money to make his foot print felt in the economy; a rich person that doesn't spend simply yields that spending power ("richness") to someone else (be it an successful entreprenuer or someone who borrows to spend then declare bankruptcy).

Addressed above. They are separate--not sure how you can't see the difference. You don't have to spend all the revenue and you don't have to collect revenue to cover all your spending. Not sure how much more clear this could be.

Reality

I go to school on you and appreciate your willingness to learn us some stuff.

Do you ever see one of these Keynesian types have an epiphany?

The only one I can think of is John Stossel. There are people who are just uneducated about economics and then get educated but the Stossel types are really rare.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

That's completely false. The published brackets that nearly nobody paid made no difference. The actual income tax collected, e.g. the top quintile paid as percentage of total income tax collected, is far more "progressive" today than it ever was before 1980.

Because that's the wrong metric to use. You have to normalize the income disparity.

Quintile analysis is not the wrong metric for measuring the "progressiveness" of the tax systems. Using "income disparity" per se would actually be a wrong metric, as "income" is written up very different under different tax systems: how much income do you think the Kim of North Korea is getting? the official $200/yr that he claims? How much income do you think the owner of IKEA fortune in Sweden is getting? not counting the "charitable" foundation? How much income do you think Warren Buffet is really getting? $38million a year like in his tax return? What, he has worked for 1000+ years to accumulate his $38B fortune?

Correct. But you didn't apply the opposite correctly. You said that free choice is the best wealth distribution mechanism. The opposite would be that free choice is the worst distribution mechanism.

How can free choice be the worst when central planning systems are working out far worse for the masses than the free choice system does? Do you have philosophical objection to freedom and liberty?

Not at all. History shows that when the top brackets were set sky high (like 90%), hardly anyone paid those rates.

Sure. And that's a good thing. It means that distribution was working well and we didn't have such high inequality.

You are being exceedingly naive. Hardly anyone paying 90% bracket was not because there was a lack of wealth accumulation but simply because the CEO's were paid in perks and other forms. Tax avoidance had much greater incentive at 90% tax rate than at 33% tax rate.

tatupu70 says

No--I disagree. Clearly, there is almost no correlation between revenue and spending in the US.

Spending has to be paid by current tax plus borrowing, the latter of which has to be funded by tax money paying debt service; i.e. paid for by future taxation with interest added.

Even if there were, you design the revenue portion to accomplish whatever goals you set irregardless of how the money is spent.

That is once again willful blindness. There is only one way "how the money is spent" in government: whatever alleged goal is not accomplished so the spending can continue. LOL.

And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe defense spending is designed to "level the field" so I'm not sure why you think the increased spending since 1960 is relevent. The increased spending is for defense, plain and simple.

And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe defense spending is designed to "level the field" so I'm not sure why you think the increased spending since 1960 is relevent. The increased spending is for defense, plain and simple.

Defense spending is not the only reason for the massive increase in government spending since the late 1960's. Are you forgetting "The Great Society"?

Addressed above. They are separate--not sure how you can't see the difference. You don't have to spend all the revenue and you don't have to collect revenue to cover all your spending. Not sure how much more clear this could be.

Yet the justification for taxation is usually the perceived need for government spending, and taxation is what directly and indirectly funds government spending.

The two are actually even more closely linked via inflation control: without taxation to curb individual spending, government spending would explode inflation rate.

Reality says

Quintile analysis is not the wrong metric for measuring the "progressiveness" of the tax systems.

It is if you don't normalize it for income disparity.

Reality says

How can free choice be the worst when central planning systems are working out far worse for the masses than the free choice system does? Do you have philosophical objection to freedom and liberty?

lol. Are you really making the "do you hate freedom" argument? How about we devise a system somewhere in between pure free choice and pure centrally planned? Do you think that might be possible?

Reality says

Spending has to be paid by current tax plus borrowing, the latter of which has to be funded by tax money paying debt service; i.e. paid for by future taxation with interest added.

Obviously. What's your point?

Reality says

That is once again willful blindness. There is only one way "how the money is spent" in government: whatever alleged goal is not accomplished so the spending can continue. LOL.

Funny, but not really relevent. Nobody is arguing about the efficacy of government spending. The point is that the US has almost unlimited borrowing ability so spending and revenue have very little relation.

Reality says

Defense spending is not the only reason for the massive increase in government spending since the late 1960's. Are you forgetting "The Great Society"?

Not forgetting. Just trying to remind you what the problem is.

Reality says

Yet the justification for taxation is usually the perceived need for government spending, and taxation is what directly and indirectly funds government spending.

Yes. And the point is? I'll say it again--the level and efficiency of government spending have no bearing on the design of tax structure.

Reality says

Stop strawman tactic.

Again have you ever seen one of these Keynesian types have an epiphany?

Reality says

Wealth disparity is limited/eliminated in the free market through creative destruction / capital obsolescence.

Please explain the mechanism for how this happens. Preferably with some sort of data backing your theory.

Reality says

Here's the hint: how can 80% of the population not own anything or have any income in a free market economy? Are they slaves or wards of a state? Then that's your problem.

It's the end result of your race to the bottom ideal. Everyone working for $2/hour.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Wealth disparity is limited/eliminated in the free market through creative destruction / capital obsolescence.

Please explain the mechanism for how this happens. Preferably with some sort of data backing your theory.

The owner of a horse cab company saw his capital (the horse cabs) become obsolete when automobile cabs came along.

What do you think happened to the typewriter and wordprocessor manufacturers when the personal computer came along?

What do you think has been happening to Dell the desktop PC giant after tablets became popular?

What do you think is happening to Apple when much cheaper Android phones and tablets have mushroomed?

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Here's the hint: how can 80% of the population not own anything or have any income in a free market economy? Are they slaves or wards of a state? Then that's your problem.

It's the end result of your race to the bottom ideal. Everyone working for $2/hour.

That's preposterous. Why would everyone work for $2/hr when many of them can deliver much higher productivity and employers have to compete for their labor?

Henry Ford sold cars much cheaper than his competitors, but he offered his workers much higher pay because his newly created capital (production line) was much more productive (per worker-hour). It put many of his competitors out of business (i.e. took their workers and previous lock on steel, copper, rubber, etc.).

Reality says

The owner of a horse cab company saw his capital (the horse cabs) become obsolete when automobile cabs came along.

What do you think happened to the typewriter and wordprocessor manufacturers when the personal computer came along?

What do you think has been happening to Dell the desktop PC giant after tablets became popular?

What do you think is happening to Apple when much cheaper Android phones and tablets have mushroomed?

But how does that reduce wealth inequality? Companies come and go, sure, but how is wealth inequality decreasing?

tatupu70 says

Reality says

The owner of a horse cab company saw his capital (the horse cabs) become obsolete when automobile cabs came along.

What do you think happened to the typewriter and wordprocessor manufacturers when the personal computer came along?

What do you think has been happening to Dell the desktop PC giant after tablets became popular?

What do you think is happening to Apple when much cheaper Android phones and tablets have mushroomed?

But how does that reduce wealth inequality? Companies come and go, sure, but how is wealth inequality decreasing?

Wealth inequality is produced by oversized govenment. Whoever is closer to the gov't, can always buy more of it at wholesale prices. this is what Wall street banksters and unions are doing. Banksters buy it with money and unions with organized voting. The regular voter/taxpayer has to pay much higher retail price by taxation and voting. Limiting the gov't power will reduce the parasitic classes on wall street and in City hall (you cannot eliminate them completely).

still1bear says

Wealth inequality is produced by oversized govenment. Whoever is closer to
the gov't, can always buy more of it at wholesale prices. this is what Wall
street banksters and unions are doing. Banksters buy it with money and unions
with organized voting. The regular voter/taxpayer has to pay much higher retail
price by taxation and voting. Limiting the gov't power will reduce the parasitic
classes on wall street and in City hall (you cannot eliminate them
completely).

So banstas and public/private sector unions are actually allies even though their interests are polar opposites of each other via alleged access to government officials (presumably on opposite sides of the isle?)

tatupu70 says

But how does that reduce wealth inequality? Companies come and go, sure, but how is wealth inequality decreasing?

The displacement is not an on-off switch but a gradual process. The value of existing capital decline, as the new capital owners' capital value increase.

dublin hillz says

So banstas and public/private sector unions are actually allies even though their interests are polar opposites of each other via alleged access to government officials (presumably on opposite sides of the isle?)

Why would they be polar opposites? Both banksters and unions are monetary inflationists. Except for the Romney campaign, both banksters and unions tend to be supporters of Democrats.

dublin hillz says

still1bear says

Wealth inequality is produced by oversized govenment. Whoever is closer to

the gov't, can always buy more of it at wholesale prices. this is what Wall

street banksters and unions are doing. Banksters buy it with money and unions

with organized voting. The regular voter/taxpayer has to pay much higher retail

price by taxation and voting. Limiting the gov't power will reduce the parasitic

classes on wall street and in City hall (you cannot eliminate them

completely).

So banstas and public/private sector unions are actually allies even though their interests are polar opposites of each other via alleged access to government officials (presumably on opposite sides of the isle?)

Their interests are completely identical : suck maximum blood out of the taxpayer.

Reality says

The displacement is not an on-off switch but a gradual process. The value of existing capital decline, as the new capital owners' capital value increase.

Yep. Instead of Joe being a billionaire, now it's Tom. How does that reduce wealth inequality?

Reality says

Except for the Romney campaign, both banksters and unions tend to be supporters of Democrats.

lol-you're kidding right?