Talk Elections

July 17, 2012

'You Didn't Build That'

On the President's burst of ideological candor.

 “If you've got a business—you didn't build that.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577533300916053684.html

Badly enough said to be considered a minor gaffe, the basic point, that a highly successful business depends upon the actions of more than a single person, is true.  Businesses these days do not generally develop their own human capital.  They are dependent upon others to build the transportation and other infrastructure they make use of.  Of course, government need not be the providers of most of those things either.  The degree to which businesses benefit from government providing such services is a major point of contention between the two major parties these days.

A man can't build a bridge without two banks to anchor it on.

he is of course correct; the wage-slaves employed by a business 'build' the business, and the socialized costs re: building roads, bridges, and communication networks provide the necessary atmosphere for profit-making, free of charge.  if only Mr President would go further, and if only he had moved left along with his rhetoric post-Occupy.

Haha!  It is so incredibly bizarre to hear an american politician speak the obvious truth for once!  What a gaffe!

People who disagree with his point are dumbs. It's pretty obviously true.

Yes, but you see this is a huge problem as he is running for re-election in America.

Do you mean banks literally or metaphorically? I could see both.

I think we should let it stand in its ambiguity, because in that sense it's a rather good pun, ne?

What are the more right wing elements of the American business community afraid of exactly? All this rhetoric suggests that the shrill screams of "OMG SOCIALISM!!1111" are masking something much more essential...

If the business would not exist without you, then yes, of course you built that. You may have received aid from the government, you may not have. The government did not put in the work, you did.


wage-slaves, *snicker*. I will however give you credit for recognizing Occupy is over, something Bandit still hasn't grasped. And keep in mind this is a gaffe Romney will now try to shove in everyone's faces -- how could Obama move to the left without having his poll numbers fall, and with a Republican House blocking legislative action?

Vosem, you refute yourself in your own post - the owner of a company doesn't put in any work,  this is done for him by the wage-slaves.

Merely having large sums of capital is not 'work', you see, it is power to force others toil for you.

Romney 2012
Every Man an Island

Excuse me? That capital stems from an initial moment of inception. And while today's owner might not have created the business, the first owner--the one who thought up the business--played the pivotal role in starting the company and fuelling its growth. Maybe that one owner goes on to build a business that provides tens of thousands of jobs to people who need them. He does a good for himself, a good for others, and a good for country.

Moreover, the people who are shafted the most by Obama's comment are those owners who are in the smaller stages of business. They're the business owners who work beyond nine-to-five. Whose personal finances are the business's finances. Who sacrificed everything they had to follow their dream.

How can you sit there with a straight face and say "the owner of a company doesn't put in any work?" That's insulting, and it's exactly why Republicans are leary of President Obama when he makes comments like this. It's absolutely out of touch with what makes America America.

If my statement is slightly hyperbolic, it is only an attempt to counteract the completely absurd levels of hyperbole used to lionize these exploiters by your side, the media, popular culture, etc.

Of course, sometimes the owner of a little shop puts in a lot of work - though normally he is wiped out by the large corporate business, in which the owner(s) do no work whatsoever.  In other words, the dominant owning class does no work, but the issue is confused in your mind because of the existence of a slowly disappearing petite bourgeoisie.

While I object to the use of the term 'wage-slaves' to describe American workers, for once you do actually have a point -- of course it is rare for the owner of a business to build that solely by himself. The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been. The workers have agreed to help him do it on the basis that in return they will get money, but the workers didn't consciously decide to do it. The government, depending on circumstance, may have helped or hindered him, but the government did not consciously decide to do that: you did. Not only that, but in most cases (such as our own poster clarence) the builder of the business is taking a substantial risk -- if the business is not profitable, he still has to pay the workers and can quickly end up seriously indebted and not any richer than they are. The taking that risk (if not of bankruptcy, then at least of severe monetary loss) is why so many are offended when Obama says they didn't build the business: of course they did.


We must be thankful this is the case; in other Western countries people might simply agree with this.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

()

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

'Credit'?  The only reason he could order them about so was because he had Power - he could kill them.  It is no different with the present controllers, Vosem.  I've no objection to your congratulating them for the blood on their hands, if that's your taste.

Lol.  The King didn't lay a single stone in building of the castle, so all the credit goes to the worker.

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money, an act that has been a key part of functioning societies for thousands of years. Ironically, nowadays Ludwig's legacy brings tourism to Bavaria, and tourism is one of the key reasons Bavaria is the richest part of Germany today. There's no blood on Ludwig's hands.


The worker wouldn't've built it if the King hadn't payed for it to be designed and then built. More credit goes to the King than anyone else. Some credit goes to the worker, but certainly not all or even most. (Also, as I recall Ludwig personally laid the cornerstone on Neuschwanstein, so he did lay at least that one.)

The worker would have built it or an equally impressive structure if there was no King and all the capital(fruits of labor) were in the rightful hands of the worker. The designer is also most likely a worker(engineer & architect).

The point is obviously how replaceable someone is. Someone who is replaceable can't really take that much credit.

The workers then are individually replaceable but collectively obviously not. I don't know that that's necessarily any less relevant than Ludwig being (ostensibly) individually irreplaceable.

I'm sorry, but the whole Ludwig thing is a really stupid distraction from the actual point here.

Of course, there needs to be some workers but that's still stupid. Must Federer share his credit for winning Wimbledon with the tennis balls because he couldn't have done it without some tennis balls? If I cook a great meal must I share the credit with the salt and my stove?

A common line in a thank you speech is "I could not have done this without you." The reason is that that's how we acknowledge credit. If I could have replaced you with someone else your share of the credit is at least rather small.

Gustaf is perfectly right, as usual.


Neither Christian Jank nor Eduard Riedel were workers -- in the 19th century Europe architect was very much an upper-class or middle-upper-class job. And, no, of course the worker wouldn't've -- they wouldn't've gotten anything for it without the King, because they're reason for participating in the construction was that the King was giving them money.

This is a deeply stupid discussion.

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

Why don't you stop showing off your diplomatic immunity with all the pointless trash-talk, and actually post something?

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die. (And even if you do, if you are careless with it you can waste it quite quickly -- as I recall some music singer spent $55 million in six months? Can't remember who, though).

Without other people interested in watching him hit a ball on overtrodden plot of grass, would he really have accomplished anything?  Federer didn't invent the sport or get people to start paying money to see it played. James Naismith, the inventor of basketball, would be a far more suitable subject for your counterargument.

Precisely, which is why they are wage-slaves.

Being required to work doesn't make you a slave because you can pick who you decide to work for. In the long run, even Ludwig himself went bankrupt.

To suggest that government is responsible for the success of people who take risks and generate jobs, is one of the dumbest things a POTUS has ever said.

Ugh. Why can't people just see that it takes a confluence of both a situation and an individual(s) to make something happen? Without either one, whatever that something is can not be and falls apart; they are both necessary, but neither independently is sufficient.

()

Strawman, eh?  Cue the transcript:

" But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them.  So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.

     There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

----

He clearly attempted to justify raising taxes on business owners because, in his own words, business owners didn't build their businesses, someone else made that happen, and that someone is the government.

What a complete and utter joke this president is.

If you disagree, you're demeaning your own career because it's true.

That's better.

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

It might be worth taking a step back and actually examining whether this "gaffe" took place - we're clearly not getting anywhere discussing the merits or lack thereof of the statement.

Dave Weigel takes another look (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/18/_you_didn_t_build_that_.html) at the "gaffe" in question, with the appropriate sense of despair that he's actually having to analyse this stuff.

So Obama is telling a business owner, let's say a paint store owner for argument sake, that the roads weren't built by his business?!  Then where did the money come from to build the road if not from tax revenue generated through sales and employees of the business?

Business is the goose laying the golden eggs, not government.

And something else to ponder...if government is the engine for job creation, then why did government give the businesses to the ones who currently have them?!  Obama just stated business owners are not smarter and do not work harder (read the full text of his quote that I posted earlier)...so if government is responsible for success of the business owner, what exactly is determining winners and losers if not the government?  And if government is paving our way, then why is Obama lecturing business owners instead of lecturing the government?!

The speech is insane on so many levels and shows he has no concept of the utilization of capital within capitalism.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

I would just like to thank the government for choosing to give me, of all people, the stuff that I have.

Everybody having the same amount isn't fair, though. At all. And, no, of course they wouldn't've for absolutely no short-term gain.

Dude, it is an expression of preference - you like for the workers to be slaves, we don't like it.  It isn't a disputation of 'fact'.

It's not about preference. The statement clearly conveys a lack of understanding of what capital is and how it impacts the productive process.

Please try to read more carefully - he was criticizing a political choice - that capital be owned by powerful individuals rather than in common.

It astounds me why people still care so much about Obama's "anti-business agenda", as if people forgot checks and balances exist - or that the vast, vast majority of Americans, no matter their political stripe, have never lived under an anti-business state. At the same time, to reject an argument in favour of some consideration for the collective is stereotypically American.

Oh well, at least we now know neoliberalism can't be truly defeated until we give different names to the 5 subtypes of capital out there.


If you're going to use logic like that, you may as well say God built everything.

Look, in Texas, we believe in spending on infrastructure, which is why Texas’ infrastructure is ranked #Uno out of all the 57 states:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47818860/Texas_Is_America_s_Top_State_for_Business_2012 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/47818860/Texas_Is_America_s_Top_State_for_Business_2012)

But, we understand we built our infrastructure to serve all individuals, not just the business owners.  So it makes no sense to lecture just the business owners by accusing them of being 1) no smarter and no harder working than the less successful, and 2) getting a free ride on the  nation’s  infrastructure...and so therefore they should give up more of their capital, which they are putting to use effectively, in order to transfer that capital to the less effective.

In a capitalistic society, when capital is redirected from effective use to ineffective use, jobs are destroyed, not created.  Which is why “redistributing the wealth” never creates jobs, what creates jobs is finding effective utilization for the available capital.

I don't think anybody disputes that. What we're disputing is what constitutes effective or preferable utilization.

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

That's all a matter of ideological point of view, jmfcst.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

No, it's a matter of understanding how capital flows function, Heinrich.

There's no fundamental reason why capitalist ownership on the particular hierarchical model that is for the most part currently followed would be necessary for capital flows to work, except for just enjoying the hierarchical model on its own merits.

I don't think any of us are denying the necessity of some semblance of a market.

Ever been to school?  Don't all the students start each semester with a clean slate?  Yet some excel while others struggle.  Why is that?  Isn't part of the reason is that some are smarter and/or work harder than others and therefore are more effective at school?

So it is in life - if you redistributed all the wealth evenly and then left the individuals to their own merits, after a relative short period of time, you'd end up with roughly the same distribution as you currently see.  The only way to keep the wealth evenly distributed is to hold back the more effective.

Every semester you were in school taught you that lesson.  Apply it.

I'm actually extremely good at formal education, but they don't give me control over the livelihoods and grades of the C students on that basis. Social stratification isn't usually meritocratic, and even when it is what's being rewarded with control of work is not always skill at the type of work being controlled. Not every analogy works.

Did you ever have study buddies or lab partners? I actually didn't, usually, because I'm not that good with people, but I'm told most people have.

yeah cause to you Paul Krugman is the end-point of the 'respectable' left-wing.  there is another left out there, one you should pay attention to, one the most brilliant minds that have been have paid attention to -- at stake, is your soul.

why offer this?  in the New World, there will be football games, and people will bet on them, and others still will book the bets.  markets always and ever take the place of where the human mind cannot reach.  when time runs out, turn to markets; otherwise, compassion and intelligence and empathy Save the Day.

A market's just any mechanism to actually distribute stuff, in any way other than top-down (or center-out). Of course it should be run according to principles other than make-a-buck-quick.

Well, I prefer my societies to be without mass-slaughtering or mass-starvation. I guess that makes me non-brilliant to some of you.

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.

As opposed to one man having all the stuff and doing no work?

Nice generalization.

The point I was trying to make was germane to regulation and to how we socially conceptualize markets, not to what a market's necessarily actually 'doing' at its core. I think we probably had different ideas of what jmfcst's point was supposed to be.

Without markets and democracy, that's what you get. There's no point in beating around the bush there.

You seemed to be saying that we can decide what motives drive actors in the market, but that's pretty dubious. But it's possible that I misunderstood you.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?

Private property is pretty much a necessity for a functioning economy. But I don't expect  left winger to understand that though. :P

He'll correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in his mouth, but I think what Nathan was getting at with that comment was that we should have some regulation to muzzle the market and try - to the extent that it's possible  - to harness the maximum positive and reduce the negative effects of a free market system.

I mean, let's say taxes may reduce the incentive to earn, but that still doesn't make it okay for a modern country not to have tax-funded public healthcare, and so on.

Oh, then I just misread him. That part sort of goes without saying, in my opinion. I got the impression that he views markets as a social construct that could be anything and I disagree with that assessment.

^This guy perfectly displays the blind spots which allow for the right-wing viewpoint.

Everything is down to 'effectiveness', as if we were all running a foot-race.  As we all know, society is more like an ant-hill or bee-hive than a foot-race.

The right throw a ridiculous hissy-flip over a statement which is obvious true even when taken out of context, and on the left a bunch of tools succeed to make it into a internal civil war over idiotic ideological details. You people want to know why the right always win, here's the answer, because no one on the left is able to focus on the important thing, the right, they will rather fight each others.

Here's a advice, first you kill the enemy and when you fight to the death over whatever internal disagreement you have.

to have some starting point for understanding the difference between possessions and private property for discussions like these, you could review some texts re: the everyday life of an average urban citizen in the Soviet Union.  you could 'own' pencils but not forests, cars but not automobile factories.

Considering my parents and grandparents were actual urban citizens of the USSR, I have far more understanding of this topic than you do and would be offended if you disagreed. I can assure you people in the USSR strived to emigrate to places like the US where people can own automobile factories. Why? Because they work better. Because forests owned by people and not the government are used more economically. And so on. Of course individuals should be able to own pencils, forests, cars, and automobile factories.

All you have to do is think, Tweed, it isn't so very hard.

Not really. In an bee-hive, the life of the colony is more important than the life of the individual bee. In a human society (for most people), the life of the individual is more important than the life of the society. Therefore society is more like a foot-race.

I'm perplexed.  Maybe I'm always perplexed.  But, so far as the basic claim that government and markets are interdependent, I fail to see how that could strike anyone as controversial.  Governments need to guarantee property rights and enforce all kinds of laws pertaining to transactions in order for markets to remain viable, government tax funds make infrastructure available that helps businesses to start up and continue to function, governments often make available a veritable bonanza of tax deductions to businesses, governments support education that gives broad swaths of the populous various levels of skills enabling them to work, governments help to address problems of external costs, and on and on.  None of this negates the efforts of individuals who build businesses, risk for them, and sometimes succeed. It just points out that markets don't--and can't--arise in a political and legal vacuum.  Even considered on their own in the abstract, market production and transaction require massive amounts of cooperative effort.  To deny any of this is to subscribe to a myth of absolute individualism that flies in the face of everything we experience and everything we do.

Now, none of this constitutes an argument for the details of any particular tax policy.  One of the only things Eric Cantor (I completely despise this man) ever said that rang somewhat true of Obama is that the latter always tries to parlay a philosophical point--a point about values--into an argument justifying tax changes, when what he needs to offer are economic arguments.  Bill Clinton always made both value arguments and economic arguments, Obama almost always only makes the former and most of the time skips the latter.  Cantor charges that, when it comes to economics, Obama just doesn't "get it." Cantor may very well be right about that too.  Unfortunately, the only thing Cantor himself "gets" as far as I'm concerned is how to be an ass.

Anyway, back to the rest of my perplexities...I have lots of them, and they all keep me quite occupied. 

This is so absurd, most people(including me) were trying to escape the right-wing regime of the 90's not socialism.

Yes very typical of the left in this country to say such a thing.

I will agree that Yeltsin botched things up enough that nobody was any keener on staying in the '90s either. In the '90s it was just easier to get out.

EDIT: Also I think 'incompetent' is a better way to describe Yeltsin than 'right-wing'.

What?  I guess you must be joking.  In case you haven't noticed, workers are killed in their millions in order to make society function.  You can think of society as a big machine designed for killing off the masses in order to 1) continue functioning, and 2) continue ensuring a life of ease, leisure, and luxury for those at the top.

I do think the way people conceive of markets can to an extent be socially constructed or reconstructed but what I was getting at was basically Oakvale's interpretation, yes.

So don't work and start your own business then. Or do you have some stupid conspiracy theory about how the fat cats are ganged up against the common man? Killing off the masses? Are you lumping us all together? You want the government to ensure that you make it in life? They'll be even more powerful than they already are. Have fun being dependent for the far left for every phase of life man. Then when you're old and sick they can pull the plug in order to cut costs so they can provide for welfare in exchange for votes and give themselves a raise with our tax dollars.

Also, the most likely reason Obama blurted that out is because he wanted to pander to the far left by saying something they can relate to in order to make sure they vote again.

Work and starting your own business are two different things - poors are forced to toil endless hours at jobs just to survive, myself included.  I work at least 12 hours per week.  It so happens that I also have my own business (a micro-business), but that requires hardly any 'work' at all, only investment.

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.

In fact they are killed, Vosem, but in ways that may not be so obvious to you.  Certainly their lives are taken forcibly from them.  Society is in fact organized and predictable (and after all a machine is far from completely predictable).  And those at the top are not there by virtue of knowing anything, they're there by virtue of position-in-the-system - capital or in other words power.  Any toils related to keeping those at the top at the top are done by those they control, not by the controllers.

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money). You don't actually explain how they are killed, so I will simply continue to maintain that they are not. Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.

But don't  you see - those who 'have money' are controllers - they control the labor of those who do not have, and do not labour at all themselves.  It is a system of forcible control.


The toils I referred to are things like - managing their interests, guarding them, etc.  They require protection and assistance - hence the existence of the 'house ******' or middle class.

But they don't control anybody because they compete amongst one another, first of all, and second of all, how do you think they got the money in the first place? Either they labored or one of their ancestors labored to ensure they would have it.


Some of them who can afford to do so hire people to manage their interests or guard them -- there's nothing wrong with that, and in the first case the people who can competently manage the interests of a really-wealthy person are generally not poor themselves.


I don't understand this at all -- could you explain?

And, I must say, opebo, you're one of my favorite people to debate on this whole forum. You have a manner of writing clear falsehoods in such a way that they're so obviously true that you're actually one of my favorite posters. I hope you see me the same way :)

12 hours per week? Are you a free loader? I spend 12 hours a week on the toilet. Hardly any work at all is the problem. I'm not asking how much you make but if it's worth money it takes hard work.

Control the labor of those who do not have? Are you suggesting that someone else should control the labor market? Someone who gives you money? I'm not sure what your point is but it sounds typical of the Democratic Party. People fall in business if they're not smart so let's just let that happen if it's the case. Most in the private sector are smarter than the government when it comes to business though because they actually experience things first hand rather than through advisers.

Haha, yes, JD Rockefeller worked hard in the oil pumps!  Or Carnegie in the steels-mill, or Gates/Jobs in the computer repair shop.  Please.  Anyway those without money are controlled by those who have money.  This idea you have of 'competition' is not relevant to that fact.  If I can go make $7/hour from 10 different masters, it doesn't make any difference - I'm still in poverty till I die.

Regarding the rest of my post, obviously I was referring to the black slaves who toiled in the master's house - analogous to the middle class today.


I'm a university lecturer, DAG. I'm sorry to hear about your constipation, but I find that life has so much to offer I don't wish to waste it with toils - 12 hours per week in the classroom is already excessive.  My income is about the same as I would make in the USA - in the $1,200/month range.

Vosem, It's pretty easy to explain how the workers are killed, I will do that since opebo doesn't like to burden himself with specifics.  For example take Walmart, which has an annual profit of $14 billion for year of 2011 and employs 2 million workers, you can check these figures on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. That means that $7700 is the amount of money it unfairly withholds from each worker's salary. Now, we will go to the most obvious example of how Walmart kills it's workers, we know that most Wal-mart workers don't have health insurance. I am going to assume all of them don't have health insurance, since that's not very far from truth.  We know there are about 50 million uninsured workers in US, and that means 1/25 of those work in walmart. We associate about 45,000 deaths to uninsured in United states. That means walmart kills almost 2000 of its workers annually by illness. If we take other things into account, that number is a lot higher. Considering that 2000/2 million is about 1/1000, that means wal-mart will kill about 4% of it's workforce over it's life time(or maybe even higher, since many walmart workers will never be able to retire). And keep in mind Vosem, these are very low estimates.

Lol, are you for real? Don't you understand the role of capital in production?

Wal-mart workers now posses the capital, what's the problem?

You seem to think that capital owners getting a share of the revenue is stealing from the employees, which indicates that you don't understand the role played by capital in producing things.

Your sentence is not really comprehensible to me either. There is plenty of research about how investment works which you could look at.