[Peace-discuss] Some serious economics

[E.Wayne Johnson]

There are certainly TeaPartiers and Paulers for whom illegal immigration is 
a central issue.
I can remember when Libertarians thought that open borders were essential to 
liberty.

It looks like to me that one of the primary roots of the American Problem is 
that they embraced birth control, thus creating in the land a vacuum that 
sucks in immigrants.  The US is vastly underpopulated, hence the inrush of 
immigrants.  Like the guy said, "illegal immigrants" are much easier to 
control than the "legal" and independent kind.

The anti-immigrant wing of the Tea Partiers is simply looking for a 
scapegoat upon which they can lay their angst and frustration.  Illegal 
Immigrants are to them as the Jews were to the Germans.  It's their fault 
that America is so fucked up.  It couldn't be our fault.  See my "I Voted" 
sticker?  It aint my fault.

*

Alienation, even unto that variety of civil disobedience that one might call 
"illegal alienation" is likely a necessary stage in getting "woke up".

It's hard not to feel a bit alienated after one realizes how badly its gone 
down by been taken for a sucker by the system.

I saw a Egyptian revolutionary guy on TV (maybe he was on the TV in the US 
too?)
who said "I feel like an Egyptian for the first time".

We get the idea that it's more important to be polite than to possess what 
belongs to us.
We confuse passivity with magnanimity.

"Anyone who's well-adjusted is Sick!
It's not my fault that I'm a confused asshole.
It's America that needs to be changed, not me."
(- attributed to Robert Crumb.)



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "E.Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Some serious economics


> Brother, can you paradigm...?
>
> I had the peculiar experience over the weekend of trying (and failing) to 
> explain the notion of alienated labor to an emerita professor of English.
>
> She insisted hers wasn't alienated at all: people simply hadn't recognized 
> her talents appropriately because she was female.
>
> And she got very upset when I started to read this to her:
>
> <http://jacobinmag.com/archive/issue1/wbm.html>.
>
>
> On 1/31/11 11:33 PM, E.Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> My immediate knee-jerk responses are probably more toward the remarks of 
>> the editor than the author of the book but I can't be sure about it.
>>
>> a) This, the Greatest Depression, is hardly getting warmed up good. Such 
>> pretentious nonsense to look at it in retrospect. The big lollapalootza 
>> is up ahead, just over that hill, there, on the horizon.
>>
>> b) It's pretty damn clueless to fix blame on the Evil Party or the Stupid 
>> Party. The Stupid and Evil bailouts and corporatism are a bipartisan 
>> effort. Ain't it grand when politicians work together?
>>
>> c) Hardly an ill event occurs that doesnt give the left-right paradigmers 
>> an opportunity to blame the contralateral ideology. The progressives are 
>> immoral and the TeaParties are corporate shills according to their 
>> pundits. Fortunately, neither of these stereotypes are accurate.
>>
>> d) Child labor must be a very bad thing indeed. Growing up on the farm as 
>> I did, we worked pretty hard beginning about age 8 or 9. It is a horrible 
>> thing. :) You can see how it warped me into thinking that some of the 
>> problem with Americans is that they dont know how to work.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" 
>> <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> To: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:16 PM
>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Some serious economics
>>
>>
>> 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism
>> By Ha-Joon Chang, Bloomsbury Press
>> Posted on January 31, 2011, Printed on January 31, 2011
>> http://www.alternet.org/story/149688/
>>
>> Editor's Note: Many books have tackled the great recession of 2008, the 
>> second
>> worst economic crisis in history, after the depression. But I doubt there 
>> is one
>> book, written in response to the current economic crisis, that is as fun 
>> or easy
>> to read as Ha-Joon Chang's 23 Things They Don't Tell you About 
>> Capitalism. I'd
>> never heard of this Korean economist, probably because he lives in 
>> England and
>> teaches at Cambridge, but he is well known in economic circles, and well 
>> respected.
>>
>> It is no secret that the American society is dominated by the super rich, 
>> held
>> for hostage by the banks, dominated in the Nation's Capital by the tens 
>> of
>> thousands of lobbyists and their big bucks, as the Republican party and 
>> their
>> corporate Tea Partyists provide cover for giant theft of many billions of 
>> wealth
>> for the very rich, with of course the cooperation of the Democrats who 
>> supported
>> the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy (Check out Rachel
>> Maddow's op-ed, which explains why Dwight Eisenhower, who taxed the rich 
>> to
>> balance the budget, which be a radical in today's political reality). In 
>> this
>> very discouraging environment it is hard to imagine scenarios where 
>> normal
>> folks, every day voters, the non-rich, who are not represented by 
>> lobbyists, can
>> have much influence.
>>
>> On top of that, making change even harder, is an enormously effective 
>> propaganda
>> system that perpetuates inaccurate and often destructive myths about 
>> virtually
>> every element of capitalism and the US and global economy. And top 
>> economic
>> officials in the Obama administration and leading mainstream economists 
>> often
>> perpetuate these myths, and the corporate media marches along side 
>> repeating
>> them like the gospel.
>>
>> So, as far as I am concerned there never can be too much truth-telling to
>> attempt to pull away the curtain of propaganda and disinformation that 
>> shrouds
>> our economic thinking and actions. I am not under the illusion that the 
>> facts
>> will set us free. As research has shown, when people connect their 
>> opinions to a
>> set of values or leaders, they will not be open to changing their mind, 
>> and
>> presentation of contrary "facts," may make them dig in more clinging 
>> their their
>> misinformation. But when it comes to the economy, the propaganda system 
>> has been
>> so pervasive, and supported by conventional wisdom that people who need 
>> to know
>> better, buy into it, and yes that includes liberals and progressives who 
>> have a
>> kind of inertia of the mind of their own. It is hard to change one's 
>> sense of
>> things.
>>
>> AlterNet's Economics editor Joshua Holland made a nice contribution to 
>> this
>> public education effort this Fall with his book: The Fifteen Biggest Lies 
>> about
>> the Economy Now we have the funny, and sharp Chang. What follows is 
>> chapter one
>> of his book: "There is No Such Thing as a Free Market." Other chapters 
>> are quite
>> revealing such as: " The Washing Machine Has Changed the World More than 
>> the
>> Internet;" "More Education, in Itself, Is Not Going to Make a Country 
>> Richer;"
>> "The U.S. Does Not Have the Highest Living Standard in the World;" 
>> "Companies
>> Should Not Be Run in the Interest of their Owners."
>>
>> Chan's main point is the recent economic disaster wasn't by accident, 
>> that
>> active government can promote economic dynamism, that tax cuts for the 
>> rich
>> simply redistribute wealth upward, and that we will continue on the path 
>> to
>> economic disaster,with no end in sight, unless the collective wisdom, 
>> goes in a
>> different direction. -- AlterNet Executive Editor Don Hazen
>>
>> The following is an excerpt from 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About 
>> Capitalism
>> (Copyright © 2011) by Ha-Joon Chang. Reprinted with the permission of 
>> Bloomsbury
>> Press.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thing 1: There is no such thing as a free market
>>
>> What they tell you
>>
>>
>>
>> Markets need to be free. When the government interferes to dictate what 
>> market
>> participants can or cannot do, resources cannot flow to their most 
>> efficient
>> use. If people cannot do the things that they find most profitable, they 
>> lose
>> the incentive to invest and innovate. Thus, if the government puts a cap 
>> on
>> house rents, landlords lose the incentive to maintain their properties or 
>> build
>> new ones. Or, if the government restricts the kinds of financial products 
>> that
>> can be sold, two contracting parties that may both have benefited from
>> innovative transactions that fulfill their idiosyncratic needs cannot 
>> reap the
>> potential gains of free contract. People must be left "free to choose," 
>> as the
>> title of free-market visionary Milton Friedman’s famous book goes.
>>
>>
>>
>> What they don’t tell you
>>
>>
>>
>> The free market doesn’t exist. Every market has some rules and boundaries 
>> that
>> restrict freedom of choice. A market looks free only because we so
>> unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see 
>> them. How
>> "free" a market is cannot be objectively defined. It is a political 
>> definition.
>> The usual claim by free-market economists that they are trying to defend 
>> the
>> market from politically motivated interference by the government is 
>> false.
>> Government is always involved and those free-marketeers are as 
>> politically
>> motivated as anyone. Overcoming the myth that there is such a thing as an
>> objectively defined "free market" is the first step towards understanding
>> capitalism.
>>
>>
>>
>> Labor ought to be free
>>
>>
>>
>> In 1819 new legislation to regulate child labor, the Cotton Factories 
>> Regulation
>> Act, was tabled in the British Parliament. The proposed regulation was
>> incredibly "light touch" by modern standards. It would ban the employment 
>> of
>> young children – that is, those under the age of nine. Older children 
>> (aged
>> between ten and sixteen) would still be allowed to work, but with their 
>> working
>> hours restricted to twelve per day (yes, they were really going soft on 
>> those
>> kids). The new rules applied only to cotton factories, which were 
>> recognized to
>> be exceptionally hazardous to workers’ health.
>>
>> The proposal caused huge controversy. Opponents saw it as undermining the
>> sanctity of freedom of contract and thus destroying the very foundation 
>> of the
>> free market. In debating this legislation, some members of the House of 
>> Lords
>> objected to it on the grounds that "labor ought to be free." Their 
>> argument
>> said: the children want (and need) to work, and the factory owners want 
>> to
>> employ them; what is the problem?
>>
>> Today, even the most ardent free-market proponents in Britain or other 
>> rich
>> countries would not think of bringing child labor back as part of the 
>> market
>> liberalization package that they so want. However, until the late 19th or 
>> the
>> early 20th century, when the first serious child labor regulations were
>> introduced in Europe and North America, many respectable people judged 
>> child
>> labour regulation to be against the principles of the free market.
>>
>> Thus seen, the "freedom" of a market is, like beauty, in the eyes of the
>> beholder. If you believe that the right of children not to have to work 
>> is more
>> important than the right of factory owners to be able to hire whoever 
>> they find
>> most profitable, you will not see a ban on child labor as an infringement 
>> on the
>> freedom of the labor market. If you believe the opposite, you will see an
>> "unfree" market, shackled by a misguided government regulation.
>>
>> We don’t have to go back two centuries to see regulations we take for 
>> granted
>> (and accept as the "ambient noise" within the free market) that were 
>> seriously
>> challenged as undermining the free market, when first introduced. When
>> environmental regulations (e.g., regulations on car and factory 
>> emissions)
>> appeared a few decades ago, they were opposed by many as serious 
>> infringements
>> on our freedom to choose. Their opponents asked: if people want to drive 
>> in more
>> polluting cars or if factories find more polluting production methods 
>> more
>> profitable, why should the government prevent them from making such 
>> choices?
>> Today, most people accept these regulations as "natural." They believe 
>> that
>> actions that harm others, however unintentionally (such as pollution), 
>> need to
>> be restricted. They also understand that it is sensible to make careful 
>> use of
>> our energy resources, when many of them are non-renewable. They may 
>> believe that
>> reducing human impact on climate change makes sense too.
>>
>> If the same market can be perceived to have varying degrees of freedom by
>> different people, there is really no objective way to define how free 
>> that
>> market is. In other words, the free market is an illusion. If some 
>> markets look
>> free, it is only because we so totally accept the regulations that are 
>> propping
>> them up that they become invisible.
>>
>>
>>
>> Piano wires and kungfu masters
>>
>>
>>
>> Like many people, as a child I was fascinated by all those 
>> gravity-defying kung
>> fu masters in Hong Kong movies. Like many kids, I suspect, I was bitterly
>> disappointed when I learned that those masters were actually hanging on 
>> piano wires.
>>
>> The free market is a bit like that. We accept the legitimacy of certain
>> regulations so totally that we don’t see them. More carefully examined, 
>> markets
>> are revealed to be propped up by rules – and many of them.
>>
>> To begin with, there is a huge range of restrictions on what can be 
>> traded; and
>> not just bans on "obvious" things such as narcotic drugs or human organs.
>> Electoral votes, government jobs and legal decisions are not for sale, at 
>> least
>> openly, in modern economies, although they were in most countries in the 
>> past.
>>
>> University places may not usually be sold, although in some nations money 
>> can
>> buy them – either through (illegally) paying the selectors or (legally) 
>> donating
>> money to the university. Many countries ban trading in firearms or 
>> alcohol.
>> Usually medicines have to be explicitly licensed by the government, upon 
>> the
>> proof of their safety, before they can be marketed. All these regulations 
>> are
>> potentially controversial – just as the ban on selling human beings (the 
>> slave
>> trade) was one and a half centuries ago.
>>
>> There are also restrictions on who can participate in markets. Child 
>> labor
>> regulation now bans the entry of children into the labor market. Licenses 
>> are
>> required for professions that have significant impacts on human life, 
>> such as
>> medical doctors or lawyers (which may sometimes be issued by professional
>> associations rather than by the government). Many countries allow only 
>> companies
>> with more than a certain amount of capital to set up banks. Even the 
>> stock
>> market, whose underregulation has been a cause of the 2008 global 
>> recession, has
>> regulations on who can trade. You can’t just turn up in the New York 
>> Stock
>> Exchange (NYSE) with a bag of shares and sell them. Companies must 
>> fulfill
>> listing requirements, meeting stringent auditing standards over a certain 
>> number
>> of years, before they can offer their shares for trading. Trading of 
>> shares is
>> only conducted by licensed brokers and traders.
>>
>> Conditions of trade are specified too. One of the things that surprised 
>> me when
>> I first moved to Britain in the mid-1980s was that one could demand a 
>> full
>> refund for a product one didn’t like, even if it wasn’t faulty. At the 
>> time, you
>> just couldn’t do that in Korea, except in the most exclusive department 
>> stores.
>> In Britain, the consumer’s right to change her mind was considered more
>> important than the right of the seller to avoid the cost involved in 
>> returning
>> unwanted (yet functional) products to the manufacturer. There are many 
>> other
>> rules regulating various aspects of the exchange process: product 
>> liability,
>> failure in delivery, loan default, and so on. In many countries, there 
>> are also
>> necessary permissions for the location of sales outlets – such as 
>> restrictions
>> on street-vending or zoning laws that ban commercial activities in 
>> residential
>> areas.
>>
>> Then there are price regulations. I am not talking here just about those 
>> highly
>> visible phenomena such as rent controls or minimum wages that free-market
>> economists love to hate.
>>
>> Wages in rich countries are determined more by immigration control than 
>> anything
>> else, including any minimum wage legislation. How is the immigration 
>> maximum
>> determined? Not by the "free" labor market, which, if left alone, will 
>> end up
>> replacing 80–90 per cent of native workers with cheaper, and often more
>> productive, immigrants. Immigration is largely settled by politics. So, 
>> if you
>> have any residual doubt about the massive role that the government plays 
>> in the
>> economy’s free market, then pause to reflect that all our wages are, at 
>> root,
>> politically determined.
>>
>> Following the 2008 financial crisis, the prices of loans (if you can get 
>> one or
>> if you already have a variable rate loan) have become a lot lower in many
>> countries thanks to the continuous slashing of interest rates. Was that 
>> because
>> suddenly people didn’t want loans and the banks needed to lower their 
>> prices to
>> shift them? No, it was the result of political decisions to boost demand 
>> by
>> cutting interest rates. Even in normal times, interest rates are set in 
>> most
>> countries by the central bank, which means that political considerations 
>> creep
>> in. In other words, interest rates are also determined by politics.
>>
>> If wages and interest rates are (to a significant extent) politically
>> determined, then all the other prices are politically determined, as they 
>> affect
>> all other prices.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is free trade fair?
>>
>>
>>
>> We see a regulation when we don’t endorse the moral values behind it. The
>> 19th-century high-tariff restriction on free trade by the U.S. federal
>> government outraged slave-owners, who at the same time saw nothing wrong 
>> with
>> trading people in a free market. To those who believed that people can be 
>> owned,
>> banning trade in slaves was objectionable in the same way as restricting 
>> trade
>> in manufactured goods. Korean shopkeepers of the 1980s would probably 
>> have
>> thought the requirement for "unconditional return" to be an unfairly 
>> burdensome
>> government regulation restricting market freedom.
>>
>> This clash of values also lies behind the contemporary debate on free 
>> trade vs.
>> fair trade. Many Americans believe that China is engaged in international 
>> trade
>> that may be free but is not fair. In their view, by paying workers 
>> unacceptably
>> low wages and making them work in inhumane conditions, China competes 
>> unfairly.
>> The Chinese, in turn, can riposte that it is unacceptable that rich 
>> countries,
>> while advocating free trade, try to impose artificial barriers to China’s
>> exports by attempting to restrict the import of "sweatshop" products. 
>> They find
>> it unjust to be prevented from exploiting the only resource they have in
>> greatest abundance – cheap labor.
>>
>> Of course, the difficulty here is that there is no objective way to 
>> define
>> "unacceptably low wages" or "inhumane working conditions." With the huge
>> international gaps that exist in the level of economic development and 
>> living
>> standards, it is natural that what is a starvation wage in the U.S. is a
>> handsome wage in China (the average being 10 per cent that of the U.S.) 
>> and a
>> fortune in India (the average being 2 per cent that of the U.S.) Indeed, 
>> most
>> fair-trade-minded Americans would not have bought things made by their 
>> own
>> grandfathers, who worked extremely long hours under inhumane conditions. 
>> Until
>> the beginning of the twentieth century, the average work week in the U.S. 
>> was
>> around 60 hours. At the time (in 1905, to be more precise), it was a 
>> country in
>> which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a New York state law 
>> limiting
>> the working days of bakers to 10 hours, on the grounds that it "deprived 
>> the
>> baker of the liberty of working as long as he wished."
>>
>> Thus seen, the debate about fair trade is essentially about moral values 
>> and
>> political decisions, and not economics in the usual sense. Even though it 
>> is
>> about an economic issue, it is not something economists with their 
>> technical
>> tool kits are particularly well equipped to rule on.
>>
>> All this does not mean that we need to take a relativist position and 
>> fail to
>> criticize anyone because anything goes. We can (and I do) have a view on 
>> the
>> acceptability of prevailing labour standards in China (or any other 
>> country, for
>> that matter) and try to do something about it, without believing that 
>> those who
>> have a different view are wrong in some absolute sense. Even though China 
>> cannot
>> afford American wages or Swedish working conditions, it certainly can 
>> improve
>> the wages and the working conditions of its workers. Indeed, many Chinese 
>> don’t
>> accept the prevailing conditions and demand tougher regulations. But 
>> economic
>> theory (at least free-market economics) cannot tell us what the ‘right’ 
>> wages
>> and working conditions should be in China.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t think we are in France any more
>>
>>
>>
>> In July 2008, with the country’s financial system in meltdown, the US 
>> government
>> poured $200 billion into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage 
>> lenders, and
>> nationalized them. On witnessing this, the Republican Senator Jim Bunning 
>> of
>> Kentucky famously denounced the action as something that could only 
>> happen in a
>> "socialist" country like France.
>>
>> France was bad enough, but on 19 September 2008, Senator Bunning’s 
>> beloved
>> country was turned into the Evil Empire itself by his own party leader.
>> According to the plan announced that day by President George W. Bush and
>> subsequently named TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the U.S. 
>> government was
>> to use at least $700 billion of taxpayers’ money to buy up the "toxic 
>> assets"
>> choking up the financial system.
>>
>> President Bush, however, did not see things quite that way. He argued 
>> that,
>> rather than being "socialist" the plan was simply a continuation of the 
>> American
>> system of free enterprise, which "rests on the conviction that the 
>> federal
>> government should interfere in the market place only when necessary." 
>> Only that,
>> in his view, nationalizing a huge chunk of the financial sector was just 
>> one of
>> those necessary things.
>>
>> Mr. Bush’s statement is, of course, an ultimate example of political
>> double-speak – one of the biggest state interventions in human history is
>> dressed up as another workaday market process. However, through these 
>> words Mr.
>> Bush exposed the flimsy foundation on which the myth of the free market 
>> stands.
>> As the statement so clearly reveals, what is a necessary state 
>> intervention
>> consistent with free-market capitalism is really a matter of opinion. 
>> There is
>> no scientifically defined boundary for free market.
>>
>> If there is nothing sacred about any particular market boundaries that 
>> happen to
>> exist, an attempt to change them is as legitimate as the attempt to 
>> defend them.
>> Indeed, the history of capitalism has been a constant struggle over the
>> boundaries of the market.
>>
>> A lot of the things that are outside the market today have been removed 
>> by
>> political decision, rather than the market process itself – human beings,
>> government jobs, electoral votes, legal decisions, university places or
>> uncertified medicines. There are still attempts to buy at least some of 
>> these
>> things illegally (bribing government officials, judges or voters) or 
>> legally
>> (using expensive lawyers to win a lawsuit, donations to political 
>> parties,
>> etc.), but, even though there have been movements in both directions, the 
>> trend
>> has been towards less marketization.
>>
>> For goods that are still traded, more regulations have been introduced 
>> over
>> time. Compared even to a few decades ago, now we have much more stringent
>> regulations on who can produce what (e.g., certificates for organic or
>> fair-trade producers), how they can be produced (e.g., restrictions on 
>> pollution
>> or carbon emissions), and how they can be sold (e.g., rules on product 
>> labelling
>> and on refunds).
>>
>> Furthermore, reflecting its political nature, the process of re-drawing 
>> the
>> boundaries of the market has sometimes been marked by violent conflicts. 
>> The
>> Americans fought a civil war over free trade in slaves (although free 
>> trade in
>> goods – or the tariffs issue – was also an important issue). The British
>> government fought the Opium War against China to realize a free trade in 
>> opium.
>> Regulations on free market in child labour were implemented only because 
>> of the
>> struggles by social reformers, as I discussed earlier. Making free 
>> markets in
>> government jobs or votes illegal has been met with stiff resistance by 
>> political
>> parties who bought votes and dished out government jobs to reward 
>> loyalists.
>> These practices came to an end only through a combination of political 
>> activism,
>> electoral reforms and changes in the rules regarding government hiring.
>>
>> Recognizing that the boundaries of the market are ambiguous and cannot be
>> determined in an objective way lets us realize that economics is not a 
>> science
>> like physics or chemistry, but a political exercise. Free-market 
>> economists may
>> want you to believe that the correct boundaries of the market can be
>> scientifically determined, but this is incorrect. If the boundaries of 
>> what you
>> are studying cannot be scientifically determined, what you are doing is 
>> not a
>> science.
>>
>> Thus seen, opposing a new regulation is saying that the status quo, 
>> however
>> unjust from some people’s point of view, should not be changed. Saying 
>> that an
>> existing regulation should be abolished is saying that the domain of the 
>> market
>> should be expanded, which means that those who have money should be given 
>> more
>> power in that area, as the market is run on one-dollar-one-vote 
>> principle.
>>
>> So, when free-market economists say that a certain regulation should not 
>> be
>> introduced because it would restrict the "freedom" of a certain market, 
>> they are
>> merely expressing a political opinion that they reject the rights that 
>> are to be
>> defended by the proposed law. Their ideological cloak is to pretend that 
>> their
>> politics is not really political, but rather is an objective economic 
>> truth,
>> while other people’s politics is political. However, they are as 
>> politically
>> motivated as their opponents.
>>
>> Breaking away from the illusion of market objectivity is the first step 
>> toward
>> understanding capitalism.
>>
>> Support AlterNet by purchasing your copy of 23 Things They Don't Tell You 
>> About
>> Capitalism through our partner, Powell's, an independent bookstore.
>>
>> Ha-Joon Chang teaches in the faculty of economics at the University of
>> Cambridge. His books include "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and 
>> the
>> Secret History of Capitalism" and "Kicking Away the Ladder."
>>
>> © 2011 Bloomsbury Press All rights reserved.
>> View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/149688/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>