Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

One theme I heard that ran through groups of liberals that didn't vote in 2010 was that they wanted to "punish" Obama and Dems for not pushing better progressive legislation. If there's a better case of shooting-yourself-in-the-head I haven't seen it yet.

Allow me to introduce you to a sibling of mine.

 

[Snake]

Cutting spending, threatening to bomb Iran, and "not apologizing for AMERICUH" are seen as positives by a Democratic president. This country fucking sucks.

You're just picking up and using the same strawman that Romney is beating up on, not defending or criticizing actual principles. The framing Romney is employing implies that Obama is spending wildly and irresponsibly, all but encouraging Iran to build nuclear weapons and nuke Israel, and insulting/dishonoring the American people (through apologizing). None of these are traits liberals support, and to react as you did only concedes to Romney's framing.

 

[empty vessel]

I can understand this perspective and am pretty receptive to MMT in general, but one thing I've always wondered is what it says about the reaction from other countries (let's say China or any other large trading partner) when one country (let's say the US) decides to throw caution to the wind and rack up enormous amounts of debt, much more than what we have now? In an increasingly global/interconnected economy like we have today, is there reason to believe that a country like the US couldn't do this without some kind of repercussion from other countries? What are the implications for the currency market if such a thing happened? Or would a factor internal to that country act as a limiter before an external factor did?

China has a savings account with the US government's national bank. That just means China has deposited US dollars with us in exchange for a promise of repayment plus interest (in dollars). We don't have to let China, or anybody else, have a savings account, although it's probably not a good idea to refuse to pay what's already been promised (and this won't happen). China doesn't like increased US government spending because it weakens the dollar vis-a-vis other currencies. But there is a limit to this depreciation, because when a currency floats and weakens against other currencies, it makes the goods and services produced domestically more attractive for export, which acts as a kind of natural floor for depreciation as an economy strengthens due to rising exports. China might grumble when the dollar depreciates, but it's not going to go to war over it or anything. And, besides, unlike most countries with fiat currency, it pegs its own currency to other currencies rather than lets it float, so when a currency like the dollar depreciates, its own currency depreciates, which makes its goods more attractive for export (but also the money in its savings account worth less). That China doesn't allow its currency to float is why the US accuses it of "currency manipulation." The US doesn't like that, because it can never gain much of a trade advantage with China as a result and can't reap the economic benefit of a depreciating dollar vis-a-vis China.

Perhaps more to the point, is there a reason the US government shouldn't introduce a huge amount of money into the economy over a short couple of years given our current debt situation?

Nope, no reason. The failure to spend and increase aggregate demand--and thereby spur greater economic activity--represents a real economic loss that can never be recouped. Every day that labor is idle and capital underutilized, society loses the wealth that could have been produced from it.

So it's true what they say about you guys -
You arrive at the same destination as Keynesians, you just take the scenic route.

Spoiler

I'm not 100% serious.

MMT is considered post-Keynesian and within the Keynesian camp. But there are real differences between a neo-Keynesian like Krugman and a post-Keynesian like Randall Wray or Bill Mitchell.

Somebody like Krugman thinks that deficits qua deficits matter, and that a government with fiat currency is subject to harassment from bond vigilantes and so can't afford to piss off bond purchasers too much. He favors spending in a recession, but thinks that at some point deficits have to be reined in for their own sake. MMTers think that the level at which the government spends should always depend only upon its affect on the economy. So spending should be reined in only when necessary to make sure the economy does not get so hot that inflation results. This is called functional finance and it comes from Abba Lerner.

There was a recent blog exchange between Krugman and MMTers. Relevant links here, if you have any interest: http://heteconomist.com/?p=5047 (Krugman comes under fire a lot in his own comments section.)

 

[speculawyer]

I can't stand Cenk Uygur. Not only is he a hyperbolic asshole, I can't stand clicking on youtube videos only to see it's a TYT video

I'll be sure to link to his videos more often now.

 

[XMonkey]

Thanks for the informative response, ev.

 

[RustyNails]

Wouldn't a high debt mean higher interest rates on loans/credit cards/etc?

 

[thatbox]

Great graphic, ev. Thanks.

 

[empty vessel]

Wouldn't a high debt mean higher interest rates on loans/credit cards/etc?

Nope. This is the "loanable funds" doctrine. In reality, the central bank sets interest rates based on policy objectives. See here for a refutation that takes on Mankiw.

 

[Jackson50]

I can't stand Cenk Uygur. Not only is he a hyperbolic asshole, I can't stand clicking on youtube videos only to see it's a TYT video

His disposition is immaterial to me. Rather, his wooden, stilted style is unappealing. And, yes, his videos seem to litter YT.

Yup but it will probably happen again in 2012, voter apathy for midterms is engrained in the public conscience for some odd reason

Diminished turnout during midterm elections is not odd. It's actually quite understandable. The presidency, for better or worse, predominates our political system. I consider our national fixation normatively undesirable; the president is almost conceived as a Roman dictator serving for a constitutionally prescribed term. Notwithstanding, it's clear the presidency is considered the preeminent office in American government. Turnout is correlated with the perceived importance of the election.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

One theme I heard that ran through groups of liberals that didn't vote in 2010 was that they wanted to "punish" Obama and Dems for not pushing better progressive legislation. If there's a better case of shooting-yourself-in-the-head I haven't seen it yet.

I've heard this argument a lot from young people who's first vote was for Obama. I was volunteering at a polling station in 2010 and it was like 2/3 old people who were voting.

Surprisingly, California was one of the few states that actually went bluer in 2010. I guess just to spite everyone else.

 

[Oblivion]

Man, no one eviscerates that simple minded simian, David Brooks than Charlie Pierce:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/david-brooks-other-obama-7890505

 

[Puddles]

I'm trying to understand the Ryan plan for Medicare.

I don't know, maybe one of you can explain it to me. How is giving a senior a lump sum of money to purchase insurance supposed to save any money compared to just paying for the senior's medical care? You're introducing a whole new layer of costs that has nothing to do with actually providing treatment.

 

[slidewinder]

There's nothing to understand. Ryan and many other Republicans despise Medicare and want to destroy it.

 

[Measley]

I'm trying to understand the Ryan plan for Medicare.

I don't know, maybe one of you can explain it to me. How is giving a senior a lump sum of money to purchase insurance supposed to save any money compared to just paying for the senior's medical care? You're introducing a whole new layer of costs that has nothing to do with actually providing treatment.

Because it's a set amount of money versus "unlimited" amounts of money. Once the voucher runs out, the senior has to go out and find their own health insurance.

I pity any person over 65 having to get any type of private health insurance.

 

[Chichikov]

I'm trying to understand the Ryan plan for Medicare.

I don't know, maybe one of you can explain it to me. How is giving a senior a lump sum of money to purchase insurance supposed to save any money compared to just paying for the senior's medical care? You're introducing a whole new layer of costs that has nothing to do with actually providing treatment.

Medicare is single payer government run socialized medicine program.
Ryan is an ideologue, and he oppose that program for ideological reasons (now personally I think it's crazy to approach a problem like healthcare from an ideological perspective instead of a practical one, but that's a different story).
The problem is that medicare is quite popular, especially with people who are currently using it.
So he came up with a plan to end medicare as we currently know it (i.e. end it as a single payer program) but one that would not anger voters.
Spoiler alert: but it will.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Has Politifact ever responded to all the criticism after their lie of the year fiasco?

 

[AlteredBeast]

I wonder if Republicans have ever responded to the fact that an obscenely high amount of the money devoted to Medicare is actually devoted purely to the actual care of seniors. Administrative costs were razor thin. The private sector cannot say anything close to that and it is for those reasons that healthcare costs have more than double the inflation rate over the last 30 years.

There is something to be said about the GSA wasting a million bucks on a conference in Las Vegas. That sort of govt. waste should not be tolerated, but the supposed waste of healthcare and social security are non-existant.

 

[Chichikov]

I wonder if Republicans have ever responded to the fact that an obscenely high amount of the money devoted to Medicare is actually devoted purely to the actual care of seniors. Administrative costs were razor thin. The private sector cannot say anything close to that and it is for those reasons that healthcare costs have more than double the inflation rate over the last 30 years.

There is something to be said about the GSA wasting a million bucks on a conference in Las Vegas. That sort of govt. waste should not be tolerated, but the supposed waste of healthcare and social security are non-existant.

The GOP really went all in on the notion that nothing the government can't do anything right.
Also, you can't go against St. Reagan, he was right about everything.

It's a dogma at this point.

 

[markatisu]

The GOP really went all in on the notion that nothing the government can't do anything right.
Also, you can't go against St. Reagan, he was right about everything.

It's a dogma at this point.

The irony of course being he would not make it past the current GOP primary system

 

[PhoenixDark]

So we have the SCOTUS likely to strike down the Affordable Care Act.

Could someone explain to me how the hell people expect Obama's approval to not drop dramatically if that occurs? If it stays Obama can try to appeal to the numerous groups that benefit from it (especially women) but without it he can't even bring up shit like the blunt amendment because the healthcare bill that was supposed to protect women from discrimination in healthcare costs would be gone and thus irrelevant.

It would essentially invalidate his presidency considering the political Capitol spent to get the law passed. I don't know whether his approval would plummet but it would make reelection harder than it already is

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I don't know how much a SC ruling affects people's opinion on something. How has it been in the past? For example the CU case, I doubt people afterwards thought ''oh yeah sure, great idea''. People who dissapprove of him over ACA will dissaprove of him whatever the ruling, and people who approve of him, and by extension aprove of ACA, will continue to approve of him. Especially if he, as the daily show put it, runs against the SC and hammers on what negative effects the ruling has.

 

[TestOfTide]

I don't know how much a SC ruling affects people's opinion on something. How has it been in the past? For example the CU case, I doubt people afterwards thought ''oh yeah sure, great idea''. People who dissapprove of him over ACA will dissaprove of him whatever the ruling, and people who approve of him, and by extension aprove of ACA, will continue to approve of him. Especially if he, as the daily show put it, runs against the SC and hammers on what negative effects the ruling has.

The people who were excited because of the ACA would be significantly less excited if the ACA were suddenly nullified.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

The people who were excited because of the ACA would be significantly less excited if the ACA were suddenly nullified.

Or they will be more excited because they would want to make sure he gets re-elected in the hopes he would try to fix healthcare in another way. I don't see these people throwing their hands up and saying 'Well, that is that, guess we better let Romney get elected because there is no hope on this front.'

 

[Chichikov]

The irony of course being he would not make it past the current GOP primary system

Do you really think someone like Reagan had a some sort of competing cohesive idea about healthcare?
Like most politicians, he went with what worked and what got him elected. The guy was a populist and the king of pander, if you ask me, he would most likely be a tea-party champion had he lived to day.
Especially since he gain national prominence by attacking the GOP establishment from the right.

I don't know how much a SC ruling affects people's opinion on something. How has it been in the past? For example the CU case, I doubt people afterwards thought ''oh yeah sure, great idea''. People who dissapprove of him over ACA will dissaprove of him whatever the ruling, and people who approve of him, and by extension aprove of ACA, will continue to approve of him. Especially if he, as the daily show put it, runs against the SC and hammers on what negative effects the ruling has.

The GOP thinks they can paint it as an intentional attack on the constitution. I'm not sure how much traction they're gonna get with that approach, I think they're overestimating the constitution fetish in the electorate.

And once again, all this crap could have been avoided if the dems and Obama didn't try to paint the bill in general and the mandate in particular as a great victories for them, instead of the compromise (read: succumbing to conservative demands) that they are.

 

[TestOfTide]

Or they will be more excited because they would want to make sure he gets re-elected in the hopes he would try to fix healthcare in another way. I don't see these people throwing their hands up and saying 'Well, that is that, guess we better let Romney get elected because there is no hope on this front.'

That didn't work when the Equal Rights Amendment got "repealed" (Assuming repeal is the correct word when an amendment gets signed but then gets overturned due to a lack of 3/4 states signing onto it) and that had a lot more popularity.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I don't see these people throwing their hands up and saying 'Well, that is that, guess we better let Romney get elected because there is no hope on this front.'

Yeah, definitely. I don't want to say it's good for Obama if it gets repealed, but it's not the end of the world. Yet anyway.

The GOP thinks they can paint it as an intentional attack on the constitution. I'm not sure how much traction they're gonna get with that approach, I think they're overestimating the constitution fetish in the electorate.

Definitely overestimating. Especially when the Democrats run on how conservatives killed all of the different good things that came and would come from the bill.

And once again, all this crap could have been avoided if the dems and Obama didn't try to paint the bill in general and the mandate in particular as a great victories for them, instead of the compromise (read: succumbing to conservative demands) that they are.

I'm surprised the fact that Bush and conservative think tanks first promoted the idea as an alternative to leftist healthcare wasn't repeated over and over. They could have definitely banked more on that. Obama's so busy with 11th dimension chess that he sometimes forgets the 1st dimension.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yeah, definitely. I don't want to say it's good for Obama if it gets repealed, but it's not the end of the world. Yet anyway.
Definitely overestimating. Especially when the Democrats run on how conservatives killed all of the different good things that came and would come from the bill.

I'm surprised the fact that Bush and conservative think tanks first promoted the idea as an alternative to leftist healthcare wasn't repeated over and over. They could have definitely banked more on that. Obama's so busy with 11th dimension chess that he sometimes forgets the 1st dimension.

Most people don't even like the law, I doubt they'll be particularly upset if it is overruled. In terms of running against the SC and pointing out how awesome the law was...eh. Good luck with that.

If the law was popular I think it would be more likely for the SC to uphold it.

 

[Chichikov]

I'm surprised the fact that Bush and conservative think tanks first promoted the idea as an alternative to leftist healthcare wasn't repeated over and over. They could have definitely banked more on that. Obama's so busy with 11th dimension chess that he sometimes forgets the 1st dimension.

The white house was desperate to declare a victory.
They were worrying about enthusiasm so they faked an orgasm over something which is at best a first step workable compromise toward a better healthcare system.
I thought it was a miscalculation at the time, and I still think it's condescending to the voters, like we can't comprehend anything more complicated than a binary win or a loss.

Most people don't even like the law, I doubt they'll be particularly upset if it is overruled. In terms of running against the SC and pointing out how awesome the law was...eh. Good luck with that.

If the law was popular I think it would be more likely for the SC to uphold it.

People hated pre-existing conditions.
We all kinda forgot about that, but if it comes back, it will haunt the GOP in the fall, you'll just see an endless march of medical misery, and no one want to campaign against the cancer patient.

 

[Oblivion]

Medicare is single payer government run socialized medicine program.
Ryan is an ideologue, and he oppose that program for ideological reasons (now personally I think it's crazy to approach a problem like healthcare from an ideological perspective instead of a practical one, but that's a different story).
The problem is that medicare is quite popular, especially with people who are currently using it.
So he came up with a plan to end medicare as we currently know it (i.e. end it as a single payer program) but one that would not anger voters.
Spoiler alert: but it will.

I'm pretty sure Puddles is aware Ryan wants to destroy medicare. It seems he wants to understand the actual mechanisms of how this works.


I'm still curious myself (since no one here even answered) how the hell is medicare supposed to be funded if you give youngins the option of diverting their payroll taxes to private insurance (and assuming this is the case, why the fuck nobody brings it up. Seems like sort of a pretty big flaw).

 

[Incognito]

and i woke up to this email from an opponent:

XXX -

In our endorsement meeting, I made a comment about your public relations firms' big business clients.

In the interest of transparancy and fairness, I've attached an excerpt from our oppositional research showing these affiliations.

---XXX

the other night, my boss and opponent of this lady, got into a tit for tat at an editorial board meeting over special interests. anyway, no big deal. i wake up this morning to find out she emailed the campaign (me and candidate himself) an attached excerpt of her oppo research against him. 29 pages worth it. we're all sort of scratching our heads about why she would do this.

 

[Oblivion]

K-thug spittin fire as usual:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/on-ryan-apologists/

 

[Gr1mLock]

Okay, I've defended Olbermann in the past, but now he's gone too far:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/all-about-keith-two-faced-keith-olbermann-trashes-cenk-uygur-in-lawsuit/

No one messes with ma boy, Cenk!




Totally agreed.

And here we are.reasonable people who have decided someone has overstepped. I agree that Olbermann really shit the bed with that. I wonder how many times they have this conversation on the 'other side'.

 

[bill0527]

One theme I heard that ran through groups of liberals that didn't vote in 2010 was that they wanted to "punish" Obama and Dems for not pushing better progressive legislation. If there's a better case of shooting-yourself-in-the-head I haven't seen it yet.

You'll see it again in November from Republicans.

Romney is going to win the nomination. Moderate repubs will back him, and he'll get more independents than McCaiin. He may even get more independents than Obama. But the conservative base is going to stay home. Therefore, Obama wins in November.

The primaries have shown that the conservative base can't stand Romney. They couldn't stand him in 2008, and that feeling hasn't changed in 2011-2012. If he hasn't won them over in the last 4-5 years, he's not going to win them over between now and November.

 

[elrechazado]

You'll see it again in November from Republicans.

Romney is going to win the nomination. Moderate repubs will back him, and he'll get more independents than McCaiin. He may even get more independents than Obama. But the conservative base is going to stay home. Therefore, Obama wins in November.

The primaries have shown that the conservative base can't stand Romney. They couldn't stand him in 2008, and that feeling hasn't changed in 2011-2012. If he hasn't won them over in the last 4-5 years, he's not going to win them over between now and November.

The conservative base hates obama. They'd turn out even if hillary was the republican nominee.

 

[TacticalFox88]

This brought a serious smile to my face and I don't even know why

 

[Particle Physicist]

and i woke up to this email from an opponent:


the other night, my boss and opponent of this lady, got into a tit for tat at an editorial board meeting over special interests. anyway, no big deal. i wake up this morning to find out she emailed the campaign (me and candidate himself) an attached excerpt of her oppo research against him. 29 pages worth it. we're all sort of scratching our heads about why she would do this.

Maybe she is hoping you'd reciprocate because she is worried about what you guys possibly uncovered? :/ I dunno. Odd.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

This brought a serious smile to my face and I don't even know why

I like that logo

 

[ChoklitReign]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...o-wield-more-influence-in-election-season.ars

You don't suppose they're pro-MPAA/SOPA?

 

[Oblivion]

This brought a serious smile to my face and I don't even know why

That's actually a real group. They were around during the last election too.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Won't see a lot of me for awhile. Lots of vacation time and busy training people at work. Not that it seems I will be missing much for the next few weeks/months. It's all going to be a lot of posturing and hyperbole. Well, moreso than usual.

As an aside, I spent a lot of time driving through the south. It's kind of amazing, yet not surprising, at the open animosity towards Obama. Billboards, homemade signs and bumper stickers. It's going to be a humorous reaction when Obama wins. Most of these people are convinced that there is no way he can win.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Or they will be more excited because they would want to make sure he gets re-elected in the hopes he would try to fix healthcare in another way. I don't see these people throwing their hands up and saying 'Well, that is that, guess we better let Romney get elected because there is no hope on this front.'

Well that's totally what they did in 2010.

You'll see it again in November from Republicans.

Romney is going to win the nomination. Moderate repubs will back him, and he'll get more independents than McCaiin. He may even get more independents than Obama. But the conservative base is going to stay home. Therefore, Obama wins in November.

The primaries have shown that the conservative base can't stand Romney. They couldn't stand him in 2008, and that feeling hasn't changed in 2011-2012. If he hasn't won them over in the last 4-5 years, he's not going to win them over between now and November.

No dude, none of that will happen. Conservatives will vote for whoever the conservative candidate is, the problem is that the longer this primary goes on the less time that Romney has to try and convince independents that he's really a nice guy and not a crazy.

He has lost a lot of popularity with independents and will probably become even less popular assuming no catastrophic world events shakes America's faith in Obama. Romney's record of flip-flopping on cue will scare independents into thinking he is not a true centrist/Republican or anything. Therefore only the people who absolutely hate Obama more than they like Romney will give him their votes.

Which means anybody but life-long Republicans are going to vote for Obama or stay home.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

As an aside, I spent a lot of time driving through the south. It's kind of amazing, yet not surprising, at the open animosity towards Obama. Billboards, homemade signs and bumper stickers. It's going to be a humorous reaction when Obama wins. Most of these people are convinced that there is no way he can win.

Some of these bumper stickers are just ridiculous. I recently came across a new one that says "Does this ass make my bumper look big?" with a picture of Obama right next to it. There's a lot of insults I could see used against Obama but I would never think Ass would be one of them.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Some of these bumper stickers are just ridiculous. I recently came across a new one that says "Does this ass make my bumper look big?" with a picture of Obama right next to it. There's a lot of insults I could see used against Obama but I would never think Ass would be one of them.

Democrat = Donkey

 

[Hazmat]

Democrat = Donkey

That's the extent of their cleverness. BIGGGGG ASS = BIG ASSSSSS!

 

[speculawyer]

As an aside, I spent a lot of time driving through the south. It's kind of amazing, yet not surprising, at the open animosity towards Obama. Billboards, homemade signs and bumper stickers. It's going to be a humorous reaction when Obama wins. Most of these people are convinced that there is no way he can win.

They need to take a look at some polls and sober up. It certainly could go either way but right now I'd put money on Obama.

They mad.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Won't see a lot of me for awhile. Lots of vacation time and busy training people at work. Not that it seems I will be missing much for the next few weeks/months. It's all going to be a lot of posturing and hyperbole. Well, moreso than usual.

As an aside, I spent a lot of time driving through the south. It's kind of amazing, yet not surprising, at the open animosity towards Obama. Billboards, homemade signs and bumper stickers. It's going to be a humorous reaction when Obama wins. Most of these people are convinced that there is no way he can win.

You'll be missed and please report to us your findings!

 

[Dartastic]

Have you guys listened to this yet? Holy shit. 0.o

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

 

[Jackson50]

The GOP really went all in on the notion that nothing the government can't do anything right.
Also, you can't go against St. Reagan, he was right about everything.
http://i.imgur.com/S3JWa.jpg

It's a dogma at this point.

It's axiomatic, really. Only the private sector is capable of doing anything right. Speaking of which, the USDA is going to expand a program which delegates much of the inspection at poultry plants to the company. I think it's a brilliant proposal. What's the harm in self-policing?

Plan to Let Poultry Plants Inspect Birds Is Criticized
By RON NIXON
Published: April 4, 2012

WASHINGTON — Federal food safety inspectors said a proposal by the Agriculture Department to expand a pilot program that allows private companies to take over the inspections at poultry plants could pose a health risk by allowing contaminated meat to reach customers.

Currently, the Agriculture Department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service inspectors are stationed along the assembly lines in poultry plants and examine the birds for blemishes, feces or visible defects before they are processed.

Under the planned expansion, the agency would hand over these duties to poultry plant employees, while the inspectors would spend more time evaluating the plant’s bacteria-testing and other safety programs. The department has run the pilot program in 20 poultry plants since 1998.

But many of the agency’s inspectors said the proposal puts consumers at risk for diseases like those caused by salmonella. About 1.2 million cases of food poisoning are caused by salmonella each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In affidavits given to the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers, several inspectors who work at plants where the pilot program is in place said the main problem is that they are removed from positions on the assembly line and put at the end of the line, which makes it impossible for them to spot diseased birds.

The inspectors, whose names were redacted, said they had observed numerous instances of poultry plant employees allowing birds contaminated with fecal matter or other substances to pass. And even when the employees try to remove diseased birds, they face reprimands, the inspectors said.​

http://goo.gl/eJm1w

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

That's the extent of their cleverness. BIGGGGG ASS = BIG ASSSSSS!

 

[Suikoguy]

Won't see a lot of me for awhile. Lots of vacation time and busy training people at work. Not that it seems I will be missing much for the next few weeks/months. It's all going to be a lot of posturing and hyperbole. Well, moreso than usual.

As an aside, I spent a lot of time driving through the south. It's kind of amazing, yet not surprising, at the open animosity towards Obama. Billboards, homemade signs and bumper stickers. It's going to be a humorous reaction when Obama wins. Most of these people are convinced that there is no way he can win.

Ah, well enjoy your vacation time, probably for the best not spending much of it here, hehe.