Politics

[Cackalacky]

I'll be interested to see how the project turns out in other countries. Ideally, it would allow us to phase out a ton of clunky and inefficient regulations and programs-- minimum wage, the entire welfare state, etc.

Just spit-balling here, but we could make it similar to unemployment benefits, so that you must either: (1) be working; or (2) actively searching for work. If you're legitimately disabled, you'd prove that once before an Administrative Judge (just like for SSD), then you're set. That sort of thing.

So Switzerland is offering basically $2800 per month (I think) to just be alive. Abortion rate would be non-existent.

Seriously I definitely think it could be used to fix many of the societal structural issues we have. Today the USA would payout roughly 1 trillion dollars per month so the obvious issue would be financing but if we got rid of welfare, both corporate and personal, as well as SS it could be viable.

 

[wizards8507]

But would that type of system make us even less competitive in the world markets? Especially considering other countries such as China already have wages so low. I just don't see how we could compete on a global level. Not against anything that may help improve the overall condition.

Right. People talk about bringing jobs back to America, but then go out of their way to make hiring American workers an unattractive business proposition. It's the old Democrat argument of "you Republicans give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas," when in reality the intent behind a lot of those programs is to give companies tax breaks so they don't NEED to seek cheap labor overseas in the first place.

 

[wizards8507]

So Switzerland is offering basically $2800 per month (I think) to just be alive. Abortion rate would be non-existent.

Seriously I definitely think it could be used to fix many of the societal structural issues we have. Today the USA would payout roughly 1 trillion dollars per month so the obvious issue would be financing but if we got rid of welfare, both corporate and personal, as well as SS it could be viable.

You know that's basically communism, right?

 

[Cackalacky]

You know that's basically communism, right?

Considering its really just a pilot program, its not anything right now.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Not steadily. A sudden, jarring shock that would send the economy crashing. Two maxims of economics that I don't have the patience to explain but have been proven trough through centuries:

1. The "basic economic problem" of scarcity. There is a finite capacity to produce goods and services in an economy at any given time. More dollars in an economy with a finite quantity of resources does nothing but increase the number of dollars per resource, i.e. prices.

Inflation would obviously have to be accounted for, but our welfare already transfers tremendous sums of money directly to various groups of citizens. And this would be replacing that entirely-- SSI, SSD, food-stamps, etc.

2. Benjamin Franklin said, "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." Making poverty comfortable will do nothing but encourage people to stay there.

Again, the goal isn't to create a British-style "dole" whereby the poor simply become wards of the state. The amount of the Basic Income would have to be calculated so as to provide a very modest level of food and shelter, so no one is slipping through the cracks and falling into life-threatening poverty; no one's going to be living comfortably off the BI alone.

But would that type of system make us even less competitive in the world markets? Especially considering other countries such as China already have wages so low. I just don't see how we could compete on a global level. Not against anything that may help improve the overall condition.

Competitiveness should definitely improve, as we'll be able to remove a ton of cumbersome business regulations, and receipt of the BI is contingent upon people actually working or actively searching for a job.

 

[chicago51]

Right. People talk about bringing jobs back to America, but then go out of their way to make hiring American workers an unattractive business proposition. It's the old Democrat argument of "you Republicans give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas," when in reality the intent behind a lot of those programs is to give companies tax breaks so they don't NEED to seek cheap labor overseas in the first place.

So you advocating a race to the bottom in terms of wages? That we should lower our standards to that of third world countries?

Personally I am in favor of lowering the corporate tax rate in exchange for closing corporate tax loopholes and some sort of tax on overseas income from US based companies. That still doesn't account for the wage differences though.

 

[GoIrish41]

Right. People talk about bringing jobs back to America, but then go out of their way to make hiring American workers an unattractive business proposition. It's the old Democrat argument of "you Republicans give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas," when in reality the intent behind a lot of those programs is to give companies tax breaks so they don't NEED to seek cheap labor overseas in the first place.

And how is that working out? Someone suggested to me a few days ago in this thread that Dems didn't understand the difference between intentions and outcomes. Huh.

 

[Cackalacky]

How much? How to finance?

In Vivant Europe’s proposal[5] the idea is to have a BI amounting to 50 % of the guaranteed minimum wage. Children up to 18 years old would receive 25 % of this amount, young people between 18 and 25 years old would receive 75 %, whereas aged people above 65 years would receive 150%.

For Belgium this would mean 700 Euro per month and the system would cost around 24 % of GDP. This is more or less the share now taken by social expenditures. Roland Duchatelet also mentions an amount of more or less 700 Euro.[6]

Pensions, unemployment benefits, family allowances and costs for sabbaticals would disappear. According to Vivant, huge savings are possible on defence, police and cultural policies (because non wage labour costs disappear). The costs for health care would be halved because doctors would not have to pay social security costs.

Vivant also proposes a lowering of company taxes to 15 %, whereas all incomes beneath 1500 Euro per month would be exempted from income tax. Above 1500 Euro per month the tax rate would be 50 %.

The BI is mainly financed through the savings on the current social expenditures and a substantial rise of VAT. The idea is that net wages would remain unchanged.

Apart from the clearly liberal ideology behind Vivant’s proposal – speaking about ‘taxes’ on labour instead of social contributions as being part of wages and of a ‘society of welfare recipients’, this proposal gives rise to serious doubts.

This contribution cannot analyse the detailed amounts, but a first look at the proposals does raise questions about their feasibility and adequacy. It is very improbable that net wages would remain unchanged. It would mean that workers would really gain with these proposals and pensioners would seriously loose. Net wages may remain unchanged indeed, if workers only pay the difference between the BI and the former net wage.

It is clear that a ‘decent life’ is not possible with 700 Euro per month. Those who work can raise their income. And those who earn enough can buy a private insurance against illness, unemployment and old age, without any solidarity. But is it possible to chose not to work if it means you have to live with 700 Euro a month? Is it possible for an aged person to live with 1050 Euro a month, let alone to enjoy your old age?

Many of the arguments in favour of the BI disappear rapidly when translated into concrete amounts. In the European citizens’ initiative it is stated one wants to shift from a ‘compensatory’ system towards an ‘emancipatory’ system, but 700 Euro a month can hardly be said to be sufficient to achieve this. Even 1000 Euro a month is hardly emancipatory.

The amounts for other countries are not any better. In Bulgaria the BI would only cost 5,45 % of GDP but the amount would not rise above 37 Euro per month. Bulgarians will not be too happy.

The current proposals for Germany, Spain and Finland all mention amounts around this same floor as in Belgium[7]. No one proposes an amount up to the poverty line (for Belgium: 1000 Euro per month). Apparently this is too optimistic and this means the BI would not be sufficient to really eradicate poverty.

It just means that the BI would not be enough to have a decent life, and mini-jobs will have to be added, flexible jobs that employers will be happy to provide on a temporary basis. Emancipatory?

Philippe Van Parijs, who plays a very important role in the promotion of a BI, now proposes a European ‘dividend’ of 200 Euro a month for every citizen of the EU.[8] Apart from this sad choice of economic terminology, the philosopher sees this BI as a tool for giving the EU more legitimacy. However, people have economic and social rights. Why should they be satisfied with alms? And should this legitimacy not come from policies that promote and protect their rights?

Social Protection and Basic income: competitors or allies?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Right. People talk about bringing jobs back to America, but then go out of their way to make hiring American workers an unattractive business proposition. It's the old Democrat argument of "you Republicans give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas," when in reality the intent behind a lot of those programs is to give companies tax breaks so they don't NEED to seek cheap labor overseas in the first place.

Some sort of Basic Income could improve both our competitiveness and the living standard of our poorest citizen by unburdening American businesses from all the clunky welfare regulations they have to deal with.

 

[wizards8507]

So you advocating a race to the bottom in terms of wages? That we should lower our standards to that of third world countries?

Not necessarily, but you have to pick your battles. If we want low-skill jobs then we need to pay low-skill wages. If we'd rather have higher wages then we'll only have high-skill jobs and low-skill workers will be left out in the cold. It's not sustainable to pay high-skill wages to low-skill workers doing low-skill work. That's where outsourcing comes from.

Personally I am in favor of lowering the corporate tax rate in exchange for closing corporate tax loopholes...

I agree with you there, and advocate the same approach to personal income taxation.

...and some sort of tax on overseas income from US based companies. That still doesn't account for the wage differences though.

This would slow global commerce to a halt. Companies won't be able to afford paying taxes in local jurisdictions in addition to their home nation.

And how is that working out? Someone suggested to me a few days ago in this thread that Dems didn't understand the difference between intentions and outcomes. Huh.

I didn't say I liked it. All I said is that the manner in which the Dems attack the policy is strawman-ish. I don't like tax loopholes for anybody.

 

[GoIrish41]

Some sort of Basic Income could improve both our competitiveness and the living standard of our poorest citizen by unburdening American businesses from all the clunky welfare regulations they have to deal with.

I would make the same argument about universal, single-payer healthcare. Get businesses out of the business of providing health insurance for employees.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I would make the same argument about universal, single-payer healthcare. Get businesses out of the business of providing health insurance for employees.

I'd rather the government simply provide catastrophic coverage for everyone, and leave it up to individuals insure up to the amount based on their personal risk preferences. But that's never been tried anywhere before (AFAIK), so it's unlikely to happen.

 

[wizards8507]

I'd rather the government simply provide catastrophic coverage for everyone, and leave it up to individuals insure up to the amount based on their personal risk preferences. But that's never been tried anywhere before (AFAIK), so it's unlikely to happen.

We'll make a free-marketer out of you yet, Whiskey. That's not too far from the system I'd prefer. Employer-based insurance could still exist but it would become a perk used for companies to attract the workers, not something mandated by the government.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'd rather the government simply provide catastrophic coverage for everyone, and leave it up to individuals insure up to the amount based on their personal risk preferences. But that's never been tried anywhere before (AFAIK), so it's unlikely to happen.

I don't think anything we are talking about is likely to happen. lol Can you imaging the blowback for a politician for suggesting guaranteeing a sum of money just for being alive, or providing healthcare to all on the taxpayer's dime? That said, I think your suggestion would qualify as a huge step in the right direction.

 

[chicago51]

This may surprise some but I am really against this floor wage structure. It is basically a huge subsidy to the wealthy elite that allow them to pay poor wages.

I think we need to go back maybe not to the Kennedy and LBJ tax rates or at least closer it then we are now especially on those making over $1.5 million or roughly 30 times the median income which is what the CEO to worker pay used to be. This incentives companies keeping money there company through higher wages and investing in expanding. As the corporate tax rate although hirer than today was over 20% lower than the individual rate.

Finally I think we need to take a lesson from Kennedy and LBJ and close the tax loopholes (special deductions, carried interest, capital gains/stock options) that have once again become rampant. If there is less of an incentive to make 400 times the average workers you will see wages rise as a result.

By the way I love how Republicans point out that Kennedy lowered tax. Jack Kennedy raised tax revenues. In his debate with Nixon he proposed raising tax revenues by closing loopholes and increasing domestic spending as well trying to balance the budget. Yes he cut the rates but effectively raised the taxes on the rich who ended up paying more under the 70% rate than they did under the 91% top rate. Thus under Kennedy tax collections actually went up.

I love how Republicans point out that Kennedy lowered the rates

 

[GoIrish41]

This may surprise some but I am really against this floor wage structure. It is basically a huge subsidy to the wealthy elite that allow them to pay poor wages.

I think we need to go back maybe not to the Kennedy and LBJ tax rates or at least closer it then we are now especially on those making over $1.5 million or roughly 30 times the median income which is what the CEO to worker pay used to be. This incentives companies keeping money there company through higher wages and investing in expanding. As the corporate tax rate although hirer than today was over 20% lower than the individual rate.

Finally I think we need to take a lesson from Kennedy and LBJ and close the tax loopholes (special deductions, carried interest, capital gains/stock options) that have once again become rampant. If there is less of an incentive to make 400 times the average workers you will see wages rise as a result.

By the way I love how Republicans point out that Kennedy lowered tax. Jack Kennedy raised tax revenues. In his debate with Nixon he proposed raising tax revenues by closing loopholes and increasing domestic spending as well trying to balance the budget. Yes he cut the rates but effectively raised the taxes on the rich who ended up paying more under the 70% rate than they did under the 91% top rate. Thus under Kennedy tax collections actually went up.

I love how Republicans point out that Kennedy lowered the rates

This is where I am at as well Chicago.

 

[chicago51]

I'd rather the government simply provide catastrophic coverage for everyone, and leave it up to individuals insure up to the amount based on their personal risk preferences. But that's never been tried anywhere before (AFAIK), so it's unlikely to happen.

I can get behind this. I think everyone should at least get Medicare Part A coverage with a options for B and D.

Edit: See my next post.

 

[Cackalacky]

A floor wage would basically replace all other social programs and welfare. Also from the link above:

With a BI system, people would be free to participate or not in the labour market. Labour would become much cheaper, not only because non wage labour costs would disappear but also because employers would not be willing to continue to pay the same net wage above the BI. A labour income certainly would help to raise the living standards above the BI and workers will be able to exert more pressure on employers since they are not obliged to stay on the labour market. The currently badly paid jobs, for difficult or ‘dirty’ work could become well-paid jobs, since otherwise no one would be willing to take them. Employers would thus be stimulated to offer attractive labour conditions so as to attract sufficient worker

cough Wal-mart cough

 

[chicago51]

I would make the same argument about universal, single-payer healthcare. Get businesses out of the business of providing health insurance for employees.

Great study out there on single payer economic benefits from the California University.

The study assumes Medicare coverage for everyone. Which if we did would be a really easy fix involving a taxes that reflect the premium cost and simply dropping the Medicare eligibility age. You probably fit the whole bill on a page or two.

http://nurses.3cdn.net/c6fb9a313be501086e_1vm6y1duy.pdf

Plus since Medicare doesn't cover everything people would still be free purchase supplemental private coverage based on their risk needs. May to allow personally freedom by allowing people to opt out of part B and D coverage if they chose to purchase there coverage.

Here is a summary of the study:

1. Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs (slightly exceeding the number of jobs lost in 2008) -- and jobs that are not easily shipped overseas

2. Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues

3. Add $100 billion in employee compensation

4. Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues

Also single payer at least for basic coverage unlike our current government healthcare programs is fiscally responsible. Our healthcare cost are responsible for our long term deficit problem way more so than any other programs including SS. We could probably realistic balance the budget in the future by going with a single payer.

Plus it really does create economic freedom for people to go out and start there own business.

 

[Ndaccountant]

So Switzerland is offering basically $2800 per month (I think) to just be alive. Abortion rate would be non-existent.

Seriously I definitely think it could be used to fix many of the societal structural issues we have. Today the USA would payout roughly 1 trillion dollars per month so the obvious issue would be financing but if we got rid of welfare, both corporate and personal, as well as SS it could be viable.

There are many issues that would be both for and against this. However, we must recognize what issues prevent us from doing this and whether or not we are comfortable with what we give up. For example, lets look at how much we spent on being the world police along with foreign aid.

Last year, the US spent nearly $750B on military spending and foreign aid. That equates to over $23K per person in the US. Compare that to Switzerland, which paid a scant $600 per person (Sweden was $650/pp). Of course, the EU spends money jointly, but per capita, that only increases the spend by ~$500.

So, what if instead of spending on military at the current level, we reduce it to $2,500 per person and give the rest away as guaranteed income. This certainly would help Americans and hell, we could means test it too. But would we all be comfortable with the implications? We would no longer be there to help our allies or be the world police (both good and bad IMO). We would probably lose our grip as being the most technologically advanced military and would not have the manufacturing base at home to ramp up production in case we needed it. Finally, there is no doubt that some evil people would create chaos in some regions and we would not have the resources to directly intervene.

I think smaller countries have the luxury of not spending on certain things because other powers provide them the resources indirectly.

 

[GoIrish41]

There are many issues that would be both for and against this. However, we must recognize what issues prevent us from doing this and whether or not we are comfortable with what we give up. For example, lets look at how much we spent on being the world police along with foreign aid.

Last year, the US spent nearly $750B on military spending and foreign aid. That equates to over $23K per person in the US. Compare that to Switzerland, which paid a scant $600 per person (Sweden was $650/pp). Of course, the EU spends money jointly, but per capita, that only increases the spend by ~$500.

So, what if instead of spending on military at the current level, we reduce it to $2,500 per person and give the rest away as guaranteed income. This certainly would help Americans and hell, we could means test it too. But would we all be comfortable with the implications? We would no longer be there to help our allies or be the world police (both good and bad IMO). We would probably lose our grip as being the most technologically advanced military and would not have the manufacturing base at home to ramp up production in case we needed it.

I think smaller countries have the luxury of not spending on certain things because other powers provide them the resources indirectly.

You are suggesting cutting the military budget by nearly 90%?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

At the end of the day, people are going to vote for the candidate with whom they most align with at the time of the election, no matter their party. I'm a Democrat (I know, shocking) but I've voted for Reagan, Bush Sr. (once) and Independents (Ross Perot, twice) over the years. In half of the elections in my voting life, I voted other than Democrat. I could easily describe myself as an Independent without hesitation. I did so because I believe that those candidates recognized what the most important issues of the day were, and at the time offered what I thought was the best way forward. I describe myself as a Democrat because I want to make it clear that I want to distance myself as much as possible from the new Republican party, and claiming Independence may make folks think that there are things on their agenda that I agree with along with things the Democrats stand for that I agree with. In the time we live in now, few things could be futher from the truth. I don't agree with everything the Democrats believe in, but I'm much closer to their mindset than I am with Republicans. Whether you accept it or not, it doesn't matter what you think about Bob's political affiliation. I believe his voting record and party affiliation is his to define, not yours or anyone else's. You have taken a step in a whole new direction, and gone from being the curmudgeon who believes all things liberal are the bane of the country's existence to now defining people's personal affiliations -- and you call Obama an elitist. lol

People will vote for whomever they see is best. You'll get no argument from me there. I thought it was a great joke that Bob tried to label himself an independent. He hasn't put forth one post or one idea anything close to being an independent, so I find it laughable. Like I said, it'd be like Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly calling themselves independents. One day later he still can't point to one "independent" idea or post he's had.

Some hypothetical examples could be:

I'm against the death penalty, but favor hard labor for prisoners with life sentences.

I don't like the US troops fighting in Afghanistan, but I support nonprofits who help wounded warriors.

I don't think money solves problems in education, but each child should be given the tools needed to learn.

I don't support abortion, but I do support the woman's right to choose.

See what I'm getting at?

 

[chicago51]

Interesting aside on Medicare:


Quick history lesson on how Medicare was passed: Initially insurance companies were all for it because insuring the elderly was unprofitable. Then at the last minute they all lobbied against because they realized that they could easily turn it into a single payer insurance by simply amending it by lowering or eliminating the eligibility age so they all freaked out and tried to kill it at the last minute but failed. Interestingly this could have be done with out a filibuster proof majority in the Senate as resolution bills (dealing with only revenue) can be past with a majority vote. Since Medicare is already in place changing the tax rate and benefiters are revenue changes and could probably done with a small bill only a couple paragraphs long no 3000 pages of regulations.

 

[wizards8507]

A floor wage would basically replace all other social programs and welfare. Also from the link above.

Come on man, that's literally Econ 101. A "floor wage" would do NOTHING but provide a short-term boost to those earning minimum wage (i.e. 1% of workers) and then completely wash out in the long-run via inflation.

If the value of one hour of low-skill work is $7.25 and a Big Mac costs $4.00, a Big Mac is roughly worth 55% of one low-skill labor hour. If low-skill labor is arbitrarily and artificially propped up to $24 per hour, a Big Mac is eventually going to cost $13.00. The minimum wage worker has exactly the same purchasing power as he did before.

EDIT: If anything, it hurts the low-wage workers more than anyone. They're the ones who are most likely to shop at places like Walmart and McDonald's. If Walmart and McDonald's are forced to raise wages, they'll also raise prices, which hurts the consumers this whole thing was supposed to help in the first place.

 

[chicago51]

People will vote for whomever they see is best. You'll get no argument from me there. I thought it was a great joke that Bob tried to label himself an independent. He hasn't put forth one post or one idea anything close to being an independent, so I find it laughable. Like I said, it'd be like Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly calling themselves independents. One day later he still can't point to one "independent" idea or post he's had.

Some hypothetical examples could be:

I'm against the death penalty, but favor hard labor for prisoners with life sentences.

I don't like the US troops fighting in Afghanistan, but I support nonprofits who help wounded warriors.

I don't think money solves problems in education, but each child should be given the tools needed to learn.

I don't support abortion, but I do support the woman's right to choose.

See what I'm getting at?

I consider myself an independent.

 

[ACamp1900]

I thought it was a great joke that Bob tried to label himself an independent. He hasn't put forth one post or one idea anything close to being an independent, so I find it laughable. Like I said, it'd be like Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly calling themselves independents.

I agree. FYI though, O'Reilly DOES call himself an independent...

 

[Cackalacky]

There are many issues that would be both for and against this. However, we must recognize what issues prevent us from doing this and whether or not we are comfortable with what we give up. For example, lets look at how much we spent on being the world police along with foreign aid.

Last year, the US spent nearly $750B on military spending and foreign aid. That equates to over $23K per person in the US. Compare that to Switzerland, which paid a scant $600 per person (Sweden was $650/pp). Of course, the EU spends money jointly, but per capita, that only increases the spend by ~$500.

So, what if instead of spending on military at the current level, we reduce it to $2,500 per person and give the rest away as guaranteed income. This certainly would help Americans and hell, we could means test it too. But would we all be comfortable with the implications? We would no longer be there to help our allies or be the world police (both good and bad IMO). We would probably lose our grip as being the most technologically advanced military and would not have the manufacturing base at home to ramp up production in case we needed it. Finally, there is no doubt that some evil people would create chaos in some regions and we would not have the resources to directly intervene.

I think smaller countries have the luxury of not spending on certain things because other powers provide them the resources indirectly.

No doubt. There are definite trade-offs but the current system is untenable. There will have to be some changes made. I doubt the military budget gets cut though. Any mention of ramping down military production and a war happens to start. America does like to flex periodically....

 

[Ndaccountant]

Great study out there on single payer economic benefits from the California University.

The study assumes Medicare coverage for everyone. Which if we did would be a really easy fix involving a taxes that reflect the premium cost and simply dropping the Medicare eligibility age. You probably fit the whole bill on a page or two.

http://nurses.3cdn.net/c6fb9a313be501086e_1vm6y1duy.pdf

Plus since Medicare doesn't cover everything people would still be free purchase supplemental private coverage based on their risk needs. May to allow personally freedom by allowing people to opt out of part B and D coverage if they chose to purchase there coverage.

Here is a summary of the study:

1. Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs (slightly exceeding the number of jobs lost in 2008) -- and jobs that are not easily shipped overseas

2. Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues

3. Add $100 billion in employee compensation

4. Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues

Also single payer at least for basic coverage unlike our current government healthcare programs is fiscally responsible. Our healthcare cost are responsible for our long term deficit problem way more so than any other programs including SS. We could probably realistic balance the budget in the future by going with a single payer.

Plus it really does create economic freedom for people to go out and start there own business.

Coverage is only good so long as there are practitioners to administer it. I know of many doctors that refuse to take Medicare patients and are cash only for that age group.

I know we like to blame insurance, hospitals and practitioners for the exploding rise of heath care. But, as a country, we know what we want and when we want it. We wanted outpatient centers (very expensive) and we want to know we can see the Doctor today or tomorrow if something goes wrong (very expensive). I am not sure that people are ready to give that up. The reaction to people losing their network with Obamacare could be tame compared to a scenario where more affluent people retain access to their doctors because they can afford the cash payments.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I consider myself an independent.

You're a self-described socialist. Independents wouldn't welcome you to their camp.

 

[wizards8507]

I agree. FYI though, O'Reilly DOES call himself an independent...

O'Reilly is a big-government hack and the fact that people associate him with "conservatism" makes me sick. He LOVES gun control, the war on drugs, the police state, and on and on.