Why Free Trade Doesn't Work w/ Ian Fletcher

[Elbottoo]

9:30 and the snake reveals himself. OWNED!

[mujaku]

Ian Fletcher is absolutely right -- Cenk hasn't studied enough economics or the history of trade going back to Hamilton. Here is an excellent reason to dump free trade and take up Fletcher's 30 percent tariff. The reason the average American paid NO Federal Income Taxes up until 1913 is because the Revenue Tariff paid for the government! Fletcher's 30 percent tariff on all imported goods would generate close to 600 billion dollars a year (30% of 2 trillion dollars)!

[affiliate30]

@mujaku Cenk just doesn't want to go against the real government (corporations), I don't blame him, he goes against those fuckers he can't say bye to his career, all TV channels are going global now.

[cottonwood1234]

We are just human beings in the USA. WE can not all be aholes with are own video blog shows, some of us need jobs. A lot of people screwup and do not get a good education so they can work in a high paying job. Meny HS have a 50% dropout rate,Chew on that awhile fatso.

[PunanyFingerz]

Free trade may not always be fair, but it's the best solution for extreme poverty. When we see TVs that say "Made in Uganda" or "Made in Liberia" etc it will mean free trade is working.

[up2trix]

hmm, it kinda seemed like this guy had some vested interests, as cenk tried to get at. if he were a serious economist he would be advocating the advancement of free trade and the reduction in trade barriers.

yes, maybe bargain hard with a few tarrifs here or there to make other countries play ball, but going back to a protectionist economy - i think he mentioned theodore roosvelt - is f*cking insanity. the problem with free trade currently are the exemptions and unequal tarrifs and subsidies.

[oJKBo]

watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM

[oJKBo]

right let's impose 25% tariffs--oh wait high tariffs helped worsen the depression. Tariffs destroy smaller bussiness-especially a flat one-just as a flat tax hurts the poor more than the wealthy.

[oJKBo]

When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will. Because of our stable and relatively free domestic market, we remain the world's most popular destination for foreign investment. We have become a net importer of capital because Americans do not save enough to finance all the available investment opportunities in our economy. This inflow of capital from abroad allows us to pay for imports over and above what we export

[oJKBo]

we need to end free trade. Who cares if all those dependent on the free exchange of goods for their jobs lose them? Read some fuckin Friedman or Hayek

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Milton Friedman? Really? That's who you want to quote! The father of hyperinflation, and dictatorial overthrow of democracy is your role model for good economics?

I don't think this has anything to do with trade, so much as laissez-faire economics. This experiment has been done over and over again with disastrous results every time. Poland,Chile Argentina, Brazil, all had their economies destroyed by relying on the advice of Friedman.

Maybe you should look elsewhere.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Estonia, Poland, AND Chile were better off with his advice. Evil Friedman told Pinochet to allow his people economic freedom. Father of hyperinflation? that would be ben bernanke or Keynes. Hong Kong benefits tremendously from free trade

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Hey now, hyperinflation came after Pinochet! It was only his change in policies that turned it around. That's right, by ignoring Friedman he was able to conquer hyperinflation.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 actually it came before and during pinochet until friedman wrote pinochet

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Secondly, I don't think Friedman was evil, or even dishonest! I just think he was WRONG! Hong Kong runs a socialist economy. China proper, also

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 HONG KONG SOCIALIST?!?!?!! You can get permission to start a business in a day in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is one of the most free countries in the world

[rbdgirl12]

@johnedwards1968 im brazilian im i cant say that milton friedman's ideas were never implemented here. so u can stop using brazil as example of "failure".

and why do u call friedman the father of hyperinflation?

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Hell there is very good evidence that following Friedman's non-interventionist policies knocked the US economy on it's ass. Years of NON-regulation of the banks down there lead to the silliness that's resulted.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 Really??? true friedman style capitalism would mean no fannie & freddie, no fdic, no fed, and more economic growth.

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo I will give you that, Fannie and Freddie would not have happened. However, as their impact on the total economic failure was next to nothing, I still don't see how you see that as an issue. (They accounted for 8 billion of the 780 billion dollar bailout package. Gambling on derivatives accounts for the rest)

Unregulated lending by the BIG Banks has America in a tenuous position. There are banks whose assets are based solely on derivatives. How would deregulation fix that?

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 First, why were banks lending like crazy? low interest rates. Second, why are banks so huge? Regulations that get passed are supported by them because they limit competition

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Your point on why banks get so huge is just silly! It ignores the free markets natural tendency towards monopoly. Someone who is more successful has obvious advantages! Those advantages lead to them being more successful. It's a self-fulfilling cycle.

Walmart dictates it's mandates to the market because it can. There's no reason to think banks would be any different.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 AHAHAHAHA FREE MARKETS TEND TOWARDS MONOPOLES???!?!?! in a free market a monopoly can only exist through keeping its prices low, if they raise them they lose money. Competition prevents monopolies, regulation destroys competition

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 banks also in a true free market are solvent and lend only what they have in reserves and they print their own money

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Now that is an interesting point! What keeps banks lending only what they have a free market? Hmmm? Without regulation, you think they'll behave better than they do under the limited regulations they have now?

SERIOUSLY? That's the argument you're going to make?

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 actually yes, it's called the 'invisible hand'. The only rules necessary are no fraud, no force, no theft. They wouldn't be able to get cheap money, they produce it themselves, therefore there are competing currencies which we may choose from. Now they lend like crazy because they know we'll bail them out

[calimar28]

Want to stop corps from moving to China? Get rid of income tax and payroll tax. Its your choice...

Well?

[romanmir01]

"You are correct and that's why I disagree with you" - brilliant.

[romanmir01]

Also raising the tariffs for the US will not work at all, it is NOT the Chinese who will suffer from this! It's going to be the US people who'll suffer from it. US should go ahead and raise the tariffs and see the prices rise for all consumer goods. That's all a government is good for at this point, isn't it, raise the prices on the poor?

Go ahead, see how this will turn out. Here is a prediction: US will suffer more from it than the goods producing China.

[romanmir01]

OMG, this guy is an actual idiot. He believes that US can somehow reverse the trade imbalance with China right now in a way that will cause a 'sudden debacle' to China's quality of life. The BEST thing China could do for itself at this point is to STOP funding the US, who is taking Chinese money to buy Chinese products. China needs to cut this cord, let the RMB fly freely and start saturating its own market with goods they produce. China does not need the dead US weight anymore to live well.

[bemaniac2]

This guy is making america seem like a poor baby being screwed over by the world - the guys basically control the WTO the world bank, the IMF and the whole global trading structure. Spare me.

[solarsnowfall]

I'm a little disappointed that I had to sit through a 30 second long political attack add to watch this.

[MrGnarus]

cenk has recently been very pro-corporation

[TheCuriosity1]

This guy’s an idiot. Toyota’s built in the US, with most parts from the US & a couple with parts imported. Chevy's on the otherhand, half are made in the US, half in Canada (with parts being built in both places & a few other places) Trade is more complicated than he is implying. Not buying a product bc the company isn't technically "American", all you are doing is putting other Americans out of work. Google ‘nytimes automobiles auto plants’ and see “Born in the USA’ link for auto manuf’g info.

[FPSbob1]

hey, New Zealand isn't third world and we trade heaps of Ag products!

[spyked1]

USA: China, Change your subsidies!

CHI: You stop your subsidies to Big Ag.

USA: Stop your slave trade!

CHI: Imokalee slavery... hello?

USA: Stop devaluing your currency

CHI: give us back OUR money and we'll think about it. Fuck off Ian Fletcher. Protectionism? Good luck with that! Cenk where do find these people? Even Sarah Palin has book. Doesn't mean its any good!

[zaggers77]

Complicated issue.

[lonelytrixter]

It is an interesting conversation. I fall somewhere in the middle as well. I don't think flat tariffs really work, but free trade agreements in recent history have often had some flaws. For example as a Canadian my biggest personal issue with NAFTA is that there is no final court of appeal for trade disputes. A couple of years back Canada has an issue with the softwood lumber industry where the US was subsidizing it's domestic softwood lumber in violation of NAFTA.

[lonelytrixter]

@lonelytrixter This was costing Canada's softwood lumber industry several billion dollars a year in exports. The Canadian industries when taking it to be resolved Canada kept on winning but the Americans kept on appealing the decision over and over. Eventually after Harper got elected he settled for a payment that was a fraction of the true amount lost

[audadvnc]

Junk industries? "The US is not just losing bad industries, but also good industries - high tech industries that we need to have in this country if we're going to have an economic future." Yeah, but the US owned companies have been doing this to themselves for decades. I worked for the computer industry in the 1980's - until my company shipped its manufacturing arm to Singapore.

.

If US Biz & Ind Council wants mfg here, they should convince their own members first.

[audadvnc]

Fletcher: "When I say 'free trade', I don't mean 'free trade'." As for his argument that foreign unfair trade practices cause economic problems here, I'd argue that US companies shipping jobs overseas did it to themselves.

Wikipedia: The United States Business and Industry Councel (USBIC) is an NGO which lobbies on behalf of family owned and closely held US manufacturing companies.

[upplsuckimcool16]

At Ten minutes in we all realized we are talking to a corporatist.

[introsis]

Why do you want to fight other countries getting it better? (Higher wages...) Sounds pretty nasty if you ask me.

[clownpenisfart]

Great interview. I just wish they had delved more into the benefits consumers gain from "free trade." Foreigners, through an artificially cheap currency or government subsidies, are in effect partially paying for the items Americans import. That may dampen wages, but it also dampens prices.

[upplsuckimcool16]

I can't help but think that when he is says "You put on a great show" He is being sarcastic.

[nilbud]

What a pile of bullshit. The US is already the most ridiculously protectionist state in the world. Subsidizing farmers in Japan is irrelevant. The huge government subsidized US corporations are so shit they're still not able to compete. Tariffs on imports are a subsidy to local corporations paid by the taxpayer.

Typical fucktard republican/ron paul stupidity.

[SinisterSkip]

Excellent interview.

[spat232]

"if you don't want to pay a 25% tariff to buy a Toyota, buy a Chevy instead..." - Ian Fletcher. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that a tariff on an imported good inflates the local price of that good and all locally produced substitutes. That is, the price of the Chevie will also increase. Am I wrong about that? Or is Ian Fletcher incompetent and/or deliberatley misleading people?

[P1ranh4]

@spat232 I'm no economist, but if you put a tariff on a product competing products can be sold more expensively, because they don't have to compete as much. But maybe I have it all backwards. What it does, is helping the local industry, but not the consumers.

[spat232]

@P1ranh4 that sounds about right to me. Doesn't necessarily negate Fletcher's argument, but it is a little bit concerning that he didn't pick up on that one...

Another bizarre quote - "those kinds of junk industries... they should go abroad" - Ian Fletcher.

[P1ranh4]

@spat232 That just makes me laugh with despair. First you exploit the country by depleting it of its resources and abusing free or cheap labor and then you have the audacity to whine about the countries protecting their economies and to insult the people whose back you built your success on

You could argue that these countries could have exploited other countries as well or even the US, but then you can also argue that the US shouldn't have started wars or toppled the leaders in these countries

[fret2424]

I don't understand why corn is still subsidized in the US. It's nothing more then selective socialism.

Our country will not survive with it's current trade imbalance. Every year $300 billion from China alone, while only $3 billion is sold to China.

[restlys]

@fret2424 Lol you and your reality...we dont wanna hear it ! OMG LADY GAGA TOUCHED HERSELF AT A BASEBALL GAME, im not the only one outraged right?

[fret2424]

@restlys I'm confused. Lady Gaga what? and where? Huh? Who's outraged? And why? Huh?

[P1ranh4]

@fret2424 And the high fructose corn sirup is one of the number one reasons Americans are unhealthy and obese. You'll solve more than one problem.

[up2trix]

@fret2424 i don't think the figures are that extreme mate

[fret2424]

@up2trix PBS Frontline, that's where I got the numbers. They do great documentaries, and they did are really good one on the economy, and I can't recomend it enough.

[up2trix]

@fret2424 right, well that might be true but those figures aren't correct. a simple google search will confirm that. in 2009 $69bn was exported to china and $296bn was imported leading to a trade deficit of $227bn. pretty extreme, but not THAT extreme.

[fret2424]

@up2trix Your numbers are most likely more current, as the documentary was released in 08, and most likely used numbers from 07/06. $297 billion or $227 billion, it's still very bad, and unsustainable.

One can drown in a lake or the ocean, they're still dead.

[arch8887]

@fret2424 Corn is subsidized because Amercian farmers cant compete with the low paid farmers of the third world. A tariff would fix this. Your only other options would be to continue to subsidize farmers or let farming die in America and import 100% of your food from elsewhere. For America to retain its high living standards (which have been slowly decling for decades now) it needs to protect its industries. Free trade only enriches a minority.

[djkhaless]

I may agree with Ian's arguments, but why aren't think tanks like his devising a BETTER economic system than the current one we're running? Capitalism is outdated, and it's slowly falling apart at the seams. It's been predicted, and it'll happen, so why not put our brains to work to find the next best economic system? Are we cave men? Then why are we lettin the people with the biggest clubs run the show?

[djkhaless]

Here's where I stand on this issue...the big problem lies in the generation of our money through the fractional reserve banking system. It's inherently flawed, designed to continue to flood the world with debt until we can take no more. The corporations run the show, and they will do whatever is most profitable regardless of tariffs or homeland incentives (banks of course being at the top of this pyramid).

[TheGiantRobot]

Whoa, Cenk doesn't think high tariffs are good for anybody? Why not? I'm not following his logic at all. This guy is right on.

I think every country should have high tariffs. It's the greatest protection for the working class. The smaller the labor pool, the greater their negotiating power with corporations. This is why huge corporations are fighting for NAFTA and so-called free trade - it allows them to create banana republics, like the U.S. has largely become.

[Tuathalful]

@TheGiantRobot Too right.

[23albanian]

that was a really interesting discussion between what amounted to be determinism(Cenk) and free will (Ian). here is where I agree with Ian in that the US can still get manufacturing jobs and industries back in America. Cenk is very pessimistic and doesn't see that happening. i hope someone influential listens to this Fletcher character, he's got it right.

[Xenite227]

Free trade is a myth anyways. Is it free trade when Wal-Mart forces manufacturers to move over seas to make products cheaper or they want carry their items? Is it free trade when pharmaceutical companies twist and find legal loopholes to keep cheaper generic drugs from coming onto the market? Is it free trade to embargo ethanol from South America where it cost pennies a gallon? Free trade is an illusion, we live in a world where price fixing and collusion is the normal method of business.

[dEdGrimley]

@Xenite227

I kind of agree, and maybe we agree more than I think. I feel that basically, unfettered free trade ultimately leads to consolidated, all-powerful merchant class types, that crush all of their competition, and remain the sole providers of whatever service they look to provide, forming a society much like an aristocracy. And furthermore, to me, a business without any competition is every bit as bad as a state run business. It's as bad as Communism or Fascism.

[up2trix]

@Xenite227 to your first question, yes that's free trade. to all the other questions, no they're not examples of free trade. no economist would say they are. what's your point. you say we live in a world where free trade is an illusion, well its only illusion if people say we have free trade when we don't. when we do have it, it is normally beneficial. price fixing and collusion not free trade, who says they are? free trade is more economically efficient in the long run, so we should promote it.

[Nintendomanwill]

Calling all Lilliputians: this is for you.

Free Trade cannot be extinguished without adopting a form of Interventionism called Mercantilism, explicitly based on tariffing imports to protect local businessmen, implicitly therefore based on political control of commercial profits. How is this 'progressive,' it's progressing the power of State coercers against freedom of choice and wealth. Yes, China keeps its people poor to have more exports but if WEALTH is your goal, free trade is the ONLY way.

[arch8887]

@Nintendomanwill That's nonsense. China is becoming wealthier everyday and the living standards of the Chinese people have never been better. America on the other hand is becoming poorer as any industry and real wealth is stripped away. The living standards of the American people are declining. If you want an economy full of low paying service jobs go for free trade. What's wrong with mercantilism? It worked for America from 1800 until the 1940s.

[johnedwards1968]

Cenk's probably hit on the main point!  America's lack of proper education in science and engineering, is hurting it's economy much more than free trade ever will.

I think Ian Fletcher overvalues the US workforce. There's a significant piece of it, which can only handle industries such as t-shirt manufacture.

I'm from Canada, and we see it first hand. The US does not play fair with it's free trade agreements. If some advantage is given to another country, the US just ignores the agreement!

[shraka]

@johnedwards1968 I don't think it's free trade though. I think it's good that America has endeavoured to take the first step towards free trade, but obviously the rest of the world isn't taking the second step, so perhaps America should take a step back again to protect itself?

[Tuathalful]

@shraka Huh? "Free Trade" in name only. The free trade ideology is an absurd Utopian vision of perfect market in perpetuity. Never has happened and never will. The real world is messy and uneven, history has put some at great advantage or disadvantage. American Free Trade is little more then a cover and detraction for and from the rape and pillage of markets by hungry market seeking capitalists.

[mistacramer]

@Tuathalful

True. Remember Utopia by its name of "Nowhere Land" as well.

[shraka]

@Tuathalful I guess I should look into it some more. I think Free Market is capable of happening, but it's like peace. All sides have to agree to it for it to work.

[johnedwards1968]

@shraka If I honestly believed that America played by the rules they set out, I would agree with you. I've seen them cheat their "free trade" agreements with Canada too many times, to feel that they are a victim of international trade.

That being said, international trade doesn't seem to be a good thing for anybody. 3rd world countries get treated like slave labour, while the traditional industrial nations keep having their livelihood stolen.

I think it's time for us to step back and think!

[shraka]

@johnedwards1968 If that's true (about America not playing by the rules, and I have no reason not to believe you) then that sucks.

I agree on one level that third world countries being used as slave labour is bad, but as money goes to those nations, infrastructure is built and they start to skill up. Eventually the flow of money out of the top GDP countries brings things to equilibrium, and we've seen this happen.

I agree it's not ideal, but at least it eventually uplifts these nations.

[johnedwards1968]

@shraka Re: Slave Labour! I think the concept of fair trade helps your argument, somewhat. I have to agree that they eventually do become more economically viable. For example Mexicans don't sneak into the US anymore, seeking a better living right?

That being said, there are obvious examples of being held back by free trade. Most of Africa is in the shape it is, because of multinationals playing AGAINST the people for resources. To be fair you should take both sides into account.

[shraka]

@johnedwards1968 That's true to an extent, but if you look at the standards of living in Africa they have been steadily going up (though this may well be despite free trade). Mexico's GDP relative to the US has stayed the same since 1940, but it does take time for these things to take effect, and I agree completely that Fair Trade is FAR more ethical than complete Free Trade.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 really? tell that to June Arunga, an economist from Kenya. If Africa imposed protectionism millions of jobs would be destroyed. Freed trade lifts people out of poverty by providing, though not always, decent paying jobs. No one forces workers to work, they choose to work at low wages because the alternative is to not work at all or for an even lower wage.

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo I think you might be twisting the result of free trade with baseless assertions! Do you think goods are necessary in Africa? Do you think they would maybe produce themselves, if they didn't import them?

I just don't think you've thought this through. One assertion from an African economist doesn't change anything! They have free trade AND poverty, so the first is hardly the cure for the latter.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 Right cell phones don't increase productivity for anyone, neither do cars coming from japan or china. Many African nations do impose protectionism also. Okay let's make companies pay workers more. What happens? They leave. Now there are fewer jobs, congratulations.  Read some fucking Friedman or Smith or even von Mises

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo You have got to be joking! How is taking Africa's resources to make cellphones in CHINA helping their economy? How does importing cars from Japan or China help their economy?  Hell, it's destroyed the manufacturing base in the US for crying out loud, so let's not pretend it's done any favors for any country EXCEPT China!

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 People in Africa get them cheaper, and productivity increases. Who benefits from lower costing cars from Japan? WE DO dipshit. Cars become more affordable. Yes people will lose jobs in the short term but will get new ones

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 The real cause of poverty in the developing world is tariff barriers, both those which supposedly protect producers but make things worse by keeping resources in low-return activities such as farming; and those imposed on the developing world by large trading blocs, of which the worst, by far, is the EU.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 The Copenhagen Consensus Center commissioned research by Australian economist Kym Anderson that showed if developing countries cut tariffs by the same proportion as rich countries and services and investment were liberalized, the direct gains from freer trade could be $120 billion a year by 2015, with $17 billion going to the world's poorest countries.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 The indirect benefits, from a faster dispersion of innovation, are far greater. Include those effects and you get an eventual benefit of $500 per year until the year 2100 for each individual in the Third World--nearly half of whom survive on less than $730 a year.

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo That's all pure speculation. You have no evidence for any of that!

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 Really? Hong Kong DOESN'T benefit frome free trade? Poland's liberalization folllowing the end of the soviet union DIDN'T help???

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Of course they benefit from Free Trade! Hong Kong has almost NO domestic production! LOL Do you seriously want to use a country which acts almost exclusively as a port for China as an example of Free Markets? They have domestic Exports of ONLY 1.6 Billion dollars down from 14 billion only 2 years ago! They produce NOTHING!

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 Hong Kong's gross domestic product, between 1961 and 1997, has grown 180 times larger than the former while per capita GDP rose by 87 times. They are an incredibly important economy in the world

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 oh and it has 5% unemploymentand it actually exports over 160 billion and imports over 360 billion

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Hong kong EXPORTS 365 billions, and imports 388 billion according to the numbers I've seen. They're a net trade importer. The fact that their trade numbers are BOTH higher than their GDP should tell you something.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 it's 318 billion TO china, and and imports 347, 160 from china.

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Oh, so you're only looking at trade with China. I was referring to overall trade! This pretty much makes Hong Kong a port economy.

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo Actually your numbers on Hong Kong might be more up to date than mine. My figures are from 2008! Did their economy really shrink by that much?

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 it trades over 650 billion, exports & re-exports around 470 and imports around 340

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 monopolies can only exist through the use of force to limit competition.Now if a company were able to gain and hold a non-coercive monopoly, if it were able to win all the customers in a given field, not by special government-granted privileges, but by sheer productive efficiency—by its ability to keep its costs low and/or to offer a better product than any competitor could—there would be no grounds on which to condemn such a monopoly.

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo You're assumption is that the non-coercive force that induces a monopoly is from the government only. The error in your logic, (and your history by the way) is that companies that are large enough, can coercively force the market to suit themselves. Part of the reason the US has such a large trade deficit with China (even thought it's FAR from the cheapest place to operate) is that Walmart encourages it's suppliers to produce from there.

[oJKBo]

@johnedwards1968 It is correct, they forc it to suit themselves by paying off politicians for regulations that hurt smaller companies. Why is that bad? If Wal-Mart offers higher quality at a lower price that's good. If they raise the price competitors jump on it and we still benefit

[johnedwards1968]

@oJKBo How? Let's say Walmart forces all it's suppliers to supply to them exclusively! There's nothing wrong , or illegal with that, according to Friedman! How do these alternative stores compete with that? There are tonnes of economies that do do this, and they always devolve into monopolies. I don't know how you can blame that on government interference.

Friedman takes an extremist position. And like all extremist positions it's usually wrong.

[up2trix]

@oJKBo yeah but in reality the regulations that are bad for smaller companies mean that walmart can raise their prices due to lack of competition.

[thelittlediablo]

@Shadowclock315 You must accomplish very little in life if you consider posting first or whatever to be something impressive xD

People like you amuse me to no end =3

[kazooga1234]

@Shadowclock315 1st view doenst mean 1st view caz the views update about ever hour and that was caz of view abuse