 The OECD stimulus programs basically break down to spending tomorrow's money on yesterday's factories for today's workers. And so this brings us to something of a protectionist problem. Generally speaking, though, stimulus programs are effective. I'm sure I surprise no one when I say that there's a very strong positive correlation between jobs and GDP. Yes, that's right, especially here in the U.S., it's almost perfect. And so if you look at what the jobs numbers implied about GDP in the third quarter, they implied a 0.4 percent gain, it was 2.2 percent. In fourth quarter, a negative 0.2 percent loss, and it was 5.7 percent positive. Stimulus works. Clearly, it may not stimulate jobs, and there's an implication. The real question is whether or not these sorts of protectionist outgrowths of spending on your own economy block trade that might long-term be a road to faster recovery. And we're not there yet, so this is sort of a look ahead, certainly not a prediction so much as a what-if. In the post-Copenhagen carbon compliance world, there is a question. If global federalism didn't deliver us into a post-Kyoto single treaty world, is trade and tariff-based compliance where we're going to go? Are we going to tax other countries' stuff, or are we going to penalize other countries for the way they behave by taxing non-energy stuff? Big question. The lack of access to credit has affected the energy end user in a way that I think isn't well appreciated yet. The demand recovery here in the U.S., if you look at this recovery, and we're looking at jobs now relative to energy, is about 15 percent flatter. So the number of BTUs consumed on average per new job recovered in the economy, 15 percent flatter than the last recovery. Why? Our hypothesis is that the end user of energy in this country, and the OCD in general, is having a harder time borrowing. It's making it harder to use more energy discretionarily. So what you have in this protectionist question is, nations are now competing for a smaller global market, at least temporarily, and a less fulfilling pie if the curve grows. So what can we see with this end theory? The ITCs in this country are for an origin agnostic solar product. The PTCs are for origin agnostic wind products. But you heard today, David Sandelow, talk about extending the manufacturing credit for stuff that's made here. Is this a bellwether of perhaps policy changes to come?