 All right, so we're gonna shift a little bit and get into talking about regulations So you already covered some of the basics, you know everything about the economy itself. Let's talk about how to screw up the economy Okay, so First things first though, if you don't already follow me on Twitter That's the important part of the lecture So how can we study? regulations Well the common way would be to study statistically look at empirical data And try to figure out okay. Did this cause a a problem or did it make things better, right? So we can capture actual magnitudes so we can just look at Say the unemployment rates we can look at the average wage for people after say we have Increase the minimum wage. Let's see how does wages do wages go up or do they not that sort of thing? Of course with data, we know the data is history Data only tell us what happened at that point in time and they only tell us About that specific situation The other way to do it of course is theoretically as we prefer as Austrians because theoretically we can be very specific and we can tell some tell what would happen universally and It would always be true Right the problem with theory though is that it doesn't tell us anything about magnitudes So we can't say beforehand that oh this minimal wage is going to increase wages by this much Overall, we also cannot say say that unemployment is going to have an effect on these many people This many jobs will be created or destroyed or or forgotten or whatever Right, we can't really get get to this data because that's specific for the situation On the other hand theoretically we can look at what will happen versus what could otherwise happen So we can have a the economic trade-off right look at Either this or that the counterfactual and of course theory will help us Look into the future and see what will be the case So if we look at what mainstream economists do when they study regulations, they of course they have this Fetish for data and empirical analyses So what they do is they they compare and try to figure out excuse me the social cost and the social benefit and the economy overall And they look at the statistics and of course they temper with the statistics a little bit To make sure that it fits the models and things like that So they sort of hypothesize that oh this is what it will look like or if they look at Historical data they say oh this is what happened of course that's the statistics and then they calculate This is what would have happened without this regulation or without this support or what have you okay? The problem here is of course that you can't really be forward-looking and you don't have data About this alternative world. So if you in if you implement a regulation, how do you know what otherwise would have happened? Well, there are some statistical Tools you can use such as synthetic controls is one of those ways which basically means that you create a Statistical entity that is or looks like what are you are actually studying? So if you raise the minimum wage in Texas say maybe you can take the Relevant variables from other states and combine them in a certain way with weights So if they historically look just like Texas and then you assume that oh They will in the future behave just like Texas too And then you enforce this regulation in Texas and real Texas with regulation and then the synthetic Texas without regulation You can't compare the two obviously there are some assumptions involved right a lot of guesswork But what they're really trying to capture of course is the scene and the unseen right because the scene is obvious That's in the statistics. The unseen is not seen obviously and it's also not captured in the statistics But what is missing? Well, what is missing is the long-term effects and unfortunately tend to miss those also in Austrian economics sometimes They also don't have a proper economic theory Some of them might not like me pointing that out, but that's that's true And they have no clue how entrepreneurs make money Because there are no entrepreneurs or as I tell my students at the beginning of an entrepreneurship course I put the economy on the board supply and demand right and I tell him here. Here's the marker. Please point out. Where's the entrepreneur? Well, where can you put the entrepreneur in a an equilibrium system? There's none, right? So Obviously entrepreneurs are not in the picture, but we need Entrepreneurship to understand what are the impacts of regulations and where's the economy heading? How is the economy a process all of these things right? Without a change agent, how can there be change? There is not so of course the mainstream view of the economy is just a static system where nothing really happens There's not even action because we're in equilibrium already So for a proper economic theory and this old gentleman approves We need to recognize that value is subjective that the market is a process and it's not Economics gang sign Entrepreneurship is at the very core entrepreneurship is sort of the creative force in the economy And we need to understand economic calculation Because without economic calculation when you heard Dr. Lerner the first day of me says you economic calculation it Well to put it in technical terms, it's the shit Okay, so how do we then study? Regulations theoretically what does it mean and what can we learn about regulations? Using economic theory proper sound Austrian economic theory well if we We was first defined. What is it a regulation at all? What does it mean when we enforce or implement a regulation? well After that how does it affect human action because human action as you know is at the very core of what makes the economy? So first we need to know what is it? What is the regulation? How does that affect the? the action of people and What about people's value scales? And you've learned about that too, you know what those are right? And then we can start talking about what are the short-term and long-term impacts of regulations on the economy? Because it's not that obvious and Statistics don't really tell us a whole lot about people's actions or their value scales or anything like that, right? So then we can start talking about okay So what is the effect on entrepreneurship on production on economic calculation? questions that mainstream economists don't even ask ask right and Why don't you ask a question that it's obvious because you don't have any answers? Okay, so what I'm gonna do is talk about Regulations sort of contrast them with other forms of destruction because you you might have the the idea that regulations destroy things That's not actually true. So I'm gonna contrast regulations and their impact on the economy with actual destruction And you'll see that destruction is no biggie Okay, so let's take an example Let's assume that there is a city in in Germany somewhere called Dresden Let's assume that someone drops a lot of bombs over the city purely hypothetical Now there's a miracle sort of so these bombs they destroy a whole lot of things basically everything But no one is really harmed so let's get personal harm and death and such things out of the way but The city is just flattened people's homes people's cars machines factories all these things They're gone. Okay, so what happens the next day say the bombing is over. It was just an afternoon bombing so So that wasn't a big thing really What happens? Well, everybody's without a home So what are they gonna do you think they would work harder or just as hard as before When they find themselves without a home Harder, right? They would put in a lot of effort trying to rebuild their homes because Well, we sort of like having a home and the shelter somewhere to live, right? So people get really busy They probably sacrifice a lot of leisure time in order to just rebuild their homes, right? So they've changed their value scales and Building a home Recreating those buildings is very at the very top and we'll get to that This is what Paul Krugman would call economic growth right Because there's a lot of activity a lot of creation that everybody's rebuilding their home Economic growth is awesome lots of jobs Right. No one with a home doesn't matter but lots of jobs lots of stuff going on Of course after they have finished rebuilding Where are they at? Well exactly where they started just before the buying so much for economic growth, right? But Paul Krugman's world it is economic growth okay, so What happens then in Dresden this hypothetical city? Well when they start building all these houses and all these these buildings everywhere Of course, they're gonna have to buy materials and buy tools and whatever else you have Which means that the demand in Dresden increases like crazy Because they're gonna buy everything all over Germany basically, but especially close to Dresden. They're gonna bid up prices so a lot of these materials that were used in neighboring cities and Maybe far away cities as well will be reallocated to Dresden because they would be willing and probably able to pay A whole lot more for them of course this is nothing strange right if you were without a home you'd be willing to Pay quite a bit for some wood and so forth to rebuild your home Right so resources will be shifted into Dresden Probably some businesses will increase their production as well People will work longer hours just to produce the materials so that they these people can rebuild their homes That's pretty obvious stuff right so I hope no one is surprised by this analysis Well, there might be disaster relief and so forth as well Maybe if you're lucky even the government will do something Something productive that is But the thing is with destruction. Yeah, it's a setback But everybody's still pursuing their highest valued ends Which in this case is the lost buildings. They're lost homes, right? They're trying to recreate them Okay, so what do we have them with destruction in this case of bombing? That's definitely destructive We have a temporary loss a setback Right, everybody lost their homes. We didn't lose anything else. We just lost our homes So we lost the wealth that we had but Well, and then and our increased demand for rebuilding these homes because that's highest on our list, right? Bids up prices for the all the materials It also means that all the resources are put to their most highly valued ends Right because these people are really desperate for housing. So of course Resources will shift to where the higher prices are which is for the people to get houses again No, no strange nothing strange about that analysis, right? And of course for people in general that means that Their value scales are perhaps intact. They lost This this end that they were already satisfying home a shelter But now they can continue in their actions and just pursue their highest valued Still unsatisfied end. It's a different end. But in terms of value scales, it's the same thing, right? so it's a temporary shock this follows by Still acting in the same way action is still the same They're still trying to achieve that highest valued end that is remains unsatisfied. Does it make sense? So the structure of action is the same. There's nothing strange going on really So how are regulations different from this? How many of you would say that bombing a city might be worse than regulation? It's your hands. Are you really Austrians? Okay, so Let's look at how regulations are different Of course, I didn't bombing a city and the minor regulation You might think that regulations aren't that bad, but let me show you how From an Austrian perspective, it's really terrible Okay, so a regulation is really a restriction imposed on action So it just says that you cannot do this or you cannot use this means and you cannot pursue this end whatever it is Right, so it's a restriction that is imposed on you. It's nothing you choose yourself, and it's necessarily a restriction That takes that option away from you Why because what is a regulation that doesn't affect you it's ineffective Doesn't cause any change whatsoever. The point of a regulation, of course is to effect change It's intended to change the world Which means it has to affect you in some way, right? It has to affect someone. It's like setting the minimum wage at negative two dollars. Is it an effective regulation? No Unless someone wants to want to work for negative three dollars, but not a whole lot of people want to do that Right, but if you set the minimum wage at a hundred dollars an hour It's gonna be very effective Because a lot of people make less than a hundred dollars an hour Right. I'm not saying it's necessarily efficient or that is good or anything like that I'm just saying it's an effective regulation and the sense that it causes change Right, it has an effect Okay, so it is really a prohibition on certain types of actions or ban on those types of actions Okay For it to be effective it has to be a ban on such actions that are possible So if I tell you that from tomorrow the Brandon administration Is banning hovering in the air Well, okay, you wouldn't be able to do that anyway, so it doesn't matter right for it to be effective It has to be something that you could potentially do right so as I put it here they have to predict private actions that are Physically and economically and formally feasible. That's what makes regulation effective, right? What I'll show you now is that this is not destruction, right? It doesn't destroy anything which is why a lot of politicians prefer regulations, but it's destructive in a sense Okay, so let's look at an example. So let's go back in time to 2006 Beautiful year that most of you probably don't remember at all but let's assume that there's this government agency hypothetical called the CDC and That they're doing great work Saving us from a virus There's some disease that is spread and they think it's because you touch surfaces So they outlaw touch screens That's a regulation right and back believe it or not, but in 2006 there were touch screens Okay, so here is Dr. Anthony iPad Fauci So he is the main regulator in this case, okay So let's do a value scale analysis of what happens in this case here Okay, so there were no iPads of course back in those days But there was this new thing where you could have a thousand songs in your pocket Doesn't sound all that revolutionary. I know not today, but back then it was huge Because most of us were used to using Walkman's and things like that and Walkman is Never mind But you could also have a portable radio and you know what radio is, right? It's like Spotify in their waves Okay, so Without a regulation people would start to buy these iPods right these music players In this case the iPod touch because it was the second next generation sort of iPod where you could actually have it You had a touch screen and you could you could scroll songs and things like that, right? So without a regulation Apple would produce the iPod iPod touch And for whoever has the iPod touch at the high high end of their value scale and It sort of out competes it provides them or they expect to get higher value out of the iPod touch Then from a Walkman and a Walkman is also higher value than they would get from a portable radio With regulation of course there can be no iPod touch because it's we're banned touch screens So you would have to choose the Walkman instead Okay So it will affect whoever wanted to get an iPod touch, which is also the point, right? That's why you regulated this you didn't want anyone to have a touchscreen Okay, already we can see a difference from destruction Because this is not really anymore a one-time loss like bombing of hypothetical city Dresden That happened once and then people started rebuilding No, this is every time that you Wanted to enjoy music You can't have an iPod touch Right every time every time you go to the store to buy a Walkman or a portable radio or something like that You probably wanted to have picked up instead an iPod touch The same thing every time you use your Walkman that you bought instead Like oh man if this had been an iPod touch instead Right, so it's less value every time you use it every day every day every time you commute or whatever it is Okay, so the option to choose that is gone because of your relation Okay now It also means of course that whoever would if you already bought one before the ban If you break it you can't replace it Because they're not allowed to sell and produce them if You wanted to get a next generation Well, that's not gonna be produced. So that's not an option either. Okay, so those values are also gone Every day every time you were basically reminded of this right so until you change your value scale You will have a loss over and over again and this loss between the iPod touch and the Walkman okay, and Of course, you can't rebuild it. That's it. That's what dressed Okay, so This is also a process, right? There's more going on than simply having consumer goods available in Best Buy or whatever There's also a production side. So what we talked about with value scales. That's consumers so on the comes on the producer side Producers are not available and they're not allowed to produce touchscreens So obviously what will they do? Something else So they will shift their efforts and their investments to do something else so whoever had a factory for producing touchscreens well change Whatever needs to be changed in that factor to produce something else Or they might just sell it to get rid of it and maybe there's like scrap value or someone finds another use for it It's a lower value use Right well what that means from a consumer point of view of course is that there's an under production of touchscreens But since we're shifting these investments elsewhere in the economy We get over production of those things Because we would net not get production of those things If we could produce the iPod touch because iPod touch is the higher value or at least entrepreneurs think so, right? so we get under production of the iPod touch and anything touch screenish and We get more over production of other things wherever those This capital is reallocated to Okay Well, this is mal-investment right the whole production apparatus is distorted Depending on of course where where all these resources end up, but we have under investment here and over investment here This is already out of whack with consumers actual wants Like cuz cuz entrepreneurs can't pursue them Is that easy? Okay, so so far you're wondering what the heck is this guy talking about because nothing new really just maybe the little bit different terminology a little different words used but Obvious stuff for Austrians So why does the Mises Institute give this guy time? That's what you're thinking. I can see it okay, so What we have just to summarize is spend some more time Regulations distort the production structure as we saw right under and over investments in different things that are not they actually aligned with consumer wants Regulations cost losses because those options that would have been there the higher valued options in this case the iPod touch It's not gonna be there So we lose that value and whatever difference there is between the iPod touch and the Walkman Is there more? Yeah, there is more The problem here is that what we haven't considered is that the market is a process There's much more to this right and it's not only a process in the sense. Oh, yeah, it's always adjusting a little bit No, it's a process in terms of being cumulative right we talk about capital Being accumulated over time and we're investing in more capital and we're saving and therefore we can have more capital Well, the specificity of capital is changing too, right? Because we're investing in these these machines over here and Then we figure out a way to make a better machine based off of the knowledge that we got from using this machine Right, so we're learning and we're adding to the capital structure based off of what we learned so Very often the product is the result of having tried some other product before which is the result of having tried another product before that and if you search Wikipedia or or Rely on your own memory you would know that the iPod was a success the iPod touch too and That led to creating the iPhone which you might have heard of I mean, this is now it I fall I fall iPhone 35 Is this slab thing that was basically like this, but it cost about three thousand dollars more So the iPhone was possible because of what Apple learned and all the machines and everything like that that they had to create to Produce the iPod touch the iPhone was a success because people really wanted it the iPhone and The experience is from producing the iPhone made the iPad possible and of course So on and so forth right because there are more generations and it's it's a it's an evolutionary process in retrospect with revolutionary revolutionary within our Innovations that cost the process right so This has an effect too on how we study regulations Right because if we ban a certain action at some point, we're not gonna get this process We're not gonna get this cumulative process. It's gonna end right Okay, so the unfolding of the market the whole production structure is going to change Okay, so let's look at the implications of CDC's banning of of the touch screen Okay, so of course no one can continue to Innovate using touch screens whatever Kinds of product they would produce using touch screens no longer possible The resources are instead directed to other types of production not involving touch screens right The knowledge and the competencies the types of jobs and everything like that involved in producing and developing touch screens and evolving touch screens into the Fantastic ones we have today, which are definitely better than what we had back in 2006 Will also not happen So the business is doing this would also not happen Like all those businesses created by to produce the materials used to produce touch screens the factories used to produce the touch screens themselves Specific transportation whatever there is maybe a private university That would educate people in the art of touchscreen production or whatever it is Those things would never happen either Okay, and so forth right all those businesses that would have been created to support these businesses that I just mentioned would also not happen Okay, so this is what I call the unrealized Because all of this did not happen Okay, but it's not simply the scene or the unseen it's not what happened versus what did not happen based off of one change This are the long-term consequences the implications of it right so This how long does this continue for how long will we have a distorted Production structure based off of regulation Well for as long as the regulation is there right and the economy will produce completely different things But those different things will also have support organizations and innovations and entrepreneurs and new jobs and new types of education And so forth right to support those things which are really mal-emessments They're over investments in things that consumers did not actually demand Right starting to see the picture It's pretty nasty If you think about it, right? So structurally speaking what it takes is one regulation That distorts production a little bit To force the whole economy the production structure to become out of whack with what consumers would want Or at least what entrepreneurs would expect consumers to want right so where entrepreneurs if they were allowed to go wherever they wanted To satisfy consumers that would have gone over here, but some regulation just one is all it takes Will cause some entrepreneurs to not go in that direction They will instead choose something that is of a little lesser value or choose not to start a business at all Right and the investment will happen there instead Which of course changes the structure Because there's suddenly more demand for things over here But there should have been over here had entrepreneurs been able to To pursue consumers actual wants Okay now This causes a change to a lot of things that you might not even imagine different types of careers Just one regulation means some careers are gone that are directly related to that regulation in this case So you're a touchscreen engineer of course that job is not gonna exist But then anything else to write anything else that has Something to do with touchscreens or the demand by companies producing touchscreens so maybe Maybe it is the case that touchscreen engineers all of them really like banana vanilla coffee Whatever that is But they're the only ones say so had They've been able to produce touchscreens There would have been a business or a bunch of businesses producing this type of of flavored coffee Without the touchscreen you would not have those jobs you would have not have those companies and coffee would instead go into some other type of production as you can see now The extent of it right? It's not only that you'll be regulated a little bit here And then the rest of it is intact. No, it's not because it has ripple effects throughout the economy Okay So what this does then is that it says to hold economy on a different trajectory and the economy in a sense If you want to think about it is as it process going somewhere. What's going it in a different direction? It's no longer pursuing the value that consumers had at the very top of their lists, right instead some regulation will Change the direction a little bit one way or the other and more regulations would change it even more Of course with each generation of investments You would just Increase this distortion Because you would under invest where consumers would have wanted it and it would over in West Invest where consumers didn't actually want it not as much anyway Right for how long well for as long as this regulation is effective Right because as long as this regulation Bands someone from doing what is at the very top of their value scale Whether it's a producer or a consumer That is lost And instead you get the distortion Okay, so I think now you're seeing the Austrian capital theory economic calculation Austrian entrepreneurship theory how they all go together you can't you can't see the economy You can't understand the economy without all of them, right? But now you're also see you can also see how everything fits together and is Distorted by just a tiny little change right because it changes everything okay, so Let's sum up a little bit so in this economy and let's assume that there is an economy where where there is regulations It's a one of those suboptimal economies So The economic effect is of course that there's distortions All processes are distorted in some way Maybe they're just doing more a little less than otherwise or maybe it's a new process or maybe that process would not exist Right that's different We can also see that destruction It's not really a big deal comparatively speaking right It's a bombing Dresden Destroying everybody's homes. That's gonna change people's actions. It's gonna change the magnitude in the statistics Right then Krugman would wave a flag and say we economic growth Because everybody's Investing all this material in buildings, but is that the very hot the very top of their value scales, right? It's how they can satisfy their their wants most It's a temporary setback But it doesn't change the economy the economy is still structured to satisfy consumers to the greatest extent possible okay, so Bombing no be rent control. Holy crap That's basically what I'm saying right and you can see now why Right because the bombing is temporary and then we can go back to our business and rebuild Rent control for as long as it affects rents. It's gonna have a disastrous effect throughout the economy probably and also as I usually claim What this means is the libertarians Don't they really understand how destructive regulations are Right because if libertarians especially people following the Chicago school when it doesn't matter how much you calculate Magnitudes using the statistics How wrong the economy is or how much is lost in terms of prices? Because that has nothing to do with value still right because that value can be really high and the price is still sort of low So you can't capture the value But even if you capture the prices, you don't capture this you don't capture the distortion You don't capture how the whole economy is out of whack. Okay So even libertarians don't really understand how destructive regulations are so how can we fight them? All right, so The book behind there is so where I elaborate on on these views all these views this theory on Regulations and what that means and there is the red one the new one which is All of you got a free copy right? There's a short summary of it at the very end in the last chapter so You should of course buy the expensive one All right, I'll stop right there and I'll take some questions for Thank you for your lecture. I really enjoyed it. So my question is What does the government get out of implementing destructive regulations? Destructive regulations as compared to what regulations? So, I mean they get control control right They get to Pretend like they are creating a better world Right, so there are plenty of gains for the political class if you will but for consumers as long as we see the economy as a way of creating value for consumers Any regulation is necessarily Detrimental to consumers right and I'm assuming of course that there is private property and all this stuff Right so that entrepreneurs can be real entrepreneurs and that entrepreneurs make money off of selling goods to consumers that consumers want There's no fraud and things like that right so it's pure economic system but politics is sort of the the opposite of of sound economics Would you have a similar effect with subsidies? So instead of like cutting of a value creation path off there instead incentivizing entrepreneurs to take one that and the same way you said isn't actually valued by consumers Can I answer just yes, I mean it's it's exactly the same thing I would say it's just the the opposite right instead of banning a certain action you would You would incentivize it by paying them extra, which is also a distortion of the whole incentive systems throughout the economy If I understood you correctly you said that the negative effects of the regulation go away once the regulation is removed It seems though that the effects of it would still go on permanently because say you have the touchscreen ban in 2006 But I wanted a touchscreen iPod in 2006 just because it's Repealed in 2015 doesn't mean I want a touchscreen anymore. So it seems the negative effects would continue perpetuity The question is do we continue distorting? Right. Yeah. Yeah, that's true So yes, the distortion that has already happened is still there and since the market process is cumulative Of course, it's going to linger But we're not going to reinforce it if the regulation is gone or if people change their value scales So it's ineffective. Hi. I wanted to ask you if any of this logic applies to economic sanctions on the country imposing the sanctions So if this applies to sanctions Yeah, I mean, yeah, sure it affects anyone. Well the country Is a tricky one but whoever is affected by the sanctions. Yes right because it affects Not necessarily everyone directly, but it does affect say exporters in your country and importers in the other country or vice versa And then whoever trades with them so yes Oops, I was gonna ask if We have a lot of regulations in the country right now if you could choose I mean, they're all bad, but if you could choose which regulations to get rid of first, let's say You gotta power which ones would you think need to go go away a right away? Yeah, that does make sense. I Mean I argue that any regulation will distort the economy and the production apparatus, right? So so as long as you have regulations, it's going to be suboptimal Distorted economy, of course, you still have the little issue here in a Money economy where basically one side of each transaction is money If you regulate and screw up money, you're gonna screw up every transaction so getting rid of of Government money and the central bank and then basically the banking system the way it looks there would be a big step forward Right, but it wouldn't solve everything of course, but it would solve some things All right So your explanation works for government regulation like national regulations of the economy But the what would happen if the regulations are imposed by other kind of institution let's say guilds or cartels or International standards organizations. Well, why would it be different? I mean if it's if it is if it is voluntarily adopted by users Then it's in line with our value scales Right, but if it's imposed it doesn't matter who imposes it But if it's imposed on you, then you have those losses and those distortions I mean whether it's the mafia or if you call the mafia the government it doesn't matter Firstly I was coming through your book yesterday, and I admired that your simplistic straightforward writing style but my question is is it possible that a regulation could incite a an entrepreneur to Allocate their resources to invent a more demanded product Yeah, of course But the thing is entrepreneurs invest under uncertainty, right? They are aiming for something that they expect consumers to value really highly So of course, it's possible that the government can subsidize a certain type of entrepreneurship and those entrepreneurs actually strike gold It's possible But why would you choose that method instead of letting entrepreneurs figure it out themselves? Because what you're doing is playing roulette, right? It's the chances the odds of these entrepreneurs who the government has chosen to subsidize Finding even more value than it letting entrepreneurs do it themselves Those chances are really slim. I think it's definitely possible But systematically no My question was going back to the bombing sample It seems that the hypothetical city. Yeah, well you're talking about Regulation and just talking about destruction as well. You're talking about how regulation has these effects on other fields as well But remembering the broken window fallacy fallacy, that's the same thing for the bombing of the city theoretically So why in that situation are destruction regulation different should be in my I think would be the same, right? It is the same in the sense that yes, you have these ripple effects, right? Like I mentioned when when you're rebuilding Dresden, you would have building materials Reallocated from neighborhood cities, right? So you would have those change but the big difference and what makes it a difference is that these changes are to Satisfy the most highly valued Want that remains unsatisfied, right? The buildings the houses the homes for those in Dresden Where as a regulation takes that option away from you So you have still have that want unsatisfied on your list high up, but you can't pursue it But in Dresden you pursue the highest one So just to tease out more of the idea to get a more comprehensive overview One of a potential counter not necessarily the strongest could be canned entrepreneurs Just try to bypass whatever the regulation is and still try to satisfy the same want Sure, and they do all the time, right The issue there is that you have you have artificially Increase the cost for those entrepreneurs, right? So what that means is that they will need to figure out a way to satisfy consumers to an even greater extent to make their Ventures profitable and if they were not, but they would have been the most profitable Otherwise, well then then there's a loss still, right? Are we out of time? All right. Thanks so much