 Welcome back to The FeeCast, your weekly dose of economic thinking from your friends at the Foundation for Economic Education. I am Richard Lawrence and we are here with our panel, as always, our wonderful panel, our glorious and beautiful panel, and smart too. Anna Jane Perrell, Dan Sanchez, and Mary Ann March. And today we're going to be talking about something we've noticed more and more of here in our fair city of Atlanta. On the streets, on the Belt Line, even though they're not supposed to be there, are these things. They are these internet and app-enabled scooters. They go by a couple of brands, at least, birds and limes. And we're seeing more and more of them. In fact, right across the street, by our favorite restaurant, many of our favorite restaurant, a Mexican restaurant, there's always, it seems, one of these scooters out there that I would observe people just kind of walking up to, punching a couple buttons in their phone and then going off and scooting to the next place. Zoom, zoom. What are these things, these limes, these birds? Yeah, so they are, I mean, they are essentially ride-sharing for scooters. But they are, and they so quickly cropped up. So it was, honestly, a matter of weeks ago, the first time I had ever heard of one. And now you're seeing YouTube videos that reference them. You're seeing just really funny kind of cultural saturation about these scooters. So basically, you just hop on. You have an app, like everything in this world now. There's an app for that. Yep. You hop on and you pay basically like a dollar, a mile or whatever. I'm not sure what the actual, you know, charge. I think it's a dollar to unlock it and then like 15 cents a mile or something like that. Yeah, it's super cheap. Yeah. So it's like you end up, I mean, so this weekend I had a friend in town and I was like, let's do a quintessential Atlanta thing, which is get on a bird scooter, which is so weird because again, like this happened so quickly. And all of a sudden, to me, it is such a big part of being in Atlanta is that you see bird scooters everywhere. And that is actually also something that apparently, you know, some metropolitan areas are saying, no, we don't want them here. And bird scooters basically just like dropping them off in the middle of the night. And then people are using them. And it's becoming it really quickly. Like I said, it saturated our culture so quickly, which is interesting to observe. But yeah, so I rode one this weekend. It was terrifying. I am not. Oh, you loved it. Oh, God, no, I am not. I'm not a balance is not my strong skill, not my strongest suit. It was terrifying because you go like 20 miles an hour and I wasn't wearing a helmet. And yeah, now I had one foot close to the ground at all times like this. So you're more of a segue person. Oh, no, I would never. I would never even try a segue. Oh, my God. I only trust my two feet and I fall a lot anyway. So it's yeah, no. Segways are supposed to take over and then they kind of didn't. I think they're pretty much tourist things only at this point. Well, they're huge. They are. And you look dorky. Let's be honest. Oh, yeah. That's what I was kind of saying about the birds. I was like, I think I texted my friend before when I first kind of realized what they were. I was like, I'm popular opinion. Do we all look like nerds when we ride these? And you do. And I was like, I don't want to ride this. Which is how you look cool. I mean, that's a hipster way of looking. That is very true. Where were these when I was in high school, walking home from school, wishing my backpack would turn into a car when there could have just been a scooter on the side of the road? Well, that's what I love about it is the spontaneity of just like you're not planning on taking any kind of transportation. You're walking. Maybe you're walking uphill. You're starting to get really tired. Maybe you're running late and then you see one and it's like, oh, I could get on that right now. And even though, and also just the just seeing, you know, property out there, it's just so interesting that the trust involved that like, OK, well, that looks like something that's eminently steelable and yet no one's stealing it. And that's another point behind this is that they're dockless. So unlike some other types of ride sharing or bike sharing in other cities around the country, they just sit there by themselves. You just walk up to it. They won't work until you activate them. And then as soon as you activate it, you can go. You can leave it anywhere. Right. And so we can think of this as the counterpart to the bike shares, which do have the docks. They are a little more cumbersome. I attempted to use one in DC and from reading on their website, I needed a key. I needed to plan ahead. I was a student. Students don't like to do that. But with the scooters, there's no docks. You just get on go and it's easy. You don't have to return it to a specific place. No hassle. No problem. So we have a couple pieces on our website right now related to this and goes into a little bit more of the entrepreneurial angle of this and some other things as well. Yeah. So we have an article by Tyler Brandt about the electric scooter movement. What's the title of that one? I love it. Sharing economy to electric scootaloo. Yeah. It's a meme. And basically he makes the point that about all the entrepreneurial innovation that went into this because this was a real problem that had to be solved. I mean, a lot of government systems didn't solve these problems and they had to shut down their bike sharing, especially operations because of just rampant theft and rampant vandalism. Baltimore had to shut their docked biking system down because people would just circumvent the security measures of the docks. Just shake them loose. Just shake them loose and then actually ride them and then ride them into the ground. But with these scooters, again, it's just amazing how people, they're just lying around and almost none of them get stolen, partially because they're cheaper, partially because the security isn't about the dock. It's about the wheels itself that the wheels just lock and unlock. It's just kind of like a grocery cart when you go to Target or something like that. That kind of technology, which those ride sharing bikes don't have. Right. Right. So I think shopping markets kind of pioneered this idea of like, okay, well, we don't want our shopping cart stolen. So they'll put this system where as soon as the shopping cart gets like far enough away from the store, then the wheels will lock. But instead of being location-based, that these are time-based, that you pay to unlock it and it stays unlocked for, I'm not sure if it's a certain amount of time or a certain amount of revolutions. You just keep basically, it's like being in a taxi in the sense that like you just ride and ride and ride and it charges you and charges you and charges you. And when you stop, but it basically like they'll do the dollar and that's why that's how it unlocks and then you get going and then it just continually charges you. So you just kind of make it easier for people to pay to use than it would be to rig it to steel. Yeah. Whereas we're seeing in cities like Chicago where half the fleets are being stolen from the operators of the bike shares and you just make it easy and why would I bother to try to bypass the GPS and fix the wheels when I could just give them a dollar or two? Yeah. It's seriously, it's so cheap and it is super easy. Like just getting on the app the first time took me like two seconds. So it is, there's definitely that like decreased barrier to actually using it that I think would make stealing it less valuable. Anna-Jane, you were saying in our pre-production meeting that the birds need to be turned in and off by a certain time opposed to the lines. Yes. So I have a friend who's actually, he is applying to be a bird catcher, which is what they're called when they, so basically the other question is we just kind of see them all over the city. Where do they go? What do they do? Like who takes care of them? Bird catchers collect. There actually is a GPS where you see where all the birds are in the city. This is a part of the app as well. So you know, you do come upon birds organically, but you can also search, you can search for birds if you want to use one or if you are a bird catcher. So at night, at something like 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., the birds shut off. So they won't work even if you try to pay. So they shut off and then people collect them and they bring them back to the bird basically like warehouse where they're kept and they're charged. And then they're actually bird catchers are incentivized to find hard to find birds or birds that are in unpopular places because the longer a bird has been standing still and not being used, the more valuable it is to the bird catcher. And so basically it is a really cool way for profit to encourage people or incentivize people to, what am I saying, to relocate the bird to a popular place. Yeah, so these bird catchers move them either to a new place or back to the bird cage where they can be deployed later on. The bird cage, yeah. And so this is an interesting topic because obviously like Marianne, you just mentioned the city bikes, these rides sharing bikes in places like Chicago where I was reading, or I was in Chicago actually a couple weeks ago and I was thinking, wow, they're really popular because none of them were at the docks. And then I thought, well, maybe they were stolen. In fact, I was looking up a little bit and in fact, in many of these cities, they are being stolen. In New York, they're actually in DC. In New York, I was reading that they're being stolen so often and the value of each one of these bikes is about $1,200 which makes each theft a felony. And so the New York police department is actually trying to get the bikes to be lower in value under $1,000 so that when they're stolen, they can only be misdemeanors. So it helps their crime statistics and everything else. I just thought that was a funny thing. But let's contrast the problem that these scooters solved, transit, right, with what public transit is supposed to solve, right? I mean, because ostensibly, this is the reason we have buses, this is the reason we have trains, is to address these transit issues that people have. Well, I think that also, I don't know if this is, so the problem that has been identified by these kinds of companies, and I don't know exact terminology but they call it something to the effect of last leg problem. It's last mile. Last mile problem, yeah. So it is kind of, okay, public transit can get us to, you know, to a regular stop that people frequent but I want to get just five blocks down the road. Right. And that's the problem that it's solving for people. And so do we think that it could be solved? I mean, that's a market solution. That is a private solution. Is public transit supposed to solve that problem for us? And I think it's just so interesting to contrast with public transit and how filthy public transit often is and how the New York subway system is always on fire and how filthy public bathrooms are, for example, that again, that when there's private ownership, then there's every incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate ways of making their property secure, of preserving it, of caring for it and enforcing it so that it doesn't allow other people to steal or vandalize it. Whereas with public resources, so often that things just fall into disrepair, get stolen, don't get maintained. Well, we are going to segue into a deeper conversation about those incentives about public property versus private property and the rights that are attendant. But we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back. Hi, I'm Sean Malone, director of media for fee.org. Of course, you already know about fees, incredible articles and written content, but did you know that you can also watch our fantastic videos and listen to our podcast at our website as well? Visit fee.org slash shows to get the latest content from the series you love, such as Out of Frame, Common Sense Soapbox, How We Thrive, The Words and Numbers Podcast, and, of course, The FeeCast. Once again, that's fee.org slash shows for more great content like this. Thanks for watching. Welcome back to The FeeCast. We were talking before the break about how private ownership actually differentiates these scooters from other forms of urban transit that we have. Yeah, and private ownership is really what incentivizes the owners to come up with innovative solutions of maintaining them, of making sure that they're taken care of and that they don't get stolen and that they don't get worn down. And property rights has been a really important topic of philosophy, even going back to Aristotle. Aristotle had once written, that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. And he was writing that in opposition to his teacher, Plato, who was basically advocating communism among the elites in his utopia. And this is one of the first times in literature where someone is saying like, okay, wait a minute, would that even work? And Aristotle pointed out that if you have common ownership, that people don't have an incentive to care for it. And it's when you have private ownership that there is. It's just like, I mean, it's like the dishwasher at feet at our work. Like, you know, I mean, the common ownership. I wonder if you were going to bring that up. I mean, we struggle with that every week. That's the tragedy of the comments, right? It is, yeah. The tragedy of the commons is the most common, yeah, most common way to refer to it, but it is, it's the dishwasher problem. It is if you have a shared good like a public restroom, right? It's nobody, the most people that own something, the less somebody cares about it, or the less we individually care about taking care of it. If everybody owns something, no one does. Yes. And it all falls to ruin. So typically when you talk about the tragedy, the commons, the example that people will use is having a shared resource such as, if we were all sheep farmers, there's a common pasture where we can all take our animals to graze. And what happens is that we each try to reap the greatest amount of benefit from that resource. And so what ends up happening is that plot of land gets overgrazed because we're all bringing our sheep and nobody's thinking to grow more grass. That's right. We do these exercises sometimes at our fee seminars where we actually have a game where we actually try to see how people react to fishing, right? So very similarly to grazing. But if you over fish an area, you deplete its population so they can't reproduce. And so there are no more fish. Yeah, I did some work on this in college actually talking about resource management using property rights versus kind of public ownership of land. And I mean, there are obviously caveats to that and specific things like sufficiently small as a concept like we talked about last week. But I think that it's a really interesting idea that private ownership does incentivize, just like with the scooters, it incentivizes security of those scooters. It incentivizes the maintenance of those scooters and also incentivizes access. I think that's really important to understand when you juxtapose it with public transit is that we can try and create a bus system that accesses the most common areas. But when you use the market, which is what birds do, they are relocated by motivated people who are motivated by profit. They're relocated to more popular areas at night. And it's like that, so access alone. It's like this market motivation to make things more accessible to people. The popular areas change. The popular area this month won't be the popular area next month, so having a bus stop everywhere just isn't a reasonable solution. So let's get more into the motivating factors behind all of this. We have someone who is a little more recent in the world, John Locke, who we also have on our Wall of Heroes down in our office. What did John Locke have to say about private property? So John Locke is known as the father of liberalism, or what we know today as libertarianism. Or classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, right. And he had a big influence on the Declaration of Independence, for example. So the line that individuals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that's derived from Locke's formulation, which was actually life, liberty, and estate, whereas it's often translated as property. But he actually thought of all of those three things as property. So his notion is that we have a right of self-ownership, that we own our bodies, and that we have a right to use our bodies to labor, to sustain our lives. And his way of thinking of property rights in external goods is that when we mix our labor with the land, with nature, that we are infusing those resources with part of ourselves, with part of our personality. And so we transfer the self-ownership, then becomes ownership of that resource. And that's one way of formulating it. David Hume had another way of formulating it. He focused more on scarcity, on the fact that resources and goods are scarce, and that you have to determine that if I use this iPad, then Anna Jane can't use the iPad at the same time. And so there has to be some sort of rules for how to allocate those resources just for conflict avoidance, so that we're not having a tug of war over the iPad. Well, we tend to think of property rights as kind of being a bundle of rights. We have the right to take an income from that. We also have the right to exclude people, and then we are also able to transfer to one another, and we're able to enforce our property rights. Absolutely. Absolutely. And so what you're basically saying, Dan, what Locke's formulation of property was, labor interacting with material creates something that is properly owned by the person who created it. Right. So if you go back to the scooters, I mean, the scooters are made up of certain materials that they're, I don't know what they're made of, probably aluminum and some steel and plastic, which originally came from petroleum from the ground, and all of these were originally just in nature. They were just part of nature. But then someone at some point mixed their labor with it. Someone mined the aluminum or drilled up the petroleum. And by doing that, they've sort of like imprinted their personality on that resource. Humans would say that they actually brought it into use for the first time. And so that gives them the right to dispose of it, which makes sense because if you grant the person who actually brings it into human use, the exclusive right to use that, then you incentivize people to do that, that you incentivize people to bring resources out of nature and into human use. Well, that was going to be my next question. Why do property rights matter? Not only maybe the moral thing to do, the ethical thing to recognize that maybe somebody put their labor, their blood, sweat, and tears into creating something and therefore have property in that thing. But why else does property matter? Firm, strong, divestible, defensible property rights? I think it also incentivizes people to put the most productive use of the property into effect, that it incentivizes them to trade with other people because a big important part of it is not just that you are free to do whatever productive activities you want with your resource, but that you have the right to transfer it to someone else in exchange for what they would like to trade for it. And then that creates the division of labor where we're all connected in trade networks, where we're all producing together, which is much more productive than isolated labor. When I do a game at seminars with our high school students, called the Trading Game, and it is our classic game, and it is something I always say at the end is, all right, it's basically students are given bags of goods, candy, and toys and stuff, and they trade. But at the end, I always say, okay, guys, everybody give me all your toys and candy back. That was fun. Now we're done with the activity, and they're all like, what? Like, no, we want our candy back. And that's kind of the last kind of lesson we go over is, okay, if I told you at the beginning of this activity, if I was going to have to take everything back, what would happen? And they always say, well, then I wouldn't have traded. I would have just sat in my seat, and I don't care what candy I have in my bag because it's not mine. And it's a stabilizing force in society that when we know that the work we put into something isn't just going to disappear the next day. Well, and some people would say, aside from sort of all the benefits that we've mentioned, that property might not always be the best thing to have. Some people who might identify as socialists or communists might say private property isn't necessary for all these things. It doesn't necessarily have to be there to drive people to find productive uses for their resources or materials or behavior. What would you say to that? Well, actually in America, there was an experiment with that kind of communal ownership with, I think it was the pilgrims. I think it was originally the pilgrims, and it was the labor that they put into their crops that then the crops just went into a common storehouse, and then it was just redistributed. And so it didn't matter how much work you put into your crop, you got the same regardless. And very predictably, that caused people to shirk that if there's a great quote by another Greek philosopher called Democratus where he said, income from communally held property gives less pleasure and the expenditure less pain. So it incentivizes everyone to extract as much value as they can. Overconsumption. Right, from the resource and to put in as little work as they can into maintaining and making the resource productive. But then once they abandoned that experiment and went back to the traditional private property of you reap what you sow, then productivity skyrocketed. And thanks to their discovery of the importance of private property and the incentives that come with them, we now have Thanksgiving dinners with lots and lots of sides and corn and all sorts of other things that we enjoy eating. So we're going to come back. We're going to talk a little bit more about private property after we get back from these brief messages. Oh boy, you know, starting out in the music business or just any business, you have to have the carrot dangling. You have to know what your goals are. I think if anybody goes in without a goal, you're pretty much doomed. This is a family business. My daughters, my son-in-law, my brother. We can't walk away from this. This is not something we're going to walk away from. This is something we pass on. I mean, you're always going to run into the wall. It's just, can you figure out how to go under it, around it, over it? That makes for longevity of a business. You can't give up. You just don't let yourself give up. Watch Mama Gold Tone and more documentaries about women in business in our How We Thrive series at fee.org slash shows. Welcome back to the final segment of Ye Olde Fee Cast. We've been talking about property rights, the importance they're in, as well as maybe some of the history thereof. And we wanted to talk a little bit more now about maybe the limits of property rights. And AJ, you actually were telling us before the show of a recent book that you read that kind of began to think about the limits. Yeah, well, I was, I love David Sedaris. He makes me laugh. I've been a fan of him. He's a native North Carolinian memoirist. He's hilarious. He recently published a book called Calypso. There is an essay in it called Stepping Out. And it was originally published in the, I believe the New Yorker. We're gonna have the link in the show notes. So it's definitely worth a read. But he talks about how he gets his OCD and he starts using his Fitbit and he gets up to like 65,000 steps a day, which is insane. But one of the ways that this is made possible for him is that he lives in kind of the countryside in England and it's apparently a very common activity, much like biking or walking your dog would be long distance walking or what they call in England, roaming, is very popular there. And then I happened to be listening to a podcast about, I think it was the history of the movement that's related to that roaming concept in England. What they call it is the right to roam, which is like, I mean, they really truly believe it's a part of their value system in England that we have a right to walk wherever we choose and that's a part of us as English people is this roaming, this penchant for roaming. And so what that translates to now is, I think it was like the 2000, I forgot what the act is called, but it's basically like the right to walk on people's land. It really just says, yeah, you're allowed to walk on private estates, as long as you are just trying to get from point A to point B, that you don't basically stop in people's houses and you don't mess with their crops and things like that. But yeah, you can basically just wander on, I think this podcast was talking about somebody was walking on Madonna's estate in England. So it's like things like that where you can just walk on people's private property. And so I was so curious about kind of their national pride in the right to other people's land, essentially. So I don't know, yeah, it had me thinking, what's the limitation there in juxtaposing it with what we have in America, I mean, we really do care about property rights here. Is the right to walk on somebody's land, I guess, which is which, should we have a right to our land and say you are not allowed to be here or should we have a right to walk on people's land? People are just trying to go somewhere. I mean, I think there's an argument that those two are not mutually compatible, that like you either have one or the other. Because to the extent that someone has the right to walk on their property, to that extent it's not really their property. Because then in the extreme example, what if they wanted to be walking like in that spot right then and there? Or in the more likely example, what if they just want to be able to look out their window and see nature without strangers walking on. I mean, that is a use of their property and that's one of the reasons people buy and cultivate and own property. And so it just reminds me of this right to roam, it just sounds like a positive right. Like around the New Deal era, people talked about the right to three square meals a day and now they're talking about the right to health care. So that's what philosophers call a positive right, which is a right to be provided something as opposed to a negative right which is a right to be free of something. So property rights are negative rights because it's the right to not be stolen from or to not be murdered, for example. So it's like a protective right versus like, I guess I don't know what the opposite of that, but basically it's like protecting what you already have versus being given something or... Right, but to the extent that someone has a right to health care or a right to three square meals a day, then to that extent then other people are forced to either provide it or fund it. And so that infringes on their property rights of owning the money that they earned or in the case of if it was a farmer who was forced to provide it of owning their crops and their labor and their land. So this is very interesting. This right to roam, this sort of local tradition in England may be unique to them, but it's not the only example that we can think of where property rights are restricted, right? So one way in which you might conceive of a restriction or a limitation on property rights is as an easement, right? Where someone, not the owner, has property in that parcel of land or property, the real estate, right? And so basically the right to roam creates an easement over all of England that says, so long as you're not disturbing the use or the enjoyment, I guess broadly construed of this property, then you should be fine to roam on it, right? But there are other examples other than easements where property rights are limited. Yeah, but I think easements can be integrated with property rights because there has been theoretical work on this where people talk about like, okay, let's say that someone has been using this as a path before the owner started developing this land. And so let's say that these people have already been walking along this path and they haven't been doing other things with it, just walking. Well, since they came first, they've established the right to walk on that. They haven't established the right to prevent other people from doing compatible things with that same area, but they were there first and so they've established what they call an easement. They've homesteaded it in the Lockean sense. They've mixed their labor with the material of the land. There are actually other conversations happening now along those very same lines. In California, for example, there's a law that provides that people should have a right to the coastline and many wealthy people and subdivisions containing wealthy people have property along the coastline and so they're fighting to see if maybe they can prevent people from just entering onto what they consider and what the legal document says is their beach. Well, it's interesting this idea of roaming because I can't be reasonably expected to own every square foot of land that I might need to walk on. I can't own every mile that I need to travel by car or even just swim across the lake. I don't own that lake or to fly on an airplane. I don't own that air necessarily. So we have a system, it's usually a barter system of pay to use, but I think it's interesting because specifically when you talk about water rights, like you were, Richard, there's kind of two main ways that we think about water being owned in the states at least. There's riparian rights, which are more common to the East Coast where if it's next to your property, you basically get the right to it and on the West Coast, it's more of a first use kind of case prior appropriation is what it's called and that's kind of a first come, first served establishment of property rights, but it definitely gets a little murky when you start delving into these specific areas of property rights. And murky not just on water property as well. So there are a couple other limitations that we might hear about in the news or experience ourselves and one of them is eminent domain and this is of course the concept where the government can actually seize private property, pay the owner what they believe to be just compensation and then use that land for any sort of broadly stated public purpose. Yeah, and originally it was largely for government purposes such as building a highway. Right, right. That's what I think of when I think of eminent domain is the roads, it's the roads that we're building. But then famously in a situation where there was a Supreme Court case Kilo versus New London, one government did eminent domain to take someone's house in order to give the property to a corporation, to a private company, arguing that, okay, well the tax revenue that will come from this, that that's a public use. Has eminent domain been used to justify maybe like land purchases around like stadiums? I assume yes. Oh yeah, oh yeah. Okay. Even if it's a private stadium of course. Oh it's always, that's the problem with the stadium situation. It's usually a private. The public use is of course, you know, you get at this new economic development, a lot of new jobs and that was what the Supreme Court ratified. A lot of new jobs. Exactly. And who's to say whether they actually materialize or they're not a net loss on the community. But there are other limitations on private property as well. There are things such as regulatory takings and that is sort of the notion that if you have an endangered species on your land, even if you own it, you can't build onto that land because you would risk disturbing that particular species. Yeah, to that point, the development that the kilo versus New London taking was for never actually happened. Right, right, it's just an empty lot there. I think Pfizer was actually interested in getting that but they never actually did anything. And of course, Suzette Kila who has this little pink house which has been made into a film by the way. I encourage everyone to see Little Pink House. It's all about this story. She's out of her home. She's gone. She no longer lives where she wanted to live. Interesting. I think that for some reason I hear that story and I think that some people might anti-capitalist people would say, well that's Pfizer's fault, not the government's fault. You know what I mean? That's an interesting thing is I feel like I've seen Little Pink House like tossed around in multiple communities that I observe and interact with on Facebook and whatever and I think that it's to me like two different arguments for the same experience that people would say, well that's capitalism is the problem there. Well if you don't have the government going along with it, it's fact. Yes, and that's exactly what I was like, well I mean really the power that's being wielded is not by Pfizer, it's by, yeah. So when you were talking about the right to Rome it reminded me I was eating at Ikea. Not exactly fine dining. But delicious. And I saw this, you know they have Swedish words for everything there and they had this one ad that was Elemenstraten which is the principle allowing Swedes to roam freely in nature. That's also the name we chose for our meatballs, mashed potatoes, cream sauce. Sweden's number one dish because just like nature we believe that all should have access to and enjoy it anytime. To us Elemenstraten is everyone's right to forest field and a fine meal of meatballs. But again it just raises this whole notion of like how can everyone have a right to a fine meal of meatballs because a meal of meatballs is a scarce good. If I eat it then you can't eat it. And the labor that goes into, and the land that goes into. And the meat. And everything that goes into making a meatball is not, yeah it's not, it is scarce. So everyone's right to something that is scarce is impossible to enforce. Well even if our audience can't go out on any private property that they find this weekend maybe everyone should go have a walk. Everyone should go have some Elemenstraten from Ikea. Maybe try a bird or a lime. And we'll see them next week on The Feast.