 Welcome back to the FeeCast. We are here again after another week of interesting news and ideas to talk about that news and ideas through the economic lens. And with me today, I'm Richard Lawrence, of course, is Brittany Hunter, Dan Sanchez, and our very special guest Anna Jane Perrell joining us this week. And we're going to be talking about some interesting things this week because, as there always is, discussion about the isms, the deadly and not so deadly isms. We're talking, of course, of political labels. Everyone always wants to throw around labels, identifying themselves as either a socialist or a communist or maybe a liberal, maybe a progressive, even libertarian, conservative, all these labels go around all the time. But we thought we'd take a moment this time and actually go through what exactly these labels actually mean. And so we're going to be taking three labels and talking about them a little bit here. And the first label that we've chosen today to talk about is liberalism. And I think this is a really interesting one to start with, because it's actually changed quite a bit in meaning over the past couple of centuries. And so as with anything, when you want to know the definition of a word, where do you go? Wikipedia, Wikipedia, I went to Miriam Webster Classic, because it can't be edited as easily. And so people can't alter all right, all right, you kind of have to go through that committee of overlords who actually decide what the definition of a word is. Well, according to Miriam Webster, liberalism is in the top 10% of words, by the way, which is very interesting. liberalism is a theory in economics, emphasizing individual freedom from restraint, and usually based on free competition, the self regulating market, and the gold standard. Now that is definition to be to a has to do with Protestantism, we're not really talking about that here today. To see for liberalism is a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and on autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. So this is a little I saw a little bit of befuddlement in faces here, because I think this may be the reverse of what we expected it might be. What would you say liberalism is? I thought it would be what we call progressivism, I guess I when I think of liberalism and all my friends that subscribe to that or call themselves liberals, they're all Obama supporters or even Bernie Sanders supporters, but they're definitely not on the free market end of the political right so that gold standard I didn't know gold standard would come into any sort of definition that you see, but yeah, so that's kind of strange. If this could actually hyperlink me, I could press on gold standard because it says see gold standard. Did you just try to press on it? I did. And I'm sure our sound guys are going to hate me for doing that because I'm pressing on things and making sounds. But no, I actually was surprised that the first definition for political liberalism was more of a classical liberalism. This makes sense chronologically, because that is what liberalism meant when it first became a political ideology word. It really did mean belief in the free market and in individual liberty in general, but then especially over the course of the 20th century and especially in America, it started to evolve to mean the opposite in a lot of ways, that it was deep skepticism towards the free market and in a lot of ways skepticism towards individual liberty. It's not quite the case in Europe and South America as much. When people say liberal in there, oftentimes they mean what we used to mean in the 19th century. You're saying that in other countries classical liberalism, which is definitely different than I toss around the concept of liberal. So you're saying that that is actually still commonly when we talk about liberals in other countries. It's still referring to that kind of traditional or founding idea of liberalism rather than the way that we use it in this century. Yes, and I think part of that might be because liberalism, I don't know if it was ever very much of a word in America, because it's just what everybody was. Everybody just believed in freedom and so they didn't even need a word for that. But liberalism was the doctrine of our founding fathers. There's a certain strain of thought that says conservatives, who in many cases today consider themselves to be classical liberals, are conserving the classical liberalism of the founding of the country. That's why I learned it in college. We were conserving the ways of the past where the liberals were trying to free themselves from capitalism. I did not know the origin of conservative. And conservative and liberal in the U.S. totally different. They're totally in tension now. But you wrote a piece on this. I did on specifically Mises' definition of liberalism, which of course is the definition 2A, or whatever the first one said, which is more one of autonomy, individual rights, individual liberty, and free market competition. And Mises, of course, is the famous economist of the Austrian school. He got father of the Austrian school of economics. And he wrote that in the 20s. And even then he was remarking that when people use this word that he'd named his book liberalism, but he had to, at the beginning, set out that even now people mean opposite. And it was really kind of ironic because it was sort of the conservatives were actually enemies of the liberals in terms of the free market liberals, especially in England. And so Herbert Spencer talked about how it's just weird that these people who are calling themselves liberals, that really what they're what he called the new Tories, that they're like the conservatives of old because the Tories were representatives of aristocratic privilege and especially the economic privilege of the aristocracy. In Britain. In Britain. But then the new Tories he called were they were they wanted the same government intervention that the old Tories wanted, but for the sake of the people instead of the sake of the aristocracy. And to your earlier point, we were talking about the way liberalism the word is used in different countries liberalism was actually written in German. Correct. Yes. So it actually, I mean, that could have had a whole different meeting there than maybe it did at the same time here. That's true. He probably had to have extra specifics for his American audience. I'm really curious about the I guess the evolution of why do we and this is a very specific to American culture. Why do we use like liberals that we think of as very kind of, I mean, for lack of a better way to think about it left leaning in the political scale. Where the evolution of that word, I mean, from what it meant in classical liberalism to what it means now. I'm just super curious. And I was kind of when you were reading, I think it's to see or whichever the last definition, you kind of talk a lot about like human flourishing. Sure. Those ideas that I think transcend left and right political spectrum concepts. So maybe that's part of it is that, you know, there's this underlying respect for human dignity that comes from the liberal perspective that may speak to and inform the evolution of that word. It might be. I don't know. But I do want to move on because what you referred to there was a time in the 20th century when this word actually changed in the progressive era. And that was the next term that I was going to get to, which is actually FYI in the bottom 30% of words on Miriam Webster. What are these percentages? You mean in terms of? Like popularity. Popularity of use. So liberalism, top 10% popular. I guess 10. Across English usage? Whoever's using. Got a lot of questions about these percentages. Probably the dictionary. I bet who's using the dictionary, what they're searching for. So progressivism is in the bottom 30%. Definition of progressivism here. And this doesn't really help us. The principles, beliefs and practices of progressives. So of course I went to progressive. One that is progressive. Okay, that's easy. No. One believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by government action. Which is entirely the opposite of the liberalism definition you just read. Right. And so you're exactly right. And so when this word became popular in the late 19th century, early 20th century, the progressive movement began. And it didn't exactly 100% flourish. There were a lot of things that stood in its way. Then I believe liberalism actually became sort of co-opted, the term, by the progressives. Is that right, Danny? Yeah. And the way Herbert Spencer explained it is that basically people who called themselves liberals, what classical liberalism was always about was human flourishing for the masses. But the means to that end was liberty. Right. And the way Herbert Spencer explains it is that well then people only became concerned about the ends and they wanted a more direct route to those ends. And no more direct route than the one entity that can do it all, which is government. Exactly. Who is the greatest enemy of the individual, which is the whole point of original liberalism. So it's, yeah. And progressive is interesting because it kind of, sort of the antithesis of progressive is reactionary. So it's almost like this idea of history marching on towards like a predetermined destiny. What do you mean by that? When you say progressivism is the antithesis to reaction, what are you saying? So the idea is that reactionaries are people who are reacting to movements towards progress, especially movements that take away their privileges. So the original reactionaries were the aristocrats who had special economic privileges that the land was tied to their families and certain people were serfs and they were tied to work for these families. And so when the liberals started breaking that down, and so the original reactionaries were the people who were saying, wait a minute, what about all of our special privileges? We want to keep them. And then, especially as socialism became an ideal, then the word reactionary started meaning economic royalists, so people who wanted to keep their privileges of just retaining their own property and being free to do what they want. Okay, so let's say it was an elite perspective and then it became kind of, it was not co-opted. You're saying that it was then applied to people who just wanted to keep their property? Yes. So we're going to talk more about this. Danny and Brittany are just welts of information about this. We've got another big definition that we're going to get into in just a second, but we're going to take a quick break and we'll see you after that. One year ago, over 700 students, scholars, philanthropists, and business leaders from five continents gathered in Atlanta for a brand new, one-of-a-kind event, FICON. But get ready. This year is going to be even bigger. At FICON, we celebrate inspiring entrepreneurs, innovators, and wealth creators while helping you set your own path to personal and professional success. And it was awesome. All around it's been like a vacation. It will become a must-event event next year as well. I'm not going to wait for my invitation. I'm going to invite myself, I guess. With FICON 2018, FI is taking the conference experience to a whole new level. With eight incredible tracks, more than 50 jam-packed sessions featuring over 100 electrifying speakers and vast networking opportunities. FICON 2018 is sure to offer an unforgettable experience for everyone. It's the must-attend event this summer, and it's all happening at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in beautiful downtown Atlanta from June 7th through 9th. Available tickets are going fast, so register now at FICON.org and find out how you can set your path and change the world. Welcome back to The FICAST. We were talking before the break about progressivism, of course, and liberalism. And now we want to go into a different definition, a different word, because this is a word, I think, that's misused a lot as well. And this word so happens to be in the top 1% of look-ups on Mary and Webster, which is interesting, and that word is socialism. And we hear that word bandied about in all sorts of different contexts today. And this word actually doesn't have that much difference across the pond, as it were. It is used pretty similarly here in the U.S. and down in Latin America and over in Europe, over in Africa and Asia. And Australia pretty much everywhere has the same conception of socialism, even though the popular conception may be a little bit different. And so the definition of socialism, according to Mary and Webster, is one of the political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. And then 2A is a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. So it kind of gets into the means of production, the economic side, as well as sort of the rule of law, who can own property. One thing it didn't say that surprised me is social justice, which I hear so many of my socialist friends say, which, it's about equality for all. I didn't hear that mention. It was really more focused on, which surprised me that it's about specifically the means of production, which I did not anticipate seeing in a definition like that, because I think that we think about things like caring about others and equality as socialism. Absolutely. And the goods and services that we as a government decide to give people, really what's defining about socialism, at least it sounds like, is it's what the government owns, or what you don't own. And I think that was another evolution because of how history played out, because what happened is that socialism became an obvious failure, and it became even obvious to a lot of socialists. And so, whereas the Marxists, they would stress the economic aspect, and especially government ownership of the means of production. But as it became obvious that around the world, that the socialist economies were doing very badly, and people were really suffering and starving even, that then they started to emphasize sort of more of the cultural aspects and less the economic aspects. That's dangerous. Somebody who's an economic socialist, or somebody who's a social socialist, or cares more about people or money. I don't know if social socialists even exist, because if you're looking at it in the correct light, it's totally economic. And so Danny mentioned Marx, right? Carl Marx, of course, the author of the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, ostensibly, I think people sometimes refer to him as the person who invented the term capitalism. I'm not entirely sure that's correct. But he, of course, had an anniversary recently, so people are talking about him a lot. Is it the 200th anniversary of his birth? It was last week, or the week before. And he's referred to, actually, in definition three, which is socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism. It's the pre-stage, right? It's right before they take over everything. Well, if you get to full communism, which is a term that you get to hear about a lot when you're talking to folks, going full communism, then you have no government at all, right? It's basically anarchy of the proletariat, of the working class, right? On paper. On paper. So socialism as a stage in Marxist theories, the only stage that socialist or communist countries have ever actually gotten to, socialism by itself is not welfare statism. It's not big government providing good services to people or services at all. It is simply when government begins to own the means of production. It is an economic theory. Yeah, and I think that that's really the definition that, I mean, that just understanding the difference between, yeah, it's not what it's providing, it's what it owns. That's what matters. And that's really the definition of socialism. Because I think that we, and it's like means or ends, right? And I think that when we talk about it, at least in my common cultural context, it is very much the means. What is the government giving us? I want socialism because I believe in, you know, they need to give us things, yes. We all deserve, okay. But the necessary, what you're saying is the necessary precursor to that is really what we need to focus on, which is government ownership of means of production. But if the government owns the means of production, the government's also controlling who gets those means of production. So a lot of way there is that overlap. Yeah, and so we have an article making the case that you can't have political or personal freedom without economic freedom. Because if the government owns the means of production, sure, you might even have freedom of speech in the Constitution, but if they can send to a labor camp in Siberia anyone who's speech they don't like, then do you really have personal or political freedom? And I think that comes back to everything is economics. I mean, that's how, you know, we at fee obviously believe that. That every, you know, decision making is economics. Everything is economics. So when you say there isn't really just social socialism, it is, it's always a question of economics. It is a question of who makes, who makes what and who has ownership over what. Well, and that gets to the term that Danny was using, the means of production, which I think is sometimes maybe a bit obtuse for people. They might not understand exactly what that means. Econlingale. Yeah, means of production. Danny, how would you describe it? So means of production are any goods that are used for producing either other producers goods or consumers goods. So that means capital. So capital goods are like factories and tools, but it also means labor. So labor is a means of production. And so under a communist or socialist economy, the government owns all the capital goods, but they also determine who does what job. And in fact, on that note, I heard today that down in Venezuela, we've talked about Venezuela a lot lately, Kellogg is actually shutting down its factory there because of the uncertain situation. So it wasn't one of the industries, serial making industry. It was not one of the industries that was nationalized, meaning taken over by the government in a socialist sort of plan. But they find that the situation is so dire there and people are starving. People are starving. There was a point at which people were actually being told that the government to eat rocks. And now there's a situation in which Kellogg, which is making food for people, is being closed out of business or choosing to go out of business there temporarily until the situation improves. It's sad. And like you said, every place that this has been tried, you've never been able to get quite too full on communism. There's always been a collapse like what happened with the Soviet Union, like what happened before Deng Xiaoping reformed the People's Republic of China. This is always a repeating thing over and over again. I mean, you look no further than in North Korea, right? The contrast. We'll talk about that a little bit later. But one of the things that I think people talk about when they refer to socialism is sort of this, like you were saying, Anna Jane, nice things, right? So we talk about in Scandinavia, there are so many nice things that those governments give people. We are all the same, right? That is what I take issue with when you talk about Scandinavia. And what is Scandinavia? What is that? I don't know. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark. Those are the ones that people toss around. They're like, no, but life is so much better when you have a socialist approach to life, is that we all get the same things. But we are all the same people. I guess that's just the difference between a huge and vastly different country like America from a country like Sweden. Well, in their welfare state, sure, they may all get childcare provided by the state, but they're all paying for that. So say somebody like me who does not have children, I'm still paying taxes for childcare. They're going to get, but is that socialism? No, because when you look at the actual economy of these countries, who owns the means of production? So it's welfare stateism. It's welfare stateism. It's a big central government that taxes a lot, and that removes purchasing power from the individuals, and then redistributes it from the top in the form of different services such as education, childcare, childcare, all that sort of stuff. And actually, while they do have relatively high taxes and a relatively large welfare state, in a lot of other ways, they're actually very economically free. And actually even more so than the U.S. in a lot of ways. How's that? That their trade policy, that they're more open to free trade, their regulatory policy is lighter. Regulatory policy, meaning just regulations on different areas in the economy. Yeah, especially... Like getting products passed even, like state of approval type of thing. And especially corporations, and especially corporate taxes are relatively low. And that plays a big part of... I mean, what is the index for economic freedom? And the U.S. is not high on that list. I mean, it's not super high on that list. Well, it's been dropping every year for the past decade. And I imagine several of those countries surpass us on that list. And you're talking about... I mean, these are countries we perceive as socialist countries. Again, in the concept of the way that we toss around that idea now. But they are actually very much not, is what you're saying, is still ownership of the means of production is still private. That's right. So that's the big difference. Right. Example, in fiscal policy, Sweden is actually eighth. And Denmark, it's seventh for the most free. And the U.S. is all the way down in 24. Wow. And that's why a lot of big countries, I mean, a lot of countries, a lot of big businesses do find themselves in Europe as their headquarters because of the lack of freedom for corporations here. And fiscal policy, of course, is the way in which the government sets its taxing and spending policies. That's right. And so that was Sweden, right? Mm-hmm. So Sweden seems like it's actually doing pretty well there, at least with the population and the tax base that it can manage. I think Sweden's interesting for another case as well. And that is because it's a mixed economy. And that's a notion of, you know, it's not fully socialist. It's not fully capitalist, where all the means of production are in private hands. But I think there's a good point to be made when a mixed economy is actually more socialist than it may otherwise seem, right? Because through regulatory policy, how much do the private owners of a company actually have the ability to command what they own? And so in a mixed economy, you do find very distinct signs of socialist policy simply because if you can't do with your property what you believe is in the best interest of your customers, then what good is owning it, right? Yeah. There's a path towards socialism. There's outright nationalization where the government could just take over whole industries. Or there's regulation that through regulation after regulation it really becomes private ownership only in name because really it's the government calling the shots. We'll post a link to Mises' work as well as some other articles, I think, by Dan Mitchell that you're referring to here underneath the video. But we're going to take a quick break and we'll be back after this message. If you want to have a career in the creative arts, you want to be at FICON. Over the past 15 years, I've held a variety of creative positions starting as an assistant music supervisor in New York City and then working as a composer and music editor in Los Angeles and for the past several years as a filmmaker and producer. One thing I've learned is that success as a creative professional isn't just about mastering your craft. It also takes entrepreneurship, discipline, and passion. And there are always plenty of challenges along the way. FICON is a three-day conference designed to educate and empower students and young professionals like you. This year we're presenting a track especially for aspiring creatives where you'll learn about breaking into your desired industry, honing your craft, how to turn your creativity into profit, and more. We're bringing in a ton of pros from different industries including film, publishing, music, and visual arts and giving you plenty of Q&A time to get answers to your biggest questions. So join us at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Atlanta from June 7th through 9th. We're going to have attendees coming in from all over the world but we really want to make sure locals have a chance to experience this incredible event. So be sure to register at FICON.org and use the promo code ATLANTA to get your tickets for just $25. Get ready to launch your creative career. I'll see you at FICON. Welcome back to the FICAS. We were just talking in the break about the Swedish number that you mentioned and we were realizing that that number was actually everything but fiscal policy. That's right. So they are number what in terms of everything else like ease of doing business. Right, so in particular trade policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, rule of law, and property rights. So rankings for factors other than fiscal policy. So other than taxing and spending, then Denmark is number seven, Sweden is number eight, and the United States is number 24. Right, and of course the welfare state stuff goes into government spending. So fiscal policy, if we remove fiscal policy, what does that show us? So you're saying fiscal policy being, sorry, fiscal policy being welfare spending and taxing, if we remove that as a part of analyzing this, what do we see? Then we see that the Scandinavian countries, at least these two Scandinavian countries are actually more economically free if you factor out fiscal policy. So it's a little bit more comfortable for businesses and people to live there and trade. And specifically because maybe there's fewer regulations or like you said the ease of doing business is easier. Which makes sense to a degree because you think of regulation, I mean that's what really ties up and impedes and breaks the market. It's like if you have a functioning market, then yeah, you might be able to skim off the top quite a bit and redistribute it because it's still able to create wealth. Absolutely and we were actually looking in the break also at our friends at the Frazier Institute. They have an economic freedom ranking and this takes into account all of the different factors. The fiscal policy, the monetary policy, how you treat money in the country along with the regulatory side of things. And the U.S. in this ranking is number 11, Denmark is number 15 and Finland is number 17. And you might find when you're looking at this stuff that economic freedom is actually correlated to happiness and this has been proven time and time again. This is not a little study that actually the country of Bhutan has tried to put out there into the world saying that well, economic freedom doesn't really matter, GDP doesn't really matter, we're measuring our citizens' happiness. It doesn't sound like it really stands scientific scrutiny all that well. I also tend to think okay, if they're controlling the economy that much, how much are they also controlling the results of that test? Well actually speaking of control, we were talking before the last segment ended about mixed economies and this was a term that I think a lot of economic textbooks actually contain. And when I think of a mixed economy I think of maybe something like what the United States has, kind of a mix between capitalist free market economy with characteristics maybe more resembling welfare state. But the question always comes to mind, who decides on the mix? Who decides on the mix? How do you know you have the right mix? Yeah. Well right now, sorry Angeena, we're not allowed to pick, I mean we really don't. We can vote with our dollars, but at the same time in many ways the government does tell us what we can vote with our dollars with. Because if the FDA hasn't approved something then I'm not allowed to go spend my dollars on that. So when you think about this, we don't have that control. I would like to say we have that control. What do you say to somebody who's like decides, right? That's what voting is and that's how we're empowered. But that kind of voting is a very win-lose scenario. So the voting with your dollar you get to influence the market, but not exclusively. So other people also get to vote with their dollars and so everybody can win to some extent. There's actually a school of thought that's taught pretty widely these days called the public choice school that tries to apply and I think does so very well, economic theories and ideas and principles on to politics. And what one of its progenitors called it originally was politics without the romance. So not quite imagining that the savior could come into office and make everything perfect for us. But actually applying economics and things such as incentives to actually understanding why politicians may promise a lot of things, right? But they don't deliver on those things. Yeah, you see, I think when you apply economic thinking to the political process, you get things like gerrymandering. I mean, that's a very obvious observation. You, I mean, look at median voter theory theorem. Is that what it's called? I mean, when you look at economic thinking as applied to politics, we get rid of thinking about personalities and ideals and values and you actually think about human decision making, which is what economics is when you boil it down and you see that we get a lot of bad outcomes. And it's kind of ironic because a lot of people accuse believers in the free market of being naive about human nature because they think, oh, well, you think that people are just angels and if you let them free that they'll do the right thing. But people who believe in agents of government correcting for that, they are putting the angels' wings on the agents of government. And what they're saying is I don't trust us as individuals, I don't trust my fellow individual to make a decision, so I'm going to make one of those individuals have the right to make decisions. Or a group of those individuals. That concept doesn't make any sense to me. It's just, you're assuming that, yeah, it's, to me, believing in a higher authority to make decisions actually speaks to you believing in people less than say somebody who wants individual rights. I think that's a perfectly sound, yeah. I mean, it's the assumption that we can't all do the right thing on an individual level. We have to pick somebody to choose for us. That means that you have less faith in humanity than somebody who believes in individual rights. To me, that's how authoritarianism starts in general. The tyranny of the expert. This reminds me of a fabulous book which has been read sometimes, quoted many times, and in fact, you recently read it and you live-blogged it, and that was the road to serfdom. The road to serfdom. And this is an explanation by the Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek, where he talked about how when you try to pursue the middle of the road, you inevitably end up with disastrous results, similar to what you described, Dan, earlier about socialism being abandoned everywhere it's been tried and forced. The road to serfdom really goes into that. Yeah. In fact, there's one piece that I wrote to toot my own horn on that one. I think it was, you give the government an inch, they'll take a mile, something to that extent. But that is essentially what Hayek is saying. The either direction, if you're capitulating, you're giving state someone, some governing body, some more authority over the individual. You can't have that middle road because it's going to lead to maybe not socialism, but authoritarianism in general. Serfdom. Serfdom, tyranny, whatever you want to call it. Yeah, and Hayek has another chapter in that book called Why the Worst Get On Top. Yes. And it just talks about how with central planning that the lure of power and the lure of loot and being able to tax and regulate and control people's lives that it draws the worst people into power. And then Ludwig von Mises who was a mentor of Hayek he had an essay called The Middle of the Road Policy Leads to Socialism and he points out that even when you have what people call a mixed economy that every time you have an intervention there's always going to be negatives, unintended consequences. There's a cost. And then what happens is that if you try to ameliorate those consequences with another policy then that has more consequences and so you're just compounding, exactly. Pulling all the levers, turning all the knobs, everything's got a cost, there's going to be a reaction somewhere else. I'm going to throw one question out here to close and that is, what does all this matter to us? Why do we actually think that this is important to talk about with people who are listening to us today? Words matter. And I say that as a writer. So I really think words matter. But if you're going to start at an axiom point, at a point of reason with everybody, you have to have the same definition. If you and I are talking about different definitions of socialism, we're never going to agree because we're never even going to start from the same point. Totally. And so this comes into communication. We can't communicate with other people and spread these ideas if we can't start at the same point. And there can't be a politics without good communication. Yeah. And for me it's not only that the worst get on top under a big government, but it brings out the worst in us individually. That it makes us more greedy. People talk about capitalism bringing out greed. But if anything, it's the promise of free college and free healthcare and free everything that that is what brings out the class warrior entitlement. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I couldn't say it better than Brittany. I think that words matter. And I just think that specifically the ideas of what, you know, what is a liberal? What is progressivism? What is socialism? We are tossing these around so frequently in today's, you know, cultural context, like I've said. I think that it's important we understand at least from what I see that there is economic indicators within all of those concepts that many people don't consider when they're using those words. So thinking about what your understanding of economics and how it plays into those concepts is so key to me to using those words effectively. I couldn't have said it better myself. Well, thank you all for everything that you've said today on the panel and we look forward to seeing everyone next week on the FEECAST. Have a great weekend.