 I want to say the lecture today should be easier than my last lecture. I know that isn't much of a claim, but we don't have to do any of that a priori nonsense in this lecture. So this this lecture should be easier, although remember I lied in the other lecture and said that one was easy, so maybe I'm lying again you'll have to find out. Now what I want to do in this lecture is discuss a couple themes you'll find in Mises writings and especially in Mises you'll find this in some of the other Austrian economists also, but these things we find especially in Mises and I think if you can take note of these particular patterns of argument you'll have at least the start of getting a good grasp on what Mises was up to in his writing. Now at the time Mises was writing you know we say in the period say from 1920 through the 60s socialism was a much more of an what William James called a live option for people than it is now. Nowadays we don't have very many explicit socialists and it's by socialists I mean someone who thinks that the government should own all the means of production that the economy should be run by a centralized plan. At the time Mises was writing that was something that many people favored. A lot of people like to talk about the Soviet experiment they've said they're applying science to building a new society and if they're having some rough spots we should just kind of wait to see what happens give them a chance. I said when they talked about the Soviet experiment reminds me of the medieval phrase experimentum in Vile which my greatest teacher Walter Starkey used to translate do it to the dog first. But so as I say people socialism was a live option and Mises in a great deal of his writing was concerned to counter the socialist arguments. Now one of the main socialist arguments and you'll still find people giving this argument today is that under capitalism or the free market the means of production are owned by a small group namely the capitalist business people and that the the masses are really exploited by the this small group of people. This is a very common theme in Marxism and but also held by other views as well so the argument against the free market is well under the free market it's just the small group that's in charge the people are really the masses of the people really are not in control of things. Now one way to counter that argument would be to say and so the socialist said well that's what's wrong with capitalism and so under socialism socialism the means of production are controlled by the government but the government is really all of us so under socialism it's the means of production are democratically controlled so then this argument makes a contrast between capitalism where you have just a small group of wicked capitalists in control and socialism where it's the masses of the people in control of course as it turned out in Russia the masses of the people were led by the so-called vanguard party the Communist Party so it turned out to be a dictatorship but the socialist propaganda said no it's the masses of people are in control under socialism so this is better than capitalism where you just have a few small group in control now one way to counter that would be to say say along the lines Murray Rothbard and others took say well individuals have certain natural rights and these include the rights include the right to acquire property individually so if under the free market there are particular individuals who only means of production there is nothing at all wrong with that that's in fact people are exercising their natural rights but Mises didn't take that line for the quite good reason he didn't believe in natural rights what he did and this is a very characteristic theme you'll find in his writing he would try to take the premise that the opponent of the free market had and show that the free market would better fulfill whatever it was that the opponent of the free market favorite so the opponent of free mark the free market here is saying under capitalism it's the small group that's in control whereas under socialism it's the whole people are in control so Mises is going to counter that by saying no under capitalism it's really the masses are in control now how what is his argument for that it's a very simple one he says in the free market the business people are trying to make profit in the way you make a profit is to supply some good or service that consumers want if you can Ralph Waldo Emerson said if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door I don't know whether whether he actually said that but we can see the principle what that he said is quite true unlike many other things that Emerson said which usually usually false let's say the ones that have a discernible meaning which is only about maybe 10% of them so the idea is if if you want to make money under free market you have to come up with some product that people want so Mises speaks of the dollar votes of consumers that people are really voting by spending on what on various products on who should be in control of the means of production if they're playing my song just so you see how Mises is countering the socialist argument the socialist said look under the free market it's a small group of people were in control so Mises said no the people who seem to be in control are really just servants or of the consumers because they're trying to make a profit and to make a profit they have to supply what the consumers want so it's really the consumers preferences that are running the show and Mises taking over a phrase from the British economist W.H. Hutt who taught for most of his career in South Africa Hutt coined the use the phrase consumer sovereignty Mises takes this over so he says that it's really the free market is a system of consumer sovereignty I should mention Hutt is one of the great economists but he's very had a very difficult style in fact someone I think it was Richard Ebeling said that he wrote in Huttite yes that was supposed to be funny okay now there's an objection kind of obvious objection one could give to this argument namely that under capitalism it's the consumers who are really in control because the consumers are the one the the business people are trying to please the consumers so it's really the consumers who are in control now the objection is and you'll find this objection given say by the Cambridge economist Maurice Dobb who taught at Cambridge during the 1930s he was also a recruiting agent for Soviet espionage but he said well look you can talk about dollar votes but rich people have many more dollar votes than poor people so isn't it still the case that the capitalism is an un is an objectionable system because you can talk say well people vote according to the production depends on the votes as it were the consumers but rich people have a lot more votes but Mises was well prepared for this objection he answered that even if individual rich people have say an individual rich person has more votes than any poor person still the if you add up all the votes of the masses of the people you'll get an extremely substantial amount and he misdescribes capitalism as mass production for the masses so even if it's the case that rich people individually have more dollar votes their their votes are really not able to outweigh the votes of the masses now there's another point that's related to that is where the free market compares favorably with political democracy in a democracy says we have in the US if in fact we have a democracy say we have two candidates for president well the ones who voted for the losing candidate don't get what they want it's a winner take all now we could have modifications that their systems of proportional representation where parties that don't get that many votes still get representation in the legislature but it's still the case if you're on the losing side you would not get what you voted for but under the free market if many more preferences can be satisfied you say if you if you want something say you had you want some product that not too many people want say you want pro wrestling memorabilia there won't say as long as there are some people who want this then the market will tend to supply it you don't have to have your preference voted for by everybody so a lot of people can get their rather idiosyncratic preferences satisfied so if you want a copy of Luthes's autobiography you'll be able to get it even though that isn't a bestseller unfortunately now I use the phrase consumer sovereignty but there's a very interesting objection that Murray Rothbard raised to this that he said well it's really wrong to talk about sovereignty because sovereignty is a political term and if we say somebody say that we say in the United States they talk about the sovereignty of the government and sovereignty of the states so this means the government can give us orders and if we don't obey these orders then they can use force against us say if you decided you didn't want to pay your tax bill to the IRS and just didn't send money well they're going to keep sending you letters and if you don't answer those they'll eventually come and make a call on you and they can really they could if you kept resisting they could actually shoot you you'd be forced to pay you wouldn't have a choice of whether to pay or not but Rothbard said well look this isn't the case in the free market suppose some businessman says look I don't care what the consumers want I'm just gonna produce things my way let's suppose somebody has a restaurant said I'm going to I'm this is home cook meals here I cook just the way my mother did unfortunately his mother burned everything so people aren't going to like what he what that restaurant is serving but it's his restaurant he can do it if he wants so it isn't really the Rothbard objective this isn't really consumer sovereignty people the business businesses aren't under the same kind of control as people are in the political system I think Rothbard's point is quite right but it doesn't really tell against the substance of what Mises was saying instantly Mises was quite aware of this point he said it's not the same the consumer sovereignty isn't the same as political sovereignty but the point is that say businesses that don't try to please the consumers will tend to go out of business if if say you had a restaurant and you serve products that people didn't want they just didn't like the food you prepared then people wouldn't go to that restaurant and you eventually go out of business so you could you you can refuse to do what the consumers want but people who do that will tend to be replaced by those who are motivated by pleasing the consumers now we now have another problem is if what I've said is right we can understand how businesses that directly supply the consumers are will be guided by consumer preferences that say if again say restaurants will be trying to serve food that their customers want it's similar we can easily see how this works for consumer products but a lot of the economy doesn't consist of products that are directly consul to sold to consumers we also have producers goods or capital goods goods goods that are used to produce other goods and as you would have gotten in other lectures I'm sure Roger Garrison mentioned this in his lecture that you have stages of production you can have producers goods that are used to produce consumer goods and you can have other production goods that are used to produce the first level production goods and so on so what about all the producers goods the consumers aren't choosing them so then one could say is it the case then that the consumer sovereignty to the extent it exists is limited the dollar votes or just for the consumer goods but this isn't right because we could ask well what determines the demand for the producers goods well at that for the first level producers goods will get the people who are producing consumers goods so the the preferences and then we so to get what which what that demand is we have to know who or the which consumers firms are going to be the ones that are demanding the producers goods but we already know the answer to that those are the the producers of consumers goods that please the consumers so those people are going to be the ones who will be the demanders of the first level production goods and if that's and we can then just extend that more and more that the demand for the higher stage of production will be based on the next lower stage demand so once we're given the consumers demand that will determine the demands of the whole system so it really is the consumers demands that are running the the show and the details of that are you can find in in Mises and Rothbard fortunately I don't have to give those details it's not it's not I mean I get to concentrate on awful subjects like the a priori and the details of structure production are left to other people who understand them so as I say the ones who produce the consumer goods will demand the first level production goods and they're trying to get them at the least cost so the ones who I guess that point rings a bell with someone yes tell them the consumer demand doesn't permit me to answer okay so I've gone over this the producers of the first level production goods will be trying to meet demands of those produced consumer goods producers of the second level production goods will try to meet demands of those whose first level production goods so it's consumer demand thus determines all production now there's another problem objections to the free market are very very common people never stop raising them now one further objection really takes off from just the point I've been making the point I've been making whether successful or not as for you to judge is that in the free market the business people are trying to satisfy the demands of the consumers whether they're directly producing consumer goods or at some higher stage of production and why is it that they're trying to satisfy the demands of the consumers well because they're trying to make money in the way you make money is by getting people to buy your product so this leads to another objection is that in this system people are motivated by trying to make money but the objection is that isn't a very nice thing to be motivated by people should be motivated by other concerns a moral concerns they should say people should pay always paid workers a living wage or avoid charging high prices for a necessity the view would be really if you're concentrating on making money that's not that's really evil as the Bible says you cannot serve both God and mam and mam and of course a term for money you know isn't the Samuel Butler once said about that phrase you cannot serve both God and mam and difficult no doubt but nothing worth doing in life is easy of course one response to this say we could imagine the object of his response of iron is that making money is good it is a good thing but again this isn't the line Mises takes because remember once more he doesn't believe in objective ethics not just in sense of rejecting the object of this is what he doesn't think they're standards of good and bad they're just true or false he just thinks ultimately they're subjective preferences so he's not going to respond by saying look you're wrong money making money is good what his response is to say well supposing the business person acts according to some other standards say the business person says look I could make money say on this medication by charging a lot of money but I'd rather make it available to poor people so I'm going to sell it at a very low price well what happens if people do if business people do that then the this mechanism that I explained in the first part of lecture won't be operating because the key to that system is that business people are trying to satisfy demands of the consumers and that what motivates them to do that is the pursuit of profit so if we're not pursuing profit then there won't be a mechanism at least not that mechanism for getting the production to satisfy what the consumers want business met people will be producing according to whatever standards they think are appropriate now the problem here is that suppose you said okay well that's all right people should just follow certain rules of morality determine what to produce Mises raised the promise and well the people who say that are just giving certain general statements like people should get a living wage or we should have fair prices but they don't give any criterion of what the correct prices or wages are they just said well people should be fair people shouldn't just go after money as much as possible but they don't have any rules for what prices are and this will lead to chaos in the economy if say people if a business people don't charge the market price for something that'll lead to either surpluses or shortages we won't be able to coordinate the economy without the market prices that are where we have peep where we have the businesses are responding to consumer demand based on their pursuit of profit if they're not pursuing profit that's going to derail the whole system essentially if you'll pardon a very old man so I can perhaps make a few digression or two you notice I use the word criterion if the singular is for my talk you speak of a criterion the singular is not criteria one here is unfortunately people say we don't have a criteria for this but that one really shouldn't say that I remember when I was in Friedrich Hayek's class a long time ago a student used the word phenomena in the singular and Hayek stopped him and he said oh that hurts his ears would please don't say that so that that was I I think that's worth noting it was a quite singular phenomenon okay so when Mises makes this point namely that the system of free enterprise depends on the pursuit of profit by the business people by the entrepreneurs he's not making a value judgment he's not saying if you say that people should just charge fair prices you're saying something that's bad or you're you're making an ethically wrong judgment he's not saying well I like the free market so we should do it this way even though it's quite obvious he does like the free market what he's doing is just calling attention to the consequences of a particular policy so he say we need prices market prices for economic calculation we're not going to get them without the entrepreneur pursuing profit what he says that that's a descriptive statements a scientific statements either true or false it isn't a value judgment just it it's a statement of what are the consequences of a particular policy so see this is a characteristic pattern that Mises uses he's saying rather than give his own ethical opinions he's going to say let's take what you want what you the object of capitalism what he's going to show what you say won't work in this in in doing that he's he's making value free claims now we've been talking so far about socialist criticisms of the free market I say the socialist says that the the economy should be run by a system of government control instead of having businesses decide on what to produce independently of one another we have a central plan where the government runs everything and as I mentioned that was a very popular system when Murray I mean when Mises was writing but it isn't so favored now but there's another way I'm sure as I'm sure you all know that the government can interfere with the free market besides taking over production of goods and services and in this the government doesn't abolish the market but it passes laws that restrict market transactions in certain ways for example price control which would include minimum wage laws and rent control and tariff price control it usually is one that has a maximum price saying you can't charge more than such and such for prices say imagine there is a big some kind of hurricane and then people want gasoline so if you had a price control up said something like you can't charge more than $6 a gallon for gasoline that would be an example price control minimum wage laws are for a price control but some minimum price would say you can't employ someone for less than a particular amount rent control again would be a maximum price as you can't charge more than a certain amount for an apartment in tariffs or another type of intervention that's a would be tax on foreign goods that are imported into a country now again we're going to see a pattern of argument that Mises uses that's quite similar to the one he used in refuting the socialist claim or applying to the socialist claim that under the free market it's just a small group of evil capitalists who are controlling everything what means are going to do with interventionism is first he takes the goal that the interventionist wants and then he says the intervention that you're proposing won't enable you to achieve this goal it will fail and you notice once more and this is a point I'm particularly concerned to stress that this is not a value judgment on his party's not saying interventionism is bad or I don't like interventions he's just saying if you if you try to put into effect a certain interventionist measure it's not going to work you have to be a bit careful there because it's extremely likely true that Mises himself would make the value of judgment interventionism is bad or people who were attracted to Austrian economics say to believe unlike Mises in an objective ethics might would very likely think price control is ethically bad but even if people hold that view it's still the case that if one says that the intervention doesn't work that's not a value judgment now let's take an example of price control and this is I use this example of price control milk because it's one that Mises himself uses so the government we imagine says it very hard for poor people to buy enough milk say they need milk for their small children but the price of milk is too high so the government isn't going to be cowed by that situation it's I see at least one person laughed at that good okay so the government said well let's if we lower the price of milk that'll make it more milk more available for poor people so the government then decides to impose a maximum price on milk in order to make it easier for the poor to buy milk now what's going to happen if the government does that well the price of milk is now lower so more people are going to they're going to be greater quantity of milk demanded than before because we know when the price decreases the quantity demand demanded will either increase some cases can stay the same but it will never decrease because if the price is lower then people don't have to give up as much of other things in order to get the milk they can get milk more easily so there'll be more people or more people demanding milk but suppliers aren't going to be supplying more milk they when the price goes down they're going to be getting less for each each bottle of milk face they sell they'll have no incentive to increase production in fact they may decrease production and in fact the what the marginal sellers that's to say those who were just making enough to stay in the milk supply business will be driven out of business by the by this regulation the same means is assuming that milk produced the milk sellers are making not all the milk sellers are making the same rate of profit there's some who are doing pretty well others are just get making up to get buy on they can see he's assuming that the economy isn't in equilibrium because in equilibrium everybody will make the same rate of return but here he's assuming that there are some people who are not doing as well as others so the ones who were just barely making enough to stay in business will go out of business they won't be able to stay to stay in business under the new regulation so what is the the upshot of all this is that the government put in the price control the maximum price for milk because it wanted to have milk more milk available to people especially to the poor but the result is that there's less milk available so this isn't what the price control is supposed to do so you see when Mises is pointing this out once again he's not making a value judgment he's not saying I don't like price control on milk he's just saying this is what this was what will happen you won't get what you want if you if you have price control on on milk it'll make people leave the the milk supply business instantly I didn't put a slide on it we we can have there is one there were a couple cases by the way where there are exceptions to this this general principle where if you have a price control will drive the marginal sellers out they'll they'll shift their resources to other more profitable businesses one case where it wouldn't is suppose all the the resource in a particular line of work are completely specialized they're all used up if they're all used in that industry and there's there's nowhere else they could go profitably then they won't leave the industry as long as the the business can make a profit at all they won't have been sent to say well now I can move to some other some other line of work because the resources will be completely specialized but even in that case you'd still have the problem of greater quantity demanded at the price control the price set by price control then would be supplied at that price so that wouldn't eliminate the problem now once we've got that pattern for price control the rent control is very easily analyzed because it's exactly the same process so again the aim of rent control is to make more housing available for the poor so what's going to happen though if you put in rent control well at the rent controlled amount there'll be more housing demanded than is available so then landlords that can't make money will withdraw how housing from the market or they'll respond to the rent control by just not making repairs on their apartment so once more you'll have a situation where the rent control won't get what the what the people who favored it wanted they say they wanted to have more housing available for the poor the result is less housing available you know I remember speaking of rent control there was a story I'll tell you that if any of you read Robert knows it the great libertarian philosophy is that a name people know nobody's read no we see some people like well he was a very outstanding philosopher he was a libertarian and taught at Harvard so he got into a bit of trouble that he was renting an apartment from Eric Siegel of love story fame but it turned out not to be a love story between them he I think he he wanted certain repairs in the apartment and Siegel wasn't too friendly to me told him talk to my lawyers so then it turned out knows it looked this up the apartment was supposed to be under rent control and knows it he was paying more than that so he sued for all the back rent plus penalties I think he got about $20,000 then Siegel was a friend of the Martin Parrots who was the the owner at that time the New Republic magazine and they publish an article on this incident making fun of knows it because he's a libertarian against rent control but he used the lawsuit to to take advantage of this and I remember I was the oh they're really playing my song I guess we have some some rent control people who don't don't like what I'm saying so I remember Tom Nagel said to me there's also a very well-known philosophy said I don't get it what's the inconsistency but any event I just thought I'd throw that story in why not okay so as we say rent control doesn't attain the aim that its proponents favor again we're not making a value judgment so they wanted the rent control advocates wanted more housing for the poor but the result is they get less housing for the poor now again let's see this pattern once more with minimum wage laws minimum wage laws supposed to raise wages for workers saying look workers say on say it Walmart aren't getting a living wage living the expression living wages definitely is something that came in really with the famous encyclical of Pope Leo 13 rare um no varum which which came out 1891 so the view there was the employer should pay the worker enough so he would be able to live and support a family it's so the minimum wage advocates would say look some wages don't permit workers to do that so why don't we just have pass a law that's that employers have to pay workers enough so they'll have a minute so they'll be able to support themselves now what's going to happen if they do that well a minimum wage is a minimum price it says prices can't fall below this amount so if you have that that's higher than the market price then more workers will want to work at this minimum wage then employers are willing to hire at that that price how do we know that well what determines in the free market what determines how much employees going to get what determines wages well it's basically determined by how much the employees product is worth to the employer if say you have a minimum wage and what you produce isn't worth that to the employer what you're say you have a minimum wage let's say of $9 but you can only produce say $6 worth of product per hour then it doesn't pay the employer to hire you he's going to let you go you know when you consider that I'm wondering how it is that I managed to stay employed but I fortunately I'm not going to go into I hope I hope Lou Rockwell isn't listening to this this this particular part of the lecture okay so the minimum wage law then again that will is supposed to help the poor workers saying these workers aren't getting enough to live on but it'll have the effects of effective making at least some of the workers unemployed so again it's not going to do what it's supposed to do again as you'll be tired of hearing by now but that's not going to stop me this is not a value judgments just saying this is the consequence of what's going to happen I should say there are various replies that minimum wage advocates will give to that for example one they'll say well you know according to the theory of this that your wages are determined by the marginal productivity of the workers the discounted marginal value product but even if that's true they're wide zones of indeterminacy that give room for the employees to get more that's one of the response I don't think there's much to that response but I'm not going to go into the controversy over that if if you see the economist I mentioned before a wh hut has written on that issue if in number of books if you're interested in pursuing minimum wage legislation further now again we have one give one more example of this similar pattern this is a tariff a tariff to say is a tax imposed on foreign goods you're imported into a country so well these people say well it's very unfair say producers of American cars are being undersold by Japanese cars so we're going to impose a tariff on the Japanese car coming in and then this will help American workers that if you didn't have a tariff then the workers who produced American cars would lose their job because they would be outcompeted by the suppliers of Japanese cars so isn't it a good idea we just impose the tariff and this will help the American worker but what's overlooked there it's kind of very obvious point is that the tariff will make the product more costly for consumers that a tariff if there's a tariff and other if you didn't have a tariff say the Japanese people would have bought a Japanese car at a lower price then the people would have bought the cars they're worse off they'll have to pay more if they want a car and they otherwise would have so they're not they're not better off I would say oh well but look the workers are better off what the problem here is that the advocates of the tariff aren't taking into account the people who are harmed by it they would just say look the tariff is helping such and such people we've got to build up the manufacturing sense sector the economy but they're neglecting the fact that consumers will have to pay higher prices because of the tariffs and further by discouraging competition they make it easier to form cartels that say agreements among businesses to fix prices now what happens when intervention fails well perhaps in a almost ideal world the government say let's forget about the intervention let's go to the free market I won't say in an ideal or because an ideal world there wouldn't be any intervention in any government at all but in a close to ideal world the government say let's forget about the intervention and just go back to the free market but very often the government won't do that they'll just respond with more intervention say let's go back to this example of price control on milk well the say the milk sellers will complain they're not getting enough profit because of the price control so the government might respond by putting price controls on the suppliers say the ones say they the milk suppliers will be getting their supplies of milk from dairy so they might say well okay you those people will have to have charge lower prices then you'll be able when you're selling milk to consumers you'll be able to make a profit even though you're selling the milk at a lower price than before because your costs will be lower as long as your your prices are above costs you'll be alright you know you want to avoid the position of the person who said he's he sold below cost and someone asked him how do you make any money if you sell below cost he said I make it up in volume that wouldn't be such a good idea okay so what's going to happen if they do that well these new interventions will also fail for the very same reason that we've already given that they'll we already explain why price control doesn't work why it will result in greater quantity demanded quantity supply it'll just cause more of a shortage at the low at the next stage so the new interventions don't work now what happens if the government says okay well we're not giving up we're just going to keep having more intervention eventually not it won't take very long if they just keep with more and more price control you'll get total government control of the economy the government will be controlling all prices I'll start with having price controls on a few products and they'll say well we need to have further price control because otherwise some of the people were supplying the first goods will go out of business so then they're going to extend this over the whole economy so then you'll get total government control of economy this is not just a theoretical possibility it took place in Germany in World War one and also happen it was the system there was called the Hindenburg plan after Marshall Paul von Hindenburg who was the war one of the the main military leader Germany during World War one he was very very popular even though Germany didn't do that well at the end of the war but he was very popular so the plan was called the Hindenburg plan and the same thing happened in England during World War one also during World War two had total government control the whole economy and I think very interesting the Mises says that socialism did not come to Britain as most people will say it with the Labour government came in just at the end of World War two Labour government under Clement Antley but came in under Winston Churchill who was ostensibly a conservative he was supposed to be a supporter at least to some extent of the free market but Mises said that really it was Churchill who brought about socialism to England incidentally Churchill remarked once about Clement Antley who was the leader of the Labour Party said he's a very modest man he has a great deal to be modest about now the same the system where you have a government in control the economy the government is setting all the price and wages is also character was also characteristic of the Nazi economy member Hitler came to power in January 30th 1933 and he was in power till the end of World War two in 1945 but particularly after 1936 you had the German government really was in setting all the prices and wages in the economy and this is another kind of fundamental point Mises makes it this is a form of socialism you have socialism is not only one where the government owns the means of production then runs things by a central plan another form of socialism is one where it looks legally like you have private businesses and private property but really the government is set making all the decisions so this is also a form of socialism and because it's a form of socialism Mises said the Marxist interpretation of the Nazi Nazism is completely wrong and Marxist says that the Nazi system was really a higher stage of capitalism they said this is capitalism but the gloves off that's really the capitalist the rich businessman the really big firms who were in control under the Nazis but in fact this wasn't true it was really the government that was running things so the last point I want to make again is another type of intervention where Mises is using the same pattern that I've given in the lecture that many people favor very heavy taxes on the rich so again Mises isn't going to say as many libertarians would look if you tax people this is a form of forced labor or it's interfering with natural rights I think those are very good points make but they're not the ones Mises make he said the taxes make it more difficult for the rich to save and build up accumulations of capital and what happens if you capital accumulates then it's going to raise the productivity of workers and that will make wages rise so he says taxes on the rich will really hurt the poor so again it's not having the consequence that the supporters of taxation on the rich say it will so I think now we're about out of time so I think thanks very much as long as you know sorry don't fake don't support very heavy taxes on the rich will be my final message