 I'm just trying to make myself alert. Well, there's some good economic news today. The economic indicators are up. The auto companies are calling workers, housing and show signs of recovery. Are you prepared to say that the recession is over, that the recovery is here? Well, let me quote Mr. Volcker in his speech last night. I saw a bit of it on television where he said the foundation for a solid, lasting economic recovery has been laid. And I have been saying that for some time because I think that's what I know, that's what our goal was to try to accomplish. But I do think that we can't deny the signs any longer. The fact that the weekly sign-ups for unemployment insurance, which not too many weeks ago, were running in excess of $600,000, like $670,000 a week and so forth. Although I must say, no one when they used those figures ever gave the other figure of how many left unemployment insurance every week. And that was usually considered a figure. But now the latest week that we have is the lowest sign-on since September of 1981. And I feel that all of these things are indications that, yes, we have a bottom-down recovery. I think everyone agreed that recovery is... Why do you think it's taken so long? There's a public perception that economic policies haven't at least so far been working in the way that you thought and said a few years ago in terms of jobs, investment, even growth. Well, if I could complain a little bit about that. First of all, we didn't get all the economic program that we asked for. So there was a slower pace in bringing down government spending, excessive spending, even though we did bring down the rate of increase, which had been 17% a year, down to 11%. But that's not nearly enough. I felt, and the basis of our program was when I announced in Chicago in 1980 during the campaign, was that the percentage that the people were paying in taxes, the percentage of gross national product, the percentage that the government was spending of gross national product were both too high. Now significantly, the spending percentage was higher than the revenue percentage, which is why consistently over the decades we've had deficits. But we had counted on getting that tax part of the program retroactively to January 1st, 1981. Well, we didn't get the first installment of the tax until October of 1981, and then it was only half of what we'd asked. So people began talking about the program and whether it was succeeding or not at a time when even only a part of the program had been put into effect. Now, we believe that the tax cut program that we advocated was one that would offer a stimulus to the economy to savings, to investment, and so forth. But you have to wait until the people get the money. Just signing the bill and saying we've got a tax cut hasn't changed their fortunes yet. You have to give time for that money to be accumulated. And if you stop to think of it now, here it is, we've made two years now. And we still have more than a third of, much more than a third, almost half of the tax cut yet to be implemented. It'll be another five months yet before that next 10% installment goes in and then it'll be another year before we get the effect of the indexing, which stops the government from profiting on inflation. I think the, first of all, the recession was unexpected. I don't know why we call it the recession beginning then. We've been in really a growing recession since 1979. If you look at the unemployment figures, if you look at the rate of inflation on the interest rates, I think the interest rates, this was part of what contributed to it. They came down much slower than they had reason to, because we brought inflation down faster than we'd anticipated. And that in itself set us back further with regard to revenues, because since the government does make a profit on recession, coming on inflation, I've gone back and looked at the projections made by all the experts, not just here in Washington, but all of the economists around. And their projection was that inflation for 1982 would be 8%, it was 3.9. But if you had the last few years to go over it, knowing that you couldn't make Congress move any faster or do it more your way, is there anything retrospective that you would do differently by way of policy? No, not really, because I think we were on the right track. It's just taken a little longer. Yes, because it started later than we would have started it at all. Maybe I could have fought harder for some of the things, I don't know how we fought for yard, but I think that we are seeing it now, we are seeing the results. But I think that to say a program had failed when it was still on the stage of being implemented, I think now we're seeing the results. And I think the stock market reflects that, turning the automobile companies into beginning to call people back. What is happening? The lower interest rates, which is the key to the whole thing. There is a backed up group of buyers, potential buyers out there. Normally in the United States, people average keeping an automobile 3.5 years. Well, the average age of the automobiles out on the road today is 7 years. That means there's a backed up market of people out there that want to buy, but they couldn't buy. We all buy cars and the installment plan will make the payments, and the interest rates were too high, and suddenly as these rates come down, you see a proportionate increase in the buying. The administration is forecasting a 1.4% real economic growth next year. Why such a weak... Well, that isn't the correct figure to use. That is a comparison between a starting point in 82 and then a starting point here, that it's going to be that much above that point in 82. Actually, and we think we're being very modest in this, because again, the projections are so far apart. There are people and equally experts who are projecting a much, a low pessimistic recovery. There are others that are way up here in a very optimistic thing. We're somewhere in between, and we've chosen to, because the law requires us to project, we've chosen about a 3.1% for the year 83, and obviously it does not start out at 3.1%, but it will accumulate to be a 3.1% growth. Now, this will put us on a declining path of deficits if the Congress will meet the program that we have, that we've proposed, the freeze on overall budget spending, and we want in place that contingent, temporary tax increase, in case the pessimists are right. It can only go into effect if the deficit is 2.5% of gross national product, if the Congress has not given us our freeze and our reductions, and if the recession is apparently evolved into a growth pattern, then all of those things being in place, then you would trigger the tax program for three years. Are you optimistic when you think that the standby tax won't be needed? Well, everybody accuses me of being the optimist here, and I suppose I should stay with the cautious proposal we're making, but I just can't help but have an optimistic feeling that recovery may just be better than we're allowing ourselves to think. Well, are you worried in any sense by the initial resistance that the contingent tax plan has received from some of your Republican congressional leaders on the Hill before you really even had a chance to articulate this proposal in the State of the Union? There were some people in advance that were casting doubts on it. Do you feel that that really compromises the chances of you ever getting this thing enacted? Well, I'm hopeful that when they see all the details, I think when they first rose up against the contingency, they didn't realize the conditions, that I myself would be opposed to it just as a tax plan out there waiting because then I could see those in the Congress who prefer to spend. They'd say they'd feel free not to make any reductions in spending or to even spend more because they'd say, well, we've got this tax that will go into effect. But the fact that one of the contingencies is they must make the reductions that would be a best for or the tax won't go into effect, and I think that cooled off some of the opposition. Well, is it safe to say that you've proposed this plan which has been described as an insurance policy when the deficit? Primarily because you as an optimist are convinced you will never have to resort to it? I hope I don't, but I can understand the value of it. I think it'll do much psychologically to reassure the money markets out there because right now the interest rates are higher than they have a right to be based on 3.9% inflation. So you have to say, well, what is keeping them up there? And as I said the other night, I think fear is keeping up there that people are saying, well, we want to make sure knowing what has happened in the past and the history of those in government who want to go for the quick fixes and so forth and flood with artificial money, flood the market, end up with going inflation again so they're protecting themselves. It seems to me that this on top of the other proposals we're making is a kind of an assurance to them that no, the deficits are not going to skyrocket and no, we're not going to go back to that. We're going to fight inflation. And this I think could have a salutary effect on it. What would your reaction be of Congress in the course of considering this proposal winds up instead modifying the July installment of the personal tax cut or tampering with indexation? Does that mean a veto in your mind? Yes, it does, because I think those two things are a definite part of the plan. I think part of the optimism of the signs that we see right now are because the people have been able to look at business and all have been able to look ahead and plan knowing that these things are going to happen. Final tax question. You've said recently that the idea, you believe in the idea that the corporate income tax really should be eliminated at some point. When and how do you propose to do this? This takes some explaining. No, we have a norhead. I said to anyone, hey, look at this and study it or something else. The truth of the matter is, you perhaps don't know that I've been out of the mashed potato circuit as an unhappy dinner speaker for more than a quarter of a century. I've often described it that if in Hollywood you didn't sing or dance, you wound up as an empty dinner speaker. I started out, I guess, those years ago speaking about our own industry and tax discrimination and so forth against the picture of business because of its kind of fat, luxurious image and all that publicity. But in speaking more and more and being invited to speak to national conventions and so forth and national board meetings of the NAM and all that, I realized that I couldn't expect every audience to be interested in the problems in the picture of business. So I logically enough tied them to what I saw as government intervention and necessary government interference and regulation and tax policies with regard to business and I would make the tie in of if it could happen to one industry it could happen to others and gradually the Hollywood portion of the speech got smaller and smaller until it was even less than an introductory paragraph and I talked about the things that I had researched and learned was going on in other businesses and industries and I made speeches and over these 25 years or more I have spoken about the fact that in taxing policy this is politically expedient to seemingly remove a tax burden from the taxpayer itself and apply it to something on feeling like a corporation and I always pointed out business doesn't pay taxes business collects taxes for government and does it very efficiently but all those taxes eventually wind up back on the taxpayer for the citizen and in fact some of the examples I had and I would research them and they were accurate that you go into the market and buy a dozen eggs there are 100 accumulated taxes in that egg and the chicken didn't put one of them there and so I was pointing out that through this the government had managed to increase the tax burden not the people being aware of how much tax they were actually paying and I have spoken on my own radio program seven years ago before I came here I did several broadcasts on this same subject and on the corporate tax and I pointed out on the corporate tax a corporation is a thing you can't tax a thing but it is owned by people now some of those people are little investors who hope to retire on a modest income from earnings of blue chip stocks they own and they may not even be in an income tax bracket or if they are it's a very low one an elderly couple out there in their dividends but in reality their earnings are being taxed at 46% before they get them now we know the labor unions there's who are in the upper income tax brackets and they're paying 46% and then they're paying again when they get it as dividends so what I've always pointed out is that if the earnings were passed on to the owners those who own no tax would get more return than they're getting but also in addition to that business itself would be freer to take some of that that they're now passing on and reduce the price of the product which would make them more competitive particularly in international competition they might take some of it and be able to reward their employees better but if they wanted to retain some of the profits to reinvest the business would that be taxed? this I think you'd have to protect that this was legitimate that there was a legitimate amount that this could be done so that you couldn't have such a thing as the you know building up a great capital gains thing and just artificially keeping the money in the company but that could be covered very easily but I was just going to say but in this seminar the other day we were talking and I introduced it with a question and I said because the speaker before me a businessman had talked of the penalties of the tax structure and so forth and how they interfere with business and so talking then I said it's when I said I'll kick myself or say this tomorrow but I said when are we going to have the courage to really face up to the corporate tax and the part that it plays but no I haven't asked for that what we had been talking about here and are still talking about and not right now because of we're going to try to get this package through but that we should be for the future looking at simplification of the tax code in the future when we get down to tax reform if we ever do you have any particular preference whether we should shift to a flat rate tax or a consumption tax or are your mind open on this question my mind is really open all I ask is that we find a way that when I give my own example I used to fill out my own tax forms even when I was receiving some of that make-believe money in Hollywood but I'm unable to do it when my tax forms are sent to me here last year all filled out but I couldn't understand them and I wonder does the government have a right to have a tax system so complicated that a person not only has to even a modest means has to hire professional advice and then the government says to them that it is so complicated that if they make a mistake they will be penalized and have to pay a fine I hope we're making a mistake Mr. President you said before that the key was interest rates to the recovery are you satisfied that the Fed policy is doing enough to keep interest rates down should they do more to make interest rates even lower you think there's room for that I think right now the Fed has been and for some time has been very cooperative in this and that again with the discount rate and all the tax rate could be lower than it is and that's going to be determined by the financial houses out there and as I say I think that they could do that without any further access for a time when the Fed kept the discount rates so high obviously they couldn't come down but it's down there pretty low now before we leave the Fed I have to ask you this question focus term comes up in August do you reconsider is it important I haven't even given any thought to that I haven't given any thought to that I'll take that to August as a long way away with all the things that are on our plate right now let's talk about unemployment even with the new initiatives and the state union message the administration expects that the employment state double digits is there nothing else that the government can do to bring down the jobs rate faster well the things that I hinted at and the things we're going to do first of all we have already some training program in operation that we passed last year this is a training program that in contrast to some of the previous government programs where as little as 18 cents out of the dollar went to actual training this program of ours went 70 cents out of every dollar is going to training but the other thing is we're going to put in the areas in the local communities in we'll take into the management of it local officials and local business and industrial leaders and train people in a city for the jobs that are available in that city or that community that area so that we're specifically pointing the program we expect that program to train about a million a year now the other things that we're talking about are seeing if we can't in cooperation with the states where they have and administer unemployment insurance programs where if we can't make it possible for them to use some of that unemployment insurance money for training for relocation and so forth and we're going to look at more training things that we can do because we think that this recession and the unemployment in it is much more than just a recession that there's a very definite structural part in the two years preceding the the big something that happened in July of 81 when what was called a recession started although it was a pretty good recession in 1980 with interest rates at 21 and a half and inflation at 12.3 and unemployment at about 7.8 if I remember correctly of the we believe that part of that represents a structural thing of a change that is being occurring in our country a technological change we know that some of the steel workers will never go back to those jobs not that we won't make steel in America but we know that there are modern ways of making it in them that our competition are using that will require less manpower the same is true in the automobile companies we'll be making automobiles but the robotizing of the plants and all but we also know that there are industries out there begging for workers over the New Year weekend being in Los Angeles times on Sunday and opened it up to the help wanted ads now there were 45 and a half pages of help wanted ads in that paper but what struck me was a difference in tone instead of just that notice the little strip of vacancy for a person that can do such and such there were ads and all in the higher technology field ads that were literally solicitations they were selling programs you know please come to our plant we need such and such and they were trying to lure people everything from computer programmers to engineers and so forth and this was an indication that with all of this unemployment there is another side of industries that are expanding and growing the people with the skills so we think rather than the type of dead end job that is supposed to be just weeding out the recession no let's train some people the other day in Boston that OIC where those young people all of them disadvantaged homes being trained as computer programmers they told me that 29 of them have just completed the course 12 of them are already hired 4 more are being hired while we were there and there is another 10 that are being interviewed that they expect to place very shortly and this we think that this is a part of this problem in addition to that there has been a tremendous change increase in the potential employee pool if you take as we have taken traditionally for statistics everyone over 16 to 65 is potentially a worker the percentage that are employed right now in this country is greater than the percentage that were employed a few years ago when we had full employment meaning that there has been an influx two years I started to say a little while I didn't finish the sentence in the years that preceded the big bump in July some 3 million new entrants to the job market were on the scene here in this country and we didn't have the new jobs the democrats are talking about 5 billion on where is the jobs bill and senate republicans are preparing out of 2 billion veto these bills well we are looking at the 2 billion dollar from this standpoint I haven't seen it yet but we understand that it probably isn't just the old fashioned concept that it contains training and some things of that kind we are also thinking more in terms of a change in our own unemployment insurance thing of giving an individual you might say a voucher and protect against someone just taking back an employee they've laid off or something allowing them to go to an employer in which for those first months for a period of time they will be literally in on the job training the employer will only pay part of their income and this old code unemployment insurance will pay the other part but we are looking at this one because it may not be just a jobs program it may have the facets that we could approve if the other one is the typical make work job program one of the programs that was introduced earlier last year that I vetoed was a program that would not have actually gone into effect until 1985 well if you've got recovery on the way and you add to the deficit the program of that kind you could set back recovery even though you were temporarily helping some people in this regard to question that people ask me they sometimes say what's going on in the White House lower echelons or levels these leaks from people that I guess have no particular religion about what we're trying to do or anything and they they feel important if they can give something but many of these leaks are down at a level where you've asked for options you've said hey tell us everything what would be possible to do this or do this and then they leak one example of that was over Thanksgiving the firestorm was created about whether I was going to tax unemployment insurance now may I speak disparagingly of your media for a moment this was all over the media and I hadn't even seen it it is true that some place down the line in preparing a lot of options and everything that could be looked at someone had put this in and then gone out and leaked it it hadn't even reached us yet but there was this big firestorm and yet no one mentioned that unemployment insurance is taxed that this was passed during the Carter administration that anyone with an income of $12,000 pays tax on unemployment insurance but they also didn't mention that several prominent Democrats in the House and Senate as late as last August had introduced a bill to tax every dollar of unemployment insurance for everybody getting it and this was never mentioned and I was hung up there on the wall as if I were advocating this well when I got a call from our own staff here and said what had happened I said look I'll tell you right now we're not going to do it but what I said I would talk about for a moment ago let me just as briefly as I can explain it I have an image that cabinet meetings in the past have largely been devoted to say like a once a month ceremonial gathering in which each cabinet member would report on how things were going in their particular agency well in California I changed the cabinet system to one that was more came to board of directors and it took me a while because while none of them had ever been cabinet members before or in public life I sought people but I wanted from the private sector as I did here and I had to keep hammering at them that they weren't to keep their mouths shut because the issue being discussed only involved in one agency there isn't any such issue they all cross over into other agencies if you're talking foreign trade you know you're involving the State Department national defense as well as congress and so forth so what we do is this issue goes out on the table and everybody has their say and I sit there and getting all of this but I know the one difference between board of directors and the cabinet is they're not going to take a vote I'll make the decision when I've heard enough to make the decision and if I haven't we come back again for another meeting and so the decisions when I make one obviously it's going to be against the views presented by some and in support of others but there is no I've never seen any about this never seen any resistance when I make the decision that's the decision and everybody gets behind it and they've all found out that next time around they may be on the winning side with their views on the subject of the big decisions do you feel that you're under any increasing pressure to declare your intentions perhaps even before you'd like to about 84 and what is your current thinking about your intention to seek reelection in 84 well I can't answer that question really the no there are people who are saying I should and I know there's a time when I'm going to have to to say that one way or the other I also know there's a time when I don't think he should if you say it too soon you then are handicapped in that for whatever you may want to do everyone assails it as being a political gimmick if you wait too late then you might find a lot of stirring around and factionalism as people begin to decide whether they should do it so I'll make it when I think the time is right but I also think that as I said many times I think the people kind of tell you whether you should or not on another area entirely there is a tremendous amount of disarray in OPEC these days and I was wondering do you view the current disarray of the oil cartel as something that is basically a positive development for the US and the western economies I have to I have to believe this I know it's all over oil prices incidentally I'm very proud of the fact that in spite of the predictions of $2 a gallon gasoline in America when we were talking about decontrol we've had decontrol and it's now less than a dollar in price in many places I think that long range anything that lowers the price for the consumer is good in the short range I can see where there would be troubles for and for some of the lesser developed countries that are dependent on oil as their export product if this happens if the consumers better off and can use more of the product they will eventually get over that short term problem too but as I say I know there will be some short term problems as a matter of fact some automobile people have told me that even give them problems if the price goes down more because as the prices come down Americans are returning to their first love and they figure that they can afford a new price of gas Mr. President on another foreign policy issue the Japanese Prime Minister was here recently do you feel you received serious assurances from him that something will be done by Japan to correct the imbalance in the US Japanese trade we have very solid discussions with him and I think that he is sincere we're well aware of the political problems that he faces and we know that he can't wave a wand instantly he's a little bit like I am he's got a diet there that he has to work with but I believe that he truly thinks we will all be better off if we have free trade and of course that we have at the same time rectify some of the things that are keeping it from being as open as it should be but he also sincerely feels that we really are the two economic giants in the world and that between us we kind of have a responsibility to help the world to get out of this recession my specific issue Mr. President the Japanese have long wanted to import Alaskan oil we need legislation for that which could be yes I would yes I would I think that it makes a lot of sense for one thing our Alaskan crude as you know the bulk of it I don't think we still have any refineries on the west coast that can handle it so that crude comes all the way down and off the canal and then because the giant tankers can't go through the canal it is trans shipped through to the other side refineries where they can use it and here would be the short haul for Japan and we in turn then could get what we need in import take the we become the market that Japan is for that other source and it seems to me that there is a benefit there for all of us of course this is a time to also point out that we have reduced our import of oil by half we've cut it in half because of the increased development of it if commerce were to pass local content legislation eliminating auto imports or a bill or a reciprocity in some way in the trade would you be telling such bills but let me say without getting it if you tag yourself as any such thing of blanket indictment there may be a program that was suitable in principle I will veto protectionist legislation as I say in broad principle because protectionism has never worked it becomes a two way street and the more open trade is the better off everyone is and the businesses themselves that are involved I was not supportive at all I opposed that content bill that we're talking about because I think it would lead to the kind of protectionism that would be harmful to all of us you said a moment ago that oil imports were way down but isn't part of the reason for that the recession is just purple with them I'm not sure the recession has as much to do with it but the first of all we're seeing the effect of the change in the automobile in this country and the conservation that this is brought about because of the increased mileage and all I think the price alone has had an effect that is encouraged conservation people think twice depending on their means as to whether they're going to ask the question they ask themselves but we're seeing as I say a change in that as the price has come down there's no question but price is a factor for everyone whether there's a recession or not back on the trade again do you want expanded legislative authority to move against what you consider a fair trade anything would help us in that and we have we've been very quietly moving because I believe in quiet diplomacy I think that once you start front-paging everything you're going to do will let you you put the people you're dealing with in a kind of political corner where they can't appear to be backing down on the face of demands from outsiders so we have been meeting doing very well from the Department of Commerce and our trade representative ambassador Brock and in our relationships with the European countries and the GATT and the tariff programs of Nakasone great political courage did a remarkable job in moving back tariffs there are still other restrictions that are having even worse effected tariffs that we're going to continue to to work on and I think we've made some sizable progress in that respect and we're going to we're going to continue working at it we'll be trying it in our summit meeting here in Williamsburg, Virginia in May but were you optimistic about that meeting and why you would fill it out yes for one reason because we've made some changes already since I'm the host we have decided against a real formalized agenda and then a communique at the end that's supposed to spell out what you've accomplished what you haven't accomplished I have made the proposal and it's been very well received by the other countries of why don't we just sit together and sit around that table and throw out on the table all the problems that we think need solving and see what we do about and no communique I'd like to ask you kind of a multi-part question on east-west relations part one is how do you respond to some of the European critics of your policy that say what you're basically doing is stalling control until you complete the U.S. military buildup and if you don't accept that what kind of a concrete sign of good faith specifically would you like to see from the Soviets that would in your mind make a Reagan and Dropov summit possible between now and 84 well we know that there's a great propaganda campaign going on with regard to the disarmament to try and separate us from our allies and to make the people in western Europe think that somehow we're not sincerely bargaining that's one of the reasons why Vice President Bush is going to Europe to meet with our allies over there discuss this with them but from the very first the first that I ever suggested the zero option in INF if you look at my entire statement I said that we will negotiate with any legitimate and on any legitimate proposal that may be made in those negotiations now so far I don't think a legitimate proposal has been made when the Soviet Union the only proposal they have come up with is one which would leave them with its true less missiles than they presently have but still enough to target virtually every population center in Europe and we would be left with zero well that's not exactly a half and half deal the fact that half of us have zero and the other half has missiles but are you surprised by the European sudden resistance to those missiles since my understanding is that we developed some of those new missiles at their insistence to put them on their soil for protection at their request aside from the Soviet propaganda campaign is there any other force at work do you think that suddenly made them have cold feet about this no so far we haven't had any falling away as far as the heads of state are concerned and we again are going to make it plain that we've made a proposal that we think is solid that would leave that whole area free of any of those intermediate-range weapons both sides the Soviet wants to make truly a legitimate and a counter-proposal it's got to be for a balance has got to be verifiable and we're willing to discuss anything of that kind they bring it up we still believe that zero was the best option we believe this would be the best thing for peace of the world and for all of Europe and for the Soviet Union if they would do it the the wave of the peace movement as we've seen here in the country we think has had some Soviet considerable backing it's the main organizing group behind it is the World Peace Council which is a Soviet organization supported by the Soviets and they may use it they're negotiating but we'll negotiate and we're going to make it I think that we can make it plain if we present to the people of Europe there hasn't been much of a public relations campaign from our side but I think when the people of Europe see that one side is suggesting retaining missiles targeted on their homes and their cities and that at the same time that they demand that Western Europe have no deterrent I think that the people will say well just a minute that's not a fair proposal Mr President the other side we've sat down on the question peace-west trade issues and we seem to be getting some sort of conflict with our European allies we'd like to tighten up our trade plot they don't seem to be as enthusiastic to do so will you continue to press this view even though it might increase this split? No we think that agreement that we got that paper that we finally got after which we lived to the sanctions it was really what we wanted in the first place and that was some agreement on number one high technology and number two subsidizing trade with the Soviet Union which would enable them to continue spending more of their resources on their arms build up and we've gotten great agreement including agreement of the our European allies to explore with us other sources of energy so that they won't someday be subject to blackmailed who were willingly dependent on the Soviet Union for gas as long as the Soviet Union controls the valve that shuts it off and they've agreed to that and we're going forward with that study and they agree that they won't sign any further contracts for Soviet gas while this study is going forward okay sir well we thank you very much we don't have any 64 dollar question left that was the only one I can think of is that I've now seen two polls that show such luminaries as Glenn and Mondale testing you an 84 trial heat are you worried well this is a little bit like you're seeing the odds on a game before the kickoff because I was also encouraged when after the State of the Union address a poll revealed that I rose above 15 points in the poll after the speech when the same questions were asked that were asked by the same people after the speech if it had been two different polls I might not have been as impressed but when the same poll taken after the speech showed 73% of the people believing that they're going to be better off in the coming year and 59% believe that that we were on the mend and there was a 15% increase in their rating of what I was doing so I think a poll is the only worth when maybe it means that you're very reassuring thank you very much good to see you thanks very much good luck and good luck thank you