[hydrogonian]

Quote:

I didn't say the elite weren't to blame, but simply "taxing the wealthy" isn't going to solve anything. Period.

Well, I guess that we'd have to define "anything". Also, I disagree with the use of the conclusive word "period".

Even the most minimalist of governments needs taxes to operate. These taxes have to come from somewhere in the many tiers of society. Either they come from the working poor, the wealthy, or both. Saying that extracting more taxes from one tier, as a matter of logic and socioeconomic justice, doesn't solve anything is a hyperbolic fallacy. Sure it solves something. It creates tax revenue from a tier of society that many people think is vastly under-taxed on a percentage basis. This means that less tax needs to be extracted from the other tier. That also solves something, as it keeps more money in the pockets of the middle class and the poor.

When you consider the financial disaster that was formulated and executed entirely by the wealthiest class of society, to the detriment of the lower classes, and then the fact that our tax money was used to cover their losses, then defending the wealthy against tax increases is indefensible and wreaks of either self interest or brain washing. Sorry. It makes zero sense in any realm of economics nor class justice. Additionally, we have had continuous war for the last decade that many, many people think is also to benefit the wealthy. And it goes beyond just oil. And we have to pay for that as well. Last, how much of your tax money do you think is spent every year that will never beneit you nor anyone in your class, ever? A large portion of government spending benefits big business, internationally, and will never come back to you for your benefit. You pay for the subsidizing that benefits only them. And yet, men complain when people demand that the wealthy get tax increases to just match what their taxes were 10 or 15 years ago. What a shame.

Just what does the upper class have to do to stop having middle and lower class defenders?

It seems as if they get away with whatever they wish, no matter how criminal, and yet, according to some, have economic carte blanche continuously. There is no end to the length of their leash. I have a feeling that some of these guys have such "wealthy man" fetish that they would allow them to eventually come in their houses and fuck their wives, girlfriends and mothers as they proudly looked on that a wealthy man was nice enough to bless his house by giving his wife a good sticking. They may as well, as they allow the wealthy to figuratively fuck themselves and everyone else in society in the ass without economic or criminal repercussions.

Defending the wealthy, if you aren't one of them, is 'beta" politics and "beta" economics. I wish men would stop fetishistizing other classes, other men, and stand up for their self interests.

[MikeCF]

(10-03-2011 03:30 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Defending the wealthy, if you aren't one of them, is 'beta" politics and "beta" economics. I wish men would stop fetishistizing other classes, other men, and stand up for their self interests.

Yep. Funny, too, how the bloggers earning less than $20/hr. at work are the first ones to defend the Koch Brothers.

It's ego protection. They write favorably about the super rich as a way of saying, "Yes, those people are just like me!"

Pathetic.

[Gmac]

(10-03-2011 03:00 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

^^^ Problem is guys like you think 400K year = rich.

Guys like your dad aren't the problem.

It's the guys making $10 million plus who are the problem.

Guys like me? Actually, I'm the one who has said it probably half a dozen times on this forum that I don't believe anything below $1M/yr is rich, but the majority of Americans seem to think so (Speakeasy, it was around $400k including bonuses... anyway, I digress...).

I'm surviving on about 10% of that while renting, but I don't have 3 mortgages and all that other jazz.

I don't believe people realize that not everyone in that "top 4%" is making poor financial choices and they are still not living as comfortably as you'd think (sure, once you get upwards of $10M, it's another ball game). Then again, it's all perspective.

I get it. Banker CEO's with golden parachutes and Pharmaceutical board members lining their pockets with diamonds are taking advantage of the system. Blah Blah Blah... how about the young CEOs with new start-ups within that $10M mark? Should we lump them (a presumably smaller minority) into that group just because they happened to make a certain amount of money? I don't think that's really addressing the core problem, which is corporate greed & the inflated salaries and bonuses of the supposed elite.

[MikeCF]

(10-03-2011 05:03 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

I get it. Banker CEO's with golden parachutes and Pharmaceutical board members lining their pockets with diamonds are taking advantage of the system. Blah Blah Blah... how about the young CEOs with new start-ups within that $10M mark? Should we lump them (a presumably smaller minority) into that group just because they happened to make a certain amount of money? I don't think that's really addressing the core problem, which is corporate greed & the inflated salaries and bonuses of the supposed elite.

Do you draft an overinclusive law that may swallow up 1-10% of the "good guys" or an underinclusive law that allows 90-99% of the "bad guys" to continue being "bad"?

Welcome to political philosophy.

[El Rey]

Mark Cuban wrote a recent blog post about taxes, being rich, small business, etc. Some interesting thoughts that pertain to this thread's discussion.

http://blogmaverick.com/2011/09/20/my-to...-and-more/

[Caligula]

It's much more easier to point your finger at a nebulous elite or at individuals who are seen to personify the problems we're seeing. However, it's really a systemic failing. A long term failure of institutions, legislators and regulation.

A lot of it comes down to the short term thinking that our system encourages. The stock market has gone from being conducive to investment and growth to being fuelled by speculation and the pursuit of short term gains. I saw a study somewhere recently that showed that the stock market has, in recent years, not been fulfilling its primary purpose which is to facilitate investment and by extension economic growth.

Most of these problems have to do with incentives. With current legislation and regulation there's a strong incentive to pursue short term gains, and so everyone will pursue short term gains over long term thinking.

China, on the other hand, is very focused on the long term and because of how the government there is structured this is possible. A democracy with short election cycles will always default back to short term thinking.

[blurb]

(10-02-2011 08:08 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

I am really confused about this right now. It seems everyone is attacking the wealthy in the U.S. "Wall Street" as the source of all the problems here.

I just cannot understand where the problems in the U.S. is coming from. Everyone seems to have pinned it on the rich, but what about all the other problems? Problems like: the increasing debt, the government turning into a welfare state after WWII, the government running up the bill even further by endlessly being in war, the increasing dichotomy in Congress, the widespread purchases of unaffordable houses before the housing bubble burst, over regulation driving business away, etc. I thought most of the problems came from a multitude of points that was not "Wall Street".

Why is it that people have pinned everything on the wealthy? Where do the problems in the U.S. really come from?

The problem is feminism...at least according to this guy:

The Misandry Bubble

There was a lot of hype about this essay, and I didn't read it until recently. I have to say that it's well-written and an interesting read, though I think that his prediction is a little bit too early before the s*** hits the fan.

Quote:

Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant wages and rising crime, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the economic decline of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?
----

Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

[thegmanifesto]

(10-03-2011 03:30 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Quote:

I didn't say the elite weren't to blame, but simply "taxing the wealthy" isn't going to solve anything. Period.

Well, I guess that we'd have to define "anything". Also, I disagree with the use of the conclusive word "period".

Even the most minimalist of governments needs taxes to operate. These taxes have to come from somewhere in the many tiers of society. Either they come from the working poor, the wealthy, or both. Saying that extracting more taxes from one tier, as a matter of logic and socioeconomic justice, doesn't solve anything is a hyperbolic fallacy. Sure it solves something. It creates tax revenue from a tier of society that many people think is vastly under-taxed on a percentage basis. This means that less tax needs to be extracted from the other tier. That also solves something, as it keeps more money in the pockets of the middle class and the poor.

When you consider the financial disaster that was formulated and executed entirely by the wealthiest class of society, to the detriment of the lower classes, and then the fact that our tax money was used to cover their losses, then defending the wealthy against tax increases is indefensible and wreaks of either self interest or brain washing. Sorry. It makes zero sense in any realm of economics nor class justice. Additionally, we have had continuous war for the last decade that many, many people think is also to benefit the wealthy. And it goes beyond just oil. And we have to pay for that as well. Last, how much of your tax money do you think is spent every year that will never beneit you nor anyone in your class, ever? A large portion of government spending benefits big business, internationally, and will never come back to you for your benefit. You pay for the subsidizing that benefits only them. And yet, men complain when people demand that the wealthy get tax increases to just match what their taxes were 10 or 15 years ago. What a shame.

Just what does the upper class have to do to stop having middle and lower class defenders?

It seems as if they get away with whatever they wish, no matter how criminal, and yet, according to some, have economic carte blanche continuously. There is no end to the length of their leash. I have a feeling that some of these guys have such "wealthy man" fetish that they would allow them to eventually come in their houses and fuck their wives, girlfriends and mothers as they proudly looked on that a wealthy man was nice enough to bless his house by giving his wife a good sticking. They may as well, as they allow the wealthy to figuratively fuck themselves and everyone else in society in the ass without economic or criminal repercussions.

Defending the wealthy, if you aren't one of them, is 'beta" politics and "beta" economics. I wish men would stop fetishistizing other classes, other men, and stand up for their self interests.

Gmac -

Hydro basically slices and dices you above in typical Hydro fashion.

Everyone is entitled to their own (misguided, in your case) position, however with what little income you make, you need to realize you are basically getting f*g bashed by the elites.

Those guy's wives spend your annual salary in a day on designer gowns. Those guys 16 year old daughter's first car is twice your salary.

And you defend them?

You are basically their peasant puppet.

It is like being the slave and defending your masters.

You seem like a decent guy, but broke defenders of the rich are a despicable lot.

If I was in your situation, I would be calling for blood.

Hell, I do pretty damn well, and I am still calling for blood.

I really don't know anyone personally that thinks this way (slave loving his master), so it is really hard to relate to this type of thinking. (Maybe I don't know too many people without very much money. Or many conservatives. So the intersection doesn't happen).

However, I am amazed that this kind of thinking can exist on a forum of "live by their own rules, travel the world, Alpha males."

[Samseau]

Gmac wasn't defending the rich. He was just stating that taxing them isn't going to fix any problems.


Is anyone here foolish enough to believe that if the government had more money they'd fix the USA? All that would happen is that, with more money, the government would waste more of it on programs to benefit the rich (who own all the politicians). We'd have more wars, more corporate welfare, and more illegal immigration.


Higher taxes do not fix any of the major issues. The fact of the matter is that income disparities in the USA were lowest in the 1800's when there was no income tax!. Increasing taxes will help the USA pay its bills for a little bit longer before they print more money again.


Taxes are not the issue. First the government must become worthy of tax money again before they can start demanding more taxes.

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-03-2011 03:30 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Even the most minimalist of governments needs taxes to operate. These taxes have to come from somewhere in the many tiers of society. Either they come from the working poor, the wealthy, or both. Saying that extracting more taxes from one tier, as a matter of logic and socioeconomic justice, doesn't solve anything is a hyperbolic fallacy. Sure it solves something. It creates tax revenue from a tier of society that many people think is vastly under-taxed on a percentage basis. This means that less tax needs to be extracted from the other tier. That also solves something, as it keeps more money in the pockets of the middle class and the poor.

It doesn't solve anything when spending is out of control and tax increases on the rich won't really help in terms of our deficit. If that is what Gmac was talking about then I don't know how you can't agree it won't solve anything.

Quote:

When you consider the financial disaster that was formulated and executed entirely by the wealthiest class of society, to the detriment of the lower classes, and then the fact that our tax money was used to cover their losses, then defending the wealthy against tax increases is indefensible and wreaks of either self interest or brain washing. Sorry. It makes zero sense in any realm of economics nor class justice.

Sorry, but we are talking about more then just the people responsible. I guess it begs to mind what has been commented previously. 1 mill isn't really wealthy now a days but they will be considered in your condemnation in terms of justice. Those people hardly had any pull in what happened in the economy.

Quote:

Last, how much of your tax money do you think is spent every year that will never beneit you nor anyone in your class, ever?A large portion of government spending benefits big business, internationally, and will never come back to you for your benefit.

I agree and I still wonder how any tax increases will fix that problem. There is a big hoopla about rich people but what about the companies that get huge tax breaks.

Quote:

You pay for the subsidizing that benefits only them. And yet, men complain when people demand that the wealthy get tax increases to just match what their taxes were 10 or 15 years ago. What a shame.

Just what does the upper class have to do to stop having middle and lower class defenders?

It is a shame when people concentrate on something that won't help out our situation. Increasing taxes will not help since spending is out of control. We need budget cuts and that will hurt, especially at election time.

Quote:

Defending the wealthy, if you aren't one of them, is 'beta" politics and "beta" economics. I wish men would stop fetishistizing other classes, other men, and stand up for their self interests.

It the ole slight of hand and it seems some still concentrate on the empty hand. The money has left the building. The wealthiest people won't get hit by the "rich tax" increases like the moderate rich. They already bled the middle class and now it is time to go after the low to middle rich class. You really don't think the wealthiest people will pay more taxes, do you?

This rich tax is just a marketing ploy for re-election. It seems the slight of hand seems to be working.

[thegmanifesto]

"People wanted change so they voted in a socialist. Now they got change and can't afford to pay for it."

You are missing the issue.

The "Socialist" never raised taxes.

I will be the first to admit I didn't graduate with a fancy PHD in economics.

But I do know one thing:

If you want to get out of debt fast, you need to cut your spending AND raise the money you are making.

Agreed?

Hell, I have been in debt.

What I did was raise the money I was spending AND raise even more the money I was making.

(10-03-2011 11:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Gmac wasn't defending the rich. He was just stating that taxing them isn't going to fix any problems.

When he said this:

"It's also as if people think those with large incomes are just hoarding their money away. No, lower taxes means they are SPENDING more of their disposable incomes, which drives the economy by putting money back into businesses, creating jobs, boosting tourism, etc."

It certainly seemed his was taking a (mis-educated) side.

Wouldn't you agree?

And yes it is going to help, because it is more money.

See my point above.

Fixing the gov is a separate problem that needs to be addressed.

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-04-2011 12:39 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

If you want to get out of debt fast, you need to cut your spending AND raise the money you are making.[/b]

The socialist just tried to make people pay for their own healthcare whether they wanted it or not. Besides the incredible amount of spending that didn't help in job creation.

You don't need to raise more money to get out of debt. No way is our problem a fast fix.

[thegmanifesto]

(10-04-2011 12:42 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-04-2011 12:39 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

If you want to get out of debt fast, you need to cut your spending AND raise the money you are making.[/b]

The socialist just tried to make people pay for their own healthcare whether they wanted it or not. Besides the incredible amount of spending that didn't help in job creation.

You don't need to raise more money to get out of debt. No way is our problem a fast fix.

Come on guy.

You owe $100.

You want to erase it.

You make more money and spend less.

Not sure why you don't understand this if you are not brainwashed.

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-04-2011 12:47 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Come on guy.

You owe $100.

You want to erase it.

You make more money and spend less.

Not sure why you don't understand this if you are not brainwashed.

That isn't the way our government works. It it gets $100 then it spends it regardless if it needs to spend it all or not. They spend it so they don't get their budget cut in the future.

Maybe you are brainwashed to think the government spends wisely.

[thegmanifesto]

(10-04-2011 12:50 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-04-2011 12:47 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Come on guy.

You owe $100.

You want to erase it.

You make more money and spend less.

Not sure why you don't understand this if you are not brainwashed.

That isn't the way our government works. It it gets $100 then it spends it regardless if it needs to spend it all or not. They spend it so they don't get their budget cut in the future.

Maybe you are brainwashed to think the government spends wisely.

"Maybe you are brainwashed to think the government spends wisely. "

Read above:

I addressed this already: "Fixing the gov is a separate problem that needs to be addressed."

And I said:

"If you want to get out of debt fast, you need to cut your spending AND raise the money you are making."

I don't know how to make it any more clear to you.

Please don't bring that weak sh*t to the hoop or it will end up in the cheap seats (with the rest of the broke defenders of the elites).



You gave yourself away above:

"The socialist just tried to make people pay for their own healthcare whether they wanted it or not."

If you know anything about this, it was a gift to the healthcare industry. Not very "socialist".

"Besides the incredible amount of spending that didn't help in job creation."

As socialist as Bush on this one.

You are still caught in "Left-Right" politics. While the elites rape you.

Tell me you don't watch Fox News.

I figured you would expose yourself if you kept writing.

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-04-2011 12:57 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

"Maybe you are brainwashed to think the government spends wisely. "

Read above:

I addressed this already: "Fixing the gov is a separate problem that needs to be addressed."

And I said:

"If you want to get out of debt fast, you need to cut your spending AND raise the money you are making."

I don't know how to make it any more clear to you.

Please don't bring that weak sh*t to the hoop or it will end up in the cheap seats (with the rest of the broke defenders of the elites).

Jesus, man, I was just joking with you hence the smily face. Relax.

Quote:

You gave yourself away above:

"The socialist just tried to make people pay for their own healthcare whether they wanted it or not."

If you know anything about this, it was a gift to the healthcare industry. Not very "socialist".

"Besides the incredible amount of spending that didn't help in job creation."

As socialist as Bush on this one.

You are still caught in "Left-Right" politics. While the elites rape you.

Tell me you don't watch Fox News.

I figured you would expose yourself if you kept writing.

Yeah, you found me out. I am a secret fox watching socialist. Great job Sherlock.

I assume you do the right thing and report all your earnings to the IRS.

[Samseau]

Quote:

"It's also as if people think those with large incomes are just hoarding their money away. No, lower taxes means they are SPENDING more of their disposable incomes, which drives the economy by putting money back into businesses, creating jobs, boosting tourism, etc."

It certainly seemed his was taking a (mis-educated) side.

Wouldn't you agree?

It is true that the wealthy probably spend more of their money outside of the USA than inside the USA, so GMAC is probably mistaken about the "trickle-down" economics effect.

Quote:

Fixing the gov is a separate problem that needs to be addressed.

But this isn't a separate issue at all. Taxation and spending are directly related. Changing income without changing spending is futile. The democrats are big spenders, bigger than the republicans, so for them to raise taxes would just be a way for them to increase spending. Fuck the democrats.

If a libertarian like Ron Paul was elected, who slashes spending and increases taxes, I would be all for it. But that's not how the country works today.

[Gmac]

(10-04-2011 08:49 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

"It's also as if people think those with large incomes are just hoarding their money away. No, lower taxes means they are SPENDING more of their disposable incomes, which drives the economy by putting money back into businesses, creating jobs, boosting tourism, etc."

It certainly seemed his was taking a (mis-educated) side.

Wouldn't you agree?

It is true that the wealthy probably spend more of their money outside of the USA than inside the USA, so GMAC is probably mistaken about the "trickle-down" economics effect.

That's quite an assumption you're making. I also never said they were spending 100% of their money here, but that wouldn't change the fact that the wealthy are still spending it. Global tourism is also good for everyone (it still indirectly affects us in the short term and in the long run).

Quote:

Quote:

Fixing the gov is a separate problem that needs to be addressed.

But this isn't a separate issue at all. Taxation and spending are directly related. Changing income without changing spending is futile. The democrats are big spenders, bigger than the republicans, so for them to raise taxes would just be a way for them to increase spending. Fuck the democrats.

If a libertarian like Ron Paul was elected, who slashes spending and increases taxes, I would be all for it. But that's not how the country works today.

Ron Paul brings up a lot of points but he's not president material. I love the guy and agree with him on most issues... probably more so than anyone else. But, he'll never become President, even if the "elite" have to see to that.

[Giovonny]

(10-03-2011 11:40 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Those guy's wives spend your annual salary in a day on designer gowns. Those guys 16 year old daughter's first car is twice your salary.

And you defend them?

You are basically their peasant puppet.

It is like being the slave and defending your masters.

You seem like a decent guy, but broke defenders of the rich are a despicable lot.

If I was in your situation, I would be calling for blood.

Hell, I do pretty damn well, and I am still calling for blood.

I really don't know anyone personally that thinks this way (slave loving his master), so it is really hard to relate to this type of thinking. (Maybe I don't know too many people without very much money. Or many conservatives. So the intersection doesn't happen).

However, I am amazed that this kind of thinking can exist on a forum of "live by their own rules, travel the world, Alpha males."

(10-04-2011 12:57 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Please don't bring that weak sh*t to the hoop or it will end up in the cheap seats (with the rest of the broke defenders of the elites).
[/b]

You are still caught in "Left-Right" politics. While the elites rape you.

Tell me you don't watch Fox News.

I figured you would expose yourself if you kept writing.

G,

From a literary standpoint, sometimes I think you do your best writing when you are "on the attack". Most of the time its best to keep your cool, but every once in a while you gotta open up the tool box and display some offensive firepower.

Maybe the emotional energy leads to a spark in creativity..

[thegmanifesto]

(10-04-2011 11:05 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(10-03-2011 11:40 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Those guy's wives spend your annual salary in a day on designer gowns. Those guys 16 year old daughter's first car is twice your salary.

And you defend them?

You are basically their peasant puppet.

It is like being the slave and defending your masters.

You seem like a decent guy, but broke defenders of the rich are a despicable lot.

If I was in your situation, I would be calling for blood.

Hell, I do pretty damn well, and I am still calling for blood.

I really don't know anyone personally that thinks this way (slave loving his master), so it is really hard to relate to this type of thinking. (Maybe I don't know too many people without very much money. Or many conservatives. So the intersection doesn't happen).

However, I am amazed that this kind of thinking can exist on a forum of "live by their own rules, travel the world, Alpha males."

(10-04-2011 12:57 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Please don't bring that weak sh*t to the hoop or it will end up in the cheap seats (with the rest of the broke defenders of the elites).
[/b]

You are still caught in "Left-Right" politics. While the elites rape you.

Tell me you don't watch Fox News.

I figured you would expose yourself if you kept writing.

G,

From a literary standpoint, sometimes I think you do your best writing when you are "on the attack". Most of the time its best to keep your cool, but every once in a while you gotta open up the tool box and display some offensive firepower.

Maybe the emotional energy leads to a spark in creativity..

Thanks Gio.

Unfortunately, slapping people around has become a full time job for me.

More off-line than on-line.

But yeah, it is one of my talents.

And I can go the full 15 rounds, when others are in three round Amateur bouts.

And if need be, I can go 100, like John L. Sullivan.

Bare Knuckle.

[JayMillz]

[Raoul]

If their wealth is coming from bailouts, yes.

[kosko]

The problem isn't the rich. Its society at large and them failing to admit to see their own shortcomings. The rich have simply exploited this and sucked dry close to 85% of the worlds wealth. The rich are committing crimes, but its society at larges fault for being to gullible and in the dark to see it for what it really is. Society is broken, for it to be fixed it would mean every individual person would have to look at them selves in the mirror and say "I fucked up"... but of course this will never happen as Humans would rather plunge them selves into extension then point blame at ones self.

[rozayINTL]

There is no conceivable scenario in which the U.S. government is able to reduce it's debt substantially. This country is completely dependent on government programs which the population can't survive without. Republicans like Paul Ryan have hypothetical plans to "cut government spending" by trillions without raising taxes. Sounds great, except that it could easily plunge the American economy into a deep, dark abyss.

It is a lose - lose scenario no matter how you spin it.

I've studied the real estate market extensively and I foresee there being at a minimum another 10 years of suffering, probably more.
Trickle down economics never has and never will work without running up federal debt to astronomical levels. It blows my mind that people don't realize that Reagan and the subsequent following of like-minded politicians/policy makers are the primary reason why America is now a dependent welfare state.

[YoungGunner]

For anyone who hasn't, read the article "The Quiet Coup" published by a former IMF Chief Economist in 2010 about the effects government has had on the size of the finance industry over the last 30 years and how these effects inevitably propagate bubbles.