2014

Bump.

Here’s a longish response to Blonde’s last comment on “A question about the living wage.”

Yet again I’m late. I understand your logic better than before, and I agree with the rationale. I guess then, for me, and I assume for at least some others, it comes down to a social-economic issue rather than a purely mathematical-economic issue.

These issues are not incompatible. The apparent incompatibility arises from the fact that not all forms of cost and benefit are as easily quantifiable as dollars are. Effective economic thinking takes non-financial factors into account, though still analyzing them mathematically. We prefer greater happiness to less happiness, don’t we?

I understand the productivity vs. wage argument, and that this is a significant factor for businesses and corporations in their bottom line. We are a capitalistic society, after all, and businesses typically exist solely for the purpose of gaining capital.

It’s more accurate to say they exist for the purpose of gaining profit. For most businesses, capital is a means to an end, the end being profit.

But I think there’s an issue when working 40 hours a week does not guarantee a person or family sufficient food, housing, or clothing, and I think this is hugely problematic. What is the incentive to work or educate yourself if there is not a strong likelihood of a good outcome for the individual?

Did you ever work a job that paid less than enough to support yourself independently, or to support a family? What was your incentive? There’s your answer.

According to a BLS report from March of 2014 (very first paragraph), there were approximately 3.3 million hourly workers in America who work for minimum wage or less. Ask them why they bother. Are they suckers? Presumably there were millions more who earned above the minimum wage, but less than a hypothetical living wage. What was their incentive? And I’d bet there are hundreds of thousands, if not more, of people who are looking for work, but can’t get it because the federal or local minimum wage is too high. Why are they looking for work at all?

Given that there are people working for less than a hypothetical living wage, and given that there are unemployed people looking for similar jobs, and given that both groups are clearly responding to some incentive, why make it harder to hire them?

By the way, it is imprecise to suggest that people seek “good” outcomes, because “good” is in the eye of the beholder and, more importantly, “good” outcomes aren’t always available. People seek the best available outcomes. Minimum wage laws limit access to some people’s best available outcomes.

And by the way by the way, is it reasonable to demand (I use that word because we’re talking about laws here) that a teenager should be able to earn enough in 40 working hours to feed, house, and clothe himself? Or a family? That’s an important question because according to that BLS report, that’s almost a quarter of the 3.3 million in question, and raising the minimum wage as high as you suggest puts those jobs in peril.

Workers are trading their time and energy for capital. Why bother to participate in this process if the tradeoff doesn’t leave you able to feed yourself? Why not go into a nefarious and illegal profession instead of wasting tuition payments and time on being a productive member of society if your productivity is deemed to be below the threshold of a livable wage?

Again, I ask, why make it harder to hire these people? I know you don’t want to make it harder to hire marginal workers. I know you don’t want to make it harder for them to earn some money, gain experience, build skills, and make contacts. But that’s exactly what minimum wage hikes do to those workers who need money, experience, skills, and contacts the most. That’s why I oppose minimum wage laws.

And in keeping with the free-markety tone of my answers, many (not all) of those nefarious and illegal professions wouldn’t be so nefarious if they weren’t illegal, and probably shouldn’t be illegal in the first place.

I will always be a product of a capitalist society, and I do not think that there is anything inherently wrong with the goal of a business or corporation being profits. But I also think that as such an ingrained part of our society, businesses and corporations also have a responsibility to pay their workers living wages, even if this means decreasing profit somewhat.

Nope. They have a responsibility to pay their workers what they contract to pay their workers. The end.

If you think that there’s a social responsibility to ensure a minimum standard of living for everyone, then a minimum living wage is an inefficient way for society to provide that standard to those in need. If society wants to provide that standard, it should do so through transfer (welfare) programs. Don’t get the wrong idea– I’m not a huge fan of that either, but it’s more direct, it’s more efficient, and it doesn’t force businesses to hang on to workers who cost them too much money.

After all, if people en masse are unable to afford the necessities of living based on their jobs, business will ultimately decline as a result of decreased purchasing power. It’s in the business or corporations best interest to take a loss now (through increased wages) in order to ensure stabilized or growing profits later (through increased purchasing power), no?

Not necessarily. That’s partly why I don’t want to mandate higher wages. And despite stereotypes, the business world is interested in long-term profitability.

I can imagine situations in which businesses make themselves better off by paying workers more money specifically so that those workers can buy the businesses’ products. But I can’t think of any off the top of my head… can you? They say that’s what Henry Ford did, but it was a myth– he raised wages in order to attract and keep the most productive workers.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen to businesses if the feds enacted a minimum profit law? Or to landlords if there were a minimum rent law? Or to banks if there were a minimum interest rate law?

Anyhow, I just wanted to keep this conversation going because it’s an important and enjoyable topic. I’ll delve into the responsibilities of businesses later.

5493.

The following transcript was culled from a recent interweb chat with my friend “72”, in which we were discussing a prospective convict:

72: Dude needs to go to jail so God’s left hand can get busy.

VDV: Now, now. I agree, but that’s not a nice thing to say.

72: Justice is a virtue of God same as the rest.

VDV: That’s going on either a plaque or a bumper sticker.

I am not proud of the somewhat vindictive tone of the conversation, but that’s movie tagline material right there. A Western? I’m seeing a Western right now.

Clip from the trailer: intercut with scenes of a ruthless gang terrorizing the county, a priest tries to talk a steely-eyed badass out of going after them. It’s too risky, there are too many of them, there could be blowback for the good folk of blah blah blah. Let God handle it. The hero grumbles: “Justice is a virtue of God same as the rest.” Gunfire. MCQUEEN. Bank roberry. VAN CLEEF. Train derails and explodes. Title Card: VIRTUE OF GOD. Summer 2015.

Aside from the World Cup posts, I feel like I haven’t been very productive this summer blogwise. The school year’s a-comin’, so hopefully the additional intellectual stimulation will help remedy the writer’s block.

“Its color, its brilliance, its divine heaviness.”

Noutheo writes:

I’ve been reading a lot of works by the late economist Murray Rothbard, and he’s turned me into a proponent of money backed by commodities. “What Has Government Done To Our Money” was especially interesting as he explored the history of money and the gold in the USA. So I was wondering what your thoughts were on the gold standard and whether or not we should return to it (or some other commodity).

First, allow me to explain in simple terms what a commodity standard is. Simply put, it means that the value of money is legally based on the value of a particular good or set of goods. Therefore, a gold standard mandates that the value of money is linked to the value of gold. A commodity standard is distinct from a fiat standard. A fiat standard means that money’s value is not linked to the value of any particular good or set of goods. Fiat money is backed by government mandate; it is valuable because the government says so. The US dollar has been pure fiat currency since 1971.

This is a topic that used to be quite near and dear to my heart. My college honors thesis dealt with the gold standard, and at least one of my college profs was a gold bug.

I haven’t read Rothbard’s writings about gold in a long time, so I can’t comment directly on him. Send me some links to the particular articles you’re reading because I’d like to look at them.

I’ve spent several days trying to figure out a clear way to respond, but haven’t had much success. So allow me to ramble via bullet point a bit before answering your question directly.

1. I don’t believe that inflation is inherently worse than deflation, or that inflation of X% over a given timeframe is inherently worse than deflation of X% over an equal period.

2. That doesn’t mean that using gold, which is usually deflationary, is as good or as bad as using fiat paper, which is usually inflationary.

3. I’m not convinced that a gold standard would bring discipline to monetary or fiscal policy. Governments find workarounds, whatever standard you’re on. In my opinion, our currency standard is pretty low on the list of problems with our government that need to be fixed ASAP.

4. You do not have the right to have the monetary value of your stuff remain constant relative to other stuff. In other words, you are not entitled to have your stuff’s monetary value increase via deflation or decrease via inflation.

So, should we return to a gold standard or some other commodity standard? If you’re interested in reversing inflation and tending towards deflation, then yes, using a gold standard would accomplish that, though it would not be a panacea.

But if you’re interested in optimizing human liberty, and given your email I assume you are, then no, we shouldn’t have a gold standard, or a commodity standard, or a fiat standard. We should have a free market in money.

If you accept money backed by gold, or silver, or land, or oil, or any other commodity, and other people will accept it in trade, good for you. If you accept money that I just drew on a piece of paper, and other people will accept it in trade, awesome. If the government prints money backed by nothing but faith in the US government, and you accept it, and others accept it in trade, great. If Bitcoin works out in the long run, then yippee! And if Gene Roddenberry’s vision comes true and we just plain stop using money (never mind all the different types of money that get mentioned all the time in Star Trek) and people are happy with it, then so be it.

I don’t think anyone should be punished for using anything as money, so long as buyer and seller agree to the exchange freely, without fraud or force. So, in the interest of advancing liberty, we shouldn’t have any official monetary standard.

P.S. A cobalt-iodine dirty bomb would not render gold radioactive for anything close to 58 years, so don’t get any ideas.

World Cup Brazil 2014, Part Seven.

The World Cup is over, Germany emerged victorious, and alas! we face four agonizing years until the next edition, which’ll be in Russia, which by then will hopefully be under the supervision of a kinder, gentler autocrat.

The final was an good game, though not high-scoring as I’d hoped. Germany controlled most of the action, as expected. Some feared that Argentina would play a negative game, sit back, generate little offense, but they got some good chances to score in regulation. The stat sheet shows ten total shots, same as Germany, though ze Germans got more on frame. Despite the same final score, this game was much better than the last time these two met in the final. God, that game was hideous. I’ll come back to it shortly.

I saw a few thingies on the internet billing the final as “Messi vs. Germany”. As much as I celebrate Messi’s talent, this Argentina team was not a bunch of slouches plus a superstar. This was a good collection of players– not 1986 good, but certainly better than 1990– that probably needed better coaching earlier in the tournament. Messi had an average game; he crossed a few from close in that just missed the target, or slipped just past the post. A commentator called his final free kick, which sailed over the bar, “selfish”. That wasn’t a fair comment at all. If Messi can score from there, if he has scored from there, and if he’d scored directly from a free kick earlier in this tournament, then I don’t get how “having one of the best free kick takers and shooters on Earth shoot the ball” is a selfish decision. He didn’t score. That’s all.

I’d have to think a while longer about whether this was the best World Cup I’ve seen. The first round was easily the best first round I can remember, despite Italy’s humiliating exit. There were more goals than we’ve seen in ages, the US advanced (and would have clinched it after two games if not for Ronaldo), we finally saw the goal-line tech in action, and we saw the 10-yard spray in action. Love that stuff. No more WWE-style scooching closer to the ball when the ref has his back turned. I was pleased with FIFA’s willingness to tinker, though they could certainly do more. And some more after that.

The knockout stage was good; the four best teams made it to the semifinals, and yes, I include Brazil in that, because “making it to the semis” is different from “actually playing in the semis”. The Brazil that won its group and won its first two knockout games was one of the best teams in the tournament– that is, as long as Neymar was on the field. Without him, the team just plain quit. It is apparent that Neymar’s greatest impact was psychological. It shouldn’t have been, because Brazil always has talent, and should never think they have to rely so heavily on just one player. Their collapse reflects poorly on the players, but lies squarely on the coach, and it’s good that Scolari and his entire staff resigned.

I don’t know if this year’s knockout stage was my favorite. I’d probably have to go with 1990. West Germany, Italy, and England were chock-full of stars, and though I was rooting for Italy, I could live with either ze Germans or the Last Good English Team winning. But what heightened the drama was Argentina’s run to the final that year. Maradona was an out-and-out villain, and Argentina played very negatively, but it worked. They finished third in their group and barely advanced (Maradona used the “Hand of God” to stop the Soviets from scoring), they squeezed past Brazil in the second round (there’s reason to believe that Argentinian trainers put tranquilizers in Brazil’s water bottles– I’m not making that up), and they beat Yugoslavia and Italy on penalties. It was ugly to watch, and it was disturbing to see such blatant, vicious, cheating bus-parkers get closer and closer to the final. And in the final, it looked like it could happen again: despite missing four suspended starters, being outshot 15-1, and getting the first red card in a World Cup final ever, Maradona and his partners-in-crime were just a few minutes away from getting to extra time when the ref gave West Germany a PK. Ze Germans scored, and won 1-0. The PK was a bit of a gift, but at least it saved us all from the horror and travesty of watching Maradona lift the World Cup again.

…I’m still bitter about Italy losing that semi.

Anyhow, back to the present: pretty darn good World Cup. Congratulations to ze Germans for winning the title and for being deserving champions; congratulations to the Argentinians for a valiant and proud effort. Hopefully FIFA will keep tinkering and improving the game, hopefully the US will return to the knockout stage and go even further, hopefully Italy will get its act together. And hopefully this Cup will get more American fans to keep watching– Champions League, Premiership, MLS, whatever– and will get more American kids interested in playing.

World Cup Brazil 2014, Part Six.

The depressing funk stage of the World Cup– those breaks between the last few rounds, when you realize that there are only a few matches left and then no more World Cup for four more years– is over, and it’s on to the consolation match and the final. I’d like to see FIFA work in more consolation matches featuring more eliminated teams so that not a single day goes by without a match being played. Maybe in 2018.

Argentina’s win over the Netherlands was one of the tighter, and I think smarter, games of the tournament. I switched my pick to Holland because they looked better throughout the tournament than Argentina did. The Dutch weren’t that good in the first half, but played much stronger in the second and I thought for sure they’d win. Nope. In an odd way, Holland’s loss in PKs made van Gaal look even smarter for subbing Krul in for Cillessen against Costa Rica. This time: no Krul, no saves. Oh well. Messi’s time to shine on the big stage.

There’s nothing that can be said about Brazil’s loss to Germany that hasn’t already been said. For the first 30 minutes of the match, I could only check the score via the FIFA app on my phone. At first, I thought someone had hacked the app and was fooling around. Nope. Brazil really did play that horribly, and 7-1 doesn’t capture how bad it was. I have never seen such a poor defensive effort on such a big stage. Brazil just plain quit. That’s two cups in a row (maybe three, I don’t remember Brazil’s elimination in 2006) that Brazil seems to have simply flaked out and mentally collapsed. The loss of Neymar and Thiago Silva is no excuse, and the rest of the team owes those two an apology.

I think Germany will win the rubber match against Argentina. I can’t call them a lock because (A) Messi’s on the other team, (B) Argentina aren’t pushovers and played well against Holland, the most Germany-like team out there, and (C) the Germans may have used up all their goals in the semifinal. I just hope it’s an insanely entertaining, high-scoring final.

Oh, and I’ll take the Dutch in the third place match.

World Cup Brazil 2014, Part Five.

Had the semifinalists (Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Holland) right from the beginning, though there was a bit more squeaking-by than I expected. My original picks, as documented in this august journal and in my ESPN bracket, were Brazil over Germany and Argentina over Holland. If those picks turn out right, I will gladly accept congratulations, accolades, and cash from the world over. But I no longer believe that’s how the semis will go.

Germany’s been pretty consistent. They flailed a bit against Algeria in regulation, but that aside they’ve been strong on offense and defense, they’ve attacked consistently, and they’re due to get back to final. The loss of Neymar and Thiago Silva puts Brazil in a lot of trouble. Hulk’s played hard and sorta well; now Oscar and Fred et al need to turn it on. The Brazilians still have more than enough talent to win it, but this whole tournament they’ve over-relied on Neymar to the point that I wonder whether they think they can win without him. I now have to take Germany over Brazil.

Argentina is still getting by on talent without being properly organized, and that’s not going to work much longer. Di María is out just as Argentina is running into its toughest, best organized, most fearless opposition so far. Yes, Aguero is coming back, and yes, Messi is still Messi, but no di María means no playmaker in the midfield. Meanwhile, Holland looks awesome. True, they needed PKs to get past Costa Rica, but I think the Dutch were unlucky not to blow the Ticos away in regulation. And hanging on to that last sub juuuust in case you want to change out your keeper for the PKs? That’s insane, but it worked, and that’s what counts. Between that gamble, and the amazing comebacks, and that epic whupping of Spain, and their generally dominating play throughout the tournament, I now think Holland’s going back to the final.

So, am I going back on my original calls? Yes. Could you say I’ve picked all four teams to win? Yes. Will I backtrack on this blogpost if my new predictions turn out wrong? Certainly. But Germany and Holland are more impressive, Brazil and Argentina are hobbled by key injuries, and so: Germany over Brazil, Holland over Argentina, Holland over Germany in the final. No coin flipping this time.

About Robben: the guy doesn’t dive. He does embellish, no doubt. It’s embarrassing to watch, but the reality is he’s super-fast, he can use either foot, and so the bad guys foul him. A lot. Twice he was fouled badly enough in the box in the first half against Mexico that he should’ve gotten a PK. Against Spain four years ago, two defenders were hacking the bejeezus out of him on a breakaway and he didn’t go down. He doesn’t dive. He plays hard, non-stop, and I no longer want to run a power sander over his face.

Dr. Hmnahmna tells me that his daughter saw a picture of Lionel Messi in the paper today and asked if it was me. Me! But of course it wasn’t me; I’m right-footed.

Fourth of July, 2014.

Happy 238th birthday to the United States of America!

…and happy 142nd birthday to Calvin Coolidge, who probably wouldn’t want much said about the occasion.

Someone asked why most Americans only pay attention to soccer during the World Cup, which typically and roughly coincides with every fourth Fourth. I opined that though soccer is still a small but growing sport here, the World Cup gives us a rare opportunity to root for America the Underdog. That doesn’t happen often in team sports or in anything else because… you know… America.

We need to host the 2026 World Cup. How perfect would it be to beat England on our 250th birthday in Philly?

World Cup Brazil 2014, Part Four.

I don’t think the US played well against Belgium. Tim Howard is rightly getting his due, and the defense in many cases did well to force Belgium into low-probability shots. But I thought we were poor in transition and offense until the last few minutes of regular time and the second half of extra time. I realize that part of the offensive surge at the end was due to Belgium falling back and defending a lead, but it was also due to greater aggression, better decision-making, and better touch on the passes– all of which were missing for most of the previous 105 minutes. I lost track of how many times our mids either didn’t play the ball through, or tried to play it through and kicked it right at a defender. Oh well.

I like what Klinsmann has done with the team, and I loved watching him sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” during pre-game. We’ll always wonder about his decision to leave Donovan off the roster, but keep in mind we advanced out of the so-called “Group of Death” without him. In fact, if not for a defensive lapse at the end of the Portugal game, we would have clinched advancement after two games. Yes, Wondo missed at the end of regulation, and we can wonder about whether Donovan would’ve buried it. But Donovan’s comments and attitude throughout qualification made Klinsmann question his desire and commitment, and that was that.

Hopefully our guys will build on this (we had a young team, this was a good experience), and MLS will build on this (though I won’t hold my breath), and we’ll breeze through qualification, and we’ll draw an easier group in 2018, and go even further in the knockouts.

My predictions from the last post:

“Brazil over Chile. Chile was better than expected, but Brazil is hitting its stride and there’s no way the tourney/refs will let Brazil lose this one anyway.” Yes and no. Yes, Brazil won, but no, they didn’t get any help from the refs this time.

“Colombia over Uruguay.” Easy pick.

“France over Nigeria, Germany over Algeria, Netherlands over Mexico, Argentina over Switerland… those winners have looked strong and played positive games.” Three of these were nail-biters. I’m most impressed with Holland. They have fallen behind in three of their four games– once at halftime to the defending champion, once in the second half against an upstart, once with two minutes left in regulation of a knockout game– and all three times they won. It’s not like they’re barely eking out one-goal victories with early goals and packing the bus. They’re playing high-flying, attack-first games and winning.

“Costa Rica will beat Greece…” Yes…

“…and I think the US will beat Belgium.” No. Someone had to pick them, and I didn’t care that it might cost me my bracket. Seven of eight isn’t bad. Odd that all eight winners were the group winners.

My quarterfinal picks: Brazil over Colombia. Messitina over Belgium. Holland over Costa Rica.

France v. Germany. This is a really tough call. France has thoroughly impressed throughout the tournament, but I have Germany in my bracket, and I’m sticking with them. Germany’s had its scare and had its mettle tested, France hasn’t. I say that’ll be the difference. We’ll see.

World Cup Brazil 2014, Part Three.

My prediction performance so far, with my correct picks in bold:

Group A: Brazil, Mexico. Easy picks.

Group B: The Netherlands, Spain. Even after the whupping from Holland, I thought Spain would bounce back. Nope. The Dutch look good. I mean real good. I mean like “we’re back for revenge and we don’t care who gets in our way” good. And it looks like Chile’s high ranking was justified.

Group C: Colombia, Ivory Coast. Got Colombia right despite not knowing too much about the group. I’m a bit disappointed about the Ivory Coast; Drogba’s a genuinely good guy and I wanted to see him do as well as possible.

Group D: Italy, Uruguay. Whoops. Italy was awful in its last two games, but was still unfortunate not to advance. But if hard work begets good luck, then they didn’t earn any good luck. After the first match, the offense disappeared. The Azzurri were barely even trying to score. Balotelli reminds me of Wayne Rooney in his first World Cup appearance– incredibly talented, but undisciplined and immature. Even if Italy had advanced, his second yellow would have kept him out of the Round of 16 game. They need him to grow up, and they need to develop at least one other reliable striker to pair with him.

Uruguay advanced as expected, but the how was unexpected. If the ref sees the bite, Suarez gets a red, Uruguay’s down to ten men, they probably don’t score a minute later, and Italy advances with four points. But I’m not mad at the ref. Shame on Italy for allowing themselves to be in that position, and shame on FIFA for the light punishment. This was not the first time Suarez bit an opponent. This was not the second time Suarez bit an opponent. This was the third. He needs a complete and total ban for at least a year (some have argued for a lifetime ban; I wouldn’t object), and mandate a psychological evaluation and extensive therapy. Four months is a mere vacation.

All that said, Costa Rica looked darn good. I’d bet nobody outside Costa Rica picked them to win this group, much less with seven points. This was the real Group of Death; Italy, Uruguay, and England were all ranked in FIFA’s top ten heading into the tournament. Costa Rica beat them. Congratulations to our CONCACAF rival for doing so.

Group E: France, Switzerland. Nailed it, but France looks even better than expected.

Group F: Argentina, Nigeria. I thought these were easy picks, though Iran did have a shot at sneaking through in the final group game. What’s scary is that Argentina won without looking very good. Messi has shown up, what happens if/when the rest of the team does?

Group G: Here’s what I wrote: “Germany will win the Group of Death, and the US will finish second.” Yep.

“In the first set of games, the US will finally get past Ghana, and Portugal will be beaten and beaten up by Germany.” Yep.

“Ronaldo’s nagging injuries will get the better of him, and I think Portugal’s a paper tiger without him in good health.” Not quite. Ronaldo was Portugal’s only bright spot, and the more I read about his charitable work, the less I despise him.

“We’ll tie or beat Portugal in our second match, Germany will beat Ghana and secure passage to the second round.” I gave myself some leeway in the USA-POR game, but was surprised by the Germany-Ghana tie.

I could only listen to the USA-Portugal game on ESPN Radio, but it sounded like we had the better of the game. We were better than Portugal. We didn’t get the result we should have, but that’s because we were sloppy and they were fortunate to score.

“Then we’ll tie Germany in the third match and advance with five points. I hope.” Close enough.

Group H: South Korea, Belgium. Belgium won the group, so I should give myself half-credit. South Korea disappointed. The Algeria-Russia match was fun to watch. Aabrock and I flew out to Vegas to watch the last two days of the group stage, and were surrounded by Russians in the sports book. We hoped for a high-scoring Russian victory so we could (A) be assured of making it out alive and (B) witness their loud and happy and terrifying celebrations. Didn’t happen. They drew, and Algeria advanced.

In toto: Got 12 of the 16 second-rounders right, with 11 of those 12 in exactly the right spot. Not bad. I think I’m winning my fantasy league right now. That in mind, my original picks for the knockout rounds are mostly intact, but let me offer some new picks.

Brazil over Chile. Chile was better than expected, but Brazil is hitting its stride and there’s no way the tourney/refs will let Brazil lose this one anyway.

Colombia over Uruguay. Colombia is better than expected, Uruguay is down to its gums.

France over Nigeria, Germany over Algeria, Netherlands over Mexico, Argentina over Switerland… those winners have looked strong and played positive games.

Costa Rica will beat Greece…and I think the US will beat Belgium. Belgium’s had their nice little run, but we’re better than everyone they’ve played so far. They aren’t as good as Germany. Altidore will be back. We’ll be ready– not to squeeze past them, but to beat them.

Match of the tournament so far: tough call. The most significant game so far was Holland’s defeat of Spain. The term “statement game” is perhaps overused by American commentators, but that was one if I ever saw one. Spain’s run of greatness was over, Holland was back and angry.

The goal of the tournament so far was from that same game. Robin Van Persie’s Nintendo goal right before the half was well-served, well-struck, and well-timed. You could see the life and hope drain out of Spain– that’s when it was over.