Economic Throwdown Edition

[Bloggingheads]

[grits-n-gravy]

Twenty-eight minutes in and I'm nominating Dean for a Nobel Peace Prize. The man has the patience of a saint.

[Tara Davis]

If anybody had their patience tried, it was me. A large chunk of this diavlog was wasted on Dean being deliberately obtuse about make-work jobs to dodge the question of how otherwise usually-useful economic indicators get puffed up artificially when the government borrows and spends in large amounts.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Tara Davis

A large chunk of this diavlog was wasted on Dean being deliberately obtuse about make-work jobs to dodge the question of how otherwise usually-useful economic indicators get puffed up artificially when the government borrows and spends in large amounts.

No obtusity. Baker simply knows that Megan's point doesn't lead anywhere.

If you discount stimulus-funded jobs from employment figures because of the quality of the work, then you'd have to discount make-work jobs in the private sector. If you discount government jobs because they will exist only for a limited time, then all contract work shouldn't count as real employment either.

Megan assumes that all private sector jobs signify genuine demand and, conversely, that there is no demand for any work the private sector does not do.

[Tara Davis]

Originally Posted by Ray

No obtusity. Baker simply knows that Megan's point doesn't lead anywhere.

If you discount stimulus-funded jobs from employment figures because of the quality of the work, then you'd have to discount make-work jobs in the private sector. If you discount government jobs because they will exist only for a limited time, then all contract work shouldn't count as real employment either.

Megan assumes that all private sector jobs signify genuine demand and, conversely, that there is no demand for any work the private sector does not do.

By definition, there are no "make-work" jobs in the private sector. Nobody will give you a job just for the sake of giving you a job with their own money. If the job exists in the private sector, then its very existence proves that there is a demand for it.

Keynes once suggested that the government can sometimes find it useful to pay one man to dig a hole and another to fill it in. Megan is AGREEING with this concept as a means to improve the lot in life of the unemployed at times of severe crisis, but at the same time she is saying that counting the hole-digging and hole-filling projects as part of domestic production distorts the accounting.

And she's right.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Tara Davis

By definition, there are no "make-work" jobs in the private sector. Nobody will give you a job just for the sake of giving you a job with their own money. If the job exists in the private sector, then its very existence proves that there is a demand for it.

Clearly, it has never been your unhappiness to deal with nepotism. Lucky you.

[Tara Davis]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Clearly, it has never been your unhappiness to deal with nepotism. Lucky you.

Nepotism is giving attractive (but existing) jobs to people close to you. That's not make-work, it's favoritism in hiring.

Every black-and-white movie about the evils of capitalism features the useless nephew given a "job" that allows him to play golf all day, but in the modern economy that's a total myth.

I work for a fortune 500 company. I'm not in management myself, but I make a point of getting to know who everybody is at the top of the org chart, and what they do. They all have very important tasks, and if our CEO was foolish enough to give one of those jobs to a useless shirt-tail relative who goofed off all day, that relative would be fired in short order, followed shortly by the person who insisted on hiring him.

Heck, the way headcount is scrutinized, you can't even OFFER a job in a major company these days without:
1. Justifying the need for the position with HR.
2. Letting HR vet every candidate and letting THEM tell you who you can and can't interview for the job.
3. Hiring them on a probationary basis for a period of months, pending a review of their starting performance.

And this is the case at every level of management. Why? Because companies have an obligation to their shareholders not to waste money.

In all the companies I've worked for (over more years than I would care to admit), I've never once meet a "Tommy Boy" employee. Corporate America runs way too lean to put up with such shenanigans anymore.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Tara Davis

Nepotism is giving attractive (but existing) jobs to people close to you. That's not make-work, it's favoritism in hiring.

[...]

In all the companies I've worked for (over more years than I would care to admit), I've never once meet a "Tommy Boy" employee. Corporate America runs way too lean to put up with such shenanigans anymore.

Sorry, but an argument from incredulity is not persuasive. As I said, you've been lucky, not to have worked in places where "manager" or "advisor" or "vice president" jobs were quite literally created for someone's friend or family member. Or, even more often, where a useless job was preserved so that the favorite could hold it.

There's a variant on the latter, too: a job kept so that the budget for that department the next year would not be trimmed.

Say what you want about lean, mean corporate America, but it is not universally true.

[Tara Davis]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Sorry, but an argument from incredulity is not persuasive. As I said, you've been lucky, not to have worked in places where "manager" or "advisor" or "vice president" jobs were quite literally created for someone's friend or family member. Or, even more often, where a useless job was preserved so that the favorite could hold it.

There's a variant on the latter, too: a job kept so that the budget for that department the next year would not be trimmed.

Say what you want about lean, mean corporate America, but it is not universally true.

So are you saying you have observed such abuses first-hand, or are you simply being incredulous about my observations, and dismissing them as non-typical because they don't fit the way you like to paint corporate America?

But even if you maintain that such shocking waste goes on in every big company (I've never seen it, but for the sake of argument...), a few fat-cats getting their brothers on the corporate dole is not going to be enough jobs to distort macro-level labor statistics the way a big WPA-style program can.

Plus, if it's as widespread and eternal as you claim, you can dismiss it as a non-factor, because there will never be a year that it abruptly ends, unlike a short-term stimulus bill. The long-term effect on the market of nepotism is easy to predict, because it will still be there in similar numbers next year as it is now.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Tara Davis

So are you saying you have observed such abuses first-hand ...

Yes.

But even if you maintain that such shocking waste goes on in every big company ...

That's not at all what I said. (Perhaps you should have scrolled down the page at the last link and followed on to a related page?) I was merely disputing your original assertion, "If the job exists in the private sector, then its very existence proves that there is a demand for it."

Plus, if it's as widespread and eternal as you claim you can dismiss it as a non-factor, because there will never be a year that it abruptly ends, unlike a short-term stimulus bill. The long-term effect on the market of nepotism is easy to predict, because it will still be there in similar numbers next year as it is now.

While I'm happy to hear you now acknowledge that nepotism exists, I don't see why you next simultaneously claim it can be a dismissed as a non-factor and is easy to predict and will never change. What happened to all these lean, mean companies cutting the fat? Won't they respond to changes in the economic outlook and/or pressure from their stockholders?

It strikes me that you're just making one unsupported assertion after another, which is boring, while making an apples and oranges comparison of the non-time-constrained economy and a stimulus bill, which is intended to deal with a problem in the short term, all for the purpose of making your ideology come out on top every time, when clearly, it doesn't always work or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, would we?

[NateS]

Nepotism is a valid private sector justification for hiring someone. A boss could feel more secure knowing a family member would be less likely to steal and abuse the companies assets. Furthermore, a parent has every right to leave a business to their child and would have an incentive to pass on business knowledge before death.

In the end, if hiring of various employees based on racism, sexism, or your bizarre obsession with nepotism leads to failure and "make work" situations, the company will lose money and be cleansed from the marketplace, unless of course it convinces the government that there is a magical economic multiplier to supporting it's failing business.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by NateS

Nepotism is a valid private sector justification for hiring someone. [...]

Sure. I'd say your scenarios apply in some cases. But not all. My response, if you'll review the thread, was merely to dispute Tara's claim that there was no such thing as a make-work job in the private sector.

In the end, if hiring of various employees based on racism, sexism, or your bizarre obsession with nepotism leads to failure and "make work" situations, the company will lose money and be cleansed from the marketplace, unless of course it convinces the government that there is a magical economic multiplier to supporting it's failing business.

No. That's too absolutist. More likely, when a nepotistic hire for the wrong reason exists, that just becomes, effectively, a cost of doing business. Carried to an extreme, sure, as when George W. Bush is put in charge of an oil company, say.

[NateS]

WHY is it too absolutist? Your word is fact now? What logical series of events leads to the refutation of the obvious point that wasteful, racist, sexist, and nepotistic companies don't survive long in a market free of government favoritism and intervention?

And it seems like every other post someone trots out George Bush as a means to an argument against Libertarianism. His oil companies have gone belly up multiple times and get bought out by those seeking regulatory favor from the government. Do you honestly believe that the government throwing around 1450 billion dollars will reduce lobbying and other wasteful rent seeking behavior?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by NateS

WHY is it too absolutist? Your word is fact now?

I've given several factual examples. Recall that you (and earlier, Tara) have been making pronouncements that involve words like "all" and "will always." I'm just pointing out that your claims go too far, that they are not universally true.

What logical series of events leads to the refutation of the obvious point that wasteful, racist, sexist, and nepotistic companies don't survive long in a market free of government favoritism and intervention?

I'm not interested in playing logic games in an imaginary setting. I'm talking about the real world, which does not need to concern itself with resolving questions about dancing angels and pinheads.

And it seems like every other post someone trots out George Bush as a means to an argument against Libertarianism.

I don't know what other posts you're thinking of, but I wasn't using him to say anything about Libertarianism. I was using him, here, as an example of nepotism existing and persisting -- the company absorbing the cost of his incompetence. (Until the company was rescued by other cronies and he was eased out, without suffering any punishment, and in fact, collecting extra compensation, if memory serves.)

His oil companies have gone belly up multiple times and get bought out by those seeking regulatory favor from the government.

Preach it, brother. I've been calling for him to be investigated since early 2000. (Without any real hope that it would ever happen, of course.)

Do you honestly believe that the government throwing around 1450 billion dollars will reduce lobbying and other wasteful rent seeking behavior?

Not at all. You and I are in violent agreement about the the downsides of the close ties between big business and those in government, in case you haven't already figured that out. But that doesn't have anything to do with the point in contention, which is that nepotism either does or does not always get swiftly corrected by market forces. I say it does not.

I am not interested in debating the glories of Libertarianism, except to observe, as above, that it's moot to debate this nepotism point with the assumption of a perfect free market, since we don't have one, and we never will. Wealth and political clout are always intertwined, and those with money and power have little interest in dealing with true marketplace competition once they've made it to the top of the heap. Fact of life. Might as well imagine the Earth without gravity.

Look, I took Econ 101. It's nice between the covers of a textbook, and it's instructive as a way to begin thinking about how the world works. It was one of my favorite courses. But it has its limits as to applicability to real life, and that much was obvious five weeks into Econ 102.

So, shall we end this?

[NateS]

I still don't see nepotism supporting the case for private "make work". People play video games. It provides no economic output. Are the makers of video games in "make work" jobs. No, ultimately it is the markets job to provide what people want. If a billionaire uncle wants to give me a lavish job for his own personal gratification, there is still no justification for government intervention. Will his company be profitable? Rarely, and many of those in the company could quit, and build their own enterprise without being addled by an incompetent nephew.

The most common systemic examples of racist, sexist, and nepotistic practices are companies given monopolies by the government. Without the threat of government force or large subsidies, blatantly inefficient businesses fail. To use nepotism as an example of why "make work" jobs exist in the private sector when they rarely exist without government intervention is absurd.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by NateS

... If a billionaire uncle wants to give me a lavish job for his own personal gratification, there is still no justification for government intervention. ... To use nepotism as an example of why "make work" jobs exist in the private sector when they rarely exist without government intervention is absurd.

I never argued for anything anywhere close to these things. These are beyond straw men.

You're so far from understanding the one and only point I have tried to make in this thread that I am not going to respond to your thoughts. You are apparently incapable of doing anything except chanting passages from your holy book, and I've heard them too many times already.

[JonIrenicus]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Sorry, but an argument from incredulity is not persuasive. As I said, you've been lucky, not to have worked in places where "manager" or "advisor" or "vice president" jobs were quite literally created for someone's friend or family member. Or, even more often, where a useless job was preserved so that the favorite could hold it.

There's a variant on the latter, too: a job kept so that the budget for that department the next year would not be trimmed.

Say what you want about lean, mean corporate America, but it is not universally true.

I do not doubt that there are jobs in the private sector that are make work, A father who hires his daughter and pays her 20 dollars an hour to run errands.

And if some want a different technical definition than make work, then call it a job of charity, a job that could be cut with little ill effect on the company.

Fine, and my response to the existence of such things is so what?

The point I think Meagan was trying to make was that it was still a worthwhile question to ask about of the number of productive jobs on the market, jobs that are NOT make work either in a technical sense or in style.

Can we agree that an economy with a lower percentage of make work style jobs is healthier than an economy with a higher percentage of make work style jobs?

make work jobs, by their very nature are not as productive as non make work jobs.


It's sort of like seeing the employment rate drop by 1%, then have those jobs replaced completely, with the small detail that the original jobs were in engineering, and the replaced jobs were in fast food.

Just saying,

HEY, the employment number went back to the previous percentage !!!!!!
That's great !!!!! All we need to look at or be interested in... I think that should strike all of us as nonsensical in that case.


In a similar way, having job numbers pumped up by make work jobs should NOT be viewed as the exact same as the number of jobs refilled by the private sector that were lost.

This does NOT mean anyone is opposed to make work jobs on principle, in fact, Meagan herself stated pretty clearly she sees value in them, but using that metric as a diagnosis of health seems... problematic. THAT was the point.

Last imperfect analogy:

Consider Pain. A doctor comes in to treat the pain, and there are two main tracks. Find the cause of the pain, and cure it is one treatment. Another is to simply anesthetize the person feeling the pain.

Treat the symptoms or treat the disease that caused the symptoms in the first place.

Ignoring the job health creation in the private sector and just focusing on make work style jobs created by the government seems to me like treating the symptom, the pain, and we probably should do that as it is the easier thing to accomplish.

But the REAL goal is not JUST to treat the pain, but the cause, the disease that generates the pain, the psychosis that is crippling the private sector jobs in the first place. The push back she seemed to be getting was that that was not a worthwhile consideration, I think it is.

Make work jobs pumping up job numbers to me seems like giving a guy with a broken leg crutches. Would we prefer he crawl on the ground? Well no. Crutches are good. But his ultimate health should be determined by whether he still needs crutches down the road.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus

[...]

Again, I was just disputing that one assertion Tara made, not commenting on the diavlog. I didn't watch the diavlog.

[popcorn_karate]

thats a lot of nice theoretical rambling.

now define make-work jobs. are teachers in make-work jobs? are all government workers doing make-work jobs? how about private contractors working on government projects - such as in the defense industry or NASA?

if you can find the money being spent to dig then refill holes, you might have a starting point. but it doesn't exist.

Megan had a worthless libertarian cocktail party idea, she couldn't define it, she couldn't be clear on how anyone could usefully put her idea to use, and Dean didn't let her get away with it. Its about time someone held Megan's feet to the fire when she is spewing libertarian one-liners.

[JonIrenicus]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

thats a lot of nice theoretical rambling.

now define make-work jobs. are teachers in make-work jobs? are all government workers doing make-work jobs? how about private contractors working on government projects - such as in the defense industry or NASA?

if you can find the money being spent to dig then refill holes, you might have a starting point. but it doesn't exist.

Megan had a worthless libertarian cocktail party idea, she couldn't define it, she couldn't be clear on how anyone could usefully put her idea to use, and Dean didn't let her get away with it. Its about time someone held Megan's feet to the fire when she is spewing libertarian one-liners.

By this logic, nothing is make work, there will always be something useful the government could spend money on, new roads, fixing roads, etc.

Even teachers and firefighters can be considered make work if you wish. And we need a certain level of them to function, no one is decrying all government jobs, the point, which you gloss over as meaningless, is that the creation of make work jobs is not the same entity as the creation of private market jobs. Jobs where the market supplies the work, not arbitrary government decisions to spend. If we wanted, we could quadruple the number of people put to work by simply borrowing even more money. Want more jobs? double that yet again.

But I ask you, would that increase in raw numbers of jobs be the exact same thing as having a similar number of private sector jobs return do to increased demands from the market?

They are not the same thing, and having concerns about that latter should not be seen as ridiculous.

[popcorn_karate]

you are correct that there is an issue there.

the problem is in making some useful distinctions from that issue. One person's "make-work" job is someone else's heroic public service, such as teaching or being a firefighter. i can't see any way that a stock broker's job is more real than teaching children, or saving lives. Megan's ideology leads her to think otherwise - which makes me think she should re-examine her ideology.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Tara Davis

By definition, there are no "make-work" jobs in the private sector.

"By definition"--that's your problem. And Megan's. You're defining a term and then expecting reality to fall in accord with your definition, rather than changing your definition based on evidence.

Demand is constantly falsified in the private sector. Look at the publishing industry. Look at Enron. Look at diamonds. Look at farm subsidies. Look at advertising in general, for Christ's sake.

Demand is a shell game, and, yes, this game takes place on scales even greater than those of the stimulus. I'm ready to call it out for the phony work it produces whenever you are.

[Uhurusasa]

Originally Posted by Uhurusasa

purist thinking about the eclectic maze(or should that be labyrinth???!!!), that got us in our current mess, is so much self-serving dribble! eclectic is about best choices of various methods, but best for whom? the winners in this economic drama, may be benefitting from the collective confusion of so much uncommon-sense!!

we need a collective stimulus of our thought processes, imho!! "WE THE PEOPLE" are getting screwed! maybe WE should become asexual(politically) like Dorothy Parker became when she said "the screwing she was getting was not worth the screwing she was getting"!

besides arguing endlessly, is there a pattern that WE can learn from?? where are the fresh, new ideas!!???

maybe megan and dean are both wrong! who is profiting from these economic games, and why!!??

Originally Posted by Uhurusasa

if there is nothing so uncommon as common-sense, then,what must be common is uncommon-sense! who is the intellectual in this scheme of things? in the land of the blind, the one-eyed people are having fun!? do intellectuals and/or the academy have some monopoly on common-sense?



euphemism, public servant; servants serve their masters. how intelligent, articulate, and clean does anybody need to be, to figure out who is serving whom. oh, but that would take common-sense!

the state is packed,full of intellectuals(i guess lawyers count)! look at the great shape the country(and the world for that matter) is in! Rothbard, Keynes, and Friedman are names tossed about as hubs of intellectual thought, and the wheels keep spinning!

the professional intellectuals generally have the unique position of talking, writing, and teaching without having any policy decisions blow-up in their faces. going from theory to practice is where we keep winding up in a ditch!

i am not certain that dean is any smarter than megan! consider this:

the most eloquent reasoning on a false dichotomy,however nuanced,is high sounding nonsense!!


"WE THE PEOPLE" are being robbed blind(odd expression?), while we argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!!! wtf, how clever can WE get!!??

THE MONEY HAS NOT DISAPPEARED, IT HAS BEEN STOLEN!!!

[Titstorm]

this was a damn good battle and Bob deserves credit for another good match - he's been on a roll lately. megan tried very hard but there's no other way to look at it: greenspan and his dogmatic crew BLEW IT. why try being an apologist for this garbage? we don't need any more matt welches on here. it's beyond disgusting that anyone would even bother to rescue these morons from under the bus. "spineless apologists" is what their defenders are.

could anyone have seen the bubble?? gee, i don't know:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4801309.shtml

[Lemon Sorbet]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

Twenty-eight minutes in and I'm nominating Dean for a Nobel Peace Prize. The man has the patience of a saint.

I have to agree. I'm about 23 minutes in too, and finding Megan's arguments on the central bank not only unconvincing but ridiculous. She seems to be saying that we are in such uncharted territory that it's hard to blame Alan Greenspan for things he missed and actions not taken, because who knows if those would have worked, and in fact could have made things worse. I think that is a lazy, pass the buck attitude. If you are put in the top position of a given segment, and things are going terribly wrong and has the potential to implode that segment, I would hope that 1) you are enough of an expert to recognize the problem as well as the scope of it, and 2) you would try to warn others, conduct brain storming sessions, do analysis and modeling, and basically do all that you can to see how the ship can avoid hitting the ice berg.

If after doing all of those things, you determine that it's better to take a chance with the iceberg, then O.K., you gave it your best shot. I do not think Mr. Greenspan did any of those things. Rather, I get the sense that he brushed it off, again and again.

[matthawk]

I agree with the previous posts -- Dean has the patience of a Saint, for putting up with the constant interruptions and the off-hand dismissive "that's beside the point...." So, one criticism would be leveled at Megan's method of discussion, which implicitly seems not to acknowledge that there is another person in the conversation.

I also agree with the critiques focused on content. Megan's reasoning on Greenspan and company seems to be that Greenspan, the presumptive expert, should have been held intellectually hostage to the popular opinion of non-experts. If an expert does not have the intellectual courage to challenge the short-sightedness of non-experts then we don't need an expert to chair the Federal Reserve Board; all we need is a pollster.

One of the responsibilities of the Chairman should be to educate, to engage in dialogue and to attempt to persuade. Greenspan, by contrast, preferred to cultivate the image of mysterious oracle while the economy was inflating recklessly on smoke and hot air.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by matthawk

I agree with the previous posts -- Dean has the patience of a Saint, for putting up with the constant interruptions and the off-hand dismissive

Something Megan did repeatedly that I had never seen before on BHTV was after listening to something Dean said, she would just pick right up where she had left off before he spoke, as if he hadn't said anything, as if she had merely been on pause while waiting for her next turn.

It's a sign of real insecurity that she can't let him speak.

But still, Dean was the best yet as a pairing for Megan. Let's hope he is willing to come back. Not just for the sport of it, which is fun, but for the important things he has to say. Speaking for myself, I learned a lot listening to him.

[Gravy]

McArdle is going to run out of people willing to do this with her at this rate. Why anyone would put up with this for an hour is mysterious.

[daveh]

Ugh! Out of sheer boredom, I thought I might listen to M. McArdle again after boycotting her for a long time. Even though I am probably generally sympathetic to arguments criticizing the New Deal or the stimulus, she is simply terrible. Every time I watch her, I discover a new, annoying aspect. First there was freshman dorm libertarianism, then the well noted reliance on terminally boring anecdotes, now it is her statement that "we're" looking for reliable economic metrics, as though she is some kind of federal reserve governor or something.

Among those anecdotes I always hear about some guy she knows in the mortgage business, or whatever. I'm almost certain these are guys she meets on dates, first dates.

By the way, I also hate it when she attributes the negative vibes to sexism. I like Ann Althouse, Heather Hurlburt (even though she sometimes gets on my nerves), and many of the women who appear on this site.

[willmybasilgrow]

Funny.

[willmybasilgrow]

Could you have seen the bubble? Indeed, although I'm not sure if this qualifies as "seeing the bubble." I'm talking housing.

Go back and read comments sections of articles about real estate prices for as far back as possible. You will see people screaming like their hair is on fire about the UNSUSTAINABLE cost of real estate. Now, 2002? Maybe not so far back. But 2004 and 2005, yes.

Many people were complaining LOUDLY about the overvalued real estate market.

[ginger baker]

megan i see loves blaming ordinary folks and giving experts a freeride....she also should LET DEAN SPEAK!

[willmybasilgrow]

What?

[nojp]

geez if i keep talkin you won't have time to prove me wrong

your ideas are as bankrupt as trickle down laughing curves
but hey its a free market for ideas anyway

[Unit]

I thought Greenspan did tried to say that Fannie and Freddie needed to be put in check. I forget when he said that though.

It's not a matter of defending or blaming the guy: the fed chairman is the "interest rate tzar". One man in charge of "the quantity of money in the economy" for goodness sake. I thought the socialist calculation debate had been settled a long time ago. Nobody, no computer, no committee, will ever be able to get the interest rate "right". People should be running out to read books on free banking or at the very least on how to make the fed less central. Instead Dean Baker wants to expand the markets that the Fed should be in charge of getting right. It's in line with most people knee-jerk reactions: the more catastrophically government officials and government regulations fail and the louder people call for more government and more regulation.

The whole segment about numbers in the 30s was simply crazy. What a waste of everybody's time. I was waiting for Megan and Dean to explore the area where they actually did agree and instead we get this boring and uninteresting back-and-forth about imaginary macro data from 80 years ago, as if it had any relevance with the current situation. Give me a break.

[claymisher]

Haven't watched it yet, but I'm excited to see a non-libertarian on bhtv.

[willmybasilgrow]

Her style is a little juvenile.

[Stapler Malone]

oh snap!

[sugarkang]

Great! More unwarranted Megan bashing! That's to be expected.
As if any of you really know with any predictable certainty what's going to happen.
Maybe she shouldn't chop off Dean's sentences so much. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not her points are valid.

[jmoe]

I agree. I always watch Megan's diavlogs because I think she makes a lot of interesting points. If I didn't, I wouldn't watch.