Dani Rodrik Says the Free Traders Are the Big Threat to Free Trade

His argument is somewhat counterintuitive. But when your mission is to make space for social democracy in a neoliberal world, you do what you can:

FT.com / Home UK / UK - The cheerleaders' threat to global trade: Which is the greatest threat to globalisation: the protesters on the streets every time the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organisation meets, or globalisation's cheerleaders, who push for continued market opening while denying that the troubles surrounding globalisation are rooted in the policies they advocate? A good case can be made that the latter camp presents the greater menace. Anti-globalisers are marginalised. But cheerleaders in Washington, London and the elite universities of north America and Europe shape the intellectual climate. If they get their way, they are more likely to put globalisation at risk than the protesters they condemn for ignorance of sound economics.

That is because the greatest obstacle to sustaining a healthy, globalised economy is no longer insufficient openness. Markets are freer from government interference than they have ever been.... [N]o country's growth prospects are significantly constrained by a lack of openness in the international economy. Even if the Doha trade round fails, poor countries will have enough access to rich country markets to achieve what countries such as China, Vietnam and India have been able to do.

Closed markets may have been a fundamental problem during the 1950s and 1960s; it is hard to believe they still are. The greatest risk to globalisation is elsewhere. It lies in the prospect that national governments' room for manoeuvre will shrink to such levels that they will be unable to deliver the policies that their electorates want and need in order to buy into the global economy.

Globalisation's soft underbelly is the imbalance between the national scope of governments and the global nature of markets. A healthy economic system necessitates a delicate compromise between these two. Go too much in one direction and you have protectionism and autarky. Go too much in the other and you have an unstable world economy with little social and political support from those it is supposed to help. If there is one lesson from the collapse of the 19th century version of globalisation, it is that we cannot leave national governments powerless to respond to their citizens. The genius of the Bretton Woods system, which lasted for about three decades after the second world war, was that it achieved such a compromise. Some of the most egregious restrictions on trade flows were removed, while allowing governments freedom to run independent macroeconomic policies and erect their own versions of the welfare state. Developing countries were free to pursue their own growth strategies with limited external restraint. The world economy prospered like never before.

But what about China and India, which have taken off in the pastquarter-century? Are they not proof that poor nations need the current variant of globalisation instead of the Bretton Woods variant?Actually, no. What is striking about China, India and a few other Asian countries that have done well recently is that they have played the globalisation game by the Bretton Woods rulebook. These countries did not significantly liberalise their import regimes until well after their economies had taken off; they continue to restrict short-term capital inflows. They have used industrial policies - many banned by the WTO - to restructure their economies and enable them to better take advantage of world markets.

Rich and poor nations need breathing space for different reasons. Rich countries need it so they can revive the social compacts that underpinned the success of Bretton Woods. They need flexibility to interfere in trade when trade conflicts with deeply held values at home - as, for example, with child labour or health and safety concerns - or severely weakens the bargaining power of workers. Poor nations need room to engage in exchange rate and industrial policies that will diversify and restructure their economies, without which their ability to benefit from globalisation is circumscribed.

It is time, then, to consider a new bargain. When rich and poor nations come together to negotiate the rules of the game they should stop thinking in terms of exchanging market access: "I will open my markets in x if you open yours in y." They should consider instead exchanging policy space: "I will allow you to protect your national social compact if you allow me to engage in development strategies that conflict with WTO and International Monetary Fund rules of good behaviour"...

Comments

[DRR]

They need flexibility to interfere in trade when trade conflicts with deeply held values at home – as, for example, with child labour or health and safety concerns – or severely weakens the bargaining power of workers.

I.E. Carte Blanche, with a broad definition of these already broad caveats to close off trade.

Dani Rodrik is basically Jeff Faux of a fancier pedigree. The only difference is Rodrik went to a fancier school & Faux is at least somewhat honest (despite himself) about his views on trade. Rodrik behaves as if he really holds values that he actually doesen't.

[jerry]

I will allow you to protect your national social compact if you allow me to engage in development strategies that conflict with WTO and International Monetary Fund rules of good behaviour

We have been hearing nations ask for this for years and years and years now.

It used to be Italy wanted to protect Italian Pasta, and Mexico wanted to protect the many varieties of Mexican Corn.

Now it's America that wants to protect worker safety and the ability to keep children out of the labor market. We've heard how California's clean air standards might violate WTO.

I guess it is better to have one world with one pasta and one genetically identical corn and kids that work and the same amount of pollution for everyone.

Here's to Wal*MART and here's to the Brad DeLong's that help us reach that wonderful new era the quickest. For it is all of our moral duty to do so.

[jm]

"Closed markets may have been a fundamental problem during the 1950s and 1960s; it is hard to believe they still are."

This is simply weird.

Government manipulation of exchange rates so as to force a $200 billion trade surplus by currency overvaluation is functionally equivalent to imposition of a tariff barrier sufficient to produce the same result, and almost certainly has the same overall (negative) effect on global efficiency of resource allocation.

The greatest mystery of the age is why economists who would be screaming bloody murder if the US government were to enact tariffs sufficient to suppress imports $200 billion below exports are utterly complacent -- or even nod approval -- when the Chinese and Japanese governments manipulate their currencies to achieve the same result.

Closing a market by currency manipulation is no different than closing it by tariffs.

[Jon Fernquest]

Thanks for this link. I saw it on your leftside bar last night and most of Dani Rodrik's seem to be available online. he also writes for Project Syndicate..

It's good that someone is thinking systematically about these issues, since the norm is to emote and pull a couple of examples out of a hat QED

IMHO Western academia value added is logic and empirical proof.

[dale]

"I will allow you to protect your national social compact if you allow me to engage in development strategies that conflict with WTO and International Monetary Fund rules of good behaviour"...

If I understand that right, I think I disagree. I would hope that our trade regimes could be constructed to help, encourage and model, developing countries in constructing their own social democratic stlye social compacts. Why should they be encouraged to enter a period of extreme exploitation when that perhaps may be jumped over into a more politically mature and intentionally humane developmental strategy?

[Jon Fernquest]

"Here's to Wal*MART and here's to the Brad DeLong's that help us reach that wonderful new era the quickest."

That's ridiculous. Like Stiglitz, Brad DeLong is helping us to ***not to reach it***, probably more so even that Stiglitz, since he is actively providing people all over the world with food for thought 24 hours a day. A hero.

[Ponzi Q. Globalization]

"They need flexibility to interfere in trade when trade conflicts with deeply held values at home – as, for example, with child labour or health and safety concerns – or severely weakens the bargaining power of workers.

I.E. Carte Blanche, with a broad definition of these already broad caveats to close off trade."

I guess to some the neoliberal trading regime is the most deeply held value.

[Cranky Observer]

The United States started out with land [1] and the basic natural resources that go with it (timber, pelts, arable farmland, etc).

Next the US received a wave of immigrants just as more complex natural resources were discovered (iron ore, oil, and natural gas). Still plenty of land plus the newfound gasoline-powered farming techniques.

Next another very large wave of immigrants (1920s) and a wave of very capable immigrants (1938-1950, fleeing the war and its aftermath). But there were still a lot of natural resources to exploit plus the advantage of having an intact industrial base in 1945.

Finally all the above was leveraged into the high-tech world we know today.

Great. A combination of luck, natural resources, and hard work.

What comes next? Natural resources? Just about gone. Industrial base? Sent to China and India. Immigrants? Well, a lot of them still coming - but what will they do? Farmland? Being damaged very rapidly now (I would be happy to show you in Illinois for example), and we are running out of oil and natural gas for our industrial farming methods. High tech? Not sure there is much of a lead there anymore. Biotech? Maybe, but it can be done elsewhere and other nations have fewer scruples about the large-scale tests on humans that are needed to exploit it. Financial services? Admittedly the face-to-face nature of New York is still powerful, but there is no reason these services can't be provided in London, Mumbai, Shanghai, etc. Alternative energy? Too bad about those 2000 election results; the rest of the world is passing us by at high speed in their wind-powered public transit (see Denmark for example).

What is next guys? The last 5 years we have been building huge houses for each other using moneny borrowed from the PRC on top of the $1 trillion we have borrowed for Iraq. What is next? What comparative advantage does the US have over the rest of the world? Immigration is the only one I can see, but
post 9/11 we have screwed that up too.

I ask this question about every 4th time the subject comes up here at Mr. DeLong's great site and I get no meaningful response. I really hope someone has an answer (Edwards or Obaama and there advisors perhaps; Hillary and McCain sure don't) because I can't see a single thing myself.

Cranky

[1] I am setting aside here the issue of the then-Native Americans at the time this process started, which is tragic but out of our control at this point.

[JonF]

Re: What comparative advantage does the US have over the rest of the world?

What comparative advantage do any of the other first world nations have, other than a couple that have natural resources (which by the way the US still does have too, including land)? Can you see what advantage Japan or Canada or France or Sweden has? Do you predict their doom too?

[Slocum]

"They need flexibility to interfere in trade when trade conflicts with deeply held values at home – as, for example, with child labour or health and safety concerns – or severely weakens the bargaining power of workers."

Or when professed concern with the health and safety of 3rd world workers is a pretext intended to justify anti-trade policies that will protect domestic workers and industries at the expense of those same 3rd world workers.

I suppose it is a sort of progress that protectionists feel a need to mask their goals in newspeak ('fair trade') and purported concern with 'exploited workers'. Poor workers who they'd rather see toiling in the picturesque, authentic, back-breaking rural poverty of subsistence farming (though they'd be worse off, they'd no longer be making our sneakers and taking our jobs and we could all go back to ignoring them).

That's not entirely fair--I do believe many of those who want to add health, safety, and wage requirement poison pills to trade agreements are sincere in their concern for 3rd world workers, but blind to the likely effects of what they're proposing (though perhaps not really interested in becoming aware of those effects). Those are the 'baptists', but the 'bootleggers' know exactly what they're about in clothing protectionism in terms of 'fair trade' and 3rd world worker 'protections'.

I suppose one approach for those favoring free trade is to compromise by seeming to agree with the "need to interfere" and then hope to limit the damage in the details. Seems a risky approach, as opposed to defending the value of free trade for the world's rich and poor alike.

[Matt]

Shorter version.

Globalization today allows rich nations to float checks while poor nations build up savings.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Apparently Blinder has the same concern.

Hmmmm.

[Walt]

Cranky, for what you say to be true, you have to believe that the US is incapable of regaining its industrial base. I know from previous comments that you believe that, but I don't. If you don't believe that, then there's no mystery what will happen: some industries will move back.

[jerry]

"Dani Rodrik is basically Jeff Faux of a fancier pedigree. The only difference is Rodrik went to a fancier school & Faux is at least somewhat honest (despite himself) about his views on trade. Rodrik behaves as if he really holds values that he actually doesen't."

I just want to say I find all three of these ad hominem attacks idiotic.

Faux went to a crappy school.
Rodrik is an elitist that went to fancy school.
Rodrik is a hypocrite.

And no support for any of your positions.

[Ponzi Q. Globalization]

Slocum,

Your concern for workers in the Third World is heart-warming. You lack of concern for workers in American is not so heart-warming.

[andres]

Brad, Dani Rodrik's line of argument is _not_ counterintuitive once you realize that the globalization vs. anti-globalization dichotomy is and always has been a dishonest rhetorical bait-and-switch, and that today only people who haven't taken a single economics course in their life are still fooled by it.

The real issue is not whether or not globalization _can_ be a good thing, but who will set the rules for globalization, and enforce them so that they are not selective. As everyone knows, the same corporations that espouse free trade ideology benefit from the subsidization of low-skill export industries via unacceptable labor standards, and also want to benefit from proposed "Intellectual Property" rules that would actually create highly restrictive monopolies, especially in agriculture.

The sooner that the majority of the (international) economics profession comes out against the proposed changes in the Doha round, the better. Dani Rodrik is certainly more clear-headed than most in this respect.

[DRR]

Ponzi,

Ditto yourself. Only in reverse. (apologies for butting in your convo)

[Ponzi Q. Globalization]

"Ditto yourself. Only in reverse. (apologies for butting in your convo)

Sorry, but I am an American and I am more concerned about my country than others. Note, this doesn't mean I'm not concerned about other countries. It's just that their rise (whose broadness is debatable) should not be founded on the majority of my compatriot's fall.

P.S. Wouldn't it be easier to just call me a reactionary?

[Cranky Observer]

> you have to believe that the US is
> incapable of regaining its industrial base.

I wouldn't say it is impossible (and our manufacturing/technology base is not totally gone yet, just much reduced and reeling) but (a) it would be very difficult (b) I see no sign of it happening (c) I see every sign of actions being taken to make it less likely.

Cranky

[Gene O'Grady]

Andres -- Will intellectual property rules really create monopolies in agriculture? Or did part of your post bite the dust?

[DRR]

Ponzi,

Wow I originally thought you were just on a "what about us too?" tip. I wasn't aware you were actually making a retrogressive argument that DeLong was somehow traitorously caring about third world brown people at the expense special western snowflakes like yourself.

No it wouldn't be easier just to call you a reactionary, especially if it's a charge you'll gladly wear on your sleeve. It would have as much affect as say, calling Pat Buchanan a reactionary, because illiberalism is his M.O.

[Ponzi Q. Globalization]

"I wasn't aware you were actually making a retrogressive argument that DeLong was somehow traitorously caring about third world brown people at the expense special western snowflakes like yourself."

Ah, the racist angle pops up yet again as a 'defense' of neoliberal globalization. How pathetic. But it's wonderful too in that it shows the weakness of the neoliberal position when educated supporters must resort to such tactics. The fortress walls are crumbling and the inhabitants are getting desperate. Hooray!

BTW, did you know that there are brown Americans, DRR? Did you know that some of them are getting screwed by the implementation of your theocratic belief system too?

Anyway, does anyone know what I said that has got DRR's goat? I am a citizen of Nation X and I am more concerned about the well being of Nation X than about the well being of other nations. I even mentioned that this emphasis does not preclude me from being concerned about other nations. Oooo, now that's some scary racist stuff there!

DRR, you seem to alternate between calling people reactionaries and calling them racists. And sometimes, as with me, you call them both. You must know that it's not a way to win others to your side. At least, intelligent others. So why you do it is beyond my understanding.

I said it before and I'll say it now. You should be ashamed of yourself for arguing in such a manner.

[jon livesey]

Someone asked "what next" for the US or indeed for the first world in general. Well, if the past is any predictor, "what next" always seems to be whatever other people can't do.

While India builds and buys steel mills, the first world develops carbon fibre for aircraft. While India tries, not very successfully, to build a combat aircraft, it turns out that the metallurgy needed for the engines is readily available from the west.

And the first worlds "lead" doesn't seem to require "planning". There just needs to be an economic mechanism for businesses to profit from innovation, and they innovate. In time, everything is commoditized. In time, India will be capable of dealing with carbon fibre and high temperature alloys. By that time, we will be on to something else; at a guess, nanotechnology and biotechnology.

[jerry]

I don't know about DRR. In this thread he seems to prefer ad-hominem attacks with no substance. It is probably best to ignore him.

I don't believe there is anything remotely racist about wanting to ensure that trade benefits all, and that any victims are either compensated or helped to retrain and find new jobs.

I think the free trade vs. fair trade argument comes down to a question of "rate of improvement". Free traders seem to think that we need to go max throttle up even if that means there are more victims than a slower, more controlled rate. Fair traders seem to want open trade, but want to ensure that gains from the labor movement are not tossed into the dustbin of history. And that the need to eat is not used as leverage to rollback the gains our fathers and their fathers gave their lives for.

On the Diane Rehm show today, there was a lot of talk of the "losers". I dislike politically correct speech, but calling someone a free trade loser is pretty damn pejorative. The more accurate terminology is that they are free trade victims.

[DRR]

DRR, you seem to alternate between calling people reactionaries and calling them racists. And sometimes, as with me, you call them both.

Ponzi, you've expressed horror on a number of occasions that your living standard might "converge" with that of the rising living standards of people in places like China & India, as if you're somehow entitled to a living standard above theirs. You hand-wring about a "global labor pool", as if say, infringing on half the world's right to work to protect your bottom line is hunky dory. And several times you've fretted at the prospect of immigrants, both high skilled & low skilled, coming to the United States to make the American Dream because god forbid a company hire one of those undesirables than yourself.

It's not about being critical of "neoliberalism" a creed I don't share & could care less about. It's about defending progressive liberal internationalist values from routine retrogressive assaults by Pat Buchanan Democrats.

In short, I'll stop calling you a reactionary and criticizing your nativism, jingoism & (yes) racism when you stop displaying those habits. Which I'm sure we both agree, won't be soon.

[DRR]

I don't believe there is anything remotely racist about wanting to ensure that trade benefits all, and that any victims are either compensated or helped to retrain and find new jobs.

Neither do I.

[Cranky Observer]

> In time, India will be capable of
> dealing with carbon fibre and high
> temperature alloys. By that time, we will be
> on to something else; at a guess,
> nanotechnology and biotechnology.

China just put into service an indigenous fighter jet that is the equal of the Eurofighter (better than the F-16, if not quite as good as the F-22), and has announced plans to develop a competitor of the Airbus A350 by the 2020 timeframe which is not very long in commercial aviation terms.

I agree India has problems with the coordination necessary for very complex projects, but from a science and engineering perspective they have all the resources they need if they decide to get their act together.

But here's the kicker: many many US organizations are moving their /research & development/ programs to China and India! Why? They say because it is cheaper and there are more engineers and scientists, but I think it also has something to do with far laxer safety and pollution standards myself.

But in any case: the argument for the last 10 years has been just what you say: move the dirty manufacturing to China (isn't that racist DDH?) and we will keep the long-term R&D for the next generation here.

Now the R&D is moving to China. So I ask again: what is next for the US? What is our comparative advantage[1]?

Cranky

[1] Political stability was actually one big one, which IMHO is part of the reason the rest of the world rushes to buy T-bills. After the Bush/Cheney Administration I am not so sure the world views us as all that stable any more.

[Cranky Observer]

> You hand-wring about a "global labor pool",
> as if say, infringing on half the world's
> right to work to protect your bottom line is
> hunky dory.

DRR,
It is no secret that the one of the driving forces being moving primary manufacturing processes to China is that the weak pollution, environmental protection, and worker safety laws that are on the books are not enforced - I have sat in meetings in the US where it is openly discussed. The centers of action in the PRC's plastics industry are far worse than Pittsburg of the 1940s.

So you don't find anything racist in the US/Europe outsourcing its pollution to China and India? It is fine with you if in the pursuit of higher profits private corporations subvert the health and safety gains that US workers fought for over 125 years to achieve?

I do note that the word "profit" never appears in your arguments.

Cranky

[Ponzi Q. Globalization]

"Ponzi, you've expressed horror on a number of occasions that your living standard might "converge" with that of the rising living standards of people in places like China & India, as if you're somehow entitled to a living standard above theirs."

Again the personal attacks. I do not think I'm entitled to a higher living standard.

However, what I am stating is that we shouldn't have policies that destroy living standards here in America. And, DRR, once people here accept that this globalization crapfest will destroy living standards here in America, I'm guessing that the vast majority will want policy change also.

Why? Because, DRR, we don't have a nation of saints here who are willing to watch their lives and the lives of their families and loved ones go down the toilet for your misnamed 'progressive liberal internationalist values' which ironically are all about increasing the profits and power of multinational corporations through the arbitraging of labor on a global scale.

Why do you assume that the neoliberal way is the only good way? Is there no other way to raise up people around the world without f-cking over the lower and middle classes here in America? I assume you don't give a damn but don't expect others to share your lack of concern.

"You hand-wring about a "global labor pool", as if say, infringing on half the world's right to work to protect your bottom line is hunky dory."

God, you really love the personal attack. Why bring my bottom line into it?

It's strange that you equate domestic democratic political control over how we as a nation set up trade policy with the infringing on others right to work. I suppose in your mind having a tiny super-rich elite set up trade policy is more appealing. I'll assume that you aren't an evil bastard and believe that this elite will work in the best interests of all. If this is so, I think you're being naive.

"In short, I'll stop calling you a reactionary and criticizing your nativism, jingoism & (yes) racism when you stop displaying those habits."

In what way am I being racist or jingoistic? Do you even know what these words mean? You're name calling is childish and grows tiresome. You don't seem to have any substantive defense of your beliefs on trade policy so you replace it with ad hominems. Maybe I should take the advice that Jerry gave above.

[DRR]

Cranky Observer,

So you don't find anything racist in the US/Europe outsourcing its pollution to China and India? It is fine with you if in the pursuit of higher profits private corporations subvert the health and safety gains that US workers fought for over 125 years to achieve?

Yes I would find "outsourcing pollution" very unkosher, especially if the countries are poor. But what you appear to be talking about the relative environmental standards of the U.S. & it's trading partners, the answer to which, China & India's environmental policy is their own concern, not ours. If we really want them adopt environmental policies comparable to that of the first world, we need to make it worth their while financially & pay for the infrastructure costs.

It is fine with you if in the pursuit of higher profits private corporations subvert the health and safety gains that US workers fought for over 125 years to achieve?

No it isn't. And if a corporation lobbies or otherwise acts on behalf of weakening our environmental standards, or worker health & safety rights, I'll actively oppose it.

I do note that the word "profit" never appears in your arguments.

You're right, it doesen't.

[DRR]

Ponzi,

And, DRR, once people here accept that this globalization crapfest will destroy living standards here in America

It won't.

Why? Because, DRR, we don't have a nation of saints here who are willing to watch their lives and the lives of their families and loved ones go down the toilet for your misnamed 'progressive liberal internationalist values' which ironically are all about increasing the profits and power of multinational corporations through the arbitraging of labor on a global scale.

I.E. I'll do whatever it takes to make sure my honor isn't sullied by competing in the labor market with others, no matter how many products I have to keep out or immigrants I have to keep away.

Why do you assume that the neoliberal way is the only good way? Is there no other way to raise up people around the world without f-cking over the lower and middle classes here in America?

I'm not arguing for the neoliberal way, but any move toward an open economy, no matter what the creed will increase economic volatility. No that doesen't mean the "lower & middle classes" will ever come close to experiencing the kinds of hardships the very people they're throwing under the bus actually endure, but yes it does mean that people from other places on the globe just as talented and special as you are get a shot, sometimes that means they make it and you don't.

It's strange that you equate domestic democratic political control over how we as a nation set up trade policy with the infringing on others right to work.

Uhh, hello? weren't you fretting about a "global labor pool", if you're then going to restrict the labor pool than yes you are infringing on others right to work. This part isn't even about domestic trade policy.

"In what way am I being racist or jingoistic?"

Consult every other post Ponzi Q. Globalization has ever made about the frightening prospect of foriegners selling their goods in our country, the terrible prospect that third worlders might be given jobs by American companies, and no immigrants are gonna come in my country and steal my job. You think it's wrong, tough! I never said I was a saint.

Or maybe just every post.

[Cranky Observer]

DRR,
Would you please do others the favor of using some form of quotation indicator when you are replying to their posts. It is very difficult to read your replies, but far worse is the danger that others' words (mine, for example) might be attributed to you.

Thanks.

Cranky

[Ponzi Q. Globalization]

"It won't."

No substance.

"I.E. I'll do whatever it takes to make sure my honor isn't sullied by competing in the labor market with others, no matter how many products I have to keep out or immigrants I have to keep away."

No substance.

"I'm not arguing for the neoliberal way, but any move toward an open economy, no matter what the creed will increase economic volatility. No that doesen't mean the "lower & middle classes" will ever come close to experiencing the kinds of hardships the very people they're throwing under the bus actually endure, but yes it does mean that people from other places on the globe just as talented and special as you are get a shot, sometimes that means they make it and you don't."

Some substance. Some mild personal attacking by assuming I'm personally afraid.

So it's the lower and middle classes doing the throwing. Interesting analysis, DRR.

"weren't you fretting about a "global labor pool", if you're then going to restrict the labor pool than yes you are infringing on others right to work. This part isn't even about domestic trade policy."

Note that all domestic trade policies other than the one DRR supports constitute infringment in his mind. Weird twisting of the language there.

"Consult every other post Ponzi Q. Globalization has ever made about the frightening prospect of foriegners selling their goods in our country, the terrible prospect that third worlders might be given jobs by American companies, and no immigrants are gonna come in my country and steal my job. You think it's wrong, tough! I never said I was a saint."

People probably have better things to do than read my posts. Or DRR's for that matter. However, I urge anyone who has nothing better to do to review them. Make up your own mind whether DRR is being fair when he calls me a racist, jingoist, snowflake (?!), or whatever. Also, check out how many times DRR resorts to ad-hominems in his posts. In particular, see how in love DRR is with calling others 'reactionaries'. On this blog and others.

DRR, you do not enlighten me or challenge me in any way. All you do is name call. Find someone else to call a reactionary or racist. Or start defending your case with facts and logic and not ad-hominems. Until then this is a waste of my time and I'm going to take Jerry's advice and ignore you.

[DRR]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to have answered to that last paragraph either. I understand.