$514 Deficit is too Pessimistic.

[Lord of Planar]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

A deficit of $50/year doesn't doom our nation on any time scale.

Is that before or after counting interest?

Liberals cheer Clinton for having a surplus. However, that was just a paper chase, plus republicans controlled congress. The debt continues to rise. The last time the debt actually decreased, was under Nixon.

What would Obama's spending look like if the republicans didn't control the house over these last several years? True, when the republicans controlled the House under Bush (43) we had increased spending... for war... I wonder what the spending would have looked like if 9/11 never happened?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

You haven't established why your view is the right way of thinking -- just asserted so. So, my view view is more the right way of thinking because it is supported by economists. I also explain why it is the right way of thinking. Namely:

Your spending is my income and my spending is your income. When the government stops spending, especially in a weak economy, that cuts income of government workers, contractors, beneficiaries of programs, etc. They respond by cutting their spending, which cuts income from others and this cascades down the economy. Voila, macro economics.

Since government revenue is a function of economic activity, government revenues suffer, as was the case during the financial crisis. Thus, government income falls and deficit hawks still fall to make their deficit numbers. Austerity weakens the economy and reduces government revenue, which is bad for both employment and deficit reduction.

You also are misleading when you claim "the US still has the 2nd highest corporate rate in the world." The U.S. has the the US might have the 2nd highest STATUTORY corporate rate in the world but corporations don't pay the statutory rate. They pay an effective rate based upon deductions and credits. Many large corporations pay no taxes at all.

Source

Since that's the average, maybe we would be better off to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, and elominate the loop holes that let them get out of paying the 35%?

 

[Shadow Serious]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Why do you believe that? Because from an economic standpoint, it's all wrong.

It's all explained here: Dwindling Deficit Disorder

The article takes the position from Keynesian economics for the maintaining of having a budget deficit. But Keynesian economics requires that during boom times we run a surplus and pay down the debt so I think that if they wanted to support maintaining a budget deficit indefinably then they should use something other than Keynesian economics to justify their reasoning,

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Is that before or after counting interest?

Liberals cheer Clinton for having a surplus. However, that was just a paper chase, plus republicans controlled congress. The debt continues to rise. The last time the debt actually decreased, was under Nixon.

What would Obama's spending look like if the republicans didn't control the house over these last several years? True, when the republicans controlled the House under Bush (43) we had increased spending... for war... I wonder what the spending would have looked like if 9/11 never happened?

Spending would have been far less had 9/11 never happened, and/or had the Libertarians been in control of one of the houses of Congress.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Spending would have been far less had 9/11 never happened, and/or had the Libertarians been in control of one of the houses of Congress.

Libertarians will never be in control unless they can take over the republican party, or is we institute nation wide run-off type elections.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Libertarians will never be in control unless they can take over the republican party, or is we institute nation wide run-off type elections.

Right, and that won't happen as long as the two parties have a stranglehold on the election process. It's a sort of catch 22, isn't it?

 

[jonny5]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Libertarians will never be in control unless they can take over the republican party, or is we institute nation wide run-off type elections.

No need to be in control. We need our own country. Do you really want to live with these people who will use force to maintain their ideology?

 

[iguanaman]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

As long as there is a democratic president, the republicans are not going to shut up about the deficit and entitlements.

I can understand this view point though. This is just the nature of politics with short term limits. Their focus has to be on getting reelected and you do that by making sure the people are happy now, not worrying about what things are going to be like in 20 years. It worries me too. We aren't going to have any real long term change so long as we are in a boom bust cycle, which history says we will always be in.

And if the Reps get back in power they will go back to running it up at record rates. Luckily the electorate is finally wise to their game.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

And if the Reps get back in power they will go back to running it up at record rates. Luckily the electorate is finally wise to their game.

Don't count on it.

 

[Deuce]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Is that before or after counting interest?

Liberals cheer Clinton for having a surplus. However, that was just a paper chase, plus republicans controlled congress. The debt continues to rise. The last time the debt actually decreased, was under Nixon.

What would Obama's spending look like if the republicans didn't control the house over these last several years? True, when the republicans controlled the House under Bush (43) we had increased spending... for war... I wonder what the spending would have looked like if 9/11 never happened?

Inflation and economic growth would easily beat out a $50/year deficit. At $50/year, debt as % of GDP would actually be dropping. Even with interest.

The point is that deficits aren't inherently disastrous. Nor is a balanced budget always the best choice. Paying down our debt entirely, in fact, would be problematic for the world economy.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Don't count on it.

What else can I do . We certainly can't afford another Republican in the Whitehouse.

 

[NonConformer]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Why is it Ok for government to run up deficits, but it's not ok for common folk like you and I? If I borrow money, I MUST pay it back. Why do we hold government to such a lower standard?

Some say that deficits are an "economic stimulus." But why is it that government debt is an economic stimulus but private debt is not? From whence comes this notion that government is perfect, and every dime it spends is better than you or I spending that same dime?

Furthermore, if deficits are so "stimulating", then what do we need taxes for? Why not abolish taxes and just tell government: spend all you want! And the bigger the debt, the better!

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Any deficit increases the national debt, and we cannot continue on this path. We need to start paying down the debt. Not increase it.

When will acceptance of deficits stop? Why do people think deficits are OK? Smaller deficits only mean we are dooming our nation at a slower pace, but still dooming it.

A nation's capacity to handle its debt is a function of its debt relative to GDP, all other factors being held equal. GDP is a proxy for its theoretical tax base. Hence, if debt declines relative to GDP, a nation's capacity to address it improves. All one needs is for GDP to increase faster than debt increases, not necessarily balanced budgets or budget surpluses.

Of course, one can't hold all factors constant. Debt intolerance is a real issue. If confidence in a nation's ability or willingness to pay debt diminishes, interest rates can increase and a nation's debt burden relative to GDP could begin to increase.

Overall, the U.S. still enjoys broad flexibility to address its long-term imbalances with a reasonable transition. If the nation can slow the long-term rise in its health costs, a large part of the problem would be addressed given that Medicare and Medicaid constitute the largest portion of its long-term imbalances.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Why is it Ok for government to run up deficits, but it's not ok for common folk like you and I? If I borrow money, I MUST pay it back. Why do we hold government to such a lower standard?

There's an assumption regarding government that doesn't apply to individuals. Individuals have a finite lifespan. Governments are assumed to have an unlimited one.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

you can continue on this wrong way of thinking but that is your choice. the private sector is the largest supporter of the economy. the government contractor doesn't produce anything of value they just eat taxpayer dollars that could otherwise go elsewhere.

the more money private businesses and people have the more money they spend. which actually grows the economy. the government handing tax payer dollars over to someone else doesn't grow the economy that well as those dollars have to be taking from the private sector to begin with.

This isn't the case at all. Government funds basic research, infrastructure, education, etc., all of which have long-term positive economic benefits. Such investments help expand the proverbial economic pie through mechanisms that include innovation (and subsequent spin-offs) and productivity. Government also purchases products and services e.g., Defense-related acquisitions. There's a multiplier impact as some of the income earned by, let's say defense contractors, is spent on inputs. In part, some of that spending flows to suppliers of the firms providing inputs, etc.

 

[Perotista]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

A nation's capacity to handle its debt is a function of its debt relative to GDP, all other factors being held equal. GDP is a proxy for its theoretical tax base. Hence, if debt declines relative to GDP, a nation's capacity to address it improves. All one needs is for GDP to increase faster than debt increases, not necessarily balanced budgets or budget surpluses.

Of course, one can't hold all factors constant. Debt intolerance is a real issue. If confidence in a nation's ability or willingness to pay debt diminishes, interest rates can increase and a nation's debt burden relative to GDP could begin to increase.

Overall, the U.S. still enjoys broad flexibility to address its long-term imbalances with a reasonable transition. If the nation can slow the long-term rise in its health costs, a large part of the problem would be addressed given that Medicare and Medicaid constitute the largest portion of its long-term imbalances.

I think the trade deficit probably should be included. Then one needs to take the willingness of congress, the American people as a whole to increase revenues, tax increases or to cut spending if the GDP falls back. The unwillingness of congress and the American people as a whole to do this probably means the flexibility you speak of is non-existent. In theory, yes it is there, in reality it probably is not. What our politicians do in Washington is to keep looking towards the next election and keeping their jobs. Not America's long term future. All may know something needs to be done, but the mentality of Washington is to put what ever that is off past the next election, then the next election and so on.

Meanwhile entitlement spending has already passed defense spending and soon the payments of the interest on the debt will also pass defense. Theories are nice, they might even work if applied, but the will to apply and exercise that flexibility you talk about has to be there. There is very little willingness to raise taxes or to cut spending. Hence what we see is an out of control rising in the debt that sooner or later will catch up with us.

 

[American]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Since that's the average, maybe we would be better off to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, and elominate the loop holes that let them get out of paying the 35%?

I want to know what actual rate is (including loopholes) of the broadest range of companies. Whose rates do these numbers represent?

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

I think the trade deficit probably should be included. Then one needs to take the willingness of congress, the American people as a whole to increase revenues, tax increases or to cut spending if the GDP falls back. The unwillingness of congress and the American people as a whole to do this probably means the flexibility you speak of is non-existent. In theory, yes it is there, in reality it probably is not. What our politicians do in Washington is to keep looking towards the next election and keeping their jobs. Not America's long term future. All may know something needs to be done, but the mentality of Washington is to put what ever that is off past the next election, then the next election and so on.

Meanwhile entitlement spending has already passed defense spending and soon the payments of the interest on the debt will also pass defense. Theories are nice, they might even work if applied, but the will to apply and exercise that flexibility you talk about has to be there. There is very little willingness to raise taxes or to cut spending. Hence what we see is an out of control rising in the debt that sooner or later will catch up with us.

The trade balance is part of GDP. Hence, trade deficits, by themselves, lead to a higher debt-to-GDP ratio.

Also, I have long advocated mandatory spending/entitlement program reform over the medium- and longer-term, as part of a broad approach for addressing the nation's long-term imbalances. Increased tax revenue (e.g., raising the payroll tax ceiling to where it was during the 1982 Social Security reforms and then tying it to changes in wages is one example), slower growth in discretionary spending, and mandatory spending will all need to be part of the package for it to have a realistic chance of achieving the goal of addressing those imbalances.

 

[Perotista]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

The trade balance is part of GDP. Hence, trade deficits, by themselves, lead to a higher debt-to-GDP ratio.

Also, I have long advocated mandatory spending/entitlement program reform over the medium- and longer-term, as part of a broad approach for addressing the nation's long-term imbalances. Increased tax revenue (e.g., raising the payroll tax ceiling to where it was during the 1982 Social Security reforms and then tying it to changes in wages is one example), slower growth in discretionary spending, and mandatory spending will all need to be part of the package for it to have a realistic chance of achieving the goal of addressing those imbalances.

I agree with you on this. I think our elected leaders know something like this needs to happen. But knowing and doing are two different things. Like I said, none of them can get past the next election. For something like this I think a crisis must first occur, one that could have been avoided, but one that may lead to a bipartisan approach. Both parties will need to come on board, but with the polarized atmosphere in D.C. today, I fear that is impossible.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

I want to know what actual rate is (including loopholes) of the broadest range of companies. Whose rates do these numbers represent?

Data at that level of detail isn't readily available. For example, the tax expenditure for capital gains is a figure that includes individuals and corporations. A breakdown isn't available. But there are sufficient tax expenditures (savings due to the impact of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions) to reduce the corporate tax rate in a revenue-neutral fashion. For example, in FY 2013, corporate taxes amount to $273.5 billion. The largest tax exclusion (employer health expenses exclusion) led to corporations paying $185.3 billion in lower taxes than would have been the case had the exclusion not existed. The deferral of repatriating foreign income (corporations and financial firms) accounted for another roughly $70 billion. The use of accelerated depreciation measures led to an addition $48.5 billion in reduced corporate taxes.

Still, one needs to be very cautious. For example, the use of accelerated depreciation results in a timing or temporary difference. In the early years of a fixed asset's useful life, companies charge more depreciation (lowering their taxes), but afterward they charge less depreciation (raising the amount of their taxes). The value of the asset isn't different, so the dollar amount of total depreciation winds up the same, with only the allocation having changed. However, in a world in which there is inflation, companies gain a present value benefit from accelerated depreciation. In theory, this gives them an incentive to purchase newer equipment which, in turn, should lead to higher productivity and the benefits of higher productivity.

One also needs to consider the trade-offs. For example, let's say the employer health care tax exclusion were eliminated. Corporate taxes would increase at given rates. However, this policy might lead to a higher rate of uninsured individuals and also more individuals purchasing coverage on their own. Both developments could also affect total tax revenue (individual, corporate, other) and also other expenditures e.g., outlays for subsidies for individual coverage. To the extent that large companies have greater purchasing power when obtainging coverage for their employees, eliminating the exclusion could impose additional costs (inefficiencies due to foregone scale benefits) that might not otherwise be the case.

Potential behavioral changes from tax policy revisions could also have a tax revenue impact. Those changes are often complex and difficult to estimate.

In short, there is room for lowering rates from closing loopholes, deductions, exemptions, etc. But the flexibility may be less than what is applied strictly from the dollar value of the tax expenditures that are published annually in the analytical reviews of the federal budget.

 

[polgara]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

I think the trade deficit probably should be included. Then one needs to take the willingness of congress, the American people as a whole to increase revenues, tax increases or to cut spending if the GDP falls back. The unwillingness of congress and the American people as a whole to do this probably means the flexibility you speak of is non-existent. In theory, yes it is there, in reality it probably is not. What our politicians do in Washington is to keep looking towards the next election and keeping their jobs. Not America's long term future. All may know something needs to be done, but the mentality of Washington is to put what ever that is off past the next election, then the next election and so on.

Meanwhile entitlement spending has already passed defense spending and soon the payments of the interest on the debt will also pass defense. Theories are nice, they might even work if applied, but the will to apply and exercise that flexibility you talk about has to be there. There is very little willingness to raise taxes or to cut spending. Hence what we see is an out of control rising in the debt that sooner or later will catch up with us.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: When we consider that at least some of our elected leaders in DC have families, it is astonishing that they aren't concerned about kicking the can down the road, over and over again, while our debt grows ever higher by the minute! Do they not care that their children and grandchildren, as well as ours, will be paying the price for their mistakes? Do they seriously believe that they can escape the inevitable implosion when it occurs?

We now have more debt than every country in the European Union ...combined! As a matter of fact, we have more debt now than any other country in the history of the world had - ever! Is it any wonder there is a movement among more and more countries around the world to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency - they are alarmed by our spending, and are watching as the dollar's value falls - yet the spending continues! It's ludicrous to expect that we will be the first country in history to escape the consequences of our folly, yet nothing is being done to correct it! Thanks a lot, Washington, DC! :2mad:

 

[Visbek]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Why is it Ok for government to run up deficits, but it's not ok for common folk like you and I? If I borrow money, I MUST pay it back. Why do we hold government to such a lower standard?

As noted, governments exist into perpetuity. Citizens do not.

Plus, the government does pay off its debts. When the government borrows, what it does is issue bonds or Treasury bills, which pay out at specific interest rates over a defined period of time. So if you buy a 52-week T-Bill today, the government will pay you the amount plus a 0.11% interest 52 weeks from now. (Note that if you let it roll over, then you've delayed the date and increased the amount the government has agreed to pay you.)

If the government did not pay out 100% of what it owed, then the government would default. So, when the Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, the US government almost had to default on its debts -- not because it ran out of money, but because Congress temporarily refused to authorize those payments.

Some say that deficits are an "economic stimulus." But why is it that government debt is an economic stimulus but private debt is not?

Both can qualify as a stimulus, or have a minimal impact. It really depends on how the money is used.

For example, let's say I take out an equity line of credit on my house. Technically speaking, I have generated $100,000 of credit, but the bank isn't actually loaning me any money until I draw on that line of credit. Technically it's debt, but practically speaking if I never use it then it has no economic effects.

Or, let's say I'm an idiot, and I draw on that line of credit to pay for a week vacation in Paris. None of those funds stimulate the US economy.

Or, let's say I'm still an idiot, but I draw on the line of credit to take a vacation somewhere inside the US. Those funds will stimulate the economy.

As for the government, some types of spending have bigger impacts than others. For example, military spending is generally regarded as having a "low multiplier," because some of that will go to people's salaries (much of which gets spent, and thus goes back into the economy) while some goes into products that basically dead-end. E.g. a tank may be useful from a military perspective, but does not really benefit the economy.

Similarly, pork-barrel projects will have a minimal impact. If a state builds a bridge that sees almost no use, that also winds up with a low multiplier.

In contrast, spending on a bridge that really is used and actually needs repair, or spending on food stamps, is usually regarded as having a higher multiplier. E.g. the government gives Joe "Minimum Wage" Walsh $100 to spend on food, and only food; Joe goes to the market, and buys $100 worth of food. That $100 goes to the supermarket and the food manufacturers, who in turn pay their vendors (more economic activity) and their staff, who in turn go out and buy more stuff.

From whence comes this notion that government is perfect, and every dime it spends is better than you or I spending that same dime?

No one thinks government spending is "perfect."

The advantage is that in a recession, no one wants to spend or loan any money, and they are shoving it under the mattresses. If the government borrows big bucks, and spends it on needed infrastructure and short-term benefits, then that money is getting "unlocked" and spent, with the government's guarantee that it will be paid back.

Furthermore, if deficits are so "stimulating", then what do we need taxes for?

At the risk of stating the obvious: Taxes are the revenues that we use to pay for services, and pay off those debts.

Without taxes, the government would be like an unemployed guy who keeps paying off credit cards with other credit cards. Even if the guy is making work for other people, eventually someone is going to recognize that he has no revenues and is unable to pay off his debts.

In addition, the federal government's revenues are still huge. E.g. in 2012, the US spent $3.5 trillion and took in $2.45 trillion. Without those revenues, the deficit would have been $5.95 trillion, instead of $1 trillion! That's clearly not sustainable.

 

[DA60]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Any deficit increases the national debt, and we cannot continue on this path. We need to start paying down the debt. Not increase it.

When will acceptance of deficits stop? Why do people think deficits are OK? Smaller deficits only mean we are dooming our nation at a slower pace, but still dooming it.

Because they want to.

It is the same reason people were blind to the obvious train wreck coming that was the dot.com and housing bubbles.

It feels good and they do not want it to stop.

So they desperately justify it's existence.

Addicts often do the same thing.

 

[Visbek]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Liberals cheer Clinton for having a surplus. However, that was just a paper chase, plus republicans controlled congress. The debt continues to rise. The last time the debt actually decreased, was under Nixon.

And deficits went through the roof during the Obama years because of Bush's policy choices, plus the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

• The Bush tax cuts, which heavily favored the wealthy, reduced revenues.
• The Great Recession cut revenues.
• Medicare Part D, a Bush idea, increased costs in the short- and long-term.
• Spending on Homeland Security and the NSA increased.
• The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan significantly increased US federal spending -- and had little economic benefit for the US.
• TARP was actually authorized under Bush, and almost all of it was repaid.

Obama did choose to continue some of these policies; e.g. he didn't rein in DHS or NSA spending; he didn't kill Medicare Part D. Other policies he was unable to change, e.g. he did not make much of a dent in the Bush tax cuts, he did not withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan on Day 10 of his first term. Obama did not raise taxes until 4 years into his term. The stimulus bill included $288 billion in tax cuts, and there is no basis to claim its spending harmed the economy in the short-term, especially since it saved many jobs. The sequestration nonsense resulted in a big cut to government spending.

If McCain or Romney had been elected, almost none of this would change. If McCain killed TARP somehow, it wouldn't make a difference since that nearly broke even. Neither would have halted the wars faster, neither would cancel Medicare Part D, or cut spending on Homeland Security and/or NSA. Neither was going to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.

Looking a the long term: From 1954 to 2012, annual increases in the deficit under Republican Presidents was 133%. Under the Democratic Presidents, it was only 4%. That's almost even with inflation.

Spending went up, on average, the same for Democrats and Republicans (7%). However, revenues do not increase as much during Republican administrations -- 8% for Democrats, 5% for Republicans.

So in terms of deficits and debt, the problem isn't the so-called "tax-and-spend Democrats." It's the "borrow-and-spend Republicans."

What would Obama's spending look like if the republicans didn't control the house over these last several years?

It isn't about the House. It's about having enough Democrats in the Senate to break a filibuster. Keep in mind that the Republicans in the Senate have threatened or enacted more filibusters in the Obama years than at any time in US history.

Anyway, it wouldn't be much different, in part because (as already noted) much of what's happened since 2008 is the legacy of the Bush years. The stimulus would have had fewer tax cuts (but not zero), and more infrastructure spending, so most likely a wash. The top 1% would be paying a little bit more taxes, but that wouldn't have changed revenues much -- those hikes are much more about tamping down the huge run-up in economic inequality formed by the Bush tax cuts.

True, when the republicans controlled the House under Bush (43) we had increased spending... for war... I wonder what the spending would have looked like if 9/11 never happened?

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are estimated to cost $3.2 trillion. When we factor in the cost of the debts and veterans benefits, it could be as much as $6 billion over the course of the next 40 years.

 

[Perotista]

Re: $514 Bil Deficit is too Pessimistic.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: When we consider that at least some of our elected leaders in DC have families, it is astonishing that they aren't concerned about kicking the can down the road, over and over again, while our debt grows ever higher by the minute! Do they not care that their children and grandchildren, as well as ours, will be paying the price for their mistakes? Do they seriously believe that they can escape the inevitable implosion when it occurs?

We now have more debt than every country in the European Union ...combined! As a matter of fact, we have more debt now than any other country in the history of the world had - ever! Is it any wonder there is a movement among more and more countries around the world to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency - they are alarmed by our spending, and are watching as the dollar's value falls - yet the spending continues! It's ludicrous to expect that we will be the first country in history to escape the consequences of our folly, yet nothing is being done to correct it! Thanks a lot, Washington, DC! :2mad:

Nero fiddles while Rome burns, an apt simile. Actually he played the lire. I think the mentality of Washington is much like our own when talking about the whole. The me generation that wants everything and refuses to pay for, that are more than willing to pass the bill onto our children, their children and grand children. They don't care. The last two generations will be the first to pass on an America to their children worse off than what it was when they first entered the world. I think in short, they just don't care. Who now is left that is willing to make a little sacrifice to ensure the future of America now, today. Before we could count on the WWII generation, but they are almost all gone. The Vietnam generation, some are willing, others not, probably 50-50. Then it is all one sided from there. Perhaps this mentality began in our generation and has grown full bloom in the next generations. I have no hope for the long term viability of the United States.

It does no good to blame Washington, who puts those yahoos there in the first place. We do, they are basically doing what the majority of voters want them to do. Spend this country into bankruptcy so they can have all of theirs, 100% of theirs right now, today. To hell to the future and the unborn, let them worry about America after they exited the womb. Its their problem, not ours.