WEBVTT

NOTE Still Nonsense After All These Years

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.640
Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture.

2
00:00:06.640 --> 00:00:12.120
Carolyn Baum is a columnist at Bloomberg News, where she has worked since 1998 after spending

3
00:00:12.120 --> 00:00:14.620
11 years at Dow Jones.

4
00:00:14.620 --> 00:00:20.120
Her work has appeared in Barron's The National Review, Bloomberg Markets, Bloomberg Personal

5
00:00:20.120 --> 00:00:22.160
and The International Economy.

6
00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:30.680
In April 1996, Worth Magazine profiled Miss Baum as the Mary Mistress of Bonds.

7
00:00:30.680 --> 00:00:34.560
Miss Baum appears regularly on Bloomberg TV and radio.

8
00:00:34.560 --> 00:00:41.880
From March 2002 to August 2003, she hosted her own weekend radio talk show, No Nonsense.

9
00:00:41.880 --> 00:00:47.640
She makes guest appearances on NPR and local business and financial news radio across the

10
00:00:47.640 --> 00:00:48.640
country.

11
00:00:48.640 --> 00:00:55.920
Her book, Just What I Said, was published in August 2005 and we have copies downstairs.

12
00:00:55.920 --> 00:01:01.480
The National Headliners Club recognized Ms. Baum's work with consecutive first place awards

13
00:01:01.480 --> 00:01:07.040
in 2004 and 2005 for her wire service commentary.

14
00:01:07.040 --> 00:01:12.040
She won the News Woman's Club of New York first place award for wire service commentary

15
00:01:12.040 --> 00:01:17.160
in 2001 and then again in 2006.

16
00:01:17.160 --> 00:01:22.240
Ms. Baume holds a B.A. in Political Science from Tufts University and an M.A. in Cinema

17
00:01:22.240 --> 00:01:28.240
Studies from New York University. Her postgraduate education includes courses in nonfiction writing,

18
00:01:28.240 --> 00:01:34.040
economics and technical analysis. She will speak to us on Still Nonsense after all these

19
00:01:34.040 --> 00:01:41.040
years. Please help me welcome Carolyn Baume.

20
00:01:47.160 --> 00:01:59.160
Anyway, it's a pleasure, we're the women, I don't say, oh good, okay, it's really a pleasure and an honor to be here today.

21
00:01:59.160 --> 00:02:08.160
I have never given a named lecture before, you know, I've given lots of speeches and I've lectured at universities,

22
00:02:08.160 --> 00:02:14.880
I've been the keynote speaker and I've been a luncheon speaker, the only qualification

23
00:02:14.880 --> 00:02:20.920
for which seems to be to prevent the audience from going to sleep after the meal.

24
00:02:20.920 --> 00:02:26.420
But it's a special honor to be asked to give a named lecture when the name attached to

25
00:02:26.420 --> 00:02:33.280
it is someone as distinguished as Henry Haslett, economist, journalist, economic journalist.

26
00:02:33.280 --> 00:02:39.480
Now I first read economics in one lesson about 20 years ago when I was just starting my real

27
00:02:39.480 --> 00:02:45.840
economics education, you know, not the stuff they teach you in school.

28
00:02:45.840 --> 00:02:53.680
And in preparation for my talk, I decided I would go back and read it.

29
00:02:53.680 --> 00:03:01.680
Now imagine my surprise and my horror when I learn that some of my best ideas are derived

30
00:03:01.680 --> 00:03:02.680
from him.

31
00:03:02.680 --> 00:03:06.880
You know, and here I thought I was being original all these years.

32
00:03:06.880 --> 00:03:17.280
Anyway, for example, Hazlitt's pension for looking at a policy and carrying it through to its logical conclusion and seeing how all groups are affected.

33
00:03:17.280 --> 00:03:31.240
I remember back in 1992, right after Hurricane Andrew, it was a category five, very powerful hurricane swept the coast of Florida,

34
00:03:31.240 --> 00:04:01.240
left a lot of devastation and destruction in its wake, and I remember turning on CNBC and the anchor was going on and on about, you know, how, you know, this is great news for GDP, you know, and I guess in a very haslet attribution, not even knowing it at the time, I remember writing something like, well, you know, if natural disasters are so good for the economy, why sit around and wait

35
00:04:01.240 --> 00:04:03.080
for Acts of God to Occur,

36
00:04:03.080 --> 00:04:07.680
why not nuke our own cities and then we can rebuild them?

37
00:04:07.680 --> 00:04:09.600
I mean, I don't have to tell this audience

38
00:04:09.600 --> 00:04:11.920
that wealth destruction is not good.

39
00:04:11.920 --> 00:04:16.240
When you have a hurricane, you may get more housing starts,

40
00:04:16.240 --> 00:04:19.120
but you don't have any more net new homes.

41
00:04:19.120 --> 00:04:21.600
Industrial production goes up,

42
00:04:21.600 --> 00:04:24.080
doesn't add to the capital stock.

43
00:04:24.080 --> 00:04:26.800
Destruction of wealth is not good.

44
00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:30.500
Why it's good to use scarce resources

45
00:04:30.500 --> 00:04:34.500
to get back to square one is just anybody's guess.

46
00:04:37.160 --> 00:04:40.400
Anyway, bad ideas like this never die

47
00:04:40.400 --> 00:04:45.080
and bad economic ideas have a way of coming back

48
00:04:45.080 --> 00:04:48.440
in a little bit different form as if on cue

49
00:04:48.440 --> 00:04:50.580
at certain times in the business cycle

50
00:04:50.580 --> 00:04:55.580
or in response to certain events such as hurricanes.

51
00:04:56.220 --> 00:04:58.960
As a financial journalist, I've always had fun

52
00:04:58.960 --> 00:05:02.960
and trying to upend economic nonsense.

53
00:05:02.960 --> 00:05:10.400
I was leafing through my book, which Joe mentioned, it's a book of columns published in 2005

54
00:05:10.400 --> 00:05:17.840
that Mises Institute was good enough to stock in their library, and I was leafing through

55
00:05:17.840 --> 00:05:26.280
the book and I noticed a headline that I wrote in the aftermath of Hurricane Floyd in 1999,

56
00:05:26.280 --> 00:05:32.800
And the headline for this column was, Hurricane Sweeps Coast, Nonsense Sure to Follow.

57
00:05:32.800 --> 00:05:33.800
And it did.

58
00:05:33.800 --> 00:05:37.160
You know, we had the whole thing again about how this was going to be good for GDP.

59
00:05:37.160 --> 00:05:43.360
Anyway, that column is in a chapter that I entitled, Still Nonsense After All These Years,

60
00:05:43.360 --> 00:05:50.920
and I thought that would be a good topic for today's talk.

61
00:05:50.920 --> 00:05:58.520
Now I know this audience, above all of others, will appreciate some of the economic nonsense

62
00:05:58.520 --> 00:06:03.360
that passes for commentary and analysis.

63
00:06:03.360 --> 00:06:09.320
Three years ago I had the misfortune to review a book by a well-known financial journalist

64
00:06:09.320 --> 00:06:12.400
on why bubbles were good for the economy.

65
00:06:12.400 --> 00:06:19.200
I kid you not, I mean the title was POP, Why Bubbles are Great for the Economy.

66
00:06:19.200 --> 00:06:28.200
And the author made an argument that investment bubbles leave behind a usable infrastructure,

67
00:06:28.200 --> 00:06:30.440
which are a net positive.

68
00:06:30.440 --> 00:06:34.520
For example, the tech bubble that burst in 2000.

69
00:06:34.520 --> 00:06:41.200
I remember reading we had enough unused fiber optic cable to go to the moon and back six

70
00:06:41.200 --> 00:06:42.200
times.

71
00:06:42.200 --> 00:06:47.560
Well, according to this author, when something like that happens, a whole new generation

72
00:06:47.560 --> 00:06:53.320
of Entrepreneurs can come in and they can pick up equipment, office space and talent

73
00:06:53.320 --> 00:06:54.320
on the cheap.

74
00:06:54.320 --> 00:07:00.920
In other words, out of the ashes of global crossing sprang Google.

75
00:07:00.920 --> 00:07:02.880
What about the cost?

76
00:07:02.880 --> 00:07:08.200
Haslett probably would have said that investors overpaid for resources that were underutilized,

77
00:07:08.200 --> 00:07:10.280
sometimes for years.

78
00:07:10.280 --> 00:07:15.080
Price signals were distorted just as they are with inflation and wealth destruction

79
00:07:15.080 --> 00:07:18.760
is Not Good.

80
00:07:18.760 --> 00:07:26.040
The author of the Bubbles are Good Doctrine book had a lot of trouble when it came to

81
00:07:26.040 --> 00:07:30.960
defending the housing bubble in 2007, it was already deflating then.

82
00:07:30.960 --> 00:07:37.680
And I pulled out this quote to read to you, this is what he says about the benefits of

83
00:07:37.680 --> 00:07:43.240
the housing bubble, quote, the bubble achieved a goal that billions of federal dollars and

84
00:07:43.240 --> 00:07:49.800
and Thirty Years of Good Intentions Could Not, Gentrification and Renewal in Formerly

85
00:07:49.800 --> 00:07:59.480
Some of the Most Wretched Spots of Cities, Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Wretched to

86
00:07:59.480 --> 00:08:00.480
Wretched.

87
00:08:00.480 --> 00:08:09.320
I wonder what he'd say now about the blocks of urban blight and foreclosure signs.

88
00:08:09.320 --> 00:08:15.060
Even when my review, even when I reviewed the book, I remember including at that time

89
00:08:15.060 --> 00:08:20.920
in 2007 some snarky comment to the effect that I hope his publicist didn't schedule

90
00:08:20.920 --> 00:08:27.400
too many book events in Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Fort Myers, Florida, which was ground zero

91
00:08:27.400 --> 00:08:32.760
for all that gentrification he talked about.

92
00:08:32.760 --> 00:08:38.920
Fast forward to Haiti's devastating earthquake earlier this year, and the Wall Street Journal

93
00:08:38.920 --> 00:08:48.600
dragged out, the bubbles are good, disasters are good argument, in a long weekend section essay.

94
00:08:48.600 --> 00:08:55.280
This time the author was a professor of American studies, and he actually invoked Schumpeter's

95
00:08:55.280 --> 00:09:00.640
Gale of Creative Destruction in support of his thesis.

96
00:09:00.640 --> 00:09:05.400
Now I'm no authority on Schumpeter, but I suspect his gale didn't include high force

97
00:09:05.400 --> 00:09:13.400
Rather, it was a process by which capitalist economies progress, with innovation leading

98
00:09:13.400 --> 00:09:20.440
to the creation of entire new industries and the demise of superfluous ones.

99
00:09:20.440 --> 00:09:23.760
Enough on the subject of destruction is good.

100
00:09:23.760 --> 00:09:28.320
Let's turn to another one of my favorite pieces of nonsense, something that I've labeled

101
00:09:28.320 --> 00:09:30.840
loop-de-loop economics.

102
00:09:30.840 --> 00:09:36.480
This school of thought seems to think that prices rise and fall on their own accord and

103
00:09:36.480 --> 00:09:39.720
that cause and effect are one and the same.

104
00:09:39.720 --> 00:09:43.000
Let me give you a couple of examples.

105
00:09:43.000 --> 00:09:46.000
Oil prices.

106
00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:52.680
This is the idea, and it's promulgated in every newspaper, every news wire, and a lot

107
00:09:52.680 --> 00:09:59.320
of economic research that higher oil prices slow the economy and lower oil prices stimulate

108
00:09:59.320 --> 00:10:00.320
it.

109
00:10:00.320 --> 00:10:04.480
Well, it makes you wonder why we spend so much time worrying about the Federal Reserve

110
00:10:04.480 --> 00:10:07.320
if OPEC can run monetary policy.

111
00:10:07.320 --> 00:10:14.160
You know, it's dangerous actually to sleep through Econ 101, especially the micro stuff.

112
00:10:14.160 --> 00:10:19.600
And I always like to tell people, if you mastered the law of supply and demand, you'll be far

113
00:10:19.600 --> 00:10:24.840
ahead of most of the PhDs on Wall Street, who don't seem to know the difference between

114
00:10:24.840 --> 00:10:28.280
a shift in the curve and a movement along the curve.

115
00:10:28.280 --> 00:10:33.960
Now look, if the price of oil rises because we all want to consume more oil at any given

116
00:10:33.960 --> 00:10:38.960
price than we did before, it's an outward shift in the demand curve.

117
00:10:38.960 --> 00:10:43.520
We get a higher price, a higher quantity demanded.

118
00:10:43.520 --> 00:10:49.200
So you can't argue in the same breath that the higher, you know, the increased demand

119
00:10:49.200 --> 00:10:53.040
that led to a higher price, the higher price is now going to lead to reduced demand.

120
00:10:53.040 --> 00:10:58.080
I mean, they aren't the same things, but economists do just that.

121
00:10:58.080 --> 00:11:04.120
They can't differentiate between a higher price when you shift the demand curve out

122
00:11:04.120 --> 00:11:11.020
to a higher price when you're moving inward along the demand curve, a supply shock.

123
00:11:11.020 --> 00:11:15.360
It may be the same price, but it's not the same outcome.

124
00:11:15.360 --> 00:11:21.800
Anyway, I always mean to ask some of these people how we ever get out of this closed

125
00:11:21.800 --> 00:11:26.800
loop with higher prices slowing demand and lower prices increasing demand.

126
00:11:26.800 --> 00:11:34.340
Oh, and then there's the question of they talk as if this revenue disappears from higher

127
00:11:34.340 --> 00:11:35.340
oil prices.

128
00:11:35.340 --> 00:11:36.340
I mean, it doesn't.

129
00:11:36.340 --> 00:11:37.340
It doesn't.

130
00:11:37.340 --> 00:11:38.520
You know, it goes somewhere.

131
00:11:38.520 --> 00:11:48.360
It may be a transfer from consumers to producers, you know, but producers, increased dividends,

132
00:11:48.360 --> 00:11:55.980
So shareholders, consumers benefit, or they invest in research and development, in which

133
00:11:55.980 --> 00:11:59.580
case they hire people and pay them a salary.

134
00:11:59.580 --> 00:12:04.320
Even if it goes overseas, the money still doesn't go into the ground, the profits don't

135
00:12:04.320 --> 00:12:13.820
go into the ground, comes back here in terms of securities purchase or foreign direct investment.

136
00:12:13.820 --> 00:12:19.980
So just to summarize loop-de-loop as it pertains to oil prices, higher oil prices, slow the

137
00:12:19.980 --> 00:12:23.940
economy, lower oil prices, stimulate it.

138
00:12:23.940 --> 00:12:28.860
You have to wonder why some bureaucrat hasn't decided to search for the perfect oil price

139
00:12:28.860 --> 00:12:35.860
that will keep the economy growing at its potential in perpetuity, if it's so easy.

140
00:12:35.860 --> 00:12:43.280
Now, this thinking doesn't just apply to oil prices, it's applied to housing prices

141
00:12:43.280 --> 00:12:52.080
about a year ago. Various analysts were quoted, sounding very authoritative, saying that home

142
00:12:52.080 --> 00:12:59.440
sales are not going to pick up until house prices stop falling. Okay, so why did prices

143
00:12:59.440 --> 00:13:05.240
start falling in the first place? You know, more sellers than buyers. Now, I understand

144
00:13:05.240 --> 00:13:11.440
that potential homeowners, like investors, may not be bottom pickers. They may be happier

145
00:13:11.440 --> 00:13:14.920
Buying a Trend, Buying a Trending Market.

146
00:13:14.920 --> 00:13:22.200
But with foreclosed homes being added to the already bloated inventory, home prices are

147
00:13:22.200 --> 00:13:26.900
not going to start rising until demand picks up.

148
00:13:26.900 --> 00:13:32.040
Now what really gets me is when you translate this thinking to long-term interest rates

149
00:13:32.040 --> 00:13:35.800
and then it's enough to make your mind spin.

150
00:13:35.800 --> 00:13:41.400
Higher long-term rates slow the economy, lower long-term rates give it a boost.

151
00:13:41.400 --> 00:13:46.360
Once again, why do we have a central bank? That's not a question for this audience. That's

152
00:13:46.360 --> 00:13:54.100
not appropriate. For most audiences, I could ask it. Why do we have a central bank that

153
00:13:54.100 --> 00:13:59.960
is constantly trying to find the appropriate short-term interest rate if long-term interest

154
00:13:59.960 --> 00:14:04.960
rates are what matter? Look, when you have a monopolist in the short end of the yield

155
00:14:04.960 --> 00:14:11.160
curve. The long rate serves as a kind of gauge on what the central bank is doing.

156
00:14:11.160 --> 00:14:17.320
Newt Wichsel, Austrian, socialist Austrian, but I mean an Austrian

157
00:14:17.320 --> 00:14:22.480
nevertheless. I mean Wichsel called it the natural rate and the bank rate or the

158
00:14:22.480 --> 00:14:28.520
money rate and he saw a value in that relationship which nowadays is known as

159
00:14:28.520 --> 00:14:33.280
the spread, the yield curve or in academic circles the term structure of

160
00:14:33.280 --> 00:14:36.640
of Interest Rates.

161
00:14:36.640 --> 00:14:45.520
The long-term interest rates can rise again because of increased demand or decreased supply

162
00:14:45.520 --> 00:14:49.880
for your people willing to lend to the U.S. government.

163
00:14:49.880 --> 00:14:57.080
How can you tell with something as vast as the credit market whether long-term rates

164
00:14:57.080 --> 00:15:00.560
rising, what the source of it is?

165
00:15:00.560 --> 00:15:06.960
If you don't need a treasury finance or a budget expert, the Fed will do that for you.

166
00:15:06.960 --> 00:15:14.960
I mean, if market interest rates are rising out the curve, if all rates are rising, and

167
00:15:14.960 --> 00:15:19.680
the short-term rate is the one controlled by the central bank is not rising, you can

168
00:15:19.680 --> 00:15:23.760
be pretty sure that a steeper yield curve is expansionary.

169
00:15:23.760 --> 00:15:29.640
Because what it means is the short rate would be rising if the Fed weren't pumping out

170
00:15:29.640 --> 00:15:33.320
sufficient reserves to keep it from doing so.

171
00:15:33.320 --> 00:15:39.640
So, you know, a steeper yield curve, the spread it reflects the stance of monetary policy.

172
00:15:39.640 --> 00:15:47.720
Now, the loop-de-loopers like to look at long-term rates in isolation, just like oil and house

173
00:15:47.720 --> 00:15:50.720
prices.

174
00:15:50.720 --> 00:15:57.120
And in every cycle when the yield curve inverts, as it ultimately does, the cries go out that

175
00:15:57.120 --> 00:16:14.320
This time is different, an inverted yield curve does not mean what it meant previously, and especially now if the economic statistics look good, and sure enough, as night follows day, the curve inverts, the expansion ends, recession begins.

176
00:16:14.320 --> 00:16:21.760
And it is interesting because the official date of the last recession, December 2007,

177
00:16:21.760 --> 00:16:27.120
the long-term treasury yield was yielding about 4 percent and I remember doing, I write

178
00:16:27.120 --> 00:16:33.800
about the yield curve frequently and I remember having a lot of arguments with people saying,

179
00:16:33.800 --> 00:16:39.560
I mean, the economy does not go in recession when long-term interest rates are at 4 percent,

180
00:16:39.560 --> 00:16:42.560
so be it.

181
00:16:42.560 --> 00:16:46.580
While we're on the subject of long-term interest rates, I want to talk about another subject

182
00:16:46.580 --> 00:16:53.140
near and dear to my heart, the bond vigilantes, another nonsensical concept.

183
00:16:53.140 --> 00:16:59.760
Presumably, these self-appointed gunslingers roam the globe in search of irresponsible

184
00:16:59.760 --> 00:17:05.040
governments and look to impose some discipline on them.

185
00:17:05.040 --> 00:17:12.120
And the idea was introduced by economist Ed Yardeni in 1983.

186
00:17:12.120 --> 00:17:17.080
And the idea was something that if the monetary or fiscal authorities weren't doing their

187
00:17:17.080 --> 00:17:23.640
job, the credit market vigilantes could do it for them and impose some discipline.

188
00:17:23.640 --> 00:17:31.560
Sorry Ed, a trader selling bonds and a central bank with a printing press are not fungible.

189
00:17:31.560 --> 00:17:38.160
In fact, if the central bank is inflating, the public will expect inflation to be higher,

190
00:17:38.160 --> 00:17:42.680
will spend more today, because it's going to cost more tomorrow, long-term interest

191
00:17:42.680 --> 00:17:49.480
rates notwithstanding, and a steeper yield curve, all things equal, will induce banks

192
00:17:49.480 --> 00:17:54.280
to create more credit, assuming that they are not balance sheet constrained, as they

193
00:17:54.280 --> 00:17:59.480
were coming out of the 1990 recession and the current one.

194
00:17:59.480 --> 00:18:04.040
Now the vigilantes may have gone underground during the Great Moderation, but they too did

195
00:18:04.040 --> 00:18:05.040
not die.

196
00:18:05.040 --> 00:18:14.280
Instead, they get holed out every time people are worried about easy money or fiscal spending.

197
00:18:14.280 --> 00:18:19.440
When they do, I'm always reminded of my late friend and economics teacher, Bob Laurent,

198
00:18:19.440 --> 00:18:24.000
who wrote under Milton Friedman, he was the best monetary economist I knew, taught me

199
00:18:24.000 --> 00:18:27.120
economics on the phone over the years.

200
00:18:27.120 --> 00:18:34.000
And he's certainly the last person to advocate the idea that bond traders can do the central

201
00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:35.000
bank's job.

202
00:18:35.000 --> 00:18:38.880
And I remember I used to call him up when the nonsense would start, you know, and he

203
00:18:38.880 --> 00:18:44.520
would always chuckle and he'd say, you know, I have to wonder why like some of these markets

204
00:18:44.520 --> 00:18:50.840
like Brazil or these hyper-inflating Latin American economies, why the vigilantes can't

205
00:18:50.840 --> 00:18:53.400
work their wonders there.

206
00:18:53.400 --> 00:18:59.560
Now, the good news is, I do hear the vigilantes have been sighted in Greece, and I imagine

207
00:18:59.560 --> 00:19:04.720
that there's enough work in Zimbabwe to keep them busy for a long time.

208
00:19:04.720 --> 00:19:12.400
While we're on the subject of inflation, another one of my favorites, and we have to deal with

209
00:19:12.400 --> 00:19:17.560
this several times in each expansion, is that beast known as wage inflation.

210
00:19:17.560 --> 00:19:20.960
Of course, there is no wage inflation, it doesn't exist.

211
00:19:20.960 --> 00:19:26.360
Businesses are a price, they're the price of labor, they happen to be a big input price,

212
00:19:26.360 --> 00:19:36.520
especially in services, in the services industry, but they don't cause anything.

213
00:19:36.520 --> 00:19:43.000
In order to believe that wages push up prices, that thing called cost push inflation, you'd

214
00:19:43.000 --> 00:19:48.880
have to think that businesses are dumb enough to pay someone more than their marginal revenue

215
00:19:48.880 --> 00:19:49.880
product.

216
00:19:49.880 --> 00:20:03.840
It would be one thing if we lived in a world where the unions had great sway, but in a

217
00:20:03.840 --> 00:20:11.400
globalized economy and union membership down, this idea of wage inflation still persists,

218
00:20:11.400 --> 00:20:16.960
and it shows up of all places in the Federal Reserve minutes, with the Fed wondering about

219
00:20:16.960 --> 00:20:38.280
Another one of my favorite pieces of nonsense is the idea that there is a fixed amount of

220
00:20:38.280 --> 00:20:44.960
work, that if we could just curtail immigration or restrict trade, there would be more jobs

221
00:20:44.960 --> 00:20:46.560
for More Americans.

222
00:20:46.560 --> 00:20:51.600
Now this one actually has a name, I had to make up loop-de-loop, but this one is called

223
00:20:51.600 --> 00:20:55.040
the Lump of Labor Fallacy.

224
00:20:55.040 --> 00:21:00.960
And France fell victim to the Lump of Labor Fallacy about a little over a decade ago when

225
00:21:00.960 --> 00:21:08.920
the socialist government decided to reduce the work week from 40 hours to 35 hours.

226
00:21:08.920 --> 00:21:16.200
The logic went like this, if it takes one man 40 hours to do a job, and one man is limited

227
00:21:16.200 --> 00:21:23.700
to 35 hours, it will take 1.14 men to do the equivalent of 40 hours of work.

228
00:21:23.700 --> 00:21:29.460
Of course the flaw in the logic is that 1.14 men need two benefit packages.

229
00:21:29.460 --> 00:21:36.480
So the 35 hour work week has been effectively repealed, but not before the French took to

230
00:21:36.480 --> 00:21:44.000
to the streets to protest the forced erosion in their quality of life.

231
00:21:44.000 --> 00:21:53.840
The lump of labor fallacy was revived in 2001, the jobless recovery, except this time it

232
00:21:53.840 --> 00:21:57.840
was productivity growth that was the enemy of hiring.

233
00:21:57.840 --> 00:22:04.760
Of course, expansions with the strongest rebounds in productivity seem to also have the strongest

234
00:22:04.760 --> 00:22:11.760
and don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

235
00:22:11.760 --> 00:22:18.760
Even if immigrants displace American workers, they increase the size of the economy, which adds new jobs.

236
00:22:18.760 --> 00:22:25.760
I think it was Milton Friedman who said, you know, it's really not tough if you want to create work.

237
00:22:25.760 --> 00:22:30.760
Get rid of earth-moving machines and go back to shovels and forget the shovels and use spoons.

238
00:22:30.760 --> 00:22:38.920
People who think the quantity of labor is fixed probably buy into the idea that the

239
00:22:38.920 --> 00:22:43.800
demand for goods and services is finite as well.

240
00:22:43.800 --> 00:22:49.000
This piece of nonsense makes an appearance usually when the economy is struggling to

241
00:22:49.000 --> 00:22:54.880
rebound from recession and things aren't quite going according to plan and usually some

242
00:22:54.880 --> 00:23:01.880
This idea reached its apotheosis in 2004, with the publication of a book called The

243
00:23:24.880 --> 00:23:44.880
This book landed on my desk courtesy of some publisher or publicist and the reason it piqued my interest is that the field of gloom is usually populated by Malthusians who worry about the inability to produce enough food to take care of a growing population.

244
00:23:44.880 --> 00:23:50.880
I mean, here was someone who actually said demand was satiated.

245
00:23:50.880 --> 00:24:00.880
This author argued that we had reached something called an innovation saturation, that there was nothing capable of reinvigorating the economy.

246
00:24:00.880 --> 00:24:09.880
Well, who knew we needed an iPod before Apple came up with an idea, successfully produced and marketed it?

247
00:24:09.880 --> 00:24:18.880
And even if there's nothing new, we want more of the old stuff, we want bigger houses, fancier appliances, more cars.

248
00:24:18.880 --> 00:24:26.320
In the 50s, it was a car in every driveway. That gave way to the two-car garage, now the

249
00:24:26.320 --> 00:24:32.160
three- and the four-car garage. I always like to tell people that if I'm going to worry

250
00:24:32.160 --> 00:24:37.900
about something, it will be the sun going dark in five billion years and not the death

251
00:24:37.900 --> 00:24:48.560
of demand. Of course, the list of bad ideas that never die would not be complete without

252
00:24:48.560 --> 00:25:00.160
not mention of Keynesian economics which unlike its founder is never dead in the long run.

253
00:25:00.160 --> 00:25:02.760
Instead it comes back to haunt us regularly.

254
00:25:02.760 --> 00:25:12.320
Now the neo-Keynesians may debate whether the spending multiplier is 1 or 1.3 or 1.5

255
00:25:12.320 --> 00:25:16.640
or whether you get a bigger spending gives a bigger spending on infrastructure gives

256
00:25:16.640 --> 00:25:22.640
is a bigger boost than transfer payments or entitlement spending, but the one thing they

257
00:25:22.640 --> 00:25:34.200
never ever question is how it is that transferring money via taxation, inflation or government

258
00:25:34.200 --> 00:25:38.680
borrowing can be a net positive for the economy.

259
00:25:38.680 --> 00:25:46.360
Bastiat laid it out 160 years ago and broken windows are still the rage today.

260
00:25:46.360 --> 00:25:52.240
I could go on, but as I said in the beginning, bad economic ideas never die.

261
00:25:52.240 --> 00:25:58.560
I've made a career of upending economic nonsense, so I, for one, would be very sorry to see

262
00:25:58.560 --> 00:26:01.480
it go.

263
00:26:01.480 --> 00:26:07.720
And with that, I'll be happy to take your questions.

264
00:26:07.720 --> 00:26:32.920
gentlemen there yes I do you know and and and readers write to me sometime you know

265
00:26:32.920 --> 00:26:37.080
we're actually at Bloomberg not allowed to criticize the media so sometimes I

266
00:26:37.080 --> 00:26:42.200
I'm not going to get away with it by saying Princeton Economics professor, you know, but

267
00:26:42.200 --> 00:26:48.080
the editors are asleep at the wheel, but you know, readers are just outraged and they write,

268
00:26:48.080 --> 00:26:56.760
so where's your PhD that you can criticize a Nobel winner, so, yeah, gentleman back there?

269
00:26:56.760 --> 00:27:15.760
Why do they never die? Because on some level, if you don't think about them, I guess it makes sense, you know, because we have to find something.

270
00:27:15.760 --> 00:27:23.760
Government has to do something to make it better. No one wants to undergo short-term pain, so we end up with long-term pain.

271
00:27:23.760 --> 00:27:28.240
I don't know why they don't die.

272
00:27:28.240 --> 00:27:32.680
You would think the people that promulgate them should know better.

273
00:27:32.680 --> 00:27:33.680
Back there?

274
00:27:33.680 --> 00:27:45.920
Yeah, I do sometimes.

275
00:27:45.920 --> 00:27:49.400
This has been a period when there's been a lot going on.

276
00:27:49.400 --> 00:27:53.040
I had never written about health care until last year just because I can't understand

277
00:27:53.040 --> 00:28:00.400
in my own and I figured, you know, how could I write about this, but I got so angry last

278
00:28:00.400 --> 00:28:05.160
summer when I heard Obama wanted a bill on his desk by August 15th that I had to dive

279
00:28:05.160 --> 00:28:06.160
in.

280
00:28:06.160 --> 00:28:11.640
I don't know, you know, it's not easy cranking out, I crank out two columns a week.

281
00:28:11.640 --> 00:28:18.640
I used to write a lot more, but it was a little more market driven and stuff, so I don't know

282
00:28:18.640 --> 00:28:34.640
I don't know if you'd call it writer's block, but finding an idea that is new, fresh, that you can bring a new way, some value added to it is not easy.

283
00:28:34.640 --> 00:28:42.640
When I did my book, my book is a collection of columns, but it's organized by theme, not by topic.

284
00:28:42.640 --> 00:28:49.640
And I remember when I put it together, I remember I came home one day and I said,

285
00:28:49.640 --> 00:28:53.640
you know, here I thought I wrote the same column, six columns over and over.

286
00:28:53.640 --> 00:28:56.640
They're actually 18, you know, so.

287
00:28:56.640 --> 00:28:57.640
So, thank you.

288
00:28:57.640 --> 00:28:58.640
Gentleman here.

289
00:28:58.640 --> 00:29:12.640
In your estimation, who benefits from or whose interests are served by the propagation of these bad economic activities?

290
00:29:28.640 --> 00:29:37.760
So, they benefit from bigger government and more one-sided, you know, distribution.

291
00:29:37.760 --> 00:29:41.840
But it's not, they're not just propagated, it's not government propaganda.

292
00:29:41.840 --> 00:29:47.360
The government takes the actions, but, you know, there's a lot of Keynesians on Wall

293
00:29:47.360 --> 00:29:58.320
Street, you know, so I don't, I don't know why, it's just, it must be a very tempting

294
00:29:58.320 --> 00:30:24.160
I'm sure there's some of it, but this is what's taught in the schools, I mean, right?

295
00:30:24.160 --> 00:30:33.160
I was listening in the last month, I was listening to a Rothbard lecture that Max, a young intern

296
00:30:33.160 --> 00:30:38.680
at Bloomberg who's a good Austrian, god I must be 19 or something like that, learned

297
00:30:38.680 --> 00:30:44.800
a lot from him and he had sent me some links and said you have to listen to this and Rothbard

298
00:30:44.800 --> 00:30:52.800
was talking about Mises and Hayek not being able to get hired and salaries being paid

299
00:30:52.800 --> 00:30:59.800
by Businesses, and yet every Marxist could get a cushy seat at an Ivy League University.

300
00:31:52.800 --> 00:32:22.800
Well, I think there is a trade, you know, you get access on the other side of the quid pro quo is information and, you know, I'd like to think that, I mean, I don't, I'm not a reporter in the sense, but I'm trying to think at times in

301
00:32:22.800 --> 00:32:29.200
in my life that I've slanted something in order to get a story.

302
00:32:29.200 --> 00:32:30.480
I mean, I'd like to think not.

303
00:32:30.480 --> 00:32:36.240
And I work with some people who are adamant on background.

304
00:32:36.240 --> 00:32:38.280
No, why aren't you putting your name on it?

305
00:32:38.280 --> 00:32:43.000
But it's more prevalent in Washington.

306
00:32:43.000 --> 00:32:49.680
I don't understand why if various administrations, when

307
00:32:49.680 --> 00:32:55.080
classified information isn't leaked to by a member of the staff and then out through

308
00:32:55.080 --> 00:33:00.080
the newspaper they don't do something about it, but they don't.

309
00:33:00.080 --> 00:33:17.080
Well, you know, the taxes come first and the additional, you know, you know, you know,

310
00:33:17.080 --> 00:33:25.080
The additional health care benefits aren't fully implemented, I think, until 2014.

311
00:33:25.080 --> 00:33:33.240
So as a friend of mine likes to say, the way to eternal life is as a federal government

312
00:33:33.240 --> 00:33:34.240
program.

313
00:33:34.240 --> 00:33:37.760
I suppose once it passes, it will be hard to get rid of it, even if they clean house

314
00:33:37.760 --> 00:33:40.800
in the next election.

315
00:33:40.800 --> 00:33:46.380
I'm not an equity person in terms of how it's going to affect stock prices and what's already

316
00:33:46.380 --> 00:33:56.420
built into that. But again, from what I've learned and read, there's a lot of good ideas

317
00:33:56.420 --> 00:34:02.700
about how to fix health care out there. I mean, why do these microcosms like the Cleveland

318
00:34:02.700 --> 00:34:12.900
Clinic and even some Mayo and even some county health associations deliver quality care at

319
00:34:12.900 --> 00:34:14.540
at Lower Costs.

320
00:34:14.540 --> 00:34:19.900
But I know that with the federal government running, it's certainly not, we're not going

321
00:34:19.900 --> 00:34:23.460
to find the ways to create incentives.

322
00:34:23.460 --> 00:34:32.660
And I even read something which I couldn't believe that the penalty, and when Obama came

323
00:34:32.660 --> 00:34:40.060
out with his 12-page plan that he wants to incorporate into the healthcare bill or that

324
00:34:40.060 --> 00:34:44.540
the CBO is now scoring. I mean it doesn't have anything to score but I think it's

325
00:34:44.540 --> 00:34:52.060
it's being developed that you know everyone every American must buy health

326
00:34:52.060 --> 00:34:58.180
care and the penalty for not buying it is so low I can't see why a young

327
00:34:58.180 --> 00:35:02.540
healthy person would not wait till the ambulance on the way to the hospital. So

328
00:35:02.540 --> 00:35:08.540
there's some really bad ideas on there. You know you read someone like the the

329
00:35:08.540 --> 00:35:13.300
The Dean of the Harvard Medical School on an editorial page has done a couple pieces with

330
00:35:13.300 --> 00:35:15.060
very thoughtful ideas.

331
00:35:15.060 --> 00:35:18.980
I mean, I don't think the Republicans would have done anything about health care, so I

332
00:35:18.980 --> 00:35:21.580
don't think that's the answer either.

333
00:35:21.580 --> 00:35:29.760
But it seems to me that we're rushing something that's very complicated, and my personal view

334
00:35:29.760 --> 00:35:37.420
is that we do have a moral obligation, not a right, but a moral obligation to try and

335
00:35:37.420 --> 00:35:42.100
help people get access to health care, whatever that is, whether it's by a subsidy or something

336
00:35:42.100 --> 00:35:46.380
like that, but I think some of the things they're doing is stupid and I don't think

337
00:35:46.380 --> 00:35:48.660
it'll be a net positive for the economy.

338
00:35:48.660 --> 00:35:49.660
Yes?

339
00:35:49.660 --> 00:36:14.860
not at Bloomberg News so well you know I reviewed the two biographies of Ayn Rand

340
00:36:14.860 --> 00:36:36.860
that came out last year, and you know, sales have zoomed, I mean, some of the stuff that you read about the Tea Party movement, you know, with grandmas walking around with the, you know, Federalist papers, you know, waving the Federalist papers, no, I mean, I think that's a great story.

341
00:36:36.860 --> 00:36:51.860
I think there is renewed interest, but certainly not in the news media where I work, and in the nation's academic institutions.

342
00:36:51.860 --> 00:37:16.620
Well, I happen to like Bernanke. I think he's a man of integrity that wants to do the right

343
00:37:16.620 --> 00:37:25.980
thing. I also know that the Fed usually doesn't get things right and this idea, I don't know

344
00:37:25.980 --> 00:37:29.340
how technically you want me to get that, you know, they're going to use the interest rate

345
00:37:29.340 --> 00:37:34.500
on excess reserves to prevent the banks from lending them out. Well, what's the risk-free

346
00:37:34.500 --> 00:37:41.300
rate you have to pay these banks to when the economy is expanding and banks are lending

347
00:37:41.300 --> 00:37:52.040
What rate are you going to have to pay to prevent this bank, or that bank, from lending

348
00:37:52.040 --> 00:37:53.040
in?

349
00:37:53.040 --> 00:37:59.540
I think, unfortunately, we will end up with more inflation, but I don't think Ben Bernanke

350
00:37:59.540 --> 00:38:07.100
is Arthur Berns to Richard Nixon, which is, we're going to expand the money supply for

351
00:38:07.100 --> 00:38:08.620
of the 72 Election.

352
00:38:10.700 --> 00:38:12.860
Technically, do they have the tools?

353
00:38:12.860 --> 00:38:15.800
Yes, but the fact is, it still seems to me

354
00:38:15.800 --> 00:38:18.340
that they have to sell assets.

355
00:38:18.340 --> 00:38:20.980
How can you lock up a trillion dollars

356
00:38:20.980 --> 00:38:22.380
and keep repo-ing it out?

357
00:38:22.380 --> 00:38:25.820
I mean, you can do that, but I just don't think

358
00:38:25.820 --> 00:38:28.980
that that is the solution.

359
00:38:28.980 --> 00:38:31.760
So, we live in interesting times.

360
00:38:31.760 --> 00:38:33.340
Back there?

361
00:38:33.340 --> 00:38:34.700
Yes, you in the black?

362
00:38:34.700 --> 00:38:35.540
Black turn on.

363
00:38:37.100 --> 00:39:07.100
Well, I mean newspapers are closing, cutting staffs, revenue is down, I have to say the

364
00:39:07.100 --> 00:39:13.060
revenue is down. Yes, it's changing a lot. The risk is you get some of these situations

365
00:39:13.060 --> 00:39:22.780
where something starts on a blog and becomes fact. The story about the New York Times having

366
00:39:22.780 --> 00:39:35.540
a scandalous story on David Patterson, governor of New York, and his sexual exploits started

367
00:39:35.540 --> 00:39:37.100
on some blog.

368
00:39:37.100 --> 00:39:45.980
It turned out they were working a story on his top aide and what he did to try and interfere

369
00:39:45.980 --> 00:39:50.220
with that.

370
00:39:50.220 --> 00:39:54.860
Information is good, but I think a lot of people see anything they read on a blog or

371
00:39:54.860 --> 00:39:57.300
a website as fact.

372
00:39:57.300 --> 00:39:59.380
But it's good to have sources of information.

373
00:39:59.380 --> 00:40:04.020
I think, unfortunately, the newspaper industry is continuing to die.

374
00:40:04.020 --> 00:40:34.020
Bloomberg bought Business Week, I don't even, and we also have a monthly magazine, I can't imagine how you can do a monthly magazine in this day and age, how can you plan something with a lead time of their working three months before, either someone's done the story, it's reversed, or something like that, it's very hard, I don't think we're going backwards though, although I still read physical newspapers, I like them on the train in the morning on the way to work,

375
00:40:34.020 --> 00:40:36.020
Luddite in that sense.

376
00:41:04.020 --> 00:41:08.680
Well, since I'm not trained as an economist and I couldn't do the math anyway,

377
00:41:08.680 --> 00:41:11.820
I always had to rely on the intuition.

378
00:41:11.820 --> 00:41:16.420
But I don't know if you'd say in the journalistic profession.

379
00:41:16.420 --> 00:41:23.780
I mean, it seems to me risk management, which is, you know, we'll get better risk management

380
00:41:23.780 --> 00:41:28.320
and we'll have a financial stability regulator that's going to look out and find

381
00:41:28.320 --> 00:41:32.680
out where this is before it, you know, upends the system again.

382
00:41:32.680 --> 00:41:37.400
I don't think that's a particularly a journalistic question. I mean the big

383
00:41:37.400 --> 00:41:47.840
econometric models, I don't see anything happening to, you know, for firms to move

384
00:41:47.840 --> 00:41:56.720
away from that sort of forecasting. I don't really, I'm trying to think, I don't

385
00:41:56.720 --> 00:42:02.640
really talk to use model-driven stuff. I mean sometimes I like to know what a

386
00:42:02.640 --> 00:42:07.200
Consensus Forecast is, and I'll use a survey or something like that. I don't

387
00:42:07.200 --> 00:42:13.280
know that the journalistic profession is that tuned into models.

388
00:42:13.280 --> 00:42:32.860
______________

389
00:42:32.860 --> 00:42:34.720
But this wasn't a journalist.

390
00:42:34.720 --> 00:42:37.520
This was someone in the economics profession.

391
00:42:37.520 --> 00:42:42.200
You know I think, sorry?

392
00:42:42.200 --> 00:42:48.200
Yeah, I remember reading that. You know, I think it's one of those preaching to the converted.

393
00:42:48.200 --> 00:42:53.200
I think that the people believe in them, just believe there was something about the input to the model that was wrong,

394
00:42:53.200 --> 00:43:00.200
and those that don't still think there's no good. So, back there.

395
00:43:00.200 --> 00:43:18.200
I just I don't know any more that's been in the press so I really I don't I can't

396
00:43:18.200 --> 00:43:41.200
I don't shed any light on that.

397
00:43:41.200 --> 00:43:45.200
I read the journal's editorial page regularly.

398
00:43:45.200 --> 00:43:50.200
I read the Times, too, because as I said, sometimes I get my best ideas from bad stuff.

399
00:43:50.200 --> 00:44:02.200
I try to think who I read. I mean, I look at a lot of the blogs. I look at Mises. I look at econlibrary.com.

400
00:44:02.200 --> 00:44:09.200
I don't know what the name is. I'm just drawing a blank. I'm not Sarah Palin. I really do read.

401
00:44:09.200 --> 00:44:17.760
but I read so much in the course of the day and it's all a little bit different.

402
00:44:17.760 --> 00:44:24.280
I have columnists I like, you know, I have economists that I do like, research that I read.

403
00:44:24.280 --> 00:44:31.240
So there's an Austrian, you know, Mies Shedlock, I don't know if you know him, Mises Global Economic.

404
00:44:31.240 --> 00:44:34.280
I think he's pretty popular among the Austrians.

405
00:44:34.280 --> 00:44:39.280
So, if I think of anything, I'll let you know. Yes, back there?

406
00:44:39.280 --> 00:44:44.280
Just a comment on the fact that the banks are more reserved.

407
00:44:44.280 --> 00:44:48.280
If I understand it, you know, the whole way the banks are outlining the country...

408
00:44:48.280 --> 00:44:50.280
Correct, exactly.

409
00:44:50.280 --> 00:44:52.280
The banks that are more reserved...

410
00:44:52.280 --> 00:44:55.280
Exactly, exactly.

411
00:44:55.280 --> 00:45:00.280
Like, what's the difference between paying banks to hold excess reserves and increasing the money supply?

412
00:45:00.280 --> 00:45:15.280
I did a piece earlier this year, and it's really far out, but for the first time ever, the Fed has low-yielding fixed-rate assets.

413
00:45:15.280 --> 00:45:20.280
It has all these mortgage-backed securities, 4 percent, something like that.

414
00:45:20.280 --> 00:45:27.280
It doesn't own a lot of T-bills. In the old days, in a rising-rate environment, it used to benefit from reinvesting at higher rates.

415
00:45:27.280 --> 00:45:34.280
On the other hand, it's going to have floating rate liabilities.

416
00:45:34.280 --> 00:45:39.760
You could get a point where, if the funds rate goes by rough calculation to something

417
00:45:39.760 --> 00:45:44.920
like seven percent, that the Fed is no longer self-financing.

418
00:45:44.920 --> 00:45:49.720
And I think if the Fed had to go to Congress, you know, for an appropriation, that would

419
00:45:49.720 --> 00:45:53.040
even be worse than what we have now.

420
00:45:53.040 --> 00:46:15.040
Well, you know, I think in the last 20 years, you know, when the Bank of New Zealand went

421
00:46:15.040 --> 00:46:22.920
to an inflation target, and I think actually the central bank governor could lose his job

422
00:46:22.920 --> 00:46:32.920
I think inflation targeting helped a lot of countries that hadn't been able to solve it.

423
00:46:32.920 --> 00:46:42.920
I know the Austrians think an increase in the money supply isn't inflation, but I'm talking about inflation as most economists define it as an increase in the price level.

424
00:46:42.920 --> 00:46:49.920
The problem as I see it is that the Fed, for example, does not tolerate deflation.

425
00:46:49.920 --> 00:47:02.920
So while you can say, you know, they define price stability as 2% inflation a year, well, at 2, 2.5%, I think the dollar loses purchasing power in 35 years.

426
00:47:02.920 --> 00:47:14.920
So what it may be price stability today, which, you know, Mr. Greenspan used to define as inflation so low that it's not a factor in business or consumer decision making.

427
00:47:14.920 --> 00:47:20.920
So what they call price stability in a one-year time frame is certainly not price stability over the long run.

428
00:47:20.920 --> 00:47:26.420
And by definition, they never tolerate a CPI of negative 1%.

429
00:47:26.420 --> 00:47:31.920
There's not much difference between 1% and negative 1%.

430
00:47:31.920 --> 00:47:34.920
Tell me what your question again was. I went off on a tangent.

431
00:47:34.920 --> 00:47:36.920
What's going on in monetary policy?

432
00:47:36.920 --> 00:47:52.920
Well, certainly the Europeans now are having to struggle with the issue of having one central bank and 16 sovereign states.

433
00:47:52.920 --> 00:48:03.920
So I think that's an interesting something to watch about how that works out.

434
00:48:03.920 --> 00:48:08.920
I don't know, I notice when you go to a lot of the central bank, the inflation targeting websites,

435
00:48:08.920 --> 00:48:12.920
they are a lot more transparent than the Fed's website.

436
00:48:12.920 --> 00:48:20.920
And the Fed has a good website, lots of research, statistics, but, you know, the ECB is very specific about, you know,

437
00:48:20.920 --> 00:48:26.920
their monetary stuff and other stuff, and it just, I think it makes a difference.

438
00:48:26.920 --> 00:48:37.920
Isn't there a big difference? I think that the transparency that some of these countries and central banks never had is a big plus.

439
00:48:37.920 --> 00:49:06.420
You know, I have a favorite saying, during these times when interest rates are going up, the Treasury would always send out someone from domestic finance to say,

440
00:49:06.420 --> 00:49:10.260
You know, the Treasury will have no trouble selling its debt.

441
00:49:10.260 --> 00:49:16.620
I like to say the only question is at what price, you know, and I still think that's

442
00:49:16.620 --> 00:49:17.620
the answer.

443
00:49:17.620 --> 00:49:19.740
I mean, would we have a failed auction?

444
00:49:19.740 --> 00:49:21.500
Can you imagine that in this country?

445
00:49:21.500 --> 00:49:27.540
I mean, demand for Treasury still seems to be quite strong, so back there.

446
00:49:36.420 --> 00:49:44.020
Well, I think Margaret Thatcher gave the euro like a couple years, you know, and in her

447
00:49:44.020 --> 00:49:50.300
time she said, you know, the currency, the common currency wouldn't last.

448
00:49:50.300 --> 00:49:57.620
You know, I think these countries appreciate the advantage of being in the union and, you

449
00:49:57.620 --> 00:49:59.700
know, not having looked at Greece's books.

450
00:49:59.700 --> 00:50:06.820
You know, I don't know what will happen, but I really don't have a view on whether they

451
00:50:06.820 --> 00:50:12.700
would choose to leave so they could inflate, or it looks to me like they're trying.

452
00:50:12.700 --> 00:50:22.860
I mean, they lied to get into the Union, so why wouldn't they try and stay in there?

453
00:50:22.860 --> 00:50:23.860
Anyone else?

454
00:50:23.860 --> 00:50:24.860
All right.

455
00:50:24.860 --> 00:50:25.860
Well, thank you.