|
On February 29 2012 03:42 forgottendreams wrote:If anyone actually believes Santorum will win feel free to hedge an extreme value bet here http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/I found that site recently and did some hypothetical betting, I won all predictions related except Colorado and would be up 10k if I actually had real money. Then again I'm up 27k on 100k portfolio on top10traders, looks like I'll get to enjoy a life of hypothetical riches my entire life.
THen when you finally bet your own money, the next day Santorum gets caught with 3 grams of meth and a gay prostitute :[
|
On February 29 2012 03:48 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 03:42 forgottendreams wrote:If anyone actually believes Santorum will win feel free to hedge an extreme value bet here http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/I found that site recently and did some hypothetical betting, I won all predictions related except Colorado and would be up 10k if I actually had real money. Then again I'm up 27k on 100k portfolio on top10traders, looks like I'll get to enjoy a life of hypothetical riches my entire life. THen when you finally bet your own money, the next day Santorum gets caught with 3 grams of meth and a gay prostitute :[
:S
You know for some reason I could picture Santorum being a meth and gay hooker type of guy, everyone needs to relax after a hard day of bible thumping and telling lies to an entire nation.
|
On February 29 2012 03:57 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 03:48 DamnCats wrote:On February 29 2012 03:42 forgottendreams wrote:If anyone actually believes Santorum will win feel free to hedge an extreme value bet here http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/I found that site recently and did some hypothetical betting, I won all predictions related except Colorado and would be up 10k if I actually had real money. Then again I'm up 27k on 100k portfolio on top10traders, looks like I'll get to enjoy a life of hypothetical riches my entire life. THen when you finally bet your own money, the next day Santorum gets caught with 3 grams of meth and a gay prostitute :[ :S You know for some reason I could picture Santorum being a meth and gay hooker type of guy, everyone needs to relax after a hard day of bible thumping and telling lies to an entire nation.
To quote George Costanza, "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."
|
On February 29 2012 01:20 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 23:24 kwizach wrote:On February 28 2012 22:59 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 28 2012 22:31 frogrubdown wrote:
Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now. Holding your ears with your hands and pretending the arguments and evidence don't exist doesn't make them any less valid. "LALALA! I CANT HEAR YOU!" is not an argument. But whatever... statists gonna state. Economists from the Austrian school have been shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of historical and empirical evidence (and of every other economist school) ever since Austrian economics first appeared. no they haven't. You dont know what your talking about.
Yes they have, and yes I do, but thanks.
|
On February 29 2012 01:49 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 23:24 kwizach wrote:On February 28 2012 22:59 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 28 2012 22:31 frogrubdown wrote:
Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now. Holding your ears with your hands and pretending the arguments and evidence don't exist doesn't make them any less valid. "LALALA! I CANT HEAR YOU!" is not an argument. But whatever... statists gonna state. Economists from the Austrian school have been shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of historical and empirical evidence (and of every other economist school) ever since Austrian economics first appeared. Freedom of thought means that if someone wants to pretend that they live in Narnia, they have the right to do so. What you do on your part is to just politely ignore or send them away like you would with Jehova's Witnesses.
The White Witch of Narnia recently sat for an interview with Playboy in which he again propounded the broken windows fallacy by insisting that World War II pulled the U.S. economy out of the tailspin of the 1930s. Yes, he actually believes that bombing Europe and Japan made us wealthier. One of the leading lights of the foremost school of economic thought is completely unaware that work is a cost, not a benefit, and that an increase in wealth is the real goal of all economic activity. Half the population digs holes, the other half fills them in, and somehow the world becomes wealthier. No wonder we call it the dismal science.
It's no coincidence that people like Krugman (pardon me, Nobel Laureate Krugman) have had the ear of demagogues in government for generations now--they provide the blank check for unwise spending, regulatory cronyism, and irresponsible debt that have defined western politics for generations now. When one school preaches fiscal responsibility and the other encourages spending tomorrow's wealth today to curry political favor, which do you think will win the battle for the hearts and minds of political leaders whose interests rarely extend beyond the next election cycle?
|
It's my understanding that WWII *did* do wonders for the US economy. Especially the aftermath of the war.
Europe had been completely fucking ravaged by the war, and the US mainland was relatively untouched. We simply had no industrial rivals for a while. There was no competition while Europe rebuilt their shattered cities.
|
On February 29 2012 07:08 Haemonculus wrote:
It's my understanding that WWII *did* do wonders for the US economy. Especially the aftermath of the war.
Europe had been completely fucking ravaged by the war, and the US mainland was relatively untouched. We simply had no industrial rivals for a while. There was no competition while Europe rebuilt their shattered cities.
Even the buildup of the war helped the economie. How did Germany drag itself up after the end of WW1. With the nazi industrial warmachine.
|
On February 29 2012 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 07:08 Haemonculus wrote:
It's my understanding that WWII *did* do wonders for the US economy. Especially the aftermath of the war.
Europe had been completely fucking ravaged by the war, and the US mainland was relatively untouched. We simply had no industrial rivals for a while. There was no competition while Europe rebuilt their shattered cities. Even the buildup of the war helped the economie. How did Germany drag itself up after the end of WW1. With the nazi industrial warmachine.
Yes, we need to build more planes, bombs, tanks, and submarines to raise our standard of living! All those resources need to be used in destroying property and consume the resources in sights and sounds of explosions, death, and destruction. All we need to do is have the Government pay people to run around and destroy everyone's homes, and then we would all become much more wealthy!
|
On February 29 2012 07:18 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 29 2012 07:08 Haemonculus wrote:
It's my understanding that WWII *did* do wonders for the US economy. Especially the aftermath of the war.
Europe had been completely fucking ravaged by the war, and the US mainland was relatively untouched. We simply had no industrial rivals for a while. There was no competition while Europe rebuilt their shattered cities. Even the buildup of the war helped the economie. How did Germany drag itself up after the end of WW1. With the nazi industrial warmachine. Yes, we need to build more planes, bombs, tanks, and submarines to raise our standard of living! All those resources need to be used in destroying property and consume the resources in sights and sounds of explosions, death, and destruction. All we need to do is have the Government pay people to run around and destroy everyone's homes, and then we would all become much more wealthy!
Your avoiding the point because it happends to comflict with your views. Its not about building weapons of war.
Its about giving all your unemployed a job so they make money and can actualy spend it.
|
On February 29 2012 07:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 07:18 Wegandi wrote:On February 29 2012 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 29 2012 07:08 Haemonculus wrote:
It's my understanding that WWII *did* do wonders for the US economy. Especially the aftermath of the war.
Europe had been completely fucking ravaged by the war, and the US mainland was relatively untouched. We simply had no industrial rivals for a while. There was no competition while Europe rebuilt their shattered cities. Even the buildup of the war helped the economie. How did Germany drag itself up after the end of WW1. With the nazi industrial warmachine. Yes, we need to build more planes, bombs, tanks, and submarines to raise our standard of living! All those resources need to be used in destroying property and consume the resources in sights and sounds of explosions, death, and destruction. All we need to do is have the Government pay people to run around and destroy everyone's homes, and then we would all become much more wealthy! Your avoiding the point because it happends to comflict with your views. Its not about building weapons of war. Its about giving all your unemployed a job so they make money and can actualy spend it.
If all you have to do is spend money, why not just print money and hand it out? Or why not have them dig ditches and fill them back in? Keynesian non-sense is too rampant in this thread. The only way to raise standard of living is savings, investment, and productivity through voluntary trade and contract. To actually believe that you become wealthier by destroying resources and property is absolutely INSANE, and is one more reason why this world is so fucked up.
|
On February 29 2012 07:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 07:18 Wegandi wrote:On February 29 2012 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 29 2012 07:08 Haemonculus wrote:
It's my understanding that WWII *did* do wonders for the US economy. Especially the aftermath of the war.
Europe had been completely fucking ravaged by the war, and the US mainland was relatively untouched. We simply had no industrial rivals for a while. There was no competition while Europe rebuilt their shattered cities. Even the buildup of the war helped the economie. How did Germany drag itself up after the end of WW1. With the nazi industrial warmachine. Yes, we need to build more planes, bombs, tanks, and submarines to raise our standard of living! All those resources need to be used in destroying property and consume the resources in sights and sounds of explosions, death, and destruction. All we need to do is have the Government pay people to run around and destroy everyone's homes, and then we would all become much more wealthy! Your avoiding the point because it happends to comflict with your views. Its not about building weapons of war. Its about giving all your unemployed a job so they make money and can actualy spend it.
Unless the people you bomb give you money for it, his point is better than yours. Sure it's more complicated than that but saying it's about employing people is silly. You didn't even touch where they money comes from and how it actually would create wealth.
|
On February 29 2012 07:28 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 07:22 Gorsameth wrote:On February 29 2012 07:18 Wegandi wrote:On February 29 2012 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 29 2012 07:08 Haemonculus wrote:
It's my understanding that WWII *did* do wonders for the US economy. Especially the aftermath of the war.
Europe had been completely fucking ravaged by the war, and the US mainland was relatively untouched. We simply had no industrial rivals for a while. There was no competition while Europe rebuilt their shattered cities. Even the buildup of the war helped the economie. How did Germany drag itself up after the end of WW1. With the nazi industrial warmachine. Yes, we need to build more planes, bombs, tanks, and submarines to raise our standard of living! All those resources need to be used in destroying property and consume the resources in sights and sounds of explosions, death, and destruction. All we need to do is have the Government pay people to run around and destroy everyone's homes, and then we would all become much more wealthy! Your avoiding the point because it happends to comflict with your views. Its not about building weapons of war. Its about giving all your unemployed a job so they make money and can actualy spend it. Unless the people you bomb give you money for it, his point is better than yours. Sure it's more complicated than that but saying it's about employing people is silly. You didn't even touch where they money comes from and how it actually would create wealth.
WW2 brought America out of the Great Depression because it employed a huge amount of people with largely low-paying jobs, created huge demand for goods and services for the war effort, and eliminated any private products, so people just saved their money. America was also the world's biggest lender so it had huge liquidity. After the war there was a slight recession because of the loss of wartime production, but the citizens had a large amount of money and were demanding products.
|
On February 29 2012 00:04 SerpentFlame wrote:I was pretty surprised that this actually did come from the Santorum campaign. Having the end message say "supported by hardworking Democratic men and women and paid for by Rick Santorum for President" sounds like a ripe attack line on Rick Santorum's presidential aspirations.
MI is Santorum's last chance to stay in the primary. I think if he loses, he will not have a chance. If Romney loses, they both stay in and Romney will still eventually win I think.
Also, I am disliking Santorum more and more. I've never liked it when 1 party can affect the nomination process of the other party, and to have a candidate pay for a robo-call (which I also hate) to specifically ask democrats to do just that, is stupid.
|
Just to clarify, the argument for why WWII pulled the United States out of recession is that it gave jobs and money to unemployed Americans. The destruction of property mostly happened in Europe and Asia. WWII set these areas back. The American economy was, in a sense, lucky that almost all of the fighting itself took place elsewhere.
So, according to this argument, WWII made Americans richer while making the world as a whole poorer. I thought it was accepted that the government was capable of doing this?
The other argument (which I thought was more accepted?) was that massive government spending on the war plus all of the rationing during the war forced a build-up of household liquidity. Then when the war was over and the market restrictions relaxed, all of that liquidity was dumped into the market and acted as a monetary stimulus.
Interestingly, "digging up holes and filling them back in" was originality an argument against the gold standard. Somebody heads out west, digs a hole in the ground, and if there's a chunk of gold down there, he trades it in for cash at a bank and increases his personal wealth despite having done absolutely nothing to benefit the real economy.
|
On February 29 2012 08:07 Signet wrote:
Interestingly, "digging up holes and filling them back in" was originality an argument against the gold standard. Somebody heads out west, digs a hole in the ground, and if there's a chunk of gold down there, he trades it in for cash at a bank and increases his personal wealth despite having done absolutely nothing to benefit the real economy.
Except that gold is valuable not just as a jewelery item but for lots of industrial purposes and finding more gold will lower its price and make industrial goods more affordable which can boost real income of a country.
EDIT: oic. You're talking about if gold was stored in large quanities, it would remove its worth to the economy.
|
On February 28 2012 23:50 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 21:22 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 20:49 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 17:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:52 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality. This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality. People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too. You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false. I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me? Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless. You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either. You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive. Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere? No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems. You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved. There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive? Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity. And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany. Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics. You do not need a common currency controlled by government. Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and repeal legal tender laws. This is a position that is held by virtually every Austrian economist. Currencies should not be monopolized, but left up to the market. Anarchy is not counterproductive. Government is counterproductive. The market provides far better regulation than a monopoly of government ever can. There is no evidence to support a claim of anarcho-capitalist systems being any more violent than government. Unfortunately, the examples are few and far between, but one I can give is Iceland 900-1200 AD. During this period there were competing systems of law, much like the modern concept of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in anarcho-capitalist theory. Violent crime rate during a period of "civil war" at the end of this period was still less than violent crime rate in the US today. The system was completely stable until the Church moved in and created a form of monopoly power and taxation, a la government. And lastly, I find it hilarious that you say I should learn more about economics and make appeals to authority. That does not constitute an argument. I am very learned in economics, and can point you to countless resources to back my claims. Now if you want to learn more about anarcho-capitalist theory and Austrian economics, I strongly suggest www.mises.org (for economics) and www.freedomainradio.com (for philosophy). The United States had exactly what you describe leading up to 1861, before Abraham Lincoln issued a form of national currency during the Civil War. Multiple currencies floated around multiple wildcat banks. Likewise, the American West was largely unregulated as far as business practices went. No it was not a perfect model of anarcho-capitalism. There will never be a perfect model of anything in the real world. Some state and local controls remained in the Free Banking Era of the United States. But especially in less developed areas, banks were largely able to get by with no government presence. And it's far closer to the economic model you describe than what we have today. This was not a recipe for economic success. The recession of 1836, 1839, and 1857 were deep, dark, and strongly associated with free banking and the failures thereof. The Recession of 1836, for instance, was caused by a run on the banks that plunged the US into a recession deeper than this one. Consider that in 2009, basically every Austrian economist warned us that inflation was coming, and coming in a big way. They were unequivocal about this; it was not a "in the long run" prediction, but a "this is going to happen in the coming months, possibly the next year at the latest". Meanwhile, inflation is at the lowest rate its been in years. Until that school gets its big claims not-spectacularly-wrong, I'm not sure that using their 'expertise' to justify arguments is a wise decision.
Inflation is at the highest rate it's been at in years, even according to the government. In addition, the economic statistics from pre-civil war periods are so incredibly poor that it is frequently misinterpreted. Those recessions were not nearly as severe as the recessions after the Fed was created. After all, we had the Great Depression, and the recessions in the 1970s, and the depression we're in now.
And the period of the greatest economic freedom occurred predominantly after the civil war when slavery was abolished, since clearly that's a great bane to economic freedom. In the period from 1870-1913 we had no income tax, very lax regulation, a gold standard which retained value, and the greatest period of growth in the history of the world.
|
On February 29 2012 08:21 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:07 Signet wrote:
Interestingly, "digging up holes and filling them back in" was originality an argument against the gold standard. Somebody heads out west, digs a hole in the ground, and if there's a chunk of gold down there, he trades it in for cash at a bank and increases his personal wealth despite having done absolutely nothing to benefit the real economy. Except that gold is valuable not just as a jewelery item but for lots of industrial purposes and finding more gold will lower its price and make industrial goods more affordable which can boost real income of a country.
Probably not by as much as the government's artificial price of gold. Especially back when the gold rush was taking place. Also if the gold is sold to the government, it doesn't go into the production of industrial goods / etc through the market. It sits in a government vault as a currency reserve.
Under a gold standard, you cannot lower the price of gold. It is set at a fixed value by the government. If a market emerges that buys and sells gold at a different rate, then people will engage in arbitrage until that market's price matches the government's fixed price, or the government is forced to devalue their currency.
|
So, any results out of Michigan yet? How are exit polls?
|
On February 29 2012 07:34 Sofestafont wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 07:28 gruff wrote:On February 29 2012 07:22 Gorsameth wrote:On February 29 2012 07:18 Wegandi wrote:On February 29 2012 07:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 29 2012 07:08 Haemonculus wrote:
It's my understanding that WWII *did* do wonders for the US economy. Especially the aftermath of the war.
Europe had been completely fucking ravaged by the war, and the US mainland was relatively untouched. We simply had no industrial rivals for a while. There was no competition while Europe rebuilt their shattered cities. Even the buildup of the war helped the economie. How did Germany drag itself up after the end of WW1. With the nazi industrial warmachine. Yes, we need to build more planes, bombs, tanks, and submarines to raise our standard of living! All those resources need to be used in destroying property and consume the resources in sights and sounds of explosions, death, and destruction. All we need to do is have the Government pay people to run around and destroy everyone's homes, and then we would all become much more wealthy! Your avoiding the point because it happends to comflict with your views. Its not about building weapons of war. Its about giving all your unemployed a job so they make money and can actualy spend it. Unless the people you bomb give you money for it, his point is better than yours. Sure it's more complicated than that but saying it's about employing people is silly. You didn't even touch where they money comes from and how it actually would create wealth. WW2 brought America out of the Great Depression because it employed a huge amount of people with largely low-paying jobs, created huge demand for goods and services for the war effort, and eliminated any private products, so people just saved their money. America was also the world's biggest lender so it had huge liquidity. After the war there was a slight recession because of the loss of wartime production, but the citizens had a large amount of money and were demanding products.
No. No. No.
Stop spreading this nonsense.
WWII did NOT bring us out of the Depression. Standard of living FELL DRAMATICALLY in WWII. People had to ration. Millions of Americans were drafted into the armed forces against their will. We had what amounts to slave labor for the government!
What did bring us out of the Depression was the around 2/3rds cut in government spending after the war. All our troops came home, and all that capital finally became available again in the market for investment into new projects, which employed all the unemployed people.
All the non-Austrians at the time were panicking and thought we'd plunge into an even worse recession in 1946. It turns out it was one of the biggest growth years in the history of the US.
Cutting government spending produces prosperity.
|
On February 29 2012 08:29 Bagration wrote:
So, any results out of Michigan yet? How are exit polls?
Romney was leading by a large margin from the early/mail-in votes. He is expected to lose among people who vote today, making it very close overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
