[Closed] Capitalism

can i point you here for a forum of folks who will eat up that kind of question.

http://www.greylabyrinth.com/discussion

"I hate capitalism" = "I hate people with more money than I do, especially football players".

Capitalism is aimed at making most people poor, not making people wealthy. The ultimate goal is to own it all. It is essentially anti-social.

I think no singular ideology will work, a mix is needed.

The Shock Doctrine on 4OD at the moment gives a few good examples of 'real' capitalism and its consequences

1) Yes
2)Yes greed need not be the only motivation for selling things
3) yes but greedy people always get to the top and want more than their fair share. Would you let someone have 95 % of a cake and then accept the rest be shared out amongst hundreds of you? that is called a workplace I believe.
4) The history of capitalism is the history of boom and bust.
5) Perhaps not for each individual as some would be worse off. However I would rather live in a fair world. i would extend that wealth out globally as we are the sixth richest country on the planet.

In capitalism for there to be the odd wealth winners there must be millions/billions of loosers do you think that is fair? Most of those in this country have inherited their wealth down the centuries as well and it is a long way from a meritocracy of wealth. IIRC the top 1% own 95% of the wealth of the world.

Capitalism is aimed at making most people poor

That implies that capitalism is like some sort of franchise that we sign up to. Surely it is in fact the principle that any surpluses from our labours can be used to invest where we choose.

Unless done by co-ercion, capitalists can only take what they are given, surely?

Capitalism is aimed at making most people poor, not making people wealthy. The ultimate goal is to own it all. It is essentially anti-social.

utter cockwash.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-QfUaGIeTUeo7bmKnbGv0j17ZRAD9I8V4I82

The share of the population of developing regions whose people live in extreme poverty is expected to fall to 15 percent by 2015, down from 46 percent in 1990, according to the United Nations. The gains stem largely from robust economic growth in countries such as China and India, the world's two most populous countries.

That would be [i]capitalist[/i] driven economic growth....

Now you can bitch all you want about relative poverty in the shape of inequality (as the Left is inclined to do so - "aspiration" being anathema to the Left. Shin-kicking envy being more their thing)

But absolute poverty is reduced through economic growth.

well you need to feed your workers to exploit them dont you stoner 🙄

Surely it is in fact the principle that any surpluses from our labours can be used to invest where we choose.

I bow my head in shame for disliking inequality I should be more selfish I should be more selfish I should be more selfish. No need to insult people who disagree with you. Imagine wanting things to be shared out evenly ...certainly not a message we teach our children now that one.

I think we have ample evidence that capitalism as currently formulated is a busted flush 🙁 You only have to look to the record bonuses still being paid to see it's hopelessly corrupt 🙁

If comunism is the politics of socialism?

What are the politics of capitalism?

Its not Fascism, the economics of that would be capitalism with a strong government, as opposed to the tories (and nu-labour) laises-faire attitude. But then arguably comunism is a strong government involvement in a socialist economy?

Is it possible to be capitalist without beign fascist?

In capitalism for their to be the odd wealth winners there must be millions/billions of loosers do you think that is fair

I think that the reason we have such massive inequalities is not a syptom of the inherent nature of the free market but rather a symptom of the government interventions we have to deal with on a daily basis. If you want to start a tv company, you have to buy a licence costing a fortune, companies have the protection of the governement through corporation status, governments can control huge swathes of money by extorting it from us and spending it on weapons. Protectionism ensures that most markets are far from free.

I think we have got rather carried away with the idea of capitalism as the root of all evil.

Imagine we are a tribe. Each day we go out and pick berries but we can only carry enough to fee us for one day. Then some bright spark forsakes a couple of days worth of berries and creates a basket. Now he can pick enough berries to keep him going for a few days or... even better he can swap other peoples berries for baskets that he has made. Now, I don't want to get into the intricacies of how many berries we can take from the forest before it starts to damage the forest but surely by making baskets we actually give people more time to innovate and make bigger better baskets.

That of course is until such tome as someone comes along and demand half our berries and baskets so they can give them to someone else.

Simplistic I know but you get the point.

You only have to look to the record bonuses still being paid to see it's hopelessly corrupt

Hopelessly corrupt indeed. Now, if those corporations did not have the protection of ltd status and the directors had to pay the deficits out of their own pockets, potentially going to jail for what they have done, things would be a lot different. But whose fault is that, the bankers or the government?

@ Stoner

From the article you posted:

In India, the government runs a massive social welfare program that guarantees all rural families 100 days of work a year at a wage of 100 rupees (about $2) a day.

Hardly a capitalist policy

That implies that capitalism is like some sort of franchise that we sign up to.

It implies nothing of the sort.

Unless done by co-ercion, capitalists can only take what they are given, surely?

Coercion doesn't have to be directly applied. Advertisers targeting parents through through emotional manipulation by their children could be considered (mild) coercion.

Imagine wanting things to be shared out evenly

This may be the worst thing I could possibly say but... we are not all equal. I certainly believe in safety nets, but not handouts.

Lifer - and where do you think the state funds come from to pay for such largesse? The Indian tax code is the largest in the world....

Economic growth in the country as a whole has enabled India to do more for those outside of the concentrated development areas. Taxation is a redistributive mechanism both economically and geographically.

A $2bn tax windfall from a recnt Vodafone corporate deal will help too I think. Capitalism is the mechanism that is funding social security again.

Low taxation is not a pre-requisite for capitalism. High taxation can kill off capitalism though.

[

the reason we have such massive inequalities is not a syptom[sic] of the inherent nature of the free market but rather a symptom of the government interventions we have to deal with on a daily basis

Children working and dying as it was cheaper as one example of the unfettered market in operation.

I agree, but I would argue that that was a crime and one of the few useful roles of government is to stop crimes being perpetrated upon innocent people.

Without the industrial revolution we would be still be working the land.

Advertisers targeting parents through through emotional manipulation by their children could be considered (mild) coercion.

Advertisers do not force anyone to do anything. If people cannot say no to their kids, that is their problem.

Junkyard, I think this article could have been written just for you:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-industrial-revolution-working-class-poverty-or-prosperity/

Advertisers do not force anyone to do anything. If people cannot say no to their kids, that is their problem.

I didn't say that they did. Saying that something shouldn't happen is not the same as saying that something doesn't happen.

Capitalism is fine as long as it's regulated. For unregulated capitalism, look no further than the drug trade in Mexico...Having said that, you can't enshrine in law a profit motive in companies, and then expect them to act morally...

redistribution of wealth...depends if you're having the wealth distributed to or from you really, doesn't it?

Let me clarify, coercion is the process of making people do things against their will. Advertisers cannot force people to do anything therefore they do not coerce, even mildly.

"aspiration" being anathema to the Left.

Really? Care to try to prove this?

Typical selective quoting from you there Stoner. That same article also suggests that poverty rates are actually rising in other areas. One being the Middle East, an area ravaged by recent war and instability. I'd hazard a guess that ****stan will see an enormous increase in poverty and suffering. I can't see rampant Capitalism helping that region any time soon.

In fact, it is Capitalism that has caused much of today's poverty, or at least exacerbated it. Much of Africa lies in extreme poverty, yet corporations have gained incredible wealth from the exploitation of it's people and resources.

Not surprised that an accountant is defending Capitalism though. 😀

drug trade in Mexico

Surely the international pressure to create laws that restrict the sale and production of drugs creates one of the least free markets there is?

As for which direction the distribution is going, it benefits humankind to redistribute to a certain extent as it helps to prevent crime and keeps consciences clean. I currently do one weeks work per year purely for charity. If I had more control over the fruits of my labour (ie wasn't robbed for half of my productivity) I would certainly be able to afford to do more.

Let me clarify, coercion is the process of making people do things against their [b]will[/b]. Advertisers cannot force people to do anything therefore they do not coerce, even mildly.

Interesting subject that. Loads of arguments in there I'm sure. But maybe advertisers/ing break down peoples' [i]will[/i], so that they have little power left when making economic judgements.

The drugs trade although heavily policed is conducted entirely outside all regulations. Huge profits untrammelled by any Govt. interference, it's essentially the only properly 'free' market

but not handouts

except to banks and bankers ?

yet corporations have gained incredible wealth from the exploitation of it's people and resources

Under the oh so charitable and watchful eyes of the IMF, the World Bank (both supposed free market entities who exist purely as a result of the sanction of governments), Governments from around the world and the corrupt goverments of the countries that have been exploited. Not to mention the state interventions across the world in wars and protectionism. All done with our cash. Nice.

I like Capitalism, all your sentences run into one another otherwise.

except to banks and bankers?

Do what? As said before, without the protection of the Governments of the world, things would be very different for the bankers and I for one wish they were.

But maybe advertisers/ing break down peoples' will, so that they have little power left when making economic judgements.

So we should ban advertising?

Huge profits untrammelled by any Govt. interference

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan ]
Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since the downfall of the Taliban in 2001[/url]

Drugs are used to criminalise and control and are one of the many weapons of Government against free people. There are thousand of sources to support that. The fact that you get put in proson for dealing pushes up the price to the point where addicts turn to crime, and all sorts of other problems. Decriminalise the lot I say, I am sure the people of Mexico would thank you.

Decriminalise the lot I say, I am sure the people of Mexico would thank you.

Off topic, but why decriminalise instead of full legalisation? Or is that what you mean?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Don't know
4) Probably
5) Possibly

Or is that what you mean?

Yeah, that is what I mean! Drug addicts may be sick but they are rarely criminals.

I like Capitalism, all your sentences run into one another otherwise.

😀

So we should ban advertising?

Interesting question. Tobacco and alcohol advertising is severely restricted in the UK and many other places, as it's deemed there is a link between advertising and health issues relating to tobacco and alcohol.

Supermarkets are criticised for using 'pester power' by putting sweets next to checkouts. Heavy duty merchandising influences children, for sure. They don't just want Lego, they want Harry Potter or Star Wars Lego. Indeed, commercialism influences popular culture: Computer games turned into films, films (Return of the Jedi) made simply to generate revenue from merchandising. Sports stadia carrying the names of their corporate sponsors (Emirates, Reebok and JJB stadiums). Our culture is so consumerist it's scary.

This website exists because of commercial interest.

Tricky one...

I have had the jingle from that !$$%^ Go Compare advert in my head all afternoon, driving up the ****ing wall but I would not deign to ban it.

[i]Yeah, that is what I mean! Drug addicts may be sick but they are rarely criminals.[/i]

Don't be dim...

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/how-much-crime-is-drug-related.htm

and I for one wish they were.

sorry, mine was a drive-by remark!

From your link, the main source of drug related crime:

* People who use or supply illegal drugs getting caught – see How many people are convicted of drug offences?

* People who commit violent offences while under the influence of drugs, particularly alcohol. Drunkenness is associated with a majority of murders, manslaughters and stabbings and half of domestic assaults.

* Alcohol and drug-related driving offences.

* Violence involving drug dealers who may clash with rival gangs or be violent towards drug users who owe them money.

I would suggest it is not me being dim here...

and, for a bonus point it states on that link that...

Most people who use illegal drugs (the majority are non-problematic users) do not commit crimes to get money to pay for the drugs.

Do you read the daily mail? 😉

Answers [url= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6iGskSr6GtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=marx&hl=en&ei=TeaYTO3eBZSSjAfqs9gl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ]here[/url]

Answers here

I thought it was pretty much agreed throughout the world that Marx did not supply the answer because it relied on the ability of individuals and the elite to wield incredible power responsibly.

I could be wrong...

But absolute poverty is reduced through economic growth.

Absolute poverty isn't the whole story though.

A healthy, happy society is one that has a relatively small gap between rich and poor - this is clearly shown to be better for the rich in those society's as well as the poor.

The gap between rich and poor is increasing in most societies, including ours.

In some countries cyclists have no choice, they have to buy Saracen.

Elfinsafety wishes it was more like that here.

😛

social democratic mixed economies seem to produce the happiest peoples. Think Germany or Norway or even the UK.

Pure capitalism is nasty - think Victorian mills

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

Fidel Castro, September 2010

Pure capitalism is nasty - think Victorian mills

Which kind of brings me to the point I was trying to get to originally but no one seems to have noticed - should the role of government be to prevent crime or to manipulate free market economics? Or both? Or neither? Personally I think that the behaviour of victorian mills were a crime, as they effectively employed slave labour and had little if any regard to the welbeing of their workers.

I have a bit of a love hate relationship with STW, we are happy to banter for hours about conveyor belts, the nuances of the abuses of the catholic church or whether we are allowed to enjoy the sound of a warplane but when challenged about the whining lefty anti capitalist theme that pervuades this forum all we get is hollow arguments and misinformation, if anything.

Anyway, carry on...

whining lefty anti capitalist theme that pervuades this forum

It all depends on your point of view - I find STW a haven for swivel-eyed right wing ranters. A right wing sod you too thatcherite concensus seems to be the norm with a few folk noisily kicking against this.

but when challenged about the whining lefty anti capitalist theme that pervuades this forum all we get is hollow arguments and misinformation, if anything.

Whereas you have provided what exactly?

Whereas you have provided what exactly?

Hopefully a reasonably cogent and rational discussion of why I do not believe capitalism to the root of all of the world ills.

Nope, just some irrelevant bollocks about tribes, berries and drugs as far as I can see.

I'm not sure that anyone on here has ever argued capitalism to be the root of all evil btw.

sorry, i'm an idiot.
nothing to see here, move along, i shall carry on enjoying this thread and ignoring my grouting.

[b]"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."[/b]
Fidel Castro, September 2010

Oh, you're using Cuba as an example of how 'Communism has failed'. How surprising...

For your next mission, I'd like you to examine how the US trade blockade of Cuba has affected the latter's economy so severely. You could look at how even vital medical supplies are prevented from getting through by the Land of The Free, even though America has supposed to have relaxed it's rules on allowing Humanitarian products through.

[url= http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/us_poverty_rate_hits_143_44_million_are_poor ]Ah, America, where of course, Freedom, Democracy and Capitalism have worked so well...[/url]

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

Fidel Castro, September 2010

Communism as the sole idealogy for a country will always fail, Castro admits this and the Chinese have changed their game. Capitalism as a sole idealogy has also failed many times except that those who run that particular game won't admit to it and can call on the Governments of this world to do the socialist thing and bail them out.

social democratic mixed economies seem to produce the happiest peoples. Think Germany or Norway or even the UK.

Pure capitalism is nasty - think Victorian mills

The deaths caused by the Irish potato famine could greatly have been reduced if it were not for capitalist dogma. Exploitation of the workforce during the Victorian period gave rise to Socialism and Unions. I can only partially agree with Stoner that Capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, its also because of the social protections we have today mixed in with capitalism that have achieved this...in the west.

We are now doing an industrial revolution style of exploitation on developing countries.

Nope, just some irrelevant bollocks about tribes, berries and drugs as far as I can see.

If you disagree with me, explain why, I was hoping I had made some relevent points.

I'm not sure that anyone on here has ever argued capitalism to be the root of all evil btw.

This thread was started in response to the statement 'I hate capitalism'. This also seems to be a common theme in society at large, rolling out the bankers as the supreme evil every time the C word is mentioned. I happen to think that goverment manipulation of free markets is more at fault and that bankers are just playing the game.

Drugs were cited as an example of capitalism gone bad and I was just trying to make a case as to why that is not the case.

Berries was a simplistic argument for what I see as the core of capitalist behaviour.

If you disagree I would be very happy to argue the night away, it is why I come here. Otherwise.. erm.. well, bye!

Elfinsafety wishes it was more like that here.

[url= http://bikesforafrica.org/about.html ]I'd quite like more people everywhere to have bicycles actually.[/url]

[b]Elfinism[/b] would ensure that every man, woman and child on Earth would have a bicycle if they so wished.

I think it was Thomas Hardy who suggested that his faith in humankind is restored every time he sees a man on a bicycle.

Pure capitalism is nasty - think Victorian mills

lol the Victorian era wasn't "pure capitalism". The was [i][b]massive[/b][/i] state intervention during Victorian times : water sewerage and gas was supplied by local authorities, roads were built by the state, the mail service was nationalised as was the telegraph service, the railways were state regulated, state schools were created and museums built, local authorities built council houses for people on low income, and so it goes on.

There is no such thing as "pure capitalism", and there never will be - despite Milton Friedman's best attempts to achieve it. In every advanced country in the world there is massive state intervention, with the Finance Minister invariably the second most important person in any government.

No country allows the market to operate unregulated, indeed the single greatest preoccupation all governments have is how to make the economy "work" ........ and they never manage to get it right.

Capitalism only works in [i]theory[/i] ........well at least if you believe in the theory - it doesn't work in reality. Hence the need to abandon whole swathes of the economy from the "invisible hand of the market".

The Victorian laid the foundations for State Monopoly Capitalism not because they wanted to, but because of necessity.

OK, to use your silly berries analogy - the core of capitalist behaviour is just as much: the strongest member of the tribe taking all the baskets and all the berries for themselves, letting half of the tribe starve, then maybe doling out a few berries to his mates.

And characterising the state as 'taking away the berries and giving them to someone else' is bollocks too - in return for your 'berries' you get lots of public services etc back

A right wing sod you too thatcherite concensus seems to be the norm with a few folk noisily kicking against this.

You may be right, but TJ, I have no doubt you are the man to put them (us!?) in their (our!?) place. 😉

letting half of the tribe starve, then maybe doling out a few berries to his mates.

Sadly that seems to be the way that things are but at the moment and it seems to be our governments who aquire the neccesary weapons and resources to protect themselves and to ensure that the other berry thieves are not bought to justice. It could be argued that the political systems we have are the result of many years lobbying and manipulation by the berry theft specialists.

And characterising the state as 'taking away the berries and giving them to someone else' is bollocks too - in return for your 'berries' you get lots of public services etc back

Well excuse me if I do not feel I get great value for money, half (if not more) of my worldy productivity is a lot to pay for the very few services I have ever had to call on.

half (if not more) of my worldy productivity is a lot to pay for the very few services I have ever had to call on.

What a shame.

so you don't use the roads? You don't benefit from defence, you had no state education? You have no healthcare in your life. They are the main costs I believe

Well excuse me if I do not feel I get great value for money, half (if not more) of my worldy productivity is a lot to pay for the very few services I have ever had to call on.

You pay more than 50% tax? Wow you must earn a lot.

Never used a school or a road then?

It also sounds like you would probably be happier in life if you weren't always thinking about what you deserve and what you can get out of it, and be grateful that you are comfortably off in one of the richest countries in the world.

[img] [/img]

Torminalis, taking a break from shouting at pigeons...

You don't benefit from defence

I don't really think anyone in this country has benefited from 'defence' for a very long time. We have gone on the offensive a few times and I have actively protested against those occasions. Because they do not represent my interests, they seem to represent the interests of people who supporess alternative technologies to the ones whose interests we are seeking to defend.

You pay more than 50% tax?

We all do, we pay at least 25-30% on our basic income (and yeah, 40% in my case), then another 17.5% on most of the stuff we buy (against an income which has already been taxed), then there's council tax, inheritance tax, alcohol, gambling, petrol, land, capital gains, national insurance (and yes it is a tax, I never expect to get a state pension) and all of the other myriad of taxes that we have to fork out.

Never used a school

Yeah, I used a school and they were some of the most depressing years of my life. My education has no bearing whatsoever on my success in life, if anything I believe they slowed me down. My brother who is dyslexic was failed so badly by the schools that my parents put him into a specialist school where he thrived and had his former headmistress sacked for gross neglilgence bordering on abuse.

Healthcare

I have private healthcare and I am very lucky not to have ever had to use it.

Roads

Yeah, I like them and would be happy to pay as a part of road pricing scheme.

It also sounds like you would probably be happier in life if you weren't always thinking about what you deserve and what you can get out of it

As it happens I am a very happy individual and I have a great quality of life. I do however happen to object to our government waging illegal wars, subsidising and protecting the mega wealthy, distorting democracy, pouring cash into the coffers of corrupt foreign dictators, cultivating a culture of dependency though the benefits system and all of the other things that the self appointed, barely elected, career politicians choose to do in my name, with my hard earned cash.

crikey - have we met?

stoner
did actually like the article but whilst well written it is polemic from outset
it does state that the real wages increase [ if this occured] was caused by lower food prices. This was a result of the agrarian revolution/imports producing more food [supply] and thereby reducing price. It hardly proofs that capitalism per se improved anything it appears technology and production changes did this rather than benign employers/capitalists/landowners/lords etc
It was full of tenous rubbish like

it is fair to say that the majority of modern economic historians who study the industrial revolution believe that at least a slight increase in the material standard of living occurred. Since the introduction of reliable statistical evidence in Sir John Clapham’s An Economic History of Modern Britain in 1926, it has become increasingly obvious that real wages rose. The evidence is now so conclusive that one historian has confidently declared that “unless new errors are discovered, the debate over real wages in the early nineteenth century is over:

This monetary instability, coupled with severe harvest failures, led to rapidly increasing food prices throughout the Napoleonic Wars (Redford, pp. 89-93).

You pay more than 50% tax?

We all do,

Wrong. Tax take in this country is around 40%

I have private healthcare and I am very lucky not to have ever had to use it.

Which uses staff trained with taxpayers money and is no use to you if you have an accident or chronic disease

Roads
Yeah, I like them and would be happy to pay as a part of road pricing scheme.

Which would cost you a lot more if it was totally funded from road pricing 'cos at the moment all taxpayers pay for roads but many don't drive cars on them. If only the drivers paid for all the roads you would be paying around £1000 a year more

The most obnoxious piece of capitalism I know of is the USA selling guns and bombs to both sides in wars

self appointed, barely elected, career politicians

What's "barely elected" ?

And what would "fully elected" be ?

And how can you be self appointed and elected ?

.

my hard earned cash.

Your "hard earned cash" is provided to you by society.......without society you would have NOTHING.
So cough up, pay your taxes, and stop whingeing.

'Capitalism will destroy itself' - well I think that the US will tumble one day as we see the wealth gap widen to the point that the nation can't hold itself together. Whether the more moderate capitalist societies will be OK is a different matter but socialism has little of appeal for me.

okay, fair play but do you not think that 40% of ones total output (on average) in life is a bit steep?

Healthcare should be free at the point of delivery and I don't mind paying for that but not in the extremes that we have today, with a massive medical lobby medicalising what would once earn you a pat on the head and pull yourself together. I need someone to fix me up when I break myself on my bike. Anyway, we digress,

I didn't start this thread to peer into my own personal circumstances but more to have an ideological discussion on the nature of capitalism. I am very fortunate, others aren't and I accept that one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is the ability to care for the weakest and most vulnerable.

So TJ, what do you make of paying for illegal wars and removing moral hazard from our house-of-cards financial system? Do you not even slightlyly resent paying to push a government agenda which seems to represent the interests of only the very wealthy. Would they be so wealthy if they did not have a government to push their interests?

Is this anticapitalist backlash because you tried to live in a tent and it was a bit cold?

I have no problem with the rather naive, trading beads and shells version of capitalism that you describe, but the fact is we live in a society which seems to spend an awful lot of time and resources serving the needs of artificially created legal personalities. That strikes me as a bit wrong.

Me

I would make the MOD really about defence not the dept of War. So the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly wrong IMO.

I very much resent the government of the rich for the rich. I would prefer a stronger social democratic consensus like in Scandinavia or the Netherlands.

My own take is a strong green slant on social democracy

strong green slant

Always knew you were a bit Irish TeeJ 🙂

What's "barely elected" ?

The last labour govt represented 18% of the actual voters.

As for fully elected, don't think it can be done so lets not pretend that the current system has a legitimacy that it doesn't. Proper proprtional representation would be the best compromise available to us but that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

Self appointed because you start as a researcher patting backs and not causing too mch trouble, get parachuted into a safe seat and then elected by a minority in the absence of a sensible voting system. Or that is certainly how it seems, I cannot remember the last time I heard a politician speak that got me excited.

Your "hard earned cash" is provided to you by society.......without society you would have NOTHING.

And your point is? I am not against society. I would just like it to be a bit fairer and less distorted by government intervention.

So cough up, pay your taxes, and stop whingeing.

Because everything is perfect, our money does not pay for the death and suppression of millions across the globe and we should all be grateful.

Balls.