The Biggest Lie in Economics | Allen Farrington & Sacha Meyers

24:21Allen Farrington:It's that when you really drill down to it, it might feel orthogonal in the moment as a consumer, but when you really, really drill down to it, you are either consuming now or saving for later, right? There's not really any middle choice and you certainly can't do both.

24:38Sacha Meyers:So that makes sense. And like back to what Sasha was saying, I guess in that example I gave initially about the house and Bitcoin, it's like, this is where investment and malinvestment get kind of murky because the idea of me feeling like i need if i was like living in fiatland feeling like i need to get rid of money now before the house you know price inflates away from my my sort of what i can afford like it becomes it potentially becomes malinvestment but the the question that i've asked you before alan and i'd like your opinion on sasha is like how do you know what is investment and what is malinvestment

25:15Allen Farrington:so this is the very pernicious heart of this issue in the moment you do not know that's it that's why it's so bad because an investor is going to go off signals given by prices and you want these prices to not be corrupted if they are corrupted you could be a completely rational investor who is incredibly thoughtful forward-looking best intentioned and you're going to malinvest and it's not your fault because you are investing on the back of a false a faulty set of assumptions caused by a distortion in the price mechanism we see it through bubbles we see it when you make the cost of money too low you bring the interest rates down you're creating essentially a longer duration investment than is justified by the amount of savings, but this is only recognized after the facts.

26:15Allen Farrington:So we also talk a lot in our essays about how you need to run experiments, practical experiments to know things. You can't just theorize your way to an answer. And a bubble is only something that you have a diagnostic understanding of after it's burst. Before it's burst, it's not a bubble. It could be completely legitimate. It could be a completely legitimate allocation of capital to respond to needs, be brought about by consumers and innovation. And even in an environment with no noise on the line, there's no corruption, you will still get it wrong because there's human fallibility. People are excited.

26:55Allen Farrington:There's a boom and there's a bust. And that's human psychology. It will always be with us. But if you think that you can improve the faults of human psychology by adding even more noise on the line, you're deluded. I would like to see a scenario where that's actually happened because I don't know of one. So that's the trick here. You don't know about malinvestment, but let's at least ensure that the amount of malinvestment we are likely to cause is as slow as possible. I just want to build on that with, again, a tangible example that's kind of cutting through the complexity of assuming we're in this incredibly complex economic system that we are.

27:39Allen Farrington:A rhetorical device that we use in the essay is this point about would you, if you knew that it would take you something 2 % longer to do, just in terms of time, like again, cutting through even money, being part of it, just time. If it would take you 2 % longer next year, is that the only reason you would ever do it? Because, which sounds absurd, But it is pretty much logically equivalent to the fiat slash Keynesian argument of we need the, as Sasha was saying a couple of answers ago, the stimulus of the expectation of inflation to ever do anything now. this is this is a good way of trying to wrap your head around just how insane it is to really to to to not um what's the best way of putting this to to not be as aware as it's perfectly you know you're perfectly capable of being of this point of misinformation that sasha's making right this idea that you can you know malinvestment is effectively acting on uh false signals or noise I guess, right?

28:52Allen Farrington:Is acting on noise in terms of your entrepreneurial decision making. If that sounds a bit too abstract to imagine like, okay, well, what would that mean? And how would you even know? This 2 % thing with your time is basically the way you know. It's like, would you ever, do you do things basically? Do you do things now? Or do you need somebody threatening you with it taking a little bit longer next year? If you'd rather just do them now, then you can cut through all of this.

29:18Sacha Meyers:can we talk like so you both brought up the paradox of thrift and one of the things that you you were sort of hinting at in the essay which i didn't fully understand is the idea that the sort of traditional economists think that progress in the economy is potentially a threat to the system and i don't exactly know what you mean by that i i forget exactly where we mentioned this

29:41Allen Farrington:but I think I know what you're referring to, that because they are so insistent on this constant stimulus, they actually use the word stimulus. We're not even mocking them there. They say the word stimulus. If there is ever widespread enough deflation, which is always in everywhere. In reality, this is a micro phenomenon. It's individual goods. Their prices deflate. But if it's widespread enough that it makes its way into macro statistics, they get scared and they want more inflation. I think that's what we're referring to. I don't know if you remember this in any more detail. There are other angles around how if you start to innovate, fundamentally innovation is going to be doing more with the same amount or doing more with less or more efficiently or faster, these sorts of things.

30:34Allen Farrington:There's also a fear of ending up with resources which are not used. And so maybe now people are unemployed. You've just made something much more efficiently. You no longer need as many people in the factory. You now no longer have this demand. This demand is gone. And as a result, the flywheel is no longer spinning. And it's time to print. It's always time to print. That's a very important thing to understand. The ultimate flow chart. Yeah, exactly. This all gets to the heart of it. It's time to print is essentially the conclusion of every Powell interview. It's just about how much, really.

31:19Sacha Meyers:this this might be a stupid question but like especially when you break these things down in in the essay like it this the whole like the economy is a very complex thing there's loads of like second third order consequence of any decision like can it actually be measured or is

31:35Allen Farrington:the problem that they're trying to measure it too much i i very much think the latter yeah it's some things can be measured but uh i don't think anything can really be measured perfectly and most things can only be measured poorly or not at all so the more they try to what they typically do or what they typically try to do they don't really it's impossible to succeed but what they're trying to do is use measurements that they're pretending are good or even make sense when in fact they're bad or things like cpi sure yeah um i mean any basically any macro statistic is kind of false for the same trap i was mentioning before they they want to use that as justification because it seems like real data basically i mean we use this expression here and many many other times of physics envy they have pretty hardcore physics envy in that they they think in these very kind of mechanistic terms.

32:38Allen Farrington:They want to interpret, you know, quote, the economy as like a Newtonian classical system, such that if they have enough data about its initial conditions, they can then reason counterfactually about what it will do or what it would do if they intervene in a particular way. And all of this is nonsense, but it's in terms of the way the methodology is presented, it's by their logic, it's dependent on having this data. And so to your question, yes, they have to pretend that this data exists and is meaningful, but it either isn't or doesn't.

33:14Sacha Meyers:The thing that keeps me up at night is the idea of a critical error with my Bitcoin cold storage. And this is where AnchorWatch comes in. With AnchorWatch, your Bitcoin is insured with your own A plus rated Lloyds of London insurance policy. And all Bitcoin is held in their time-locked multi-sig vaults. So you have the peace of mind knowing your Bitcoin is insured while not giving up custody. So whether you're worried about inheritance planning, wrench attacks, natural disasters, or just your own silly mistakes, you're protected by AnchorWatch. Rates for fully insured custody start as low as 0.55 % and are available for individual and commercial customers located in the US.

33:49Sacha Meyers:Speak to AnchorWatch for a quote and for more details about your security options and coverage, visit anchorwatch.com today. That's anchorwatch.com. If you hold Bitcoin, your phone number is one of your biggest vulnerabilities. SimSwap attacks are one of the most common attack vectors targeting Bitcoiners. Somebody socially engineers an employee at your carrier, moves your number to a new device, and they're into your account. It happens because traditional carriers put a human in control of your phone number, someone who can be bribed or tricked. But CAPE is a US mobile carrier built from the ground up with privacy and security at the core.

34:22Sacha Meyers:They don't ask for your name or social security number when you sign up. They collect the minimum data required, delete it as fast as possible and never sell it. When you sign up, you receive a 24 word passphrase, just like a Bitcoin wallet. That's the only way to move your number. Not a customer service rep, not even Cape's own staff can do it. You're the only person who controls your number. If you hold your own keys, you should hold your own phone number too. So head over to cape.co forward slash WBD and use code WBD at checkout for 33 % off your first six months. That's cape.co forward slash WBD and use code WBD.

34:55Sacha Meyers:Do you wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin? Well, Ledin makes that possible. They're the global leader in Bitcoin-backed lending. And since 2018, they've issued over$9 billion in loans with a perfect record of protecting client assets. With Ledin, you get full custody loans with no credit checks or monthly repayments, just easy access to dollars without selling a single sat. that. Ledden exclusively offer Bitcoin-backed loans with all collateral held by Ledden directly or their funding partners. Your Bitcoins never lent out to generate interest. I recently took out a loan with Ledden.

35:27Sacha Meyers:The whole process was super easy. The application took me less than 15 minutes and in a few hours I had the dollars in my account. It was super smooth. So if you need cash but you don't want to sell Bitcoin, head over to ledden.io forward slash WBD and you'll get 0.25 % off your first loan that's ledn.io forward slash wbd but but when they say that deflation could be a threat to the system are they right in some ways because the thing that i i struggle with is like let's say i just for easy math let's say i earn 100k a year and i have a 200k mortgage um if my if we live in like a true free market deflation economy and my wages then are deflating as well as the price of everything, the debt remains at$200 ,000.

36:11Sacha Meyers:And so these things get harder and harder to pay off over time. It kind of completely flips that on its head.

36:17Allen Farrington:So your wage... So the short answer to your question is yes, but we need then to dig into it. This is a really good topic to explore. So your wage, just to touch on that very quickly, it might not deflate. It might be nominally stable. It might be the same amount as things become cheaper. it might actually go up as things go lower, or it might come down, but not as fast as other things. So we don't know exactly, but over time, if you're in an environment where you have strong innovation, you should still expect the price of things to fall faster than your wage would fall. But your wage might not fall.

36:55Allen Farrington:It might be either static or going up. So that's number one. Number two, you're then essentially putting this against a fixed number, which is your mortgage. and what happens in an environment which is incredibly dynamic fluid where prices can move and then you increase you introduce rigidity you're getting fragility you're getting a system that can break that is why debt is very dangerous so the fiat will say and this is where it's coming from that's what we were talking about in 1929 you're getting a system that's building a lot of debt, creating fragility, breaks under the weight of that fragility, and then says, well, we broke under the weight of the fragility.

37:46Allen Farrington:So instead of fixing the root cause, which is maybe don't create a system which is incredibly fragile with a ton of debt and massively over-financialized, instead of doing that, instead of fixing the root cause, you say, no, no, no, we'll just essentially have the cheat code, which is going to be all of those nominal obligations, we will slowly make them less and less relevant, which is what inflation is. Inflation is simply a way of taking those nominal obligations and inflating them away. Okay, that could be your answer. And it's very legitimate. So for example, if you today took the economy under whatever currency you're operating under, whether it's the British pound or the US dollar, whatever, the euro.

38:32Allen Farrington:If you took any of these and you flipped the framework from inflation to deflation, you would indeed have a massive issue because these nominal debts would not go away. But that's not a good reason to still operate under this system. It's the same as saying, if I stop drinking, I'll have a hangover. Here's the dog. Okay, it's the classic thing, right? We all know this analogy. But that's fundamentally what we're talking about here. Can I push back on the wage point just in a completely different direction to the way Sasha answered? I would suggest that it's very sloppy to say, oh, my wages will also decrease.

39:18Allen Farrington:And this is, knowing where I'm going with this, this is quite abstract. Sasha's answer is a lot more tangible. I also want to be wary that you can't be too definitive with this in the sense that Everything we're talking about is predicated on dynamism and innovation, and it is, of course, possible that that will cause certain jobs to simply cease to exist. So you can't say, oh, every wage will stay the same or even go up forever or anything to that effect. But if you just think about the value added by labor, if you treat it in slightly more abstract terms like that, there's really no reason to think that that will go down.

39:55And if anything, there's very strong

39:57Allen Farrington:reason to think that it will go up if there is any deflation at all. And I think this is back to being as clear, at least trying to be as clear as possible about the causality in all of this, like how you unpack the paradox of thrift. If there is any deflation, it's not, you know, this is another thing we say a couple of times in this essay and we've said elsewhere, it's not a metaphysical abstraction, right? It's not like the temperature. It's not something that's out there in the universe that you can measure. It's a causal process that is fundamentally rooted in innovation. I mean, that's basically, that's a decent summary of this entire essay, right?

40:31Allen Farrington:And we don't have time to go through all the details of this, that under the circumstances that actually you would expect without monetary interference, if people are able to innovate, you can trace what will happen and very reasonably expect deflation as a result of basically just getting better at things, right? And it's even back to the time thing. It's the inverse of the, if it would take you 2 % longer, it's actually reasonable to expect it'll take you 2 % less or considerably less than that, you know, as we even just in the labor example, as you practice things, as you get better at it. And that's I mean, that's a decent way of thinking about what capital accumulation actually amounts to.

41:06Allen Farrington:It's just not necessarily all in your head, right? It's like in the creation of tools, the more tools you create, the more valuable your labor will be, the more stuff you can create with your labor. And that's deflation, right? So you have to go through this process, you can't just like, sit your finger in the air, oh, it feels like 2 % deflation today. I wonder what my labor is worth. You cannot have deflation unless your labor is worth more. So again, you got to be careful. It doesn't mean that you can therefore predict what everybody's wages are going to do. But in general, it is very reasonable to expect that your wages will not deflate.

41:44Sacha Meyers:Can you explain that in more detail? Because like, so Jeff Booth obviously talks about deflation all the time.

41:49Allen Farrington:How much more detailed?

41:50Sacha Meyers:I give a 10 minute answer this time. But the question I have, though, is like Jeff Booth obviously always talks about like things dropping to the marginal cost of production. And so like over time, as innovation is happening and things get more and more efficient, I understand that argument. But like if you take it to the nth degree and you're like, we we. Because if the consumer of a product that a company is selling is paying less and less and less over time, then the income for that company gets less and less over time.

42:17Allen Farrington:Well, no, not necessarily, because it's very likely that they're creating more and more. So the price is going down. But there's not, again, here you have to be careful for basically the same reason that you can't say this will happen universally. But in general, there's no reason to expect that a given company's revenue would go down with deflation. If anything, you could be very, very careful here, but you might expect it to go up on the basis that it's innovative. This is exactly, again, this is the logic that we go through in much more meticulous detail than it would be advisable to try to do now.

42:55Allen Farrington:but the extent to which it is successfully innovating is in some sense captured by how much can it therefore afford to lower prices in order to take more market share in order to boost its own returns. And that's ultimately what, you know, the rationale of the individual entrepreneur, you know, the decision maker and the capital allocation process is coming down to is trying to boost returns. And the essay is basically about tracing that logic and how that ends up impacting prices. But to the extent that they're successful, I mean, I guess in particular, if they're disproportionately successful to their competitors, the act of lowering prices will feed through to them making more money.

43:41Sacha Meyers:Okay, that makes sense. And that's kind of like the supermarket example that you give in the piece, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So the question I have is, do we have any shot of something like this happening? If I put you two in charge of all economies all over the world, you get to now pick economic policy.

43:59Allen Farrington:I feel like this is a bit of a trick question because if we were in charge, we would just do nothing or we'd quit.

44:05Sacha Meyers:So can it actually go from the system that we live under today to a more free market deflationary system?

44:13Allen Farrington:So I would say one thing about this is our approach is fundamentally, even though we are making quite strong arguments, and I'm very willing to back them in discussion and argumentation, we are taking, adopting a position of humility in the sense that neither of us wants to enforce this. we're not going to force people to adopt an environment that's driven or that manifests deflation what we're simply saying is that a money that is structured such that it has minimal noise on the line that's creating an environment whereby innovation manifests at the output as deflation is going to be one that is maximally beneficial and that people will therefore want to willingly adopt such a system so i will we're not here to if we were if we were to literally run the economy we wouldn't run the economy we would we would just like say oh well you guys just figure it out and we think that that's where you'll end up but let's be humble here this is an incredible as you mentioned it's incredibly complex a lot of what we're talking about is theoretical We're trying to be logical and make sense of these arguments, but we could have faulted in any individual step or any individual core assumptions.

45:42Allen Farrington:And as a result, I don't want to have billions of people operating under a very strict system that I am convinced is going to be beneficial. That's totalitarianism. And no, that's not what we're about. but it should be bottom-up adoption and it should be bottom-up adoption of something that has been created that meets these requirements and that can essentially escape any attempt at being either taken over coerced or put down oh if only there were such a system it would be fabulous yeah i danny i know you're trying to trick us into saying bitcoin but again Yeah, we have a swear jar for that. No, again, seriously, we don't use the word Bitcoin in the essay very, very deliberately because our attitude to this is kind of, if you believe all of this, Bitcoin will just come to you naturally.

46:39Allen Farrington:And maybe this is kind of the inverse of like Sasha's saying, in the argumentation, we're humble, we think. But in the marketing, we're trying to be as obnoxious as possible because we want as many normies as possible to read this. Like your audience agrees with all of this. All right. Like probably 99 % of them agree with 99 % of it realistically, but we've written this in such a way. And we kind of have in the back of our minds that we hope Bitcoin is Venice can work in this way. I mean, you know, it's hard to read, so it's not like a good introduction to Bitcoin, but for, for certain people that are susceptible to these kinds of arguments, we want them to realize they believe in Bitcoin without even mentioning Bitcoin until like two-thirds of the way into the book.

47:24Allen Farrington:And this essay will be chapter six, I believe. So it's well before we start talking about Bitcoin.

47:30Sacha Meyers:When I brought up Bitcoin before, you rightly pushed back that it's in this kind of monetization phase. How far does Bitcoin have to go until it can actually sort of fulfill what you're talking about here? Oh, that's hard. I don't know.

47:44Allen Farrington:Well, a lot, clearly. We're obviously not there yet how far i mean do you even have like what kind of answer would make sense here do you think because it's not clear to me how to try to answer that that's why i asked it because i don't know the answer to it the day you denominate the market cap in bitcoin that's yeah yeah that's a good answer actually yeah i've had this thought before this like it's a bit too no one will ever actually do this i guess until it happens and you know somewhere between 10 years and never that that, yeah, you obviously have to start talking about it. Sorry, you have to stop talking about it in dollar terms.

48:19Allen Farrington:And my idea was like, in the interim, is there a way of communicating its value as something like the percentage of global M2 and gold or something like that? But like, no one's ever gonna, you know, me and three other people will actually like that and no one will adopt it. And so, yeah, I get maybe to Sasha's point, it's like, you'll know it when you see it. sense that you definitely need to stop talking about it in dollars but i don't know what you

48:45Sacha Meyers:start talking about it in either is that's that is pretty much the same answer you gave when i asked about investment and malinvestment on a previous show they were like you were like you'll pretty much know it when you see it that that's kind of the answer um i mean i feel like that

49:01Allen Farrington:that captures a lot of our thinking right like you go to experiment a lot of it and just figure it

49:05Sacha Meyers:out yeah were you going to add something there sasha no i was just going to say you need to run

49:10Allen Farrington:the experiment you need to run the experiment and you don't know i think realistically there will be a few telltale signs okay yes if legitimately if when you ask someone how much is a bitcoin worth they say it's worth a bitcoin like one bitcoin is worth one but they don't mean that they literally that's where their brain goes to immediately we got a long way to go you know you're you're you're probably there at that point or you're very close to it but how long does that take i i have no idea and you need to just run the experiment and uh hopefully people recognize along the way there are signposts that as we get closer to that we are benefiting from operating

49:50Sacha Meyers:on this monetary system okay i'm going to use this as my personal education session now because there was a bit in this that you i'm going to find the quote because i got totally lost on one

50:01Allen Farrington:paragraph uh that probably just means we need to redraft it this is this will be good for the book

50:06Sacha Meyers:It was when you talked about time and there was the Valrasian auctioneer to Tomman. And I got fully lost and I don't know what you were talking about.

50:17Allen Farrington:That's... All right, did you want, please, please, for the listeners, please read it. No, no, do you have it? Do you have it?

50:24Sacha Meyers:It was one paragraph.

50:27Allen Farrington:Okay, so I will just, I'll eat the air whilst you go and look for it. but just prefacing this, the idea is not necessarily that we want you to understand exactly what's being said in that paragraph, because even though we are, so we do want to say, we do want to show a couple of things. One, we actually understand what the other side is saying. So we are representing the argument in a way that is technically accurate, but also very clearly. funny or satirical yeah we're we're mocking it because we understand it yeah and the idea is not for you to read that and think yeah i completely get it the idea is it's kind of

51:14Sacha Meyers:ridiculous but this is how it works so if you have it please go for it the quote let me i can find it it'll take me a minute let me find it a few moments later i think this was it it was Theat economists treat time as inconvenient friction. In the hallowed halls of neoclassical theory, time does not exist. There is only equal room. The market has achieved a Pareto optimal stasis via the Valrassian auctioneers' tatonement, yielding a price vector of zero aggregate excess demand. Every autonomistic utility maximizer has aligned his marginal rate of substitution with the price ratio, while firms reach a profit maximizing zenith where marginal cost is perfectly aligned with marginal revenue.

51:53Sacha Meyers:Perfection, as Michael Fassbender might say. That...

51:59Allen Farrington:what let me just say something if you don't get that then i don't know what to tell you because we really tried hard to explain the logic and um inner internal consistency and and just how approachable fs economics really is so i don't know what to tell you you don't have time to convince me i mean i would i would say less sarcastically that if you don't get that that's probably healthy that means you haven't wasted a decent amount of your time learning what these things allegedly mean in the first place this is like do you remember when you did that tweet years

52:33Sacha Meyers:and years and years ago alex where it was like you were comparing bitcoin to the fiat system and you and you did that diagram where there were just lines going everywhere oh diagram yeah i still have that piece of paper i feel like i should get it framed yeah um so go on try try and explain what

52:47Allen Farrington:what this section is about because i i don't know oh i mean it's well do you want to do it not sarcastic. You could go through every single one of these things, but fundamentally, the core idea is that you have equilibriums and you're trying to maximize things. So whether it's a firm, whether it's a consumer, you're feeling your way towards an optimal and then your vector is here. So basically, it's about optimizing. It's about having very complex models and uh maximize yeah maximizing things which we fundamentally reject as a premise for how you operate in a system that is completely uncertain uncertain not risky uncertain that has radical uncertainty that is unquantifiable in some ways and unpredictable and unmodelable so against that you're getting all of the terminology from yeah from from that school which is very technical and frankly look some of these models i think that individually they're making interesting descriptions which can get you to so for example the tatanement which is really about price discovery we do talk about price discovery but the way in which the way in which the walrusian auctioneer is operating is just not the same as the way we would describe it so it's almost an ontological difference between what we're doing and yeah and well for i i'm starting to feel a but sorry for potentially very confused listeners, just to try to wrap all this up into a more direct answer to your question, Danny.

54:15Allen Farrington:That paragraph is us invoking as much fiat economics jargon as possible, accurately, but in such an over-the-top way as to try to make the point about how ridiculous it is. So I wasn't kidding when I said before that if not only you, Danny, but if one doesn't understand it, it's honestly a good thing if you if you bother to work through the meanings of all these terms which are like not that ridiculous in isolation but when we cram them all together the joke we're making is it is ridiculous if if taken if taken to an extreme that by their methodology ought to be allowed it's actually revealed to just be ridiculous well i would take that as a compliment

55:02Sacha Meyers:if i didn't go back and read that paragraph three times being like what the fuck are they talking about um okay so so but this you then like go on to explain like how they think about time as a as a part of the economy well they don't think about time that's the point yeah and they get that wrong so can you explain why because like with time there's obviously there's always cost of capital like what is it that they look about incorrectly you mentioned causality so

55:26Allen Farrington:that's one causality is a really good one we even talked about the idea of delaying things and doing something so i think there's both it's both time and space almost so one is is what preceded this action what is causing what is happening right now what will this then cause later on rather than just almost taking things in a very static static way um and then the the other side is if you're not doing this what else are you going to be doing so it's also thinking in counterfactuals opportunity costs and these sorts of things and and that's a that's a form of causality because it's going to then lead you to understanding if this, then that, then after that, this, and then it's much more complex and dynamic.

56:09Allen Farrington:And the issue is when you start thinking dynamically, you can't think with many of these simplifying assumptions that they make because there's no more equilibrium. Everything is constantly moving and all of those things. So I think one reason why they have to abstract that away is because it just creates complexity that they can no longer resolve. and so it's just it's just an it's an annoying factor which it's better to just get rid of

56:34Sacha Meyers:yeah in some ways well i think so i know you have got to go i think we should do a part two because i have like four other sections with a ton of more questions that we get into like we i feel like we've covered like not even the first 40 percent like the first 20 of this article part two of seven exactly um but i am just very glad to see you guys back writing again um as a last question it is i i know you don't mention bitcoin i know you purposely don't mention bitcoin but it is the real way out of this for anyone that's listening to just move to a bitcoin standard as fast as possible yes next all right do you have a less facetious answer to that no okay good well we will be back with a part two potentially um i'm i'm very glad you guys are writing again i'm looking forward to the second edition of the book um thank you guys and i do think there's a lot more to unpack here so we should do it again of course hopefully uh sooner rather than later sasha everyone knows alan you've not been on the show before where do you want to send anyone if you want to find out about your work i would like to send them to the nearest bookshop

57:37Allen Farrington:and uh pick up some pick up a book that you think is interesting there you go all right thank you guys i appreciate the time

58:01Thank you.