The Story of Cap & Trade
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ย. 2009
- The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the "devils in the details" in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from whats really required to tackle the climate crisis. If youve heard about Cap & Trade, but arent sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the movie is for you.
And, for all you fact checkers out there,
www.storyofstuff.org/2011/02/1...
GET INVOLVED:
action.storyofstuff.org/sign/s...
FOLLOW US:
Facebook: / storyofstuff
Twitter: / storyofstuff
Instagram: / storyofstuff
SUPPORT THE PROJECT:
action.storyofstuff.org/donat...
![คณะขวัญใจ - นางสาวขวัญใจ [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/a8zn5pGlRUY/mqdefault.jpg)
♻️ The plastic crisis gets a lot of attention as pollution, but the environmental impact of plastic’s life cycle starts long before it ends up in our waterways and ecosystems. Watch our latest animation, The Story of Plastic: th-cam.com/video/iO3SA4YyEYU/w-d-xo.html
This is really helpful for my economics essay :).
thats why im here tooooo
Thank you for these inspiring videos! I'll be showing them to my children and friends.
Thank you for continuing to create enlightening videos for the world to watch, Annie!!
This video is very well composed to address issues with a global cap and trade but it considers a very specific set of assumptions for the set up:
1. The cap & trade system applies to the entire globe.
2. A cap & giveaway scheme is enacted.
3. Offsets occur in 3rd world countries where corrupt practices will lead to meaningless offsets.
The first assumption makes any policy option pretty much impossible to get everyone on board. Each nation faces its own abatement costs, has a unique government/industry interface, and has its own sovereignty (usually). No single target will work at that scale and no tax/subsidy scheme is possible due to logistics and sovereignty issues. A regional cap & trade policy would more accurately reflect local abatement costs, be more enforceable and avoid sovereignty issues.
The second assumption of a cap and giveaway is just one scheme for intial distribution of permits. Using an auction scheme to distribute permits forces the firms that pollute the most to buy the most permits at higher costs according to their willingness (and ability) to pay. The firms effectively reveal their emission levels and abatement costs in the auction. The proceeds from the auction can go into addressing the ecological debt that was mentioned in the video.
The third assumption is that offsets occur in 3rd world countries. Offsets can also take place in the country where the pollution originates. If the country isn't very corrupt, offset projects can be properly vetted and monitored, with fines and conditions for violations. This also allows for more citizen whistleblowers as people who live in that region are more likely to see something is up and to say something as they are more invested in the place they live (ostensibly). Offsets are still problematic as measuring their true impact is difficult and some measure of cheating is to be expected, but they can be a lot more legitimate than descibed and cheating happens pretty much everywhere in any system.
I feel like this video should be edited to address the specific set of assumptions and and exceptions it employs to make its points in the interest of clarity and fairness to the cap & trade system
If you made it this far, thank you for reading
Thanks for this video - I always had a feeling that there's something fishy with cap&trade, seeing that it is being misused all the time. Your video gave me much more clarity on what's really wrong with it. Goes to my favorites.
Thanks for the explanation. I don't think many people really understand what the Cap & Trade really means, your explanation is simple enough for everyone to understand and clearly show us what is the problem of it.
it's funny how we needed to reduce CO2 emissions to 350ppm but now (10 years later) we're sitting at about 415ppm and are seeing the beginning of some of the worst climate disasters
Like what climate disasters?
@@thomaspopescu9952 *gestures at australia, puerto rico, houston, etc*
@jaredknight8838 you're using hurricanes as an example? Really?
You can really see now wild fires and floods rising sea levels
We never will change we just won’t 😢
Yikes! Thank you for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. It is important information that everyone needs to know. Climate change is a ticking bomb and needs proper solutions to correct the damage we have done and prevent more damage. I want a healthy environment for my grandchildren and I will to all I can to insure that. Thank you for all the good you do Annie!
What could go wrong if profit-driven corporations gained control your city's public water systems? Watch our latest animation, The Story of Water! 👉🏽 th-cam.com/video/04jTleV0gK0/w-d-xo.html
Is there a translation program for adding a subtitle for this video ? How can i do that ?
Go to www.Amara.org
You explained the concept pretty well. Thank you
Simple solutions: set a limit, no exceptions!
This whole video was about exceptions. If there are none then cap and trade would work great.
Ya ....by my personal view.. im also agreed that this whole video is regarding exceptions but it can help us also in many ways... For this really I want to know good vibes regarding this system......
Doesn't it make you wonder though; if the people who benefit from cap and trade are the same people who designed it, could it be that they are also behind promoting the very reason for which we are having to implement carbon reduction policies? It would just complete the circle, don't you think?
Nice. Well said.
I like how you already know this... A needle in the haystack you are
Al Gore was recently asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News. Al didn'y you say when you started all this global warming thing, that if the world didn't listen to you and take your advice that we would all be doomed in 5 years. Then he asked Al, you do realize we are now in year 20 since your prediction ?
The bible was written thousands of years ago and is very accurate. It tells us to be careful of false prophets ! It even describes what a false prophet is today. It's why it is full of truth about these sorts of people. Back in the day people also called them snake oil salesmen.
BE BLESSED !!!
Very interesting explanation! You made the topic feel fun
How come we don't see her in the presidential candidates?
they don't let folks that they don't own run for president. They own the TV networks you need to get noticed nationally and we have seen time and time again that they simply don't give you time if they don't want you
Yeah, I'd vote for her!
she gave up
nearly 10 years later, Trump pulls from the Paris Agreement
and that's a good thing
@@elpeopuru3003 Amen!
@@MJTXAZ Amen!
"Over 10 years later, and there's still no sign of world ending climate change."
There fixed it. ;)
good. we decreased emissions more because of it. but libs will lib...
Just wondering...where are you getting your resources from????
@fizzingwhizbeee Um, I think she might be referring to how much total money is spent on subsidies for each industry. The rate per watthour can be swamped by the number of watthours subsidized. Do you have those figures?
I really like the videos but I think the woman is still a bit naive. She's talking about 'our governments', the rich and powerful 1% who run big corporations have governments in their POCKETS...
This video has a lot of flaw and is very one sided to "cap and trade = bad". If it wasn't for collecting carbon credits by carbon sequestration (pumping CO2 into the ground) or planting trees then these would not be profitable at all and no one would have much incentive to spend money to do it in the first place. Also, completely killing the coal industry is a bad things since local economies would entirely collapse without coal, so weening off coal and increasing jobs in other sectors that don't require degrees is the only way to do it without sky rocketing unemployment. Coal power also gets dirt cheap power rates where renewable energy get premium price power rates. This leaves coal plants having to pay for extremely high regulations, lots of operation costs and return has to sell their power for dirt cheap, a lot of times this puts coal plants out of business. I'm all for cap and trade and slowly moving towards more renewable sources, nuclear is probably the most reasonable option since renewables make shit energy/acre compared to nuclear power.
I could not agree more. Overall, this video is quite confusing and illogical with so many unsubstantiated claims in it.
No what she's saying is don't subsidize the coal industry because it incentivizes the coal industry to find smarter and better alternatives.
Thanks for those great points, which I didn't recognized before!
this is awesome, fun, and easy way to look at the economics of a very important topic. thanks for the video.
Hi are you alive now
When a man with power allows his greed to prevail over his conscience...the world is screwed.
let's tax the air.
Fun fact that's already a thing it's called Carbon Tax
Muy buen material este pero muchos estariamos agradecidos si alguien lo tradujera al español. Hay varios de la serie ya con subtitulos. Pero no he encontrado por ejemplo las versiones de: The Story of Citizens, The Story of Broke, The Story of Cape and Trade.
También sería importante tener en español las criticas que se le han hecho, para tener
un doble punto de vista.
Annie, for the first time in any of her videos, does an excellent job of describing a problem (cap & trade) with actual factual data. And for as much of the video as she is directly talking about cap & trade, she's being honest and educational. It's once she starts talking about other stuff that it becomes dangerous propaganda. Search "Story of Cap & Trade, The Critique" for an explanation of what she says that's wrong.
Oh PLEASE!
It's about CARBON CREDITS and MONEY. Period.
Stop being so gullible.
This is incredibly liberal, but I think this is very moving and everyone should see it.
This is the right attitude of Lie-berals. You do realize that bowels move for a very good reason. Conservatives will show you in the next election what has to happen in order for the country to be healthy again ! Can you imagine putting a picture of an iceberg on TV and then telling everyone it is caused by global warming. This was off the coast of Nfld. You know where the Titanic went down in the spring of the year when weather normally gets warm. The funny part was it happened way back when. The turn of the century. Long before global warming scheme was cooked up by Al Gore and his buddies. You know the ones who make over six figures every time they speak on it. Now you know where the snakeoil salesmen came from in the U.S. Come to Calgary and do some research on the weather patterns over the last ten years, then go and tell the world about all the inconsistent weather patterns. But no consistent warming happening. It's there, do your research !
@@empoleon7750 I am now a communist
This really helped me understand what's been going on under our noses. Get informed folks, we may need you to vote wiser from now on. We need leaders who'll do the right thing for everyone and for now on.
@survivalpodcasting
However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase.
In facts this is stated in the conclusion where Bounoua writes, "the feedback slows but dose not alleviate the projected warming"
However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase.
Lets all switch to nuclear energy folks; it's the greenest energy available today in these times of energy crises.
To be honest, in my opinion none of your arguments against cap and trade really make any sense (sorry this got so long):
1. First argument (somewhat implicit): "Cap and trade is bad because some of the people trading the certificates would speculate and make money/get rich in the process".
Well, speculators do not always get rich, sometimes they also lose money (e.g. when a bubble bursts).
More importantly, if cap and trade is both effective in achieving its goal (reducing carbon emissions and thus helping solve the climate crisis) and also cost-effective (able to achieve this goal at lower cost to society compared to alternative ways like regulation), does it really matter if some people make a living trading those certificates? The amount of money traders or speculators make would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the main effects of cap and trade (making goods more expensive in proportion to the amount of carbon emission their production creates and therefore giving companies a real incentive to reduce those emissions).
2. "Cap and trade is bad because big polluters (companies that are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases) are getting certificates for free".
Well guess what, without cap and trade (e.g. right now), big polluters are already getting the right to pollute for free, since they do not have to buy any certificates at all (since certificates do not exist). So even if you were to give all the certificates out for free, it would not be worse than the situation right now.
More importantly, this is not really an argument against cap and trade *itself* - it is an argument against a certain *way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works just as well if all certificates are auctioned off, so every company would have to buy the certificates corresponding to its emissions. This also would (obviously) create additional government revenue - which could be used to lower other taxes (for example), so that the total burden for producers and consumers would remain the same.
3. "Cap and trade is bad, because climate change will have very serious consequences for the people living in poor countries that did not contribute to the problem"
That (the negative consequences of global warming) is actually not an argument *against*, but *for* cap and trade. Economists have argued for years that market based schemes (like a carbon tax or cap and trade) are able to achieve the goal (reducing the emission of greenhouse gases) at lower cost to society (less loss of individual freedom and monetary wealth) compared to more conventional policy instruments (e.g. the government passing strict regulations regarding those emissions).
The corresponding argument is covered in advanced economics classes in college, and it is not overly hard to understand for someone with some intermediate knowledge in economics, but admittedly most people will not be willing to invest the time necessary to educate themselves enough to understand it. However, I would argue that it is better to trust experts if they *are truly experts in their respective field* and *agree* on something, rather than just ignore what scientists have to say.
And while the main economic argument for cap and trade is theoretical (e.g. relies on logical arguments), several empirical studies (e.g. about the emission trading scheme in Europe and those of some US-states) have confirmed that the predicted effects are indeed realized in the real world.
Cap and trade is a real solution to the problem of global warming, it is the best solution we currently have, because it reduces emissions in the best way (where it can be reduced at the lowest cost to society).
4. "Cap and trade is bad because some offset credits would be created fraudulently (without really offsetting pollution)."
Again, like (2), this is *not* an argument against cap and trade in general, but against a *specific way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works perfectly fine without any offset credits.
5. "Cap and trade is bad because we cannot agree on a global cap".
Granted, the ideal solution to global warming would be to have all countries participate in one large cap and trade system.
But that is also true for any other solution to global warming (e.g. regulations) - it is a global problem, so no country can solve it on its own. That, however, is not a (good) argument for doing nothing until some "global deal" is achieved - especially rich countries (e.g. members of the OECD) can do a lot by themselves. If all members of the OECD would have functioning cap and trade systems, with a reasonably ambitious path of reducing emission certificates over the years, this would have a large positive impact with regards to reducing global emissions.
6. "Cap and trade is bad because it creates a false sense of security, so less other action will be taken to really reduce emissions"
This argument relies on the assumption that cap and trade does not really work - which is a false premise. It does work, it reduces emissions, and it does so at a lower cost to consumers, producers, society, than any other policy tool we know (e.g. traditional regulation). If you do not like a certain *way* in which cap and trade is/was introduced in form of a law, support the introduction/expansion of it in a better way (e.g. without giving away certificates to companies and without credits for offsetting emissions).
Since global warming is a problem which involves a long time horizon and the cooperation of a lot of countries, it is already really difficult to fix it. Ignoring science (in this case, economics) about how best to achieve it will just make it even more difficult.
there is video im just not sure where you can find it
@TheSAMathematician well I think think that it's important to be aware of these issues. Your right, there isn't a great solution to them, but being aware has a subtle but everlasting effect.
Also, in Yala (Thialand) a Japanese power company (EGCO) is offsetting its carbon emissions by building a power plant fueled by rubber, wood and waste (carbon neutral stuff). This plant is causing other types of pollution to the surrounding area's air, land and water. Although there is an ongoing dispute over this with the locals in Yala, the focus is on carbon efficiency rather than broader environmental issues concerning all types of pollution.
i just meant to change the subscript for simplicity when you are counting, you can keep it o2 if you want just make your coefficient 7 not 14 or else you are misrepresenting the equation. really this is getting off topic though. my point is that your assertion regarding 6H2O+7C02 is wrong.
@blomvik16
and soon around october 2010, there will be released zeitgeist III (don't know the undertitle)
@gilgamesh1962 Haha yes, the simplicity is beautifully ironic.
@Someideasandstuff And what would you propose we do to fix these "problems"?
Excellent VIDEO. I will be showing this in my art/technology class when we get back from break! I'm planning a lesson plan around it. As I can see from the other comments here it is really hard to convince adults...so I'm going to start with their children!
thanks for this!!
i know this isnt important but... why 360p? can you upload in 720 or something?
@fizzingwhizbeee Thank you, fizz; that table is excellent, as it also shows net power generation and the total dollar amount. Awesome work!
Do you have data on this? How do you define "The Military Industrial Complex?"
You can find a lot of information about the formation of Cap and Trade in a book titled "Climate Wars" by Eric Pooley.
thank you thank you!
Your voice is amazing!
Great video. Everybody should watch it.
Is there an article I can read to learn more about how cap and trade failed in Europe? I wish the media hear had reported that story. It's news to me!
Actually, cap and trade did not fail in Europe, it is an extremely effective and cost-efficient tool to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. No major political parties are against it at this point.
Yes, some of the details of the initial setup were not perfect (e.g. giving major producers of greenhouse gases those rights for free, or not reducing the total number of emission certificates fast enough leading to low prices), but they are fixed for the most part.
Economists (especially those specializing in environmental problems) have been arguing for many years that a cap and trade system is the most efficient way (greatest reduction in greenhouse gases at the lowest cost to society), so it is honestly quite frustrating to me if some people who mean well but just do not understand enough (about how societies work) are against them ("Oh, you are creating the right to pollute and let brokers trade those rights on markets - of course of you are just evil capitalists and not some smart people who found a viable solution to a serious global problem").
@neightingale Thx for the answer ;)
To be honest, I cant remember where I got it but I can send you a snapshot I made of 2 curves (sun/earthtemperature vs co2/earthtemperature in relation to year) showing what I ment.
If you want to I can send it to you via mail or upload it.
Grtz!
I'm not understanding how the first loop hole is an issue.. "all of the allowances are going to the major industries who were polluting in the first place. It's like they get rewarded for polluting" if the cap is set and met by these industries why does it matter? Smaller companies that don't pollute as much can make due with a smaller amount of allowances and as long as all companies abide by the limit there shouldn't be a problem. As the cap reduces over the years, the companies won't even need to be distributed all those free allowances as they've gotten on board on cleaner energy. The only problem I see with this is the offsetting.
The two problems she addresses can be dealt by 1. auctioning permits and 2. establishing rigid criteria for offsets. The number 3 disappears since the system works.
What can I do? I want to contribute with the change.
Build a socialist organization
The simplest you can do is make your voice heard, e.g. word-of-mouth and your vote.
Murat was here. TSF (Thanks For Sharing)
@Zaxxon2008 and besides in europe they have car that run on freaking WATER and some cars run on AIR so yes, there are other forms of renewable resources than windmills and solar panels
Thank you for posting such a concise explanation of why Cap and Trade is a disaster and why it should be ditched in favor of real solutions.
Great videos you have!
@Zaxxon2008 and besides the epa (where you get the 3%) only considers direct pollution such as cars and fires, not genetically altered cows, methane slicks, forest fires, and other second degree reactions
@twillsmusic It already turns out that last winter was the coldest for a long time.
How do you put a meter on carbon ?
@mirandalouis Could you enlighten me with what data and facts were wrong?
I have a solar array! I am pondering the addition of a second array- giving up many things I would like to afford the array. I want to do what I can do to help this planet more than I want new clothes, new shoes, boose, cigarettes, soda pop, vacations..... I say no to lots of THINGS so I can say yes to the planet. WHY- I love my grandson and granddaughters and want them to have a cleaner- better world! Everyone should try to do something to say this planet. Something beats nothing every time.
this is "maximize profit regardless of the social and environmental cost"
at its finest
This ‘surplus right’ is then sold to a high-polluting firm which gives it the right to pollute the same amount of the ‘surplus right’. Hence, no additional permits are given, just transferred to another party through the market. Emission levels do not increase because the sum of permits equal the cap.
this video is 1000x better than my lecturer
I agree with the idea but not the loop holes and deveils
@impalapez - Our lifespan is projected to increase. I don't know where you get this from. The general rule is that every 4 years the average life span goes up 1 year. I'm expecting to live to about 110, maybe longer.
@Pat9201 Any citations?
"Zeitgeist moving forward" I believe.
i dont understand the offsetting thing... how can u sell ur cap if you already sold it in the first place?
Sorry. My first post was inaccurate. It was the EDF, not the WWF, that first proposed the Cap and Trade concept.
@TheSAMathematician ... won't be enough to combat this. We will be digging a hole for ourselves to fix a problem, and we won't remotely fix said problem.
Before we commit ourselves to a course of action, we should ask our selves what the costs of these actions would be, and what the costs of not undergoing these actions would be.
If climate change is to be fought, a global consensus is required. Creating markets is the most efficient way to fight climate change.
Annie Leonard, I like you videos, even though over a decade has passed, they are still relevant. Here in Canada, everyone is just stupid over Canada being net zero, like Canada not emitting any greenhouse gas is actually a finish line to saving the planet. Meanwhile 75% of our consumer goods that we purchase come from China that is ramping up emissions with more coal. Citizens in every wealthy country need to see their consumerism as the problem, greenhouse gas and plastic pollution are not the problem, they are symptoms and results of overconsumption by people who would rather leave it to big business to fix the problem without taking any ownership or responsibility for their own actions. Be the change you want to see people!
DESC sets fuel rates paid by military units. Currently, prices are $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline and $3.04 for jet fuel. Avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles, is sold for $13.61 a gallon.
The military consumes about 1.2 million barrels of fuel each month in Iraq at $127.68 a barrel, a price that reflects crude oil refined into usable fuel.
cont...
@recyclecongress Where are you from?
It seems to me that this system takes advantage of the situation rather than solving it.
We would be much better off changing our way's.
For example, we should use; solar power, bio fuel, wind power, harness the power of the sea etc...
There are loads of other options, infact the deisil engine was built to run on veg oil. We need to replace petrol and deisil with boi feul, which can be made from all kinds of different things, of which 'algie' is one of the most efficient (so I believe).
Maybe it was different when this video was made in 2009. But for those watching today, in 2017 (in relation to California):
Permits are not free, they are sold by the government in an auction.
Offsetting is monitored to try to avoid cheating
Have a look at this if you're interested:
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB398
This video is only helping you understand that cap and trade in the form it is now is not a sufficient solution for the problems we are facing. And by the way, stopping to think in absolutes would help you understand those kind of things a little better.
@cracksnake I'm afraid its WAY more complicated than that:
Personal Interests
Lack of Eduictaion and Awareness
Economic Necessity
Conflict of Ideologies
Lack of Interest
Abuse of Power
Just to name a few. I used to think that way once, and I don't blame you. We all tend to misiterpret things evry once in a while..
9:05! Doesn't get any more definite than that...
additionally, though neither of us is an expert on the matter im sure you would agree that as i stated above to "wolfknows" the greenhouse effect is not up for debate, that is a universally acknowledged phenomenon. the debate is over to what degree our various emissions influence that effect. my thoughts are that we do have an impact on temperature and though its likely not as high as alarmists claim we dont know enough about climate systems to say how much change is safe change.
Worth every minute
The EPA lost most of its funding during the Reagan Administration. It is a skeleton with no muscles. Even its ligaments were detached, as the separate organizations within the EPA have no network of communication and operate separately. The FDA is bought and paid for...literally. When companies submit products for approval it bares the price tag of $250,000 and the research that the companies who create the product must submit to prove the safety of the product is typically done by the producer.
cheers for you work!!! very well done!
If only a half of the klicks have received the message you've done a lot...
We're trying to do the best we cann in our country too!!!
Actually, this is one of the few generally well-founded videos released by this channel. Thank you.
@gretabetta well, the government, in a way, has a big part in this problem as well, why should we need to clean up their mess?
Well I find this video lies closer to my personal research than Lee's. In fact, the videos I've seen from him seem much more like propaganda.
Quoting a source doesn't mean the source is reliable. If you have the time to trace them all back to the original source - be my guest. potholer54 has explained very well how referencing works.
By the way, a fully referenced copy of the script is available through the link in the description, I'll be chasing up her sources whenever I get the time.
@michaelclueless It's about money, power, and control.
@cristinaa517 in the story of cosmetics, she specifically says the government should step in...
Is it actualy true that the US subsidises fosil fues with exactly twice the rate as renewable energies?!? Please can you tell me where you got these facts from. Amazing video
@TreachMarkets I was referring to the climatic aspects of global warming, but you are correct that the hype is about money and power. Sad that the people who crave money and political power have no REAL power, cannot control their own minds or emotions, and have no clue what might make them happy...if they even have a glimmering of what happiness is! We live in a sick society. Thankfully, there are those who know better.
@wildcat236 Do you know how a greenhouse works? Do you know what causes temperatures to rise in a greenhouse? Have you ever heard of an gas-powered automobile? Do you know what a gas-powered automobile produces? What do you think would happen if you left a gas-powered automobile running in a greenhouse?
@pgdevil
OK maybe not made by the BBC.. And please tell me how the scientists in the film are not creditable?
@thomastholin You neglect the question of quantity.
faz esses videos legendados e ou dublados para portugues
@northernsupernova1 400 million years ago Co2 levels suddently dropped. Climate scientist explain this with a chemical reaction between silicon and co2. For what reason, will that not occur again?
As someone who has persistently despaired about the liberal/left's ability to come up with arguments that will appeal to voters other than themselves, that draws in outsiders rather than repelling them, this is the most hopeful series of presentations I've ever seen. Well done.
great video
@Slipknotyk06 Of course it's a choice, and I'm glad that you are responsible and frugal and make full use of what you have. I am really referring to the "business model" of planned obsolesence. The idea that the economy needs consumers to consume and throw away and consume more, just to keep up growth seems ridiculous to me, as I hope it does to you. Who is the economy for anyway??