Novel Idea from the European Right: Budget Sanity

Anne Applebaum goes to Europe and sees it tilting to the right. For economic reasons:

For the record, Ferguson is, at least by origin, a British Tory. For the record, there aren't any U.S. Republican polemicists making the same arguments in quite as public a way. With a few exceptions, the American center-right's loudest and most articulate voices have been focused almost exclusively on national security for the better part of the last decade. Lip service was paid to "small government" and "reduced spending" while successive Republican Congresses, hand in hand with a Republican White House, enlarged government and spent like crazy. How can they now criticize Obama's possibly lethal budget deficits when their own were so vast, so recently?

None of this is to say that any of Europe's conservatives would necessarily go down well in the United States. (Picture Silvio Berlusconi, paparazzi and alleged teenage mistresses in tow, campaigning in Mississippi.) It's also true that they don't necessarily have much in common: Allegedly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy can hardly stand to be in the same room at the same time. But if nothing else, the success of the European center-right during the current crisis proves that there is something to their political formula. They are fiscally conservative. They are, if not socially liberal, then at least socially centrist. They haven't been swayed by the fashion for big spending. They are trying to keep some semblance of budget sanity. And, at least at the moment, they win elections.

It's not rocket science is it?

Budget Cuts

A cartoon by Mike Ramirez at the New York Post

A Trillion to the IMF? Who the Hell Are the IMF? Did Anybody Vote for This?

A trillion dollars has been allocated by the G20 countries to the IMF. (Trillion is definitely the new billion.) Can somebody tell me what it means?

The G20 nations will inject $1 trillion into the world economy in an effort to curb the global financial crisis, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced Thursday as the group's summit concluded.

(...)

The package includes $500 billion for the IMF, plus $250 billion special drawing rights from the reserve currency for member countries of the IMF and $250 billion to boost trade, Brown said.

Canadian officials have said that Canada will be providing an additional $10 billion US for emergency IMF assistance and is putting $200 million into the trade fund.

Brown said the summit represented a "day the world came together to fight back against the recession."

"Today the largest countries in the world have agreed to a global plan for recovery and reform," he said. "I think the new world order is emerging and with it the foundations of a new and progressive era of international co-operation."

We've been beaten into the ground with bailouts and stimulus, that it is hard to grasp what this means. Billions and trillions are being advocated at a dizzying pace lately, with no accountability. Now this. Who is the IMF? (OK, I have minimal knowledge.) Why is Canada sending $10 billion there? Can we have an appropriations committee? No? Well, I give up then.

It makes me feel like how I felt with hedge funds and derivatives. You're trusting that these experts know what they're doing. Turns out they didn't know what they were doing. The IMF is some giant monolith and I have no faith that they know what they're doing. At least national pork projects are overseen by Canadians, and used in Canada. Adding another layer with an international group seems beyond ridiculous.

Hat tip: Pat

For Economic Matters Listen to France

My fingers were bleeding as I typed that headline. The world is definitely upside down when the French are making more economic sense than the British and Americans.

Ms. Lagarde has said France may do more on the spending front if necessary, but that nations should wait to see the effect of current stimulus measures before taking any further action....

Now we're going to get better cuisine tips from the Brits and superior fashion advice from the Americans.

The Article Everybody Is Talking About

Terence Corcoran's column from the Financial Post was linked by the almighty Drudge today, which means millions of people will have read it. Is this the end of America?

But America is at risk in other ways, especially in the technical business of setting and executing policy. The presidency of Barack Obama has set out on a course that has no precedent in U.S. history. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal transformed the U.S. economy during the Great Depression, pushed America off on a sharply different political and ideological course. The Obama administration is different in many ways, not least in its supreme self-confidence in its methods and objectives.

Reform of health care, environmental policy, education, energy, banking, regulation — every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy has been put on alert for major change. Expansion of government spending, plunging the U.S. into unprecedented deficits, is without parallel. In economic policy, through regulation and control of energy output, financial services and monetary expansion, the U.S. government has embarked on a fundamental reshaping of America. It is designed, in short, to bring on the end of America.

The spillover effect of all this on the rest of the world promises to be dramatically disruptive. The greatest global risk is in monetary and currency policy. Below is a chart that graphically demonstrates the sharp deviation in monetary policy from past norms. Under the chairmanship of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve is in the midst of a giant economic experiment, flooding the world with U.S. dollars, hoping that flood will stimulate economic activity.

Read it all, if you dare. I like to put up lighter things on Friday, so I apologize. Just try to remember the laughs you got last night when President Obama was on The Tonight Show, with Jay Leno.

50 Days In, People Noticing Obama Hasn't Saved the World

You know that expectations were far too high for Obama coming into the presidency. He hadn't done anything yet, and people were hailing him as the new FDR. So far, things haven't been going so well, and the glow is starting to recede. Here's an op-ed from the Daily Telegraph. Perhaps he can't fix it...

Instead he has been trying, on a broad front, to fulfil the reformist ideal that informed his election campaign. Rather like a would-be government in Britain that talked of “sharing the proceeds of growth”, the candidate who wanted to redistribute wealth now, as President, has no wealth to redistribute. A $3.6 trillion budget showed little sign of addressing the problem of stimulating demand. Both big corporations and small businesses feel overtaxed, their competitiveness hampered, and incapable of creating jobs at a time when they are desperately needed. Mr Obama’s green agenda, which was also a significant part of his election promises, entailed higher taxation that will retard the economy just when it needs to grow. His greatest ambition – of starting a national health service – seems impossible in the present climate. As he seeks to move forward on this broad front Warren Buffett himself has attacked him, saying that his first three priorities should all be the economy. Paralysed by inexperience and a Blairish desire to be liked, and hampered by inadequate senior staff, he is now finding that even some of his own party in Congress feel he has gone too far in the socialist experiment. Mrs Pelosi admitted at the weekend that a second stimulus package – which leftist Democrats are calling for, to the horror of much of the rest of America – was not yet on the cards.

As somebody right of centre, Obama was never my champion. However, I was willing to give him a shot. When he had his faux State of the Union speech a few weeks ago, I was not impressed that he droned on about green technology and health care. I predicted the markets would tank, and they went on a long losing streak.

To quote the old Clinton slogan: It's the economy stupid! The honeymoon is over.

While the Central Bankers Played Sudoku

Here's a nice clean explanation of why the stimulus plan won't work, from Fabrice Taylor in the Globe and Mail today:

I'm sure some overpaid bank economist could put down his Beaujolais long enough to explain why a mushroom cloud of leverage is okay because of X, Y and Z. But remember we want common sense here, not propaganda. Too much debt is fatal – it's not debatable.

A perfect confluence of stupidity, greed and incompetence only made matters worse. Greedy people lent and dumb people borrowed, and in the meantime incompetent governments and central bankers played Sudoku instead of policing ratings agencies, hedge funds and even government-sponsored firms such as Fannie Mae. And in turn, this credit bubble propped up bad businesses. Here are your examples:

General Motors wants more money to avoid a Chapter 11 filing. General Motors' vice-chairman pooh-poohed hybrid cars as recently as a year ago.

Bank of America got handouts, which you could easily argue were used to help finance the purchase of Merrill Lynch, which you could argue made it easier for Merrill to pay almost $4-billion in bonuses to the executives who drove it to the brink of bankruptcy.

Citigroup gets bailed out as a reward for destroying billions of shareholder money.

General Electric massaged its earnings for years – and former CEO Jack Welch admits as much in his gripping tell-all book about how great he is – and it gets help.

Some homeowners who can't pay their mortgages will get money, while those who are servicing their debt get nothing.

Hat tip: Pat

Creditor China Wanting Debtor America to Kowtow

The Chinese invented the word kowtow. Now that they own a disproportional amount of US debt, they are starting let them know that they have a say in operations:

China may voice its concerns over U.S. government finances and the potential for a weaker dollar when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits China on Feb. 20, according to He Zhicheng, an economist at Agricultural Bank of China, the nation’s third-largest lender by assets. A People’s Bank of China official, who didn’t wish to be identified, declined to comment on the telephone.

“In talks with Clinton, China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe,” said He in Beijing. “That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.”

(...)

“The biggest concern for China to continue buying U.S. Treasuries is that if Obama’s stimulus doesn’t work out as expected, the Fed may have to print money to cover the deficit,” said Shen Jianguang, a Hong Kong-based economist at China International Capital Corp., partly owned by Morgan Stanley. “That will cause a dollar slump.”

The big problem with the average American was that they weren't saving any money and they were over extended on credit. Joe Six Pack had a McMansion, Cherokee and BMW in the driveway. It's a microcosm of what the US government is doing. Instead of cutting up the credit card they are going on the biggest borrowing spree in history.

Watch as those US Treasury securities that the Chinese have go toxic. Imagine if the US have to default?

Alarm Bells on the Obama Budget

The Wall Street Journal has a pithy op-ed about the magnitude of Obama's budget, and what is in store for the future:

These columns focus on spending, rather than deficits, because Milton Friedman taught us that spending represents the real future burden on taxpayers. nonetheless, the 2009 budget deficit is estimated to be an eye-popping 12.7% of GDP, which once again dwarfs anything we've seen in the postwar era. The White
House blueprint predicts that this will fall back down to 3.5% as soon as 2012, but this is based on assumptions about Washington that aren't going to happen.

For example, Mr. Obama's budget assumes that nearly all of the new stimulus spending will be temporary -- a fantasy. He also proposes to eliminate farm subsidies for those with annual sales of more than $500,000. This is a great idea, and long overdue. But has the President checked with Senators Kent Conrad North Dakota) or Chuck Grassley (Iowa)? We hope we're wrong, but a White House that showed no interest in restraining Congress during the recent stimulus bacchanal isn't likely to stand athwart history to stop the agribusiness lobby.

The falling deficit also assumes the largest tax increase in U.S. history, starting in 2011 with the repeal of the Bush tax rates on incomes higher than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The White House says this will yield upwards of $1 trillion, if you choose to believe that tax rates don't affect taxpayer behavior.

(...)

The biggest illusion in this budget may be its optimistic economic forecast. The White House assumes that the economy will decline by only 1.2% this year, before growing by 3.2% next year. This assumes the recovery will begin later this year and gather steam quickly to return to normal levels of growth. By 2010 to 2013, the budget adds, the economy will be cooking by an average of 4% a year -- which is also how it conjures up magical deficit reduction.

This growth is a lovely thought, but how? The only impetus for growth in this budget comes from the government spending more money that it is taking out of the job-producing private economy. With $1 trillion of new entitlements, $1.4 trillion in new taxes, and $5 trillion in new debt, America's entrepreneurs aren't getting any help soon from Washington.

Daily Salt Shaker Post Obama Speech Prediction

I don't like making predictions, because you can be wrong and look stupid. But I'll go out on a limb and say the markets are going to dive tomorrow. It wasn't the time for the president to start talking about costly alternative energy programs to combat global warming. He talked about not having enough money to play with, but wants increase spending into education and health care. Bailing out irresponsible mortgages. All the while saying he'll chip away at the deficit.

Unrealistic. The bear is growling.

Brooksie an Out of the Closet Socialist

I used to read David Brooks regularly as the New York Times lone fiscal conservative. But he started getting mushy. In his recent column, titled Money for Idiots, he starts out by talking about how Americans are uncomfortable with bailouts for other people's crappy mortages. The prudent people reward the reckless people. OK. So where does he end up with this train of thought?

And they seem to understand the big thing. The nation’s economy is not just the sum of its individuals. It is an interwoven context that we all share. To stabilize that communal landscape, sometimes you have to shower money upon those who have been foolish or self-indulgent. The greedy idiots may be greedy idiots, but they are our countrymen. And at some level, we’re all in this together. If their lives don’t stabilize, then our lives don’t stabilize.

Gag! Ah Brooksie, what happened? This is supposedly one of the most influential "conservative" columnists out there. The US has become Sweden.

As Gold Hits $1000 Per Oz.

Once again Peter Schiff at Euro Pacific Capital has a bleak outlook on the fiscal stimulus. It appears that he's caught the gold bug. (read)

The latest spending, signed into law yesterday by President Obama, came on top of $300 billion committed to Citigroup, $700 billion for TARP 1, $300 billion for the FHA, $200 billion for TAF and some $300 billion for Fannie and Freddy. Just over the last six months, which excludes the initial Bush stimulus and several massive, unfunded Federal guarantees, nearly $5 trillion has been committed by the government to the financial industry. Rational observers cannot be faulted for concluding, despite Administration claims to the contrary, that the government is merely throwing money at the problem.

Although the rhetoric has managed to convince many observers of the possibility of success, the gold market appears to clearly understand the implications of this unprecedented spending.

The feeling that the government has no idea how to proceed has created palpable panic. In response, pragmatic investors are seeking the ultimate store of wealth. In 2009, as has occurred countless times throughout history, that store will be stocked with gold. Thus, whether the Federal government's interventions will succeed or fail will be anticipated by the price of gold. Right now, the market is screaming failure.

Prior to the latest round of Federal spending, the Federal government had committed $4 trillion to postpone bank collapses and to lay the groundwork for subsequent restructuring. But has any of this activity actually rescued the banking system? In light of the evidence of deepening recession, is it likely that the additional $787 billion in the latest stimulus will instill enough confidence to restore economic growth? If not, what damage will it do to the eventual recovery?

How true. This stimulus has done nothing to restore confidence. Even at these low prices, does anybody feel like pouring their life savings into the stock market now? Or buying your dream house? No way. Gold sovereigns and guns are looking blue chip to me.

Hat tip: Pat

Debt Crisis

Good morning! Depressed about the economic climate? Neil Reynolds in the Globe and Mail reports on two economists that see a future debt crisis.

For one thing, Prof. Reinhart and Prof. Rogoff say, people should expect an enormous increase in national debt. How enormous? Would you believe -on average, around the world - an 86-per-cent increase? In a sobering scrutiny of past financial meltdowns, published as The Aftermath of Financial Crises, the pair conclude that banking-based crises always result in "an explosion of [national] debt."

(...)

U.S. national debt is now (as of Feb. 3) $10.7-trillion (U.S.). Expand this debt by 86 per cent and you get a debt of $19.9-trillion; expand it by 100 per cent and you get a debt of $21.4-trillion, equivalent to 170 per cent of GDP. By contrast, U.S. debt in the Second World War didn't exceeded 120 per cent of GDP. Based on the findings of Prof. Reinhart and Prof. Rogoff, the U.S. will end this recession with far more new debt than the $3-trillion that some economists now presume.

Hat tip: Pat

US Dollar Devaluation? History Shows:

Avner Mandelman in the Globe and Mail, with inspiration from the book Fiat Money, Inflation in France, written 50 years ago by Andrew Dickson White, sees some distressing similarities of today's situation and post-Revolutionary France:

What evidence is there that today resembles that particular past so much that the ending is bound to be similar? First, in 1789, power shifted from those who had money to those who mostly didn't – similar to today. Second, the revolutionary French government tried to pay the debt racked up by the deposed regime with freshly printed money – again like today. Third, any dissenting voices in the National Assembly were shouted down with dire warnings of a “catastrophe” if the stimulus package were not approved – once more, like today.

But fourth and worst, as soon as the freshly printed money was used, the cry arose that it was not enough – and so more was printed. Then more, more and more.

That last part is not yet in evidence today. However, once the recently approved U.S. stimulus is used up, more will be demanded of Congress, just as it was in 18th century France – you can bet on it.

Hat tip: Pat, who adds:

"My late father-In-law knew all too well about paper money. He was German. He told me his father had the money reduced to zero four times in his life. We were talking about this right after a Ruble "revaluation" in Russia. In Zimbabwe they recently issued a 1 trillion dollar note."

PJ O'Rourke: What Would Adam Smith Think Today?

As usual, PJ hits the ball out of the park. The Financial Times has this new commentary. Don't let me get in the way, just read it:

How then would Adam Smith fix the present mess? Sorry, but it is fixed already. The answer to a decline in the value of speculative assets is to pay less for them. Job done.

We could pump the banks full of our national treasure. But Smith said: “To attempt to increase the wealth of any country, either by introducing or by detaining in it an unnecessary quantity of gold and silver, is as absurd as it would be to attempt to increase the good cheer of private families, by obliging them to keep an nnecessary number of kitchen utensils.” [440]

We could send in the experts to manage our bail-out. But Smith said: “I have never known much good done by those who affect to trade for the public good.” [456]

And we could nationalise our economies. But Smith said: “The state cannot be very great of which the sovereign has leisure to carry on the trade of a wine merchant or apothecary”. [818] Or chairman of General Motors.

Read the whole thing.

Iggy's Small Town Bringdown

Can't live to die-too easy
Why stick around?
I want my life to please me
Not another small town hometown bringdown

- Tragically Hip, Small Town Bringdown

I was thinking of that song when Iggy spoke during Question Period yesterday. Here’s what he said:

“Mr. Speaker, let us bring this crisis down to a single community: Mackenzie, British Columbia,” he began. “Four thousand people. Four sawmills, all shut. Nearly 100 per cent unemployment. Not just pulp mill workers, but loggers, truckers and everyone down the line. Everybody there are single-industry towns like this all across Canada. Federal help was promised to Mackenzie last year but it did not work. So what now? Is this government going to let Mackenzie die?”

Seriously, what the hell kind of question is this? New home building is frozen during this economy, therefore the saw mills are closing. It’s a single industry town. Darn shame, looks like the people will have to pick up and move somewhere else for work. Is that so horrible? In the early 90’s, when the Ontario economy was ravaged, I couldn’t find work in Ottawa. (Haven’t heard about those tough times? Ask the white haired gentleman sitting near Iggy named Bob, he’ll fill you in.) So I moved to Vancouver. In fact, all my friends from Ottawa moved away. When we go to visit family, I don’t have anybody from the old crew to hit the pub with. Similarly, most people I know in Vancouver are from somewhere else.

We see this theme all the time in movies. The main character lives in a dreary one industry town, say, a steel town in Pennsylvania. With the factory belching smoke in the background we get a confessional about if only that one talent the person has (football/ basketball for boys, dancing/singing for girls) is recognized, only then can they escape. Otherwise, they are stuck in this bleak town for the rest of their lives. They usually consult an older, haggard townie broken from a lifetime of waitressing at the diner or punching a clock at the mill. It’s at this point, you scream at the screen and say: “ Just move for chrissakes! America is a big country. Go to California, it’s a nice climate!”

Back to Iggy: What would he suggest we do for Mackenzie, BC? The people can collect UI like everybody else. They can hope for a better economy to get the mills back going or move on. Other than that, what else? Get the government to pay the mills to re-open, even with no customers?

And how phony is it that the international academic is the champion of these people? Ask an international academic what they think of uneducated, small town hicks, off the record. For that person, the thought of sitting down with them for a few hours at a Tim Horton's would be as palatable as being thrown into a tank full of aligators.

Let Mackenzie die. The townspeople can do what everybody else does and move somewhere to find work. Let’s stop subsidizing failure.

The New Era of Irresponsibility

Jacob Sullum in Reason magazine points out the paradox of wanting the American public to continue to spend recklessly:

Remember when the problem with Americans was that we saved too little, preferring instant gratification even when we couldn't afford it? As Obama put it in October, "we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits, to borrow instead of save."

Economists worried that our low saving rate made our economy and our government dangerously dependent on the whims of foreign investors. Yet on Monday, when Commerce Department data showed that the U.S. saving rate had risen sharply, from less than 1 percent of after-tax income a year ago to 3.6 percent in December, the press treated the increase as bad news.

"Putting away money and paying down debt may be good for one family's kitchen-table economics," The New York Times reported, "but the broader economy suffers in the short term when millions of families do it." The Associated Press agreed: "What's good for individuals—spending less, saving more—is bad for the economy when everyone does it."

This is comical. The best they can come up with is shop more, don't worry about debt. The whole problem in the first place. Do you get the feeling that the administration really don't know what they're doing?

"Big Bang" Financial Madness

Diane Francis in the Financial Post has speculation about how crazy the stimulus and bailout mania might get this year with the Obama administration. When I read this it's equal parts anger and panic. (read)

-Washington is going to bail out all homeowners in the United States. The U. S. government will guarantee all residential mortgages involving owner-occupants, including mortgages that are dramatically higher than the value of the underlying property.

-In return for removing mortgage loan credit risk, Washington will require banks to stretch out principal repayments to owner-occupants so that they do not exceed, on a monthly basis, more than 38% of family or owner incomes. When values or incomes go up, presumably, adjustments will be made. This will provide a floor to property values, a form of welfare to the unemployed and another unfreezing of bank credit.

This is a double punch to the stomach. People who got mortgages that they couldn't afford are going to get bailed out? All of them? That means there's no value anymore. There's no such thing as buying and selling if there is no risk. It's outrageous that cautious people who waited while the bubble rose, are going to pay for other people's homes. While they rent. Wow!

Bush Apologists Suddenly Outraged By Big Spending and Debt

Mark Steyn, writing for the National Review gets blue in the face angry about Obama's out of control "stimulus" spending. Fair enough. I think it's huge mistake as well. Steyn had been a Bush apologist since 2000, so I didn't expect him to criticize Bush's ridiculous bailout spending. But oh boy, this Obama spending package will never do!

So now no politician demanding immediate government action wants to come off like Doctor Evil and invite instant derision by urging some nickel ’n’ dime billion-dollar boondoggle. In the bright new dawn, “ONE! TRILLION!! DOLLARS!!!” is the kind of price tag that commands respect. Congress is planning, at the time of writing, to double domestic discretionary spending. At the time of reading, I’m confident they’ll have quadrupled it. The Khmer Rouge proclaimed Year Zero; for the incoming Obama administration it’s the Year of Twelve Zeroes.

No, 2008 was the Year of Twelve Zeroes. There was a precedent. This is a detailed article about boondoggle including this line: "that the tab for the bailout by November 24 was already $4.6165 trillion." I tallied the score of how many times he mentions Obama, and Bush. The score for this lengthy screed?

Mentions of Obama: 7
Mentions of Bush: 0

Hell even John Kerry got one mention. It's like this was invented by Democrats a month ago. Obama has been in office for fourteen days.

These partisan pundits are too late for this outrage. Six months ago Peter Schiff had the one liner: "Trillions are the new billions." It's old news.

I don't agree with what Obama is doing, but most of the damage was done by Bush already. At the time Steyn was writing about how the "surge" was working in Iraq or that Sarah Palin was a great pick for VP.

The Death of Canadian Conservatism

Andrew Coyne blasts Harper as a sell out, and tallies the long term damage this budget is going to do at his Maclean's blog:

And whatever its likely consequences for the debt, its effect has already been to ratchet up expectations, to tilt the political landscape toward greater and greater interventionism, to change the very language in which we discuss these things. Again, this is unlikely to be easily reversed. Among the consequences of the end of conservatism will be to make it difficult, if not impossible, to muster a constituency even for restraining the growth of government, let alone rolling it back. When the “right” is defined as $34-billion deficits, record spending, and bailouts for everything in sight—when every other party is to the left of that—people lose the ability to think in any other way. They forget there was ever a contrary view.

Conservatives, then, should think hard about whether they can afford to support this government any longer. Its sole contribution at this point is to limit debate, to rule out of bounds any serious discussion of alternatives, since “even” a Conservative government now believes in an all-pervasive, ever-expanding state. The Conservative experiment—the whole enterprise of “uniting the right” in which conservatives have invested much of the past decade—has reached a dead end. They have not succeeded in replacing the Liberals. They have only succeeded in becoming them. Perhaps, some conservatives will conclude, it would be better if this government were defeated—if the party were to lose power, that it might find itself.

(...)

When there is no longer any budget constraint, when deficits are not evidence of incontinence, but “stimulus,” why should any project, any sector, any region be denied? More to the point, when there is no political constraint—when no party is pulling to the right, while four pull left—spending can only go in one direction. And for the foreseeable future, that’s where the action is going to be: sucking money from the gushing spigot of the state. Starting a business? Only a chump would spend his time worrying about pleasing the consumer. It’s the politicians you want to keep happy, mate.

It's such a massive about face. Has anybody turned so hard, and so fast away from their base before in Canadian history? I guess you could say Mulroney but when he got all those Quebec seats, I don't think anybody was surprised he was just a run of the mill pork barreler.

UPDATE: Small 'c' conservatives express their dismay in this CP article:

"But it looks like things are grinding to a halt. Are we just going to enter a period of political pragmatism, when all you do is fight to survive? That's very discouraging.

"We thought that Mr. Harper had the strategic acumen to survive and make some progress toward conservative goals."

Hat tip: Pat