Who is Paul Ryan and what does he stand for?

[john9blue]

since when does a smear campaign have to consist entirely of lies and half-truths? go research what a smear campaign is. i'm not a fan of everything ryan does, but you won't see me actively campaigning against him because i'm not deluding myself into thinking that obama is any better.

Good point, a true statement can be a smear. I misspoke. Still, if Ryan is running on his economic acumen-- which certainly seems to be the case-- why wouldn't information about his budget be fair game? If it damages his reputation to shine a light on the very thing he's built said reputation around, isn't that Ryan's error more than Juan's?

a smear campaign is any campaign with the intention of ruining someone's reputation.

By this logic, it is impossible for someone to present the facts of a situation, because there will always be someone who will claim it is that presenter's intention to ruin the reputation of the individual. And even if that is the intention, those facts are still facts. Further, sometimes people need to be made aware that the existing reputation someone has is ill-founded. It seems odd to me that you would claim that a presentation of facts constitutes a smear campaign. Well, it doesn't seem odd to me that YOU would, I suppose, given that it was regarding a Republican candidate.

by your logic, it is impossible to state a correct fact, because there will always be someone who will claim that the fact is wrong.

what other people think doesn't matter at all, woody. i'm only talking about the actual intentions of the PERSON WHO POSTED IT.

and i never said that all smear campaigns are bad.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff gives a snarky comment, while failing to answer relevant questions to his assertion.

That link doesn't go to a Woodruff post, you realize.

[Woodruff]

since when does a smear campaign have to consist entirely of lies and half-truths? go research what a smear campaign is. i'm not a fan of everything ryan does, but you won't see me actively campaigning against him because i'm not deluding myself into thinking that obama is any better.

Good point, a true statement can be a smear. I misspoke. Still, if Ryan is running on his economic acumen-- which certainly seems to be the case-- why wouldn't information about his budget be fair game? If it damages his reputation to shine a light on the very thing he's built said reputation around, isn't that Ryan's error more than Juan's?

a smear campaign is any campaign with the intention of ruining someone's reputation.

By this logic, it is impossible for someone to present the facts of a situation, because there will always be someone who will claim it is that presenter's intention to ruin the reputation of the individual. And even if that is the intention, those facts are still facts. Further, sometimes people need to be made aware that the existing reputation someone has is ill-founded. It seems odd to me that you would claim that a presentation of facts constitutes a smear campaign. Well, it doesn't seem odd to me that YOU would, I suppose, given that it was regarding a Republican candidate.

by your logic, it is impossible to state a correct fact, because there will always be someone who will claim that the fact is wrong.

No, my "logic" did not suggest any such thing. Lern 2 Reed.

what other people think doesn't matter at all, woody. i'm only talking about the actual intentions of the PERSON WHO POSTED IT.

Which part of "that presenter's intention" do you not understand?

[BigBallinStalin]

Woodruff gives a snarky comment, while failing to answer relevant questions to his assertion.

That link doesn't go to a Woodruff post, you realize.

My apologies.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176574&start=105#p3859413

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) Learn about Public Choice.

This is interesting stuff, but I think that by now most of us are at least somewhat aware of the fact that the vast majority of politicians are in it to serve their own bottom line. The fact remains that the policies they enact while questing for the almighty dollar can have huge ramifications on us lowly plebes.
It's entirely possible that I foolishly missed the point you were trying to make here. Public choice theory seems to claim that citizens should stay ignorant of politics, so maybe you're suggesting that as Rational Actors we should just tank the thread?

What is Public Choice?

Some public choice economists examine the extremely low chances of one sole vote in changing the outcome of an election in order to highlight the incentive faced by a voter. Since the chance is so little, it's rational that the average voter spends very little time in informing himself about the costs and benefits of voting for various politicians. Compare this to the incentive one faces when buying a car or a house. This is a positive economics; it explains what is happening.

Based on the positive economics, some economists (and others) shift to normative economics/science (and away from Public Choice),
by concluding that voting is irrational, and people shouldn't vote,
but that would be erroneous because the rationality of one's vote depends on other values, e.g. the satisfaction in participating in a vote or supporting one's party, the feeling/efficacy of "strength in numbers," etc. So, I wouldn't recommend ignorance or tanking the thread--from both economic perspectives (pos. and norm.).


Public Choice assumes that politicians (and bureaucrats) are as self-interested as all other individuals. In the late 1960s and 1970s, this school of economics took much criticism because many intellectuals assumed that politicians and bureaucrats were not self-interested (or were extremely altruistic and hardly selfish). Although it's obvious to us that politicians and bureaucrats are self-interested, it's an observation that we tend to forget. For example, whenever anyone supports a policy to be implemented by the government, they're assuming that the interests of the politicians and bureaucrats are aligned with the goals of that policy. In many cases, this assumption is discovered to be false, and the occurrence of unintended consequence can seem dumbfounding. (You'll see this assumption on TV, in speeches, and here on the fora).

In other words, even if you can codify a public policy, if the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats are not aligned with the policy, then they'll distort the policy, reject it, or implement it and (un)intentionally let it fail. The incentives faced by politicians and bureaucrats typically gear them toward not serving the interests of the public, but for the sake of brevity, I'll stop here. You can PM me if you like, or ask more questions here--whichever is more useful for you.

(2) Correction: The CBO is good enough for Congress, but it isn't good enough for assessing the effects of public policy over 330+ million people.

(3) Advice: take neoclassical economic predictions for an entire country or State with a grain of salt. The future is uncertain, and there are no constants in the social sciences/for human behavior; however, the methods of neoclassical economists neglect that, and then run into trouble when it's applied at the State/national level.

These are good points, but seem to exist solely to stymie discussion. If the future is so uncertain and the populace so large that economic predictions are doomed from the start, then what facts can we look at when discussing these issues? You mention "neoclassical" economics twice: is there an alternative form of prediction that can produce more accurate results, which the government/media does not utilize for some reason?

For public policy, Austrian Economics is not formalized, so it isn't tractable, which is a big problem for AE.

Nevertheless, the methodology and assumptions of neoclassical economics (Keynesian plus added revisions and other schools) base their "validity" on strong correlations and aggregative analysis, which produces a tractable yet inaccurate view of the economy--depending on how much one scales up the subject matter (one firm v. national economy). This explains why the central planners (Federal Reserve) create so many unintended consequences which they can't correct or predict.

The problem is that regardless of the accuracy of AE, the recommendation of AE is in a nutshell "the government must stay out of the economy," which politicians and bureaucrats don't find impressive because they're interested in looking for a science which confirms their necessity.

The theories within microeconomics yield predictions, but with complex phenomena, basically these predictions only show tendencies because all relevant factors cannot be formalized. The neoclassicists gloss over this problem with their macroeconomics (and aggregative analysis) and then proceed with "predicting" the future--based on their economic models which don't sync with reality.

For smaller firms, neoclassical economics is useful for future planning. For a nation of 330+ million people and with political and bureaucratic incentives at play, it's usefulness is extremely limited, but this doesn't matter if no one really understands how this works (which describes nearly all voters). Competitive predictions based on profit and loss incentives yields a more accurate, or self-correcting, mechanism for parting some of the fog of the future, but with the government, their predictions are monopolized (Federal Reserve, CBO, etc.) and even alongside other analysis, which is funded by the government, then the future won't be nearly as clear as the market-based predictions.

That's why you'll get guys like Barney Frank saying that there is no housing crisis on the horizon (2005), or you'll get Bernanke (Federal Reserve) saying all sorts of things contrary to the opinions and analysis of people in the market (see: Crash Proof 2.0).

(4) Just remember that when you put economics (any kind) into the hands of the government, then those politicians and bureaucrats tend to have a strong incentive to confirm their own bias, as in manipulate it for their own goals--regardless of the extravagance of the assumptions used in the economic analysis. It's like having the cigarette industry pay for experiments on whether or not tobacco leads to cancer.

(5) More honest analysis? ... What exactly are you looking for?

Absolutely, data can and will be skewed the moment it gets into a politician's hands. This was what led me to the CBO report in the first place-- it seemed like the best way to avoid these biases. I've since learned that, particularly in the wake of Ryan's VP nod, some Republicans consider the CBO untrustworthy. "Honest" was a poor word choice, I was more interested in finding out if there's an analysis that is even more non-partisan than the CBO.

The futures market is somewhat useful.
The stock market, and market for bonds can be useful.
So, papers which talk about these might yield what you're looking for (WSJ, Bloomberg).

As far as grand public policy is concerned, it's largely a joke---as we've seen with Paul Ryan's budget and its huge assumptions, and the same goes for Obama and any president with their Plan for the Future that tend to be very limited on details or which make grandiose assumptions.


For non-partisan institutes and think tanks, here's a list of 98 of them:

http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fello ... ost-search

You can find relevant criticism on public policy there, sort by category, etc.


http://mnfmi.org/category/climate-change/

That one analyzes the effects of regulation regarding the environment.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff gives a snarky comment, while failing to answer relevant questions to his assertion.

That link doesn't go to a Woodruff post, you realize.

My apologies.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176574&start=105#p3859413

Actually, I didn't see the questions - thanks for pointing them out (how often have I run from your or anyone else's questions...please don't try to equate me to Phatscotty).

Another odd thing I'm seeing, is that I'm defending the poor, the sick, and the elderly in here while all the Jesus freaks want to throw 'em to the dogs. WTF?

Ummm....no. Every conservative has always argued that it's the job of individuals to help other individuals, not for the government to force participation in their unconstitutional programs. You assume that the government is the only option for providing assistance, which is why you delusionally see yourself as the only one defending the needy.

Unfortunately, history has shown that individuals are not sufficient to provide the amount of assistance that is necessary.

(1) How do you know?

Because I can look at history. Do you believe that welfare programs came into existence simply because we had too many lazy people who didn't want to work?

(2) How much is sufficient?

Well, the definition of "sufficient" pretty much answers that....making it so that those individuals are cared for. And yes, I do recognize that our current programs aren't "sufficient" either...but that's not an excuse to get rid of them when they're certainly better than what existed previously. I would also point out that I'm very much in favor of overhauling our welfare system, because it needs it.

(3) If it is "sufficient," and if the unintended consequences exacerbate poverty, then are current forms of government entitlement programs actually sufficient and necessary?

I don't believe the unintended consequences to exacerbate poverty, nor do I believe those previous "private actions' were sufficient.

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, I didn't see the questions - thanks for pointing them out (how often have I run from your or anyone else's questions...please don't try to equate me to Phatscotty).

No worries, I'm not. I'll remember to help your feeble old eyes as they scan the fora. Shall I type in bigger font size for you?

Ummm....no. Every conservative has always argued that it's the job of individuals to help other individuals, not for the government to force participation in their unconstitutional programs. You assume that the government is the only option for providing assistance, which is why you delusionally see yourself as the only one defending the needy.

Unfortunately, history has shown that individuals are not sufficient to provide the amount of assistance that is necessary.

(1) How do you know?

Because I can look at history. Do you believe that welfare programs came into existence simply because we had too many lazy people who didn't want to work?

The History:
For most of the US history, the government operated at a 5%-10% expenditure to GDP percentage. Today's it's 40%, or 49% including deficit spending, so in regard to history, public provision of entitlement programs/welfare have not been the norm. Much of this was covered by individuals in the markets of charity and through voluntary associations--most of which were communal, e.g. mutual aid societies, charities, churches, insurance associations, etc. And, over time, these organizations have been crowded out and/or rendered "pointless."

Many of these organizations have been crowded out by the government provision of welfare because the profit and/or psychological motive to contribute to these organizations was (a) removed since government dominated this arena (picks winner and loses; doesn't many correct errors; doesn't go bankrupt), (b) and/or were distorted through government planning and regulation of welfare services. If you crowd out the competition, then you can easily dominate the market--through the coercive arm of our friend, the State.

See: David Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967

What jumpstarted the Welfare State? The crisis of 1929--following repeated government exacerbation of that crisis through well-intended progressive policies.

Knowledge and Incentive Problems:
The main problem is the lack of an effective feedback mechanism for estimating effectiveness of a welfare program/organization.

In other words, the government suffers tremendously from a knowledge and incentive problem; whereas, the significantly more competitive and local organizations before the emergence of government welfare overcame these incentive and knowledge problems more effectively. I It's bureaucratic and political incentives and knowledge problems versus profit-and-loss incentive and knowledge problems.

(2) How much is sufficient?

Well, the definition of "sufficient" pretty much answers that....making it so that those individuals are cared for. And yes, I do recognize that our current programs aren't "sufficient" either...but that's not an excuse to get rid of them when they're certainly better than what existed previously. I would also point out that I'm very much in favor of overhauling our welfare system, because it needs it.

The problem is that without being based on voluntary exchange (e.g. donations and member fees), the government has little incentive to efficiently use its tax-generated and inflation-causing revenues. In fact, as a bureaucracy, the institutional framework encourages spending and expansion instead of cutting costs through efficiency. So, without the feedback of customers "voting with their dollars," these government programs cannot rely on these means for rational planning (e.g. prices). Instead, they analyze through a lens based on emotive arguments, trumped-up numbers by their own economists, or the feelings of the uninformed voting public.

(3) If it is "sufficient," and if the unintended consequences exacerbate poverty, then are current forms of government entitlement programs actually sufficient and necessary?

I don't believe the unintended consequences to exacerbate poverty, nor do I believe those previous "private actions' were sufficient.

But they do exist, and subsidies for poverty lead to more poverty.

See the Negative Income Tax literature, or wikipedia:

"when a minimum wage worker who earns a little more nets out with less income because he is newly ineligible for aid. The worker is stuck in a welfare trap and has no incentive to seek higher wages."

The unintended consequence is that it makes economic sense to remain on welfare if one loses these benefits by (1) getting a job not in the black market/paid under the table, (2) jumps up to a higher tax bracket, thus losing much of the income from welfare programs, which would net that person in the negative--compared to remaining in the lower tax bracket, etc.

These problems have existed for awhile, but the government is incapable and unwilling to fix them because many of their votes are reinforced through these means of welfare programs (either directly with the recipients or indirectly by the support of well-intended Liberals/Progressives), and also their personal importance and income (especially for bureaucrats) is tied to the continuance of these programs--regardless of the harm created.


And that's just welfare programs. With Social Security included, the unfunded liabilities are about $60 to $144 trillion. Talk about unintended consequences. The future of many young Americans will be extremely affected by that coming storm.

Medicare: $38.6 trillion
[url=http://www.naturalnews.com/032721_unfunded_liabilities_collapse.html]Total: $61 trillion
--> see also USA Today for confirmation

[Juan_Bottom]

How? The government has replaced the family and friends when it comes to helping people in need, so they rarely even have an opportunity to help those in need. Plus, every time there is a natural disaster, TONS of people come out to help others. That means that there are people out there who will help overwhelmingly if they are called to action. Right now, those people just know that most of the people they would want to help are just choosing to keep receiving government paychecks instead of bettering themselves, so there is no point in helping out.

Currently there are more homeless people in the US than there are empty homes.

If your statement was true then there would have been no slavery, no wars.... and we never would have needed medicare, medicaid, or social security.

[Night Strike]

How? The government has replaced the family and friends when it comes to helping people in need, so they rarely even have an opportunity to help those in need. Plus, every time there is a natural disaster, TONS of people come out to help others. That means that there are people out there who will help overwhelmingly if they are called to action. Right now, those people just know that most of the people they would want to help are just choosing to keep receiving government paychecks instead of bettering themselves, so there is no point in helping out.

Currently there are more homeless people in the US than there are empty homes.

If your statement was true then there would have been no slavery, no wars.... and we never would have needed medicare, medicaid, or social security.

We didn't need any of those things: the government just decided to usurp powers not granted to them.

[Woodruff]

How? The government has replaced the family and friends when it comes to helping people in need, so they rarely even have an opportunity to help those in need. Plus, every time there is a natural disaster, TONS of people come out to help others. That means that there are people out there who will help overwhelmingly if they are called to action. Right now, those people just know that most of the people they would want to help are just choosing to keep receiving government paychecks instead of bettering themselves, so there is no point in helping out.

Currently there are more homeless people in the US than there are empty homes.

If your statement was true then there would have been no slavery, no wars.... and we never would have needed medicare, medicaid, or social security.

We didn't need any of those things

Really? Well, I suppose those who weren't dying didn't need them, if that's your perspective.

the government just decided to usurp powers not granted to them.

That is a very arguable statement.

[Woodruff]

Paul Ryan stands for MATH!

I'm not so sure:
http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/we-havent-run-numbers-startling-paul-ryan-admission-getting-little-attention

[Juan_Bottom]

^5
He can't even remember that his family has millions of dollars:




Though he did remember again around the time he learned that he may be tapped to run as VP.

[Woodruff]

He can't even remember that his family has millions of dollars:
Though he did remember again around the time he learned that he may be tapped to run as VP.

You expect him to keep track of that? Then again, his memory seems to fail often:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/ryan-denies-taking-stimulus-then-admits-he-did.html?mid=reddit_dailyintel

[Juan_Bottom]

Ok, so quick recap here,

Ryan used his Social Security benefits to put himself through school*, forgot his wife was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from a trust, forgot that he requested stimulus money for his state, his hero of finance is Ayn Rand**, and he invented a radical new budget plan that he fully endorses even though he hasn't checked his math.***



*Now he wants to gut Social Security

**Ayn Rand called people who receive Socialized Benefits "parasites." Then she lost all of her money and used social benefits until she died. I'm not sure if the Social Security checks that she received enabled her to maintain her dignity or caused her to lose it. I mean, that's a lot of crow to eat.

***The CBO checked his math and said that everyone will die.

[thegreekdog]

So he stands for hypocrisy and death? Seems pretty standard for a politician. I remain unconvinced that he stands for anything different than any other politician.

[Woodruff]

***The CBO checked his math and said that everyone will die.

I must admit, this made me chuckle.

[Neato Missile]

Snip BBS gigapost

Re: Public Choice

You're right that it's easy to fall into the trap of assuming that a politician's goals align with our own (especially when they put forth policies that seem to confirm that assumption), and it seems increasingly evident that politicians are chiefly indebted to entities other than their constituents-- private/corporate interests, powerful lobbies, all the usual suspects.

This is where I feel like I lose the thread of the theory: you say that "if the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats are not aligned with the policy, then they'll distort the policy, reject it, or implement it and (un)intentionally let it fail." Does this imply, as it seems to, that a policy which directly benefits its supporting politicians is intrinsically superior because it is less likely to fail or be distorted? To get topical for a minute, does Public Choice conclude that Ryan's tax cuts for the upper class is superior than Obama's tax cuts for the middle class, since only the Ryan plan directly benefits its proponents?

Re: Austrian Economics

Based on my admittedly cursory examination of the subject, AE seems to have some fairly fundamental flaws, which in aggregate prevent it from being notably more reliable than competing schools of thought. Krugman claims that AE can't satisfactorily explain unemployment, and seems to conclude that AE's lack of formalization is not just a public policy problem.

The assertion that politicians disregard AE because it recommends government non-intervention makes sense on a gut level (especially in conjunction with Public Choice), but AE's assertion that government intervention causes recessions rather than curing them seems to hinge on the idea that businesses are inherently short-sighted, investing in enterprises doomed to crash when deprived of stimulus. Bryan Caplan says AE "credits [businesspeople] with entrepreneurial foresight about all market-generated conditions, but curiously finds them unable to forecast government policy, or even to avoid falling prey to simple accounting illusions generated by inflation and deflation.

Obviously, none of this is a direct defense of neoclassical economics, but with the information I've gathered so far I don't see what makes AE preferable unless you are already a proponent of its laissez-faire attitudes.

Re: The Rest of It

As you say, it seems like anyone who claims to be able to accurately predict public policy is a charlatan or a fraud. I find this intensely disappointing; a candidate's plan for the economy should be crucial to his electoral success, but voters have little more to go on than pre-established personal philosophies and the spin of their preferred news outlets.

I truly appreciate the effort you put into this and other posts in the thread, they've been hugely informative to me (and hopefully at least mildly informative to somebody else).

[Juan_Bottom]

I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead...

As for his 'religion,' he called it 'just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and rituals added'

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey... Satanism has far more in common with Objectivism than with any other religion or philosophy. Objectivists endorse reason, selfishness, greed and atheism. Objectivism sees Christianity, Islam and Judaism as anti-human and evil. The writings of Ayn Rand are inspiring and powerful.

I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy. LaVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic...

[P]erhaps instead of recommending Atlas Shrugged, we should simply hand out copies of The Satanic Bible. If they’re going to align with a satanic cult, they might as well join the one that has the better holidays.

What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

Today you’re supposed apologize to every naked savage anywhere on the globe because you are more prosperous.

1. Blessed are the strong, for they shall possess the earth - Cursed are the weak, for they shall inherit the yoke!
2. Blessed are the powerful, for they shall be reverenced among men - Cursed are the feeble, for they shall be blotted out!
3. Blessed are the bold, for they shall be masters of the world - Cursed are the righteously humble, for they shall be trodden under cloven hoofs!

Is Paul Ryan a Satanist? Or are Satanists just Lassiez-Fair-ists?

[Woodruff]

1. Blessed are the strong, for they shall possess the earth - Cursed are the weak, for they shall inherit the yoke!
2. Blessed are the powerful, for they shall be reverenced among men - Cursed are the feeble, for they shall be blotted out!
3. Blessed are the bold, for they shall be masters of the world - Cursed are the righteously humble, for they shall be trodden under cloven hoofs!

Is Paul Ryan a Satanist? Or are Satanists just Lassiez-Fair-ists?

When you're at this point in your ammunition, you should really just stop firing.

[Juan_Bottom]

I actualy think that there is a legitimate point to be made. The Church of Satan and it's members actually believe in everything that Ayn Rand taught. It's true that they added ritual to it, and it's also true that people think that Satanists worship evil. But members of the church of Satan believe that the only person that they should care about is themselves. It's a religion of selfishness. And that's also what Ayn Rand taught. I think it's an interesting point.

I definitely don't need to use the Church of Satan to make Paul Ryan look like a huge asshole.

[Woodruff]

I definitely don't need to use the Church of Satan to make Paul Ryan look like a huge asshole.

That's my point. You're actually detracting from your point by doing so.

[Juan_Bottom]

Oh, well mostly I'm just using this a point dump right now. You know as well as I do that facts aren't going to sway anything here. Romney/Ryan are literally running on a platform to raise taxes on the middle class, increase the cost of healthcare, and to raise the retirement age. I mean, these Republican supporters are voting against themselves and they are proud of it.

[john9blue]

just because "the facts won't work" doesn't give you an excuse to make ridiculous accusations like "asdf is a satanist". woody's right, quit being such an extremist.

[Juan_Bottom]

OK, ignore for the moment the fact that he goes to church and doesn't participate in orgies.

Now, where is there a divergence between the Rand principles that Ryan is teaching his staff and the Satanic principles that the church teaches? Anton LeVay, the founder of the CoS said that he took 'Ayn Rand's philosophy' and added 'ceremony' to it. Paul Ryan said "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."

I don't see a difference in their philosophy guys.

[Woodruff]

Oh, well mostly I'm just using this a point dump right now. You know as well as I do that facts aren't going to sway anything here. Romney/Ryan are literally running on a platform to raise taxes on the middle class, increase the cost of healthcare, and to raise the retirement age. I mean, these Republican supporters are voting against themselves and they are proud of it.

But again, I think you're working against yourself. You're becoming a caricature. Rather than the ridiculousness, continue to hammer on those things that are actually in the real world.

(Raising the retirement age isn't necessarily a bad thing in my view, by the way...)