The Right Kind of Conservation

The San Jose Mercury News reports that in an effort to reduce damage to sea life by commercial fishers, two environmental groups have "purchased six federal bottom trawling permits and four commercial trawling boats from fishermen based in Monterey and Morro Bay..." This is the first time that a private conservation group has purchased permits in Pacific waters.

Rod Fujita, a marine ecologist with Environmental Defense in Oakland, puts it plainly: There are too many boats chasing too few fish. People respond to economic incentives. The solution is not to blame or punish them but to provide incentives for stewardship, not exploitation.'' It's a delightful surprise to hear this from an environmental activist.

As Coase has written in the past, when property rights are defined and transaction costs are permissibly low, the efficient outcome will prevail. In this case, the environmentalists now have a healthier ocean and the fishing company is free of a low-profit area.

Dobbsian commentary: Nasty, brutish, and wrong

Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about Lou Dobbs, except that he seems to draw the ire of quite a few viewers. Maybe it's his interviewing tactics that upset people, because his columns are terrifically comical. I believe they come out every Wednesday.

Here are his thoughts on raising the federal minimum wage. Here's my favorite line:

"The myth that raising the minimum wage will lead to job cuts is just that: a myth. In fact, research suggests just the opposite."

Raising the minimum wage leads to more jobs? Isn't the obvious answer to then keep raising the minimum wage? If we create a minimum wage of $20 per hour, imagine the job growth! Just think of $30 per hour! Or $40!

He cites a study that shows areas with higher minimum wages have shown stronger job growth since 1998. It's a problem of direction; it's not the higher minimum wages cause more job growth, it's that higher job growth allows for minimum wage legislation to be passed with minimal negative effects on the economy. It doesn't prove that demand curves don't slope downwards; it shows well-timed decision making by political players.

There are plenty of situations that can show how an increase in the minimum wage will have little or no effect on the economy. I would like, however, to peruse the reams of research that show increases in minimum wage cause increases in job growth.

Dobbs' most recent column is on public schooling. It's no more correct in its reasoning than the minimum wage piece ("And we're not talking only about money...That's why it's so difficult to solve this systemic problem [with our public schools]."), though he does at least recognize that performace-based pay for teachers can yield better results. For an accurate piece on the state of our public schools, see John Stossel's "Stupid in America."

File this under: It was only a matter of time...

Who'd have guessed that FEMA's funds would have been spent in a shady manner after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? Oh, that's right...anyone with a mindset towards political economy and incentives. Russell Sobel looked at the issue well before the Katrina disaster, and I think everyone has been forced to admit to some degree that FEMA simply can not work as an emergency relief organization.

My favorite items? A sex change operation, Girls Gone Wild videos and Dom Perignon.

An article is here. Here's another.

Roethlisberger and the law

I'm having trouble getting a sense for how big of a national deal that the Ben Roethlisberger crash is, because here in Morgantown there are radio updates every time that they do the news (if not more frequently). What's more, my satellite is linked up to receive all of the Pittsburgh local channels, so you can imagine what that's like. Nonetheless, there seems to be a couple of interesting law issues that have arisen-- I know there are law school types that read this, so I'm curious to hear your take on it.

Every NFL player, in the least, has a clause in his contract that prohibits risky behavior; the article above has it quoted as "significant risk of personal injury." Some players known for risky behavior have more specific provisions; Kellen Winslow is well-known for getting in a motorcycle wreck himself (though while performing stunts in a closed parking lot, as opposed to Roethlisberger getting hit by an alleged red-light runner) despite an explicit clause in his contract that forbade him from riding his bike. Due to this aspect of his contract, the Browns (Winslow's club) were able to reclaim a portion of the signing bonus they awarded Winslow when he inked on with the team.

The $64,000 question-- or several million dollar question, perhaps-- is whether the Roethlisberger's club, the Pittsburgh Steelers, will be able to reclaim any portion of the bonus money paid to their star quarterback. Personally, I don't think they are going to be able to get any of the money back. It comes down to defining Roethlisberger's behavior as "risky," or subjecting him to a "significant risk of personal injury." I'm not sure that driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway can be construed as risky in and of itself. Granted, a motorcycle is more risky than a car, but motorcycles are still legal vehicles. If it is found that he was speeding or broke a law, and this was the cause of the accident, then that may be some margin that the Steelers can work on. I just don't see simply riding a motorcycle as being defined as inherently risky in court.

Further, current Pennsylvania state law makes wearing a helmet optional. Roethlisberger is on record as saying he doesn't like wearing a helmet when he rides. That does make riding a motorcycle more risky...but driving a car without a helmet is more risky too. Walking without a helmet is more risky than walking with one. People are making a large deal of the fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet-- usually for the issue of safety, not breach of contract-- but I don't see how the fact he wasn't wearing a helmet, especially considering it wasn't illegal, can play any role in court either.

Ultimately, it seems like Roethlisberger should be back with the team by opening day-- evidently the most serious injury was a broken jaw, which takes approximately seven weeks to heal. The NFL season typically starts around the first of September.

UPDATE: KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh is reporting this morning that Roethlisberger does not have a valid motorcycle license, and that his temporary motorcycle license expired in March. This changes the situation completely; while there's no inherent increase in risk by driving a motorcycle with or without a license (considering it has been previously earned), a court definitely sees driving without a license as a risky activity. I'd say that if this turns out to be true, Pittsburgh has a more than fair chance of reclaiming of their QB's signing bonus.

A legislative balk

A district court judge in Massachusetts ruled yesterday that a disgruntled fan can sue a ticket reseller for charging too much for a Red Sox-Yankees ticket. The fan didn't actually buy the ticket, but if things like this are going to be allowed, why have any logic at any point of the process at all? Couldn't anyone in the general Boston area pursue a lawsuit like this?

Well, the fan that didn't buy the ticket isn't the one actually going to trial-- that's the role of consumer activist Coleman Herman (Socialist - Dorchester). Herman comes across with the typical price gouging argument-- by golly, $500 is just too much for a baseball game! What's worse is the following quote from Herman himself: "It allows me to go to trial and do discovery to find out where Admit One gets its tickets." Nothing like using the system to reach your goals. I think we can file this one under "not a wealth producing activity."

The whole issue stems from a law that has been on the books but is just now starting to be enforced. The letter of the law reads that no one can resell a ticket for more than $2 above face value, plus service charges.

The most frustrating part is the judge's take on the matter:

"The plaintiff had a protected right to purchase a ticket at a price established by law that balances the economic interests of the defendant and the consumer's interests in the event to which the ticket would admit. The plaintiff made an effort to secure a ticket reflective of this balance and was denied the opportunity"

If we are truly balancing the defendant and the plaintiff-- or the buyer and the seller-- then why can't we let them determine a price for the ticket independent of regulation? Wouldn't that balance the economic interests of both parties? The mere fact that the would-be buyer observed the price and decided not to buy the ticket proves that he had exactly the opportunity to secure a balance between his desires to see the game and his opportunity cost for $500.

In theory, a supply and demand curve intersect to create a market clearing price. But there's a whole section of a demand curve below the equilibrium point-- these are people who don't want to trade. Why do we need laws to serve them? It was their choice not to consume. In the same example, there's a whole section of a supply curve that doesn't get to trade either-- the prices they desire are simply too high. Don't they then deserve the right to sue the people that didn't buy their tickets? Something tells me that we're not going to see lawsuits on their behalf since consumers won't buy their goods that are priced too high.

Fortunately, if you find yourself in a state that does things like this, there's an easy way to get around it. Bundling your sought-after ticket with another good for one market-determined price is usually good enough to keep you away from the law. So the next time you want to sell your baseball tickets, bundle them with a baseball, and let everyone become better off with the trade.

Someone stop the price gouging yellow shirt dealers!

Yes, apocalyptic price gouging has now reached Thailand, where now-popular yellow shirts are all the rage.

From the article: "Suppliers say they're running out of shirts, and buyers complain they are being gouged by sellers."

As expected, when people want something but they have to pay too much for it, they cry foul and petition the government for action. Heeding their fellow citizens' pleas for yellow shirts, Thailand's Deputy Commerce Minister Preecha Lohaphongchana lays it on thick: "If we find traders selling shirts for an excessive profit, they will face legal charges with punishment of up to a seven-year jail term or a 140,000 baht ($3,675; euro2,834) fine." Take that, economic freedom ranking!

This, of course, is nothing more than an increase in demand for yellow shirts. Break out the Econ 101-- prices and quantity will go up. It's going to take a bit for the market to respond with more shirts; of course, with the prices forced lower and the profit incentive reduced, it's going to take a little bit longer.

The real question: Aside from the supply vs. demand shock, is this really any different than the gas situation here in the United States?

Pork against...pork!

Every month, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research comes out with a Monthly Misuse, a reader-submitted example of legislative inefficiency. They're usually good for a chuckle and a sigh. This month's topic is the Respect Your Health! campaign. (Love the exclamation mark there.)

Some highlights:

- $8,000 for 25,000 green rubber band style bracelets reading "Respect Your Health!"

- $9,326 for 24,500 refrigerator magnets with the Tennessee Department of Health's logo and web address.

- $5,118,000 for marketing and advertising related to the campaign.

- And what's the result of the expenditure? Since the introduction of the program, Tennessee has remained as the country's 38th healthiest state.

Says Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research: "Tennesseans may be getting fatter, but their wallets sure are a lot thinner..."

What's wrong with a blowout here and there?

When it comes to unintended consequences of a rule, this one has to be at or near the top of the list. Let's count the ways:

1) The idea is to avoid the embarrassment of a large loss. Admittedly, losing by a large margin is not an enjoyable experience. But ask anyone who has played or coached sports, and they will tell you that it is a far greater embarrassment to play another team and have them reach the point where they stop competing out of pity. That's exactly what this rule forces the winning teams to do-- stop playing football. Out of fear of finishing the game by actually playing football and scoring too many points, the other team has to mail it in early or fear punishment.

2) What if the team getting blown out gets upset and, knowing the law, decides to throw the rest of the game so that the score differential ends up greater than 50? How can you punish the winning team in this instance? I suppose the winning team could recognize this and try themselves to throw the game harder, but then we're reduced to a competition of losing. (Not unlike the South Park episode where every Little League team is trying to lose so they don't have to play baseball for the rest of the summer.)

3) A buddy of mine mentioned this one to me-- what about the backup players? The article mentions that there is a fear of cutting into their playing time, but I'm not sure if that would necessarily be true. What it does do is prevent the backup players from playing as hard as they can and running the score beyond 50 points. So imagine the role of the backup football player now: I only get into the game when the score is lopsided, and I want to play more, but I can't fully prove myself on the field because if I play too hard I'll end up suspending the person who decides how much I play in the first place. Tough job, that of the backup high school football player in Connecticut.

Food for oil? How about markets for oil?

Everyone's read plenty about the oil issues affecting the world. Evidently, everyone is producing as much as current capacity will allow, and prices at the pumps keep marching higher and higher. No one's explanation seems to fit the entire world story.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas provides as interesting an explanation as I've seen. Only three of the thirty countries that supply the world with oil rely on private, market-based means of distributing oil. And, using the Heritage Foundation's Freedom Index, over 44% of the world's oil production occurs in countries that are either "mostly unfree" or "repressed."

It begs the question-- how can oil prices be expected to follow market adjustment mechanisms when markets play such a small role in oil production?

Housing the Big Apple

In honor of a recent trip to New York for a friend's graduation, I thought I'd add some highlights of the New York housing market.

1) New York is avid in providing apartments for all strata in their society, so they incorporate rent controls. Of course, all this does is allocate government mandated affordable living space to the lucky few who win the sweepstakes; the rest are out of luck given the new shortage of housing. Prospective housing builders view rent controls as a damper on future profits, so less units get built. And current housing owners search for ways to circumvent the law so as to derive fair market value from their properties. The only people that win are the chosen few that get awarded cheaper housing by the State, and happen to pair with an owner that can not find his way around the system to pass along costs to the tenant. Of course, I'm sure those awarded those coveted apartments were free from any sort of political manipulations, right?

2) New York also prevents current owners from charging exorbitant prices when subletting; I've come to understand that the ceiling is 10%. Again, this takes emphasis away from the efficient allocation of units and places it instead on being in the right place at the right time. The reality of the situation, though, is that this law doesn't have much of an impact at all; current lesees simply choose to sublet their abodes to those wishing to engage in side deals, such as renting the apartment's furniture for the duration of the sublet.

3) A personal favorite of mine: Every time an apartment is vacated and then filled by a new tenant, it is city law that said apartment must receive a fresh coat of paint on all its walls. Every time, every apartment. Consumer choice be damned-- you're going to have freshly painted walls. I think my officemate said it best: "All that's going to do is make people mess up their walls before they move out."

Forced Full-Service?

From USA Today:

In New Jersey, motorists who need to fill 'er up haven't pumped their own gas in 57 years. But in the face of soaring gas prices, Gov. Jon Corzine came up with a novel plan last month to try to ease the pain: allow self-service at some stations along the New Jersey Turnpike and see if prices dip. He believed prices could drop 5 to 7 cents a gallon.

This is absurdity on several different levels.

1. Apparently, the government knows the desires of these residents better than anyone. This contrasts F.A. Hayek's argument that says competition is the only discovery process by which people's preferences can be seen.

2. The proposed law change wouldn't make full-service illegal; rather, it would just make it legal to pump your own gas. Profit-seeking gas stations could still offer full service to those who wanted it. Wouldn't it better to offer people both choices and see which one they pick?

3. Justification for full-service is based on the danger and difficulty of individuals pumping their own gas. Bill Dressler, executive director of the New Jersey Gasoline Retailers Association and Allied Trades, fears that "[Gas] could be put in the wrong container...[or] somebody getting out and smoking and they didn't turn the engine off." Funny, this doesn't seem to be a major problem in any of the other 48 states.

Skin Deep Freedom

In a move that shows that West Virginia does have some company at the bottom of the U.S. (freedom-pursuing company, but company nonetheless), Oklahoma has now become the last state to legalize tattoos. My favorite line: "Regardless of one's personal views about tattoos, the plain fact is that tattooing is prevalent," Gov. Brad Henry said.

Fantastic. Not that tattoos should be outlawed, but should the fact that everyone disobeys the law be reason to repeal it? Maybe this is just an example of a particularly ill-suited law; disobeying this one doesn't impede upon anyone else's rights. If theft became popular, you'd have some private uproar for the upholding of the rules.

(The article doesn't make it clear, but I believe it was illegal to give a tattoo, as opposed to having one. After all, I'd put good money on the odds of one University of Oklahoma athlete having a tattoo on the playing surface in Norman in the last 40 years.)

File this under: Well thought out government programs

To what lengths would you go to secure a free gallon of gas? Thanks to (gasp!) an unintended consequence of the public sector, some drivers in California simply strand themselves and wait for a free gallon to be provided by John Q. Taxpayer.

My daily drive to and from campus here in Morgantown requires less than a gallon of gas daily-- I wish we had a program like this. On the margin, it probably wouldn't cost me that much more in taxes, I'd get my gas paid for so long as I didn't venture far from home, and the legislation wouldn't push West Virginia any lower on the economic freedom lists since, well, we're already at the bottom.

We have a lot of foolish laws here in West Virginia. I think it's time that some of them benefit me.

That pesky global warming

Good times at the recent American Meteorological Society's 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology. As it turns out, global warming is causing more hurricanes. While this isn't entirely different than saying colder weather causes temperatures to fall, the real debate, of course, comes in what is causing the global warming. Is it increased greenhouse gases or just a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature?

I'm not convinced either side has made a convincing argument. I have to admit, though, that it seems like every time someone wants to engage me on this issue, they are of the (usually quite strong) opinion that greenhouse gases are the guilty culprit. I make it a personal goal of mine to steer the debate such that I'll admit greenhouse gases might be playing an important role in global warming if they'll admit that greenhouse gases might not be playing any role at all. (Well, either that or bringing up the fact that a good segment of the world isn't dreading global warming at all.)

Try it yourself-- it's harder than you'd think!

The best bargaining chip?

In a fun study in Nature, researchers in Belgium have found that showing sexy pictures to high-testosterone males reduces their bargaining vitality in the ultimatum game. The interesting line comes at the end-- "Since a few coins is better than no coins at all, men thus become more economically rational after exposure to lingerie or sexy women," he says.

Of course, the alluring aspect of the ultimatum game is that player's don't act rationally. If they followed the blackboard, you'd see nothing but the smallest offers from Player 1-- a single penny-- and have them be immediately accepted by Player 2. Should Player 1, after viewing the latest Victoria's Secret catalogue, decide to accept $2.50 of $10 as opposed to $3, is he acting any more rationally? He's accepted an offer closer to the accepted rational outcome, but he's still acting irrationally according to the definitions of the situation. I'm not sure there are degrees of rationality here-- not when you've solved the problem beforehand and are looking for a specific result.

Nonetheless, the next time I'm playing poker against a particularly aggressive adversary, I'll make sure to bring the latest in pictorial bliss-- I may be able to steal a hand or two.

Don't Sweat Sweatshops

I was inspired to write another letter to the editor of the San Jose State daily newspaper, The Spartan Daily. The article reported on a lecture given by an ex-sweatshop worker, Carmencita "Chie" Abad, who now promotes campaigns to ban purchase of sweatshop goods on college campuses. (If you like this letter, you may enjoy this paper written by Ben Powell and I).

Dear Editorial Staff,

Erin Hull’s well-written piece " ‘Made in U.S.A.’ not always sweatshop free, speaker says" lacked only one thing – another perspective on the issue. From Paul Krugman on the left to Walter Williams on the right, economists across the political spectrum agree that there are benefits for poor people from sweatshops in developing countries. One such benefit is that sweatshop wages often provide a higher than average standard of living for that country; the sweatshops mentioned in the Northern Mariana Islands are no exception.

According to estimates in the World Bank Indicators Database, workers in the Northern Mariana Islands earn an average of $3,256 to $10,065 a year. Working only 40 hours a week for $3.75 an hour, the wage Abad reported, leads to an income of $7,800 per year. This income is more than double the lower estimate and nearly as high as the upper estimate. If workers put in as many hours as Abad claims they do, "14 hour days, seven days per week", then they’ll make $19,110 per year. This is nearly double the upper estimate of the average income and nearly six times the lower estimate! Sweatshop jobs are some of the most rewarding in the area.

Sweatshops provide a better standard of living than most people in the Northern Mariana Islands are able to enjoy. If, as Abad hopes, college students stop buying products manufactured in sweatshops, workers will lose good jobs and have a substantially lower standard of living. Plans to improve the lives of the poor in developing countries should not include programs that will lower the worker’s incomes.

Sincerely,
David Skarbek

I, mint juleps

In the spirit of Leonard E. Read's I, Pencil, consider the thousand-dollar mint juleps that will be sold at the upcoming Kentucky Derby. With mint from Morocco, ice from the Arctic Circle and sugar from the South Pacific, it's a testament to specialization and world trade.

Which got me to thinking: How much does the U.S. interfere in the good natured desire to sell a $1,000 mint juleps at the Kentucky Derby? Enter the Official Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, a 2716 page behemoth by our friends at the United States International Trade Commission, which outlines exactly which markets the U.S. chooses to get its fingers into.

Here's the recipe for mint juleps; water, sugar, mint, bourbon and crushed ice. My water bill goes to a government run agency. Sugar actually has its own chapter in the Tariff Schedule. Bourbon, as alcohol, has been excised taxed for years. Ice could be treated as water, though imported ice has a tariff level of .26 cents per liter (heading 2201.10.00 of the tariff schedule, for those keeping score at home, which seems to imply that ice for consumption is taxed while other ice is not).

Mint is an interesting story. As it turns out, there's a United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (UMFTA)-- remember, the mint for the thousand-dollar mint juleps is from Morocco. Now normally, as per 1211.90.40 of the Tariff Schedule, imported mint is taxed at 4.8% of its imported value if manufactured (crude or non-manufactured mint slides by Uncle Sam uncharged). But due to the UMFTA, manufactured mint from Morocco is duty free. So maybe we're observing some substitution effects, from other dutied mint to non-dutied Moroccan mint. Let's hear it for the United States government and their desire to let the Moroccan mint market persist unfettered.

I'm not sure if there's a better example of government inefficiency than the Official Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

(My favorite line concerning the UMFTA: "Originating goods under the terms of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement are subject to duty as provided for herein.")

Nigeria stamps out another functioning market!

Evidently, the apple in Nigeria doesn't fall far from the tree. In short, Nigerian soccer refs can now accept bribes from clubs so long as it doesn't change how they would otherwise call the game. It seems like an implicit admission that the soccer bribery market was functioning quite well. Considering Nigeria's place in the murky depths of the Economic Freedom Index, the elimination of any functioning market is something that Nigeria seems to have down pat.

My take on this is that rent-seeking breeds rent-seeking. Nigeria finds itself near the bottom of every corruption index I can find; here is one from the Kurtzman Group; here's another one from Transparency International. If you're in a corrupt regime for long enough, you come to learn that the only way to get what you want is via rent-seeking. Granted, the incentive to follow the shaky rules isn't there, but if the MLS were suddenly imposed on Nigeria, would the bribing refs suddenly stop? Not likely.

Real Madrid looks to improve their team with better players; sure enough, the institutions within la Liga are much more sound. The cost of bribing a Spanish ref, considering the punishment, would be far higher than in Africa. The question is this: If Real Madrid were to play one match against a Nigerian club in Lagos, would they partake in bribing the refs?

Get in line for some swine

The Citizens Against Government Waste have recently released their annual and utterly enjoyable Congressional Pig Book, a survey of pork barrel spending by the U.S. government. Taxpayers footed a $29 billion bacon bill in fiscal 2006; some comments:

- In nominal terms, only California and New York get more pork than Hawaii. What's in Hawaii that's costing $482 million in 2006?! And they got even more in 2005!

- Alaska is a force when it comes to pork. There's just no two ways to look at it. They can go toe to toe with anyone even in nominal terms, and when you figure their population is less than 700,000, their per capita figure is through the roof. No one's even been close since 2000. Hurricane Katrina's budget impact finally brought them back to the pack, but it's got to be something in the clean Alaskan water that breeds rent seeking.

- I've finally found a list in which West Virginia isn't last. West Virginia is gettin' in while the gettin's good-- to the tune of $131.58 per person. Just think-- if that money went right to the populus, the per capita income would go up by about half a percent. Draw your own conclusion on any of a number of margins there.

- They have a section on the oinker awards, which are particularly hilarious pork allocations, but I've yet to find a state that you can't pull up a list of pork comedy. Some choice West Virginia ham: $160k for poultry litter composting, $100k for the Mason County Tourism Mural Project, $50k for sidewalk enhancement, $750k for Multiflora rose control (fear the Floribunda), and $160k for feed efficiency.

Enjoy.

A step back for West Virginia

Occasionally, good things happen in our little state of West Virginia. For example, eminent domain legislation, though imperfect, was recently signed into law. But it seems for every step in the right direction, the Mountain State takes three or four backwards. Enter the state's recent passage of House Bill 4023, which calls for a two-step increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour by the middle of 2008. I like to think of West Virginia as being the caboose of the freedom train, and bills like this simply put a few more train cars between us and the rest of North America.

Interestingly enough, everyone has a bone to pick with the bill. Those in favor of it feel that the bill's scope is too narrow; only 2,000 of the state's 20,000 minimum wage workers would be affected. After all, if you're going to have legislation, isn't the idea to have an effect with the laws you pass? I might even agree on that margin. As John Wooden used to say, "Don't mistake activity for achievement"-- even suppporters of the Legislature's decision are calling them on it.

On the other side of the issue, those who have taken Econ 101 know that increases in the minimum wage do nothing but handcuff companies' ability to be profitable and reduce aggregate employment. Any bill to 'increase the minimum wage' can and should be modified to instead read 'increase unemployment.' Nobel Laureate James Buchanan said it most effectively: "...no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores."

Sadly, this isn't over and done with. Larry Matheny, secretary-treasurer of the West Virginia AFL-CIO, the state's largest labor-related interest group, has proclaimed that "[i]t's a shame. It's a shame, but we'll be back." Yes, they will be back. They will be back to keep West Virginia at the bottom of the economic freedom list, the bottom of per capita income, and the bottom of general resident well-being. I guess when you're at the bottom of the list, you can't have any legislation that reduces your relative position, right?