Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1347.7 | -4.1 | -0.30% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2232.2 | -3.3 | -0.15% |
| Oil (WTI) | 84.93 | 0.5 | 0.57% |
| LIBOR | 0.458 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 83.21 | -0.169 | -0.20% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.52% | -0.03% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 183.3 | 0.5 |
Markets are down slightly as we kick off earnings season and Spanish yields top 7%. European finance ministers will meet in Brussels this morning, although no one expects much out of it. Bonds are up about half a point, while MBS are up a quarter.
Earnings season starts tonight with Alcoa’s report. While the Street is somewhat pessimistic about Q2 numbers, I would point out that we coasted through the pre-announcement season with few misses. The Street is estimating the S&P 500 will earn $25.23 this quarter, vs $24.06 last quarter and $25.16 a year ago. So for all intents and purposes the Street is looking at flat YOY earnings.
A couple positive data points with the markets: we have couple big mergers this morning as well as some IPO filings.
In an attempt to ease the credit crunch, the Federal Government is looking at how to address the problem of overlays – which is the layering of more stringent credit standards than the agencies require on Fannie, Freddie, and FHA loans. The government is keeping quiet about what potential remedies they are examining. Originators would love to see some sort of safe-harbor provision for lending which will lower or eliminate putback risk, which is the risk that the government will force an originator to buy back a loan after the fact if becomes non-performing.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
The last time the president did the tax cut extension, he got his a s s handed to him in the negotiations and suffered the biggest defeat of his presidency.
What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
LikeLike
I’ve seen quite a bit of press about business community leaders talking to Romney and telling him to elevate his game. I think we are seeing the reaction to the idea that the President is likely to prevail in the crucial states of Florida and one or two others.
I guess that this could be a very bad autumn for the market.
LikeLike
I think Romney will destroy obama in the debates over anything economic. Romney has such a command of the facts, and obama will be reduced to talking about fairness.
That, along with 8.2% unemployment will make the difference. If obama was a stock, I would be short him.
LikeLike
brent:
I don’t know how the voters in those swing states make their choices, politics is not exactly my thing.
I’m a Democrat, but also a realist, so while I won’t vote for Romney, I believe he would be better for me financially.
LikeLike
One really good part of today’s Samuelson column:
“Now comes Chapter Two: How the retreat from balanced budgets has weakened America’s response to today’s downturn, the worst since the Great Depression. It has limited government’s ability to “stimulate” the economy through higher spending or deeper tax cuts — or, at least, to have a meaningful debate over these proposals. The careless resort to deficits in the past has made them harder to use in the present, when the justification is stronger.”
Yes even if you’re a Keynesian, the difference between a peacetime debt to GDP ratio of 25% or so, about the high of his lifetime, and the 100% of today DOES limit your choices.
LikeLike
my mistake. I had the wrong date of death for Keynes, so the highest number would be about 45% just before our entry into WW II
LikeLike
shrink linked to this column over on PL and I did get a laugh out of his comment that he really liked #5.
John:
I guess that this could be a very bad autumn for the market.
So you disagree with Mr Brown? I know nothing about evaluating the market, I just know that I’ve been keeping my holdings predominantly in stocks rather than any bonds for about the last three years.
LikeLike
mich:
There’s a distorting effect of the high bond market rates on other investment. IF, the big if, you believe you’re eventually/actually going to get paid, sovreign debt right now is a much better return than anything you will get in stocks.
LikeLike
John (good to see you back online, BTW):
sovereign debt as in loaning money to Ireland or Spain, for instance?
LikeLike
thank you
Spain is very tricky. As I understand it, they simply can’t bail out their banks by themselves, even if they want to, they simply aren’t big enough. So if there is a run on Spanish banks, you might not get paid on their sovreign debt either.
LikeLike
MIch
as per your other part about holding in stocks, that’s me because unlike some of the people who post here, bonds are not my thing. You have to stick with what you know, IF you do your own investing. For me to delve into bonds would undoubtedly be a less than optimal idea. LOL
LikeLike
RIP, Ernest Borgnine.
I can’t count the number of times I saw (probably) every episode of McHale’s Navy while I was growing up. . .
LikeLike
Best part of R.E.D. was when Ernest Borgnine showed up. I was hoping to see him again in the sequel. Alas, I guess that’s not to be. *sigh*
LikeLike
apropos of Borgnine and off topic, I looked up the numbers after talking to my 91 year old father this weekend. There are about one tenth of one percent of people in 90+ category worldwide, maybe even as low as one one hundredth because reporting on matter is pretty shaky
LikeLike
John: that’s kind of amazing! I’ll have to pass that little nugget on to my 97YO grandma.
LikeLike
“Alas, I guess that’s not to be. *sigh*”
He could come back as a hologram or blue-ghost
LikeLike
NoVA, could you take a look at my questions to you from yesterday? I really am interested in the possible ways this will play out. Perry did announce TX opting out of both additional $ and the state run exchange this morning, as I anticipated in my comment, with questions directed to you.
LikeLike
sure, mark. — missed it yesterday.
LikeLike
oh man, you’ve hit on the 64,000 question. this medicaid ruling was really unexpected. this is something i’m working on now — hope to have a better idea of how this will play out soon. but the honest answer right now i don’t know. the initial reaction was “states will take the money”
but, the fallout is bigger than just the expansion population. see today’s WSJ for a story on how some states are using the ruling to cut back on current coverage.
LikeLike
Thanks. Please keep us [me?] posted!
LikeLike
OT to banned. You’ve read Animal Farm? The character you’re talking to on the other side of the world is Squealer.
LikeLike
will do, Mark.
LikeLike
I know I shouldn’t, so please forvige me in advance. If you want to see some funny posts, read the second PL column of the day with the exchange the begins at 12:37 by “blue ridge mama”
mea culpa
LikeLike
nova:
LOL
LikeLike
can’t help myself:
“Comrades!” he cried. “You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”
LikeLike
NoVA, are the rebate checks coming in August?
*************
JNC, BHO’s tax announcement is unimportant, so you have damned the LIBOR story with faint praise!
******************
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/online-symposium-the-bar-review-version-of-nfib-v-sebelius/
The bar exam view of the case…
****************************
I’ll ck in tonite.
LikeLike
nova:
I started out a bit pissed off, but in the end, I was laughing as I was posting.
LikeLike
OT: Potentially more significant than President Obama’s tax announcement
“Bank of England official gives his side of contacts with Barclays in rate-fixing scandal
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, July 9, 12:44 PM
LONDON — A senior Bank of England official denied Monday that he had given any hint to Barclays that it should manipulate reports of its borrowing costs.
Paul Tucker, the Bank of England’s deputy governor, also told U.K. lawmakers that no one in government had leaned on him to put pressure on Barclays to “lowball” its reporting.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bank-of-england-official-giving-his-side-of-contacts-with-barclays/2012/07/09/gJQAjWD9XW_story.html
Anyone buy this?
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on July 9, 2012 at 11:43 am said:
nova:
I started out a bit pissed off, but in the end, I was laughing as I was posting.”
I stand by my observation from a while ago that interacting with Cao ultimately degrades the level of commentary of those interacting with him.
Keep in mind that when it comes to hypocrisy, his rants against libertarians take the prize in that as an expatriate he has exercised the most libertarian choice of all, that of picking which government and laws he wishes to live under (and still retains the choice of leaving) rather than feeling any sense of obligation to the country in which he made the wealth that allowed him the choice.
I just hope the new guy knows better than to get involved in a real estate deal with him.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on July 9, 2012 at 8:18 am said: Edit Comment
The last time the president did the tax cut extension, he got his a s s handed to him in the negotiations and suffered the biggest defeat of his presidency. ”
His goal before the election should be a one year extension of all the tax cuts for a one year preemptive extension of the debt ceiling.
If he doesn’t tie a debt ceiling increase to any tax cut extension, he’s truly learned nothing.
LikeLike
“ultimately degrades the level of commentary of those interacting with him.”
I dub this “caoing the thread”
LikeLike
Banned, I read the thread and while it was hilarious, it ultimately gives cao what he most craves, attention. Everything must be about him and he will direct and provoke all conversations to end up being about himself. There was for a while on PL a time when there were no righties commenting and cao started picking on his allies to achieve his ends. If I’m not mistaken, Lms got the brunt of his “anger.”
Kevin had a great explanation about cao, but I can’t find it. Kevin, do you remember?
LikeLike
by law, the checks are due by Aug 1. but the vast majority will never see an actual check. probably a few bucks off a pro-rated premium each pay period. or a credit for those in the individual market
LikeLike
jnc:
We agree entirely that the LIBOR scandal dwarfs anything going on right now, BUT the magicians are drawing our attention elsewhere.
LikeLike
NoVA:
OT to banned. You’ve read Animal Farm? The character you’re talking to on the other side of the world is Squealer.
LMAO! Spot on. . . and I even get along with the guy! 🙂
LikeLike
John:
BUT the magicians are drawing our attention elsewhere.
LikeLike
Now the billion dollar question for the banks is what private cause of action exisits here in the states over LIBOR, and how many class-action suits will produce asbestos like money, or better?
LikeLike
Don’t you pretty much agree to arbitration whenever you deal with an investment bank?
LikeLike
You and I may, but this affects far more than the little guys. How many suits about MBS were basically “we had no idea what we were buying?”
LikeLike
Given that every time you buy a new issue they give you a phone book full of reasons why you shouldn’t buy it, those suits should go nowhere.
LikeLike
Good news/bad news:
“The mortgage market appears to finally be stabilizing — as long as you ignore loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.
Increasingly, FHA-insured loans are falling into foreclosure or serious delinquency, moving in the opposite direction of loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or those held by banks, which are all showing signs of improvement. ”
FHA housing delinquencies.
LikeLike
Worth a note. Good thing this didn’t go the other way:
“Updated July 9, 2012, 12:26 a.m. ET
A Judge Protects Taxpayers
The SEC loses its attempt to raid Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) funds in the Stanford case.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577508924208266632.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
LikeLike
brent:
No one so far has been wiling to take that chance, that I know of, with a jury and judge of financial ignoramuses. Can you blame them?
LikeLike
LIBOR links:
“The British, at Least, Are Getting Tough
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: July 7, 2012
THE unfolding story of how Barclays — and, in all likelihood, other big banks — rigged interest rates is full of telling tidbits about the way Wall Street works. It also represents yet another teachable moment.”
“Bank of England ‘eased Diamond out’
I have learned that Bob Diamond’s departure was encouraged by the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, and the chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), Lord Turner”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18690102
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/new-york-times-gretchen-morgenson-applaud-british-issue-challenge-to-american-regulators-20120709
LikeLike
LIke Paulson “encouraged” BAC to go through with the Merrill Lynch deal
LikeLike
AA starts off earnings season with BTE sales and EPS
LikeLike
brent
we’re going to get crushed I fear.
LikeLike
Brent:
AA starts off earnings season with BTE sales and EPS
I love it when you talk dirty to us. I’m guessing that means “Alcoa reported better than expected sales and earnings-per-share.” Yes?
Good news for the bellwether.
LikeLike
As Alcoa goes, so goes nothing else. They really aren’t an indicator an indicator of anything other than aluminum is a crappy business to be in.
LikeLike
Brutal example of Teh Krugman’s flip-flopping from VDR (who is linking Tyler Cowen at MR) over at The Corner
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/305092/flip-flopping-krugman-edition-veronique-de-rugy
LikeLike
I had an interesting conversation with a Canadian ferry loader earlier this week about the economy and Obama’s chances. He thought Romney was a very good businessman and that it shouldn’t be held against him. He also thinks Canada is weathering the economic crisis better than average because of the strong banking system. There are basically six of them and none are in trouble.
Our innkeeper in Moncton is said that having the Canadian dollar at par with the US buck is killing the tourism industry in New Brunswick. He cited statistics that 25% of Quebecois were planning on vacationing in the US in the next year.
LikeLike
I remember when I was a kid growing up in MI and the Loonie was worth only about US$0.75. We used to go across the river all the time to do shopping and vacation. When I was a young kid there was much more parity in the currencies and you could use Canadian coins in US vending machines; about the time I became a teenager they re-tooled all the coin slots so that you couldn’t, because that was how we’d get rid of all of our spare change for a few days after coming home.
How times have changed. . .
LikeLike
The other big eye-opener about Canada is the combined 15% sales tax. That is a big add to every purchase. Supposedly we can get some sort of rebate when we cross the border but I’m not sure how much and how.
In Europe they give VAT rebates as well but the paperwork is tricky. The logic is to give back money to people such as tourists who are not really getting anything in exchange for their taxes. This is the complete opposite of places like Florida where the high sales tax soaking the tourists allows them to not have an income tax at all.
LikeLike
Mark,
Here is a nice breakdown on why states are rejecting the Medicaid expansion and why it’s a good idea for them to do so. Short answer, “the woodwork effect” and the number 28 billion.
http://reformmedicaid.org/2012/07/the-reasons-states-are-rejecting-obamas-medicaid-expansion/
LikeLike
George, all of that makes sense to me.
LikeLike
This wouldn’t be your outfit, would it NoVa?
I presume that if the White Trash theme goes over well, they’ll try Pimps And Hos for the next one.
LikeLike
Troll,
I had to google Woodwork Effect and this rebuttal was near the top of the results. I see the effect as a feature not a bug.
Your article had a map showing states unlikely to join in. The big ones were Texas and Florida. On the bandwagon side, there was California, Massachusetts, and Indiana. How is this going to shake with respect to percent of national population being under the expanded Medicare or not?
LikeLike
Speaking of Krugman, he makes a fairly compelling soak-the-rich argument. Who isn’t for optimal conditions?
LikeLike
Mark/George (and NoVA, since he’s our Washington Insider): I heard an NPR story on ATC this afternoon in which the interviewee opined that Texas will negotiate a (at least) partial waiver of the Medicaid expansion in order to give Perry and the legislature cover to accept it, while giving the Administration cover to claim that they’ve persuaded TX to take it. Here’s the audio of the interview; what do you guys think? I haven’t clicked on George’s “woodwork effect” link yet, but I suspect that these two stories are related.
LikeLike
Michi,
My link’s final paragraph,
“The administration should expect states to continue to reject this expansion for this reason, and one more too: because smart governors understand that by rejecting, they obtain leverage over Washington in negotiations, far more than if they had accepted the money with the strings attached. And these governors know that once you add new people to the system, you will never get them out of it.”
Leverage.
The other thing is that States w/out State exchanges won’t have smsll employers being forced to provide coverage for their employees. That will be s powerful incentive to not set up exchanges.
LikeLike
George–yep, the two stories are linked. There’s something going on behind the scenes that hasn’t been broken to the public yet.
Ah, politics. . .
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on July 9, 2012 at 7:59 pm said:
Speaking of Krugman, he makes a fairly compelling soak-the-rich argument. Who isn’t for optimal conditions?”
Not really. His argument boils down to the idea that the primary purpose of the private economy and work and investment by individuals is to fund the government. His approach is the inverse of proper tax policy, which should be structured to raise the minimum amount of revenue necessary to fund the government (without incurring a deficit, I.e. a balanced budget) in the most economically efficient/frictionless way possible. I.e. with the fewest distorions to the economy through subsidies and the like.
His argument is premised that the collective, through the government, has a better claim on an individual’s wealth than the individual does, which is statist claptrap masquerading as economic theory and antithetical to the traditional American free enterprise/capitalist system
LikeLike
Not really. His argument boils down to the idea that the primary purpose of the private economy and work and investment by individuals is to fund the government.
I don’t think that is his argument. I don’t agree with his argument, in detail, but I don’t think you have fairly stated his argument.
A fair statement of his argument seems to me to be:
a certain amount of revenue is necessary to fund government at whatever level we choose to fund it.
That revenue, insofar as it is raised from income taxes, should be raised from persons who can afford to pay, but not at levels so high that the marginal tax rate will stifle personal productivity by inhibiting the working of the rich.
His studies show that the rich will not be stifled at a 70% income tax rate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think he is wrong on that last point: if his first two points are correct the last point should take into account the ability to move income generation out of the country to avoid high tax rates.
Without regard to flat tax arguments, I suspect that a graduated progressive tax becomes less productive at a lower marginal rate then 70%,that history supports my suspicion, that Laffer is right and his curve works to raise revenue down to perhaps 40-50% marginal rates. We all have somewhat differing views on this and many of us prefer to move away from income taxes for revenue. I am just suggesting here that Krugman is not arguing from a presupposition of statism and funding the government as the primary purpose of individual work.
LikeLike
Mark:
I don’t think that is his argument.
I disagree. Consider what Krugman said:
He is not trying to maximize revenue up to a certain amount necessary for government functions. He is trying maximize revenue….”full stop”. He assumes that “maximizing welfare for society” is both the goal of of government and requires government redistribution. If this is not an exemplar of what jnc describes, then I don’t know what is.
LikeLike
On reconsideration, I think you and JNC are correct. What BS.
LikeLike
yello:
This is the complete opposite of places like Florida where the high sales tax soaking the tourists allows them to not have an income tax at all.
Actually, the FL state sales tax is not different than PA or MD and is lower than CA (among the states I’ve lived in). We do have a locality sales tax, but even that is not that much extra (1.5% or less). Our property taxes are a little higher though.
We soak the tourists by having a “tourist tax” on hotels, rental properties, etc.
LikeLike
Troll:
Thanks for the Medicaid link. Like Mark, I await nova’s update on how this will play out.
LikeLike
yello — wow is that tacky. nope, not my group. i think i recognize a name or two on their bio page.
LikeLike
re: Medicaid — George’s link quotes Dennis Smith — he’s a big name in Medicaid. was VA’s Medicaid director, then ran the entire program under Bush.
This is starting to get bigger — it’s no longer just the expansion that state’s are balking at. some states are thinking about cutting back on the existing program. dropping people from the rolls.
ACA included a maintenance of effort requirement — state’s couldn’t cut back on existing efforts and wait until ACA took effect. in light of the ruling, states think they can. maine comes to mind. and it’s not just red states like Texas. Illinois just reduced eligibility from 185% FPL to 133%.
there other aspect of this that isn’t getting any play. pick up the phone and try to book an appointment with a doctor as a new Medicaid patient. let me know how quickly they hang up on you.
see more at http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/July/05/court-health-ruling-and-Medicaid.aspx
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on July 10, 2012 at 5:42 am said:
…
“Without regard to flat tax arguments, I suspect that a graduated progressive tax becomes less productive at a lower marginal rate then 70%,that history supports my suspicion, that Laffer is right and his curve works to raise revenue down to perhaps 40-50% marginal rates.”
Steve Pearlstein and I concur:
“Tax Fantasies of the Right and Left
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, April 17, 2009”
…
“A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that balancing the budget solely on the backs of those making more than $250,000 a year would almost surely require pushing marginal income tax rates well above 50 percent. That’s a level at which taxes begin to discourage people from working and investing. Almost certainly, it is a level that would prompt them to invest significant time and money to find new ways to evade taxes. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041604462.html
I’d argue that the proof of this is to compare historic marginal and effective tax rates and note that high marginal rates have not produced similar shifts in effective tax rates.
Having said that, the current debate between 33 and 39 percent is well to the “revenue increasing” side of the Laffer curve, in isolation. I’d have to do more digging to determine the current effective rates once you add in the various new Medicare surtaxes and the like.
“ScottC, on July 10, 2012 at 6:47 am said:
He assumes that “maximizing welfare for society” is both the goal of of government and requires government redistribution. ”
His third assumption is that government redistribution actually successfully achieves this as opposed to simply shifting wealth from a politically disfavored group to a politically favored group.
“markinaustin, on July 10, 2012 at 7:07 am said:
On reconsideration, I think you and JNC are correct. What BS.”
I had to reread it twice myself to get what he was saying. Hence “statist claptrap”.
LikeLike
“A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that balancing the budget solely on the backs of those making more than $250,000 a year would. . . .”
jnc, I don’t think anybody here would advocate increasing taxes on those making more than $250,000/yr as the sole way to balance the budget, but rather that it would be appropriate as part of a package to do so.
Thanks for all the links you provide.
LikeLike
“okiegirl, on July 10, 2012 at 9:57 am said:
“A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that balancing the budget solely on the backs of those making more than $250,000 a year would. . . .”
jnc, I don’t think anybody here would advocate increasing taxes on those making more than $250,000/yr as the sole way to balance the budget, but rather that it would be appropriate as part of a package to do so.”
I don’t think the Democrats/liberals/progressives can do it with just increases on those over $250k and find enough spending cuts that they find acceptable either. They are going to have to increase taxes on those below the $250k level or adopt something that’s much closer to the Ryan budget than they would like to admit.
LikeLike
Re the Krugman column, in addition to the observations above, when I saw it the other day, I thought a couple of things. One was that his argument about the economic effect of the fatcat’s slacking off (no effect to the economy as a whole) just simply overlooks that some of the now-missing $10 million would likely have been invested as capital in growth and jobs-producing business activity, and/or would have resulted from effort and investment that would have created jobs. Instead, Krugman just treats Richie Rich as a wage earner–apparently a really good one, since he contributes tens of millions in value and is paid 100% of it. Why is this not the silliest of dodges? What am I missing?
His tax opimization argument then simply reduces to: the rich guy’s money is more valuable to society than to the rich guy, so we should organize and take it.
LikeLike
Krugman’s column is so hackish on so many levels, it is amazing the depths to which he has descended.
First, I know the B-school faculty and the econ dept faculty don’t really trust each other, but any MBA student can tell you that Richie Rich’s company makes decisions based on net present value, and if “t” goes up, then “NPV” goes down. I don’t understand why liberal economists refuse to acknowledge that it is after-tax cash flows that matter, and if you increase taxes, a lot of marginal capital expenditures become non-economic. And that goes for hiring as well. Taxes go up, investment (which is a part of GDP) goes down. It is a mathematical certainty.
Second, Krugman imagines that capital is as immobile as it was in 1965. Times have changed and his fantasy tax rates would move Wall Street to London.
LikeLike
Krugman at some point just decided, he11 with it, who needs academic and professional respect.
LikeLike
Second, Krugman imagines that capital is as immobile as it was in 1965.
That was my initial criticism, but you wrote it with so much more elegance. Salut!
LikeLike
wow is that tacky. nope, not my group
I didn’t think so. I wonder who signed off on that.
LikeLike
jnc, thanks. Having now read the Pearlstein link more carefully, I think it is worth further discussion even given that it’s over two years old. Not sure I can agree wholeheartedly with your response. I’m going to try to get back to that in a day or two when I have time.
FWIW, I never read Krugman. I find him to be too partisan. Being an econ and finance novice, I cannot easily discern the partisanship from fact so just skip him entirely.
LikeLike
“I wonder who signed off on that.”
That’s what I’ve always found odd about things like this. Not only did somebody think this is a good idea, others agreed!
LikeLike