Wal-Mart Reports Record Fourth Quarter Sales and Earnings
Topic A for today. Do consumers have any gas left in the tank? Or have they gone into hiding, hording their gold bullion for a new, post-apocalyptic world: Total revenue was up 8.3 percent, though net income crept up just 3.8 percent. And the line everyone will focus on: “Customers were more cautious in their spending in January. In a volatile economy, I believe we are well positioned to succeed. We will continue to strengthen our price leadership around the world.”
POSCO, Vale agree 65 pct iron ore price hike (Reuters)
It’s sort of understandable that the base metals business is booming and consolidating. Posco has become the latest steelmaker to relent to a whopping 65 percent price increase for the iron ore it buys, following a similar announcement from Nippon Steel. It’s bad enough that they have to pay such high prices, but then they have to publicly admit it too.
Credit Suisse Writedowns to Cut Profit by $1 Billion (Bloomberg)
More carnage, this time another $1 billion from Credit Suisse. Why? Turned out they mis-priced some bonds. That’s it, just a little mis-pricing of risk. Sort of like the guy at the grocery store punching a stamp on an item had it set on the wrong number. Just gotta fix that and move on.
Castro Resigns as President, Cuban Commander-in-Chief (Bloomberg)
FInally, a new era of capitalism can emerge at our neighbor to the south. Of course, Fidel hasn’t been doing much since he got sick a couple years ago, so now they’re just dotting the i’s.
Dem Pres Primaries (Intrade)
It’s Tuesday, which means it’s election day, which means a fresh batch of states from our dear Intrade. Wisconsin: Obama $.83; Hawaii: Obama $.96. So there you have it. Solid victories expected in both, with little effect seen by the latest “plagiarism” charges. In fact, the headline numbers about winning the nomination haven’t changed at all, even amidst the media-created Hillary boomlet of the last day.
Delta Air Lines Said to Be Near a Northwest Deal (NYT)
Will you force us to say once again how we feel about airline mergers? Good. Appreciate it. But really, ARS has the details on emergency meetings at Delta and Northwest to discuss a merger. As he notes, a deal would end months (though more like years and years) of speculation. The merger would create the world’s largest airline. Very impressive.
Silicon Valley Continues On Economic Comeback (WSJ)
Looks like they’re coming out of this whole .com bust pretty good. At least for now. New jobs, higher incomes, what could be the problem?
Take It with a Grain of Salt (American)
Of all of the health causes out there, the campaign against sodium always seemed like the most dubious, just ahead of the campaign against fat and the campaign against cholesterol. Anywah, a nice look from The American at this movement.
I find it fascinating (but highly unsurprising) that I haven’t yet heard from any of the pundits, flapping heads, etc, that this recession, thus far, seems to exist only in so far as said media can turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
President George W. Bush said that
“the international community should support “free and fair elections, and I mean free and I mean fair, not these kinds of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off.””
That’s pretty ironic, GW, and not in the alannis morrisette way, i mean in the real way.
@ girl
I’m very glad that I was blowing my nose while i started reading your post, suffice to say, it could have worked out very poorly for me if I wasn’t haha
Oh girl. Such a good point. The president should have said THE OPPOSITE? Because U.S. elections were not free and fair? That’s your brilliant point so early in the morning?
Your point was not that Bush has spent more than any president on aids in Africa? Your point wasn’t that his administration had to face two devestating unexpected events (Katrina, 911) and yet employment hummed along? YOur point wasn’t that when he came into office the dot.com bubble from Clinton was bursting, reversing a a certain amount of those artificial jobs and income increases, and forcing low rates that led to the housing bubble? Your point was unrelated to the fact that No Child Left Behind was a bipartisian effort to help education? Your point was unrelated to removing a dictator who, Iraq war removed, would still be in power (but your okay with that?). ‘Cause Bush is a chimp, you are so much smarter, and assorted other blah blah blah?
Got it!
Which relates to the point of my posting this morning. (No it doesn’t really):
About email verification, and why some of us have not received emails, and thus, can’t post in the manner we like, with names like “girl” thus causing us to post more caustically than normally hidden behind guest. (Like under my usual name, I would have posted: “Oh girl, that’s very witty”).
Eventually Dealbreaker IT staff will get around to it I suppose? Perhaps dump out the emails addresses the system is now holding in limbo? Perhaps? Maybe?
@9:41 Boy, you really drank the Kool Aid. Bottom line is that Bush spent the first 40 years of his life high on booze and coke, which explains why he is such a terrible leader. I can’t wait till 2009, whoever wins would be fine with me. A big improvment over the current mess.
No, i would expect absolutely nothing more from our president than to continue spouting lies about democracy and freedom when we are coming out of this administration with more american soldiers dying overseas, fewer rights to our consitutionally given privacy and higher instances of torture than ever. Sometime you might consider thinking less like an economist and more like, say, a human.
It seems I’ve pissed someone off recently. Glad it wasn’t Anal_yst!
wtf why does this happen half the time when i am already logged in as guest?
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Registration is required.
Return to the original entry.
better soldiers dying overseas than civilians dying in nyc, dc, and the occasional load of them in a field in pennsylvania
Oh girl, that’s very witty!
In other news, kudos on changing your font. Now, if we could get all those sidebar ads to take up somewhat less than 50% of the screen we’re talking!
@9:41 Lets not forget that removing that dictator, who was never a threat to the US, resulted in the loss of 4,000 american lives, multiple thousands of maimings, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and a few million Iraqi refugees. If you’re so supportive of the effort, maybe you should volunteer. There’s a continual need for soldiers there you know.
Girl,
You do realize more American soldiers died under Clinton than have died under Bush, right? Or is that just too much of an inconvenient truth for you?
@9:41
What does any of that have to do with free and fair elections? I think girl’s point is that Bush’s brother helped rig the election in the state he was governing thereby allowing W to ascend to his current position as Monkey in Chief.
hundreds of thousands is a gross overstatement dear ‘girl’ if that really is your name. who is doing your numbers goldman global alpha?
@9:57 I would love to see the source of that gem of a comment.
thank you RB, that was entirely my point- and one that is pretty much universally acknowledged as the truth.
We’ve gone back and forth on the war issue, to each his own. That doesn’t make the fact that Bush is a horrific president any less of a fact.
By the way, I don’t recall citing numbers above or singing Clinton’s praises. But i liked the comment @ 10:00
@ 9:55- you know the terrorists were saudis right? I’d gladly support that effort.
@9:57
1) You’re wrong.
2) What about the tens of thousands with amputations, post traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries and other irreversible damage. Not to mention Iraqis. Or the long term damage to the reputation of this nation and the terrorists the debacle in Iraq creates every day?
3) You’re a moron.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
closer than you would have thought eh?
you want long term reputation? how about when oil producing nations in the middle east inevitably cave to iranian pressure enact sharia and stop settling petrol accounts in dollars? because this is what will happen when you retreat in disgrace. yeah that will be real good for the U.S., when no central bank needs to hold your currency any longer.
I hear people talk about the rights being restricted under Bush. What can you not do today that you were doing yesterday? (The answer, nothing).
What war in any period of time has ever occurred (whether for good reason or bad) without loss of both soldiers and civilians? That being the fixed factor, it would seem the logical thing is to use OTHER factors to determine the worth of a war.
Who can establish the causal link between booze and not being able to do one’s job? Or perhaps that explains half of the screw ups both in Washington AND Wall Street? (Not to mention, who among us has not in one point of our lives made mistakes, but are yet to be re-crucified daily by our critics).
It just gets annoying to hear, over and over, simplistic points when most issues and people are far more complex. So you say, “Oh, you must have drank the cool aid” simply because my comments offend, and yet, daily, I have to read and hear “one offs” by my more liberal friends about Bush.
And again, all with no historical economic progression between things done an administration ago, to things Bush has had to deal with (while being called an idiot all the way).
And it’s not that I don’t recognize where he DID actually screw up, nor do I ignore the benefits of having someone like Hillary (or even Obama) in the office to address the more pressing needs (like healthcare) that Republicans refuse to address.
But this is just a little push back, instead of just sitting here smiling like, ‘Oh, so true, very cute’.
I am just in a mood. Nothing personal.
@10:07 Except that the deaths in the Bush administration are combat deaths, the Clinton admin, occupational accidents. The two are not comparable. In fact, during the Clinton admin, there was a steady decline in accidental deaths.
oh, and you’d better get ready to start drilling your ANWR because if you think the power vaccuum you leave without mopping up first won’t be filled with radical extremists and result in no more oil exports to the states you are in for a nasty surprise
@ 10:14
Actually I’m fairly certain every man can testify to the causal relationship between booze and not being able to perform on the job.
@10:17 if you are trying to credit clinton with the decrease in accidental military deaths you are deranged. maybe you should look at the massive decrease in active duty and FTE personnel during clinton era too and see if there is any correllation
@10:28 Not crediting anyone. Just observing that for some reason not known to me accidental deaths showed a steady decline.
“maybe you should look at the massive decrease in active duty and FTE personnel during clinton era too and see if there is any correllation ”
its on page 10 of the same document.
i have a brilliant idea. we can completely eliminate all military casualties by disbanding the entire military!
@10:07 Are you trying to make a point that the casualty was less during Bush? or?
The stats that you quoted is actually showing otherwise.
Holy crap I thought this was a finance site. I didn’t know I landed onto daily kos.
@10:14
Don’t be stupid. Civil liberties belong to us all and if your neighbors liberties are infringed upon yours too are under threat. The same logic used to assail him can later be used on you. While torture, suspension of habeas corpus, domestic spying et all, are used on so called “terrorists” we must take the government’s word at to their guilt. So this begs the question, if one was unjustly labeled a terrorist, because say your ex-girl works for the CIA and she hates you, would you be able to defend yourself? Might you confess to any number of crimes under torture? We have accused an held at least two known innocent men thus far. One Canadian citizen and one Al Jazera journalist still in custody. And, in an administration known for competence surely we can trust they make no mistakes.
A wise man from Philadelphia once said, those who would trade liberty for security will have neither.
Please join me tomorrow night for another addition of Countdown. Now stay tuned for Live with Dan Abrams. Good night and good luck.
@10:39 I think the (lame) point was that they’re close, which is a good thing given that we’re currently in a war and at that time were not.
I think the lesson is that Bush’s and Clinton’s are both very polarizing. I can’t believe people would get so worked up over comments on say Gerald Ford.
let me get back to finance then…
I read an interesting comment (from Lowry Hill, a HNW manager in Minneapolis, that’s a sub of Wells Fargo) that pointed out some powerful recent trends. One was that, beginning in the early 80s, credit cards began being marketed aggressively and morphed from a simple and convenient payment mechanism into a consumer finance tool. They became an important revenue source for a few banks but more importantly, changed the face of the consumer economy, contributing greatly to the 1980′s boom that we give Reagan credit for. So maybe it wasn’t a Reagan revolution? For better or worse, more of a Citi Chase Capital One MBNA revolution.
@Random Banker, you do not seem to know what “begs the question” actually means, it is a pretty basic element of logical argument and in short your point is completely incoherent
does the early 80s count as a recent trend?
i noticed a recent trend that gold prices plummeted 90% after columbus discovered the new world. stick that in your hedge fund and smoke it.
@10:47, 10:07 and 9:57.
I might be slow, but I don’t see that the total death in Clinton era is less than or close to the total death during Bush presidency.
The death in the Persian Gulf war is only 382 vs Bush’s wars of freedom 3,443.
If you look at the annual death count. The most death in Clinton era was in 1993 and that was 1,213 deaths. Starting from 2003 Bush’s death count have exceeded this by an average of around 500 deaths annually.
How in the world can you say that more American soldiers died during Clinton?
I must be missing something here. Care to explain?
yes i actually do know what logical fallacy of begging the question means. And while I agree with you that my statement does not conform to that definition, the lack of conformity does not render my statement “incoherent” simply. take the words by their individual meanings. Those assumptions begs one to ask the question that follows the statement.
Although I might also say that a fallacy is being committed by conflating the restriction of one’s personal rights and the erosion of civil liberties.
@ 11:03- He is rather clearly responding to the question about whether we feel a palpible loss of our consitutional rights with Bush in office. While we may be privileged enough not to have felt the effects(affects? help me out here) of said loss of rights, this does not mean that other american citizens haven’t experienced the change.
Case in point: A fellow student at university’s father was a prominent professor who was accused under the patriot act of funneling monies to terrorists via his family’s charitable foundation. He was wrongfully imprisoned for 3 years until his recent release on lack of evidence. There are many more stories like this, some more brutal than others, all very disheartening.
Ok you’ve all had your fill of my bleeding liberal heart today.
@girl:
No, not all of us have had our fill.
@RB if you are going to talk about logic and to assail someone else’s logic, you should use your logical arguments and terminology correctly.
a logical reading of your Statement A begs the question Statement B is in fact incoherent. rather you seem to be couching your feelings in the language of logic. you might do better admitting you are presenting an opinion rather than a statement of fact. that is all.
@10:58 -
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/
Effects.
No, I don’t think most american citizens have experienced the change other than stricter toiletries restrictions on airplanes. Your “many” university professors notwithstanding. It is a difficult question, I suppose, whether the government should be doing more or less to discourage treason. In the past citizens were more free to commit treason by supporting terrorist elements. Now the pendulum has swung the other way. Which is worse?
Christ – i click on this link to try and get some wit, and arrive into hell. Bore off the lot of you….
just because i used the word “logic” does not mean that all following statements are syllogism. Most people do not have such a formal relationship with the word as you do, guest. What are you a computer programmer or a lawyer by training?
i work at a small credit hedge fund that returned over 600% in 2007. we accomplished this by recognizing that a lot of what bankers like yourself present to us as facts are at best really just opinions and sometimes are flat out lies
maybe a stricter relationship with the principles of logic your brethren could have avoided killing the goose laying all of them golden CDO eggs
Point well taken, but I’ll bet 1) its a VERY small fund to have generated returns like that 2) you could easily have lost 6x your capital as well.
11:52 here… Before anyone jumps on me here, let me amend my comment. What I meant was that you could have generated huge losses as well, resulting in the loss of all your capital (not 6x).
well we all know bankers are the used car sales men of finance. the quality of the advice is dictated by the fee structure. we get paid to push deals through and get penalized for showing restraint when the competition is not. that is the nature of the beast. are you guys hiring?
@11:39–If you are a U.S. citizen, your freedoms and protections have been undermined under the current administration (e.g. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld or the current disregard for FISA). I’m not saying the government would detain me without reason, but it seems pretty clear that it could. Then I’d be pressing my case from GITMO for the next seven years with no habeas corpus protection. Honestly, I don’t want my phone tapped without due process protection. It seems the President could declare anyone an enemy combatant. You should probably read the Fifth Amendment before you use it to blow your nose. I don’t see exceptions in there.
Please Bess save us from all this drivel
Judging by the comments/”understanding of policy” this morning, I wish to renege on all those years I decried our electoral college.
—former anarchist, weeping
50!
Looks like some people are ready for a three-martini lunch.
A close friend’s son in Fayetteville, Arkansas, was dating a girl against her parents’ wishes. When the young woman wouldn’t give up my friend’s son, her mother went to the Division of Homeland Security and gave them false information about my friend’s son being a “terrorist.”
This kid was of European ancestry, American born, never traveled outside the U.S., a computer geek, gentle as a lamb, and never had a political thought in his life, other than to admire Bill Clinton. (He’s from Arkansas, after all.) The DHS and the FBI initiated a surprise raid on his apartment, and seized all his computers and all other electronic devices.
He and his girlfriend were terrified.
Charges were never brought against him, but his possessions were never returned. My friend keeps a criminal and a civil rights attorney on retainer at considerable expense “just in case” something more happens.
I don’t believe your story for a second if the rights of normal WHITE americans were being systematically violated (by anything other than affirmative action) it would be front page news
This sounds like an urban legend to me
Great–we’ve now brought race into an “Opening Bell” comment thread (with 53 and counting comments).
God–we must already be in a recession if you people can find the time to type these inane paranoiac comments. Sell crazy somewhere else; we’re all stocked up here.
you got it. my fund is 50% cash right now and the partners are all debating whether or not to just close up shop and retire on the insane riches we generated in 2007. ironically this would put me out of work.
All this “civil liberties” talk is nonsense. The only thing you can’t do nowadays is go to a public library and check out the Koran along with “Bomb Making for Dummies.” Big deal. I’m sure people in China/Cuba/Iran/Saudi Arabia/wherever are impressed by your bravery in the face of such tyranny.
but bugs what about that one guy’s friend’s son’s girlfriend, and also what about girl’s close family friends rashid khalidi and joseph massad?
Heh.
And what about the Duke lacrosse players? As long as we have any laws, people will find a way to abuse them.
I posted at 1:01 pm. Sorry, the story is not an “urban legend” nor is it a manifestation of paranoia. I’d post more details about the incident and the family involved, but I’m not sure the threat of federal criminal proceedings against the son has completely gone away, and I don’t want to be the one responsible for stirring up more trouble.
I can understand there’s no particular reason to believe me because I didn’t use my name. People reading this on the website don’t know me personally, nor know my friend and her family. Rest assured, the family is white and middle-class and their surname is a common English name. The family has been American since at least the 19th Century.
People should know through their own experience that not everything that goes haywire gets covered by the press. Some important stories only come out years after the event. I never asked my friend if the raid was covered in the Fayetteville paper. It seemed a little insensitive at the time to ask for the press clips on the federal raid of her son’s apartment. I learned about the incident via a detailed personal letter I received at Christmas. I was completely astounded by what had happened.
My only point in mentioning the incident at all is to emphasize that the Department of Homeland Security is a young agency, staffed by people motivated by a strong sense of mission, and is definitely not infallible. Sometimes the judgment of the DHS agents is trumped by their sense of mission. Mistakes happen, and when they do, ordinary, innocent people can be affected.
I was present in NYC on 9/11 and worked for a year and a half on 9/11 recovery efforts. Although I wasn’t enthusiastic about the creation of the Division of Homeland Security at the time, I thought it would probably only have an impact on people that the government should be scrutinizing. I now think that my willingness to acquiesce in the curtailment of some rights was born of panic and fear and was wrong.
I no longer support DHS having broad extra-legal powers. I think wire-taps and searches should be done with a warrant, and that DHS should be held accountable for abuse of legally-established rights.
Random Banker, girl and others, the argument you are building up against the wiretapping etc is fallacious becaue you are comparing an extreme outcome with a moderate outcome.
The fact is the the terrorists (and other criminals) have and will continue to exploit the openness and privacy laws to their benefit to harm us. So it will always be a tradeoff between greater surveillance to keep us safe and safeguarding civil liberties.
You extrapolate the current surveillance system which has trapped maybe a dozen characters (none of whom are particularly outstanding members of society) and maybe a couple of innocent people to a soceity where everyone is perenially bugged.
But that extreme can only be compared to one in which everyone has bullet-proof privacy rights – no security cams anywhere, absolutely no random checks of any kind (of the kinds Amtrak is doing these days), no frisking, no x-ray machines, no convictions unless there is video proof of any crime in triplicate and the accused criminal doesn’t voluntarily come in and confess, nothing. How will do you think will that work out?
You say that is an unthinkable extreme but so is your hypothetical ‘all phones bugged’ scenario. And extremes can only be compared with extremes. So what is worse, all people bugged or all terrorists and criminals getting a free ride and thousands of innocents being killed?
Not an easy choice is it? I am unsure so as to whether your arguments are naive or diabolical. Either ways, they are invalid. You have framed them in a completely incorrect way. If you so strongly feel about something, you might as well as frame it correctly!
I already know the answer, Matt_m. What some see as a civilizational struggle, plenty of liberals see as a game of little league softball: it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game. The deaths of thousands and the eventual disintegration of what we call society–these things are fine, as long we play by gentleman’s rules.
In case you think I’m attacking a straw man, The Economist explicitly admitted to this worldview:
“Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavoury practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it.”
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9833041
I’m sure these chaps will have a bloody good time under shariah law.
I don’t want to see Americans die needlessly or American society succumb to the actions of terrorists. But do we want to give up our rights in order to save them? I simply don’t agree that the latitude afforded to anti-terrorist agencies affects only foreigners and suspicious people. I think we all pay a price.
“I simply don’t agree that the latitude afforded to anti-terrorist agencies affects only foreigners and suspicious people. I think we all pay a price.”
You think? Do you also think that the good folks who blew themselves up in the London Tube and then later at the Scottish airport were not perfectly normal upright British citizens?
Do you also think that such people do not exist in America? What do you think is keeping them from killing people here? Are they too busy campaigning for the Hope Pope, the Change Messiah?
Or wait, maybe they are also part of the countdown – counting down to the day when their ilk will finally be free to do whatever they wish to do. Irrespective, the one sided analysis of ‘rights of privacy’ is appalling! Do you not care about you and your family getting blown up by fanatics whose sole purpose in life is your death? You may go out to 100 rallies and swoon over ‘Change’, but do you think that these people – who are ready to blow 100 infidels (YOU) to enjoy 72 virgins in heaven will also get into the ‘Change bandwagon and join everyone to sing kumbaya?
Oh, and BTW even though the govt bugging everyone thing hasn’t happened yet (and is far far from happening), these virgin loving suicide bombers already exist. They are not a fiction of any hyperactive conspiratorial mind.
Hey, Matt M, I wrote the comment @7:27 pm that really irritated you. One aspect of your argument is off-base: I am not a Barack Obama supporter. So contrary to your imaginings, I am not going “out to 100 rallies and swoon[ing] over ‘Change’.”
I’m not going to get into a gut-check with you as to who hates international terrorism more, or who is more eager to see it stopped.
I’ve only suggested that when we grant the government extra latitude, we have no guarantee that the latitude will be exercised in ways that are useful and respectful of citizens’ rights.
Without going into too much detail, history has many illustrations where excessive government actions were taken in the name of national security, with no tangible gain to public security.
The simplest example I can think of was the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II. At the time, the government felt entirely justified to detain the whole of the Japanese-American population, other than those in serving in uniform. However, not one traitor was ever uncovered by this program. Thousands of citizens lost their liberty and property for the duration of the war, and ultimately the government had to pay reparations for its actions. No one argues today that the program was useful; it’s seen as a disastrous mistake by responsible historians.
All I’ve tried to suggest is that extra latitude given to anti-terrorist agencies may have unforeseen consequences for a broader swath of people than just the targeted group.
Bringing up internment just reveals the complete lack of perspective on the part of
“civil liberties” absolutists. Presidents past (Wilson, FDR) regularly took measures that would be unthinkable today. The left has succeeded in re-framing the debate to the extent that listening in on conversations taking place outside the country–but happening to use U.S. telecom networks–or even analyzing huge blocks of call patterns is now the equivalent of a total police state.
(Similarly, “cruel and unusual punishment” used to refer to capital punishment via disembowelment and dismemberment, often practiced by the British. Now, the Supreme Court could very well re-define the term to mean any pain or discomfort at all.)
guest@8:56 said -
“All I’ve tried to suggest is that extra latitude given to anti-terrorist agencies may have unforeseen consequences for a broader swath of people than just the targeted group.
”
Which was exactly my point in the 6:04 post. The extra latitude that you are talking about and thereby extrapolating to mass-internments is a limited govt surveillance program covering probably .001% of the population and .00001% of the totally communication. And the very existence it has resulted in Bush and Co being labelled as the second incarnation of Stalin by the likes of Random Banker and girl above.
So if anyone who carried out ANY surveillance is to be similarly villified, what is the plan of action of the villifiers for preventing terror attacks? The trans-atlantic bombing plan using liquid explosives in toothpaste and deoderant bottles was busted through a campaign of sustained spying by the British intelligence on British citizens of a certain race and religion (and large amounts of such spying still continues).
Also, none of these people were past criminals (not that it matters to the civil liberties crowd who want convicted child molesters to have free access around schools.) So yes, as per your absolutist civil liberties stand, the busting was wrong and these people blowing up planes would have been the feasible conclusion.
Why then, do you not explicitly bring out the fact that THIS is what the result of your absolutist stand will be. That if Bush were to grant the absolute privacy rights and let 15 more bombings happen then that would make you happy and ‘really proud’ to be an American. And that is exactly the kind of change you are looking for.
At least mention both sides. You constantly keep saying that we all pay a price for giving latitude to the govt agencies. Then in the same breath, at least also mention that we will also pay a larger, more tangible price if we do NOT give any latitude to the same govt.