Economic Growth Rates and the Luxemburg Theory of Pre-cap markets.

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
LBird
The value of value

Tagore2 wrote:

According to Marx, the substance of the value is work. Its measure is the socially necessary working time, and its unity is the hour, the day, the week, and so on.

It is understood time is expressed for a single average worker. If two average workers work for one hour, this is equivalent to an average worker working for two hours.

Thus, the unit for measuring value must take the form:

Number of workers x time.

Thus the world GDP expressed in value is equal to:

Labor force x 1 year

As long as you do not understand the concept of socially necessary working time, average workers, etc. All your reasonings are non-Marxist. They are eventually neoclassical.

The problem, Tagore2, is that 'value' can't be 'measured', if by that you mean 'come up with a numerical value'.

'Value' is like 'love' - they are social relationships, which can't be 'measured'. We can estimate, judge or guess a 'measurement', but this 'measurement' is not an 'objective measure' of 'value'.

'Socially necessary' is a moral judgement, and within a communist society, would be 'measured' by a democratic vote. What we humans 'value' changes with society and history.

Marx makes it plain that there is no 'objectively' measurable 'matter' in 'value'. There are no minorities, like mathematicians, scientists, or academics, who can tell us what is 'socially necessary' for us.

Only the democratic producers can determine 'value-for-us'.

Tagore2
No! Marxism is a science.

No! Marxism is a science. The value can be measured from Marx's definition and econometrics.

I am tired of those mystics who take Capital for a Bible and who have not even understood the first chapter of this book.

"The total labor power of society, which is embodied in the total sum of the commodities produced by society ..."

What was the total labor power of society in 2016?

3,449,516,169 workers working for a year ("labor force, total", in World Bank database).

What was "all commodities produced by that society" in 2016?

PPP $ 120,141,763,383,074 (GDP, PPP)

3,449,516,169 workers working for a year in 2016 <=> PPP $ 120,141,763,383,074 in 2016

How much does an average worker produce in 2016?

120,141,763,383,074 / 3,449,516.169 = PPP $ 34,829

What is China's GDP in value?

First the quantity of goods: PPP $ 21,417,149,856,080 in 2016.

Then the average worker's produce in 2016: PPP $ 34,829

21,417,149,856,080 / 34,829 = 614,930,251

China's GDP in value is therefore:

614,930,251 AVERAGE workers working for a year in 2016.

There are 802,968,952 REAL Chinese workers in 2016.

So:

802,968,952 REAL Chinese workers in 2016 <=> 614,930,251 AVERAGE workers in 2016

It's easy!

If you want to calculate value in average hours worked, multiply by the average number of hours worked per year, that is to say about 2000 (OECD: 1763h, China 2000-2200, India: 2100).

LBird
Can 'measurement' be made without workers' consciousness?

Tagore2 wrote:

No! Marxism is a science.

Actually, I agree with you, Tagore2, that Marx's views were a 'science'.

But any 'science' is a human socio-historical product. 'Science' is not, as bourgeois 'science' ideologically alleges, a 'Universal Method' for arriving at 'Eternal Truth'.

Only the democratic class conscious revolutionary proletariat can determine for itself what its own 'science' consists of, in its needs, interests and purposes.

Clearly, it doesn't consist of pretending that an elite minority have a 'politically neutral method for the disinterested expert', which can simply be employed by that elite, in the absence of the active participation of all of humanity. That would be politically disastrous for the development of class consciousness amongst workers, because it argues that they should be passive in the face of that 'science', and can't vote upon any 'truth' produced by that form of 'science'.

It makes me wonder why comrades like you (who don't seem to realise what 'science' today is, and from which class it emerged from), think that your view of 'science' is politically helpful to workers.

If you think you can 'measure' without a vote by workers, then you're saying that the conscious activity of workers isn't needed for your 'measuring'.

Demogorgon
Relevance

Tagore & LBird: Unless you can demonstrate the direct relevance of your discussion to the immediate topic of this thread - Rosa Luxemburg's theories of extra capitalist markets and critiques thereof - please take this discussion to another thread.

Thanks.

Tagore2
Marxism only requires mastering the division

[edit]

MH
on the role of non-capitalist markets

 

Demogorgon wrote:

Nevertheless, regardless of cause, the manifestation of all crises is ... overproduction. These external markets seem able to absorb the excess product to overcome capitalism's supposed lack of consumption with respect to secular accumulation, but not the overproduction that arises from cyclical crises? This seems to lack consistency to me and reduces the consumptive power of these external markets to special pleading with regard to one cause of overproduction but not the other.

I don’t understand the distinction between ‘secular’ accumulation and in periodic crises in this context, sorry. I can only assume this is meaningful at the level of the abstract reproduction schemas?  

Demogorgon wrote:

There are still more problems. For Luxemburg's solution to work, her external markets will have to continually buy more from the system than they sell into it (as the latter would only saturate the market for capitalists still further).

Aye, there’s the rub… That’s why capital’s need for external buyers is a contradiction that drives it towards destruction. The assimilation of all non-capitalist areas into capitalist production only reproduces the inherent problem of realisation at a higher level. Bummer!

Demogorgon wrote:

But early capitalist production had to buy much of its inputs from external actors, at least until they were themselves capitalised or expropriated through outright plunder (e.g. in the colonies). Where did these external markets get all this ever increasing revenue from? This is a question even in the colonial period, but even more so today when the mass of surplus value that needs to be accumulated is incomparably greater while those social strata outside the system are characterised mainly by grinding, absolute poverty.

I think Luxemburg addresses this question in Chapter 26 of AoC, giving concrete historical examples of how it worked; the English supply of cotton textiles to the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie of India,;materials for construction of railways in America; German chemical industry’s supply of means of production to Asia, etc., showing how consumption by non-capitalist strata enables the expansion of the means of production at home. Not sure if it answers your question.

She also emphasises that non-capitalist areas supply the necessary raw materials and additional labour to enable capitalist reproduction; realisation of surplus value is only one aspect of the intimate relationship with capitalist reproduction from the beginning.

But the situation today is surely quite different? Capitalism must primarily compensate for the insufficiency of the remaining non-capitalist areas through other measures; the use of credit leading to uncontrollable debt, etc., along with increasing exploitation to restore profit rates,

I hope to post some notes on Grossman and the FROP soon. 

Demogorgon
Quote:I don’t understand the

Quote:
I don’t understand the distinction between ‘secular’ accumulation and in periodic crises in this context, sorry. I can only assume this is meaningful at the level of the abstract reproduction schemas?

My question is why external markets work to resolve the accumulation problem by absorbing the excess product, but not the issues of overproduction caused by cyclical crises - as evidenced by the fact that crises of overproduction occured regularly during the 19th century.

Imagine capitalist Britain is producing quite happily, pumping out cotton to the Indian peasantry. These peasants provide demand to keep capital accumulating quite happily. And, yet, suddenly a crisis strikes. Cotton piles up in the warehouses and the docks. But why? Why can't the Indian peasantry just absorb more? If they can then why is their overproduction at all?

If they can't, then how does capitalism get out of the crisis? Do capitalists launch a trade mission to China? Well, maybe so, but I'm not sure that explains quite why crises happen so regularly, every ten years.

And it certainly breaks down Luxemburg's artificial separation of the problem of social reproduction and the cyclical crisis.

My only point here at the moment is that separating the problem of reproduction from the issue of crises doesn't seem very well thought through. It's quite possible RL answers this - do you know if she does?

Quote:
I think Luxemburg addresses this question in Chapter 26 of AoC, giving concrete historical examples of how it worked.

Unfortunately, this fact in itself is not sufficient to prove her theory. To do this, you would have to prove that these markets consistently bought more than they sold and to a degree that matched the surplus value required for accumulation.

It's worth underlining that I agree that capitalism had intercourse with non-capitalist markets, especially in its early days. I would even go so far to agree that it was probably dependent on these markets for both supply and demand, certainly in its infancy.

Your statement "non-capitalist areas supply the necessary raw materials and additional labour to enable capitalist reproduction" is incontestable in my opinion and not in dispute, at least until the creation of the world market. It's probably still true to a certain extent with regard to labour.

But, I would argue, this dependency diminished rapidly as the system expanded and more production became capitalised. This is not a problem because - as Marx and others have demonstrated - there is no reason to believe that capitalism is incapable of self-expansion, any more than it does so smoothly and automatically. Barriers to capitalist production exist, but not located where Luxemburg thought.

Quote:
But the situation today is surely quite different? Capitalism must primarily compensate for the insufficiency of the remaining non-capitalist areas through other measures; the use of credit leading to uncontrollable debt, etc., along with increasing exploitation to restore profit rates.

This implies agreement with the idea that markets are insufficient today. It's important to note that this is not what Luxemburg argued and here we're back to the point Link has repeated several times. Luxemburg was clear that once markets were insufficient, accumulation becomes impossible. She claimed this would never happen in the real world, because of the tide of catastrophes (to use your word) would either destroy capitalism or move the proletariat to overthrow it.

This is where your position runs into a trap that it can't escape.

If you accept markets are now insufficient, you are forced to argue against Luxemburg, by claiming accumulation can actually continue in that scenario. The appeal to credit directly attacks Luxemburg, simply by showing that the impossible is now possible again. Capital can accumulate without external markets.

This position, as I've argued in the past, gives no framework with which to understand the limits of credit in this regard, either. Why can't capitalism do this forever? Why does capitalism even still experience crises, if credit resolves the accumulation problem? (This is similar to my question around external markets).

Marx is quite clear that credit, while essential to capitalism's operation beyond a certain stage of development, can neither solve or explain accumulation problems. (This is not to say credit has no role in crises - it certainly does, but it's not the ultimate cause.) Defending Luxemburg in this way forces you to progressively tear up more and more of Marx's system (which is where I'd argue, Luxemburg begins).

There's also a question as to when this point was reached. If it was a hundred years ago, you need to explain how a strategy that flies in the face of both Marx and Luxemburg has allowed accumulation to continue, cycle and cycle, at an accelerated rate (see Link's statistics) for a hundred years of more!

(Of course, I suppose it's possible that this ultimate point has only been reached recently. One could conceive of capitalism becoming decadent a hundred years ago, following RL's original scenario, while the point of ultimate saturation arrived later. But, if so, when?)

The only coherent path I see for you is to return to Luxemburg's original thesis. This does have the benefit of being consistent (even if there are still problems with her theory) but then you run into the other part of the trap: where are the non-capitalist markets that make even problematic accumulation still possible? As I said earlier "the mass of surplus value that needs to be accumulated is incomparably greater while those social strata outside the system are characterised mainly by grinding, absolute poverty". And you seem to agree that this isn't feasible!

Those impoverished masses do provide something capitalism does need to survive, however, and that is new flesh for the factory floor. Indeed, this is what we've seen in China: mass proletarianisation of the former peasantry. This is explicable in Grossman's scenario, but not in Luxemburg: after all, where has the demand for this burst of accumulation come from?

jk1921
Perhaps a bit of a

Perhaps a bit of a distraction from the theoretical debate so far, but it would be interesting/helpful to see how some of these concepts work in the real world of capital accumulation, i.e. using them to explain the evolution of the crisis since the late 1960s/early1970s. Is it not the case that captial is enjoying a rather high profit rate today--driven by immense productivity gains (i.e. higher rate of exploitation) that began at some point in the 1990s, yet there is still a kind of "investment strike" happening in which capital does not forsee sufficient profitable investment opportunities and sits on the overaccumulated assets--driving income inequality, but also keeping inflation low? This seems like a contradiction, but perhaps that is the point? It has been suggested that rather than redirect tax savings into the economy (as predicted by a certain ideology--Laffer curve, etc.) the Republican tax plan would likely only lead to corporations paying higher dividends to share holders or sitting on the savings.

MH
Luxemburgists are from Venus, Grossmanites are from Mars?

Demogorgon wrote:

This implies agreement with the idea that markets are insufficient today. It's important to note that this is not what Luxemburg argued and here we're back to the point Link has repeated several times. Luxemburg was clear that once markets were insufficient, accumulation becomes impossible. She claimed this would never happen in the real world, because of the tide of catastrophes (to use your word) would either destroy capitalism or move the proletariat to overthrow it.

Except of course this isn’t what she argued at all. Luxemburg was clear that:

“the accumulation of capital becomes impossible in all points without non-capitalist surroundings” (AoC).

the realisation of the surplus value for the purposes of accumulation is an impossible task for a society which consists solely of workers and capitalists”. (AoC)

As it approaches the point where humanity only consists of capitalists and proletarians, further accumulation will become impossible”. (Anti-C)

Accumulation is impossible in an exclusively capitalist environment.” (Anti-C)

The general tendency and final result of this process is the exclusive world rule of capitalist production. Once this is reached, Marx’s model becomes valid: accumulation, i.e. further expansion of capital, becomes impossible”. (Anti-C)

Only one of these statements has the slightest hint of ambiguity, but if Luxemburg had indeed claimed that accumulation became impossible if “markets were insufficient”, then logically she would have had to announce in the Junius Pamphlet that capitalism was now impossible. This is simply not her position.

And yes Link has repeated this point several times, and I thought that I had answered him several times along the lines above, eg. in post #13, which he acknowledged in #25, and then again in #26...

MH wrote:
First of all Luxemburg does indeed say that accumulation becomes impossible without non-capitalist surroundings. I take this to have the same status as Marx’s well-known statement that the tendency for the rate of profit to fall is proof that capitalism is a historically transitory system.

The logical conclusion of the FROP, although Marx I don’t think makes this point, is the full automation of capitalism, which is of course impossible because it would be the end of accumulation. In other words, it’s a ‘theoretical fiction’. The existence of the tendency alone is enough to show that capitalism is not the finally discovered form of production for humanity’s needs.

For Luxemburg capital’s need for external buyers is exactly the same. It’s proof that capitalism cannot go on forever. Both the FROP and the need for non-capitalist areas are inherent contradictions that drive the system towards its destruction. 

And yet we still appear to have a basic misunderstanding of what Luxemburg’s position actually is. Why is this? 

A few posts back Alf confessed to being “baffled, after all these years, by all the comrades and tendencies in the revolutionary movement who seem so committed to showing that, for Marx, there is no fundamental problem of realisation, ie one inherent in the wage labour relation itself.”

Similarly, I’m baffled here by the apparent difficulty we have in at least agreeing what Luxemburg’s position actually is. I mean, it’s not like I’m professor of Luxemburgism at Luxemburg University or anything – I just read her book! wink

I raised this issue in post #61:

MH wrote:
I think this discussion has raised a wider issue about the method we use to discuss these issues, which shows itself in the frustrations apparently being expressed on all sides. I referred to this frustration earlier but I think it has become even clearer with the interventions of Demo and KT's questions; basically we're all sympathetic to the same political positions and yet it seems sometimes we're talking a completely different language. Why is this?

And on that question mark I’ll leave Luxemburg for the time being. 

 

jk1921
Credit and Debt

MH wrote:

Except of course this isn’t what she argued at all. Luxemburg was clear that:

“the accumulation of capital becomes impossible in all points without non-capitalist surroundings” (AoC).

the realisation of the surplus value for the purposes of accumulation is an impossible task for a society which consists solely of workers and capitalists”. (AoC)

As it approaches the point where humanity only consists of capitalists and proletarians, further accumulation will become impossible”. (Anti-C)

Accumulation is impossible in an exclusively capitalist environment.” (Anti-C)

The general tendency and final result of this process is the exclusive world rule of capitalist production. Once this is reached, Marx’s model becomes valid: accumulation, i.e. further expansion of capital, becomes impossible”. (Anti-C)

Only one of these statements has the slightest hint of ambiguity, but if Luxemburg had indeed claimed that accumulation became impossible if “markets were insufficient”, then logically she would have had to announce in the Junius Pamphlet that capitalism was now impossible. This is simply not her position.

Wait, don't the precedeing quotes demonstrate this is exactly her position? Of course, we know from the last one hundred years or so of capitlaist decadence that this is simply not true, so then the entire question of "cheating the laws of the market" etc. has to be raised, i.e. what is the nature of credit and debt in relation to  the accumulation process? Are they something essential to it or do they perform the function of an "extra-capitalist market" in some way?

Demogorgon
Confused

Edit: Crossed with JK's post above.

I'm afraid I'm deeply confused. It's clear you think I've somehow misrepresented the argument but I assure you that's not at all my intention. And, at the risk of aggravating the situation, I'm afraid I'm still at a loss to understand your point here.

You apparently agree with my statement "Luxemburg was clear that once markets were insufficient, accumulation becomes impossible." You even quote her works demonstrating this!

I take it you disagree with my statement that "she claimed this would never happen in the real world"?

But you then go on to quote yourself when you describe the FROP: "The logical conclusion of the FROP, although Marx I don’t think makes this point, is the full automation of capitalism, which is of course impossible because it would be the end of accumulation. In other words, it’s a ‘theoretical fiction’. The existence of the tendency alone is enough to show that capitalism is not the finally discovered form of production for humanity’s needs. For Luxemburg capital’s need for external buyers is exactly the same."

Unless I have dramatically misread this, you are describing both the ultimate conclusions of the FROP (complete mechanisation, in your view*) and Luxemburg's total exhaustion of extra-capitalist makets as theoretical fictions. In other words, they won't happen in the real world. (You can quibble about my point about Luxemburg saying it - actually it's you.) How does that differ from what I said?

Moreover, in post 13, you say:

Quote:
You’ve picked up on her statement that “the accumulation of capital becomes impossible in all points without non-capitalist surroundings” ... But the thing is, I don’t think this is meant to be taken literally.

Again, in other words, this won't happen in the real world.

You then quote Luxemburg:

Quote:
“The more ruthlessly capitalism sets about the destruction of non-capitalist strata at home and in the outside world, the more it lowers the standard of living for the workers as a whole, the greater also is the change in the day-to-day history of capital. It becomes a string of political and social disasters and convulsions, and under these conditions, punctuated by periodic economic catastrophes or crises, accumulation can go on no longer. But even before this natural economic impasse of capital’s own creating is properly reached it becomes a necessity for the international working class to revolt against the rule of capital” (Accumulation, chapter 32)

It looks to me like you - and Luxemburg - agree with the part of my post you quote. So I'm afraid I'm not at all sure what the point of disagreement is?

* Incidentally, you're wrong about the FROP - Grossman argues that the breakdown tendency will activate long before capitalism reaches the point where it can't generate any profit at all. For him, absolute overaccumulation arrives when further accumulation would not produce any additional surplus value. This doesn't mean no surplus value is being produced, simply that there is no longer any point re-investing it - this manifests as a capital glut which is pumped into speculative activity. This also partially responds to JK's point about the investment strike.

Link
Not mars and venus just heads and tails.

Sorry ive been missing for a while and sorry MH but I am also confused by your last post.  It looks to me like something has gone in incorrectly there either that or I don’t understand your issue with the phrase “markets are insufficient”

 

Additionally though I do not think you answered the issue I raised with Luxemburg’s hypothesis that accumulation is absolutely dependant on extra cap markets .  It seems to me you sidestepped the issue. I got the impression that you basically agree with me that this cant be true as you agreed a times that there are problems with RLs theory and with the issues of population growth. I don’t think you have deal the the implications of saying so, or at least I thought that until this last post.

 

MH said: “…but if Luxemburg had indeed claimed that accumulation became impossible if “markets were insufficient”, then logically she would have had to announce in the Junius Pamphlet that capitalism was now impossible. This is simply not her position.”

 

This sounds to me like ‘if what she wrote is wrong she didn’t write it!’  Sorry but that just isn’t getting to grips with the problem for I cant see any other starting point but to take what she said literally and to follow the logic that flows from that.  That she did not expect to reach a point of no accumulation is not what makes her theory invalid.

 

The hypothesis put forward in AofC is the basis of her markets theory is not accepted and it has been revised by the ICC –although I am not clear if this has been accepted openly.   I think her hypothesis was reasonable at the time it was written and probably was until the 50s.  The growth of the world economy and population particularly since the 80s/90s, as JK points out, has rather shown it as an inadequate explanation for the events of this period ie decadence.

 

The ICCs position now seems to me (and ok I havent read everything and I might be out of date) is based on the idea that extra capitalist markets are the major source of accumulation in ascendancy and that as these markets diminish and reach a relatively low level in the 20th century, this causes decadence and creates crisis against which capitalism has found other ways of  growing and extending accumulation process.  I am not criticising here but I hope paraphrasing very simply but correctly.  Tell me if its not accurate enough.

 

With hindsight, I think this makes more sense than RL did in AoC in 1913, fair enough.

 

However the continuing identification of decadence with a relatively lack of extra-cap markets is a problem because the underlying tendency is to believe that as the extra cap markets shrink, the crisis must get worse.   That I think has caused the ICC to keep returning to rather immediatist or catastrophic predictions since the 1980s.  The ICC recognise it has done this but I don’t think it links this to the remnants of RL theory. 

 

 

Having said that I do look forward to what you have to say about the FROP MH.  I am sure you will look at it with a more critical analysis than Demo and I have done just as we have with RLs theory.

 

I am particulary interested in the quotes that have come from Marx and Vol 3 of capital and would like to hear more of what comrades identify as problems of realisation.  Alf’s quotes were interesting although I agree with Demo that the one he used from Chap 15 in post 58 bears a revisit but the context for it is an analysis of the impact of the FROP not a argument for markets analysis alone.  I also think the first article mentioned in that post by the youngster CD Ward is worth a look at.  One main point in it implies a need not to see markets and FROP theories as antagonistic if only because there may never be or even need to be absolute agreement on the economics of decadent capitalism.

 

Lastly then to follow that, I agree with MHs concern about the different lines followed by adherents of the 2 theories Its almost as if antagonism is assumed but I think we should be looking to understand the interrelationships of these issues.  That means looking at the core abstractions and relating them to the real world without too much in the way of wild and flowery interpretations.  Sorry that’s a bit wimpish but im tired now.

MH
What did I say?

What did I say about apparently speaking different languages?

Demogorgon wrote:
You apparently agree with my statement "Luxemburg was clear that once markets were insufficient, accumulation becomes impossible." You even quote her works demonstrating this!

To me, Demo’s statement was not just wrong but a fundamental misconception of Luxemburg’s theory.

I provided direct quotes that, to me at least, demonstrated this irrefutably. And yet for others they clearly did no such thing. In fact they appeared to signal my agreement. I had to re-read my posts in case I had missed something or or left out a vital word in my reply...

There are two basic issues being confused here:

1.    The impossibility of accumulation in the absence of non-capitalist surroundings

2.    The insufficiency of non-capitalist areas for the expansion of global capital.

The first is a “theoretical fiction”, it describes a “tendency”, the “logical conclusion to which [capital] is objectively headed.” (Anti-C).

The second is the result of the historical development of capitalism and specifically of imperialism which is “the political expression of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment.” (AoC)

Even though geographically non-capitalist areas are still the largest part of the world at the start of the 20th C, they are insufficient for the expansion of global capital given the high level of development already attained by the productive forces in the most advanced capitalist states. Just so we have no doubts about her position this is what Luxemburg actually wrote in 1913:

Still the largest part of the world in terms of geography, this remaining field for the expansion of capital is yet insignificant as against the high level of development already attained by the productive forces of capital; witness the immense masses of capital accumulated in the old countries which seek an outlet for their surplus product and strive to capitalise their surplus value, and the rapid change-over to capitalism of the pre-capitalist civilisations. On the international stage, then, capital must take appropriate measures. With the high development of the capitalist countries and their increasingly severe competition in acquiring non-capitalist areas, imperialism grows in lawlessness and violence, both in aggression against the non-capitalist world and in ever more serious conflicts among the competing capitalist countries. But the more violently, ruthlessly and thoroughly imperialism brings about the decline of non-capitalist civilisations, the more rapidly it cuts the very ground from under the feet of capitalist accumulation. Though imperialism is the historical method for prolonging the career of capitalism, it is also a sure means of bringing it to a swift conclusion. This is not to say that capitalist development must be actually driven to this extreme: the mere tendency towards imperialism of itself takes forms which make the final phase of capitalism a period of catastrophe.” (Ch 31, AoC, my emphasis)

From this analysis Luxemburg is finally able to conclude that WW1 is the definitive proof capitalism has entered into its decadent phase.

For Luxemburg therefore the insufficiency of non-capitalist areas for the expansion of global capital leads not to the impossibility of accumulation but to WW1 and decadence.

Accumulation continues to take place of course but in Luxemburg’s description takes on an increasingly catastrophic character because capital’s in-built drive to expand itself now confronts the insurmountable barrier of the global insufficiency of markets – a barrier due ultimately to the limits of capital itself and the constraints on consumption imposed by the wage-labour relationship.

(Link, I haven't responded to your last post because to be honest I don't feel it raises anything that I haven't already tried to deal with, often at some length - except for the issue you have raised about population growth, which I do see as valid, just not one I feel qualified to respond to at the moment.)