I don't think Socialist means what you think it means. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries]VaderMan92 said:
Tax Aid Is Make or Break Issue for UK Games Industry, Says Trade Body
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Excuse me, but you you think that the solution to resources going to the East can be found through... war? Sure, Iraq went rather well, didn't it?Therumancer said:
The part you're missing is the fact that China isn't diverting resources away from the West - the West is literally handing it to them. Look at your Chamber of Commerce - they're working for the corporates and shipping all the jobs overseas. The upper class, with all their lobbying in policy-making, is to blame entirely. They're not going to consider whether creating jobs in the US is going to keep unemployment low and the economy running - they're going to see where to gain the most profit by seeking lower wages with minimal or virtually no benefits. Over 30% of Apple products are manufactured in China - you think that came out of a competition between East and West? No, the competition actually lies among China, India and the South Americas. Want to fix your economy? Get rid of the corporate-fellating politicians and get your policies right. Remember, even in these tough economic times, the rich keeps getting fatter. The housing bubble bursting hurt you? Well, the high-risk bankers responsible walked away with seven figures.
China stealing your technology? Well, don't give them the chance. Look at the Russians - when they found out the Chinese were copying Sukhoi Su-27 variants, they simply kept the Chinese out of their 5th Generation development process, making India their new partner. What you shouldn't do is help China build the world's fastest supercomputer by exporting the Nvidia Tesla.
And you may want to cut down on military spending. You thought the $700 billion bailout was bad? The US on an average spends over $650 billion annually on military expeditions.
I don't understand... why are you Brits adopting American-style policies?Wicky_42 said:
You think the UK is a socialist country? If the UK is socialist then America is communist.VaderMan92 said:
Seriously, lay off the Fox News.
It's not us. It's the public school elite who have been gifted power. From April I can't even get a bus after nine o'clock, my tax has rocketed, I have to pay huge import duty on anything I want to buy from overseas, I'm blocked from watching certain videos, I have to prove my age to buy Christmas Crackers, Alcohol, our libraries are being closed, our hospitals have huge waits for basic treatment...and it's purely because a group of greedy bankers didn't do their jobs properly. And have now got paid for doing so. And bonuses.Raiyan 1.0 said:
Honestly, the Bookstart program, which gave free books to underpriviledged kids to help the start reading, was nearly cancelled while a few percent of the bonuses paid to banks would have kept it going.
And where's all the money we're donating going? Out of the country.
It's frankly terrifying what the ConDems are doing. We thought that it could only get better after Labour. It's got worse.
I dunno much about the UK political scene right now, but I've a fair understanding of your economic situation. And I've to tell you this: UK needs to do what France did - nationalize all the banks that screwed up. No more high-risk banking taking down the entire economy.The_root_of_all_evil said:
And seriously, I never knew the UK CoDems are as bad as the American right wing. Privatising the NHS? Raising taxes on education?
I feel for you guys :/
I know, right? What the fuck? Guess it's what happens when a bunch of elitist twats get elected on the back of a complacent bunch of warmongers running the economy sideways. Not that they were able to secure a solid majority or anything - they don't have a democratic mandate to do jack shit, really. All in all, our current gov is miserable and pathetic. I want to go move :/ To Canada?Raiyan 1.0 said:
Lets a tax break for the games industry. I wonder how the the poor sod of soldier in Afghanistan is going to feel. He getting effectively a pay cut 4% a poorer pension and less allowances. Do you really think he is going to be happy about the money his lost going to people who make games were you can play the people that are trying to kill you. I'm sure that wont have any political effects whats so ever. All for the a sector that is worth to Uk economy worth about the same as Jimmy Choos, the women fashion shoe retailer
Raiyan 1.0 said:
The only real problem with the US military as I was saying is that we don't use it effectively. Iraq and the entire "War On Terror" is a problem because we put ridiculous conditions for victory on ourselves, trying to "win the peace" instead of just going in, decimating the region, and going home. The reason of course being moral since we feel we can't kill civilians or break cultures. Short of someone trying to invade us outright, our military really isn't going to act effectively. After all our tools are designed to wipe out towns and cities with minimal effort, when we go in man to man, we lost a lot of that advantage. Weapons like Daisy Cutters and the like were not developed with modern morality in mind, yet they represent a backbone of our military force and the jutification for replacing manpower with technolgy which requires us to call out our reserves to deal with the current conflict. "Well, we don't need tons of infantry when we can carpet bomb" doesn't hold water when your not willing to actually carpet bomb.
As far as China goes, the big issue with them is not us giving them technology so much as they reverse engineering or counterfeiting products. One big issue was the drug Viagra, which they pretty much analyzed, and duplicated, and then started releasing for a fraction of the costs the guys who developed it want. In cases like drug companies, there is frequently a goverment stake in them and the goverment gets a share of their profits in exchange for money and resources it donates towards the development. Not to mention the taxes it loses out on from lost sales.
Other issues are things like knocking off clothing, China is infamous for doing things like duplicating the registered styles of a garmet producer like Calvin Klein and then selling the clothing for a fraction of the price, with a false label attached to it saying that's what it is. This costs the artists/fashion designers a lot of money, as well as again lost sales.
There are some technologies that could be more carefully regulated and controlled, there is some truth to that, but the problem is that anything availible on the consumer market can be reverse engineered and duplicated. What prevents this is patent laws and copyrights, which robber economies by definition do not follow by saying they are not binding under their internal laws. With the amounts of money to be made, and the markets for knockoffs throughout the second and third world, the only real viable option in such cases is to force them to stop. Of course given that this would require decimating a good portion of the world population, as well as putting our own lives at stake, nobody much cares to do so. Even when China is building up a substantial military, including a navy to move it's troops and a very scary submarine screening element (look up the Yuan class submarine), along with a lot of people down there talking about how they want to conquer other nations for living space when they are ready. It doesn't last in the media very long when it comes out, but every once in a while you get videos showing a peek behind the "Bamboo Curtain" and let's just say I think we're in denial, waiting for them to throw the first punch which is pretty stupid.
The problem with changing international business policies and outsourcing, which is actually a whole differant issue, is that it's difficult to put the genie back into the bottle so to speak. With the people already out there we have few options on the table that aren't extremely military since we can't really force businesses to do something against their own interests, and closing US markets in an attempt to force them back is the stupid move a lot of US competitors are praying for since that would mean those businesses would just transfer their business to the next most profitable market. Then we'll see a transfer of financial power from Wall Street to say the European Common Market. This is an entirely differant arguement though which I won't go into, and we're getting further and further off topic.
Of course, they'll be replaced by a bunch of incompetent warmongers and the cycle starts again. Such is British politics.Wicky_42 said:
Ultimately, Douglas Adams had it right: "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard", said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?" (So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish, chapter 36).
No, the problem with the Iraq War was not that you guys put ridiculous conditions for victory. Saddam's army was down the moment his air support was gone. Victory was achieved years ago. The problem was the goal itself - occupation and setting up a puppet regime. And how do you exactly plan to set up an occupation by carpet bombing? And Al Qaeda? Only about 5% of the forces the US was fighting was Al Qaeda - the rest were all nationalist movements. Hell, the Taliban wanted to hand over Bin Laden before the Afghan invasion, but Clinton's surplus was apparently just sitting around wanting to be wasted on pointless wars.Therumancer said:
Also, your readiness to go to war and 'decimate an entire region' as a solution is rather... disturbing.
As for your argument on knock-offs, I assure you: Chinese fake brands (especially clothes) sold in the third world countries are no sales lost for the original manufacturers. Those people wouldn't be able to afford the expensive products in the first place.
As for Chinese products sold in the US, remember this: the Chinese economy hinges on the US consumers (why do you think China rushed in to bail you guys out after the housing bubble burst?). The government can easily create a closed economy where knock-offs and reverse engineered products are banned in the country. And if the idea of a little socialism scares you, remember: nearly all off the economic superpowers e.g. China, India, Japan started off with a closed economy, and opened up to the free market only when the country was ready. And capitalism hasn't exactly served you guys very well lately.
Also, China is all about sabre-rattling. They'll never go to a war in the near future, considering how much their investments are tied up around the world. I doubt they would even make a move against Taiwan - that region is much more profitable to them right now than as a war-torn state. You'll only have have to worry if you plan to invade China. Then you're screwed. Especially with those piece-of-shit F-35s (only 2 A2A missiles? Really?).
Of course, with Faux News and Sarah Palin blaring incessantly, what I'm asking for is next to impossible. But it's a better alternative to a war economy. That only worked once, in WW2, but never again.
Raiyan 1.0 said:
Merchants have ALWAYS felt a war was impossible due to the way money was flowing. This was a big part of what brought the Romans down, they ignored the realities of the world they lived in based on their presumtions and how decadent they had become. The term "Barbarians At The Gates" refers to the enemies of Rome literally forming up their troops outside the city and nobody wanting to acknowlege that it was an attack despite all common sense.
Right now what I propose is disturbing because of a combination of impractical morality that has been beaten into people's heads since the 1960s, and the simple fact that nobody likes wars, and nations with little control over the outcome especially hate wars because they have to gamble on picking the winning side, and are generally going to come out worse for the situation no matter who wins. I get that, but that's all there really is to it. Part of my point is that people need to get over being disturbed, and start facing reality.
The issue with The Middle East is exactly what you present, it's not a war but a police action. We tried to go in as an occupying force and install a progressive goverment. Unfortunatly complicated internal problems can't be resolved by external forces in this fashion. Our morality and the unwillingness to put much blood on our hands lead to us defining a victory condition that is simply put impossible to acheive. In reality we should have gone into the region, wiped the place out, killing millions, and then went home. You do the job properly and there is no culture left to present a threat in the region. It's how successful wars have been fought by the Romans, against the Nazis (look up Bomber Harris some time), and how Christians managed to get rid of all the other religions in the Western world more or less and take over. It's not pleasant, which is why I believe war should be the last thing on the table, but when you get there it's all about killing people and breaking things. By the time you send the military diplomacy and "winning the peace" has already failed. Simply put the only way to defeat other cultures is to do to them what it would take to defeat the US, we wouldn't be swayed by this kind of occupation, we'd keep fighting on endlessly the same way. To beat the US you'd have to pretty much the majority of the American population, and hunt down those holding onto the ideaology rather ruthlessly. It's foolish to assume other cultures are any easier to permanantly defeat than ours is. Honestly I think a lot of the half measures that we're involved in now are kind of racist, and that's part of the problem. There is a lack of respect for the people of The Middle East, in thinking that they are going to break before "shock and awe" like a bunch of savages facing "boomsticks", and that the people are so backwards as to be too stupid to resist manipulation, that's hardly the case. While many people have implied I'm a bigot, it's quite the opposite, what I say is based on a degree of respect, and the belief that in the end final victory is going to take the same exact things.
When it comes to China, their knockoffs are what is responsible for building up their nation. It's not a matter of "oh well, these people would not be able to pay your prices" before China got big on the global market they did indeed pay those prices. While the second and third world represents a big market here it's also a general issue with other markets because of imports. Simply put if a Chinese knockoff is going for half the price, people are going to buy it, especially if they think it's the genuine article. Companies should not have to lower their prices to compete with someone else stealing their patents and copyrights. What's more all of those sales represent money lost to the goverments in terms of taxes and such.
I mean I get it, you don't want to see a war where billions of people die, I figure most people don't. Heck, I don't paticularly want to see it happen either. The bottom line is that it's coming, as the current issues are not going to be resolved any other way.
See, these kinds of problems bring about the slow death of nations and empires. If the US gets drained away and falls, people around the world who see us as rich, arrogant, and poiwerful, really don't care and are going to take an "about time" attitude. Of course if they were on the receiving end in our position they would feel a lot differantly. By the same token a lot of nations really like China BECAUSE of those knock offs and cheap goods. Being able to get all the same stuff major nations like the US have without having to pay substantial prices is a big deal. That makes people less than receptive to the idea of China as a threat since they are happy with things as they are right now. People don't want to believe the guys raising their standard of living are taking the money from that trade to build up a huge military to conquer their trade partners, but that's pretty much what we see going on right now. It's just that due to the price in human lives that a war would ring means that nobody wants to acknowlege it.
What we see going on now is something people saw coming for decades, we just don't want to accept it. Like "Zero Population Growth" the inevitable east-west war is going to get here, and it's going to be ridiculously bad, and we are going to be saying "we should have done something to stop that before it got so big" but well, it will be too late. Assuming of course that we win in the end.
Look, I can understand which angle you're tackling this from, and I'm not going to childishly pass a judgement on you as a war monger. You simply see war as inevitable. But there is this one flaw in your argument.Therumancer said:
You see, it's not the merchant's view that makes me believe war isn't coming. It's WMDs that I've my faith in.
Let me clear up on this. I fuckin' love nukes. They have kept us safe through the Cold War. And I believe that they'll keep us safe in the future as well. Nukes just raise the stakes too high, which is why an analogy with a thousand-year-old war doesn't apply. Remember, the Soviet Union was crazy - by the time they were falling apart, they were spending 20% of their GDP on military spendings - and yet the Cold War managed to never turn hot. Comparatively, China is positively mild. They've recently reduced their military expenditure (around 2.0% of total GDP, compared to USA's 4.3%) and, if you've seen the recent WikiLeaks, Chinese policy-makers are trying to distance themselves from N Korea.
The fact is, China has her priorities straight. And the US needs to get her's as well. And while you see another bloody war in the horizon, I, at worst, see a second Cold War.
That Fable III picture could be relevent on two grounds? One it's a UK based studio, two the idea of making tough decisions for the good of the country? Ah, who am I kidding, the Conservatives are just going to cut everything brutally in the hope that the economy might turn around enough for them to make meagre reinvestments a year before elections.
The results of that by-election were interesting though. A Labour MP gets (rightly) removed for having a racially motivated election campaign, and yet Labour secure a larger majority the second time round whilst the Conservatists lose support.
Maybe that's from the "We won't raise VAT"pledge lie Cameron made on the debates.
The results of that by-election were interesting though. A Labour MP gets (rightly) removed for having a racially motivated election campaign, and yet Labour secure a larger majority the second time round whilst the Conservatists lose support.
Maybe that's from the "We won't raise VAT"
Raiyan 1.0 said:
Not childish at all actually, I'm a militant or what some people would call a "War Monger". At the moment I see war as a "good" thing overall, though I don't believe it's the solution to all problems. I simply feel right now US morality has gotten to the point where the action of last resort (War) is entirely off the table, as we simply keep trying the same non-functional actions and strategies again and again. Leading with diplomacy is fine, but when that and measured responses are all you do, it's a problem. Right now we're the national equivilent of the joke about the British Bobby telling a gun wielding criminal "Stop, or I'll say Stop again!".
The thing that your missing about WMD is that they have been around for decades. It's foolish to think that what was viewed as the ultimate weapon during World War II was going to remain there indefinatly. We're actually pretty lucky that it lasted as long as it did. Right now the big powers like the US and China have substantial missle defenses. We upset the Russians with some of the tech we've demonstrated to intercept ICBMs since it violated the treaties with the USSR to keep ICBMs active. China on the other hand has developed lasers that can blind US Satellites which is going to make it very difficult for ultra-long range missle targeting:
http://defensetech.org/2006/09/25/chinese-laser-vs-u-s-sats/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/is-this-chinas-anti-satellite-laser-weapon-site/
As I keep telling people do a search for "China" "Satellite" and "Laser" and you'll find TONS of stuff on this going back years. Just because the generally left wing "peace at any price" media likes to present things as being reasonably peachy, doesn't mean it's true.
If you dig you'll also find articles like this one:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/91150/chinese_submarine_beats_navys_best.html?cat=15
China has developed Submarines capable of competing with our naval technology, which means that with these things as escorts it's viable for China to project it's power to other nations. A lot of people seem to think China is no threat because there is no way they could get their massive armies into other nations, this is rapidly not becoming the case. What's more with these subs it also means that it's going to be far more difficult should a war start for the US to get missle subs/boats and carriers off the Chinese shoreline should a war actually start. This news isn't something that just started either, while we've been picking our noses so to speak China has been building up these forces, along with their attitudes about conducting wars of conquest for living space. Should they get into a position where they feel they can adequetly protect the Chinese Mainland, and successfully move out their troops, they are doubtlessly going to do it. We're very much in "Barbarians At The Gates" type denial over this right now. Obviously when questioned they are going to say "of course we're not planning to invade, that's just sabre rattling" they aren't stupid, no nation is officially going to say something like that until they are ready to declare war.
Even if your right, and we do see another Cold War, that's pretty much handing China victory under the current circumstances. That doesn't play to the interests of the US, because right now our economy is in rough shape, while China's is booming. A Cold War is ultimatly going to maintain the current status quo which means the US and other nations feeling the crunch are going to be bled out while China continues to become stronger. In the end a lot of Western powers are liable to collapse into mere shadows of themselves, sort of like what happened to the USSR, but in reverse.
Now, I do get it that a lot of nations that would be caught in the middle of this kind of thing and wouldn't benefit no matter what side they chose or who won don't care for the idea, and would like to see the current status quo maintained as long as possible. What's more other nations always want to see the dominant world power "get theirs", however I of course don't want to see that happen to the USA, and what's more, even looking at things objectively I think even our critics would probably be happier with us staying in power and eventually uniting the world (I hope, since it's nessicary for our species to survive, but that's another dicussion) than seeing the Chinese do it.
For those of you who are getting pissed at all of the conservative economy cuts, think of it this way.
1. Huge taxes put on rich and corporate actions.
2. Rich flee the the country, companies flee the country or go bankrupt.
3. Source of income is completely gone, everyone becomes unemployed, UK descends into chaos.
It unfortunately creates an endless cycle.
A party comes along, promises lots of free stuff, and bankrupts the country in doing so.
A second party comes along, everyone votes for them to fix the economy, and they do, but they take away all the free things the first party gave you.
People hate having their free stuff taken away, so they vote for the first party again.
1. Huge taxes put on rich and corporate actions.
2. Rich flee the the country, companies flee the country or go bankrupt.
3. Source of income is completely gone, everyone becomes unemployed, UK descends into chaos.
It unfortunately creates an endless cycle.
A party comes along, promises lots of free stuff, and bankrupts the country in doing so.
A second party comes along, everyone votes for them to fix the economy, and they do, but they take away all the free things the first party gave you.
People hate having their free stuff taken away, so they vote for the first party again.
After checking your links to the Chinese anti-satellite measures (I was aware of the Chinese doing tests by taking down their own satellites), I was reminded of the Boeing X-37 [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1268138/X-37B-unmanned-space-shuttle-launched-tonight.html]. It was a NASA project that was handed over to the USAF and is shrouded in secrecy. Rumors are it will work as a satellite platform and will be able to evade anti-satellite missiles due to its high maneuverability. And if it has a weapons payload, can't see how the Chinese will save themselves from what is virtually a kinetic weapon.Therumancer said:
Also, you're missing a large part of the equation - ariel warfare. The B2 Spirit is still effective as hell, and even if you don't want to use a lumbering subsonic bomber, there's the interim bomber project that's being brought back in FY2012. The proposed FB-22 would be an adequate deep penetration supersonic stealth strike fighter as it will be able to carry tactical nuclear weapons (though I would rather they bring back the YF-23). So if a war does break out, China will have trouble keeping its strategic sites safe. As for Chinese attempts, just look at the Chengdu J-20: the exhaust radar signature is going to get it into a lot of trouble, and the stealthy bits like the DSI inlets are copied off the F-35. As for America's inland defense, it'll not be able to outdo the F-22.
As for nukes, I was talking less about ICBMs and more about SLBMs: the Yuan-class may be a threat to you guys, but China will have to deal with Ohio-class submarines, which carry fifty percent of the total US strategic warhead inventory. That is no small threat. Also the American subs are capable of rapid targeting using secure and constant at-sea communications links; so even if satellites are taken down, targeting systems aren't.
The simple fact is, with America's military expenditure [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png], no one quite matches the US in military R&D.
Also, like I've said again and again, China will not cause a war simply because they have the most to gain from the current status quo. If there is an aggressor, it'll be the US, as usual.
Now, let's face it - so far, all the crises USA is facing is from poor policy-making: giving the Pakistani ISI free reign in creating Islamist terrorists (first the Al Qaeda, now the Lashker-e-Taiba), Dick Cheney forcing the CIA to make fake reports as an excuse to go to two wars, the chamber of commerce shipping all the jobs away to China (I would hazard this started off from Kissinger's attempt to make an alliance with the Chinese), letting bankers walk away with bailout money instead of punishing them for high-risk banking thus taking down the economy (and possibly nationalizing the banks), letting lobbyists make policies (thus the F-35 - an inferior product that has cost $300 billion and rising)... the list goes on and on. This is exactly what I meant by when I said USA needs to get her priorities straight. Fellating corporates and trying to build bases in Afghanistan are not going to solve any of USA's problem - it'll only be digging a deeper hole.
I'm in no way anti-American. In fact, all these years I've been railing against these policies simply because I knew it was not going to end well for the country. But no, I don't see America as the last bastion of hope, as many people make it out to be.
Raiyan 1.0 said:
Actually the US usually isn't the aggressor, we're just accused of it because other nations don't want to be involved in whatever we get into. I actually think we SHOULD be the aggressor we're accused of being.
Debating military technology back and forth is going to derail things further, since really it's an arms race, and the point is that China is playing the game, and playing it well. ICBMS and mutually assured destruction aren't what they used to be. With the development of their new subs, our chances of getting those Ohio class submarines and such into a position to do anything go down, and as time goes on I think the odds are going to get lower which is why I am a supporter of pro-active action.
In saying that China has nothing to gain from a war because the current situation benefits them, your incorrect. Understand that the general status quo basically undermines the USA and other western nations, so is effectively a motivation for a war all on it's own. The flow of resources benefits them, and also does enough damage to be an "us or them" situation all on it's own. Hence the need for pro-active action.
However, I don't think China is liable to wait for that to take it's toll even if we play along. What your not getting is that the motivations for wars are not always sensible. China has a good number of reasons for starting a war of conquest, both practical and cultural. For one China is heavily racist and believes that they are destinied to rule the planet, and their closed culture serves to help reinforce this fact. Add to the simple fact that China culturally plays victim over things like their part in The Opium Wars, and blames the West (and rightfully so to an extent) over being poverty stricken for so long, and there is a massive urge for payback, entirely justified or not (and let's be honest, pretty much any nation can justify a war with any othr if they look back far enough. In this case racism and a closed enviroment provides a lot of the fuel).
On top of this there are practical motivations. China is massively overpopulated, and what progress has been made here comes at the cost of some rather draconian policies. China is a land where you have like 12 people sharing the same bed in shifts, and people lodging with their livestock (which is how SARS got started). All the money in the world doesn't change this, nor does it change the cultural desire to have large families and the like. This is why I mentioned the motivation of "living space". Given what they believe to be a sufficient level of power, China is liable to start launching invasions simply to kill people off and colonize/annex their land, both in terms of nessecity and also "payback". The fact that they say as much outside of diplomatic circles is what makes this a scary prospect.
It's important to note that China has such a huge population that it can actually occupy/exteminate nations with infantry and conventional forces, overrunning them. That population is also why a land war in Asia is viewed as being foolishness. The only way to really stop China is to bomb the living crud out of them either "conventionally" or with various kinds of WMD. If China develops sufficient defenses to reduce this possibility, they will be in a position to invade, and really that's what they are banking on. You can't use WMD defensively by dropping bombs on your own land to stop invaders, and once you lose the abillity to land shots on China... well you have problems.
While I doubt they would appreciate it in the short term, and always have some issues, I think that a massive war with China that removed a billion or so people would actually do them some good. It would lower a lot of tensions, and allow them to implement policies to prevent the population from getting that large again, rather than trying to deal with what
is already there. Of course most people here aren't comfortable with seeing that many human deaths in any context. Still, I think without that population issue to contend with, China would be a heck of a lot easier to deal with and would be able to gradually become more progressive. One of the reasons why they are so draconian and inhumane is because it's impossible to maintain much in the way of human rights when you have that many bloody
people.
In the end we're going to have to agree to disagree I'm sure, since I doubt we'll ever come to a consensus on this. I'm just a much bigger cynic than you are, and in the end I just don't see much in the way of solving problems of this sort without military force and a lot of death, which is why I'm a militant... and trust me, I put a lot of thought into it. I think a lot of people look at situations witht he assumption that all people are the same outlook wise, and the groups we're dealing with are just like us on a fundemental level. When looking at motives I don't think many people consider the sheer amount of pressure China's population puts it under and how that is going to affect what it does. It's not just about money even if that is a factor.