I want to clarify this, as it might be confusing the way I've written it... $10 in equity and +$10 deposit (the new loan) $30 in existing deposits (totaling $40 in liabilities) +$10 (the new loan) loans and $30 in reserves (totaling $40 in assets) (Do you see how the new loan created the deposit?) For clarities sake, this should read: $10 in equity and $30 in existing deposits (of which $10 is the new loan deposit) (totaling $40 in liabilities) +$10 (the new loan) loans and $30 in reserves (totaling $40 in assets) (Do you see how the new loan created the deposit?)
My idea is not wrong at all. The reserves are what are paid out of the loan proceeds. See my question below where you agreed that when someone takes a loan, the banks must have reserves to cover the spending of the loan proceeds. Saying banks "lend reserves" is a bit of a shortcut, it accurately describes the entire transaction of 1) making the loan, and 2) funding the loan. I don't see how it has "undermined my credibility" at all. Everything I've stated is accurate. Do you read your own articles? "In previous articles we talked about how money can multiply from an initial sum into much more, as a byproduct of fractional reserve banking and low reserve requirements. You can think of the monetary base as the amount of starting money upon which further "multiplication" can take place." This is exactly what I've said. When we discussed commercial bank money creation, we looked at the credit creation process and how it literally creates deposits out of thin air. Exactly what I've said. As long as banks have sufficient reserves, or can attain sufficient reserves to back the deposits they create, this process of money creation can continue unabated. Well, the monetary base is what supports the much larger volume of commercial bank money that is created as businesses and individuals take out loans. In a simplified system in which a commercial bank must maintain a 10% reserve ratio, every $1 of monetary base (central bank reserve) money has the potential to turn into $10 of commercial bank money. Exactly what I've said. First, some background on central bank reserves. Reserves in the banking system can be changed in three, and only three, ways: 3. The government changes its deposits at the central bank by either receiving or transferring funds from the private sector. This will be discussed in more detail later. It is also of little significance regarding the overall level of reserves in the banking system. This is an aside -- but this is saying exactly what I've said as well. When the Govt receives money through taxes or loans, it spends it right back out, and therefore there is no effect on the money supply. It is common to assume the following order of operations regarding money creation: Central bank increases the amount of reserves in the system There are now excess reserves in the system Commercial banks extend loans (create deposits) until all of their new "excess" reserves are now "required" reserves This thought process is what leads many to the notion that commercial bank lending is "reserve constrained." Meaning as long as the central bank doesn't increase the amount of reserves, commercial lending (deposit creation) cannot increase past a certain limit. The logical extension of this thought process, looking at the vast amount of excess reserves now in the system from QE, is that banks are now going to be able to create so much money that hyperinflation is inevitable. But if you look closely at the chart above, you can tell from the fact that excess reserves stayed at zero up until QE, that the central bank never added "excess" reserves to the system which weren't already demanded. If it had, the horizontal line in the above chart would not be at zero the entire time until QE began, you would see small blips as excess reserves built up in advance of commercial bank credit creation converting them to "required" reserves. So we know that the logic above is flawed ... This is where I have to disagree with the guy. Let's take another look at his chart: This is the same chart has he had, but stops in 2008 when the Fed flooded the system with money to keep interest rates low: It shows his statement is not accurate. Excess reserves were not "at zero" and you do see small blips. On the scale of his chart, the data looked like zero with no blips because of the scale of money the Fed dumped in the system. This may accurately describe what happens when there is an excess of reserves, or when the Fed is maintaining a steady money supply to support loan activity. But that does not say that lending can not constrained by the amount of reserves. If the Fed has determined it wants to have the federal funds rate set at a certain level, it MUST add or decrease reserves to achieve that rate. Exactly. Otherwise, the constrain on the amount of reserves limits the amount of loan capacity, and interest rates increase. Which you generally don't want, unless you have an inflation issue. 1. Banks extend credit at a faster rate than loans are being repaid. This increases the deposits for these banks and consequently forces them to have to borrow reserves. They look to other banks but other banks do not have excess reserves, and so are not interested in lending out their required reserves because they would have to adjust loans and deposits accordingly to meet their reserve ratio. There is more demand for reserves than there is supply. Thus the banks compete for these reserves, driving the federal funds rate up. If the central bank wants to maintain its target rate, it MUST add reserves to the system. This balances out supply with demand, and the federal funds rate stays near target. Same thing I just said. 2. Banks extend credit at a slower rate than loans are being repaid. This decreases the deposits for these banks and consequently leaves them with excess reserves. Since there is no need for these excess reserves, banks are happy to lend them to other banks at whatever rate the other banks are willing to pay. In this case we have more supply than demand, and so the federal funds rate would fall. Again, if the central bank wants to maintain its target rate, it MUST decrease reserves in the system. This once again balances supply with demand so that the federal funds rate can stay near target. Flip side of the above. So in conclusion, commercial banks are never "reserve constrained" in the sense that their lending is limited by the amount of reserves in the system. The only thing that constrains them is the cost to obtain those reserves (the federal funds rate) which is managed by the Fed. Ultimately, the Fed will do whatever it needs to, from a reserve perspective, to maintain its target. It's done so for its entire existence and is likely to continue doing so for the foreseeable future. Here's his contradicting his own logic: First he said: "the monetary base is what supports the much larger volume of commercial bank money that is created as businesses and individuals take out loans. In a simplified system in which a commercial bank must maintain a 10% reserve ratio, every $1 of monetary base (central bank reserve) money has the potential to turn into $10 of commercial bank money." In other words, without the money base - reserves - you cannot support much larger volume of lending. Then he says: "Banks extend credit at a faster rate than loans are being repaid. This increases the deposits for these banks and consequently forces them to have to borrow reserves. They look to other banks but other banks do not have excess reserves, and so are not interested in lending out their required reserves because they would have to adjust loans and deposits accordingly to meet their reserve ratio. There is more demand for reserves than there is supply. Thus the banks compete for these reserves, driving the federal funds rate up." In otherwords, because banking lending is constrained by the amount of reserves, if the amount of reserves does not increase and demand for lending is increasing, then -- supply and demand -- interest rates go up. Now he says: "So in conclusion, commercial banks are never "reserve constrained" in the sense that their lending is limited by the amount of reserves in the system. The only thing that constrains them is the cost to obtain those reserves (the federal funds rate) which is managed by the Fed." His statement is illogical. If banks were never "reserve constrained", then there would never be an increase in the cost to obtain the reserves! It is the fact that banks are reserve constrained that causes those interest rates to go up unless the Fed increases base money - i.e. reserves. If the Fed does not increase the reserves or decreases them (think 1980-81), because of the reserve constraint, interest rates go up. Today there is a whole pile of excess reserves, so today, the only thing constricting banks is finding "credit worthy" borrowers, which has capped lending activity because the economy has been sluggish and banks are gun shy from the lending orgy of the 2000s. But as the economy picks up, and banks start feeling better about lending more money, and less concerned about credit worthiness, the multiplier effect will increase the effective money supply, and we will start seeing inflation. At that point, the Fed will have to resume the lending constraints by either eliminating the excess reserve or increasing the reserve requirement. How fast will that happen? Can the Fed eliminate 3 trillion in excess reserves in a hurry to deal with it? That's why some people worry. And there is some reason for it. The author seems the think the Fed will always be an open spigot for base money. "Ultimately, the Fed will do whatever it needs to, from a reserve perspective, to maintain its target. " But if we see inflation pick up, the Fed will close that spigot and reverse it, and the reserve constraint will increase the cost of banks obtaining reserves which means an increase in interest rates.
Putting aside other regulatory limitations like capital requirements, for Corner Bank to make a $100 million loan, it needs $100 million in reserves to fund the loan. If Corner bank has $20 million in assets and $5 million in capital, where is it going to get $100,000 to fund? Can it find $100 million in new deposits? Is another bank going to risk giving it a $100 million loan? I don't think so. Is the Central Bank going to give it a low interest rate $100 million loan? Maybe in Canada, not here in the US.
We are just going around in semantics. I've explained it 10 times already. Banks need reserves to fund their loans. You're arguing yourself in circles. You've agreed three times that only the Fed can increase reserves overall and that bank lending doesn't change the amount of reserves. And here you're saying the opposite, that increased borrowing increases reserves. Your position in not even consistent with yourself. Banks don't make loans unless they either have the reserves to fund them or know they can acquire them, because being in violation of the reserve requirement is a bad thing. I disagree with your opinion. Banks need reserves to fund their loans. The Bank of England said it in the spring of 2014, writing in its quarterly bulletin: [/quote] How is that different from anything I've said? I've said that 10 times. That is what I've been saying, and completely opposite of your position. If banks don't need reserves to lend, the why would it be that "The greater the deposits the more loans that can be funded without having to borrow reserves." Another inconsistency. You're arguing banks don't need reserves. But then you claim they need to borrow reserves in the term of loans or get them through deposits. Why do they need to borrow them or get them from loans if they don't need them to make loans? I think (but I'm not sure) that you are beginning to understand that yes, banks do need reserves to make (fund) a loan, which is why they either need more deposition of need to borrow them. That is true. And equity includes reserves (assets) that can be used to cover financial needs like demands on its liabilities (deposits). Other assets are fairly easily convertible to reserves. If a banks assets are in long term loan receivables, it doesn't have liquidity.
Well good. That is why I asked the question. Rather than going around in circles talking in loose semantics, let's establish a fundamental understanding of exactly how the transaction works. So if the lending bank must have the reserves to transfer to the payee bank, its not really lending money created out of "thin air", is it? Let's be crystal clear here. You accused me of conflagrating individual banks with the banking system, but that is exactly what you are doing here. When you say "they are still 100% available to borrow, thus not limiting reserves in any way" you're talking about reserves in the banking system, right? You're not talking about the Lending Bank's reserves, right? In the above example, when the lending bank transfer its reserves to the payee bank to cover the payment made by the borrower of its loan (i.e. the lending bank funds the loan), the lending bank's reserves have decreased. Do you dispute with that? And thus (assuming the Lending bank used its excess reserves), the Lending bank now has less capacity to make another loan, unless it (ultimately) is able to obtain more reserves. Do you dispute that? I don't recall you explaining why a bank that creates money out of thin air has a problem with its capital reserves. Then its not "thin air". I think more accurately would be to say that $10 in equity is wiped out, not used to repay the loan. OK, that makes more sense. It does *not* increase "base money". Only the Fed does that. Of course. I've said that 10 times or more. But what happens when the bank funds the loan? -$10 reserves and -10 deposits leaving $10 in loans receivable and $20 in reserves on the asset side, and $20 deposits and $10 equity on the liability side. So the net effect of a loan (unless the payee's deposit account happens to be in the lending bank) is an increase in loans payable, and an offsetting decrease in reserves, and not change on the liability side. Doesn't sound like "thin air". It sounds like when a loan is made by a bank it takes on a very real potential risk. What I just said above. And if you increase the loan to $30, it will be constrained by lack of reserves to make further loans until it acquires more reserves, right? I think we've boiled this down to semantics. I'm saying that the bank must have reserves to make loans. I think you're agreeing with me. You're just saying that it can get more reserves by attracting more deposits or taking loans. Of course, it can get more equity to, by making profits or selling shares of its stock. Both things constrain the lending of a bank. There is a cost to both. In the environment we have now of tons of excess reserves, obtaining more reserves isn't very expensive; but the amount earned on loans is relative low as well. But when the Fed starts restricting the amount of base money the cost of obtaining new reserves increases. Semantics again. Banks must fund loans with reserves. The don't usually lend them directly to the borrower (unless the borrower demands cash) but the effect is the same when the borrower spends the loan proceeds. The money (reserves) to fund the loan comes from depositors or lenders. I asked it to clarify your position because of the terminology you used about creating money out of thin air. I think we are on board now. What destroyed? My question was what new money has been created. Try again. Absolutely wrong. If I buy a government bond for $1000 and the government takes that $1000 and spends it, what money has been created? Because your position doesn't make sense. And I demonstrated with your own hypo that it is the Fed injecting money that creates the money, not the government borrowing it. In your example in post 35, it is the Fed that creates the new money, not the government borrowing it. Take the Fed out of the equation and what happens? The Govt issues a bond, but no one has any money to buy it. No money is created. On the other hand, the Fed can buy something from the private sector, and new money will be created, even without there being any Govt bond. Or without there being any Govt at all, for that matter. His explanation is as utterly faulty as yours. He says the Govt needs to spend first. But what does the Govt have to spent if it hasn't received money from the Fed? Nothing. It can't spend because it has no money. OTOH, the Fed can spend first because the Fed creates money. Not the Govt. You and the speaker are confusing the Govt with the Fed. Now, if you want to define "government" as including the central bank, then yes, a government with a CB can print money, and it doesn't need to tax or borrow (though it likely will have inflation) . But that still doesn't mean a government loan creates money. It is the government printing money that creates money. In this instance, it is not the government making a loan or raising taxes that creates money, but it creating money as a central bank. Don't confuse a sloppy definition of "government" with the US Govt and the Fed. The speaker seems to be completely confusing the concept of a "government" which incorporates a central bank, with the US Govt that does not have that function, which is a function of the Fed. This sloppy definition is what has you confused. I don't know if the speaker is trying to be intentionally misleading, or if he just doesn't understand it himself. Either case is not a very admirable situation. Thanks, I enjoy it too.
Yes I do. I've seen it from post 1 where I state that a bank loan creates deposit. But you're not telling the whole story, are you. What happens when the bank funds the loan? Deposits and reserves decrease by $10. So after the entire loan transaction, you have $10 in equity and $20 in existing deposits (of which -$10 is the debit to the borrower after he spends the loan proceeds) (totaling $30 in liabilities) And after loan transaction is complete (i.e. after the loan is funded), then -$10 in reserves leaving $20 and totaling $30 in assets. Do you see how the loan depletes the lending bank's reserves, so that in a shorthand sense the bank is "lending" reserves?
Any loan that is spent returns to the banking system as a deposit. If you buy a car, the money goes to the producer who banks it. One must look at the overall circulation of money, and not just at one "transaction" ...
The government has "income" derived from both Taxation and borrowing from the general public in the form of T-notes. When taxation (positive on bank-balance) is lesser than market-borrowing (negative on bank-balance), it runs a deficit. When the world loves to hold dollars in reserve, it buys T-notes. For as long as 320 million people in the US, and 610 million in Europe continue to Demand goods-'n-services, there will always be Income and Debt. What matters is the way they are "managed" to keep the system rolling along. Countries in Europe were almost bankrupted because of their outstanding negative positions on which they were required to maintain payments or be considered "in default". They weren't because the EU gave the Central Bank funds to loan to the countries. The same happens in the US. Ultimately it is the FRB that keeps the country's finances afloat. And it does not help in the least when twerps on Wall St issue and sell bogus "Triple-A" packaged-debt investments to the world (aka "Toxic Waste"), which has a tendency to crash the entire banking system balance sheets. End of story ...
My statement above was made in the context of the hypo Econ4 posted about initial creation of money. A deficit is when tax receipts are lower than outlays.
I understand what you are trying to do with your example, but, here's the problem. It's not the bank's ability to fund the loan, but the cost to the borrower given the assets you list for "Corner Bank" that limits the transaction. It would be like asking 2 people if they could build a multi-level house. It's possible for 2 people to build a house, but given their resources, it would be more costly and take longer than a standard home builder which is why no one would ever pay 2 people to build a large home if they could hire a larger homebuilder. It's cost prohibitive, not that it can't be done. If a borrower wanted $100 million dollars, a smaller bank might be able to fund it, assuming the loan met Basal capital adequacy requirements, but it would be extremely expensive relative to a larger bank with greater resources. Corner Bank would increase the cost because it lacks the resources and to fund the loan, thus it will cost Corner bank more than it would cost a larger commercial bank, costs that it would pass on to the borrower. It would undoubtedly have to go to the Discount Window to fund the loan (if it decided to keep the loan). The money would always be there, the only thing that would change is the cost, which, as I just said, would be passed on to the borrower. The reason that small banks don't fund $100m dollar loans is because people that are capable of borrowing that much money aren't stupid enough to pay what it would cost to get the loan from a smaller bank. They would just go to a larger bank and pay less. Even in your last post, you confuse the cost of reserves with availability of reserves. First 1980-81 was an unusual time, but still, it proves my point. Costs were astronomical, but there was never a bank who said, sorry, all the reserves in the system are gone. If loan could only be made profitably at 20% and a borrower were only willing to pay 17%, then yes, at that cost, there would be no reserves. But, as I've stated, it's not that there were literally no reserves. You've shown me nothing that suggests otherwise. The Fed targets rates, which in turn are set by choosing a policy they best believe can achieve stability and preventing inflation. The rate target is "defended" when conditions start to change (increased or decreased borrowing that threatens to cause rates to change) the Fed will initiate open market operations and it either buys or sells assets, that is, sometimes it moves dollars into the economy and holds bonds, sometimes it does the opposite depending on what the Fed wants to acomplish. If rates rise, it's because the Fed has allowed reserves to fall. Period, not because reserves were all used up (hence my claim that reserves are not the true constraint on lending). If borrowers were increasing their borrowing and the availability of reserves was declining and putting pressure on the Fed's target rate, assuming the Fed was comfortable with inflation and stability and wanted to maintain the current rate, in light of the new pressure it would respond by buying assets from the private sector which would result in greater dollar deposits in banks relieving the pressure put on reserves. When available reserves decrease the cost of lending rises, but healthy banks will always, always, always, always be able to find reserves available to them at the Discount Window, all that changes is the cost to the borrower. -Cheers
The Clinton "surplus" was squandered by a numskull of a Replicant PotUS who went off to war, and handed Obama a Great Recession before leaving in disgrace. And now we are supposed to expect Great Miracles from Donald Dork, the King of Hostelry, just because he is "new and a multibillionaire and therefore exciting". Ya gotta be kidding! The news-sources are going to be all-over this presidential nerd . The fundamental problems facing the US are NOT migrants nor expanding the DoD budget (that already devours 64% of all Discretionary Expenditure) for fiscal-stimulus*. If he wants a first-class war with which to "reinvent" America, then maybe should ask his new-and-best-friend Tsar Vladimir to oblige him ... ? *The irony of it all is that when Obama asked for the fiscal-stimulus in 2010, after having stopped dead the spiked rise in Unemployment, all of a sudden the Replicants could propose nothing but "Austerity Budgeting". They did not want to stimulate the economy (and put Americans back to work) whilst a Dem-PotUS was in the White House! Because they were looking at the 2012 elections to dump Obama. (Didn't work out that way, did it?) **So it took another four longggggg years for the economy to finally start creating jobs all by itself - and the economy is still way off its pre-recession level of an Employment to population ratio of 63.5%! (It's around 59%!)
Inflation is something we all cringe when we hear about. then there is the living wage i have been trying to figure out. putting these together i have found a way to avoid the prior condition, being, inflation, as if there are some people being paid the living wage, there needs to be a living budget, and, therefore a 'poverty limit' to prices, yes? So, if everyone gets paid more, and prices go up, nothing happens. on the other hand, if the prices stay more or less the same, the people will prosper, the customers that is, and, even the owners of the companies have to support themselves by buying goods, of course. Now, if the prices stay the same for everyone, the price of components and materials will stay the same, and, then there will be no inflation, while people get paid more, and, then can afford to buy more goods, or store their money in the bank, allowing others to lend that money from the bank for their own businesses, which brings in more competition, which means even lower prices? Writing this into law would mean that there would be a living wage, and, this is similar to socialism or nationalism, of course. if we were to, instead of limiting the decision making of the banks and companies, limit the retail prices, then we could easily move forwards, away from poverty. on the bad side, housing prices will go right up, but with the surplus from the savings on goods, incorporating the price of cement and builders wages, people will be able to build their own houses, yes?
This is a truly insightful comment..... I also have concluded that political leaders are largely squabbling over pennies....... in relation to the true power that they have to stimulate the economy if they were to sincerely try to promote win - win - win - win economics.... vs win - lose. I would like to think that something of real value will come out of this discussion..... http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...eory-modern-world-problems-even-possible.html Is a Unified Theory of Modern World Problems even possible? I began to use this phrase about five years ago.
Truly well said but...... there is something about the constitution of Credit Unions that could perhaps allow them to compete at a much higher level than tends to be the case at this time. This thread gets into the history of the Credit Union and Cooperative movement in my part of Canada. http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...nce-unified-theory-modern-world-problems.html CanSo Dollars... could finance a Unified Theory of Modern World Problems?!
I got a reply to one of the posters here that has in many ways caused me to rethink our situation here in Canada. I now feel significantly less fear / paranoia than I may have felt just a month ago..... your discussion is leading to many positive benefits for some of us....... Well done Brett..... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=489623&page=6&p=1066963187#post1066963187 Thread: Why Donald Trump must shut down The Federal Reserve
It's not an argument about "pennies and dimes" as much as it's an argument about the consequences of monetary policy and ultimately about how the nation spends its pennies and dimes. I'm making the argument that there is no monetary constraint. That is, there cannot ever be a shortage of dollars. Those that believe that dollars can run short also believe that the government can "crowd out" private business, or more accurately that increases in government spending increase the costs of spending in the form of higher interest rates. I'm saying that the constraint on borrowing is not the availability of money, rather the availability of real resources and labor. You could even add other potential constraints like intellectual capacity (do we have the people needed to fill high-skilled jobs) and even culture. If rates in the market rise or fall it isn't caused by the availability of money in the system, it is because the Fed has determined that it's mandated to control inflation and promote stability of the dollar (again determined by the availability of real resources and labor to balance out the demand for good vs the supply), thus if conditions warrant the change in the availability of money (via the addition or subtraction of reserves) the Fed will cause the costs of money to rise and fall. This is ultimately a chicken or the egg kind of argument, but the consequences of who is right have enormous impact on the system and ultimately on how politicians should define policy.
I was just joking, by the way - notice the crazy eyes and liquor? you should look up "the venus project" where some guy observes that we should just work together to pool all our resources to create a better world... but then this guy goes onto proclaim we should live on lily pads in the ocean too, so, maybe it could be better? I totally understand your position after reading it a couple of times, in the beginning it was not crystal clear, but now that you understand what is going on, it seems to be great. of course there is no way that the state can spend it's money, but the money they have comes from the people's collected wealth. this means that in theory it comes down to people paying for things, but in reality the people get paid for the state spending 'their money.'
Thx for your reply...It's really an interesting conversation with deep seeded consequences. The problem of economics is that the average person wants to simplify things in intuitive ways. In many ways, the real economy is extremely counterintuitive and applying intuition can have some pretty negative consequences. First, to make sure I'm clear, whenever I talk about fiscal policy I'm talking about the Federal Government (not the states). so when we are talking about the "state", we're talking about the Federal government only. Now when you say that "money comes from peoples collected wealth". If you mean that people make things of real value and that value is ultimately what gives our dollar value, then yes I agree. If you mean that for in order for the government to have money, the people must give a portion of it to the government, then I disagree. Now, most people don't like to talk about Fed Policy, or which side of the balance sheet equity holding is counted on a bank's balance sheet. I find that people prefer to talk in real terms. "How does what you say affect me?" In real terms what I'm trying to share with everyone is, Social Security is not danger of becoming "bankrupt". There is no reason that anyone capable and willing to work should not be employed. You don't need to take money or wealth from those at the top to achieve what I've just claimed (there may be other reasons for taxing those at the top, but it's not necessary to tax so those at the bottom can have the services they need). The US government can never (ever) go bankrupt (unless it chooses to).
A new approach to economics could be based on what is needed, and what is left for emergencies. at present, the budgets of countries do not allow for emergency funds, as, they spread it all over the place, and, they still waste it, nearly three times as much as i calculated is needed, in extreme cases, and come back for more. this means there is corruption, or, at least, 'wastage.' So, what we need is to do is, instead of adjusting the fiscal policy, which influences bank interest rates - as this is too small anyways - the state should start with adjusting their budgets, then there will be money left over, at least. i can already see some idiot saying that there is not enough, but, there is plenty. If we were to observe that the 'fiscal adjustments' these are squeezing out a few more billions in the log run, but, i bet i can provide billions straight to the state. this strategy is called 'banking lump fortification.' Now, this strategy is about raising taxes on banks, and, storing some of the state's funds in banks. this will mean the bank gets a huge amount of money taken from the reserve into the banks, and, they will raise taxes on banks regarding all of their money. this will also mean the state can bank on making interest with the bank too. ~ Something i have learned is that the wealthy of the u.s.a. account for ninety percent of the taxes taken in each year. this shocked me in the beginning, but now that i have familiarized myself with 'capital gains tax,' i have come to accept it as true. If the state was to offer a lump sum import tax, that is reduced, they will take into account that these deliveries might not come to be for the person paying for them, but, it would be a discount to import and export more, of course. this would mean that the person will be paying less, stimulating port activity, but, the state gets a lump sum whether it works of not. so, it is in the hands of the business to make their own fortune.
