Hell Freezes Over

[Woodsman]

Krugman walks back on the myth of free trade.

But it’s also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven’t done any of that; I think I’ve always been clear that the gains from globalization aren’t all that (here’s a back-of-the-envelope on the gains from hyperglobalization — only part of which can be attributed to policy — that is less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation); and I think I’ve never assumed away the income distribution effects.

Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins — but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don’t know exactly what form it’s taking...I hope, by the way, that I haven’t done any of that”

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...t-moment/?_r=0

Bill Greider, an American treasure, gives him the coup de grace:

Let me refresh Krugman’s memory. I offer a few examples from the glory decades, when he was leading cheers for globalizing capitalism. He did not see anything especially new or threatening about it, certainly not for the triumphant United States. To Krugman, the emerging system looked more or less like the textbook capitalism he taught.

In the Harvard Business Review in 1994, he belittled “a steady drumbeat of warnings about the threat that low-wage imports pose to US living standards…. The truth, however, is that fears about the economic impact of Third World competition are almost entirely unjustified. Economic growth in low-wage nations is in principle as likely to raise as to lower per capita income in high-wage countries; the actual effects have been negligible.”

Krugman’s mean-spirited put-downs of people who disagree with him suggest we think of him as the Donald Trump of academic economics. The professor might demonstrate a little humility by publishing a correction in The New York Times.


http://www.thenation.com/article/pau...flag-on-trade/

[jk]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

so if krugman's learned something in the last 22 years, good for him. if confronted about it my guess is he'd quote keynes' famous line.

as you illustrate, he wasn't prescient enough in 1994 [and whenever else he said such things] to really comprehend the impact that trade deals were going to have. i'm not sure how well we understand that impact even now- yes manufacturing jobs have disappeared and gone to other countries. if we had had high protectionist walls, otoh, there would be more motive to use robots, and manufacturing jobs would have disappeared on that basis. i don't know what the quantitative and qualitative differences on employment might have been, though there's probably some economist's guesses published somewhere.

i don't know that in 1994 any of us could have predicted the political impasse our country has reached. the clinton years showed a lot of apparent growth [i say "apparent" because of the significant malinvestment]. unemployment and underemployment and discouraged workers leaving the workforce wasn't the problem then that it is today.

clinton's getting in bed with the finance industry had not as yet had its effect of increasing inequality. remember that attendees at reagan social functions had been described as "millionaires on parade." quaint, in retrospect. we hadn't gotten to "billionaires" yet. so i don't recall that inequality was the focus then that it is now, nor that it appeared any worse under clinton than under his immediate predecessors. further, my recollection of the arguments against financial deregulation were that they were based on risks to the financial system. i don't recall anyone predicting its distributionist effects, though perhaps there were those who did.

at that time, in the context of strong economic numbers, the assumption was that workers who lost employment in low value-added industries which would be uncompetitive with imports could find new and equally good employment in short order.

the effect of trade on jobs had been a major issue in the 1992 elections. ross perot coined the phrase "a giant sucking sound" to describe what he anticipated to be the effects of nafta on u.s. employment. perot's presence in the race, and the 19% of votes he garnered, likely cost george hw bush a second term.

not everyone agreed with perot, however. from a nafta autopsy published by public citizen in 2013:

In 1993, Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott of thePeterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) projected that NAFTA would lead to a rising U.S.trade surplus with Mexico, which would create 170,000 net new jobs in the United States.8 This figure was trumpeted by the Clinton administration and other NAFTA proponents. Hufbauer and Schott based their projection on the observation that when export growth outpaces the growth of imports, more jobs are created by trade than are destroyed by trade.9

unfortunately for u.s. workers, export growth under nafta did NOT outpace import growth. but krugman's position was the mainstream one at the time. and although he might have been mean spirited about it, the quote attributed to him in the excerpt you posted is not an example of that.

my goal in writing this is not to defend krugman in particular. it's more to point out that a lot of things are obvious in hindsight that are not so clear in real time. sniping at this or that analyst [krugman in this instance] is a distraction that doesn't further our own understanding of what's going on.

i wish it were not considered some kind of terrible thing when someone gets new information and changes his mind. [flip flop!] if krugman has conveniently forgotten his own 20 year old incorrect statements, so what? there are certainly things he says these days with which i disagree, but in fact he's one of the few public intellectuals with a broad readership today who dares style himself a liberal.

[lektrode]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

puh-leeeze...

clinton? = lyin sack o shit, not to mention grossly INCOMPETENT, an absolutely dismal decision-maker based upon the outcome of nearly every one of em that he signed-onto (NAFTA, repeal of glass-steagall, deregulation of derivitive trading, his entire dept of treasury, the dept of juicetice - and proof of which? is all of the holder-overs that currently populate said dept, that utterly/abjectively not to mention EPICALLY FAILED to do a GD thing - like PROSECUTE ANYBODY - after the great wipeout of 2008-09)

krugman? = as pure a demorat party apaRATchik as they come, suffers from amnesia/alzheimers when it suits his latest propaganda/agenda

the ONLY one in the last 25years who got it absolutely correct? (mentioning a certain sound)

[vt]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

[Woodsman]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

puh-leeeze...

clinton? = lyin sack o shit, not to mention grossly INCOMPETENT, an absolutely dismal decision-maker based upon the outcome of nearly every one of em that he signed-onto (NAFTA, repeal of glass-steagall, deregulation of derivitive trading, his entire dept of treasury, the dept of juicetice - and proof of which? is all of the holder-overs that currently populate said dept, that utterly/abjectively not to mention EPICALLY FAILED to do a GD thing - like PROSECUTE ANYBODY - after the great wipeout of 2008-09)

krugman? = as pure a demorat party apaRATchik as they come, suffers from amnesia/alzheimers when it suits his latest propaganda/agenda

the ONLY one in the last 25years who got it absolutely correct? (mentioning a certain sound)

Ayuh, agree.

Evaluating Clinton’s presidency as heroic is no longer a given, however. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, the corporate scandals of the Enron period, and the collapse of the real estate racket, our view of the prosperous Nineties has changed quite a bit. Now we remember that it was Bill Clinton’s administration that deregulated derivatives, that deregulated telecom, and that put our country’s only strong banking laws in the grave. He’s the one who rammed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress and who taught the world that the way you respond to a recession is by paying off t[/FONT][/COLOR]he federal deficit. Mass incarceration and the repeal of welfare, two of Clinton’s other major achievements, are the pillars of the disciplinary state that has made life so miserable for Americans in the lower reaches of society. He would have put a huge dent in Social Security, too, had the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal not stopped him. If we take inequality as our measure, the Clinton administration looks not heroic but odious.

Bill Clinton’s odious presidency: Thomas Frank on the real history of the ’90s

[jk]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

i don't recall that i had much of an opinion at the time about nafta. it wasn't clear to me what its consequences were going to be. otoh i know i was appalled by the repeal of glass steagall.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

the ONLY one in the last 25years who got it absolutely correct?

Perot wasn't alone. Every union saw it coming too. So did a pile of people on the street. Here's an oldie about the WTO where they partied like it was 1999:

Even if you look at the old votes of the time, the majority of the Midwest and New England Senators and Reps voted against NAFTA. And protests broke out all over then too. Here's an article from 93 that mentions all the players, including Perot.

Truth was, there may have been a general (although not complete) consensus among economists that all these trade agreements were a boon. But there was no such consensus among politicians. These trade deals have repeatedly barely squeaked by. The NAFTA House vote was 234 (132 Republicans and 104 Democrats) vs. 199 (43 Republicans and 156 Democrats). That's not exactly a uniform, ringing endorsement.

The China trade bill went similarly. This time it was 237-199. The pro-China trade deal politicos looked much like the Nafta bloc. Mostly from the south (gulf oil), mountains (minerals), and west coast (pacific trade volume). Since the Northeast and midwest don't really produce large numbers of commodities and were the most industrialized, their reps tended to vote against it in larger numbers, regardless of party lines.

For something that has been billed as so obviously "good," free trade agreements have certainly always been politically contentious in America.

[lektrode]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

Perot wasn't alone. Every union saw it coming too. So did a pile of people on the street.
Even if you look at the old votes of the time, the majority of the Midwest and New England Senators and Reps voted against NAFTA. And protests broke out all over then too.

at the time, i was otherwise happily marooned out there and too busy surviving to pay much attention to what was happnin over in 'america' - but it had become quite clear to me by the mid-late80's there wasnt much future in manufacturing in the US (and so headed south, then west - as in waaaaaay out west...)

Here's an article from 93 that mentions all the players, including Perot.

To save the agreement from what appeared to be certain defeat, the White House brought in Bill Daley, brother of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, to coordinate NAFTA lobbying. Former representative Bill Frenzel (R-Minn.), a trade specialist, was tapped to court Republican lawmakers.

Several members said telephone calls to their offices were lopsidedly against NAFTA until Vice President Gore debated Perot on "Larry King Live" on CNN two weeks ago.


Frenzel said that momentum shifted to the White House "when the vice president undressed Ross Perot. A lot of things were cooking up to that time, and that had a cumulative effect. But if you were looking for one event, you have to give the prize to the vice president."


Perot, speaking to reporters shortly before last night's vote, lambasted the White House for buying votes and predicted that passage of the trade pact would ignite a huge membership drive for his organization, United We Stand America.


"No votes were changing until the pork started flowing," said Perot, who labeled the White House's use of enticements as "absolutely corrupt."


Perot predicted that both parties would pay a price at the polls in the 1994 congressional elections, and that the anger of working Americans could lead to cancellation of NAFTA in 1995.


He also said he would oppose Clinton's health reform plan with the same vigor with which he fought NAFTA.


"I'm disappointed in my government," Perot said.

+1

i suspect that the 'sudden appearance' of the whole internet/wildwildweb/dot-bomb-bubble had a lot to do with the issue being largely forgotten by then.

also think that most people are hip to the games that team R pulls - i mean ya can almost expect it from em - its the 2faced+backstabbing +votebuying demorat bastards that the herd is FINALLY waking upto - that its taken 16years for it to sink in is the 'funny' part..

almost surprising to boot - considering that the lamerstream media op/ed depts might actually be losing control (despite their best efforts to BS the inner city vote to believe otherwise)

that its the donald who is causing them fits has gotta be the BIGGEST surprise (and must say, the more they try to cut him down, the better he looks, since its the lamerstream media thats 100% responsible, IMHO - for the current occupant/disaster in the whitehouse - who's 'legacy' will likely be that THEY DIDNT START WW3 (? yet, anyway) - and who will likely end up making the prev occupant look like a GD hero (when it was wildbill's agenda and foreign policy failures that led DIRECTLY to the wipeout of 2000-01, 11sept, along with repeal of glass-steagall that resulted in the even greater wipeout of 2008-09 - and all we heard about back then was that 'it was a failure of the regulators' ?

well - WHAT IN HELL HAVE ALL THE CURRENT OCCUPANT'S REGULATORS DONE FOR US LATELY?

funny aint it?
how we dont seem to hear much about the regulators anymore - eh?

even as they run-out the clock, while the revolving door spins another lap around...

[jk]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

For something that has been billed as so obviously "good," free trade agreements have certainly always been politically contentious in America.

this is to imply that if something is politically contentious it can't be good? what is the logic here? the votes were close and that proves what?

from the little bit of reading i've done i have the impression was that mainstream economists used to be wholeheartedly in favor of lower trade barriers but that recently they've been more impressed by the costs imposed by those agreements. but i don't get the notion of arguing the merits of a proposal by the closeness of congressional votes- that august body of highly knowledgeable and intellectually serious people.

[bpr]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

i don't recall that i had much of an opinion at the time about nafta. it wasn't clear to me what its consequences were going to be. otoh i know i was appalled by the repeal of glass steagall.

Me too. I barely remember NAFTA passing (was but a teen), but I was glued to CSPAN when the Citibank Bill passed.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

this is to imply that if something is politically contentious it can't be good?

No! Not at all! The stress was supposed to be on the word 'obviously' when I wrote the phrase 'obviously good.' That is, the majority of economists and pundits of the time were so certain of the theory and math behind the free trade deals that they insisted anybody against them was simply ignorant and if they bothered to read some stuff, they'd obviously turn in favor of the agreements too.

So I wasn't saying that something politically contentious can't be good.

what is the logic here? the votes were close and that proves what?

The logic was simply to point out that, for something that was so 'obviously' good, lots of people sure didn't feel that way.

Many issues are contentious, and the pundit/economist class understands that, and they play them up as having two sides, and rightfully so. The abortion debate is probably the most classic example of this.

But on other issues, pundits on the right and left align, and basically portray anyone against their point of view as 'ignorant,' e.g. not understanding complex concepts instead of understanding them, but choosing not believe the assumptions made within.

from the little bit of reading i've done i have the impression was that mainstream economists used to be wholeheartedly in favor of lower trade barriers but that recently they've been more impressed by the costs imposed by those agreements.

They were all so sure things would be coming up roses right now...until they caught a whiff of something else, and some began to change their tune...

but i don't get the notion of arguing the merits of a proposal by the closeness of congressional votes- that august body of highly knowledgeable and intellectually serious people.

I actually think that arguing merits by congressional votes is not such a terrible way to show that at least some of them were listening to their constituents. I mean, there never has been a lot of business pressure to vote against a trade deal. So obviously something else was at work.

But really, the whole point of my comment above was to take a shot at another "august body of highly knowledgeable and intellectually serious people." Namely economists.

For years they insisted anyone in favor of minimum wage increases was a dummy, especially if they were earning minimum wage, because their neoclassical theory told them that an increase in the wage floor would necessitate a decrease in employment. Nevertheless, increasing the wage remained popular with the public. Were they just too stupid to understand the theory? Or did they see from the ground level that the theory was bunk?

Since then somebody bothered to test whether that was actually true in reality. And somebody else. And more and more. Until now, we have a 1,200 plus example meta-analysis of real-world minimum wage studies that concludes, "The disemployment effects of minimum wage increases are at or near zero." The theory was wrong. Nevertheless, the wrong theory is still in Greg Mankiw's (W.'s chief economist--he did wonders!) introduction to economics textbook--the most popular textbook in the world--and minimum wage is still used as an example. But the theory just doesn't hold up in reality.

Ditto with the free trade theories and estimates. The US export numbers never materialized. Not even close. We were supposed to be selling China all sorts of services by now. Didn't happen. Probably won't. The US jobs never quite materialized either. Some did. Others didn't. Trade Adjustment Assistance was supposed to fix things for regions that were hurt, which they always knew there would be. It turned out to be only $0.5B per year. A joke in the grand scheme of things. Not enough to even clean up the brownfields and superfund sites left in the wake of factory offshoring. They never factored any of that in to their theories...

Anyways, now they're coming around on this one too. At least some of them. Slowly. But they still are making all kinds of other conceptual mistakes. They love substituting Kaldor-Hicks efficiency for old problems where Pareto efficiency would have been required. This is a prime conceptual error that leads to heavier support of policies that exacerbate inequality than they would otherwise cook up. They also love calculating 'total-compensation' and viewing wage growth through that lens. Of course, all that tells you is the US pays way, way too much for healthcare compared to everyone else. But it makes the US middle class appear wealthier in international comparisons that it otherwise would, since Medicare and Medicaid, like healthcare everywhere else, aren't counted as compensation (even the portion the employer pays), but private health insurance is (even the portion the employee pays).

It's a neat accounting trick. But it's deeply baked into all of their models. Even more fun? The tricks they play with tax incidence. Taxes, it turns out, always ultimately fall on the employee/consumer, but private health insurance premiums, even if payed by the employer, never fall on the employee--they always fall on the employer--except when they don't.

But understand what this means. It means that if an employer today pays 8% of an employee's salary to private health insurance, they count that employee's compensation at 108% of salary. If there were a public insurance option called a 'tax' instead of a premium, and the employer chose to pay 8% towards that instead of 8% towards a private insurance plan, they would count compensation as 92% of salary, since the 8% tax incidence falls on the employee, but the 8% insurance incidence falls on the employer in their models.

In case you don't see what this does, it means that in all of the mainstream American economists' models, simply switching from a private to a public option--even if it costs the same exact amount for the same exact benefits--makes an employee lose 16% of compensation, and that's without multipliers or calculating the 'deadweight loss' of taxes. Of course, there is no 'deadweight loss' of paying insurance companies...

Now, it gets even stupider, because they allow Singapore in their data to get through this loophole. And the US could too. If that public option were funneled through a state-owned enterprise, say "US Health Insurance Inc." and called a 'premium' instead of a 'tax,' even if it cost the employer the same amount for the same plan, now it would not count against the employee's compensation, but towards it. Their models literally boost median employee compensation by 16% just because somebody set up a shell company in the middle and wrote the word 'premium' instead of 'tax' on the invoice.

Put simply, from an employer's perspective, all that is happening is you are writing "US Treasury" on the To: line of a check instead of "Blue Cross." The amount doesn't change. The employee's benefits don't change. Your costs don't change. But economists will insist that employees lose 16% compensation at a minimum due to changing the name on a check.

When you point out to an economist that this is incredibly stupid, in my experience they routinely fall back on trying to explain the concept of tax incidence to you, as if you're a dummy. Just like they did with questioning their assumptions on trade. Just like they did with questioning their assumptions on the minimum wage. They come up with a good theoretical reason and a good thought experiment for why something should be--e.g. why there should be aggregate job losses associated with modest minimum wage increases or why the tax burden should fall on employees--but they never bother to think about when to apply that concept and how far it should go--e.g. local employees with more money spend more more money and turnover drops, or the burden of health insurance payments should fall on employees too if the burden of taxes does.

[lektrode]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

.....
....
When you point out to an economist that this is incredibly stupid, in my experience they routinely fall back on trying to explain the concept of tax incidence to you, as if you're a dummy. Just like they did with questioning their assumptions on trade. Just like they did with questioning their assumptions on the minimum wage. They come up with a good theoretical reason and a good thought experiment for why something should be--e.g. why there should be aggregate job losses associated with modest minimum wage increases or why the tax burden should fall on employees--but they never bother to think about when to apply that concept and how far it should go--e.g. local employees with more money spend more more money and turnover drops, or the burden of health insurance payments should fall on employees too if the burden of taxes does.

sounds to me like 'it's all academic'
(e.g. the root of all of these problems/issues is firmly planted in academia - where most have never even had a real job, so how in hell would they know = the current admin/occupants of the whitehouse, along with their pals at the 'federal' reserve...)

[jk]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

But really, the whole point of my comment above was to take a shot at another "august body of highly knowledgeable and intellectually serious people." Namely economists.

For years they insisted anyone in favor of minimum wage increases was a dummy, especially if they were earning minimum wage, because their neoclassical theory told them that an increase in the wage floor would necessitate a decrease in employment. Nevertheless, increasing the wage remained popular with the public. Were they just too stupid to understand the theory? Or did they see from the ground level that the theory was bunk?

Since then somebody bothered to test whether that was actually true in reality. And somebody else. And more and more. Until now, we have a 1,200 plus example meta-analysis of real-world minimum wage studies that concludes, "The disemployment effects of minimum wage increases are at or near zero." The theory was wrong. Nevertheless, the wrong theory is still in Greg Mankiw's (W.'s chief economist--he did wonders!) introduction to economics textbook--the most popular textbook in the world--and minimum wage is still used as an example. But the theory just doesn't hold up in reality.

Ditto with the free trade theories and estimates. The US export numbers never materialized. Not even close. We were supposed to be selling China all sorts of services by now. Didn't happen. Probably won't. The US jobs never quite materialized either. Some did. Others didn't. Trade Adjustment Assistance was supposed to fix things for regions that were hurt, which they always knew there would be. It turned out to be only $0.5B per year. A joke in the grand scheme of things. Not enough to even clean up the brownfields and superfund sites left in the wake of factory offshoring. They never factored any of that in to their theories...

Anyways, now they're coming around on this one too. At least some of them. Slowly. But they still are making all kinds of other conceptual mistakes. They love substituting Kaldor-Hicks efficiency for old problems where Pareto efficiency would have been required. This is a prime conceptual error that leads to heavier support of policies that exacerbate inequality than they would otherwise cook up. They also love calculating 'total-compensation' and viewing wage growth through that lens. Of course, all that tells you is the US pays way, way too much for healthcare compared to everyone else. But it makes the US middle class appear wealthier in international comparisons that it otherwise would, since Medicare and Medicaid, like healthcare everywhere else, aren't counted as compensation (even the portion the employer pays), but private health insurance is (even the portion the employee pays).

It's a neat accounting trick. But it's deeply baked into all of their models. Even more fun? The tricks they play with tax incidence. Taxes, it turns out, always ultimately fall on the employee/consumer, but private health insurance premiums, even if payed by the employer, never fall on the employee--they always fall on the employer--except when they don't.

But understand what this means. It means that if an employer today pays 8% of an employee's salary to private health insurance, they count that employee's compensation at 108% of salary. If there were a public insurance option called a 'tax' instead of a premium, and the employer chose to pay 8% towards that instead of 8% towards a private insurance plan, they would count compensation as 92% of salary, since the 8% tax incidence falls on the employee, but the 8% insurance incidence falls on the employer in their models.

In case you don't see what this does, it means that in all of the mainstream American economists' models, simply switching from a private to a public option--even if it costs the same exact amount for the same exact benefits--makes an employee lose 16% of compensation, and that's without multipliers or calculating the 'deadweight loss' of taxes. Of course, there is no 'deadweight loss' of paying insurance companies...

Now, it gets even stupider, because they allow Singapore in their data to get through this loophole. And the US could too. If that public option were funneled through a state-owned enterprise, say "US Health Insurance Inc." and called a 'premium' instead of a 'tax,' even if it cost the employer the same amount for the same plan, now it would not count against the employee's compensation, but towards it. Their models literally boost median employee compensation by 16% just because somebody set up a shell company in the middle and wrote the word 'premium' instead of 'tax' on the invoice.

Put simply, from an employer's perspective, all that is happening is you are writing "US Treasury" on the To: line of a check instead of "Blue Cross." The amount doesn't change. The employee's benefits don't change. Your costs don't change. But economists will insist that employees lose 16% compensation at a minimum due to changing the name on a check.

When you point out to an economist that this is incredibly stupid, in my experience they routinely fall back on trying to explain the concept of tax incidence to you, as if you're a dummy. Just like they did with questioning their assumptions on trade. Just like they did with questioning their assumptions on the minimum wage. They come up with a good theoretical reason and a good thought experiment for why something should be--e.g. why there should be aggregate job losses associated with modest minimum wage increases or why the tax burden should fall on employees--but they never bother to think about when to apply that concept and how far it should go--e.g. local employees with more money spend more more money and turnover drops, or the burden of health insurance payments should fall on employees too if the burden of taxes does.

with economists, as with supreme court justices, most analysis seems driven by ideological assumptions. members of both groups seek an appearance of objectivity, but it's ever more clear that that is mere illusion. i certainly agree with you on that. when fewer than 60% of americans believe in evolution or that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, we're a very long way from getting to agreement on what constitutes a desirable society.

[santafe2]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

when fewer than 60% of americans believe in evolution or that the earth is more than 10,000 years old....

Oh my god, that explains everything. I bet several of them are in Congress.

[photon555]

Re: Hell Freezes Over

Oh my god, that explains everything. I bet several of them are in Congress.

I invite you to study Information Theory, which predicts quite well the actual behaviour of communications systems. The BER is always, everywhere, and at all times greater than zero. Once you understand this fact and its consequences for the viability of any macro evolutionary theory, you might want to reconsider your position. Of course, you can continue to believe in any particular macro evolutionary theory you like since in this country we still have freedom of religion. Have a good day.