In these difficult times we are hearing a lot about the importance of getting value for money and the need for business to create value. We hear it from bankers, from Chancellors of the Exchequer, Prime Ministers and business people.
But also in these difficult times we are hearing a lot more about ethical and moral values in business. How unbridled capitalism no longer seems credible and that business ethics and morals are good for the bottom line. We hear this from other bankers and other business people as well as from politicians, commentators and demonstrators.
It seems to me that it is the disconnect between these two ideas of value that is at the centre of the debate that is going on. A debate stimulated by the difficult times we are going through.
These ideas go back a long way. At one time philanthropy was seen as a substitute for morality in business. Then principles for responsible investment requiring investors to weigh both economic and social considerations won the support of many big investors and the United Nations. Some in the City are concerned that without this our financial sector will come to be seen as a kind of lax off shore centre for speculation and not as a centre for financing the real economy and efficiently allocating capital and providing long term security for savers.
Companies trying to attract the best young people are adopting values they share with them because this creates the kind of business culture people want to work in. Also in their eyes it legitimises business and moves it on from the old narrow view.
Business used to be divided between the public sector and the private sector, but now we have the social sector half way between. Many want to encourage it, yet the stewardship of this kind of business is unclear. When the social sector was dominated by charities and small social enterprises clearly altruism played a major role. But now that these organisations are being starved of money and social enterprise is being encouraged to fill the gap, is it the value of market economics that must dominate, or is there still a place for altruism and its values?
Thanks to the hard times these different definitions of value are coming under scrutiny. David Jones, the Chief Executive of HAVAS in his recently published book said “Doing well and doing good are no longer seen to be mutually exclusive”.
It is crucial for the future of our society and economy that the government brings together these two concepts of value. So I have put down a Question asking if they are included in their future plans for growth.
Watch this space.
In business with ethical values, creating value has to be seen as a two edged sword; it cuts both ways,both for the customer and management profit.
The retail sector at the moment is bursting at the seams with Chinese/Asian products which are of negligible cost per unit in those countries, but sometimes sold at high cost in this one. The best businesses pass on the cheapness to the customer, whereas just down the road you can find exactly the same product not at £1.99 but at £14.99.
To me the difference is value,to my domestic economy and to their good business.
Whether they are creating value in trade links with China/Asia, at either price, is a different matter all together. I suspect not but there is not much I can do about that.
Co-operative ethics are,(Social sector ethical values) to my mind, crucial to the successful development of Uganda, and other African countries, development in that case referring mainly to good schooling and preventive medicine.
@GH:
Gareth, I believe the higher they charge for the Chinese/Asian/ goods or ‘whatever item’ from countries that are below the poverty line, as we would see it, the better it is for ‘our’ people and ‘our’ country. And the reason is, unless we can sustain a society that can survive with the cost of living imposed on us here, in the UK, the further we will fall into the slavery of a third world mentality.
Already our people are openly suffering from starvation, gone from the hidden from view secrecy to, they deserve it, they are lazy and don’t want to work.
Our nation should refuse to buy anything produced outside Europe. And force our governments to recharge the manufacturing industry they have all but diminished.
And then, stop immigration from outside of Europe until we are, once again, a strong enough economy to afford the overwhelming cost to support such an objective ‘decently’ for those who arrive here.
Our stance on Europe is leading to horrendous confusion, and those outside our regulation are trying to destablise us further until we no longer have the ability to withstand their objectives.
http://www.ftsyndication.com/search/?query=%7CPC/dsc.Editorial%20PC/dsc.World_News%20PC/dsc.Analysis%20PC/dsc.Opinion%20PC/dsc.Business%20PC/dsc.Features%20PC/dsc.Arts%7C%20%2BPC/dsa.DNS&tl=ftn&title=Main%20Paper
higher they charge for the Chinese/Asian/ goods or ‘whatever item’ from countries that are below the poverty line, as we would see it, the better it is for ‘our’ people and ‘our’ country
The whole point of the cooperative campaign for Fair Trade, which is industry wide now, is that they should be gicen a fair price based on what the items are going to sell for in the UK.
I can’t quite remember whether the cooperative committees are called “Value and Principles ” or “Ethics and principles” but they are certainly concerned with them as Ethical consumer businesses.
Local sourcing are also watch words.
Fair trade only seems to apply to food imports
and probably does not extend to Asia, and all their electrical goods.
Extracting value from people,ie managing people, to get the best out of them, is a complex management skill, of which I know nothing. They do not even call themselves “Personnel officers” these days, but keeping butts on insurance company office seats, is surely a matter of evaluating the individual
servant of the company.
Persuading them they have little value whilst getting a great deal out of them must be a difficult task, but an ethical policy would make it rather easier, bot the for the company and for the individual. Does the compliance officer not have something to do with Personnel as well? It certainly does in retail banking.
A bad cold has kept me away from the computer but I wanted to point out the obvious that the same product down the road at 6 times the price either wouldn’t sell or must be different even if it is just a brand mark.
I agree that cooperative values must have a big part to play in Africa.
The point I tried to make about managing people is that many in business now think they will achieve better results by sharing their values rather than by regimenting them. An interesting change.
Times were always “difficult”; it’s just that the type and extent of difficulty changes every decade and century.
————
As for “values”-adding, the More-Profit-for-the ‘Private’ Capitalists & Government Tax was wrongly labelled VAT = Value-Added-Tax – instantiation:
a firm lettuce used to cost £1.00; but
after “value” was added by cutting the lettuce into four quarters and separately packaging each quarter in colopurful sealed plastic bags, it began to cost £1 per bag = £4 per lettuce.
A quarter of a lettuce costs £0.25, so the colourfully-printed gay bag must be worth $0.75 ?
Professor David Smith* was right: “Some-one has to tell the economists that they have a basic-equiation wrong somewhere”.
These are finite lifesupports which you (Lord Haskel) appear to be declaring that Business should be adding even more “value” to !
———–
As I understand Moral Philosophy, morals are set by our highest civilised minds namely in Academia
‘validly, clearly, cleanly, watertightly’, ‘purely’, one can say even ‘sacredly-inviolable’ and ‘incorruptible’.
From that singular overarching Moral descend the many and various Ethics (also described as Applied-Morals) for the many and various Domains of Civilisation and for the various and many Sectors and Institutions of national and business activity.
It is the “ethics” that can be and invariably are ‘tweaked’ into a changed-shape to suit the particular institution, business, or private-capitalist-policy.
————-
It is Individual-Capitalism that is failing both us “consumers” and the title-deed-holders themselves who can buy experts and bodyguards to keep them safe and their hands ‘clean’ thus wasting half of their time lazing in luxury, instead of joining-with the more sustain-worthy people-on-the-ground in building a more resilient and sustainworthy human-race and civilisation.
Why do we not have a “Cooperative Capitalism”, never to be owned by a single individual no matter how much ‘business acumen’ and ‘profit-enhancing-brilliance’ he or she may possess.
Look, if he or she is not satisfied with one-human-living, or must be ‘bribed’ before they will do an ordinary human day’s-work,
then they are too greedily-costly and thereby both physically and morally un-sustain-worthy.
There has to be an on-TV and Radio, by-mail, and via E-sites constructive dialogue between The People and The Establishment with the Task of cleaning-up our Mis-uses of the English language, including our uses of the words “value” and “moral”.
Only then shall we have any chance of effectively applying our heads, hearts and hands to the inescapable longest-term need and task of founding a sustainworthy civilisation on Earth.
==========
* merited author “Continent In Crisis”.
Here we have a man who is open to telling the truth about the state of the economy and how we came to this situation of madness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=620CipI1m3I&feature=fvsr
And unless we face up to massive changes of policy the collapse of our societies will be more horrific than we can possibly conceive.
Yes it is tempting to close our borders, but our standard of living would plummet.
Depends on how its done.
If we shut out people who do not pay more tax than the average government spend, our standard of living goes up, particularly if those on benefits get no choice about accepting jobs.
Likewise, if we get rid of the illegal migrants, then we don’t have to pay for the costs of them being here, with no taxation, and our standards of living go up.
However, if you are talking about you benefiting from personally employing illegals on below minimum wage levels, then yes your standard of living will fall.
Perhaps you should inform us how you personally benefit.
I don’t employ anybody apart from a part time PA. We all benefit from the many immigrants who work in every industry and pay tax. Who have benefited our economy and society through their innovation in business and industry, cultural innovation and social innovation. Benefits are not the easy ride some people imagine and it is getting harder to claim benefits with new legislation on the way.
We all benefit from the many immigrants who work in every industry and pay tax
===========
So lets say you employ your part timer on 12K a year. (Min wage).
Taxes – 2.5K per year assuming you’re a good boy and pay them PAYE and all their NI.
Government spend per person 11K.
Short fall 8,500 pounds a year, or to put it another way, subsidy for that migrant, 8,500 pounds a year.
It’s not if they pay tax, its how much tax they pay.
The UK would be better off if we didn’t have low skilled migrants earning less than 40K, and we replaced them with low skilled people on benefits.
If you can’t see that, I don’t think you should be sitting in the Lords dictating to the public. Economics 101 would be a better place.
@Lord Haskel:
Here is a paper by Professor Robert Rowthorn – Economics Faculty – University of Cambridge – Headed: The Economic Impact of Immigration.
It is an interesting read. And you have to remember it must have been a somewhat difficult paper to write in view of the heavily aggressive politically correct lobby who feel it is in their best interests to keep this immigration pretense going. For whatever reason.
This is as it states in the heading a report on the economic impact of immigration to this country, and reading it with a clear view, tells you it is dire. We gain nothing at all, as the cost of the dependents far outweigh any gain we may have in the short term. The fact is, much of it goes along with what Blagger writes, only it is more detailed in explanation.
Of course, you have to then take into account the cultural and social changes on the nation as a whole, and that is untenable. The birthrate of the immigrant populations is 2.5 times that of the British public as a whole, therefore, the expected count for the population in 2035, at todays figures, is 77 million people which is, to use Miles word, unsustainable.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Rowthorn_Immigration.pdf
Then there is this little addition from Migration Watch. Who is up to date and non biased in its observations.
It tells us that three million immigrants have settled in the UK since 1997. I suspect that is a gross underestimate. Remember, this does not include their extended families brought in subsequently to join them or the figures on illegal immigrants. It also means, as it is presently, we have to build a new home every ‘seven minutes’ in order to just house new migrants. That excludes the British people, who are barely able to find adequate housing for their needs as it is.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/
And what is staggering is, seemingly, those in ‘our’ government are unaware of the reality of what they preach to the citizens they are meant to be representing as a whole.
Get rid of the Lobbyist and listen to the people. They are way too expensive for the public purse to afford.
@Lord Haskel:
At last someone who has the courage to let that mowling cat out of the bag. You say our standard of living will drop if we close our borders. Can you explain exactly why you believe that? And in which way will we, the general public, suffer this great loss.
Everything I read exposing the real costs to the tax payer tells an entirely different story. But, before I put that up. I would like to hear our political side of the story from the horses mouth.
It is about time people in government explained fully why they feel a population explosion running into millions of dependents who are not in any way able to assist the present community and in fact are a enormous drain on the system, can be considered a dire necessity to our living standards?
Mis-uses of the English language, including our uses of the words “value” and “moral”.
Meaning can be a problem to people like the JW, who have written a completely different version of the Bible on the strength of it.
The word “value” used in the way the noble lord does, and as a businessman/industrialist that he is, is conventionally used thus, by the FT (Financial Times). Newspapers do tend to exercise influence over their readers
use of language/words.
It is also extensively used by the Coop group
Manchester, as part of their permanent campaign as an ethical consumer retail business.
The two uses may not be so different in “meaning”.
The Meaning of “meaning” is something Miles should consider more carefully when he writes what he attempts to do.
I have followed your thoughts on the use of the words value and morals and ethics while laid low with a bad cold. The words mean different things to different people, but the relationship is changing.
As you say, fair trade seems to apply to food but the idea is catching on and I think it will develop to other products. In the same way the concept of the environmental cost of transport is catching on.
Mis-uses of the English language, including our uses of the words “value” and “moral”.
Meaning can be a problem to people like the JW, who have written a completely different version of the Bible on the strength of it.
The word “value” used in the way the noble lord does, and as a businessman/industrialist that he is, is conventionally used thus, by the FT (Financial Times). Newspapers do tend to exercise influence over their readers
use of language/words.
It is also extensively used by the Coop group
Manchester, as part of their permanent campaign as an ethical consumer retail business.
The two uses may not be so different in “meaning”.
The Meaning of “meaning” is something Miles should consider more carefully when he writes what he attempts to do.
Morals? Well; Yes.
Around 2001 a new word entered the nation’s lexicon: tescoisation. Not even charities/third sector were immune from the tag (not entirely fair though larger charities, such as those involved with health issues, have tended to grow faster than the smaller ones, according to a study with data ranging between 1995-2008).
The third sector was driven up by the last gvt, increasing the voluntary workforce (today, some 0.75m) by 40% between 2001 and 2010 . Half are employed in health and social work.
The third sector has been behaving in a similar way to big businesses whereby 1% of charities has accounted for over 60% of the sector’s income for nearly two decades.
“Doing well and doing good are no longer seen to be mutually exclusive.”
Indeed. Personally, I’m not expecting an Occupy Stop Cancer any time soon.
The third sector has become part of the economy half way between the public sector and the private sector. Altruism used to be the driving force and we all respected that. Now that it is in business I am not sure what its values are.
O’r Nant needs to show some personal competence with the three priciples of good-communication and honest-argumentation:
1. Clarity
2. Charity
3. Self-corrigibility.
If he had been impartially and soberly reading my submissions he would by now have seen that I have been quite clear about the necessary distinction between the “meaning” of a word and the “sense” of that word (Wittgenstein and others made it clear that since very dominantly a word’s “meaning” is merely what other and further words describe, prescribe or stipulate it to ‘stand-for’).
Twm, you need to be tackling the Problem, not attacking another participating-person;
so Clarify what you mean by “uses” vis a vis “meanings” when you speculate about Lord Haskel’s intended business-profitable-monetary-checkout sense of “value’’,
which he also indicates should not be ‘disconnected’ from a sense of the Private-sectorial-profits-enhancing ‘business-ethics-value’)
(Aside: it seems to me that it is more vital not to conflate any of these terms with each other, nor to confuse other participants in any way, but to be up-front clear in distinguishing the real-life-experiential- senses especially of such key-terms).
So I say it again: we need to be as clear as possible about a word’s real-life-experience “sense”
which in the name of the Clarity principle I likened to an onomatopoeic word’s real-life sensory ‘feel’, or ‘sound’ e.g. “splash”.
Lord Haskel I think also needs to be careful, such as when downing “the old narrow business view of ‘value’ and ‘ethics'” as being non-legitimate, whereas today’s modern business company has advanced into becoming an ethical and value-based culture, in-its-own-new right “trying to attract the best young people”
(I think that a truly expert and honest participant & leader would have written “best workers” and left out the discriminatory “young” , so as not to conflate ‘employees’ with ‘shareholders’,’suppliers’ or ‘customers’ all of whom are “people”).
————–
O’r Nant having failed to grasp those Clarity tasks moves on to also fail the second principle Charity “recognise the good intention(s) in another participant’s communication”.
O’r Nant now stands face-to-face with the third principle Self Corrigibility –
known to be a “more difficult discipline than Clarity and Charity”, but overall a greatly positivising exercise and opportunity, for all participants to value and be ‘at one with’.
I stand by my previous submissions and intentions and, in turn corrigibly. bow to the LotB honourable company.
A bad cold has kept me from responding to your interesting posts. My simple point is that when we talk about a values driven economy, most of the population thought we were talking about money values and a few thought we were talking about ethical values. The ratio is now more evenly balanced and I welcome this and I think you do too.
The most obvious place in which a word can have opposite meaning even though it is the same word used is in a court of law.
An example “Oh! That is academic!” can mean that it is quite trivial, whereas being academic may also be a serious academic’s remark.
JW are the past masters at those sorts of “meaning”, and nonsense.
What we are hearing from Government in the last day or two is the revelation that they are considering rebooting the housing market and once again sending us on the boom bust circle we have experienced for the last 30 years or so. And which has brought us to the financial chaos we experience now.
Are they so bereft of ideas that all they can do is come up with re-stirring the cauldron in order to make a few rich men even richer, believing that this is going to solve the problem, as that tired conundrum comes oozing from the pores, called, the trickle down effect. Pleeeeeese!
Read this guy’s piece from today’s paper, he is astute enough to have put political correctness and this entire process together, and warning the fearful who will not look this little devil in the eye, that unless they take a different tact altogether, they are doomed before they begin. His explanation of the indisputable how and why this is a no brainer is exemplary.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2064930/Fannie-Freddie-dream-doomed-fail.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Yes, rising house prices have been viewed as easy money and a source of political popularlity. Hence tax incentives. The whole thing has become a political football and there are far better ways of stimulating the construction industry than subsidising mortgages.
@Lord Haskel:
I do sincerely trust you are now over that awful cold/flu. And that you will return to your seat on the red bench as soon as possible.
I did ruminate on how you must be a ‘dedicated’ individual to find the where with all to turn on your PC and read this blog. Now that takes stamina.
Someone wrote a letter to a newspaper recently which had some very good thoughts on how to find a solution to the economic crises we find ourselves in.
They opened with ‘VAT’s the way to do it.’
It said that the UK and Europe were fixated on one solution for the economic and social crisis which is ill thought out.
It goes on to address how the IMF and the ECB insist that cutting expenditure and dismantling the public sector is the only way of solving the problem. When that is erroneous and narrow thinking.
This writer explains that the UK Revenue and Customs retains net VAT receipts of £80 billion. But in fact it really takes in £160 billion, with £80 billion of that being reclaimed by the payer. Across the EU that figure is more than £2 trillion of which £1 trillion is reclaimed.
Laws covering VAT are complex and open to flexible massage by accountants skilled at tax savings. Much perfectly legitimate. However, the letter tells us that national variations among EU members in the way VAT is handled allows criminals an opportunity to reclaim an estimated 200 billion Euros illegitimately by using carousel fraud and other means.
VAT for example is reclaimed by wealthy owners of yachts, private planes and huge estates, having cleverly covered these items as tax losses related to their businesses across the European zone. Which probaly amounts to another 100 billion Euroes.
This is a profoundly expensive way of administering and running a tax system. And the loses of revenue are humongous.
It is suggested that if an established standard VAT sales tax across Europe ensured that no moneys can be reclaimed this would eliminate fraud and remove opportunity for inappropriate claims and, at the same time, stop the wasting of money on operating this system which encourages deviant application.
It further suggests setting VAT across Europe at 12% and to remove reclaiming from the tax system altogether, is the way to go, this would then boost the total revenue by around 400 million Euro’s.
This change in the system would then clear the total European debt in three years. Leaving us all with a great weight off our shoulders.
It sounds, to me, like a very easy, non painful way of getting ourselves out of this financial crisis.
What a clever thinking this is. Don’t you feel?
Clever and stupid.
So lets see how it would work. You’re making widgets. They contain 10 pounds of raw materials. You sell them for 20 pounds.
So 12 pounds (20% vat) goes out for the raw materials. You reclaim the VAT. Cost of raw materials 10 quid. You charge 20 plus VAT for the sale. 24 quid. Net 2 quid to the VAT man.
Now under your system, you can’t reclaim the 2 quid. So to make the 10 quid gross profit, you charge 22 quid plus VAT. Or you try too.
The problem is that your competitor in China, doesn’t have to deal with the niceties of funding government debts, laughs their head off. The EU has just increased prices by over 2 quid, and they clean up.
Now you want
@LB:
But then you have to consider protectionism as a means of stabilizing our economies across Europe. Which is far more important than allowing the Chinese a free for all. The USA does it all the time. Sugar being one of their protected exports. We follow them on every other totally soul destroying escapade, why not on something of benefit, for a change?
I read somewhere that ‘Lord Sugar’ had broached this muddy subject. Claiming Europe had set a precedent. I couldn’t find the video on Democracy Live. The only one I dug up started off with his view on the the disgrace of Capital Gains tax. Which he would wouldn’t he? Got a lot to lose has this guy. Except, a lot of little old ladies are mortified by the loss of their life work to the tax man on their death. But those billionaires don’t pay anything like their share, do they?
One point in Sugars favour, he’d cleaned himself up and looked the part. Not scruffy and disheveled, needing a shave and hair wash, like some of the members. So, well done him for that.
Anyway, what is your solution then? If this perfectly respectable and cleverly thought out notion doesn’t appeal? What are you offering instead?
LB has responded to your point about protectionism – that it reduces the size of the pot making people poorer. On that of course, we have to collect it along the chain of transactions otherwise it would be open to all kinds of abuse.
As does government. For every pound you nick, you return less. The myth of a multiplier is the same as believing a unicorns and pink elephants.
Look at the percentage of government that is spending, and which is investment?
Look at the investments. For example, HS2. The ticket revenue will never pay for the interest let alone the running costs. In other words, a negative return.
Look at the investment in the NHS. What’s the pay back? Reduced costs? Nope – they are winging about that pay off. Better health? 1 million on IB rose to 2.5 million at the same time. Negative return.
Even the investment in schools is so bad that companies are importing staff because the goods are so shoddy.
The problem with protectionism is that it reduces the size of the pot, making people poorer.
So back the VAT. Why should each stage of the supply chain pay a full wack of VAT, and not the end consumer only?
For example, how do you deal with a company that has a complete supply chain? They don’t pay any vat, just the end user. However, for a small company making the same widgets that the big company does, they get priced out of the market.
The EU needs to be free trade. That’s it. That way we all get the gains, but not the problems.
The current euro set up is a good example, where countries have locked themselves in, manacled them to each other and jumped off the boat. They are now drowning dragging each other down.
What is needed is the same set up as the Italian renaisance. Competition and freedom, not the current set up which is Musolini’s fascist set up. State and corporate intertwined to screw the citizen.
@LB:
If you skip down this history of the Italian renaissance to the fourteenth-century collapse you may see just what happened there and what went awry.
A lot of it very close to our own mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Renaissance#Fourteenth-century_collapse
Financial ruin that never really got off again, in that part of the world.
The 14th century saw a series of catastrophes that caused the European economy to go into recession. The Medieval Warm Period was ending as the transition to the Little Ice Age began.[4] This change in climate saw agricultural output decline significantly, leading to repeated famines, exacerbated by the rapid population growth of the earlier era. The Hundred Years’ War between England and France disrupted trade throughout northwest Europe, most notably when, in 1345, King Edward III of England repudiated his debts, contributing to the collapse of the two largest Florentine banks, those of the Bardi and Peruzzi. In the east, war was also disrupting trade routes, as the Ottoman Empire began to expand throughout the region. Most devastating, though, was the Black Death that decimated the populations of the densely populated cities of Northern Italy and returned at intervals thereafter. Florence, for instance, which had a pre-plague population of 45,000 decreased over the next 47 years by 25–50%.[5] Widespread disorder followed, including a revolt of Florentine textile workers, the ciompi, in 1378.
Global warming – not that I think its happening because of CO2 – positive. Ramp up the CO2 output.
Debt repudiation. That’s what’s happening now. Governments are defaulting on their debts. Why are the rules for the state pension changing? It’s repudiation.
Ditto for the civil service pension.
It’s still not enough, as the deficit is growing, onwards and upwards.
Eastern countries expanding – tick that box too
Disorder in the streets – tick that one.
Only thing missing is a plague.
Of all of the above, the exception is the plague. All the others are caused by governments.
Of all of the above, the exception is the plague. All the others are caused by governments.
Certainly prevented by municipal hygiene now.
We do not actually come in to contact with the rats, and their fleas. They are all in the sewers.
There is a name for the Plague even now when it does occur, but the public does not associate it with mass death. State enterprise Pathologists do, and prevent it.
The National insurance pension contribution system has a history, and a practice, which has evolved due to economic necessity.
However much studying and reading the Market “trader” does the only person to make a consistent profit in a leveraged market is the commission man who takes no risk whatsoever, except with your money.
Soros the billionaire is the commission man of commission men, who takes a 1/10000th%
commission on every trade done in certain commodities, at certain times.
I suppose there is a relationship between business values and the Italian renaissance. And market trading. Even better than being a middle man is being in a closed circle of traders trading paper which only they can understand.
Even better than being a middle man is being in a closed circle of traders trading paper which only they can understand.
Best of all only take commission and no risk at all. Then, by definition, you are in a commanding position.
Let the punters punt.They all lose, before long.
It is scarcely surprising that the unions object to CPI(Consumer price index) instead of RPI(Retail price index) for their pension index.
Quite apart from the negative connotations of Consuming, if they consume less, they get less
pension!
Presumably people want an index which reflects their actual expenses. And why not?