My emphasis:

"For Fain, tariffs address a historic wrong. "We've sat here for the last 30 plus years, with the inception of [the North American Free Trade Agreement] back in 1993-94, and watched our manufacturing base in this country disappear," he said." --NPR link

Yep. — frank

That's just capitalism. Profit maximization. Capitalism has no care about patriotism/nationalism. What matters are cheaper labor / lower wages, competitiveness, less environmental regulations, less health + safety protection, buy lower / sell higher, profitable resources, etc. Marrying capitalism and patriotism/nationalism politically tends toward a more planned economy (like wartime economy :gasp: for a more extreme example), which will get many people's backs up.

Maybe nuking that system will cool their jets because that kind of revolution was their pie-in-the-sky goal long before Trump moved towards accomplishing it. — NOS4A2

Trump’s strategy is to pressure other nations into negotiations that prioritize U.S. interests. You think that's what most people want?

Capitalism has no care about patriotism/nationalism. What matters are cheaper labor / lower wages, competitiveness, less environmental regulations, less health + safety protection, buy lower / sell higher, profitable resources, etc. — jorndoe

A couple of years back, I read the excellent Chip Wars, by Chris Miller, about the development of the modern microchip industry. Several chapters are devoted to the 1970's and 80's when the big manufacturers (Intel and AMD mainly) were scouting locations for chip fabrication. They soon discovered that workers in South Korea, Hong Kong and other Asian locations were very hard working, diligent, and compliant. They were nothing like workers on US production lines, who constantly agitated about pay and conditions, and furthermore the Asian workforces worked for considerably less money. I imagine that pay rates have improved considerably in the intervening decades the overall wage basis is still enormously lower. Which is why these fantasies of having iPhones built in American factories are unreal. America designs these devices and creates great software and other IP. But the days US manufacture are long gone, trying to force it back into existence through tarriff barriers are fantasy.

16% of total imports into the US are from China. Total imports are about 16% of the GDP.

It’s true that what the U.S. takes from China in trade is 16% of the 16%. But this obscures the real impact of what Trump is doing here. He’s pushing China into a position of competing superpowers while shooting himself and his country in the foot and poking himself in the eye. It’s akin to a Laurel and Hardy sketch, where Trump is both Laurel and Hardy and the rest of us are the audience, in hysterics of laughter. People can see through his charade now, which is why the markets are not too worried.

But regarding China, they will not see the funny side of this side show. They will realise that the West is sick, dysfunctional, with a soft underbelly of decadence, entitlement and idleness. Who can’t now be trusted. China is a sleeping giant (a Godzilla), this is not a good time to wake him.

Trump has handed Putin a lifeline as well. This trade war will push Putin and China into a closer embrace. Just when Trump is poking all the U.S.’s allies in the eye. He’s taking his (the U.S.’s) eye off the ball in the global south. China and Russia will be aware of this, they will quickly step into the void in the global south.

If one imagines Putin as an evil mastermind seeking to destroy the west and profit off the chaos. One could not have come up with a better plan than to enable a character like Trump into the White House.

There's no way to turn China into the US's main trading partner even counting value-added transactions. BTW, moving parts in and out of the US was mentioned in the article I posted about the UAW. Is that where you came across that issue? — frank

It doesn't have to be the main trading partner to have a significant impact on products and goods sold in the US.

Unless Apple takes less. — creativesoul

The amount of "less" is too much. Most of their profit goes into R&D departments and cutting those is not happening as the recent products haven't made a splash commercially and they're in dire need of a "next big thing". They will probably "take less", but even doing so it will cost above $3000.

The irony of it all is that the main argument for these tariffs are to get production back into the US, but the production of smartphones isn't some industrial railway industry where you just make a big steel factory. The complexity of modern technology can't just be "brought home". There's no competence in building the parts required for it and there are no specialized factories.

This could mean that many of the largest manufacturers of tech will move OUT of the US in order to keep the complex chain of production required.

People can see through his charade now, which is why the markets are not too worried. — Punshhh

On the contrary, there’s enormous anxiety in the US. Wall St is beside itself. Many very large businesses are highly integrated with supply chains that extend to China and numerous other countries, and all of the components they rely on are about to increase or even double in price, leading to both price increases for consumers and eroding margins for the producers.

Trump and Navarro are making the ridiculous excuse that trade deficits are ‘an emergency’ when the only real emergency is having someone like Trump in the Oval Office, who doesn’t understand what a trade deficit means. And they all should be concentrating on the real deficit, which is the US Budget deficit, that is forecast to grow enormously under Trump’s presidency. The whole situation is totally backwards and upside down.

Trump has also dusted off the coal burning industry by using emergency laws...

If a president uses emergency laws while there's no active emergency, isn't that illegal and an abuse of his power? Shouldn't that warrant to remove him from office? Wasn't this essentially how the South Korean president was removed, using emergency laws to initiate marshal law.

I don’t deny that people are very worried.
The markets haven’t reacted as much as I was expecting, considering the size of the tariffs. It could be disbelief, or they expect Trump to reduce tariffs significantly through negotiation. Which is what Trump is claiming. Last night he said that he want’s a free trade deal with China, that this is just an incentive for them to come to the table. I expect Trump to drop the tariffs dramatically when the economic consequences start to hit.

I heard a report this morning about a fire sale of U.S. government bonds. That the bond yield is up and that China hold a high proportion of these bonds. This is bad news for the U.S. and as you say there are serious economic consequences that will materialise should the tariffs remain.

It’s akin to a Laurel and Hardy sketch, where Trump is both Laurel and Hardy and the rest of us are the audience, in hysterics of laughter. — Punshhh

Well, at least we're enjoying ourselves. :grin:

The markets haven’t reacted as much as I was expecting, considering the size of the tariffs — Punshhh

They still believe he will back down. However, Trump isn't operating on logic or for the nation, he only cares about himself. He is like Putin in this regard; if something that would remove the tariffs were to paint himself as "the good guy" and give him praise, then he will remove them. But so far, removing them now is a failure on his part and therefor he won't back down.

The market doesn't operate on current events, they operate on possible future scenarios. And right now the future is in extreme fluctuation. This is why the market crashed but haven't crashed more.

If Trump had been a stable mind who clearly had a plan, then I think the market would have crashed more on the certainty that all of this will happen.

But he's operating based on "Art of the deal". He's trying to get a leverage for dealing with other nations. But he is too stupid to understand that China won't back down. They can let their population economically suffer much harder without risking their political power, something that Trump cannot. The US economy will collapse before China does anything and then China will be in the lead of deals with the US.

Everyone who has the slightest understanding of world economics and the dynamics of politics in China and the US can see this. Trump doesn't have the cards, to use his own rhetoric.

Everyone who has the slightest understanding of world economics and the dynamics of politics in China and the US can see this. Trump doesn't have the cards, to use his own rhetoric.

Yes, exactly. China has already won the economic war.

As an aside, I saw an old clip of an interview with Trump in 2003, yesterday. Trump said that China has been ripping the U.S. off for years. “They’re eating our lunch” he said in an angry voice and the interviewer’s repost was, “they paid for your lunch”. After which Trump told the interviewer that he was a very stupid economist and a very bad interviewer. But the interviewer was right and Trump had no idea of the truth of the matter and he’s still labouring under the same misconception. I wonder how many people have told him who paid for his lunch over the intervening years and he ignored every single one of them.

Good questions. @Ciceronianus@Hanover@Maw any view on this as US based lawyers? Because I don't.

Finally got around to working out a post on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), the US dollar’s role as global reserve currency, and trade deficits. These three are tightly linked, yet they somehow remain a mystery to Trump and the economist Ron Vara, also known as Peter Navarro’s sock puppet.

Trump’s April 2, 2025 tariffs are yet another monument to his economic illiteracy. The idea, if you can call it that, is that because the US imports more than it exports, the country is somehow losing, and tariffs will solve everything. This is not just wrong. It is the kind of blunt, caveman logic that treats global finance like a rigged Monopoly game.

Here is what is actually happening. The US runs persistent trade deficits because global investors funnel capital into the country. They trust US institutions, they want American bonds, real estate and tech companies. They build factories here. That is Foreign Direct Investment, and it is part of a broader capital account surplus. When foreigners pour in money to acquire US assets, those dollars have to come from somewhere. They get them from selling things to the US. That is not an ideological position, it is basic accounting. The other side of that surplus is the current account deficit, which includes the trade deficit.

Another issues (already mentioned by others). Because the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, there is enormous global demand for it. Central banks, companies and investors across the planet use the dollar for trade, savings and investment. That demand for dollars drives up the value of the dollar and keeps capital flowing into US markets. In this context, the trade deficit is not a sign of weakness but a reflection of global trust in the US economy.

So what happens when you slap tariffs on everything in sight? You do not fix the trade deficit. For the most part you will shuffle import sources. Maybe the US will import less from China and more from Vietnam. Maybe a handful of domestic producers benefit. But unless capital inflows decrease, the overall deficit remains. It might even worsen due to retaliation or inflationary effects. The idea that tariffs can cure a trade imbalance without touching capital flows is pure fantasy.

As warned by everyone tariffs increase costs for American consumers and businesses. They disrupt supply chains. They provoke retaliation from trade partners - just watch how US companies will be starved from rare earth metals resulting from China's export licensing requirements affecting samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. This in turn threatens electronics manufacturing, defence systems and clean energy technology.

Of course, capital flows may very well decrease but only as a result of a loss in trust in the US and its economy and that will fix the trade deficit. But at what cost? As capital begins to flow eslewhere, the capital account surplus will shrink and the trade deficit can not be financed, that puts downward pressure on the dollar which is likely to lead to inflation on top of the effect of tariffs. The trade deficit is "cured" in the worst possible way: falling imports, shrinking consumption and potentially a recession. The final step could well be the loss of the dollar as a serve currency.

The US losing that status for its currency will result in more expensive imports, cheaper exports, less capital inflows and therefore increased costs of financing debt. Considering the debt the US has, it is not clear how it can sustain its debt in such an event.

In the long run, this will at the very least stop the erosion of US industrial capacity but questions remain how much of an industry you can have while retaliatory tariffs and export licenses frustrate your supply chains. The problem here is the downsides are very predictable but the upsides are less apparent. An industrial rennaissance in the US is not likely when acquiring resources and goods to make industrial activities possible is made prohibitively expensive.

Long story short, Trump's brainfart masquerading as policy reflects a zero-sum mentality where surpluses are strength and deficits are weakness. That is simply wrong. The US runs a trade deficit because the world wants its assets. That is not a problem. It is a privilege. Killing that system with tariffs is not just dumb, it is destructive.

In my view, unless the US is willing to give up the dollar’s reserve currency status and slam the door on global investment, the trade deficit will continue.

So since this led us to this point, let's assume for a moment that this is the goal; getting rid of the dollar's reserve currency status. If that's what you'd want, we can think of the following reasons because the status:

• distorts the US economy and hollows out industry
• is ultimately unsustainable and vulnerable to collapse
• destabilizes emerging markets
• reinforces global inequality
• props up a deeply asymmetric power structure

I don't buy any of the last three points are a consideration but the first two could be. Yet, the only way to get rid of it, seems to be to destroy trust. Then why do it through tariffs? Why not simply default on debt?

In the end, everywhere I look, I only see inconsistencies, which means this has not been thought through. It creates exactly the circumstances to undermine US leadership and take advantage of it, which is entirely the opposite from what Trump claims he wants to accomplish. Here's a few ways countries can do it:

1. Undermine the dollar by creating alternatives to settle in non-USD currencies;
2. Countries less affected by low-tariffs are more likely to increase market share selling to the US than US manufacturing increasing;
3. China ets every room to present itself as a stable, cooperative partner whil the US fucks over its allies;
4. The immediate devaluing of US assets means we can acquire interests in them on the cheap;
5. Countries can challenge US leadership at global institutions thereby strengthening their onw legitimacy.

Countries that do understand the system—and most major ones do—now have every incentive to:

• Wait for the US to isolate itself
• Exploit the gaps it leaves behind
• Slowly weaken the dollar-centric system from the edges

Pfew. Done. Economics 101!

One person, one vote. Fair enough. Why not give the vote to infants, then? The idea is that a minimum competency is required to vote. I'm suggesting that age is not enough. In a society where pretty much everyone receives a standard education, I think it's reasonable to require some mastery of that education, and a relatively easy test. — tim wood

In my country, age is actually enough because for any adult citizen of the country voting is a Constitutional right. How severely handicapped a person is doesn't limit this at all.

Here's the real issue: there are many cases, where basically the court decides that someone is incapable of taking care of themselves and for their own protection, they are put under a guardian (I don't know what the legal terms in UK or US is for this), even in adulthood. Multitude of examples of this. Now of being under custody of a guardian/trustee (like a child), of course goes against human rights, like having the right to own property and decide oneself about it.

Yet it's a totally different issue if everybody has to show that they are able to own property. That there is like a driver's exam if you think of driving a car or a motorcycle, there's an obvious need to check one's abilities as one can do enormous damage with them. Yet we don't to have to get a permit or have an exam to buy a kitchen knife.

With your thinking, it would be similar to argue that in order for us to own property, we first have to show that we are capable of owning property, eligible to take care of that property. And only then do we have the right to own property. In my country the only limitation is that a person who has a guardian cannot be a candidate. But for example dementia etc doesn't limit the right to vote.

And I think that in truth, far more easier to have everybody to have the right to vote. Keep it simple.

Either that or the incompetents get to vote, and may even get to run the asylum. Which is happening as we speak in the USA! — tim wood

Look, this is simply a problem with all democracies. It does ask a lot from it's citizens. End of story. In my country the Parliament can change the Constitution, so basically there is no limitation on the laws they can make. They can decide that all naturally redhead women and witches and thus are a threat to the security of the nation, thus they have to be imprisoned.

We have only the common sense of the people as the true safety valve here.

But even on this humble forum, authors are promoting or are otherwise cheerleading for the ostracism of human beings on the basis of whom they voted for. — NOS4A2

Assassination culture? Sorry, but sounds quite similar to the "rape culture" that suddenly had become so widespread when we had the "the woke" saying earlier.

After saying that, I think that the US is in deep trouble as it's losing it's ability to come together in any issue and on any occasion. This issue is really serious, actually. Americans are truly losing the so important social cohesion of coming together as a nation. Just for comparison, my country actually came together when the COVID-pandemic hit. And the people and the political parties came together in a dramatic way when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022. It was Social-Democrat lead administrations both in Finland and Sweden that pushed for NATO membership, even if the left has been traditionally against NATO membership.

Yet in the US Covid seems to just have divided the country. Now the incoming recession and the stagflation is clearly the result of a political decision of the US President. We would not face this incoming global recession as we do now otherwise.

This just energizes the polarization onto a higher level. To think that everything imported from China has an over 100% tariff is going to immediately hurt. Breakups of supply chains can even happen.

The worst thing here is that I don't see any way of the tensions easing here.

The US runs persistent trade deficits because global investors funnel capital into the country. — Benkei

We ought to assume that Trump is informed, and actually knows this. Therefore we can ask what is his real intention behind the use of tariffs.

So since this led us to this point, let's assume for a moment that this is the goal; getting rid of the dollar's reserve currency status. — Benkei

Trump is diabolical, but it's hard to jump to any conclusions about his intentions, other than the pure selfishness that he has consistently demonstrated throughout his life.

In the end, everywhere I look, I only see inconsistencies, which means this has not been thought through. — Benkei

That's the selfishness showing through. Selfishness is very whimsical and often displays as a sort of trial and error behaviour. I think we can look at the successes and failures which he had in applying tariffs in his last term in office for indications of his intentions. I believe the intent is as indicates, he believes it gives him leverage in the "art of the deal".

The selfish way of deal-making is to utilize one's power to inflict pain on the other, applying that force until the other gives you what you want. This selfish art of the "deal" is completely distinct from the friendly cooperation "deal", which is intended to be a "win-win" situation.

Bravo.
I’ve just heard a respected economist explaining how if the bond markets run away the federal reserve will have no choice but to raise interest rates, which may lead to an inability to service U.S. debt and will drive inflation.

1. Undermine the dollar by creating alternatives to settle in non-USD currencies; — Benkei

The easiest thing to do would be to devalue their own currencies relative to the dollar. Trump has already issued a warning to them not to do that. There aren't any countries whose trade with the US is large enough to make that option reasonable though.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Another issues (already mentioned by others). Because the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, there is enormous global demand for it. Central banks, companies and investors across the planet use the dollar for trade, savings and investment. That demand for dollars drives up the value of the dollar and keeps capital flowing into US markets. In this context, the trade deficit is not a sign of weakness but a reflection of global trust in the US economy. — Benkei

This might be changing now. Saudi-Arabia's financial minister said already in 2023 that the Kingdom was open for selling oil in other currencies than the dollar. Note that the Saudi currency Rial, as the other currencies are pegged to the dollar.

A further question is if Trump would not simply pay China the treasuries it's holds. It's an incredible stupid idea, but note what Trump has earlier stated about this, even if then the issue was walked back:

(the Guardian, Feb 16th 2025) “We’re even looking at Treasuries,” the president told reporters. “There could be a problem … It could be that a lot of those things don’t count. In other words, that some of that stuff that we’re finding is very fraudulent, therefore maybe we have less debt than we thought.”

The suggestion was that opening up the US Treasury’s data to Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” team had identified a money-saving wheeze: why not walk away from some of America’s debt obligations – a “selective default”, as economists call it.

Selective default could be an option. As now China has raised it's tariff's to 84% to US exports, another issue could be that it starts selling it's 1 trillion holdings of US treasuries. Of course it will take also itself a hit, but then if this is a security threat (which it is, actually), countries are totally fine with seeing their economies taking a hit. The people will understand.

We've already seen that imposing sanctions toward Russia (which I deem justified), has already made a lot of countries unsure about the international finance system as they fear they might also be put up with sanctions or excluded from the system. Now, if the US goes and attacks China by a selective default, that would have monumental effects. Yet perhaps Trump would like the dollar to cost less.

Yet, the only way to get rid of it, seems to be to destroy trust. Then why do it through tariffs? Why not simply default on debt? — Benkei

Because I genuinely think that Trump believes in the false idea of trade being a bad thing, when the US has a trade deficit. He truly believes in tariffs having the effect of luring in manufacturing into the US. With a default, it might be that even the fringe thinkers like Peter Navarro see it as a bad idea. But who knows. It can be the next thing Trump does after this.

We ought to assume that Trump is informed, and actually knows this. Therefore we can ask what is his real intention behind the use of tariffs. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we ought to assume this? What could you give evidence for this. This doesn't seem like a bluff or only a negotiating tactic. If countries want to make deals, Trump might go with those, but he looks to be perfectly happy having the tariffs and truly assumes that the tariffs will lure manufacturing back to the US.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

My only suggestion to require that a prospective voter show he can function as an adult, either through education, service, or work, a one-time basic test that a person can take as many times as it takes to pass, if they fail. A person needs a licence to drive a car, both the car and himself required to keep and maintain certain standards of ability and care. Is it so outrageous or difficult to have similar standards to drive the state? — tim wood

Basically in a democracy, this can be done if people really are OK with this. Far easier it is to think of this from the perspective of who can run for a political position in elections. The case of Marine Le Pen in France shows that this is a current issue.

As I noted the difference in voting rights between the US and Finland, Finnish prison inmates can vote, American inmates cannot. And both countries are basically OK with their laws on this. This basically goes back to differences in the idea of legal punishment, where in the US you have this history of punishing criminals, where the Nordic approach is much more liberal in also "helping" the felon to get out of crime, even if both countries do naturally detain criminals for the security of other people and the society. Trump's evictions of immigrants into prisons in El Salvador is the case point of punishment and threat of punishment being far more important in American politics.

Selective default could be an option. As now China has raised it's tariff's to 84% to US exports, another issue could be that it starts selling it's 1 trillion holdings of US treasuries. — ssu

As a lawyer with experience with government bond issuance I don't see how this is possible under US law. There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

↪Benkei Bravo.
I’ve just heard a respected economist explaining how if the bond markets run away the federal reserve will have no choice but to raise interest rates, which may lead to an inability to service U.S. debt and will drive inflation. — Punshhh

Isnt the fear at the moment that the markets are headed for a liquidity crisis, which happened during the 2008 financial crisis? In such a crisis, panicked investors sell everything, even bonds, so instead of what usually happens during a downturn, that investors turn to bonds as a safe haven, lowering their yields, they are sold along with everything else and their yield jumps. In 2008 the Fed has to step in and provide liquidity.

As Paul Krugman explains:

…even though stock prices are dominating the headlines, the real, scary action is in the bond market. The nightmare scenario, which we saw play out in 2008, is that falling asset prices cause a scramble for cash, which leads to fire sales that drive prices even lower, and the whole system implodes. Suddenly, that scenario doesn’t look impossible.

I would empathize with those who wanted to assassinate Hitler, but not because he had a different view of power. But the only reason I’d kill a politician is if he was trying to kill me or my family.

Hitler and the Nazis are all gone. The only swastikas I see these days are the ones carved into someone’s Tesla. And the overuse of false analogies such as these only reveal to me how far they have to reach to justify their acts.

The unprecedented danger are the reactionary forces willing to take it upon themselves to kill the people’s chosen representative, and all because they fear some future conditions that never seem to arrive. I do not empathize with this brand of madness.

The question: given what he is doing and has done, and what he says and how he says it, and the company he surrounds himself with and what they say and do, what makes sense as to what is ultimately intended? Putting all the parts together, what is the most likely structure that they all fit? — tim wood

Are you suggesting he’s playing 5-dimensional chess?(*facepalm*). The policy coming out of the White House is not the product of tightly coordinated strategy among Trump and his advisors. Trump is an incompetent who doesn’t read history, economics or anything else for that matter. He only hears from his advisors what he wants to hear and ignores what he doesn’t. No one in his circle of ‘experts’ lasts for very long, especially if they dare to disagree with him. Notice how Bessant or Navarro or Hassert will say one thing about the reasons for the tariffs and Trump will immediately contradict them. One dangerous, autocratic idiot is running the show, and the role of his Cabinet is to try to sane-wash his idiocy.

Question: does anyone think that Trump knows what a tariff is or how it works? — tim wood

I think he doesn't understand it. A political leader who thinks that enlarging the territory of the USA is a great idea at this time of age isn't the brightest one around, even if he can communicate so well with his base. People shouldn't themselves go down the rabbit hole and believe some deep conspiracy here.

The question: given what he is doing and has done, and what he says and how he says it, and the company he surrounds himself with and what they say and do, what makes sense as to what is ultimately intended? Putting all the parts together, what is the most likely structure that they all fit? — tim wood

I think we are witnessing a story of a quite ignorant yet great populist orator with ardent followers, who is unfit for the positions he is in now. And power has simply gone to his head, because of the acolytes and the yes men around him, who follow every whim he makes.

As a lawyer with experience with government bond issuance I don't see how this is possible under US law. There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues. — Benkei

And when have existing laws have limited the actions of Trump? He already has the idea of ruling by executive decree and then fighting in courts, if it comes to that.

There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues. — Benkei

If there is the ability to have sanctions, to freeze assets, why not this then? If there's no law specifically against it.

Now at this point this is just theoretical (thank God), but with Trump, these things can happen. In an economic crisis, the US President does have a lot power.

Isnt the fear at the moment that the markets are headed for a liquidity crisis, which happened during the 2008 financial crisis? — Joshs

That was because $55 Trillion disappeared overnight. Trillion with a T. We're just experiencing uncertainty associated with a looming recession with possible stagflation. You're comparing a thunder storm to a hurricane.

the overuse of false analogies such as these only reveal to me how far they have to reach to justify their acts. — NOS4A2

Do you believe that Victor Orban is a dictator? How about Putin? If so, tell me in detail what qualifies these men as autocratic rulers? What strategies and tactics did they use to gradually change a system with checks and balances into an autocracy? What signs would you look for in Trump to convince you that he thinks in similar ways about power as Orban and Putin?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Isnt the fear at the moment that the markets are headed for a liquidity crisis, which happened during the 2008 financial crisis?
— Joshs

That was because $55 Trillion disappeared overnight. Trillion with a T. We're just experiencing uncertainty associated with a looming recession with possible stagflation. You're comparing a thunder storm to a hurricane. — frank

I’m not doing the comparing. Economists are.

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-cost-of-chaos-this-is-getting