Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Humpheria wrote:Pev's an innovator.

Ive also seen Pev and Pevv....

:P

Pev I will respond to you later.

First off I have to post this Brilliant equation a Leftist just gave me when I'm talking about Fascism

According to the Lefty

Authoritarianism=/=Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism=Leftism

Fascism=/=Leftism

Totalitarianism=Fascism

Ankha wrote:Ive also seen Pev and Pevv....

:P

Either one's OK, I guess. A famous ancestor of mine had a surname beginning with Pev. That's how I named my nation.

I thought that your last name was Peverelle...

:P

Ankha wrote:I thought that your last name was Peverelle...

:P

But it's not though.

Also Pev...For the website. I'm going to assume you haven't seen my search history and that was just a very lucky guess.....

Humpheria wrote:But it's not though.

*gasp* TYRANNY LIES!!!

Politics according to an anarcho-communist

Fascism = Fascism

Libertarianism = Fascism

Liberalism = Fascism

Conservatism = Fascism

Monarchism = Fascism

Voluntaryism = Fascism

Stalinism = Fascism

Ankha wrote:I thought that your last name was Peverelle...

:P

Nope. What gave you that idea?

Albenia wrote:Also Pev...For the website. I'm going to assume you haven't seen my search history and that was just a very lucky guess.....

What you wrote looked C/P'd, so I just pasted a part of it into Google search and I found the website. I also typed in "when has intervention worked" and it was the first relevant result x)

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Politics according to an anarcho-communist

Fascism = Fascism

Libertarianism = Fascism

Liberalism = Fascism

Conservatism = Fascism

Monarchism = Fascism

Voluntaryism = Fascism

Stalinism = Fascism

Anything that I disagree with = Fascism

Post self-deleted by Ankha.

Pevvania wrote:Nope. What gave you that idea?

What you wrote looked C/P'd, so I just pasted a part of it into Google search and I found the website. I also typed in "when has intervention worked" and it was the first relevant result x)

..........Yeah...

Pevvania wrote:Anything that I disagree with = Fascism

And now according to them fascism is based off Roman Ideology during the Roman Empire...

Post self-deleted by Albenia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8RHxv0bxzo

I don't know whether he's very informed...or very ill-informed.

Albenia wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8RHxv0bxzo

I don't know whether he's very informed...or very ill-informed.

Anyone who makes generalisations as wide as that about an entire race is stupid. The pigment of your skin or the shape of your face has no impact whatsoever on the structure of your mind.

Pevvania wrote:Anyone who makes generalisations as wide as that about an entire race is stupid. The pigment of your skin or the shape of your face has no impact whatsoever on the structure of your mind.

Fair enough...also Pev...I have tried constructing an Argument against what you said...

Pevvania wrote:

The American economy prospered so much during the 19th Century because of limited intervention and bountiful resources. Tariffs were designed to prioritise revenue gain over protectiveness since they were the main source of finance for the federal government. The Gilded Age, the greatest period of economic expansion in American history, was marked by a steady reduction in the average tariff from 44% in 1870 to 27% in 1890. Interestingly enough, between 1880 and 1885 the average tariff was raised from 27% to 32%, which was followed by a three-year recession, and then lowered again to 27% by 1890 as economic growth resumed. But generally speaking, I think we can explain the high rates of economic growth in the late 19th Century by looking at the unrestricted flow of immigrants into the country. Many economists believe that this largely offset the damaging effects that the tariff had on industry.

Tariffs aren't good, because they reduce the purchasing power of domestic workers. In the short-term as a result of free trade, American companies that sell at higher prices than foreign competitors may go bust or lose market share, but this means that American workers have higher net incomes, because the foreign companies that are now in the market offer lower prices, meaning that consumers spend less for certain goods and so have more disposable income. Free trade benefits everybody.

All I can really say is in regards to this part. Government Intervention on Tariffs wasn't needed. And you know why it probably did well? Because due to tariff's American manufacturing was developed. Protectionism is needed until you've got a good production base. After that Let the Markets free.

That's what I came up with listening to that rap. Never give me two polar opposite ideologies..Cause I will find a way.

You steer the markets until the are working then set them free.

Keynesian and Austrian schools of Thought and the good from them, but not the bad.

Albenia wrote:That's what I came up with listening to that rap. Never give me two polar opposite ideologies..Cause I will find a way.

You steer the markets until the are working then set them free.

Keynesian and Austrian schools of Thought and the good from them, but not the bad.

So Chicago School?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:So Chicago School?

....Chicago school.

I'm not sure. I've never really read up on that school of thought.

I've read Austrian

Keynesian

American

and Marxian

Albenia wrote:Fair enough...also Pev...I have tried constructing an Argument against what you said...All I can really say is in regards to this part. Government Intervention on Tariffs wasn't needed. And you know why it probably did well? Because due to tariff's American manufacturing was developed. Protectionism is needed until you've got a good production base. After that Let the Markets free.

Well, the tariff was generally low in the first half of the 19th Century, averaging around 17%. So a good production base already developed with tariffs low. China has developed an enormous production base by pursuing free trade policies. Free commerce doesn't hurt 'infant industries'; it strengthens them, and encourages competition that lowers prices and makes everyone wealthier.

Chicago School is good for a more empiricist view on economics, but it's far too cynical, in my opinion. I also have serious disagreements with Chicago Schoolers on monetary policy.

Pevvania wrote:Chicago School is good for a more empiricist view on economics, but it's far too cynical, in my opinion. I also have serious disagreements with Chicago Schoolers on monetary policy.

Such as what?

I myself find it hilariously idiotic it says Government needs a strict controlled monetary system.

I am not an economist, but I believe most of my economical beliefs are Chicago based while I reserved some others for a more Austrian interpretation.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I am not an economist, but I believe most of my economical beliefs are Chicago based while I reserved some others for a more Austrian interpretation.

I'm not an economist either. But I'm hoping to get the gist of all the economic schools of thought in before school starts back. That way I can sound somewhat competent when discussing economical schools of thought.

I'm currently studying Ancient Schools of Economic thought...

Albenia wrote:I'm not an economist either. But I'm hoping to get the gist of all the economic schools of thought in before school starts back. That way I can sound somewhat competent when discussing economical schools of thought.

I'm currently studying Ancient Schools of Economic thought...

Ancient economic schools?

Og is three prostitutes. Ug has a blanket. Og is cold. Ug is lonely. What should they do?

This is basically Chicago school in a nutshell, TTA:

"An economic school of thought that originated at the University of Chicago in the 1940s. The main tenets of the Chicago school are that free markets best allocate resources in an economy, and that minimal government intervention is best. The Chicago school includes monetarist beliefs about the economy, and contends that the money supply should be kept in equilibrium with the demand for money. To this end, macroeconomic variables like output and wages are viewed in aggregate for the entire economy." -Investopedia

The first, ancient primordial libertarians were from the Chicago school. Friedman and his intellectual forefathers, Ug and Og.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Ancient economic schools?

Og is three prostitutes. Ug has a blanket. Og is cold. Ug is lonely. What should they do?

....Not that Ancient.

It's Ancient Egypt, Greece, China, India and Medival Islamic Economic Thoughts and Policies

Republic Of Minerva wrote:This is basically Chicago school in a nutshell, TTA:

"An economic school of thought that originated at the University of Chicago in the 1940s. The main tenets of the Chicago school are that free markets best allocate resources in an economy, and that minimal government intervention is best. The Chicago school includes monetarist beliefs about the economy, and contends that the money supply should be kept in equilibrium with the demand for money. To this end, macroeconomic variables like output and wages are viewed in aggregate for the entire economy." -Investopedia

The first, ancient primordial libertarians were from the Chicago school. Friedman and his intellectual forefathers, Ug and Og.

Actually Libertarianism can be traced as far back as the ancient Chinese philosopherLao-Tzu and the higher-law concepts of the Greeks and the Israelites.

However it really began during the 17th Century and the 18th century with the rise of liberalism. Of course Liberalism eventually developed into Classical Liberalism and Anarco-Liberalism (Not Anarchy).

Albenia wrote:Actually Libertarianism can be traced as far back as the ancient Chinese philosopherLao-Tzu and the higher-law concepts of the Greeks and the Israelites.

However it really began during the 17th Century and the 18th century with the rise of liberalism. Of course Liberalism eventually developed into Classical Liberalism and Anarco-Liberalism (Not Anarchy).

The 17th and 18th centuries were a philosophical treasure trove for libertarianism as an ideology, but indeed the origins are a fair bit further in history.

You did your homework, it seems.

The Serbian Empire wrote:The 17th and 18th centuries were a philosophical treasure trove for libertarianism as an ideology, but indeed the origins are a fair bit further in history.

I just realised - you're that guy on the NSG Forums!

The Serbian Empire wrote:The 17th and 18th centuries were a philosophical treasure trove for libertarianism as an ideology, but indeed the origins are a fair bit further in history.

Much further back.

In fact most political Ideaologies originate much farther back than when they were named.

Socialism began as a theory in Persia if I remember correctly but it didn't really kick off till The French Revolution.

Pevvania wrote:I just realised - you're that guy on the NSG Forums!

Yep, the prolific poster who ranks 62nd of all time in posts. I sure am.

The Serbian Empire wrote:Yep, the prolific poster who ranks 62nd of all time in posts. I sure am.

Well well, it's nice to see you outside of the warzone. I'm Lerodan Chinamerica, in case you didn't know already.

Have you come to drive out the communists from the fair free land of Nationstates with us?

And I am The Liberated Territories.

......

What? What?

Albenia wrote:......

What? What?

What what?

...Minerva you aren't TLT

Pevvania wrote:Well well, it's nice to see you outside of the warzone. I'm Lerodan Chinamerica, in case you didn't know already.

Yep, it's nice to meet you.

Albenia wrote:...Minerva you aren't TLT

Yes I am.

Want proof? I know you from the Senate. You're in the Centre Party, right?

And yes early Socialist Philosophy can from a Persian named Mazdak

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Yes I am.

Want proof? I know you from the Senate. You're in the Centre Party, right?

Are you really?

Albenia wrote:Are you really?

Yeah. What reason would I have in lying?

I've been in the senate a lot longer than here. I tried convincing my native Laissez Faireholm to start a raiding team (and even ran in their elections) when I wanted to try out raiding but meh. So I came here.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Yeah. What reason would I have in lying?

I've been in the senate a lot longer than here. I tried convincing my native Laissez Faireholm to start a raiding team (and even ran in their elections) when I wanted to try out raiding but meh. So I came here.

....

Well that's pretty neat.

NeoCon is also in my party. (Although I wasn't to happy with Arkolon bringing him back in since he left to create his own party, but came back when it couldn't get off the start.) I led it slide though.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Yeah. What reason would I have in lying?

I've been in the senate a lot longer than here. I tried convincing my native Laissez Faireholm to start a raiding team (and even ran in their elections) when I wanted to try out raiding but meh. So I came here.

They're pretty noninterventionist. They flatly rejected joining REATO when I proposed the idea to them last year.

Pevvania wrote:They're pretty noninterventionist. They flatly rejected joining REATO when I proposed the idea to them last year.

I like this this region of Laissez Faire. They take their "Leave alone" policies to an international level.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:NeoCon is also in my party. (Although I wasn't to happy with Arkolon bringing him back in since he left to create his own party, but came back when it couldn't get off the start.) I led it slide though.

Oh yeah...I saw his party.

I was in The Centre Party but I haven't paid much attention to the Senate.

Pevvania wrote:They're pretty noninterventionist. They flatly rejected joining REATO when I proposed the idea to them last year.

I figured that out. Paleolibertarians and those who uphold the NAP even in this game. I mean, in real life I am pretty non-interventionist too, but I think that's taking it too far. Of course, I don't exclusively uphold the NAP as I tend to weigh it against other variables.

I feel like us libertarians are losing some of our brightest voices on the General forums. Too many are becoming moderates. Libertarian California has embraced xenophobic progressivism, and I'm almost certain that New Sea Territory has become an an-com. I think it's important for libertarians to keep up to date with the facts to avoid the appeal of nasty ideologies creeping into our minds.

Meh. I tend to snark more than debate. NSG is not to be taken seriously. I frequently parlay with Liberaxia and others who just create fallacy after fallacy.

I prefer Forum 7 and Factbook for it's more relaxed atmosphere and friendlier people.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I figured that out. Paleolibertarians and those who uphold the NAP even in this game. I mean, in real life I am pretty non-interventionist too, but I think that's taking it too far. Of course, I don't exclusively uphold the NAP as I tend to weigh it against other variables.

That's sort of the same with me. I've become more anti-war in real life, but to be expected to carry over that viewpoint to NS makes no sense since there are so many fewer factors to consider here. There's no collateral damage, no cost of war, etc.

Pevvania wrote:I feel like us libertarians are losing some of our brightest voices on the General forums. Too many are becoming moderates. Libertarian California has embraced xenophobic progressivism, and I'm almost certain that New Sea Territory has become an an-com. I think it's important for libertarians to keep up to date with the facts to avoid the appeal of nasty ideologies creeping into our minds.

I'll try getting active on the General forum again.

I used to get on everyday and I specialized in putting down radical Religious people who were...too religious.

Pevvania wrote:That's sort of the same with me. I've become more anti-war in real life, but to be expected to carry over that viewpoint to NS makes no sense since there are so many fewer factors to consider here. There's no collateral damage, no cost of war, etc.

When it comes to regions I carry all my views OOC...

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Meh. I tend to snark more than debate. NSG is not to be taken seriously. I frequently parlay with Liberaxia and others who just create fallacy after fallacy.

I prefer Forum 7 and Factbook for it's more relaxed atmosphere and friendlier people.

I don't get Liberaxia. His main function seems to be criticising the beliefs of everyone else without putting forth any of his own concrete views. I struggled with NSG, at first. But then I learnt to pick up the tricks that were thrown at me and throw them back.

I wouldn't fit in to Forum 7. You need to be funny to gel with others there, and my humour does not translate through text very well. Plus it would be weird talking to some guys who I get into quite heavy debates with.

Post self-deleted by Albenia.

Post self-deleted by Albenia.

Pevvania wrote:I feel like us libertarians are losing some of our brightest voices on the General forums. Too many are becoming moderates. Libertarian California has embraced xenophobic progressivism, and I'm almost certain that New Sea Territory has become an an-com. I think it's important for libertarians to keep up to date with the facts to avoid the appeal of nasty ideologies creeping into our minds.

Yeah, I crept more moderate just to reverse course. I may entertain some of their ideas, but point out the majority on General hold ideologies far too idealistic to compete against tax havens and human nature itself.

What do you fellows think of welfare states?

Pevvania wrote:I don't get Liberaxia. His main function seems to be criticising the beliefs of everyone else without putting forth any of his own concrete views. I struggled with NSG, at first. But then I learnt to pick up the tricks that were thrown at me and throw them back.

I wouldn't fit in to Forum 7. You need to be funny to gel with others there, and my humour does not translate through text very well. Plus it would be weird talking to some guys who I get into quite heavy debates with.

That's because Liberaxia doesn't even have any concrete views, and says so himself.

Thankfully being funny isn't a requirement to join forum 7, you just need to learn not to take things 100% seriously. You can still get into some pretty heavy debates, as I well defended not banning incan light bulbs fairly well (although they banned them anyway).

As witnessed by 18 pages of arguing about blueberry bread, forum 7 is really the only place i fit in.

Viritica wrote:What do you fellows think of welfare states?

An unnecessary series of poverty traps that we all have to pay for. Welfare should be abolished.

Viritica wrote:What do you fellows think of welfare states?

Pevvania wrote:An unnecessary series of poverty traps that we all have to pay for. Welfare should be abolished.

Once again, Pev hit the nail on the head.

Viritica wrote:What do you fellows think of welfare states?

I'm up in the air.

I value Private isurance companies more but if it is MINIMAL welfare coverage only to those with a job and not able to pay the bill for their house.

Albenia wrote:I'll try getting active on the General forum again.

I used to get on everyday and I specialized in putting down radical Religious people who were...too religious.

Mine is knocking off Communists. These days the Communists aren't so blatant as they've wised up to my tactics.

I'd concede to a negative income tax coupled off with some vouchers, at most. Otherwise charity and a job are the two best solutions to welfare.

Pevvania wrote:An unnecessary series of poverty traps that we all have to pay for. Welfare should be abolished.

Why's that? What safety nets would there be for the poor if welfare was abolished?

The Serbian Empire wrote:Mine is knocking off Communists. These days the Communists aren't so blatant as they've wised up to my tactics.

You'll love it here then. We bash communists regularly.

Minimal welfare with major private insurance.

The Serbian Empire wrote:Mine is knocking off Communists. These days the Communists aren't so blatant as they've wised up to my tactics.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:You'll love it here then. We bash communists regularly.

Sadly

Viritica wrote:Why's that? What safety nets would there be for the poor if welfare was abolished?

No safety nets is the point. With more money circulating because of their absence, there will be a higher presence of work.

Viritica wrote:Why's that? What safety nets would there be for the poor if welfare was abolished?

None.

I say abolishing the sales tax is a place to start.

Setting up Minimal Welfare.

Letting companies not be forced to give employees government welfare

Letting Private Insurance companies handle business

If anyone's interested, here's my several page defense of incandescent light bulbs:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=19563262#p19563262

Viritica wrote:What do you fellows think of welfare states?

It's a poverty trap if not merely subsidizing but not completely paying for their lifestyle or time limited. A negative income tax to the level of $8000 per capita would work better than most welfare programs due to means testing bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is probably the reason welfare costs as much as it does.

Negative Income tax?

Albenia wrote:Sadly

They learned to conceal themselves a bit better although by avoiding outright economic ideology threads or shifting to social democrats. The fact I can move them towards capitalism is good, but they're still too far left for my tastes and become harder to take out as they accept the free market as a component somewhere of a working economy. Thus there's fewer weak spots.

Albenia wrote:None.

I say abolishing the sales tax is a place to start.

Setting up Minimal Welfare.

Letting companies not be forced to give employees government welfare

Letting Private Insurance companies handle business

I disagree. Keep the sales tax in favor of a Fairtax system. Use a progressive sales tax instead.

Albenia wrote:Negative Income tax?

A proposed system by Milton Friedman as a substitute for welfare.

Here's some literature on the idea

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html

The Serbian Empire wrote:They learned to conceal themselves a bit better although by avoiding outright economic ideology threads or shifting to social democrats. The fact I can move them towards capitalism is good, but they're still too far left for my tastes and become harder to take out as they accept the free market as a component somewhere of a working economy. Thus there's fewer weak spots.

Oh I remember back when I was a Liberal Socialist/ Social Democrat/Practical State Capitalist or whatever the hell i was...Ah..That night I realized all my economics were flawed.....

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I disagree. Keep the sales tax in favor of a Fairtax system. Use a progressive sales tax instead.

No.

Progressive sales tax? No.

Progressive Income tax? Yes.

Albenia wrote:No.

Progressive sales tax? No.

Progressive Income tax? Yes.

Why not?

The Serbian Empire wrote:A proposed system by Milton Friedman as a substitute for welfare.

Here's some literature on the idea

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html

The government and treasury pay you?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Why not?

No..first.

How would a Progressive Sales tax work?

Albenia wrote:Oh I remember back when I was a Liberal Socialist/ Social Democrat/Practical State Capitalist or whatever the hell i was...Ah..That night I realized all my economics were flawed.....

I was a Stalinist who shifted to the far right economically while keeping the authoritarianism up. Then I realized the government was too cruel in the terms of brutality. Once one sees police brutality a bit too much then you don't want a police state.

The Serbian Empire wrote:I was a Stalinist who shifted to the far right economically while keeping the authoritarianism up. Then I realized the government was too cruel in the terms of brutality. Once one sees police brutality a bit too much then you don't want a police state.

A Stalinist? Wow. You went compete opposite.

Albenia wrote:The government and treasury pay you?

Yes, but the difference here is that the bureaucracy that eats 75% of the welfare budget suddenly becomes 2% as you don't have all those people in for means testing.

Albenia wrote:No..first.

How would a Progressive Sales tax work?

Better if I show you: http://taxhistory.tax.org/Civilization/Documents/Sales/hst6649/6649-1.htm

Albenia wrote:A Stalinist? Wow. You went compete opposite.

Yep, I flipped the economic switch about eight or nine years ago and away from authoritarianism five years ago.

I have to go for a while bye y'all

Albenia wrote:The government and treasury pay you?

Yes. You are given money, basically, if you earn under a threshold.

One of the main criticisms is that it'll deincentivize work, but this has not been found to be the case at all.

Viritica wrote:Why's that? What safety nets would there be for the poor if welfare was abolished?

Poverty was falling rapidly in the US for decades, but unfortunately bottomed out when Johnson's Great Society programs came in. You know when it started seriously falling again? During the 90s, when Clinton and Congress finally decided to enact welfare reform and help the poor back into work. Dozens of so-called "anti-poverty programs" were eliminated. As a result, poverty was cut in half.

First of all, a welfare-less society would be much wealthier. Economic growth, which accumulates faster when government spending is lower, is where 75% of income gains to lower income brackets come from. And having any kind of job and a high school diploma mean that you're extremely unlikely to fall into poverty, and have a 70% chance at joining the middle class. Basically, having a smaller government and low spending and taxation rates is good for the poor in the long term, and much better than welfare.

For those that do fall into poverty for no fault of their own, I'm convinced that charities and mutual societies would be more than able to take care of people in a world without welfare. America expends much less on welfare as a percentage of GDP than European countries, and is the most charitable nation on Earth. Charity is much more effective and less wasteful than welfare. Government has no incentive to reduce poverty in the same way that tobacco companies don't have the incentive to launch aggressive anti-smoking campaigns, because when poverty declines the need for government declines. But when someone donates to a charity, they expect their money to achieve some positive result. Also, welfare is unconstitutional, at least at the federal level.

Will post sources tomorrow. But for now I will sleep.

Taxing consumption is much more economically friendly than taxing income. I think US GDP would increase by 3% if the FairTax was passed.

But I don't think it would be a good idea in the long term, because sales taxes are much more politically resilient than income taxes. It's why Europe has such oversized welfare states.

Pevvania wrote:Poverty was falling rapidly in the US for decades, but unfortunately bottomed out when Johnson's Great Society programs came in. You know when it started seriously falling again? During the 90s, when Clinton and Congress finally decided to enact welfare reform and help the poor back into work. Dozens of so-called "anti-poverty programs" were eliminated. As a result, poverty was cut in half.

First of all, a welfare-less society would be much wealthier. Economic growth, which accumulates faster when government spending is lower, is where 75% of income gains to lower income brackets come from. And having any kind of job and a high school diploma mean that you're extremely unlikely to fall into poverty, and have a 70% chance at joining the middle class. Basically, having a smaller government and low spending and taxation rates is good for the poor in the long term, and much better than welfare.

For those that do fall into poverty for no fault of their own, I'm convinced that charities and mutual societies would be more than able to take care of people in a world without welfare. America expends much less on welfare as a percentage of GDP than European countries, and is the most charitable nation on Earth. Charity is much more effective and less wasteful than welfare. Government has no incentive to reduce poverty in the same way that tobacco companies don't have the incentive to launch aggressive anti-smoking campaigns, because when poverty declines the need for government declines. But when someone donates to a charity, they expect their money to achieve some positive result. Also, welfare is unconstitutional, at least at the federal level.

Will post sources tomorrow. But for now I will sleep.

Hm, sounds interesting. But how is welfare unconstitutional?

Viritica wrote:Hm, sounds interesting. But how is welfare unconstitutional?

Government isn't granted that power by the constitution.

*speaks with some sort of liberal-sounding voice* Sure it is! The Preamble says "promote the general welfare" and that means Obamacare is good for you

Promoting welfare is diffrent from providing welfare

Northern Prussia wrote:Promoting welfare is diffrent from providing welfare

True that.

Northern Prussia wrote:Promoting welfare is diffrent from providing welfare

It sure is. One can see it how few people have taken advantage of certain welfare programs for home improvements. Why? Because people don't know much about it. Promoting it is far worse than just having it around.

Northern Prussia wrote:Promoting welfare is diffrent from providing welfare

Certainly is.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.