but of course the advanced tech we will have in 100-150 years will look like magic from our prospective.
Are you sure about that? We're pretty blase about technology today compared to the eager visions of an earlier age.
Then there's the fact that finding new tricks is getting harder and harder.
Look at 1907 - The automobile, while not a standard item, was at least known. Trains were in extensive use, as were power tools. Automatic looms, various mechanical processes.
If you took an educated man from 1907 and brought him to 2007, he'd be able to understand just about everything we have except for our computational devices. They even understood a bit about nuclear energy.
What we've done is expanded our awareness and moved these items from the realm of theory to practicality.
The problem is, while we have many ideas; they get shot down left and right. I don't see a new source of energy orders of magnitude above previous ones, like what nuclear power provided. Sure, antimatter would work, but it's like non-nuclear hydrogen - it's only a storage method, not a generation method.
We're still advancing, but nowaday's it's hard, very hard.
Still, even with this, I remain optimistic - after all, we have thousands of years to reach the stars, if not millions.
There's always the grocery store shelf possibility - Microsoft paid to have a big display.
Otherwise, I haven't ever noticed them getting a lot of shelf space - in the stores I frequent it's usually one shelf, down at the bottom, that has Windows,WinPro, Office, and Office Pro. Around the beginning of the year there's a big display with MS Money and Quicken competing.
Of course, the trick here is that the shuttle isn't billed as 'disposable' or 'one use', and right now it's sitting at a 2% cooked kibbly rate, of which 50% has you spread across three states on return...
I'm a fan of returning to disposable reentry pods, such as what we used successfully before the shuttle, and the Russians still use.
Of course, my idea is that cargo is lifted by cargo rockets, people are lifted in a dedicated people system*, work is done in a space station, and you bring back as little as possible in favor of eventually implimenting recycling technologies at the space station.
We give 1 person 5 different tests. We allow for random guessing with no penalty, and the test is very hard. He takes them all and scores wildly different, but averages 65% across all of the tests.
Statistics show that this would be very unlikely for 5 tests with questions pulled from a common pool.
The odds of WAGing a multiple choice test is 25% per question. When distributed over a hundred questions, it's very unlikely that random guessing will score above 30% or below 20%, and that's for guessing the entire test.
Aren't the vast majority of wealthy people smart and educated?
the majority, maybe, vast? Not especially. It takes a combination of factors, of which intelligence and education only help. For the truly high incomes it's more a matter of luck and talent than a matter of raw smarts.
Just referring to a sales tax as regressive doesn't hit it quite right, since it depends on so many choices.
A better example would be the social security tax - which only taxes the first 97.5k in 2007.
27 & 9 missions? So what? That's still way, way, way too low for any manned commercial flight system, one involving civilian passangers* to boot?
A quick check shows ~115 missions to date with the shuttle. Two of which were failures with 100% fatality rate. That tends to suggest to me that there's a 1-2% chance of dying on any given shuttle launch.
With that failure rate, your standard commercial aircraft would be lucky to last a month. Any 'extreme sport' with that fatality rate would be banned; any dealers sued into oblivian.
*I know many NASA astronaughts are civilians, but they should at least know the risks, facing heavy competition to ride a rocket into space.
Back in the day, it wasn't unusual for the majority of field to be fallow(ie not used) any given year. Today we've figured out how, using fertalizers and crop rotation, to substantially reduce the need for fallow fields. Engineered crops
Sure, there's concerns about the usage of monocultures - but it's not entirely monocultures either. We still have a number of different breeds of a number of crops.
We'd already be out of farmland in the USA if it wasn't sustainable.
Oh the irony. They live a life, on average longer and 'happier' than they would in the wild.
In the wild, the majority of offspring don't survive to adulthood. In the wild, starvation is a frequent cause of death. Disease and injury is not far behind. In the wild, the vast majority of animals end up as food in the end. If not for a predator, for the carrion eaters.
Modern farming practices are actually far more sustainable than the more traditional methods. They've also gotten a lot more stingy about applying fertilizers and pesticides than they used to. After all, those chemicals cost money.
That's even without getting into the whole slash&burn practiced in many areas around the equator resulting in rainforest depletion.
Well, they have the 'OLPC'(One Laptop Per Child), that's reporting in around $200 at the moment. A week's work for a minimum wage earner. In my area, cheap DSL can be had for ~$15/month. Three hours work.
It could be cheaper, but then again, most people don't earn just minimum, and for those that do, there's generally free solutions in places like libraries.
Radio is definitely not a luxury anymore. TV is not a luxury any more.
I could do just fine without either, went 6 months without hooking up my TV. The radio is used only for the alarm clock, and that's merely a preference(I dislike buzzers).
Now, a basic radio is great for getting weather forcasts if necessary. On the other hand, you can get a basic radio for about the cost of a meal, so it's not exactly a huge expense. A basic small TV can be had for about five times more.
Of course, my definition of 'necessary' is a very narrow affair - water, food, and shelter basically.
Canada, at least, has huge swaths of land that are essentially uninhabited.
Still, I live in North Dakota, in a town of 98 people and I have broadband, better broadband than what my parents, who live in an actual city, could get.
All the farmers have DSL broadband available.
Until just last month, though, my parents were still on dial up because they just didn't feel it was worth the expense, even though it was only $2 more a month than their dialup plan for the basic dsl service. Cable wasn't an option, dad's outright hostile about cable companies.
There used to be a requirement for a physiological change for a diagnosis of addiction - Opiates, cigarettes, alcohol, all display these changes. There is a chemically detectable withdrawal period as the body relearns to operate without the drug.
Sometime later this requirement was dropped, and we started seeing diagnosises of addiction for non-drug conditions like gambling.
At some point I'd like to see a 'generic' addiction diagnosis. Like other posters have said - there are millions of things to become addicted to if you're going to say people are addicted to games.
If you approach each of these as a seperate and unique condition you're not going to build the body of knowledge to treat them effectivly.
Heh, interesting definition of rich. In many areas it seems that the rich try to move into the very areas a terrorist would target a nuke at - just look at condo prices in NYC.
Though yeah, eminent domain abuse is bad. It's one thing to ED homes for a school, highway, or military base. Still, it should be a last choice option - I wouldn't object to a rule stating that a ED purchase is required to pay double of appraised value, 150% of equivalent replacement, in addition to moving costs. Still not too expensive to take honestly condemned or blighted property, but enough to make them think twice about trying to ED the lower-middle class neighborhood in favor of selling it to a developer in order to build a shopping mall or condo complex.
You, and other "trickle-down" economists make the strange assumption that the wealthier people become, the more spendthrift they become despite all evidence to the contrary. Most wealthy people are not Michael Jackson.
No, but an amazing number of them are. Just look at music artists, sports stars, and even many popular actors.
Still, bear with me. Smart, Educated people tend to earn more money than dumb uneducated ones. Smart educated people tend to have better money management skills as well. This results in increased savings for future goals. Meanwhile the dumb uneducated people make poor choices and end up living paycheck to paycheck.
I've worked out shoestring budgets in the past. If you're willing to make sacrifices it's possible for even somebody making a low wage to save as substantial part of their income. Sure, even rich people could do that, but they overwhelmingly don't.
And that money saved goes into investments which go into companies into infrastructure for fueling our economy and employing people.
I'm not assuming they're spendthrift. Whether a sales tax is 'regressive' or not depends upon the decisions of the individual.
Besides, you seem to assume that a regressive tax is a bad thing. I happen to think that it's a good thing on average. I'd love to see our income taxes replaced by a flat annual fee(IE I and Bill Gates pay an equal amount). That'd result in some cost-cutting and budget balancing!
Besides, with a few creative exemptions - like making food, medical care, and used products tax free you can radically reduce the regressive nature of a sales tax.
Around here, logging trucks and coal trucks destroy our roads but absolutely do not pay their fair share in highway maintenance taxes.
At least in most areas serious commercial trucks are under a different level of scrutiny - It should be possible to make them keep logbooks, visit weigh stations in order to make up the difference.
Like I said - while not entirely fair - I think that it strikes a good balance between fairness and effectivness of collection. To get it fairer would likely require so much more in collection and enforement costs that even people getting a raw deal under the current system would end up paying more.
That's the result of too many years of using the tax code to try to promote 'proper' spending and make everybody pay their 'fare share' as defined by a group who can't agree on just about anything.
I have quite a bit of savings, to the point that I end up paying a few bucks in income taxes each year, and will probably get hit for a bit of income taxes when I sell. It's not as bad as it could be, however. I'll just have to pay capital gains - I think it's 7.5% at the moment, on the earnings, what I put into it won't be taxed.
I should of paid more attention - you're right. Heck, it's part of my personal philosophy.
Still, what I meant is that the.gov aren't holding a gun and telling you to save money - the violence end is when you buy something and they want their share. If you don't buy anything they don't come to get you.
This isn't a threat of force. This is a slight changing of the equations; making saving more economical.
Income tax 'punishes' making money - it makes it less profitable. A sales tax 'punishes' consumption in much the same way, making it more costly.
If anything, splitting between income and sales taxes reduces the distortion. Income taxes discourage savings(reduces the rate of return), while sales taxes discourage spending.
Consider the weight of the vehicle? Heavier vehicles tend to use more fuel - thus pay more in road taxes.
As for annual miles, what about miles driven out of state, off road, or even on privately maintained roads(such as the local racetrack)? That's where the GPS proposal came from, but not only is that expensive and subversible, but it also has a very high possibility of violating privacy.
only the assertion that it is unbelievably fair.
Compared to most taxes, it is. Most toll roads, for example, charge a flat rate whether you drive a sub-compact such as the geo metro or a H1. A fleet of H1's will break down a road far faster than the same number of geos.
I won't say it's 100% fair, just that it comes pretty close to the way I like a tax: It's simple, upfront, fairly fair, encourages conservation of gasoline(and therefore oil), doesn't violate privacy, gives a slight subsidy towards alternate fuel use, etc...
Sure, if we start looking at going to even 10% electric cars it might be time to figure something else out, but until then it's good enough. If any alternate liquid fuels such as biodiesel or ethanol even start approaching 10%, I'm sure they'll be served up by standard gasoline stations and the tax can be collected. I don't see home brewers ever being a significant source of those. Sure, it can be done, but there's the whole matter of scale and convienence. Home brewing of either biodiesel or ethanol requires thousands of dollars of equipment*, enough space for the equipment such as several 30 gallon tanks, practice and supplies. It's much easier to pull into a refilling station and swipe the credit card.
Home charge electric would be a tough one though. Maybe a odometer charge on that one; I doubt many electric vehicles will be going on regular interstate journeys anytime soon.
1. Used tires would be a credible option for poorer people, so the tax would be less regressive.
They'd be crucified. Tires are an important safety item. A 'new' tire is less likely to blow, go flat, hydroplane, or slip than an old bald tire.
All road-worthy motor vehicles require tires to operate. Most municipalities ban tracked vehicles on public roads since they tear up pavement. Since tire purchasing is directly proportional to the life of the tire, and since the life of a tire is directly proportional to the amount you use it (either in years or in mileage), this would serve as a "use tax" on roads, save for the rare person that buys a car and lets it sit for years at a time.
It'd also encourage driving on bald tires, which isn't good. Then there's the fact that there's literally an order of magnitude difference in tire lifespans. There are tires with tread warrenties that should last the life of the average car. I'll be doing good to get 30k out of my tires(I like high-traction tires, but they're softer).
Larger tires are common on larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles, and cost more than smaller tires, so they would have a greater tax $-wise than smaller tires.
It's perfectly possible to mount smaller tires on a vehicle, though it's likely to mess up the speed/distance meters. Again, safety issue, the vehicle was designed for a certain size tire.
Finally, it's too rare of an item. Gasoline taxes will generally hit the user weekly/monthly, while it could be two to three years before the tire tax hits. That's bad.
Does it cost them any more to retrieve oil when there is a war going on?
Many times yes. They might have to evacuate a facility, hire guards, pay bribes, whatever.
Then why does the price go up every time something flairs up in an oil producing region?
Because world supply is tight and demand relatively inflexible. Flareups tends to result in production interuptions. But even before that point you get speculators buying up supply, driving up prices. This is somewhat good because it results in reserves to help prevent shortages(and even higher price increases) if the situation does result in interuppted production.
Slashdot Mirror
but of course the advanced tech we will have in 100-150 years will look like magic from our prospective.
Are you sure about that? We're pretty blase about technology today compared to the eager visions of an earlier age.
Then there's the fact that finding new tricks is getting harder and harder.
Look at 1907 - The automobile, while not a standard item, was at least known. Trains were in extensive use, as were power tools. Automatic looms, various mechanical processes.
If you took an educated man from 1907 and brought him to 2007, he'd be able to understand just about everything we have except for our computational devices. They even understood a bit about nuclear energy.
What we've done is expanded our awareness and moved these items from the realm of theory to practicality.
The problem is, while we have many ideas; they get shot down left and right. I don't see a new source of energy orders of magnitude above previous ones, like what nuclear power provided. Sure, antimatter would work, but it's like non-nuclear hydrogen - it's only a storage method, not a generation method.
We're still advancing, but nowaday's it's hard, very hard.
Still, even with this, I remain optimistic - after all, we have thousands of years to reach the stars, if not millions.
There's always the grocery store shelf possibility - Microsoft paid to have a big display.
Otherwise, I haven't ever noticed them getting a lot of shelf space - in the stores I frequent it's usually one shelf, down at the bottom, that has Windows,WinPro, Office, and Office Pro. Around the beginning of the year there's a big display with MS Money and Quicken competing.
Of course, the trick here is that the shuttle isn't billed as 'disposable' or 'one use', and right now it's sitting at a 2% cooked kibbly rate, of which 50% has you spread across three states on return...
I'm a fan of returning to disposable reentry pods, such as what we used successfully before the shuttle, and the Russians still use.
Of course, my idea is that cargo is lifted by cargo rockets, people are lifted in a dedicated people system*, work is done in a space station, and you bring back as little as possible in favor of eventually implimenting recycling technologies at the space station.
*IE no SUV like shuttle
You have to remember the desired results here...
They want to reward the smart kids, but god forbid if the football players don't pass...
I've seen a number of tests like this. Getting 60-70%? Extremely easy. Getting 80-90%, tough. 100%? Almost impossible.
Simply mix in the appropriate proportion of easy and difficult questions.
We give 1 person 5 different tests. We allow for random guessing with no penalty, and the test is very hard. He takes them all and scores wildly different, but averages 65% across all of the tests.
Statistics show that this would be very unlikely for 5 tests with questions pulled from a common pool.
The odds of WAGing a multiple choice test is 25% per question. When distributed over a hundred questions, it's very unlikely that random guessing will score above 30% or below 20%, and that's for guessing the entire test.
Aren't the vast majority of wealthy people smart and educated?
the majority, maybe, vast? Not especially. It takes a combination of factors, of which intelligence and education only help. For the truly high incomes it's more a matter of luck and talent than a matter of raw smarts.
Just referring to a sales tax as regressive doesn't hit it quite right, since it depends on so many choices.
A better example would be the social security tax - which only taxes the first 97.5k in 2007.
27 & 9 missions? So what? That's still way, way, way too low for any manned commercial flight system, one involving civilian passangers* to boot?
A quick check shows ~115 missions to date with the shuttle. Two of which were failures with 100% fatality rate. That tends to suggest to me that there's a 1-2% chance of dying on any given shuttle launch.
With that failure rate, your standard commercial aircraft would be lucky to last a month. Any 'extreme sport' with that fatality rate would be banned; any dealers sued into oblivian.
*I know many NASA astronaughts are civilians, but they should at least know the risks, facing heavy competition to ride a rocket into space.
Even renting you could still become a problem; kicking people out of their (rented) homes is still unpopular.
Back in the day, it wasn't unusual for the majority of field to be fallow(ie not used) any given year. Today we've figured out how, using fertalizers and crop rotation, to substantially reduce the need for fallow fields. Engineered crops
Sure, there's concerns about the usage of monocultures - but it's not entirely monocultures either. We still have a number of different breeds of a number of crops.
We'd already be out of farmland in the USA if it wasn't sustainable.
Oh the irony. They live a life, on average longer and 'happier' than they would in the wild.
In the wild, the majority of offspring don't survive to adulthood.
In the wild, starvation is a frequent cause of death. Disease and injury is not far behind.
In the wild, the vast majority of animals end up as food in the end. If not for a predator, for the carrion eaters.
Modern farming practices are actually far more sustainable than the more traditional methods. They've also gotten a lot more stingy about applying fertilizers and pesticides than they used to. After all, those chemicals cost money.
That's even without getting into the whole slash&burn practiced in many areas around the equator resulting in rainforest depletion.
Well, they have the 'OLPC'(One Laptop Per Child), that's reporting in around $200 at the moment. A week's work for a minimum wage earner. In my area, cheap DSL can be had for ~$15/month. Three hours work.
It could be cheaper, but then again, most people don't earn just minimum, and for those that do, there's generally free solutions in places like libraries.
Radio is definitely not a luxury anymore. TV is not a luxury any more.
I could do just fine without either, went 6 months without hooking up my TV. The radio is used only for the alarm clock, and that's merely a preference(I dislike buzzers).
Now, a basic radio is great for getting weather forcasts if necessary. On the other hand, you can get a basic radio for about the cost of a meal, so it's not exactly a huge expense. A basic small TV can be had for about five times more.
Of course, my definition of 'necessary' is a very narrow affair - water, food, and shelter basically.
Canada, at least, has huge swaths of land that are essentially uninhabited.
Still, I live in North Dakota, in a town of 98 people and I have broadband, better broadband than what my parents, who live in an actual city, could get.
All the farmers have DSL broadband available.
Until just last month, though, my parents were still on dial up because they just didn't feel it was worth the expense, even though it was only $2 more a month than their dialup plan for the basic dsl service. Cable wasn't an option, dad's outright hostile about cable companies.
There used to be a requirement for a physiological change for a diagnosis of addiction - Opiates, cigarettes, alcohol, all display these changes. There is a chemically detectable withdrawal period as the body relearns to operate without the drug.
Sometime later this requirement was dropped, and we started seeing diagnosises of addiction for non-drug conditions like gambling.
At some point I'd like to see a 'generic' addiction diagnosis. Like other posters have said - there are millions of things to become addicted to if you're going to say people are addicted to games.
If you approach each of these as a seperate and unique condition you're not going to build the body of knowledge to treat them effectivly.
Heh, interesting definition of rich. In many areas it seems that the rich try to move into the very areas a terrorist would target a nuke at - just look at condo prices in NYC.
Though yeah, eminent domain abuse is bad. It's one thing to ED homes for a school, highway, or military base. Still, it should be a last choice option - I wouldn't object to a rule stating that a ED purchase is required to pay double of appraised value, 150% of equivalent replacement, in addition to moving costs. Still not too expensive to take honestly condemned or blighted property, but enough to make them think twice about trying to ED the lower-middle class neighborhood in favor of selling it to a developer in order to build a shopping mall or condo complex.
You, and other "trickle-down" economists make the strange assumption that the wealthier people become, the more spendthrift they become despite all evidence to the contrary. Most wealthy people are not Michael Jackson.
No, but an amazing number of them are. Just look at music artists, sports stars, and even many popular actors.
Still, bear with me. Smart, Educated people tend to earn more money than dumb uneducated ones. Smart educated people tend to have better money management skills as well. This results in increased savings for future goals. Meanwhile the dumb uneducated people make poor choices and end up living paycheck to paycheck.
I've worked out shoestring budgets in the past. If you're willing to make sacrifices it's possible for even somebody making a low wage to save as substantial part of their income. Sure, even rich people could do that, but they overwhelmingly don't.
And that money saved goes into investments which go into companies into infrastructure for fueling our economy and employing people.
I'm not assuming they're spendthrift. Whether a sales tax is 'regressive' or not depends upon the decisions of the individual.
Besides, you seem to assume that a regressive tax is a bad thing. I happen to think that it's a good thing on average. I'd love to see our income taxes replaced by a flat annual fee(IE I and Bill Gates pay an equal amount). That'd result in some cost-cutting and budget balancing!
Besides, with a few creative exemptions - like making food, medical care, and used products tax free you can radically reduce the regressive nature of a sales tax.
Around here, logging trucks and coal trucks destroy our roads but absolutely do not pay their fair share in highway maintenance taxes.
At least in most areas serious commercial trucks are under a different level of scrutiny - It should be possible to make them keep logbooks, visit weigh stations in order to make up the difference.
Like I said - while not entirely fair - I think that it strikes a good balance between fairness and effectivness of collection. To get it fairer would likely require so much more in collection and enforement costs that even people getting a raw deal under the current system would end up paying more.
Ergo, the tax results in a suboptimal balance between saving and consumption.
And income tax doesn't do the same thing, just in the opposite way?
If it wasn't for the various income taxes, I'd be better than halfway to being able to retire already.
That's the result of too many years of using the tax code to try to promote 'proper' spending and make everybody pay their 'fare share' as defined by a group who can't agree on just about anything.
I have quite a bit of savings, to the point that I end up paying a few bucks in income taxes each year, and will probably get hit for a bit of income taxes when I sell. It's not as bad as it could be, however. I'll just have to pay capital gains - I think it's 7.5% at the moment, on the earnings, what I put into it won't be taxed.
I should of paid more attention - you're right. Heck, it's part of my personal philosophy.
.gov aren't holding a gun and telling you to save money - the violence end is when you buy something and they want their share. If you don't buy anything they don't come to get you.
Still, what I meant is that the
This isn't a threat of force. This is a slight changing of the equations; making saving more economical.
Income tax 'punishes' making money - it makes it less profitable. A sales tax 'punishes' consumption in much the same way, making it more costly.
If anything, splitting between income and sales taxes reduces the distortion. Income taxes discourage savings(reduces the rate of return), while sales taxes discourage spending.
Consider the weight of the vehicle? Heavier vehicles tend to use more fuel - thus pay more in road taxes.
As for annual miles, what about miles driven out of state, off road, or even on privately maintained roads(such as the local racetrack)? That's where the GPS proposal came from, but not only is that expensive and subversible, but it also has a very high possibility of violating privacy.
only the assertion that it is unbelievably fair.
Compared to most taxes, it is. Most toll roads, for example, charge a flat rate whether you drive a sub-compact such as the geo metro or a H1. A fleet of H1's will break down a road far faster than the same number of geos.
I won't say it's 100% fair, just that it comes pretty close to the way I like a tax: It's simple, upfront, fairly fair, encourages conservation of gasoline(and therefore oil), doesn't violate privacy, gives a slight subsidy towards alternate fuel use, etc...
Sure, if we start looking at going to even 10% electric cars it might be time to figure something else out, but until then it's good enough. If any alternate liquid fuels such as biodiesel or ethanol even start approaching 10%, I'm sure they'll be served up by standard gasoline stations and the tax can be collected. I don't see home brewers ever being a significant source of those. Sure, it can be done, but there's the whole matter of scale and convienence. Home brewing of either biodiesel or ethanol requires thousands of dollars of equipment*, enough space for the equipment such as several 30 gallon tanks, practice and supplies. It's much easier to pull into a refilling station and swipe the credit card.
Home charge electric would be a tough one though. Maybe a odometer charge on that one; I doubt many electric vehicles will be going on regular interstate journeys anytime soon.
*discounting creative scrounging, of course.
1. Used tires would be a credible option for poorer people, so the tax would be less regressive.
They'd be crucified. Tires are an important safety item. A 'new' tire is less likely to blow, go flat, hydroplane, or slip than an old bald tire.
All road-worthy motor vehicles require tires to operate. Most municipalities ban tracked vehicles on public roads since they tear up pavement. Since tire purchasing is directly proportional to the life of the tire, and since the life of a tire is directly proportional to the amount you use it (either in years or in mileage), this would serve as a "use tax" on roads, save for the rare person that buys a car and lets it sit for years at a time.
It'd also encourage driving on bald tires, which isn't good. Then there's the fact that there's literally an order of magnitude difference in tire lifespans. There are tires with tread warrenties that should last the life of the average car. I'll be doing good to get 30k out of my tires(I like high-traction tires, but they're softer).
Larger tires are common on larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles, and cost more than smaller tires, so they would have a greater tax $-wise than smaller tires.
It's perfectly possible to mount smaller tires on a vehicle, though it's likely to mess up the speed/distance meters. Again, safety issue, the vehicle was designed for a certain size tire.
Finally, it's too rare of an item. Gasoline taxes will generally hit the user weekly/monthly, while it could be two to three years before the tire tax hits. That's bad.
Does it cost them any more to retrieve oil when there is a war going on?
Many times yes. They might have to evacuate a facility, hire guards, pay bribes, whatever.
Then why does the price go up every time something flairs up in an oil producing region?
Because world supply is tight and demand relatively inflexible. Flareups tends to result in production interuptions. But even before that point you get speculators buying up supply, driving up prices. This is somewhat good because it results in reserves to help prevent shortages(and even higher price increases) if the situation does result in interuppted production.