Session is finished.

Jump ↓

I don't know slide folder in Google Drive you might want to log there it up in front of you if you'd like.
And I also have the groups that I formed based on your interest already in that group project folder as well if you would like to upload.
Or download we still have few more people coming twenty two okay they're struggling to get into the class.
Twenty six of you are here.
Coming before actually so we went through liberalised liberalism wednesday, Today we're going to look at neorealism and neoliberalism can you hear ME alright [SPEAKER]?
[SPEAKER] Thank you so.
And also we looked at briefly globalization which will be continuing on as all mainstream theories and all the globalization related question would be continuing from now on whether real cases beginning next week.
So globalization here hyper globalist skeptics transformation a list standardization as well and all of these theorists basically beginning to create some sort of diverse and dynamic theories of international relations all of these are sort of part of the tradition of [inaudible] theory that are realism and liberalism visibly state-centric [inaudible] there but globalization tend to be a little bit less state-centric compared to the realism and liberalism.
Among the globalisation theorists among these four thesis, we cannot even kind of classify these as theory yet is hypotheses that are under consideration and working.
So hyper globalist might be the one that is totally outside of the boundary of the state it is jumping into the state being less relevant and maybe in some of them, have I've used the end of nation states all the way to the end of history of the history that are written by the nation-state.
Skeptics are broadly the one that are nearly close to mainstream theory which are state-centric theory.
And this is the state as a central player.
And then the transformation and lists are the one that accepting that formation of states theory sovereignty might be a truly multinational corporation, might be having sovereignty as well nowadays like apples sovereignty, a Google sovereignty, you basically agree with their contract or via advent airborne low-bias them out Starbuck than a warmer target some of these might be transformation lists are thinking that in fed some state probably might have been already hijacked by multinational corporation to lobbyists and therefore they're calling states policy their [inaudible] state policy through their institution arrangement.
That may not may be outside of the constitute are there any given state, but transformational this would argue that the state power Certainly is being diminished or reduced by these multinational corporation.
Standardization who look broadly share quite a bit would level scholar but yet very critical of what liberalism is doing around the world which is universalization of everything.
Universe I guess you know food universalization of T-Shirt, universalization of gene as a fashion statement and so on universalization of iPhone as a real phone the phone the coolest phone in the world.
So sort of standardization school, might be a critique of globalization.
Yet but they are globalization and notice the way in which a wireless calling.
So all of these 4E we went through briefly.
Nothing any question about, clarification that you would like to interject here?
One of you are truly at the end of the class ask about, how do we even think about the power of multinational corporation.
That was Maya and thank.
And if you want to clarify before we move on to today's Neo neo?
Okay so mainly the [inaudible] theory that we have looked at are basically state-centric order.
Was failing and Western dominance, is what explained this ideal is lay mainly about the world through the through the lens of this theory.
And globalization on the other hand, is trying to look at not just the state, muddy centric order similar to what Milton Friedman with his pencil trying to deconstruct the order right so.
To what extent states are central player into what extent non-state actors Helen just six hundred order in the global era globalization key question.
And today's goal, we're going to look at how that question and plus the realists in Liber traditional theory shaped the foreign policy.
Because neo Neo debate or new realism in neoliberalism are not really in my view as a scholarly theory.
They are basically foreign policy oriented of different leaders, different state, different foreign ministry in, different individuals physically.
So neorealism is basically the foreign policy explanation of realism and neoliberalism is a foreign policy explanation of liberalism.
How liberalist state would behave.
So basically these are foreign policy orientation framework of foreign policy of states so they are staying in the state centric view so the goal of today, I would like you to be quite comfortable at the end of the class.
How do you analyze foreign policy of states applying these to mainstream theory which are the realism and liberalism in their variance which are the and [inaudible] oh neon neorealism liberalism.
What theoretical assumptions about the stakes of absolute gain?
The gain that states seek at all costs maybe for their own interests.
The loop gain oriented state behavior and what assumption about state support this related gains or in the state behavior?
What one states think about international politics?
Let's say, you're trying to resolve this kroner virus issue or climate change issue or the trafficking issue.
What what drives them to cooperate basically.
That it should be quite you should be comfortable discussing about this kind of question at the end of the class and.
The third question I have is what is neo neo debate?
Which theory provide more convincing bureaucrat explanation of where our politics?
Assuming that we state centric world between neorealists in neonatal levelist.
And foreign policy approaches which approach in terms of foreign policy approach sort of convinced that that would that explain the behavior of the state?
So before we have good discussion, I would like to go on with the basic assumption of neo realism and basic assumption or neo liberalism.
So neorealists physically do not give up their foundation.
State are fundamentally concerned with survival market world to you status and survival self-help right.
So they concerned with that, and so that concern niche interest is going to detail the state behavior.
And that is they are basically assumption.
Now take that assumption outside our foreign policy or outside of [inaudible] state behavior see us fundamental unit and we'll we'll go with that.
And neo liberalism are you the state of the mutual interest in kind only gain it from cooperation.
Yes, they agree.
That me is the site of Statism but [inaudible] [inaudible] it also concerned about the Bible and self-help is early state would do but none of those three can be maintained unless you corporate one another in the essence of the [inaudible] above the state which is the security my question.
So liberalism basically certain extent, do not argue with the realist in terms of how state fundamental the barber and lines are.
They argue that but to achieve all of that, you need cooperation.
Without correlation, you cannot really move on.
Even if for your own self interest so that is the liberal orientation.
So these two neos are normative senses.
We might view as a normative orientation, Not really theorethical orientation in a sense are explaining behavior stage.
So therefore, we can consider them as a foreign policy issue foreign policy framework.
What kind of state you want to craft and show the world and a question so far?
So there are two schools of contemporary realism and modern realism tend to obviously drive majority of formulation of foreign policy.
Modern liberalism tend to drive majority of things that are that are happening on the ground and it's really interesting how what I mean by this is, Foreign policy that are crafted with state-centric, [inaudible] interests oriented way, they don't go as they intended.
Several variables out on the ground because you're not just dealing with state, you're dealing with several other entity.
Level liberal liberal position might encourage those kind of situation where things get tough.
Right so we can see down current President Trump's several foreign policy like nuclear issue North Korea, TO withdraw in the funding from the Gucci or all of these are going to be hitting on the ground.
And that is liberal lists [inaudible] you take off on the ground when things happen really in the real world.
So two school or contemporary realism, basically dictate base because of the sixth century one modern view the other is a structure which is a classical view.
Modern view of state realism neorealism is the absolute gain and related gain are the true thing that states are going to be calculating using in a formula of foreign policy try to shape the national interest equation.
What is interest here?
And to do so there'll be thinking to think what is gain here what is our relative gain absolute gain [inaudible] gave us several of you and he pointed out is a state that will gain the most out of just being in to the International Organization.
Relative gain is a state would be thinking what other state within this organization would be gaining related to our gain.
And so those two games if you were absolute gain and relative gains the main interest out state and those states that were See that initial interest being formulated within that two thinking.
Climate change issue is a good one.
United state would grow during the Bush administration from Paris [inaudible] protocol..
Since then, Obama I think tried to reinstate.
I think Mr.
Trump, the continuum would be push tradition.
Structural realism here is a basically security.
So when we see a classic [inaudible] structure, we're basically talking about Hobbesian notion now steed of neutrals and thing.
What security is the.
Without security we cannot do anything.
Security piece those are very much important classical sort of realistic.
So these in terms of here, are two things offensive and defensive we've discussed that.
One thing though, I want to distinguish here.
If we take some other states that do not behave like realists or liberal, because of their philosophy orientation like we read on the Dalai Lama, when you think of Universal.
Many say including some of the Eurocentric stage who might think not just relative gain, not just absolute gain, but universe again.
Getting the whole gain gain for humanity.
Doesn't matter how much I'm gaining against India or China, but as long as the wall as a whole is moving with progressive agenda gain for the humanity, we care.
We would do it we will participate and that behavior could be the various issues specific for instance in in terms of managing international river less in nine countries share a river and upstream country has nothing to gain from joining the International Commission of a river for instance.
Because they can control the river right.
They can control the water volume and.
They can pollute and lead pollution go down to the downstream countries.
They have nothing to game, but they may join because of that university again of those seven country on nine countries that share the [inaudible].
Meaning that there are some interconnecting trade may be involved here.
Human health may be involved here, so there are some university again.
And none of those gains are considered in near New York a debate that we are going to be focusing on today.
So I want you to be open minded about that question of universe gain remains.
The question of humanity game for [inaudible] hear.
From the realist and liberal point of view, the question is who cares?
As long as we are the one who is calling the shot.
We are super power.
We have the wall largest military and the biggest economy.
And we can do whatever we want, who care about universal gain and that is the orientation that is lacking in global politics today.
A lot of leaders do not have you read Obama speech today to what a is he projecting that universal gain?
It should be a part of the global pelagic speech he kind of dissect of that as well right.
So that is important distinction to be made from this new debate.
And question.
[SPEAKER] I have question Yes so if the new realists believe that you're so concerned with relative gains anytime you consider like joining any kind of internationally an organization, like it seems like you have to have a very high bar to actually want to join that institution because it seems like it would be very easy to perceive that even just one country is gaining more from than you are.
So like how to new realists still with explaining the empirical facts that there are a lot of these international organizations that have actually lasted a long time and been fairly successful?
[SPEAKER] That is exactly the response one of New York liberal against this new realist foreign policy orientation.
You're right on.
In that sense essence that yes theoretically we can probably see the relative gain is a threat to international cooperation achieving international cooperation absolute gain is the one that would induce especially bigger state biggest state the most powerful state to come in because without the most powerful state you can't really move on on a lot of other issues either right so so the the existence of this relative gain or international organization, even though realism is newer realism might predict that that organizations are now gonna go what would be the group [inaudible]?
Can you can tell me your name I [inaudible] seeing the PowerPoint slides.
Okay good?
Sam can you tell me what in real world example where the relative gains broadly might have induce a break-up of a union a breakable organization right now currently.
[SPEAKER] I guess one example would be like, a lot of like the treaties that the United States has not ratified.
Even though they've largely been an architect in many of them like I think of like the Law of the Sea Treaty that the US has not ceded too because they think that it would basically undermine like our military's ability to operate in international waters around the world.
So it's very much a question of sovereignty and like relative gains for us because even though like there are a lot of perspectives in which you can see that it would be a net benefit for the US but this one argument basically is one so that would be one example I would think of.
Yeah That's a very good example United State b due to this relative game thinking might not be saving these injury.
And several state we're not easily saying different inaudible treaty that they went there they sat down negotiated but when they got home, maybe they're Parliament disagree with it or voting in disagreed with it and they don't really want to continue on because of these related game thinking right.
So one good example obviously one will be Yoga union with business right.
Uk decided with a neorealists sort of lens they are losing sovereignty.
They're losing their own gave ability to own domestic politics so you keep [inaudible] decided that we need to move out of this and so relative gains basically screwed things up to the European Union could be argued right maybe it's just totally different neoliberalism can be given because it's kind of the the state that is responsible for providing citizens welfare not met maybe that the question in the UK because of this European Union Euro especially currency.
That is starting on being having to kind of surrender to the Euro currency is slowly basically chipping with sovereignty the economic power of UK so many so many issue that are here even though in the outset look like in my relative gain question the UK is not interested in continuing with the European Union right.
I guess it's like a foal to that.
So if like when you see cases of international institutions succeeding, yeah do you think that like realists might try to explain that in terms of like countries basically being ambivalent about the relative gains?
Like they relative gains they perceived to be pretty much equal to other [SPEAKER] Countries.
Yeah that could be thinking the other is as long as we are gaining quite good gain even though the other state's gain is not threatening to the Security us as loud as less secure because there really classical realist thinking is the bottom line is a security let's say due to the international cooperation in three stages one, two other states are Gagne quite a bit of power but that power translate into the capability for military exercises in the world politics.
Then the state that is watching to other state would might kind of pull out of there or continue to watch right.
So it's really a security question were eventually take off a neorelist calculation about to what extent the relative gain is inducing the empowering the military capability of the other state one could argue like within nato or within within other international monetary arrangements groups that they have.
Certainly, if the one state is dominating in terms of electric power, the other state might begin to sort of check.
Really good that we're in and so that would be sort of Realists orientation.
And therefore they might decide to pick it up or withdraw.
The other is if that security if their security and our securities are tied together, then the international cooperation might continue even if these relative gains continue to persist among all of these steps.
And that will be what realists would be and liberal neo-liberal lobby saying yes you can't do it alone you cannot achieve your absolute gain that you want you need to really think our related gain as well.
So that this debate is what center of this near the is actually so this question So in essence what you are thinking about the stages formulating with absolute gain interest out in the water.
You cannot achieve that with you alone.
You have to really consider relative gain even if it is it has a potential to break it up this international cooperation.
So that debate is very thin debate between the realist and neoliberal.
Doesn't make sense?
[SPEAKER] And the other question.
So now you can see where are the structural realism and modern realism might interplay offensive defensive right.
Based on this absolute realistic and.
So these are these two ingredients are quite important in formulating your security position military position and economic into [inaudible] position especially with regard to military power economic power that would or increasing military power.
So these are all kind of collision that you're doing, but your focus is security in both the power of domination capability of domination and those two are the one that realist neorealists were all the time in their file going into the meeting room about strategy that those two ingredients are key they are now going to back down from these two bottom line bottom lines so that maybe one of the reasons why this new realist position of foreign policy formulation that Stillman and today for majority of the state and the world.
Even though liberal position about universal gain, maybe the thing about planets into relegate It's a good thing but the first thing is that state.
And so we'll go wherever so.
Often tying one of the major reason that we might easily while the world cannot progress to eradicating CO2 emission greenhouse gas emission or even coordinating successfully in covert nineteen or human trafficking is one of the worst thing that had had had been existing in today's day and age.
So those issue should have been really in the forefront of progressive wall to wall in which we live but because of the state's stare dominate, this politics and war politely, these issues are not going to go away.
You can see Obama speech kind of ended that way as well right.
Any other question?
So we discussed this, what are the relative and absolute gain?
Which gains where induce formation of [inaudible] and N-dimensional organization?
As such, I think Maya can you explain more about what you wrote here about the answer to the question he did just talk about it read it and then talk about it.
[SPEAKER] Absolute gains are increases it influence and power that state's achieve if likely to cooperating to other state's.
Relative gains are the influencing parts other students at through the cooperation.
In the views of the neorealist, the absolute gains for the impulse states and the national organizations are important.
However it is salient that the relative gains for the other states in the organization do not threaten security.
Relative gains for the other state's achieve Dubai involvement cannot outweigh absolute gains and the state's on film security.
States will cooperate they think that other states relative gains will not be a security threat.
[SPEAKER] In neorealist viewpoint, they want to make sure that other states don't gain too much from cooperation.
They care about their own games, but they want to make sure their state's aren't a threat yeah I think that sums it up pretty well.
[inaudible] assertion here is a new neorealist theory that related game where basically not induce international cooperation is kind of staying put empirically true right.
Compared to the two gains, absolute gain and related gain relative gain where not induce international cooperation period.
You're staying with that right I mean I I guess I don't I feel like I would have to see like I mean in theory in theory yeah.
[SPEAKER] I guess I would just depend on what the absolute and the relative gains are but the neorealist are basically saying on there on the ground.
That relative gain is something that [inaudible] international cooperation, indonesia corporations unreliable.
We cannot really rely on international cooperation to solve security question of us which is original classical equation of state.
What do I think about?
Can you read it and then position here.
[SPEAKER] Absolute gains are one form alliances, however if the state becomes worried or dissatisfied with relative gains over states are making, it maybe pulled out or not joined to [inaudible] for you you're helping potential enemy's grow stronger and to the extent of setting the balance of power.
So I'm saying that, states what are going to join in an alliance because they want some gains.
If they join or continue that cooperation, it's because the relative gains or other states are still minimal enough that they don't feel that they're helping someone and their survival in the future.
Yeah so your statement also has this orientation of the coal power or realist neorealist framework on foreign policy here.
[SPEAKER] Yeah so this is this is the this is the great both of you really capture the essence of the debate here.
The debate here is as Maya was kind of struggling to pin down whether in theory or in a variable and practice that driven by absolute or relative gain.
This is the debate here.
It's quite interesting, that the neorealist are saying basically on their ground and state behavior is conical such were the absolute gain with the one that you induce the cooperation not they're related gain with the always and relative gain is what neo liberals are interested in explaining.
They said absolute gain orientation of the state.
Very good.
So any other question on this debate?
What is the debate here neo new debate right?
Anybody else?
Again this is a state centric view okay again we're looking at the world through state centric sort of theories.
So this may be kind of mismatching or this mismatch the current you are [inaudible] politics.
So neoliberalism here on the other hand say against the absolute gain enhance cooperation among state.
Relative gains [inaudible] coefficient due to GDM absolute gain.
In terms of neoliberalism but you cannot achieve without the international cooperation either one of them.
Absolute or relative gain.
Any gain physically liberal point of view you cannot achieve alone therefore it is doesn't really matter in the sense out, when you're debating this between relatives or absolute gain.
Which is what you would read neorealist are proposing, these to take the.
Other liberal position none of those really matter at the end.
Make sense??
Any question about the position on neoliberalism on this issue?
We can see clearly if more on the neorealist sort of site.
Maybe that clarity actually is other explained, why foreign policy analysis are basically based on this neorealist position and security and the power domination rather than this new liberal position where gains would be achieved by either way cannot be achieved without correlation periods.
So they're looking at international institution as a must-have in the world.
If you don't have it, you can really move forward.
Either yourself interests or the interests of the globe as a whole.
That's their position.
So the university again for humanity, between a realist school of foreign policy orientation and levelised school of foreign policy orientation, which school of thought might induce a julie universe gain without even aiming at it?
Between neoliberal and neorealist let's say universal peace question, that we discussed the first day of class or even eradicating climate change issue, I mean kind of solving that climate change issue reducing greenhouse gas emission [SPEAKER] It seems like it seems like neoliberalism would be the most conducive to solving problems that are like that relate to everybody.
And your name?
[SPEAKER] Yes go ahead.
[SPEAKER] I was because like neoliberalism the whole kind of focus is that it's something gains everybody then you should do it.
So if you're trying to adjust problems that affect multiple countries it seems like neoliberalism would be the most effective in providing solutions to those.
Well Obama actually struggle with this debate in his speech right as you are seeing and so what I want you to do is, I'm goiung to break up into groups here before we marched into the and insertion so on.
So is Obama realists Actually my typo here realist or liberal in his foreign policy approach based on Nobel Peace acceptance Speech Here's Maya Maya can you read it and then yeah in.
[SPEAKER] This speech Obama asserts that only a just P space on her rights and dignity of every individual can be really lasting one speech Obama reductive dichotomy between realism liberalism also reclaims the two-piece depends on the availability of hue and rats which is more of a ballistic.
Obama also mentioned the importance of international peacekeeping and consequences for state who oppress people which along with his human mastic values in the speech paint him as more of liberal.
So based on his rhetoric, he talks a lot about human rights and human and civil rights and the speech and how to achieve peace.
And those need to be universal so based on based on that rhetoric, I would classify him as a liberalist liberal list I don't know actual action and whose presidency he like actually acted on that but based based on how he spoken speech, I would say liberalist.
[SPEAKER] So I believe that Obama is a realist as a as a dual moral standards for dealing with friends and enemies and put American survival first on the other hand when dealing with friends or non enemies Obama things be liberal so that's like his dual moral standards one spread democracy in trade while promoting force are they reasonable measure for dealing with enemies which is more of a realist.
I will note though that terrorists are not a recognized state by America and so he's not using force weaker state.
And promotes the use of force for intervention case of Human Rights Foundation, which does not support realism at this to not support seem to benefit the state from a realistic point of view so this is kind of both.
Okay I say lean more to realists.
[SPEAKER] You if you say that he his behavior is induced by realist orientation.
His foreign policy framework yeah so that's really sums up quite IN A position, that Obama has one last foreign policy in a sense.
So I would like you to discuss in group, which I will form now.
I'm going to inform a ten room so we have good ten, how many total thirty four good.
So how can ruin to 3D by each room automatically random again.
I want you to dissect to two parts are Obama presidency in terms of foreign policies which this is one a major speech she gave in addition to the one that nucleus feature we watch IN first-day via the proxy so diagnosis and prescription, I want you to have a two columns.
Obama your diagnosis and prescription.
In terms of diagnosis, is he liberal or realist?
In times our prescription, which is a foreign policy only producing the policy is he liberal or realist?
So there are two columns I want you to discuss their [inaudible] ready down in cable on the notebook just like here.
You can see but, diagnosis and then here is a policy prescription and whether he is released come back up here.
This is what I mean by the cable type.
You can see there?
So here's a room our rooms are open.
Suffering universal suffering.
This is my.
[SPEAKER] One of the liberalism is that, it works based on a collective kind of will and a collective power but unfortunately, collective will does not always reflect the best interest of everyone.
It's impossible these always gonna be Situations what has focused on as opposed to.
Are you spending quarantine i'm not far away from campus Boise Idaho who is older and now in like a week later.
I felt it so, I get out and I can go for Walker or run but I can't that's about it.
They're naturally days or I don't leave the house which weird.
[SPEAKER] I will like I will like it.
Just in general weird really IN yeah it's pretty relaxing its not very stressful I say that.
[SPEAKER] I expect, I wanted to be more stressful because now I feel because, I'm not I'm not motivated to do anything.
Catalog rarely know maybe two weeks from now that's my array.
[SPEAKER] There'll be an issue once I'm done being bored right now I'm just [inaudible] like ask what does it sound that bad I'll do my work now [inaudible] early but once I get bored of that then it's going to be interesting.
We'll see how.
To play a lot of mobile games on my phone Yeah yeah not really.
I play a lot of sports games, like NBA 2K FIFA and stuff like that and then I've been playing the whichever which is like an open world game.
My PS4 what games you even playing?
Nice I run out of battery because my [inaudible] [SPEAKER] And I'm going to go back and run off and trying to find people let us raise a team.
When I go you, follow and over and go.
[SPEAKER] I'm just not willing to invest the effort into getting good match as fun and for before [inaudible] [inaudible] say a name that you just chops right Josh was just years Kenny just getting any someone who's having connectivity problem is it.
[SPEAKER] Very well could be this tried to memorize people.
I don't really now.
I know the people that I know and people have been in groups with.
That's about it..
[SPEAKER] Do good story.
True we can really talk about it but I don't know.
[SPEAKER] Right the story but it's actually going to be it'll be a good story for us too and we don't have to add that.
So it's great.
[SPEAKER] Win-win oh.
Sorry he was probably in a.
[SPEAKER] Well they are just waiting for more people to come back.
Are there any of you all have any good Spring Break plans around?
[SPEAKER] Honestly no.
I was going to stay.
[SPEAKER] Fairness.
[SPEAKER] More like getting back to Carlton that would have been nice.
[SPEAKER] Right away.
Yeah Understandably.
Let me show that it shuffling poker chips value under this term.
Here during class trying to learn how to do it the entire time.
And nothing else [SPEAKER] I think he has no idea when this class.
[SPEAKER] So what do you conclude?
About Obama foreign policy description especially., [SPEAKER] When we kind of broke it down, I think we ended up with a definitely in towards liberalist.
In the speech.
So we kind of broke it down by the different diagnosis that he had.
So we had nuclear proliferation, religious extremism or terrorism humanitarian problems and climate change are some of the ones we focused on.
And for nuclear proliferation, we said he definitely was leaning toward a liberalised perspective where universal diplomacy was the first step and then force if necessary.
Although that does have a little bit of a realist.
Tilt and then for religious extremism or terrorism or active threats to the nation, it was definitely a realist perspective.
As he talked about the survival of the state as being extremely important and requiring worse if necessary and then for humanitarian problems, it was a little bit of a mix between realists and liberals liberelist perspectives as again he kind of started with cooperation and diplomacy as the first line kind of defense and then force if necessary.
And then for climate change, he was very much a liberal perspective because not only is climate change of focus more of neoliberal to begin with.
He also talked about cooperation and diplomacy being the most important ways to confront it [SPEAKER] All mover depending on the issues that you might be analyzing.
[SPEAKER] Another group?
To share.
[SPEAKER] Our kind of decided that Obama's any unique possession because of being a leader of the United States where he has to be both neorealist added neoliberalism kind of simultaneously [SPEAKER].
In bolts don't do diagnosis and prescription or in more and diagnosis more of realists or [inaudible] more liberal and I would say simultaneously during both because a lot of the time like if you look at Obama rhetoric when engaging with foreign policy, he does want to preserve America's World Order but he also wants to engage on a lot international accords like if you look at the last four years of his presidency, that's basically all he did was like getting it in the Paris climate agreement, reforming nafta reforming nato.
Like getting into multiple international Time agreements but at the same time, he constantly has to check back in with the American governmental system and make sure he's preserving and like securing all state at the same time.
[SPEAKER] Other group?
Thank you..
Thank you both.
[SPEAKER] We've kind