Impeachment

[TitoFan]

One thing about past Presidents. It's hard to erase baked-in impressions. The fact of the matter is, rightly or wrongly, that Carter is mostly remembered by many as a wimpy President who got "pie-in-the-face'd" by Iran. National self-image was at a near all-time low during those years. Skyrocketing oil prices, for whatever reason, didn't do much to help Carter's image. Now.... I don't pretend to know the details you mention behind these issues. But the cold fact is that Carter got the raw end of the stick in public opinion. Only later has he been appreciated as the elder statesman he became. What I laugh about is the contention that Carter was somehow divisive because of those very things. It seems like a matter of convenience to interpret the word "divisive" in whatever way suits your fancy. As I said before, choosing a restaurant for a family outing can be divisive. Choosing a TV channel to watch can be divisive. A divisive PERSON is something else altogether. But I can't seem to get that point through.... not even with a jackhammer. But back to Carter, he may have very well chosen to do what he thought was best for the country at the time. There are always going to the second-guessers who will see it differently.

He did get a raw deal with the public perception of him. This is because the public judge things via peculiar metrics. Try and explain GDP growth or monetary policy to ninety percent of the electorate and their eyes will glaze over after thrity seconds. But they understand high petrol prices. They understand inflation. And Carter wrongly got all the blame for these things. And while he was strong enough to resist an easy reelection by going to war the fact that he wouldn't go to war and was therefore weak was used, again wrongly, as a stick to beat him with because the public are unfortunately susceptible to being scared into wars by politicians.





Interestingly Carter was the last time America saw broadly shared prosperity. Storng unions and a top tax rate of 70% meant that CEO pay was only twenty times that of the average worker. Reagan came along and slashed the top rate and smashed the unions and wages haven't increased in real terms ever since, the proportion of national income claimed by labour has shrunk away, CEOs now earn three hundred times what the average worker makes, and debt and deficits have grown exponentially, the national debt trebling just in the eight years of Reagan. Inequality has skyrocketed and the anger created by all this has been channelled and used by -- another fucking right wing Republican who will wrongly get the credit for an economic expansion he had nothing to do with and this will be used, like Reagan's nonexistent economic achievements, to sell an ignorant public on future tax cuts and deregulation which will impoverish them even more in the decades to come. It's a bugger isn't it.

You're a huge Carter fan. That much is clear. Unfortunately, as you well pointed out, 99.9% of the public electorate know diddly about hard core economics and just see the bottom line. Maybe the problem is communication. I know if I was President and had to make unpopular decisions and policies for the long term good of the country, I'd do my damnest to explain it (dumb it down, if you will) for the average voter. That goes for any leadership position, now doesn't it. I don't believe in doing things behind the scenes and expecting people to understand them without any attempt at explanations.

As much as you like Carter, you seem to dislike Reagan. Yet another example of perception and communication though, isn't it. Reagan is widely perceived as a better President than Carter, however false that may be. But why? Because Reagan was out there appealing like hell to the general public, and giving the people what they wanted, including the vision of a strong nation at a time when power was held at such a high level of importance. Those were the days of the "Evil Empire", as Reagan put it, much to the audience's glee. In retrospect it may or may not have made the most sense..... but Reagan was trying to feel the pulse of the nation.

In summary, it seems history is unfair to Presidents because not everybody is an economic genius to understand the finer points of the economy. But then again the public largely goes unaware because politicians are dreadfully inadequate in trying to explain the logic behind their decisions. So in a way you could say a lot of those public perceptions are well earned.

[walrus]

Ya Kirk the Carter doctrine worked out real well all these years didn’t it. I don’t think you even believe most of the shit you write. After the trump Russia spy thing with you I think you lost a step. Oh yeah you said you still think trump is a Russian asset right. Carter is a seriously cool human being but he was not anything special as a president. Unions you say, damn.

I will always say I look at Carter as a truly decent human being. You can go back and find NYT articles and other shit defending him saying “oh it wasn’t his fault” he did quite a number on the deficit and tied us in with the Saudis threatening war in a state of the union but he was a poor president no matter how you wish to attempt to rewrite history. I wish Kirk could come here and talk to some people who lived through Carter so he could hear what they have to say but alas I brought Carter up as one small example of divisiveness but apparently the definition is wrong and trump wants blacks and whites to hate each other or something now.

Carter did say something very interesting in a call he had with Trump. Carter pointed out China never wasted a dime on war. Sure they are at war with their own people to a degree but Carter was right about that. China uses loans like some countries use bombs. They invade with financial incentive. Anyone ever read that book about China landing ships in the US before Columbus, it was interesting.

[Kirkland Laing]

One thing about past Presidents. It's hard to erase baked-in impressions. The fact of the matter is, rightly or wrongly, that Carter is mostly remembered by many as a wimpy President who got "pie-in-the-face'd" by Iran. National self-image was at a near all-time low during those years. Skyrocketing oil prices, for whatever reason, didn't do much to help Carter's image. Now.... I don't pretend to know the details you mention behind these issues. But the cold fact is that Carter got the raw end of the stick in public opinion. Only later has he been appreciated as the elder statesman he became. What I laugh about is the contention that Carter was somehow divisive because of those very things. It seems like a matter of convenience to interpret the word "divisive" in whatever way suits your fancy. As I said before, choosing a restaurant for a family outing can be divisive. Choosing a TV channel to watch can be divisive. A divisive PERSON is something else altogether. But I can't seem to get that point through.... not even with a jackhammer. But back to Carter, he may have very well chosen to do what he thought was best for the country at the time. There are always going to the second-guessers who will see it differently.

He did get a raw deal with the public perception of him. This is because the public judge things via peculiar metrics. Try and explain GDP growth or monetary policy to ninety percent of the electorate and their eyes will glaze over after thrity seconds. But they understand high petrol prices. They understand inflation. And Carter wrongly got all the blame for these things. And while he was strong enough to resist an easy reelection by going to war the fact that he wouldn't go to war and was therefore weak was used, again wrongly, as a stick to beat him with because the public are unfortunately susceptible to being scared into wars by politicians.





Interestingly Carter was the last time America saw broadly shared prosperity. Storng unions and a top tax rate of 70% meant that CEO pay was only twenty times that of the average worker. Reagan came along and slashed the top rate and smashed the unions and wages haven't increased in real terms ever since, the proportion of national income claimed by labour has shrunk away, CEOs now earn three hundred times what the average worker makes, and debt and deficits have grown exponentially, the national debt trebling just in the eight years of Reagan. Inequality has skyrocketed and the anger created by all this has been channelled and used by -- another fucking right wing Republican who will wrongly get the credit for an economic expansion he had nothing to do with and this will be used, like Reagan's nonexistent economic achievements, to sell an ignorant public on future tax cuts and deregulation which will impoverish them even more in the decades to come. It's a bugger isn't it.

You're a huge Carter fan. That much is clear. Unfortunately, as you well pointed out, 99.9% of the public electorate know diddly about hard core economics and just see the bottom line. Maybe the problem is communication. I know if I was President and had to make unpopular decisions and policies for the long term good of the country, I'd do my damnest to explain it (dumb it down, if you will) for the average voter. That goes for any leadership position, now doesn't it. I don't believe in doing things behind the scenes and expecting people to understand them without any attempt at explanations.

As much as you like Carter, you seem to dislike Reagan. Yet another example of perception and communication though, isn't it. Reagan is widely perceived as a better President than Carter, however false that may be. But why? Because Reagan was out there appealing like hell to the general public, and giving the people what they wanted, including the vision of a strong nation at a time when power was held at such a high level of importance. Those were the days of the "Evil Empire", as Reagan put it, much to the audience's glee. In retrospect it may or may not have made the most sense..... but Reagan was trying to feel the pulse of the nation.

In summary, it seems history is unfair to Presidents because not everybody is an economic genius to understand the finer points of the economy. But then again the public largely goes unaware because politicians are dreadfully inadequate in trying to explain the logic behind their decisions. So in a way you could say a lot of those public perceptions are well earned.

The public aren't suddenly going to get a grasp of monetary policy and basic economics. It's unfortunately not going to happen. The vast majority of people in any country judge the economy on whether their wages are keeping pace with prices, the cost of filling up their vehicle, how easy it would be to get another job. And they judge presidents accordingly. Somebody who walks into a literal first in history economic situation that they had nothing to do with, like Donald Trump, gets all the credit. Somebody who walks into an epic disaster zone like Carter or Obama gets all the criticism. It's just one of those things.

I don't dislike Reagan but again he was the beneficiary of Carter having swallowed the poison pill on the economy and in foreign policy was the beneficiary of foreign policy dunce Jimmy Carter using the Saudi terror of the Iranian revolution spreading to Saudi to get the fanatically anticommunist House of Saud to pump huge extra quantities of oil into the market to flatten the Soviet Union, who had just invaded Afghanistan. The Soviets ran out of money within a couple of years and had to borrow from German banks to keep the satellite republics together and the whole thing afloat. When the Germans cut off further funding the whole thing fell apart. Reagan is credited with "ending the cold war" even though the deal for doing so was done by Carter and the Soviet Union actually collapsed under Bush 41. Add on Reagan's lousy economic performance (exact same economic growth as Carter but trebled the national debt in eight years, gigantic upward redistribution of wealth, enormous increase in inequality, broke up the unions and so on) and I have to say I'm just judging on the facts here, not the mythology that people have been fed.

And again it's impossible to explain even basic stuff to an electorate. In every major economy a majority of the electorate are just hopeless. There's no way you can explain anything to them even assuming they're listening and of course a majority are not. That isn't the fault of politicians, it's because humans are basically overclocked apes.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ya Kirk the Carter doctrine worked out real well all these years didn’t it. I don’t think you even believe most of the shit you write. After the trump Russia spy thing with you I think you lost a step. Oh yeah you said you still think trump is a Russian asset right. Carter is a seriously cool human being but he was not anything special as a president. Unions you say, damn.

I will always say I look at Carter as a truly decent human being. You can go back and find NYT articles and other shit defending him saying “oh it wasn’t his fault” he did quite a number on the deficit and tied us in with the Saudis threatening war in a state of the union but he was a poor president no matter how you wish to attempt to rewrite history. I wish Kirk could come here and talk to some people who lived through Carter so he could hear what they have to say but alas I brought Carter up as one small example of divisiveness but apparently the definition is wrong and trump wants blacks and whites to hate each other or something now.

Carter did say something very interesting in a call he had with Trump. Carter pointed out China never wasted a dime on war. Sure they are at war with their own people to a degree but Carter was right about that. China uses loans like some countries use bombs. They invade with financial incentive. Anyone ever read that book about China landing ships in the US before Columbus, it was interesting.

What became known as the Carter Doctrine was basically a threat to the Soviet Union, who had just invaded Afghanistan and were desperate for some control over Arabian oil, to stay out of the Middle East or they'd face military action. It wasn't intended to be an open ended policy. In the half century since then things have changed a little bit, the Soviet Union fell apart and America's interests in the region have changed somewhat and so have her Middle East policy. Can you understand how things might change over fifty years? Interestingly Jimmy Carter was dead against invading Iraq and was very prescient as to what might happen if America did invade.

I don't need to talk to people who lived under Carter. As I've laid out in the post above, they have no idea what they're talking about. It would be like trying to explain basic economic concepts to you. It's just not going to work, is it. And where did you get "he did quite a number on the deficit" from? You either pulled this out of your arse or got bullshitted from some garbage internet source. The deficit actually fell under Carter from four percent of GDP at the start of his term to just over two percent when he left office.





Have you had a look at the states that voted for Carter in 1976?





Divisive has already been explained to you. You confused unpopular with divisive and are refusing to admit you're not very good with the English language. Idiot.



And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

[walrus]

Ya Kirk the Carter doctrine worked out real well all these years didn’t it. I don’t think you even believe most of the shit you write. After the trump Russia spy thing with you I think you lost a step. Oh yeah you said you still think trump is a Russian asset right. Carter is a seriously cool human being but he was not anything special as a president. Unions you say, damn.

I will always say I look at Carter as a truly decent human being. You can go back and find NYT articles and other shit defending him saying “oh it wasn’t his fault” he did quite a number on the deficit and tied us in with the Saudis threatening war in a state of the union but he was a poor president no matter how you wish to attempt to rewrite history. I wish Kirk could come here and talk to some people who lived through Carter so he could hear what they have to say but alas I brought Carter up as one small example of divisiveness but apparently the definition is wrong and trump wants blacks and whites to hate each other or something now.

Carter did say something very interesting in a call he had with Trump. Carter pointed out China never wasted a dime on war. Sure they are at war with their own people to a degree but Carter was right about that. China uses loans like some countries use bombs. They invade with financial incentive. Anyone ever read that book about China landing ships in the US before Columbus, it was interesting.

What became known as the Carter Doctrine was basically a threat to the Soviet Union, who had just invaded Afghanistan and were desperate for some control over Arabian oil, to stay out of the Middle East or they'd face military action. It wasn't intended to be an open ended policy. In the half century since then things have changed a little bit, the Soviet Union fell apart and America's interests in the region have changed somewhat and so have her Middle East policy. Can you understand how things might change over fifty years? Interestingly Jimmy Carter was dead against invading Iraq and was very prescient as to what might happen if America did invade.

I don't need to talk to people who lived under Carter. As I've laid out in the post above, they have no idea what they're talking about. It would be like trying to explain basic economic concepts to you. It's just not going to work, is it. And where did you get "he did quite a number on the deficit" from? You either pulled this out of your arse or got bullshitted from some garbage internet source. The deficit actually fell under Carter from four percent of GDP at the start of his term to just over two percent when he left office. And I didn’t confuse anything somebody decided to change the game in mid play





Have you had a look at the states that voted for Carter in 1976?





Divisive has already been explained to you. You confused unpopular with divisive and are refusing to admit you're not very good with the English language. Idiot.



And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

You probably don’t know this since you don’t live here but unions are one of the biggest reasons individual states have the deficits they do.

[Gandalf]

I am going to side with Kirk on this one. I agree with him on a fair bit of economic stuff no matter how low the interest rates might be which is propping up the ape society.

[walrus]

I am going to side with Kirk on this one. I agree with him on a fair bit of economic stuff no matter how low the interest rates might be which is propping up the ape society.

Feel free. Carter was but one example I brought up. Look how Truman was looked at when he left office versus how he is viewed now.

As far as unions go they are just a political wing at this point and we are running deficits to fulfill the union/politician fat cat greedy ness.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ya Kirk the Carter doctrine worked out real well all these years didn’t it. I don’t think you even believe most of the shit you write. After the trump Russia spy thing with you I think you lost a step. Oh yeah you said you still think trump is a Russian asset right. Carter is a seriously cool human being but he was not anything special as a president. Unions you say, damn.

I will always say I look at Carter as a truly decent human being. You can go back and find NYT articles and other shit defending him saying “oh it wasn’t his fault” he did quite a number on the deficit and tied us in with the Saudis threatening war in a state of the union but he was a poor president no matter how you wish to attempt to rewrite history. I wish Kirk could come here and talk to some people who lived through Carter so he could hear what they have to say but alas I brought Carter up as one small example of divisiveness but apparently the definition is wrong and trump wants blacks and whites to hate each other or something now.

Carter did say something very interesting in a call he had with Trump. Carter pointed out China never wasted a dime on war. Sure they are at war with their own people to a degree but Carter was right about that. China uses loans like some countries use bombs. They invade with financial incentive. Anyone ever read that book about China landing ships in the US before Columbus, it was interesting.

What became known as the Carter Doctrine was basically a threat to the Soviet Union, who had just invaded Afghanistan and were desperate for some control over Arabian oil, to stay out of the Middle East or they'd face military action. It wasn't intended to be an open ended policy. In the half century since then things have changed a little bit, the Soviet Union fell apart and America's interests in the region have changed somewhat and so have her Middle East policy. Can you understand how things might change over fifty years? Interestingly Jimmy Carter was dead against invading Iraq and was very prescient as to what might happen if America did invade.

I don't need to talk to people who lived under Carter. As I've laid out in the post above, they have no idea what they're talking about. It would be like trying to explain basic economic concepts to you. It's just not going to work, is it. And where did you get "he did quite a number on the deficit" from? You either pulled this out of your arse or got bullshitted from some garbage internet source. The deficit actually fell under Carter from four percent of GDP at the start of his term to just over two percent when he left office. And I didn’t confuse anything somebody decided to change the game in mid play





Have you had a look at the states that voted for Carter in 1976?





Divisive has already been explained to you. You confused unpopular with divisive and are refusing to admit you're not very good with the English language. Idiot.



And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

You probably don’t know this since you don’t live here but unions are one of the biggest reasons individual states have the deficits they do.

I don't know this because it isn't true. I've forgotten more about this than you know though which is unsurprising seeing as you know nothing, this incorrect claim you're making is the result of a google search you made where some right wing website fed you this bullshit. Long story short, there's an ongoing concerted effort with right wing media to denigrate unions with the general public and bullshit claims like this are part of it. There's no link at all between unions and state deficits. Some states have funding shortfalls in their employee pension plans but this is due to state Governors using the pension funds as a piggy bank to allow tax cuts or cover budget shortfalls and then they blame the shortfalls in pension funds on unions.

It would be interesting if people knew how much more money they'd currently be earning if the percentage of national income going to labour had remained the same as during the Carter era. The answer is about $20 000 for the median worker. That means the median household would be about $400 000 better off every ten years had the percentage of income going to labour versus the percentage going to capital remained the same over the last forty years. That's one point six million for the median household since Reagan took office. Those fucking unions, eh?

The Las Vegas branch of the culinary union are currently making headlines by being upset with Bernie Sanders because he's threatening their high quality private health insurance. Imagine, a bunch of waitresses and kitchen staff all having top notch employer provided health insurance and their employers are still managing to turn a profit. If one in three American workers was still in a union as was the case during the Carter era and the other two in three could unionise instantly if their employers didn't keep wages and benefits at union levels every American would be massively better off, in secure jobs with excellent healthcare and the economy would be growing much faster with broadly shared prosperity. Instead we have the current mess.

[Kirkland Laing]

I am going to side with Kirk on this one. I agree with him on a fair bit of economic stuff no matter how low the interest rates might be which is propping up the ape society.

Interest rates in all the major East African Plains Ape economies are low for a reason. It's a function of supply and demand. There's a gigantic supply of money and subdued demand for it. There are a small number of Plains Apes at the top of the tree who have all the money while the vast majority of Plains Apes are struggling to make a living. The vast majority are not therefore able to spend more money on an ongoing basis resulting in subdued demand for products and services. Subdued demand means businesses don't have to borrow to invest in plant, equipment and the rest of it to supply new demand. No demand for money and a huge supply of it looking for a home means a borrowers market. Borrowers can offer to pay really low levels of interest and they'll still find somebody willing to lend them money. In some cases lenders will actually pay borrowers to borrow their money, such is the paucity of investment opportunities in our deformed economies:

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=JP10Y-JP

[TitoFan]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

[Gandalf]

Too much posting for me to keep up, but I will say it forever until the day I die, interest rates are way too low. Mind you I got a bank to give me 5%, but they only let me put in 300 bucks a month for a year. That is not going to pay for my facelift at 50, is it?

I think the Corona beer virus that induces deadly hangovers is probably going to sink things this year. Interesting that a recession is about to happen at this election cycle juncture, but hopefully people stop drinking soon.

[Kirkland Laing]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

[Kirkland Laing]

[Kirkland Laing]

Who needs unions eh.

[El Kabong]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

So there are 0 drawbacks to Unions? 0, none, nil, nada?