8 ms·

As someone lived in Hong Kong for quite a while (during the tail of its heydays) but now in the US, Hong Kong is indeed in big trouble. But not for the reasons

As someone lived in Hong Kong for quite a while (during the tail of its heydays) but now in the US, Hong Kong is indeed in big trouble. But not for the reasons mentioned/implied in this article. It's very easy to buy into narratives such as authoritarianism vs democracy, communism vs capitalism, China vs Britain/West, tight control vs freedom as the reasons for Hong Kong's decline, but that's just short-circuited thinking for the lazy. The real reason for Hong Kong's decline, is the failure/irresponsibility of Hong Kong's elite ruling class. Maybe to many people's surprise, since its handover to China, Hong Kong has effectively been ruled by the local elites, NOT by Beijing. Sure, Beijing appoints the governor, but the governors are locals, and there was never any direct "order" from Beijing, well, sorta until recently, when Beijing began to see the failure of the local Hong Kong government. Those elites are composed of mega real estate/business tycoons. Being the elites in the most capitalist city-state in the world gives them tremendous wealth and power, but to the disappointment of Spider-man, with that great power there's no great responsibilities. The ruling class mega riches don't see income inequality as a problem, but a badge of honor for themselves, to show how "they've made it", while all the poors are just not smart/hardworking enough. Any efforts to "appease the poor" are hindered by the ruling business-politician symbiotics, because those efforts get in their way of accumulating more wealth. The frustration of the youth and the poor stems from the sense of inequality, unfairness and despair as they see no chances of upward mobility. Yet, even the poorest in Hong Kong is a capitalist at heart, so they are poor not because of the rich, and they certainly do work hard, then who's to blame? China, Beijing, the mainlanders, because they are evil, communist, denying tian'anmen square, yada yada... On the contrary, when the ruling rich saw the rebellion of lower class, without knowing/admitting themselves are to be blamed, they seek help from Beijing. What does Beijing know about governing a country? More control! That's the only thing Beijing knows, and it's been working (kinda) with them. So that's how we get where we are now.

warcher 9y ago
Would you agree that the deliberate limits on participatory democracy imposed by Beijing are limiting the ability of the non-elite factions in society to redress these imbalances, or do you think, even with universal suffrage, the citizens of Hong Kong are too fractured to come up with solutions? (Similar to the current political climate in the US.)
- caretoomuch 9y ago
  > the deliberate limits on participatory democracy imposed by Beijing are limiting the ability of the non-elite factions to redress these imbalances I agree all of it until "to redress these imbalances", i.e. letting the local elite rule Hong Kong was a deliberate decision by Beijing. Back then (before/during the hand-over to China), nobody knew how it's gonna work. And as of now, that decision turned out to be a failure. But letting non-elite factions to participate does not guarantee "redress the imbalances". see my comments below > or do you think, even with universal suffrage, the citizens of Hong Kong are too fractured to come up with solutions? (Similar to the current political climate in the US.) I do feel there's very fertile soil for political populism (not in a good way) in Hong Kong. What universal suffrage does guarantee is the emergence of a new class of pure/traditional politicians, probably armed with populist rhetorics... Are they gonna "redress the imbalance?", certainly they would say so, but... wait, I'm starting to have a deja-vu...
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    > wait, I'm starting to have a deja-vu... The last sentence from 'Animal Farm'?
  - warcher 9y ago
    I dunno, generally the best argument for democracy is when things come out of balance, there is a mechanism to adjust how things work without violent revolution (which generally necessitates a greater level of destruction than is advisable). Since the general impression of Hong Kong democracy is "yeah, we'll let you vote, but the party is going to have the last word" it's hard to imagine a scenario whereby the status quo (i.e. current elites) will ever be allowed to be threatened. Well, until it's too late, and the torches and pitchforks come out. Am I wrong?
    - caretoomuch 9y ago
      You are not wrong. Nobody would argue that reasoning. But seeing what populism could leads to, and based on my experience in Hong Kong, I'm just a bit cynical that the reality probably won't turn out to be what it "should have been".
cilea 9y ago
The same is happening to Taiwan (stuttered growth; in-fighting, etc.). The issue is deeply rooted in local power-wielding elites conspiring or opposing the ruling government. It has nothing to do democracy. The riches have already allocated some of their wealth elsewhere (see Canada and Australia), so they don't really care. It's always easy to blame it on Beijing, isn't it?
- lisper 9y ago
  And, arguably, in the U.S.
  - nulldev 9y ago
    The only thing left to argue about is the question of scale.
- laretluval 9y ago
  > The issue is deeply rooted in local power-wielding elites conspiring or opposing the ruling government. It has nothing to do democracy. Seems like democracy would make this problem worse, since it redistributes power to local informal power elites.
  - bilbo0s 9y ago
    Taiwan is a "democracy", just a deeply corrupt one.
    - dis-sys 9y ago
      Calling Taiwan a democracy is like labelling the Culture Revolution a democratic movement. When elderly Chinese who actually experienced the terrible Culture Revolution go to visit Taiwan, many of them had the feeling that Taiwan make them feel young again as they saw the Culture Revolution again in Taiwan. Endless street politics for every single change to the society, hugely divided society, corruption from both sides, people are forced to pick which side is less terrible rather than which is better, President democratically elected used its official jet to move cash to foreign countries. Personally, I don't want such toxic Taiwan to be integrated back to China, they can run their own circus on that island so people in the mainland can look at them and learn from their mistakes.
hencq 9y ago
Very interesting. It touches on something I've been thinking about lately. The book Why Nations Fail [1][2] makes an argument very similar to yours that there are two factors that determine (economic) success of a nation: 1) inclusive economic systems and 2) inclusive political systems. They argue that these can form a virtuous cycle where they enhance themselves. However, if nations don't have inclusive systems, they tend to form a vicious cycle. They give the example of Venice which had (for the time) relatively inclusive systems, allowing a a middle class to rise and generate wealth for the city. This new elite started to limit political inclusiveness to protect their wealth. This tipped the scale back to extractive systems. By the 1500s Venice was in decline. This example makes me wonder if we're headed that way. In Hong Kong -- but also e.g. in the US -- it seems there's a class of mega rich that are moving more and more into rent seeking behavior and greater income inequality. If the book's theory is right this will lead to political systems to become less inclusive over time, which will eventually lead to economic decline. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail [2] http://www.economist.com/node/21549911 http://www.economist.com/node/21549911
- pm90 9y ago
  Yes this is exactly correct. Which is why rising income inequality is hugely bad news for the US. But short of going back to higher taxation, I don't see the situation improving for the US. The rich will Marshall all their significant resources to fight tax increases. Just see the amount of money and effort Koch brothers have put into corrupting the system! It is deeply disturbing. Also, titans of economy should not be given the reins of running the country, no matter how qualified they might be. They already have a lot of power. In poorer countries, political ascendants are shot dead. In the US, you have attack ads, smear campaigns etc.
  - dasil003 9y ago
    In the US titans of the economy are given the reins of the country even being totally unqualified. In fact, the anti-intellectual streak is so strong, that incomprehensible slogan babble has proven to be a very successful strategy in convincing the average blue collar worker that the most elite of the elite silver-spoon nepotists will somehow represent their interests. Frankly with the level which facts and reason have been shown to be utterly useless in the political arena, there's no way we'll avoid this fate unless the 1% themselves come to the conclusion that their lobbying and consolidation of power will ultimately destroy the country. However I'm not holding my breath for this to happen since game theory and Upton Sinclair inform us that's not how human interest generally works.
FabHK 9y ago
It goes both ways, though - the tacit deal is basically that the HK tycoons do not challenge the Chinese Communist Party's monopoly on power, and the CCP doesn't challenge the HK tycoons' economic monopolies. But, all in all, I agree. As I've written in another thread: The grievances of HK's population are real: a political and business establishment dominated by property tycoons (and increasingly mainland Chinese political factions) keen on maintaining their privileged position; huge economic inequality; a slow erosion of political liberties ("salami tactic"). That all, of course, gave rise to the Umbrella Movement in 2014. However, given that the Chinese Communist Party is not inclined to weaken its grip on power, and extremely protective of the (perceived) territorial integrity of China, I don't really see how this will end well. :-/ Here's hoping. For perspective, BTW: In 1997, HK's GDP was about one sixth of China's (even though China has 200x the people), and HK was an important conduit between China and the world: HK's port had more volume than Shanghai and Shenzhen together. Today, HK's GDP is barely 3% of China's, and the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen together have 3x the throughput of HK. (Just have a look at these pictures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-por.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-por.... ) HK used to be hugely important for China. Now, it isn't, and with rising Chinese nationalism, HK is being seen more and more like an unruly and spoiled child.
- narrator 9y ago
  >Today, HK's GDP is barely 3% of China's, and the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen together have 3x the throughput of HK. (Just have a look at these pictures: I am really waiting for a NY Times article that has some angle about what China can teach us, not what they should learn from us. For the last 30 years we have been getting continuous dispatches that Communism with Chinese characteristics will fail into economic collapse, that it's an enormous bubble, that the economy can't grow without democracy, that Hong Kong needs to be a model of democracy for the rest of China, etc. This mainly comes out of the "official narrative" mouth pieces known as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Whenever I see nytimes.com in the sourcee I'm always thinking, ok what's the new angle that everyone's supposed to believe now? It would be better if they just gave the byline to someone at the State Department or the CIA.
CobrastanJorji 9y ago
That's really interesting; thanks for sharing. But based on what you say, that sounds exactly like the narrative of authoritarianism vs. democracy. You have a bunch of elites with no responsibility that are tremendously disliked in power. In a democracy, they'd (theoretically) fear losing an election to a populist. Heck, even if they were regular despots, they'd be at least marginally afraid of revolution. But the elites in Hong Kong are installed by China; they have no fear of even a revolution.
bufordsharkley 9y ago
A HK resident recommended to me Alice Poon's "Land and the Ruling Class in Hong Kong" to understand the malfunction in land development that this sort of cronyism delivers; I found it a worthwhile read, and readily recommend it to others. [0] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2948872-land-and-the-ruling-class-in-hong-kong http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2948872-land-and-the-ruli...
- dis-sys 9y ago
  sadly, the exact system was introduced into China before the handover, the broken system is not just screwing HK but a huge chunk of China including all major cities.
vinceguidry 9y ago
Beijing never intended to let HK go forever under it's own leadership. The CCP wishes to keep as much of Hong Kong's economic muscle intact as they can, but political control of the area is the eventual goal and is far more important to it than economic growth. The Chinese will not allow HK to become a threat to the Chinese way of life as determined by the CCP. They will loot the city of its riches, then bring it into line. The writing was on the wall for HK from day one of their transition back to Chinese rule.
thr312423 9y ago
Looks like this is the state of affairs in every "capitalist" state on the planet. Singapore, check. China, check. Japan, check. US, check. Corporate oligarchies will stomp on our faces for eternity, it'd seem.
- justaman 9y ago
  I don't believe this is a natural byproduct of capitalism. Rather it could be the lack of proper government legislature adapting to technological advances. I suppose it is tricky to balance a system that supports economic growth while confining and punishing entities for poor competitive practices. Poor sportsmanship is present in all states no matter the economic system.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
And how are Hong Kong's tycoons any different from the mainland's princelings? The CCP is dealing with what it knows in Hong Kong, and the dysfunctions of both are not that different at all.
- vkou 9y ago
  They aren't, but they make it difficult to call Hong Kong democratic, with a straight face. Half of their legislature is directly elected by corporations, for Pete's sakes.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Sure, well, it isn't that different in the mainland, where half the congress are SOE execs as well as successful business men. Anyways, can we just call it democracy with Chinese characteristics?
Salamat 9y ago
That is exactly the bad deal Nelson Mandela got in SA. Just saying.
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
That's seems like the modern neoliberal city problem rather than a problem specific to hong kong. The same problems afflicting hong kong is afflicting all modern neoliberal cities - new york, LA, chicago, london, etc. Where the elite want to increase real estate/asset prices and the younger generation are left behind.
dlwdlw 9y ago
There's a term I'm playing around with "sinecure culture" that describes a society that is very well off compared to the rest of the world because of moats. The US due to WW2 weakening many other countries and HK because it was a gateway into China. This leads to lack of motivation to constantly improve and also entitlement. The entitlement is a result of technology equalizing the playing field making things egalitarian. To rationalize why a simple job pays thousands of times more than backbreaking or highly technical jobs in poorer areas, this society has to feel superior in some way. Few people seem to notice that in a perfectky fair world, the highest populations have the greatest advantages. Another thing often ignored is that there isn't enough to go around. Divided equally the world's wealth is 10k each. Livable only if the world's cost of living is equalized as well. However in the Bay Area I cannot buy the 1 dollar delicious meals in other parts of the world. When there are only a few immigrant going to a sinecure society, it is friendly. However once resources become strained you get tribes, boundaries, and rationalizations for more pie.
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
"It's very easy to buy into narratives such as ..." And then caretoomuch sells us a long narrative about the problem really being elitist rulers oppressing the poor.

warcher 9y ago

Would you agree that the deliberate limits on participatory democracy imposed by Beijing are limiting the ability of the non-elite factions in society to redress these imbalances, or do you think, even with universal suffrage, the citizens of Hong Kong are too fractured to come up with solutions? (Similar to the current political climate in the US.)

caretoomuch 9y ago
> the deliberate limits on participatory democracy imposed by Beijing are limiting the ability of the non-elite factions to redress these imbalances I agree all of it until "to redress these imbalances", i.e. letting the local elite rule Hong Kong was a deliberate decision by Beijing. Back then (before/during the hand-over to China), nobody knew how it's gonna work. And as of now, that decision turned out to be a failure. But letting non-elite factions to participate does not guarantee "redress the imbalances". see my comments below > or do you think, even with universal suffrage, the citizens of Hong Kong are too fractured to come up with solutions? (Similar to the current political climate in the US.) I do feel there's very fertile soil for political populism (not in a good way) in Hong Kong. What universal suffrage does guarantee is the emergence of a new class of pure/traditional politicians, probably armed with populist rhetorics... Are they gonna "redress the imbalance?", certainly they would say so, but... wait, I'm starting to have a deja-vu...
- mannykannot 9y ago
  > wait, I'm starting to have a deja-vu... The last sentence from 'Animal Farm'?
- warcher 9y ago
  I dunno, generally the best argument for democracy is when things come out of balance, there is a mechanism to adjust how things work without violent revolution (which generally necessitates a greater level of destruction than is advisable). Since the general impression of Hong Kong democracy is "yeah, we'll let you vote, but the party is going to have the last word" it's hard to imagine a scenario whereby the status quo (i.e. current elites) will ever be allowed to be threatened. Well, until it's too late, and the torches and pitchforks come out. Am I wrong?
  - caretoomuch 9y ago
    You are not wrong. Nobody would argue that reasoning. But seeing what populism could leads to, and based on my experience in Hong Kong, I'm just a bit cynical that the reality probably won't turn out to be what it "should have been".

cilea 9y ago

The same is happening to Taiwan (stuttered growth; in-fighting, etc.). The issue is deeply rooted in local power-wielding elites conspiring or opposing the ruling government. It has nothing to do democracy. The riches have already allocated some of their wealth elsewhere (see Canada and Australia), so they don't really care. It's always easy to blame it on Beijing, isn't it?

lisper 9y ago
And, arguably, in the U.S.
- nulldev 9y ago
  The only thing left to argue about is the question of scale.
laretluval 9y ago
> The issue is deeply rooted in local power-wielding elites conspiring or opposing the ruling government. It has nothing to do democracy. Seems like democracy would make this problem worse, since it redistributes power to local informal power elites.
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  Taiwan is a "democracy", just a deeply corrupt one.
  - dis-sys 9y ago
    Calling Taiwan a democracy is like labelling the Culture Revolution a democratic movement. When elderly Chinese who actually experienced the terrible Culture Revolution go to visit Taiwan, many of them had the feeling that Taiwan make them feel young again as they saw the Culture Revolution again in Taiwan. Endless street politics for every single change to the society, hugely divided society, corruption from both sides, people are forced to pick which side is less terrible rather than which is better, President democratically elected used its official jet to move cash to foreign countries. Personally, I don't want such toxic Taiwan to be integrated back to China, they can run their own circus on that island so people in the mainland can look at them and learn from their mistakes.

hencq 9y ago

Very interesting. It touches on something I've been thinking about lately. The book Why Nations Fail [1][2] makes an argument very similar to yours that there are two factors that determine (economic) success of a nation: 1) inclusive economic systems and 2) inclusive political systems. They argue that these can form a virtuous cycle where they enhance themselves. However, if nations don't have inclusive systems, they tend to form a vicious cycle. They give the example of Venice which had (for the time) relatively inclusive systems, allowing a a middle class to rise and generate wealth for the city. This new elite started to limit political inclusiveness to protect their wealth. This tipped the scale back to extractive systems. By the 1500s Venice was in decline. This example makes me wonder if we're headed that way. In Hong Kong -- but also e.g. in the US -- it seems there's a class of mega rich that are moving more and more into rent seeking behavior and greater income inequality. If the book's theory is right this will lead to political systems to become less inclusive over time, which will eventually lead to economic decline. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail [2] http://www.economist.com/node/21549911 http://www.economist.com/node/21549911

pm90 9y ago
Yes this is exactly correct. Which is why rising income inequality is hugely bad news for the US. But short of going back to higher taxation, I don't see the situation improving for the US. The rich will Marshall all their significant resources to fight tax increases. Just see the amount of money and effort Koch brothers have put into corrupting the system! It is deeply disturbing. Also, titans of economy should not be given the reins of running the country, no matter how qualified they might be. They already have a lot of power. In poorer countries, political ascendants are shot dead. In the US, you have attack ads, smear campaigns etc.
- dasil003 9y ago
  In the US titans of the economy are given the reins of the country even being totally unqualified. In fact, the anti-intellectual streak is so strong, that incomprehensible slogan babble has proven to be a very successful strategy in convincing the average blue collar worker that the most elite of the elite silver-spoon nepotists will somehow represent their interests. Frankly with the level which facts and reason have been shown to be utterly useless in the political arena, there's no way we'll avoid this fate unless the 1% themselves come to the conclusion that their lobbying and consolidation of power will ultimately destroy the country. However I'm not holding my breath for this to happen since game theory and Upton Sinclair inform us that's not how human interest generally works.

FabHK 9y ago

It goes both ways, though - the tacit deal is basically that the HK tycoons do not challenge the Chinese Communist Party's monopoly on power, and the CCP doesn't challenge the HK tycoons' economic monopolies. But, all in all, I agree. As I've written in another thread: The grievances of HK's population are real: a political and business establishment dominated by property tycoons (and increasingly mainland Chinese political factions) keen on maintaining their privileged position; huge economic inequality; a slow erosion of political liberties ("salami tactic"). That all, of course, gave rise to the Umbrella Movement in 2014. However, given that the Chinese Communist Party is not inclined to weaken its grip on power, and extremely protective of the (perceived) territorial integrity of China, I don't really see how this will end well. :-/ Here's hoping. For perspective, BTW: In 1997, HK's GDP was about one sixth of China's (even though China has 200x the people), and HK was an important conduit between China and the world: HK's port had more volume than Shanghai and Shenzhen together. Today, HK's GDP is barely 3% of China's, and the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen together have 3x the throughput of HK. (Just have a look at these pictures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-por.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-por.... ) HK used to be hugely important for China. Now, it isn't, and with rising Chinese nationalism, HK is being seen more and more like an unruly and spoiled child.

narrator 9y ago
>Today, HK's GDP is barely 3% of China's, and the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen together have 3x the throughput of HK. (Just have a look at these pictures: I am really waiting for a NY Times article that has some angle about what China can teach us, not what they should learn from us. For the last 30 years we have been getting continuous dispatches that Communism with Chinese characteristics will fail into economic collapse, that it's an enormous bubble, that the economy can't grow without democracy, that Hong Kong needs to be a model of democracy for the rest of China, etc. This mainly comes out of the "official narrative" mouth pieces known as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Whenever I see nytimes.com in the sourcee I'm always thinking, ok what's the new angle that everyone's supposed to believe now? It would be better if they just gave the byline to someone at the State Department or the CIA.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago

That's really interesting; thanks for sharing. But based on what you say, that sounds exactly like the narrative of authoritarianism vs. democracy. You have a bunch of elites with no responsibility that are tremendously disliked in power. In a democracy, they'd (theoretically) fear losing an election to a populist. Heck, even if they were regular despots, they'd be at least marginally afraid of revolution. But the elites in Hong Kong are installed by China; they have no fear of even a revolution.

bufordsharkley 9y ago

A HK resident recommended to me Alice Poon's "Land and the Ruling Class in Hong Kong" to understand the malfunction in land development that this sort of cronyism delivers; I found it a worthwhile read, and readily recommend it to others. [0] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2948872-land-and-the-ruling-class-in-hong-kong http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2948872-land-and-the-ruli...

dis-sys 9y ago
sadly, the exact system was introduced into China before the handover, the broken system is not just screwing HK but a huge chunk of China including all major cities.

vinceguidry 9y ago

Beijing never intended to let HK go forever under it's own leadership. The CCP wishes to keep as much of Hong Kong's economic muscle intact as they can, but political control of the area is the eventual goal and is far more important to it than economic growth. The Chinese will not allow HK to become a threat to the Chinese way of life as determined by the CCP. They will loot the city of its riches, then bring it into line. The writing was on the wall for HK from day one of their transition back to Chinese rule.

thr312423 9y ago

Looks like this is the state of affairs in every "capitalist" state on the planet. Singapore, check. China, check. Japan, check. US, check. Corporate oligarchies will stomp on our faces for eternity, it'd seem.

justaman 9y ago
I don't believe this is a natural byproduct of capitalism. Rather it could be the lack of proper government legislature adapting to technological advances. I suppose it is tricky to balance a system that supports economic growth while confining and punishing entities for poor competitive practices. Poor sportsmanship is present in all states no matter the economic system.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

And how are Hong Kong's tycoons any different from the mainland's princelings? The CCP is dealing with what it knows in Hong Kong, and the dysfunctions of both are not that different at all.

vkou 9y ago
They aren't, but they make it difficult to call Hong Kong democratic, with a straight face. Half of their legislature is directly elected by corporations, for Pete's sakes.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Sure, well, it isn't that different in the mainland, where half the congress are SOE execs as well as successful business men. Anyways, can we just call it democracy with Chinese characteristics?

Salamat 9y ago

That is exactly the bad deal Nelson Mandela got in SA. Just saying.

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago

That's seems like the modern neoliberal city problem rather than a problem specific to hong kong. The same problems afflicting hong kong is afflicting all modern neoliberal cities - new york, LA, chicago, london, etc. Where the elite want to increase real estate/asset prices and the younger generation are left behind.

dlwdlw 9y ago

There's a term I'm playing around with "sinecure culture" that describes a society that is very well off compared to the rest of the world because of moats. The US due to WW2 weakening many other countries and HK because it was a gateway into China. This leads to lack of motivation to constantly improve and also entitlement. The entitlement is a result of technology equalizing the playing field making things egalitarian. To rationalize why a simple job pays thousands of times more than backbreaking or highly technical jobs in poorer areas, this society has to feel superior in some way. Few people seem to notice that in a perfectky fair world, the highest populations have the greatest advantages. Another thing often ignored is that there isn't enough to go around. Divided equally the world's wealth is 10k each. Livable only if the world's cost of living is equalized as well. However in the Bay Area I cannot buy the 1 dollar delicious meals in other parts of the world. When there are only a few immigrant going to a sinecure society, it is friendly. However once resources become strained you get tribes, boundaries, and rationalizations for more pie.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago

"It's very easy to buy into narratives such as ..." And then caretoomuch sells us a long narrative about the problem really being elitist rulers oppressing the poor.