Labor theory of Value

[MarxSchmarx]

In the left, much debate about the labor theory of value focuses on its validity(empirical and theoretical) and articulation. This is a patently valid enterprise that has been quite fecund.

However, I feel we wouldn't be having such heated debates if there weren't a tacit, classical assumption that this approach to valuation is some how central to the socialist project. Of course Marx and earlier political economists relied on the labor theory of value, but does this mean the theory is a necessary precondition for justifying socialism?

Indeed, how crucial is the labor theory value of value to:
1. A leftist analysis and critique of capitalism,
2. Proscriptions for a post-capitalist economic system?

[GPDP]

I'm not sure it's actually that crucial, really. Some leftist economists, such as Robin Hahnel, have apparently renounced it. I can't quite remember what it is he proposed in place, however. Been a while since I read one of his or Michael Albert's books...

[Aurelia]

I'm not sure it's actually that crucial, really. Some leftist economists, such as Robin Hahnel, have apparently renounced it. I can't quite remember what it is he proposed in place, however. Been a while since I read one of his or Michael Albert's books...
Anyone who would 'renounce' it also renounces Marxism, so they are now just social-democrats or left-wing populists, not someone to be concerned about.

[Demogorgon]

It is possible to give perfectly good arguments for socialism without the LTV, it is just more complicated. Most of what Marx said can be proven through other means, however I would only bother using these other means when faced with someone who will not accept the LTV, because it is so much easier to argue using it.

So no, it is not necessary, but it is useful. If you are not convinced by it, you do not need to use it, but you will have to look very closely at marginalism to spot where exploitation happens.

I myself started out as a skeptic of the LTV, but I have become convinced of its merits. Whether or not others can as well will determine whether or not we have to use more complicated proofs of exploitation or not.

[GPDP]

Anyone who would 'renounce' it also renounces Marxism, so they are now just social-democrats or left-wing populists, not someone to be concerned about.

Way to be sectarian and absolutist. Not all far-leftists are Marxists.

But indeed, those authors are not Marxists. If anything, they're kinda-sorta anarchists. They don't really call themselves that, though (I believe comrade Jacob would call them French socialists or something like that, though I'm not sure why).

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You can be an anti capitalist and not believe in the LTV. There are plenty of arguments against capitalism involving alienation, poor resource allocation etc. But I think LTV is the clearest attack on capitalism. It makes sense to any worker you're talking to. They do the work, and yet get none the benefits. I think LTV is a really solid theory, it makes perfect sense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Way to be sectarian and absolutist. Not all far-leftists are Marxists.

But indeed, those authors are not Marxists. If anything, they're kinda-sorta anarchists. They don't really call themselves that, though (I believe comrade Jacob would call them French socialists or something like that, though I'm not sure why).

"French socialists" (pertaining not to socialists of the French ethnic group, but rather the history of French socialism) are noted for their fetish with egalitarianism. The question for us is: French socialism or "freedom socialism" (social-abolitionism and proletarian democracy - social proletocracy)? :D

Sorry for the politically incorrect spin there, but I was inspired by this crap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

[MarxSchmarx]

Most of what Marx said can be proven through other means, however I would only bother using these other means when faced with someone who will not accept the LTV, because it is so much easier to argue using it.


Would you happen to know of some literature I could consult on this, as I've been unable to figure it out for myself how to do this.

My experience has tended to be that LTV folk try to show marginalism as a special case of LTV. Is there an explicitly marginalist reformulation of Marxian analysis? In particular, what does a marginalist theory of surplus value look like?


You can be an anti capitalist and not believe in the LTV. There are plenty of arguments against capitalism involving alienation, poor resource allocation etc.

Good point. The question then becomes, can we critique a market economy and class society (as distinct from capitalism) without the LTV?

[GPDP]

Well, there is the aspect of externalities, which evidence points to being the norm rather than the exception. Even Milton Friedman, the capitalist guru himself, acknowledged their existence, though in his book "Capitalism and Freedom", he believes these "neighborhood effects" are in fact the exception rather than the norm. But IIRC, he later acknowledged that he had no idea how to deal with them.

So, there's one aspect of markets ripe for criticism right there.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Good point. The question then becomes, can we critique a market economy and class society (as distinct from capitalism) without the LTV?


Yeah to some degree, but why? LTV is a pretty solid theory, why would we want to throw it out?

[GPDP]

Even if the LTV is a sound theory, I do not think we should base our entire criticism based on it. If we are to develop and present a thorough critical analysis on why capitalism is exploitative, we cannot rely on just one theory or methodology, but several.

Basically, I feel socialism should not become a one-trick pony.

[KC]

It is possible to explain the flaws of the capitalist system without explicitly referencing the LTV. For example, one can obviously state the means by which capitalists extract profit, the effect of competition on price and profit extraction, and the overall crises that result from the extraction of profit.

For example:

The price of a commodity = workers' wages + raw materials + means of production. A revolution in the acquisition of raw materials (i.e. cheaper raw materials) or in the means of production (the development of new machinery to increase the means of production) are poor means of increasing/maintaining profit margins, because once they are implemented by one business in a particular industry all other businesses in that industry will follow suit, thereby immediately negating the benefits. Thus, the only means by which capitalists can increase/maintain profit margins is by attacking workers' rights.

That explanation certainly didn't require any mention of the LTV.

[MarxSchmarx]

Yeah to some degree, but why? LTV is a pretty solid theory, why would we want to throw it out?

I agree with GPDP on this. The socialist project should not rise or fall depending on the LTV, which after all was systematized by Smith and Ricardo.



The price of a commodity = workers' wages + raw materials + means of production. A revolution in the acquisition of raw materials (i.e. cheaper raw materials) or in the means of production (the development of new machinery to increase the means of production) are poor means of increasing/maintaining profit margins, because once they are implemented by one business in a particular industry all other businesses in that industry will follow suit, thereby immediately negating the benefits. Thus, the only means by which capitalists can increase/maintain profit margins is by attacking workers' rights.

That explanation certainly didn't require any mention of the LTV.

The thing with this example is that the critics of the LTV will say it suffers from the same problem - namely, that the price of a commodity is determined by the supplier's cost in your account. Whereas, these critics would argue, the price of a commodity is determined by the demand of the product.

Moreover, the LTV would state that the cost of the raw materials is just the (labor) costs of extraction, and similarly with the cost of the "means of production", and this is account would not present any challenge to the LTV.

Indeed, I think the challenge still remains - what is an economic phenomenon that can't be readily reduced to the LTV (and is perhaps explainable by marginalism), that nonetheless argues in favor of socialism from that economic view point? On this point, I am genuinely stooped and am eager to hear other comrade's thoughts.

[GPDP]

Well, I found what appears to be a detailed article on the subject of capitalist exploitation by Robin Hahnel, titled "Exploitation: A Modern Approach", which, from what I've heard from people at the Z Forums, including Michael Albert, does away with the LTV approach, but unfortunately, it is limited to the Review of Radical Political Economics journal, which you have to subscribe to in order to read.

If only I would get off my ass and go turn in my FAFSA form and request financial aid to pay for my university tuition, I would be able to access the journal and perhaps highlight some excerpts, but until I do, I cannot read the article. Does someone else have access to these journals?

In any case, this is what the article summary says:


Political economists who have abandoned the Marxian labor theory of value during the past few decades due to logical inconsistencies have failed to replace it with a logically sound theory that explains how and why the employment relationship is almost always exploitative even when labor markets are competitive. This article argues for a sacrifice-based theory of economic justice rather than the contribution-based theory implicit in the Marxian labor theory of value and uses a simple theoretical framework to explain not only why the employment relationship is exploitative but also why credit relations and goods trading can be exploitative as well.

[ckaihatsu]

The removal of profit from the funding that provides goods or services is certainly enough to prove exploitation -- the reduction of available funds from which to service wages means that additional labor must be expended to pay for profits.

A public sector analogue for providing the same goods or services would necessarily have administrative costs as overhead, but it would not have to automatically set aside a portion of funding (investment capital) to pay for profits.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[kingmob68]

can you explain what you mean by paying for profits chris? im just having some trouble following you, I think it might be some words youre using im just not used to since my head is stuck in marxian jargon. also 'removal of profit', 'from which to service wages'...the removal and service are what i dont get. sorry im up way too late and a bit fuzzy.

[JimmyJazz]

The way I see it, the labor theory of value is necessary to explain the value of basic goods that every person uses (food, medicine, clothing, shelter), while people's subjective judgments of value need to be taken into account to explain the prices of other kinds of goods that not everyone buys or consumes (say, consumer electronics or designer clothing). Subjective judgments of value (i.e., subjective utility) also explain things like brand preference.

The fact that capitalist economists ignore the labor theory of value and focus exclusively on subjective utility judgments reflects the fact that capitalists are more concerned with creating a system of smooth and efficient exchange for unnecessary goods (consumer electronics) than they are with meeting the basic needs (food etc.) of the vast majority of humanity.

So if you are ever accused of choosing to use the labor theory of value for "ideological" reasons, you should point out that capitalism and its apologists have their own biases, and that there is no such thing as value-free objectivity when the thing you are studying is human society. And I think it's pretty easy to show that the bias radicals have in their choice to use the labor theory of value is a much more noble one than the bias that capitalist economists have in their choice to focus on subjective utility. For mainstream economists it reveals that they have a pro-profit ideological bias, for radicals it reveals that they have a pro-human ideological bias.

[trivas7]

Yes; without a theory of the value created solely by workers that is unjustly expropriated by capitalists there is no theoretical justification for doing away with capitalism. It's upon this theoretical shoal that anarchism founders.

I, too, had long been skeptical of LTV, but have become convinced it is the pivot around which the class struggle revolves.

[ckaihatsu]

can you explain what you mean by paying for profits chris? im just having some trouble following you, I think it might be some words youre using im just not used to since my head is stuck in marxian jargon. also 'removal of profit', 'from which to service wages'...the removal and service are what i dont get. sorry im up way too late and a bit fuzzy.


Yeah, no prob -- all I'm saying is that profits have to be viewed as an *expense*.

Profits are a *removal* of value from the system (business) that is providing goods and services. If you have profit as an expense, or removal, with no guarantee that the profits will come back into the system as a re-investment, then it's simply an *expense*.

Capitalist fucks will always give you the bullshit that "Oh, we're investing the profits back into the system", which is a load of horseshit and anyone reading this should tell them to show you their plane ticket to the tropics, right there on the spot.

Remember, the removal of profit from the system (of providing goods and services) is the extraction of surplus value -- so then follow the money -- who gets it, and what do they do with it?

If they *do* happen to plow profits back into the enterprise as investment capital then they're being capitalists all over again. If they spend the profits on luxury then they're disposing of society's surplus value according to their own whims while others are not.

Once that profit has been removed from the system it is up to *others* to make up for it with investment capital and corresponding labor effort if the enterprise is going to continue to function.... That's why / how the profit system exploits labor -- we don't even *need* to rely on the Labor Theory of Value to prove it....

[JimmyJazz]

Yes; without a theory of the value created solely by workers that is unjustly expropriated by capitalists there is no theoretical justification of doing away with capitalism.

why does it have to be solely? nothing would really change if it was just "mostly".

[ckaihatsu]

As a sidenote here, *everything* can be traced back to labor performed, at some point. The first factory, or the first industrial process, had to be thought out by someone / some people, and then constructed. We continue to leverage those processes today, every time we use metals, or whatever.

So unless you've lived your entire life in a Robinson Crusoe-like manner, you are working for those (capitalists) who have appropriated those industrial processes and exploited current labor to create the world we live in today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Crusoe

[trivas7]

why does it have to be solely? nothing would really change if it was just "mostly".
Because capitalists add nothing to the socially created value of commodities.

[JimmyJazz]

Because capitalists add nothing to the socially created value of commodities.

I didn't say it isn't solely, I said it doesn't have to be solely in order to justify "theoretical justification for doing away with capitalism." At least, I can't see why it does.

[nuisance]

Yes; without a theory of the value created solely by workers that is unjustly expropriated by capitalists there is no theoretical justification for doing away with capitalism. It's upon this theoretical shoal that anarchism founders.
Explain what you mean by this.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Some of Marx's ideas on economics are pretty wacky (labor time equivalency, anyone?). A good deal of his ideas are based on the work of Ricardo and the classical economists of old, though, and still remain quite valid, in my opinion.

A good deal of the criticism of his theories are straw men, such as the "mud pie" criticism. Marx made it clear that the LTOV applied to goods of practical value.

[icepick]

The most up to date socialist examination of the labour theory of value is Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy.

http://mutualist.org/id47.html

He talks a about a "subjective labour theory of value".


Both Ricardo's and Marx's versions of the labor theory at least implicitly relied on a subjective mechanism--after all, as we asked above, why else would labor create exchange-value, except for the fact that the laborer, unlike coal, had to be persuaded to bring his services to market? As for opportunity cost as the basis for the cost-principle, it is worth bearing in mind that "the subjective utility of individuals" is not determined in a vacuum; "the highest price [a] factor can earn elsewehere" is entirely relative, and is conditional on many things, not least among them the existence of monopoly returns enforced by the state. [...] There was a reason for Marx's ambivalence toward a subjective mechanism. Despite the spuriousness of some Marxist criticism, as we have shown above, a subjective "higgling" basis is indeed vulnerable at first glance to its own charges of unverifiability or circularity. As Dobb pointed out, making subjective disutility, effort or unpleasantness, rather than time, the basis of quantity, would make market price the only objective standard for comparing quantities of labor. Nevertheless, this vulnerability is only apparent. The difference is that, unlike Marx's ratios of simple to complex labor, we are not comparing one set of data to another in a circular process. We are first asserting, on the grounds of an axiomatic understanding of human nature, the basis of all exchange value in subjective effort; deviation from this principle, caused by scarcity rents, are a secondary phenomenon. Once this a priori principle that labor is the basis of exchange value is accepted, we go on to explain why labor's product will be distributed according to the degree of disutility of labor.

http://mutualist.org/id56.html

Can't say I understand all of that but it sounds about right! :thumbup:

[ckaihatsu]

I'd like to address labor value in the most practical way possible -- as a question to be solved for a socialist economics that paves the way out of capitalism and into communism.

In the present, labor value can be derived from the cost of the production of goods and/or services minus the cost of capital investment. For a diagram of this see here:


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va


Surplus value -- that which does not simply reproduce the workforce -- created by society either goes into overhead for further production, or else it is consumed in leisure. For a diagram of this, see here:


G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______
http://tinyurl.com/2c252w


A socialist economy would have to reorient production away from the creation of commodity values and orient towards supplying human need.

I am submitting a four-stage bottleneck process that will prioritize production supply, in order to meet genuine human needs:



MASLOW'S HIERARCHY______==>_______NEEDS_______==>_____QUALITY OF GOODS / SERVICES____==>____PRIORITIZATION
OF NEEDS RANKING___________________RANKING_____________RANK ING

(People's most basic needs____________(Lower wealth /____________(Quantity served is preferred over____________(First-come,
are attended to first)__________________income takes priority)________quality of goods / services)_________________first-served)
__________________________________________________ _______(Quality is difficulty -- survey-derived --
__________________________________________________ ________times labor hours)





Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u






See the Wikipedia entry for a diagram of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Deficiency needs

The first four layers of the pyramid are what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "D-needs": if they are not met, the body gives no indication of it physically, but the individual feels anxious and tense. The deficiency needs are: survival needs, safety and security, love and belonging, and esteem.


Physiological needs

These are the basic human needs for such things as food, warmth, water, and other bodily needs. If a person is hungry or thirsty or their body is chemically unbalanced, all of their energies turn toward remedying these deficiencies and other needs remain inactive. Maslow explains that "Anyone who attempts to make an emergency picture into a typical one and who will measure all of man's goals and desires by his[her] behavior during extreme physiological deprivation, is certainly blind to many things. It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread".[1]

The physiological needs of the organism (those enabling homeostasis) take first precedence. These consist mainly of (in order of importance):

* Breathing
* Drinking
* Eating
* Excretion
* Sex

If some needs are not fulfilled, a person's physiological needs take the highest priority. Physiological needs can control thoughts and behaviors and can cause people to feel sickness, pain, and discomfort.


Safety needs

With their physical needs relatively satisfied, the individual's safety needs take over and dominate their behavior. These needs have to do with people's yearning for a predictable, orderly world in which injustice and inconsistency are under control, the familiar frequent and the unfamiliar rare. In the world of work, these safety needs manifest themselves in such things as a preference for job security, grievance procedures for protecting the individual from unilateral authority, savings accounts, insurance policies, and the like.

For the most part, physiological and safety needs are reasonably well satisfied in the "First World". The obvious exceptions, of course, are people outside the mainstream — the poor and the disadvantaged. If frustration has not led to apathy and weakness, such people still struggle to satisfy the basic physiological and safety needs. They are primarily concerned with survival: obtaining adequate food, clothing, shelter, and seeking justice from the dominant societal groups.


Safety and Security needs include:

* Personal security from crime
* Financial security
* Health and well-being
* Safety net against accidents/illness and the adverse impacts


Social needs

After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third layer of human needs is social. This psychological aspect of Maslow's hierarchy involves emotionally-based relationships in general, such as:

* friendship
* intimacy
* having a supportive and communicative family

Humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, whether it comes from a large social group, such as clubs, office culture, religious groups, professional organizations, sports teams, gangs ("Safety in numbers"), or small social connections (family members, intimate partners, mentors, close colleagues, confidants). They need to love and be loved (sexually and non-sexually) by others. In the absence of these elements, many people become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety, and Clinical depression. This need for belonging can often overcome the physiological and security needs, depending on the strength of the peer pressure; an anorexic, for example, ignores the need to eat and the security of health for a feeling of control and belonging.


Esteem needs

All humans have a need to be respected, to have self-esteem, self-respect, and to respect others. People need to engage themselves to gain recognition and have an activity or activities that give the person a sense of contribution, to feel accepted and self-valued, be it in a profession or hobby. Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem or inferiority complexes. People with low self-esteem need respect from others. They may seek fame or glory, which again depends on others. It may be noted, however, that many people with low self-esteem will not be able to improve their view of themselves simply by receiving fame, respect, and glory externally, but must first accept themselves internally. Psychological imbalances such as depression can also prevent one from obtaining self-esteem on both levels.


Growth needs

Though the deficiency needs may be seen as "basic", and can be met and neutralized (i.e. they stop being motivators in one's life), self-actualization and transcendence are "being" or "growth" needs (also termed "B-needs"); i.e. they are enduring motivations or drivers of behavior.


Aesthetic needs

Based on Maslow's beliefs, it is stated in the hierarchy humans need beautiful imagery or something new and aesthetically pleasing to continue towards Self-Actualization. Humans need to refresh themselves in the presence and beauty of nature while carefully absorbing and observing their surroundings to extract the beauty the world has to offer.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd like some comments on this take on LTV, based on some business material.

In business, the fair market value is the highest price available (1), expressed in cash or cash equivalent (2), on an open (3) and unrestricted (4) market agreed upon between informed (5) and prudent (6) parties, acting at arm's length (7) and under no compulsion to act (8).

In the case of, say, the value of a business, this FMV measures tangible and intangible (identifiable or goodwill) assets. On top of this, however, is the open market price, which is the FMV plus some sort of "synergic" economic value added (EVA).

Between an employer and an employee, (5) and (8) are not applicable, because there is information asymmetry (5) in favour of the employer (since human labour and its technological, labour-saving equivalent are the only non-natural sources of value production), and the employee is almost always under economic compulsion to act (8). Therefore, the employer can drive the labour "price" down and extract surplus value.

[Revolution 9]

Marginal utility just makes more sense. Value isn't dictated by the labor but by the utility a product brings to people as well as the amount of the product present.

The issue with our economy at present isn't that prices don't reflect labor, but that the profits go to the wrong people.

[trivas7]

Some of Marx's ideas on economics are pretty wacky (labor time equivalency, anyone?).
Well, perhaps that's because he thought capitalist production was quite wacky and opaque to a logic of appearances.

[JimmyJazz]

Marginal utility just makes more sense. Value isn't dictated by the labor but by the utility a product brings to people as well as the amount of the product present.

The issue with our economy at present isn't that prices don't reflect labor, but that the profits go to the wrong people.

To give one example of why this is wrong, environmental externalities would not be solved in your system of workers' cooperatives operating for profit. Neither would overproduction of frivolous goods/underproduction of human necessities. You seriously need to investigate the problems that arise when you have production for profit instead of production for use.

[trivas7]

Explain what you mean by this.
I meant that IMO anarchism is theoretically bankrupt.

[Revolution 9]

To give one example of why this is wrong, environmental externalities would not be solved in your system of workers' cooperatives operating for profit. Neither would overproduction of frivolous goods/underproduction of human necessities. You seriously need to investigate the problems that arise when you have production for profit instead of production for use.

Externalities are actually accounted for in a free market (read: NOT capitalist) economy. For example, people wouldn't want to waste their land's resources because of the productive capacity they would lose. Likewise, if you polluted others' property, you could be taken into an anarchist court. Even when it comes to water, it hasn't been unknown for fishermen to seastead and form collectives until governments came in with their restrictive regulations.

Also, there would be no such thing as "overproduction" of anything. Products would be produced according to demand and you would not have the shortages and surpluses that are so common in state socialist economies.

[Hyacinth]

Having read this thread I'd like to say two things:

The first, those who have argued that there are no theoretical justifications for socialism w/o the LTV are simply talking nonsense. Of course there are! For one, we can argue, as many have, that planned economies will outperform markets in satisfying human needs and wants. Globally capitalism is a huge failure, what with 5/6th of the world population living in poverty, despite the fact that we have the means by which to aleviate this. There are many consequential arguments to be made for favouring socialism over capitalism without recourse to the LTV.

As well, on the same point, you can argue that political democracy cannot properly exist without economic democracy. That is to say, so long as you have economic inequalities and unequal distribution of resources you will have some people who exercise undo influence on politics, thereby rendering the idea of equal say (upon which democracy is suppose to be founded) a sham. Just as in the case of the previous argument, this argument also makes no recourse to the LTV.

Now, all that having been said, unlike others, I don't believe we should seek to eschew the LTV from our analysis of capitalism. The LTV isn't a theoretical foundation of socialist economies so much as it is a theoretical foundation of one of the strongest criticisms of capitalism. Here I'm not only refering to the LTV as it is used to account for exploitation, though that is indeed important, but moreso the LTV has empirical value in that it underlies Marx's theory of the instability of capitalism.

Though, of course, if this is our only reason for not abandoning it it would be a poor reason. If the LTV were false we should, of course, adjust our theories accordingly, but the LTV (as much as many mainstream economists might wish) isn't false. I suggest comrades take a look at the work of Dave Zachariah [among others] (some of which can be found here: http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/ , under the Value Theory section) to see the predictive power of the LTV.

[nuisance]

I meant that IMO anarchism is theoretically bankrupt.
I know that's what you meant, but I meant why?
As many a time on this board you have stated that you don't understand anarchism, and this appears to be another instance of this lack of understanding.

[Revolution 9]

Don't forget the works of Lange, Lerner, and other "neoclassical socialists." Marginal utility and socialism are compatible.

[ckaihatsu]

Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh



I did a diagram illustration for my previous post (#27) -- feel free to check it out!


Chris