Here's a letter that I sent yesterday to the Jacksonville, Florida, newspaper. (HT Tim Townsend):
Editor, Florida Times-Union
idea, of course, is that if Floridians buy as much as possible from
other Floridians, rather than from non-Floridians, then economic
activity in Florida will be stronger.
Suppose that to promote, say, Florida peach growers, consumers in Florida
paying more than necessary for peaches, Florida consumers not only
directly make themselves poorer, but they also have less money to spend
elsewhere, such as at the local car-repair shop and at local
restaurants. In addition, to the extent that the
misguided ethic of "buying local" takes hold, local firms have weaker
incentives to improve their efficiencies and product offerings. The state's economy suffers, both today and especially tomorrow.
Florida's buy-local effort boasts the charming name "Backyard Economics." A more appropriate name would be Backward Economics."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 50 comments }
By paying more than necessary for peaches, Florida consumers not only directly make themselves poorer,
It also hurts the poor who will have to pay more for peaches than otherwise.
Outta the park!
What would Hayek say about knowledge when it takes a hat tip to Don to know he sent a letter in?
Good stuff either way.
Please ask these idiots from what "local" source they will buy:
* gasoline
* paper
* online resources
* computers
* rice (aside from Texas and Louisiana)
* recorded music
* cars or trucks
It's amazing that people haven't yet learned these simple lessons.
I don't agree with the argument in this post.
If the goal is to maximize consumer+ producer surplus (profits) strictly for residents of FL, then it seems that "buying local" could accomplish that goal.
A consumer is willing to pay $10 for a box of peaches and is able to go to the store and buy Peaches from SC for $6 and peaches from Flordia for $7. Let's say that the producer profit is $2 per box for both the SC producer and the FL producer.
As long as the profit to the FL producer is greater than the decrease in consumer surplus by going with the local producer, net local welfare seems to be increased.
If the box from the FL producer is purchased, net FL consumer+producer surplus increses by $5. The purchase from the SC producer increases net FL consumer+producer surplus by only $4.
"As long as the profit to the FL producer is greater than the decrease in consumer surplus by going with the local producer, net local welfare seems to be increased."
Perhaps. At least until the good people of SC decide to retaliate by refusing to buy Florida-grown produce. It's all downhill from there.
In that case I will fill a truck up with peaches in SC, drive to FL and call them Florida's own for my own little surplus. Don't think that wouldn't be rampant.
Stephen's math may or may not apply, considering the multitude of products and margins out there. Regardless, I suspect the supporters of the 'buy local' initiative assume that Florida wins and no one loses. And I doubt the media is interested or able to disabuse them of that notion. That is why Don's letter and simple analysis are important, to get people to think a little deeper than the slogan.
Don -
I've never understood this passionate disapproval of buying local.
Florida isn't proposing levying a punitive tax on South Carolina peaches. It's trying to convince people that there is intrinsic value to buying something locally. As I've mentioned before, I pay a premium for Virginia wines precisely because they are from Virginia. I've also shopped at farmer's markets in the past (even though I could get the produce for cheaper at the grocery store) for the same reason. I don't always buy "fair trade", but occassionally I'm inspired simply because of the guarantees on the side of the "fair trade" bag of coffee.
There's nothing wrong with promoting this kind of localism.
You seem to be making the case that the "total welfare" of Florida will not be helped by these schemes. I would disagree – if they're engaging in this activity voluntarily, it shouldn't hurt their welfare at all. If people start to find value in trading with those who live close to them, then that is valuable to them – who are you to challenge that?
But I don't even think this group is going THAT far. They simply talk about supporting Florida businesses and jobs. And that will almost certainly be accomplished by increasing purchases from Florida businesses.
They concluded with this statement: "All in all, think before you shop and give your local neighbors a chance to earn your business."
Are you SERIOUSLY quibbling with that sentiment, Don? I know you want to transcend political boundaries – etc., etc., but as I've said so many other times, I think you're reading WAY too much into this.
LOL.
I wonder if these fabulous letters to the editor are actually read and learned from.
I love how succinct and clear these letters are.
Daniel Kuehn,
Since you are a numbers guy, could you run the numbers and show us the value?
Thanks,
S Andrews-
Not sure what you mean by that.
Don's own attentiveness to voluntary exchange proves that there should be no lost value in voluntarily choosing to buy locally.
Empirical work on that stuff depends on the idea of "revealed preference" – which basically says what Don always says – that if someone purchases something voluntarily that decision represents their preference, even though we can't observe the values they attach to each purchase.
Why don't you tell me in what universe it wouldn't be true???
I'm saying that Don has gone so far off the deep end in his opposition to "political boundaries" that he's missed the whole point that the article is still just proposing voluntary transactions – which he himself suggests shouldn't lead to a net reduction in value.
Just because I work with numbers doesn't mean I know where and how to measure any given problem. I work with treatment effects of job training programs and other "human services" (or, more perjoratively, "welfare"). I've got broader interests than that, but you can't expect me to know empirical estimates on everything under the sun.
S Andrews and Don -
Just think of the article as an ad campaign – that's all it is. If local farmers put up money for an ad campaign that said "buy local" would you have a problem with that?
No. The logic of the market doesn't suddenly break down when individuals have geographic preferences.
S Andrews and Don -
Just think of the article as an ad campaign – that's all it is. If local farmers put up money for an ad campaign that said "buy local" would you have a problem with that?
No, I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with this guy writing in a newspaper. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with him on this matter.
Could you run the numbers and show me how buying local is a value, as you have stated in your first comment on this thread.
Thanks,
I agree with the Don's main proposition, but just for the sake of thinking it through:
Considering that there is not likely to be retaliation from South Carolinians or anyone else to some voluntary localism in Florida, I could actually see this as a very limited case in favor of it, considering that there is a recession. If Floridians bought locally just during the recession, then went back to their regular buying habits afterward, wouldn't the effect be to lessen the dislocations in the local economy from the recession?
Of course, if every state did this, then they would all be worse off, but if one area did it as an exception, the net effect to that one area could be positive, temporally at least, couldn't it?
Daniel,
I have no problems with any adult doing anything he or she wishes to do as long as he or she violates no equal rights of others. If someone wants to buy only Florida-made goods, or buy only goods made by whites, or by blacks, or by Tibetans, or by Lutherans, or by persons whose first names start with the letter "X," that's fine with me.
But if someone is trying to promote such schemes as a means of improving an economy (as opposed to improving a firm or an industry), then as an economist I think it appropriate for me to point out the faulty reasoning that is necessarily involved in such arguments.
The "buy local" campaign in Florida that prompted my letter is sold as a scheme of invigorating Florida's economy. That's plain nonsense – and for many reasons in addition to those that I had room to list in my letter.
Mr. Kuehn,
You wrote: "There's nothing wrong with promoting this kind of localism.
You seem to be making the case that the "total welfare" of Florida will not be helped by these schemes. I would disagree – if they're engaging in this activity voluntarily, it shouldn't hurt their welfare at all."
You ran right off a logical cliff there. People engage in voluntary personal commercial activity that does hurt them, sometimes catastrophically, all the time. It "shouldn't hurt their welfare?" Come on. Don was pointing out it does, in a general way, limit their choices to the only local and limitation of choice, voluntary or not, has costs.
You cannot "support jobs" through the narrowing of choices. PR campaigns, marketing, and ill-advised policies can sometimes limit choices for the professed good of a community, industry, or race but they never address the "and then what" question. Move the market to increase buying local, and then what happens to the markets where those products came from? What happens to local demand and prices? To the pressure on local vendors to deliver better products and services?
You may be feeling good about spending more money on coffee because of a marketing ploy but that doesn't obscure the fact that you 'chose' to pay more. That meant you had less money for other purposes.
Quick point: the main problem with protectionism (or with efforts to "buy American" or "Buy Florida" or "Buy Jacksonville") is NOT that non-Americans (or non-Floridians, etc.) will retaliate. That's a second-order problem. Even without retaliation, allowing political borders to serve as barriers to trade make persons within those borders materially poorer.
The good people of Gaza “buy local.”
The good people of North Korea “buy local.”
The good people of Cuba “buy local.”
The good people of Zimbabwe “buy local.”
In the old days the people of Zambia, Paraguay, Chile, Mexico, etc. ect. all “bought local.”
In the 1980 we were told that to punish the apartheid regime in South Africa, then they should “buy local.”
During WW I, Germany was forced to buy local and eventually starved into submission.
There are many, many examples, so please, those local advocates, what are the benefits of buying local? I see few except for those who sell local, but I see that those who are often the most fervorent opponents of bourgeoisie do the local bourgeoisie a benefit at the expense of workers and the poor.
"I've got broader interests than that, but you can't expect me to know empirical estimates on everything under the sun.
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Apr 10, 2009 5:14:36 PM"
Then why hint that you do, and why dispute others when they don't?
It sucks that in bust times when we're all more price conscious, we're also more prone to restricting trade and guaranteeing higher prices. Damn, we're dumb.
If the peaches are indistinguishable commodities, then the only value added for the customer is if he's convinced by something or someone that there's some special significance to peaches grown nearer to him (or not, depending on how close he is to a grower in a neighboring state.) It almost seems like peach-industry psy-ops.
Now that I think about it, this bust is deep and world-wide. To identify with those who are close to you bespeaks a severe lack of empathy. Of course, liberals are the least empathetic people in the world. How many liberals have you met who can put themselves in the place of the people they want to tax?
as Rothbard put it (in AGD I believe), there are some times, when people get tricked in doing something stupid by propaganda. Of course – in the long run they will learn. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be telling them the reasoning behind the propaganda is false.
Buying local is like a voluntary blockade.
Stephen's not keeping track of all the variables in the two comparisons. He presents:
Case 1: FL peaches
FL peach consumer +3
FL peach producer +2
Case 2: SC peaches
FL peach consumer +4
SC peach producer +2
Let's instead compare apples to apples, so to speak:
Case 1: FL peaches (FL +5)
FL peach consumer +3
FL peach producer +2
SC peach producer ?
Case 2: SC peaches (FL +4)
FL peach consumer +4
SC peach producer +2
FL peach producer ?
Now, Stephen implicitly assumes in his accounting that in case 2 we have FL peach producer 0. I personally don't know anybody like those peach producers who are just going to sit on their hands and starve to death before they would do any else but produce peaches. That takes a passion for peaches that I hope I never understand.
So if those FL peach producers can even eek out a +1, FL is no worse off. If they can eek out anything more, both FL and SC are better off.
And finally, being an actual economy, let's not just leave the other players out of the comparison:
Case 1: FL peaches
FL peach consumer +3
FL peach producer +2
SC peach producer ?
FL other consumers/producers ?
SC other consumers/producers ?
Case 2: SC peaches
FL peach consumer +4
SC peach producer +2
FL peach producer ?
FL other consumers/producers ?
SC other consumers/producers ?
And here's where comparative advantage becomes apparent. Even if FL is BETTER at peach producing than SC, if FL is better at ANYTHING else, that is where focusing their productive efforts will produce more abundance for both FL and SC (you can fill in your own numbers).
Or think in extremes: the ultimate protectionism is no person trading with any other person. Each person must directly produce what he is to consume. Good luck.
But choosing to buy local, even though it is destructive, is not inherently illiberal. Although some advocates of liberty are willing to theoretically subjugate liberty to their higher values of "what works" or "competition", I am not. I would always favor my more ignorant but more moral brothers. At least advocating buying local while refusing coercion shows a comforting preference for liberty over utility.
Daniel,
your first post strikes me as a concerted effort to be contrarian rather than an effort to make a good point.
You seem to come here looking to find disagreement. In fact, you seem like kinetic disagreement looking for a reason to set itself loose.
That's not to say there can never be disagreement but you really do seem to look for it and rather unconvincingly at times.
Don made an economic observation…a simple economic observation about the futility…if not harm…in trying to buy local in an effort to boost the local economy. It's a sophism to think this actually works. That's Don's point.
What do you say?
I've never understood this passionate disapproval of buying local.
Is that addressing Don's point? No. It's simply you looking for a reason to go against the grain.
It's trying to convince people that there is intrinsic value to buying something locally. As I've mentioned before, I pay a premium for Virginia wines precisely because they are from Virginia.
What's the intrinsic value? Or are you just digging for something to use as an argument?
You can buy wines from wherever if it floats your boat. DO you pay extra because you like VA wines better than others and think it's worth it? Or do you pay extra for the altruistic idea of helping the VA economy?
John V makes some great points (Apr 10, 2009 11:27:26 PM).
The column wasn't disapproving of buying local, it was disapproving of buying local for the sake of buying local.
I typically won't buy cantaloupe, except in August and September, when the Rocky Ford, Colorado cantaloupes hit the local market. They taste better, and I'm usually disappointed in the flavor of cantaloupe grown in other regions. Local tomatoes also taste better, and that's probably true virtually everywhere, because tomatoes grown to be shipped long distances have typically had to sacrifice flavor for toughness – so I don't buy a lot of tomatoes after the Colorado crop has been sold. I don't do this out of loyalty to Colorado farmers. I do it because they bring a product to market that I value and am willing to pay a premium (if I must) to get.
Dang it! Daniel Keuhn said all that I was pretty much going say! Don may as well say the economy would be better off if everyone took a taxi than owned their own car. And maybe it could – the costs of maintain a taxi is essentially spread across the customers. Then again why must the economy be spread to the furthermost points accessible? Are Italians expected to buy New Zealand Kiwifruit and New Zealanders are expected to buy Italian Kiwifruit because the distance is greater? Never mind the two places are where Kiwifruit is mass produced? In 500 years time Future Don will be saying everyone must buy peaches from at least 25 light years away because buying Earth-grown peaches is pathetic autarky and people shouldn't fall for those stoopid 'Buy Earth' campaigns.
Gil,
Do you always miss the point? or maybe just enjoy spinning arguments into straw men.
Where does Don say what anyone MUST do?
The point was re-explicated in comments and yet here you are stretching points into straw.
Briefly, Don's argument is that buying locally to boost the local economy will not, of itself, achieve that goal.
The economy can be boosted if local producers figure a way to increase the value of their product such that residents buy locally because they find that is where they can find the best value.
If consumers buy locally for any other reason, then they are signaling to local producers that they do not have to increase the value of their offerings.
Steven said:
"As long as the profit to the FL producer is greater than the decrease in consumer surplus by going with the local producer, net local welfare seems to be increased."
translation:
local peach producer net welfare increased (that's why he's paying for the "buy local" campaign) and consumer net welfare decreased (he's the sucker paying for it)
What's "local welfare" good for? My life hasn't improved because of higher local welfare. It's meaningless, otherwise, I'm moving to Seattle to have Bill Gates as my neighbor, so that I can enjoy a super high net local welfare.
Nope. I'd go as far as to say Don Boudreaux has made an economic fallacy because he's wants to see a free-market global economy with no political barriers whatsoever. As he soon as saw 'buy local' he went into reflex mode and saw 'autarky'.
Hence:
"Florida peach growers benefit, but other Floridians suffer."
As D. Kuehn points out there's no government forcing people to 'buy local' in this example therefore if people buy local it's because they want to. Anywhere else Libertarians would point out that where there's voluntary trading there are no real losers. The business with the better advertising wins over its competitors for the day but that's business. Or for that matter, 'macroeconomics' was invented by Keynes and there's no 'local economy' or 'national economy' just people trading with other people because they want to. So what if it just happens that some traders reside within walking and others send in their wares via a ship? For Don to come out with "other Floridians sufferring" is zero-summing which isn't possible when free-trading. So what if you see local advertisers saying "support your local economy" as a porky-pie, is such advertising any more surprising that an ad for beer "which will make you more attractive to women".
"I have no problems with any adult doing anything he or she wishes to do as long as he or she violates no equal rights of others. If someone wants to buy only Florida-made goods, or buy only goods made by whites, or by blacks, or by Tibetans, or by Lutherans, or by persons whose first names start with the letter "X," that's fine with me. – Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Apr 10, 2009 5:37:47 PM
Gil,
I take it from your post of Apr 11, 2009 2:39:04 AM, that you believe Prof Boudreaux was lying when he wrote the comment I quoted? Or, perhaps you missed that post and need to read the whole thing?
to vikingvista: is there a typo here? Didn't you mean to say "Even if SC is better…"?
"And here's where comparative advantage becomes apparent. Even if FL is BETTER at peach producing than SC, if FL is better at ANYTHING else, that is where focusing their productive efforts will produce more abundance for both FL and SC (you can fill in your own numbers)."
Then why does Don bring up this post brotio? Don may have a point if this latest 'buy local' campaign is chock-full of government intervention and trade barriers. Or is he just warming up an old 'autarky' chestnut?
Posted by: Gil on 04/11/09 @ 2:39:04 AM
"Anywhere else Libertarians would point out that where there's voluntary trading there are no real losers."
Assuming the trades are prudent.
A division-of-labor economy works better than an every-man-self-sufficient economy — for the simple reason that division-of-labor permits specialization, which, in turn, makes possible advances in labor productivity and the lowering of costs. BUT, this only works if the participants are free to trade their output.
A division-of-labor economy works better with 1,000,000 participants than with 100. Why? For two reasons: 1) The larger number of participants permits an even greater degree of specialization, resulting in even greater improvements in productivity, and: 2) The larger number of participants increases the number of truly exception, highly-intelligent, entrepreneurial participants who are the very individuals that develop superior methods of production and new products. BUT, this works only if the participants are free to trade their output, such that the bulk of production on any particular item can freely shift over time toward the most efficient producer.
A division of labor economy with 6 billion global participants works better than one with 1,000,000 participants — for all the same reasons a system of 1,000,000 works better than 100. Any act which artificially reduces the number of participants inherently reduces the human brain power brought to bear on solving the problem of maximizing production and minimizing costs.
It would mean the man who lived next door to Henry Ford in 1925 could have the benefit of Ford’s ability to produce a car that can sell for $500 — but the man in the next neighborhood (or next county or next state or next nation) must make do with $5000 contraption his neighbor can produce.
Such a reduction in participants can never achieve a net increase in value produced — it can only result in shifting benefits to some at the expense of others.
“Buying local” means, “Do not avail yourself of the best thinking and most innovative minds involved in the production of item 'X' — just settle for whatever your neighbor happens to produce.” It should not be hard to see who benefits from this notion — and at whose expense.
Then why does Don bring up this post brotio? Don may have a point if this latest 'buy local' campaign is chock-full of government intervention and trade barriers. Or is he just warming up an old 'autarky' chestnut?
Posted by: Gil | Apr 11, 2009 3:53:04 AM
Dude. He isn't saying you shouldn't be allowed to only buy local. The point, for the umpteenth time, is that buying local, for its own sake, is not helpful to the local economy in the way that its proponents would have you believe. If you buy only FL peaches, even though you prefer the flavor of SC peaches, you are signaling to FL peach producers the opposite information they need to be better peach producers. In fact, you are telling them they need not try harder at all, because you will buy their peaches regardless of whether they are any good, in order to somehow benefit the local economy, never mind that the very act is actually impoverishing the local economy. You threw money at lousy peaches and had nothing left over for other commodities you might have purchased with the money saved from buying cheaper imported peaches. Get it? Voluntary protectionism is still protectionism, and still harmful to everyone. It's just the same old tired broken windows fallacy, over and over again.
Don -
RE: "If someone wants to buy only Florida-made goods, or buy only goods made by whites"
Your equation of the two reveals quite clearly the baggage you bring to this issue.
RE: "then as an economist I think it appropriate for me to point out the faulty reasoning that is necessarily involved in such arguments."
And I feel it's appropriate to point out your faulty reasoning that equates a change in preferences in Florida with the effect of a protective tariff.
Don -
RE: "If someone wants to buy only Florida-made goods, or buy only goods made by whites"
Your equation of the two reveals quite clearly the baggage you bring to this issue.
You are incoherent unless you mean to intimate that Don is a closet racist. Is that what you mean?
Daniel,
On what basis do you conclude that it is "quite clearly" the case that I bring "baggage" to this issue? And what baggage do you have in mind?
That last question is rhetorical, of course, for you imagine that you've found evidence of latent racism in my writings.
But if you understand what I'm arguing, then you understand that I am CRITICIZING persons who would insist on buying "only from whites." Such an insistence is economically stupid if it is done on the presumption that "buying only from whites" will improve the economic prospects of whites generally — white producers AND white consumers.
Ditto for persons who believe that buying only from blacks (or "buying only from [fill in the blank]") promotes general economic prosperity of the group in question.
The larger point is that thinking in terms of groups — in terms of tribes, races, religions, nationalities — is economically misguided. (It is also evidence of a mind and consciousness that I regard to be insufficiently cosmopolitan, but that's another issue.)
It is both wrong and rude to insinuate, without any evidence whatsoever, that someone is a racist.
Were I as rude as you are, I would insinuate that the racist here is YOU — for, again, in my earlier comment I criticize as being misguided anyone who would limit his or her trading opportunities on the basis of what I regard to be utterly irrelevant criteria such as skin color or citizenship.
Does the fact that you take offense at my criticism make you a racist? A rude person eager to grasp the first flimsy straw that flies his way might well jump to such a conclusion.
But I don't jump to that conclusion. Quite seriously, I don't. Please, feel free to disagree with me all you like; THAT I don't mind. But avoid the fashionable yet cheap maneuver of insinuating that I, or anyone else, is a racist.
points out there's no government forcing people to 'buy local' in this example therefore if people buy local it's because they want to.
OFF POINT.
Completely.
Gil:
Another contrarian for its own sake who is simply a disagreement looking for a place inject itself….at all costs.
…especially at the cost of good-faith discussion and understanding.
Only you are far more blatant and blunt about it.
Daniel Kuehn writes the following in response to Dr. Boudreaux:
"And I feel it's appropriate to point out your faulty reasoning that equates a change in preferences in Florida with the effect of a protective tariff."
Nowhere had Dr. Boudreaux argued that ANY shift in preferences for FL-made goods is functionally analogous to a protective tariff. Rather, he has argued this only of shifts in preferences that are motivated solely by the desire to boost local production. That is, he has argued this only of a highly specific subset of shifts in preferences for FL-made goods. For that specific subset of shifts in preferences for FL-made goods, I find his argument quite convincing, but I am willing to hear counterarguments. Can anyone provide one for this subset of shifts in preferences for FL-made goods (note: no one is suggesting that we force people to buy SC-made goods for the sake of economic efficiency, nor is anyone suggesting that a quality-based preference for FL-grown peaches would be an inefficient allocation of resources – the argument is that the hope of boosting the local economy by opting to buy things based solely on the "made in" sticker is counterproductive; I feel the need to point this out because some of the previous comments indicate that many commenters are not clear on these points)?
Regards.
And I feel it's appropriate to point out your faulty reasoning that equates a change in preferences in Florida with the effect of a protective tariff.
Daniel, we expect better of you.
If a town has a state boundary down the middle, what does buying local mean?
To buy only within your state, or only within your town?
And that's not even the point.
Don's point is that buying locally, ONLY for the purpose of boosting the local economy, does not have that effect if a better value may be obtained by buying from elsewhere.
Floridians may alter their preferences to make them FEEL like they are boosting the local economy, but the reality is that what they are purchasing is a good FEELING. This is not the same as boosting the economy.
If you buy Virginia wines at a higher price, then you will buy fewer Virginia apples (unless you have an open budget).
"It is both wrong and rude to insinuate, without any evidence whatsoever, that someone is a racist."
It is however neither wrong, nor rude, nor illiberal to ban a vile troll from a forum which you completely own. I greatly admire your endeavors, but sometimes I think you suffer fools too gladly.
Don: If you grab your belt with both hands and pull up with all your might, no matter how strong you are, you will not lift yourself off the ground.
Daniel: Some people like pulling up on their pants. I myself often like to give my trousers a good tug. Why do you want to stop us?
Local Bloggers: Huh?!
To underscore the insipidity Jacksonville paper's position, Jacksonville is about 35 miles from the the Georgia-Florida stateline. Culturally, demographically and geographically it has more in common with Georgia and South Carolina than it does with the vast portion of Florida. Until fairly recently it's biggest industry was paper due to its proximity to forest, much like the parts of Georgia up the coast. It is also supported by a very large Naval presence in the form of two navy bases within Duval county (Jacksonville NAS and Mayport). That's the U.S. Navy, not the local Jacksonville or Florida Navy.
"Then why does Don bring up this post brotio?" – Gil
So, you do think Don was lying when he said, "If someone wants to buy only Florida-made goods, or buy only goods made by whites, or by blacks, or by Tibetans, or by Lutherans, or by persons whose first names start with the letter "X," that's fine with me." Don't pussyfoot around the issue, Gil. If you think he's lying, have the guts to say so strait out.
Unless you can come up with a better argument than, "you're a liar because I say so", then it appears that John V has you pegged pretty accurately.