To restructure or not to restructure?

Joseph Stiglitz looks to the past and the future:

For Europe and the United States, 2010 was a year of disappointment. It's been three years since the bubble broke, and more than two since Lehman Brothers' collapse. In 2009, we were pulled back from the brink of depression, and 2010 was supposed to be the year of transition: as the economy got back on its feet, stimulus spending could smoothly be brought down.

Growth, it was thought, might slow slightly in 2011, but it would be a minor bump on the way to robust recovery. We could then look back at the Great Recession as a bad dream; the market economy — supported by prudent government action — would have shown its resilience.

Resilience? Recovery? Prudent government action? I think not. Stiglitz continues:

In fact, 2010 was a nightmare. The crises in Ireland and Greece called into question the euro's viability and raised the prospect of a debt default. On both sides of the Atlantic, unemployment remained stubbornly high, at around 10%. Even though 10% of US households with mortgages had already lost their homes, the pace of foreclosures appeared to be increasing — or would have, were it not for legal snafus that raised doubts about America's vaunted "rule of law."

But profits were made secure. Sure, the EU may have just averted a systemic crisis, but it didn't fall. Still, there can be no doubt that the "little people" feel put out by their insecurity. The elite response to their most recent failures and the insecurity they engendered:

Unfortunately, the New Year's resolutions made in Europe and America were the wrong ones. The response to the private-sector failures and profligacy that had caused the crisis was to demand public-sector austerity! The consequence will almost surely be a slower recovery and an even longer delay before unemployment falls to acceptable levels.

Why should anyone find it surprising that a political elite committed to neoliberal policies would propose remedies to a recession that won't work and will intensify the misery of the politically powerless? Only the daft and the vicious would find this surprising.

Stiglitz offers this solution to our common problem:

Debt restructuring — writing down the debts of homeowners and, in some cases, governments — will be key. It will eventually happen. But delay is very costly — and largely unnecessary.

Color Stiglitz an optimist!

This essay was also published on FDL.com

The Obama recovery and the crisis of crisis management

The permanent crisis?

Mike Whitney observes:

Policymakers at the Fed, the Treasury, the White House and the Congress now look on as the foundations of the so-called recovery crack before their very eyes. Many of their careers will undoubtedly follow the economy down the drain. As the stimulus runs out, unemployment will rise, deleveraging and debt liquidation will gain momentum, and the economy will succumb to a second vicious contraction. Digging out will not be easy.

Obama and his people cannot say they had not been warned about the likely effects of their stimulus. Forewarned or not, will the return of the Great Recession trigger the end of DLC-style foolishness? Let us hope so.

“The recession is over”

It's kinda over, seems to be over, could be over, but...don't hold your breath. As Mike Whitney explains:

Yesterday's report from the Commerce Dept. confirmed that the economy expanded in the third quarter by 3.5 percent, better than most economists estimates. GDP had contracted in the four previous quarters in the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression. Massive government stimulus, cash for clunkers, and inventory restocking accounted for most of the surge in economic activity. Consumer spending grew at 2.36 percent while consumer credit continued to contract at a near-record pace of 4.5 percent. Unemployment swelled to 9.8 percent, "with nearly nearly [sic] 26 million workers — 17 percent of the workforce — unemployed or underemployed," according to economist Mark Zandi. The economy remains extremely weak and is expected to lapse back into recession if the Obama administration fails to provide a second-round of stimulus.

In other words, the structural problems that produced the crisis remain. That is one reason the economy remains weak and recession-prone. The growth that brought the recession to an end merely expresses the effects produced by the Obama stimulus. This outcome was predicted, as Dean Baker points out. Nevertheless the Obama stimulus failed to implement the kind of structural reforms the economy needs if it is to strengthen as the reforms work their magic. Nor was it meant to effect reform of this kind.

What we are witnessing, then, is a macroeconomic effect produced by Obama's effort to restore to 'health' the system as it existed before the crash.

One benefit of the Obama stimulus: A slight decrease in the rate of unemployment.

Given the political benefits a presidential candidate could expect to gain from an economy that grows during an election season, it is only natural that a sitting president eligible for reelection would want to push hard for another stimulus program in order to dampen the effects of the crisis. Well, not in this case, for "…President Barack Obama hasn't requested more stimulus and recent polls indicate that a majority of people are against more deficit spending." Obama, it seems, faces political constraints:

The administration has done a poor job of explaining the advantages of reducing the output-gap or — for that matter — the overall objectives of Obama's economic recovery plan. Many people heap the bank bailouts (TARP) with the fiscal stimulus. This is a mistake that's easy to make. But the point needs to be clarified so more people don't needlessly suffer. It's up to Obama to articulate the differences in policy so the country can muddle through the tough days ahead. The problem is, Obama is afraid to use his skills as a communicator, because he thinks his message will offend financial industry constituents who wield tremendous power at the White House and on Capital Hill. The bankers and brokerage mandarins are more than happy with the present arrangement, which means that the conveyor-belt connecting the US Treasury to Wall Street will continue to operate at full-throttle diverting ungodly sums of money to broken banks and financial institutions rather than for unemployment benefits, work programs, and state aid.

Placating Wall Street appears to be an Obama priority. Crisis management, not crisis resolution through reform, informs his strategy. The financial elite, not the rabble, make up his constituency. To meet this strategic goal Obama can depend on the fears of the common American who, unsurprisingly, would rather the government put a stop on this deficit spending. Yet their fears and Wall Street's greed should not:

…stop Obama from doing the right thing and making the case for another round of stimulus. His job is to strengthen demand and put the country back to work. The rest is just politics.

Obama, I would add, should also make the case for structural reform. Neither massive unemployment nor widespread poverty are politically acceptable results for an economy as well-placed as the American.

Brilliant

First increase service capacity, then cut service provision

Ben Adler writes:

Recipients of the president's daily press releases have become accustomed to the constant trumpeting of transportation infrastructure projects put in motion by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Vice President Joe Biden (of Amtrak-commuting fame) is constantly popping up at the most mundane locations — a bus depot in suburban Maryland, a highway interchange in Kalamazoo, Michigan — to proclaim the economic and ecological benefits of everything from new buses burning cleaner fuel to the widening of an Interstate. As the administration is so fond of noting, the Recovery Act included an impressive $48 .1 billion for roads and transit.

The problem is that those funds are dedicated almost exclusively for new investments instead of supplementing existing operating funds. Alas, even while states and cities are laying train tracks and buying new buses, they are being forced to cut bus routes and raise subway fares. Mass transit lines are being eliminated and fares raised in cities across the country. And cost-cutting measures mean that transit employees are being laid off from Anchorage, Alaska, to Miami, Florida. Laying off workers from good civil service jobs, and making traveling more expensive and difficult, could hinder the Obama administration's efforts to stimulate the economy.

The Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA) laid off 292 employees. "We're hiring construction workers at the same time that we're laying off bus drivers," says Wiley Norvell, spokesman for Transportation Alternatives, an advocacy group for mass transit riders in New York City.

The most harmful effect of this decision necessarily fall upon the urban poor, as one would expect:

"By cutting services you are inhibiting the ability of people who rely on the service to get to their jobs or get to new jobs," says Robert Puentes, a transportation expert at the Brookings Institution. Community organizers in low-income communities in San Francisco say that many of the people they work with would be trapped in poverty by having service cuts in their bus lines prevent them from getting to work or community college. In St. Louis some disabled bus riders are unable to go downtown at all, due to their bus lines having been cut. And while New York City's MTA avoided a "doomsday budget" scenario, fares still rose to $2.25 in June. So, even as mass transit ridership has increased in recent years thanks to unpredictable gas prices, services are being cut and fares are being raised. The worst hit are, of course, poor riders and people with disabilities.

The Obama stimulus appears too small

To the astonishment of the Republican obstructionists

This claim appeared in a recent Washington Post report (see also this, this and this). It was not wholly unexpected since some liberal critics of the stimulus program long-believed the bill should have been larger. The proximate cause of the shortfall: The increasing unemployment rate relative to the unemployment rate assumed by the planners who crafted the stimulus bill. The greater unemployment entails a decrease in demand and thus a decrease in GDP, tax revenue, etc. Moreover, a concern with the size of the stimulus crosses party lines. Martin Feldstein, an economic conservative, weighs in:

The massive downturn in the US economy will last longer and be more damaging than previous recessions because it is driven by an unprecedented loss of household wealth. Although the fiscal stimulus package that US President Barack Obama recently signed will give a temporary boost to activity sometime this summer, the common forecast that a sustained recovery will begin in the second half of the year will almost certainly prove to be overly optimistic.

In other words, the stimulus is inadequate to address the problems it was meant to resolve. Now that Feldstein has made the gravity of the situation clearer, he goes on to predict that "A second fiscal stimulus package is therefore likely." More importantly, the next stimulus program:

… will need to be much better targeted at increasing demand in order to avoid adding more to the national debt than the rise in domestic spending. Similarly, the tax changes in such a stimulus package should provide incentives to increase spending by households and businesses.

Briefly put, Feldstein wants a stimulus program that stands a chance of working! This, oddly enough, is a radical idea when made by an American for the American economy!

Congress passes the Obama stimulus bill

The concluding votes took place on Friday and divided neatly according to party membership, according to the New York Times. Obama will likely sign the bill this coming Monday. The bill will cost $787B.

It need not be emphasized that this event is a major political victory for the President.

The stimulus bill passes the senate

Currently, Congressional leaders are meeting with the White House to finalize a compromise bill that can become law late this week, according to the New York Times report.

Why the Republican obstructionists oppose the stimulus

Besides the usual reasons, Robert Reich gives the following as an explanation for their opposition:

Republicans don't want their fingerprints on the stimulus bill or the next bank bailout because they plan to make the midterm election of 2010 a national referendum on Barack Obama's handling of the economy. They know that by then the economy will still appear sufficiently weak that they can dub the entire Obama effort a failure — even if the economy would have been far worse without it, even if the economy is beginning to turn around. They'll say "he wanted more government spending, and we said no, but we didn't have the votes. Elect us and we'll turn the economy around by cutting taxes and getting government out of the private sector."

The model Congressional Republicans wish to follow here: The 1994 midterm election campaign which brought about the so-called Contract with America Congress.

Briefly put, then, Reich is suggesting the Republican Party has chosen to put its future conquest of political power before acting today for the sake of resolving the economic crisis, a crisis, by the way, which Republican market fundamentalist thinking and practice brought about! How patriotic!

Obama uses fear to sell the stimulus bill

According to the New York Times report:

Warning that a failure to act "could turn a crisis into a catastrophe," Mr. Obama used his presidential platform — a prime-time news conference, the first of his presidency, in the grand setting of the White House East Room — to address head on the concerns about his approach, which has by and large failed to win the Republican support he sought.

"The plan is not perfect," Mr. Obama said in an eight-minute speech before taking reporters' questions. "No plan is. I can't tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis."

The Senate will have the final vote on the bill today.

Paul Krugman takes Senate obstructionists and the President to task

Krugman's critique focuses on the miserable fate of the Obama stimulus and those responsible for this possibility. A few highlights:

What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.

And:

All in all, the centrists' insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.

But how did this happen? I blame President Obama's belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.

After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy's dire straits and his own electoral mandate.

Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.

George Bush blundered, in part, because his administration was made up of fools who ruthlessly pursued their 'golden' policies and refused to heed wise counsel. Obama now blunders because he wishes the fools remaining in power would bring their kind of foolishness to his consensus! Who, I must ask, is more foolish: Obama and his people or the GOP dead-enders? I would say the greater fool is he who makes common cause with his enemies….

Senate set to vote on the stimulus bill

Enough senate Republicans joined with the Senate Democrats in support of the stimulus bill that a Senate vote on the bill may occur this weekend. Perhaps the aisle-crossers found the courage they needed to break with the Hooverite faction of their Party in the morning's Bureau of Labor Statistic employment report and President Obama's subsequent scolding of the obstructionists in the Senate.

The House passed the stimulus bill

Not a single Republican Congressman or woman voted for the bill, according to reports (see this, this, this and this), presumably because the Democrat's plan lacked, among other things, the deep and regressive tax cuts which excite the Republicans so much.

Yet that the Republican Party has adopted this strategy is nearly awe-inspiring because of its paranoia and utter craziness. For, in the midst of the most personally and collectively dangerous economic crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis that can be directly and easily blamed on policies that characterize Reaganomics and the orthodoxy that emerged from it, what else can one say about the Congressional Republicans when they stubbornly try to reimpose their Party's line on a staggering economy. Do they mean to pursue this goal? Yes, according to this Christian Science Monitor report:

"We're going to continue to try to encourage the majority here in the Congress to incorporate a number of our ideas," said Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky at a briefing on Tuesday.

Digby nicely depicts a few of the more annoying feature of this Republican posturing (a link to this article can be found here):

Can someone explain to me why I'm seeing Republican after Republican on television advising Americans on the right way to run the economy? Is there any reason why we should listen to them sanctimoniously lecturing us on "what's worked in the past" and telling us that the only way to cure the problems they themselves created are to do more of the same? They've always been known for chutzpah, but this takes the cake.

If a few Democrats could bother themselves to challenge their standing to make these assertions, that might be helpful. Or maybe one gasbag or spokesmodel could ask them why no matter whether the country is economically doing well or doing badly, their advice is always tax cuts. It would really be great if somebody, somewhere, could ask them why they think anyone should take them seriously on these issues considering the mess we are in today. I know that's a lot to ask during this time of reconciliation but honestly, it's infuriating to see them swarm the television and have to watch the media listen to their "analysis" and swallow it whole. If I didn't follow politics closely, I would think these people are the ones who won the election.

Surely, one might ask, the Democratic Party is now setting the Republicans straight about what the United States will do about its problems and the reasons they have for taking their actions? Well, no. The Democrats have refused to take the path of autonomous political action. Rather, the Party is instead seeking to generate a bipartisan decision on the economic question confronting the country. Compromise is their method. Yet, given America's current circumstances, I would say that the pursuit of this secondary goal is nearly as daft as the Republican adherence to their defunct political economics. It is foolish because the Republicans could not be expected to participate in the Democrat's consensus politics. Lacking a capacity to learn has long been a signature feature of modern Republicanism.

Nevertheless, the obstructionism of the Republican Party is edifying in one respect according to Glen Greenwald. From it we can learn that:

…Beltway "bipartisanship "means that Democrats adopt as many GOP beliefs as possible so what ultimately is done resembles Republican policies as much as possible (anyone doubting that should simply review these "bipartisan" votes of the last eight years).

Accordingly, then, Greenwald is

…glad that the stimulus package yesterday — which Democrats watered down and comprised on as much as possible to please Republicans — did not attract even a single Republican vote in the House: not one
[emphasis in the original].

I suspect Greenwald finds the Republican's obstinacy refreshing because their dogmatism negatively reflects the complete uselessness of a spinelessly conformist Democratic Party:

Republicans aren't interested in "bipartisanship" except to the extent that they can force Democrats to enact their policies even though they have only a small minority thanks to being so forcefully rejected by the citizenry. And why should they be interested in bipartisanship? Why should they vote for a stimulus package that they don't support and that is anathema to what their most ardent supporters believe?

If only the Democratic Party were so inspired….

But the Democrats — having committed to memory the 'hard lessons' of 1968, 1972 and 1980 — reject the rather sensible idea that "Partisanship [means] advocating…your own beliefs and discrediting the beliefs that you reject and believe are harmful," in Greenwald's words. They instinctively reject partisanship because they lack a distinct and enduring identity. They lack this identity because they are like the Republicans, a party that reflects the prerogatives of capital and defends America's empire.

Have the Democrats ever wondered why the Republicans mocked them for lacking ideas? They would know the reasons for this ill-treatment if they were honest. The abuse was and remains apt because the Democratic Party has been and remains the junior partner in the ruling consensus.

Will it be effective?

The New York Times wonders if Obama's stimulus will work as a remedy to the depression given the President-elect's clear desire to achieve duopoly-wide support for his program.

The looming question, however, is: Does Washington have the stomach and the resources to design and implement a feasible recovery program which gives pride of place to a reindustrialization strategy, developing eco-friendly forms of production, distribution and consumption as well as restructuring the economy in general.

Krugman crunches numbers, has another bad dream

Economist Paul Krugman began a recent New York Times article by expressing his suspicion about the Obama stimulus:

Bit by bit we're getting information on the Obama stimulus plan, enough to start making back-of-the-envelope estimates of impact. The bottom line is this: we're probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus.

He then did his arithmetic while relying on assumptions favorable to the Obama stimulus plan as it is known today. From the math and these assumptions Krugman inferred that the Obama plan will not significantly reduce unemployment. He then concluded with what may be considered his latest nightmare, although it is not that different than his last bad dream:

I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we're talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says "See, government spending doesn't work."

However, as Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism points out, Obama seems to be aware of the problem with his first stimulus program, his awareness being indicated as well as explained by his more recent claim that the United States will generate trillion dollar deficits for years to come (see this, this, this, this).

What this specific rejoinder misses is the President-elect's willingness to appease the Republicans, who ought to be reeling from the disasters created by their Party, their most recent Presidential regime and the McCain campaign last fall. Given the bellicose nature of the Republican Party and its base, along with its strident adherence to its creeds, Obama may never again have an opportunity to successfully if not efficiently push through a decisive economic program. He ought to take advantage of it when he can and he certainly should refuse to corrupt the program to mollify the competition.

Krugman’s nightmare

Paul Krugman's latest piece warns his readers that politically mucking around with stimulus legislation is dangerous. He concludes with:

It takes Congress months to pass a stimulus plan, and the legislation that actually emerges is too cautious. As a result, the economy plunges for most of 2009, and when the plan finally starts to kick in, it's only enough to slow the descent, not stop it. Meanwhile, deflation is setting in, while businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy — well, you can see where this is going.

Obama: More pain ahead

The President-elect's Meet the Press interview:

Some crisis links (12.6.2008)

Peter Morici's response to the recent BLS monthly unemployment report includes the assertion that the reported numbers were "…much worse than was expected and represents wholesale capitulation." From this he infers that "the threat of a widespread depression is now real and present" [emphasis added]. Morici concludes by advising the President-elect that:

It's either renaissance or decline. Fix the banks, trade with China and energy policy or become America's Nero.

Now forced to confront the economic crisis which propelled his move into the White House, the Chicago Tribune reports that the President-elect:

…pledged to launch the biggest public works program since the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s as part of his plan to create millions of new jobs and stem an economic tailspin that is growing worse by the day.

Video of Obama's talk can be found here and below:

Dennis Rahkonen addresses the pervasive denial which pervades America's political culture. He writes that:

Despite joblessness and foreclosures uncontrollably soaring, we still think capitalism has a future. The Big Three auto makers are about to go bust, states and municipalities across the country are broke, and leading retailers are shuttering their doors. Great Depression II looms. Still, we think there can be a "turnaround."

Rahkonen ends with a plea for socialism.

Some crisis links (11.9.2008)

Writing for the Washington Post (via Naked Capitalism), Joseph Stiglitz warns the President-elect to expect a long, deep and career-defining recession. "The first task facing President-elect Obama, after eight years of misguided economic policies, will be to begin the recovery — or at least forestall a further decline. It won't be easy," Stiglitz counsels. Stiglitz's reforms are radical given the ideological tenor and institutional decay of the past 40 years. Together they amount to a new economic model. This

…model will require changes in the ways and places where we live and work. There will be some losers (including the oil industry, which has done jarringly well in recent years), but there will be even more winners.

In so many ways, the United States has reached a low point. Picking ourselves up off the ground is itself no mean achievement. But I hope that our new president will do even more for us than that.

What is a crisis? It is a moment of dusk and dawn, of death and birth.

China, in response to its slowing growth rate, announced a $586B stimulus plan, according to the New York Times.

Congressional Democrats have also caught the spirit of reform. They want to divert a part of Paulson's gift to Wall Street by giving it to America's faltering auto industry (see this and this). Following the President-elect's lead, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants Congress to pass a stimulus package before January, according to the Journal.

Some political crisis links (10.16.2008)

The right stuff

Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com has just posted a political obituary of the Republican Party. In his analysis, the GOP's fate has become so deeply entwined with that of America's now faltering empire that it may barely survive the dénouement now in progress.

Glenn Greenwald recently addressed the same theme. He concluded his latest assessment of the right with the following:

Is there anything at all going well for the Right this year? The whole edifice appears to be crumbling faster than one can celebrate its demise. It's as though they're being simultaneously unmasked and punished for everything they've done over the last eight years. And they obviously realize that as they are now turning on each other with the same venomous accusations and demonization tactics that they've used to prop themselves up in power.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that the President they spent years creepily glorifying as a holy mix of Napoleon, Caesar and Ronald Reagan — the Ultimate Standard-Bearer of their movement — has become the most detested and failed President in modern American history. The undeniable reality…is that this is now a small and broken fringe whose worldview is not only anathema to, but in many cases repellent to, the mainstream, and the evidence for that is growing by the day.

Live by a personality cult; die by that personality cult…

Mike Whitney interviews Robert Polin about the economic crisis and the market fundamentalism which has governed the world economy since the Reagan-Thatcher era began.

How much of the present crisis can be blamed on ideology? Do you think that the ideas of Milton Friedman or the 30 year-long bias towards market fundamentalism contributed to the present troubles in the financial markets? Is this the end of the laissez-faire, free market "trickle down" era?

Robert Pollin: This is certainly a huge crisis for Friedmanite economics and neoliberalism more generally — which all along was the ideology that touted free markets and deregulation to privatize profits, but to come begging for government bailouts when the inevitable crises emerged. This is certainly not the first financial crisis under the neoliberal regime. There have been regular severe crises since the 1987 Wall Street crash. These crises were all quelled through Federal Reserve/Treasury bailout operations. Whether or not this crisis will mean the end of the neoliberal era will depend on political mobilization — specifically, how successful the left will be in building coalitions behind an agenda that combines egalitarianism with a stable financial system. I would say this: if the left is unable to defeat neoliberalism now, and build some version of social democracy or "leashed capitalism", then we will never do it.

Some economic crisis links (10.11.2008)

Bloomberg reports initial discord among the G-7 nations meeting in Washington this weekend (via Naked Capitalism). Italy had made its concerns public before the meeting.

The draft communiqué under consideration is ``too weak'' and fails to reflect the gravity of the financial turmoil, Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti told reporters in Washington before the talks began. ``We won't sign it.''

But, Tremonti softened his early position after the meeting, according to a New York Times report. The G-7 meeting thus produced an agreement, but one short on details. So the fear remains of the consequences issuing from an uncoordinated response to the crisis.

If other countries do not follow the same course as Britain [a bank recapitalization program]…, it could destabilize the financial system, because money may flow to Britain from countries without those same guarantees.

Doubt remained the predominant sensibility among the G-7 members, according to the Financial Times.

No G7 official was sure the plan would work, so deep is the global financial crisis. If it does not, the next steps would be one of two nuclear options: either to guarantee all liabilities of banks, effectively nationalizing the financial system, or for governments to seek to bypass financial institutions by lending direct to companies and households. Officials hope they will not have to contemplate these options.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Congress might consider passing a stimulus package after the election. President Bush will likely oppose such legislation, according to the Journal article.