FISCAL FITNESS: Anticipation

The latest Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago. He is known primarily for his work regarding the concept of rational expectations. The essence of rational expectations could be summarized as "people aren't as dense as policy makers used to think they were."

Lucas showed statistically that the average person anticipates the impact of governmental economic policy. As individuals and businesses anticipate the probable effects of actions by policy makers, they adjust their behavior. As they do so, the effect the policy makers had hoped for is at least partially nullified.

One issue that was illuminated by the insights of Professor Lucas was the so-called Phillips Curve. The initial Phillips Curve data seemed to show a trade-off between unemployment and inflation. One implication was that we ought to tolerate some inflation since it would result in a reduced unemployment.

Lucas and other rational expectations theoreticians showed that the trade-off does not actually exist, especially not in the long-run. Their theory explained the results along these lines: any attempts to stimulate the economy by means of deliberately creating inflation would be transparent.

To illustrate how rational expectations interfere with policy makers' intentions, consider the following: Let's say a government wants to stimulate the economy and decides to do so by dropping money out of helicopters.

People having more money tends to stimulate spending and employment, at least until prices are bid up. Higher prices effectively neutralize the larger money supply. At best, the new money creates only a short-term stimulus.

According to the conclusions of rational expectations, however, there may not be even a short-term economic boost. If decision makers anticipate policy makers' actions, prices will go up at the first sound of helicopter engines. The impact of the increased money supply would be instantaneously nullified.

I remember being at a convention of economists about the time rational expectations was first becoming a hot issue. One of the discussants of a paper asked the paper's author, "Are you talking here about people or economists?" The author replied, "Well, I think one is a subset of the other."

The exchange illustrates a general criticism of rational expectations -- that it seems to imply that ordinary decision makers in the economy think like economists who are closely monitoring and predicting what's in store for the economy. Although rational expectations may seem to imply that, it actually doesn't.

The best test of a theory's validity is its ability to predict. Models taking rational expectations into account predict economic phenomena better than ones that don't.

It's probably true that most people don't think like economists. The evidence, however, indicates that players in the economy are not chumps. Ordinary people do learn from past experience and adjust their behavior accordingly.

From the standpoint of developments in economic theory, the University of Chicago is in a class by itself. Its economics department members have won Nobel Prizes in five of the past six years.

The department is known for its respect and admiration for the workings of the free market. The flip side of that attitude is a skepticism for government solutions to problems.

Lucas' work is definitely consistent with the general themes the department has pursued for 50 years. A major implication of rational expectations is that government policy makers have much less control than they used to believe. If their control instruments are unreliable and unpredictable, the case for intervention loses much of its appeal.

One key to the department's success is its ingenuity in applying basic economic theory to other disciplines. Merton Miller, for example, won the 1990 Nobel prize for his breakthroughs in what has come to be known as "financial economics."

The winner in 1991, Ronald Coase, has been instrumental in applying economic analysis to our legal system. He founded and edited the Journal of Law and Economics.

Lucas has developed theories that assume a higher level of sophistication and awareness on the part of decision makers than did earlier models. He treated people with more respect and was rewarded in at least two ways for doing so. His theory generated more accurate results, and he won the profession's highest honor, the Nobel Prize as well as the $1 million that goes with it.

____________________

◼ FISCAL FITNESS - North Coast Journal December 1995

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

FISCAL FITNESS: The value of information

It is nearly impossible these days to open a newspaper or magazine without running across the terms "information age," "information superhighway," or "information revolution."

What's so important about information, anyway?

With the single exception of time, information is by far the most important non-human resource in our economy. The primary reason we are so vastly wealthier than our ancestors is that we have access to more information than they did. Most other resources would not even be considered such if we did not have the knowledge about how to use them.

Information is the magic elixir. Petroleum is just a bothersome gooey substance without the knowledge of how to refine it and the ability to build machines.

Think back on your life, particularly about the decisions you made that you now regret. A major reason you made those errors in judgment was the lack of information. Probably the best thing you can say about making mistakes is that at least you gain information!

Information comes in a wide variety of forms. A map is an example. If you can refer to a map as you plan your trip, you will arrive at your desired destination in a more efficient manner. You economize on your use of other resources such as your time, fuel and wear and tear on your car. Information has the amazing ability to increase the efficiency of all other resources.

Time is perhaps the resource that is most enhanced by the information revolution. A consistent trend, particularly in regard to computers, is increased speed. Speed is essentially a measure of how intensively we use time.

In comparison to other resources, information has almost a magical quality. If I use the resources that are necessary for making a car, those resources are unavailable to anyone else. Information, however, is different.

Information is not exclusionary. You and I can both possess the same bit of knowledge. You can use it without interfering with my using it.

We have been accumulating information since the dawn of civilization. It is not a limited resource. It is virtually the opposite of limited -- it multiplies as we use it.

Generating new information is part of what the information revolution is about, but it's also about organizing and disseminating the information that already exists. There is what you might think of as informational logistics -- getting the information to the right places and people at the right time in the right form. The Internet with its World-Wide Web, fax machines and cellular phones are some of the main players in informational logistics.

One important indicator of the value of information in our lives and the economy is the fact that a person's income is roughly proportional to the amount of information he or she has accumulated.

Like other resources, information has a cost. Part of what the information revolution is about is reducing the cost of generating, processing and distributing information. Computers continue to drop in price. The portion of the population that can afford to own one keeps increasing.

The invention of the printing press was itself a kind of information revolution. The printing press dramatically reduced the cost of information and was a major step toward making knowledge available to the masses. The printing press was invented by one person, yet it changed the lives of virtually everyone.

Computer software is developed by relatively small groups of people yet it increases the productivity of millions of others. Even those not directly working with computers benefit in the form of reduced prices for the products they purchase.

Just a hundred years ago music could be experienced only through live performances. The development of compact disks and low-priced stereos have made quality music reproduction accessible to almost everyone. What a difference!

One of the exciting aspects of a revolution is that it is unpredictable. It's fun to speculate about what's going to happen next.

Information also has the ability to build on itself. It's like a ladder that keeps extending itself no matter how high we climb. When it comes to information, not even the sky is the limit.

____________________

◼ FISCAL FITNESS - North Coast Journal November 1995

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

FISCAL FITNESS: Social (in)Securities

VERY FEW PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES affect more people than Social Security. Almost every wage earner pays Social Security taxes, and most people expect to receive benefits some day or are already receiving them. Social Security is a different kind of pension plan, and that's a big part of the reason why its future is so much in doubt.

To appreciate the dilemma, it helps to compare Social Security with private pension plans or even the plan for state employees. Any pension plan is designed to provide a future flow of income for the participants. You can think of that aspect as the pension plan's liability.

Virtually every pension plan except Social Security has assets to correspond to its liabilities. Over time, a portion of an employee's compensation is set aside and invested, usually in stocks and bonds, and over time, those assets increase in value. A corollary of the funds being set aside is that it provides a pool of capital that fosters economic growth. The future retirees are effectively building the generator of their future flow of income.

Social Security, on the other hand, incorporates no such investment account, at least not in any meaningful sense. It is essentially a hand-to-mouth process. Revenue used to pay current retirees comes primarily from current taxpayers, not from a pool of investments.

When there are assets available to cover your retirement needs, the adequacy of your retirement income depends on how much has been invested, and on the performance of the investments. In the case of Social Security, however, there is no such pool of assets. Consequently, the level of your retirement income depends on the willingness and ability of future taxpayers to tax themselves. Demographics becomes a major concern in a system designed like Social Security. So far the system has benefited from the relatively small population of retirees in relation to those who are still working. That, however, will change drastically as the baby boomers reach retirement ages.

What kinds of solutions to this dilemma can we expect to see in the future? One partial solution is already in place, and that is an increase in the eligible retirement age. Those born after 1938 will not receive a full Social Security benefit at age 65. I was born in 1941 so I won't get full benefits until age 65 years and 8 months. If you were born after 1959 you will not be eligible for full benefits until you are 67.

Don't be surprised to see these ages pushed back even more. Increased life expectancy has been a major contributor to the costs of Social Security. When the system started in 1935, relatively few people lived past age 65. In fact, average longevity at the time was only about 60. Today it is over 75. (If you want there to be enough money for you, encourage your friends to smoke.)



The least painful solution for our Social Security bind is increased economic growth. Greater wealth and income in the future will make it easier for future taxpayers to afford the large population of retirees.

Unfortunately, the very structure of the Social Security system retards economic growth. Workers save less money when they expect Social Security will provide for their retirement. Reduced rates of saving decrease the amount of funds available for investment, which is a major ingredient of economic growth and progress. Furthermore, the Social Security payroll taxes reduce our ability to provide for our own retirement. Social Security taxes are now at 15 percent of a person's compensation. How would you like to have that 15 percent to invest for yourself?

The payroll taxes you see coming out of your paycheck are "only" 7.65 percent of your compensation. There is an additional 7.65 percent that is supposedly being paid by your employer. Basic economic analysis strongly indicates that the employee actually pays both parts of the tax. Splitting the tax arbitrarily into two halves is nothing more than a political shell game having nothing whatever to do with reality.

When Social Security commenced in 1935 the total tax was 2 percent of a worker's first $3,000 of compensation. The rate has multiplied over sevenfold and the base twentyfold. That's a dramatic example of how much the system has changed from its original conception.

We will see further tax increases or the system will have to reduce its unfunded promises. Eventually we will discover where the taxpayers' breaking point is.





In the meantime, you would be well advised to fund your own retirement plan.



A former professor of economics, Ron Ross is a financial planner with Premiere Financial Group, Eureka.

____________________

◼ FISCAL FITNESS: Social (in)Securities - NOrth Coast Journal September 1995

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

FISCAL FITNESS: Should the rich pay more?

Major tax reform is rapidly gaining momentum. According to Business Week magazine, "The campaign has struck such a populist chord that a massive restructuring of the tax laws seems inevitable."

The tax reform debate is bound to be heated and contentious. Deciding who should pay and how much taxes is one of the most basic of all public policy issues. It is also a topic fraught with dilemmas.

Should the wealthy pay more taxes than others? Most people would say yes, but how much more? And one question rarely even considered, Why should they pay more?

Another way of looking at the issue is to ask, "How much should each of us pay for government?" In a market economy, everyone is charged essentially the same price for the same item. Such a system is almost universally considered fair and generates relatively few ethical arguments.

The amount we pay for most goods and services is in proportion to how much we use. With most items it's a matter of quid pro quo, this for that. There's a close connection between benefits received and price paid.

When we cannot rely on simple exchange, we find ourselves in a bind. There are significant problems inherent in every other known alternative.

The way we pay for most government services isn't nearly as elegant as ordinary exchange. Even though most citizens receive roughly the same benefit from government activities, the amount of taxes paid varies widely from person to person. (Gasoline taxes are one exception, since we pay in proportion to how much we use the roads and highways.)

When paying for government services, different people are charged different prices. In contrast, when you ask about the price of a new car, the salesman doesn't ask, "What is your income?" The price of any given car is not adjusted according to the buyer's income.

If all prices were adjusted according to the buyer's income, income differences would be effectively cancelled out. Making more money wouldn't do you any good because the price you paid for everything would just go up proportionately.

One major gap in the tax burden debate is this: In seeking a meaningful answer to the question to who should pay how much tax, shouldn't we consider how a person acquired the money he has?

In our economy, most people acquire their incomes by producing goods and services. The act of earning the money results from your making a contribution to society. What you produce adds to society's well being.

Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corp., is reportedly worth $10 billion. He has, however, improved the efficiency of the economy several times more than $10 billion. His accomplishments are just the most dramatic example of what most of the other participants in the economy do day in and day out.

Of course, people do not become wealthy in isolation. Gates would not be a billionaire if he operated within an underdeveloped country. Is his paying higher taxes a way for him to pay back the economic environment that has been so good for him? Sounds good, but does it really make sense?

Usually discussions about the tax burden boil down to this: Mr. X should pay more taxes than Mr. Y because Mr. X has more money than Mr. Y. A difference, however, in and of itself, justifies nothing. To put it mildly, that's a morally lazy argument. There needs to be more to it than that.

When explaining why he robbed banks, the infamous Willie Sutton reportedly said, "That's where the money is." Much of the rationale for distributing the tax burden is not much more legitimate or sophisticated than Sutton's comment.

If we do decide that people with more money should pay more taxes, that still does not tell us how much more they should pay. It doesn't take a progressive tax (higher percentages for higher tax brackets) to get the rich to pay more than others. A proportional tax of 10 percent results in someone with 10 times the income as someone else to pay 10 times the taxes.

What's fair? Should a person with 10 times the income pay 20 times more taxes? Thirty times?

These are some to the questions we will need to answer as tax reform takes shape. Whether we move to a flat tax, a value-added tax or a national sales tax, we face tough issues concerning fairness, efficiency and incentives.

____________________

◼ FISCAL FITNESS: Should the rich pay more? - North Coast Journal July 1995

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

FISCAL FITNESS: Involuntary servitude

The one good thing about the O.J. trial is that it's exhibiting the sorry condition of our justice system. The element most obviously in need of reform is the jury system.

Our jury system is one of our few remaining remnants of involuntary servitude. Of all the people in a court room, the only ones who are there involuntarily are the accused and the jurors. (Subpoenaed witnesses are also involuntary participants but only for short durations of time.)

We treat the jury process much too casually. We pretend that justice can be served by randomly selecting who will serve on juries. We pretend that trials are simple enough that people with no training, experience or expertise can fill the bill. It makes no sense.

The least-appreciated feature of a market economy is the fact that it relies on voluntary exchange. The absence of force in such arrangements is important in itself, but voluntary exchange also accounts for much of the productivity we enjoy. People naturally do a much better job when they work voluntarily rather than by coercion. People gravitate toward the kinds of jobs they are best at.

Numerous problems invariably arise when you use coercion instead of voluntary exchange to get something done. Even if you have strong feelings about doing your civic duty, it's hard to be conscientious doing something you're forced to do.

A tradition of our legal system is that we will be judged by a jury of our peers. Is there anything inherently wrong with those peers being professionals? The constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury, but it specifies nonemof the details.

It's not hard to imagine a vastly superior jury system to what we have. There is no doubt a significant number of people who would like to be professional jurors. There could be juror training and certification programs. Jurors would learn from experience and have documentable listings of previous trials.

Court cases, especially civil suits, are frequently complex and technical. To expect untrained, inexperienced people to decide such cases is a travesty.

From an economic perspective, problems always arise when we underpay resources. At $5 a day, we are not paying the full cost for jurors. The predictable result is the wasteful use of jurors.

If jurors were paid an amount sufficient to get their voluntary participation, it's reasonable to assume we would see fewer trials dragging on ad nauseam.

The fundamental incentive we have to economize resources is having to pay to use those resources. What's the proper price? It's the price that results from voluntary exchange transactions; that is, through the interplay of supply and demand.

Imagine if buildings could be commandeered for use in trials. There would be little incentive to economize on space.

If we paid jurors enough so that no one would be forced to serve, the high cost of court cases would climb even more. Could we afford it?

Think of it this way: Do budget constraints justify involuntary servitude?

If so, why stop with jurors? Why not make the court clerk serve for $5 a day as well?

In trials such as the O.J. trial, jurors are sequestered for long periods of time. Like the accused, the jurors have been imprisoned against their will. We have a real problem when there is such a flagrant injustice within the justice system itself.

People who are unfortunate enough to end up on juries, particularly in lengthy trials, bear an arbitrary and disproportionate burden of our justice system. Is that fair? Is there no other alternative? Is it absolutely necessary?

There is no fundamental reason preventing us from switching to a voluntary jury system just as we converted to an all-volunteer Army. Before we ended the draft, defenders of the status quo argued that an all-volunteer Army could never work and gave countless reasons why.

None of those reasons turned out to have any merit. No one is forced to serve, and the quality and commitment of people in the armed forces is now as high as ever.

A justice system is one of the linchpins of a civilized society. A perfect justice system is not possible, but it's vitally important that we insist on high standards.

____________________

◼ FISCAL FITNESS: Involuntary servitude - North Coast Journal June 1995

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

FISCAL FITNESS: False remedies

In his State of the Union speech earlier this year, President Clinton proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5 an hour. (California has since proposed a $5.75 minimum wage). Since then the president and his secretary of labor, Robert Reich, have continued to press for the increase. Recently Richard Gephardt, House Democratic majority leader, said that we need to "make the minimum wage a living wage.»

Minimum-wage laws have been described as a monument to the power of shallow reasoning. Even so, the debate over the advisability of minimum-wage laws offers numerous lessons about, among other things, the often messy mix of politics and economics.

Here's a question to ponder: Why do most people earn much more than the minimum wage? The answer is that they are worth more than that amount. Their higher wages are not the result of legislation.

Workers produce value for their employers, or themselves if they are self-employed, in excess of $4 or $5 an hour. People who have skills, talents, experience or training are competed for by employers.

Some people, unfortunately, particularly new entrants into the labor force, are simply worth less than the minimum wage.

Our economy is based on voluntary exchange. Employers are not forced to hire certain numbers of workers. If someone produces less than the minimum wage, an employer would be irrational to hire such a person.

The problem is not that employers are paying workers less than they are worth. There is enough competition among employers to prevent that from being a major problem. If you don't believe that, you need to explain why most workers get much more than a minimum wage.

Minimum-wage laws reduce employment opportunities. They retard the best means most people have for increasing their productive value Ñ on-the-job training.

The fundamental problem is that some people have an insufficient value in the labor market. That is the problem we need to focus on if we want to give everyone a "living wage."

Minimum wage laws attack the symptom instead of its source. By reducing opportunities for on-the-job training, they actually worsen the problem.

Speaking of voluntary exchange, it's that aspect of minimum-wage laws that is perhaps the most obnoxious. If one adult wants to work for another adult for $3 an hour (or 3 cents for that matter), what right does anyone else have to interfere with that agreement? The same people who oppose laws against consensual sex between adults advocate restrictions against consensual economic relations between adults. Shouldn't civil rights include economic freedom?

The most powerful interest group supporting the minimum wage is organized labor. Since practically all union members earn more than a minimum wage, why is it an important issue for them?

Think of it this way: If you were General Motors, wouldn't you like to see a law forcing Ford to raise its prices? An important determinant in the demand for any product is the price of substitutes. If the price of Wheaties goes up, the demand for Cheerios will increase. Unions don't want employers to have the option of hiring lower priced workers.

Most goods in our economy can be produced with different combinations of resources Ñ labor, capital, energy. A given quantity of output can be produced with various combinations of these resources.

Which combination to use depends in part on the relative prices of labor and machinery, for example. If the price of labor goes up, the likely outcome will be the substitution of machinery for people. Machines don't require payroll taxes, health insurance or vacations. Again the result is fewer employment opportunities.

If reducing poverty could be reduced as easily as simply passing a law that increased minimum wages to $5, why stop there? Why not reduce poverty even more with a minimum of $10 or $20? A small dose of a bad idea is OK?

Minimum-wage laws illustrate the limits of legislative solutions to real world problems. Economists point out that many of the laws in existence are equivalent to a law prohibiting rain on Sundays.

It could be said that having a minimum wage law makes us feel better. Buying a better feeling at the cost of increased unemployment and prolonged denial of the sources of low wages is no bargain. Focusing on false remedies like minimum-wage laws only take our attention away from real remedies.

____________________

◼ FISCAL FITNESS: False remedies - North Coast Journal May 1995

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

FISCAL FITNESS: Down with the I.R.S.

Here's an easy question: What's the most hated institution in the country? The answer, of course, is the Internal Revenue Service - especially this time of the year. You probably think that the IRS is simply something we have to live with, that it's an unpleasant but necessary reality of modern living.

It could be, however, that ridding ourselves of the IRS is within the realm of feasibility. It is, in fact, a possibility that is being seriously examined not just among theoreticians but among persons in positions of authority as well.

The new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the traditional source of tax legislation, is Bill Archer. In a recent interview with Businessweek magazine, Archer said, "I want to tear the income tax out by its roots ... (and) eliminate the IRS from our lives."

Without taxing income, where would the federal government derive its revenue? The most realistic and likely alternative is a national sales tax or a "value-added tax." We could tax consumption rather than income.

Replacing the revenue now collected from federal individual and corporate income taxes would require a sales tax rate of approximately 14 percent (applied to all final purchases of goods and services).

Ceasing income taxation would greatly reduce the government's intrusiveness into our lives. The reduction in the record-keeping burden alone would make a dramatic difference. Just imagine not having to keep and sort out all those records and documents every year as you prepare your tax return. That, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.

A vital difference between an income and a sales tax is this: An income tax is on people (and businesses) and a sales tax is on transactions. By its nature, an income tax necessitates the detailed monitoring of the lives of people. Nothing does as much violence to our privacy as the collection of income taxes. We've gotten used to it, but we would be much happier without it.

Ending income taxation would do wonders for the economy. The annual corporate income tax return for the Chrysler Corp., for example, is three feet high. Chrysler employs 65 people full-time to prepare its taxes. The expenditure of resources in preparing such documents increases the costs of products. It's estimated that it costs the economy as much as 60 cents to collect a dollar's worth of income tax revenue. Using income as the tax base is horrendously inefficient.

The tediously complex tax code also causes immeasurable distortions in the economy. Many individual and business decisions are based not on true costs and benefits, but rather on the artificial prize of tax avoidance.

The complexity of the tax code is a problem in itself. We expend vast amounts of time and talent struggling to cope with its labyrinthine provisions. Fair and effective enforcement is far beyond the IRS' capabilities.

We've attempted numerous times to simplify the tax code and it only grows more complex. It's time we recognized that a simple income tax is an oxymoron.

The absence of income taxes would increase the net reward of earning income from employment and investments. A sales tax would discourage consumption, and, by definition, income not consumed is saved.

We would solve the problem of our anemic savings rate. Savings provide the basis for investment, and the more we invest the faster we grow. Increased economic growth is one of the greatest gifts we could leave our grandchildren.

One drawback of converting to a sales-tax based system is that sales taxes are, to some extent "regressive." In other words, the percent you pay decreases as your income increases. I'm convinced, however, that the lower prices resulting from economic efficiencies and greater economic growth would result in low income people being markedly better off, on balance, than they are currently.

What would happen to the millions of people employed in tax return preparation and all the supporting activities? The money not spent on tax preparation would be spent or invested in something. Jobs would arise.

Tax preparers are typically bright, creative and well educated. They will find employment producing goods and services. The fact that millions are employed in helping the IRS collect revenue is another indication of its burden on the economy.

Individuals and businesses are draftees in the IRS revenue collection army. Ending the draft would generate more benefits than we could possibly imagine. You're going to hear a lot more about this proposal as more people realize that the IRS is something we can live without. -end-

A former professor of economics, Ron Ross is a financial planner with Premier Financial Group, Eureka.

____________________

◼ FISCAL FITNESS: Down with the I.R.S. - North Coast Journal April 1995

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.