Trust

[bilijou]

Time for a debate...
Trust is everything… tell me about it, I just got out of a painful phucking relationship… without trust, there’s nothing…

Trust is what links us to each other in a society. OK, it is quite obvious that what links you to your family and neighbors is trust. But when it comes to a total stranger, the only thing that keeps him or her from snatching your cellphone and killing you, is trust. For that matter, as Thomas Hobbes had put it, the only reason why you shouldn’t kill that total stranger before he or she kills you, is trust. Trust in other people is crucial for society. Without it, there would be complete chaos.

I’m flicking through channels and bump into something on human evolution. It was our ancestors like homoerectus’ ability to trust each other that was key to their survival. Not only because of they watched out for each other, but also because they exchanged information crucial for their survival, eg. how to make tools for hunting. They formed tribes, communities. It is hardwired in our brains to trust and exchange info. (which is why we are the only animals that can communicate with each other) for survival. First our parents then our fellow citizens then maybe our leaders…

Every society has some sort of trust. But some societies work well and some don’t. Some are rich, some are poor. This topic goes back for centuries.

In the 1830’s Alexander de Tocqueville went to America to understand how it is that democracy works so well in the U.S. He is shocked to see American’s tendency towards forming groups and associations. It was their ability to trust each other and organize themselves in non-hierarchical ways that was key to democracy in that country. They would trust a total stranger, because they were a “fellow American”. It wasn’t only Tocqueville, many of the major philosophers like J.S. Mill of the time would back this up. Trust in people is crucial for democracy.

It is no coincidence that the most democratic countries are the wealthiest. No, it is not because of stability. It was those where the people trusted each other which tended to form big companies and make the society wealthy. Just as the homoerectus did in Africa, businesses are all about exchange of information and ideas in markets of people, goods and services. Trust is in the middle of all this.

After a 20th century, where everything was tried in terms of economic and political policies to fix the problems in the Third World, we’re at zero. The free trade policies don’t work, protectionism didn’t work, communism didn’t work, democracy isn’t working… Latin America is still the same as it always was. Scholars, like Robert Putnam, are starting to look rather into how the institutions are functioning but rather deeper into how we interact with each other.

In a somewhat homogeneous demographically society of America of the 1830’s trust came easy and prosperity followed. The same is with the second wealthiest country Japan, where they pride themselves in demographic homogeneity. In a country with such racial diversity as the Dominican Republic, where there is infinite shades of skin color, the case is quite the opposite.

Our society simply doesn’t work. We’ve known this since its conception. While in other countries the people trust most those in their immediate community, Dominicans do the opposite. Anything that is Dominican isn’t as good as what is from outside our community. For those coming to the DR now, things have changed a bit with Dominicans in NY showing their pride, but it is still the same in the island. Dominicans would trust a total white foreigner before they would trust a fellow Dominican. Yes, if you’re Dominican you might be the exception, but for those foreigners who are shocked to find how “friendly” Dominicans are with them, think about it. It is in our culture, though more than 85% of us have African ancestry, it is something we hide “detras de la oreja” as we say. We call ourselves indios, or “blanco de la tierra”, to avoid calling ourselves blacks. Believe it or not, this does affect trust in society and in turn our economic/political situation…
…the current wave of violence, the poor economic performance, corruption, etc. are nothing new in the Dominican Republic, they’ve always been there…

For us Dominicans, the political scene is and always has been pure chaos. It is sad. But I would ask Dominicans not to look at the PLD or PRD, but look at how we see each other. Why do the polls show that 80% of us need a “mano dura”, an authoritarian government? Why do people ask for a Trujillo (or a Candelier) that will lay down the ironfist on the fellow Dominicans instead of a democratic government that would respect the people’s rights?
From 1844, it has been said up until the other day that “this is the only way to govern these kinds of nations”.

What is wrong with these kinds of nations? What does America and other First World countries have that we don't?

(If race will not be allowed in this discussion, close it now)

[bobandjudy]

HI Bilijou, thanks for a good post. My wife Judy and I worked in Haiti 18 years, and we often asked, why is Haiti so poor? Why is there something wrong, badly wrong with Haiti.

In 2001, I read CULTURE MATTERS, a collection of essays from Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington. That book became the cement helping me to see the connection between trust, morality, values, and economy. They pointed out that economy is directly related to values. The higher the morality, the higher the values of a people group, the better the economy. And the lower the values, the worse the economy.

To me their reasoning makes sense. Economies are based on trust. A society functions to the degree that members trust in each other. For example, the credit card company is trusting the user to pay his/her bill at the end of the month. Banks make loans, trusting the borrower to pay its monthly charge. Buying and selling is a function of trust. The buyer is trusting that the product he/she purchased will work. The seller is trusting that he/she will make enough sales in a given period of time to keep the bills paid and make a living. Trust encourages people to take risk necessary to invest in an area, in a neighborhood, in developing a skill so that they can live and prosper. Without trust, society does not function, economies cannot function.

Is there a high degree of trust in Haiti? Haitians shared this poignant proverb with me, “Neg pa gen konfyans nan neg.” “The Haitian does not trust his fellow Haitian.” (I'll add that Judy and I speak Creole).

So then why does this proverb exists? Values. Trust must be based on a consistent set of righteous values recognized by society as a whole.

If members of a society are honest with each other, trust can be built. When we lived on La Tortue Island, we befriended a boat captain. He was an excellent sailor, and had a good crew. Each time we needed to cross the channel to mainland Haiti, we sailed with him. And we discovered in working with him that he was trustworthy. His rates were fair. He kept a good schedule. He treated us well, and made sure we crossed safely.

Now what enabled us to work with the captain? Trust—we learned to trust him. And for our last eight years on La Tortue, after trying other boats, we used this captain exclusively.

But if a people group is given to dishonesty, their economies will not prosper. Of course, there are short-term exceptions for individuals who extort and get rich doing it, but for every one who succeeds, there are 5000-10000 or more who fail—and economic development is destroyed.

I’ve had a number of Haitians tell me that the reason Haiti is destitute, Haiti is poor, Haiti is hopeless because the majority lack moral values.

One time we went to a market to buy a head a cabbage. We asked the cute little girl running the vegetable stand, "How much does this head of cabbage cost?" Now the going rate was 10 gourds, but we asked anyway since we didn't know her. And she told us 10 gourds.

At that, an older lady came running to her, scolding her, saying, "You fool! You should have told them 25 gourds!"

We didn't buy the cabbage, and we never returned to that market.

And saddest of all, what kind of future do you think that little girl has?

After extensive research CULTURE MATTERS points out that economies from countries with ingraned values from a Judeo-Christian mindset normally perform the best and are the most prosperous, while those from animistic cultures such as Haiti (with voodoo) are the poorest.

Does anyone know of a country that is animistic yet has a good economy? Zaire? Rich in minerals, but very poor. These countries have destroyed their economies through animistic religion because in these kinds of religions, the line between good and evil is eliminated—it’s evil only and only if you get caught—and then if your bribe is large enough, they let you go anyway.

When one thinks of voodoo, one thinks of witchdoctors chanting spells around open fires in the dead of night. One thinks of the erotic dancing, climaxed by frenzied passionate seizures as an evil spirit possesses one of the dancers. One thinks of the incessant pounding of the drum, leading the rythmic chanting and dances. Extraordinary powers the witchdoctors seemingly possess spawn stories sending chills up one's spine, stories of curses, death, and zombies. When voodoo is mentioned, one thinks of Haiti. Voodoo is Haiti; Haiti is voodoo. And because voodoo is part and parcel of Haitian life and folklore, multiculturalism defends voodoo.

But did you ever think that the reason Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere is because of voodoo? The Wall Street Journal does, stating, "Creating stability in a culture long poisoned by voodoo and revenge is equally tricky. . . . It will be difficult to lift the ravaged Caribbean nation out of its chronic poverty (10/21/94)." And they have been right. And it is still in chronic poverty.

Voodoo erases the line between good and evil. One witchdoctor told the author of THE BEST NIGHTMARE ON EARTH, “Good and evil are one.” (page 6).

Yet one day Judy returned home from the market (not the one referred to earlier.) Since the market was a mile down the road, Judy walked to it. She had bought potatoes and was putting them in our basket at home when we heard a knock at the gate.

I went out and discovered that it was one of the cute little girls of our neighbor. And she had a potato in her hand. And she said, "This potato dropped out of Judy's sack and my mom saw it. Mom told me to return it to you." I looked over at our neighbor's and saw her mom. I waived, smiled, and thanked her.

And I later thought, "What kind of future will my neighbors have?" I dare say, that despite the difficulties they are encountering, my former neighbors' kids have a much brighter future because they are being taught values.

Thanks for reading this post, Bob

[NALs]

I need to mention a few things:

You mentioned: "After a 20th century, where everything was tried in terms of economic and political policies to fix the problems in the Third World, we’re at zero. The free trade policies don’t work, protectionism didn’t work, communism didn’t work, democracy isn’t working… Latin America is still the same as it always was. Scholars, like Robert Putnam, are starting to look rather into how the institutions are functioning but rather deeper into how we interact with each other."

1. Latin America is not the same as it always was.

2. The concept of the "Third World" is a concept that arose during the Cold War, afterwards the term has stuck but its meaning has shifted a little to be more in accordance with our modern global situation.

3. Free Trade policies are working, democracy is working... it's just that they are working in the way they were intended to work, not in the way they were sold to the world.

I will further expand a little into this. The majority of the countries in the so-called "Third World" gained their independence after World War 2. Countries like India gained their independence in the 1940s, many African countries gained their independence in the 1960s, etc. Of all the countries in the "Third World", the one's that are the oldest are almost all Latin American having gained their independence in the early to mid-1800s. There also were a few rare countries such as Siam (modern Thailand) and Ethiopia which were never fully conquered by the Europeans. Having said that, Siam and Ethiopia were not state in the european sense of the word.

Prior to post the World Wars period, most of what became known as the Third World was owned and controlled by a select group of European powers. Each European country controlled their colonies through various tactics, including divide and conquer. This lead to various forms of administering different colonies. For example, Great Britain treated its "white" colonies such as Australia or Canada in a very different, more "equal" and progressive fashion than they treated their colonies in the Caribbean such as Jamaica. Tiny Belgium controlled its massive Congo colony with a mere 40 Dutch administrators! Portugal controlled its colonies in Southern Africa (among them was modern Zambia which was controlled by hundreds of thousands of Portuguese settles and colonial administrators).

Now, the question is what was the purpose of having colonies? Well, if we look into the religious aspect, it was all about bringing the "truth" to the "savages". If we look at this politically, it was about the modern, rich, westerners fulfilling their moral duty to "lift" the backwards people of the world from their backwardness into modernity and western lifestyle. If we look at it economically, the purpose of a colony was to eliminate and/or alleviate the depressions that were inevitable in the typical capitalistic economic cycle.

Very interesting the economic reason (which was true in conjunction with the other reasons). A colony was needed in order for Western industries to have large markets for export, in order for local economic cycles can be tamed in severity, in order to increase employment and wealth at home. For that, colonies were needed because colonies had several things among them:

1. Raw materials
2. Potential surplus labor
3. Potential export markets for the finished goods from the West

The way in which a group of "savages" can be used for the economic benefit of Western countries was by first taking control of the land and resources of the savages. Then, convince the "savages" that the best lifestyle is the modern Western lifestyle, and finally use the savages to extract resources and become dependent on the imports from the mother country.

Let's now come into modern time period. What is the role of Third World countries? They very much act as former colonies. Most Third World countries conduct more trade and have more contact with their former colonial mother country that they do with their neighbors. They import more than they export with their mother country and most of their trade is conducted with the mother country. The exception is in Latin America where Spain was supplanted by the U.S. as the de facto "mother country" when it comes to trade and cultural influence and aspirations.

Surpluses in production of agricultural products in the first world (surpluses so large they would depress food prices worldwide if they were released into the market) are used as "aid" to Third World countries which find themselves devastated by famine, a natural catastrophe, etc. Such aid is used by first world governments to gain agency in getting such government to be friendly to their policies, among them the notion of free trade and democracy, etc.

I'm rushing through all of this because I want to make it clear that the problems of the Third World is not something that is based on mere trust. For certain, that is part of the story, but the Third World's problems are much more complexed. Most Third World countries outcomes are influenced, and in some cases, controlled not by their own governments, but by organizations and governments which are far away from their national borders. The global economic nodes such as New York, London, and Tokyo; the global political power houses such as Washington have more power over the entire Third World than does the Third World countries themselves.

Also, in many cases, some Third World countries were doomed the moment they gained their independence. For example, when Namibia became independent in the 1960s, over 95% of the Portuguese colonizers left Namibia and moved back to Portugal. That 95% of Portuguese were the one's with the education, the one's who knew how to run the new socio-economic structure they had created in Namibia. They were the intelligentsia, the colonial administrators. The moment they left (and most of them left within a period of 3 years) they left a social vaccum which was filled by local Namibians without education, without the know how of how to run what was essentially a foreign form of government or organization. No surprise, Namibia went to hell in a hand bag and so too did most former colonies.

Their former mother countries did not had the obligation to directly maintain their former colonies, because they were not official colonies anymore. What former colonial powers began to say was that these new independent states needed development help.

What was the way to accomplish such? This is where the IMF and World Bank came in.

I can further explain and analyse into great detail all the points I have presented here, but I hope my message has come through which is this:

Trust is a major fundamental part of success, BUT there is more to the story than meets the eye.

-NALs

[Tuan]

Jeeeeezzzz! Deep stuff here.
Bilijou, your analysis is stirling UNTIL you talk about skin color.
Stay with epistemology, ethics and politics (ethics at the group level).
There's more than enough grist for your mill in language and culture than you need to make the point and to discover remedies.
I love your references to Hobbes and Toqueville. Throw in Locke, Jefferson and Montaigne. Are there any to add from the Spanish world????
If not, maybe THAT's the problem -- epistemological, cultural imperatives -- all correctable with education of just one generation of young.
But skin? save it for erotica.

[bilijou]

Bobandjudy,

Thanks for your post.
As I read more about Third World countries I find more examples of how trust is at the heart of the issue. Most studies of trust have been centered around post-communist countries in Eastern and Central Europe which have been unable to make the transition to democracy where trust is in short supply. It is more interesting to look at old republics like Haiti where for centuries they have been war torn unable to consolidate the state. In the DR, we find our own “Neg pa gen konfyans nan neg” (“The Haitian does not trust his fellow Haitian”). Dominican scholars have written about this, in the past I’ve mentioned how Antonio Zaglul in the 70’s and even Pedro Francisco Bono a century before him writes about this. Unless Dominicans learn to value and trust each other, prosperity will always be far away. When it comes down to it, CULTURE MATTERS.

But the case isn’t always lack of trust. We’ve all seen the Italian Godfather mobster type on television, a culture usually originating in Southern Italy. In the 50’s, Edward Banfield wrote a book called “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society” describing the case of villages in Southern Italy. Members of these communities ONLY trusted those in their immediate nuclear family (expressing the same loyalty we find among the Corleone's or the Sopranos), the result is people acting opportunistically towards those outside their group (just how u see in the movies). These cultural norms and values have been blamed for the corruption and poor economic performance in the region. Trust (in this case, trusting too much in those in your immediate surroundings) is at the center of the issue.

Many things can affect how we see other people and trust each other. In Haiti its one thing, Southern Italy another, and DR another, but they all affect something us humans have in common, how we interact with each other in society. It is hard to believe that something as basic as this can affect something as “big picture” as economic performance or democratic viability of a nation. But it does...

Tuan,

Believe it or not, race does affect trust on the interpersonal and societal level.

En 1967 Pedro Andrés Pérez Cabral publicó La comunidad mulata, donde retoma la tesis de que los males del dominicano se deben a su composición étnica híbrida. Dentro de las manifestaciones sicopatológicas del mulato dominicano se destacan la blancofilia (necesidad o deseo de ser considerado blanco) y la negrofobia (la negación de lo negro lo lleva a crear expresiones como “color indio”, “indio oscuro”, “indio claro”, “negro lavado”, “color canela” para referirse a su color de piel). La insularidad también propicia la sensación de desamparo y atrapamiento del pueblo dominicano, cuya composición social determina “una actitud contemplativa, desnutrida, torpe, indiferente, servil y cobarde como acaso no la conozca otra región del mundo”.

The Dominican intelligentsia has been engulfed in a debate about identity for more than a century. In particular, the inadequacy of the Dominican mentality for a modern state. As a Dominican, I can say about the community I grew up in, that though race was never mentioned, it did affect how I was taught to see my fellow Dominican. Just as Tocqueville links how Americans saw each other to trust, the same applies for Dominicans.

Many Dominican historians agree that the Dominican mentality (culture) is behind its tendency towards authoritarianism.

NALs,

As usual, you went on a tangent talking about the usual colonialism BS and mentioning nothing about trust, values or culture.

[sollie]

Bob and bilijou,
Excellent thoughts. In trust lies the crux of successful interpersonal relationships --- group relationships --- societal relationships, cultural, political etc. The reasons given for why this doesn't work very well for the DR and Haiti are enlightening to me. Thanks. Great food for thought.
NALS, the US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, something de Tocqeville understood. There is an argument that americans trust their government too much. And as for the DR, mabey a benevolent dictator is what they need?
Sollie

[NALs]

Originally Posted by sollie

NALS, the US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, something de Tocqeville understood. There is an argument that americans trust their government too much. And as for the DR, mabey a benevolent dictator is what they need?
Sollie

The only "good" thing a benevolent dictator can bring is enforced modernization upon the country without the people having the ability to express their dissatisfaction via elections, etc.

Under a dictatorship, the country can be subjected to various aspects which would modernize every sector of the country, but the effects of modernization in general are not pleasant on the population. This is why democracy could perhaps be hindering progress in the DR, the moment undesired effects of modernization (ie. increase sharp disparities which also leads to increase in crime of opportunity, etc) the population will want such unpleasant aspects to be diminished as severely and quickly as possible. Under democracy, all they have to do is vote into power a political leader who promises to tackle those problems by undoing what the administration in power had been implenting.

This could lead towards the country's trayectory towards development to be a sort of zig zag, where jolts towards progress are followed by backward steps in attempt to alleviate the effects of increased prosperity and, consequently increased inequality/crime, etc.

Under a dictatorship, the population will not have a choice. Steps towards development are enforced, effects of progress are dealt in a repressive manner, and the population is forced into modernity. A perfect example of this would be Pinochet's Chile. Today, it's the wealthiest country in Latin America, but the Chileans have gone through hell and then some in order to gain the material wealth they possess and despite that, they still have quite a trayectory to follow.

So, I am not too sure if a dictatorship would be the best thing for the Dominican people. It will surely be the best thing, if and only if, the dictatorship is focused on bringing development to the DR. In the long term, the DR will economically benefit. However, how much are we willing to take for the desire of seeing, at the very least, the next generation live in greater comforts than the current one?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I am certain is that the only way the DR can increase its national wealth is by having its local companies expand. As they expand, they create more jobs, greater concentration of wealth flows into the country via those companies, etc.

In other for Dominican companies to expand beyond what the Dominican market would allow (and consequently increase the wealth of the country beyond what the current economy would allow) will have to be via increasing exports and expanding abroad. In order for this to be done effectively, the Dominican government needs to engage in creating its own trade agreements with various countries worldwide. Such agreements should be a secure guarantee that the Dominican economy and Dominican firms will be in a win-win situation, even if some modifications are made to make the other end of the agreement more acceptable to the other party.

This will entail the Dominican authorities going to other countries (whether in the Caribbean or elsewhere) and try to improve the image local business leaders and politicians in such countries have towards the DR. Encourage them to trade more with the DR, encourage them to allow Dominican firms to expand into their countries, etc.

Only through such way can the Dominican economy grow while concentrating wealth within the DR. As such increases in firms and wealth occurs, more jobs will be created in the DR. Also, if this becomes extensive enough, the DR's economy could shift from being an export-lead economy to an economy that may be the primary export partner of several countries.

I'm not saying anything I have not posted on this thread already. My basic message is this:

If we want to see the DR become a first world country, we must do what the first world countries did; not what they say they did in order to achieve their development.

All these other discussions about trust, race relations, etc are certainly a part towards having a stable and growing economy/country. However, nothing will happen towards achieving a better country unless we, as a people, begin to focus and do things which will bring us closer to that dream of a developed DR.

And, there is only one way towards development and that way has already been travelled by the countries that today are rich! It doesn't take much to realize that we have to do what they did if we want what they have.

And for that to occur, we need to move beyond discussions of trust, race, etc and more into discussions of what are we going to plan, how are we going to execute, and how are we going to acheive the goals and dreams we wish for our country.

-NALs

[dogstar]

[quote=bilijou;469568]Time for a debate...
Trust is everything… tell me about it, I just got out of a painful phucking relationship… without trust, there’s nothing…

MY DR girlfriend is forever calling me a liar, I keep telling her I am a man of my word. The first time I said that I had to explain what that meant, it was foriegn to her concept, NO TRUST. But she is learning what it means to trust.
There are still places in the US were calling someone a liar will result in fight, and business is done with a handshake and a man's word.
Me, I tust everyone, but I allways cut the cards.
I hope this ans is not too short.
j

[bilijou]

I'm not saying anything I have not posted on this thread already. My basic message is this:

If we want to see the DR become a first world country, we must do what the first world countries did; not what they say they did in order to achieve their development.

All these other discussions about trust, race relations, etc are certainly a part towards having a stable and growing economy/country. However, nothing will happen towards achieving a better country unless we, as a people, begin to focus and do things which will bring us closer to that dream of a developed DR.

And, there is only one way towards development and that way has already been travelled by the countries that today are rich! It doesn't take much to realize that we have to do what they did if we want what they have.

And for that to occur, we need to move beyond discussions of trust, race, etc and more into discussions of what are we going to plan, how are we going to execute, and how are we going to acheive the goals and dreams we wish for our country.

There are two sides to this trust issue, and you just mentioned the other one. There is an ongoing debate about this, where everybody is divided between Cultural theories and Institutional theories.

Cultural theories – as I’ve stated before, emphasizes that the road to democracy and economic development has to do with basic character traits learned at an early age. Trust has to do with cultural norms and affected by national history. Since it is tied to history, the solutions must be path dependent.
Links.

Institutional theories – emphasizes that humans are always rational. The road to democracy and economic development has to do with government political and economic performance, and such performance is determined by a rational choice of Institutional design. Trust in your government is a rational response from individuals to the government’s performance and nothing more. The solution, since it is based on a rational choice of government design, must be path independent.
Links on institutional theories and institutional theories applied to DR.

Neither side denies the other, but institutional theories claim that the rational corner of the human brain overrides the cultural one. Cultural theories claim that humans aren’t always rational welfare maximizing beings, ideology plays a bigger role.

If Dominicans are as rational, then this new institutional design Leonel is pulling out, the new constitution, will definitely bring about a “democratic revolution”. If you look at the polls though people wanting an authoritarian government (rather than a liberal democracy which is what First world countries have), and look at the violence in the streets, you would tell that there is more to democracy than just how the government functions, it has to do with the people.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by NALs

Also, in many cases, some Third World countries were doomed the moment they gained their independence. For example, when Namibia became independent in the 1960s, over 95% of the Portuguese colonizers left Namibia and moved back to Portugal. That 95% of Portuguese were the one's with the education, the one's who knew how to run the new socio-economic structure they had created in Namibia. They were the intelligentsia, the colonial administrators. The moment they left (and most of them left within a period of 3 years) they left a social vaccum which was filled by local Namibians without education, without the know how of how to run what was essentially a foreign form of government or organization. No surprise, Namibia went to hell in a hand bag and so too did most former colonies.

-NALs

Nals, your facts are so wrong ... Namibia was never a Portugese Colony. The closest Portugese to Namibia was the cafe owner on the corner somewhere. Namibia was de facto under German control until South Africa occupied it during World War I and administered it as a mandate until after World War II, when it annexed the territory. In 1988 South Africa ended its administration under a UN peace plan for the region. Namibia became fully independent in 1990 only.

If I look at your facts, and try to fit an African country to it, the closest I get is Mozambique who received independence from Portugal in 1975. After a bitter civil war, the first real election that meant anything was around 2004. So, the facts don't really fit either and I have no idea which African country you are talking about.

Now, that we have some facts straightened out, the DR is classified as a SIDS - A Small Island Developing State. Right close to us and in our area is Antigua and Barbuda. These islands are doing well and they are doing something right. I happened to be in the US embassy there, and the inhabitants of these islands easily receive US Visas ... because they return to their islands. They have work, business and a viable future right in their own islands.

Perhaps the DR should work on the trust thing, figure out what is possible for them as a SIDS and go from there. Development lessons from the wrong country in the wrong landmass are not going to help much.