So why is President Donald Trump taking Harley-Davidson—another U.S.-based global super-brand—to task?

A day after the company announced plans to serve the European market with motorcycles built in Europe, the president thundered: “A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country—never!” He accused the company of hoisting the “white flag” of surrender and predicted “If they move, watch, it will be the beginning of the end.”

Harley-Davidson, Inc., made its announcement after the European Union raised tariffs on U.S.-made motorcycles by 25 percent—in retaliation to the 25 percent tariff on European exports of steel to the U.S. imposed by the Trump administration. Noting that the higher EU tariff would add approximately $2,200 to the average cost of a motorcycle exported from the U.S. to Europe, the company said:

Increasing international production to alleviate the EU tariff burden is not the company’s preference, but it represents the only sustainable option. Europe is a critical market for Harley-Davidson. In 2017, nearly 40,000 riders bought new Harley-Davidson motorcycles in Europe, and revenue generated from the EU countries is second only to the U.S.

The president said that he had “chided” Harley-Davidson executives on an earlier occasion for moving production to India as a way around high motorcycle tariffs in that country. But is it reasonable to expect a profit-seeking enterprise to keep all production and employment in the U.S., regardless of the cost in lost sales, profit, and overall competitiveness?

Certainly, the Trump Organization has not followed such a policy. Under licensing or other arrangements, it has fancy hotels bearing the Trump name in four different cities in India (Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, and Kolkata). Apart from Chicago, however, the Trump Organization has no luxurious hotels anywhere in the great American heartland. Why not?

Presumably, it made more sense from a business perspective to build hotels for the super-rich in India—though other cities in the American Midwest would have welcomed the same investment.

The president faulted Harley-Davidson for not being more “patient”—suggesting that his deliberately provocative approach to trade negotiations would force other nations to bend to his will for fear of losing access to the rich U.S. marketplace. As he said a couple of months ago— “Trade wars are good, and easy to win.”

But as Joe Haslag, the chief economist for the Show-Me Institute, notes, the president is playing “a very dangerous game,” because “the size, scale, and scope of the products that we are now talking about in increasingly acrimonious trade negotiations are staggering—a potentially U.S.-GDP-changing event.”

A grand strategy? Maybe, but early results are not promising. Mid Continent Nail in Poplar Bluff says its orders have dropped in half as a result of having to raise prices to make up for the higher cost of importing steel from Mexico. It has laid off 60 workers and says it may have to dismiss all of its 440 remaining workers by Labor Day.

In 2017, the Trump administration withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership—an agreement that would have reduced tariffs in Asian markets on motorcycles made in the U.S. That seems to have prompted Harley-Davidson’s earlier decision to build a manufacturing plant in Thailand. It may also have been a factor in the company’s decision to close its Kansas City manufacturing facility by 2019.

What caused the world-famous company with the “HOG” stock exchange symbol to make those choices? Surely it was rising tariffs on manufactured goods—a problem that does not exist in the luxury hotel business.

The post Trump vs. Harley-and the World appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Unsung Genius of Inequality appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

1. Neither an airplane nor exported products are required to get “Aerotropolis” tax credits. Proponents continue to suggest otherwise. They are incorrect. What sort of an “international air cargo hub” could subsidize warehouses that neither produce nor house a product for export, nor would ship a product by air?
2. The Mayor of Saint Louis and other county executives are empowered to choose who does and doesn’t get tax credits. The legislation creates a system where elected representatives get to choose who wins and loses with the public’s money. The latest language included in this section of the legislation does not fix the problem.
3. American beef is banned by China. Supporters have repeatedly tried to convince cattlemen and their representatives that American beef is on China’s import menu. It is not.
4. The executive of the biggest beef exporter in the United States doesn’t think the China Hub will work for beef or pork. We found this out looking through the China Hub’s own documents. Which brings us to
5. Where’s the beef study we were all promised? And
6. Where’s the feasibility study? We found the preliminary report. How mainstream media outlets didn’t get their hands on it is anybody’s guess. More on this shortly.
7. The legislation’s “new building” requirement doesn’t actually require that a “new building” be built. Members of the building trades should know that just because the authors of the bill are promising lots of work, that doesn’t mean that the language of the bill actually requires it. And finally,
8. The China Hub’s own documents say that for Aerotropolis to be successful, it would require “volcanic demand.” One Chinese airline will create that demand? Seriously? See Point 6.

More soon. Stay tuned.

The post Aerotropolis: The End of the Beginning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In response to an e-mail from the National Center for Beef Excellence, Roel Andriessen — Tyson’s senior vice president of international sales — stated his views on a Saint Louis beef export hub bluntly: beef is not eligible for export to China, and air freighting beef and pork to the country was “unlikely” to be a successful business model. (emphasis mine)

From: Andriessen, Roel
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:21 PM
To: Ricketts, Rex E.
Subject: RE: National Center for Beef Excellence NCBE and China Hub Commission

At this moment, I see very little opportunity for the following reasons:

1. Currently, US Beef and Beef VM products have no access to the China market (BSE related). It is uncertain if and when US-China negotiations for Beef access will be concluded.
2. Currently, US Pork (muscle meat) is unable to compete with cheap Chinese pork. China has a domestic oversupply situation that is unlikely to disappear soon.
3. US Pork frozen VM items that are shipped to China typically are very cheap and the vessel versus air freight economics would not work.

Although we do not specialize in this type of business, opportunities for air freighting Beef (and to a lesser extent Pork) would have to come from niche business for the upscale Hotel and Restaurant sector that would take high end quality cuts, once market access for Beef has been established and / or US Pork cuts are economically priced.

Sorry not to have a more positive outlook for this project but this is the current state of the China market as we see it today for our business. Things can always change but, also based on experiences in other markets for US Beef and Pork, airfreight seems unlikely for this business

Regards, Roel

Original, as received from the China Hub, is below.

Why are key proponents of this legislation making beef one of the main arguments for Aerotropolis when not only is beef ineligible for export to China, but it turns out that the biggest player in the U.S. beef export business told the NCBE as much? That Mr. Andriessen panned the air freighted beef-to-China idea raises even more questions about the feasibility of the project, even if beef weren’t barred from export.

And as for the NCBE itself, I’m not sure what’s worse: that this “national beef center” would choose to release its “study” after the special session, or that the NCBE — closely connected to the University of Missouri — stood by for the last year without correcting the public record on this export-beef-to-China meme. The NCBE is directly subsidized by the Missouri Agriculture Small Business Development Authority for the China Hub project and is further associated with investigators at the University of Missouri. When were taxpayers going to get the straight story on beef?

For previous posts on the NCBE “mystery meat” study, see here and here.

The post In July 2010 E-mail to NCBE, Tyson Executive Saw “Very Little Opportunity” in Beef Export Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this video, Show-Me Institute policy analyst Patrick Ishmael explains how, despite the claims of Aerotropolis proponents, Missouri beef can not be exported to China because of current Department of Agriculture regulations.

Join the fight for liberty in our state. Become a Show-Me Institute supporter.

The post What’s Wrong with Aerotropolis: Grounded Beef appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In no place was this clearer than in Saint Louis during the 2011 legislative session. Under the guise of increasing international trade, Saint Louis developers and politicians pushed hard for creating $360 million in state tax credits. Unfortunately, those tax incentives had little to do with realizing the Aerotropolis dream.

Of the $360 million, $300 million would have gone toward subsidizing the construction of warehouses, while the remaining $60 million would have been devoted to encouraging international freight forwarders to send flights to Saint Louis.

Although one sixth of the total package would at least go toward bringing air traffic to Saint Louis, the remaining $300 million in warehouse subsidies was troublesome. Warehouse subsidy proponents excitedly discussed the 27 million square feet of new warehouse space that could be constructed with those millions, without mentioning that more than 18 million square feet in developed warehouse space near the airport was already vacant and available.

“If someone’s looking for space, we have space available,” said David Randolph, vice president of CBRE, an area real estate brokerage firm that managed the sale and lease of many of those vacant warehouses. Randolph said that the subsidies for new construction would be unfair to individuals who had already built warehouses in the area.

The Midwest China Hub Commission (MCHC), the same Missouri organization promoting the creation of an Aerotropolis in Saint Louis, noted in its internal review of the Missouri tax credit legislation that the state money slated for warehouse construction could end up funding activities unrelated to air transportation.

The MCHC worried that the Aerotropolis tax credit legislation defined “cargo activity” too broadly. From its analysis: “The definition … specifically includes facilities related to truck, rail and water transportation; this may be appropriate, but may incentivize facilities that have only a limited relationship to the Air Cargo facility …”

Furthermore, the MCHC noted that the areas most likely to be awarded the warehouse tax credits had already received nearly $100 million in development tax incentives, and had the ability to draw upon nearly $200 million more. Here at the Show-Me Institute, a nonpartisan research organization dedicated to studying Missouri state and local policy, we wondered why there was such a push for the $300 million in new tax credits, given the incredible amount of tax incentives already available to area developers. At some point, the state must stop subsidizing failure.

At no point had the Chinese government or Chinese cargo companies stated publicly that the hundreds of millions in subsidies were a crucial prerequisite to sending more flights to Saint Louis. In fact, the idea of increasing international trade at the Lambert–St. Louis International Airport had been in the works for years. Only at the last minute did a prominent developer’s attorney, who was also involved in the talks with China, propose the subsidies.

Increased trade is important for any economy, and the United States should not wall itself off from other countries. Air cargo is certainly one way to expand trade throughout the world. Unfortunately, though, the best ideas can be co-opted in order to push benefits for the politically powerful.

If Aerotropolis-style development is the right move for a city, private investment and development will blossom without handouts. The Aerotropolis idea should not be used as a back door to push through large-scale subsidies for the select few. Hopefully, other cities can avoid the political posturing and favor-trading that Saint Louis found itself mired in.

Audrey Spalding is a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Trade Promotes Growth, Except When Hijacked by Subsidy-Seeking Special Interests appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A set of subsidies for the construction of warehouses around the Lambert–St. Louis International Airport are now buried about halfway through this lengthy tax credit bill. If you’re an avid reader of Show-Me Daily, you already know that Christine Harbin and I have highlighted these subsidies extensively.

After all, it doesn’t seem to make much sense to award hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize warehouse construction in the hopes of attracting increased international trade — without a comprehensive study demonstrating that more warehouses could help the state economy.

I don’t want to rehash all that. Instead, I want to detail the changes made to the “Aerotropolis” legislation. To summarize: The bill is more about subsidizing construction near the Saint Louis airport than attracting international trade.

The Good: Reduced Costs

• The cost to taxpayers has been reduced by $120 million. The old legislation would have awarded $120 million in tax credits to reimburse warehouse owners for a majority of the interest costs on their debt. That has been completely stripped out of the new legislation.
• Special tax exemptions for companies operating within a warehouse have been removed. If the old version of the Aerotropolis legislation had passed, companies operating within the already subsidized warehouses would have been exempt from state income tax and corporation franchise tax. Those are no longer in the legislation. I took particular issue with those exemptions because there was no limit imposed. Who could know how much revenue the state would forgo? Don’t get me wrong, lower taxes are definitely a way to encourage economic growth, but the legislature needs to lower taxes for all Missourians, not just the favored few (in this case, companies operating out of subsidized warehouses near the Saint Louis airport).
• The legislation no longer has a provision that would allow employers to keep the state income taxes withheld from employee paychecks. Thank goodness. The proposed legislation didn’t limit this amount, and the fiscal note didn’t estimate how much revenue the state would lose as a result. Additionally, this particular provision within the Aerotropolis bill seemed to match up with state tax increment financing (TIF) that had already been awarded to the Lambert Eastern Perimeter Redevelopment Project in 2006, meaning that development in this area is already subsidized.
• The Aerotropolis legislation awards $300 million in tax credits to developers and owners of warehouses. Under the original legislation, owners could receive partial reimbursement for their closing costs, brokerage fees, attorney fees, and maintenance costs of a property before actually building a cargo warehouse. With the new legislation, those costs are not eligible for state reimbursement. Only the costs of construction and demolition are now eligible.

The Bad: Lower Standards

• Originally, for an owner of a warehouse to get tax credits, the warehouse had to have a certain level of international shipping activity. The new legislation drastically reduces how much international cargo activity that a warehouse owner must process in order to be eligible for state tax credits. According to this version of the bill, a warehouse could be eligible for state subsidy if as little as 10 percent of its operations consisted of sending cargo to international destinations. And remember, legislators used the prospect of increased international trade to justify handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money. Is this legislation really just an effort to have the state subsidize the poorly managed city airport, which is currently carrying about $900 million in debt?
• The new legislation exempts warehouse companies and employees from the Saint Louis earnings tax. The state tax exemptions were eliminated from the earlier draft, and the city tax exemption was added. Again, it’s true that lower taxes encourage more economic growth, but why award that exemption only to a politically favored few? And wasn’t the city saying only a month ago that losing earnings tax revenue would result in a loss of city services?

The Ugly: Subtle Admission That Increased International Trade Is Unlikely

• The new legislation would award even more in state tax credits for each international export flight. In some cases, the increase is as high as 25 percent. The cap on those air export tax credits is still $60 million. Why would legislators increase the payout per flight but keep the cap the same? The only reason I can think of is that they think there won’t be enough export flights to hit the tax credit cap. This all goes back to my concern that there isn’t a firm commitment in place from any international company that, if more warehouses are built, there will be more international cargo flights traveling to and from Missouri.
• The new legislation would award more in state tax credits for warehouse construction. Again, the cap on the warehouse tax credits stayed the same, at $300 million. But the percentage of warehouse construction costs that the state will reimburse has increased in the new legislation. Is this an admission that fewer warehouses will be built?

There you have it. Although revisions to this legislation lowered some costs, the new bill reduces requirements to get state subsidies, and lowers the amount of “new activity” needed to hit the $360 million tax credit cap. Based on the changes made to the “Aerotropolis” subsidies, I would suggest a new name. How about “Lambert Warehouse Tax Credits”?

The post Changes to the “Aerotropolis” Legislation: A Critical Review appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I spent some time looking for that study, or any discussion of its results. Finally, about to give up, I emailed the Midwest China Hub Commission to ask whether the study Jones had promised was available.

Here is the response I received:

The study you refer to is still underway but very close to completion. The St. Louis RCGA is spearheading the impact analysis with possible completion and release of findings to come at the end of next month or June. The findings of the analysis will be made public at that time.

So, despite statements from legislators and special interests that subsidizing freight traffic is a good idea for Missouri, no study has been published that backs up those statements.

Right now, state legislators, local politicians, and special interest groups are in a rush to award $480 million in state subsidies that they say would further the China Hub dream. But the legislative session ends in mid-May, so the promised study won’t be done in time for legislators to consider the results before awarding almost half a billion dollars in subsidies.

There’s a lot that I don’t understand about this tangle of subsidies, but this is perhaps the most mystifying. Legislators who say that they want to keep Missouri fiscally responsible are now pushing to award almost half a billion dollars without any formal attempt to weigh the costs and benefits of the proposal.

From Sen. Eric Schmitt:

This is new. This is new investment. This is new economic activity that we just don’t have. When you have zero flights a week and we want to move forward and actually create this kind of international trade hub, which is what it is, that’s activity that we don’t have now.

What evidence is there to substantiate Schmitt’s statements? Has any analysis been done demonstrating that the award of tax credits would result in increased freight traffic to Saint Louis?

From Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge, director of airports at Lambert-Saint Louis International Airport and Ed Monser, president of Emerson:

[The Aertropolis subsidy bill] has the support of organized labor because of the job impact it would bring to Missouri and support from rural legislators because of the opportunity to export Missouri beef and pork, as well as other agriculture products, to countries not currently buying these commodities.

But what evidence is there to prove that this project and related incentives would result in new jobs? What study has been done that demonstrates that China would import Missouri agricultural products if the state spent $420 million to subsidize the construction and operation of cargo warehouses?

If there were an award for unsubstantiated, overblown commentary, it would go to Rep. Caleb Jones, who told CBS:

It’s going to create demand for all of Missouri and our products and goods. Folks from my district are going to be able to load up cattle and drive it to St. louis and have it in China the next day.

What evidence is there showing that this project and package of incentives will “create demand for all of Missouri”? How do Jones’ constituents know that there’s a market for their cattle in China? Instead, isn’t there a chance the constituents of the 117th district will have to pay roughly $80 each, which is what this bill will cost every Missourian — and then receive no benefit?

The aerotropolis tax credit bill does not have to be passed this year. After all, there’s no firm commitment from China, the legislation contains hidden costs, and no study has been produced demonstrating that this proposal makes financial sense.

What’s the rush?

The post Where’s the Evidence That the China Hub Makes Financial Sense? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’ve been reading current and past news coverage carefully, though, and I can’t seem to find a firm commitment from China or from Chinese flight companies to increase freight traffic to the Saint Louis airport if these tax incentives are authorized.

More troubling, the “aerotropolis” legislation, the bill that details all of the various state subsidies relating to the “China Hub” dream, does not specify that the subsidies are void if there is no commitment from China. (And, actually, I can’t seem to find the word “China” used even once in the legislation itself.)

Yet that potential trade with China is the justification provided by China Hub proponents for the subsidy.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

“China was losing patience because we were not coming in with anything,” [Steve Stone, an attorney involved with the negotiations,] said.

Then Stone brought up the Aerotropolis package, which would create $60 million in tax breaks for shipping companies that export by air from Missouri, and $420 million in credits to build cargo warehouses and other facilities in certain spots, like the region’s now-closed auto plants or the NorthPark business park east of Lambert. It would lower the cost of flights, and help draw more companies to locate around a cargo hub, Stone said.

“The mood changed,” Stone said. “They see a way here for them to succeed.”

Am I missing something? When I wrote about the great deal of public subsidy slated for warehouse construction, Post-Dispatch reporter Tim Logan pointed out on Twitter that, in fact, there are no agreements, just negotiations.

The Post-Dispatch reports that, according to a letter supplied by that attorney:

[…] a top China Cargo executive sent a letter to Mayor Francis Slay. He called the proposal “truly wise and innovative,” according to a copy supplied by Stone. He also said that without Aerotropolis or something like it, “opening a new air route to St. Louis will be very difficult, or even inconceivable.”

That hardly sounds like a commitment. If Missouri is willing to create incentives for this project for a specific duration of time, why isn’t China willing to commit to sending a certain number of flights to Missouri for a specific duration of time?

And, if it is the case that Chinese representatives won’t agree to sending more planes to Missouri without the subsidy, why aren’t they saying so in a clear, verifiable way? Why is an attorney with a vested interest in the project speaking for the Chinese?

Here’s another equivocal statement from Lambert Airport Director Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge, as reported by Channel 4:

“I think if we really want to build an international cargo hub, if we don’t get this, we could see it not happen,” Hamm-Niebruegge said.

Could? Is there a commitment or not? Is China depending on this bundle of tax credits and incentives or not?

Readers of Show-Me Daily know that I prefer for government to state such claims in writing. Written documents provide some level of transparency and accountability, as opposed to unsubstantiated opining.

As the proposed legislation stands, it will likely cost more than $480 million — which is already close to half a billion dollars — and, as Christine Harbin pointed out, the benefits of the China Hub will be concentrated in the Saint Louis area.

If Missouri legislators are going to continue to push to give out a great deal of taxpayer money, the least they can do is get a real commitment from Chinese representatives, or write  safeguards into the aerotropolis legislation. Is that so much to ask in exchange for about $80 in taxpayer money for every Missourian? Or is it all too tenuous to put in writing?

It isn’t good public policy to subsidize warehouse construction and operation with no real likelihood of increased freight traffic.

The post Wait … Shouldn’t Missouri Have a Firm Commitment From China Before Awarding $480+ Million? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Later this month, Gov. Jay Nixon will travel to Taiwan and South Korea in order to lobby to them to buy Missouri agricultural exports. Previously, I discussed how this would lead to the subsidization of foreign consumers by Missouri taxpayers. From an article in the Kansas City Star:

On Wednesday, Nixon announced that a trade mission planned for Dec. 10-16 was expected to produce a letter of intent with Taiwanese businesses that will agree to buy Missouri corn, soybeans and other products during the next five years.

At a rate of about $120 million of exports a year, the new agreement would outpace the $69.1 million worth of exports Missouri sent to Taiwan in 2009.

The governor is traveling to Taiwan with the intention that it will influence their government’s public policy decisions. My fingers are crossed that the direction of this knowledge transfer will be in the reverse. Policymakers in Missouri can learn much from Taiwan.

Hopefully, this trip will serve as an opportunity to learn that Taiwan has developed rapidly and meets the needs of its citizens well because it enforces public policies that embrace the free market. If the state government in Missouri were to remove itself from arbitrarily picking winners and losers in the market, the economy would achieve a greater rate of growth. As I have commented before, centrally planned economies have not worked historically, and there is little reason to believe that they will work any differently in Missouri.

I encourage the governor to watch Free to Choose, a multipart PBS television series by Milton and Rose Friedman from the early 1980s that communicates how the economy benefits from free-market principles. Perhaps it would make for good viewing on the flight to Taiwan. (And he might be further interested to know that Arnold Schwarzenegger, a governor from another mother, provides a commentary to the updated 1990 version of the series.)

The first episode, in which Dr. Friedman visits Hong Kong, is particularly relevant to this trip to Taiwan. Friedman explains that Hong Kong has experienced success because it has established basic economic policies that are rooted in free market principles — principles that would benefit Missouri as well. From Friedman’s narrative:

This thriving, bustling, dynamic city, has been made possible by the free market — indeed the freest market in the world. The free market enables people to go into any industry that they want; to trade with whomever they want; to buy in the cheapest market around the world; to sell in the dearest around the world. But most important of all, if they fail, they bear the cost. If they succeed, they get the benefit and it’s that atmosphere of incentive that has induced them to work, to adjust, to save, to produce a miracle. This miracle hasn’t been achieved by government action — by someone sitting in one of those tall buildings and telling people what to do. It’s been achieved by allowing the market to work. Walk down any street in Hong Kong and you will see the impersonal forces of the market in operation.

By increasing American imports to countries like Taiwan, China, and India, the rising living standards in those regions will continue, and this will lead to the demand for more American goods. This change does not require the lead of the government, however. It happens spontaneously and incrementally in unrestricted markets. Missouri could achieve a higher annual rate of growth if it stopped subsidizing and protecting favored industries and instead let the free market work.

The post Policymakers in Missouri Have a Lot to Learn From Taiwan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Gov. Jay Nixon is travelling to Taiwan later this month, and a gaggle of subsidized special interests is tagging along. From a news release from the governor’s office:

Joining Gov. Nixon on the trade mission will be First Lady Georganne Nixon; David Kerr, director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development; Jon Hagler, director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture; and senior leaders from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Missouri Soybean Association; Missouri Corn Growers Association; Missouri Rice Council; Missouri Energy Development Association; Missouri Biotechnology Association; Boeing Corporation; Pfizer; Advantage Capital Partners; and other major industry associations and businesses.

All else being equal, increasing the exportation of subsidized Missouri goods will have the negative effect of forcing Missouri taxpayers to subsidize the consumption of their trading partners.

How does this work? Let’s say that the price of a particular good on a store shelf is $5. Let’s also say that that the production of that good received $2 in government subsidy. (The production of agricultural and technological products is subsidized at the federal, state, and local levels.) That means that the total price of the product to the domestic consumer is $7. When the foreign consumer purchases this same good, he pays the $5, but because he does not contribute tax monies to subsidize the production of the good, domestic taxpayers still pay the $2 in subsidy.

Missourians would be able to achieve higher overall levels of productivity and consumption if they focused on profitable non-subsidized economic activity and then engaged in voluntary trade with others. Eliminating agricultural subsidies would have positive consequences because taxpayers would be able to keep more of their earnings. This is because they would not be forced to continue to prop up agricultural industries so that they produce at a level that’s higher than optimal, nor would they be forced to subsidize the consumption of foreign consumers.

If public officials are serious about promoting economic growth in Missouri, they should avoid public policies that remove wealth from the regional economy.

The post Governor’s New Trade Policy Will Lead to Subsidization of Foreign Consumption appeared first on Show-Me Institute.