you're not? >> not this moment. >> larry: bob woodward, he's a one of a kind. the latest is "obama's wars." simon and schuster. kathleen parker, eliot spitzer are here tomorrow. jenny mccarthy on friday.

but the larry summers vacancy is key and to see if the president is pointing in any direction or if there's a change-up if the way he's going it will be in that larry summers job. >> what will be the signal be? and mark preston is cnn's political editor. look at the polls. when you ask which party is more responsible for the economic problems, 41% say congressional republicans as opposed to 35% blaming congressional democrats. at the same time ask which party is more likely to improve the economy and 47% favor the republicans versus 41% choosing democrats. heading into the midterm it looks like they are counting on republicans to fix it.

>> these are voters who are looking back at the past eight years of the bush presidency and they realize that's when the economic slide really began to show and that's when they began to feel it. republicans have all done better on economic issues and tax cuts and democrats are considered the party of tax and spend and let's face it. right now democrats control congress. democrats control the white house. we still seem to be in this economic mess. looking for solutions, you know, they may blame republicans but they think republicans can get them out of the mess. >> jim ellis is the assistant editor for bloomberg magazine. president obama signed a bill to give small business $42 billion in aid. the president tweeted about this the first president to tweet. small business jobs act will cut taxes and make more loans available for small business. it's a great victory for america's entrepreneurs. the president has fences to mend with the business community. what did he buy for $42 million? >> he bought good will.

it's almost gospel that small business is the engine of job growth and jobs have been a big problem for the economy. the problem from an economists standpoint is that it is more complicated than that. the data is contradictory if you look at census data it says 75% of new jobs come from the smallest businesses. look at the bureau of labor statistics data and it says that 24% of jobs come from there. it's probably overblown but small business guys tend to be big in their communities and also vote and they tend to influence the votes of others. therefore people want to make them happy. >> i'll be honest, a lot tell me i need customers. i would love to write off a new piece of equipment but i won't if i don't have customers to go with it. that's the bottom line. >> that's the biggest thing they need right now is demand. if you look at the latest surveys it's always been taxes are too high and the number one problem for small business. it shifted two months ago to

demand is the problem. we can't get enough customers to come in. that probably is what the economy needs more than targeted tax cuts but tax cuts especially when the republicans want to make headway in both houses is what we're going get. >> certainly a $30 billion fund in there to give lending to community banks and the like to try to get money flowing again is something that can possibly help but certainly a lot of money. candy, come back in time about 30 years. economy was in big trouble. 1980 republican ronald reagan elected on a wave of optimism. unemployment rate 10.8%. the result of the following mid terms elections, democrats pick up 27 seats in the house losing one in the senate. fast forward to 2008, president obama says yes, we can fix the economy. two years later the unemployment rate jumped from 6.9% when obama was elected to 9.6% today. is there a parallel to reagan's first midterm and is it a fair one?

>> i don't know if there's a parallel but there are lessons in there that everyone might look at. first and foremost the whole notion that the president is in huge trouble and certainly right now in those snapshot polls that's absolutely correct as his approval number has dipped into the low 40s. but so did ronald reagan and bill clinton's at this point. they all got re-elected. this is not about the president and where he's going politically. this is about these midterm elections and i think the lesson you can take is what has happened in any number of midterm elections particularly when the president is not popular, they are going to lose seats. the question is, is this a huge loss or sustainable loss. >> i wonder if voters take it out in the voting booth this november if they are more patient coming into 2012. >> the question at that point certainly at the white house they are concerned about the midterm elections. we had congressional democrats

down there this week that had a private meeting with the president and they said we need you out on the campaign trail. president obama will play very well in some districts and in other districts he won't play well. where he did really well was in wisconsin just a few days ago where he held his campaign style rally. you can say what you want about president obama. does policies work or not work but he's good on the campaign trail. >> jim, do you see the president taking a new direction with his economic message maybe by announce hog will succeed larry summers? >> he's going have to sort of have people in the white house economic circle now who are going spend a lot more time worrying about the middle class. i think politically it hurt them to seem to have his eyes elsewhere. i also think that a lot of people in the business community are so worried about demand right now. demand is what will get the economy back on track. they want to find ways to get

middle class people spending again. middle class matters because there's a lot of them. we have seen debate lately about helping people with 250,000 or more in income. that's an important part of the economy simply because they have a lot of extra capital to pump into the markets. you need a lot of numbers to get general economic activity moving and for that you really want to concentrate on the middle. >> mark, you will take your leave. thank you so much for great commentary. thanks, guys. the rich are getting richer and poor and middle class slipping, are tax cuts for everybody a good idea? we have one of the key architect of the original bush tax cuts here and we'll ask whether tax cuts for all should be extended.

let's take a look now at the growing income gap in america. the top earning 20% take home over half the income generated in this country. that was in the year 2009, a year, don't forget, the recession officially ended. the bottom 20% take only just 3.4% of income generated. that is a widening gap. dean hubbard, dean of graduating school of business. author of seeds of destruction, why the path of economic ruin

runs through washington and how to reclaim american prosperity. and chairman on council of economic advisers for george w. bush, helped design bush tax cuts. thanks for joining us. there's major political debate about extending tax cuts for wealthy and average american. glen, looking at the income gap, does it take away some of the argument for extending tax cuts for the rich? >> there's two points about extension. we should extend the entire tax code until we're ready to have a serious conversation about the size of government. that's the second and bigger discussion. if in 2012 we decide we want a government as large as that in president obama's budget, we can't afford the current tax system. the bush tax cuts will all have to go. we need other tax increases. if we want a smaller government, that's a different story. that's the real question. how big do we want government to be, not the tax cuss. >> should we extend the tax cuts with an expiration date? should they all be extended?

>> i think we should extend them until we're ready to have that conversation. to me it's the 2012 presidential campaign. if the american people say we would like a government of 25% of gdp, we have to repeal all of the bush tax cuts and not just the ones for high income taxpayers. in fact, we need a whole new tax system, another discussion we should have. >> that's easy politically. we can do that, right? >> we have to. unfortunately it's not just economics, it's math. we can't keep saying we want a government five percentage points of gdp higher than our present tax system can even raise, one of those has to give. in the election, the american people need to speak. if we all collectively want a big government we need to start talking honestly about how to pay for it. >> talking about how to pay for it. we have to pay for the life we already led has to be paid for essentially. politics aside, this year, down the road, how do we deal with debt in a serious way without

raising taxes? >> i think the first step is pick long-term problems. as i argue in the book, seeds of destruction, the entitlement problems are the large fiscal problems. social security is the easiest one to make progress. i think we can say to ourselves, we have a big, unfunded liability there. the burden of that should not be borne by lower income americans but by higher income americans. the way is to slow down growth for higher americans. if we did that, we would give ourselves a lot of fiscal room to move in the short run and long run. there's a tendency in washington to say let's fix everything all at once. we can start with social security and make big progress. >> stick with us. i want to bring back in candy and jim. listen to president obama this week criticizing efforts to extend bush tax cuts for the wealthy. >> they want to borrow $700 billion to provide tax cuts for

the top 2% of americans, people making more than $250,000 a year. it would mean an average of $100,000 check to millionaires and billionaires. that $700 billion we adopt have. >> can they score political points by turning the extension of the tax cuts into a class warfare debate. >> class warfare comes up a lot in elections, particularly presidential elections. i've never seen it take hold as something completely powerful. a lot of people aspire to make $250,000 or over every year. they do not see it as punitive. the deficit question is probably a more powerful argument. the economists will tell you middle class tax cuts cost too much, too. it does seem to sort of -- the deficit, as i say, is an easier one.

it's hard for republicans to defend, politically at least -- your guest excepted -- purely on a political look at it, it is extremely difficult to support tax cuts for the rich while yelling about the deficit. that's where i think the democrats have made some inroads not on populist thing. >> glenn, in your book, you're clear you think the president is taking us down the wrong path, i want to read one section on page 5 that really caught my attention. we must change politics and economics and thereby rebuild and rebalance our economy or we'll go the way of all great nations and suffer an irreversible decline. you're talking about scary long-term stuff in a town that thinks in very short terms, two to four years, for example. >> that's right. it's important. it's not just about president obama. many of the fiscal mistakes were made by the republican party as well. it's not one or the other. it says as a nation we have to decide what to do.

the issue isn't about extending bush tax cuts. the issue is about what kind of tax system is best for our country. what can we do to bring down spending. the republican party needs to be more forthcoming where spending cuts can come from. i gave you an example with social security. it would be interesting to hear those. if we really want president obama's government we are at a destructive tipping point. >> $12 million in tax breaks for small business, part of the small business jobs we were telling you about, extending bush tax cuts for the wealthy, supposed to, in theory, inspire hiring. are business owners already getting their tax breaks? how do we pay for that. >> there are a lot of tax breaks in the bill. for the vast majority of businesses they are taken care of. if you look at the numbers, extending tax cuts for the wealthy, only about 3% of businesses looked at by the

congressional research bureau would actually be affected by that. a small business affected by that in a way, it's a tiny percentage. that tiny percentage are the most dynamic small businesses. that's the rub, small businesses that have the potential to become large businesses are the ones that will be affected there. they are not making decisions solely on tax policy. >> assistant editor of business week, thank you very much. candy, glenn hubbard, seeds of destruction, why the path to economic ruin runs through washington and how to reclaim american prosperity. thanks, everybody. if you could name your own price, would you pay as little as possible or what something is worth? the guys from freakonomics want to know. the results up next. f@@

along with economist steven levitt, stephen dubner authored in 2005, if you haven't read it, "freakonomics."

a best selling book that argues at the root of economics is the study of incentives and how to get people to do things that you want them to do by providing those incentives. the book has become a movie hitting the big screens now. i'm joined by stephen dubner from the "new york times" to talk a little about it. stephen, welcome. thanks for joining us. >> hi, ali, good to see you. >> when you look at the examples you got, is the conclusion that all of behavior is a series of incentives and in other words if you give someone a good reason to make one choice over another, you can predict how they'll behave? >> that is very true but let me include the big caveat. what behavioral economists and researchers try to do is run experiments, to figure how people will respond in a new situation. it's a new situation, you don't know yet. they try to take findings and extrapolate them and say, here is what's going to happen. if you introduce a new tax hike

or tax cut, here is the behavior we're going to see. here is the problem with that. lab experiments and research experiments on a small scale don't scale up very well. the reason why is people responded to incentives in ways usually often very, very hard to predict. the best and brightest people in government and policy, wherever they are, in education, can work as hard as they can with all the right intentions, come up with the right incentive scheme. you set it in the real world where there's an army of people looking out for their self-interest. they begin to game the system. i can tell you story after story of unintended consequences that government actions that sound great on paper backfire at least to some degree. >> that's the important thing about this book. the other thing, many of the incentives you write about in the book and we'll see in the movie are not about money. there are other forms of incentives. let me ask you one thing. in the previews, there was a pay for, pay what you want pricing scheme. anywhere from a penny to $100. in exchange you asked ticket

holders to answer several questions. i suppose you want to do what you do. keep on studying this. how did that work out as an economic study tool. did anybody pay $100 to see the previews. >> the findings are hilarious. we're in the midst of writing them up for reading. i'll share a couple. in the early pay as you wish survey. as you said, i looked at the data when there were about 5,000 respondents. of the 5,000, there were nine people who volunteered or offered to pay $100. the prices wen from one penny to $100. i'm saying who on earth wants to do that, in case my theory, a weak theory, maybe each of those people thought they would be the only person to show up in the data as the guy who paid $100 and would get notoriety for that. unfortunately they were just out $100. on the other hand, let me ask you a quiz. what percentage of all respondents do you think paid one penny, the lowest possible amount.

>> very little, i know that from free museums and panera bread. they tried this example. very few people pay the minimum asked. >> this is why policy is hard. those are great examples, the panera. that was different, the money was going to charity. it was an in person thing. this was an internet sawyer sraeu. 34% of all people paid one cent. >> i would have thought it was in the low single digits. >> i would, too. i'll tell you, this as an experiment to us, these data are very valuable. in terms of the box office money that came in, it was not. >> you make your point. stephen dubner co-author of freakonomics. the gulf oil spill is capped. one man says bp could trigger the next financial crisis. find out why wen we come back.

the well in the gulf of mexico may be capped but as the

cleanup continues bp could find itself in a whole new mess, one that our next guest says could trigger the next financial meltdown. mike taibbi, editor at rolling stone, wrote that millions have been bet on whether bp can pay back its debt. how does it work? how can it wreak havoc on the financial system? you make a scary analysis in the piece. >> just to point out at the top. this is an extreme long shot there would be an aig catastrophe. the problem with unregulated economy, you have a situation where a company can bet on other debt of other companies or mortgages or anything like that and if there's a credit event, a bankruptcy or restructuring, all of those bets kick in and you have to pay off. what happened with aig -- or i'm sorry, lehman brothers, when there is a bankruptcy, a lot of these derivative-based bets will fail, have money changing hands. it's complete chaos.

nobody knows who owes who. >> you use a good example people can understand about this unregulated derivatives market you talk about. you say it's like a foot locker. putting a pair of nikes in front of a three-way mirror and selling the reflection. >> if you don't have an asset to sell, you sell the bets on the asset. that's basically all credit default swaps are. two parties engaging in a deal to bet on whether a third party is going to pay off his bet. then you can take that bet and package it and sell it as an asset that pays income like a bond or mortgage. >> i will tell you treasury secretary of a powerful country told me the first thing treasury secretaries do when they wake up is check credit default swaps, how they are trading, and big companies, the same thing ceos do. it's more than a stock price but judges what the market thinks of the health of their company or country in some cases because debt is traded with those.

credit default swaps, it's been cheaper and cheaper to ensure the debt of bp this summer. it's really gotten back to really preleak levels. the health of the company has improved. >> close to pre-leak levels. before any of the scandal happened, bp was trading at 40 or 50 in its credit default swaps, which is equivalent to u.s. treasuries. >> that means you paid $40,000 to place a bet, $10 million in debt. >> exactly. bp like aig before the aig scandal, which is considered a rock solid safe bet. when you're buying on bp it was about as safe as you could get. after the oil spill it went through the roof. >> like $600,000 to ensure the debt. >> and a point when end day trading, the close of the high was about 600. there were points it went up to 800 or 900.

>> it's back down to 160. >> this is relatively low but still higher than it had been before. >> let's bring in bp. we wanted to get bp's response. it's a pretty compelling argument you make, this could -- long shot that it may be -- bp could have trouble on its hands or financial system. bp launched a bond over subscribed the company told us raising $3.5 billion in a day on credit default swap rating improved as a result. they are saying they need to raise money, in the debt markets everything is fine. let's bring in richard quest. one thing we know about bp, this company is a cash machine. yes, it has huge costs and uncertainty ahead of it. that's one thing to be clear. they are making money hand over fist. the prosperity, this is a vital

british interest as well, isn't it? >> hang on a second here. take off your nationalistic flag for a moment, christine. yes, it is of importance to the u.k. economy, major company, the largest on the market in the u.k. one of the largest. before you start throwing a rock across the atlantic, 50% of bp shareholders are in the united states. a vast portion of its revenue comes from the united states. the pension funds. they have invested in bp are in the united states. before we wonder too far down that road, we need to point out that bp has this international aura about it which is exactly why there was such fury and fume when people in the administration insisted on calling it british petroleum, which it hasn't been for many years. on this very interesting point of the bonds and cdss.

you're right, bp did get $3.5 billion in bonds away just this very week. but the insuring of cds or cds market was exactly that cds market was exactly what was behind the goldman sachs abacus debacle earlier this year. >> right. >> it's right. finally, that is why the european community is looking at legislation and regulation that would prevent you from insuring an asset that you don't have an interest in. the old line, of course, in insuring your neighbor's house and watching it set on fire. >> i'm wondering if financial reform we have, that's supposed to bring derivatives to light, will that bring to light more transparency. >> there was an attempt by one

of the senators and i'm sorry it's escaping me which one, to institute a ban on naked cds. >> this is a family program, gentlemen. >> it's exactly what he's talking about, when two people place a bet on debt that they have no personal relation to. it has no social purpose. it's purely gambling, just casino gambling. there's no reason it should be allowed but we do allow it. >> thank you so much, richard. i'm not throwing stones across the atlantic. i love you over there. please, please, we have this special relationship. thanks so much. for better or worse but with certain conditions, why more and more women say i do to prenups. that's next.

we are back with richard quest from london and comedian hal sparks joins us now from los angeles. welcome to the program, hal. >> thank you. >> let's get to it. the number of couples seeking prenuptial agreements is on the rise. an astounding 73% of divorce attorneys have seen an increase in the number of prenups, the study by matrimonial lawyers. not just wealthy men trying to protect themselves anymore. 52% have seen a rise in prenups initiated by women. is the recession to blame? a lack of trust? people getting smarter about the future of their money.

wow! women saying i do with an asterisk. >> the biggest ran is this is a national arc of women finally gaining in the economic world. if you look at acts that are signed and equality and pay being more of an issue, women have more to protect and rightly so. you've got guys like me out there that have no problem marrying up. clearly it's smart. >> richard, it's interesting. the group told me that frankly women are asking more and more for protection on their pensions, 401(k)s, assets down the road. people asking for protections in terms of health benefits, making sure they are covered in terms of divorce. they are thinking about long-term financial security. >> absolutely. for one very, very good reason. more women were swindled and diddled out of pension rights at the time of divorce than just about anything else.

what they want to do understand or for whatever reasons get out of the relationships. many people signed out long-term benefits that frankly, look, if i say to you, you might need this in 25 years' time, you say, i'll worry about that then. here in england, prenups, the courts haven't quite accepted them as being totally and utterly legally binding, which is why in many cases england is becoming a preferred area for divorce where people want to ratchet as much money as they possibly can. >> gentlemen, stick with me. we talked about prenups, there's one way to make sure you don't lose money in divorce, you don't get married in the first place. is money the real reason young people are choosing not to get married these days? we'll have that in a moment. first, this is my first chance to really think hal for this summer. while i was juggling three

little babies on maternity leave and you were on some fancy, exotic wonderful comedy tour exchanging e-mails in the dead of night because you wrote the forward to my new book. thank you. it was very well done and thank you for taking the time to do it. >> thank you. it was my distinct honor. as long as i've been coming on the show, i always -- no deference to ali or richard, i always hope you're on because i love hearing you talk and i love your angles on things. i appreciate it greatly. i hope the book sells well and you have a prenup. you don't need one. >> i love the idea of my with peanut butter in my hair finishing this book and you on the glamorous comedy circuit. it was quite the contrast in characters. >> there was some glamour. i was in england, richard's country, a couple times but i also in lexington, kentucky, and toledo, ohio. let's not get too excited.

>> in the book i spent time talking about important tips families need to take to be financially secure. i want to be clear, there's never been a more urgent time to teach your kids about money. who better to ask about raising money smart kids than two economists who also happen to be parents. take a look. >> i'm saving up for another bike to spray paint again. >> another bike. how much does it cost? >> asking mom and dad for money takes on a whole new meaning when mom and dad are renowned economists. meet the rodgers, bill and yana, ellie, billy and charlie. how do you guys teach your kids about money, when money and the economy is what you do for a living. >> for a long time we've been using a trick and that's children's literature. >> bill, a former labor department economist, she's a rutgers professor who runs a website that uss kids books to teach kids about economics.

>> an example of a book in my book shelf that might have a diversive message in it. >> berenstain bears, curious george, wherhe goes to a factory, all about production. click clack moo, cows that type. that's one bill likes, too. >> the cows, in case you forgot, go on strike. >> we're closed. no milk today. this the labor economist labor book here. >> the rogers allowance system is a little more elaborate than most. >> $3 a week, we get paid every wednesday. depending on chores i do, i get paid $8 an hour. >> for messier, $10 an hour. that's the economic principle of compensating differential. >> what's it like to be raised by two economists that know everything about money and policy. >> it can be frustrating like

when i want something for christmas but it will be a little too expensive. i have to go for the bargain brand or on sale. i've become a very good sale shopper. >> it's a family created by economics. they meet at the econ department at harvard and a family run by economics. like all families. >> the one thing we talk about with our kids is the budget constraint. that is the motion of there's only a fixed amount of money. you have to figure out how you're going to allocate that money across a more expensive baseball bat versus your cleats that you're going to buy.

the world's largest airline was created this week when continental and united airlines officially joined forces. you got a chance to speak to the new ceo about how the merger

would affect hubs and jobs in the u.s. >> yes, he's probably one of the most interesting, dedicated and thoroughly professional chief execs in the world. now he has the job of running continental and united, or the new united. i asked him, of course, particularly bearing in mind, bringing these two large airlines together in the united states, when you look at the nine hubs they have got and the tens of thousands of employees, where would there be growth and where might the ax fall. >> i don't think there will be an ax, richard. we have very complimentary networks. as a result there's very little overlap and very little affect on our frontline employees. what we're going to be doing is allocating aircraft across a much broader route network. we have 10 hubs worldwide. i expect to see growth certainly

from an international perspective, because we are global carrier, the world's leading global carrier, you'll see new destinations and increased frequency for business travelers. >> you are both on planes a lot. the flying experience in this country is not something that gets good press. richard, will the flying experience be better for this continental combined group?thup. he knows what he's doing. let's face it, continental one of the best airlines in the united states flying experience. united has brought in its flatbed internationally, so it's made huge inroads into improving its service, its culture. bringing the two -- the biggest danger here, christine, the biggest single danger is when you merge two airlines you bring the top down and you don't really bring the bottom up. what smisek admits, he knows he has to ensure, a rising tide

lifting all boats. that's going to be a challenge, because the history of doing it is not necessarily on his side. frankly, i'm not just saying this because i met him once or twice, if there is one man that can do it, who has got the reputation, it is jeff smisek. >> the one thing that doesn't help an airline is a shake-up of any sort. perhaps the united/continental merger will create an airline that's very superior at some of point in the future but it won't be any time in the near future. as a traveler myself, it makes me kind of want to avoid it for 6 to 10 months. >> how many baggage fees do you pay? >> a lot. it's ridiculous. it's better in the states because it's per bag. in england and u.k. they charge you by the pound which would be fair if they also weighed the

passengers because i would get my bags on for free but they don't am i not right, richard? i weigh 150 pounds fully clothed soak and wet. if they weighed me and my bags and pro wrestler in front of me from scotland and his carry-on outweigh me by 30 kilos. >> thank you so much. hal is going to stick around. for richer or poorer, why marriage is the latest casualty of the financial crisis. first, pizza making classes help one pizza restaurant survive in a tough economy. >> talk about a family business. this is an italian restaurant is a trendy neighborhood. >> i've seen about a 20% decrease in business.

>> he says the tough economy forced him to find creative ways to boost business and save his bottom line including hiring his entire family. >> i'm the chef and owner and my wife is the hostess and my son is my manager. my daughter now is in grad school and she also waitress. >> his son says the economy has changed customer's eating habit. >> they would order an entree each or bottle of wine for two and finish that off with a dessert but nowadays people tend to split main courses and perhaps get a glass of wine or two. >> so he attended school in venice to learn the pizza making trade now shares his expertise doing his part to bring in extra revenue with weekend pizza making classes. >> too much yeast the worst

thing that will happen is it will blow up. >> students learn the art of authentic italian pizza making and pick up tips on ingredients and technique. >> they learn how to make the pizza you find in italy from rome all of the way throughout the north. and i teach you the formula. you learn the formula. you learn the ingredients and purpose of each intpwraoed -- ingredient which most chefs don't know. in terms of my dream, i would like to continue in this business to keep the restaurant up and running. >> they're happy to teach the secrets of pizza making to boost business, not even a bad economy can convince this family to hand over all of their kitchen specialities. those will remain family secrets for a long time to come. kate bolduan, cnn, washington.

all right. we reported earlier in the show about the rise in prenups across the country. the number of young adults between 35 and 44 who never married surpassed the number of married people in this country. thoughts of a big white wedding are on the back burner. it makes sense.

is marriage a casualty of the recession? >> i'm sure that's a part of the factor. i think it's a long-term trend though. i think if you look -- i personally as a comedian have to take some responsibility for the world of comedy because if you look from the '80s forward especially and even going farther back, marriage gets a really bad rap in comedy all the time. marriage stock is down. that's why prenups are up. they are the credit default swaps on marriage. you are betting for failure and taking out insurance it is not going work. the bit of positive to it is that i'm going to venture to say that the number of people not getting married is actually going to positively affect the divorce statistics more than the marriage statistics. we automatically assume that people not getting married are people lost from the married category. i actually think they might be

lost from the divorce category. marriage is supposed to be special. not everybody can do it. the assumption you can has driven a big rise. when i get married, maybe you're not and healthiest thing for you is to assume you're not and look at the person across from you as a relationship and not as a potential donor of some sort. >> hal will have a bunch of marriage jokes for you and women earning more than men books when he performs at standup carolina in myrtle beach, south carolina. right? >> this is true. >> you are right. it has been the staple of the standup circuit and we love to see you out than. thank you so much, hal, for stopping by. >> buy smart is the new rich. >> see hal in myrtle beach and buy my book and we have now down our appropriate plugs. thanks. >> i'll keep tweeting about it like crazy. >> that wraps it up for us this week. stick with us. twitter all week long we are tweeting.