The Gold Report: Since we are at a conference called “When Money Dies,” please explain who killed money and how, after all these years of governments around the world trying everything from quantitative easing to bank bailouts, we are still in the midst of the weakest global economy in this generation’s history?

Rick Rule: The answer is in an old Pogo Cartoon that reads: “I have seen the enemy and he is us.” Collectively in the West, we have lived beyond our means for a substantial amount of time. We rely on a government that we have paid to steal from our neighbors. Money is how we deal with transfers. Dealing with transfers dishonestly by making more of the medium that isn’t backed by any value is the process by which money dies.

Louis James: The problem is that you are asking the guardian who has stolen the goods to recover them. Government has been in charge of money for hundreds of years. When it is debased, you have to ask: “Who was watching the hens in the hen house?” When you discover who the fox is, you don’t want to put him back in charge.

TGR: We are looking at quantitative easing 3 (QE3) in the U.S. Europe is considering the same thing. Even China is doing its version. Will money actually die or will it all inflate together?

Marin Katusa: I am going to take the contrarian view. With all this quantitative easing, there is actually asset deflation occurring right now if you look at the valuations from an equity standpoint. Trillions will be printed, but look at the deflation in the assets. He who has cash will be king because he can afford to buy these discounted stocks. If you do your homework and be sharp, you will make a fortune in the next three years.

TGR: But money is an asset; cash is an asset. If you are holding your wealth in money wouldn’t it all deflate?

MK: It’s all about purchasing power. Look at Canada’s largest oil company. It is just as good of a company as it was three months ago, but it has lost half its market cap, which means your dollar will buy more of a great company. It isn’t inflationary all across the board. It’s an asset deflationary market. That is a current example of equity asset deflation in the market right now.

TGR: So cash will deflate less rapidly than physical equities?

MK: Yes, right now.

RR: It is likely that the purchasing power of Western currencies will lose 5%–7% compounded for a long while, maybe until they go extinct. But in the interim, when you are experiencing incredible volatility, that is demonstrably better than losing 30% per anum in assets that are illiquid. Despite the fact that money is going to die, perversely you have to have lots of it to take advantage of the liquidity crisis.

LJ: You see, inflation figures are averages. Asset price destruction in a certain area doesn’t negate monetary inflation, nor its impact on other prices. Tremendous money creation is going on. This has economic consequences. The guy at the supermarket can see it even if his house is worth less. It is the worst of all possible models. Necessities cost more, but once trusted assets—the store of wealth in real estate and pensions—are depreciating. This has investment and economic consequences. The government is creating all this money and blowing it out the window. You have to figure out where to stand with a net.

TGR: How do you know what way the wind is blowing so you know where to place your net?

LJ: It’s all about stuff. Stuff people need is, in general, good when paper or theoretical money is bad. In certain asset classes, including real stuff, there will be price destruction. Real estate, for instance, still has a speculative side to it and has not yet bottomed. But fundamentally, real stuff that has value can’t just blow away. The world will go forward. People will need food and raw materials. Gold is another vehicle with intrinsic value. These things can’t be inflated out of existence. When prices on valuable stuff goes down ridiculously, that should be seen as a godsend. People will still need copper, steel and timber. Buy when that stuff is priced low and wait for it to go high, then sell.

TGR: Oil is priced in dollars. Is there a dollar price above which demand stops?

MK: Yes, that is why you have to put the price into perspective when considering an investment. Are you valuing a company at $60, $70 or $80/barrel (bbl.) oil? If a company isn’t making money at $60/bbl. oil, you don’t want to own that stock.

TGR: The market in the last six months has been volatile, but it seems to be like a roller coaster coming back to where it started. Is there a bigger trend moving daily prices?

RR: Dramatic volatility will lead to higher highs and lower lows. Despite the fact that it may look like a mean on a chart, people who experience it don’t experience a mean. They experience extraordinary discomfort. The fact that a $10 stock becomes a $7 stock in a few days causes people to speculate less frequently. It tames the animal spirits. The volatility will act as a depressant on the market.

That is why it is important to understand the causes of these fluctuations. QE is a polite way of saying counterfeiting. If you debase the denominator, the numerator doesn’t seem to matter much. You are actively debasing the currency by making it less rare. In the process, the government has declared a war on savers, reducing the utility they could get through traditional savings, forcing them to make more speculative investments.

The problem is even deeper than that, however. At the same time you have plentiful money, you have restrictive credit. People assume prices get set across the whole spectrum, but they get set on the margin and dramatically on the margin based on the psychology of the participants. It makes no sense. Look at the downdrafts in commodities. Nothing about the utility of copper caused it to fall. But interdraft lending dried up and when credit goes away, fabricators, traders and shippers can buy. Economic dislocations like this cause the market to be really volatile for substantial periods of time, which will unnerve many market participants.

I am actually fairly excited about it. I believe if it is going to happen anyway, find a way to enjoy it.

TGR: Marin, you are skilled at mathematics. Your models help assess equities. In a market driven by psychology and government policies, how relevant are your models and have you changed the factors you use to value companies?

MK: Since so many people are investing on emotion in the resource sector, you have to take your profits in a bull market and have lots of cash on hand to take advantage of deals in a bear market. In the program I created, there are literally thousands of variables you can analyze and interpret, but one of my favorite metrics for the junior exploration sector is the Casey Cash Box Indicator. One year ago, three companies were trading for less than cash on hand. Now I know of a little over 30. But, we are no where near the low of March 2009 when over one-third of all the companies on the TSX and TSX-V were trading less than cash. The Cash Box Indicator is what I use to give me a “feel” of the psychological sentiment in the market. When there are lots of companies trading under cash, people are fearful, and that is good if you’re looking for value.

For the junior exploration companies that do not have any tangible assets, the models I use for producing projects with cash flow are not as relevant.

TGR: Louis, you are out there visiting companies all over the world. In this market, how important is management?

LJ: It is and it isn’t. Having competent people to run the show is imperative. The alternative is non-competent people. Who wants that? Incompetence shows up quickly in performance. But just because a company has good people and a good project doesn’t mean it will do well; nature may not cooperate with exploration, or it could run out of money. When fear is in the driver’s seat, people are less willing to take chances, even on good people.

In the end, volatility is your best friend because you know that a market that’s down will go up again. When your favorite wine or something you value goes on sale, you don’t complain. You celebrate and buy two. We have that opportunity now. Wall Street hates volatility, Howe Street loves volatility—or it should, even on the downside, because that is a sign that it’s shopping season.

TGR: In the 1970s, we saw a bullish precious metals market, followed by a big upside. This time we had a big upside and now extreme volatility. Have we already experienced the extent of the bull side?

RR: You have to acknowledge the fact that despite volatility’s unpleasantness, it can be an opportunity. Gold and silver still have a long way to go although it may not be straight up. Even if it were to go to $2,500/ounce (oz.) eventually, it could test $1,000/oz. first. You have to have an understanding of history in order to understand what you might face. Keep cash on hand to take advantage of the volatility. Prepare yourself to have the courage to take advantage of the dips. A lot of people have been responsible investors and studied everything about the market except themselves. They haven’t prepared themselves. You need the cash and courage to use volatility.

Be careful, however. Don’t get your information from the market. The market is a mob. It is a facility to buy fractional ownership of businesses. But you have to get a sense of the value of the business to make good decisions. Take advantage of the idiocy of the other players. Other players only drive value of the stock in the short term. In the long term, the company fundamentals will determine the value of the business. What the three people in this room have become good at is buying companies that will be taken over by the industry at higher prices later. Playing foolishness is fun, but that is less important than the fundamentals associated with the valuations of the companies. The safest and most consistent money is made when you find discrepancies in the valuation of a company and the market valuation and play the arbitrage.

TGR: How can you value gold in a volatile market like this where the price of gold can vary between $1,000/oz. and $1,900/oz. Do those lows wipe out some companies?

LJ: The average cost of production for most companies is $600/oz. Even at $1,000/oz. gold, a 40% margin in any industry is considered pretty good. A lot of mining companies are making lots of money right now, which means they are fundamentally strong. In the face of that, when the market fluctuates, it’s a good thing; it brings opportunity. I have stocks in my portfolio that we have been able to take profits on when they were high and buy again when they were stupid cheap. We have been able to make doubles this way multiple times—on the same stock.

But not all gold stocks are production stories. How do you value an exploration play where there is no particular asset? That is difficult. You can use peers, or speculate about what the company might have in the ground if it is successful and try to estimate a value. Whatever path you choose, you should have some kind of metric, a sense of what is reasonable.

A great example of how volatility can create opportunity and profits is Extorre Gold Mines Ltd. (XG:TSX; XG:NYSE.A; E1R:Fkft), the spin out from Exeter Resource Corp. (XRC:TSX; XRA:NYSE.A; EXB:Fkft), operating mostly in Santa Cruz, Argentina. I have been there and looked at the main asset. I have no doubt the flagship Cerro Moro project is going to be a highly profitable mine, unless the government goes completely insane. Extorre had good exploration success there and has started getting very positive results from a second project. Based on this work, Extorre went from CAD$2 to CAD$14, so naturally we took profits along the way. I love Extorre, but at CAD$12, its market cap was greater than some profitable producers with cash flow and it was still just exploring. Now, with no bad news from the company, the market correction has the stock down to CAD$7. We know more about its assets now than we did when the shares were higher, but it’s selling cheaper, so it’s a better value now. We don’t know when things will go up and down, we just know they will. We know when they are cheap it is a good time to buy; when they are expensive, it’s a good time to take profits.

TGR: It seems like investors have to be more active now, going in and out of stocks. They can’t just buy and sit on them.

MK: You have to be careful in this volatile market. An investor needs to understand what type of investor he/she is. If you are a day trader, this is your type of market, because the volatility and big swings are present. I don’t believe relative valuation. I think it is important to distinguish between intrinsic valuation and relative valuation. But the answer to your question really depends on what type of investor you are and why you bought the specific stock. In my experience, my biggest gains have been buying big positions in companies where I believed in management and the projects, and bought more when the stock was down, and held the stock for more than a few years.

LJ: There is a distinction between resource investing and mainstream investing. Tried and true Graham-Dodd analysis was never applicable to our industry because the underlying commodities change too quickly, making even the biggest companies too fickle for that sort of securities analysis. However, I would posit that Wall Street is becoming more like Howe Street in a post-Lehman Brothers world. Everyone is taking more risk. There is no safe place anywhere in the world where you can buy a stock and forget about it.

RR: The two central tenets of Ben Graham’s book The Intelligent Investor deal with evaluating the margin of safety and management. You have to speculate in companies that have the financial wherewithal to weather the most immediate risks. In today’s volatile market, you are competing against manic-depressive traders who show up one day wanting to pay more than what you have is worth and the next day willing to sell for less than their assets are worth. In a devotion to net-nets, one of the best indicators of when you ought to be all-in is when it is full of people so disgusted in the market they are selling for less than they are worth. It’s a great time to be an investor.

TGR: If a lot of these companies are worthless, how does the average investor know which companies can go the distance?

LJ: You have to make your own decisions based on your risk tolerance. Your mileage will vary. Read the financial statements, talk to management. At some point you have to act, but you can and should wait until you are fully confident in your investment decision, so your confidence won’t be easily shaken by market volatility. It’s not like baseball; you can wait for the perfect ball, so don’t swing until you’re sure you’re buying low.

MK: Great tools are available. Watch the legends and insiders to see what they are buying and selling.

TGR: My last question is how does a new investor start in this industry?

RR: Go for a walk. Have a conversation with yourself. Do a personality audit. How hard are you willing to work and what is your risk tolerance? If you aren’t willing to work and don’t like volatility, try owning physical trusts, ETFs or seniors. If you have a longer-term perspective and stomach for volatility, you can take advantage of the opportunities in the junior space. But you need to have a plan.

MK: You can’t succeed unless you are passionate in whatever you do. If you don’t really like the sector, then you won’t go as deep as you need to have success and you won’t make the best decisions. Make sure you have a passion for mining. And have fun. Life is short.

You also have to be willing to make lonely trades. When everyone else says you are wrong, that is when investing becomes very interesting.

RR: Just because everyone else’s money dies, that doesn’t mean your money has to die. You are responsible for your future.

Founder and CEO of Global Resource Investments and President of Sprott Asset Management USA, Rick Rule began his career in the securities business in 1974 and has been principally involved in natural resource security investments ever since. He is a leading American retail broker and asset manager specializing in mining, energy, water utilities, forest products and agriculture. Rule’s company has built a sterling reputation for its specialist expertise in taking advantage of global opportunities in the resources industries. In 2011, Rule closed a landmark deal with Eric Sprott, Founder of Sprott Inc., another famous powerhouse in the arena. Sprott Inc. offers resource-oriented investors opportunities in segregated managed accounts, mutual funds, hedge funds and private partnerships. The collective organization offers unparalleled expertise and access to investment opportunities in all resource sectors. Sprott Inc. manages a portfolio of small-cap resource investments worth more than $8 billion and boasts a workforce of more than 130 professionals in Canada and the U.S.

Louis James is chief metals and mining investment strategist at Casey Research, where he is also the senior editor of Casey’s International Speculator, Casey Investment Alert and Conversations with Casey. When not in meetings with mining company executives in Vancouver, B.C., James regularly travels the world evaluating highly prospective geological targets and visiting explorers and producers getting to know their management teams. For more than 25 years, Casey Research, headed by investor and best-selling author Doug Casey, has been helping self-directed investors to earn returns through innovative investment research designed to take advantage of market dislocations.

Investment Analyst Marin Katusa is the senior editor of Casey’s Energy Report, Casey’s Energy Opportunities and Casey’s Energy Confidential. He left a successful teaching career to pursue what has proven an equally successful—and far more lucrative—career analyzing and investing in junior resource companies. With a stock pick record of 19 winners in a row—a 100% success rate last year—Katusa’s insightful research has made his subscribers a great deal of money. Using his advanced mathematical skills, he created a diagnostic resource market tool that analyzes and compares hundreds of investment variables. Through his own investments and his work with the Casey team, Katusa has established a network of relationships with many of the key players in the junior resource sector in Vancouver. In addition, he is a member of the Vancouver Angel Forum, where he and his colleagues evaluate early seed investment opportunities. Katusa also manages a portfolio of international real estate projects.

WHAT IS MONEY

The terms money, money substitutes, illusions and currency are often used interchangeably. Since they do not mean the same thing this misuse can be confusing. Even many of the leading experts in this subject have difficulty agreeing on definitions. The conflation of these terms causes great problems in understanding monetary science. Therefore, we will separate and distinguish each.

EXPERTS DO NOT AGREE

MONEY

Money must have intrinsic value by being a tangible asset. This is because when A gives B the pizza, the pizza has intrinsic value. For the transaction to be extinguished, A must receive from B an asset with intrinsic value. If B exchanges a 1oz. American Silver Eagle $1 coin for the pizza, then at the time of the transaction, a pizza and a silver coin would exchange hands. Value would be exchanged for value at the time of settlement, and the transaction would be extinguished.

MONEY SUBSTITUTE

A money substitute, on the other hand, is a negotiable instrument that promises the payment of money. An example would be a silver certificate that reads: ”This certifies that there have/has been deposited in the Treasury of the United States of America (number) silver dollar(s) payable to the bearer on demand.”

Chartalism, the State theory of money, asserts the government gives money or currency its value. This theory completely opposes basic economic law. In reality, the backing of government-issued money substitutes with bullion gives the currency value.

If A exchanged the pizza with B for a silver certificate, then the transaction would be settled but not extinguished until A passed on the silver certificate for value. While A holds the silver certificate, its value could change and it could become worthless. This happened on June 24, 1968 when the Treasury of the United States of America declared it would no longer honor redemption of silver certificates.

The use of a money substitute introduces risk to A in the transaction with B because A relinquishes value when he tenders the pizza to B but does not receive an asset with intrinsic value in exchange at settlement. Instead, A must use the instrument in another transaction to receive value.

ILLUSIONS

An illusion is a negotiable that promises nothing and has no intrinsic value. It is like a silver certificate that promises the bearer no silver. It has value only because individuals are willing to bear the payment risk and other risks of the illusion. The bearer usually tolerates the risks because their cost is lower than the value placed on the utility derived from the service the currency provides to the market participants.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, currency is primarily used to settle transactions. When money, such as gold, silver or platinum, is used to settle a transaction, then the transaction is extinguished. However, if either illusions or money substitutes are used, then the transaction is not extinguished and one or more parties to the contract are left to bear the risk of extinguishing the transaction. This risk often leads to errors in accurately assessing the value and utility from the underlying consideration in determining the price for the transaction. This is one of the largest risks with using fiat currency. As the illusions evaporate during The Great Credit Contraction, here is a free sample, it will be real tangible assets the remain and increase in purchasing power.

For those not familiar with Dmitry, he is the author of Reinventing Collapse, which is all about “prepar[ing] for life without much money, where imported goods are scarce, and where people have to provide for their own needs, and those of their immediate neighbours.”

In this article, Dmitry has a go at money and suggests barter can do the job but then suggest this is probably a better solution:

One option is to organise as communities to produce certain goods that the entire community wants: food, clothing, shelter, security and entertainment. Everyone makes their contribution, in exchange for the end product, which everyone gets to share. It is also possible to organise to produce goods that can be used in trade with other communities: trade goods. Trade goods are a much better way to store wealth than money, which is, let’s face it, an essentially useless substance.

I can’t say I share Dmitry’s belief in this socialist nirvana. The catch for me is “everyone makes their contribution” bit. Anyway, my main beef is with his belief that trade goods are a better way to store wealth and that money is essentially useless. Now I’m not going to discuss why money is better than barter (either between individuals or “communities” it doesn’t matter), as I think most people reading this get it. I’m more interested in why Dmitry would be so negative on money given its obvious efficiency it brings to exchange. The explanation is in this statement later in the article:

When we use money, we cede power to those who create money (by creating debt) and who destroy money (by cancelling debt). We also empower the ranks of people whose area of expertise is in the manipulation of arbitrary rules and arithmetic abstractions rather than in engaging directly with the physical world.

This has to be one of the best examples of the infiltration of the idea of fiat into society. This guy’s whole shtick is about radically challenging society yet he can’t conceive of money as anything but debt, so much so that he proposes returning to barter rather than retaining the benefits of money, but money which is directly engaged with the physical world – gold.

Another example of this misguided thinking is his statement that a lack of money “makes it more difficult to hoard wealth”. Professor Fekete has often debunked this demonisation of hoarding. Dmitry himself is confused on this matter – he thinks it is OK to hoard wealth in the form of trade goods, but not money.

I considered replying to Dmitry’s article on these matters, but thinking about how brainwashed (I can think of no better word) he is on money, I considered it a futile task. I could see a stereotypical negative perception of gold as some goldbug doom and gloom eccentricity. I see a need to condense Professor Fekete’s work into an easy (and quick) to understand case for sound money. Another one for the to-do list.

The idea that people may behave differently when they have money on their minds has a long history. Everyone has heard the biblical claim: “the love of money is the root of all evil”. What does this mean? This is not really an assertion that it is evil to collect coins, is it? It seems to me that the statement was not really about money at all but about the love of the worldly goods that money can buy.

The question of whether people behave differently when they have money on their minds also comes up in discussing when it is or is not appropriate to attempt to motivate other people using money. Tyler Cowen, for example, has used several parables to discuss this question, including the dirty dishes parable. Is paying one of your children a good way to ensure that the dishes are washed? Probably not. Children may feel less obligation to do their share of family chores if a voluntary exchange relationship is established in which the parent becomes an employer providing money in exchange for work, rather than a family leader “who is due some amount of obedience in his or her own right” (“Discover your Inner Economist”, p 14).

Is the payment of money intrinsic to this parable? I think that many economists would tend to say that the parable would apply in the same way if the child is paid in kind, e.g. in tickets to rock concerts, rather than in money. In the minds of many economists the issue would appear to be whether strict reciprocity is appropriate to the circumstances rather than about the method of payment that is used. Economists often say that money is a veil.

However, I am not sure that many parents would rule out all forms of bartering as being inappropriate as a means of motivating a child to do his or her share of family chores. It seems to me that bartering could be appropriate if it is about the things that parents do for their children that are beyond what might be generally considered to be the core responsibilities of a parent. For example, like many other parents, while my kids were in their teens I used a substantial part of my leisure time providing an unpaid taxi service to ferry them and their friends to and from various sporting and entertainment activities. Would it be inappropriate for a parent to suggest to a child that it would be unfair to expect provision of such services unless he or she does an appropriate share of family chores without having to be constantly reminded?

This raises the question of whether responses to provision of incentives have more to do with perceptions of the appropriateness of particular incentives than with concepts such as the strictness of reciprocity or the money value of the incentives provided. There is some evidence that actions that merely remind people of money can have a significant effect on behavior. For example, Kathleen Vohs, Nicole Meade and Miranda Goode report an experiment in which participants were primed by sitting at a desk facing posters showing various denominations of currency or posters showing either a seascape or a flower garden. The participants were then presented with a nine-item questionnaire in which each question asked them to choose between two leisure activities – an experience that only one person could enjoy and an experience that two or more people could enjoy together. Participants primed with the money poster tended to chose more individually focused experiences. The authors report similar results for eight other experiments (‘The psychological consequences of money’, Science, 318 (5802), 2006).

So what if responses to incentives are strongly influenced by perceptions of the form in which the incentive is provided and the language used when the offer is made? The most obvious implication is that a lot of care is required in selecting incentives that are perceived to be appropriate and in presenting them in an appropriate way to achieve the desired effect. There are quite different implications in relation to prevention of corruption. The ethics of accepting a bribe do not change merely because the incentive offered is more subtle than a bundle of notes in a brown paper bag.

Economists are anticipating that the federal budget deficit will be in the trillions of dollars this year. There are estimates that, with all federal efforts combined, the bailout and stimulus packages will be upwards of $7 trillion. I wonder if politicians who are so cavalier about using taxpayer money actually know how much a trillion dollars really is.

According to the Bureau of Engraving, a dollar bill is .0043 inches thick. That means that a stack of 100 new dollar bills would be .43 inches tall. A thousand is 4.3 inches. A million is a thousand thousands, so a million dollars is 4,300 inches. Converted to feet, that is about 358 feet high. A trillion is a million millions, so a trillion dollars would be a stack of money 358 million feet tall. If you convert that to miles, the dollar stack would stand 67,866 MILES high! It would wrap around the equator more than two times.

For another perspective, I saw an ad in the paper just this morning, offering bread for $1.99 per loaf. A loaf is 4 inches tall, so one dollar will buy a 2 inch tall loaf of bread. If, instead of using .0043 inches, the thickness of a dollar bill, we substitute 2 inches, the thickness of a loaf of bread that 1 dollar will buy, we get a much more dramatic view. A stack of bread that $1 trillion can buy would reach up more than 31 million miles. Given the price of $2 per loaf, that would be 500 billion loaves of bread.

Considering that there are roughly 300 million people in the United States, that is enough bread to give about1600 loaves to every man, woman and child in America. It is enough to give each of the 6.5 billion people in the world 77 loaves apiece. Our politicians certainly don’t buy loaves of bread with the money. So where does it go? Where does it come from?

The answer to the second question is that it comes from out of thin air. Modern money is the creation of the monetary authorities, in the case of America, the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve inflationary credit. Money is only as valuable as the goods it can be used to buy. Wealth and prosperity only come from production and never, under any circumstances, from money created by a central bank. When more money is made from nothing, with no increase in production, the primary effect is to increase prices. More dollars in the system changes the ratio of dollars to goods, and prices have to rise.

Prices should be decreasing significantly at this point in the downturn, lowering the cost of living for everyone, making everything easier to buy. They are, however, being propped up by your government. They are also establishing the next big wave of the cycle, and the choice in the near future will be runaway inflation or excruciatingly high interest rates.

Not too many years ago, the outrage was over politicians’ callousness when dealing in terms of billions. Billions lead to trillions, which lead to tens of trillions, then hundreds of trillions. Zimbabwe has put it in high gear with an inflation rate of over 1 million percent per year. Their government destroyed their monetary system and economy by making lots of money out of thin air.

We may never get to the point where we have a million percent inflation rate, but if we don’t start holding our elected officials accountable, they will destroy our economy, even more so than they have so far. From the ridiculous and irresponsible things that they keep doing, that destruction actually seems to be their goal.

The first question above, where does all the money go, is a very good one. It’s all a deep, dark secret. In spite of the rhetoric about transparency, you won’t really see where most of it goes. I’m sure that bailout millionaires will be grateful for your contribution to their investment fund.

A trillion dollars is an incredible sum of money. Incredible sums invite incredible abuse. Maybe something good will come of this whole mess. Just maybe, the people of this country will finally see through the scam that both Republicans and Democrats in congress have been perpetrating for decades. Maybe we will start to see some real change in the next few years when hundreds of crooked Washington politicians are kicked out.

Hey, anything’s possible when people use their heads, isn’t it?