I have enjoyed the recent forays into moral philosophy. I wonder if this post grapples enough with our moral intuitions about the people with whom we are in relationship.
Suppose my brother has lost his job and is struggling to make ends meet (but is not starving or homeless). The aggregate global welfare gains from any money I give him are dwarfed by the gains from giving the money to GiveWell (even accounting for the second-order effects on societal organization).
Lots of people share the intuition that it would be wrong to donate to GiveWell and neglect my brother in this case. Would you "bite the bullet" and say this intuition is just selfish bias?
In this post, I'm not trying to offer advice on what to do in specific cases, rather I'm trying to provide a framework for thinking about the problem. The ultimate goal should be a better world, more aggregate welfare. But the family unit has great utility, and to some extent it makes sense to favor family members over more deserving strangers due to the benefit of greater family cohesion, even if global welfare is the ultimate goal. So it's a question of degree. How much should we favor family members over others? Unfortunately, I don't have a one-size-fits-all answer.
So then why write the post? I guess I was responding to a debate I'd recently seen on the internet (which even included the VP.) I wasn't trying to resolve the debate, just put it in a form where it was easier to see the argument for both sides. Some of the arguments seemed too simplistic, based too much on slogans. I think I end up pretty close to where Scott Alexander is, albeit taking a slightly different route.
My only point is that family relationships (and the implicit favoritism they entail) appear to have *intrinsic* utility to me, while you appeared to say that favoring your family members only has *instrumental* utility in the service of accounting for our biases.
This is an interesting post Scott. In fact, it mirrors much of the commentary on Matt 10:37 (and related passages like in Luke 14:26, which is actually the more jarring version of this message) by the church fathers. We see this in Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory… but Aquinas (as usual), I think systematizes it best.
A Christian is called to order love with the highest good (I.e. God) at the top. That is, if a conflict arises between the call (or will perhaps) of God and the will of our earthly relatives, we must choose Gods will as it’s higher in the hierarchy.
The love of family flows through the love of God. The family and closer groups are where we learn to be considerate and generous and sacrificial. These things we were given by God to care for, so our priority is on those who are closest to us… My role as a father is to care and sacrifice, first for my family, as it’s been entrusted to me. Then to the local group, then to the rest… but we must resist making this an idol.
We love our family and closer groups through Christ… that is we love them because we were made to love them and have been given them as a gift to care for in order that they become care givers and workers in the vineyard themselves. However, if push comes to shove, we must remember that the higher allegiance is to that of God. If there a conflict between the will of our father or mother or nation and the will of God (say fighting for an evil empire), we must choose God, pick up our cross and accept the consequences. We must not be cowards (though I too question how I would respond if actually in that spot).
It’s like as a father, if there is a bullet to be taken for the family… that bullet is taken by the father… as that is the hierarchy of how things flow.
I write this because what you have written is entirely consistent with a Christian framework and those Christians out there on the right might need to be reminded to consider who it is that their highest allegiance is to be oriented towards.
> local favoritism is useful for promoting the solidarity required to maintain cohesive social units.
Another reason might be that being familiar with the people you're being altruistic towards often greatly helps effectiveness. Distance creates more opportunity for telephone games, poor feedback, space for corruption, moral hazards, unintended consequences etc. that can undo the benefits.
Scott, knowing that you too tend to be partial to Rorty, I was wondering what your take is( if any) on his prescriptions for advancing moral good, and in particular, using patriotism as an instrument to promote values he thought ought be treated as universal.
(And I do note your comment that this post is about public policy. I’m consciously broadening the topic)
You describe Europe as not patriotic. I feel like you could include places like Australia and Canada using the criteria I suspect you’re using.
But it’s possible that these places are just as patriotic as everywhere else. Just their national pride comes less from their militaristic achievements and sense of strength, and more from their humane achievements like their welfare states, their broad understanding and tolerance for who can be a citizen, their parliamentary processes, commitment to rule of law, indeed their ability to provide foreign aid, etc.
Rather than nations withering away, they could be conceived as local units needed for cohesion, and important to advancing universal values - especially insofar as they provide examples for other people and nations. (And these values don’t have to be modern European values. As an historian and an American, you’ll be acutely aware how the USA used to be a role model for the rest of world - and maybe still is - for everywhere else by providing a real world example of the benefits of liberal values)
Nations, like families, can be the source of terrible and bloody feuds. They can also, like families, can be sources of cohesion and moral progress. The difference is just in scale.
Very good comment. There's nothing there that I disagree with.. Despite the impression I might have given here, I've always favored patriotism but opposed nationalism.
Nationalism is sort of like patriotism distorted by bigotry, dishonesty, selfishness and militarism.
I suspect that most favoritism for those close to you far exceeds what can be justified for solely instrumental reasons around group cohesion, incentives, etc.
Economics is all about subjective preferences. Surely there's some economic analysis where we all start with different values about question 1, and can use the information from questions 2 and 3 to bring society into harmony regardless.
>Europe is where Fukuyama’s “end of history” has come true.
Europe isn't real, it's a projection of US power. Referring to Europe is like arguing that Disneyland has solved war, because there has never been war there. The second the empire isn't there to do real politics for them, you'll find that history never went away.
There were wars in Southern California too, but back then it wasn't Disneyland yet. There are also parts of Europe not occupied by the US, where history continues its normal course.
I don't intend to troll at all. I really do see much of Western Europe as effectively not sovereign. My disagreement with you (if we even do disagree, I'm not sure how independent you think European countries generally are) is, I assure you, not caused by some secret nefarious intent. I actually just think a different thing.
True, only a fool would doubt the sovereignty of Europe. I concede you're not wrong in facts, only in time - you're confidence in Europe's autonomy is about two centuries outdated.
Edit: as a gesture of good faith, I strongly recommend this essay explaining a bit more about "fake kingdoms" like Sweden and Disneyland, from someone who does deserve the benefit of the doubt: https://scottsumner.substack.com/p/california-dreaming
I'm surprised by your apparent confidence in the stability and the "end of history" tha has taken hold in Western Europe. You dont think that it is possible for things to degrade back down into something more combative if theres economic strife or more tensions with immigration? I've been stunned to see things on the table and within the Overton Window that seemed completely beyond the pale just ten years ago.
Yes, anything's possible. Perhaps next year Germany will invade France, like they did in 1914 and 1940. Maybe the Netherlands will invade Belgium. Maybe Spain will invade Portugal. Maybe Sweden will invade Norway. But I doubt it.
I wonder how much we take for granted. War used to be the norm, pretty much everywhere in the world. Most people would take my response to you as sarcasm. But why is that? Only because most people think war is now pretty much unthinkable in Western Europe. But that's not normal!
"But within Europe, especially Western Europe, fear of invasion has basically disappeared. WWII had the effect of discrediting militaristic nationalism, and a European Union was set up to promote international cohesion, international solidarity. Europe is where Fukuyama’s “end of history” has come true."
Not so. Ukraine is part of Europe, right? And so are the Baltic states and Poland.
As for Western Europe, the Green Party in Germany advocates to spend 3.5% of GDP for defence. Unthinkable even 5 years ago!
I don't understand how you are reconciling, "Fear of invasion has basically disappeared" with your obvious knowledge of the war in Ukraine. Are you referring to Western Europe only?
And even then, Switzerland is prepared for invasion, even if it's unlikely. Is the preparation not born of fear?
No, I don't think Switzerland currently fears an invasion from France or Germany. Does it make sense to have a military in case the world situation changes? Obviously. Their military kept them out of the two world wars.
When I think about the trade issue, particularly trade with China, I take comfort in knowing that our (the developed countries) openness to trade with that country helped lift more people out of poverty than any other act in human history. It wasn't just trade of course. Other factors helped as well, but trade by China with developed countries was the primary impetus.
Yes, we got cheap TVs out of the deal, so it wasn't benevolence on our part. And that's okay. The point about trade is that prior to nation states and other forms of societal organization, trade happened organically everywhere. If ever there was a fundamental human action that later economists modeled, it was trade. To suppress trade is unnatural. Free and fair trade should be the norm at all times and in all places.
I basically agree. I would add one point, however. While trade was helpful for China's development, the decision to move from Maoist economics to a market economy was vastly more important. China is mostly responsible for China's (partial) success, just as Cuba is mostly responsible for Cuba's failure (not US sanctions.)
We humans spent most of our time as a species (100,000 - 200,000 years at most?) living in small groups spread far apart. No doubt there was selection pressure to love your local group. The city state was a much later innovation. I think inter-tribal inter-state cooperation evolved much later, maybe 10,000 years ago. Apparently we are not very good at it. The strongest bonds are in our local groups. Our lives have changed radically but our genes not so much. Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I mostly agree, although when you say we are not good at inter-state cooperation, I'd say it's a matter of degree. The developed world is far better at it than 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or indeed in any previous century.
I think you are correct. We are much better at it. I wonder why? Are we getting smarter? Maybe our improved access to information makes it more likely for us to learn the lessons of history? War is bad, trade is good, intermarriage is good. Modern communication and transportation brings us closer. Whatever it is, maybe we should do more of it.
Thank you for responding to me. I really appreciate it.
1. ANY American Econo employed by the govt (more than half of them) who does utility calcs and places any value on non-Americans is immoral. This is a foundational Libertarian position I've held ever since a bunch of public and private debates between Bruce Goldberg (who taught Nozick) and me at college.
The vote is an unearned property right no different than cash or land inheritance. And we have to Coasian bargain with the natives for the vote every election.
You CANNOT steal it from them. And NO VOTER "hires" an Economist thinking that he might value dirt worshippers more than us.
It's morally disgusting. Imagine electing a POTUS who secretly carried about the lives of al Earthlings. He'd have to lie.
Just on your own analysis above I will suggest to DOGE we give all Economists a test to confirm the above.
2. Tariffs, Trade, and Investment are a tool towards 1 (maximize the gain of US citizens). The CREDIBLE threat of tariffs is only credible if you do them, and as you see with Trump he slaps them down and pulls them back just to make the world do what he wants.
It's OK if you want to mention that Tariffs raise prices. But like we have discussed before- many things raise and lower prices, and Trump's REAL JOB is to get CPI down to 2% - and he knows that requires $65 oil, with increasing capacity so that as the global Economy gets going, it stays at $65.
Trump glimpsed this reality in 2018-19, when the Economy was heating up and in those 2 years US production went from 8mbd to 12mbd. And the price stayed flat.
He's got a plan to convince US (Texas), Saudis, Russia, Canada, even UK and Norway, along with modern ME players to agree to increase capacity and trust the US can manage a $60-70 peg.
You should think about how Tariffs, Investment, and Military can be used to earn the partner's trust. The BIG QUESTION is how to handle a downturn so prices don't crash in the US.
A man had two fields, one in his own village and another in a distant land. He hired workers to tend to both fields, but he instructed his steward to prioritize the harvest from his own village, even if it meant neglecting the field in the distant land.
"One day, a wise traveler passed by the man's fields and saw the withered crops in the distant land. He asked the steward, 'Why do you neglect this field, which also bears fruit?'
"The steward replied, 'I follow the master's instructions, which prioritize the harvest from our own village.'
"The traveler shook his head and said, 'Does the master not know that the soil, the sun, and the rain are the same for both fields? Does he not know that the workers in both fields are children of the same God?'
"The steward was taken aback, realizing that the traveler spoke the truth. He went to the master and told him of the wise traveler's words.
"The master, filled with regret, said, 'I have been blind to the needs of the distant land. From now on, let us tend to both fields with equal care, that all may reap a bountiful harvest.'
Technically, all religions are cults… hence where the word came from.
Practically, politics parties, interest groups, affinity groups like the woke or militant atheists are now also cults.
Also practically, it seems that the difference between a “good” cult and a “bad” cult is whether the cult leader (knowingly or unknowingly) is a liar or not.
I guess the jury is still out though and so we don’t know who is and who is not in a cult…. but… we get good hints by their fruits.
I have enjoyed the recent forays into moral philosophy. I wonder if this post grapples enough with our moral intuitions about the people with whom we are in relationship.
Suppose my brother has lost his job and is struggling to make ends meet (but is not starving or homeless). The aggregate global welfare gains from any money I give him are dwarfed by the gains from giving the money to GiveWell (even accounting for the second-order effects on societal organization).
Lots of people share the intuition that it would be wrong to donate to GiveWell and neglect my brother in this case. Would you "bite the bullet" and say this intuition is just selfish bias?
In this post, I'm not trying to offer advice on what to do in specific cases, rather I'm trying to provide a framework for thinking about the problem. The ultimate goal should be a better world, more aggregate welfare. But the family unit has great utility, and to some extent it makes sense to favor family members over more deserving strangers due to the benefit of greater family cohesion, even if global welfare is the ultimate goal. So it's a question of degree. How much should we favor family members over others? Unfortunately, I don't have a one-size-fits-all answer.
So then why write the post? I guess I was responding to a debate I'd recently seen on the internet (which even included the VP.) I wasn't trying to resolve the debate, just put it in a form where it was easier to see the argument for both sides. Some of the arguments seemed too simplistic, based too much on slogans. I think I end up pretty close to where Scott Alexander is, albeit taking a slightly different route.
My only point is that family relationships (and the implicit favoritism they entail) appear to have *intrinsic* utility to me, while you appeared to say that favoring your family members only has *instrumental* utility in the service of accounting for our biases.
No, you are right that it has intrinsic utility as well.
This is an interesting post Scott. In fact, it mirrors much of the commentary on Matt 10:37 (and related passages like in Luke 14:26, which is actually the more jarring version of this message) by the church fathers. We see this in Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory… but Aquinas (as usual), I think systematizes it best.
A Christian is called to order love with the highest good (I.e. God) at the top. That is, if a conflict arises between the call (or will perhaps) of God and the will of our earthly relatives, we must choose Gods will as it’s higher in the hierarchy.
The love of family flows through the love of God. The family and closer groups are where we learn to be considerate and generous and sacrificial. These things we were given by God to care for, so our priority is on those who are closest to us… My role as a father is to care and sacrifice, first for my family, as it’s been entrusted to me. Then to the local group, then to the rest… but we must resist making this an idol.
We love our family and closer groups through Christ… that is we love them because we were made to love them and have been given them as a gift to care for in order that they become care givers and workers in the vineyard themselves. However, if push comes to shove, we must remember that the higher allegiance is to that of God. If there a conflict between the will of our father or mother or nation and the will of God (say fighting for an evil empire), we must choose God, pick up our cross and accept the consequences. We must not be cowards (though I too question how I would respond if actually in that spot).
It’s like as a father, if there is a bullet to be taken for the family… that bullet is taken by the father… as that is the hierarchy of how things flow.
I write this because what you have written is entirely consistent with a Christian framework and those Christians out there on the right might need to be reminded to consider who it is that their highest allegiance is to be oriented towards.
Thank you for this post.
Thanks, very thoughtful comment.
> local favoritism is useful for promoting the solidarity required to maintain cohesive social units.
Another reason might be that being familiar with the people you're being altruistic towards often greatly helps effectiveness. Distance creates more opportunity for telephone games, poor feedback, space for corruption, moral hazards, unintended consequences etc. that can undo the benefits.
Good points.
Scott, knowing that you too tend to be partial to Rorty, I was wondering what your take is( if any) on his prescriptions for advancing moral good, and in particular, using patriotism as an instrument to promote values he thought ought be treated as universal.
(And I do note your comment that this post is about public policy. I’m consciously broadening the topic)
You describe Europe as not patriotic. I feel like you could include places like Australia and Canada using the criteria I suspect you’re using.
But it’s possible that these places are just as patriotic as everywhere else. Just their national pride comes less from their militaristic achievements and sense of strength, and more from their humane achievements like their welfare states, their broad understanding and tolerance for who can be a citizen, their parliamentary processes, commitment to rule of law, indeed their ability to provide foreign aid, etc.
Rather than nations withering away, they could be conceived as local units needed for cohesion, and important to advancing universal values - especially insofar as they provide examples for other people and nations. (And these values don’t have to be modern European values. As an historian and an American, you’ll be acutely aware how the USA used to be a role model for the rest of world - and maybe still is - for everywhere else by providing a real world example of the benefits of liberal values)
Nations, like families, can be the source of terrible and bloody feuds. They can also, like families, can be sources of cohesion and moral progress. The difference is just in scale.
Very good comment. There's nothing there that I disagree with.. Despite the impression I might have given here, I've always favored patriotism but opposed nationalism.
Nationalism is sort of like patriotism distorted by bigotry, dishonesty, selfishness and militarism.
I suspect that most favoritism for those close to you far exceeds what can be justified for solely instrumental reasons around group cohesion, incentives, etc.
I agree.
Seldom is there use of the word "civilized" that is not cringe-worthy. Great essay, thank you.
Thanks. I like to use cringe terms!
Economics is all about subjective preferences. Surely there's some economic analysis where we all start with different values about question 1, and can use the information from questions 2 and 3 to bring society into harmony regardless.
>Europe is where Fukuyama’s “end of history” has come true.
Europe isn't real, it's a projection of US power. Referring to Europe is like arguing that Disneyland has solved war, because there has never been war there. The second the empire isn't there to do real politics for them, you'll find that history never went away.
"Referring to Europe is like arguing that Disneyland has solved war, because there has never been war there."
Actually, there have been wars in Europe, so your Disneyland analogy makes no sense.
There were wars in Southern California too, but back then it wasn't Disneyland yet. There are also parts of Europe not occupied by the US, where history continues its normal course.
If you insist on being a troll, I suggest you go elsewhere.
I don't intend to troll at all. I really do see much of Western Europe as effectively not sovereign. My disagreement with you (if we even do disagree, I'm not sure how independent you think European countries generally are) is, I assure you, not caused by some secret nefarious intent. I actually just think a different thing.
When I suggested you were a troll, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
True, only a fool would doubt the sovereignty of Europe. I concede you're not wrong in facts, only in time - you're confidence in Europe's autonomy is about two centuries outdated.
Edit: as a gesture of good faith, I strongly recommend this essay explaining a bit more about "fake kingdoms" like Sweden and Disneyland, from someone who does deserve the benefit of the doubt: https://scottsumner.substack.com/p/california-dreaming
I'm surprised by your apparent confidence in the stability and the "end of history" tha has taken hold in Western Europe. You dont think that it is possible for things to degrade back down into something more combative if theres economic strife or more tensions with immigration? I've been stunned to see things on the table and within the Overton Window that seemed completely beyond the pale just ten years ago.
Yes, anything's possible. Perhaps next year Germany will invade France, like they did in 1914 and 1940. Maybe the Netherlands will invade Belgium. Maybe Spain will invade Portugal. Maybe Sweden will invade Norway. But I doubt it.
I wonder how much we take for granted. War used to be the norm, pretty much everywhere in the world. Most people would take my response to you as sarcasm. But why is that? Only because most people think war is now pretty much unthinkable in Western Europe. But that's not normal!
"But within Europe, especially Western Europe, fear of invasion has basically disappeared. WWII had the effect of discrediting militaristic nationalism, and a European Union was set up to promote international cohesion, international solidarity. Europe is where Fukuyama’s “end of history” has come true."
Not so. Ukraine is part of Europe, right? And so are the Baltic states and Poland.
As for Western Europe, the Green Party in Germany advocates to spend 3.5% of GDP for defence. Unthinkable even 5 years ago!
There's a war in Ukraine? Who knew?
I don't understand how you are reconciling, "Fear of invasion has basically disappeared" with your obvious knowledge of the war in Ukraine. Are you referring to Western Europe only?
And even then, Switzerland is prepared for invasion, even if it's unlikely. Is the preparation not born of fear?
No, I don't think Switzerland currently fears an invasion from France or Germany. Does it make sense to have a military in case the world situation changes? Obviously. Their military kept them out of the two world wars.
When I think about the trade issue, particularly trade with China, I take comfort in knowing that our (the developed countries) openness to trade with that country helped lift more people out of poverty than any other act in human history. It wasn't just trade of course. Other factors helped as well, but trade by China with developed countries was the primary impetus.
Yes, we got cheap TVs out of the deal, so it wasn't benevolence on our part. And that's okay. The point about trade is that prior to nation states and other forms of societal organization, trade happened organically everywhere. If ever there was a fundamental human action that later economists modeled, it was trade. To suppress trade is unnatural. Free and fair trade should be the norm at all times and in all places.
I basically agree. I would add one point, however. While trade was helpful for China's development, the decision to move from Maoist economics to a market economy was vastly more important. China is mostly responsible for China's (partial) success, just as Cuba is mostly responsible for Cuba's failure (not US sanctions.)
Yes, the CCP finally let the Chinese people do what humans had done for thousands of years. Hooray for them.
We humans spent most of our time as a species (100,000 - 200,000 years at most?) living in small groups spread far apart. No doubt there was selection pressure to love your local group. The city state was a much later innovation. I think inter-tribal inter-state cooperation evolved much later, maybe 10,000 years ago. Apparently we are not very good at it. The strongest bonds are in our local groups. Our lives have changed radically but our genes not so much. Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I mostly agree, although when you say we are not good at inter-state cooperation, I'd say it's a matter of degree. The developed world is far better at it than 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or indeed in any previous century.
I think you are correct. We are much better at it. I wonder why? Are we getting smarter? Maybe our improved access to information makes it more likely for us to learn the lessons of history? War is bad, trade is good, intermarriage is good. Modern communication and transportation brings us closer. Whatever it is, maybe we should do more of it.
Thank you for responding to me. I really appreciate it.
Scott this is a mess. I like it when you talk MP.
1. ANY American Econo employed by the govt (more than half of them) who does utility calcs and places any value on non-Americans is immoral. This is a foundational Libertarian position I've held ever since a bunch of public and private debates between Bruce Goldberg (who taught Nozick) and me at college.
The vote is an unearned property right no different than cash or land inheritance. And we have to Coasian bargain with the natives for the vote every election.
You CANNOT steal it from them. And NO VOTER "hires" an Economist thinking that he might value dirt worshippers more than us.
It's morally disgusting. Imagine electing a POTUS who secretly carried about the lives of al Earthlings. He'd have to lie.
Just on your own analysis above I will suggest to DOGE we give all Economists a test to confirm the above.
2. Tariffs, Trade, and Investment are a tool towards 1 (maximize the gain of US citizens). The CREDIBLE threat of tariffs is only credible if you do them, and as you see with Trump he slaps them down and pulls them back just to make the world do what he wants.
It's OK if you want to mention that Tariffs raise prices. But like we have discussed before- many things raise and lower prices, and Trump's REAL JOB is to get CPI down to 2% - and he knows that requires $65 oil, with increasing capacity so that as the global Economy gets going, it stays at $65.
Trump glimpsed this reality in 2018-19, when the Economy was heating up and in those 2 years US production went from 8mbd to 12mbd. And the price stayed flat.
He's got a plan to convince US (Texas), Saudis, Russia, Canada, even UK and Norway, along with modern ME players to agree to increase capacity and trust the US can manage a $60-70 peg.
You should think about how Tariffs, Investment, and Military can be used to earn the partner's trust. The BIG QUESTION is how to handle a downturn so prices don't crash in the US.
"Scott this is a mess."
Are you referring to my post, or your comment?
A man had two fields, one in his own village and another in a distant land. He hired workers to tend to both fields, but he instructed his steward to prioritize the harvest from his own village, even if it meant neglecting the field in the distant land.
"One day, a wise traveler passed by the man's fields and saw the withered crops in the distant land. He asked the steward, 'Why do you neglect this field, which also bears fruit?'
"The steward replied, 'I follow the master's instructions, which prioritize the harvest from our own village.'
"The traveler shook his head and said, 'Does the master not know that the soil, the sun, and the rain are the same for both fields? Does he not know that the workers in both fields are children of the same God?'
"The steward was taken aback, realizing that the traveler spoke the truth. He went to the master and told him of the wise traveler's words.
"The master, filled with regret, said, 'I have been blind to the needs of the distant land. From now on, let us tend to both fields with equal care, that all may reap a bountiful harvest.'
"Throughout history, the greatest philosophers have understood that the welfare of all people is equally valuable, in an absolute sense. "
Is that really true? Aristotle and Plato both supported slavery.
Your quote from Jesus makes him sound like a cult leader. Hmmm...maybe he was a cult leader.
The difference between a cult and a religion is PR.
Technically, all religions are cults… hence where the word came from.
Practically, politics parties, interest groups, affinity groups like the woke or militant atheists are now also cults.
Also practically, it seems that the difference between a “good” cult and a “bad” cult is whether the cult leader (knowingly or unknowingly) is a liar or not.
I guess the jury is still out though and so we don’t know who is and who is not in a cult…. but… we get good hints by their fruits.
No unfortunately
I think it's been 20yrs
I live in Cleveland Circle Massachusetts
I wanted the Philadelphia and the Kansas City teams to both loose.
If that makes me European then I say: sign me up mon ami
For 35 years, I lived just a couple miles from Cleveland Circle. Is that movie theatre still there?