Welcome to Free Thoughts, a podcast project of the Cato Institute's Libertarianism.org. Free Thoughts is a show about libertarianism and the ideas that influence it. I'm Aaron Powell, a research fellow here at Cato, an editor of Libertarianism.org. And I'm Trevor Burrus, a research fellow at the Cato Institute Center for Constitutional Studies. Our topic for today's episode is how we talk about politics, and joining us to talk about that is Arnold Kling, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and author of the Three Languages of Politics. Most of us, if you ask like, how do we talk about politics in general, our response is something like angrily. You know, there's vitriol and we all get mad about it and we yell at each other and whatnot. But you have, I guess a more interesting theory than that, which you call the three languages of politics. Can you tell us just what that is? Sure. And it may relate to this intuitive notion that we talk about it angrily. When I listened to your podcast from a couple months ago on politics and primitivism, it struck me that maybe in the light of that I should have called this the three war whoops of politics. The rebel yell, yeah. Yeah, this is a tribal way of talking about politics. And I want to make clear that these are, using the term languages, I don't think these aren't three theories. These aren't three ideologies. These are related to three ideologies. So first of all, I divide the world into three ideologies of progressivism, conservatism, and libertarianism. A lot of people just want to do two. I'm going to want to give libertarians a third one. And the languages very briefly are axes of sort of what is good and what is evil. So what is most good on the progressive side is to be on the side of the oppressors. So there's this oppressor, sorry, on the side of the oppressed. Good. Yeah, what is good for progressives is to be on the side of the oppressed. So there's a strong oppressor-oppressed axis. Oppressors are bad. People who progressives hate, they accuse of being on the side of the oppressors. That includes libertarians and conservatives. People that they admire are people who they believe are on the side of the oppressed. So they like to occupy Wall Street because they think of it as being on the side of the oppressed. Then we have conservatives whose axis is civilization and barbarism.  And part of the reason they're conservative is they think that we've accumulated institutions and cultural norms that have taken us away from barbarism. And any threat to those institutions and cultural norms threatens to take us back in the direction of barbarism. And so people who they regard as being on the side of going back to barbarism are their worst enemy and the people they admire are the people who've been the defenders of civilization. And for libertarians, the axis is freedom versus coercion. So the evil are people who use government coercion and the good are people who fight government coercion. And again, I want to emphasize that these aren't the essence of their ideology. But they are, I think, the way that they organize the world in terms of we, they really good, really bad. So when they're really in their primitivist mode of thinking about politics, they fall back on these things. So it's as a language, if you use that language, it's a way of signaling to the people who agree with you. This is how we line up on this issue, folks. It's clearly oppressors versus oppressed or it's clearly civilization versus barbarians or it's clearly freedom versus coercion. And it's also a way of castigating the opposition. Maybe you could give us an example, like take a particular one policy issue or one thing that we talk about when we talk about politics and maybe show how each of the three languages might approach it. Sure. Pick an issue. Terrorism. Okay. So that one's one of the more difficult ones for both the progressives and the libertarians, I think, because it's such an obvious, it obviously seems to fall into civilization versus barbarism and the terrorists are barbarians and we in civilization have to fight back. But let's take something like the Boston Marathon bombing, which, so it was easiest for conservatives to put it in their civilization versus barbarism story and you could see others having trouble. So the libertarians for when there were complaints right after the incident was resolved about the tanks in the street. We had tanks in our streets in Boston. People under house arrest, basically, yeah. So they wanted to put it in the freedom versus coercion axis and on the left there was this marvelous piece where a guy wrote, you know, I really hope it was a white male who did it.  Are these like exclusive ways of looking at things such that everything, if you're say a conservative, then everything is a matter of civilization versus barbarism. You don't really think so much like you don't value freedom and coercion or oppressor oppressed as much or is it more just an emphasis of how we talk? Well, again, yeah, go back to the language story. So I don't think, I mean, I think the ideologies are complicated and they allow for people to think along all these axes and all about other things as well. I mean, there's certainly that that's not the only thing. But sort of when a crunch comes and you need to reaffirm that your ideology is right and to reaffirm that the other guy is wrong, I think these are the languages that people fall back on an amazing amount of time. And I think one of the reasons I like your theory so much is because we see it, you can see how a word is used in a different way that evokes a different type of oppressor, oppressor type of regime. Immigration is one where you kind of look at immigrants as either being lawbreakers. But or we talk about how we want to ban the word illegal, right? We don't want to say the word illegal anymore. We want to use the word unregistered or undocumented because that sort of removes it from the civilization, barbarism, lawbreaker type of motif. Yeah, no, immigration is a classic issue where people tend to look at it through the three languages. So the most important thing to a conservative is that they've broken the law, the illegal immigrants. And the most important thing to progressives is that these people are poor and come from poor countries. I mean, if the illegal immigrants consisted entirely of sort of rich capitalists, it would be interesting to see how the progressives would come out. They might very well look at it. And for libertarians, it's government coercion that's going to be kicking these people out of the country. So we shouldn't have the borders to begin with in one extreme libertarian view.  And that's one thing I read your book and say pundits are not actually in the place in that they're not playing the game of convincing the other side as much. It seems like that's actually how I ended up writing, coming up with the theory and writing the book is that I just the first thing I the thing that I noticed that kind of made me go in that direction is that so much of what's written either in blogs or in newspaper columns. If you think about it, it's just not going to convince anybody on the other side. It's not trying to change. It really wouldn't change the mind of someone who disagreed. It isn't designed to change the mind of the people who are on your side. And what I said, you know, what it's really trying to do, and this is really sad, is that it's being done to try to keep the people on your side from changing their mind. It's trying to make it less likely that people on your side will change your mind. That's the most that it's trying to accomplish. So I said, well, given that, you know, if I were a conservative trying to reinforce conservative views, how would I write? And then I came up with the civilization barbarism thing and same with the others. Is it so I mean, you use words like it's designed to do these things or they're setting out to keep conservatives thinking one way as opposed to setting out to convince progressives or libertarians. Is it do you think it's that conscious or do you think that it's also that, you know, if I'm if I'm a conservative, so I'm naturally prone to see things in this barbarism versus civilization way, then when I go to construct an argument, the argument that sounds the most convincing to me, so therefore it might be the most convincing, I think, to other people is going to be a civilization barbarism argument. I think it's probably more the latter that that people people that that these are the types of things that they find convincing. And so they're I think in some ways they're surprised that they don't convince other people, you know, so when someone when when the weekly standard headlines, it's post Boston marathon headline civilization and barbarism, I think they're surprised that that anyone would would think about it differently. So but I think that that comes a little bit from people talking among themselves.  Oh, those people all they wanted is power. All they want to do is strengthen the government and use power to, you know, to to take away people's freedom.   So so a little bit of group reinforce. I think a lot of it is ultimately selection bias. So people who are inclined to try to understand someone else's point of view and talking a way that would persuade them are probably selected away from in the political columnist world, maybe even in the blogosphere. You know, it's it's otherwise I think it's it's it's a lot easier for me to explain, you know, a Rush Limbaugh or a Paul Krugman by saying, well, that's what the market seems to want. People want reinforcement for their own point of view. They don't want their own point of view challenged. And they're really not that interested in people who can talk to other people to people on different persuasions and change their minds. Does this mean then that if we want if we want to be more effective in communicating our ideas, it would help us to learn these other languages? I'm thinking about so early on in the Free Thoughts broadcast, we had Matt Zelensky on to talk. And he's from the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog and that they tend to speak to progressives kind of. It's I mean, that's their mission. But there's the sense that they're talking, trying to talk progress in libertarianism. And one of the things that they do is emphasize and he emphasized the oppressive force. It's an oppressor oppressed access. It's the poor are being oppressed by the powerful controlling, you know, government and the powerful who are in league with government. And so we're talking this particular language. Yeah, I would say a nice try. But I think it's I'm kind of careful at the end of the book saying I don't think this is going to magically enable you to persuade other people. I think I first of all, people are just very suspicious. So they say, yeah, but you're saying that by now you're a libertarian. So you're really on the side of the oppressor. And you're just you just I see through that you got you got that wrong. It feels inauthentic in the same way as when like the political parties try to speak to millennials by adopting or when your parents come down and tell you that they like your bank. I've heard those crazy new rock bands are listening to it. Just really speaking my language dad. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, yeah, I think it's hard to make that sound authentic. And I think it's not really the way progressives use the word oppressor. Repress it. And they don't there. I don't think they have any kind of natural inclination to think of government as an oppressor on economic issues. I think they're willing to think of it in terms of like privacy invasion. But that's that's an issue where libertarians and progressives are aligned to begin with. So the feedback loop, though, is what what strikes me is interesting. We could talk about this as a method of sort of dog whistling or using the language of people that you're hanging around.  So it could be just way of talking about it. But there's also some sort of feedback loop. I think between the quality and nature of your beliefs and why you believe them in terms of the fundamentals and then engaging in this type of rhetoric that maybe makes your changes your beliefs itself in terms of how who you think you're opposing, what the other side looks like to you in terms of homogenizing them into a group that's just against you. Yeah, I do think that one of the ultimate end stages is to not just think of these axes as sort of things in the abstract and there are evil people along the opposite axis. But you actually get to the point where you're convinced that anyone who is in the group who disagrees with you actually ultimately is part of that evil axis. So again, read any Paul Krugman column and see him describe in which he usually does, conservatives or libertarians. And it's clear that they're just oppressors. And that's about all about as far as his thought process goes. And I was sort of disappointed to read, is it Jason Brennan's book where he says, well, basically we have conservatives who want to have a nanny state. And that's not how conservatives would describe themselves. It's not a very generous way of talking about it. A police state, I think he said conservatives. Well, the liberals want the nanny state. Conservatives want the police state. OK, right, OK. So, yeah, that's not a good way to open up a dialogue with somebody who disagrees with you. And it's also not a good way to educate the people who agree with you about what those ideologies really are about. Yeah, there's a general rule I use in a lot of different situations, which am I using any words to describe someone that they would not use to describe themselves? Right. The one I use all the time is brainwashed is a really good example. And you say, well, you're just brainwashed. No one ever says, I'm brainwashed. And it's a good indication of whether or not you're, I guess, not speaking the right language or not categorizing their beliefs with enough respect, really. Yeah. Well, Brian Kaplan developed this phrase, an ideological touring test.  Could you articulate progressivism in a way that they would say, oh, yeah, that is. And I think that, going back to your question about Metzlinski and the poor and the poor being oppressed by government, I just I don't think you could talk that way in a room about one room of progressives and sound like a progressive. I think people would instantly tune in something. I heard something a little weird there. I think we've got a trader in our mix missed. Yeah. If you say minimum wage law is oppressing the poor, they're probably going to say, oh, he's a witch. He's a witch, get him, get him out of here. Yeah, you can say there are studies that show that the minimum wage reduces employment among low-skilled workers, and you can be OK. But yeah, you start using the language of oppressive on that one, and they're not going to. Well, or I mean, it seems anything that would shift whatever group you're talking to into the suspect class is going to be, because when you're arguing that government hurts the poor, especially these programs that are often designed to help the poor, then what you're really saying is, you progressives who are supporting this, if it's true that the poor are being oppressed, are now a member of the oppressor class, in the same way that conservatives talking about civilization versus barbarism, whatever their particular policy preferences are, those are never barbaric, even though as a libertarian standing outside of it, looking at policies that are preferred by American conservatives, many of them look awfully barbaric to me. Yeah, if you're against waterboarding, you could say, well, waterboarding's a pretty barbaric thing. But that's not the way to gain entree into the start to convince conservatives. Your rubric also reminds me of one of the other virtues of it is that there are a lot of sort of pop-sci political books out there, but many of them read as sort of attempts to explain why you're right through some sort of language that you're caught in neuroscience. George Lakehoff is a neuroscientist who became a Democrat strategist and he wrote a book called Don't Think of an Elephant, and he had this whole theory that the reasons that conservatives were winning, he considered the last 30 years of conservatives being winning, was because they were using words like death tax rather than a state tax that put a spell on your brain and basically that he had to come up with an explanation for how anyone could believe this and his explanation was basically witchcraft. I've got into your brain and they've done witchcraft on it. Yeah, Lakehoff's a very interesting character and I really wanna distinguish my project from his. Again, I'm not trying to explain why people believe they do or to summarize ideologies. I'm trying to summarize rhetoric in some sense. I'm trying to summarize, or I think the War Whoop story really is right. If we view politics as primitivism as sort of whipping your tribe up into a frenzy, I think that is what I see these languages as doing. But Lakehoff, the first book that came to my attention, I think it was his first foray into the whole political stuff was. Don't think of an elephant? No, no, it was before that, it was moral politics. The daddy and the mommy. Yeah, so that conservatives are this strict father morality and liberals have a nurturant parent morality. And so it was very interesting. I think he probably is onto something that rhetoric of a nurturant parent that people can succeed if they're given all the resources they need is rhetoric that appeals to a progressive. And I think the strict parent, people need to be punished if they step out of line. That has a conservative thing, appeals to conservatives. Where I think he flew off the rails is that he then proceeded to do, look at studies of parenting and say that nurturant parents is a better model. Okay, fine, maybe that's true. I'm not gonna argue with it. But then to say, well, therefore conservatives are clearly wrong. As if the analogy between a family and government is 100% perfect. And so any way that you run a family that's better is clearly the better way to run government. It's like, whoa, how did you make that leap? He came to a class of mine in law school one time because my professor was friends with him and he gave his stick. And again, it has some validity to it up to a point and then it sort of crosses a line into now I'm explaining why they're crazy and we're sane. And then you start to look at it and say this, now you're just part of the problem. You're not explaining anything, you're part of the problem. And he stood up there and he said, the problem with Democrats is that we're too rational. And I was, my head was spinning. Not because I think Democrats are inherently rational, but it goes out to my comment about, if you wouldn't call yourself it, then you're probably playing some different game. You'd be like, well, as a Republican, I'm irrational. Yeah, that's why I'm Republican. Yeah, exactly. And everyone thinks that their beliefs are too complex to say in bumper sticker logic, that's what you say. They have bumper sticker logic. We have very complex and deep-seated reasons for believing what we wanna do. And that's exactly one thing he told me. He said, conservatives can put their logic on a bumper sticker, whereas I need a bumper sticker so it's huge as it explains how complex my beliefs actually are. So again, it's still just that. Yeah, I think everyone believes that. And there's, and one of my favorite pieces of literature that I cite in the book is, and I'm forgetting the term the guy used for it, but basically we believe that we have, we understand our opponents better than they understand themselves. That's just a very powerful belief. He wasn't even talking about it initially in terms of politics. But anyone that you happen to be on the other side, we believe that we understand them not only really well, but better than they understand themselves. We understand their true motives. And if you're at that point, it's almost hopeless for you to be able to engage or accept any possibility that their ideas are correct or anything. You're really, that's really far gone. I'm curious about the civilization barbarism as the conservative and the freedom coercion as the libertarian distinction because I'm thinking of a lot of conservative rhetoric of especially since Obama came into office and then the rise of the Tea Party but then the way they talk about, conservatives talk about say, Obamacare, there's a huge amount of freedom language going on. They want to coerce you into having the government's choice in healthcare. They want to take away your freedom to do this. The Tea Party is very much steeped in the language of freedom and liberty first. Is that a change in conservatism? Is it a different kind of conservatism or are they using those terms say differently than the way that libertarians do? I think there's some overlap, but probably not much. There's also a lot of rhetoric on Obama that sort of makes him out as being on the side of barbarianism. You've seen that. The Kenyan thing to some extent. The Kenyan thing you could say is almost part of that. Yeah, and the recent issue of being, the Crimean situation. I kind of look at it and say, well, it's a lot closer to Russia than it is to us. I don't know what I would do about it if I were president, but the idea that if he were more of a defender of civilization that this would not have happened is very much part of the conservative rhetoric. And some of them were raving, right-wing talk show hosts will actually say, well, this is what Obama's trying to do. He's trying to undermine America. And I think there's been a lot of conservative rhetoric that we need to take back our country. That is, I think, a dog whistle along the civilization barbarism axis. And that would be the talking constantly about the Constitution. The Constitution represents kind of a high-water mark. The Constitution, as the founders saw it, represents the high-water mark of civilization and Obama is trying to undermine that. And so that's a deviation from... And it's interesting, so libertarians and conservatives can align on the Constitution, but the libertarians, what is important to them is their reading of it and its use as a way to constrain government power. And I think it's for conservatives, it is more of a symbol of civilization, of the tradition. And I think Aaron's question about using the term freedom is interesting too, because you even heard this in Obamacare debates and you still hear it to some extent today. Well, what is freedom if you might have a catastrophic health care problem and then you won't be free to pay for that on your own ability, which again, maybe them just trying to co-opt, the supporters of Obamacare trying to co-opt freedom rhetoric and say, come on board, freedom lovers and us saying, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Well, that was the argument when the study came out that showed that Obamacare would increase unemployment, that people would leave the labor market, that this was the freedom to not work is being enhanced by this. Yes, yeah. Your comments about Obama too, and making him on the side of barbarism, I think one of the fascinating things that you've seen with Obama has been the pathologizing of Obama. And this happens a lot, as you said, we think we understand our opponents better than they understand themselves.  We need to give him a psychosis because he doesn't have reasons he has pathologies. Yeah, well, and but as you were saying earlier, that's kind of the favorite thing of academic psychologists is to say, well, conservatives basically were born with a fear of spiders and ultimately that turns you into conservative. I'm wondering if this makes, because you've said you kind of refrain from drawing conclusions about how we ought like, so we ought to change our language in a certain way or here's ways we can now try to talk to each other, but I'm wondering if does this represent something that's making our political lives worse because it's not so much, if this is true, then it's not just that we disagree with each other and that we can disagree with each other over really important things, but that on top of that, we can't even talk to each other about it in a meaningful way. It's not, I would phrase it, I'd say that the problem is that we layer onto it so much of, and I'll go back to your primitivism, so much tribal. Us versus them. Yeah, and that we make the disagreement, we make the disagreement's more emotional and more intense and put in much higher stakes on them than we need to, so if I were to prescribe anything to people, it'd be like the ideal thing is if everybody in the world read this book and took it to heart, they would take a step backward every time they hear these sorts of dog whistles, especially when the dog whistle comes from their own side and say, aha, this is just a dog whistle from my own side, but let's see it analytically, let's imagine what this would look like from other people's point of view, let's see if I can look at the facts, and I mean, I'm not promising, I would all of a sudden change my libertarian views, I'm not inclined to, but at least I think it would be a step forward if people recognize that, oh, I'm responding to a dog whistle here, wait a minute, let me try to take a broader view. You say that these don't define the underlying ideology, but what I'm wondering is so, yes, so progressivism, the ideology is not one of just oppressor-oppressed, that there's whole aspects to it that then define one of these things. Then believe in human progress, that's part of progressivism. And conservatism has all these things, but libertarianism really reduced to its core just is a focus on freedom versus coercion. I mean, especially if you take the kind of really, the more extreme views, like so a strict non-aggression principle libertarian is gonna say, well, all there is to my ideology in fact is freedom versus coercion. So I can't really talk about anything else when it comes to politics, because that's all there is to it. That might be true of somebody who's sort of comes at it from what I call the philosophical point of view, but there's also people come at it from the pragmatic point of view. In fact, one of my favorite thinkers, Jeffrey Friedman, says that libertarians tend to, like when one fails, they fall back on the other. So when they're saying philosophically, the non-aggression principle, and then something comes up that maybe that principle just doesn't completely preside, and then they fall back, well, but on a practical level, when you allow more freedom, people, you get more economic growth and people are better off. And conversely, the people who are libertarian more for the well, you get more economic growth, people are better off. When they come across an issue where maybe that doesn't work, they fall back. Yeah, but philosophically, people ought to be free. So in any case, I think those are those two pillars that sort of un-easily support libertarianism. There's the empirical case for free markets producing better results, and then there's the philosophical, that no one should be able to force somebody to do something against their will, and people kind of go back and forth with those two. Well, I do think it's true that when it comes to the moral languages of politics, we don't spend as much time talking about the efficacy of markets as we do talking about the problems of freedom versus coercion and why a life well lived is without coercion or with as little coercion as you possibly can. And I think, honestly, I think libertarians make more progress with non-libertarians when they make the utilitarian case for libertarianism rather than the absolutist, natural rights case. Yeah, and speaking for myself, that I've considered myself a libertarian for quite a long time, but until I came in here and started hanging out with a lot of libertarians, I was pretty much entirely just consequentialist and didn't have a big anti-authoritarian streak in me. I'm not very anti-authoritarian. I've become more anti-authoritarian as I hang around people speaking the same language of anti-authoritarianism. There's the, well, we shouldn't really make people do this because it produces bad outcomes, and then there's the don't tell me what to do type of attitude, which I think it brings out, libertarians bring that out in each other. It's interesting, I think my background, my personality was very anti-authoritarian all my life and I came to my libertarian policy beliefs rather late, so different directions, different directions. So the question here is also, so what do we do? That doesn't seem like there's very much of an audience for sort of plain spoken, non-dog whistling type of pundits out there. It seems like the world is spreading apart and there's not a place for people who want to have a nice discussion about the issues. No, I think we should become depressed. No, I don't, that seems to be my conclusion in every time I'm in a public setting, my conclusion. Let's all get depressed. Have you done, have you looked at this historically? Like looked at the arguments from say 100 years ago to see if these same sorts of things are there or if it's getting worse or? I was very careful in the book to say this is contemporary, I didn't want to rule out that it was true historically, but I didn't want to make any claims like that that would immediately get me shot down by somebody who understood the history of political philosophy better than I do. It'd be interesting to take something, I hadn't, I didn't read, I read Yvonne's book on Burke versus Pain. Oh, the great debate? Yeah, and it'd be interesting, I should have said, as I read it, I should have looked for passages that lined up this way, but I didn't do that. I'd have to go back and see. Well, I think some of this could definitely be tied in. I mean, we can talk about how you talk about it, how we talk about it, but also the more fundamental issues of why do we believe what we believe and some of the stuff like John Hite's work on the fundamentals of political psychology that there's, is this fair, is this unfair, is this disgusting, is this not? Those are what really undergirds our sense of that this is wrong or not and then we get involved with groups and start using words to rally each other around ideas, around the white hats versus the black hats. Yeah, I think I have mixed feelings about that. I certainly like a lot of what Hite has done. I'm not, I particularly didn't feel like the disgust, the extent to which people feel disgust works the way he thinks it does. I did, because I look at the progressive's attitude to things like obesity or genetically modified organisms. And I say, if that's not a disgust issue, what is it? I guess, yeah, certainly with genetically modified organisms, it's really, the utilitarian case is almost all against them. The scientific case is almost all against them. So, yeah, to me, thinking that I know my opponents better than they know themselves, they think that that's a disgust issue. The attempts to explain conservatism in these kinds of psychological terms, like this isn't Hite, but people who I think feel like they're carrying his banner say that conservatism has to do with, is fundamentally about endogamy, that you don't want to see marriage outside your tribe. And so, that leads to your views on immigration, it leads to your views on sex and so on. And that, that's right. It seems like a dog whistle itself. Yeah, that struck me, it's too much of a stretch. I don't quite get how that explains like conservative views on foreign policy or for free markets or just throwing that all into the endogamy story seems like way too much. That's one of the things I like about your way of looking at things as opposed to, say, Hite's, which for those who aren't familiar with this, Hite's a psychologist and he gives people questionnaires on moral questions and has them talk about, whether they think this is morally right or wrong and uses those to tease out their views on what he calls the moral foundations, which are things like disgust and purity or authority. Freedom and courage and harm, fairness. And his thesis then is that different political groups kind of feel more of an affinity towards certain foundations than others. So conservatives are pulled more by things that represent authority issues than they are by fairness issues. And also disgust for them too. So, and- But I agree with Arnold. But I think one of the issues with this is exactly the one that you got at with disgust. And when I reviewed the book for the Cato Journal, I made a similar sort of argument that he says, so he puts these questions out there to prevent to provoke fairness or not. And then says, progressives score high on fairness, which is then why they support these given policies because these are policies that are about fairness. And as a non-progressive, I look at them and say, no, I support fairness, but I believe that these are not fair. I'm looking at the policy differently as opposed to the moral foundation. I think what makes sense in opposition to that about your theory is that the underlying policy preferences, because this is one of the problems with the liberal rights theories, it doesn't seem to fit with policy preferences changing within these groups over time. Yours allows for this so they could, you know, conservatives can oppose the individual mandate on all of these grounds when it's a Democrat doing it, but when it's a Republican doing it in Massachusetts, they can support it totally. And your theory says doesn't, that doesn't cause a problem for your theory. And in part, that's because Romney's rhetoric was, this is going to keep the people from abusing the emergency rooms. And that's, ah, that's barbaric, people using the emergency rooms and not paying for it. Ah, this is good, whereas Obama was using different rhetoric for it. Yeah, no, I think that's a good point. And let me cite another thing that Geoffrey Friedman suggests that you not try to reduce anyone's point of view, that you don't take a reductionist attitude, say you believe this because, just say, all right, take their beliefs on face value, just whatever, you know, just use that as an operating principle. Take the beliefs at face value. And so I wanted to be careful of the book and say, well, you know, I'm not trying to explain why a progressive believes what they want to do. I'm just saying, once you form your beliefs, however you believe them, when you're trying to whip up your own side, you're going to end up falling back on this kind of rhetoric. And I think that that brings in with sort of good thinking habits of taking what they say on their face and not trying to dig down into them. And I tell people all the time that, you know, you have to believe that you need to understand that the other side has good arguments. They don't just have idiocy, they have good arguments and you won't be able to combat them if you don't think that those are good arguments. All these things that go into good thinking, and you can feel, sometimes you can feel yourself get pulled into the dog whistle camp and the bad thinking comes in and you say, okay, I need to stop that. Well, actually, and now I remember the term I was looking for for that thing, which is the law of asymmetric insight, the belief that you understand other people better than they understand themselves. And that's what I'm trying to kind of avoid slipping into and it's very easy to slip into that one. And also, just as a side, I think that some of this political psychology ends up doing that, ironically. These psychologists are supposed to understand these things but they are actually probably guilty of asymmetric insight in sort of thinking that they understand the conservative mindset better than them, that they don't need to take conservative points of view at face value. So then I know that you have resisted the kind of normative conclusions from your book instead of just describing the way things are. I'm not giving recommendations on then how to change the way we talk in order to be more effective or, but are you, in a sense, saying the solution, one thing we should do is not try to adopt and necessarily try to adopt the other side's rhetorical style when talking to them or try to adopt all three, but instead to try to step outside of this, that it's a negative normative sense. Yeah, and certainly restrain your own rhetoric. So, the most extreme use of the rhetoric, let's say for a libertarian, would be to say that all they want is power. Just say, okay, no, wait, I'm gonna step back and take what they say at face value. I'm concerned that if we followed through on that policy that we would be ending up with more government power and more coercion, but I'm gonna take at face value that that's not the fundamental purpose of it. And then in terms of your own rhetoric, just there's no need to sort of whip your side into a frenzy over these issues. So if the NSA spying thing comes out, you don't have to sort of jump up and down and scream, ah, that's coercion, that's gonna get rid of freedom. You can say, well, what can we do about that? I guess these people are very concerned about terrorism. That's probably a legitimate concern, but what is it about this that might be different? And for example, in that particular example, David Brin has a very different take on that, which is that the technology's here, your ability to stop anyone from using that technology, it's unlikely what we need is more symmetry in the ability to use it. So we should have as much of a window into government as government has in us, and that's a very difficult point of view to accept. It's difficult for the super people who- Privacy- Yeah, privacy advocates or people who fear government to say we're gonna give government that power and somehow the fact that we have transparency into them is gonna be good enough to counteract that, and then the people in government, transparency, what you're gonna watch us, the police are gonna be filmed while they're doing their job, that's- Yeah, in our episode that we did with Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch, he had a line, Nick had a line that said we should avoid the soda tax and we should avoid the Buchenwald type of arguments that the soda tax is the same as a concentration camp or this is the beginning of the end of human civilization, which we're prone to and I always say it would be amazing if we could actually discuss these issues on the margins as opposed to the extremes, which is something that I bring up in my primitivism of politics stuff, which is very similar to what you say, extremifying your opponent, homogenizing them and not actually addressing the fact that there's close calls between you two on the margins. I do that in gun policy all the time. I'd rather debate on the margins than on the, you wanna rocket launcher versus you wanna disarm every person on the planet, let's have a fight in the middle of that and that's not even a good debate. Yeah, yeah. You said you haven't really looked at this historically so we can't talk about trend lines of this is getting worse or it's getting better than it used to be, but I'm still curious if you have any opinions about whether the way government currently is, whether the size, the scope of its powers, the kind of policies we have, the kind of policies that we argue for make this problem potentially worse than it might otherwise be. Yeah, no, my instinct is it's worse than it was. I can even remember the 60s when politics was quite polarized and I think in some ways it's worse. There was definitely more of a violent fringe back in the 60s and that was concerning, but I think what is worse is that people feel more threatened by the notion that they might have to change their minds. So in the 60s, an awful lot of people changed their minds about the Vietnam War and they were able to deal with that. And in the 70s a lot of people changed their minds about the usefulness of wage and price controls. They tried it and pretty much everyone now agrees that that experiment didn't work. And it was- D-regulation too, also in the late 70s. Yeah, the deregulation of transportation involved changing minds. Now I think people, I think on, and this is true on all sides, but I certainly notice it on the progressive side maybe because I wanna believe that their own self-image that they're the reality-based, intelligent, well-educated group. I get the sense that and this is accusing them of psychological, but of having a harder time changing their mind. So I think that the trend is, I think to use these languages more and more and that is either coincident with or causing a resistance to changing one's mind. I mean, I would, I guess I wish I could come up with more issues in which I felt libertarians and conservatives needed to change their minds. D- The drug war for conservatives would be potentially one. D- And that's one that some of them have. Yeah, I think, well maybe immigration would be the classic one, that getting conservatives. So there's an interesting one where I have a feeling that the differences between the elite and the mass are kind of the more important than any of the kind of the ideological ones. But I can certainly think of things where I think there's room for progressives to change their mind, like the effectiveness of fiscal policy, big deficits on improving the economy. I mean, they're really dug in on that. I think that those of us who don't agree that deficits really help the economy grow and reduce unemployment that we're just out to screw the unemployed or that we have no sense of science at all and yet, you know, I think an objective reading of the data would say, boy, that's really a questionable call, whether that makes a difference. It seems like, you know, we ran a huge deficit and unemployment went up. We had the sequester and these things that the progressives say, oh, that's gonna cause, you know, it's austerity. It's gonna cause a recession and economy did okay. So I think that it's part of a general trend for people to dig in and your question is sort of why are people digging in more? One possibility is that structural, that the government has become bigger, more important, that's a very comforting idea from a libertarian point of view. Hey, they wouldn't have these fights if government weren't so big. I'm more inclined to take a soft cultural view that people, for whatever reason, have taken on their political beliefs as a stronger part of their identity. So, and my evidence for that would be something like on Facebook, the amount of political stuff, even from, you know, friends from just, that I've friended because they're my high school friends.  So I think people are, it's a bigger part of their identity. And again, I go back to the 60s and 70s, you know, people identified, you know, there was the jocks versus the long hair, jocks versus greasers, and there were these, you know, all these cultural divides and so on, all these ways of people identified themselves, but it wasn't all politics. And I think that the salience of politics and people's identity has gone up and that is creating this kind of extreme polarization or coinciding with it. I think that's one of the real dangers of that is that the difference between, you know, the various clicks, you know, if you're part of a click in high school or you identify very strongly as like a Boston sports fan versus New York sports fans or whatever these other kinds of... Which Aaron does, by the way. He's your Patriots. Yeah.  So I can totally hate the New York Jets and think that there's something just like morally deficient with their fans. Which he does treat them at A-Rosk. Otherwise they wouldn't be Jets fans, but I don't see those people as enemies, but the difference is when we start getting our cultural identity from politics is that there are policies attached to those and those policies end up seeing us forcing other people to live in a line. You're libertarian. I agree. But I think it encourages us to see each other as when we identify politically as opposed to along these other lines, it encourages us to see each other more as enemies than we might have otherwise. Which I think is then a deeply harmful. I think the fewer people you see as your outright enemies probably the better your life is gonna go. Yeah, I definitely, this circles back to sort of the politics as primitivism issue. Yeah, I think I'd much rather see people's primitive urges go into sports stadiums than in politics, but maybe that's just my libertarian inclination. I mean, my inclination is to think that if you had a continuum of primitivism and maybe civilization. Or just something, yeah, right. Peacefulness. That the most civilized way to live is live and let live. If your idea of a good day is to curl up with a good book inside and my idea of good day is to take a hike in the woods. We each do our own thing. And that just seems like the most civilized way to live.  And then somewhere in between, we can take votes and do things like that. And I guess I think that the taking a vote is closer to the, or maybe that's kind of your insight, is that taking a vote is closer to the beating each other up than it is to the live and let live. Depends on what you're voting about, yeah. Yeah, I liked your comment though about, and I think about this as I'm working on the book on this, that you don't wanna make sure that you're just justifying your libertarian view of the world in terms of this rubric you set up, which is a point well taken. But when you bring in the social aspects and comparing how much of your identity might be tied up with politics, that's a very good point because this also could be tied to the diversification of culture across the board, the long tail effect of there being not three networks anymore, not three bands anymore, and there were more than three bands, but there were just more and more things that you can do. And that means that there are more things that you could assign a group mentality to. So, Trader Joe's versus this, they start to have political ramifications. Whole Foods has a political undertone to it. Trader Joe's does that if you shop at a different type of grocery store, maybe it doesn't and even bands and even those. But that could have worked out the other way, right? It could have worked out that people's political heat turned down as they became more and more engaged in these other things. And with these wider opportunities. And one of the things that I remember Tyler Cowan writing a blog post about is that, if there are a lot of areas to compete in, then there are a lot of different status games to play. And I may be the best connoisseur of a certain type of music. And I may have a tight in group of people who take my recommendations on that music. And that's a great, you know, that, you know, in terms of, you know, my view of sort of a civilized versus primitive view, that would give, you know, give us a more civilized life or less likely to run into conflicts with each other is that people, is there enough status games so that everybody can feel their high status at something. But if you put all the load everything into politics, that seems like wow, you're bound to make a lot of people unhappy. Hey, let me push back just a bit on this, that kind of social science aspect of all of this a bit. And just say what, we're having this conversation very much in the Beltway right now. And I know you said like, you see more political posts from your Facebook friends, but that could be because that's become like the thing one does on Facebook.  And so it incentivizes stuff like that. But is it possible that we living here in the Washington, D.C. area, are to at least some extent over-reading how much people identify culturally with political groups and maybe outside the rest of America. Yeah, they, I mean, they can identify as Democrats or Republicans, but they're not thinking about it that much and they're not identifying. Yeah, so they're not like reading the newspaper, looking at the web, and when they see something that's threatening to their side, getting all like, oh, I gotta do something about that. I gotta write my blog post to share with them. Or they're just not reading the newspaper and reading the political pundits as much as we are.  Yeah, well, certainly that's true. I mean, you can just see in terms of the, you know, the percentage of non-voters and how that goes, you know, Obama just complained about this, how that goes up during off-year elections. So, yeah, I think that's true, but I think it's still kind of scary to the extent, to me, the extent to which at least among highly educated people that there's a lot of identity. I mean, I just see it in friends. I mean, I don't know if you get this experience, but I get this experience up because I have, you know, just about all my friends are on the left and so he was sitting around a dinner table and, you know, eventually the conversation comes back to how miserable the conservatives, the fact that, you know, that conservatives make them feel, how angry they get. And it's like, you know, you just wanna crawl under the chair. I wanna thank you, Arnold, for coming on Free Thoughts today. And I wanted to close by just asking if our listeners have found this really interesting. Of course they should buy the book, the Three Languages of Politics. It's only about 50 pages, so it's definitely worth it. But then is there somewhere they can say, find you online to get more of your thoughts? Well, I have a web blog that's called Ask Blog, but I think if you Google Arnold Kling Blog, sooner or later you'll get there. I used to blog elsewhere, but sooner or later you'll find this Ask Blog and if you see a blog with current posts, only by me, then you know you've found it. Thank you for listening to Free Thoughts. If you have any questions or comments about today's show, you can find us on Twitter at Free Thoughts Pod, that's Free Thoughts P-O-D. Free Thoughts is a project of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute and is produced by Evan Banks. To learn more about Libertarianism, visit us on the web at www.libertarianism.org.


The Rozo County Sheriff's Office continues to investigate a crash that involved American Legion soldiers on their way to a Memorial Day event. Three of the people, three of the eight people in the van involved in the crash were airlifted to a Grand Forks hospital following the accident Monday morning five miles south of War Road. Forum News Service reports 95-year-old Dan McKinnon remains hospitalized with severe injuries. McKinnon won an Olympic silver medal representing the United States in hockey in 1956. Chef Ciceroff, a board member for War Road's American Legion Post-25, told Forum News Service that McKinnon suffered the worst injuries in the crash, including fractures to the sternum and one vertebrae. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Hello all. In this video, you will be introduced to CMU libraries to remote access options that ensure your ability to access all of the library's electronic resources while you're off campus. This includes journal articles, ebooks, databases, tools, and more. Before we get started, it is best practice to always access the library's electronic resources using the library's website, especially when working remotely. The main reason for this is that many of these resources require subscriptions and the library's website acts like a portal to all subscription-based content. Okay, let's get started. First, go to the library's website, which is library.cmu.edu. From here, there are several ways to access electronic content. You could search the library's catalog using several of the links below in this section of the page, where you could scroll a bit further to the Quick Links section and access specific databases, e-resources, or tools, journals, and newspapers, or other links that we have set up in this section. Let's take a look at the Connecting from Off Campus Quick Link and click on that. This will take us to a page that explains our two remote access mechanisms, Easy Proxy and the Virtual Private Network, also called the VPN. Now, most electronic resources use Easy Proxy authentication. It's as simple as finding your resource of interest and entering your Android ID and CMU password when prompted with the CMU login page. Let's take a look at a quick example. Here is a listing for the Business Source Premier database that we got to from the databases, e-resources, and tools Quick Link that we saw earlier. When I click on that link, I am immediately prompted with the CMU login page. I simply enter my Android ID and password, and I am immediately taken into this resource. So once I enter my information, I should be taken to the database landing page, which looks like this, and I have successfully entered. Okay, let's return to the off campus page on the library's website and talk about the VPN for a little bit. There are a handful of resources that only work with the VPN. The VPN can also be used if you are experiencing any access issues with resources that aren't working properly with the Easy Proxy. Unfortunately, this can happen. So you can think of the VPN as a backup remote access mechanism. The VPN requires downloading the Cisco Any Connect application software and directions for those are listed here. Once the application is downloaded and set up on your computer, make sure to connect using the full VPN option, which acts as the library's specific VPN. Our resources will not work when using the general or campus VPN, so it's important to remember this step. Okay, let's demo connecting to the full VPN now. To download the VPN software, Cisco Any Connect software, you should get some sort of desktop icon that looks like this. If we hover over that we can see there's the option to connect. When we select connect will be taken to the VPN window. It defaults to the full to the campus VPN, usually, and that's the one that we do not want to connect to. Rather we want to switch this to the full VPN. So enter our password again. And after we enter that information, we should get some sort of notification that we've actually connected to the VPN. Now we can proceed with access and resources. So I did a quick search here for a particular article on consumer product behavior and I want to access this particular article here, consumer risk reduction behavior and new product purchases. Now that I'm connected to the VPN, I can access this article pretty quickly. I could either use the download PDF option or the available online option to access the article. If I click on download PDF, it should take me to the actual PDF of the article. It could take a few seconds, but here we see I've been connected to the article of interest. I hope that this video is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact us by using the various options on the ask us section of the library's website. And here's the URL for the ask us section. Thank you and have a great day.


QuickBooks Online 2024 Rental Income Setup Service Items Get ready and some coffee because we're getting the books on track with QuickBooks Online 2024 Here we are in our Get Great Guitars 2024 QuickBooks Online sample company file We set up in a prior presentation opening up the major financial statement reports like we do every time reports on the left in the favorites right click it on the balance sheet to open a link in a new tab right click it on the profit and loss to open the link in a new tab one more time with the trial balance the trustee TB same process let's tab to the right close up the hamburger change that range going from 010124 tab 022824 for the first two months of our operations I'd like to see them side by side so we'll have the months broken out and then run it to refresh it tabbing to the right closing the hamburger change that range 010124 tab 022824 tab month by month side by side por favor run it to refresh it tapping to the right one more time hamburger close that hamburger and change the range 010124 tab 022824 change it to months first a word from our sponsor yeah actually we're sponsoring ourselves on this one because apparently the merchandisers they don't want to be seen with us but but that's okay whatever because our merchandise is is better than their stupid stuff anyways like this CPA thinking cap for example CPA thinking CAP you see what we did with like with the letters and this CPA thinking cap is not just for CPAs either anyone can and should have at least one possibly multiple CPA thinking caps why because based on our scientific survey of five people all of whom directly profit from the sale of these CPA thinking caps wearing this CPA thinking cap without a doubt according to the survey increases accounting productivity tenfold yeah at least yeah apparently the hat actually channels like accounting energy from the quantum field ether directly in your head allowing you to navigate spreadsheets faster it's kind of like how in like the matrix when Neo learns kung fu or at least that's what the scientific survey saying so get one because the scientific survey participants could really use some extra cash if you would like a commercial free experience consider subscribing to our website at accounting instruction dot com or accounting instruction dot think of it dot com side by side refreshing the report let's go to the balance sheet to discuss the new process here as you know we sell guitars where we are at and then we added on the service items of guitar lessons guitar lessons then kind of mirroring a process for the billing of the guitar lessons similar to what you find in a job cost system for say a CPA firm or for say a law firm and now we're going to be adding a new source of income to our business that being the rental income so we bought all this equipment you will recall of course when we started up the company the first thing that we needed to do was get some cash and we did that by financing it ourselves taken out alone and putting our own money in the business so we can take that cash and then buy the stuff we needed to generate revenue in the future which was the furniture and equipment furniture and fixtures so we had a nice place that we can be living that we can run our store in that would people want to come in and hang out with and then we could also we could also have the inventory that of course we're going to sell from our place now unfortunately it's in California the place is gone down downhill people don't want to come into the store because we had to put bars on the on the windows and the door and whatnot to keep out the crazies so now what we're thinking since we have all this equipment will try to compensate for that by renting some of the equipment so now we have all of this guitar stuff that people want to have a band or something they can come in and pick up the equipment and then we'll take a down payment to try to commit them to actually returning the equipment and that's going to be our new source of income so this will be similar to much what you might see and like other kind of rental situations possibly like a building rental type of situation because we have a situation where we're not selling the equipment however we are we are renting the equipment and in order to facilitate that transaction we're going to want to be taking down a down payment a deposit on on the rental income up front to commit the individual to one completing the rental process meaning when they request the rental of equipment at a future date they pay us the down payment so they commit to actually following through with that process and so we can hold on to the equipment for them and to in a hopes that they will then return the equipment after the rental process is over according to the terms of the rental agreement so that's going to be our new system to be setting up here that will mean that we'll have an unearned revenue situation that we touched on in a prior presentation because we're going to get that security deposit up front we saw a similar situation where we just looked at the unearned revenue if we basically got a down payment on the sale of a guitar let's take a quick recap of that of as I go over to my flow chart this is the desktop flow chart which we're using for online purposes just because we want to look at the flow of the forms which are basically the same for any accounting cycle so for on the revenue cycle at the end of it there could be many different cycles but at the end of it normally we get paid and money will be coming in for goods and services provided and all of the normal methods would usually be going from left to right in this screen so for example the easiest method would just be all the way over here we just start from over here we wait till something clears the bank and then we deposit it with a deposit form recording income at that time possibly if you're like a youtuber or something that would be the easiest thing to do because you get paid you just record it as income when you get the money but if you have a store like we've been working at here so people come up and they have the guitar that they bring up to the cash register you can't wait till it clears the bank as a deposit but typically rather want to record it at the point in time that you bring it up on the cash register as an internal control often putting it into a clearing account that you can then deposit into the bank in the same format as will be shown on the bank statement due to different types of payments you might be receiving cash versus credit card versus a check and that kind of thing this is still a cash-based system however then if we go to an accrual-based system that would be a system notice that you could still call it by the way I could call it cash or accrual because either way the money is going to be recorded or revenue will be recorded at this point in time but you can think of it as kind of like a cash-based system because there is no difference between the timing of when I do the work and when I get paid so there is a difference if we have to issue an invoice that would be an accrual-based system so now we're going to say we do the work first like in a law firm or a CPA firm we bill the client then have to track the accounts receivable we then get paid we then make the deposit so the flow is always going from left to right here although we might cut off this front bit and be over here but there are situations where the flow is backwards where we get the money first and then we do the work and that's the case when we saw the classic book example is like the lame legacy media on their last lame leg trying to sell newspapers in that case they sell you a year's worth of newspapers that used to be kind of interesting but now they're just bricks that you pay some kid to throw at you for some reason it's kind of like a I don't know if you feel bad about yourself you let the kid have a brick that they throw at you once a week that's completely useless but they still have some people that do that but then you also have the applications that if you have a computer application then oftentimes you get paid first so anything that's like a subscription model is a classic kind of example of having all of your revenue being collected in advance generally putting it into unearned revenue and then having to bill for it after that point in time other classic example is the rental property which we're kind of mirroring here if you have like a residential rental and you're running residential rental you're going to be collecting the first security deposit or possibly the last month's rent for a similar reason as we are doing here to cover damages to make sure the property is returned and the same condition that it was originally in and so we're going to be mirroring the similar process here with our rental property we're going to collect the down payment basically upfront the other method or example you might have is what we did before whereas if you sell a large piece of equipment and you're going to make the sale but you have to order the equipment or make the equipment then you might ask for a down payment upfront meaning you're getting the money before you pay for it before you do the work because you want to lock them into the sale because you're putting work into customizing this item and you want to make sure that they're going to follow through with it alright so the first step in our process is going to be that we're going to set up our items so I'm going to go back to the first we're going to imagine what what's going to happen here is if I hit the plus button someone calls in for a rental property when they call in we're going to want to set up an estimate form which isn't a form that will actually record anything you'll recall that's an internal form that looks a lot like an invoice but doesn't actually record anything and that will allow us to then calculate what we think the down payment will be and so then we will collect the down payment and we saw different ways that we can record the down payment but I think the easiest way from an internal perspective would be to create a would be to create a received payment form usually the form entered after we have an invoice but now we're going to do it before we have an invoice to get a negative receivable a credit balance for that particular customer and then when the customer comes into the shop and we facilitate the transaction we will basically use the client at that point in time would be that's the general flow so that means that when I enter an estimate we have to have things set up in a similar way you'll recall when we had someone at a cash register you've got some kid at the cash register doesn't not very engage sleeping under the counter and whatnot until someone brings them something and he could still ring it up pretty well because we have the system set up pretty well we want a similar things with the estimate that someone calls in and says hey I would like to request rental property and the phone wakes this kid up that gets out from underneath this sleeping position under the counter is like oh okay dude I'll tell you how much it costs to do an estimate and so that means that we have to have all of the items set up properly so that he can make the estimate and collect the down payment very easily so that means if I let's do that if we go on over into our sales items over here and then we go into our products and I'm going to close up the hand boogie so so now we're going to add our our rental items which I'm going to enter as service items here and note we could add look at we have all these guitars so you might say okay maybe I put a different rental service item for a different price for each individual guitar but note that's probably not the best way to go because then it's going to get confusing oftentimes because there's too many options so oftentimes it's easier to limit the options otherwise you have paralysis in both yourself as you ring it up as well as with the customers because again the person in the shop probably doesn't know as much about it as the person who's designed the system the owner of the business so you want to make things easy so typically we might say okay here's the basic rental package it includes two basic guitars or something like that and it has one drum set and then it has an amp or something like that and that's it right so we'll have a standard guitar rental set that has certain guitars that they could basically interchange or whatever whatever's in the shop at that point in time in an attempt to say that's the baseline and we're not going to sell you we're not going to rent like one guitar it's not going to be worth our time possibly we have to go for the whole band set and that's going to be the minimum price that we will use in order to engage in basically a rental property if you want one guitar it's still going to cost you the cost of basically renting the band set is it going to be the general idea and then maybe we'll add on to it saying if you want to level up from that starting point then you can buy another guitar for a tacked on fee or buy another amp if you really want to piss off the neighbors with a tacked on fee alright so that's the idea so let's go new and we're going to add a service item and we're just going to call this a band set rental number one and just a generic name now the question is do we want to put it into the same service income it's still kind of a service here but so it's going to be a service item I'll get to that in a second no SKU number let's actually make it a category so let's call this a category and I'm going to call it rental rental items and this category is not a subcategory I'm just going to go category rental items boom let's make that and then so there it's in a category the description is going to be the band set one and we might put in here that it's going to have what did I say something like rental two guitars Tars one drum set bass and amp or something like that and we're going to say that I'm just making up a price like $2,000 I have no idea what this would be and we probably want the duration of days but I'm just giving a general generalities here and then we could put it into service income and notice I don't want to get too crazy with the income statement you will recall we don't want to have let's go over to the income statement remember that we don't want to have a separate income line item for everything that we do the problem oftentimes people get into is they make a separate income line item for every customer they do business with which isn't normally what you want to do unless it's like gig work or something you can call it youtube income because youtube income kind of makes sense because you're getting paid by the platform and you might not have a sub account but if you deal with most industries you're going to want to not break out all your income lines by customer because you can make a sub ledger if you're using the proper sales forms invoices and sales receipts that will break out by customer same with the service with the items inventory and service items we don't want a separate income line item for every guitar that we sell because we can break it out in another report and it'll make our income statement too long but we might break this out instead of normal service items like guitar tuning or something we might want a general another one which is going to be rental right equipment rental so let's do that I'm going to make another income account over here and I'm just going to say new and we'll call it equipment rental it's going to be an income account and it's going to be another primary income and I'm going to call it rental income let's call it equipment equipment rental income but you got to spell it right so let's do that and then we'll say save it alright that's the income account no tax is going to be applied to it in our practice problem we're talking state sales tax because it's not inventory being sold so I'm going to say no tax we don't have to purchase anything so there it is we're going to create that and scroll down we can say it put it into where did it go there it is the rental and let's sort it by category now so I'm going to sort it by category band set boom and then under there I'll add so that's the baseline and then under there I'll add if they want to tack on like more guitars or something it's going to cost we're just going to make up another another $40 so I'm going to say then if you have another service item and we're going to call it if you wanted to add add rental amp let's say amplifier I'll try to spell it for band set number one or whatever service item it's going to go into the category rental items description add an amp we're going to say that cost you another $40 and it's not going to go into service income but equipment rental income no tax applied to it no tax and then we'll save it is one of the thing another reason we are doing this this new method because California number one made us put they don't they don't protect us we had to put the bars on our doors to stop people from stealing our inventory so no one wants to come in anymore and hang out with us and also they charges sales tax which was basically for protection money where they're supposed to protect us but then they stopped protecting us so if we do the rental income then then we can at least maybe not have to pay the sales tax so then I'm going to do one more I'm going to say another one and this one is going to be caps lock add rental guitar amp this is add another guitar add rental guitar okay now I can't even spell that's what I said you sell guitars and you can't spell guitar leave me alone this is going to go into rental items and then description add rental guitar and we're going to say that that costs you another $50 and we're going to say that goes into equipment rental and so then we're going to say then that's going to go into non taxable income once again and that's there it is so we can create that so that's going to be our general idea here so now we've got in the category if we sort by category we've got the overall band set rental and then if they want to tack on more guitars or possibly level up the guitar then they could then they have to pay pay more per item so so now the we won't actually record this but now the general process what I'm thinking here is we're going to say okay someone calls in and they want to have a weekend they want to piss off their neighbors a lot and they thought that if they have like electric firing guitars and drums that would be good so we're like yeah dude that's what we do here so they call in and the guy wakes up for month to the counter and is like yeah we could totally give you the stuff to piss off your neighbors and so we go into the new and then he can make an estimate I'll tell you how much it costs right now and you could give us a down payment and then we and then the normal band set and they're like well we only want one guitar or something like that it's like no dude you have to you have to get a full band set even if you want one guitar because that's how it that's how it's been set up man but then they're like okay well really we want like the whole band set and then we want an extra guitar or two extra guitars or something it's like we can totally do more guitars we could that's like two more guitars and we want two more amps or something because one amps not going to piss people off enough like oh I totally understand dude another amplifier and so that's something like that right and then we can take the estimate and we can take like a down payment based on the estimate it's going to be the process but we won't finish that this time that's what we'll do that next time this is foreshadowing for the next one so stay tuned and we'll do that nothing happened to our financials as of yet this because we just set up our items we're ready to go we're ready to start our new revenue stream business here


What's going on everyone? Sam here with late in sports cards. You've been 23, Penini plates and patches, football hobby, 12 box full case break, number 12, random division style. So look again at your random results. As always, you can find those on the website, under the results tab, as well as the link in chat. Before we start, we are going to do a random for four 2023 Penini national VIP gold packs. I'm going to roll the dice. After five times, whatever four names are the first four names will each receive a gold pack with your order. So we got one, two, three, four, five. You've got Brent C is going to pick up a gold pack. So congrats Brent. Drew R is going to get a gold pack. Congrats Drew. Jason A is going to get a gold pack. Let me highlight everybody. Jason A will get a gold pack. Isaac Q will get a gold pack. So there you guys go. I'm not going to upload those or anything. If you watch the video back, you'll see if you got a gold pack and if you got a gold pack in your order and you're wondering what the hell is this, go watch the video and it'll be good. All right. Now good luck everybody. Let's do it. Full case of plates and poches. That's pretty cool. Troy Palamalu to 35 AFC North. Grats on that. AFC South rookie is going to be a Tank Bigsby. Someone here. NFC East. Jalen Carter, four of 25. One color, four color. Grats on that NFC East. There you go Tyler. Got a Joe Cleco, that is 5 of 75. All Hall for the AFC East. And NFC North, Jaden Reed, that is 63 of 75. There is some damage on that. Send an empty box and wrapper with the NFC North. Congrats though NFC North. Still a cool car. Very cool car. Clayton Toon Rookie, NFC West. Chris Godwin, NFC South to 25. Nice one here. NFC North is a Jameer Gibbs, that is 79 of 300. That's NFC North, George. You've got a Luke Shoenmaker, NFC East, 48 of 300. And full coverage, rookie Jersey to 59 is Will Anderson, AFC South. Grats on that AFC South. On to the next. To a tag of my low at a 35. AFC East. God, Cadarius Tony on the base. Most, I would say most likely James. Let me see the queue really quick. I think there's like five orders in queue right now. Yeah, I would say so. I would say I would get, I would get ripped tonight. That is Josh Downs double coverage to 55. AFC South. NFC West is going to be 11 to 75. Isaac Bruce All Hall, class of 2020. And Rishi Rice, AFC West 109 out of 149. Congrats, Isaac. Nice one there, buddy. Rishi Rice. Trayvon Diggs, base NFC East. There's a Deuce Vaughn, nice one there too, 35. NFC West is Jackson Smith and Jigba, two of 300. Congrats, NFC West. AFC North is going to be Steel Signatures, Cedric Tillman, 186 out of 300. AFC North. And full coverage, Dalton Kincaid, 57 of 59. AFC East. Full coverage to 59. Dalton Kincaid. There you go, Utah. Sounds like a Utah youth. Let me just see if I have as little as this part of my gift for a little bit more. Yeah, there you go. That's going to be just like going through the roll of decks of Luminance cards. There's Jair Alexander, base. I use Harrier. There's a Dalton Schultz to 35. Nice one there, AFC South. This is sweet. AFC North, Zay Flowers, 59 of 75. Congrats, the NFC North, or AFC North for my Baltimore rims. Zatoven. That is going to be 24 of 75. Zach Evans, two-colored RPA. NFC West, Zach Evans. And three-colored, three-colored, three-colored, 18 of 25. Austin Eckler. Nice one there. Congrats, AFC West on the Patch Trio. Nice, American Medal. Dalton Kincaid on the case hit. Congrats on that. There you go, AFC East. Utah guy. Confirmed Utah U. Dalton Kincaid. Let me just look that up, because that's going to bug me if I don't know. I'm with like IORs. Yeah, right, honestly. I played San Diego, and he did play at Utah, so he was drafted out of Utah. Sorry, he was right on that. Nice, Jordan Love. No, Sean Clifford. Just 227 of 300. My Lord, dude. Long night, NFC North. Sean Clifford. Sean Clifford. Jordan Love, same guy. They're seeing you get so excited about a car that's not the guy that he's talking about. Gotcha. There's Devanna Shane to 50. Nice one there, AFC East. Confirmed 2023 Rookie, Jordan Love. We got a rookie, or not a rookie, but Kenneth Walker, base card. And Patch Trio is Danny Dimes. 99 of 99. Daniel Jones for the NFC East. Nice one there. Congrats, NFC East. Yeah, Bob Miller Function. Yeah, you're right, dude. Honestly, that was a bottom out for you. Right, dude. Holy, gotta need to get rewired, dude. Power ourselves to run the roof low. Geez, they are, man. Dude, you deserve your power. George Kittle. Nice one there, 225. Base card is Devante Smith for the Eagles. Dalvin Cook, Patch Trio. That is going to be 13 to 25. Two colors all the way around, outside of the bottom right is a one color. Same does need a Snickers, man. There's Orlando Pace. Nice one there. That is five of 30 highly revered on card. That's for 2020, plates and patches football. It's the update. And Tanner McKee, 48 of 75 NFC East. Yes, sir. There is a little scratch on the side. I'm going to send an empty box to Rapper. How dare they? I know. Such an amazing constant. I'm such a just dynamic player. You know what? He is. It's QB2 after all. Yeah, exactly. It's QB2. Maryona wishes you were there. Maryona just wishes he could throw a ball to an open receiver. That's what he wishes. I honestly, yeah, I know. Honestly, I agree with you on that. I'm not a fan of the hollow on the bay side of the RKO. Really? I don't like it, dude. I kind of like it. It's different. It is different. I like the difference of it. To 35 Marquise Brown NFC West. That is a Tank Dell rookie, AFC South. No, they did Luminance and might throw a fit, but in this, I don't know. Luminance, Donnie. Fanini's getting an angry letter from Donnie. Swag Champ to 25. That is Justin Herbert, AFC West. You've got AFC East is going to be Dalton Kincaid. Oh, it's the next one. Sick, dude. Congrats, AFC East. Oh, perfect. James sounds good. Let's see if I got that. Yes, I did. Select basketball. You got it, my man. How about AFC North? Joe Thomas, all hall. Class of 2023, 48 of 99. One of the best offensive linemen ever do it. Nice. That's cool, dude. I have not very few Joe Thomas autos out there, which is cool. Yeah, James, Q's probably a little under an hour, I would say. So we'll get to it. It's going to take a little bit, but we'll get to it tonight for sure. Russell Wilson to 35. 10 of 35, AFC West. Got Brian Robinson, Jr. Base. AFC East is Kayshawn Beauty, 50 of 50, one color and three color on the bottom there is a little bit of red in the bottom right. Here's Donnie's boy, highly revered. Lane Johnson, 55 of 75. Yeah. NFC East and NFC North, Sam LaPorta, 15 of 50. NFC North on the color match was drafted on a boat fishing.  Joe Thomas is the man. Sucks that he was a brown his entire career. Nice. One of one. Zach Charbonnet on the rookie going to the NFC West. Congrats on that. Charbonnet. NFC West, Drew R. Hunter Henry, base card. We've got Devonte Smith, Donnie's boy again, 35 of 35. Yeah. NFC East. You've got a steel signatures of Isaac Bruce to 50, 31 of 50. 28 of 45, Will Leviss, full coverage, AFC South. That why he retired early because he was on the browns his entire career. Probably. I'll play more. Or to go fishing more. Probably a bit of bolt, yeah. I'll go count my money and fish, count my money on my boat. There's Tank Big Speed of 35. Probably a bigger boat. Probably yes. Probably that is the correct answer there. Josh Allen, base card. Got a Sam Laporta, double coverage, 55. 23 of 55. Ooh, nice. Leaps and bounds. Mark Andrews, on card auto for the AFC North. 75 of 99. That's from 2020 Plates and Patches. On the update, congrats Ravens AFC North is Brent C. That's awesome. Little Andrews action. And Sam Laporta, RPA 47 up 50. Going to the NFC North. NFC North, Sam Laporta. All right, last box of the break. Good luck, everybody. Last group break box of the night. After this, we have Personals. Rishi Rice Rookie, AFC West. Nice one here. 8 of 35 is A. Will Leviss. Ooh, that could be big, Donnie. That could be really big. Going to Sean R. AFC South. 9 of 10, Anthony Richardson. That is a big guard. Congrats, Sean. There you go, buddy. Hell yeah, man. That is pretty nasty. Again, 9 of 10, Anthony Richardson. Steel signatures. Get that into a mag. We got Cedric Tillman. That is 23 of 50 on the RPA. The AFC North. And NFC North, 29 of 55. Double coverage, Jaren Hall. Congrats on that. I hope that's Sean Pueysan. All right, guys, let's do a quick recap. Anthony's losing it, man. Double coverage, Sam Laporta. Will Leviss. Kayshawn Beauty. Justin Herbert. Dolan Cook. Daniel Jones. Austin Eckler. Dalton Kincaid. Josh Downes. Will Anderson. Jalen Carter. And Jaren Hall. Goss. Autos. Sam Laporta. Isaac Bruce. Mark Andrews. Devontae Smith. Lane Johnson. It's a Cedric Tillman. Sam Laporta. Joe Thomas. Dalton Kincaid. Tanner McKee. Orlando Pace. Devon Ashane. Sean Clifford, a.k.a. Jordan Love. Zach Evans. Zae Flowers. Cedric Tillman. Jackson Smith and Jigba. Rishi Rice. Isaac Bruce. Luke Shoenmaker. Jameer Gibbs. Jaden Reed. And Joe Cleco. Mag guards. We had a one-of-one Zach Charbonnet for the NFC West. And a nine-of-ten Anthony Richardson for the AFC South. I'll do it for the break, guys. Thanks again for the bill. Up next, personal.


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel and I appreciate you being here today we talk about Anthem the Destiny 2 killer, well that's a joke within itself although before Destiny 2 was released everyone was saying that when Anthem does eventually drop has no day has been released yet but when it does drop it looks like the type of game that would kill off Destiny 2. Now we all know that the only game to kill Destiny 2 is Destiny 2 it's pretty much doing that by itself. Anthem on the other hand is a much anticipated loot shoot by Bioware and EA. Now much of this puts many people off and it's the reasoning behind this video too and that is at loot boxes micro transactions another way for companies to take our money after the initial purchase of their game and what we know about EA when it comes to the subject it's a little bit iffy. What they originally planned with Star Wars Battlefront was an absolute joke and it caused an uproar amongst the Star Wars Battlefront community. Now I won't get into the nitty bit details of this as no doubt you've heard it a million times before well what it did do was ruin the reputation of the game. Star Wars Battlefront itself if you've ever played the game was incredible easily up there with my favorite first person shooters over the past five years plus it locked and ran so smooth and a lot crisp on my Xbox One X I absolutely loved it I still do love it but the game really suffered so many people who planned on buying it simply just didn't because of this point even though EA fixed what was wrong with the game within the first week it still put thousands of people off now if you saw the Star Wars trailer for the first time and actually saw it in game gameplay you'll be like oh damn that looks great let me go check out a review of it if that view was via 99% of any internet source it would always come up with the game being ruined by micro transactions and greedy pockets of developers now although like I said the issue was sorted and resolved it's still a burden on the game and it always will be and it's a burden on EA they've basically shut themselves in the foot so and from a looters shooter we saw the trailer to ages ago at E3 news or anything for that matter has been scarce and to be honest some of you might not have even known about this game or don't know what it is if you did miss the initial trailer which we saw probably six to eight to ten to twelve months ago here watch the teaser trailer before we go any further the wall it's our armor it protects us from what lies beyond you live with the choices you make or die trying to change them so if you're a fan of let's say Borderlands Warframe Destiny or any other looter shooter surely this picks up on your interest senses it does for the most part look great for sure it looks like the best of many games all piled up into one but and a massive bot hangs over this game and that is the fact EA are partly behind it this is putting many people off and leaving them unsure about the game yes no doubt the type of game is micro transactions will be in the game but that doesn't mean they have to be a bad thing many many games have micro transactions and it doesn't take away from the main game of recent we saw Star Wars basically ripped apart through micro transactions and we're also seeing the same happening to Destiny 2 due to eververse but games such as Overwatch are fine with the system they have in place and games such as Warframe which are free to play but do have micro transactions for shortcuts are also fine too Fortnite Battle Royale is another great free game which the developers are great with their community this also has an in-game currency called Vbox which in my opinion don't take it away from the game as long as Anthem by the way and EA don't try and get too greedy with Anthem it will do just fine a pretty big game analysis not long stated that loot boxes will be in the game they're not confirmed by EA or Bioware it is pretty much a hundred percent anyone with a brain cell would know this but here is what he also said on this matter so the question for Anthem is will EA screw up a game like Star Wars or will they follow the Overwatch or Destiny roadmap where the actual game is fun to play and the payments are ancillary because where they got into trouble with Star Wars was making it pay to win had they limited themselves to purely cosmetic items I don't think anyone would have said anything so Anthem has the potential to be destiny like in terms of game experience and Overwatch like in terms of micro transactions offered where it's all cosmetic and no one bats an eye he noted however I think right now EA is in probation with gamers I think everyone is watching everything they do I don't think they can afford to put an onrush micro transaction scheme in any game going forward they need to re-earn gamers trust again so I hope they are sobered by this experience and learn from it but I think they are smart so I'm sure they will do the right thing going forward we'll see and to me people that makes sense EA is a billion dollar company surely they have smart people working with their headquarters and they know they are on the naughty step at the moment and it will take a while for them to amend the mistakes they've made they need to rebuild relations with us for sure they need to try and win people back over by doing this and gaining people's trust again Anthem will flourish no doubt but going forward they need to be honest and clear with the direction they are taking Anthem at the moment not much is known at all but there is hope for sure I personally believe that they will be 100% loot boxes and micro transactions in Anthem but they will not determine the game hopefully there will be an added extra feature which contain cosmetics only that's the only case I can see anything as such passing without negativity from people interested in the game but put off by EA's past sins now Anthem is a game to come out later this year so it's believed I'm pretty sure new info will come sometime soon also maybe in the form of ATZ trailer or just a recap of Bioware and what's going on at the studios either way guys like I've said from day one this is a game I plan uncovering here on my channel so if you are interested in Anthem and you are new to this channel be sure to subscribe let me know your opinion on EA and loot boxes do you trust them what will it take for EA to win back your trust are you done with them let me know but thanks for stopping by as always and checking out the video if you did enjoy leaving a like really does help me out and hopefully people I will see you on that next one