Okay, Patches.  All right, let's do a voiceover. All right. The International Spotlight may be on Pyeongchang, but at Smugglers, we're putting the spotlight on you. You should go for the gold February 9th through the 25th. Apparently not interested.


The first step is to say, I am good enough, I am great, I am wonderful and I know how to love. You have to say that even if you feel doubts about it. You are a source of love. The soul within you is the master of your being. That is the source of love to which you surrender and when you surrender to love, you are able to love in return. We invite you to an Audio Life Satsang with Maharishika Preeti this Sunday. For more information visit maharishika.org


Same matchup just before on the girl side. Second half flyers on a roll. Rachel with Tucky finds Sophie Stawada down low for the bucket. They're clinging to a small lead then later. Pioneers trying to claw back though. Kelsey Stuckmare drains the three. That'll cut it to six. The little falls pulls away late. Taylor Jordan misses the shot but Ali Steinmetz there to clean it up and put them ahead for good. They hang on to win on the road. 50 to 45 the final score. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Christian Brachet, welcome. You are the president of the Institut Pasteur, a question about health, health and governance. Isn't there a problem really with the pharmaceutical industry in that it is so expensive to develop new drugs that it wants to maximize always its market? And therefore, there are certain illnesses, you talked about Ebola for example. How does one somehow galvanize research into producing things that are also commercially viable and important to humanity? Well, that's one of the key challenges for the future obviously. I believe that we have several models and that we have some success for example regarding the HIV. We have had major progress with the treatment and we also have now drugs which have been with lower pricing for developing an emerging country. So yes, we need in general to have a novel mechanism and this is about governance to provide more incentive for rare diseases in developing countries. Now you have already interesting initiatives such as the drugs for neglected diseases initiative which is supported in part by the Gates Foundation, by the WHO, by medical, by Doctors Without Borders where they have been able to take a number of drugs and to really develop them in a context of much lower pricing. So the answer to your question is yes, we need a more formalized mechanisms with more incentive to really develop these drugs and we need networking between both pharmaceutical companies and large institutions, large international institutions. Absolutely. You talked about networking, I mean the World Policy Conference it seems to me is in many ways all about networking. Has it been useful? Is it useful for you in your particular role? It's very useful and you see it's interesting because the session I have been sharing. So I presented about the main challenges regarding global health and one health and how we handle sanitary crisis. Then Bertrand Badré from the World Bank, they have very interesting financial mechanisms. We are actually interacting and finally I met because of this conference Louis Fresco with the president of the Warningen University and actually we were just having discussion together on associations. So I believe that this is a good example today for me of how this networking can be real. Thank you very much indeed.


What's up everyone it's your girl Kenzie here from Layton Sports Cards and I am ripping 2021 Panini Follows football hobby one box break number 38 left side serial numbers again here's a look at the random results you can always find these at LaytonSportsCards.com underneath the results tab and the link is also in chat for you. All right best of luck everyone thanks again almost the end of the night we've got tiered uh full case coming up next good luck first up we've got bookend 20 of 20 rookie patch Elijah Moore jets 20 spot great in k great in k starting us off we've got two of 25 uh Kyler Murray patch uh Sean D Sean D in the two spot we've got out of 15 and Nikhil Harry flawless flyers Patriots six spots uh Braden K Braden K in the six spot nice one there uh I believe what by the end of the month maybe maybe next month yeah I think July we've got uh Colts greats 13 of 20 Dallas Clark Braden K Braden K gosh here you go Braden buy a lot of ticket while you're at it say man hit all three of his numbers uh six 20 13 we've got patch Otto here two out of 10 Joey Bosa for the chargers there's a cool one Sean D Sean D D or B D Sean D nice one there two of 10 nice one here five of five bookend Dalvin cook Vikings five spot Patrick Patrick E on the cook five of five very nice mag that and we've got seven of 15 bills legend how about a Jim Kelly Dan and third of Dan there you go nice Jim Kelly there empty let's see what I got here let's start here we have MVPs Ruby one out of 20 Aaron Rodgers one spot Sean D Sean D and nice Aaron Rodgers that comes with the diamond guarantee Ruby guarantee on that one got an emerald up next two out of five Seahawks DK Metcalf Sean D Sean D in the two spot nice and last but certainly not least how about five of 25 RPA Matt Jones boom Patrick E on the five spots beautiful hit three colored patch Otto all right that'll do for the left side serial numbers everyone we've got a case to end this out tonight for tiered random teams I'll be up next thank you


And the award goes to Kaurav Sarvanth, India Today TV Ashutosh for Suffering Diaries, India Today TV Rahul Kanwar, India Today TV To the point, India Today TV First up, India Today TV India Today Group once again dominated the ENBA awards And the award goes to India Today Both India Today and sister channel Arch Tak were chosen as the best channels in English and Hindi With over 90 awards, the gold standard of journalism shined the brightest I truly believe we are the only truly fearless channel We have no biases, we have no bents We don't indulge in gimmicks for eyeballs And I'm very proud of this channel India Today's anchors Rahul Kaval, Shiva Roon, Gaurav Sarvanth and Preeti Chaudhary won the top honors While Gaurav and Shiv won the best English anchor awards And now I'm inviting Preeti Chaudhary Preeti Chaudhary was awarded for the best continuing coverage award for her COVID special Suffering Diaries The gold goes to Supriya Prasad, Arch Tak TV Today Network's news director Supriya Prasad and Rahul Kaval won big for their unparalleled leadership Rahul Kanwar, India Today TV Congratulations to you India Today swept the awards across categories with its flagship shows captivating the award jury To the point, India Today TV Congratulations to the point, won the best early primetime show award The gold in this category goes to The award for the late best primetime show went to India first Let's hear it for India Today TV everybody The dominance was complete in all-time bands as news track and breakfast show first up also won big India Today also won accolades for the best use of technology, best producer And for being the best website India Today Group once again establishing its gold standard of journalism Proving itself the defining force in the news industry Bureau report India Today


Welcome to George H. Smith's Excursions into Libertarian Thought, a production of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. Narrated by Daniel Highland. Self-interest and social order in classical liberalism. Bernard Mandeville vs. Francis Hutchison Now that this lengthy series is winding down to a close, it might be helpful to summarize a basic controversy that arose in a number of my essays, one that concerns the natural sociability of humankind. In other words, is the desire of people to interact with other people, beyond the family unit, and to form enduring associations called society a natural propensity of human beings? Or do people form societies only after utilitarian calculations reveal that such associations will advance the self-interested goals of the participants? Those many classical liberals who upheld the natural sociability of man did not deny that self-interested considerations played a role in the early history of societies. But they also maintained that humans have a natural propensity, or instinct, as it was sometimes called, to interact with other humans. And that the benefits accruing from this interaction were not foreseen or designed by the participants. Explicit calculations of personal utility occurred only after societies had been formed, for only then were people able to experience the benefits of social life and subsequently strive to maintain the conditions, such as justice, that made those benefits possible. As I explained in previous essays in this series, Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Mandeville were two of the most influential philosophers who denied the natural sociability of man. And, not coincidentally, both were psychological egoists who argued that all human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interested considerations. Consequently, if all actions are driven by self-interested desires, people would never have formed societies unless they believed, prior to their entry into a society, that such interaction would benefit them personally. For Hobbes, our egoistic proclivities in a state of nature, a society without government, would result in a perpetual war of every man against every man. So a stable social order was not possible until an absolute government instilled the fear of death in its subjects, after which this self-interested fear trumped our violent predatory instincts to harm or kill others in the course of getting what we want. Mandeville agreed with Hobbes in some respects, but he added his own twist. He did not believe that threats of violence by a government would have resulted in social order, but he did believe that people needed the curb of government to sustain a peaceful productive society. In a theory that smacks of Hayekian constructivism, a notion that I explained in my last essay, Mandeville speculated that governments appealed to the vanity and pride of people rather than to their fears. Rulers, and other wise men in league with government, subdued the natural bent of humans to please themselves by convincing them that it was more beneficial for everybody to conquer than indulge his appetites, and much better to mind the public than what seemed his private interest. In pursuit of this objective, wise rulers were unable to provide any real rewards that would compensate for the sacrifice of egoistic pursuits for the public good, so they examined all the strength and frailties of our nature, and they concluded that flattery must be the most powerful argument that could be used to divert people from their narrow self-interested pursuits in favor of the public good. It was by using the bewitching engine of flattery that rulers appealed to the natural vanity of human beings by persuading them that they were rational creatures capable of performing the most noble achievements. Mandeville continued, having by this artful way of flattery insinuated themselves into the hearts of men, rulers began to instruct them in the notions of honor and shame. Mandeville continued, presenting shame as the worst of all evils, and the other as the highest good to which mortals could aspire. Which being done, they laid before them how unbecoming it was the dignity of such sublime creatures to be solicitous about gratifying those appetites which they had in common with brutes, and mindful of those higher qualities that gave them the preeminence over all visible beings. They indeed confessed that those impulses of nature were very pressing, that it was troublesome to resist and very difficult wholly to subdue them, but this they only used as an argument to demonstrate how glorious the conquest of them was on the one hand and how scandalous on the other not to attempt it. As illustrated in these remarks, Mandeville substituted vanity and pride for Hobbesian fear in his explanation of how self-interest can be manipulated by government so as to make social order possible. Pride, like fear, is an egoistic motive, so both schemes never waver from the thesis that self-interest alone drives human actions. But whereas the Hobbesian fear of death is quite real, pride, as explained by Mandeville, is a type of deception inculcated by rulers and their philosophical allies. Individuals who believe themselves to be noble, altruistic, or public-spirited are deceiving themselves. Such individuals are in fact motivated by the desire to be praised and flattered by others, the wellsprings of egoistic pride. Although Mandeville discussed and defended his thesis in detail throughout both volumes of The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vice's Public Benefits, it would serve no purpose to follow him further. It should be noted, however, that this aspect of Mandeville's social theory does not harmonize with his reputation as a pioneer in the theory of spontaneous order and social evolution. It may be true, as F. B. K., editor of the definitive edition of The Fable of the Bees, maintained that Mandeville did not mean to say that wise rulers perpetrated their psychological manipulation at one time in order to kickstart social order, but that instead the process occurred over a long period of time. This qualification was necessary if K. was to defend his claim that Mandeville was a pioneer in historical sociology and anthropology, a claim echoed by F. A. Hayek and other scholars, including libertarian scholars. A problem here is that Mandeville reveled in positing paradoxes, with the result that he sometimes seemed to defend inconsistent positions. But the passages I quoted here are from an inquiry into the origin of moral virtue in the first volume of The Fable of the Bees, which is one of Mandeville's most important pieces. And there we find an implausible, indeed fanciful theory, that treats social order as a construction in effect of wise rulers who manipulated their subjects psychologically as a means to further the public good. How rulers became so much wiser than their subjects, Mandeville did not attempt to explain. His approach reminds me of those skeptics of ancient Greece, who argued that the gods were deliberately concocted by rulers as a means of maintaining political control. Mandeville's theory of the origin of moral virtue, pride begot by flattery, brings us to his conceptions of virtue and vice. According to Mandeville, whether an action is morally good, virtuous, or morally bad, vicious, depends entirely on the motives that actuated it. Good actions are motivated solely by a concern for others, whereas morally bad actions are motivated by self-interest. In this theory of moral rigorism, as FBK called it, no action can be morally good if it is motivated by self-interest. And it was by using this conception of vice that Mandeville defended his celebrated thesis that private vices generate public benefits. When boiled down to essentials, this is to say nothing more than that self-interested actions frequently benefit society as a whole. This was scarcely news to the many moral philosophers, both before and after Mandeville, who had no objections to the pursuit of self-interest, rightly understood. Mandeville's scandalous pronouncement rested almost entirely on his substitution of vice for self-interest. In Remarks Upon the Fable of the Bees, 1750, Francis Hutchison, whom I mentioned in my last essay, noted the ambiguity in Mandeville's claim that private vices produce public benefits, a proposition that may be understood in five different ways. But Mandeville, according to Hutchison, never explained precisely what he meant. If all he meant to say was that self-interested actions will sometimes produce social benefits, then Mandeville scored an easy victory by defining virtue to narrowly. Self-interested actions are not necessarily immoral, and self-love is quite compatible with benevolence. As Hutchison put it in On the Natural Sociability of Mankind, 1730, the innate self-love of our nature is in no way contrary to our common and benevolent affections. In Remarks, Hutchison also attacked Mandeville for his arbitrary definitions of certain vices. Contrary to Mandeville, for example, the traditional vice of luxury did not refer to the enjoyment of goods that are not absolutely necessary for our survival. Rather, the vice of luxury traditionally signified goods that one cannot reasonably afford, goods that are purchased at the expense of one's obligation to care for one's family, etc. Similarly, the vice of pride did not condemn legitimate accomplishments that deserved the esteem and praise of others. Rather, it meant having an opinion for our own virtues greater than what they really are, arrogating to ourselves either obedience, service, or external marks of honor to which we have no right. And intemperance did not mean the effort to satisfy any sensual desire. Rather, it referred to that use of meat and drink which is pernicious to the health and vigor of any person in the discharge of the offices of life. These vices, Hutchison went on to explain, will vary according to the characteristics and situations of individuals. Everyone's own knowledge and experience of his constitution and fortune will suggest to him what is suitable to his own circumstances. Mandeville's claim that using anything above the bare necessaries of life is intemperance, pride, or luxury is, according to Hutchison, simply ridiculous. It is not as if temperance, frugality, or moderation denoted fixed weights or measures or sums which all were to observe and not a proportion to men's circumstances. In short, many vices as defined by Mandeville are not true vices at all, but are merely the reasonable pursuit of self-interest. Adam Smith later expressed similar objections in the theory of moral sentiments. Mandeville's approach is wholly pernicious because it seems to take away altogether the distinction between vice and virtue. Mandeville was wrong to equate self-interest with vice since self-love may frequently be a virtuous motive of action. Moreover, contrary to Mandeville, Smith maintained that the desire of doing what is honorable and noble of rendering ourselves the proper objects of esteem and approbation cannot with any propriety be called vanity. Even the love of well-grounded fame and reputation, the desire of acquiring esteem by what is really estimable, does not deserve that name. In the final analysis, therefore, neither Hutchison nor Smith disagreed with Mandeville about the socially beneficial effects of self-interested actions if pursued within the boundaries of justice. Their major objection was that Mandeville created his paradox of private vices and public benefits by defining vice so arbitrarily and narrowly as to tarnish all self-interested actions as types of vice. But what of Mandeville's argument that authentic vices, e.g. theft, and even natural disasters, e.g. shipwrecks, generate socially beneficial outcomes because of the employment they create? Hutchison, in remarks, replied by invoking opportunity costs, a topic I discussed in my last essay. Consider the drunkard who neglects his family to buy liquor, or the dandy who buys expensive clothes that he cannot reasonably afford. According to Mandeville, such excesses benefit society because someone must produce the liquor and clothes needed to satisfy those vices. But, as Hutchison pointed out, if the drunkard had spent his money on food and clothes for his family instead of on liquor, that alternative would also have created employment. The same reasoning applies to the dandy and his expensive clothes as well as to shipwrecks and other examples discussed by Mandeville. It is consumer demand, not vices per se, that keep the wheels of commerce turning. To attribute the benefits of commerce to private vices was merely a perverse and misleading way of saying the same thing.


continue with the geomaterial characterization with subtopics as chemical characterization. Though we have discussed how to determine P H T D S that is total dissolved solids electrical conductivity of the soil solutions B O D and C O D. Sulphide and chloride contents can cation exchange capacity followed by pore solution sampling. So, most of the lecture today's lecture will be discussed will I will try to cover most of the techniques used for pore solution sampling followed by most probably in the next lecture or if possible today I will be talking about corrosion potential of soils, sorption desorption continue with that followed by thermal characterization and electrical characterization. This is just to remind you that the characterization is still going on and we are still stuck up with chemical characterization part. Now, to start with P H determination this is the unit which is known as water quality analyzer and this water quality analyzer unit is connected to some electrodes. These electrodes are basically glass-calomel electrodes you must have used them also earlier for determining P H of the solution of soils. The only thing is that you have to prepare soil solutions with different liquid to solid ratios which is also known as L by S. So, depending upon different L by S P H values may change may not change truly speaking P H value should remain same for different L by S, but it so happens if you keep on increasing more and more liquid into the solution P H may also alter because of more opportunity which oxides may get to react with water and sometimes when you are working with oxides in the materials which are amphoteric in nature which have dual you know behavior when they come in contact with water P H may definitely change. Now, this instrument is a very good tool to determine P H of the soil solution essentially what you have to do is you have to prepare a soil solution corresponding to a liquid solid ratio and then filter out the liquid part and that liquid part is normally kept in this beaker the glass-calomel electrode is dipped into this and then you can read out reading directly. However, you have to be very careful that P H normally gets influenced by the temperature. So, this instrument also records temperature simultaneously and normally at room temperature that is 25 degree centigrade the P H values are reported. So, you can apply the correction depending upon the values which you are obtaining if the temperature is not same as 25 degree. You can use this water quality analyzer also for determining total dissolved solids which is an indicative of turbidity of the solution if you cannot use a UV spectrophotometer then this is also good technique. You can determine electrical conductivity of the solution of the soil corresponding to different L by S ratio and then ultimately electrical conductivity can also be linked with tedious of the suspension in the material. You can find out chemical oxygen demand as well as biological oxygen demand and based on these parameters you can again classify the soil and later on we will notice that these parameters are very handy in defining the corrosion potential of the soil mass. So, particularly P H and electrical conductivity and sometimes another word which is used as redox potential I will be talking about that later on. So, this is a simple device to determine all these parameters and different liquid solid ratios. Now, most of the time when you are working as a geotechnical engineer for site investigation your profession demands that you should understand what is the concentration of chloride and sulphide ions in the soil as well as in the groundwater. Can you guess where these type of studies would be more useful or applicable that is right particularly nearby the seashores or to estimate in very gross terms what is the degree of contamination of the soil mass of the groundwater. Particularly in Bombay region when you are doing piling activities it is mandatory to understand what type of soils and what type of groundwater conductivity and chloride and sulphide concentrations are available. And then what will happen suppose if I determine that the concentration is very high. So, what you should do then as a protective measure then you should use some sulphate resistance emits. So, this is where the sulphate resistance emits becomes mandatory. Then you can also coat the piles by using some polymers or the raisins or some epoxies. So, the normal practice is the pile should be protected against any corrosion due to water or soil which is having a very high concentration of chloride and sulphates. So, here the normal procedure is that you take soil sample dissolve it in water and make a liquid solid ratio of 2 is to 1 that is all by s equal to 2. And we go for indirect titration and that titration is done with the help of ion exchange units which are known as indian easy test kits. So, these test kits are very useful basically this is an ion exchange resin and if you drop it in the solution of soil mass or soil solution their color changes. So, depending upon the number of drops which you have added to the solution of a particular resin you can find out roughly what is the concentration of chloride and sulphide ions in the soil mass. So, it is a sort of a titration technique very helpful for people who are working in field and those who want to estimate the what amount of chloride and sulphides are present and this can also help you in determining what is the corrosion potential of the soil. Now, in my previous lecture I had talked about the cation exchange capacity of the soil mass, but I did not talk about the whole methodology of determination of CEC, but you have noticed that CEC is a parameter on which lot of things depend and for the entire property of the soil mass depends. So, with this in view I thought of covering the steps which are normally adopted for determining CEC of the soil mass. Basically what is CEC the classical definition is that this is the holding capacity of the soil of any contaminants or cations. So, that means this is an amount of cations a soil can hold easily. Now, this is where I was using the term parking of the cations on the soil grains alright and all of you are aware by this time that CEC plays a very important role in soil contaminant interaction. You can also put it as that this is the summation of exchangeable ions that is sodium ion, potassium ion, calcium ion and ferric or ferrous ions on the soil grains. So, factors affecting CEC are basically the charge carrying capacity of the soil. Now, my question to you is how would you determine the charge carrying capacity of the soil? We always assume that clays have negatively charged particles, but then the question is how would you estimate that what is the amount of the charge which is available on the grains of the soil? Is there any method which comes to your mind? There is a method known as zeta potential determination, zeta potential ZETA. So, essentially zeta potential describes how much charge is available on the surface of grains of the soil. Now, if you go in these type of studies you can very easily answer the questions that why clays cannot be compacted beyond a certain limit. So, apart from a double layer formation because of the negatively charged particles you cannot put two particles together just because of the mechanical energy. So, there is a limitation of the compaction process, but if you remember if you go for some energy principle and if you expose the soil mass to some energy field particularly electric or electromagnetic then what happens? This double layer of water surrounding the grains of the soil gets reduced and soils can be compacted very easily. So, based on this technique the genesis of electro kinetic remediation takes place or the consolidation which is accelerated due to electric field application. So, this is important factor that CEC gets influenced by the charge carrying capacity of the soil. I think you can notice this point that as the clay particles are negatively charged when they come in contact with the cations there is a sort of a neutralization of the charge on the surface clear. So, this is the bond which is formed at the time of soil contaminant interaction and rather than contaminant if you are dealing only with water then there is a dipole formation or a double layer formation of water. CEC will also depend upon the pH of the solution. So, on both sides of the pH equal to 7 that is acidic and basic environment the soil exhibits active behavior. So, this part you may come across later on when I will talk about the influence of pH on the corrosion potentials of the soils. Ionic strength of the pore solution the type of cations the type of ions which are present in the pore solution will also influence the cation exchange capacity of the soil and of course, the presence of the salts. Now, there are two codes normally which are followed one is IS 2720 and the EPA SW 846 which are followed to determine the CEC of the soil sample normally we follow IS 2720. So, the sample is first treated with the H 2 O 2 and what it does if you treat the sample as 2 O 2 it will remove the organic contents and boil thoroughly for 1 hour. So, this way you can get rid of all the organic contents which are present in the soil mass. You should notice here that why you want to do this type of treatment to the soil. If organic content is too much the reactivity of the soil will be more or less it will be less that is one of the reasons why you cannot stabilize organic and marine soils. It is very difficult to stabilize them you got the point. So, organic soils cannot be stabilized so easily first of all they themselves are not stable second is their water holding capacity is very high. So, even if you put the cement in them what is going to happen cement will not get any water out of the soil to get cured and to form a bond because these soils will not release water so easily. So, this type of mechanism goes on. So, that is the reason that you have to remove organic contents from the soil to determine its real potential. So, the treated sample is oven dried with 5 gram and it is mixed with 50 ml of 1 normal sodium acetate solution with pH 5. Now, this mixture is digested in a boiling water bath for 30 minutes with intermittent stirring and later centrifuge at a speed of 5000 to 6000 rpm for 15 minutes. The supernatant fluid or liquid is discarded and the sample settled at the bottom of the centrifuge tube is again treated with 50 ml of 1 normal sodium acetate C S 3 CO H is acetic acid. So, C S 3 CO Na is sodium acetate solution again with pH 5 and centrifuged repeat this process thrice. So, as to ensure exchange of calcium ions in the soil by sodium ions. So, this is the first step where you are replacing all the sodium ions with sorry calcium ions with sodium ions why because you are using sodium acetate solution. So, is the leaching of calcium ions out of the sample of the soil and all those calcium ions gets replaced by sodium ions. What we will have to do next is we will have to replace the sodium ions which are getting fixed on the soil by treating it with some other chemical. So, this is the first step of the process. Now, this sample is treated with 1 normal calcium chloride solution. So, this is where sodium is being replaced by calcium ions and is again digested and centrifuged this process is repeated thrice. So, as to ensure exchange of sodium ions with calcium ions. Sangita is realizing that it is a very tough task. Most of things require a lot of patience as I say again and again. Now, this sample is again washed with sodium acetate why you are doing this now. You are trying to check whether further sodium can replace calcium or not if not your process is done, but if there is a change your process is not done you have to repeat the process again. So, this sample is treated again with 50 ml of 1 normal sodium acetate solution of PS 7 and again digested and centrifuged this operation is performed thrice. The resulting supernatant from the last three steps is collected in 250 ml volumetric flask and the concentration of calcium and present in the solution is determined using AAS that is atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Now, once you have done this you can obtain CEC. So, CEC is milli equivalence per 100 gram which is defined as concentration of calcium ions or sodium ions micrograms per milliliter multiplied by 100 into volume of the extract into dilution that is L by S divided by equivalent weight of the cation into 1000 into weight of the soil in grams. Just to give you some idea about what are the CECs of different minerals and hope you will appreciate why some minerals are very active and why some minerals are not active. This table gives you a clear picture if you find out the minerals by using XRD X-ray diffraction technique. For monponylite the CEC is 18.6 and for cationite and elite CEC comes out to approximately 5. So, almost it is 3 to 4 times difference between the cation exchange capacity of the clays itself alright. So, because cationite and elite itself is a clay and monponylite is also a clay mineral but this is one of the reasons why water absorption capacity of monponylite is much more higher than kilonite. But in classical geomechanics we always say that what type of bonds are available in monponylite the van der Waal forces is it not. So, because of van der Waal forces the water absorption capacity is more that is where we have not talked about the chemical potential of the soil or chemical aspects of the material. So, by putting cation exchange capacity also in conjunction with the platelet theory you can find out what would be the total potential of the soil towards its activity or reactivity with contaminants or the environment is this clear. Now, this CEC value can be utilized for the classification of the soil. So, this seems to be a very good tool if you want to differentiate between coarse grained soils and fine grained soils and within fine grained soils also you think or you imagine a situation where each mineral is specified with a CEC value. So, the moment you get the CEC value you need not to go for even XRD analysis which again is a very costly and expensive procedure. So, what you can do is you can up scribe this number and you can say that this soil has more predominance of monponylite and so on. So, this again seems to be a good classification scheme based on chemical composition of the soil mass.


Hello and welcome to the International Daily Roundup with People's Dispatch where we bring you some of the top stories from across the globe. Let's take a look at today's headlines. Sightseeing Amphan drips through Bay of Bengal, 23 deaths reported so far. Venezuela to send warships risk code Iran includes shipments over US threats. Murder of Brazilian teenager brings nationwide attention to violent racism of police. Migrant salutation workers in Lebanon fall off strike after a tentative deal with country. Ecuadorian mass movements call for national protest against Morino's neoliberalism. We begin with an update on Super Sightseeing Amphan which has severely affected parts of Sri Lanka, eastern India and Bangladesh. It has also displaced hundreds of thousands of people in the region and ravaged the famed Sundarban Delta. The worst affected in terms of damage is the Bengal region straddling India and Bangladesh with the Indian side witnessing the most casualties. Close to 2 million people in India including in the city of Kolkata were without electricity as power grids were blown up in the storm. Mobile and internet services were also down as the cyclone damaged several communication towers across the region. More than 4.2 million people were evacuated to safety by governments in both India and Bangladesh. Embankments in the Sundarban Delta were breached due to the impact of the cyclone. Officials from both India and Bangladesh have stated that it is still too early to accurately assess the debt toll or the damage to property as the hardest hit areas are still not accessible. Amphan is the fiercest tropical cyclone to hit the region in a century. Moving on to our next story, the Venezuelan government will be sending its armed forces to escort the incoming fuel tankers from Iran. The announcement was made by Foreign Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez in light of possible aggressive measures from the United States. Senior officials in the Trump administration have stated that the US is considering the option of sending forces to prevent the shipment from reaching Venezuela. Iran has dispatched five super tankers scanning patrol to Venezuela earlier this month. The shipment is to alleviate the severe fuel shortages caused by US imposed sanctions despite being one of the largest producers of oil. Venezuela's refinement capabilities are severely restricted because of the confiscation of its foreign assets and refineries by the US and its allies. The tankers are expected to reach Venezuela by next week. The US has strongly opposed this transaction but both Iran and Venezuela have been under unilateral sanctions imposed by the US. Many have speculated that the US could escalate conflict in the region. The US has significantly expanded its military presence in the Caribbean. This was done under the pretext of combating drug cartels of which it accuses Venezuela of engaging in. Moving on to our next story from Brazil, a recent murder of a black teenager in Rio de Janeiro has brought nationwide attention to racist violence inflicted by the police. 14-year-old Jav Pedro Matos Pinto was killed during a joint operation by the Federal Police and Co-ordinator of Special Resources or CORE on the afternoon of May 18. Jav Pedro was hit in the stomach when he was playing in the yard of his house. After being shot, the adolescent was taken away in a helicopter by the civil police until the next morning that is May 19. The family was not provided with any information about his whereabouts who then went on to report him as missing. According to the fire department, the body of the victim was left on Monday, May 18 late afternoon in the southern zone of Rio. On Tuesday, May 19 in the morning, family members of Jav Pedro were in the office of the chief medical examiner and recognized his body. Moving on to Lebanon, close to 400 foreign migrant workers at the Lebanese-based management company Ramco temporarily called off their strike on Wednesday, May 20. This was after the workers reached a tentative agreement with the company. Additionally, workers were also guaranteed a slight increase in their salaries. The deal was confirmed by the Bangladeshi Embassy in Lebanon. Most of these workers hail largely from Bangladesh and India. According to the workers, Ramco had begun cutting their wages more than a month ago. The company also started paying the workers in the heavily devalued and stressed local Lebanese pound instead of US dollars as stipulated in their work contracts. Ramco has in turn blamed the Lebanese government, its biggest customer for the shift in currency Ramco stated that they were forced to use Lebanese currency to pay wages after the government itself shifted to Lebanese pounds to make payments. Consequently, the workers began their strike last week, with a picket outside the company's storage site in Beirut. Armour-dried police were called in to violently break up the strike and disperse the protesters. After days of strike, the company eventually agreed to come to negotiate. Over 400,000 foreign workers, most of whom are low-income workers and manual laborers, rights groups have often complained of widespread exploitation of migrant workers in the country. Finally, several Ecuadorian social movements, indigenous groups and trade unions called for a day in national mobilization on May 25th. The protest will be against the neoliberal policies decreed by President Lenin Moreno during the pandemic. The people's front, the confederation of indigenous nationalities of Ecuador, the unitary front of workers, among others, are the organizations that gave the call for this national mobilization. On May 19th, Moreno announced a new package of austerity measures, aligned with the recommendations made by the International Monetary Fund last year. Among the measures imposed include the dissolution of 10 government-owned companies, withdrawal of full subsidies, a 25-person salary reduction for public workers and a disinvestment of US$1.3 billion in the public sector. Social movements claimed that the liquidation of the companies would lead to a retrenchment of over 12,000 public sector jobs. The National Union of Educators and the Federation of University Students of Ecuador, which have been mobilizing against the budget cuts in education, also rejected these neoliberal measures. They are expected to join the national protest on May 25th. And this is all we have for this episode of The International Daily. Round up for more such stories and videos. Visit our website People'sHospice.org. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Thank you for watching. Thank you.


Article 2 addresses the Executive Office of the President of the United States. To be fully understood, this must be seen in light of the sovereignty of we the people in their capacity to delegate authority to this national officer. The President can only have such powers as the people are able to provide to the office. Where the people do not have powers and authorities, they cannot delegate these to any officer through agreement among themselves. This is specifically limited where some citizens might want to govern over other citizens. Also, authority that is delegated is for a purpose. It is to provide government to perfect the union and to satisfy the purposes set in the preamble of this larger agreement. These are stated purposes, and they are to be applied to the government through this agreement. To this, we also add the limits placed on the larger government, and that is not to honor the office holder above the people. And this is a government of law rather than sovereign authority exercised through public office holders. And yet, we the people recognize the need for a central figure to represent the United States to other nations and peoples. We recognize it, even as we recognize the consistent abuse of people under such leaders in the past. By Article 2, the executive power of the United States rests on the person elected as president. We have a history of confusion as to the extent and limits of the authorities and powers of the president, even though they are effectively set within this constitutional agreement. The first power is granted to execute the laws of the nation. A specific note is that sovereign citizens have no power to avoid or refuse properly enacted law. They cannot delegate any right or privilege to deny the law to any president. The president is personally responsible for executing all the laws passed by Congress, where he has ability and opportunity to execute these within the authority otherwise granted to the president. As will be discussed later, the function of the judicial branch of government includes review of laws. This is not a function of the president. His function is execution of law. There is no presidential determination of what elements of law are to be executed and what are to be ignored or opposed. The method for election of a president is set in the writing, and it addresses how to establish the president as the people's representative. The method of election is not as important as assurance that the people are given sufficient voice in the election, that the representation of we the people is assured. As it was for members of Congress, this presidential election includes electors, representatives who are expected to carry the representation of we the people into a central election process. In today's environment, this stated method is awkward at best and contains risks of non-representation that are unnecessary. Its inclusion in the main document is not to be received as some sort of statement of what will be right for all time, but serves the purpose of assuring representation in the time and situation of the early decades of the United States. It was probably meant to continue until changed. We will address changes in discussion of articles of amendment. We also have specific personal qualifications set on those who might be allowed to be president. There are birth requirements assuring that the president is a person born into the society of people of this nation. The apparent purpose is to assure that the president has family ties. There are two citizens of the United States superior to potential ties in other lands. There is an age requirement indicating a minimum level of maturity. There is a residency requirement assuring a common knowledge of the people that the president is to serve. In terms of this constitutional agreement, any person who fails to fulfill these requirements is ineligible to be president no matter what other qualifications they may have. Gathering sufficient votes to be elected does not overcome these requirements. As with members of Congress, the president is to be paid from the treasury for his services as president. Election is to be a hiring process and the president is to serve his or her employer. This employer is not just the United States as a corporate entity. For the funds that pay his or her salary are also the property of we the people, those under whose authority the president has been elected, and in whose delegated authority he or she will be required to act and from whom the treasury contents were largely collected for the purpose of operating the people's government. This article addresses some of the powers of the president. It opens with remarkable statement that the president shall be a commander-in-chief of the United States military forces. What is startling is that ruling over the military is not considered to be a general function of the nation's chief executive. It is something to which the U.S. president must be appointed. The relation between the president and the military is not defined as a sovereign rule, but as agreed by we the people. Commander-in-chief is not directly defined, but obviously includes the duties and responsibilities associated with being a commander within a military organization. It includes responsibility for the people who are military commanders. It includes the ability to issue orders that must be obeyed and authority to enforce orders by whatever means are appropriate to the environment in which the military effort is required. The big difference from prior military government relations is that the commander-in-chief is not a sovereign ruler who personally directs the military where he feels it should go. A commander is also an officer who accepts orders from higher officers. In this case, the constituting agreement is the higher authority and it is able to set alternative authority upon others so that they can issue effective orders to the commander-in-chief. The ability to require written opinions from other senior officers is again new. It provides that the officers be willing to support their commander with written records. They can be required to put their opinions in writing wherever they may be held accountable in a later time. It strengthens the president's orders and directives to the military without granting office additional legal powers. The final statement in this paragraph speaks to an ability to issue pardons for federal offenses. By placement in this article, it might read as applying only to the military. It has, in accord with other writing, been taken to address a general right to pardon for both military and civilian offenses. It is hereby placement, specific to the appointments of the commander-in-chief. We next have a list of specific powers with limitations. The limitation, in accord with the rebellious history of the colonies, deals with avoiding an imperial presidency. It denies ultimate authority in the president to take special actions on behalf of the United States without the application of regulations through law. The power to make enforceable treaties was limited by requiring the overwhelming support of the Senate. Agreements with foreign powers were not to be made as a sovereign leader, but as a representative's executive acting with the concurrence of the territorial representatives of the United States. This puts much of the same restraints on benefiting some of the states as the expense of others as has been placed on Congress from passing of laws. The apparent purpose was to perfect the union, to bring people together in support of the acts by government leaders. It is also indicative that two-thirds of the Senate must concur before the president can act. Dealing with foreign interests as a sovereign entity is a power denied to both the president and to the Congress. They have to come together before the United States government is authorized to act on behalf of we the people. You will note a like requirement for even empowering ambassadors. The president is not able to simply direct senior officers who deal with other nations. They are only empowered after the Senate puts in support to their employment. It is possible as an oversight that the representatives of the whole United States do not have to answer to the Senate after appointment, but are supervised directly out of the office of the president. There is no established means for the Senate to withdraw support for an ambassador who misrepresents the United States, nor is their reporting requirement back to Congress for their actions and representations to other nations. Where answering only to the authority the president might assure consistency, it does permit a certain level of imperial authority in presenting the United States to foreign nations. The limits of senatorial approval are only for written instruments to which the United States will be legally bound. Other significant officers of the United States are likewise to be supported by a similar requirement for senatorial approval, including members of the Supreme Court. Appointments are subject to exceptional agreement in the Senate. The final paragraph addresses administrative necessity and convenience, allowing the president to temporarily fill vacancies without the blessing of Congress when they are not readily available to perform their process of approval. In short, the business of government is to continue through times of congressional recess. The third section in requiring congressional communication of the State of the Union has been interpreted as a duty for an annual event, which does not appear to be either within the purpose or character of the constitutional agreement. It is more properly addressed as an ongoing communication duty, one to keep the Congress informed of the needs for legislation and potential misbehavior in office situations that come to the notice of the president as a chief executive officer. There is no intent in the wording to limit communications to an annual event. It is consistent with the rest of the constitutional agreement in that the president is to work with the Congress to see to the purpose of governance as set forth in the preamble. We also have specific powers granted to the executive in calling Congress into session to meet the needs of the chief executive in operating the government and enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. It is worthy to mention that the purpose is not separation of powers so much as coordination of powers. Also, it is the president's duty to deal with other nations as representative leader of the United States and the office has given powers to suggest the use of subordinate offices to further this purpose. Again, the president cannot just choose his own subordinates, but must have them approved by the Senate. There is language in this article to specifically limit the president's running of the presidency as some sovereign leader. This is emphasized in section 4. It provides specific instructions for and limits upon a process for removing a president who abuses the office. This is specifically addressed as a matter of impeachment and trial. It is not a summary process. It is also not to be for minor matters, but only for trees and bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. These are not subject to definition in the common law in place at the time of the signing of the constitutional agreement. They were matters of feudal rulers with these rulers no longer an authority in the United States. For example, trees and no longer was an offense against the crown, nor was the U.S. government a sovereign authority that could take offense as a government. It was created by sovereign people. Bribery was well defied, but had been a necessary part of feudal government. The very existence of the feud required supporting the privilege of a ruler with unearned payments. That was very key to the nature of privilege. The application of this in the new environment of a sovereign citizen agreement was probably like to payments that interfere with the representation of citizens, or that gave reason to avoid duties and responsibilities set on government leaders by this constituting agreement. It is here where a modern political government is put to the test. Does this work challenge the election of any candidate who accepts funds from a political party? The president is not a separate but equal part of government. He is his chief officer in operations with a purpose set upon implementing what Congress directs, working with Congress to establish needs for legislation, and acting as the chief representative of the authority of the United States with other nations. Presidents do not have the option of refusing to implement laws. That is an impeachable offense. Once the people representative has set their course of direction through law, the president is bound to pursue it. The president does not have power to reprogram public funds, taking them from the purpose set by law in Congress to redirect them to meet presidential priorities.  The very purpose written into the articles of the Constitution is a government in three parts, each doing its part of the larger governance effort in coordination and harmony with the other two.


Hey everyone, welcome back to Nintendo Prime. And yes, that's right. I had another video today because we have a story that's making its rounds that I feel like is worth talking about and talking about I feel like in the correct context because we have to note who is saying this and obviously deal with the reality of what the situation could be even though that situation hasn't meant how Nintendo has traditionally handled things in the past. And what are we talking about? The idea that Breath of the Wild 2 is footage from last year let alone the new clip they showed this year with the Master Sword and all that that footage looks beyond the current Switch's capabilities and not just because, oh my gosh, it's higher resolution. We all noted that, that it looks sharper and prettier and I mentioned that in a prior video but because of the type of stuff they're doing with the clouds which is rarely done on Switch because it's so taxing on hardware and they're not only doing that apparently there is amazing anti-aliasing at work. Now again, this could just be rendered by a computer but why is this coming up now? Why, you know, that trailer was released last year what's the big deal? Why is this even a conversation point at the moment? Well that's because Digital Foundry finally dug into that footage last year and the new footage this year and they are blown away. Now we're gonna read this off GameSpot so you know, credit to that we'll also link to the original Digital Foundry video on this as well and here's what it says on GameSpot. Some gaming tech experts think that recently, the recent gameplay footage of the Legend of Zelda Breath of Wild 2 might look a little too good for the Nintendo Switch's hardware. And an episode of Digital Foundry Weekly right here which regularly provides information informative tech breakdowns, video game performance across multiple systems spotted by games radar they're the ones that are the spot of the segment. Digital Foundry members, Richard Ledbetter, John Lindemann and Alex Batak and again, if I butchered any of your guys' names I do apologize. I'm really bad at enunciating and pronouncing things. I just, I know it's weird on my YouTuber and I'm bad at that stuff. That's just what it is. They analyze the latest trailer for Nintendo's Breath of Wild 2. Beyond a detailed look at how the game incorporates various technologies to make the gameplay more vibrant and sharper than its predecessor, the grouping and the doubt that the Nintendo Switch can even handle the updated graphics. As we take you to the point about volumetric clouds on Switch are rarely seen and perfect anti-aliasing, perfect. We're not, we're not talking about like some, you know, partial perfect, like pixel perfect anti-aliasing is present in the footage. And that is something even the Xbox Series X struggles with. Also seemed to point to the sequel maybe running a more powerful hardware version of Nintendo's hybrid console. As the group noted, this could also be the case of Nintendo simply rendering gameplay to look as good as possible for that particular trailer, which I did mention. Nintendo just rendered it on a computer. Lots of companies do it. Nintendo doesn't usually do it though. And they note that here where they say, although the company Nintendo rarely does that and prefers to show an accurate representation of how its games run on actual Switch hardware, which again, that's Nintendo's history. They tend to not tease you with something that's unrealistic to what the final product's going to be, at least in terms of visual quality. It wouldn't surprise me in terms of what the game is all about. I generally think that since they are delaying it now, I think that this is going to be the equivalent to what we saw with Breath of the Wild, where it launches on the old and also on the new in terms of hardware, is referencing the simultaneous release on Wii U and Switch with the original Breath of the Wild. And then it goes into, these are the current models of Switch, the hybrids, the OLED, et cetera, et cetera. A number of reports concerning the existence of the console in terms of the Switch Pro have existed over the years, including one report that hasn't been revealed that latches E3. So I guess the idea is that Switch Pro could be coming out with this game next year or maybe the Switch Pro comes out this holiday and the game comes out for it later. Obviously, the entire speculation here is that this game looks too good, has volumetric clouds, which just are extremely taxing and the Switch has not been able to handle it very well in games that have attempted to do it in the past and somehow is perfect anti-aliasing and they actually note, which isn't here, but has been noted by many others, that it was running at a higher resolution than the original Breath of the Wild, which is a little bit insane to think about when you're adding perfect anti-aliasing and volumetric clouds, which the original Breath of the Wild doesn't have. Quite interesting indeed. So obviously, whenever you talk about a topic like this, some people get really, really excited because you begin to expect Nintendo to drop a Switch Pro, right? Or the new Nintendo Switch, whatever you wanna call it, doesn't really matter what you call it, people just get excited about the prospect of a brand new Switch. And obviously then you have all these people that will be upset about this because they're so tired of hearing that a Switch Pro is coming. There were so many legitimate sources talking about this last year, really all stemming from Takahashi Matsuzuki, but beyond him, other journalists, Tom Phillips and Jeff Grubb and so many other big name people talking about this platform that exists that developers are making names for now, that they want to come out at ASAP, but Nintendo kinda is bubbling around in deciding when they wanna talk about it, when they wanna announce it. And then obviously, we had infamously, this gets pinned on Takahashi Matsuzuki a lot, it wasn't really him. He did say that developers were pressuring Nintendo to unveil it around E3 last year. He didn't say that it would be unveiled, but Nate the hate, Nate, right? You guys know the man, the myth, the legend, the guy with the podcast with modern vintage gamer, and he's part of Sponkast as well. He's the one that put out there that they were about to imminently announce it right before E3. And then literally within 24 hours was trying to backtrack what he said. So take that for what it is. Not just a messy situation. And it created a mess for content creators as well, who we've been covering it the whole time. And obviously for our sake, it would have been best for it to come out when all these reports said it did. But we're just the bearers of information and then providing our opinions and thoughts on it. We're not the sources. I do not provide direct source information because I don't have direct sources. All of my stuff is secondhand information that I'm bringing to you guys, thirdhand, et cetera, that I am bringing to you guys. So in this case, this is just looking at that footage of Zelda and kinda coming to the conclusion, huh, you know what? There's not a game on Switch doing that. You know what? Yeah, there's games with anti-aliasing, but not this rate of anti-aliasing. You know, there's games that tried volumetric clouds on Switch, but all of them can't even hit like 20 FPS consistently. Huh, that's probably why all the other games got rid of volumetric clouds. Why is there volumetric clouds? Well, because they look really damn good, especially when you're playing up in the clouds. Huh, well, volumetric clouds are extremely taxing on the GPU. You know, anti-aliasing is extremely taxing on the CPU. Hmm, feels like things the Switch is incapable of today. Doesn't mean it won't be on the Switch, or it could mean they're trying to present the best version of the game, and that could be on new hardware. And that is worth speculating and talking about because it is notable. So that being said, I am Nathaniel Rumpeljantz from Nintendo Prime. We are on our road to 80,000 subscribers, and if you made it this far in the video, I assume you were really enjoying the content and the conversation. Why don't you drop a like and leave a comment, and maybe subscribe. You know, if you want, you don't have to, no pressure, but I would appreciate if you would. Otherwise, you know what, folks? I am just going to catch you in the next video tomorrow. I swear, this is the last one today.


We ended chapter 11, I think it is, talking about obviously the working day and the kind of the brutal exploitative methods that the capitalists use to try and squeeze this surplus value out of the working class. But the point is obviously that there's only so many hours in the working day, there's only so much you can squeeze out of simply working the worker harder. At a certain point you reach the limit of time, there's only 24 hours in the day, but you also reach a physical limit. The working class does not have infinite amounts of work within them, at a certain point obviously all this degradation takes its toll. And therefore what the capitalists seek to do to increase their surplus value further, Mark says, begins in chapter 12, is to explore and intensify, develop the idea of relative surplus value. Now that basically what we've got here is we're talking about surplus and we're talking about wages, the S and the V, the variable capital. And this ratio between the two, S over V, Mark calls the rate of exploitation, the amount of surplus extracted from the working class given a certain amount paid back in the form of wages. Now obviously by extending the working day they're extending that surplus, they're extending the absolute amount of surplus they get. But Mark says, well there's another way they can increase their surplus value and that's by increasing the relative amount. In other words, if the working day is affixed, actually reduce the amount of the working day that needs to be paid back in the form of wages. And that means tackling the kind of denominator in this equation and trying to cheapen basically the commodity of labour power itself. And in short, what we're really talking about here is the idea of increasing productivity. That's what really these chapters 12, 13, 14 are focused on, the idea that really the real motor force behind capitalism or behind society is the development of productivity, being able to produce more with less labour, do more with less and produce more use values with a shorter amount of labour time. Now the thing with capitalism is whilst obviously this general process is going on of increasing productivity across the board, it doesn't happen in a planned and kind of thought out way. It's a chaotic and anarchic process under capitalism because as Adam Smith said, you have the invisible hand operating ultimately, the market, the price signals, the competition, that all of this is what really the method by which capitalism progresses. And what you have is each individual capitalist is obviously ultimately their motivation is to try and reduce their own labour costs. They're trying to either cheapen, obviously the cheapen the amount they spend on wages. And that means replacing ultimately workers with machines and making each individual worker more productive. Make them be able to produce more in a shorter space of time and therefore reduce the total amount of workers they need to employ. And obviously so each individual capitalist is doing this to try and ultimately because they want to try and cheapen their own commodities. They're investing in technology and new machinery and so forth because they want to be able to produce lower than their rivals.  And that's really what drives obviously the individual capitalist. But overall obviously when every individual capitalist is doing this, investing in new machinery, investing in new technology, you get an overall development across the society where the socially necessary labour time across all commodities is generally going down. And therefore you're reducing the actual cost of labour power itself because obviously the actual commodities are getting cheaper and wages therefore which are determined by the commodities consumed by the working class are going down as well. Now Marx highlights that fundamentally productivity comes from two different categories, two different areas, productivity increases. One is the question of technology, machinery and automation and we'll come onto that in a second. That's the topic of chapter 15 but I'll cover that later on. But what I want to focus on first is what he calls techniques basically as management techniques, organisation within the factory, within the workplace and also skills and experience. You know these obviously the capitalists invest in training and an education of their workforce for a reason because a more educated skilled workforce is more productive and obviously they can then out-compete their competitors if they've got that extra skilled workforce. So obviously ties in with the whole question of education and the capitalism but that's a whole other topic, won't have time to go into. Now Marx as I said begins by looking at this latter thing, the question of the kind of management and organisational techniques within the workplace and he highlights the role effectively of cooperation and of division of labour. So you've got this dual process going on within the workplace. Well on the one hand the capitalist is basically dividing up the work that needs to be done into smaller and smaller tasks but on the other hand is bringing more and more workers together under one roof to do all of these miniscule tasks as part of an integrated network, an integrated plan within that factory, within that workplace or office and it's this that Adam Smith actually talked about. He had the example of a pin factory where each individual worker is just doing the same monotonous action over and over again to produce this pin but it's split up into miniscule tasks and ultimately none of them is producing the pin in itself but each of them through the kind of specialisation is able to become more and more efficient and increase their productivity. In other words what you've got is this incredible specialisation, this intense division of labour that capitalism takes to an even more extreme lengths. James talked about how you've always had a division of labour under class society and commodity production under capitalism it's taken to this extraordinary extreme. The other thing you see as I say is workers being brought more and more together under a common plan within the sphere of one workplace. In other words what we talk about as being economies of scale, you see today how different businesses will what they call horizontally and vertically integrate. Horizontal integration is the idea that you buy up your competitors and accumulate more and more of that particular market. Vertical integration is the idea that you buy up both your suppliers and your distributors so you're forming a kind of common chain of production all the way from the top to the bottom and you see this going on very much today under 21st century capitalism. I would say this whole process contributes even more enormously to the question of alienation the idea that workers are more and more divorced from their actual product and more at your specialised to the point where you don't really understand what task you're actually doing or in the sense that you don't necessarily see the bigger picture if you like. Anyone who's worked in any office job knows how monotonous and tedious you can describe almost any office job these days with the same set of fundamental tasks emails, spreadsheets, phone calls and so forth and it's incredibly alienating work despite being so-called white collar jobs and so forth because it's broken down into these miniscule tasks where it's impossible to really see what you yourself are producing you don't feel any connection to the product that you're making and you see this as people have said today already the examples of call centres of a lot of office jobs and particularly of the gig economy these kind of very precarious work where this extreme sense of alienation that Marx talks about but as I say you've also got the process where workers as well as being kind of atomised in these kind of jobs like the bogus self-employment and so forth they're also increasingly brought together within one company you've got these factories in China now producing iPhones the Foxconn factories which are literally cities hundreds of thousands of workers producing within one factory and they never leave the complex they sleep there they marry there they go out partying at the weekends in social venues owned by Foxconn and Apple and so forth so you see how enormous the scale of production is and actually that is what Marx refers to as the idea that capitalism creates its own grave diggers it's bringing workers together these workers in China who used to be atomised peasants now all within one factory and going on strike and actually having a sense of class consciousness so you see the political side of this the social side of this the capitalism creating its own grave diggers hence why alongside this as I say you've got the process of the capitalist trying to atomise isolate workers, break up the trade unions, restrict trade union rights restrict the right to organise and so forth but as I said this economy of scale is being achieved this kind of bringing together of production under one roof what it really implies is there is you know although it's not really ever admitted by the capitalist because they hate to say the word but there is a plan going on within the workplace the fact that you've got all these workers coming together operating these miniscule tasks but being all integrated it shows that someone somewhere is obviously planning that someone within the factory, within the office is dictating this process is bringing all this capital together and you see this taken to extremes under capitalism today the idea of monopoly capitalism every market you can possibly name really today in the advanced capitalist countries is dominated by a handful of companies oligopolies as they're called in traditional economics and we would call it monopoly capitalism the idea that all these individual markets all these sectors in every country are dominated by a handful of companies whether it's the banks or the utilities the landlords all of these are just a miniscule amount of companies concentrating this wealth together and internally the point is these companies are incredibly planned they take a company like Tesco for example a huge supermarket chain or Lidl where I personally do my shopping but it's no different fundamentally they all fundamentally are planning from the farms and the factories through to the shops and the supermarkets they've got a network of knowing that as soon as you check through and you do it yourself these days because the people used to do it have been automated they know how much then to order they know how much needs to be brought in they know the price to set things out or this incredible level of planning and efficiency within the firm done obviously to increase profits but yet between the different firms between these different monopolies you have the anarchy of the market you leave everything up to prices and to this so-called invisible hand and obviously that contributes towards this tendency towards overproduction the idea that each individual firm is producing more and more and more trying to get bigger and bigger slice of the pie but they're all doing this at the same time churning out this abundance of goods and at the same time replacing all those cashiers with self-checkout machines and therefore pushing away cutting away at the very branch that they're sitting on cutting away at the market of the wages that need to buy all these goods now this brings us on to the second half of this question the question of technology and machinery which as Marks highlights in Chapter 15 is not brought in in order to reduce the burden of work we have this idea that science fiction says robots will go around and clean up after us and be there as these kind of terminator meets jeevs sort of thing where they're going to come around and help us in our daily tasks that's the kind of science fiction imagination of what technology should do but obviously the reality and the capitalism is that the machinery is brought in not to alleviate the burden of work on the worker but rather to get them to be even more productive to get them to produce even more with less and to increase the profits of the capitalism for the capitalists and it's this driving force to find why machinery is brought in that explains all the contradictions that we see in terms of machinery and technology under capitalism we see today the fact that there's this abundance of technological potential in the world and yet productivity growth has stalled you can't pick up a newspaper these days without hearing about the latest gadget that's been invented or the next potential breakthrough that's going to revolutionise our lives if anyone ever subscribed to The New Scientist I used to do engineering in a previous life and I remember our lecturers saying if every discovery that was heralded on the front page of New Scientist had come true we'd be living in this kind of socialist utopia right now of perfectly green energy and super abundance for all and inequality destroyed the point is that none of this has come to fruition and in fact the reverse has happened actually productivity growth has stalled over the years productivity increases are there but they're focused within the hands of these tiny monopolies tiny number of monopolies the tech companies in particular companies like Apple and Google they're obviously highly productive churning out billions in terms of wealth and employing relatively few in terms of their actual employees and that obviously gives rise to the inequalities that we'll discuss in the next session the fact that there are productivity increases but the benefits of that are focused more and more in the hands of the tiny few capitalists who are in those sectors and at the same time they're employing fewer and fewer workers and those who are left behind have no skills are not reeducated are being replaced by robots you have this idea now there's a book released by some MIT economists called Race Against the Machine and it's the idea that more and more you're seeing again in the press the idea that we're in not in harmony with the technology they're invented but actually in some sort of competition with it workers can actually see that in effect they're not just competing against each other now for jobs but they've got this threat of the machine hanging over them and Marx makes this point 150 years ago says that the capitalist always uses this threat of being replaced by the machine as a lever to push down the wages of the worker even further say if you won't accept lower wages I've got this machine here that doesn't belong to a trade union that doesn't complain and once I've bought it I don't have to pay it anything so you've always got that kind of threat there and therefore those who are out of these productive sectors are forced more and more into things like the gig economy into actually very low skilled very low productive sectors what a contradiction we have where on the one hand we're talking about the wonders of Apple and Google and all this face recognition and AI and all this sorts of things self-driving cars and yet actually the economy these days is based on people driving around on bikes to deliver food that's not efficient, that's not productive but it shows you the contradictions that capitalism creates in terms of technology and in fact Marx highlights I mean it's incredibly prophetic when you think about it 150 years ago he's highlighting these kind of fears that we see as kind of zeitgeist in the press today 150 years ago he points out that actually capitalism itself becomes a barrier to developing and implementing technology because what you have is wages pushed down so much by this competition by this threat of automation by things like globalization tax on the trade unions and the anti working class laws and so forth all of this pushes to drive wages to the point where actually it's not cost effective to use a machine anymore machines cost money to develop they cost money to implement you've got to rearrange your factory your office and so forth but a worker well if you can just hire them like that and then fire them at the next whim then you just employ an army of precarious workers and you see that today productivity is stagnated there's an ought in Britain in particular we've actually seen a fall in productivity since the beginning of the 2008 crisis and there's an all time low of investment into machinery, into technology into research and development and instead a reliance on this kind of service sector of low productive jobs and so forth and what it really shows actually is that technology is not some sort of deus ex machina it's not something like a manner from heaven that just falls from the sky like oh you know more technology please yes and it's just some sort of inevitable progress in society what we see is actually technology historical progress scientific progress requires material conditions it requires in capitalism's heyday Mark said capitalism was able to accomplish wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids and Roman aqueducts in its heyday it was progressive and revolutionary in developing science and technology through the profit motive through competition but now it's turned into its opposite now actually it's become an enormous barrier to the development of technology to the development of science you know again when I was still an engineering field you could see it in research you know even in the public sector influenced by the profit motive by the need because there was such a scarcity of resources different academic departments hoarding their results and trying to get their papers out before other ones in order to keep on that small slice of the pie that we had in terms of research funding and so you can see capitalism itself has become this barrier to science and technology but vice versa capitalism itself demands a development of the technology a development of the productive forces it demands this constant drive to produce more for less and so forth and therefore there is this constant kind of contradictory process going on within capitalism where on the one hand it's forced to kind of seek out new technologies to increase productivity but on the other hand because it's done in this chaotic and anarchic way you see it kind of leaving a trail of destruction behind and in fact the capitalists even have a wonderful euphemism for this called creative destruction Schimpeter an Austrian economist came up with it creative destruction sounds lovely oh it's destroying but oh it's creating the problem is obviously the creation is mainly in terms of profits in the hands of the few and the destruction is mainly in terms of the jobs and the services of the 99% and you see this obviously today where these kind of mass scars of unemployment in areas where there used to be industry like the miners for example mining communities in the north in Wales now kind of obviously left behind and there's no creation of new jobs really in these areas in fact they've had to rely on public sector money on public sector jobs and now obviously that's under attack with austerity as well you see obviously whole areas basically permanently scarred and it's for this reason this kind of this trail of destruction I think you see why historically you have these movements of workers periodically that kind of rebel against technology you know the term Luddite today is bandied about to describe someone who's against technological progress it's this kind of derogatory term saying oh you know you're against technology and they use it for example with the tube drivers when they go on strike against the idea that there's going to be ticket machines instead of ticket counters and the demands of the trade unions should be very simple to say well look we're not against technology being introduced but why introduce it in order to lay off staff why use it to put in more intense conditions on the rest of us and not use it to keep the number of jobs that are there and reduce the hours that we all have to work but obviously that's not the motivation for the capitalists introducing them they're there to increase the profits they don't care about the number of hours you work in fact they just want you to work more hours and so you can see why you have these rebellions like the Luddites the Luddites were actually quite radical they were rebelling against these machines being these looms, mechanized looms being introduced making them unemployed and make them redundant and obsolete and that's why today I think you see a lot of kind of scare stories in the press about the idea of technological unemployment, this threat hanging over us where people are worried about losing their jobs to the robots and the fact that we're not having voluntary leisure anymore but forced idleness that's what really we see in terms of machinery under capitalism and the point is today it's happening at such a rapid pace this is why it's so scared even the bourgeois are scared of it is because even white collar middle class jobs formerly middle class jobs are being affected by this kind of whirlwind of technological development there was a study done by some academics in Oxford who predicted that up to 50% of jobs by 2030 I believe could be automated this year and most of those jobs were not blue collar ones most of those have already been automated away what they were describing was actually white collar kind of office jobs things like accountancy editorial roles and things like that translation, a lot of this stuff that's being automated by AI and so forth all of these putting kind of white collar jobs under threat and so we see all of this process going, this very contradictory process and therefore automation at the same time it creates these contradictions for capitalism itself because what you've got to remember as we talked earlier is that it's ultimately the working class themselves that are creating value that are creating profits, they're the source of the capitalist profits and if you're replacing workers with machines you're killing the goose that lays the golden egg so as Marx describes how as you replace workers with machines more and more you get to a point where actually there's a tendency for the rate of profit to go down you're getting more and more machinery less and less workers and therefore less and less in terms of the actual people who are producing the wealth in society machines just pass on their wealth to the final product, they don't create any new value and at the same time you have a tendency towards overproduction the idea that as I said the capitalists are churning out more and more goods but reducing the number of workers that are employed who are ultimately the ones who need to be buying these goods that the working class is the market that they are producing and that creates this contradiction of overproduction and just to kind of end there's a very funny apocryphal story actually about Henry Ford that obviously the so-called inventor of mass production being taken around one of his factories by a trade union representative and he kind of very arrogantly said to the trade unionists well look at all these machines we're getting introduced how are you going to get them to pay your trade union subscriptions and the trade unionists turned around quick as a flash and said yeah but how are you going to get them to pay for your cars and that's really the contradiction that's facing the capitalists now that they've got this development of technology but they can't employ it in a planned, in a rational way but instead it comes in these fits and bursts we see this incredibly vast potential in terms of 3D printing as I say machine learning, artificial intelligence the internet of things but under capitalism what we see alongside that is the mass unemployment, the overwork the stagnant productivity in other words we see that we're not being liberated by machines but enslaved by them and that's all because of the barrier of profit and that's ultimately what we need to get rid of I'll leave it there


1.1.2000 I'm sitting at a friend's kitchen in Dublin in a suburb and I'm sitting there knowing the next person who's going to come through the door is Patrick McGee, the man who planted the bomb at the Grand Hotel not far from here which killed my father and four others.  Was he even going to turn up? Would I, after all these years from 84 to 99, from 2000, all these years when I wanted to not blame? But would I want to blame him when I saw him? Would I be angry? But more than that was a knowing that finally I was going to put a human face to the enemy, to the labels of evil terrorists, to the man who had changed my life forever and taken away my wonderful dad. I remember him walking in and I shook his hand and said, thank you for coming. And he said, no, no, no, thank you for inviting me. We were very polite. And we went into our own room, just the two of us, and that first meeting was three hours. And I remember looking at him and looking at his face and going, you killed my father, but you look so normal and thinking, what am I doing here with him? But also listening deeply to him. And he started off by sharing his political strategy of why the Brighton bomb had been a means to an end and why in his mind it had achieved it because it had given the IRA, the Catholic community, a political platform, which is what he'd wanted. And I'd actually met many men before in the IRA, I'd met hunger strikers, I'd met people in the Sinn Fein, the political wing, right back in 85, 86, I was beginning to meet people. And so I was very familiar with what he was saying. But I was also curious what lay beneath this. So I asked questions and I listened and I also shared that my experience of being in Belfast in 85, some of the incredible things that happened to me to help me to get to that point. My decision within two days of losing my father to bring something positive and to understand those that had killed him and refused to have an enemy because I believed having an enemy would take away some of my humanity. And I did have an enemy that day. And so my journey was about healing that. And I was member thinking, I've got what I want from this meeting. I can see he has some sensitivity and depth. But he is justifying killing my father. So maybe it's time to end it. I was very clear what I needed from that meeting. And just as I thought that, he stopped talking. He rubbed his eye and he looked to me and he said, I don't know who I am anymore.  Tell me more. I've never met anybody so open as you before. I remember part of me wanted to leave that room as quickly as possible because this was more than I bargained for. I knew another journey had started and part of me embraced this because I knew it was no longer about my need, it was also about his need. And he'd taken off his political hat. He arrived with a sense of righteousness and he'd taken that off and become vulnerable. And the conversation was very different after that. He was much more open and talking about his personal experiences of what happened to him to change from at 16 believing in non-violence to 18 joining the IRA. And I remember after an hour and a half I was getting hard to sustain the parts of me that were finding it challenging and I could no longer listen. I'd reached my limit and so I thanked him for coming. And he said, no, thank you and I am really sorry I killed your dad. And I said to him, I'm glad it's you and neither he nor I knew what that meant. What I think I did mean was his preparedness to open up. I was realising how much that would mean to me even back then at the first meeting. I don't think many people would have been so willing to engage emotionally. And he would later say that he was disarmed by my empathy. And if I'd gone there from a place of I'm right, you're wrong. I'm going to argue my truth which will make you wrong. He would have stayed in a very safe place of righteousness and not moved at all. I remember going home, very disorientated, like I've broken a taboo society. I've met my enemy and I've seen his humanity. And there was no support around that time and all I wanted was to carry on the conversation. So I was back within a few weeks. And since then we've been meeting over 150 times. We've spoken in different places around the world. He's taking a break now from speaking with me but we're still meeting informally. And he has become my friend. It's a very challenging friendship but he's my friend. And it's about for me creating a new story. He killed my father but he's also travelled on me to places, experienced incredible hardship and suffering and people opening up. He's become vulnerable and shared for him what it's like to now know he killed a wonderful human being. Because when he planted that bomb he didn't see anyone there. And now he knows that there was my dad there. So it's brought my dad back between us. I remember the first time we spoke in public we had two minutes to speak each. And he said, I now know I could sit down and have had a cup of tea with Joe's dad. Now the British government weren't into having cup of tea. My dad was an MP with the IRA. It wasn't something they talked about as a way of resolving conflict, having cups of tea with the enemy. But I can see the two men together having that cup of tea. And how much better would it have been if they had been having that cup of tea dialogue, conflict transformation if that had been happening? And what have I been learning all these years and what am I still learning? I still have in me that urge when I'm hurting to blame someone else that hasn't gone away.  They're great reminders of mum I thought we were no blame house. Do you need a pillow with your anger? And when the first one had a boyfriend and he hurt her I remember writing this text to her boyfriend. And it was really nasty and was meant to shame him, make him feel bad. I was voicing my head going, Joe don't send it.  I sent the text and my daughter said maybe that wasn't a good idea. And when he arrived the first thing I said was I'm really sorry I sent that text. It came from a part of me that wanted to make you feel bad and I'm really sorry. I don't think he'd ever had an adult talking like that before. But going back to the need to blame it's there. You know any moment we can demonise others and a moment we can make someone else responsible. And for me this is about learning. I can't control what happened to me. I did not choose for my dad to be killed that way. But I have total choice with how I respond. And the amount I've been hurt I believe now has been transformed into my capacity for empathy. And I choose the word empathy rather than forgiveness. Because I think empathy leads to positive change. When I empathise with other people then I'm going to want for them all that I want for my loved ones. So empathy for me is about action. And when I've really listened to Patrick I reach a place of knowing if I'd lived his life I may have made the same choices I don't know. And in that moment there is no other. And this idea that we are given that we have another the enemy to me is a complete myth. I am accused of betraying my father sometimes. I've gone deeply into what is betrayal. And for me there's only one betrayal and that's the betrayal in my heart. Which sees the whole human family as our brothers and sisters. And as long as there are people hurting in different parts of the world in our communities I believe it affects all of us. And for me the way forward is empathy. At a workshop very early on in 2000 there was a man there who'd been in the British Army a man there who'd been in the lawless paramilitary and Patrick McGee. I was just watching them listening and they'd all shared their stories that day. And I realised that I could be all of their sister, their daughter, their mother, them. But it's so easy to believe that one side is more right than the other. At any moment I feel emotionally pulled towards feeling that these people are right, these people are wrong. So for me my daily discipline, my daily focus is to see the humanity in everyone and work with my emotions that make me want to side in one more than the other. And as I'm standing here very close to where my dad was killed I'm actually going to want to bring Patrick McGee here and thank him for what he's been teaching me. I didn't meet him to change him. I met him to change myself because that is the only part I can change. When I was in my early 20s before my father was killed I wanted to learn about non-violence and peace.  And I was sitting in a hut in Himalayas learning about Gandhi. But actually, healing the effects of the bomb, learning to understand why someone would choose to kill my father has given me great insights and understanding into my own process and given me ways into hearing other people's stories from around the world. And there's no greater privilege to be able to hear what other people are going through. I take that very seriously whenever anyone shares and I think that's the gift we can give to each other. In these hard challenging times is to hear each other's stories and then also to reach out and hear the story of the person we find the hardest to listen to. Thank you for listening.


How are you today? I'm pretty good today. Are you, did physical therapy work with you this morning? Yes, they did. Are you having any pain right now, Jane? No. Good. Do you feel like your pain is pretty well managed here? Yeah, pretty much. I was just going to check your vital signs, is that okay? Before you go to bed? Just the most fulfilling thing is to know that at the end of the day you've helped somebody. They just love having the nurses come right to their home. They become like family members to you. You get to see the impact that you have in people's lives. Then more than I could have imagined it would be from my past experience in the nursing world. This is the greatest generation. I like taking care of the greatest generation. It's important to me that they know that they're in secure hands, that they're here knowing I'm going to be taking care of everything's going to be okay. So another day of physical therapy, one more day closer to home. That's right. They come to work and see them smiling and happy knowing that you're there. Do you get a chance to go outside today? They are outstanding. I've admired the nurses how friendly they are and how they get along with each other. We need these homes. We need the care we're getting. The elderly people, they are a valuable part of our society.  They become your friends and they'll say to me, I always feel so much better after I come here and talk to you or they'll give me a hug and they'll cry and they'll say thank you for listening to me. You'll oftentimes get thank you cards after a resident has passed from their families just letting you know that they've really appreciated everything that you did for their loved one. Through the hugs and thank yous, I think that we're doing a wonderful job here in our community making people feel that I can count on my local medical facility. They're there for me. Especially in the end times of life, you need to have your self-esteem built up and to know that your life is important and it was important and that there's always going to be someone who will remember you. And so, you know, that's an important gift to be able to give to them and it's an important gift that they, when they allow to share that with you. Can you take a deep breath for me? Great. Still ticking, huh? Still ticking. I'm a long-term care nurse in North Dakota and I make a difference in people's lives. I'm a geriatric nurse in the state of North Dakota and these patients make a difference in my life. I'm a gerontological nursing North Dakota and I make a difference in people's lives. I am a nurse in North Dakota working in a long-term care facility and I know that I can make a difference in my resident's lives. I'm a nurse in North Dakota that takes care of older patients and it's been one of the best parts of my nursing career.