Thank you for hosting me. It's my first time at GFS. It's a real pleasure to be here. I was telling the philosophers that I attended a Orthodox Jewish day school 50 years ago that I copped in Jewish day school in the Hackney area a long time ago. So it's nice to be here.  Because what we're told today, really, any newspaper you open up or any discussion on television or any way about inequality usually says that inequality, the gap between the rich and the poor, the rich and the middle class, the gap in pay, income or wealth, that gap really is problematic. It is creating many of the problems that we have in the world today. And I've seen in places like the New York Times, any everything from the problems in the Middle East to climate change to every economic problem that we have today in the world, all of them blame in one way or another on economic inequality. Yes, I'm here to tell you that I think, I'm pretty sure actually, that inequality has nothing to do with any of these problems. There are lots of problems in the world. Lots of social problems, political problems, ideological problems, and many, many economic problems. Certainly many of the economic problems blame that inequality are real. There's a problem of poverty. There's a problem of social mobility. There is a problem of some people making money who maybe don't deserve it. There is a problem of slow economic growth that most economies in the western world, and the western world here I include parts of Asia, you know, places like Japan and South Korea and Hong Kong, places like that, that there's real problem of slow economic growth. The economies of most of these countries have dramatically slowed certainly over the last 10 years and really to some extent over the last 30 years. Growth rates in places like the United Kingdom and the United States are far less than what they were starting. All of these things blame on inequality, I would argue. None of them have anything to do with inequality. Indeed, there are. Our attempts to solve the inequality problems, to a large extent causing slow economic growth, lower social mobility, institutionalization of a class of poverty. There's kind of the inability of poor people to raise up from poverty, which is tragic, but I think is caused by our attempts to solve the inequality problem. So let's talk a little bit about inequality. So a lot of times this inequality problem is, you know, described as the problem of how we divide up the economic pie. We've got a pie, an economic pie.  Big pie. The problem we're told with inequality is that some people have a big chunk of the pie, and other people have a little chunk of the pie. And this is unfair, and it appeals to us that it's unfair. There's a certain element that says, yeah, there's something wrong with that. And why? Well, because when we're hanging out together, or when we're in a family, and somebody brings a pie, we all expect to get an equal piece of that pie.  Because you associate fairness in that context with having the same slice of pie. When economists and political theorists talk about the pie, they trigger this idea of fairness equals equal pieces, equal portions. But there's a massive problem with this analogy or metaphor of a pie. What's different between a pie and an economy? What would be some of the differences? There are lots of differences. What would be some? Just yell it out. You don't have to put your hand up. Just yell it out. Pie is a right of vote? Well, okay. Pie is an animal. I mean, there's a sense there. What does it mean that the pie is edible? That it what? It will diminish. It will diminish. And what happens in an economic pie? It grows. So a pie that's bought into the home baked and now is going to be consumed is, in a sense, a zero-sum pie. Any piece that I get, you don't get. And it will be diminished. It will be consumed. Generally, consumption. Consumption is the diminishing of something. Think of consumption as destruction. When you eat the pie, there's no more pie.  You know that one? So consumption generally is destruction. So by consuming the pie, it diminishes. But in the economy, the pie is, in a healthy economy, constantly growing. The pie is not static. And it's more than that. Your eating or you getting a piece of pie does not come at somebody else's expense. Let me give you a couple of examples. So I own an iPhone, which is a pretty magical device. Endlessly fascinated by this thing. Because those of us who remember the days when this didn't exist and really think about it, this is magic. I mean, I've never seen anything like it because to assemble everything that this thing does 20 years ago, you would have had to spend tens of millions of dollars. I'm not even sure then you could have done. You couldn't have paid. How much did I pay for this thing? Was it worth to me? Your first economics question. How much was it worth to me if I paid $1,000 for it? At least $1,000. More than because it was exactly $1,000, I'd be indifferent, probably stay home. You can't really tell. So it's more than $1,000. I can tell you, given how magical this device is, that this device is worth a lot more than $1,000. And again, 20 years ago, I would have had to pay tens of millions of dollars to get what this does for me. Because think about it. I remember the days, I moved from, I was born and raised in Israel and moved to the United States in my 20s. And I would call my parents up about once every three to four months. Why? Because it was so expensive. I couldn't afford to call every week. They couldn't afford to accept a collect call every week or to call me every week. Because long distance phone calls were really expensive. Some of us might remember those days. It was a long time ago. Today, I can video conference with my kids before they go to bed. Read them a bedtime story from anywhere in the world. I'd be into places like Mongolia, anywhere. And I can do that at a marginal cost of what? How much does it cost me? How much does it cost? Zero, basically. At the marginal cost. At the margin, the cost is zero. I'm already paying for wife. The extra call costs zero. So this is the most amazing communication device imaginable. And again, 20 years ago, you couldn't physically do that. You couldn't do a video conference. No matter whether you were the richest person on planet Earth, you couldn't do it. So it's a communication device. What else is it? That's incredibly valuable to me. Just that is probably worth more than a thousand bucks for me. What else does it do? Information. What's that? Information. Yeah, amazing information. Basically, every piece of information known to man is accessible through this. Again, you couldn't have had that 20, 30 years. There's no way to get that information.  What that is? These reels, you only had like 32 photos or something, and you had to really watch every time you took a photo and be careful. Now you can take 55,000 selfies and then choose the ones you really want, right? But it's an amazing camera. The quality is better than the film. And you can take an endless amount at, again, marginal cost of zero. What else is it? It's a paying device. What's that? A paying device. A paying device. I can pay with it. So I can credit card. I can, I couldn't have found a school without it. It's a navigation device. It's got GPS. I remember maps.  And then how you get to where you're going to open it up while you're driving. Pretty dangerous. Now, tells you exactly where to go. And we've missed on one, just one feature. What's that? Music. Music. Exactly. It's an entertainment device, not even just music. Every piece of music ever composed, ever recorded is available here. I can not only choose which of Beethoven's trios I want to listen to. I can choose what performance I want to listen to. And it's available to me instantly at a marginal cost of zero. Not to mention movies, books. Now books are not at a marginal cost of zero. I have to pay for the books. But I travel now. I used to, I used to have to go to my library when I go on a trip and pick which books I would, which book I would take. I could take one or maybe two because they're so bulky and heavy. Now I can take a library of 50 to 100 books on my iPad or my phone and travel anywhere and pick and choose on which flight I want to read which book. The iPhone is worth a lot more than a thousand dollars. So when I bought the iPhone, Apple made money. Apple's the biggest company in the world. Makes more money than any company in the world. And I got poorer by a thousand dollars, right? That's the pie, right? They got a bigger piece of pie and I got a smaller piece of pie because I gave up a thousand dollars, I got poorer by a thousand dollars. I'm going to take my jacket off because it's very warm in here. Is that true that I got poorer by a thousand dollars? Yes, no? Because I have something worth more than a thousand dollars. But if I'm an economist, let's say I'm Thomas Piketty who wrote the book on inequality. Then what do I empirically observe when I look at my bank account? I see a thousand dollars leaving my bank account and I see a thousand dollars entering Apple's bank account. Apple got richer by a thousand dollars. I got poorer by a thousand dollars. Inequality has increased. And yet I am much, much, much richer for engaging in that transaction. Now the richness is spiritual, not material, not dollar-wise. And if I'm a more sophisticated economist than I actually measure the assets I got, then what do I value this asset at? A thousand dollars. That's all we know how to do as an economist. There's no way I can measure what economists call the consumer surplus. That is the surplus value I got. We don't put a number on it. So at best I vote even at Apple got richer. Was redistributed. I'm poorer. There's even a better example than that. I don't know. Do you guys read Harry Potter? Red Harry Potter? Everybody read Harry Potter? So Harry Potter is a major problem. Because Harry Potter has caused massive inequality in the world. My kids were about Harry Potter's age so they wanted to read all of Harry Potter's books. So I had to buy all of Harry Potter's books. What were they, seven? I had to buy three copies. One for each son and one for me. Three copies of Harry Potter. Then we had to watch all the movies. I can't remember how many they were. At least ten. And then we had to go like Harry Potter wise and Harry Potter this and Harry Potter that. So I figure I spent three thousand dollars on Harry Potter. Which means I got poorer again by three thousand dollars. That pie shrunk by three thousand dollars. And what happened to J.K. Wallace? She became a billionaire. She got a big chunk of the pie and my pie grew smaller. And all of your parents' pies grew smaller because they bought you the books. Again, what are we missing? The fact that my life is better for having read Harry Potter. The fact that I enjoy reading it. The fact that I had a good time discussing it with my kids. The spiritual value of having read it. My life is much better for J.K. Wallace becoming a billionaire. And I would argue that you cannot get a big chunk of the pie in an economic sense. Without enlarging my pie somehow.  Unless you're committing fraud. You cannot enlarge your pie affecting the pies of other people. Gazillions of dollars is only because it makes the lives of Apple consumers that J.K. Wallace becoming a billionaire is only possible because she makes the lives of other people better. There are a few marginal industries where you can question this about drugs. Not the healthy drugs, the illegal ones. There will be an industry where they make your life worse but they get rich. But that's very unusual. That's a real aberration. 99% of wealth creation is created because we benefit from it. All of us. So the pie analogy is wrong first because it assumes that you are some gain. It assumes that your gain is my loss. But in an market economy your gain is my gain. You cannot gain unless I gain. You cannot make money unless I improve my life. I won't buy your product if your product is actually going to reduce my pie.  I have no interest. So the pie is not stable. The pie grows. And the pie grows through win-win relationships through the fact that everybody participating in transactions is actually gaining. So that's the first sense in which the pie analogy is wrong. But there's a deeper sense in which it is wrong. And that is that there is no pie. There is no such thing as wealth of the UK. There's no such thing as income of the UK to then be divided up between people. There's no such thing as one big collective pie. I'm assuming you guys don't work so. You guys make the pie, I make the pie. Each one of us makes our own pie. And yes, as economists we like to squish all those pies together. There's such a thing as an aggregate pie. It's yours. My pie is mine. The pie is hers.  It's mine. You're business. You make money. That is your pie that you are creating. You're not redistributing. You're not taking from other people. You are literally creating wealth of this created. All you have to do is compare the world in which we live it right now to the world in which we lived in 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 300 years ago. And there's no comparison. For a thousand years, for a hundred thousand years, human beings lived, I'm talking about today's dollars, basically 95 to 99% of humanity for a hundred thousand years lived under the equivalence of $2 a day. They've gone from $200 a day to from $2 a day to unimaginable wealth. Not just material, much richer than $2 a day, but spiritual in terms of the stuff enables us to gain values that again, unimaginable in 200 years. We are so much wealthier than our ancestors are. It is hard to concretize. It is hard to make real. And it's not just here. Look at the world. How many people today? So 250 years ago, 90% of the world lived at $2 a day or less. How many people today in the world live at $2 a day or less? What the United Nations calls extreme poverty. There's about three billion. I want a percentage. I mean, I could do the percentages in my math to be divided by eight, but let's do percentages so I don't have to do math. So that would be what? 30, 40%? Yeah. Okay, 30, 40%. Do I have any other guesses? 5%. What's that? 5%. We've got 5. 5.1. You're not getting a price for who's closest. 9.6. 9.6. Wow. I've never gotten such specificity in my life. What's that? No, okay. They're gaming the system. 30 years ago, 30 years ago, you were right in a sense that it was about 30% of people in the world were living on $2 a day or less. Today, it's 8%. 8% of the world population today, so whoever said that was you were right. 8% of the world population, somewhere around 8% of the world population lives on $2 a day or less. Extreme poverty is almost being eradicated from the world. Not at anybody's expense. That's just an increase in wealth. We're just wealthier. It's just grown. The pie is exploding. And the pie explodes when you let individuals make their own pie. So the idea of collectivizing the pie works against the actual growing the pie. Growing the pie depends on people being able to own what they make and to invest it and produce from it. If you think about when this transition happened between $2 a day or less and the beginning of growth, by the way, forever, with a few exceptions and civilizations here and there, generally, the idea of economic progress was unknown to human beings.  That didn't work. That wasn't as bad as it seems, because even though people had a lot of children, most of them died. It's not just wealth that is increased. Think about life expectancy. What was life expectancy 200 years ago in England? A relatively advanced place. In 1800, what was life expectancy? Yeah, it was 39. 39. You guys are probably going to live well into your 90s. There's a good chance you'll live well into your 100s. If science and technology advanced, you could live well into the 100s. 120 is a nice number. And it's become realistic. It used to be just a wish, a whim. Now it's become realistic, scientific. A long ago, 39 was the max. Partially 39, why? Because how many kids made it to age 10? What percentage of children died before the age of 10? 50. Half of children died before the age of 10. Pre-industrial revolution. Today we take for granted, walk into a room, flip a switch, and there's light. Where are we in life from? Oil in the late 19th century. What fueled the light before the late 19th century? Well, kerosene is oil. And kerosene was only invented in 1850. There's no kerosene before 1850. Before 1850, oil is considered... If you had oil in your land, your land was worthless because it didn't grow anything on it. Oil was only became a value to human beings because of science. And after 1850 or so, 1840, what fueled the lamps before that? What was the oil that they put in the lamps? Photos of fuel. What's that? Olive oil. Olive oil. Way back, maybe. Yes. In the middle. In the west? Whale oil. So for a long time, it was whale oil. One of the reasons the whaling industry was so big in the 18th century and the early part of the 19th century is because whales were killed in mass. Not for food for the oil because it was an incredibly efficient way of lighting land. Indeed, kerosene is probably what saved the whales because once we had kerosene, once we had oil, we stopped hunting whales in such large numbers as we did before that. But how many people could afford whale oil? Very few. Like the aristocrats could afford whale oil. Everybody else lived in darkness. You basically went out. You went to work when the sun rose in your farm. You went to bed when the sun set because there was nothing to do afterwards. You couldn't read. No TV. No iPhones. Nothing. So what was the transition between that kind of life and the life we have today? A life of wealth and the transition. What do you think that changed? The industrial revolution. When did the industrial revolution start? 1850. 1850 is a little late. When would you say the industrial revolution starts? 1750. What's that? 1750. Yeah, somewhere between 1750 and 1850 is when you start seeing a dramatic increase both in life expectancy, quality of life and in wealth creation and income starts going up dramatically. Anybody have a particular year between 1850 and 1750? I mean, I have my favorite year right in between it. 1760. What was that? 1763. 1763. I don't know what happened in 1763 so it's all my favorite year. My favorite year is, and I know the Brits don't like this, my favorite year is 1776. And they have three reasons why 1776 I think is a crucial year in human history. And really the year in which our lives become dramatically better. Three things happen. One, it's the fear in which the steam engine is first commercialized. So you get the first application of a steam engine in a factory in a way that actually produces stuff. So you get the beginning of an industrial revolution. Second, there's a famous book published in 1776. The Love of Nations by Adam Smith which is really the first book that systematizes our exploration and understanding of economics and presents a certain view of economics that basically says market's work. And if you leave people free to produce and to trade, importantly, good things happen. Economies grow, production happens, and good stuff happens. If you leave people that, if you give people that freedom and you don't try to intervene and you don't try to centrally plan and you don't try to control, then markets work that was Adam Smith's The Love of Nations which anybody's interested in economics or the history of thought an important book to read. And what's the third thing that happens in 1776? Maybe the most famous of the three. The Declaration of Independence which in spite of the idea that it's basically a impudiation of Britain is much more than that because the Declaration of Independence is really a universal document. It is not, I believe a specifically American document and indeed the way it's written it's written in universalist language. It says that all men are what? Equal. For the first time in human history a political document actually says there are equal, not equal in outcome equal in what? Opportunity. Not in opportunities because opportunities are just another form of outcome. We're equal before the law we're equal in rights we're equal in our liberties and our freedoms. You're not different if you're born to family A versus family B. Now granted the funny fathers of America were very inconsistent so they didn't practice what they preached. They had slavery. But the idea of creating equal is it doesn't matter what skin color you have it doesn't matter what gender you have you're equal. All men are created equal. That is the idea behind the Declaration of Independence and it's an idea behind the entire intellectual movement that led to the Declaration of Independence which is what? What was the intellectual movement of the 18th century? Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is about equality it's about the pulling down of aristocracy. It's about the pulling down of hierarchies hierarchies that are imposed on us by the law it's about individual freedom it's about the individual's freedom to pursue your own life. And indeed the Declaration of Independence is not in terms of America but in terms of human beings. Every human being has an alial right an alial right to what? What does an alial mean first? Can be removed. Can not be taken away from. Have a right to what? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so you have a right to your own life your life does not belong to a king it does not belong to the state it does not belong to a tribe it does not belong to some entity outside of you your life is yours to live based on your own judgment not based on other people's authority or other people's corrosion or other people's force they cannot force you to do what you do not want to do again these are the ideals unfortunately never fully practiced never went to liberty what does liberty mean? In this context it's really the freedom to think the freedom to speak the freedom to write this is the idea of free speech which again comes out of the enlightenment and you have a right to pursue your own happiness to pursue your own success as a human being based again on your values on your individual interests not to be forced not to be dictated it is a statement of individual freedom the freedom of individual to live his life as he sees fit it does not belong to you but doesn't rule you where your life belongs to you not to the state not to others but to yourself it is that idea as expressed in the declaration of independence as a consequence of being enlightened that leads to the wealth and prosperity that we have today it unleashed individual entrepreneurs individual thinkers to build and do things that nobody could imagine was possible without asking for permission without getting a stamp of approval asking the leaders if it was okay or not to go and invent something new to go to build something to train freely led to where we are today in terms of the wealth and prosperity we have it's freedom the freedom of the individual to act on his own behalf building, creating, trading with whomever he wants and that freedom creates inequality when we're unfree we're equal we're all equally poor and miserable and every society that is attempted to bring about equality has led to nothing but poverty and misery take a group of people any group of people and free there will be an equal partially because to a large extent it's the choices we make life's not about money many of us make choices that are against how economic will be some of us choose to be teachers most of us are pretty smart could have done a lot of other things in life could have made a lot of money I happen to have a Ph.D. in finance I could have gone to work on Wall Street millions of dollars fact is I don't want the millions of dollars you couldn't bribe me to stop doing what I'm doing right now I love this this is fun this is what I live for and most of your teachers love teaching they don't do it for their money they know that's not a path to wealth chosen to be less economically successful than other people who've gone off or invented new things or worked in the city and that's a beautiful thing it would be a really really boring world if we were all the same we have different values, different passions different interests, different motivations if you put us all on a desert island we'll do different things and if you come back five years later on that desert island people will have different levels of what you would consider wealth who cares means that we've made different now it's true that some of the reasons that we're going to produce differently beyond that could use force in order to correct inequality inequality is part of life the solution to the problems we have today which are real is not to try to resolve some pretense of inequality the solution is more freedom it's always worked the more freedom we have the wealth is created the better off people are societies that have large social mobility they're the freer societies the more freedom the easier it is for the poor to rise up the more freedom the bigger the pie even though there is no pie the bigger the pie is the solution to the real ain't trying to redistribute not trying to remake society but to move us back in a direction where we started this wealth came from which is the direction of economic freedom social freedom the freedom to pursue our own lives our own happiness free of coercion free of authority free of force thank you I'll take questions so you started with the idea that in order to make an exchange it has to be mutually beneficial I agree with that it kind of missed the broader point which is why shouldn't we redistribute in order to establish that you have to prove what you alluded to later which is that it prevents the pie from growing and I'm not convinced that that's true for one income inequality is increasing at a faster and faster rate and it doesn't seem that correlated with growth in the second place income and wealth inequality in the second place the real terms aren't keeping up with productivity growth since 1980 has not kept up with real wages so workers aren't sharing in the proceeds of whatever growth is happening so I feel like you maybe need to go further to establish that and then you kind of move on to this moral case where you talk about freedom and I feel like you haven't in any way justified why you're taking such a narrow view but people if you take a comparison in the US of like New York and Florida for instance in New York they have expanded Medicaid and they've made the ACA work for people so that people are less afraid of changing jobs because they're afraid that they're going to get their health insurance do the people in New York really feel like they're less free I don't think they do yeah that's why if you look at statistics people are leaving New York New York is a shrinking state a massively growing state so if you judge success of states by movement of populations then the population of New York is leaving because they're not happy then and they're moving to places like Georgia and Texas and Florida where they are freeing so I think the best indication it's like people say how do you know Cuba, life in Cuba has been tough because people are willing to swim in shark infested waters to get out of there that's how I know Cuba is not a good place and I think if you look at population movements across state lines you can figure out where people want to live and where don't they want to live and generally people are leaving California leaving New York, they're leaving Illinois they're leaving the old northeast which has that more status mentality and moving to areas where there's less of that but let me put that aside because you have a lot of questions and there's a lot of content there let me try to deal with it in a more fundamental sense rather than it's not like Florida's capitalist, the New Yorker's socialist it's like slight variations between them, it's not dramatic so I'd rather deal with the dramatic differences and then we can maybe do the subtleties so the first question was okay so I'm not trying to make a utilitarian argument although I could just say a system that redistributes wealth is bad because the outcomes are going to be bad I'll tell you why in a minute but I don't want to make them all kids I think it's wrong I think it's morally wrong for you to decide for anybody to decide how much wealth anybody should have and how much is appropriate to steal from them in order to give to somebody else why? because I think you have I go back to the Declaration of Independence I think you have a right to your own life I think your life is yours how much to produce and what you produce is yours you can then choose to give it away you can choose to do whatever you want with it so it goes back to the idea that I believe that your life fundamentally is yours and the force any kind of force all coercion is evil the coercion is the anti-life the anti-mind and if you value the human mind and if you value individual human life you should be against stealing but I don't make stealing legitimate by voting for it's just as illegitimate for a group to do something as it would be for an individual to do something so that would be the moral point now let's take the economic point and we can disagree about morality wouldn't be surprised me but economic point causes economic growth and we've got your economic teacher here so we might disagree on this but what do you think causes economic growth what drives an economy in my perspective consumption which is the classical answer and yet in my view completely wrong consumption does not grow economic growth and GDP but that's cheating because the way you measure GDP is you measure consumption if you measure consumption then the more consumption you do the more consumption you'll get which is what GDP is but economic growth is not driven by consumption consumption is the final act consumption is an act of destruction consumption is when we eat the pie and it's gone in order to consume what much you do before you consume something yep, produce so in order to have the money to buy the pie I have to work I have to produce in order to have money to buy the pie that's one act of production but somebody else has to work as well in order to produce the pie so for every act of consumption there's at least two acts of production happening what drives economic growth is production and it's sad that we don't measure it properly the GDP is a flawed measure because it emphasizes consumption and therefore we think that the more government spends the more consumption there is therefore the great economic growth is a theory that has been disproven over and over again all you have to do is look at Japan over the last 40 years where consumption, government consumption has been massive they've built infrastructure, they've spent money left and right and yet economic growth has basically been zero they've had three lost decades what you need is to maximize production and make production as efficient as possible and what is necessary for production savings savings are essential to production savings are future production because what do you do when you save what happens to the money you save what people do with their money savings are invested because if it just sits in the vault like anybody see Scrooge McDuck I don't know if your generation is familiar with Scrooge McDuck Scrooge McDuck likes to swim with his money he goes into the vault and he swims in the money it's not what happens, rich people don't have a vault and they stuff all the money in the vault they invest the money they put it in the bank, what does the bank do with the money how does the bank make money they have to lend it out to somebody who is going to use it maybe for consumption but mostly most bank loans are for production so the way you grow an economy is through saving an investment to save an investment who saves an investment if you want to maximize saving an investment you want to keep as much money as possible because that's what they will do with it which will then create jobs which will then create from a purely economic perspective from a utilitarian perspective absolutely the reason we have slow economic growth is because we have such high taxes on wealth on income it's because we have regulated business to the extent that we have and control them and put them into these neat boxes and don't allow them to innovate and really produce the only innovation we have today in the world is on this stuff because the government doesn't regulate start regulating the salary and you'll see a dramatic reduction in innovation and technology over the next 20 years because the government is about to break up the big tech companies and about to regulate the tech companies it happens in every field as soon as they enter progress declines so I think all the economic problems they've said let me just say something about economic statistics because it's fascinating to me the whole question of whether inequality is increasing right now is not a closed deal so if you actually look at the economics papers that are being published in economics journals right now there's a lot of debate about the data that Piketty and other are using there's a lot of debate about how to measure wages and whether for example benefit should be included in wages or not because benefits in the United States because the mandatory and the government has dictated them have grown significantly so wages might be stagnant but if you add wages to benefits they haven't been anywhere near a stagnant so there's a lot of debate just about the empirics where we hear in the media only one side of this because there's a certain interest of it you know what he was saying the whole question I mean even the financial times which I consider quite left but even the financial times wrote an extensive piece on how the data that Piketty uses to talk about inequality is flawed and problematic but there's been a lot of academic work on the issue of inequality that does not come out quite as easily as saying inequality is exploding because it's not obvious that it has and again how do we measure quality of life what is it worth that in America almost everybody has a smartphone not an iPhone but a smartphone what's it worth that they have it how do you measure the increasing quality of life that this makes possible the time saving that this makes possible you can't measure it in wages but now they can buy this where they couldn't buy it 20 years ago how do you measure them so there's a lot of issues and problems with wage data inequality data wealth data that is over simplified in the way it's typically presented so just two quite small points so there's mostly several corrections bad so say for example I'm Builder and Builder next to me or not Builder next to me say I'm drifting out of the sky that's something I can't work on I'm on the positive line I can't have anything to eat food so we had the Brick cancer? it's a bad example because the Brick has to come from somewhere but say for example who know for what of my own I get cancer you know cancer just around it I get cancer I can't work anymore you have to pay for expensive treatment isn't that a form of correction and that's all bad and you're forced metaphysical reality can curse you so corrosion is something only other human beings can do a lion attacking you is not corrosion it is bad and the Brick falling from the sky hurting you and you getting cancer is all bad but the different categories are bad and one of those categories is corrosion, corrosion involves other human beings forcing you to do something you don't want that's the that's what corrosion is in terms of the material of that though but it's the same someone putting a gun to my head and getting cancer yes absolutely it's the same one involves choice somebody's choice and one doesn't so I can't prevent you I mean I wish I could but I can't prevent you from getting cancer that is something beyond you know particularly if it's genetic or something that's beyond my abilities right but I can't prevent other people from putting it that to me is we create an institution whose job is to prevent people from hurting you which is called the police or called the law that rights law is preventing from doing that I can't have a law against cancer so corrosion in the sense of somebody choosing to hurt you that I think is always bad oh and then the second similar point was you said about the can they've had 30 years of stagnant growth yes they also have holding population and in fact if you look at life expectancy quality Japan is amazing they live for ages they have great lives they have amazing education so I think it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that Japan is stagnating well okay so even if you control the population shrinkage Japan is the fastest shrinking population in the world but they're very happy they have long long if you don't know that they're happy they're certainly not as happy as by happiness measures that Danes are if you believe that and I don't but you know you go to Japan and the Japanese are no more happy and don't seem to let me talk to Japanese than anybody else I mean this idea that this is some kind of idyllic society I think is wrong and dangerous partially because they would say they're happy because they're homogenous and they don't have immigrants and they don't have people who look the same as they do and there's all kinds of other reasons why they might feel that way than maybe are not as pleasant for us to acknowledge so I would be suspicious of the idea that everything is great in Japan because if you talk to Japanese people they're complaining about lack of economic growth they're complaining about lack of opportunities they're complaining and this is why they constantly try to create economic growth the central bank of Japan is constantly trying to print money and lower interest rates and do all kinds of machinations to increase economic growth because they value it even if you far they call they live these idyllic lives I'm not convinced that that is actually the case I'm really sorry I'm going to have to stop you there thank you so much


Thank you, Matt. We have Matt Palmer online continuing in some way the previous presentation by Karina and talking about, are you ready to talk now, Matt? Yeah, yes, fine. Just let me get the presentation up. Okay, yeah. So it's a presentation on ocean heat content and the earth energy balance inside from climate models. Thank you, Matt. Okay. Right. Can you see my screen? Okay. Yeah. Okay, great. So yeah, thanks. Thanks for the invitation to speak at the meeting. I'm sorry I can't be with you. It looks like a great meeting. So I'm gonna talk a bit about ocean heat content and earth energy and balance from some work we've been doing with climate models. So this is some work that I've done with colleagues, Chris Roberts, Doug McNeill at the mental office, and also Freya Gary, Roberto Fernandez, Bill Bowd, the University of Reading, and Jonathan Gregory. So the outline of the talk, I'm gonna give a bit of context and talk a little bit about global warming hiatus, which I'm sure is something that we're all pretty familiar with now. There's been a lot of papers written about this subject. And then gonna talk, there's all two main parts of the talk after that. So the first is looking at pre-industrial control simulations from CMP5 models and what they can tell us about variations of Earth's energy budget. And the second part is really about forced simulations. So this is mostly Freya Gary's work, but also some of the other literature that's out there. So I'll be looking at historical RCP 8.5 simulations. And then at the end, I'll summarize the findings and I'll sort of outline what I think are some of the open questions in this area. Okay, so the global warming hiatus is this stalling of the surface temperature rise. So if we look, hopefully you can see my pointer here. In this latter part of the record, so I'm sure you'll all be familiar with, the surface temperature hasn't been rising as quickly as we would expect based on climate model simulations. And if we look at a background warming rate to give us some idea of what the rate is, since about the 1970s, we've seen a warming rate that's about 0.2 Kelvin per decade. So that's what we might call a background warming rate. And that's a useful number to have in mind when we look at some of these model simulations later. And so in terms of the hiatus itself, there's basically two ways that we can bring about a sort of slow down in surface temperature rise. So the first is a change in the net radiation at the top of atmosphere. So this is a change in the rate of energy convergence within that system. And some of the recent published estimates put that about 0.6 watts per meter squared. And the other potential sort of causal factor for a hiatus on these sorts of time scales is a rearrangement of ocean heat content. So just rearranging the energy of the system. Okay, so moving on to the first part of the talk, the first result section. So this is all about pre industrial control simulations based on cement five models. So the approach that we're going to use is to assume a linear combination of forcings and internal variability within the real world. So we can analyze multi century cement five pre industrial controls simulations to address these questions. Okay, so the first thing we're going to ask is on what time scale does net to a come into balance with changes in total ocean heat content? The second question is what is the potential role of internal variability in net top of atmosphere radiation for the recent pools in surface warming? And then the third question is what's the potential of ocean heat redistribution for the recent pools in surface warming? Okay, so I just know that all the analyses that we present here are highly idealized studies. So we're not taking account of realistic observational sampling. In this work, we're just trying to get a first order look at the potential for rearrangement of heat and variation in net top of atmosphere radiation. Okay, so this is one of the key plots that was published in a paper that came out last year in environmental research letters. So this is looking at 10 year trends in surface temperature against the trend in total system energy. So the way this is plotted is the 10 year trend in earth system energy is on the y axis in what's per meter squared. And then the 10 year trend in global average surface temperature in kelton per decade is on the x axis. And what we can see is that while there's a positive correlation, in, in general, the trend in global surface temperature is a fairly weak, weak indicator of what's happening at the top of atmosphere. So you can see that in these quadrants, I'm pointing out here that they're actually of opposite sign. And I think on average that the number of decades that are of opposite sign is about one third of the distribution based on all the same five models. Okay, so conversely, if we look at full depth ocean heat content, we find this very robust relationship between the trends in 10 year earth system energy and the 10 year trend in a global ocean heat content. And this of course is because the global ocean is the earth systems primary heat store and it's dominant on these timescale. So if we were or if we are able to monitor global ocean heat content well, then we have a very robust indicator in terms of keeping track of synergy imbalance. Okay, so you could having got this result, you can ask the question, well, on what timescale does the ocean become the dominant term in the energy budget? And we attempt to quantify that here. So we're looking at the correlation between the trend in the earth system energy content and the trend in total ocean heat content as a function of trend length in months this time. So we've got a whole bunch of cement five models are plotted up here. And what you can see is for the vast majority of these models, the correlation starts to saturate out at about 12 months or so. So it looks like based on the cement five models, the ocean becomes the dominant term in this energy budget on a timescale of about 12 months. And this is relevant to some of the other papers that have been published in this area, such as the Lovatel study was published a few years ago in nature Geoscience, where they're trying to confront these series top of atmosphere satellite measurements, which track the changes in net to away and comparing that to changes in ocean heat content for consistency. Okay. So the other thing that you can look at. And this time is it's on a decade or timescale again, is the depth of the ocean that you need to sample in order to get the best estimate of the net to away. So we have, we have four panels here, but they're all showing the same thing. It's just different models in each panel with the total range of the model behaviors is indicated by the shaded regions. So without getting into too much detail, basically, what we're trying to show here is how the uncertainty in your estimate of the radiative imbalance decreases as a function of depth. So as you might expect, as you integrate over more of the vertical column, you're able to retrieve a better estimate of what the net top of atmosphere radiation is. So I guess the key thing to say about this is that the models vary quite a lot in, in their behavior and particularly the information content with depth changes quite a lot, you know, it's quite variable among models. So you might have to integrate deeper in some models than others to get a reliable estimate of net to away. Okay, so thinking back again to the height of specifically one of the things we wanted to do was to look at the the magnitude of trends in a bunch of different variables and as a function of trend length. So what we have on the y axis is the magnitude of the trends. So we're, we're trying to plot both sides of the distribution. So we have both positive and negative values. And then what we do is we extend the trend length in years along the x axis. And you can see this reduction in the magnitude of the trend as a function of trend length, which is sort of what we'd expect from, from internal variability. So when we look at surface temperature, which is a, you know, a very familiar variable, what we find is that time scales of about 10 years, it's very easy to accommodate a trend of a few tents of a Kelvin per decade. So it's, you know, as previous authors have found, it's fairly straightforward to eradicate the 0.2 Kelvin per decade trend sort of background warming trend just through just just by invoking internal variability alone. I should say that that these dotted lines are the maximum trend that we find for any model. So it's just to give the absolute upper bound on what we would find from any Z with five model within the archive. So this is the surface temperature in some ways as a result we've seen before. But what was very interesting and definitely I found very surprising when we did this work was the magnitude of the total energy trends that can arise just just through internal variability alone. So when we think about the height and some of the literature and some of the external forcing mechanisms which have been talked about generally in the order of about 0.1 maybe to 0.2 watts per meter squared. And we can find that on a 10 year time scale that actually you have a similar magnitude of changes in net to your wake and arise from internal variability alone. So it'd be very interesting to to understand further how this comes about. OK, so I'll move on to the next slide now. So this is all about the ability of ocean heat content to or the ability of the ocean to rearrange heat basically. And this again is expressed in watts per meter squared relative to a surface area. So if we look at the fluxes across the 100 meter isobath, then we have at decade old timescales we have a sort of an order of magnitude changes that can be supported about 0.1 to 0.2 watts per meter squared. So these are fairly big chunk of the 0.6 watts per meter squared that we that we understand as being the approximate magnitude of us energy imbalance sort of right now. So as we move to deeper levels again as we might expect our capacity to rearrange heat is somewhat reduced. So we have you know have a lesser we have we find lesser fluxes across this across 1800 meters. And this is chosen of course to be roughly commensurate with the depth of the Argo profiling floats. Okay so I'm just the next few slides really to just give you a qualitative feel for how the the character and magnitude of ocean heat rearrangement varies among the CMIT 5 models. So this is these are just hovmuller plots over 200 years. We have depth on the on the x-axis sorry the y-axis and we have time of 200 years on the on the x-axis. So you can see I mean if I just flip through some of these so these are the different models you'll see different patterns and you'll see different depths over where the variability seems to be active and you'll see different timescales of the vertical propagation of features. So I think really all I'm trying to say here is that the choice of CMIT 5 model really matters for the for the ocean variability and there's a lot of diversity out there. Okay so to summarize quickly the pre-industrial control simulations the ocean becomes a dominant term in the energy budget on the time scale about one year. The changes in net TOA associated with internal variability or border 0.1 to 0.3 watts per meter square squared on decadal timescales. This is large compared to what we think the current imbalances and the ocean heat rearrangement across the various isobas I discussed is substantial but it doesn't seem to be as important in these model simulations as changes in the net TOA itself and there's a slightly smaller magnitude. So compared to previous studies you know 10 to 15 year height is could could be explained by internal variability alone and there's we published a paper in Nature Climate Change this year which I'm going to briefly show some plots from but I think Matt Collins is going to talk about this in a lot more depth tomorrow and then surface temperature trends are not reliable indicator changes in a system energy and hence global warming on decadal timescales I've said something about the representation of internal variability varies considerably among the cement finals which is obviously something we should seek to understand better. Okay I'm really going to skim through this in the interest of time because I think Matt's going to talk in a lot more detail about this but basically cement finals show different flavors of height events but they all agree that the Pacific is a key region we we know that following a height is decade is a greater change of accelerated warming to do with the reversal of the trends that we see in the Pacific and that here's a couple of fingerprints showing a composite of it which is dominated by you know a PDO like pattern and to first order the the accelerated warming decade really looks just like a reversal of the cooling PDO type like pattern that we see for the height to seize and then I guess something that we've probably been I guess many of us have probably been thinking about a little bit is wondering about whether there's a role for for external forceings during the height is so and this is a slide from Roberto Bilbao and he's showing here the observed rate of sea level change based on the satellite altimeter relative to the global mean and the hatched reason regions are regions where the models so the trends are inconsistent with with unforced variability in at least two thirds of the sum of five models so clearly this might be indicative of a role for external forceings but equally it may be indicative of it might it may be indicative that the internal variability that's represented in the sum of five models is too small okay so I think I've been speaking about for about 15 minutes so I'll try and go through the next few slides fairly quickly so this is about looking to the future really and and also the sort of historical past so this is a slide from Freya Gary so this works been submitted to environmental research letters a few weeks ago I think and really we're we're looking here a bit of spatial patterns so this is based on the pre-industrial control runs and really we're looking at the from from left to right we're looking at different depth layers so the upper 700 meters then 700 2000 meters then 2 to 2000 to 4000 meters and it's just an idea of the magnitude of the variability and where that's happening and so you can see that as you start to get deeper particularly in this layer we see a lot of variability in the Atlantic and I guess for this deep deepest layer there's a lot of that while all the models show that the Atlantic is a key sector the gist the gist model gis gis e2r there's a typo there but you know shows that both the Pacific and the Atlantic could be important so this is looking at the variability I should say that the premise of this work is about monitoring the earth's energy imbalance through ocean heat content changes so the other thing that's important as well as the variability is the emergent signal that we're trying to trace so again as from a left to right we're going increasingly down through the water column and again the the Atlantic is emerging as a place where there's a lot of action as well as the southern ocean and this is some work from Celine Housset who's published nice papers looking at the Seaman 5 bottom water properties under our cp8.5 so for our purposes particularly the bottom temperature that we're interested in we see this and what was apparently a strong southern signal which seems to be spreading northward so this is reminiscent of some of the observational work by Perky and Johnson for example so there's some interesting parallels there okay I'm so I'm going to skip through the next slide this is just showing how the temperature varies as a function of model and and there are some differences but there's also some fairly common features particularly the northward spread from the southern from the southern ocean region and so this is going back to Prey Gary's work again so what this is doing these different colors are trying to show the bias in what's per meter squared that we have in trying to estimate what the true earth's energy imbalances based on the changes in ocean heat content observed to successively increasing depths and what we basically find so if we concentrate on this upper left hand panel for now it's still while measuring only the upper 700 meters may have been adequate for monitoring the change in earth's energy imbalance up to 2,000 or so as we move into the 21st century then we start to get it basically starts to become inadequate in that we get a large bias between between our estimate the other set energy imbalance and what we're able to monitor with ocean heat content change because the climate change signal is starting to spread into the deeper ocean and therefore we need to monitor more the deeper ocean in order to keep track of it and it's particularly the southern ocean and the Atlantic and southern oceans where we where where that signal emerges so we can we can gain quite a lot of the benefit of a deep Argo array by concentrating deep float deployments within those basins you know to start with to keep track of this energy imbalance and so the Atlantic in the southern ocean a key regions for ocean heat contemporary ability in the response to anthropogenic warming and the climate change signal does start to extend over the full depth of the water column and Argo like observations are adequate to monitor the earth's energy imbalance historically but we but we really do need deeper observations in order to do this over the 21st century and as I think we've seen previously that the patterns of magnitude of ocean heat content variability and change vary by seeing the climate model so very quickly these are some open questions how might realistic sampling of the ocean effect results presented here it's an important question from the monitoring point of view what is the relative importance of the deep ocean the ice-cut regions and the marginal seas that might be might touch on some of the work that Corino has presented and you know are there important missing processes such as our an Antarctic bottom water formation I think we're on the cusp where we're starting to look at a couple models where we have an eddy permitting models and it's interesting to think about how that might affect these results and whether there are other modes of variability which come into play there's some literature that you know is starting to come out about that and ultimately how do we determine which models are most like reality and I think you know that ultimately we need to aim for process-based constraints on the climate model projections because we want you know that's something we should be working towards so I'll leave it there and take any questions and thanks for your thanks for your attention


Crimea will be liberated by both land and sea, Ukrainian officer. Despite three separate land routes to Crimea, Ukrainian Armed Forces' liberation of Crimea will also involve the seas, said Izet Gdanov, the deputy commander of one of the separate assault battalions. There are three land routes to Crimea, Kalanchak, Tsonga, Chaplinka. Gdanov told Crimea.realities. On the one hand, this is relatively convenient for the occupiers to set up their defenses as the area is not very wide. On the other, they face certain difficulties with supplying Crimea because logistically, Crimea is very challenging for the occupiers. The approach to Crimea will not only be via the land corridor, but from the seas as well, said Gdanov. The black and azob seas will be used for Crimea's liberation. That is, the defense forces will enter Crimea simultaneously. The peninsula's terrain complicates military maneuvers in Crimea. The occupiers are also heavily mining the area and have minefield, and each minefield is unique. Gdanov added. When they approached this with enthusiasm, he said, they bury themselves deep and pour everything with concrete so it's impossible to even identify them with thermal imagery. The occupation of Ukrainian territory started with Crimea and will end with Crimea, said Gdanov. His battalion is currently being formed in southern Ukraine, focusing specifically on the Crimean direction. Russian occupiers are panicking and digging trenches along virtually the entire coastline of the Crimean peninsula as proven in satellite images. Tamila Tashiva, Zelensky's representative in Crimea, told Radio N.V.


Hey guys, what's going on? It's Andy. I'm here today with my man, Luke Smith. Hey guys, check this out. This is going to be a video that you guys have been asking about, so I do a lot of overcoming objections and role-playing on videos. The reason why is so salespeople can actually watch another salesperson getting pounded on. And then guess what? He's got to take the no and then overcome it. And what my goal is when you're practicing role play, okay, one of the biggest problems that a lot of salespeople find themselves doing is overselling, okay? And that's not what we want to do. So why I choose and why I chose these 10 objections is because I want to give Luke the objection and I want him to overcome it. But I don't want him to give me a giant story. I want him to have something tattooed on his heart where he could just fire back at me, okay? We're here on Alliance Den, we've been traveling all week long all around the country. Guys, it's going to be a crazy month. We're on the road. I want to tell you, now's the time to elevate your game. If you really want to crush your competition that's asleep at the wheel, now's this time to do it. The next five years are going to be ours. I want to create the most elite salespeople in the country, but you've got to be able to handle objections. Blocking and tackling is crucial for salespeople. Remember this, objections are something that people will give you before they buy something. So an objection could be a stall, right? Like basically it really doesn't mean anything. I'm just trying to talk myself back out of buying it and then the salesman's job is to go ahead and push the customer through to go ahead and purchase it. Or there could be a real objection and then you overcome it and you handle it, okay? So I got Luke here with me. Luke is going to go ahead and handle these 10 objections that I've put here on the board. This is going to be awesome. You guys are going to love it. But also I got a little bonus objection right here, okay? At the end. So I'm going to have Luke run through all 10.  I'm not going to say if he gets it right or wrong, I'm going to leave it up to you. Give us a comment below. Let us know how well Luke does. And here we go. All right. So here we go. All right. Overcoming objections. We're going to start out with number one. Hey guys, it's Andy. I hope you're enjoying the video. If you are, please like and subscribe below. Also, click on the link below. Join me in a free strategy session. I'd love to help you set up a game plan to crush it. Let's get back to the video. This is my first stop. Whether this is your first stop or your last stop, I'm just grateful to have the opportunity to help you buy a vehicle. You see at our dealership, we're high on all the critical areas that are important to your family such as trade ins, payments, and price. So come on. Let's see if we can find a vehicle together. Love it. Love it. Okay. All right. Let's go to number two. This is going to be, I just think the price is too high.  One of the best ways to role play is to physically build a scenario. Okay. So that one would be outside on the lot. This one would be inside. Okay. We're negotiating inside. I'm asking for a better deal. And guess what? Luke knows I don't have a real reason why I need a better deal. I'm just trying yarn for a better deal. Go. I just think the price is too high. Okay. So other than the payments or other than the price, the payments are good. Sure. The payments are fine. I'm not worried about the payments. So the payments are okay. So the price, you just think the price is too high. Do you mind being more specific on why you think the price is too high? I just think it's too high. Hey, this is completely my fault. I didn't explain our pricing policy to you upfront. You see 90% of our customers want the best price upfront. The other 10% still want to negotiate in a haggle. You see, we find this completely untrustworthy and disrespectful. You see, I don't just want to sell you a car today.  If I were to mark the price up $3,000, we negotiate in a haggle, go back and forth, and I lower the price $3,000. Is that trustworthy in any way? In any way? No. No. You see, so how do I offend you by giving you my best price upfront? Not at all. Perfect. Thank you. Sign here. Ah, lucky boy. Nice. Okay. I'm just looking. I'm just looking, Luke. Okay. Great. That takes all the pressure off me. The way I view it, it's sort of like dating. You don't know when it's going to happen, but you have to make a move when you find the right one. So let's go see if we can find a vehicle you like together. What do you guys think? How's Luke doing? All right, guys, let's go to number four. I want to make sure let's set the stage here, set the scenario so he can understand it. I want to make sure you're not taking advantage of my girlfriend. I'm sitting down. I'm the boyfriend. I'm the six month boyfriend, right? You know that guy, right? He's the six month boyfriend. He's sitting here and he says, hey, let's say Luke presents the numbers to my girlfriend, and I'm going to be the third party.  I want to make sure you're not taking advantage of my girlfriend. Okay. Awesome. You're such a good boyfriend. I didn't realize that she had somebody helping her with her financial responsibilities. So today, will you be taking care of the down payment, the monthly payments, or both? Well, none of them. Okay. I completely understand. So this is her car, and I want to make sure that she understands with her financial responsibilities that this is the vehicle that she's going to be buying or by herself today. Is that okay if I speak with her? Okay. All right. I got you, Luke. I got you, Luke. Hey, that one can be a little confrontational, right? We can tweak that one attack, but his word tracks are spot on. There's some really good stuff that he said. We can pull that out. All right. All right. Number five. Look, I need to think about it. All right. We're on the lot. I've checked the car out. You showed it to me.  Go ahead. Okay. Hey, so will we be putting this loan in your name or both your names? You and your wife today? It's going to be just in my name. Okay. Perfect. Awesome. So follow me inside. I'll get you a five minute proposal and we'll get going. Oh, yeah. Yeah. We're not ready for that. We're just, we just need to think about it. Okay. Of course, you need to think about it. I haven't given you enough information not to think about it. What I like to do is go inside and give you a five minute proposal of all the figures.  Would that be fair? Sure. Okay. Great. Follow me inside. Okay. Good job. All right. We're going to number six now. And by the way, guys, I want to talk to you about Luke for just a second. Okay. I always like to talk about different levels of skill. Okay. Luke has been in the car business for less than one month. Okay. Less than one month. I want to explain this to you. Luke Smith has been in the car business for less than one month. Now here's the deal. He's extremely smart. He obviously has put in the time to train. And guess what? When I'm hitting them with this, imagine how many people run around the lot and less than a month can overcome a simple objection. When you do training, you start to elevate your game extremely fast. We're going to keep going here. But I have a feeling just within the next week or two or three weeks or four weeks, he will gain more ground than a lot of salespeople will in years. We call this turning decades into days with new training. Okay. So, with that being said, as you're watching him go through this, keep checking them out, guys, for doing this less than a month. That's amazing. I'm just telling you the fact that he has an answer, I haven't seen him get triggered and really get tripped up yet. And that's great. Okay. So, as he continues to grow, and even as I continue to grow every single day and just like you, it is nice to see at different levels with our car sales nation, our group, our family, our tribe, we're rising to the top. This is awesome, man. All right. So, number six, I'm working to deal with you, Luke. You present the numbers. Okay. And I say, hey, I don't have any money for a down payment. Okay. So, you don't have any money down or money for the down payment. That is complete. That's completely okay. So, what we actually do is most of our customers at the store put the down payment on a credit card. So, that way it's convenient for you to pay it off when you'd like to. You know, the banks like to see a little bit of customer participation to help with better rates and approvals. Okay. Cool. So, you get to put it on your credit card. I love it, man. All right. Number seven. Okay. Can you give me the price? Oh, this is a good one. Customers out on the lot and he says, hey, you know what? I don't just want to price you. I want to price on all three of these cars. Okay. I understand, sir. So, let me ask you this. If all three of these cars were the exact same price, which one can you see yourself owning? Because that's the price the car matters on the most. Okay. So, probably that one. Okay. Great. Let's go grab the keys this one, touch a feel of smell and see if this is the vehicle you like to own. We'll click the job, Luke. All right. With that being said, let's go to number eight. I just need to think this through. Luke? I just need to think this through. Okay. I understand. So, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being let's go right now and one being I don't want it even if it was free, where are you at? Seven. Okay. So, you're at seven. What would bring you to that ten? I don't know. Maybe a set of wheels? A set of wheels? You know what? Let's see if we can go get that taken care of for you. There you go. He keeps it moving forward. Good job, Luke. All right. Let's go to number nine. Never I got a bonus one about the drop right here. Number nine. We don't need to test drive the car. This is a common one.  I don't need to drive this one whatever. We don't need to test drive this car. Okay. I completely understand. A test drive doesn't have to be long but is always necessary. Even if it's down the service road turning around and coming straight back, we take lots of pride in servicing our vehicles and that's going to be seen and felt when you drive it. So, come on, hop in. Let's just go right down the road. There you go, bud. You got the test drive going. That's the number one deal. I've watched managers throw salespeople through the window before for not driving a car. Okay. So, if that was ever something you have an issue with, I think what he said is great. I love it. All right. Number 10. You are $1,000 higher than your competitor on price. Yes. We are $1,000 higher and the reason why we're $1,000 higher is why we're high on all the other critical areas as well such as payments, price and trading. You see, great business doesn't work that way. We can't be the lowest in price and the highest in business. Okay. I like it. So, we say, hey man, look, we are a little higher in price, but also we're higher in all the other critical areas that are important to you and your family, right? Yeah. And also we're great at a lot of other areas other than just the price, but we can't be the highest in business and the lowest in price. Sir, great business doesn't work that way. And then you can even follow through with, you know, hey, who wants the cheapest, right? I don't like cheating you. No, nobody. Of course. Right. And you came in today for value, value for the price. Even if you got a little lower price, you can't put price in your driveway, but you can put value. And this far you're getting value for the price and we're taking care of all of these areas. So you follow through with it. Guys, we got a last little bonus objection right here. Okay. Guys, I've got hundreds of these. Look, I could have picked any objection here for Luke. Okay. And by the way, Luke probably had about 30 seconds to get prepared. I said, hey man, we're going to shoot a quick video. Let's go. All right. I'm physically taking Luke under my wing. I'm mentoring him and we are taking him to an all new level. This is a guy who has not sold cars who just got in and is picking up on it really quick. He's putting in the work. He's paying the price in advance. And I'm telling you when I say this, this is how fast somebody can shift and change and become great at something. So I threw these random objections up there. And by the way, he doesn't get on camera a lot.  Guys, he did a really good job. I'm really proud of him. Good job, man. Hey, brotherhood. Listen, I'm proud of him. Real quick guys, there's nothing like between you and I that are different. It takes me a long time to actually learn something when I study it. When I first found Andy and I saw his work tracks, I bought his membership and I started writing all of these down. I wrote them down on flashcards and I took those flashcards and I typed them in on Quizlet and I tapped them on Quizlet. And then what I actually did too is I said the five objections. I did a video on my phone, did those five objections, right? Next video, next five, next video, next five. I want them in my car. All I do is literally hit play on Bluetooth and listen to myself going through these objections over and over and over again. That's great. Yeah. Repetitions. The mother of skill, man. That's awesome. And by the way, I did the same thing when I was younger. So if you're wanting to go all the way to the top and kill it guys, I'm just sharing with you, there's going to be a whole new level for you. You just got to go in and put a little training in. There's hundreds of these objections, hundreds. Over here, I've got a book with probably 360 objections in them and how to overcome them, okay? This is Luke's way how to overcome them just from watching videos and going in and doing your thing. Guys, I think you did a great job. Comment below, like the video, share it with somebody if it would give them some help. But let's go with the last objection here, okay? And this is going to be a good one. This is going to be, I want my dad to look at the car before I buy it, okay? So I'm sitting here inside with you. All the numbers are on the table, Luke. All right? And I said, Hey man, you know what? I want to talk to my dad before I go ahead and buy it. Okay. I completely understand, but you already know what your dad's going to say. He's going to say that you need to buy a car today that you like and you already told me out on the lot that you love it.  And on top of that, your dad's going to be proud of you for buying this vehicle on your own. Guys, what? That is awesome. Why? Because people need to make their own decisions. We don't want to involve a father, a mother, a grandpa, a grandma or anybody like that that's going to say, Hey, you know what? Luke, why don't, why don't I just get back with you tomorrow? I'm going to go talk to my dad tonight and then guess what happens? That guy stops at another car dealership down the road and ends up buying. Okay. That is a stall. And even if he bought from his last three times getting in touch with the father, guess what? He needs to make his own decisions. Okay. Think about it. Third parties, third parties, second basement. You want to keep them out of your deal. This is a deal between you and your customer. And every time you involve someone else, guess what? Then you involve someone else's opinions. And some people's opinions are amazing. I'm not saying I don't want to involve a father. But listen, you're doing it at your own risk because sometimes here's my deal. And so overcome the objection and move on. That way we don't have to mess with it.  Let's go ahead and call your dad and see what he has to say. But you call the dad and he's like, Hey, man, I got a buddy that works at another dealership.  What do they give me for your trade? Oh man, I get you way more net. And then you know what happens?  You don't get to pick what kind of father that this customer has. Okay. It's not always going to be a supportive one. And maybe that dad had a bad relationship with somebody at the last car lot. And that's not you. But he doesn't know that because he's not here. So he ends up treating you a little bit different. Okay. And then he ends up blowing your deal out. So with that being said guys, I'm really proud of Luke. Luke, good job, man. Seriously. 10 objections. Comment below how you think he did. Here's what's important. When you're judging him, he's been doing it for under a month. And then lastly, the bonus round one, which is a tough one. I want to, I want to show like the car to my dad before I buy it. That is a really, really tough one that a lot of salespeople get triggered on and say, Hey, you know what? All right, hold on. Let's go ahead and call your dad. And then pop says, yeah, no ways. Or you don't get a hold of dad. And then they're like, well, I want to get a hold of them later. I'll get with you. Yeah. He just passed it. He said, Hey, man, I think your dad would be really proud of you for making a decision on your own. And we know what your dad's going to say. Your dad's going to say that you're happy. You know, as long as you're happy with it, that's all that matters. And you already said you were happy with it. So guess what?  You know, it's just really good. The words flowed out great. I'm really proud of them. Guys, have a great day. Crush it. We're going to be putting out a lot more roleplay videos and I'm going to keep covering a whole bunch of different objections. Have a great day. Hey guys, congratulations on making it to the end of the video. Obviously, you're the determined ones and you guys crush it. You're the one percenters. I just want to tell you, number one, I appreciate you and anything you need to reach out to me. If you're struggling with anything, leave a comment in the comment section below. I always answer all my own comments. I'll reach out and help you. Also, don't forget to set up a strategy call with me. It's free. It takes 20 minutes. You can click the link below too and you can join me. I'd love to help you make a game plan to crush it. Hope you guys have a great day.


Yo, yes. All right, that was Francis Adams Returning speaker awesome job. Thank you very much next speaker is a close friend and Co-coach with him at the social man He's been there since its founding his name is Nick Sparks, and he's a returning speaker to the 21 convention one of my favorites and a total badass Thank you for coming. Thank you Appreciate it Give another obligatory round of applause for Anthony for I mean this seriously is an amazing event, and I Appreciate being asked to come back here. I definitely appreciate it a lot. So thank you guys for having me Also, congratulations to yourself. Of course as I'm sure you've heard more than once Not every single person actually has the courage to stand up and make a change in their life Everybody's got issues. Everybody's got problems, but very few people actually do something about it. So Awesome on one hand. Also another reason to be you know, congratulate yourselves is that This has been going on for what now like five hours so far today multiple hours yesterday Yeah, six hours perhaps I don't know if I could pay attention or focus on anything for that long So the simple fact that you're able to do that Deserves its own round of applause as well It's it's interesting though. I kind of liken it an analogy I would use is actually listening to a woman as as Fran was talking about it up here earlier It can be difficult sometimes just like it's difficult to actually focus on hour after hour after hour after hour guys talking Why because well in this case you're tired your brains have Processed so much shit and it's can only process so much more in those cases when you've got a beautiful woman standing in front of you Your heart's pounding your head's going it can be hard to actually listen and pay attention in that case without Thinking a million different thoughts at the same time So it can draw a little analogy between what you're doing right now the actual focusing skills it takes and talking to a girl Yeah, it's not really part of my speech, but I just thought of that So Why am I here? What am I doing standing here? I'm not going to talk about who I am I mean who really cares honestly Well, it started about 27 years ago when my mother gave birth to me. No, nobody really cares I want to talk about why I'm here though because that's the important part. That's what's actually matters What am I doing here? Why am I standing in front of you? Exactly, I don't know I Mean the the obvious thought is that I'm standing here because you guys want to learn to get better at talking to girls It's the obvious one However, that's not why I'm here. I mean, yes, I'm a dating coach for a living It's what I do, but that's really at the root of it not why I'm here It may be a Symptom of why I'm actually standing here why you guys are all sitting in the room right here But it's not why I'm standing up here the reason why I'm up here and the reason why you guys are all sitting in those seats right now is That bear with me because I'm going to explain myself is that We are living in a society That's been dominated by fear It sounds a little kooky. Let me explain myself.  We live in a society we live in a world country culture whatever you want that's been dominated by fear Why do I say that? Why do I make such a broad sweeping general statement like that? Reason being is that look at dating in our culture look at meeting and talking to members of the opposite sex How should it be? If there wasn't any fear involved what would happen you'd be out someplace Maybe at a coffee shop, maybe at a bar, maybe walking down the street You see a girl that you're attracted to you see a girl that you like you walk up to her Hey, I think you're cute. I'd like to get to know you more and the girl thinks to herself for a second Either Yeah, you seem all right too I'd like to get to know you better and you guys start talking and get to know each other better and decide if you Want to make babies or not or? she decides I Don't feel the same way no offense Maybe you know, I've got a lot on my mind. It's just not a good time for me It's just not going to work out and you say I completely understand no harm no foul And you just simply walk down to the next girl that you see that tickles your interest Say the same thing to her and she decides makes the decision easy simple the way it should be Almost too easy. Why can't it be that way? Why? because there's fear everywhere When you're walking up your mind is racing. Oh my god. So what should I say? Well, what? Is she what is she gonna reject me? Is she not going to reject me? What is she gonna think about this right now is anybody else gonna see me get rejected? You're trying to make a conversation happen and it's like okay. What do I say? What do I say? What do I say? How do I do this? I want to do this, but I'm not sure I'm gonna get rejected here And you're not the only one feeling fear.    How do I look? Do I look prettier than other girls here? Does my hair look okay today?  It's that feeling in your chest Kind of creeps up. It feels really shitty fear anxiety doubt And it sets off negative thoughts it sets off self-defeating thoughts and actions Happens to everybody it happens all the time it happens when you're trying to talk to a girl Happens maybe at work. Maybe at school All all over your life you have pressure on something you get that shitty feeling and what happens We've developed in our society a ton of ways of dealing with it of Making it go away of avoiding it. What do we do we I? Don't know we we have another drink. Maybe we smoke maybe we You know go on our computer and just watch Mindless things to avoid doing something that we don't really want to do. I really like the blue screen Anthony. What are you doing? Either way We maybe pull out our phone and just stare at our phone. Do we really need to check our phone? But no I because it's easier.  Oh, no Get my mind off of it.  We've got a million ways to avoid it. We've got no real way to stand up to it It's just there. It's something we deal with every single day and it sucks That's why I'm here That's why I'm standing in front of you guys right now because it's my job Beyond all other things to teach you to break through it to stand up to it to overcome it when it happens in your life in relation to women and Coincidentally as you grow gain confidence from that it affects every other part of your life where this has happened It's a it's a skill. It's a talent and what's the the root of this? How do I do it at the very core? It's the magic. I say a couple of magic words and it's gone. No The way that I do this it's basically based on a very simple foundational principle And of course there's more specifics and I'm gonna get into more specifics But it's based on something very simple.  That's why you've each had times when sometimes you're just You can't explain it, but you can go up and talk to any girl you want to everything's just rolling you get in the zone Women are loving you things are going great Maybe it was in the honeymoon phase of a relationship Maybe it was a night when you just drank a little bit too much, but you can't put your finger on exactly What was going on, but you were just feeling it and you were amazing.  It's not a figment of your imagination that was doing that.  He's really opening up It's what those expressions mean quite literally and this physiological change that occurs is very significant because Everyone else around you is aware of it Maybe they're not thinking they're not thinking about the stuff the way I do They're not conscious of every little shift that happens, but they can feel it especially women are very very intuitive as we all know they can they can tell from a mile away how you're feeling and unfortunately Feelings are contagious Nobody wants to feel shitty, right? I mean, that's pretty universal.  I mean unless they're your friends They have to deal with you they have to be like is everything okay, buddy. Are you feeling all right? However when you're feeling great and your whole body is reeking that maybe it's when you're around your very best friends And you're having a great time and you're comfortable Or around your family around, you know people that just get you you can be yourself around and your whole body is radiating that you're feeling good Feelings being contagious everybody wants to feel good. So when you're sending off those signals, you're going to be universally attractive to everyone around you So here's the the linchpin of it all is that if it were the case that Whenever you're feeling shitty you always Radiate shittiness Oh Erica Whenever you're feeling great, you're always radiating these positive energy then my advice to you today right now would be simple I would simply say well When you feel good Go out and talk to people when you feel crappy lock yourself in the house. Don't talk to anyone Thank you guys. It's been my pleasure to be here today and Unfortunately, that would be awful advice Wouldn't be very good advice at all and luckily there's something that we can do about this little dynamic there's something that we can do to Turn it on its head so to speak Your physiology will always follow your feelings except for one Situation where it doesn't there's one time in one time only where your physiology will not follow your feelings and That one time in one time only is when you consciously focus on your physiology a Mentor of mine gave me very wise words one time.   I swore too much last year. I didn't want to do it again this year I'm gonna do it anyway So you go to the gym you work out you get your blood flowing the endorphins start going and all of a sudden what happens You feel great afterwards man. I always feel amazing after my workout.


can only work in this industry while working towards making a change and towards more sustainability. And this is a great opportunity to not only learn, but also meet people and learn from them. It's amazing, we just present things all the farmwood boards and all my team members are from different continents and they're bringing in really different ideas and situations and things that needs to be changed. I think everything is super important but I can say for myself, I would change the consumer. If they really could understand more and think more, I think that's my goal, like to change the mindset of people. I really hope that this will in the next couple of years really turn the fashion industry around.