Good afternoon. I'm delighted to welcome you to today's meeting of the McLean Center professionalism series. As I told you last week, we're delighted that today professor Andy Abbott can join us. You may recall that he and Dr. Ross made this switch of their time timing because Professor Abbott was called away to Versailles to accept an honorary degree in the fall and Dr. Ross kindly stepped in and gave her talk at that time five months before I told her we needed to talk ready. But today today we will hear Professor Abbott speak on sociologist as moralist, Elliot Freidson, and the concept of professionalism. As many of you know, Dr. Abbott is the distinguished service professor, the Gustavus and Anne Swift distinguished service professor of sociology. He's been a master of the collegiate social science division, chairs chaired the Department of Sociology here, widely published many books including Chaos of Disciplines, Time Matters, and a book entitled The Systems of Professions. So it's with a special delight we don't we don't have an academic robe to give you today and to welcome Professor Abbott to our seminar. Thanks very much. Get out the correct set of glasses here. Thanks, Mark. I'd like to say first again for myself thanks to Lani Ross for kindly switching places with me in order to deal with my scheduling difficulties. She told me earlier she'd be happy to go to France next time. So it rained, you'll be. At least I got that. But in any case, professionalism is shown not only in the big gestures and the moral dilemmas, it's also shown in small things and this is a fine example. So thanks. More broadly, I'd like to thank Mark Sealer for inviting me to speak to the seminar and that for several reasons for three really. First, it brings me back for a talk in hospital buildings in which I undertook my first ethnographic efforts. Second, it provides an occasion to write about the late Elliot Frydson who shaped the study of professions decisively. And third, it allows me to address an important topic that's quietly clamored for my attention like a child overlooked while one dealt with a troublesome sibling. So let me expand on those three avenues of thanks. They provide kind of different routes into my central topic of concern. First of all, the return to Billings Hospital. 40 years ago when I arrived at Chicago as a graduate student, I was vaguely interested in psychiatry as a knowledge system. My advisor, Morris Janowitz, immediately put me into the field observing life in the outpatient psychiatry clinic, some Bob's three here, at which as it happened, four members of the Department of Sociology were then patients. That's the days before IRBs. So I sat in the waiting room coding patient data and observing waiting room. He's gonna like that one all night. I attended staffings. I talked with the Morris Chattie residents and attendings. And as I got to know people better, I began to sit in on diagnostic interviews and supervision sessions. Later that year, I observed the clinic's special therapy sessions for the victims of one of Chicago's great trauma events, the Illinois Central train wreck of 30 October 1972, 45 fatalities, 300 or 400 injuries. So often happens, I was unable to see what was important about the events in front of me. And so to clarify my thinking, I decided to compare the use of psychiatric knowledge in the clinic to the use of psychiatric knowledge in what was then the largest mental hospital in the state of Illinois, Mantino State Hospital about 40 miles south of here. In the event, the contrast between the ambitious, brilliant, and successful professionals at Billings and the often unlicensed defrocked or disbarred professionals at Mantino could not have been more marked. Indeed, it may well be that my disattention to professionalism as a topic originated in this intense contrast for the mantino world with its desperate realities of psychosis and senility, crime and corruption seem somehow more authentic than the delicate hot house here at Billings where gifted people treated equally gifted patients where professionalism meant subtle moral decisions rather than deciding who was responsible when a mantino patient when we gave a home visit, chopped up his wife in pieces, put the pieces in the trunk of the car and sank the car in late Calumet. A return to Billings is then a return for me to a world before that kind of ugliness to a world in which the morality of his true professionalism seems a near possibility rather than an impossible luxury. Second, a few words about my personal need to honor Elliot Frydson. I encountered Frydson's work soon after the beginning of my field research at Billings. I read his wonderful book, Professional Medicine, one day in the Old Chicago Public Library, and I realized as one so often does in the early days of graduate school that someone had already written one of the books that I had imagined I would someday write. Throughout my years at Mantino and afterwards while I wrote my dissertation on the history of American psychiatry, Frydson remained for me the most important sociologist of professions. Eventually I wrote a book about professions myself and inevitably Elliot was one of the referees. Now the other referee was a younger man who spent most of his comments correcting this and belittling that. But Elliot, who was then in his early 60s and struggling to synthesize his own thoughts about professional life, wrote comments that were unfailingly supportive even when they were critical. I can still remember reading his comment that the book was not so much a theory of professions per se as a theory of the division of labor. I felt just like Monsieur Joudin. Gosh, I've written a book about the division of labor. Wow. It cannot have been easy for Elliot to read a book giving a general theory of something that he was himself at that time in the midst of theorizing, but he did it with a grace and warmth that proves that he not only studied professionalism, but lived it as well. It's an example one does not forget. This brings me to the third of my reasons for thanking Mark that he's provided me with an occasion to address that quiet but troublesome topic that is the moral theory of professionalism. We can enter upon that topic by fleshing out the last comment I just made about Elliot Friedson that he not only studied professionalism, but lived it as well. That sentence presumes a distinction between professionalism as an object of analysis, and professionalism as a personal commitment, and the quiet but troublesome topic that it raises is precisely the relation between professionalism understood as an object of sociological study, and professionalism understood as a form of moral commitment. Now this problematic relation is quite recognizable in my own work on professions. After all, I've written a book on professions of which it's been said that quote, anyone seeking to study the professions after reading Abbott's book had difficulty imagining they could say anything new that had not already covered. Yet I've never addressed a professional association on the subject of how that profession ought to behave. I've explained professional history to social workers and librarians, I've given strategic advice to occupational therapists, I've predicted the future to information scientists and to military officers. But I have never addressed a professional association about the moral obligations and duties of professions. Indeed, the only talk I've ever given about professional ethics in 1983, debunked professional ethics as a monopoly strategy and a largely symbolic purity ritual. Yet this is not because I do not myself believe in professionalism as a moral phenomenon far from it. I not only believe in professionalism, I live it on a daily basis. At the American Journal of Sociology where I've just come from, I expect my reviewers to tell me if they've read a submission before or if they know it's author or if they gave him advice on the paper. When supervising students, I make them undertake detailed research that will never appear in print merely to teach them that readers have to be able to trust them to have done such things. When I submit my own work to journals, I expect colleagues to set aside their professional prejudices as I do when I read theirs. All of these are moral aspects of professionalism that I not only expect in others but undertake for myself. I don't think them symbolic purity rituals at all. They're not only the way I expect my professional world to work, they're the way I think my professional world ought to work. Now to a medical audience, this disjunction between what I say about the professions in my writing and how I live as a professional may not seem to matter all that much. After all, a doctor aims first and foremost to treat patients' illnesses, not to say something which will be regarded as warrantable knowledge by a community of scholarly colleagues. If one treatment succeeds in one case and a quite different treatment succeeds in another, the doctor chucks the result up to chance or good clinical judgment and goes on to the next patient. But for a sociologist with the ambition to produce a cohesive and ultimately coherent body of work, such a disjunction is a major embarrassment, as if he were a clergyman preaching one gospel and living another. Now my label for this particular disjunction is going to be the phrase knowledge alienation. Knowledge alienation is endemic in the social scientists, sciences. As social scientists, we're in the business of explaining other people's behavior. But as humans, we live our own lives as if we were free moral beings, Kantian individuals. We don't explain our lives, we live them. It's other people's lives that we explain. Explanation plays no role in our own living, except in the Machiavellian sense. We use our skill at explanation to predict what may result from this or that act that we plan. But those predictions don't determine whether we feel we ought to do such an act or not. For social scientists, that latter question belongs to the realms of politics or morals or whatever else, all of them areas that we've agreed to separate from academic inquiry. Political science, which has a subdiscipline of political theory, is the only exception in the social sciences to this separation of morality from empirical investigation. The rest of us make a very sharp separation between objectivity and advocacy. Now, a cursory glance at the literature on professionalism as an ethical system, i.e. stuff written by ethicists, reveals a quite equivalent phenomenon on that side of the fence. Books by ethicists on professional ethics contain only the most grudging references to scholars like Elliot Friedson and myself, who are dismissed as unworthy cynics. Changes in university discipline, Cain tells us, quote, especially in history and sociology, also have played a part in displacing the notion that professional practice serves the public interest, end quote. In the views of such scholars, she tells us, quote, professions have no inherent legitimacy. They're only a dominant ideology, ideology to be replaced when infers by institutions or practice that truly aim at the public good. But the fact that the moralists are as one-eyed as the sociologists doesn't change much. It remains the case that the world is both moral and empirical. And so we require a social science that can be systematically moral as well as definitively empirical. The question is how to do that. In the next half hour, I'm going to examine exactly how Elliot Friedson himself addressed this conundrum, which is central for every working social scientist. Perhaps by studying his example, we can learn something important. But before I analyze Friedson, it's perhaps useful to restate the usual method for resolving the problem of knowledge alienation, as I've called it. It's a resolution that's implicit in the phrase objectivity and advocacy. Objectivity comes first, then advocacy after. First, we undertake empirical analysis to discover what is actually going on in the world. Then that knowledge becomes input to some political or moral debate. Empirical results are deployed in those debates to justify assertions about the causes of morally or politically problematic states of affairs and to sustain inferences about predicted effects of various kinds of actions and policy interventions. Thus, psychological studies of children were deployed in Brown versus Board of Education. Thus, studies of occupational discrimination support the policies of the EEOC. Thus, focus groups of California teenagers inform the decisions of the fashion industry. Objective analysis comes first, then it's deployed as advocacy to influence policy debates. Now in practice, this supposed separation of objectivity and advocacy is nothing like complete. After all, the topics of social scientists are themselves shaped by the needs of advocacy. For example, inequality is only one of many properties of social systems, but American political needs, as well as scholars own political preferences, have made it the topic of well over half of the literature in my field for many decades. Or again, juvenile delinquency is a classification invented by the political and legal system, but sociologists often study it as if it were a natural category of social life. It is in fact impossible to avoid this confusion of the moral and the empirical, because the empirical topic of social science, human behavior, is itself largely constituted of congealed social values and moral activity. But because of this inevitable contagion between the world of is and the world of ought, the vaunted separation of objectivity and advocacy is always something of a mirage. Every social scientist has to find his way past that mirage, and perhaps by studying Freidson's approach, we can learn something important about the possible roots. So next bit, Freidson on professionalism. Elliot Freidson's analysis of this problem shifted drastically over his professional life, as Stephen Brent has noticed. Early in his career, Freidson focused on professional dominance. In those years, he regarded professional pretensions to transcendent values as so much ideology. Yet by the end of his life, Freidson had become an explicit defender of precisely those claims. He did this by adopting, but gentling, the position of Terrence Johnson, another early power theorist of professions. Johnson had argued that there were three modes of control of service work. Collegial, clientelistic, or mediative, depending on whether the work was controlled by service providers themselves, by clients, or by third parties. Johnson had seen all three of those as modes of simple exercise of power in the producer-consumer relationship. Now in his last book, Elliot Freidson argued somewhat similarly that there are three modes of control of work, which he called occupational, market-based, and bureaucratic. But he held that an essential part of the first form, occupational control, was a connection to transcendent authority, that is to an authority grounded in claims that are explicitly moral. This was what he called professionalism, a third logic, as the title of the book has it. Now before we go further, we need to be very clear about two rather different senses of the word moral. As anyone will know who's taken sociology 101, among the founding books of the field is Emile Durkheim's Division of Labor in Society. And you may recall, if you took that course, that Durkheim claims in the book to have turned moral activities of men into so much sociological data. Indeed, throughout his work, Durkheim claimed that he had discovered how to measure the moral life of a people. But this claims, this claim depends upon the customary French use of the word moral, to refer not only to what we would call in English, morality, the judgment of rights and wrongs, but also to denote that social spirit for which English speakers now use the French word moral. That is, the moral world that Durkheim measured was less morality than what we call moral, and the notion that we take from him that morality can be causally determined and be sociologically measurable inevitably involves a slide between two quite different French meanings of the word moral. So let's agree that for purposes of this presentation, I mean by the word moral, those things which are to be judged under the sign of right and wrong, that is, morality. I take it for granted that these things cannot be determined by antecedent social causes, that is, I take it for granted that in some sense any individual action always has some part that is judgeable in moral terms, but yet another way, no human action other than that which is physically coerced can be said to be without any component of free activity subject to moral judgment. So I'm taking some level of freedom to be inherent in human action and I agree that we judge that free action in moral terms. That much it seems to me is an empirical fact. Now whether those moral terms are transcendent in some special sense is quite another story. So far as we can tell, morality is simply a premise of human activity. As a symbol using species we simply happen to have deployed one symbolic register which we call oughtness or something like that, which we use to judge actions. Men have expanded or shrunk that register in different societies and cultures in which they've lived, but we've always had ideas of oughtness and we have always separated them from concepts of determination. It's just like right and left. It's a premise of difference that can't be explained in terms of some other combination of other things. It's just a primitive fact in human experience. Now it was this specifically moral register towards which Freyzen changed his view over his professional lifetime. As I noted earlier in his forties, Freyzen saw professional claims to transcendent moral legitimacy as claptrap. They were intentional, to be sure, but intended for the reason of professional dominance. They were moral, to be sure, but morally questionable because their intent was self-serving. They were not transcendent, but determined by obvious causal forces and to the extent that they were moral, they were dubious if not simply wrong. Now I took much the same view in my own early writing about professional ethics code. It seemed clear to me 30 years ago, as it does today, that the AMA Ethics Code originated in the 1840s in some sense to facilitate competition with the homeopaths, the botanicals, and the other medical personnel who were causing so much trouble for American allopaths in the Jacksonian era's free competition over treating people's ills. It certainly had that protective function and no doubt some allopaths must have seen it in just that light. But no doubt many more allopaths were quite genuinely persuaded of the moral evil of homeopathy, even if we now know that the homeopaths had a better record than the allopaths with respect to eatrogenic mortality. It's perfectly possible to have been morally committed in good faith to a policy whose main functions turned out to be self-serving. It's this kind of conundrum that over his career Freidson came to recognize and rethink. He was in part driven to this view by the spectacular decline of medical dominance. The proud aristocratic medical profession of the middle of the 20th century, which had decried Medicare as socialized medicine and bristled at the faintest hint of extra professional regulation, had become by the latter days of Freidson's career a shadow of its former self. Most doctors were employees, often of non-medical corporations. The length and type of treatment were dictated by medical criteria set by external bodies. The profession was overawed by the collective might of the government's pension plans and health plans who were the collective payers of America's medical bill. The national medical situation was embarrassing no matter whether you looked at it in terms of cost, distribution of care, patient satisfaction, or even some of the basic mortality and morbidity measures. In this world of powerful actors mostly dedicated to the bottom line, the medical profession's interest in its patients must have seemed to Freidson a basic resource for improvement. He must have felt that he and those of us who'd followed him had in our judgment of the medical profession thrown out the baby with the bathwater. This feeling led Freidson to found his later work on a question that my own book had done its best to demolish, the question of what is a profession. Now I had thought this question worthless because from the sociological point of view it was a purely ideological question. It was asked only by professions themselves and only in order to judge life worth claims to status eminence.  The real question for sociologists was not what is a profession but how is expertise institutionalized in society? A question to which I said there were three answers in things, in organizations, or in people. The sociology of professions is concerned with the last and in the book System of Professions I'd set myself the task of explaining all the dynamics by means of which such occupational control of work grows, changes, and dies. That this sometimes involved the claim of being a profession was merely one of many contingencies. So I rejected the term profession and tried to focus on expert occupations, a term with no special connotations, no political and status power, and hence nothing to disturb its definition in purely sociological terms. Freidson however returned to the what is a profession question a sign of his insistence on directing, directly addressing the moral claims of professions. He answered this question with what Max Weber would call an ideal type. That is he defined professions by an abstraction, a thing never exactly observed, but created by raising the qualities or characteristics of numerous observed cases to some kind of definitional strength. Throughout the book he compares his ideal type of professionalism to the celebrated ideal types of his two other forms of control of work, managerialism in Max Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy, and consumerism in Adam Smith's ideal type of a free market. In Freidson's view professions had five characteristics. Number one specialized work in the officially recognized economy that's grounded in a body of theoretically based discretionary knowledge or skill, and that's accordingly given a special status in the labor force. Number two, exclusive jurisdiction in a particular division of labor that is created and controlled by occupational negotiation. Three, a sheltered position in both external and internal labor markets based on qualifying credentials created by the occupation itself. Four, a formal training program lying outside the labor market which produces the credentials which is controlled by the occupation and which is associated with higher education. And five, an ideology that asserts greater commitment to doing good work than to economic gain and to quality rather than economic efficiency. Now this ideal type was ideal in both senses. First it was an ideal in the empirical sense that such an occupation is almost never observed and certainly it was an ideal type in that this was more or less a thinly veiled idealization of mid-century American medicine and law. It was an abstraction created quite simply by extending the characteristics of well-known and obvious cases. But it was also an ideal type in the moral sense of the word ideal for it used explicitly moral language. Thus in the first characteristic we have the phrase officially recognized economy and given a special status in the labor force both of which are descriptions of moral political states of affairs not empirical ones. In the second characteristic we have the idea of exclusive jurisdiction, an idea that took me 400 closely argued pages to turn from a loose moral phrase into a defensive and specified empirical one. In the third characteristic we had sheltered position, a term used with strong negative moral overtones throughout the labor market literature. And finally in the fifth quality we have his uncompromising statement of ideological commitment, a statement whose accuracy as an empirical description of American medicine has been debated since the first arguments of biomedical specialization in the 1930s. It's at once clear then that this definition is not an empirical ideal type at all but a moral specification, an ideal of how an occupation called the profession ought to be organized. Having set out this moral ideal in his first five chapters, Frydson takes two chapters to discuss what he calls the contingencies of professionalism. Here he speaks of the effects on professions of state intervention. He first distinguishes activist and reactive states, states that initiate professionalization versus states that respond to efforts by rising professions themselves. He also distinguishes hierarchical and coordinating states as he calls them, states that develop administrative structures to manage professions versus states that simply legitimate and coordinate the affairs of the professions themselves. A second chapter in this contingencies part of the book conducts a similar analysis of professional knowledge, looking at the vicissitudes of that knowledge under the influences of changes in labor markets, divisions of labor and changing training institutions. But we don't find in these contingencies chapters an analysis of the moral world of the professions. Rather, they list a set of causal effects coming from outside medicine that Frydson feels surround and determine the profession. It's in his last two chapters that Frydson takes on what he calls the assault on professionalism and the soul of professionalism. That is, he tries in these chapters to give an account of the moral damage done to the professions and medicine in particular by particular versions of these external causal forces reaching in that he's discussed in the two preceding chapters. Now for Frydson, the idea of an assault on profession lies in the domination of professionalism as a way of being by consumerist and bureaucratic modes of control, which have led both to professionals excessive pursuit of self-interest, consumerism, and to the excessive rationalization of professional work about presumably I have no need to tell anyone in this room. He uses the cause the case of medicine again is ideal typical. In the labor force we see a decline in medicine's prestige and confidence. In the division of labor we see a proliferation of subspecialties and non-medical techniques and technicians beyond the power of medicine to coordinate much less control. In the labor market we see a massive invasion of bureaucratic control stemming from Medicare and the increasing power of the payers. Moreover the Supreme Court struck down crucial professional restrictions on advertising and other similar practices. The pharmaceutical and hospital industries abandoned their traditional alliance with doctors and sought new political and economic foundations. Ideological changes in favor of consumerism along with neoliberal attempts to free the market, damaged professional control, even as consumer advocates demanded increased medical care. As for professional schooling, medical schools Frydson felt have moved increasingly towards a research environment heavily dominated by capitalist concerns steering research towards short run and patentable payoffs rather than long-term basic research. Now Frydson's analysis in this assault on professionalism chapter is purely causal. It's not yet moral. That is while he clearly sees the ways in which these various changes threaten the moral being of the medical profession he does not trace those changes to alternative moralities only to alter external causes. His account of these particular contingencies is quite morally unsympathetic. Thus he tells us for example that neoconservatism quote denigrates the capacity of the state to deal effectively with social problems of health welfare education and living conditions and emphasizes instead the apparently beneficent income of the efforts of individuals and localities to manage their own affairs when free from state interference or again neoliberal economics he says quote asserts that individual competition in a free market freed of state regulation will lead to a better or at least a more affluent society or third he argues that corporations advocacy of consumer choice is merely quote a reflection of their assurance that if we are they are freed from regulation their enormous advertising resources can determine what consumers will choose. So despite Frydson's efforts at even handedness these paragraphs events are very pejorative view. He sees the effects of neoconservatism neoliberalism and consumer advocacy but he has no sympathy with any of these as moral positions. It's hard to escape the conclusion that he considers them as do many or even most sociologists simply to be ideological screens for quite traditional greed. As for the professional as for the sorry bureaucratic and managerial side of the assault on professionalism he doesn't engage its moral foundations at all. Although he speaks at one point of the quote economically self-interested actions of the profession and its failure to undertake responsibility for assuring the quality of members work and quote he nowhere addresses the larger moral failure of the medical profession to develop what we might call a social compact for health. Yet the fact is that when the state began to assume responsibility and direction for the medical care of the elderly and the indigent the medical profession far from developing any utopian model of a healthy society through its very considerable energy into self-protection. Indeed the arguments of the doctors against Medicare and the various earlier moves for government insurance were one long blast of neoliberalism and neoconservatism avant la lettre. An ironic fact indeed. In short while Frydson saw the damage caused to the medical profession's morality by the rise of managerialism and consumerism he analyzed neither the moral foundations of those managerialism and consumerist ideas nor the moral failures of the medical profession itself which themselves then causally contributed to the rise of the managerial and consumerist ideologies by failing sort of to fill a gap a gap a vacuum. As he presents it the story is simply that causal forces came from outside medicine which undermined the conditions of medical's moral medicine's moral being. In his final chapter Frydson aims to reject the standard ideological arguments he calls them chivalrous that are urged against the professions in general and again very much against medicine in particular. Thus he says quote in attacking professionalism critics use the word monopolies stereotypically the implication being that it serves only one purpose and is dominated by only one motive. They ignore the fact that the institutions of professionalism are grounded not only in an economy but also in a social enterprise of learning advancing and practicing a body of specialized skill. He argues that monopoly is required not so much for economic protection as it is to guarantee a quality of work and to permit the development of the knowledge system itself. Indeed he argues more generally that no knowledge discipline can survive without active boundaries of some kind. He also quite rightly ridicules the argument long champion by Milton Friedman and his predecessors going back to the Jacksonian era that any public can effectively judge for itself the quality of medical care on offer in the market. Now all of this is fairly persuasive if rather ironic given that Frydson was rejecting all the arguments that he himself had made many years before. But it is striking that here too Frydson does not confront the moral arguments that lie behind the admittedly contemptuous monopoly critique of professionalism. If the public is unable to distinguish high quality medical care who has failed to educate them. If there is no general vision of a healthy society beyond a society that goes to a credentialed doctor when it's ill whose fault is that. If the society spends almost 20% of personal consumption expenditures on health why should it not debate that question in the language of rights and costs and justice rather than in the narrow language of professionalism. That is, Frydson does not accord to the other realms of society the moral respect that he accords to professionalism. One admires his sympathy for the fallen mighty but a full complete picture requires that we see the moral basis of consumerism and of managerialism as well as those of professionalism and that we also see the deleterious causal effects of past moral decisions by the profession as well as the present deleterious causal results of consumerism and managerialism on the profession. In his closing pages however Frydson becomes both more subtle and more credible. He argues persuasively that the attack on professions hasn't really weakened the institutions of professionalism itself. Credentials, schools, salaries, relative prestige and so on seem surprisingly healthy. There's no real attack on those institutions in particular he feels so much as an attack on the ideological preeminence of the professions and he notes perspicuously that this ideological attack has decisively weakened the profession's ability to fend off capital and the state. We thus have the worst in his view of both worlds on the one a continuing dominance of credentialism without the offsetting ideologies and commitments of true professionalism. As he points out the new ideologies have in fact corrupted the professions again, quote, they have liberated many individuals from the ideology of service freeing them to devote themselves to single-minded efforts to maximize their own incomes, end quote. He then goes on to predict the likely results first and foremost a gradual decline of the professions towards a purely technical if still elite status, serving goals set by others and exercising discretion within limits that are externally specified. Beyond that lie three things he believes. First, increasingly bureaucratized service with a consequent loss for clients. Second, a loss of the spirit of free inquiry and purely theoretical development within the profession's knowledge systems. And third, a loss of what he calls the spirit of professionalism, by which he means an intense focus on intellectual development and a sense of the custody of a knowledge whose values transcend time and place. The professions he feels will remain privileged but will no longer have a real soul. Freyton's remedy such as it is, is moral renewal, founded on a renewed commitment to codes of ethics. He particularly urges in expansion of institutional ethics. He thereby begins to move in the direction of the kind of social moralizing that I've implicitly suggested earlier as crucial in both the past and the future of medicine. But Freyton focuses really on the ethical defense against bureaucratism, which may or may not succeed, but more importantly against commercialism. He decries the emergence of patenting of knowledge insisting on the freedom in which knowledge flourishes. He tells us that, quote, professional ethics must claim an independence from patron, state, and public that is analogous to what is claimed by a religious congregation. End quote. These are strong words and one can see that behind his concern for the medical profession lies Freyton's equally great concern for the one profession that has to this point defeated both managerialism and commercialism, academia itself. That battle with for-profit education on the one hand and bureaucratic standards of learning on the other will clearly be fought in coming decades throughout the middle and lower tiers of the higher education system. Indeed, Freyton's prediction of sharply increased status differentials within professions is already becoming true in academia. Let me conclude. I began this paper discussing the problem of knowledge alienation, the puzzle that many social scientists analyzed social life one way and live it another. As I noted, most social science addresses that problem by separating the empirical analysis of objectivity from the moral and political analysis of advocacy. But the flow of the social process involves both causal and moral events irretrievably interwoven. So separation doesn't work. Perhaps I thought a careful reading of Freyton would show us a new way to approach this problem. I think Freyton's example teaches us several things. The first, of course, is that this diagnosis is correct. My original diagnosis is simply echoing a conclusion that Freyton and no doubt many others had reached long before. Freyton's own life trajectory shows clearly his recognition of the centrality of moral life in the social process. Having said it aside for purely causal analysis as a young man, he returned to make morality central in his last work. But he did so in a way that was clearly incomplete. I think this was for want of an abstracting impulse. Deep down, Freyton was committed not to all of the professions, but deep down to medicine. He wrote almost nothing about professions that was truly general. His preferred examples, his theories, his ideal types, all came from medicine. We might say in Levy Strauss's fortunate phrase that Freyton found medicine good to think with. But this meant that he was hostage to the medical example as the prime instance of his central category of profession. That's why he chided me for, as he put it, going well past the conventionally defined professions to include many specialists who have attained considerably less prestige leaving aside the question of their status. So for him, if a form of institutionalizing expertise in persons wasn't like medicine, he just set it aside. Yet those examples have much to tell us about the causal and the moral worlds of expertise. Moreover, Freyton's devotion to medicine also made him hostage to the vagaries of the history of medicine, the triumphant success of mid-century, and then the fall before the assembled powers of state, commerce, and consumers. But this was not the experience of many other professions. Law flourished in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as also did accountancy. Well, most of the time. This is why I continue to feel that a much more general approach is preferable. But if Freyton's approach was incomplete, it was nonetheless substantively profound. By engaging the medical case deeply, he shows us how causal forces well beyond a profession can lead not only to a decline of morale, which should be familiar enough, but also of morals. Since I think he and I would both agree that the moral realm itself cannot be determined by any antecedent causes, this change could only occur because a new causal order presents new moral challenges to which the profession did not rise. So Freyton forces us to begin to theorize the ways in which causality can shape the preconditions for moral behavior, even though it can't determine that behavior itself. For me, however, the most important lesson in rereading Freyton lies in seeing how his abiding love of the medical profession led him to overlook the larger moral case against it. Freyton saw the fall of medicine as in part moral, but he did not see the moral hubris of mid-century medicine. It's almost childlike faith that all it was necessary for a healthy society was a public that would patronize only credentialed physicians. Freyton saw only the causal nemesis that came from the rising tides of managerialism and commercialism, and he did not see the moral and political hurricane that was propelling those tides, but only the huge determining waves of change that washed over the coastlands of medicine. His example teaches us then that a social science that would combine an analysis of moral and causal forces must be careful indeed. Easy solutions are not possible. We must accord all the various actors in our dramas the same moral respect, even as we hold them all to the same moral standards. And we must much more carefully conceptualize the simultaneously moral and determined nature of events, seeing the two sets of flows coming into them and the two sets of flows going out. We must also recognize the nested and sometimes fractal nature of these events lest we forget that moral issues are of many sizes and that understanding the morality of episodes of professional services is not enough to constitute a true morality for a profession. As I've hinted earlier, I think most of these debates lie very close ahead for most of those of us in academics. I read Freidson's book as a cautionary tale and like him, I see the possibility for a great fall for university professors. We too have been digging our silly foxholes. We too have overlooked new tactics and strategies of learning. We too have forgotten in our own rush of careerism what are the only central values of a scholarly life and of the existence of scholarship. We're lucky then to have had the guidance of this great scholar. He had the courage to look things in the eye, the magnanimity to unsay the harsh words of his youth, the wisdom to bring many different arguments together. He was a great sociologist and as my analysis here shows, we have much to learn from him. In the long run, Eliot Freidson also proved a great friend to the medical profession. May you find another such. And for those in the audience who were here last week when Dr. Winia, who's on our faculty as an infectious disease doctor, but also runs the AMA ethics program, said there's nobody left to speak for the profession. That in the old days, as much as any group, the AMA had such a voice. But today that voice is fragmented among a hundred claimants to offer the kind of message towards a future that you're advocating. There's nobody left whose voice was there. There's nobody in a sense there's too many. I mean, one of the things to remember is that the world that had leaders like William Osler was a world that had 100 or 150,000 physicians. There are a million now in the United States. And they're just different numbers. 150,000 is one thing. A million is a lot, lot more. I wonder if you've got one way of reading what Freidson said and maybe even the development of his own thought, whether he said it or not, is that there's also a sort of ideal type of society in terms of its balance between professionals, managerial and consumerist modes of operating within any sphere of human activity and that we may have had a period in which there was too much emphasis on the professional. He sees it as having slid in sort of an extreme toward the dominance of managerial and too little of the professional without moving towards some sort of ideal type of balance between all of those forces. Well, I think it's really interesting to think about that. I mean, of course, the first thing will be it'll never stop. It's the same as, you know, even that will never shift. The odd, so I don't have a quick answer to that, that there's not going to be, you're just going to keep moving around as each one of them sort of moves ahead and push gets pushed out. One of the odd aspects of this entire approach to things is if you were to ask what's the sort of high point of managerialism in America would not be now. It's a period right after the Second World War. There's a period of giant organizations, a period when more than one percent of the labor force worked for one company, AT&T. I mean, it's just absolutely giant. This is the era of giant bureaucracies. The war produces that as an experience. Everybody gets used to being in a giant bureaucracy, either this one or some other one. And so the period from 1945 to 1965 or 70 is a period when everything in America is done in this highly bureaucratic way. Grave flammable man, blah, blah, blah. And it's actually there's a high sort of moral notion of this, the moral businessman, blah, blah, blah. It's a very different kind of managerialism than the sort of straight accountancy that we would, most people would think about with that word today. So that's a kind of odd fact. It's hard to, I mean, I'm interested in Freidson's analysis about these three different possible ways of ideals for the society. But I haven't given a lot of thought to how they would balance that kind of thing. It's just interesting to think about. But I don't have a canned answer for that. Yeah. Thank you for your talk. I have two sort of related questions following up on what Dan just asked. So if we think, if you say the ideal of the profession here is to think beyond what we currently are, potentially, to different call, then what is, and you describe when you talk this pushback of where we are boxed in, but what is to say that actually we're not where we are supposed to be? Meaning that the outside of the sphere of health, if you look at sociologists, but if you look at anthropologists, they talk about other sectors of health, the folk, popular domain. And actually, when we went professional, we went and said, our corner of market is this health care interface. And that's what we talk about. Those other sectors are for other people, and they're unprofessional.  So what is to say that we are actually not where we are, and we should be where we are, and we're doing what we're supposed to be doing. And rather, that trajectory was carefully planned to thought out. And because you touch this education model, I just want to say, so are you advocating like the Oxbridge model, where it's kind of a, your argument is what we do through small tutorials. And that's all it is. So you develop your argument. And would that be what the master clinician sort of back to what Mark's idea is supposed to do in medicine, this idea we rejuvenate this clinician relationship where you learn through virtual, you know, to virtuous mentors to take care of patients or rather the science and the direct portion is less important than the mannerisms of how you're doing what you're doing. There's a lot in there. And I don't, you know, I'm not terribly comfortable in telling professionals what to do, as you can tell. I sort of, I spent my whole life avoiding doing it. So I don't, I'm not sure I accept the notion that, well, let's put it this way.  The classic example of that is actuaries, right? Very narrow profession, does a very particular thing. Nobody else does what actuaries do. It's good. This is the thing. Veterinarians is another sort of fairly tightly defended. And it used to be dentists, but of course dentists were suddenly then destroyed by fluoridation and had, ah, what are we going to do? Nobody around with teeth rotting, so of course they get into it. Luckily, you guys are keeping everybody alive and even fluoridation doesn't help in the long run.  So you can make a very small box, but, you know, this is a big profession. It's a million people. It's got a lot of different pieces. It can, it can have a greater ambition than that, it seems to me. And if that means having some sort of rapprochement or relation, whatever, with the world of over-the-countercare, all that other kind of stuff, folk, whatever. Yeah, maybe that's something to be thought about. I don't know. I mean, obviously it happens in the, you know, in doctor's offices where they say, well, I use this OTC drug for the, we won't talk about that, right? Okay, so it could be that the depression could do a lot of that, it seems to me. So I don't see any necessary reason why a big and actually quite strong, very heavily institutionalized profession shouldn't have this kind of ambition to, I don't want to say control, but to produce a vision for it. You create a vision of what it means to have a healthy society, what health is for people of the life course. You really think about this. People will be to pass to your door. Rather than having a world where, where people think, I mean, you always see this, people think about health as, health is not having to go to the doctor. So as long as you can avoid, this is not, it's not what you would in control of health, right? What's you in control of the reverse of health and that's kind of not good. So you want to be, in a sense, if you have a positive vision as well. I mean, it's happened in many, many professions. So in fact, this is the way, this is what happens with dentistry. It starts out as a, as a taking care of problems and then moves to prevention, to prevention, to prevention, invents the sort of, you know, the twice yearly cleaning and all that stuff as a way to provide business for itself. Lots and lots of professions get put out of business because they get successful at what they do. And then you have to get into prevention of other kinds. You saw this with psychiatrist, the rise of mental hygiene in the 1920s. It's all, you know, sort of a tooth brushing of your mind every week or you'll turn into a nut. I mean, it really was kind of the way it was. There was this notion that untreated neurosis would turn into psychosis, which is a pretty strange kind of idea. But that's clearly, if you look at the mental hygiene literature from the 1920s, very involved literature. That's sort of the basic theme. So there are a lot of different ways to do it, I think. You know, the master clinician idea, it's an interesting idea, but we have, it's the same kind of debate in education. It's obvious that one-on-one is the best kind of instruction for the most part that exists. It's really expensive. On the other hand, the society is incredibly rich. You know, if you read Gaines's famous essay, Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, the central problem of this world is that our society is so productive that actually, in reality, we only have to work two hours a day to have a very happy society. None of us know what we would do with ourselves for the other time. Kellogg's, just last week, I went to Michigan on the train, of course he goes through Battle Creek. Kellogg's, for 40 or 50 years, had a six-hour day. That's a big experiment to try a six-hour day. And one of the real problems with it was that people found they had time in their hands. They didn't know what to do with themselves. A lot of the women really loved it because it simplified childcare and did a whole bunch of things. But it's not clear that if we actually ran the society and took advantage of the society's unbelievable productivity instead of wasting huge amounts of it in, you know, like, there are 1,500 different kinds of fifths of vodka for sale. In a major Chicago grocery chain. 1,500. You know, if you take all the different sizes and different colors and different whatever, right? This is the world of UPCs. I had a student who studied this. This is, like, bizarre. This large grocery chain, which many of you are probably members of, and card carriers for, you know, has something like 25 million items in its UPC database. It's not the case that we need 1,500 different kinds of fifths of vodka. Let me tell you. Okay, so, you know, if we took that and we didn't waste all this stuff and we just lived in, we could do a lot of stuff in this society. You probably could have one-on-ones of huge amounts. It's a very productive society. It's interesting, because in a sense what you're asking is for medicine to go back to the middle of the 20th century when medicine and public health were more united. Because a notion of health really has to take on the communal notion of health at the society level. And in a sense, that's when we split. At the same time as you're talking about the hubris, which comes because we split and we are the interventionists and the public health are doing those boring things like telling us eat right, exercise and sleep right, which are still probably the three best prescriptions any physician will ever give you. Right, so, well, it could be. I mean, the history of the relation of public health is a long and interesting one. And, you know, I don't actually, I haven't studied it carefully, so I just, I don't know it off the top of my head. It is true that, you know, if you look at declines in mortality, it's public health that's providing most of those until a relatively recent period.  But, so I think it is true that in a sense, maintaining that relationship would work and it has to do with sort of, you know, fighting down differentiate certain kinds of differentiation, maintaining a kind of connection. Yeah, it's an interesting argument. So I'll just leave it there. It's obvious we can go somewhere with that. I think all of us have been driven back to reading both the early and the late frights and I want to thank you so much for coming over from the campus. Thanks.


Hello, hello. Welcome back. This is still Y in the morning. Sazdeva is the hashtag to use at Y2Py4, channel that is in Facebook and Twitter. Y2Py4 is on our channel on Instagram. Talk to us. We have now gotten to our first conversation and we start with some technology because, you know, the future is all set and we actually will see in the future. So now today we want to get into a bit of innovation and we have some startups with us in studios. They've come up with an interesting, interesting innovation called the Mini Tractor and they will be telling us about it. So with me here on my right, we have Peter. Peter and you will introduce yourself again and we are on my farthest right. We have Jeff Assone. You are all from JQuart and there's also a third one who will be joining us later on to introduce himself because they are a team of three. So let's start with you, Peter. Introduce yourself. Tell us what you do. Good morning. I am Peter Ziochi. I am a student at JQuart. I study agricultural engineering, majoring in biomechanical section. Yes, so I am the project leader for the Mini Tractor. Okay, we have the project lead there and then we have Jeff Assone. Good morning. Good morning. I am Jeff Assone. I am at JQuart pursuing strategic management currently on my fourth year. Okay, and what role do you play in this team? I am the project manager for the Mini Tractor. Project manager for the Mini Tractor and then we have Ian. I believe Ian is the project engineer but he will be coming later on to tell us about this particular innovation also to introduce what he does exactly. We want to know about the Mini Tractor and we will be playing the videos and the photos of the Mini Tractor as they explain what it is really because to me, we know some of the Tractor is not the Tractor. So what does it do in the Tractor? What is it about? So the Mini Tractor began as a modified motorcycle. Basically we wanted to increase power and then we noticed that there were challenges with getting the big farm machinery to the small scale farmers, especially in my home area. I hail from Machacos. We noticed that the small subsistence farmers use the traditional methods of farming which are low output methods. So we wanted to bridge that gap to bring sort of a cheaper solution and also a piece of machinery that they can still use for day to day activities. As you know, it can also, when you're done with the farm operations, you can use it as a normal motorcycle. So that is the problem we were aiming to solve. Alright, so it looks something like a motorcycle. Director, please give us the photo and the videos as we try to understand how it is and how it works. So it's a motorcycle. Basically it's not a tractor. And then it has a plow. Yes, it has a plow at the back that is attached to it. So as it moves forward, it pulls the plow along with it. Okay, alright. So how did you come up with this? I don't know if Jeff is going to answer that. So the project, how we came up with it from scratch? Yes, basically how we came up with the Mini Tractor. The Mini Tractor started, it was a pandemic project. We started, we designed the chassis, the body, the structure and everything. You can see it's actually on screen. Yeah, it's been a two-year journey so far. We're still working on making more accessories for the bike apart from the plow. More implements went to bring on later in a couple of months. So yeah. Okay, so how is the bike different? Is the bike anything different from the normal motorcycle? Yes, yes. Especially from the power output perspective, we modified the engine to increase the horsepower. So it's significantly increased. It's 67% more powerful than the normal ones. 67% more powerful than easy bikes. Yeah, than easy boarders are powerful either. So in the project we came up with this. Well, maybe you want something fast to take you from point A to point B, you know, fast. So PRC, you can use it instead to go for the more expensive options because with sports bikes they're more expensive. They're like 300,000. We offer ours for 110,000. That's our fraction of the price of the Isozingine. We offer it to rich farmers. Those are the basic differences between normal bikes and this one. So it's like half the normal sports bike. And it has 67% more horsepower than the normal bike. Wow, this is quite the deal. If you're looking for a bike, you know, how did you come about with that? How do you think about increasing the horsepower? Why? First of all, the primary reason to increase horsepower was to allow it to do the chilling exercises well. With the normal boarders the engine power is not enough to pull the plows and the other implements you needed to plow. We needed to use, sorry. And also, we wanted something that is fun to ride. For youth that they don't know, at least it won't embarrass you on the highway. Yes, yes. You can use your bike during the day and then you want to plow your field and then maybe later on in the evening you want to go out with your bike. So you're on your bike and you're going and it's 67% faster. All right, so tell us the business part of it. How much did you invest in this machine because of the bike plus the plow? So basically, your cost of development has been above 300,000 for now and still rising. So the bike is still under development. As I said earlier, we are working on more implements. So this is going to be a bit costly because we are still at funding the project from an internal way, from the three of us. So, yeah. So because this is just the three of you, how do you manage to get 300,000? Do you have funding still? How do you get to that? So far you've used around 300,000. Yes. So how do you get that? I say it's of support from our family and God. Wow, that's nice, powerful. So would you want the government to support you? Do you have enough support as innovators and startups from the government? Not yet, but hopefully in the future we might get support because we are working to provide a two-way way for the Bodabodas instead of just using the Bodabodas for logistics or transportation. We are trying for agriculture because if you went through the 844 system, the first thing you told is that agriculture is a backbone of Africa and Kenya and we are not working towards having a better improved farm mechanization strategy. So how do you think that tech can help in agriculture because you've brought tech to agriculture? How do you think it can boost our agricultural sector? For now, it's basically a simple business in the sense that we already have existing infrastructure which is the Bodabodas. So if we give the Bodabodas another additional factor, another reason is why they can continue existing in the market. Let's say if you are able to turn some of these bikes into farm machinery or into mini tractors, this is going to boost us as a country. It's going to boost our development in the agricultural sector too. So what are some of the... because it still needs development stage, what are some of the limitations that we want to... you are still working on? Some of the limitations we are still working on is there have been challenges, especially with importation of parts. This has proven very costly and sometimes very difficult to bring in parts. And some of the other limitations are a stiff competition from established manufacturers. I think those are the most advanced limitations that we are facing. So a stiff competition from established manufacturers is off? Off motorcycles. And the plow... So the plow, do you just buy it aside? Yes, yes, we buy the plow aside, but we fabricate the attachment onto the motorcycle. That is, we fabricate it ourselves. And if adjustments are needed on the implement, we also do that by ourselves. And someone would ask, how economic is using a bike for the farm to the farmer because it needs the fuel and everything. So, yeah, that's it. So it roughly takes 5,000 to 7,000 Kenya shillings to get an echo of land tilled. You have been factored in labour and fuel cost for the small-scale tractor. So for us, for instance, with the current fuel rates, you can farm an echo with worth 400 to 500 bob of fuel. That's enough to do an echo. Now, we are working to roll out a lease protocol where we can lease the bike, our bikes for farming. You can come, rent the bike for an hour, get your echo tilled. Yeah. Okay, so you have mentioned the part of renting the bike. So do you rent the bike or does someone buy the bike and the plow? Both. It depends with your pockets. You can lease the bike because they are farmers who don't want to own the machinery but they can work on a lease protocol. So you can just lease the bike, have it served for a month for farming or have it served for a day or two and then pay us. We do the transportation. We bring the labour and everything. Now, you can also opt to buy the bike. We can have your bike, your mini tractor built for you. You can also choose the implements that you love to purchase as your accessories for your bike too. Okay. And why, because seeing the video, we are seeing someone else at the back pushing it. So why do you need someone else to help push? Okay, so now we are trying to prove the concept that the bike is powerful enough to pull because as you see, the farm terrain is not that easy. So you need a 20-horse power plus to pull. And secondly, the bike is already 67%, has a 67% higher power output. So with this, the bike is capable of pulling a plow that is heavy in such a terrain. So right now, you are working on eliminating the back side whereby you are going to have a single user on the bike. The bike is being rode by one person and the one person still operating the implements at the back. Okay, so those are some of the things that you are still working on on the bike. And how has the reception been since you created the bike? Have you sold some? Have you leased some? Right now, we are focusing on developing the product first. I think we would be ready to roll out the first sales in two months' time. Yes, after we have eliminated, as you said, the operator at the back, and we are also working on increasing the power more. So that is something where they want to roll out a superior product to the market so that that can give us an edge over the established manufacturers. Okay, so we are doing great for the great product, the finished product. Okay, this is good. And last week, we had a Cambu Innovation Week and you guys were there. So how was it there? They were exposed so good. We got the opportunity to meet with serious policies stakeholders in the markets such as the CS, YCT, the governor of the Cambu. They had good plans for us and how they can help us achieve our targets as innovators. But so far, I think as a country and as policy makers, they need to focus on how they can improve us innovators in the sense that if you see how the western operators start up, they have lower banking interest because start-ups are very risky. But start-ups are still versatile in adopting harsh market conditions. So I feel they still have a long way to go. But the initiative and the will is really commendable. It was really that, okay. And now, how was the reception from the viewers that were coming to see it? How do you think people are receiving it? Yes, the idea has been, we notice a lot of interest from people. Previously, even in the Jequatec Expo, we were the most interviewed project, also in the Cambu Expo too. So it shows that people are in need of such a product in the market. It's that they are still waiting for the solution to be brought to them and we were working on that solution as a team. Okay, quite interesting. So what is it about innovation? For someone who wants to come up with something, so how do you start? Where do you start? I think it all begins with a passion for what you want to do and dedication. You have to dedicate time and you have to dedicate resources to what you're doing. You also have to do a lot of research because you cannot do it blindly. I think that's really what it takes to innovate. That's what it takes. It takes passion and dedication and time. When they say to make it to be successful, you have to solve a problem in the world. How true is this in regards to innovation? It's very true because I believe if you solve a need in the society, the money now, for instance, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon CEO, he solved the need of showing the essence of business to direct sales from businesses to the consumer. So through this, Jeff got his reward, which is the lump sum of money he has. But for you to reap the rewards in the market, you have to solve a problem that has been existing, or that is going to come up in the market, that you've already focused and seen, and you're ready to solve. Once you solve the issue, you shall be rewarded greatly. Thank you for the tip. Maybe you can tell us, how does the future of innovation look like in Kenya? The future of innovation in Kenya is bright. I'd like to also base my comment on what I saw in the expo. There's a great number of innovators with very, very innovative ideas. So I would say the future is bright. And if government policies shift to favour start-ups, I think we'll be heading in the correct direction in terms of innovation as a country. So Jeff, as Ian comes to the stage, you can be telling us what the future looks like in the mini-tractor team. What vision do you have for the future? So as a team, hopefully, we want to focus on three objectives, which is we want to build custom bikes. We're working on a way of how we can use readily available infrastructure, which is the border borders, where we can turn them into mini-tractors. The other objective, the second objective, is we are focusing on how we can improve our accessories, make better and efficient firm accessories for the bike, so that we can have more purpose, like more design purposes for the bike, where the bike can also tilt, the bike can also mould the terrain and everything. The third objective is building our own bikes because we are on the way, we want to start on our second prototype for the mini-tractor very soon. Okay, and is it viable or something? Is it in the future, maybe you could have electric bikes or is that maybe would be expensive or it should not work? Okay, for the motorcycle industry, the engine technology is still growing at a very slow pace compared to the car industry because the concept about the bike engine is still growing, it's still a concept that is still being understood. So we are working on having a hybrid solution that is still electric and also low on the carbon emissions too. But considering the part of the electric engines that you need, the main thing about firm is that you need power. So if I put a weighted blow at the back of an electric bike, the batteries will be catastrophic, it might explode because of the power. But we are working on how fast we can achieve a hybrid engine than work towards the electric engine. Okay, thank you. So we have Ian with us. Please introduce yourself. Okay, so tell us what you do here. I'm Ian, I'm basically what you're going to say. I work with machines, I love working with machines. Okay, you are part of quite team, what do you do and what course are you taking? I'm taking agricultural and bus systems engineering, same with Peter. What I do mostly, we just do the modifications You're the project engineer I've had, what a title. How does it feel? It feels nice. How do you see your project going in future because you still don't know what to roll it out yet? In the future?


Want to learn about stocks, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and the metaverse? Join RichTV.io. Guys, how you doing? This is your host with the most. Your boy Rich from RichTV Live and Interactive with our world famous top 10 stocks for November 2022. And my crystal ball is saying we've got some big winners after a huge October where stocks had its biggest month since 1976. That's right. It's biggest month in the Dow Jones since 1976. We've seen a tough market this year. Lots of volatility. A lot of really good companies are now at really good prices. A lot of really bad companies have gotten destroyed. A lot of really good companies are now undervalued, underappreciated, underexposed. And let's talk about it right here, right now exclusively at RichTV. Don't touch that dial. Our world famous top 10 stocks starts now. All right. Here's our world famous top 10 stocks for November 2022. After a massive, massive October, we look like we may be positioned for another strong November to finish off the year. Hopefully on a high note after a really tough year for trading. So my number 10 pick is ARB and B. You can see they've been much, much higher, around $193 come down like most stocks during this really tough market environment. And you can see it's done this trend down. And now it's kind of starting to trend up. So that's why we don't have it on our website yet, but we're going to create it now. And we're going to add it as our 10th pick for November 2022. So ARB and B currently at $109. And you can see here at RichTV.io, just click on A, R, A, B, N, B. And they will have a chat room right here. Right now you can click on ARB and B and learn more information, take a look at the chart, get some statistics on ARB and B right on our website at RichTV.io, add it to your watch list, and learn more about the company. So you can get some key data right there when you scroll down and you look at ARB and B. And like I said, once we do our top 10, any pick that isn't currently set up with a chat room, we'll have a new chat room on RichTV.io. So feel free to go there and start learning about different stocks. So that's our number 10 pick for November in number nine, target. I always been a big fan of target and target looks like it's positioning itself accordingly. Hit a high of $252 last year, which was the high high and where I felt like a lot of stocks were overvalued. And then did this trend down, right? Did this trend down? You can see aggressively down to 136. 136 is the low low. That's where we always want to be buying anything and everything at the bottom. And it started to come up since then from the bottom. And we're currently at 164. So definitely an opportunity to maybe get a little bit lower. But I do believe there's a huge gap to fill up here and an opportunity to make some money for it to go back to 200 investors can make a nice return. So that's why target is my number nine pick for November 2022. And you can learn more about target right on RichTV.io. Now in number eight, Wells Fargo. Real quickly before I go there. Target does have a dividend yield of 2.6% as well. So they do pay you to hold the stock and we love dividend stocks in this economic environment. So in number eight, Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo also has a dividend yield of 2.59%. We like the dividend. You can see it's been as high as $59 last year during the market explosion. And then it's come all the way down this year to a low of 36 during the market implosion. And we believe that was a great entry point at 36. It started to come up already now at 46. So you can see a lot of these stocks are doing these kind of like V shape recoveries where they come down and then they find a bottom and institutions, high net worth investors are starting to find those bottoms as good opportunities and they're buying the dips. And you can see that they're doing these not fully V shape recoveries, but they're starting to make a nice big recovery.  And with the dividend, we really like them when we love banking stocks when interest rates are climbing. So in number seven, Domino's Pizza. During a recession, during a tough market environment, during high inflation, people are going to want to save money. People are going to be buying pizza. You can see it hit a high of 560 last year and currently just recently hit a low of 299 and it's starting to balance back off that bottom of 299. So as an investor, you're always trying to understand the high, high, the low, low, and where we're going. Clearly came down, tried to come back up, came down and starting to come up a little bit, but much closer to the bottom here at 335 than it is the top with a huge gap to fill here to go back to the higher levels. So we like Domino's Pizza. We love pizza. And they also have a dividend yield of 1.3%. That's why there are number seven pick for November 2022. Now in number six, Self. Now this is a lower price stock currently at $4.82. You can see it did hit its high, high of 727. That's what we like to kind of look at where it's going to go in the future. And it hit its low of 476 just recently and we're sitting right now at 482. So we're really close to a bottom. I think there's a huge gap up opportunity here. We always like to understand the gap up opportunity. So what is a gap up opportunity? A gap up opportunity is where I believe it could go. So when you mark up where you think it could go, let's say we believe it could go to this zone. There's a huge gap up from where we are today to where it could go. I mean, we're talking about a 50 to 90% gain to get back to those higher levels. So that's what I'm looking for. Gap up opportunities. Self also has a 6% dividend, 6% dividend lower price stock on the NASDAQ global self storage with a huge gap up opportunity in my opinion. And it looks like, look at this, the RSI is sitting at 20. That's the buy zone and the MACD is crossing down. So it's definitely been pushing down. And if it does do a trend reversal and come back up, investors are going to get an opportunity to make a nice return on their investment. That's our number six pick for November 2022. In number five, this is one that I'm very interested in, Rumble Inc. This is an alternative news and media platform for more like right wing news and media. So if you're interested in that type of thing, I think this is one to really watch. They've got some big people that are joining them now in the alternative world of news and media. You can see they hit a high of 17. They recently hit a low of six and they've bounced off that $6 zone. And now they're up to $11.95. They know that Andrew Tate just recently joined Rumble. He's a big part of it now. So they've done this crash and then recovery currently right in the middle. And I think Rumble has a lot of potential here. So put them on your radar, put them on your watch list, relatively new stock that's just formed with Rumble, the alternative news media company. And we also put content on Rumble as well. So it's one to watch. It's one that I like. They're my number five pick for November 2022. And I'm pretty sure you haven't heard anyone talk about them anywhere else. In number three, PepsiCo. Pepsi. Pepsi had a huge quarter in a world where so many companies have been struggling. Pepsi is doing quite well. Had a monster quarter and you can see it's really high right now. Pretty much right at a 52 week high, right? So let's take a look at the one year. Yeah. So you can see they are literally trading at a 52 week high. So I'm not going to sit here and tell you to buy it at a 52 week high, but be aware of it. It's a company that's doing well. It's trending higher in a tough economic environment in a tough economy. This is actually one that's been going higher. So I think it's one to definitely watch, put on your radar, put on your watch list. Look at that trend. Very, very strong. And another dividend yield of 2.5%. So people are still drinking Pepsi. People are still drinking beverages. This is one to watch doing well. And we'll be adding him to richTV.io. I really like this company. I don't own them yet, but it's one to watch. And once again, a nice dividend of 2.5% for Pepsi, our number four pick for November 2022. Now in number three, this is one I really like, and it's very, very volatile. So proceed with caution, Lithium Americas. Now, Lithium is one of the top commodities assets that you can use, metals that you can use in electric vehicles. It is one of the key areas of focus for companies like Tesla because they need Lithium to make their batteries. So if you take a look at this company, this is a company that's been very volatile up and down and up and down and up and down. And it just kind of started to come back up. So I think it's one to watch, put on your radar, put on your watch list, LAC in Canada, LAC in America, big fan of them, very volatile, lots of big swings up and down, which means there's opportunity to make money. And I feel there's a gap to fill here. So there may be some opportunity for some upside and it's one that I really like. I must remind you that Rich TV Live is strictly for information and education purposes. Please do your due diligence, do your research before you invest anything we talk about or discuss here on Rich TV Live and comment on the videos. Do you agree with my picks? Do you disagree with my picks? What do you think about my picks? And this is my number two pick. I've always liked these guys, Alcoa Corp. It hit a high of 97 dollars. Okay. It just hit a low here of 33 dollars. I think that's an opportunity. They also have a small dividend of 1%. And you can see much closer to the bottom than it is the top. It's currently sitting at 39. It hit 33 and it's been as high as 97. So I'm looking for these types of opportunities, quality companies with some good upside. It didn't have the greatest quarter. That's why it's come down. But I think that's going to be a buying opportunity. And it has a massive, massive gap to fill here. And that's what I look for. I like to look for companies that I think have a gap to fill that are quality companies that have huge growth potential that have been higher, that have come down and have a chance to go higher when investors feel like they're undervalued, under-appreciated, under-exposed. They're going to come in, flood it, and it's going to go higher. And I think Alcoa Corp is set up for the win, my number two pick for November 2022. And in number one, I know this is Amanda's, one of Amanda's favorites. I've never talked about them before, but I'm going to talk about them now, Eritzia. So Amanda's compared this Lululemon, a great Canadian story that's done quite well. And Eritzia has been doing very well in a tough economic environment. So you can see the high highest $60, it's at 52. So it's pretty close to the top. Why? Because it's doing very well, strong earnings, strong growth, still a lot of room for growth here, in my opinion, in this company. The symbol is ATZ in Canada. And you can see it has this like V shape recovery, where it came down to like from 60 to like the 30 zone, and it's recovered and very, very strong recovery. So definitely one to watch, put on your radar, put on your watch list, a growth company that I think has a chance to grow bigger and stronger. That's why they are number one pick for November 2022 and beyond. And in America, the symbol is ATZAF on the OTC market. So not even listed on the senior exchange yet, I'm sure that's going to change pretty soon. You can see it's hit a high, high of 49 in America. Hit a low, low of 25 and currently sitting at 37. And I believe it's a quality company that everybody should be aware of, Eritzia, ATZ in Canada, ATZAF in America. And once again, all of these picks will be listed on richtv.io.  And then all the information will pop up. You can then add it to your watch list. And you can see here some more information and some more stats on Eritzia. All right, I hope you guys like our top 10. Love to know what you think about our top 10. Do you agree with these picks? Do you disagree with these picks? We got some dividend stocks. We got some lower price stocks. We got a lot of higher price stocks. And we got a lot of quality stocks on this list. Thank you guys for watching. If you're not winning, you're probably not watching. We bring in the winners. We bring in the news. We'll bring you the analysis. See your interviews. We bring you podcasts, trending topics, and we bring them to you first. What do you think about our top 10 picks for November 2022 and beyond? This is your host with the most, your boy, Rich from Rich TV, and I'm out.


Hi, Jose. This is Ashley with Oxmore Toyota. I just wanted to send you our quick video greeting. That way you can see who you've been speaking with. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me earlier about your interest in our 2016 Scion IM. I went ahead and sent you all the information that you requested, and I look forward to meeting you on the 4th once you are able to come in. If you need anything in the meantime, feel free to give me a call. My number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, where you can also email me back. Thanks. Bye.


My fellow Americans, when I spoke to you a week ago, we were in China working to strengthen cooperation between our two countries, increase opportunities for jobs and a better life for our people, and improve the prospects for a more peaceful world. As I told the citizens of Alaska when we arrived back in the States, I feel we made significant progress. Today, I'd like to speak about our efforts toward another goal, one that might not get the headlines of a trip to China, but that nonetheless has an important impact on our lives. I'm talking about reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government, problems that for too long were permitted to grow and spread like an unchecked cancer, plundering your pocketbooks and hindering government's ability to provide essential public services in an efficient and timely manner. Our administration is determined to reverse the years of neglect and get this monster under control so we can have a government of, by, and for the people again, not the other way around. That's why we're pushing comprehensive measures like Reform 88, which involves over 1,000 different projects to upgrade the management of the federal government, and why we're moving to implement recommendations of the Grace Commission, which I established and which has identified billions of dollars in wasteful government spending. Let me give you some specific ways in which we've begun to make progress in improving government's management practices, doing what others said couldn't be done. First, debt collection. For too long, Washington seemed only to care about handing money out, not collecting debts owed. In fact, collection practices were so bad, the federal government didn't even know how much was owed and how much was overdue. We inherited a delinquency rate that was growing at the shocking rate of almost 30 percent a year. In the $8 billion guaranteed student loan program, one student out of 10 defaults on his or her loan. These defaults each year equal enough money to give loans to about 700,000 eligible students. Well, with support from the Congress, we're taking a tough new stance on collections. We're not singling out any individuals or groups, but we can, we must, and we will go after the cheaters who profit from the system at the expense of honest citizens like yourselves who live by the rules. For instance, one military surgeon in Hawaii refused to pay his student debt even though he made over $50,000 a year and owned seven pieces of real estate. After being threatened with litigation, he paid in one lump sum the $11,500 that he owed. Tens of thousands of federal employees have been reneging on their student loans. They will get one last chance to pay up before finding their July paychecks smaller. Call it enforced repayment through cuts in take-home pay. Justice Department officials are now aggressively pursuing those who default on loans by putting new emphasis on collection of debts and fines. Our U.S. attorneys collected $201 million last year, a return of $24 for every dollar invested. The second area, waste, fraud, and abuse, is the byproduct of mismanagement. Our management improvements, together with the tremendous accomplishments of our inspectors general, are a one-two punch, taking steam out of the waste and fraud that was eroding faith in our government. Not only have billions in waste and fraud been rooted out, but preventive actions are nipping problems in the bud before they occur. We're making a very determined effort to crack down on white collar crime. Those who abuse positions of power for their own benefit, both the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency are pushing nationwide investigations of bid rigging in the awarding of contracts for federal highway and wastewater treatment facility construction. The Justice Department has already initiated 270 criminal prosecutions in highway bid rigging involving 255 corporations and 256 individuals in 20 states. You've all heard of the problems at the Pentagon with spare parts suppliers charging outrageous prices. Well, what you haven't heard is that this waste was actually uncovered by Department of Defense auditors working for the Inspector General I appointed. We are the first administration which has faced up to these abuses and take an action to correct them. The progress we've made is a good start, but it's little more than a ripple in the river of waste, fraud and abuse. That's been rising for years. That's why it's clear the way to reduce the deficits is by strong economic growth and by reducing wasteful bloated government, not by raising taxes on you the people. Until next week, thanks for listening and God bless you.


Item No. SCP-052 Object Class Euclid Special Containment Procedures Although it is not possible to remove SCP-052 from the New York City subway system, its predictable behavior allows the Foundation to prevent the public from encountering it. The 59th Street ABCD station is to be closed to the public from 11pm to 1am on Saturdays and Sundays, under the pretext of track maintenance. During that time, the station is to be staffed with agents from Mobile Task Force Gamma 6. Agents have been ordered to prevent accidental public access to the station, and to capture anyone seen leaving SCP-052. Anyone who has been on SCP-052 must be transported to Site-21 for debriefing and processing. Members of the public who see SCP-052 may be released after the administration of a Class B amnestic. Description SCP-052 is a Type R4 New York City subway train. Official records indicate this train was built in 1932 and decommissioned for scrap in 1975. Nevertheless, it continues to appear on the Uptown AD tracks at the 59th Street and 8th Avenue station at 11.57pm every Saturday. The train is in perfect condition and labeled as an A train. SCP-052 appears at a designated time, opens its doors to accept discharged passengers for approximately 5 minutes, then closes its doors and disappears. It does not appear to ever contain passengers, except for those leaving the train during its appearance. The majority of subjects that have boarded SCP-052 have not been recovered. Passengers leaving SCP-052 claim to have boarded on various dates from 1976 up to 2204. The latter claims he thought SCP-052 was a 300 anniversary special train. Subjects retain no knowledge of time on board. Addendum Passengers leaving SCP-052 must be brought to Site-21 and interrogated to determine their origin and possible threat to the current time stream. Generally, passengers from the past may be given Class-A amnestics and reintegrated into society. Passengers from the future must be held indefinitely. C orders 69-A-1 from 05-9. Site-21 currently holds 26 recovered passengers. Despite our protocols to prevent public access, we are still receiving subjects from the future. Although some are from alternate timelines, it is possible SCP-052 will begin to appear at another time or place requiring expanded containment. The Foundation has placed several subjects under the train in an attempt to understand its activities when not visible. Test-052-1, May 31st, 2009. Agent █████ placed on train, not recovered as a present date. Test-052-2, June 6th, 2009. Agent █████ enters train, not recovered, as he apparently returned to 1980 and was killed in a confrontation with █████. Test-052-3, C notes on recovered passengers 052-4. After Test-052-3, 05-Command issued orders that no further agents should be risked as passengers on SCP-052. Consideration has been given to using Class-D personnel in their place, but the risk of releasing them into the past is too great. Log of recovered passengers in Foundation custody. Test-052-1, Enter train, July 14th, 2012. Recovered, March 8th, 2008. Dopes, an accountant on the way home from the theater when she entered the train, 052-1 has expressed surprise in this May to have traveled back in time for years, but appears to be otherwise unchanged and unharmed. She has been determined to currently exist in this timeline and must be held indefinitely to prevent unwanted temporal effects. Passenger 052-2, Enter train, June 12th, 1976. Recovered, March 15th, 2008. Although unharmed and not a temporal threat, 052-2 is being held as the examined psychiatrist believes 32 years is too long a period over which to facilitate successful reintegration. Passenger 052-3, Enter train, December 6th, 2014. Recovered, June 20th, 2009. Notes, a tourist from Jacksonville, Florida. Subject 052-3 now speaks Albanian instead of English. Held to the O5 orders, reference, subjects from the future, as well as possible reintegration difficulties. Passenger 052-4, Enter train, June 13th, 2009. Recovered, June 27th, 2009. Notes, agent b**** from test 052-3. Agent returned with his hand surgically removed and a note in his pocket with the message send no more. Subject does not remember his experience on the train, but one subjected to hypnosis revealed Passenger 052-5, Agent b**** Enter train at unknown future date, in violation of protocol. On July 11th, 2009, body of subject was violently thrown from the train, landing 10 meters away. On examination, subject was found to have been ██████ whether security should be increased to prevent subject from entering SCP-052 is under consideration. Passenger 052-6 claims to be a level 4 supervisor from the SCP Federation, who entered the train in December 2124. Subject had been administered a Class A Prime Amnestic prior to boarding, in a successful attempt to avoid the fate of Passenger 052-4 and 052-5. For February 6, 2010, as he will never be released from Foundation custody, 05 Command has approved sharing otherwise classified information about other artifacts in our possession, in hopes of getting new methods of containment and becoming aware of future security breaches. Agent b**** has been cooperative and claims that it is good we do not know how to open SCP-699. Subject turned visibly pale and refused to discuss this item further. To be a survivor of the, quote, great zombie plague of 2092, unquote, caused by an SCP-008 containment breach, that SCP ██ can be killed by ██ with a ██ and SCP ██. Permission to try this has been denied by 05-██ that he worked for Dr. Jack Bray.