So good afternoon to everyone who has joined the webinar so far and welcome to the 15th webinar in the Economics of COVID-19 series hosted by the Open Economics Forum and the Department of Economics at SOAS. For those that aren't familiar with the OAS, it's part of the Rethinking Economics Network which encourages pluralism in economics. We've had fantastic talks so far, this is the 15th in the series so lots to check out and you can find those on the OAS Facebook page or on SOAS's YouTube channel and feel free to follow the OAS Economics on Twitter which are listed in the chat box on your right. I think that's the correct notion. If you're feeling inclined to get involved on social media during the discussion then please feel free to use the hashtag economics of COVID. My name's Sarah Cole and I'll be moderating the webinar today. I'm a current master's student at SOAS studying economics of environment. Before I introduce our speaker I'll first spell out the format of today's webinar. We'll have a presentation by our speaker for approximately 25 to 30 minutes during which time you're invited to ask any questions you have through posting in the chat box to the right of the screen. Myself and other members of the Open Economics Forum will then collate these throughout our speaker's presentation and we'll have a Q&A session throughout the remainder of about half an hour of which I'll speak or do as best to answer all of your questions. So without further ado for today's webinar I'll be in conversation with Alfredo Saadfield about the crises of global neoliberalism, economy, politics and health. Alfredo is a professor of political economy and international development at King College in London. He's previously taught SOAS and the universities and research institutions around the world. He's also a participating editor of Latin American perspectives and a member of the advisory board of historical materialism. At King's Alfredo is currently researching the political economy of Brazil especially the transitions from import substituting industrialization to neoliberalism and familiar predictorship to democracy. If you're interested in following Alfredo on Twitter you can find him at ASADfilo which I will link on the chat box once Alfredo gets going. So without further ado Alfredo whenever you're ready take it away. Thank you so much Sarah this is great for me to be here so thank you for chairing the session and thanks to Sara Stevano for the invitation to contribute to your series it's it's always a pleasure to interact with the SOAS Department of Economics I mean this is my department too I got my PhD there many years ago and was based at SOAS until only a few months ago. What I'm going to talk about today is something that draws on work that I am doing at the moment but also follows from work that I've done with Ben Fine from SOAS Economics and Marco Boffo who was also in the Economics Department at SOAS and it is about the overlapping crises in neoliberalism the crises of the economy the crises of politics and the crises of health now in my hypothesis my suggestion that I will advance to you is that these are localized crises within neoliberalism but they are morphing into a generalized crisis of neoliberalism a crisis of the system of accumulation that we are living under. So to be able to make this argument what I have to do is to start from neoliberalism itself and my interpretation is that neoliberalism is not just a matter of the dominant ideas in our society or the dominant policies that we have from government. Neoliberalism the way I conceptualize it is the current phase or the current stage or the current mode of existence of global capitalism it emerged gradually after the end of the post-war boom and it spread worldwide from its main bases in the United Kingdom and the United States spread throughout the global north through Atlanticism spread through global south through the Washington consensus global south and the east the former Soviet bloc but the most important feature of neoliberalism is financialization financialization meaning the very briefly the subordination of economic reproduction and social reproduction through the accumulation of what Marx called interest bearing capital so the dynamic core of this process of financialization is the transfer of state capacity to allocate resources from the state itself to a globally integrated financial system that is dominated by institutions based in the United States and this is what allowed finance to control the most important sources of capital and the most important levers of economic policy around the world and this is what permitted the restoration of U.S. imperialism after the defeats in Vietnam and in Iran and after the dollar crisis in the 1970s financialization is also what underpins the transnationalization of production and the transnationalization of finance which in common columns with all globalization now neoliberalism with financialization is at a core it drove an extraordinary recovery of profitability since the lows of profitability in the turn from the 1970s to the 1980s and in turn financialization inevitably because of what finance does it filled this an immense sphere of pure speculation and with it drove a tendency for finance itself to appropriate a growing share of the total value produced in neoliberal stroke financialized economies and this had serious implications for inequality that increased significantly in the neoliberal period and it had implications for investments and for GDP growth both of which have tended to decline they have tended to decline even though neoliberalism has been associated with the most extraordinarily favorable conditions for accumulation in recent history on which neoliberalism itself are created but even though all those conditions favorable to accumulation are given you give neoliberalism everything it ever wanted the rate of accumulation and rate of economic growth in the core countries has been slowing down decade on decade for about five decades now in between 2007 and 2020 the west suffered the longest economic calamity and the weakest and the most distributionally regressive recovery on record and this is what I call the economic paradox of neoliberalism you deliver the most extraordinarily favorable conditions for accumulation and what you get is worsening economic performance greater vulnerability deeper and more long lasting economic crisis that's a paradox now if you look at neoliberalism in historical terms neoliberalism has been through three phases that are broadly divided by the mid 1990s and by the great financial crisis that started in 2007 the first phase of neoliberalism is a transition phase and in each country and region it has particular features but it always emerges in opposition to the system of accumulation that existed before it could have been Keynesian social democracy or it could have been developmentalist in different ways it could have been soviet style socialist it could have been anything and what the transition phase involves is forceful intervention by the state to contain labor to destroy the left to disable the opposition to promote the transnational integration of capital and finance it's a phase when the state introduces the new institutional framework without any consideration for the adverse consequences for society for employment for balance of payment sustainability and whatever else and this is a phase that opens historically with the transitions in the southern cone in latin america in the 1970s with the military dictatorships there and that is followed by tatterism and raganism and then followed by structural adjustment programs in the global south and then the transitions in the soviet block of china and it closes historically with the east asian crisis in the mid 1990s now if you look at these these phase of transition from a political angle then transitions to now liberalism has have been associated with very different parts and they can be more authoritarian pinochet and vidella all the way to tatter and ragan so more or less constitutional methods but always authoritarian or transitions to neoliberalism can be associated with transitions to political democracy think brazil south africa south korea east europe what about the path followed by the 1990s they're kind of a typical political form of neoliberalism had been consolidated and these were neoliberal democracies historically specific neoliberal democracies they were heavily circumscribed and they in particular distinguishing features they included an institutional apparatus that was designed to separate the economic and the political domains that was designed to lock in neoliberalism that was designed to insulate economic policy away from interference by the majority in order to secure the hegemony of the hegemony of finance you then move into a second phase a mature phase of neoliberalism or a third-wayist phase of neoliberalism that's a phase of intensified financialization of economic and social reproduction this is a phase that completes the institutionalization of the structures and processes of management of the new modalities of international integration of the economy it's a phase of consolidation of neoliberal democracy it's a phase when the when neoliberalism itself is legitimized through the creation of a neoliberal subjectivity so first phase about creating neoliberalism on the ground in reality second phase about creating neoliberalism in the mind and then neoliberalism becomes generally accepted as the only possibility of economic organization it's also a phase when typically neoliberal social policies are introduced to contain the deprivations and the adverse social consequences of the transition itself at that point the space for the traditional left had declined significantly both because the economy and society had already changed but also because most people didn't believe in it anymore and one of the consequences of the institutionalization of neoliberalism at this moment in time think Bill Clinton think Tony Blair typical figures of this mature phase of neoliberalism a consequence of this is that in neoliberal democracy's policy space the policy space nominally available to democratic states that policy space declines significantly and policymaking capacity is disabled to a very significant extent so with this the space for legitimate opposition declines significantly that is in reality at this point no alternative to neoliberalism so there is no policy choice to be made and so there's no need to debate the economy what happens then is that the political space that can no longer be open to contestation about the economy that political space is taken up it's taken up in sequence by matters of culture it is taken up by matters of religion it's taken up by matters of nationalism and it is eventually taken up by matters of racism so it is very important to point out that the transition to neoliberalism it restructured economies restructured societies you read newspapers and magazines from the previous period from the 1970s you will see a different world it is a very different world that existed then and these transitions by restructuring economies and societies one of the things that they did was to create a very significant array of economic what i call economic losers from neoliberalism and if you think of the advanced economies in the west this is very very clear millions of jobs were eliminated particularly in the manufacturing sector but also certain areas of services whole professions vanished or they were exported employment opportunities in the public sector declined because the state sector itself was retrenched and there were extensive privatizations jobs stability declined across the board pay conditions and welfare protections and the to deteriorate as well and in the meantime in the meantime as these restructurings of the economy are taking place the institutionalization of neoliberal democracy compounds the alienation of the economic losers so they've lost something but their concerns are also ignored their disappointments their resentments their hopes their fears their feelings of alienation and anger they cannot be represented through the political system what happens is they are captured by the mainstream media and they are dislocated through or to a never-ending sequence of ethical conflicts ethical conflicts between insiders and outsiders ethical conflicts between good individuals and bad individuals that are framed through a logic of common sense and seen through the lens of undue privilege given by the state to the undeserving poor to the minorities to foreigners and to foreign countries and the consequence of this type of political logic is the delegitimation of the political process the buildup of alienation and because of the destruction of the left the creation of spaces that were seized by the far right so what i call i've mentioned the economic paradox of neoliberalism this is now the political paradox of neoliberalism the political paradox of neoliberalism is that the institutionalization of neoliberal democracy undermined the foundations of democracy itself the structures of representation became unresponsive public policy became rigid and indifferent to the majority and the state signaled very very clearly that class-based collectivities would not be recognized anymore and that cash poor individuals were either failures or they were crooks that's what happened if you are poor and at the same time the legitimate quite legitimate material aspirations of individuals in a neoliberal society particularly the aspirations of the losers were validated routinely by a heavily consumption-oriented culture within neoliberalism but those aspirations would not be satisfied and the next generation will not do as well as their parents did in material terms now this is a decisive rupture with a generational contract that says that our we sacrifice ourselves but our children will do better than we did and this generational contract had helped to validate capitalism since the 18th century and this contract has been broken under neoliberalism even if we set aside the environmental catastrophe we can come back to this later on but even setting that aside purely in terms of the functionings of neoliberalism broke this contract so in the end what we have is each person for themselves except for the perception that minority groups were being given by the state or they were taken by dishonest means things that did not belong to them and this was an absolutely combustible social and political situation now the mature phase of neoliberalism comes to a close with the great financial crisis in 2007 and in addition to not dealing with these political and social difficulties the financial crisis erodes heavily the legitimacy of financialization and the legitimacy of neoliberalism itself and as we go through the great financial crisis we move on to the third phase of neoliberalism that is a phase that is marked by the attempt to manage the consequences of the financial crisis itself in a context of loss of legitimacy of neoliberalism because of the general realization of the immensity of the shock that was suffered by the economies realization of the absolutely astronomical costs of saving finance and the perception that neoliberalism had concentrated income and wealth and that it had imposed patterns of employment that were very unpopular and considered to be illegitimate and at the same time neoliberalism failed to deliver rapid and stable accumulation so the core of the economic policies that come into existence after the crisis is a combination of ultra-lose monetary policies symbolized by successive waves of quantitative easing in the largest economies in order to bail out finance and fiscal austerity in order to socialize the losses and to do this by compressing even further the incomes and the living conditions of the poor now this erodes significantly the ideological hegemony of neoliberalism and the only way to shore up and impose this type of combination of policies would be through the intensification of different forms of repression and the introduction of new forms of exclusion to confound the opposition and to divide the opposition and this effort was made but it turned out to be too much and what happened was that political control started to escape through the fingers of the traditional neoliberal elites and it opened up the circumstances opened spaces for the emergence of anti-systemic forces polarized by spectacular what I call spectacular authoritarian leaders almost invariably male and the open space for a new generation of far-right political movements so what you have in this period post-crisis is the defeat of traditional forces associated with blairism associated with the triangulation in the middle ground in the rise of supposedly strong men that cultivate a politics of resentment that appeal to common sense that appear to talk honestly and clearly and that claim to be able to get things done by force of will and that they often particularly think of Donald Trump claim political credentials because of their supposed business acumen now Trump is not a successful businessman in fact he lost billions of dollars from the fortune that his father left to him but it doesn't matter because he projects the image of being a very strong businessman and they promise to use their strength of character and their status as outsiders to the political system to then come in and confront confront the neoliberal state confront finance confront globalization confront the elites confront the experts confront entrenched interests confront corrupt politicians confront self-interested civil servants confront captured institutions confront foreigners etc all of whom are attacking our nation and are hurting our people and they do this to attract the support from the people who are unhappy with neoliberalism so very symbolically 23rd of June 2016 brexit wins the referendum in the uk life of november donald trump is elected president of the united states but these were just elements of a much broader process by which authoritarian governments were installed in a number of countries and they were stalled by elections austria chili italy philippines uh poland uk united states they were installed through abusers of the constitution brazil hungary india russia turkey they were installed through judicial parliamentary coups in bolivia brazil honduras paraguay they were installed through military coups think egypt and thailand and the rise of these authoritarian administrations happens together with the continuing hollowing out of the neoliberal technocratic exclusionary democracies that existed in those countries and in a whole range of other countries so those leaders they will campaign against particular facets or aspects of consequences of neoliberalism but once they achieve power invariably they will implement programs that intensify realism but this time under the veil of nationalism and a more or less disguised racism so invariably what's going to happen is that these radically neoliberal programs will hurt their own electoral base particularly among the losers and this is a fundamentally unstable political situation that leads to a politics of permanent crises and opens space for the rise of new forms of fascism so what we have what i'm suggesting to you is that the political problem that we have at this moment in time is that this is not a transitory belief what we have is something that will not cancel itself out we're not going going back to barbarism and centrism we're not going back to the traditional political elite what we have is a systemic political crisis in neoliberalism and we have a situation where the rise of those authoritarian leaders is a symptom of the decomposition of neoliberal democracy it is the outcome of the crisis of re-structured, neoliberally re-structured economies and political systems and institutions of representation and what we have is evidence of the hijacking of mass discontent by the far right and what nationalism in this context what nationalism and racism do is that they offer this mythical entity called the people they offer a way to respond to actual injuries and problems nationalism and racism they restore a sense of collectivity that was lost everywhere else was lost in the production line it was lost in the community it was lost in political effect was lost everywhere and what they do is that they restore this sense of collectivity through the reaffirmation of the worth of those individuals the worth that neoliberalism denies in every other way so what authoritarian neoliberalism does is to respond to this desperate search by the losers for a way to short-circuit a political system that is unquestionably blocked it is a response to people who have got tired tired of losing out and losing out to what is presented to them losing out to undeserving others and the state then promotes the interests of the undeserving others and so the state is the object of hatred but at this point to the right of the losers to the right of these authoritarian leaders what we have is even more dangerous movements claiming even greater political coherence because these leaders are not great political coherence but movements that claim to represent the losers in much more aggressive ways and then we reach the paradox of authoritarian neoliberalism and this paradox is that the economic crisis of neoliberalism and the political crisis of neoliberalism they promote the personalization of politics and the rise of spectacular leaders uncontained unlimited unpebbled by stabilizing intermediary institutions political parties trade unions social movements the law they are not contained by any of this and these are leaders that are committed to neoliberalism and at the same time committed to their own political power when they are in office they promote a radicalized version of neoliberalism at the same time as they attack every form of opposition they promote globalization and financialization they give even more power economic and political power to the neoliberal elites in doing this they will harm their own political base and the consequence is that a disoriented society will become increasingly polarized wages will tend to decline taxes will tend to become more regressive social protections will be corroded economies will become more unbalanced poverty will tend to grow mass frustration will intensify in a non-focused way and those leaders must navigate these dissatisfaction and the way to do this is by creating even more resentments and even more conflicts they cannot stop because if they stop they have to resolve problems and their popularity will decline in the meantime but they cannot resolve problems they can only perform think Donald Trump think Boris Johnson think Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil so the consequence is that authoritarian neoliberalism is intrinsically unstable this is a bicycle it's intrinsically unstable and its dynamics will give increasing prominence and space for the far right and maybe unintentionally even will give more space to new forms of fascism now this is a degenerating political dynamics no question about that but this political dynamics was completely overrun by the COVID-19 pandemic and the pandemic immediately what it did was to radicalize everything that happened before it the economy wasn't performing well the pandemic created the deepest and the most the sharpest economic contraction in the history of capitalism and in doing this intensified every single problem the pandemic hit and then immediately of course as in every crisis the neoliberal discourse about the the necessity of fiscal austerity of the the discourse about the limitations of public policy those discourses they disappeared and every single government runs back into some form of fake Keynesianism in a crisis everyone is a Keynesian or even the radically neoliberal but at the same time what we could observe very clearly is that as the global economy disintegrated we had the most uncompromisingly radical wealthy neoliberal economies United States and UK in particular they were left completely exposed being unable to produce enough face masks and personal protective equipment for their health personnel and unable to produce enough ventilators to keep to keep that hospitalized population alive this was not a misfortune this wasn't a misfortune these were outcomes designed by policy for decades of neoliberalism they depleted state capacity deliberately by design in the name of the superior efficiency of the market but in fact to plunder social resources through private enterprise these governments promoted the industrialization through the globalization of production and the chase for short-term profitability they built fragile financial structures deliberately fragile financial structures that were held together by magical thinking and by state guarantees and so with the pandemic what happens almost everywhere is that capital is protected almost everywhere capital is protected but the workers in general and the losers in particular they lost jobs they lost income they lost businesses they lost credit lines and the ongoing process of disintegration of democracy that was already quite evident in the rise of authoritarianism that was evident they were followed by the emergence of elements of totalitarianism governments incompetently addressing the pandemic but claiming the right to control movements claiming the legitimacy to intercept communications claiming the right to cross-check contacts and health status claiming the mandate to deploy the military to control civilians they don't do it very well particularly in the US and the UK but we can't do we can't continue to count forever on the incompetence of those governments at some point they will learn how to do this now liberalism had already created flexible labor markets but labor markets are tending now right now to become even more flexible than before as economies reemerged from the crisis with many reports of workers being rehired substantively to their previous jobs but in worse contracts worse conditions than they had before and given the output losses and the expenses to control the pandemic and that were consequent on the pandemic many of have already indicated that they will be shifting to some form of new austerity as soon as possible but they will have to rely also on even stronger political repression to maintain stability in those countries but I believe that this is untenable it's untenable because in economic terms austerity is completely unjustifiable this is totally not the way to go and if it is imposed by force austerity will undermine what remains of democracy and in doing this to undermine the legitimacy of whichever government imposes those absurd policies and austerity will also harm disproportionately those people who had already lost in previous phases of neoliberalism which is of course the mass base of the authoritarian administrations that we have and I believe that those limitations point to a long period of crisis politics with absolutely unpredictable implications in suggestions of those tensions and of what happens under those tensions they have emerged along three lines one is if you think of the Sander's campaign in the United States the Corbyn movement in the UK and before then the Syriza process in Greece and the workers party in Brazil all those were defeated all those left alternatives were defeated but what they do is to demonstrate the depth of mass dissatisfaction with neoliberalism and they demonstrate the spaces for mass mobilization for a progressive alternative and at the same time what we have witnessed more recently is the extremely sharp contrast between more successful states addressing the pandemic and less successful states experiences in essentially failed states Brazil Ecuador India except for Kerala state Italy Sweden the UK the USA and the successful experiences managing the pandemic in Argentina in China and Cuba in Ethiopia in Germany in Ghana and Greece in Kerala in New Zealand in Senegal in South Africa and South Korea and Taiwan in in in Vietnam and what you see by looking at those experiences is a very clear lesson the importance of integrated public policy the importance of state capacity the importance of a strong manufacturing base you know this comes in contrast with the destruction of the economy that is engineered by neoliberalism the destruction of state capacities that comes from an uncompromising neoliberal administration in the state so in this particular sense I think we can call this one a pandemic with neoliberal characteristics to mimic the Chinese slogan to make fun of that the pandemic with neoliberal characteristics because it does not have to do primarily with health issues health is very important but as New Zealand demonstrates today you can deal with it and what Vietnam demonstrates a country with one tenth of the per capita GDP of the UK with zero deaths big border with China one tenth of the per capita income of the UK zero death from COVID what that shows is that it's not an issue of genetics it's not an issue of biology of the virus it's an issue of public policy what we have then by contrast is tens of thousands of deaths in the more neoliberal economy in particular because of policy choice that's the consequence of policy choice is that tens of thousands of people are dying right now in some response has to be given to that the third consequence from the crisis is that we also saw this on the more neoliberal administrations not my coincidence the more neoliberal administration pushed initially and for a long time for highly unpopular strategies of herd immunity to deal with the pandemic at the initial stages and they only abandoned think United States United Kingdom Brazil they only abandoned this herd immunity approach under heavy pressure from below and they abandoned unwillingly and because they were unwilling they didn't implement the other policies correctly and again tens of thousands of deaths as a consequence of the unforgivable this is absolutely unforgivable if you take all these lessons together what may happen and I hope happens is the energizing of a new generation of left movements for democracy and for the accountability of the state and against neoliberal if we look at the explosion going on in the united states right now as we speak and to some extent in this country too that is part of this hopefully that's part of this I'll wrap it wrap up my presentation now there is a dominant tendency no doubt for a prolonged period of economic stagnation and the emergence of new forms of fascism that's the tendency there's a counter tendency to which points to the possibility of resurgence of the left and if we want to reinforce this counter tendency if we want to strengthen it then we need mobilizations mobilizations around the defining the distinguishing concerns of the left equality collectivity economic and political democracy this is what distinguishes the left from the right and we can push in that direction and in the short term what can be done is the left can highlight in contrast with the neoliberal discourse that there is a tradeoff between health and the economy and countries have to choose a position between herd immunity and total lockdown you have to choose a position for yourself along this this life we can say no there is no trade off there is no dichotomy because the economy cannot function if people are unhealthy and insecure and what is happening when you conceptualize of a tradeoff like this one is you're fetishizing the economy and you're instrumentalizing people to exploit them so we refuse to make this particular choice we look after people and that's what the economy is for you can also stress that there is no dichotomy there is no dichotomy between democracy and efficiency you might remember in the first days of the pandemic of the mainstream media and governments in the west said that they could not possibly control the virus as china had done because china's dictatorship and countries in the west are democracies that's not true this is not true what experiences around the world show is that there is no trade off between efficiency controlling the virus and degrees of democracy countries have performed more or less well against the pandemic depending on their public policies nothing to do with their political regime what the neoliberals wanted to do was to obfuscate the conversation and then they wanted to be able to create confusion to avoid taking measures to protect life because their preference has always been for profit at the expense of people so what the left can do is to articulate and to promote a discourse of securing life and promoting social equality during the pandemic and promoting redistribution after the pandemic promoting social well-being promoting the rediscovery of collectivity that has come out very tentatively and erratically through the strains of the pandemic that we are experiencing and if we do this then we can also say let's settle the costs of the pandemic and let's finance the transition to democratic economies and to sustainable economies through progressive taxation and through the de-financialization of the economy let's transcend neoliberalism and let's move in a progressive direction this is difficult to do and as I mentioned before this is the counter tendencies this is the most unlikely outcome but it is possible and I think it is urgently necessary and I'll finish on this it's urgently necessary and if we do this then we can turn the crisis in neoliberalism into challenges against neoliberalism we can turn this into a generalized malfunctioning of neoliberalism that can be resolved in a progressive direction this is what I think we can and we should push for and we ought to do this now if we don't there will be severe consequences for populations right now and for the even greater challenge that will be to address the environmental crisis that is inevitably coming just after this one thanks very much thank you very much Alfredo that was really really interesting a little bit unsettling as well I must say some of the things you highlighted we have had questions coming in and I will begin just by asking a few clarification points so the first one was you the last one of the last things you mentioned was how the left can gain traction and momentum after covid by highlighting that there is no dichotomy between the health of the economy and the health of the economy and I was wondering how you would imagine left-leaning political parties to gain support from previous neoliberal supporters or those who support the popularist movements how to gain their support and how to push that narrative um I think this is these are conversations to be had individually and these are discourses for movements that speak to millions of people at the same time and the example is very clear Argentina versus Brazil president of Brazil is absolutely dead set against any form of lockdown in the country has undermined his own ministers of health as he fights with state governors and with city mayors in order to try and push the opening of the economy believing that this will be a strategy of minimum damage and that would be good electorate for him brazil is an absolute pandemonium it's currently apparently the third the country with the third largest number of deaths because of covid but the undercounting is absolutely massive so we just don't know how many tens of thousands have been victimized officially close 40 000 who just don't know cross the border and go to Argentina president of Argentina said right at the beginning of the crisis I don't care about the economic cost the economy is here to protect people and we will go into lockdown and we'll fix the economy what we can't fix is when people die that is what you cannot fix and the disaster in Argentina has been immeasurably smaller than in brazil the contrast is very clear or if you look at new zealand implemented very sensible policies early on and the prime minister of new zealand has stressed this very very strongly it was never consideration all the strategy of herd immunity in new zealand so and they would definitely go for the strategy that they were massively successful so the discourse that I think we can in a very defensible way in a very reasonable way and with plenty of evidence we can put on the table is that it works addressing health works and this respond to the imperative the intuitive instinctive imperative that every human being unless you're Richard Branson or whatever every human being feels I mentioned Richard Branson because the first thing he did was to come to the British government to ask for subsidies even though he doesn't pay tax in this country every human being feels the need for protection that is the basic function of the state if you cannot protect life in my view you forfeit the right to be a government and in the UK the US Brazil and other countries they forfeited that right through perversity and incompetence at the same time so if we put this and if we show the examples of success I think we are in a very solid position to convince people that there are there are alternatives despite all the obfuscation there are alternatives okay thank you I've got a question here from agent of Brunner how can civil society lead the change you allude to without participating directly in politics well they should participate in politics of course they have to participate in politics they have to push their way in so when you go to Bristol and you take a statue and you throw it into into the river you participate in politics that is not the politics of parliament it's a politics that overruns parliamentary politics it creates facts on the ground if you do what is happening right now in the United States and you claim your rights and you say I'm not going to be treated that way anymore that is a political statement that you're making and that is truly transformative and it's very very important to act through parliament and through the institutional means of the state very very important and that consolidates gains and that changes policies and it moves the public administration and that is the kind of politics that builds more hospitals and build more houses but at the same time if you shake the system from outside you change the quality of the day it doesn't happen very often but we may be at a moment in time when this is happening now and I think the younger generation has realized that they have to say something because it's a generation that has been uh the um that has suffered immensely through the consequences of the great financial crisis it's a generation that will be stunted by the consequences of this pandemic in terms of their careers prospects earning potential etc it's a generation that in the UK and in the US in particular has an extremely heavy load of student debt on their backs for no particularly good possibilities of employment a generation that has to say what what's going on here we will not accept this kind of deal this kind of generational deal where we are laden with the burden of austerity and have very limited prospects for material satisfaction that neoliberalism itself says that is the measure that is the be all and end all of human life no first it's not but second we want the space to be happy to construct happy lives and happy lives they need first of all they need respect that is part of what's going on I think in the United States but also in this country and we want the state to be constructive in that sense and not to be a burden and an obstacle so I'm optimistic I'm pessimistic about the rise of fascism in terms of I'm optimistic that a new set of demands for rights a new set of demands for states that function in different ways will be embodied by the younger generation and that they will be very loud and clear about their demands that's what I'm hoping for thank you again we have got a lot of questions now so I'll try and get through these quickly question from Edward he thanks you first of all for your analysis of the mechanism through which neoliberalism hinders the full realization of democracy and he asks do you think that following the pandemic the world will tend to increasingly look at China as an alternative economic and political model my hunch on the basis of nothing in particular and I'm not a specialist on this is that the pandemic will be a marker on the long-term shift of hegemony from west to east China dealt with the pandemic and not just China but also South Korea and Taiwan and Hong Kong and Singapore and Vietnam all in different ways but very efficiently their economies will also not just the pandemic their economies will also recover very likely will recover relatively rapidly and the west has fumbled the west was already mired in economics stagnation and they will not be able to shake this off in my view in the coming months and years so a discrepancy of political capacity and policy capacity and a discrepancy in terms of economic performance will be very visible in the months and years to come this at the moment is pointing toward the response from the west is pointing towards increasing aggression the posturing of the United States against China the shift in the position of the British government against China as well treating China as a strategic enemy instead of treating China constructively as a country to engage with is the tradition of the west to look at everywhere else as rivals and to try and destroy them it is what it is it is a shame in my understanding China will be increasingly tends to be increasingly successful it has huge resources and a functioning state the west has more limited resources and dysfunctional states but I think that points to this shift in hegemony we'll wait and see in the next 10 20 30 years we'll be able to answer this question but at the moment it's just speculation thank you we're another question from Natasha Kunesh she asks she thinks first your insights and asks what are your thoughts on the just transition building economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy I think this is absolutely fundamental we are at the cost no let me let me be more realistic we are in process of runaway climate change it has already started and it is runaway it's out of control if we do not use the lessons from this pandemic in terms of state capacity in terms of organization purposefully intervention etc lessons that come from the east they do not come from the west if we fail to draw those lessons and use them immediately and aggressively to address the climate problem we will go extinct but in the process of going extinct there will be untold suffering on billions of people as the human species degrades itself and debases the earth moving rapidly I thought we had more time actually we don't moving rapidly to a situation of mass extinction including ourselves so the stakes could not possibly be higher and we must absolutely shift the energy base of the earth we must absolutely invest in renewable resources we absolutely have to shift away from the model of accumulation and growth that we have so far if we don't we are truly truly truly down for so hope is there but we do need to act and we need to act to right now thank you we've got a two-part question it's quite long coming in from Antonella linguist forza so thanks first of all and asks one do you think that nationalization will increase the degree of global financialization I think we'll we'll go from next the next is quite long okay it may or may not it depends on how nationalization is imposed how it is financed and how it operates these two things nationalization financialization are in principle unrelated so you can have nationalizations that we had in 2007 nationalization of the banks that does build financialization and then you give the bank back to the private sector and what the state gets is the losses and then subsidizes socialism for the rich capitalism for everyone else that is unethical that would be that would be wrong that would be detestable but you could have nationalizations in a progressive direction where the state takes over particular areas of the economy and together with mechanisms of accountability and efficiency you have to have managerial efficiency and you have to have accountability to the wider population so if that can be done that would be amazing I think I would be in favor of that in takeover finance for example but take over other strategic areas of the economy definitely the energy sector and then build something more sustainable and more responsive to people's desires wishes preferences and imperatives first of all imperative to live imperative to live that's the one we'd have to deal with first of all so okay and the second part of the question was regarding relocation in countries such as brazil eastern europe and even the usa in different areas such as grain production in the south and industrialization in the west and north is it going to be a reality in what grade do you think for example cargill and other groups working in agribusiness will migrate to other businesses and leave branches they have around the world if yes could you please speak to us about the implications and relationships with the financial world that's a difficult one I don't care what cargill does I wish the company was destroyed that would be the most constructive outcome for a company that specializes in perverse models of growth as that one it is very difficult to think of an integrating industrial policy for the world at the moment we're stuck with states and state policy or state level policy and what countries must realize again given the lessons of the pandemic is that they have to have industrial policy they have to into a minimum level of integrated manufacturing capacity because when the crisis comes you will lose your friends it will be each country for themselves so there has to be a degree of concern with manufacturing capacity and the ability of countries to provide for their own populations again in order to secure life if we can do better than this I hope we can do better than this by definionalizing and then by integrating in constructive ways economic the economic base of different countries the EU did not do well in the pandemic absolutely did not do well but it could in principle have done better I don't see any reason in principle why it could not have done acted differently so transnational integration can be a good thing it can increase capacity and it can increase solidarity if countries should continue with um concentration on agricultural production commodities for example no in my view they should not they should aim to have diversified economies they should aim to have the capacity again to secure life and employment and incomes for their population in the world in which we live you have to think of your population with particular concern and seek integration with other countries to the extent that this is that this is possible and the interest of cargo I really don't care uh do really don't care about that thank you very much we've got just about five minutes left so I'll ask you the last two questions I've got a question from Malik Imtaz Ahmad and he asks COVID-19 has had a huge impact on the financial conditions of private as well as public institutions so when is the right timing is now the wrong time de-financialization of state-owned enterprises to avoid massive losses in state debt the time is now the one thing that we've noticed is that uh increasingly central banks are getting more and more involved uh with financial institutions and with corporations and if in the previous crisis in the great financial crisis central banks started buying uh bundles of paper from the banks bundles of private paper from the banks in order to support the the banks by issuing cash this time around the back the central banks are buying paper directly from private corporations they are intervening directly into individual circuits of accumulation and realizing surplus value that has been produced elsewhere in the economy channeling to particular to particular capitals it's a non-precedented degree of intervention in the realization of capital and in the accumulation of capital the signal is there there is this is a signal for the socialization of finance finance is already performing a social role to just go there and take it over and then eliminate that massive sphere of speculation all that paper being traded between financial institutions has no meaning it is just a game to generate income and revenue for particular traders on the market this is completely parasitical on the real economic activity so eliminate all that and you can eliminate all that in one fell swoop by just nationalizing the key banking or financial institutions and closing down the rest and this will be a massive shock for heavily financialized economies like this one in the UK city employees or finance employees about a million people perhaps even more it's a it's a massive shock but it's the cost that you have to pay for having specialized wrongly in the past but this will lead to greater economic stability so a set of targeted interventions can contribute to greater economic stability in the future and can ameliorate problems of volatility and costs when you have to rescue finance on a regular basis if every decade you have to rescue the financial system well why would you want to do that finance does not contribute to anything and it costs a lot of money to maintain let's just cut the losses thank you very much I think we are just about out of time so thank you everyone for all of your questions and thank you so much to Alfredo for your wonderful presentation and for so succinctly and in depth answering the questions if I've not been able to read out any of your questions feel free to tweet them out Alfredo I've left his Twitter handle at the top of the chat so that's all right with you Alfredo it looks like your afternoon might be taken up with answering those and thank you so much Sarah thanks everybody if you've got any concluding remarks actually you'd like like now you've got about 30 seconds no this is great it's fantastic to be in the sawers economic department lovely people and I think this department is amazing so thank you thank you so much just to remind everyone who is still on the webinar that the next webinar in the series will be on the subject of Requiem for the Africa rising narrative with Indunga Sambosala taking place on wednesday the 10th of june at three o'clock so stay well stay safe during lockdown you love yourselves and Alfredo thank you once again for a fantastic webinar thank you thanks very much bye bye thanks very much good bye


What's up guys and welcome to Trendy Update Hapa SPM Badz. Now on to the trending news today. Nikwamba. Eh, ma pensi welle. Now, Steevel Simple Boy is a fiancé anatilikara kama G. Amekuena kunyi social media ya ke and she confessed her love for Steevel Simple Boy. Ya ni kiwa nitare kumina saba ogest na Gigi ama G. Ali ena kunyi social media and declared her love for Steevel Simple Boy. We all remember G came into the limelight wakati ambapo Steevel Alieza kumu engage. Na ele video ilizua a lot of reactions on social media kwa saba wukunu ato alikwa na sema ah Steevel Simple Boy anatua wimbo kwa evo ni clout. So many people did not believe their love story. Now we all remember Steevel Simple Boy ali kwa na mpenzi wengina anatulikara kama Pretty Vichy Na Pretty Vichy piya likuja kwa metandao ama wakati ambapo tulim yua she was there defending Steevel Simple Boy against the, you know, management and by Steevel Alikuwa naio at the time. And you know, we all came to know about the management through Pretty Vichy.  Na Pretty Vichy moneye she became famous through Steevel Simple Boy. Na wali po achana Pretty Vichy aliza kuhudi soko and it's rumored, you know, that they are dating with a Madini classic Ulemsa ni.  Now back to G. Amanda Fiamsi waki Steevel Simple Boy the video she posted up alia. Na onye shana, you know, apia na liya na babuji kwa na machozi tears of joy. Kusbabu she's saying that the kind of love Steevel Simple Boy has been showing her. And you know, there's someone who had come up some time back a few weeks ago kusema laki uyo ali Uji ali kwa ni benziwake. Kido kwa memuona kwa social media. Siju kama ilikuwa wongo, siju ii kama ilikuwa kweli. Kamu uleona yo story to ambia down on the comments section. But I would like you to watch the video posted on her social media. Pale anaji ita Mrs. Steevel Simple Boy. Na bia to sound kwa mba Steevel as you know, commented on the video. Na mweza kwa mbia Steevel gia mweza kwa mbia gia. Fura haia kwa. Dofura aia kwa kido kwa tutachu pata tutam shkuru mungu. Ume piti amengi laki ni na amenia mungu ataweka vitu sour ki benzi changu. Katotu milk milk na ziwa yote na yanyonya mimi na kupenda sana eish ma benzi wewe na tako yuli zitu wewe wuna pendo na kama wuna pendo na nani na kupenda. Baki ni Kenyans it's like you don't believe in this love story ma benzi liwa fani anini kama down on the comments section na ona na sema hapo sina maoni kwa sasa ila ma benzi ni kama bahari na syndio wuna potea ofisha umjaka na sema ioni clout abdu lahimo na sema my relationship is opaque and my significant other is giving me 0.01 commitment ma benzi na wasumbu oko inje dama na sema don't get it twisted love is a beautiful thing indeed it is na I am Lish Muga na sema sida maoni kadisa it's pinto ana sema mnasimp ala sasa kwaili watwa siwa nyesha na ma benzi alafu kuna rigan ana sema mkuna jokes, sana alafu na kuru finest ana sema heri wow I don't know what are your thoughts about what G has done and you know just declaring and confessing her lab to Steve old simple boy let us know down on the comment section but in the meantime many let me just go seriously wait ashkuru mungu kwa kufikapa right now era is no easy everything is good for everything and right now I do believe in that love is not all about money and my mind has showed it to me I really can't wait our big day which is very soon from now I'm really happy and I'm really proud of how my heart respects me so much it just gave me fake just never happy with it I'm glad I'm good for you I'm good for everything as we wait for our own day


Problem or opportunity, you decide. At EMI, we help engineers and technical professionals become better leaders. But through these Monday morning motivators, we strive to inspire people to be the best people they can be. Winston Churchill said, a pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity and optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. I love this quote because based on my own experience, if you follow the advice of looking for opportunity in every difficulty, amazing things will happen to you, especially in your career. The world is filled with problems. And if you focus on all of the difficult things that these problems bring, you will bring those difficulties into your own life. However, if you decide to look for the opportunities in these difficult situations, what do you think will happen? You will find them. Even if you can't, the act of looking for them will set your mind on a path of searching through positive scenarios, keeping you in a very positive state of mind. An example of this might be this current COVID-19 pandemic and how it's affecting you personally and professionally. Your initial reaction may be, what if I lose my job? How will I pay my bills? However, the optimistic reaction might be, how can I use my strengths to create alternate streams of income for my company or myself and my family?  Problem or opportunity? Fortunately, you get to decide. For us at EMI, we chose to publish these videos to help you make it through. Please subscribe to this Monday morning motivator playlist here for your weekly inspiration. Have a great week.


to all of you. I am Mr. Seshkan B. Gosavi, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Valchan Institute of Technology, Sulapur, presenting an online educational resource on setting out compound curves. The learning outcomes of this online educational resource are the students will be able to explain the need of compound curve. The students will be able to calculate the elements of compound curve. The students will be able to explain the field procedure for setting the compound curves. Earlier we have seen variety of elements of simple circular curves. It consisted of an alignment starting with change zero at the extreme bottom left location which reaches to a point of intersection p i at this location. And there is another alignment which is moving towards this side. The intersection point is having a chain H and there is a deflection angle delta at that particular point of intersection. We have already discussed that we are provided with radius of curve based on which we calculated the tangent length. We calculated the length of the long chord. We were able to calculate the length of the curve as well. Here a sketch of a compound curve is presented for our reference. See the difference. In a simple circular curve there was a straight curve starting from point of curvature T1 and ending out at this point which was in that case point of tangency. However because of some practical difficulties it may be the water's course, it may be the structure which is sensitive because of which if T2 point cannot be taken at this location. We have a liberty of shifting that particular point at some other location. But that can be done with the help of some other simple circular curve of some other radius. Meeting the previous curve which has begun from T1 and therefore from T1 to T2 the first curve of radius R1 and the deflection angle delta 1 comes. However from T2 onwards another curve having a radius R2 is introduced with a deflection angle delta 2 which finally reaches at the point T3 as has been shown over here. So remember here there are two different curves having two different radias meeting together at the common point T2 and therefore we are having several components in the design. Conventionally we were having a single tangent length from B to T1. However in this case we are having small T1 and small T dash 1 combined together making the tangent length B to T1. Similarly on the forward direction we have got T dash 2 and T2 combining together to give us forward tangent length B to T3. The deflection angle delta is still here however for the first curve the central angle is delta 1 therefore deflection angle is also delta 1 and for the second curve central angle is delta 2 and therefore deflection angle is delta 2. Now because two different curves of two different radias moving in the same direction are combined together this is called as the compound curve. We have got a special element over here in the form of the alignment D which is nothing but the common tangent which is tangential to both the curve at a common tangent point T2 as has been indicated here. See the elements that I have discussed in the earlier sketch where we are having a total deflection angle delta which is same as that of simple circular curve. The first and second deflection angle are delta 1 and delta 2. The radius of first and second curve are assumed to be r1 and r2 respectively. Channage of intersection point B is assumed to be i. It can be any real number. The first tangent length T1 is equal to r1 and delta 1 by 2. Remember here r1 is radius of first curve delta 1 is first deflection angle. Second tangent length T2 is equal to r2 tan delta 2 by 2 length of the curve r delta pi by 180 conventionally we were talking about but in this case it is r1 delta 1 pi by 180 for the first curve length and second curve length r2 delta 2 pi by 180 combined together giving us a combined length of the curve l. Channage of point of curvature T1 is channage of intersection point minus small t1 plus small t dash 1 and channage of common tangent point T2 is equal to channage of t1 plus r1 delta 1 pi by 180 that is the length of the circular curve with a radius r1. Channage of point of tangency is channage of t2 plus r2 delta 2 pi by 180. Here the mystery must be regarding these two components t dash 1 and t dash 2. See if we will remember the sketch we have mentioned over there that the common tangent length t will be small t1 plus small t2 because at that point both the curves are meeting together and symmetrically both the tangent lengths are there therefore mere addition of these two tangent length of first curve and second curve gives us the total tangent length or combined tangent length for both the curves. Capital delta is equal to delta 1 plus delta 2 this can easily be proven because if we will visit the earlier sketch over here this is shown as delta this is delta 1 and delta 2. As we know this being delta this particular value will be 180 minus delta and 180 minus delta plus delta 1 plus delta 2 is equal to 180. So obviously the respective deflection angle delta will be equal to delta 1 plus delta 2. You can see where this is delta and the central angle is delta 1 for first curve delta 2 for the second curve combined together delta 1 plus delta 2 and conventionally we know that the central angle is equal to total deflection angle. So delta is equal to delta 1 plus delta 2 can easily be proven in this manner. By the sign rule if you will go back to the triangle over there B D and E this triangle the length of side B D is T dash 1 length of the other side B E is T dash 2 and D length is the total tangent distance T that is T 1 plus T 2. Now T 1 R 1 tan delta 1 by 2 and T 2 R 2 tan delta 2 by 2 being known to us we can compare or use the sign rule. The respective angle over here is 180 minus delta the opposite side is T. So T divided by sine of 180 minus delta will be equal to T dash 1 divided by sine of its opposite angle delta 2 will be equal to T dash 2 divided by sine of its opposite angle delta 1. So this particular formula can be used in the derivation of T dash 1 and T dash 2. So sine 180 minus delta divided by T is equal to sine delta 1 by T dash 1 is equal to sine delta 2 by T dash 2 which by rearranging we can easily conclude that T dash 1 is equal to T into sine of delta 1 by sine delta and T dash 2 is equal to T into sine delta 2 by sine delta. Here you are requested to pause the video and answer some recap questions. See the need of the compound curve I have already elaborated that when a simple circular curve is inserted and if the end point is becoming inconvenient because of some geographical difficulties in that case we will have to change the radius of the curve and insert some other circular curve of some other radius to shift the tangent point at the opposite end or second tangent point. At which of the points the third light will be required to be set in compound curve this needs the knowledge that we have already had regarding the simple circular curves. See it is assumed that the change of intersection point I is given to you based on which by deducting T dash 1 and further by deducting T 1 we will get change of T 1 over here. Great. We need the next point on the curve to be a station whose change is directly divisible by unit chord length. So full station. For that you need to insert one sub chord and thereafter number of unit chords will be last chord will be once again a sub chord. Based on the knowledge of these chord lengths we can easily calculate the tangential angle and the deflection angles. And by setting the deflection angles from station T 1 the first curve T 1 to T 2 can easily be set. So initially for measuring this angle delta you need to set a third light here. Secondly by setting the third light at T 1 you need to set the first simple circular curve and for setting this last part of the circular curve you need to shift the third light at T. At T what do we do is we keep the third light at T we align the telescope with 018 on the horizontal circle that capital T 1 will be visible and then we revert the telescope to get the other direction. And then by releasing upper clamp we will adjust the second deflection angle over here and rest of the curve will be set. So in all B, T 1 and T 2 are three points at which third light will be set. Use the references of surveying SK Dugal volume 2 by Tata McGrawill publication and civil engineering terms for your reference. Thank you very much.


This is applicable to us, that we are living stones, that we are kings and priests, that we are called to be holy, that we are His own special people, a chosen generation, we are chosen to proclaim the praises of Him, to proclaim the attributes of Him. And let's spray on these lines and let's take some time to proclaim His praises. Let's pray. Father, we just want to thank you, Lord, for who we have become or who you have called us to be in Christ. Father, we thank you that you have chosen us, that you have called us. Lord, you have elevated us to that position of being kings and priests. We are a royal priesthood. And I thank you that you've called us out of darkness and into your marvellous light. Father, we thank you for that transition, we thank you for that change, God. We thank you that, Lord, we don't have to be in darkness.  And we can choose to live in that marvellous light, O God. We can choose to, Lord, have our beings, Lord, conduct our life, Lord, in that marvellous light. And with that understanding, Lord, that you give us, Lord, and with that enlightenment that you give us, O God, we thank you. And, Father, God, we thank you that you've called us to declare your praises, Lord, share your attributes, proclaim your virtues. And, Father, God, we choose to do that, Lord, through our lives, through our actions, through our words, Lord, I pray that you will enable us to do that, God. Let's just take some time to proclaim his attributes, to declare who he is. Hallelujah. We thank you, God. I thank you that you are our redeemer, the one who brings us back, the one who picks us up from where we are fallen, and the one who takes us beyond where we have fallen, elevates us beyond that. O God, we thank you. We thank you that you are our redeemer. Hallelujah. Bless your name. Bless your name, God. Bless your name, God. Thank you, Master. Oh, we proclaim your praise. Lord, we thank you that we can completely trust in you. Lord, you are our sure foundation.  Father, we thank you for that assurance, God. And even though we live in a world where there's so much of mixture, even though we live in a world where there's so much of things mixed or God, with culture, God, and Father, we thank you that we can come to you and for discernment, for clarity, because you are the true righteous standard, God. Hallelujah. We declare this morning that you are our reference point. We declare, we proclaim this morning that you are truth itself, God. Hallelujah. We can always turn to you, look to you, God, and receive from you that reference point. Just want us to go ahead and just declare and say, Lord, just ask the Lord to align and check and align our internal point of reference. By that, I just mean that our sense of right and wrong, even if it's clouded by maybe some undue thinking, even if it's clouded by some flesh, work of the flesh, may it come to a place of clarity, may it come to a place of righteousness, our internal sense of right and wrong. Hallelujah. We thank you, Lord. Lord, we ask that you would do this. We ask that you would strengthen, Lord, what is right, strengthen, God, strengthen that, oh, God, and I just pray that you would highlight, oh, God, Lord, your plum blind, your reference point, Father God, of truth, Lord, in us, Lord. Yes, Master, we thank you that it be so apparent and so clear and so strong in us, God, that every other thing, God, that we'll be able to immediately check and just reject, Father God, that we would know. Hallelujah. We thank you. We thank you. We bless your name and we give you all the praise. We thank you for preparing us, Lord, as living stones to build up a spiritual house, God, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, God. We thank you, Father God. We thank you. And this is a big part of our lives. We thank you. We give you all the praise and all the glory. In Jesus' matchless name, we pray. Amen. Amen. Awesome. Amen. Something fell. Okay. Something from my class. Right, so let's continue from where we stopped last class. We looked at, we were looking at focusing on others, right? How to focus on others, how to turn away from self-centeredness. And the reason why we are doing that is to be good at winning with people. And we know that leadership is not an isolation, is not devoid of interacting with people. We all know that ministry is serving God and serving people. It's about loving God and loving people. And so since it involves people so much, it's people heavy, right? So it's best that we learn how to do this and get better and better and better at it, right, irrespective of how we are temperamentally. We get better at it so that we can be truly free to be who God has called us to be. Okay, so we're looking at, we looked at three principles that help us to focus on others. The big picture principle, which where we are part of it, but we need to look beyond ourselves. Then we looked at the exchange principle where we, if we would put ourselves in other other person's shoes, you know, we would understand the challenges, understand what the other person is going through. So we need to be able to view things from the other person's perspective. And which means that like sometimes, even though we do not agree, you know, it's good to observe, it's good to learn why does that person think that way or why does that person act this way? Okay, and then we'll also look at the learning principle that, you know, if we would approach people or people whom we interact with, if we would have this perspective that I can learn something from this person. Right? I can learn definitely something from this person. Even though it could be, it could sometimes, you know, it could even be, what should I not do? You know, it could even be that, but if we would approach with that mindset and we have that perspective, then we would definitely learn ourselves. Right? But at the same time, we would also be able to focus on others, turn the focus from ourselves to the, to the, to others. Right? Okay, so the fourth one, we, I think we just got started with that is the charisma principle. Okay, let me just share. I'm sure you all have the notes, but let me share that. Okay, so the charisma principle. So the principle is that this is a famous quote by Dale Carnegie, who wrote that book, you know, How to Win Friends and Influence People, that people don't care how much we know until they know how much we care, obviously about them. Right? In most cases, this is how it is, right? People don't care how much we know how much learning we have to offer, unless, or until they they realize that, okay, this person cares, truly wants me to, to benefit from this. Right? It's not just to show off the great learning, but this person wants to wants me to benefit, wants me to be better than how I where I am. So when people understand that, that we care, then then they also would warm up. They would also be approachable. Okay, so people are interested in those who are interested in them. Okay, so which means that when we interact when we with people, when we, you know, when we talk to people, communicate with people, it must be sincere. Right? Okay, here's a question. Is it okay to read books of Dale Carnegie? Like, this is the only book that I've read. Any particular reason why you asking that question? Nothing like that, because he ended up, he ended up in killing himself or something. Oh, is it? Oh, okay, okay, I don't know about his life. There's something I've got about him, but I read one or two books about him, about, but I just want to know that because that was when I was not a believer. So I see that it's okay to read those books. That is a motivational speech. Yeah, it is. It would be motivational. It would be. Yeah, I just want to know whether it is good to read or not, because to improve the knowledge that's, is it okay? Right, so I think, you know, we can use this thumb rule that if there is something, I mean thumb rule to discern and, you know, in whatever content we read, respect to who the author is to see if there is something that contradicts the principles in the word of God, contradicts, you know, the truth in God's word. And if there's something that contradicts, I think we just need to reject that and hold on to what is true. Yeah, Kennedy, did you, yeah, Kennedy, did you want to say something? I see you're unmuted. Okay, let's, let's move on, right? Okay, so here are some things that we can practically do, become genuinely interested in others, right? So, so how do we do that? Maybe ask questions, find out about them. There are, you know, hundred things or more that we can find out about the other person. And maybe out of, you know, culturally sometimes it, we feel it's impolite to ask questions or, you know, certain questions should not be asked, right? And that's okay, you know, but I'm sure that there are other questions that we might, we can, we could ask to find out, to be genuine, to show that they are genuinely interested in the person and find out, learn about the other person, right? John C. Maxwell also talks about, you know, smiling, to have a smile, to not always go about with a very serious and sour face, because a smile makes us approachable. And then, you know, he also talks about the fact that, well, some people can smile naturally others, for others, it's an effort. And then, you know, there's a humorous, humorous incident he talks about, he says, no, that's not true. Because right from the time we are born, the doctor gives us a slap on the back on the bottom. And then we come into the world crying. And no wonder we, you know, we don't trust people. But the fact is that, yeah, I mean, we can all learn to smile, we can all learn to, you know, shed our insecurities about being approachable. Because now, we do understand that sometimes, you know, we, you know, there are, there are people who feel that, okay, if I smile, then it's a sign of weakness. Or if I'm approachable, then it's a sign of weakness. Right. And, and I don't want to be approachable, or maybe they've been taken for granted, and not valued. So probably that's one reason. But then, we can definitely teach others how to treat us. Right. And, and definitely smiling is a, is a bridge. It can make us approachable. And of course, remember that we are talking about how to be other focused, other person focused. Okay. Some simple things, remembering the name of the person, of course. And I'm not sure if it was John Maxwell or someone else who, who knew the person, who would actually go through the database of quite a big congregation. Right. And he would make an attempt to remember the names of people. I mean, I know this sounds a little extreme, but he would do that. Right. This, this pastor, I think it is John Maxwell, when he was pasting the charge, I'm not too sure. But, you know, to remember the name of the person, sometimes in our, you know, we are thinking about what to tell the person, we are thinking about what to, you know, the, what to tell about ourselves. And then we, we forget the name of the person who we, who we just met a minute ago. Right. And, and then we need to ask them again. Sometimes, you know, it happens. We asked them, okay, by the way, I didn't quite catch your name. And at the end of the conversation, you are again asking the name. Nothing wrong in doing that though. But, you know, to remember the person's name is, is important. It helps us again to be a good listener, right, to listen to people to, to not just hear, but listen, right, to actively listen, to take in what they are, you know, saying to be genuinely interested. And this would encourage people to talk about themselves. And even we might ask the questions, but if we are not listening to what their response is, then, then it defeats the purpose. Okay. We can talk in terms of other person's interests and make the other person feel important and, and do this sincerely, you know, not out of flattery. Right. Okay, so that is the charisma principle. We're going to look at two more before we you know, finish this section. The thing is the number 10 principle. Okay. The number 10 principle is, and the confrontation principle, you know, seem to be, you know, opposite, but actually it flows together. It's about truth in love, or love in action, which involves truth, which, which includes, you know, truth, which is grounded in truth. So the number 10 principle is to believe the best about people. Okay. And, you know, in gymnastics, the perfect score is 10. Right. So to believe the best about them is to put a 10 on their lives to say that, yes, you esteem them, you know, you believe the best about them, you trust them. Right. So that is the number 10 principle. You know, there are two ways we can approach people. Guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. Right. So guilty until, until proven innocent would mean that we, you're going to view every action of theirs, every thing that they would say, everything that they would share with suspicion. Right. So they are, you know, we already will be able to label them as guilty, categorize them as being guilty. And a lot has to do with how we have maybe some of the experience we've had. And that, that's heavy on us. So we, we say, okay, they are guilty until proven innocent. And it's going to, you know, take a long time. Right. And a step by step process. Or we can say, we can approach people in this manner where we say, okay, they are innocent until proven guilty. So the number 10 principle is to believe the best that, that, well, whatever God has put in their lives, whatever potential they have, you, you believe that they can, they can do it, that they will be overcomers and they will deliver. And, and, and more often than not believing the best about people brings out the best in them. Right. Believing the best about people brings out the best. So, so you, you tell them that, yeah, this is, I believe you can do that.  And so that gives them the confidence and that takes a lot of pressure off. Right. And they'll be able to deliver better, perform better. Right. So the third thing is not to disqualify people based on our personal biases. Right. We might have biases. And it is, it is truly possible, you know, it could be about, you know, about people speaking about a certain language.  And, and the thing is, if we have a bad experience with a certain set of people, over and over again, maybe, and it is possible to come to a place of saying, okay, all, you know, I'm a tumble, tumble in case it's possible to say, okay, all tumbles are like this. This is how they are. Right. So it's possible to come to that conclusion. Right. And we can have a bias or we can have a bias about people's, you know, financial standing, we can have a bias about people's educational qualifications. You know, we could have a bias. You can say, okay, all, all PhDs are boring, boring people. Right. I'm sure I shared that experience with you, where I went to a church and went to this church and I saw a person who was, you know, who was wearing this tie and he was, he was the speaker for that Sunday morning service and even before he could start to minister, you know, I had already formed some opinions and had these bias that, okay, it's going to be boring. It's going to be serious. It's going to be, it's going to be a real waste of time. Right. So, but then he started to minister and it was the most refreshing message straight out of scripture from God's heart. It was like a refreshing rain that I experienced that morning and, you know, started repenting right from that minute that this person opened his mouth to share the word. So we could have personal biases. It is possible, but we need to, you know, we need to check, we need to check ourselves. You know, why am I not able to put a 10? Why am I not able to believe the best about this person? Is it based on a bias or is it based on some of their, you know, recent performance? Okay. So one thing that we need to understand is how the Lord Jesus believed in his disciples. Right. How the Lord Jesus gave, especially, you know, with Peter, we see that the Lord restoring him and the Lord commissioning him to take care of, of his flock, of his sheep, to take care of feeding his sheep, to take care of taking, you know, leading his flock. And after the manner in which he, he let down the Lord. Okay. So to be able to, to be able to do that, right? I think that's too freedom for us. And we are not restricted. We are not bound. Okay. So, so does that mean that I can be naive? Does that mean that I can? Okay. So those are questions to ask. And those are things that we can, we can talk about. So how can I do this in the right way? Right? How can I do this in the right way?  Right? So that's something that we need to do. Okay. Okay. Then the next one is to be other focus to be able to focus on others is also something which, you know, which, which could sound paradoxical, but it's the confrontation principle to, and here's a, you know, very interesting statement, care for people before confronting them. Okay. Can we really do that? Like care for people before confronting them, maybe in our own teams, maybe in, you know, the organizations that we lead, can we confront the wrong wing, can we confront the, maybe the lack of performance, maybe, you know, whatever it could be, right? Can we care for them? Can we confront them with this in mind? Okay. So there's, there's a difference, like confronting with the intention of putting that person down, confronting with the intention of showing them that they are wrong, and that they, you know, and that is the only intention. But if we can care for the person and believe the best about the person that when this is pointed out, when then this is sorted out, when this is pointed out, when this is, you know, communicated to the person, when the person knows that, okay, this is what it is that we can believe that, that the person would change and the person would, and we need to give them time to change, right? So when we confront what we are communicating to the person, especially with care, when we confront them, and we do it with honor, when we do it with love and with being truthful, right? And truth hurts, sometimes, but when we do that, we actually show the person that we care about them, right? We, we are, we genuinely care about them, right?  We've had many conversations about things, about discipline, about coming on time, you know, so many things, about when we took time to explain why, you know, when we took time to communicate in a manner, even though our whole system was revolting, you know, it's, it's something that the flesh wants to really, you know, react in anger, react with irritation. But when we put to death, all those things, the things of the flesh, and when we, with the intention of caring for the person, with the intention of, you know, wanting that person to, to do the right thing, to be able to do the right thing. And if it's, you know, to show that it's for their good, with that in mind, when we, when we actually communicated, we saw that there was a genuine change. And so that was, that was really effective. So here are some practical steps, okay, to confront the person only if you care about them. So in the sense, now, which means that we need to quickly align ourselves, okay, what if you don't care about that person? No question. But you need, you still need to confront, right?  That person, you know, you're maybe a, it's a professional relationship. And, you know, there's no room for error, maybe. And you'll be penalized because you're overseeing. So, you know, what do you do? Right? Will this work in such a setting? Right? So those are some questions that we might have. But the thing is to make that internal check and alignment quickly, you know, with the Lord, say, God, you know, I need to do this. I need to help me to do that with love. Yeah, you died for this person.  You died on the cross for this person. That, and that changes the whole perspective, right? But at the same time, we need to be able to confront, we need to be able to tell where the person is going wrong. Or, you know, what they need to do. So confront the person if you care about them.  Meet as soon as possible. Don't think that the thing will resolve itself, because it'll become only worse. Right? So first seek understanding, not necessarily agreement. Okay, the person might have a completely different view why they are doing that. But seek to understand. Seek to understand the issue. Seek to understand the problem. Okay. And, of course, outline what the issue is objectively. And encourage a response. You know, let it not be about, okay, this is what you're doing. So this is what I've decided. And this is what you need to do, end of the matter. You know, it's not that. But encourage a response. Let the person explain why and how and ask questions. Right? And once it has been established that, yes, there needs to be a change. Okay. Then agree on how and when these change will happen. Right? So these are some practical steps to be able to confront with people, confront people in a righteous manner, in an honorable manner. Right? And still be effective. Okay. Okay. So we're just going to kind of pause here. And we just wanted to discuss about focusing on others. Okay. And I thought it would be good if we can take a couple of principles. You know, one is about the number 10 principle. Okay. And the confrontation principle. And talk about it and see how best you can be effective. So this is, we'll split into groups. I've never tried this before, but I'm going to try it now. So we're going to talk about the number 10 principle that is esteeming others better than ourselves. Okay. So in the groups, I just wanted us to share some stories about how it went right, how it went wrong, and why did it work? Why did it not work? Okay. The number 10 principle. Is it possible to do that even, like practically? And then the second one is to talk about the confrontation. You know, how can I really do this? So just going to learn from each other. And at the end of it, you know, just one person from each group to just share, okay, what is it that you discussed about the number 10 principle and the confrontation principle? Okay. Can we do that? Any questions before we get into our groups? Okay. Okay. Fine. So we'll take Kennedy. How can you have a humble heart? One second. Let me just look at your question. Okay. Then how can you have a humble heart and an iron fist confronted by, how can you have a humble heart? Sorry, can you just explain? Are you saying that how can I still be humble and still hold on to my standards? Stubbornly hold on to my standards and expect that standard to be met by others. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that's something that we need to learn, right? So even speaking the truth in love is something that we need to learn and put in practice. To be gracious, at the same time, convey the truth. And maybe the truth is that the person has messed up terribly. And to be able to convey that truth, communicate that truth to the person, not really sugarcoat that, but to say it, to communicate that, that's that's something that we need to do, right? Yeah, to really put to death. I'm just thinking about, you know, some of those, this is about, I think, Nikki Cruz talks about it and also another pastor who worked in some of the tough neighborhoods, toughest neighborhoods where they were dealing with people who were into a lot of violence, gang violence with problem of drugs, broken homes and all that and how they were mentoring, seeing transformed lives. But at the same time, they would, these people whom they were mentoring would go back to the same environment and then being roughed up and being violently assaulted. And how can I give a righteous response? That was a challenge. So it's never easy. It's never easy to do that. And of course, I'm talking about an extreme example, but like what in day to day, in our day to day exchanges, ministry, family, professionally, excuse me, this is something that we can learn and that we can grow into because the Lord Jesus did that so wonderfully, thinking about, you know, John chapter four and the experience, you know, his conversation with the woman at the well and also the way he, the way he even, you know, healed certain people and he communicated the, communicated the truth.  Okay, so he knew, but he, he shared that he didn't hold back. When he said, go and sin no more. He said, okay, I don't condemn you, but hey, this is something that you need to stop doing. So he did that with grace and truth and which is something that God expects us and we are empowered to do that by the Holy Spirit. Okay. Okay, let's, let's quickly begin to, yeah, yeah, thanks. So we'll spend about five minutes. Okay. And we've talked about two things, the number 10 principle and just want each person to share within the group and and then we'll, I'll call us back. Okay, here we go. Okay, here goes. I'm sorry, Thayesh, are you still in the main call? Are you in the breakout room at all? I was trying to. Okay. I think some people dropped off the call. So what really happens when you drop off the call? Are you able to get back into the breakout room? When you get back, it will allow, it will give an option to join back. Oh, okay. Okay, fine, fine. So just some feedback, I'm just trying to learn here. So was that time enough to get into the rooms and then discuss or should we have more time for a meaningful discussion? I think we needed more time faster because we felt it was like way too quick. One good example from one person and then it was already three minutes and the other person couldn't get a chance to speak. Oh, okay, okay. Sorry about that. Okay, okay. So what we can do is when we come back after the break, maybe we can, we can just discuss it, you know, in the main call itself, in the main session itself, all those who and probably one person from each group could share, but then more can share right here. Okay, so next time we would have more time. We would assign more time. So I realized that it took a while to even assign into the groups, right? So we will have more time. Okay, we'll take a break and then we'll come back at 11.