Okay, thank you everyone for attending my talk. I'm not sure why anyone chose to do so, but anyway, here we are. So this is Thursday of Mises You, so we've now passed the less interesting lectures. We can get on to the more insightful and profound talks, the ones you'll remember for years to come after my talk, I guess. So anyway, we're gonna talk about the Panic of 1819 and its relevance for today. I was thinking about this as the whole coronavirus crisis was unfolding and the business cycle and all of that and just to draw some parallels to at least just some things that hopefully we will parallel in the future. So the first thing is, one thing I noticed is I don't know what it is with the year 20, but there seems to always be a very serious business cycle then. So you've got 1720, the South Sea bubble, 1820, the Panic of 1819, 1920, the Depression of 1920, and 2020, the coronation or whatever it will be called for years to come. What 2120 will hold, I have no idea, but it probably will not be good. So anyway, I just thought that was a little interesting, but more importantly, what exactly is this presentation about and why should you care? So this is taken from my forthcoming book, sort of tentatively titled, it's on cronyism, it's called Liberty versus Power, A History of Cronyism in the United States, 1607 to 1849, and it goes through sort of the history of special interest legislation. So when you think about cronyism, it's not legislation passed in the public interest but for special interest. So it's one group, a business, trying to get some sort of favor, subsidy, tariff, regulation, discriminatory tax, et cetera, on their competitors, on someone else, so on and so forth. And related to the story, my narrative is the extremely important but it's neglected even in standard American history is the Panic of 1819, which I will show or sort of argue is caused by the second bank of the United States credit expansion. So I'm not the first Austrian scholar to talk about the Panic of 1819, Murray Rothbard did so in his dissertation, the Panic of 1819, and it's something that's still cited very well in the literature. It's really one of the few studies on the Panic of 1819 and it's still held up. So his dissertation that he wrote in the 50s is still being cited today. So I wish my dissertation would still be cited even though it's only been a couple of years and no one's really looked at it, but anyway, I'm optimistic for the future. So I'm gonna try and show is that there's intense cronyism surrounding everything about the Panic of 1819 and the second bank of the United States. And in particular, I'll show that sort of the Panic of 1819 led to a growth in free market economic thought, a revival in sort of anti-Federalism and those constitutional theories and the future Jacksonian coalition that then later got rid of the second bank of the United States and tried to remove or just try to reduce cronyism overall. So hopefully, you know, our future reformers will learn from 1819, especially in my presentation and we'll just have some parallels because you think this serious crisis that we're in, hopefully similar things will happen to growth in free market thought, a change in our constitutional theories and the emergence of some sort of political coalition that will actually put all of that stuff together. So anyway, so we first have to start off with the War of 1812 to sort of go through this stuff. So the War of 1812, in case everyone's forgotten their history, it started in 1812 and I remember like it was 208 years ago. So we originally had a central bank before the second bank of the United States and before the War of 1812. This was the first bank of the United States. I'll actually be talking about this a little bit more in my talk later today. Alexander Hamilton was very prominent in pushing for this bank. It had a 20 year charter and then it's 20 year charter basically was not renewed. In 1813, so in early 1813, the government needs to borrow money. They don't have a bank that just simply monetized the debt. So you have these very prominent Republican financiers, Stephon Gerard and John Jacob Astor. The latter is known for his, he's basically a fur trading entrepreneur who's involved in the fur trade. They purchased about $10 million which was very large out of the loan at that time. It was about like a $16 million loan. So it was about $10 million of high risk government debt. The United States wasn't doing as good as expected in the war. And so when there's a lot of uncertainty over the outcome of a war, the yields on that debt are gonna be very high. The prices are gonna be very low because an entrepreneur that buys this will be taking on a lot of risk. There's a chance that the government will default or repudiate on the debt. So this in itself is just relatively any purchasing high risk debt is itself not an act of cronyism. Now purchasing government debt is a different story. But what makes this especially sort of an act of cronyism is that they wanna reduce the risk of the purchase and they try and do this by basically lobbying Congress to charter another central bank. Because similar to the first bank of the United States, you could purchase your stock. You could purchase stock in the company by exchanging government debt for it. So this would basically do would make it the government debt more marketable and it would boost up the price. So you're basically doing is you have a high risk debt instrument and you're making it a lower risk debt instrument thanks to the government's monopoly privileges that they would give to this institution. 1814 late 1814 state banks suspend species payments. If I had more time we could talk about this but this is just it relates to the panic of 1819. They basically expanded credit too much to help the government finance the war. Normally that would lead to the adverse clearing mechanism but that did not happen. And also significant for this drive is that in October 1814 Gerard and Astor Lobby to make their Philadelphia lawyer, Alexander J. Dallas the new secretary of the treasury. This is an important thing. You wanna always analyze when you're looking at some government official a lot of times you just sort of treat this person as if they had no life and what they did before their job and what they did after their job is completely unrelated to their actual job itself. But as Murray Rothbard once said he goes, these people have lives and it's actually important to look at what they did. So the fact that this guy who became secretary of the treasury was very close to these two financial interests who were pushing for essential bank that should hopefully make you think like, okay, what's going on here? Something sounds a little fishy at least. Okay, anyway, during the war Congress did not charter essential bank but after the war basically when the war ended in early 1815 they try again. So by January 1816, Congressman Henry Clay, Congressman John Calhoun and of course secretary of the treasury, Dallas pushed for the chartering of a new central bank. Okay, when we say chartering it was to get a corporate charter, an essence, a license. A corporation back in the day this is very important not only for the history of cronyism in the panic of 1819 but also just American history. A corporation back in the day was a much different legal entity than what we think of a corporation now. Corporations were basically creatures of the state. In order to use that benefit of limited liability in other various advantages of stock ownership you had to actually have the state legislature charter you, create you a company. They'd say, all right, only you or whatever other companies we create can operate in this particular business. So they were like little monopolies. So when back in the day people were railing against corporations, they weren't necessarily being like the Occupy Wall Street people today. They were actually coming at it from a free market bet because they wanted to get rid of the corporate charter which we eventually did in really in the 1840s and the 1850s. Okay, in this corporate charter it, for the second bank of the United States it contained privileges very similar to what the first bank of the United States possessed only bigger. It had a 20 year monopoly over interstate banking, okay. The main office of this institution was in Philadelphia then the financial center of the country, all right. And it could operate, set up branches all throughout the country, all right. And this was a huge, it was a monopoly. It was this monster. No other, the federal government wouldn't charter another bank with the same, with interstate banking, all right. And states didn't like that because now you had this outside competitor seemingly immune from the market forces. It had a $35 million market capitalization. $20 million was government owned. And again, I wonder why that's there is that 21 million of the 28 million of the private stock could be purchased with government debt. Okay, I wonder who did that. That was again, Gerard and Aster.  So in this case is that if you're too blatant well the next time you just be much more subtle about this. And the federal government basically kept all of its money kept its deposits at the bank which was a massive subsidy. This is no different than if Congress has a special deal with a restaurant right outside Capitol Hill saying, all right, every Thursday everyone's gonna go there. You're basically using taxpayer dollars and you're funneling it into this enterprise. This bank kept all the deposits there. It was a huge subsidy and obviously this allowed it to make many more loans and have much bigger market share than it otherwise would have. Okay, Congress passed this bill in April 1816 and Gerard estimates that the profits quote will be immense. All right, Gerard is the guy on the left. Aster's the guy on the right. I didn't really have anything else to add to this slide so you have some pictures fits well. And again, so just to sort of analyze kind of the connection at this, Gerard becomes the largest shareholder. Gerard and Aster become two of the five governor appointed directors at the main office and Aster became the president of the New York branch. Well, isn't that convenient, right?  You're basically on the main board of directors or one of the presidents of the main institution. You're one of the largest shareholders. You know, this is gonna be great. Finally, they'll be able to control this bank, right? Unfortunately, there are other crony businessmen who were smarter than Gerard and Aster and they basically seized control of the institution during the election of the main office's president in Philadelphia. The bank charter, and this is what a lot of, you know, back then they say, well, the public interest, we're not gonna allow any large shareholder to exercise undue influence. So one shareholder, excuse me, shareholder, no matter the size, can only exercise a maximum of 30 votes, okay? Of course, there are ways around this, particularly proxies. And this is in particular what the capitalists in Baltimore exploited ruthlessly. So Baltimore back then was sort of an up and coming mercantile city. It did a lot of trade on the ocean, obviously. It wasn't as big as Philadelphia in terms of finance, but it was still, you know, it was up and coming. So quite notoriously, there are many examples of this. Lawyer George Williams, he controlled 1172 shares legally owned by his clients. So what he would do is he would basically just register shares under different names. All right, and he would basically control them as a voting block, okay? This is actually what people did a lot of the times back then to get around these regulations.  And it's like legally under their name, but it's not really under their name. And out of the 16,000 shares held in the city, 15 men in Baltimore basically controlled 75% of that through this method. Okay, this is sort of a ruthless, you know, just disregard for the rules, shows how much sort of these highly-vaunted public regulation, you know, things actually matter. You can just use proxies. So Baltimore secures the election of former secretary of the Navy, William Jones, who was partially secretary of the Navy during the War of 1812.  He doesn't know how to operate a financial institution. He used to be a merchant, but his company went bankrupt and all that stuff and Gerard and Astor are very upset because they try very hard. And then all of a sudden basically, Baltimore just comes, you know, comes from behind and sort of takes control of this institution. And then they proceed to run it straight into the ground. So what they first do is basically the bank opens up in early 1817 and it starts inflating. So just to recall, you know, the Austrians describe inflation as an increase in the money supply. All right, the rise in prices is only an effect of the increase in the money supply. Okay, so the second bank of the United States, it starts off by lending six million to New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond banks to resume species payments. So these banks still had not resumed species payments. They still were not honoring redemption of their notes and deposits for gold and silver. So our country wanted to go back to the gold standard after the war. So you can do this by engaging in the deflation. So trying to contract the money supply, waiting until the increased supply of goods lowers prices so we can return to the old parity or you can just kind of pretend and you can return to the gold standard and you could continue inflating. That's the easiest solution and that's what the Republicans did back then. So they were really trying to have their cake and eat it too. They were trying to resume gold convertibility but at the same time just pretend like they don't actually have to engage in a deflation. So what this bank does by lending to these institutions is since they're not resuming species convertibility it's really just pumping reserves into the system. It's like the discount window, right? They're lending to these banks and they're not using them to call upon the second bank of the United States for species but instead to just basically make more loans themselves. And the second bank of the United States engages in an enormous credit expansion during this time period. So from 1817 to about mid-1818 the second bank of the United States increases credit expansion by about 57%. And you can't really see it too well in the money supply statistics in 1818 for a variety of reasons we'll talk about later but overall from 1815 to 1817 the money supply increases by 25%. So a very large increase it's roughly about 12% per year during this time period and the second bank of the United States is really leading the pack, okay? And it's not just in Philadelphia but particularly in all of its branches scattered across the land so to speak particularly in the south and the west. So the second bank of the United States branches and as well as the other state banks they lend during this time for building construction long-term agricultural improvements purchasing slaves, turnpikes, ship building, steam boats, et cetera. These are all of the higher order goods of the day those long-term production processes that produce for future consumption, right? That a credit expansion would affect the most of. So businesses, farmers, et cetera they were liberally borrowing from the banks to engage in these types of basically production processes. Now overall, and this is what continually has misled critics of the Austrian business cycle theory it's that they say, all right, wait a second. Well from 1816 to 1818 prices fell and that is true, wholesale prices fell 17%. The main reason for that was actually just the resumption of trade with Great Britain our major trading partner. And this is there, they're producing they produce manufacturing goods manufactured goods, excuse me much more efficiently than us and so they're able to sell at lower prices. So during the war you had basically virtual economic autarky, right? And that was one of the reasons leading to higher prices then afterwards you have all these cheap foreign imports coming in and they're lowering prices. Prices of domestically produced goods did not decrease, but in particular prices in these sectors rose, okay? So something very similar to this happened in many other business cycles in the 1800s as well as the 1920s, okay? People say, oh the Federal Reserve isn't inflating during this time period this is because the price level's falling this was something Milton Friedman, his argument, okay? Anyway, so Baltimore leads the pack in the credit expansion in sort of there's so much swashbucklers for blatantly flouting the rules and just illegally sort of electing William Jones and really their business practices show this. So James Buchanan and not the famous economist not the president, but that's just this random guy named James Buchanan. He was a partner in Smith and Buchanan Mercantile House very famous Baltimore Mercantile House back the day and who was the other partner? Well, it just so happened to be a famous politician the congressman also Senator Samuel Smith, all right? Who was very connected with the merchant interests and one of the things he would always try and do is lobby for an increased Navy, all right?  James Buchanan was also another government appointed director at the main branch and he also happened to be the president at the Baltimore branch, okay? So he's clearly got a lot of authority in Buchanan, James McCulloch, the bank cashier and George Williams, remember him? He's the lawyer with, you know, sort of finagling with the proxies. They loaned themselves one million dollars total back then, in total back then there was actually quite a lot of money and this was basically fraud because they claim they secured the loans with collateral and they didn't so they were sort of deliberately basically misleading people. James McCulloch, he took out a loan for let's say $300,000 and just to put things in perspective, I'm reading this in a book, the, his annual salary was about like $3,000 so he's borrowing slightly beyond his means basically. His future income stream will make paying that off difficult and they bribe the second bank of the United States president, William Jones, to sort of look the other way. They also bribe some other people, et cetera and so on. So Baltimore is just really kind of engaging in pretty much malfeasience, you know, just basically illicit behavior, okay? The good times, however, cannot last forever. Excuse me, the good times can't last forever and they also, the way I put it was fine too. During this time, Secretary of the Treasury, William Crawford, sort of a quasi-old Republican, he pushes for a species redemption to return to the gold standard. So being an old Republican, he was sort of a descendant of the anti-Federalists. When Jefferson came into power, these old Republicans along with guys like John Randolph of Roanoke or John Taylor of Caroline, you might have heard of them, they were really pushing for a limited government. William Crawford was kind of like in their camp. He was sort of like the William Harding of the day. He was sort of like low government spending, wasn't too great on that much other stuff. Anyway, sort of like a lovable guy. One of the things I find fascinating, again, we're trying to show the relevance of the panning of 1819 for today is that William Crawford, no one's really heard of him here probably, he was the front-runner in the election of 1824. The famous election where John Quincy Adams basically stole it from Andrew Jackson and what happened though, was about a year before he was running for office, he had a debilitating stroke and he was sort of partially blind, partially deaf. He had trouble speaking, he had trouble moving, et cetera. And you would think this would sort of push you out of the race, but that didn't stop basically his backers who are saying, no, he'll be fine. We can keep him on, have him running, he'll be okay. He'll be good and I'm just thinking, I'm like, wow, that reminds me of something. But, you know, so history does repeat itself, in other words, is so anyway, back I guess to the monetary scene, the state banks refused to convert during this time period. So they're all engaging in credit expansion in this credit expansion would normally be unsustainable aside from the Austrian business cycle theory, but just to the price-species flow mechanism, but not the second bank of the United States. It was converting. So as it was expanding its notes and deposits, which was winding up in the hands of the public and other banks, they were then taking these notes and deposits and they were then presenting them for redemption in gold and silver. And obviously the bank would oblige them and it would start to pay out, it's gold and silver. So in the first half of 1818, species reserves start to decline.  So it was expanding, but it couldn't last forever because it was unsustainable. They would run out of gold. And in the second half of the year, the second bank of the United States starts to engage in a massive credit contraction. I mean, truly massive, because from about July of 1818 to January 1819, the bank's liabilities basically contract by a whopping 41%.  They're calling in their loans. They're basically just trying to beef up their reserve ratio to make matters worse. In the fall of 1818, Congress investigates the bank, particularly the Baltimore branch. There's sort of accusations of sort of some odd behavior going on, et cetera. And this contraction of the bank was actually so large that from 1817 to 1818, the money supply falls 10%. So you're starting to see the bubble pop basically. You've got sort of this illicit scandal sort of emerging. The bank is seemingly trying to cover up its behavior by literally engaging in a punitive deflation, et cetera. So then this leads us to the panic of 1819. The panic of 1819, it actually wasn't called the panic of 1819 during the crisis. It sort of got this name later because when you think of a bank panic, it's really just a bunch of runs on the banking system. So it's when a lot of people are presenting notes and deposits for convertibility or just trying to take their money out of banks. There's usually like this dramatic stock market crash, et cetera. This actually didn't happen. It was sort of like a gradual but sharp decline throughout the year. And, but it was still later called the panic of 1819. In the middle of 1819, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams. They were still very close, even though some of their earlier disagreements. They were both also very hard money, especially Jefferson. He said the paper bubble is then burst. So basically everything blew up. Now all the projects that seemingly look profitable, those long-term farming projects, those steam ships, those turnpikes, et cetera. Well, now they're no longer profitable. The loans to finance those projects have dried up. From 1818 to 1820, wholesale prices fell by about 30%, almost one-third, so very sharp decline. And this was also shown in the wages. So in least the available statistics for wages, you can really only look at the daily wages for agricultural workers in for unskilled turnpike workers, at least during the first year. They plummeted about 60 to 80%. So huge decline in nominal wages during this time period. So again, very, very sharp decline, right? You have the panic of 1819. It's sort of this very prominent event. This is what most of the country was focused on in 1819, as well as the years after. However, was it so bad? Contemporaries sort of actually thought it was very bad, and as well as some modern historians. But actually when you look at the data, it didn't really, it wasn't actually that bad. The first thing to note is that in terms of counter-signal policy, that the government basically did what they were not supposed to do, right? Normally you're supposed to turn on the monetary jets, and you're also supposed to engage in deficit spending. The money supply remained flat after declining about 10% in that first year. Sort of flat-lined at the early 1820s. And in 1819 to 1821, the federal government spending declined by about 26%. This is largely at the initiative of the Crawfordites. They were called the radicals, the capital R. They were led by Martin Van Buren later on. And they pushed to cut government spending, particularly the military spending harshly during this time period, okay? However, there's no real effect on economic activity, okay? You can look at nominal GDP in those show very serious declines, but at least the available data suggests that it wasn't that serious. 1816 to 1818 real GDP per capita remained constant. In 1819 real GDP per capita, so real GDP per person fell by about 1%. And then in 1819 to 1824 real GDP per capita actually increased by about 1.5% per annum. So if anything, output increased after the panic than before, okay? Now why was it so serious? Well, or why do people think it was so serious? Well, one, they concentrated on the cities where economic activity could look really bad. There could be high employment there, et cetera. But that was actually very small relative to the overall size of the country. Most people worked on farms. They weren't artisans or craftsmen or merchants, et cetera, in the large cities. And in particular sort of related to this is they concentrated primarily on nominal data. So they saw wages going down or stock prices going down or just prices in general going down and they thought that this was a decline in real values. But this is just the nominal illusion, right? It's not actually a decline in real output. This is basically said by Joseph Davis. He wrote relatively recently in the Journal of Economic History an improved annual chronology of U.S. business cycle since the 1790s. And he showed that actually using a revised industrial production estimate that real business cycles, the actual real output during business cycles declined by much less than what was commonly assumed. So you look at the severity of these crises, they didn't last as long nor they as deep. So he says, okay, if this is what the output shows us then why do people say they were really terrible? Well, and I happen to think he's correct here. He says, quote, one plausible explanation for the disparity in 19th century depressions may be that the media confused commercial crises with financial ones because the latter were better characterized by falling commodity insecurity prices rather than declines in real industrial activity, okay? This is true. It's that you had people were suffering from the nominal illusion. You didn't have widespread economic data back then. You didn't have widespread statistics of unemployment or of output, et cetera. So you're concentrating on a couple of things and you don't really know what you're talking about. And then you just say it's really serious but it actually isn't so serious. So this is what happened. Also, if you call something the panic of 1890, it just sounds terrible. Everyone's panicking. It's like a huge psychological depression or something. And now if you call the recession, it sounds much better. Much less harmful, okay? However, the people are still upset. So obviously they're hurt somewhat and they attack the second bank of the United States. It's this massive new bank that was created. It was fine. There was a very famous quote by William Gowdge after the fact he said, the bank was saved but the people were ruined. So the bank engaged in this mighty credit contraction to save itself but everyone else was not and they are upset. However, as what happens with most government-sponsored enterprises is that the bank employs friends in very high places. So it first gets the intellectual defense, okay? It has the establishment newspaper, the National Intelligencer. It receives loans from the bank. So naturally it's very favorable to the bank. Now these newspapers back then or this newspaper as well as other institutions, this is something that isn't so well known but they were basically subsidized by the government or at least certain ones were.  So back then, we obviously didn't have the internet and the government wanted to print various congressional documents, things for the Senate, the House of Representatives, various bureaucratic documents, et cetera. So you would give the contract to a, the companies that actually had the machinery and the printing contracts were quite lucrative. You'd get like a 50% rate of return for this contract. So it was massive. Now, you get this massive, very lucrative contract from the government and you're gonna support the government's policies, right? So this is what the National Intelligencer did. It was sort of a very cozy relationship between the media and the government. No surprise then that this era was called the era of corruption, okay? It also has the political defense. So Congressman Henry Clay of Kentucky and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, very prominent politicians during this time, they receive loans from the bank and they also receive a retainer for providing legal services. So Clay's retainer was about $6,000. That's more than the secretary of state salary back then. So it was clearly a lot of money and his job that he did for the bank was he helped sort of foreclose on property. So they didn't really exactly make him like the most likeable person and he could be very selective with this so he could, if his friends owed money to the bank, he wouldn't call on their loans or et cetera, sort of press them to pay and so on. Daniel Webster also received, as I mentioned here, received a lot of money from the bank. He was close with many of the bank's officials and there's a very famous letter of him sort of later on. He says he's writing to the bank's president. He says, my retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual. If you'd like me to continue providing my services to the bank, I would like it refreshed and you're like, oh, wow, it's very venal. It also has the central banking defense. Nicholas Biddle, sort of a young Alexander Hamilton type of figure, if you know about him, he was appointed director in January, 1819. He was good friends with President James Monroe, the United States and in early 1823 became the bank's president and he was sort of known as really like the first central banker but he was a very prominent, powerful figure. He was the one who went toe to toe against Andrew Jackson in the early 1830s and he lost. However, so you've got the intellectual defense. You've got the political defense. You've got the central banking defense. What's the most important defense though? It's the legal defense, okay. Chief Justice John Marshall, very prominent land speculator. He also just happened to own stock in the bank. Okay, so, all right, maybe a little conflict of interest there. In this very famous court case, McCulloch versus Maryland, Maryland, the state of Maryland tried to tax the Baltimore branch just like it taxed its other banks, the other state banks. They said, hey, this is unfair if they're not being taxed, but the other banks are. In this case, wound up. So that McCulloch was the same McCulloch of before who was caught embezzling. And the basic court case said, can states tax the second bank of the United States branches just like they tax their own banks? Important, Daniel Webster served on the bank's legal team, right, the one getting money. Marshall did sell his shares right before the case in early 1819, but this is sort of like indicative, like he almost knew it was a conflict of interest. Marshall actually couldn't be in many prominent Supreme Court cases during this time period because he was tied up in land speculation that was sort of involved in there. So he had to excuse himself, but anyway, he was here for this. And the Marshall ruling in March, 1819 said, states cannot tax the second bank of the United States branches. And really for that matter, the federal government can do whatever it wants, which is more or less his argument. It says, we're not a confederation, we're a consolidated government. The government can do what it wants. The 10th Amendment doesn't mean anything because it does not have the word expressly in it and so on and so forth, et cetera. And to make it worse, like for the people, right? So a week after the decisions, investigations reveal bank cashier James McCulloch as a massive embezzler. And then the three guys basically get off scot-free, right? So it looks really bad, right? You have this court case that defends the bank, right? And then you have this later on, oh yeah, these people who, yeah, we found out they did a bunch of bad stuff.  So that really got the public riled up. You had this bank that was sort of engaged in all sorts of crony behavior, the motivations behind it were crony. It was all sort of special interests they're benefiting from at the expense of the public. They caused this big business cycle and then the bank sort of gets off scot-free. It doesn't suffer any real penalties, et cetera. Is that like, what does this lead to? Is there any hope? Okay. So well, first of all, one of the things it leads to, it helps contribute to, is the growth in free market economic thought after the War of 1812. So after the War of 1812, and increasingly after the panic, hard money economic theories flourish. So you've got guys like David Ricardo, John Peptice, DeSut de Tracy, and so on. They're very anti-bank. They are pro hard money, pro gold standard. They're saying banks are all these charters. They're getting all these special privileges from the government. They're engaging in this credit expansion. It leads to all these problems later on. They sort of support various 100% reserve requirements or various sort of free banking proposals, these free market solutions, and so on. And very important is that Jefferson and others, they promote these writings in colleges and public forums. Jefferson even writes some forwards to books. He's saying, well, this is sort of explaining the free market theories of the Enlightenment, Adam Smith, and so on. I hope the public will read this, et cetera. They're publishing these books. This is what colleges would read. One of the stable college textbooks or the authors was John Peptice say, colleges back in the day were, we say they're liberal back then. We were saying like they're the good liberal. They're basically classical liberal. They're very free market limited government, and so on. They're not big government because they were all small private liberal arts colleges. They weren't linked in with the state as they are now. As a great quote, as an important quote, in April, 1821, Condi Rigo, a very famous free trader, as well as a hard money economic theorist later on, he wrote to David Ricardo because the banks were still sort of stubbornly refusing species payments, and they had sort of state government backing. He said, the whole of our population are either stockholders of banks or in debt to them. This is not the interest of the first to press the banks and the rest are afraid. So he's just sort of showing the entrenched power of the banking, sort of as they were called, parasites in the country. He's writing to David Ricardo. He's not like Joe Blow.  So sort of showing him the problems in America. Okay, what does all of this cronyism cause? Well, it also causes a rebirth in anti-Federalist thought, sort of this limited government states' rights thought. Martin, excuse me, McCulloch versus Maryland continued the consolidating trend of the Supreme Court. In 1816, there was this very famous Supreme Court, Martin versus Hunterlessy, basically saying the federal government can overrule state laws and so on. It's also dealt with land speculation and I might have some time to talk about this, my next talk, et cetera. So this was really, it was just continuing the trend. The, it was really the most prominent event during this time period. This McCulloch versus Maryland sort of shocked the public and it shocked a lot of prominent politicians, et cetera. Old Republican John Randolph described, he described the decision as quote, wrong, wrong, all wrong. It's a good way to put it, John. Old Republican John Taylor wrote these two new works, Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated in new views of the Constitution, sort of talking about this, sort of saying how well the Constitution's causing a lot of problems, this consolidation, it's something we have to be worried about and so on. Very notably, Ohio dismissed the ruling. The state legislature went so far as to quote, recognize and approve the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions written by Jefferson and Madison in 1798, for showing states have an equal right to interpret the Constitution themselves. So in these documents, it's really Jefferson's Kentucky resolution, that was the good one, sort of that goes so far as to almost support nullification and secession, these radical theories of the compact theory of the government and so on. So they're saying, well, we don't have to pay, you know, the states have a right, the Supreme Court, you know, they're not the boss. Second Bank of the United States refused to pay Ohio's tax. Well, then you had the court case Osborn versus the Bank of the United States in 1824. Clay and Webster were the bank's legal counsel. Unsurprisingly, the second, the Supreme Court protects the second bank of the United States. Again, okay, so just sort of showing the entrenched relationship of all this stuff. So it seemingly looks like the bank can't be killed. All right. Well, it also causes, it leads to the Jacksonian coalition, the Panic of 1819. In 1820, the Tennessee state legislature contemplates passing a paper money government loan office. These was really the Tennessee state government was saying that, well, we're just gonna print our own money. In the states where this actually was instituted, it got shot down because the Constitution explicitly forbids state governments from printing their own money. But anyway, we'll talk about that a little bit later. General Andrew Jackson, he sends a petition to the legislature. This petition cites, quote, judicious political economists, okay? Maybe like these guys, right? Who demonstrated that the, quote, large emissions of paper from the banks by which the country was inundated have been the most prominent causes of the stresses at which we at present complain, okay? So he's recognizing that these banks, when they engage in a great deal of inflation, they will lead to these periods of boom and bust. So he's saying we shouldn't be inflating anymore, right? It's just going to cause further problems down the road. In Jackson, very famously vetoed the second bank recharter in 1832. So he was the one who killed the bank. A lot of people say that Jackson is sort of unprincipled in this regard. I think they're being a little too harsh with him. He was clearly sort of, you know, he knew about this literature as well as, more importantly, many of his advisors who were writing a lot of his documents, et cetera. So this is sort of part of that free market economic thought that was resurging during this time period, okay? So you have these, the panic of 1819, it leads to growth in free market economic thought, right? This is very influential in the 1830s and 1840s when we particularly got rid of bank charters as well as charters from any other corporations using free market economic theory. It led to the rebirth and sort of this anti-federalist thought of a decentralized government, a confederation. This is very prominent especially later on in the 1830s. And then it also led to the Jacksonian coalition that really sort of combined all of this stuff together and Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, okay? So in conclusion, the panic of 1819 was a defining moment in American history. It demonstrated the immense corruption after the War of 1812. It just sort of showed that there's a pervasive cronyism, special interest politics and so on. It led to the growth in free market thought and future reform efforts and you should read my book when it comes out. So I think with that, I will end here. So thank you so much.


Mr. District Attorney, starring David Bryan. Mr. District Attorney, champion of the people, defender of truth, guardian of our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And now, tonight's story, the case of the moving van murders. And now, here is our star, David Bryan as Paul Garrett, Mr. District Attorney. A man's home is said to be his castle, and it's up to the forces of law and order to uphold this principle. But the individual householder should exercise diligence in maintaining the security of his domicile, particularly when the family leaves for a vacation. As in the story, you are about to hear. This is the time when thieves often move in. What's the matter with you, Eddie?  Listen, I was just as much your fault. You were supposed to balance it. I ought to poke you right in the mouth. Don't try it.  I don't like it when we show up with that piece all mired up. Let's leave it here. Easton don't have to know nothing about it. We've been here too long now anyway. Some of the neighbors might be getting wise. What's that? It sounds like somebody's coming. We're moving East's people out. Who are you? I just happen to be the owner of this house. That's all. Who is it? You were away?  You thought I was away on vacation, is that it? I think you were a couple of cooks. I'm going to call the police about this.  That's what you think! I'm going to chase this macabre. I ain't going to get him nothing but bubble. What are you going to do? Just hang on tight. Do you want to end up in a pen? No, I don't want a car. You know that, don't you? We can get out and slug him again. Me with your message. She said something about a man being killed in a fight with moving men. Well, that's my idea, chief. And I'll tell you what. First, a man by the name of Maya was run off the park road about two hours ago. The car caught fire when they pulled him out of it. Well, you know what. Yeah, that's a hard one. I'm going to call the police. I'm going to call the police. You know what? Yeah, that's a hard way to die. Lucky for us, there were a couple of kids playing ball in the park. They said there was a hit and run with a truck involved. Did they say what kind of a truck? A moving van. And when I got here to the man's address, I find the doors wide open, the house empty of furniture, and this hat on the floor. Now, the neighbors say they noticed the moving van. Then it didn't have any name on it. The whole thing was covered by a big canvas. I've got a theory. The furniture was being stolen. Check. Mr. Meyer happened to walk in on them unexpectedly. They clobbered them and got going. But he chased them, and that leads us to the wreck in the park. I think you've got it, Hangton. Let's take a look through the house. Anyway, I wonder if it's still hooked up. It is. I call Miss Miller from here. Well, here's something. It's like a furniture pad. Yeah, that belonged to the moving van. It's a brand new one, too. Let's see if we can find the name of the maker on it. Here it is, Chief. The Acme Yawning Company, 234 Front Street. Where's that phone? Yes, I'm with him right now. I'd like you to check up on something for me, Miss Miller. All right, Chief. Now, this thing looks like a robbery and a murder setup. Some crooks emptying a house of furniture kill the owner of the place when he showed up unexpectedly. And we've got just one real clue. A furniture pad. A furniture pad? The most big canvas pad that moving men use to protect furniture. Oh, sure. Call the Acme Yawning Company, 234 Front Street. I've got it. If they've sold more than one, get the names of all the buyers. All right, Mr. Harris. We'll see you later at the office. I only hope the Yawning Company has a record on it. I hope so, too. Oh, and there's something else. What's that, Chief? We'll need a list of the items of furniture that were taken. Yeah. Maybe we'll only be able to help out on that. That's a good idea. Let's try them. It's Eastern waiting for us. We're going to tell them about that guy? I'm going to tell him plenty. This is a lot. I told you before about leaving it here. I want to talk to you. So you want to talk to me? I thought he can drive it back, Kenny. OK. I'll drive it back. Isn't he kind of late, ain't you, Duke? That's an Eastern. That's your fault. What are you talking about? I'll tell you what I'm talking about. You got us into a mess because you didn't have that job case. You got the furniture, didn't you? Yeah. You said those people were going to be away. They were away. Then why did the guy come walking in on us? So he happened to come home. He can't figure out everything. He'd come home all right. We had to run him off the road to keep him up, chasing us right into this yard. All right. So you got rid of him. What are you beefing about? I figure we took a big chance this time. I figure we ought to have a bigger cop, Duke. You've got a nerve coming in here and talking to me like that. You know, I got a notion to throw you right out in your face. Don't get tough with me, Eastern. I wouldn't like it. No. Well, let's see how you like this. I'm running this show, Duke. You do like I say. Why you? I'll show you like this. Like I said, Duke, I'm running the show. You're a good man. You want to play it smart and stay with me all right. But tell me, right now, okay, you're a wet man. That ain't answering the question. Okay. So I'll stay with you. That means you're taking orders and no beefs. Okay. All right. Now look, with that new load we got, there's too much in the warehouse. You and Brody take the rig over there and load up for a trip out of town. Where? I'll tell you later, just like we got company. Yes, sir, what can I do for you? You're the owner here? That's right. Who are you? Name is Harrington. This is Mr. Garrett, district attorney. Huh? Who do you want me to? The sign says you run out trucks. That's why I put the sign up there. I'm going back and help Brody, Mr. Eastern. And just a minute. You work here? Yeah. What kind of work do you do? I just work around the yard and moving trucks, that kind of thing. What's your name? Don't call it. How long have you worked here? Six months, maybe. Any thought of it, Mr. Eastern? Yeah, yeah, that's about right. Anything else, Mr? No, that'll be all for now. What do you mean, for now? Did you rent out any trucks today, Eastern? Look, what's this all about? You come in here asking a lot of questions. Why should I have to tell you my business? My house was robbed a few hours ago. All the furniture was shoved into a truck and caught it away. When the owner tried to stop it, he was run off the road and killed. So what's that got to do with me? The truck left a pad behind that came from this lot. A pad? A canvas-covered furniture pad. We checked with the owning company that made it. They said it was sold to you. Oh, no, wait a minute. I run a truck rental yard. I rent out rigs to whoever comes in here and puts up the price. Did somebody use one of my trucks to pull a robbery? I can't help it. I got no control over what they do when they leave the lot. How many trucks did you rent out today? Oh, three or four, maybe. Are you all back? Yeah, yeah, they're all back. Could we see your records for the day? Yeah, just a second. I'll get them for you. What do you think about this setup, Chief? I don't like the looks of it. I don't either. Look, there's another guy at the back of the lot. This is a pretty small place. They all work here. They must be tripping over one another. Here comes our man back. Look, I've been thinking about this. Why should I give you my records? Well, it could be important to our investigation. Sorry, nothing going. We've got ways of getting them, you know. Sure you have. And when you come in here with a court order, I'll hand them over, but not until. You don't want to help us at all, do you? Why should I? Nobody pays me to be a cop. Let's go, Hanson. Yeah, that guy's got a disposition like a bucket of worms. Why don't we just take them in? It might not be so lippy when we get them downtown. We need something specific to go on. What about the pad? He's got the answer for that. It could have been lost by someone who rented a truck. You don't believe that. Neither do I.  Then he can blame the robbery on someone who doesn't even exist. Now, that's the reason he won't let us see those records right now. But I might surprise him by getting here with a court order before he expects it. Now, why would they be driving that big van off the lot? Hey, did you see who was at the wheel? Yeah, it's the art man. They got a gas pump here with a lube rack. No reason to drive it out when it's not rented. Unless they want to move some furniture on their own. This could be the break we're looking for. I can take a cab into town. Get in your car and follow them. Right. With the family away on a vacation, our home has been broken into by crooks who loaded the furnishings into a moving van. But the man of the house had appeared unexpectedly and the crooks had killed him. An important clue is a heavy canvas furniture pad that we traced to a truck rental yard. The operator of the yard, a man named Easton, refused to help us. So while I went to pick up a court order to compel his cooperation, Harrington followed a truck that left the yard under suspicious circumstances. This is Harrington, Miss Miller. Chief, come in yet? Not yet, Harrington. Any message? Just tell them I followed the truck to a warehouse on C Street, 312. I'm calling from a phone booth right near the place.  Will you need help? I don't know yet. I'm going in now to find out. You got the key? Right here. Let's get doing it. How about this one instead? Okay. Bye, John. Supposed to be in the truck rental business. We are. What do you do when I'm finished? This is just a moving job we're taking care of. Quite a job. What are you doing with them? I have to ask the boss about that. I don't see the boss around. You can find him if you go back to the lot. You'd like me to do that, wouldn't you? I don't know what you mean. Let's go inside and see what you've got in there. Listen, mister, we got work to do. We've got no time to gap with you. You don't take time.  Wait a minute. You better come in with us. Let's go. You've got enough stuff here to stock it apart and store it. That's a warehouse. That's what it's for. Where did all this finish come from? Like I said before, why don't you talk it up of course. Did you fellas bring any of this stuff here? Yeah. Where'd you pick it up? Different places. What kind of places? Houses, sitoes. I don't know. Now, this table here, where did it come from? I don't remember. I think I can tell you where it came from. I don't see how you can. A noble dining table antique pine. That happens to be on a list of articles stolen from a house this morning. There's more in this same group that are on the list. You want to hear them? Well, I tell us about it. Because you probably brought them here. Now you're crazy. You're under arrest both of you. What for? Suspicion of burglary and homicide. What do you mean, homicide? The owner of that house was run off the road and burned to death. You're going to have to tell us about that too. Let's head for my car. They're heading nowhere, mister.  Well, the boss. That's right. The boss. It's a good thing you got here, eastern. He was going to horse in. He never had a chance. I thought he followed you and I followed him. You people are in a mess. If you're smart, you won't make it any worse than it is. Yeah, what should we do? Roll over and play dead? Look, I don't think it's going to get any worse than it is. All right, get a gun, Duke. Yeah, you just... I'll listen. You're under arrest too, eastern. And I'm warning all of you. Anything you say might be used as evidence. These guys never know when they lose this, do they?  What are you going to do with them, eastern? Well, I ain't going to let them pick it to place. I'll show you what I'm going to do with it. And I'll take care of them for a while. Yeah, but what about when he comes out of it? This guy knows all of us. He can identify us. Don't worry, I got plans for him. All right, pick him up. All right, come on, Brody. Brother, is he out? That's what we want. All right. Take him out to the band. Is something wrong, Miss Miller? I was hoping I could catch you down here. Oh, what's the matter? Haringdon phoned a while ago. What did he say? He said he followed a truck to a warehouse on Stacey Street. Said he was going to move in and might make an arrest. And I got the feeling he might need help. Get in. What was the number on Stacey Street? 312. I probably shouldn't have left the office, but I knew you'd be driving into the parking lot and I thought this might be urgent. You did just right. It could be urgent. Yeah, we were all set. That guy's still unconscious. He's out cold. He ain't dead, is he? No, no, he's still breathing. That's too bad. Hey, where are you going? I was just going around back. Come here. What do you want? Trying to sneak away, huh? Well, I didn't have nothing to do with this thing. I think you guys in pretty deep. What do you mean you didn't have nothing to do with it? Look, you're in with us. Right up to the top of your yellow streak. No, no, no. Wait a minute, Easton. I didn't hire on to come and murder. You're going to do like I say.  We can't leave this one alive and get away with it. He's right, buddy. We got to do it. I'm getting out of here. Now you try that again and the next one goes to your back. Okay, Easton, okay. Get in the truck with Duke. He killed us, Easton. Head north out of town. No, not to the freeway. We want some privacy on this job. Head for the road alongside the river. Okay. Where on that road? Turn off just before you get to the bridge. To the right, there's a road there. I know.  I'll follow you. What about this guy's car? I'll be in it. When we get through with him, we'll leave his car alongside the road, so it'll look like an accident. That's a good idea. Go on, get going. Come on, Brody. I hope I'm all wrong about this, but when Harrington says he'll call, he usually calls. Well, you'll soon find out if anything's wrong. Here's the warehouse. You going to drive right in? It might be better if we stop right here across the street. Doesn't seem to be a truck there. Mr. Garrett, what's not Harrington's car? It certainly was. Well, the stranger driving it. Then something must have happened to Harrington. Yeah, it looks that way. You better stay with that car, Chief. Don't worry. I will. There, here we do. Yeah, yeah. You asked me that a dozen times already. Well, Easton ain't behind us yet. Don't worry about Easton. He knows where we're going to be. I don't like this deal, Duke. You're not there. Yeah, you already said so, but we're going through with it anyway, so come on. Let's get him out of there. He's conscious. All right, you. Get out. I'd be delighted. Here comes Easton. I told you he'd show up. That's another one against him. Stealing a car. Maybe I'm out of shot. You got him out of there. I'll close the doors, Brody. Let's get him down to the river. Come on, Cap. Move. What are we going to do with him? They're going to hold his head on until he drives. Then we'll put him in his car and run it into the river. Is that the sound all right? That sounds great. Not to be a nice and hardy. You try that again, and you get a bullet right through the head right now. A minute ago, you said you were going to drown me. You mean I got a choice? Let's get him down there. It'll be easier to do this if we tie his feet, Easton. All right. They got your belt. We'll strap him up.  Who's going to find out about it? That's right, Cap. They're going to have a hard enough time just finding you. Come on, Duke.  Well, you was Brody's belt. You'll stay right where you are without moving. Cops. Come on, Cap. I got your man in front of me. Come on. Shoot some more. Just think you got me, Easton. All right. Don't try to get away. All right. I quit, mister. I'm not trying to go nowhere. My arm. I think that broke my arm. You were firing at me. I had to do something about it. OK, Charlie, chief. You're supposed to most of the breath out of me. You all right, Haringham? I'm fine, chief. But how did you happen to get there? Oh, you can thank Miss Miller for that. She had an idea you might be able to use a little help. Oh, and was she all right? Thanks, Miss Miller. Anytime, Haringham. How's the man's arm? I'm all right. You're all under arrest. Eh? What for? Several things, including murder. Not me. I didn't kill nobody. Then you'd better be ready to tell us all about it.  You hear me? You're wasting your breath, Easton. With a punch like this, somebody always sings. Loud and long. And you're going to find that out the hard way, Easton. Come on. Let's go. This was a case that hit the front page. When we called Duke, was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. With Brody, he was also found guilty on charges of breaking and entering in burglary. Easton was convicted for receiving stolen goods. For being an accessory before and after the fact.  Duke and Easton will spend most of their lives in prison. Brody received a lighter sentence for turning states' evidence. Now, this is David Bryan inviting you to join us when we present our next case based on the facts of crime from the file of Mr. District Attorney. You have been listening to Mr. District Attorney, which has come to you through the worldwide facilities of the United States Armed Forces Radio and Television Service.


Hi and welcome to the session. I am Deepika here. Today let's discuss the question constructor 3 by 4 matrix whose elements are given by aij is equal to 2i minus g. Let us start the solution. Solution in general a 3 by 4 matrix is given by a is equal to a11, a12, a13, a14, a21, a22, a23, a24, a31, a32, a33, a34. aij is given as twice i minus j where i is equal to 1, 2, 3 and j is equal to 1, 2, 3, 4. Now a11 is equal to, put i is equal to 1 here and j is also equal to 1. We get a11 is equal to 2 into 1 minus 1 which is equal to 1. Again a12 is equal to i is equal to 1 and j is equal to 2. We get 2 into 1 minus 2 which is equal to 0. Again a13 is equal to 2 into 1 minus 3 which is equal to minus 1 and a14 is equal to 2 into 1 minus 4 which is equal to minus 2. Now a21 is equal to 2 into 2 minus 1 which is equal to 3 and a22 is equal to 2 minus 2 which is equal to 2. Again a23 is equal to 2 into 2 minus 3 which is equal to 1 and a24 is equal to 2 into 2 minus 4 which is equal to 0. Again a31 is equal to 2 into 3 minus 1 which is equal to 5 and a32 is equal to 2 into 3 minus 2 which is equal to 4 and a33 is equal to 2 into 3 minus 3 which is equal to 3 and a34 is equal to 2 into 3 minus 4 which is equal to 2. So the matrix A is given by is equal to 1 0 minus 1 minus 2 3 2 1 0 again 5 4 3 2. Hence we have constructed a 3 by 4 matrix whose elements are given by Aij is equal to 2 i minus j and the answer is A is equal to 1 0 minus 1 minus 2 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2. I hope you have enjoyed the session. Bye and take care.


Hello. Hey. Good morning. Well, it's early in the morning in your time zone. Yes, I'm California. So. Okay. So are you. I'm from Austria. So it's evening. My time. Yes. And my daughter was in Budapest. So I used to track that type of time zone for a while. The COVID stuff. I'm a little bit of a broader home. So. Hey, everyone. I think we. But I think I can start. And. So I'm. I'm part of that. Co-chair. Of the. This working group. Thomas is another co-chair here. And Jennifer. He's the. Third culture. She had some. And the events at home. So she doesn't have. Internet right now. What we'll do today is as usual. Short introduction. And then. Talk about our draft. Question and desk assignment. For we start John. And. Holy. To pronounce it. And I froze. Right. Yes. So. Okay. It's a long, it's a very long line to over some time. So he, so he freezes at some point. Yes. Hello. At first. I think so. Hi. You are new here. Aren't you? Yeah. For sure. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It's a very long line to over some time. So. So he freezes at some point. Yes. Hello. Hi. You are new here. Yeah. That's the first time I'm attending this. Yes. And. Do you want to introduce yourself shortly? So that we know. And give us an idea. What do you expect from our working group? You want me to go first? Yes. Okay. All right. Yeah. So I work at a company called info blocks. We do have a open source project info blocks open. You can go look at that body of work. We're used to be a public company, but now we're a private. The firm. Owned. And we have had traditionally an on-prem solution. In the DDI space, but for about last four years I've been working on our SAS solution. Which. As you would expect, you know, is a cloud. Native application. We built it from ground up. We have something like. Over 200 microservices. And a lot of tooling for it is on the open source project, because when we started the project. You know, on Twitter and but if you were writing Java. You know, or note or some of those more or Ruby. There were some toolkits available, but for go at the time. There wasn't anything. So it's a lot of toolkit elements are open sourced by us, although we don't evangelize it or anything like that. But, you know, since we wrote it, we put it out there. And so we've also been on this journey. Kind of building the CI CD tooling today. Today we use Spinnaker for our pipeline. We've been using Spinnaker for about. Over two years. In production. And. In the new target state that I'm working on. We want to migrate to. A Kubernetes native environment. We've gone through the whole, you know, Docker swarm. On mesos Kubernetes journey as well in that four years. But we've always been cloud container based architecture. So, but, but different orchestration. Peace underneath. And so we want to migrate our. Pipelines. And we've done a lot of POCs around. We've done several projects today. We use our go workflow for our. TI pipelines. Looked at our go CD. Flux. Flagger rollout. We've written our own. Operators. We're heavily influenced by the work and by the backstage. Community in terms of the end of end pipeline. And we've done a lot of work on that. You know, that kind of a declarative way to define the apps and the overall life cycle. Everything from creating it to. Monitoring it to. So that's kind of a target state for us to get to. And so we just see this. But I couldn't. What I call an application operator. It's kind of a critical piece of that. And so we're trying to get to. Are using. You know, various. Everything from the group builder to the. Operator SDK. And. And others. So. So let's kind of give you an overview of our company myself and kind of the overall target state that we're trying to get to. And so. I've been attending the application. But I was, you know, And I, it's been on my list, but my mornings are fellow with scrums and meeting. So this today, I didn't have anything blocking me from attending. So I thought I would attend. Nice to have you here. Thank you for the introduction. Yes, we are very, very short, short, small, sorry, no short, but small. We are dealing with operators. One of our main goals currently is to get to write a wide paper about operators so that users and users and old, but also developers of operators know what you can do with operators. What you can take care of and so on. Yes, this working group, I think we are one of the older. Okay. The most recent operator we wrote, that's open source actually, is a cluster operator that we wrote because one of the goals we have is to be able to declaratively create clusters on demand. And so we use today cops in-house. But there's a lot of flux in the company.  And it was just, and so our goal was, and there's cross-plane. So one of the goals we had was to create an operator that kind of overlays and creates a invariant representation of a cluster that you can operate on. And then all the choices we make around kind of what the tooling is underneath is kind of hidden from us. And also it becomes more multi-cloud. So that piece is, and so mostly in POC right now. But like I said, So you might have a lot of knowledge about operators. Well, like I said, we've written lots of operators. So that I look at it as more like a blank canvas and then you can kind of do something. And I guess the tooling for it, like I said, over time has gotten better on the point of view of the community. But... Okay. So guess our current state is that we are, as I said before, we are currently writing a white paper. We are currently in a state where we have our first, I think our first draft deadline next week. But we don't have enough content at the moment, let's say this way. So if you want to contribute something to the white paper, you are more than welcome. Yes. So, yes, let's start with the rest of the agenda. I think, Joan is also here. I didn't expect him to come today because it's very early in the time zone, I think. And yes, I'll just take a look over your work. Currently, it looks really nice. Have you, do you have any questions currently, or do you need some input from our side? No. So we're aiming to have this draft wrapped up this week. We were trying to have it done before today so I could tell you guys excitedly. We both got busy on last Friday. So we're, I'm nearly done with my section, Cameron's hoping to spend Thursday on it. So we should have that in a state previous review. So I guess the question would be, do you want to review it in the Google Docker? Do you want me to submit a PR in a markdown format or what's sort of your guys' next steps? For us, it would be cool if we, if you could put it in a public list. So we end all of the other people could review it. Cool. Yes, we'll try to, we'll try to accept it because as soon as possible. I've been trying to get more folks interested to join this working group. I'm not sure if that's been successful yet or not, but I'm trying to help. It's perfectly fine, thank you. We'll also try to make the tasks a little bit more clear, I think. And that's something that came up in the SIG. We'll review the task and make them make sure they're more easy to pick up when you join us. You were a bit, how could I say this in English? I could not understand you because there were some policies in the group. We will, we need to go over the tasks and make sure they're good for new joiners. Some of them are good to pick up very easily. Some are less and we'll do it this week to make sure that if someone is wanting to join, it's easy to do that. So the next task we will write will be a bit more clearer and a bit more better defined currently. Just for your information, we copied everything from a Google Talk to Markdown and to the Git repository and so on. So we shifted our whole workflow in between of writing the document to get this a bit more structured and therefore the tasks were very clear defined. Thank you, John, for your contribution. Thank you. I hope the security tasks were defined well enough. I'm a little surprised at Omer's comment. I thought it was, at least for me, it was easy to understand, but maybe for others. Okay. So, yes, we have, today, we have the nice task of assigning the rest of the tasks, I think. These are a lot. So at first, so how do you want to write something for the white people or don't you have got enough time for such things? Well, I was going to start by actually reading it. So I just pulled up the Git site. And I was just looking at the body of work. I'm surprised it's not using make doc, but it's fine the way it's laid out. MK doc, I think you can, if you're going to do something like this, might be a way to organize it. It's just, typically that's the pattern people are writing documents and get, but I'll read through that. We have a table of contents. I'll go through and read and sounds like we generally accepting pull requests for updates, right? Yes. Is there sections that are empty right now? And you want people? Yes, there are a whole lot of sections that we try empty. Okay. All right. I'll start just by looking at the document. First time I'm looking at it. But please, if you, if you plan to do something to write something this contact me or someone, then we could block this chapter. So we have, we've got tasks in our repository. And then we'll send this to you. And hopefully no other one will do this. Okay. Yeah. I'll look through the task to them. That's good. Okay. MK docs is for presenting the document in HTML, right? No, it's in Markdown. It just, it creates a doc folder. Yeah. It's still not something that will be easy to implement. But do you think it's, will be easy to implement that in our current? Yeah. Once you have Markdown, you could essentially just create a project for documentation and it shows up as a doc folder. The pattern is more for, you know, having a coexist with other things. And because this right now, the whole repository is one big document. Let me, let me find. And there's also material version of it. For fans here looking at UI. So it's, let me find a link to it and I'll put it on chat. Okay. Um, then I think we'll try to, um, go over the current past. So, um, well, let's see. To address. As this month or. I'm sorry. We're aiming for a draft to come out this month. Right. Or next Wednesday to be, to be exact. So it's a lot, it's a lot of work for one week. But it's. But I think it's like in like a new university. This also worked to work the whole time. To be honest. Okay. Let's go over tasks. Okay. Um, so for everyone who doesn't know this, um, Yes, we have, we have a lot of document parts. These are different documents. And. For almost all of these on document parts, one past in the, in the. Part exists. We have some past which are assigned already. And we have some past which are not designed. We should do this now. Um, I think, uh, we will include Jennifer afterwards. But, um, that's no problem. Okay. So, um, Yes. Um, we have. We have defined a lot of capabilities and operator can help. So, um, you might, uh, some of you might know that there are capability. The majority models of, of, of operators. And, um, there are a lot of capabilities defined. And we as a since the project, we didn't want to, um, to say that an operator who has capability X is more mature than another one. Um, because he could lack of other capabilities. Right. To only to describe the capabilities and operate the code. And, um, This should give an end user also develop an operator and idea of what you can do with an operator. Therefore, we defined a lot of capabilities. Um, such as, uh, the most obvious one to install an application to operate an application. Um, seamlessly and as backup recovery, auto-reunification and so on. And for all of this capabilities, so-called the ones which are not written at the moment, there are also existing issues. Such like the auto, auto configuration. Um, So, um, I'm sorry. Um, And the customer should be able to take the operator, which, uh, which could be out that you would answer. Um, So, Um, So, Um, So, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, So to keep this short, um, is anyone there who wants to deal with this section어주 How'd I get. Okay. Okay. Then we have auto remediation sections. It's, uh, will write an operator could, could be use to, um. Yes. Get an application or get an application to run the stage from a, need to take a state. We have data recovery, this is all, this is faster than the new. Then we have such kind of a very direct section, which just should describe which work already exists. So there is an announcement from CorelS where operators are defined and so on. And there are a lot of points about our work. We want to, we want to, if we does the possibility to get further information about operators because I think the white paper we will write will also only handle a part. And yes, so it's also a thing which will be done by me, I think. Okay, then we have summary and conclusion, this is not a really problem now. Does anyone want to deal with the technical application or the technical implementation of an operator? So how can I write, how do I start writing an operator? How can I test an operator? We could describe all of this using a new application if we want and we could give some example of the implementation of different capabilities. And but also I wanted to describe shortly what could a hard and very patent for operators could impact. I think we need to change this task because we don't really want to write, to describe how to write an operator. We have a section about implementations of operators and so maybe it's not just introduction to them. If you want to write an operator, you can use those tools or see those guides. And well, just about the methodology how you could start writing operators or not regarding the exact tool set. But what should you consider before you want to write an operator? What you should consider is a better way to say that, I think, but it also big task and maybe we need to split it. I think we won't have an interpretation of. I'm not sure the white paper is a place to talk about implementation. I think an overview of kind of the landscape in terms of what's available and maybe some links to them, I think. And like I think we just, somebody discussed, I don't know, I think discussed just a high level of how to approach and understand the use case. I mean, in some cases, depending on what you want to do, you might want to write a very low level controller versus because you want more control versus something like operator SDK where a lot of the tasks have been abstracted out and you just write a controller. So, I think. Yes, I've changed the task a bit. So we should describe on a very high level. So not too much detail. What should we consider? Where could we start when we want to write an operator? So this might also include find out which tool set fits for you. Then there is something to test operators. I think this could also be a thing which could be interesting for a present people. Then yes, the implementation of different capabilities. So I think we could drop this, but also I think kinds of the requirements for operators could also be interesting to get ideas how such things could look like. So we only should make... It's very late today, so I think it's very bad to know. So we should give users an idea how a delivery pipeline could look like and not how they should do this. So I think this would be enough over you for our white paper. What do you think, or do you agree? Is anything missing in the technical thing? Or should we rename the section or include it to the best practices section? It feels like this section is like kind of summary for the whole white paper. Kind of the short version of what because if you read the whole paper, you probably know what to consider because you understand what an operator is. So maybe we need to postpone this to after we have the best practice and more content in other sections. Just a second. We also have a best practices section where I think nothing of those are in. So there's some kinds of... Sometimes the placement of operators is discussed. So that they are separated from the workloads and so on. Then we have some metrics. Then we have on bailout operators, which I will also sometimes point of discussion. Yes, best practices for operating implementation could also include such things. Yes, then I think we will include this additional thing. A thing called umbrella operators. We look at them at least in our system as being federated. I think that's the term we use for those operators that are managing others. How do you call them? We look at them as being federated. There's already several groups working on federation. At least at Infobox, we have this concept of clusters that are more for control functions. So they overlay or they federate other clusters that are running workloads. So there's that pattern we established. I guess the term umbrella does kind of indicate something over or something else, but just terminology, I guess. It's all terminology here. Yes, we talked a lot. I think we've discussed half a year, half a year to find out what an operator is. But even the term federation means something fairly specific in CNC after is a group working on I think there's at least three groups, I know, or three projects, open source projects that are doing federations. Okay, then I will close this technical implementation thing. We will remove this section in favor of the best practices section. I think it's okay for Boomo. I think so. We'll probably need to revise this decision after the first draft. Maybe we'll decide that there is a place for that, but for now it seems like more content that we might have in other places. Okay, then I will remove this chapter and the content will be moved to the best practices section. Okay, then we have use cases for an operator. This is more end user-related injector. This will be done by Jennifer. So she wrote that she will do this. Then we have such funny thing as life-side management of an operator. So it's about updating an operator itself and do it all. Can you zoom in for your browser? Oh, sorry? Can you zoom in the browser? Yes, yes. Great. Oh, it's a bit bigger. Yes, I'm thinking about updating an operator itself and everything other which could be in this scope. This is mainly part of the operator life-side management of things and so on. But I'm not sure if there are any similar things. I'm thinking maybe it's a little bit technical talking about updating an operator. Or the thing? Technical. And I'm not sure what updating an operator itself is just updating an application. How can we describe it in a way that we want to say you need to think about verifying your CRD for example and how to do that? I think this piece is here because there is a operator CK has a life-cycle management piece. Maybe that's why this was put here just to maybe capture that element that comes with that environment. I think operator CK I think is a kind of open-shift project and so they have a whole bunch of machinery around managing life-cycles and so. Yes, so this section was a bit targeted to this because there is such a thing as an operator life-cycle manager. And I think users of operators should know what this does or how such life-cycles could be managed. But that second bullet is the main thing. Not for operators, but in general, once you have CRs and Kubernetes, you know, there's no good way that Kubernetes allows you to manage them. They're not managed elements in the system. And so it's almost like I would say like very implementation-specific how you go about managing CRs. And so we have a lot of... Both for our normal applications as well as any operators we have is just almost they're not being... They can't be managed as part of the application. They just need to be treated as their own kind of resources. So that's kind of the problem today. Okay, so does anyone want to deal with this section? Jack, or whatever this will be? I can try to delete it, but yes. It's like that last section we talked to on implementation. It seems like... I don't know that you could, as part of a white paper, really work on it unless you almost picked the implementation and then you could maybe drill down. Awesome. This was this one. So try to get... We should try to get some sections on this. So one, two, or three, or four. And we'll see afterwards in the graph if we need this or if we could drop this. Or if this will be discussed very roughly, during the reviews, and if there are additional things to consider. Okay, then we have operator frameworks from all these platforms. Do we want to deal with this? Because that's explicitly not in our scope in the chart as far as I've seen. I also think that the section where we're talking about operators in general and not related to Kubernetes is enough. And we don't have examples for non-Kubernetes platforms operators, not that we know about them. Okay, then that's the same thing as the technical implementation chapter. I will drop this and remove it from the white paper. Okay, but we have operator frameworks for Kubernetes. And I think we have to... To operate the framework described at the moment. So this is CoptionQ below. I think we should create an issue for describing the operators to K. What do we agree? Yeah. We'll probably find someone who is part of the team. So this is a... I'll give a rough overview of the detailed description how this can be used. This is CoptionQ. Okay, then it's a piece. And I'll add the new tasks to the... So I will post them on the section to do it. Yeah, I think we had some people from operator SDK along the way. I hope they were in the channel, but we can find them. Okay. And second thing I would like to have in the white paper is I think... What is it called? Kudo. So let's try to find out if someone wants to write an update about Kudo. And the description about Kudo. Also... Okay. So these are the two sections. Are you aware of any other operator frameworks we should write the description for? Okay. Yes, I will take the overview of tasks for this. Okay. And then we'll write the executive summary in the end. So I think we will... Give this task to Jennifer. If it's okay for you. Yeah. And... Yes, I think... These were all of the... All of the unassigned sections currently. So... Yes, we have a section about auto-configuration tuning. I think I will try to do this. And this will be... Okay. So I have... If you want, you can... You can add some... Some chapters or say choose to write paper. But please don't hesitate to ask us if you have questions or if you want to have some sections as well. Yeah, I'm going to read it more. I'm trying to understand the big picture. Okay. Because like I said, in our environment... Like I would like to see if there's like a... Some sort of conceptual data model of how you think... You see the environment. You know, how does the operator operate on it? Like... You know, like a... You know, we look at some things like... Like I talked about, like our Argo rollout or flagger as already being application operators. Okay. So the question is... Do I start with that and enhance them? In other words, or do I build my own? When I build my own... Is a single operator have a concept of multiple application CRs that it manages or is it one-to-one?  Things that I would think that... I'm going to read through and... But I mean, those are in my mind kind of fundamental things that I start with always and say like... Okay, then I can go down. And so a lot of what we were looking for was... You know, like... I'm just trying to read... Alex, I'll read the document. You guys have been working on it for a while. And I'll try to get the big picture. And then we're appropriate. Yeah, I will sign up and contribute. Okay. Great. We have some section where we're talking about the concepts of operator in general. So that will be... Good to validate them. And to see if they match what you accept, what you expect. And also open PRs for changes. Okay. I have... I'm thinking you have a lot of... You have a lot of useful... You have a lot of useful... You have a lot of useful... You have a lot of useful... You have a lot of useful... You have a lot of useful cases for operators in mind. And if you wanna write one in some lines, don't hesitate it with... Do it rule except pasture, I think. Such things as you say before, should I write an all operator, should I extend the other ones, this could be a very, very important useful case for developers of operators. So I think one week ago I had a similar problem where I also wanted to do something and also tried to find out if I should write the operator myself or if I should let's say this way do a form from another one. So this could also be a very valuable use case for this. So do you have any other questions or comments or other things? Yes, then I think we're right in time. Thank you for your opinion. The next meeting will be in about two weeks. So I hope then we have to discuss the first problem. Yes, thank you for your time and have a nice evening. All right. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye.