I'd like to welcome you, Thorsten Polight, to our humble studio, and it's a pleasure to have you here from Frankfurt, right? Thank you very much, Mr. Tucker. That's right. I come from Frankfurt. It's a great opportunity to be here and enjoying myself greatly. I should be clarify, you're here at the Austrian Scholars Conference, so you get to be around all your friends, your fans, your colleagues. Yeah, it's good to come together with like-minded people, you know, once in a while, to exchange ideas and having a good time. I think the Mises Institute is doing a fantastic job. You know, I really enjoy being here, and I think it's very much shaped by others. So in Frankfurt, you're not surrounded by colleagues? Oh, well, I think this is a completely different platform over here. I mean, this is the epicenter of Austrian economics, people coming from all over the world, and so it makes it really special to be here. In Frankfurt, a libertarian-minded economist is pretty rare, so there's still a lot of things to do to win people over. Now, you both teach at the university, but also work in private consulting with a bank, as I recall. That's right, yeah. I work as a bank economist, you know, doing- Fractional Reserve Bank, no doubt. Absolutely. You see, the problem with our monetary system you're referring to is that it's not only with banks, it's all over the place, because even the vendor next door is dealing with fiat money and exchanging goods and services against this paper currency, and so the problem that comes with fiat money is not only with banks or bankers, and indeed I try as best as I can looking at data, trying to make sense of what's unfolding and coming forward with hopefully good advice for institutional investors like pension funds, insurance companies, et cetera. Well, your articles on Mises or do have this nice combination, and this is why I'm always drawn to them.  It's seamless, really, in the way you write and in your work. Oh, that's very generous. I think, indeed, it's a good way of basically conveying the message of the Austrian School of Economics, if you can tie it in in day-to-day events, if you can make sense out of what's happening in globalized financial markets, and, you know, putting in a chart can be quite helpful for getting across the message, you know? And you do more than just put in a few charts. I mean, you're really analyzing very closely what's happening. You follow markets very carefully. In fact, you arrived here yesterday with a bit of news, actually, and you announced this bit of news to me as if I knew it, but I didn't. What was that again? Was something about a bond failing or something? Oh, yeah. There was a news saying that one of the largest American bond portfolio managers would no longer buy U.S. treasuries. Yeah, that's right. And there's a business page there. I don't even need to read the business page. I should just, you know, get you on Skype, and you can tell me. But later, I learned, I mean, that wasn't, you know, was made public, but they have already started dumping the treasure bonds since February, I learned. But I think it's important, you know, to analyze and follow what's really unfolding in the financial sector, in the real economy these days, because it helps to put to work the splendid ideas of the awesome school of economics. So you see people leaving the dollar, leaving the U.S. government debt, but where to go? I mean, what's left? And you've got, you know, as well as anybody about the problems in Europe. Well, I would say at the moment we haven't reached a situation where people are really fleeing out of fiat currencies, be that the dollar, be that the euro, or the Japanese yen. But what can be observed is that they're growing signs of people becoming increasingly concerned about the value of their lifetime savings, of their currencies. And so what, from my point of view, it's really what Hayek and Ludwig von Mises told us about the fiat currency system, namely that it is not a sustainable economic monetary order, so to speak. And I think we are at an early stage where the first signs of its... Well, the fiat currencies, as we know them, have only existed since about 1973. So it's fairly... Yeah. They're fairly new. And it's really a great experiment for many mainstream economists, like Milton Friedman, you know, told us that this is an unheard of monetary experiment, as he put it. And the Austrians, of course, have a much stronger message to say about fiat currency, namely that it is really an unsustainable monetary arrangement. How closely do you follow Fed policy? Very closely. I mean, central bank policies, be that, of course, the Fed is the most important... Well, on the most important central bank on the world. And central banks still have a great impact on the price action in the financial markets, be that in the money market, be that at the long term, at the long end of the yield curve, the actions affect stock pricing and derivative pricing. Well, I try to follow very closely what they do. What is your sense of... I think Bernanke recently announced that he was going to keep rates at practically zero, because he fears that raising rates would somehow harm the supposed recovery. So what's your analysis of that? Well, I think it's, first of all, based on a kind of Keynesian thinking, where the interest rate is basically a policy instrument variable, which has to be lower to the lowest level possible in order to stimulate consumption and investment. So I would say in this context, his assessment is basically shared by most central bankers around the world. Of course, from the viewpoint of the Austrian School of Economics, you would clearly see that this is really the wrong policy. Because it's a policy against the corrective forces of the free market. The economy cannot really get rid of all the mile investment under a policy which keeps the interest rates at artificially lower interest levels. Artificially, but I mean, is it your sense that if central bankers suddenly began to treat the interest rate as just a pure free market price, that we would see rates skyrocket or does more have to be done? For example, the moral hazard built into the system lowers rates lower than they would otherwise be, right? In a fiat money system where money is produced through bank circulation credit, as Mises put it, the market interest rate is necessarily below the level that would prevail under a commodity money system. So by definition, our system suffers from a distorted interest rate level and that causes all this mile investment. I must say in terms of the correct monetary policy, it is really hard to come up with a recommendation in the current system. The fiat money system is basically unnecessarily so related with causing mile investment and disequilibrium. Right. So often, the idea of, I think Mises writes this, he said everybody wants interest rates to be very low and somehow higher interest rates, high interest rates have this bad reputation and Austrians in particular seem to be going around going, well, we should have higher interest rates and nobody wants to hear this. And yet, low rates have punished savers. Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, you're absolutely right. The interest rate is a free market phenomenon, theoretically speaking. It's expressive of societal time preference, you know, it's actually a guide which tells us how to save and how to consume out of current income in order to accumulate capital in order to improve the future consumption possibilities. And we have a monetary system which basically distorts this important guide stick, you know, and that causes all this boom and bust cycles, the mile investment and it's, I think, yeah, the economist Eugen von Birnbarwerk, you know, he back at the early 20th century basically he expressed concern that the interest rate wouldn't get rid of its, as we call it, moral shade, you know. People would prefer a low interest rate over a higher interest rate and that is, of course, conducive for policy makers, implementing policies for pushing down the interest rate, you know. But it's a problem for investors, isn't it? I mean, risk aversive investors once were able to know exactly what to do with the money. You deposit it and let it earn a nice rate of return now. Yeah. What do you do? Is it a problem for you as an advisor to money funds? I mean, what do you do with your money under these policies? On the one hand, of course, low interest rates, artificially low interest rates harm savers. And I may add, we have reached a situation where the short-term interest rates are not only low, but they have become negative in real terms. So people lose money, but holding time and saving deposits, they're getting punished for saving. Yes. And of course, that is benefiting borrowers, you know, because that real debt burden is getting diminished by this low interest rate effect. But borrowers benefit from low interest rates, but lenders don't, right? I mean, it's a problem because the low rates have discouraged lending, so you've got a kind of a stalemate. Yeah. I mean, monetary policy, as it is structured today with the government-sponsored central bank, leads, of course, to a situation in which some benefit and some have to basically shoulder the cost burden. We are indeed in a situation at the moment where funding costs are getting lowered through central bank policies to a very low level. And that makes, of course, it more difficult for, let's say, lenders to provide adequate credit to many businesses. So you have basically created two problems. On the one hand, for savers and on the other hand, for the lending industry. Yeah. They can't make any money at this racket. I mean, it's crazy. What is, now you've explained in many of your articles that we have a kind of that fiat money inflation and credit addiction is like a global disease, right? Do you expect a conventional response to QE1 and QE2 and all the efforts of quantitative easing? Do you expect inflation pressures to continue to rise over the next few years? Or what do you think about, I mean, apparently central banks only have so much power to unleash a torrent of paper, right? That requires the cooperation of the banking industry. The banking industry isn't cooperating entirely. You know, I come from a country where we learned our lesson very well in terms of increasing the paper money supply, as you know, in the 1920s, 1923, the Reichsmark was destroyed through hyperinflation. And maybe that is because Germans are still traumatized by inflation and hyperinflation. Whereas the Americans, I think, got traumatized by the Great Depression. You guys are afraid of deflation. That's a good way to look at it, yeah. But having said that, our monetary system is such that the central bank can increase the money supply at any point in time in any quantity desired. You wouldn't need the cooperation of the commercial banking industry for doing that. And what I'm trying to say is, if there's a political willingness to increase the money supply and increase inflation, you get more money and more inflation. The central bank can, for instance, start buying bonds against issuing new money. Bonds can buy bonds from banks, from insurance companies, or even from private individuals that could even buy other assets against issuing new money. So the system is really one in which the money supply can be increased and inflation can be orchestrated if there's a political willingness to do it. And also, I mean, that I think is the greatest danger if there is false economic theory which promises that increasing the money supply is going to improve jobs and output. The risk is clearly greatly increased that policy makers would reduce to such a policy. But Bernanke thinks that he can just turn it off if it gets to be a problem. I mean, technically speaking, of course, the central bank has a monopoly in this fiat money regime to increase the money supply, to determine the money supply. And of course, they could rein in any kind of money issued. But of course, as you know, once the money has been expanded, has been provided to the economy, it will hurt people once it is redeemed. And for political reasons, and when you look at monetary history, it becomes obvious that mostly once the money supply has been increased, it's never getting reduced. It's worked out through higher prices, so to speak. Right. I can't think of a single case where a central bank has ever deliberately deflated, maybe in some... Certainly not because they were created for increasing the money supply. You studied Weimar and hyperinflation at length, right? In fact, you have some family stories about this. So you have a family memory even. But wasn't it rather sudden? I mean, there was a whole lot of warning going into that hyperinflation. Was there? Well, I think, you know, that was the period of great revolution, you know, after the end of World War One. Basically, America brought democracy to continental Europe, the monarchy, you know. I expect it. Thank you, I love you. Let's leave it open at this juncture. So there were many problems, you know, with the larger consequences of the war period. And Germany had to pay reparations, you know, through the Allied... made Germany to hand over, you know, industries and gold and other stuff. And in late 1922, early 1923, there was the occupation of the rural gebeats, the industrial area of Germany through French and Belgian troops. And the former Chancellor, the German Chancellor Wilhelm Kuhnow, called for passive resistance. He basically called upon all civil servants and industrial workers to go home to prevent the Belgian and French troops to obtain any goods and, you know, any real stuff. And he promised to pay the wages with newly created money. And there the problem started. People, I mean, it was a politically orchestrated inflationary process, which then got out of hand, because prices started rising. And so people were talking, economists were talking, there were too few money around. So they increased the money production. It's a shortage of money. It's very strange, isn't it? And these days, I think they call it Havenstein momentum, because Rudolf Havenstein, that was the Reichsbrank president. And it led to this catastrophic collapse and complete destruction of the Reichsmark. Yeah. What percent inflation? I mean, do we have figures on this? It's astronomical. I mean, it became scrap money. And I think Mises was really referring to this episode when he wrote about the Krakapu, because at the end of that period, as from late summer 1923 until November, things spanned out of control. Right. And that's precisely the point that is out of control, right? And so you can have every intention of trying to prevent such a calamity. But at some point, inflation expectations kick in. Exactly. Then the money demand breaks down. Yeah. People try to exchange their paper notes or their money against real assets. And that is what Mises called the Krakapu. So it's a very interesting thing to read about because, well, one can't entirely rule out such a future for the dollar. I mean, in a sense, the German hyperinflation was special. First of all, it led to a complete destruction of the Reichsmark. The money was really dead and had to be replaced by new currency. Whereas when you look at, for instance, Latin America, they had hyperinflations in the early 1990s. The currencies were greatly debased, but they were still used as money. So in a way, the German hyperinflation was special. It was a perfect destruction, basically, of the currency. Yeah. You are a little bit unusual as a monetary thinker and economist in the sense that I get the sense that your true heart is with Mises' gold standard. I mean, you like Mises' gold standard, the idea of the gold standard. Let me start by saying there are certain physical properties. A medium has to fulfill, has to, you know, certain requirements have to be met by a certain medium for serving as money. And gold and silver, and obviously... Okay, they lend themselves very, very... Yeah, well, it's homogeneous, you know, it's homogeneous, it scares, it can be minted, transported. So, and having said that, I think precious metals can do a great job as far as the money function is concerned. When it comes to the gold standard, personally, I would think a privatization of money production would be the way forward. And I could imagine that this is something Mises, which is in the Misesian tradition. Going for a gold standard would actually imply that you impose a certain medium, namely gold as money. Or just convert the currency and define it in some way. Yeah, well, and... But you wouldn't allow the free market forces to decide which kind of medium should serve them as money, should serve people as money. So I think the way forward would really be the privatization of money production and let the free market forces to decide which money they would like to use or which monies they would like to use. But there's also the sheer implausibility of having enlightened rulers that would suddenly go, oh, the problem is we've got this paper money, we need to change the dollar to being gold. I mean, that's not going to happen. I mean, the prominent role of the gold standard can maybe explain by the fact that at least until the early 1970s of the last century, the U.S. dollar was still defined in gold and that was considered as a kind of natural monetary order. And therefore, many writers, including Ludwig van Mises and Marie Rothbard, always kept referring to the gold standard. But I would say complete privatization of money production would do the trick. And I could imagine once there's this kind of freedom in the choice of currency, people would decide, well, let's go for gold or silver or copper, whatever, as the ultimate means of payment. With digital communication and the globalization of commerce, it seems like it's a much easier undertaking to have private currencies than it might have been even in the 19th century or 10 years ago, you know? Yeah, I mean, the technological progress really would argue in that direction.  So people, I think, are increasingly getting hold of money in the form of gold and silver. In the United States, the government is quite frequently clamping down on digital currencies, for example. New business will start while we're holding your gold or whatever, and it starts to flourish. And as soon as it starts to flourish, the place gets raided by the Justice Department. I think that maybe there's a half a dozen cases of this just in the last few years. Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, it's governments want to have control of the money supply, you know? And it's not easy to basically forecast a situation in which you would have, on the one hand, government-controlled fiat money competing against let's say, hip-free market-chosen currencies. The government will always try to dominate, you know, in the field of money. As long as people ascribe to that kind of monetary order, once people, and that is something which me has always pointed out, at the end of the day, it's all about public opinion, you know? Once people want something different, that is basically the leverage for change. Yes. In fact, just last week, I think, we saw the news that a particular state, Utah, United States, is legalizing the production of gold and silver as legal tender. And I'm not sure what it all means, but it's very interesting.  And, but the, let's say, the underlying trend development was, or from my point of view, is that sooner or later, people come back to the ultimate means of payment, and that is called in silver. Well, you have a book out in German, right? Yeah, it's called Geldreform. It's in English, it would be kind of currency or monetary reform. Okay, well, that's a very start of a good translation. We've got the title so far. Well, I must say, I said to work already, you know? So let's see what comes out of it. Is it a big book? It's just 200 pages in German, and we try to keep it as short as possible because it should reach many people, also laymen and not only economists. Well, as you translate, you remember to turn every one sentence into three, just for Americans. Yes, yes. Okay, that's the way we are. Just a little tip there. If it becomes a blockbuster, I certainly make use of your advice. First and polite. Thank you so much for visiting with me today, and thank you for coming all the way to Auburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Tak, for the invitation. It was my pleasure.


I, Mrs. Veena Sunil Patki, Assistant Professor, Department of Electronics Engineering, Vulturen Institute of Technology, Solaapur.  At the end of this session, students can derive the relation between maximum value and RMS value of alternating current. So, in this session, we are going to discuss about the difference between AC and DC, voltage and current equations, instantaneous value, maximum value and RMS value. So, in this slide, you can see the alternating current, the graph is in between magnitude and time. The magnitude changes with respect to time, but in another diagram, you can see the magnitude remain constant with respect to time, that is called as the direct current. At any instant, at any time, the magnitude is constant, that's why that is called as the direct current. So, that is the difference between AC and DC. So, here let us see about the terms related to AC fundamentals in short. So, capital T is the time period. So, the time period is the time which is required to complete a one cycle. Here, you can see in this diagram, the VP is the peak amplitude or the peak value. So, this is the peak value that is also called as the maximum value, that is also called as the amplitude of the cycle. So, amplitude or the peak value is indicated by the VP or VM. So, this VPP is the peak to peak amplitude or peak to peak value and this is called as the frequency F equal to 1 by T. Frequency is the term which relates with the number of cycles completed in one second. So, that is measured in terms of hertz. One more term here is indicated that is the RMS value. This RMS value is indicated here, but what is the use of that RMS value? Why we use that RMS value? We have to discuss about that in detail. So, continuously the AC value changes its magnitude. We have to indicate that AC voltage by using a one term, one value. So, generally we use the RMS value to indicate that AC voltage. So, in India, the 50 hertz is the standard frequency and the 230 volt 50 hertz is the standard voltage which we use in our house. Pause the video and think about this. What is the standard voltage and frequency in India? So, in India standard voltage which is used for our home is 230 volt and frequency is the 50 hertz. So, the definition of RMS value is the RMS value of an alternating current is given by that steady current which when flowing through a given circuit for a given time produces the same heat as produced by the alternating current when flowing through the same circuit for the same time. It is also known as effective or virtual value of the alternating current. So, in other words, the RMS value is defined as the square root of means of squares of instantaneous values. But this is the definition. Let us discuss about this in detail. So, if we consider this is the resistive circuit, R is the resistance. So here first connect the AC voltage to this resistive circuit for which we have to measure the RMS value, connect that then the I current flows through that circuit. So, that will create the H heat in T seconds or T time in this circuit. So, measure that heat in time T. Now, replace this AC voltage for the same circuit. So, and again consider the same circuit, replace this AC voltage by a DC source and adjust that DC source like that H heat is produced in T time. Same heat as produced by AC is produced due to this DC. So, this is the DC or the steady state value, constant number we can indicate that. So, this constant value or the DC value is called as the RMS value of this AC. So, I DC is the current which create the heat H in the circuit in time T. So, H heat due to this DC is measured by H I DC square into RT according to Joule's law. So, this is the AC cycle, so AC cycle which is given by V equal to Vm sin omega t, this is the mathematical equation for the AC voltage or I is equal to Im sin omega t is the mathematical equation for this current where this graph. You can see here voltage or current you can consider here the n parts. If we make n parts here and if we measure the I1, I2, In, so here number of parts are In and if we measure the instantaneous heat or the instantaneous value which create the heat in the AC circuit when we apply the AC voltage to this resistive circuit. So, that instantaneous heat when we add for that whole AC cycle we can write down that H AC which is heat which heat create in the circuit is given by I1 square RT by n plus I2 square RT by n like that I n square RT by n. So, if we calculate that I1 square plus I2 square plus I n square divided by n into RT if we equate both heat because that is the definition according to definition both heat are equal. So, here if we equate that we can write down that as I dc square RT equal to I1 square plus I2 square plus I n square divided by n into RT. So, cancel out this so we will get here so I dc square equal to I1 square plus I2 square up to I n square divided by n. So, I dc equal to under root of this I1 square plus I2 square up to I n square divided by n. So, this is the squares mean you can see here squares addition divided by n is nothing but the squares mean but in this root that is why the name root mean square value is given to this term. Squares mean is in root. So, this is called as the IRMS. Here the IRMS equal to for this AC cycle what is the current equation I equal to I m sin omega t. To calculate the RMS value take the root of that equation take the integration for this for 0 to 2 pi and this I square d theta by 2 pi. So, put that I equal to I m sin omega t I m square sin square omega t or this omega t we can replace as a theta also. Here theta is nothing but omega t divided by 2 pi. So, consider this equation that is I m square by 2 pi. So, sin square theta is 1 minus cos 2 omega t. So, we have to consider here d omega t because theta is nothing but omega t divided by 2 is the formula for sin square omega t. So, if we calculate the integration of this. So, this is the 0 to 2 pi integration. So, I m square by 2 pi or here take that 2 common here. So, I m square by 2 pi or here integration of 1 is omega t or theta minus cos omega t integration is sin 2 omega t by 2 and limit is 0 to 2 pi. So, if we put here the limit for this equation we will get I m square by 4 pi into 2 pi only. So, here we will get under root I m square by 2. So, I RMS is given by I m divided by under root. So, here 1 by root 2 is nothing but 0.706. So, this is 7 into I m. So, this is the relation between I RMS and maximum value. If we know the mathematical equation that is I equal to I m sin omega t. If we know that from this we can calculate the RMS value. So, here omega is also given by 2 pi f. f is the frequency in hertz. So, you can refer the book Fundamentals of Electrical Engineering by B. L. Thareja. Thank you.


Welcome to the End Note Spelling Bee. In this mini-series, I'm following up on the question I asked in my video about spelling. What are your favorite spelling pet peeves? A number of viewers, including Adam van der Plum V, Rue Rose, and Unknown Ceilings, had a further discussion about the dreaded G-H spellings in English. As I discussed in the original spelling video, words spelled with a G-H generally correspond to Old English words that had a kind of guttural sound in them, often spelled in Old English with an H or sometimes a G. After the Old English period, the new Norman French scribes decided that using H that way was confusing, and so adopted the use of the G-H letter combination to spell this very Germanic sound that didn't exist in French. But over the course of the Middle English period, that guttural sound began to disappear from the English language. So that's why we have a bunch of words in modern English, like through and though, in which the G-H is silent. Some words that didn't originally have that guttural sound, like delight and sprightly, began to be spelled as if they did by way of analogy. So delight as if it were related to light, and in some cases, that can be useful for distinguishing homonyms, such as sleigh and sleigh. And there are a few borrowed words, like spaghetti and ghoul, in which G-H represents another foreign sound. But what about words like laugh, ruff, and cough, in which the G-H is pronounced as an F sound? Well, it turns out that there is a kind of connection between consonant sounds produced at the back of the mouth, and ones produced with the lips. We already saw that a bit with words like old English boha, becoming modern English bow. It's actually a fairly common sound shift that happens in many languages, such as Latin aqua, meaning water, becoming Romanian apa, with the c sound in aqua made at the back of the mouth, shifting forward in the mouth to the lips, in apa. Similar shifts can be found in other languages, such as Irish, Albanian, Russian, and so forth. Well, what happened in the case of words such as laugh and ruff is another example of this sound change, called labial veal or shift. Let me unpack that a bit. Labial means with the lips, so labial sounds include sounds like p, spelled p in English. That's a bilabial stop. It is it's made by stopping the air flowing from your mouth by putting both lips together. Another labial sound we have is f, usually spelled f in English. It's a labiodental fricative, made by putting your top teeth against your bottom lip and only partially closing off the passage of air, thus causing friction. As for vealor sounds, they're made at the vealum or soft palate, that soft part of the roof of your mouth toward the back. So originally, words like laugh and ruff, pronounced in Old English as rachan and ruch, had a vealor sound, specifically a vealor fricative, made by partially blocking the air by placing the tongue close to the soft palate. So the sound shift here is from one fricative to another, just move forward in the mouth. But why did the fricative move all the way forward in the mouth to the lips instead of somewhere closer, like further forward on the tongue? Well, there's good acoustic reasons why a vealor fricative would become a labiodental fricative. The friction in both those sounds is well below 4,000 cycles per second, whereas, for instance, the s sound, also a fricative, is produced at 4,000 cycles per second and above. So vealor fricatives and labiodental fricatives sound more similar. Acoustic similarity accounts for other shifts in fricatives too, such as the ththth sound in words such as thre or thru, a dental fricative produced with the tongue and teeth, becoming the labiodental fricative in some dialects of English, and being pronounced as frie and fru, which is viewer unknown ceiling's preferred pronunciation, somewhere around London I'm guessing. Now in some cases, words that underwent this shift became re-spelled to more accurately represent the sounds, as in the word dwarf, which was dwerch in Old English. And in the case of the word draught, you see both spellings. But for the most part, the gh spellings reflecting that older pronunciation became standardized and so were stuck with them. The thing is, the changes in pronunciation didn't happen at the same time in all parts of England nor in the same way. And what we inherited in modern English is a bit of a mixed bag. So the shift to the f sound was particular to northern dialects, and so we see some middle English spellings with the letter f in words not pronounced f in modern English, such as thofe, though, and thoef, through. And in at least one case, the northern variant persisted, eventually becoming a separate word. Duff, a kind of steamed pudding, was originally the northern pronunciation of the word dough. Oh, and you know how the word hiccup is sometimes spelled with a gh? That just comes from the false etymological connection with the word cough. Hiccup was always pronounced with the p sound at the end. I'll be continuing to respond to your comments and suggestions in more spelling b videos intermittently for the next while in between other main videos. Thanks for all the responses, and as always, you can hear even more etymology and history as well as interviews with a wide range of fascinating people on the endless knot podcast, available on all the major podcast platforms as well as our other YouTube channel. Thanks for watching.


Hi Jim, this is Ashley with Augsburg Toyota. I wanted to send you over a quick video greeting that way you can see who you'll be working with. Thank you so much for your recent interest in our 2015 Avalon Limited. This vehicle is still currently available. I want to hit and send you over an email with the e-price like you requested. When you get a moment please give me a call. My number is<PHONE_NUMBER> or you can also just email me back. Thanks so much. Bye.


It is absolutely not useful for any hypothetical evil Silicon Valley schema to have an untamed crazy internet. If it was a zoo where all the cages were open, no one would go in.  So everyone wants it to be a safe place. The question is, how can we do it?


What's good y'all it's your boy Ross back again with another video so we're gonna check out Jeff Hardy swan ton bomb compilation from 2000 Wow This is a young Jeff Hardy right here, man And the fact that he's still doing it in his 40s man He's still doing swan ton bombs off the top of ladders at the age of I want to say he's like 43 correctly if I'm wrong But he's still in his 40s doing that that is ridiculous shout out to Jeff Hardy shout out to Matt And they've been entertaining us for so many years putting their bodies on the line for our entertainment So we're gonna check out some of these retro clips, man. Appreciate all the love and support road to 30k.  Oh man classic Jr seledad, don't do it. Yeah, don't do it. Yeah This is when the tag team division was so good, bro And the funny thing is there are a lot of talented wrestlers in the on the main roster that Are or could be in the tag team division is just WWE doesn't know how to book them right The tag team division should be even better than what it was before With the talented wrestlers they have is just they don't book them right or they don't take time to showcase them Which is mostly what it is. They took time out of the weekly episodes to showcase the tag team division They don't really do that too much except the main tag teams. We know about like the new day The usos who else is like the main ones I can't even think of them because it They just be switching partners or they just don't push them long enough for you to even get a get a feel for a legitimate tag team Look at this.  Look how rowdy the crowd was Oh the old school Smackdown set. Oh my god, this is this is so great spring back so many memories y'all Ridiculous pack last RP test It's just got the ring bill. This is so good He didn't get all of it. He got some of it. This is just putting a smile on my face just for the nostalgia fact man. Oh My gosh, this is the wrestling I grew up on We're Smackdown and raw was so enjoyable to watch Honestly a lot of times Smackdown was the better show to watch back in my game Because I didn't really have cable like that except me. I went to like my family's house So they had cable, you know I'm saying so I could watch Monday night raw, but when I was at home Watching me some Smackdown This is just bringing bringing back so much It's just the crowd just got so hyped any time he went to the top rope or anywhere high look at this This is great, this is great man This is just great Jeff just did not care, bro He's just he didn't care how high it was he was gonna jump off of it and do a swat time I didn't care if it destroyed his back. He didn't care man That is what you call just the love of wrestling right there I need to find me a hardy boy shirt because I definitely would rock song like some hardy boy shirts I'm definitely to find me some old-school retro hardy boy like wrestling teams, man.  And ladies love them some Jeff Hardy and Matt Hardy bro like for real Oh my Yo, this is good man I'm so glad he was able to find like these old-school clips I'm so glad he was able to find these clips, bro Simpler time in wrestling just a simpler time in life back then, bro. Oh my gosh Leader was leader was dope too. Don't get twisted leader was she could handle Man brought back so many good memories, man. I definitely need to find me a Hardy boy shirt, man I'm gonna try to find me one if y'all know anywhere I can give me like some old-school wrestling tees Let me know I definitely want to buy some cuz it's just like come on man Come on who who wouldn't want to rock a hardy's boy hardy boy shirt or a stone-cold Steve Austin shirt or a rock shirt Like the retro attitude era shirts, man. They were super super dope, man I definitely wouldn't mind wearing some but man comment down below Just your favorite moment from wrestling in the year 2000 I want to know what was your favorite moment from wrestling in the year 2000 Let me know I would love to just go down memory lane and maybe if you can science find some of those best moments Send them to me and I'll check them out, man. I'm all for the the retro clips You know, I love me some some attitude era wrestling for sure But I appreciate all the love and support on the channel road to 30k Appreciate y'all kicking it with me. See y'all on the next one. Peace