Hello and let's talk about Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman's stimulus plan. The minister announced the Atman-Irbhar Bharat 3.0 package, what is being called is that at least on Thursday. On the one hand, at least there is a plan. After all, the country's economy is in the doldrums. The RBI data shows that the economy shrank in the July-September quarter as well, and it now says that India has entered into a technical recession. At this point, something had to be in the offing, but already experts have noted flaws with Nirmala Sitaraman's plan, including the actual spending being much less than the 2.65 lakh crore that the government has claimed. Now it's also centred on providing more credit, a model that has not really succeeded in the previous months. So what kind of spending would be needed by the government here? Are such stimulus packages, the kind of packages Nirmala Sitaraman announced, really the way forward? We talked to Anindya Chakravarty on this issue. Thank you Anindya for joining us. So Nirmala Sitaraman is around, she had got the package. There's been a lot of demand, of course, for a stimulus package. We've talked about it, about the need for governments to spend in this point of time, and which they have not been doing. At the same time, this government record is pretty bad when it comes to actually spending. It's excellent at recycling. I'm sure there'll be a lot of information coming out of that. So first thing before we go into the much maybe deeper set of questions, your basic take on what she's proposed. So I would say that I think most of them are pretty positive, especially the one where they're targeting specific sectors. Now, this appears to be an import substitution policy being introduced by the government, which is why they're called Adatman Invar 3.0. Now, the point is that import substitution, obviously, works with other things working along with that. There has to be a welfare. Several welfare measures in place for import substitution to work because A, prices go up of things. Number two, the quality that you normally receive is likely to be not the same, at least in the initial period. So people have to be protected with other welfare measures. The question is whether that has been announced or not. As of now, nothing has been announced for those who actually buy these things. Let's say there are batteries and I think there is a direct plan to invest or give subsidies and direct subsidies, what they're calling incentive. If they'd given it to the poor, they would have called it subsidy. It's called incentive. So essentially, if you increase production by let's say 1000 crore, you're going to get 6% of that, which is 60 crore rupees. The government will give you budgetary support. That's a lot of money to get from the government. Of course, there'll be lags and stuff like that, but that's a good amount of money. And if you look at the sectors specifically that have been identified, some of them are mass market sectors, like for instance, batteries. You'll see that it's a rural consumption of batteries does exist. And someone at once told me that there's a deep penetration of Chinese batteries in rural areas because there's an electricity that they do buy batteries for torches and stuff like that. So there appears to be a plan, finally a plan, if one could say that. Till now, everything appeared ad hoc, but one can now say that there is a certain plan that has been put into place. Even taking care of the entire PFMA of both the employer and the employee isn't in a sense an employment incentive. So you hire more people and you don't have to pay the mandatory employer's contribution and also the salary, effective salary to the first people to the employee goes up because they also don't pay their mandatory 12% contribution that they would have otherwise paid. So you can actually pay 5% less and even then the person has a 7% higher take home salary, right? So effectively that is again, certain things which are in the right direction. I think that the emergency credit line, all that is, you know, we've had too much of that already and unless it is on the ground, it is implemented on the ground, it's really beyond the point it's meaningless. The amount of subsidy, amount of incentive being given, I think is not enough, right? And but some of the things that have been done for us since the slight bit of income tax rebate on housing, buying homes, whether that works out on the ground or not is difficult to say. But yes, we do know that middle class savings have gone up. People have not gone out of their home. So a lot of conspicuous consumption, which becomes an important part of a middle class family's budget in this world, especially urban middle class, I would say that that has not taken place. So there is a certain corpus that is developing over the year, which we are not aware of, but it is happening in the bank, right? So maybe there will be suddenly a certain amount of money available. I had pointed to availability of money because the middle class is not going on holidays, right? And we had worked out that about easily two lakh crore worth of money can be spent by the middle class because they didn't go on holiday. And I suspect that there would be similar things that are happening. For instance, people don't eat out. They don't even order in, right? They're worried about ordering it. That is, they're going to bring in the virus. I'm sure Diwali spending is going to be much less this year than compared to any other festival spendings have been much less.  So maybe that can be deployed to buying houses or getting EMI's and stuff like that. I don't know that we'll have to see whether that works out. And the amount of money being put in is again, I don't think it's a lot because you see what is being done is that what the government is doing is it's providing what can be called equity in the sense that it's like a down payment, right? So in infrastructure, it's saying, okay, we are giving this much money. Now you raise loans on top of that. It is, in a sense that 20%, 10% equity I don't think is enough given circumstances. The government has to somehow ensure that if they're encouraging private companies, they have to ensure contracts, they have to ensure payments. No one is going to risk it anymore. So even if you provide equity there, I don't think there'll be enough. What is good in jargon is banking jargon or financial jargon is called leverage. So you get 2 crore rupees. You leverage it as in you get four times as loan, 8 crore rupees, and you can invest 10 crores to start a business. Now, I find that very, I mean, not convincing at all. I don't think the credit route is worth going on repeatedly. The amount of money, as you know, is let's shade over 1 lakh crore. So it's not really significant. But the direction, I would say, is right.  Absolutely. Right. I'm sure there's, in the next couple of days, you'll see a lot of commentary on that as well. But I want to go back to one thing which we sort of discussed right before this recording, which was about the nature of the stimulus package itself and whether a stimulus package is what we need. And it's interesting because I think globally there has been a call for stimulus package. It's been almost one of the universal demands, not necessarily even from the left, even liberal sections, even centrists for that matter. On the other hand, you do think that... No right-wingers. Exactly. New liberals have actually asked for stimulus package. Precisely. On the other hand, you do seem to think that a stimulus package right now is maybe not exactly what we need. So why is that?  I think now it's too late. It's too late and not timely. In a sense maybe, and my mind has changed only in the last, I would say, one month or so. And the reason I'm saying that is because towards the, I would say, middle of September, end of September, there was a sense that India has crossed the hump of COVID infections. Right. In many states it is still true, the number of infections is reducing. But in a lot of states, especially in northern states like Delhi, Himachal, Haryana, it's completely exploded. And this explosion, I don't know what it has, what is called it, maybe it is pollution. Maybe it's simply that people have been a little lax during the festival season. But it's a simple thing. Think about a construction site. What do you see?  How do you maintain six feet distance there? How in strenuous jobs like that, how do you maintain, how do you ask people to keep wearing effective masks? So people do complain. I see a lot of, in my area where I live, there are a lot of houses have their own security guards. And I see that many of them complain that standing all day with a mask is not easy. Right. It's a difficult thing to do.  So it's not easy. The tendency will be to lower the mask, bring it down. You will see it across the border as people who deliver stuff to your homes, they push up their masks when they're coming in your house because they also are feeling choked by the amount of, you know, the way they're having to wear these masks, they're used to it. So for me, I think it is impossible at construction sites to maintain any kind of COVID protocol, whether it is social distancing, whether it is hand washing, whether it is wearing masks, it's not possible. Right. Given that what you're likely to see is that these can easily become hotspots. Of course, open air, there is a reduced chance of exposure, but we also have to remember that similarly in factories, we have to remember that both in construction sites and factories, the level of noise is very high. And we know that when people speak above a certain level, then the amount of the droplets they're releasing is much higher. So in COVID, it is universally now acknowledged that when you're singing loudly, when you're talking loudly, chances are you are likely to spread much more at a much higher distance and not 60, much more than that than you would if you were talking softly. So in all these places, these are all COVID potential COVID hotspots. Right. And again, if I think of offices, I know you have started going back to your office, but I'm assuming that there's a significant degree of. Oh, there are just four people in office. Four people in office, right? Four people in office and each of you are isolated in different rooms wearing masks. But there's a point at where you go and fill your cup of tea. Now, you will have to, there are four people in office, you can say, OK, I'm going to go in to get my tea. So in the next eight minutes before that, which is what they say that the droplets are going to be there, and eight minutes after that, please, no one come here. It's easy to implement. It's not difficult. Think of an office with just 50 people and one coffee machine. Is it possible to do that? One, two bathrooms. Is it possible to do that? I don't think it is possible at all. But there's clear evidence that a lot of offices which had opened up have started shutting down again. Factories, workshops, shop floors which had opened up are shutting down again. So therefore, again, let me think of the garment industry in India, right? If you go to even Northeast Delhi, which saw those rights late last year and early this year, then you will see. I think, sorry, not late last year, early this year. Yeah. So there you will see that there are small rooms, maybe 10 by 10 rooms where there are eight people sitting next to each other. So one person is sewing, is running the sewing machine, handing it to the next person who stitches buttons, puts a collar in, hands to the other person who folds it, hands it to another person who packs it. So there are packers and folders. These are defined jobs in this industry. How do you maintain social distance there? It is impossible to do that, right? Do we know today that this explosion in Delhi has led to a complete absence of ICU beds in Delhi? There are no ICU beds. People with other illnesses are unable to get even hospital beds, right? So given that, I would think that we cannot open up till there is a clear decline in COVID infections. We cannot open up until we have a handle over how to deal with it. We cannot open up, right? Given that, all these incentives will come to naught because you can give it. But a factory which starts to produce it will actually not be able to because they'll have to shut down in two days or three days or five days. So therefore, in a situation like this, I don't think incentives will work. We are looking at economic stimulus as if this particular recession, because there's a difference between slow down and recession. You could argue that India was already in recession, as some people have argued. And it was not really slowing down and GDP growth is all fudged or it doesn't capture the picture. Yes, that's a possibility. But this is a recession not caused organically by lack of demand, lack of production. It's a recession caused by a lockdown, right? And by the fact that people are not going out to work. And therefore, to my mind, this entire idea of reviving the economy has to be put on the back burner as right now. Right, but you are definitely not arguing for austerity, I understand. No, not at all. In fact, I'm saying that spend even more. I'm saying that this spending is meaningless. You need to spend 10% of your GDP, right? Borrow, but not for things which will generate more income directly. Okay. You need to take this as a period to create a welfare structure, right? Use it, use it as an excuse. Say that, okay, there'll be a welfare structure we're investing in. Which just to sort of clarify, how would a welfare structure work? Because I think especially over the past couple of decades, you almost completely lost that concept of what a welfare structure is. So how could that be implemented? So you compared, I'm not talking about socialism or left or anything. I'm just saying England. Think about the National Health Service, right? It was built over a period of time without any returns after the war. And it was a decision taken that we are going to provide free health to people. Free education across the developed world, right? The right to free education. And things have changed now. We are, you see, there is something called obsolescence. If you have an early mover, if you're an early mover, what happens is that you get the latest technology. Now if you invest, you can get a lot of new technology. You can work digitally in health. I mean, I'm looking at an example of people in villages who we call quacks, but people go and get better, right? They have some basic idea of medicine. So they'll say that, okay, you've got this, so maybe this is the issue, right? They provide the first line of health services, medical services to millions of poor people in India. They do not have degrees. They're all quacks in that sense. There are now many medical apps, startups that you're working, who can easily go out and organize these people. And they can be called front line or first line medical workers, train them over an intensive period online, right? Tell them that there will be centralized doctors who will monitor you online, right? And we will see whatever you're saying, take photographs. It's so easy now. Everyone has phones, right? So I'm talking about the health sector. Now let's say that you take workers and people who work COVID positive, who have recovered. Create a database. These are people who can actually work. Use them to build hospitals, clinics, set up a network of broadband across the country. That involves spending 6% of your GDP on health, right? All that you've been saying all these years, just spend it. It means 12 lakh crore rupees in today's terms. It's a huge amount of money and the government. So I'm saying that if you have spending approximately, let's say 30 lakh crores in your budget, right? Some of it is not being spent because none of these projects are going to take place. Because of the lockdown. Use that existing money, divert it. I do not see, I think that when we look at GDP and all that, that's fair. It's worth looking at. But today we have to look at two things. One is distribution of food to rich and poor and everyone. It should have a basic. If you have money going by more, but you should have universal access to food. Because you can't go to work, right? This has to be, there are so many ways to do it. I mean, look at all the restaurants that are sitting idle, the apps which are around. They can work various ways to deliver food to you. There are NGOs who give free food to village schools, right? There are NGOs which give meals to the poor. So you work that out. It's for the government to work out and create these organized things. Yes, you can always be worried about big brother watching you and too much centralization and all that. Decentralize it, give it to state governments, give it to panchayats who's stopping you from doing that. Set up a model and say, you will run this. We have nothing to do with it, right? Here's the money, right? We will monitor whether you're spending the money or not. And not we, but state governments will do it. State governments will give it to districts. Districts can give it to panchayats and what then it can be done. No one is asking you to do it. So of course, this is all utopian. Why would they do it? So there is always a danger that this can be used to actually even centralize further, right? My point is, what is the option available right now? I don't think there are options. The options are to spend on food, universal food access, which is cereals, proteins, milk. And that involves large scale government procurement. Procurement, precisely. Yeah, right. Food procurement and distribution, right? These are the places where you have to invest. And these are the places where you create a database of people who will not get infected. Look at the districts where there are no infections. Maybe invest, focus on those first, right? So I'm saying that the idea of the economy has to be put on the back burner. We have to forget about it. And therefore, obviously, you have to say that there can be no interest payments. You don't receive interest and you don't get rent and you don't get profit in this particular year. It's like being in the middle of some nuclear Holocaust. I don't know what would happen if, what happened in the world war? I don't know. Some people didn't make money, but a lot of the regular stuff that you thought economies were put set aside. These are war economies. Exactly, right. Effectively, I'm saying that this is an opportunity to build what you do not have, right? Of course, the private sector won't let you do that. The private sector does not want you to do that. This is a great time for private health, right? Making huge amounts of money. Why would they want you to spend, want the state to spend on health, right? But on the other hand, there is the entire private startup ecosystem, which would love the state to invest there. Right. So of course, the biggest obstacle here, like I said, maybe was that something of this sort has vanished from the imagination of economists and policymakers for at least three, maybe four decades right now. Because what we're looking at is the line of thinking, which was there immediately after independence, where the government was seen as having this function primarily to create infrastructure for the people, a long-term perspective on development and issues like that. And that has completely vanished in terms of notions of productivity. So that would be the key question that even as a government right now, do we necessarily have the infrastructure in terms of personal? No, I don't think we have the infrastructure. You have to build that infrastructure. Oh, no, I mean, in terms of execution of policies. People. No, I've just been big people. Just people with ability to think like that. I'm saying that, you know, when the plans were implemented, think about it. They were not socialist plans. You can, in hindsight call it socialist, yes, there was planning. The original model was provided by the Bombay plan, where GD Birla, J.R.D. Tata, these are the people, right? What did they say? They said, okay, we need to have in the next 15 years, everyone closed, everyone with homes, everyone educated. What do we need for that? Right? In fact, when GD Birla died, J.R.D. Tata, who did not get along with GD Birla at all, but he said that he, the praise he gave was that when we sat down to do the Bombay plan, we were wondering, where do we start? The Bombay plan, which was I think 1946, which was like it, which was a kind of a directive or a set of suggestions to the new government that was going to come. And how do you proceed with the economy? These are by the top industrialists of India. And he said that GD Birla got down and said, look, we just need the basic map. Today is, this is our population. This is the rate at which it will grow. So we need so many houses. We need so many people educated. We need so many clothes, right? We need so much food. Let us say that this is what we need to achieve in 15 years, right? And what is the rate of growth we need? And what does the investment that is required? And it is very, I think in one of these places, they said that there is in Bombay plan itself, that we do not believe in the difference between socialism and capitalism kind of thing. So clearly they were also worried that they will be called socialists even then, because if you remember, the power is full of... Or alternatively they were worried that they would be danger with it, both valid explanations. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. But I think that they were also not to forget the Siddharth Patel and all those people who were very worried about socialism and capitalism. Right, right, right. Community communism and were definitely pro-business at that time. Exactly. For their own reasons. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong in being that. But so effectively, this is a capitalist idea. There's nothing socialist about it. That's what I'm trying to say. Unfortunately, we have become so neoliberal today that we are not even willing to look at that. Absolutely, right. So this is definitely an opportunity in terms of not scale spending, but it does still look like the government's policy will be. And I think the other key aspect which you also refer to is the fact that there is no real national model or systemic model in terms of how to combat COVID-19 socially. Which means that what you said mentioned at the beginning that as time passes, people just get tired and you just abandon everything. And also, you see that the, okay, it's deepening down. We have now crossed the curve, it's down there. So let's start going out. Exactly, right. So there's no social. And then suddenly you see all your friends are getting it. And so many people are getting it. Your driver's getting it. So suddenly the middle class sees that, oh my God, it's come back. So let others start their companies.  So this is precisely what is going to happen. And of course, if suddenly by December, we see the worldwide COVID has suddenly disappeared. There have been such cases of viruses which suddenly disappear and don't come back for years. I think even the original SARS, something like that's happened. Then obviously you can go back to the old models of Genshin demand stimulation or trying to stimulate production as well. But as of now, I don't see that happening simply because we have another round of outbreak, not just in India, across the world. Across the world, absolutely. The US is going through its third. So it does not look like it's going to subside anytime soon. Unless we get a vaccine and there's a massive immunization effort. Which is again interesting because what you suggested also has to do with that. Even if you want to vaccinate, you need that kind of education. How will you? I mean, if you have to really vaccinate people with what Pfizer is making, then you need a cold chain operation. Like you would have to, I don't even if suffer trucks which deliver your frozen mutter and frozen french fries and corn. Whether even they have a minus 80 degree ability to transfer it, I don't think they do. Because a normal freezer at best goes to minus 25 degrees in your house. Minus 80 degrees. That's the Pfizer vaccine. That's where it had to be maintained. I don't think it is even possible in India. It's just not possible in India. Yeah, absolutely. So just to deliver that, think about the infrastructure you have to build on a war footing right now. Just to put refrigerated vans which will carry these. That's all. Not even anything else. Or provide electricity to a village which will maintain that thing. So I'm saying that these are easier. Obviously, vaccine is not an option for most of India unless a new vaccine comes. I think the Russian Sputnik is, I mean, I think they're saying you can put it in the fridge and stuff. Yeah, there are some option, there are some vaccine options which are relatively much more easier to maintain. Yeah, but as you don't know what will happen after the vaccine. I mean, obviously one hopes this ends, but there has to be, in my opinion, one has to proceed by saying it's not going to end. So therefore, this kind of stimulus is not the right way to proceed. Absolutely. Right. Thank you so much Arunji for talking to us. Thanks a lot. That's all. We have time for today. We'll be back on Monday with more news from the country. Until then, keep watching NewsClay Club.


Hi, I'm Zor. Welcome to a new Zor education. We continue talking about combinatorics and solving problems. This particular lecture is more of a theoretical character, I should say. You know, I don't like really to memorize formulas. Now, the combinatorics has certain formulas like number of different combinations from something by something, number of permutations, partial permutations. I will actually remind you all these formulas right now before addressing certain problems. But at the same time, the problems which I'm presenting in this particular lecture are of some kind of illustrative character to basically help you to understand the roots of these formulas and how to derive them basically knowing something about the combinatorics. So you don't really have to memorize them. You can always derive them using certain logic and logical approach to combinatorics. Now, all these problems are presented, of course, as a lecture on unizor.com. This is the website and that's where I am recommending you to view this lecture because it has notes right on the side of the lecture. And if it's a problem, for instance, there is an answer first. So you can always try to solve the problem yourself and check the answer and then go and read the logical part of this explanation actually, which basically is the same as I'm presenting right now in video format. All right, so let's go back to the business. First of all, let me talk about the permutations. The first problem which I have is basically prove that number of permutations of n different objects is equal to n and number of permutations of n minus 1 objects. Well, if you know the formula for number of permutations and the formula is very simple, that's the simplest of all, the product of all the numbers from 1 to n, the n factorial. Then it's kind of obvious that p n minus 1 is equal to n minus 1 factorial, which is 1 times 2 times 3, etc., times n minus 2 times n minus 1, right? Now this is 1 times 2 times 3, etc., times n minus 1 times n, right? So obviously these are exactly the same as these and that's why n factorial, which is this, equals to n multiplied by n minus 1 factorial. Now is this a proof? Well, this is a proof obviously, if you kind of know that this is the formula for number of permutations, but I would like actually you to come up with this particular formula logically, because if you do, then the formula that number of permutations of n objects equals to n factorial comes naturally, right? Because this is basically a recursive equation. So let me first stop on this and then we'll do this recursive type of thing. Now, why is number of permutations of n objects is n times greater than number of permutations of n minus 1 objects? Well, let's think about this way. Let's consider n is equal to 4, for instance, in our, just for our example. So n minus 1 is 3. So this is 3 objects, 3 different objects, all right? And our force objects, force object is something like, let's say, rectangle. Now, with each position of these three objects in some order, which actually means with each permutation, you can position the force object immediately before the first one. So it would be a rectangle, triangle, square, and circle. Or you can position it after the first one, or after the second one, or after the third one. So if you have n objects, or rather, no, if you have n minus 1 objects, then you can have before the first one, and then after first, after second, etc., after n minus first. So, altogether, there are n different places, this one, this one, this one, and this one. So if you have n minus 1 objects, then the nth object can be positioned at n different places, thus making a certain permutation of n objects. So that's why the number of permutations of n objects is exactly n times greater than the number of permutations of n minus 1 object. Because for each one of these, there are n different positions of the nth object, and that's why we have n different permutations. So the number of permutations is n times greater. All right, now, having this as an explanation, basically, of what permutation actually is, and having the beginning, the initial condition, the permutation of one object is actually one, because there's only one place where you can place, right? So what does it mean? It means that p2, number of permutations of two objects, is equal to 2 times permutation of one object, which is 2 times 1. p3 is equal to 3 times p2, which is 3 times 2 times 1. p4 is equal to 4 times p3, which is 4 times 3 times 2 times 1, etc. And that's why pn is n factorial, which is the result of multiplication of all numbers from 1 to n. So that's what I think I was trying to convey, the intuitive approach to permutations. This is kind of intuitive understanding of how the permutations are built up with the number of objects growing. And that's basically the result of the formula, which we were mentioning many times before, that the number of permutations of n objects is the result of multiplication of all numbers from 1 to n, right? Okay, that's the problem number one. Let's go on. So again, in this lecture, I'm trying to go through some kind of intuitive and logical approach to all these formulas and explain why they are what they are. Next. Okay, now we're talking about partial permutations of k objects out of n. Okay, first of all, what is a partial permutation? Now again, by the way, if you are talking about the formula, then obviously the formula is exactly what it is. n factorial divided by n minus k factorial. That's the formula for partial permutations. And n factorial is this and n minus k factorial is this, right? So the formula itself is obvious, but I'm looking for logical explanation of this formula, right? So let's think about what exactly is a partial permutation. So we are supposed to take only k objects out of the n and consider them in some order. We don't care about whatever is left after we extracted these k. Now you can imagine that the way how we approach this is the following. So you have a certain number of objects and objects. Okay, now we are supposed to pick k and put it into a certain order. Well, how can we do it? Well, there are many different ways. What I'm suggesting is the following. Let's put all of these n objects in some order and cut first k. Well, that actually makes number one a choice of objects and number two the order of objects, these k objects, right? Now the number of all different permutations of n objects is obviously n factorial, right? As we have just recently recalled. Now, but let's just think about it. If I will change the order of these n minus k objects, it doesn't change the composition of these k and it doesn't change the order of these k. So all the different permutations of n objects which leave these in place and somehow change the order of these n minus k is completely irrelevant. It produces exactly the same combination. So they must be actually consolidated into one partial permutation. So all the different combinations, all the different permutations if you wish of n objects which leave these exactly in place but change the order of these guys in any way we want. Make up together one and the same partial permutations of k objects. Now how many of these are permutations of only these? Well obviously n minus k factorial, right? Or p of n minus k. So that's why the total number of permutations of n objects, we should divide by the number of permutations of only these objects because all of these constitute one, all of these n minus k factorial constitute one partial permutation because the composition and the order of these k remain the same. So that's the logic behind it. So whenever you're asked for, okay what's the formula for partial permutations of k objects out of n, well if you don't remember the formula just think about how can you really extract these k objects and put them into certain order. Well for instance you just do all the permutations of different, of the all n objects, cut the first k and now you're thinking well you do remember the total number of permutations n factorial but then you think that all the permutations of this group which is n minus k factorial really produce the same partial permutation and that's why you have to reduce the total number of permutation in this number of times you can permute, you can change the order of these n minus k objects. So that's the source of this and obviously this is equal to n factorial divided by n minus k factorial because the formula for permutation, regular permutations pn, you always have it in your mind. I mean that's the easiest formula and you always remember it and you don't really have to remember all other formulas because they're all derived using these logical considerations. Next, next we have to prove this one. Now let's just recall that this symbol is number of combinations of k objects out of n different objects. Now what's the difference between this and this? This is number of combinations, this is number of partial permutations. In this case we select the k objects out of n and put them into certain order. In this case order is irrelevant. So any combination which contains exactly the same objects but in different order is exactly the same combination. So let's do exactly the same thing and exactly the same logic. So you have a certain number of objects, you put them into certain order and you basically cut the first k. Now you don't really care about anything of this. All you care is that you have chosen a certain number of objects here. So what this number actually gives you is the total number of compositions of k elements without the ordering them. But let's just think about if you order them in one way you will have one partial permutation of these objects and if you order in another way you will have another partial permutation of these k objects which means that if you take the number of combinations of these k objects then with every combination you have k factorial which is number of permutations of this of different partial permutations of these k objects. That's why this number is k factorial greater than this number or if you wish you can just put it instead of k factorial you can put pk which is exactly the same thing. All right. So again this is the logic behind it. This gives you the composition just the just the combination of certain numbers and this multiplies this number of different combinations by number of different orders these k objects can be put in. So that's my solution. That's the next explanation if you wish. And the last problem which I have is to explain this. So again I need some logical explanation why this is true. Again let me just use exactly the same approach. How can I choose a group of k objects out of n? Well here is how I suggest to do it. I put them in order and there are a number of permutations of different orders of n objects and cut the first k and these are the ones which I have selected. Okay but now let's think about it. If I change the order of these guys in any way I can and there are pk and k factorial different ways to change it. My combination actually remains exactly the same. I would choose exactly the same number because when I'm talking about combinations the order is irrelevant. So all these different permutations are producing one particular combination of k objects. At the same time I can change the order within this group any way I want and they still have exactly the same k objects chosen in my group. So I can do the k factorial different permutations here and n minus k factorial different permutations here and with each of them I can do each of those and it still gives me exactly the same number of the same composition of this group of k elements. So that's why what I'm saying is that out of all the different permutations which is n factorial the group which contains exactly the same elements here and exactly the same elements there and I can change the order of these all these different permutations produce exactly the same combination of these k objects. That's why I have to divide it by the product of these two by the k factorial and n minus k factorial. So again the formula for this thing is n factorial divided by k factorial and n minus k factorial it's derived using this logical explanation. So everything actually starts with a permutation and then you divide or multiply whatever is necessary to to derive the formula which you need. All you have to understand is the logic behind it and there is a definite logic which leads to the formulas like this. That's why you don't really have to remember these formulas you can always derive them on the fly. Okay, I would recommend you to do again this type of logical explanation but in this case try to write it down. It's very interesting actually phenomenon that when the person writes down the logical explanation which he has in mind he understands it clearly much clearer than if he just you know thinks about all this logic. On the website on theunisor.com in the notes for this lecture I was trying to to do exactly this. I was actually writing the logic which I'm talking about right now. I was writing it among the notes. So I do suggest you to write it yourself. I mean you can read whatever I have written but what's important is to rigorously approach this with your own logic and write it down and then you can compare it with whatever logic I present in my notes. Well, I consider my notes although not ideal but relatively okay and try to do something which is on the similar level of rigorousness and logic. That would be a great exercise for you. Well, that's it. Thank you very much and good luck.


Very proudly for the state of Nebraska. It is my distinct pleasure to say to you Ladies and gentlemen the president of the United States Thank you, Kay, and thank you all You know If I'd gotten receptions like this in my former career, I never would have left Hollywood But it's great to be here in the Cornhusker State and greetings to your fine GOP state party chairman John Gale And of course to your outstanding candidate for governor K.R. And Bill Nichols for lieutenant governor Before I say anything else flying in here today Seeing that good earth and that good Nebraska land. I Was reminded of a story. I find that his time goes on a lot of things remind me of stories, but anyway Case it's new to you This was an old fellow that had a patch of land and it includes some Creek bottom land that was all scrub brush and rocks and finally he set out and he started clearing and hauling the rocks away And clearing the brush and everything and then he started Fertilizing and cultivating and planting until he had a real garden spot there And he was pretty proud of it one morning after the church service on a Sunday morning He asked the preacher if he wouldn't stop by and see what he'd accomplished and what he'd done well the preacher came out and He looked at this And he said oh, he said I've just never seen anything like it He said the Lord has certainly blessed this land look at those those melons. I've never seen anything so big And then he and then he said that corn I've never seen corn taller than that we went on about this and everything and everything was The Lord has been good to this place and bless the Lord and what he has done and finally The old boy was getting a little more fidgety and finally he said Reverend I wish you could have seen it when the Lord was doing it by himself But there's a there's a moral to that Because just as the Creek bottom land required the farmers hard work to make it flourish So this vast and beautiful land that God has given us Requires our diligence to keep it great And I'd like you to consider with me for a moment How much better things are for America because you and I and millions of others Chose to believe the simple truth and Rejected the notion that somehow our country's best days were behind her You remember 1980 the worst economic mess since the Great Depression Foreign governments that routinely insulted our proud country under citizens and Leadership in Washington that blamed the American people instead of itself for all our problems Remember we were told it was a malaise and we just had to get used to doing with less Well, the people knew different somebody once put it 98% of the adults in this country are decent hard-working honest Americans and then Then to rub it in the quotation goes on to say it's the other lousy 2% to get all the publicity, but then we elected them We set to work to change all that We went to the American people and told them the economy's gone sour taxes are too high We're over-regulated and there's one simple reason for it The federal government is too big and it spends too much of your money And we told the American people that there was one way to end the years of tax and tax and spend and spend and That was to elect fewer liberals and a whole lot more Republicans Well the people heard us They heard us and we started moving One example tax brackets. They were too high and the liberals in Washington wanted them to go higher We not only stood fast against the liberals demand. We actually cut taxes in Acting and across the board personal income tax cut of nearly 25% Then we indexed taxes to the rate of inflation Thereby ending the hidden tax of bracket creep You'll remember with that runaway inflation and you'd get a cost of living pay raise didn't make you any better off Just tried to keep pace with the rising cost of living But because the tax was based on the number of dollars you got not their worth You were worse off not better off because the income tax went up Well, even then the old habits of tax and tax and spend and spend died hard the critics didn't like our program of low taxes and limited government and sneeringly called it Reaganomics And they found a battle cry for their campaign in 84 Shouting at the American people. We're going to raise your taxes The American people didn't bother to shout back Here in Nebraska and around the country. They just went into the polling booths and pulled the Republican lever And ladies and ladies and gentlemen, I think we Republicans had a right to the support We got our policies brought down inflation taxes and interest rates They created 7.2 million new jobs by 1984 and they've created 3.9 million more jobs since Now, you know, I knew of course that our program was working because they stopped calling it Reaganomics It's but it's it's true that in the midst of this expansion some sectors of our economy are having their troubles Sectors like farming and when we're talking about problems down in the farm. I Believe we're talking about more than statistics like crop yields and land prices We're talking about a way of life Sustained and nurtured By the soil the oldest way of life that Americans know and with this in mind our Administration has provided more support for America's farmers and did the administrations of the last five presidents combined spending an amount this year alone totalling some 26 billion dollars our Economic program has resulted in lower farm production costs and we're working hard to expand the overseas market for American farm products and A native Nebraska our special trade representative Ambassador Clayton yider is playing a central role in this effort Yes times are still hard for many Nebraska farmers, but they've begun to get better World markets are expanding in just the next three years the number of people on earth Will grow more than enough to populate another America. I was beginning to think there was an echo in here But as I know you agree the main reason for hope The reason the family farm will not only endure but prevail is that American farmers can out innovate out Produce and outcompete any farmers on earth. I I didn't come here today to talk about Washington But I do have a good reason for bringing up these issues of low taxes and economic growth You see k or believes in the same things you and I do that the way to move Nebraska ahead Isn't by inflating the government budget at the expense of the family budget But by keeping taxes equitable and low and fostering sound and lasting economic growth That sounds good to me. How about you of course the liberal Democratic leaders opposing cave are Promising the people of this great state that honest this time they aren't going to increase spending and taxes Well permit me to offer some advice from a fellow who deals with the Liberals every day in Washington When it comes to tax and tax and spend and spend Some of them mean well, but the Liberals are just like Oscar Wilde. They can resist everything but temptation Or to make a play on something the late Will Rogers once said these Liberals never met a tax They didn't hike then Then there's the crucial matter of experience as state treasurer Kaye gained the skills She'll need to lead Nebraska on to a new era of prosperity and growth She'll be able to provide a school system that strives for excellence at every level As I said, she'll promote new jobs and economic growth while keeping taxes low And she'll work to provide Nebraska farmers with expanded and more reliable markets and Although Kaye and Bill are running a governor and lieutenant governor Their campaign has importance that extends beyond Nebraska itself to all parts of the nation For by electing them the people of this state will be sending a message to the rest of the nation and Especially to the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party The message stop the taxing stop the spending and make government live within its means that's That's a message the Liberals need to hear And let me just say something else in here while I'm talking this will you notice that I've called the liberal leadership I know that across this country. There are millions of good patriotic Democrats Who are way out of step with the liberal leadership of their party? They remind me of something that happened to me when I was the drum major of the YMCA boys band in Dixon we were We were leading we were leading the decoration day parade and the man in the white horse that Parade Marshall who was leading all of us Gallop back down the parade line at one point to see if everything was all right and I'm up there with my baton and pretty soon the music begins to sound faint and I turned around and looked he had arrived back up in front just in time to turn the band to the right And there I was walking down the street all by myself and that's the way with the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party Their party turned to the right years ago and they're still going left But there's another reason why the candidacy of Kay and Bill is so important It stands for the virtually unlimited opportunity that our nation has come to offer to men and women alike We still have a long way to go But today American women are finding opportunities that their forebears never dreamed of Today over two-thirds of the women between ages 25 and 44 are employed Half our college students are women and growing numbers of women are doctors lawyers police and military officers today Today women fill almost three-quarters of all new jobs in managerial professional and technical field And the number of women-owned businesses is growing nearly three times faster than the number of businesses owned by men As long as I got this microphone, I'll out sound them what I've been saying about women is a particular importance to the Republican Party You say today we Republicans are demonstrating that to the nation that the GOP is the true party of opportunity the party to all Americans women and men Black and white who believe that individual enterprise not big government is the true source of prosperity and freedom for example for example, I happen to be Irish on my father's side and so That makes me that makes me an ethnic American. It's interfered with a few jokes. I used to tell And when as a young man, I spent my summer's life guarding It wasn't in some posh country club, but on the banks of a river in a small town in northern Illinois Believe me There are plenty in the other party who find the fact that this Republican was born to ordinary working people They find that kind of hard to take I've always wondered why it is that Democrats call supporters of the Republican Party fat cats But their own contributors are called public-spirited philanthropists or Considered that earlier today. I was in Detroit campaigning for Bill Lucas a gubernatorial candidate who's a former FBI agent and one of the most impressive men. I've ever met Bill Lucas is a Republican and Bill Lucas is black Nothing could more powerfully demonstrate that in 1986. It's not the Democrats But the GOP that's become the party of progress and opportunity This brings me back to the gains women today are making and in particular to women in politics The truth is it's the GOP not the Democrats that has the most women in the house of representatives Outstanding members of Congress like Nebraska's own Virginia Smith There are two women in the United States Senate Nancy Kassabarm of Kansas and Paula Hawkins of Florida and both are Republicans you know Now that I think of it it was a certain Republican president who nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to be the first woman in history on the United States Supreme Court and today our party has not one or two But five women running for governor of for governorships including the next governor of the great state of Nebraska K or K? There's an experience of mine regarding women in politics that I think you and everyone here might enjoy hearing I You know before she became prime minister of England Margaret Thatcher had become for the first time the head of the conservative party in England And it's usually expected that the head of that party if that party wins in the next election will become prime minister Well, I was in England at a time when I was governor of California and an American businessman Arranged a meeting between the two of us. He thought we might have a lot to talk about and we did And I was greatly impressed and then that night At a cocktail reception an Englishman a Lord somebody or other if he were in Hollywood We would have cast him as Colonel blimp He came up to me and he said my dear fellow. He said, what did you think of our Miss Thatcher? And I said well I was greatly impressed and I think she would make a magnificent prime minister and he said oh my dear fellow a woman prime minister And I said well you had a queen named Victoria once that did rather well, and he said jove. I'd forgotten all about that Well well, I Have the feeling that K. Orr is one woman in government. No one's going to forget Hey ladies and gentlemen permit me to close today by telling you Something of what I've seen during this campaign of 1986 as I mentioned a moment ago earlier today. We were in Detroit Last week. We were in Alabama, Louisiana and before that in your neighboring state of Colorado and Everywhere I've gone. I've seen something that touched me and something that gives heart to all of us who can still remember the self doubt The weakness at home and abroad that marked so much of the 60s and 70s. I see it here today in Omaha Call it confidence self assurance what you will It's a renewed understanding That for all our faults Ours is a country of goodness and greatness That despite our mistakes in the world we've stood for human freedom with greater consistency and courage than any other nation in history That if only we have faith If only we look not to government, but to ourselves We can build upon this economic expansion To create a new and lasting era of prosperity Come to think of it What I've seen has a name It's love of country This new confidence and energy. There's new self assurance This is what kore stands for and wants to build upon here in Nebraska So I ask you to cast a vote for your state and for yourselves But more than that I ask you to cast a vote for the future of Nebraska A vote for your children and your children's children And I am so pleased to see so many young people here because they're what's at stake in this election My friends, let's elect kore A governor for all the Nebraskans And bill nickel a lieutenant governor Send that ticket to the capital of this great state Now Now it's it's time to go back to washington Congress is still in session and somebody has to keep an eye on them Kay and bill Ladies and gentlemen, I'll always remember this day And I'll always remember the good people of of Omaha You know, it's wonderful to get outside the district of columbia Where the real people still are I was only I was only six feet and three quarters of an inch when I walked in here But I think I'm going to leave here about six feet four God bless you. Thank you Mr. President, if there's one thing the Nebraskans take pride in Now, let's the it's the greatest football team in the history of college football The nebraska kore lester yeah here Here to present you with a special gift is chris lofgren Who carries the spirit with him as a former member of the nebraska yellow squad? chris skeletons Let's give President reagan and kore a big red wave. All right a big red wave. We'll start over here On three everybody get down. Gotta get down now. Gotta get down On three one mr. President. Would you please step forward? It's my pleasure today We have here great representation of the spirit and enthusiasm of nebraska a winning tradition We have a special gift for you To keep you warm and as a reminder of your visit to the great state of nebraska Here to present you with this gift is a friend of all nebraskans within the boundaries and without Kirby husker


Live from Nassau in the Bahamas, it's theCUBE, covering Polygon 18, brought to you by Polymath. We're welcome back to our live coverage of Polygon 18. We are in the Bahamas. It's theCUBE's coverage of the cryptocurrency, ICOs, blockchain, the entire industry, token economics. This is sponsored by Polymath. They're the host, hosting us here. They make a securitized token platform to help people tokenize their business. We're Dave Vellante and we're with Al Burgio, CUBE alumni, one of the CUBE alumni, only CUBE alumni here. Now we're adding more. Good to see you. Thank you for having me guys. Thanks for coming on. Al, you're the CEO founder of a blockchain venture, FuseChain and open source project, DigitalBits.io. We talked about this on studio in Palo Alto around the project. How's it going? Are you doing an ICO? What's happening? What's the momentum? Talk about what's going on. Well, the momentum is great and as we can see by an event like this, I mean the attendance is phenomenal, the discussions are great, and there's definitely an ongoing movement towards blockchain, cryptocurrencies and so forth. And we're obviously very excited to be a part of it and equally so, been experiencing phenomenal success while we've been in stealth mode. We're excited to be sharing that in the coming weeks. I always try to get data out of you, but you're like an iron trap man. You're like, we'll not reveal it. I saw you in the hallways this morning, even last night at dinner, I mean surrounded by investors, you're getting the people throwing their cards at you. That's a good sign. I mean, but it's still early. This is an emerging ecosystem. And you're a senior entrepreneur, so you're attracting that kind of interest in the venture solid. What's the story? What's the story of these investors? What are they interested in? Why are they approaching you? Why the appetite for your project? And how are you approaching it as a season that I see? Most people want to promote the hell out of their opportunities. You're not. You're taking a different approach. Well, we definitely, obviously we'll turn on the marketing engine publicly with a full tank of gas. And you'll see that in the coming weeks, but we've been able to definitely have significant number of conversations while in the stealth mode phase. Really, I think what's attracting a lot of the interest is that we've identified a massive market opportunity. And really where blockchain technology can help, among other things, bring liquidity to a space that does lack liquidity. And that for us is the loyalty and rewards market. It's a multi-billion dollar market. And we feel that what we've built with the Digital Bits protocol and the Digital Bits network is really going to solve a big problem out there for businesses, enterprises, as well as consumers. And we're excited to be bringing that to life and with phenomenal support from ecosystem partners, among others. Let's talk about the show. We're going to bring you back tomorrow when we wrap up, because I know you've got a lot of meetings and schedules and going to check out the session. So I want to get your take on the show after the fact, but going into the show, you have some early conversations, some early data is coming in from these hallway conversations and interviews. What are you seeing? I mean, what's the bottom line? I mean, is the ICOs are hot? The SEC is coming down and putting out subpoenas. A wave of subpoenas recently. The advisor role, you got venture capitalists. It's unregulated. They're selling, they're pumping, they're dumping. I mean, I know of a couple of people that are in some coin deals that are venture funds, but they're also marketing the same thing. So they get their hands slapped. Yeah. What's the state of the industry? I think there's high energy in this space. It's moving really fast and some organizations are getting overly anxious, moving perhaps a little too fast without getting their ducks in a row and maybe perhaps that's resulting in some risk slapping. But overall, this is a big evolution that's happening. And what we're seeing obviously is a new asset class, but it can take the shape of perhaps a security or utility and the law applies to these things differently. And so people need to do their homework. So you were at the video coin event last night. You've been, they've been very successful. We're going to have Halsey Miner come on shortly for an interview. Seasoned entrepreneur, he's back at the game. I mean, this market's attracting pros. Absolutely.  I mean, this is a really kind of a really robust fertile environment. Yeah. I think it's only the beginning. We're going to see a tremendous amount of ongoing pedigree enter this space. Every day we're seeing evidence of ongoing validation. And it is by no coincidence that we're already seeing some phenomenal pedigree. And I think, like I said, it's just going to continue. What's the bone observation that you would share to people that are watching about this event? Obviously a lot of Canadians here, you're a candidate living in the U.S., but it's not just Canadians, it's a global economy. Yeah. What's your observation of the show? There's definitely, if I look at the attendee list here, it's this convergence that's happening. So you have Wall Street or the Canadian equivalent, which is Bay Street, traditional investment banking, brokerage type of institutions that are here, very curious in terms of how blockchain will impact the securities markets. And then you have the innovators that are on the forefront of this, really driving the technology that's going to support and help even that industry evolve. So there's a lot of talk here, in particularly as it relates to that category. A lot of whales, a lot of influencers, a lot of advisors, a lot of money here, a lot of action. A lot of action. All right, Albergio is the founder and CEO of FuseChain and sponsors of digitalbits.io. It's a great open source project. Check it out.  They continue. Thanks for having me guys. Cube alumni here in Bahamas for the Cube coverage. I'm John Furrier, Dave Vellante. More coverage after this short break.


What is up everybody? This is Giovanni from the Options Trading Channel. I'm back y'all. I'm back after a long, basically month long, sort of hiatus. Let me tell you exactly what I've been up to. I may take this on to another video for another day, but let me get started by apologizing to everybody for taking this sort of pause, taking this sort of time to reevaluate what I was doing. Let me tell you exactly what happened, guys. I was up $600 on my account. I started with $5,000, grew it to $5,600, $600, and over a series of basically two weeks, taking small profits, taking small profits, taking small profits. And in one very particular trade, basically it was over the next two or three trades, but this one very first trade knocked me basically down $450. That in itself was okay, but for the next two or three trades, I also lost and it brought me down in the negative from where I started at $5,000. And would you believe it? I'm actually down on my account that I started with $5,000. I'm actually down $1,500. I'm down to $3,500. Now, granted, that's not a whole lot of money that I'm actually down. That's not the issue. And also, I want to dive into a little bit more on the strategy on the trades and what happened, basically. And that's what this video is about. For the second half, literally the second half, you can't make it up literally from June the 16th through the June the 30th. The strategy was absolutely terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible. Out of 14 trades, 10 of them were losing trades, four were winning trades. Now, here's the sad part. The reason why I'm down over, you know, basically $1,500, basically $2,100 from the highest point of $56 or excuse me, $5,600 is I let my emotions get the absolute best of me. What I mean by that is I would get myself into a bad trade, bad trade, bad trade. And by the third time, I'm like, hey, I'm done. I'm done getting punished here. I'm out of the markets. I'm just going to let it, you know, roll at it, let this next trade just let go. That very next trade was a winning trade. And what I would have made up not all my losses, but I would have made it certainly at least one, maybe two of the bad losses that happened. I was I wasn't in it, then I would tell myself, well, let me trade the next signal. So we'll trade the next signal, bad trade, bad trade, bad trade. And then I would get sick and tired of losing, right? And then that very next signal that I decide I would decide not to get in on was a winning trade. I can't make this stuff up guys, like, literally, that's how it went for the second half of June. And I started thinking about it. Really, I'm I'm a numbers guy. Honestly, I'm a numbers guy. And I thought that I did my due diligence really well in this strategy. And I was able to turn a 40 60 split strategy 40 winners 60% losers up to 80 85% winners and about 15% losers with the idea of scaling out, I would scale out using the ATR. So as soon as I would get in, I would look at the ATR where what that number was, I would set my first half to sell at whatever entry I got plus the ATR. And the second half, the idea was, I was going to sell out at higher gains or sell if it comes back down to my entry level. Well, that turned my my 40 60 strategy into an 85 15. But here was the issue and I didn't account for it. And it was my mistake. Absolutely without a doubt. When I would win, I would win with hat when I would win big basically right when the strategy would win big, I would only win big with half of my entire position. And whenever I lost, I would lose with my entire position, right? So if I would trade with four contracts, I would sell half at a small game, which is two. And then the other two I would ride big rights.  I hope I'm making myself clear guys. So that was my mistake. And it took me a better part of about a week to really truly understand my logic behind that and how it was flawed. Moving on to the next step in the strategy. I took the data for the last 10 years on this strategy, the very same strategy that I'm using that I was using that I'm still using and will continue to use. I used the last 10 years last decade and really dissected it every year without flaw, it would come out on top. So that led me to believe well, let the strategy do its thing. Just let it let it run, let it ride. Don't think about scaling out at ATR or anything of that nature. Just let the strategy do its thing. So literally get in when the signal comes in and get out when the signal comes out, all based off the direction of the daily chart. Well, it seems to outperform every year regardless. Some years are way better than others. Back in 2017, after backtesting the strategy, the strategy itself trading one ES contract, and we're talking about the ES, not MES, the micros, we're talking about the E-mini S&P 500 futures. Trading one of the ES contracts in 2017, it only produced $18,000 out of over 250 trades. That's a lot of trades for tiny profits. Sure, one would think, well, just scale up your trades, trade with two, three, four, five contracts. The problem is, I don't have that kind of money to put on the line for any one given year. That's my number one problem. And may I add that I do have something coming down the pipeline that I'm going to update everybody on the very next video. So stay tuned for that. So I went back and looked at the data and I actually took this strategy to another acquaintance. At this point, he was just an acquaintance that I knew that traded here in the same town as me. We collaborated, we looked at it, and he came up with an idea that's quite genius in my head. And so we started backtesting it, and then we started forward testing it with paper money, paper accounts, and whatnot. And so all of this led up to this conclusion. Just let the strategy do what it's good at, which is get in on the signal and get out on the signal, no scaling out whatsoever. That came out to a very interesting sort of result on top of the strategy that we're going to implement all together. We're going to put everything together and trade it. And again, this is all based off the strategy off of the mobile band strategy trading only in the direction of the daily chart and trading the one hour chart. So stay tuned guys. I promise you guys that I'm going to update you as soon as I can. There's a couple of things again that have been coming down the pipeline that I haven't been able to say or come out to the public and say exactly what's going on. But we're getting to that point where we're all in agreeance. Yes, hint hint foreshadowing, we're all in agreeance, and I can actually come out and say exactly what we're up to. So thank you guys so very much for being extremely patient with me. Yes, I did lose $1,500, basically $2,100 from the extreme high of $5,600. And I'm down to $3,500. But hey, that's okay.  But stay tuned guys. I have a lot of really cool things coming along. And then also if you'll do me a favor, comment down below. Do you really want me to keep updating my channel with all my trades showing you my entries and exits or showing you live the trade? If you do, comment down below. Or if you don't comment down below as well. I want to hear back from my subscribers, from my viewers. What do you guys want to see? I'm thinking that I'm going to go out and start interviewing better traders, more knowledgeable traders than me. That's actually, I'm sure that's everybody else in the world. But that's what I want to do. That's the direction I want to take this channel is I want to start really getting advice and interviewing other more knowledgeable, more competent traders anyways, than myself. Comment down below what you think about that idea. Thank you again everybody so very much. My channel is actually growing at a much faster rate than it was last year. I appreciate that. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button down below if you haven't already. And we'll see you here on the very next video, hoping it's a green trade. See you guys later.


It is thought by many to be a reconstruction of an older Proto-Indo-European fire god, with references to this god found in other Indo-European languages, in the Latin word Ignis for instance, which is where the English word Ignite comes from. Next up is an old Proto-Indo-European god called the Auspiter, meaning father daylight sky god. Various other gods of later cultures are associated with this sky god, including the Roman god of the sky and thunder, Jupiter, whose name comes from the Proto-Italic term, Zeus, meaning day or sky, and Peter, meaning father. Next up is Mithra, an ancient Iranian deity of light and oath, who is connected to the Hindu god Mithra. How did the Indo-European spread across nearly half the world? To find out click below.