This is Jeff Deist and you're listening to the Human Action Podcast. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back once again to the Human Action Podcast. And if you've been listening along to the show, you will recall that over the last couple of weeks, we discussed a couple of shorter Rothbard works which combine both history and economics and relied on his tremendous grasp of historical knowledge, and particularly American history. So two weeks ago, we covered America's Great Depression, which really laid out an alternative history and alternative case about the causes and problems behind that period in U.S. history. And last week, we studied the case against the Fed, which I think is really a fantastic short little book that lays out the truly Rothbardian case against central banking wholesale. So we enjoyed both those shows very much. And I thought that in keeping with those two shows, we would continue in a similar vein. We got a very special, I would say, treat for you today because we are joined by our friend, Professor Patrick Newman. Many of you know him for his tremendous work editing Rothbard. He is the editor of Rothbard's The Progressive Era book, which came out a couple of years ago in 2017. And perhaps more importantly, he was the person who resurrected what was considered the lost Volume 5 of Rothbard's colonial history conceived in liberty. So he took Rothbard's manuscript and deciphered some of the hard-to-read handwriting and edited it and proofed it and turned it into what has been a really smash success that we now have is that fifth volume of that important set by Rothbard. So Patrick is also an author in his own right and has just finished. He must feel very happy about this, I'm sure. He's just finished a tremendous work on American history called Liberty vs. Power, cronyism in America 1607 to 1849. And much like Rothbard, he manages to combine American history with a tremendous working knowledge of economics. So he's both a historian and an economist in his own right. So all that said, Patrick, welcome to the show. Thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to be on. Well, this is exciting. I have a galley proof of the book in my hand, so I've been able to go through a fair bit of it. Obviously our listeners have not, but I just wanted to give them a preview of what this book is all about. And I wanted to talk about it because, first and foremost, we're raising money to produce this book. And second of all, we're signing up people to get on the list to receive this book early. And this book's going to come out later in 2021, so we're excited by it. It's really a Rothbardian book. I think your status as a Rothbardian scholar shines through on a lot of the pages. So I want to start with that. Rothbard and the Mises Institute more broadly are perhaps known for, among other things, presenting revisionist history. So tell us a little bit what made you want to write this book and why do you think revisionist history is important? Why do you think we shouldn't just sort of accept the official narrative on things? To me, the answer is obvious, but I'd like to know your thought process. Well, so I'm glad you mentioned the Rothbard influence because this book is very heavily Rothbardian. Rothbard's my greatest influence, he really shines through a lot of the book. So why I wanted to write this book, one of the first things I ever listened to and I started looking at Mises.org was Rothbard's lectures on the progressive era. I always was interested in history and it just fascinated me because what you're taught history in high school and college is very different than the actual history that exists. It's about the capitalism is bad, politicians are good, all of these laws, the Federal Reserve, the Food and Drug Act, so on and so forth. It's all for the greater good of mankind, et cetera. And I always wanted to sort of write my own book, kind of describing, sort of overturning, destroying that myth and in particular also name names. I always loved how Rothbard named names. I really try to name names in this book, show sort of the power elite who was really behind various laws in early American history. And revisionist history is extremely important just for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. It's important to actually understand what history, what happened instead of how it's usually presented to us. And especially nowadays when you hear about early American history, it's definitely gotten worse than even the mainstream consensus that Rothbard was fighting in the 1970s and 80s where now it's all about race, gender class. America is this terrible place. It's all this exploitation, so on and so forth. And there's even more fallacies to uncover, which is really what I try to do as well as what many other revisionist historians try to do. So if we had to use a term, would you say the focus of this book is what we today call special interests? Is that what you mean by cronyism? Sort of the melding of state and private interests? Yeah, so when we generally think of regulation, the way it's always taught to us is that it's in the public interest. It serves these wise government politicians and bureaucrats passed laws to benefit society overall. This makes us all better off. We all submit to certain forms of coercion, et cetera. And yeah, how in reality I show that actually government legislation does not serve the public interest. It serves private interests. It serves insiders with special privileges and other government subsidies. And cronyism is special interest policies that don't benefit the public overall. They benefit insiders at the expense of the public. And that's really what I try and focus on in this book, the history of cronyism in early America. I try and show that this isn't a new phenomenon. Cronyism has been with us since the beginning. People have been profiting off of the public since the very beginning. And we need to learn that so we can at least try and take this information and reform our current system. Because I've been going through the first part of this book. It struck me that today, 2021 America, a lot of institutions are under fire. I think the Trump election brought this to the fore, the COVID lockdowns. All of these things were challenging institutions, whether academia or media or political or whatever it might be. And it dawned on me that we sometimes tend to imagine that there was some golden era for institutions in America. But when you read Patrick Newman, you tend to come to the conclusion that a lot of what we think about American institutions is actually not true. That they were founded for private interests and not always upright interests. And that the whole system, when we read about it honestly and openly, has been more corrupt than even we imagined. Absolutely. We tend to have this illusion that like you said that, oh, there were the good old days when, you know, politics wasn't so partisan or divisive or the media was, you know, objective or, you know, our higher education or economists and intellectuals. Well, they didn't get their hands dirty and fight in politics or et cetera. Politicians weren't corrupt. You know, this isn't what we learned back in the day of the great founding fathers and so on. But, you know, it's absolutely incorrect. We've been crony, you know, there's been crony policies in America since the beginning. You know, the Jamestown, you know, the colonies were founded in special privileges. Many even, you know, the nation's capital, which is something I talk about was was founded in a was founded in a like an insider deal. And we've always had this. People have always played dirty politicians and businesses have always played dirty. And this is important to realize because it's it's endemic to the nature of government. You know, cronyism goes hand in hand in government. You can't, you know, there's not a magical government where you don't have these types of policies that existed sometime in history. Even in America, you know, cronyism proliferated. So if someone just has a more generalized interest in what you term sort of the great men view of American history as opposed to the particular issue of cronyism. If somebody's interested in differing visions for America, Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, Madisonian, does this book hold appeal for them? I absolutely believe so. I think right now American history is in sort of a crisis mode where we're now overturning. You know, traditionally American history was the great man perspective, which as you mentioned, which is how it's been described by other political scientists and historians is it's the study of, you know, elite older white men maneuvering in government and in business, which is if you want to understand the important policies, that's the perspective you have to take.  This is, you know, it's important to use that perspective. And it really, you know, just for general American history, this is really the correct perspective. So someone who is just interested in history in general, interested in, you know, an old school American history where you've got, you know, the classic Jeffersonian versus Hamiltonian. You've got, you know, you're talking about the run up to the war of 1812 and then you've got the Jacksonians and in the wigs and you're talking about the major players of this time period. You know, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and so on. You know, it's absolutely a book for that audience. You know, of course I go through other individuals and businesses and people behind the scenes as well. But it takes that perspective that, you know, if you want to understand American history, you have to understand it properly.  Is it facile to think that one of those particular gentlemen's visions ultimately one out and represent the America we live in today? Well, you know, I think it's unfortunate. I think we were founded under the Jeffersonian vision of decentralization, secession, individualism, you know, natural rights, etc. But I think the Hamiltonian, the big government vision has one out, you know, Alexander Hamilton and then went to Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson and so on. We're definitely not living in Jefferson's world. We're living in Hamilton's world. And so the problems we have today, people often, you know, say it's due to individualism or capitalism and stuff. But now it's due to crony capitalism. It's due to, you know, insider government deals, connections and so forth. So we're unfortunately someone who I, I, some might say I don't treat him kindly, but I say in my response I treat him accurately is Alexander Hamilton. We live in Alexander Hamilton's world right now. Well, in the introduction of the book and also in the title of the book Liberty versus Power, you discuss Murray Rothbard's historical analytical framework and the notion of Liberty versus Power to view historical events. So history is a clash between the individual and the marketplace and the state and that the state power tends to grow, it tends not to limit itself.  So just give our listeners the background. What does Liberty versus Power mean to you and to Rothbard and how do we use it to look at events? So the Liberty versus Power theory basically argues as you mentioned that history is a struggle between the forces of limited government and anti cronyism versus the forces of big government or the social power versus state power in the words of Albert J. And when basically the forces of Liberty win, you see a decline in the size of government, you see decline in government cronyism, when the forces of power win when they control a government for a period of time, cronyism is up on the rise. This is something that really influenced Rothbard throughout most of his historical works, especially conceived in Liberty. And I take this and I continue just like Rothbard did, I apply it to early American history and the nuances of the theory aside from this clash is taking something from Lord Acton is that power tends to corrupt. So what happens is that when the forces of Liberty forces of small government such as the Jeffersonians or the Jacksonians are able to take control of the government cronyism only moderately declines before it increases because the holders of power and never be corrupted. And we almost see this today.  And it just seems like business, business as usual. And this is something that, you know, happened in the past that it happened with much greater ideological, you know, drive so you had these really hardcore libertarians who did want to truly reform the system. And they never would be got corrupted by power they wanted to use it to pass their own crony policies and it's important to understand this perspective because that way we can more accurately, you know, interpret American history and show what were the actual forces behind cronies. So when you open the book in 1607 Jonestown settlement. What why do you choose to call that initial early American history the road to empire why is 1607 to 1790 that you know setting the foundation for what America is today. Right so that's a it's a great question. The main thing that something that shines in this book and this is even only up to 1849 without some obviously more noticeable events is that America from the beginning was always is always this trend towards decentralization and republic separate governments. Now after the American Revolutionary War the 13 independent separate states, you know, should remain separate they're sort of brought under the Articles of Confederation. And then you had this movement to the Constitution, and this is something that I know is even references isn't just me interpreting it the proponents who were trying to, you know, install the Constitution and the articles and on the public they truly wanted an empire they wanted an old order empire like Great Britain or France versus the people who are fighting this such as Patrick Henry, the famous Patrick Henry of Virginia was trying to fight this trend towards consolidation empire and so by 1790 really 1789. Once we established the US Constitution, we were more or less on the road to creating an empire which is the general trend where the history of crony is in America is very linked with our land expansionism. So after the Constitution it was only, you know, it was only inevitable that we were going to gobble up the Louisiana as well as the Texas and Mexico and all the other landed. We truly did create an empire which is something that really forms kind of the backbone of the book. So when we're praising that revolutionary and formative period in American history, you know, we like to think that Enlightenment principles informed the founders and that they rejected Old World English mercantilism, for example. So is that true? Is there actually an animating libertarian impulse in the colonies at the time of the founding? Oh, absolutely. I think you really had two types of Americans. You had those who wanted to legitimately reduce the size of government they wanted. If they wanted an empire such as Jefferson who had this famous phrase, the Empire of Liberty, it was supposed to be, you know, it was really just supposed to be multiple countries or confederacies kind of bound together by a common language, the English language, common constitutional norms, etc. But Jefferson at one point thought that the West Coast would become its own republic and there were people who thought that well, you know, the North, the New England, the Mid-Atlantic should just do their thing, the South, and then even the West at the time when it was around the Mississippi River should just do their own thing. So, you know, you absolutely had people who were instilled with libertarianism. I've mentioned Patrick Henry to a similar extent. Thomas Jefferson, there's also the famous one of my favorite congressmen of all time, John Randolph, and who could forget people like Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson. There absolutely were libertarians in the past, much more hardcore than the many libertarians of today. There also just were many statists, so to speak, many proponents of big government who legitimately wanted a, you know, old school British empire, people like Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, then you even go with people such as Henry Clay or John Quincy Adams, who was a very belligerent expansionist, and there really is that divide. And there is the divide of liberty and power and people back then explicitly use this theory. You know, they use this theory of liberty versus power, power, corruption, etc. It was all intertwined into daily American life. So, within your theme of cronyism, how should we think about the federalists and the anti-federalists? So, the anti-federalists who were, in a sense, originally the true federalists when you actually understand the original definition of federalism, the anti-federalists were clearly the forces of liberty. They wanted smaller government. They obviously weren't perfect. You had sort of a, you know, for many people like an incomplete libertarian, it's inaccurate to uphold the standard of complete purity to people in the past, but they were absolutely for smaller government. They were much more libertarian. The federalists wanted bigger government. They wanted that old school empire. They wanted to really destroy the states or have them as severely emasculated. And they were in favor of cronyism. They wanted to basically assume debts at par. They wanted a central bank. They wanted tariffs. They wanted a standing army and navy and so on and so forth. So, is Hamilton their avatar?  So, he's the Treasury Secretary he wants to and ultimately does establish the Bank of the United States. Is he the villain in Patrick Newman's story? Well, for a large part of it, yes. That's quite accurate to say he's the villain, because I think he was a villain. This is something that it's quite unfortunate because, you know, so many people now when they know of Hamilton, they know of the play. And if he's sort of presented as the hero, and Jefferson, while, you know, I don't think he was perfect, you know, he's presented as the villain. And Hamilton at one point in the late 1790s, he wanted the United States to declare war against France and take over French Louisiana and even South America and he explicitly maneuvered to put himself in second in command of the army right behind George Washington. He was, in a sense, always warm to say the least to the idea of monarchy or the British system of government. Hamilton was absolutely a villain. He was one of our original cronies to put it bluntly. So why is the Jeffersonian vision failed? You have a section of the book called The Failed Jeffersonian Revolution, 1801 to 1817. So this is right on the heels of Hamilton's rise. So what makes the Jeffersonian vision a failure, looking back? So Jefferson, who wasn't around for the time of the Constitution, he starts off as Washington's Secretary of State. He's really the only, of Washington's cabinet, his initial cabinet, he's really the only one who didn't be considered a quasi anti-Federalist or supporter of small government.  And Jefferson forms this Republican Party. This Republican Party has no explicit relationship to the modern Republican Party, but it was supposed to combat the Federalists. And it was a combination of basically former anti-Federalists, people who were soon became known as the old Republicans, as well as ex-Federalists moderates. And Jefferson, he had this plan from the early 1790s. He said, you know, we've got to get rid of the Bank of the United States. We've got to decrease government spending. We've got to pay off the debt. We've got to pass all these strict amendments, the, you know, limit the necessary and proper clause, the general welfare clause and all this stuff. We want to limit borrowing, all this great stuff from a libertarian perspective. And, you know, unfortunately, when he gets into office, initially he just, he moderates. You know, they cut some of the government spending. They cut some taxes. He doesn't get rid of the First Bank of the United States. And this kind of angers a lot of old Republicans such as John Randolph and John Taylor. And he really gets corrupted by the Louisiana Purchase, you could say. Because this was this massive land, land graph that Jefferson, he was torn by it because he was presented with this sort of this windfall for a bargain, $15 million to get, you know, 500 million acres. And he, at one point, you know, wanted to have us, the Congress in the States pass an amendment explicitly allowing for this. So he couldn't lean on, you know, the net, the broad clauses like necessary and proper in general, welfare and so on. And, you know, it was just the end of the day it was too much land and he sort of said, Well, we'll pass an amendment after we ratify it, which is meaningless.  And once he got Louisiana, he started to just totally throw away all his principles he started to support, you know, speculative land grants to prevent people from seceding he then turned his gaze towards Florida. He tried to get he tried to bribe basically France into bullying Spain to give up Florida he supported aggression against Britain to try and get Canada so you know all the sort of expanded maintain the empire he supported internal improvements to buying the empire together protective to please manufacturers and so on. And, you know, it turns into a failed revolution because the principles that he he defeated the Hamiltonians with or at least John Adams in the election of 1800, which really should be understood as the revolution of 1800. You know, he discard so by the war of 1812, which was I show in the book are are attempted conquest of Canada and Florida. It's never put like that in traditional histories but then again that's why you have to have revisionist history. The Republican Party and just as John Randolph pointed out had become just as big government in crony as the Federalists. So by the end of the war. So a bunch of Federalists that joined the Republicans and you had this led by James Madison this National Republican Party that supported protective tariffs internal improvements central banking and the whole nine yards. So, you know, it was a 15 year experiment that ultimately failed. Again, a purchase is that per se a black mark on Jefferson's record because you don't acquire a vast new territory presumably just to leave it alone in a decentralized fashion.  Yeah, so that's I ultimately consider it a, you know, a stain because one this is something I point out is that the actual transfer a lot of people don't know this is that France only Spain only sold it to France under certain conditions that France would never actually sell it to another power, aka Great Britain or the United States and there are certain. France also agreed to make grants and favors to the Spanish royalty as royalty and so on and they didn't actually do it. And this is something that many resistors of the Louisiana purchase tried to impress for us a hey do we actually have proof of ownership because this whole transfer was sort of, you know, elicit. And, you know, the traditional process of ownership in incorporation which is what many people wanted, even the later proponents of manifest destiny was the gradual process of homesteading and settlement. You know, Louisiana, that whole area from what we now consider the state of Louisiana all the way up almost to, you could say the Dakotas in beyond was very sparsely settled, and it was just one massive purchase from one government to another so you know, instead of having it sort of break away, you know, split up into separate confederacies or become its own government which is what we should have done around the time of the Constitution. Jefferson breaks his principles twists his principles for the constant you know with the Constitution he accepts broad construction and then he has this massive amount of land and he's now he's basically forced to support all this big country in order to keep all this land in the in the nation I mean he explicitly started to support a federal system of internal improvements to sort of bind the country together so to prevent the extremities, the West, you know around the Mississippi were at the time from breaking away. So, yeah, I think Jefferson's first couple years of his presidency, all things considered, especially compared to later presidents so 1801 and 1802. Fantastic, they were great.  But after the Louisiana purchase it really all went downhill, and the central reason was this huge land grab. And so how does the war of 1812 factor into this is that expansionary is that a mistake for America. Yes, I think it's a mistake. A lot of people are you that it was due to Britain and pressing great Britain and pressing our soldiers and seizing ships trading with Napoleonic France you know they were engaged in the war wars, but when I actually trying shows that are the real reason for this was, we were trying to invade, we're trying to expand our empire into Canada, as well as Florida. So, our the war of 1812 was really our, our desire to try and conquer that land Jefferson sort of explicitly, you know referenced it at the beginning of the war he wasn't president at the time but he mentioned oh you know we got to have Canada as a, you know, this absolute condition of peace, and many of the so called war hawks. So these were the many of the names that you know we know and love now right so Henry clay and other big proponents of statism and the later or known American system wanted to conquer Canada and bring it into the union that was our first in a sense more of conquest or expansionary war. We failed to take Canada, though we tried. We did end up getting biting off a sliver of Florida during that so it technically was a war of conquest we did conquer part of Florida with that. So the period after Jefferson, you titled the era of corruption 1817 to 1829. And here we see as they are today much as they are today Patrick the Republicans go all in on centralization, and it's actually Martin Van Buren and the Democrats who are the Libertarian Party that new kids on the block. Yeah, exactly. The era of corruption is a fascinating period because it's usually known as the era of good feelings and this is kind of a period where at least in a basic history you kind of just skim over or you go through or you'd say oh it was the 1820s and you know now let's move on to Jackson or something but it was very important because it was a one party system. And you basically had everyone just sort of dipping their hand into the the public trough so to speak Henry Clay's famous speaker of the house was trying to implement his grand American system to sort of further strengthen and buying the empire together so he wanted central banking which is through the second bank of the United States to achieve credit to businesses he wanted a protective tariff to subsidize northern manufacturers and also to raise revenue for the third plank of the American system internal improvements. So this was sort of a giant scheme that really just benefited northern manufacturers in the history at the expense of Western settlers basically forced to pay high prices for for land which is another thing to raise money for internal improvements as well as the south, and this was becoming a problem most famously. This is another thing that made shock our listeners is that you know elections have always been corrupt. So about 200 years ago you had this famous election of 1824 with this corrupt bargain of 1825 where Andrew Jackson was the popular, he had at least the most popular votes and electoral votes but we had to go to the overtime house and Henry Clay speaker of the house then and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams basically made a deal so Henry Clay said you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. Henry Clay basically agreed to rally the votes to make John Quincy Adams president and John Quincy Adams in return would make Henry Clay Secretary of State, which back then was the stepping stone into the White House. This this this, you know this blatant deal is odious deal basically really really peeve Jackson, you know he's thunder that the Judas of the West is has closed the contract and received his 30 pieces of silver his end will be the same. And Martin Van Buren someone who Rothbard really admired really love. It goes through this whole heroic process. Great Rothbardian way of putting it of organizing the Democratic Party which is still the Democratic Party of today though there obviously are many differences with it, which was a party in favor of limited government so anti American system anti tariffs anti central banking anti internal improvements and they successfully defeat Andrew Jackson, excuse me they successfully defeat John Quincy Adams in the Revolution of 1828 and now Andrew Jackson is president so this is a very important part in American history to understand, just from the perspective of libertarianism and cronyism overall. But then, as you point out Andrew Jackson goes on to disappoint us into abandon was a fair to an extent. Yeah, so, you know, Andrew Jackson I. So, I think the the failed Jacksonian Revolution. I, a lot of people now sort of demonize Andrew Jackson, and you know we see this now it's been trying to, you know, taking, take him off the $20 bill. Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren were actually fairly good presidents Andrew Jackson wasn't perfect he could be a militarist that at times but he did transform the presidential veto into a tool of anti cronyism vetoing internal improvements bills vetoing the famous early charter recharter of the second Bank of the United States. And, and so forth. And what happened though is that well, just like before lands kind of reared its ugly head and particularly in Texas so Texas at the time was part of Mexico. Then Texas secedes from Mexico and it becomes its own independent country. And we sort of maneuver to take Texas initially, Van Buren who is really the laissez faire not interventionist was able to kind of hold Jackson back. But once, you know by the time when Texas became a major issue in 1844 split the Democratic Party wide open. Van Buren and Thomas Benton said no we shouldn't annex Texas Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk said we should. And the whole motive for doing that was, you know, partially to you know continue expanding the United States but it was really to Mexico because we wanted the western ports. So we could in have our international empire and start to connect with China, and all of that, and that was, again, another massive expansionist war to the Mexican war, where we took California and the modern Southwest.  And the same thing happened to the Jacksonians the Jacksonians were able to get more stuff done before for a variety of reasons. But at the end of the day, it still was a failed Jacksonian Revolution. So how do you come to choose 49 is the cutoff date for this book. In terms of, you know, 1849, after the it was the end of basically the, the Mexican war released in 1848 and the Democratic Party was split. And Martin Van Buren actually runs as an independent third party candidate. And you have basically the wig Zachary Taylor who who enters into the into the White House at this time and by then, you now had to basically pro power parties, the the wig party, and then the Democratic Party in favor of their own individual forms of cronyism. And so then that kind of sets the stage for the 1850s and beyond of sort of another era of corruption or as, you know, certain historians have called it the plundering generation but it really kind of you tie it you have from 1607 to 1849 or really when my plot sort of thickens is, you know, 1791 to 1849 it covers the two major reform parties or the two major libertarian parties that really did try to reform the system they were committed to smaller government, greater states rights, free trade, you know anti government spending hard money and all the stuff we know and love. But at the end of the day they failed, it's that they they got preoccupied with expanding, they started to embrace their own cronyism, and that really set the stage for things like the Civil War and then later on the progressive era, because we didn't really have a political party in favor of small government by that time. So when you look at some of the financial interests involved when you look at parties when you look at some of the big players the speakers of the house the various presence. It is it easy for you to see analogies with what's going on today is everything sort of the same in that sense. Absolutely to an extent I mean, again, we've always had, there's always been lobbyists and special interests and there's always been, you know, politicians have been working for various business interests so you know before you had this famous so you know the merchant prince Robert Morris who Alexander Hamilton is working for a while for working with for a while, then you move on to this group, you know the the Essex Junto, these new England manufacturers and shippers and then the post associates and so on and there's always been a power leak because people mentioned earlier we sort of have this naive illusion that will government at some point in time, you didn't have this you didn't have cronyism and it was working for the public interest and you know people would usually mentioned in history at least traditionally, and that's just not true you, you see the insider deals corruption and, you know, working for vested interest what happens in 2021 happened in 1791. Again cronyism is it's it's it's almost synonymous with government. I mean it really is it's it's it's always linked everywhere and at all times you could say. So Patrick I know our audience in particular will enjoy reading this book and having some of the myths of the American founding period and later century punctured but as a devil's advocate question here's what I wonder will people accuse you of revisionism for revisionism sake, for example or worse yet to serve your own anti state agenda in other words something like the 1619 project is this sort of the Patrick Newman project where you're interjecting your own jaundice view of American history upon us. Well, you know that's that's that's a good that's a good point that's a good question because you know you don't want to if you're attacking previous biases you don't want to bring in your own biases but that this is really. If my view is distorted than the view of many earlier Americans is also distorted because this is a mention this liberty versus power this cronyism. You know corruption this is many people back in the day were animated by this the anti federalist the Jeffersonians the Jacksonians. And this is it's a story that needs to be told because it is correct. It doesn't act if you know it doesn't cover up it doesn't try and whitewash things. It tries to present things as as they actually happen so it tries to show that you know corruption did exist people profited at the expense of the taxpayer or you know you're the average consumer and so on. And it tries to show how many of the laws that you know we take for granted is showing oh this is fundamental for our government is that now it actually did. You know in rich certain people at the expense of others you know the 1619 project is definitely much more of a smear to not only whitewash history but to really destroy I would think I would say America to kind of to to totally say oh it was all terrible back then and it was all this exploitation and other stuff and I don't try and do that I try and show that well actually no there were like the traditional America that many people do you know uphold you know the small government conservative libertarian and so on of that that was there was there were there were many Americans who have held you know who held those who held the adhere to those principles and in fact that you know for a large part of the history I look at is the majority of the population and you know we shouldn't try to again I'm not bringing my own biases or criticizing them for well you know what they were doing because it offends me in 2021 is that well no it you know it was it was many people thought you know the cronies and all that was wrong back then. So I like the view of myself is it's it's it's the untold story of America or it's the story that many of us you know we we've always wanted to see this story this this narrative be written and I think for the first time I'm kind of the one doing it. Well Patrick maybe the optimistic takeaway here is that if there's always been cronyism in America there's always been political favoritism there's always been a financial power elite. But yet despite all of this for average Americans anyway the American experience has been relatively free and relatively prosperous and relatively happy that we can look at what's going on around us today with let's say the Biden administration or whatever's happening on social media or whatever political divisions and to set we have and social problems and this seeming cultural war between red and blue and we can say you know that perhaps this isn't so bad perhaps this is sort of par for the course and we can view it a little more impartially and get on with our own lives knowing that there's still happiness out there to be yielded despite all of this. Yes, so I would I would certainly think that yeah so this isn't unusual it's kind of the same stuff different day, you know for the typical phrase in that, you know for all the problems with America we've traditionally we have been better for for relatively to other countries you know we are great so to speak. And, and it is important to keep that keep that perspective going on that what's going on now is in new it's not due to something that's changed you know and changing the water we drink in the you know in the 1980s or 1990s 90s this has been going on and that if this is the type of governmental system you know the type of society we want to live in then this is this is to be expected basically. Well ladies gentlemen, the title of the book the tentative working title is liberty versus power cronyism in America 1607 to 1849 authored by our guest today, Professor Patrick Newman. I'm sure all of you are receiving daily email updates from the Mises Institute but if you are not and you want to track the progress of this book and find out how you can donate to it or receive your own copy. You want to just sign up for our daily emails at mises.org. And I'm going to go ahead and let the cat out of the bag and say we're going to have a beautiful hardcover dust jacket version of this book available at our event in Tampa, Florida in October of 2021 and that happens to be near Professor Newman's house so he'll be there. He'll be signing this book you'll be able to get a chat with its author and get a beautiful autograph on it and again it's going to be a beautiful hardcover version so just put that in the back of your mind if you're thinking about joining us for that event. And so all that said Patrick I want to congratulate you I'm sure it's a weight off your shoulders to have this book done and have it in the editing stages. And I want to say that I hope it's a great success for you and for your CV. Thank you so much I appreciate it's been a it's been a long journey of about two two and a half years and I'm happy to to move on and I really help other people will read the book and like it because I think it's I think it's an important book and I think I think it'll be great so I'm just so happy fortunate for the Mises Institute published this book and I can't wait to see it in print in October. All right well thank you so much Patrick and ladies and gentlemen have a great weekend. The Human Action Podcast is available on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, Spotify, Google Play and on Mises.org. Subscribe to get new episodes every week and find more content like this on Mises.org.


a dull moment. Oh yeah! What the heck's an AeroFell? Good, we're all here. We represent the coolest and most highly revered individuals on this campus.  I have, and she did. Ren, your cooking is top-notch and your teammate is madly in love with you. Oh no, here's just a friend.  Why, what an absurd notion. Henchmen would be more competent.  I'm gonna focus on the second part of that sentence. And of course, I'm literally the coolest person on the planet today. So what's the problem? There is another, a student so relentlessly cool, we may lose everything. Please, a student? Not just a student, an upper classman. Vacation!  I've been cold my entire life, but I have never been that cool. Honestly, I fail to see how this is our problem. She will burn. Like I said, we've got a problem. Now, wait. Coco, come back! I'm not actually cool! It's all an act and I need a teacher, please! Child, I demand you reveal your secrets at once! We'll see you guys later. Uh, yeah. Fans, am I right? Up top. Down low. Aw, too slow. So that's what it feels like. Thank you so much for watching. If you want to see more animation, go ahead and click on one of these videos. It's cool, I promise. How long do I hold it? Am I good? Did you get it? Please click.


act, before going on to talk about some of the issues that are covered in the legislation, I think that it is worth putting on record that we, that is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, may need to return to civic licensing sooner rather than later. I know that the minister said at stage 1 that he had no wish to review the 1982 Civic Government Scotland act, but evidence to the committee suggested that the legislation is nearing the end of its shelf life. I think that witnesses from both Edinburgh and Glasgow City councils suggested that it was no longer fit for purpose, and others from the business community, for example, commented on the piecemeal nature of the legislation following three decades of amendment. Even today, in fact, we had amendments opening up a whole new set of criteria that could arguably be applied in shaping our town and city centre activities, so I would urge the minister to revisit the local government committee's recommendation on this point and instigate a review. If passed today, the bill will create a new offence relating to the possessing, purchasing or acquiring an air weapon without holding a valid air weapons certificate. For those of us who remember the death of two-year-old Andrew Morton some 10 years ago now, this law has been a long time in the making and is all the more welcome for that weight. I recognise that gun licensing generally remains a divisive issue, and I am conscious that we should not subject the law-abiding air weapon owners of Scotland to what is sometimes regarded as the tyranny of the majority. However, I believe in this case that the legislation is proportionate to the problems that we face as a society. The casual cruelty often inflicted on domestic pets, cats and dogs, even passing birds by irresponsible air gun users would be reason enough to introduce a more regulated form of ownership. The fact that half of all offences involving a firearm last year involved an air weapon is even more persuasive for me and my colleagues, and in Scottish Labour we are very pleased to be supporting this proposal today. Turning to the issue of sexual entertainment venues, this whole area of licensing is fraught with difficulty. There is an argument, for example, that suggests that, if you licence an activity, you are implicitly or even explicitly endorsing it. It is an issue that I came across when I was proposing an action on skin cancer on sunbeds and proposed a civic government amendment, and there is this interpretation that you are actually almost approving these venues. I am sure that many of us in this chamber who do object to any such interpretation being made of our actions this afternoon suffer. In fact, all of Scotland suffers from the objectification of women, from discrimination and violence against women, and it is something that is recognised in the Scottish Government's own policy. Equality groups have mostly taken the view that they support sexual entertainment licensing on the basis that it is better than unlicensed venues. However, concerns remain raised by my colleague Hannah Hilton that this bill does not quite do enough to align with Scottish Government policy on gender equality. I regret, for example, the fact that the proposals to restrict the display of sexualised images in public places accessible by children were not included in the bill, if even for discussion. I am grateful to the organisation Child Eyes and, once again, to my colleague Hannah Hilton for raising the issue during stages 1 and 2 of the bill. It is worth noting the support for such a proposal from girl guiding through their girls matter campaign, highlighting the desire of young people to be subject to less objectifying and to stop children's exposure to harmful sexualised content in mainstream media. It is worth pointing out that this Parliament has already acted to prevent the display of tobacco products because we deemed them harmful. I hope that the Parliament has the opportunity to return to the issue at some point in the near future if we are to improve the environment that we bring up, not just our young girls but all our children. The bill will help to empower licensing authorities to limit the number of private hard cars where there is overprovision and is welcome for that reason. However, stakeholders or many stakeholders have expressed their concern that the current legislation does not deal with the technological challenges facing the industry. For example, remote booking through mobile apps and new operators whose business models are not based on traditional divisions between taxi and private hard cars. I believe that the cabinet secretary has stated that the Government is taking separate steps to address this issue, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of this work in due course. We are happy to welcome the measures in the bill that take a firmer stance on scrap metal theft. The disruption caused by such crime causes great strain on our communities and on vital public services, from train cables stolen from the railways to aluminium cables from pylons. The cost of such crimes is estimated to be £700 million to the Scottish economy each year. In particular, we welcome the proposal to establish a national register of metal dealers. That will help to inform both buyers and sellers as to the legitimacy of those that they are dealing with and to further protect them from unintentional law-breaking. We are pleased that the minister has agreed to amendments to not cause disruption to daily business practice. In conclusion, we are notwithstanding the rather animated discussion earlier about whether or not we should legislate to make reasonable excuse for a young person to be in a sexual entertainment venue. We have reached broad agreement on the bill before us today, and I would thank all my colleagues from across the chamber for the contribution that they have made. I look forward to seeing the benefits that I hope that this legislation will bring to our communities. I now call on Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson to wind up the debate. Cabinet Secretary, eight minutes all thereby, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have listened with interest to all the members who have made a contribution in the course of our stage 3 debate this afternoon. I think that Kara Hilton described the bill as being a pick-and-mix because it covers a variety of different areas where there was a need for licensing provision to be made. Despite the changes that have been made to the bill over the course of stage 1 and 2 processes and the parliamentary scrutiny that has been subject to, I believe that it is a bill that continues to fully deliver on what its original intentions were and the parliamentary scrutiny process has strengthened the provisions that are contained within the bill. In my opening speech, I believe that the provisions go a long way towards protecting the public pets' wildlife from the painful and pointless tragedies that they are often subject to caused by the irresponsible use of things such as air weapons. Earlier this afternoon, before this debate, I met Sharon McMillan and her family and friends.  Sharon and her husband, Andy, have campaigned tirelessly over the years for something to be done about the dangers of air weapons. I sincerely hope that the passage of the bill today with the support of Parliament will provide them with some reassurance that we are delivering through this bill real progress and helping to ensure that nobody has to get through the same pain that they have as a family. During the course of considering this legislation, I have also made sure that I listened very closely to concerns and issues that were raised by a range of different stakeholders. Some issues were raised around the implementation and the timing of the legislation around the introduction of the licensing for air weapons. Elaine Murray raised the very issue about an information campaign so that individuals are aware of the implications that that will have for them. I can provide her with the reassurance that we already have work being taken forward in order to ensure that we have a sufficiently robust and wide-scale information campaign. We also intend to introduce some of the provisions within the legislation in order to allow the public and those who may hold an air weapon at some time in order to make a decision, whether they choose to surrender that weapon or whether they wish to apply for a certificate for it as well. It will take a bit of time, but there is already work being taken forward in order to ensure that that is being progressed. I know that Police Scotland and Turing organisations and other stakeholders will all be keen to look at how that has progressed and how the guidance around the bill has progressed. I know that Alex Ferguson, on a number of occasions today, both in intervention to myself and in his contribution, raised the issue about the evidence-based for this particular piece of legislation. He also raised the issue of whether the bill is disproportionate to the risks that are out there. I think that he made reference to the most recent fire arm statistics and incidents involving fire arms in Scotland. I welcome the fact that gun crime is at a lower level than it was in 2007. However, what that ignores in that headline figure is that the figures that were published just last week also show that there has been a rise in recorded offences for the first time in seven years involving fire arms. Within that, offences involving air weapons are up 6 per cent in that year. That goes against the trend of shotguns and other forms of fire arms. I do not believe that we can be complacent in that matter. Given that, almost 50 per cent of all incidents involving a fire arm and an air weapon, I think that that gives a good signal to us on the need to make sure that we take proactive action in order to address this issue. Alex Ferguson and his colleagues, including Liam McArthur, are not persuaded by myself in believing that the legislation in bringing in a licence around the provision of air weapons will prevent crime. You only have to look at the evidence that was put to the committee at stage one by Police Scotland, where they were very clear that a licensing regime for the provision of air weapons will help them in reducing crimes associated with them and at the same time it will help to improve public safety. We cannot ignore that message and that is why we are introducing this legislation. I do not wish to dispel the end-of-term spirit. Can we please curtail those vital conversations for just another two minutes, please? I deeply regret that the fact that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are not able to bring themselves to support this legislation here tonight. I think that that is a matter to be regretted, and I think that they will come to regret it as well in going forward. I also say that members have raised issues around resourcing within Police Scotland. Police Scotland has also said to the committee that it is taking forward a range of work in order to prepare for the introduction of the licence and regime. It is reviewing its existing licensing of firearms at the present moment in order to make sure that it is integrated in a single force, while not being in different component parts, as was operating with the different forces in the past. When Alex Ferguson raised issues about delays, there will at times be periods when there are delays because there is a spike in applications, but, in general, there is no overall delay in dealing with firearms certificates in Scotland. There may be in individual cases where there is a need to make inquiries that there can be delays in matters. However, I do not believe that a small number of incidents—over 180 last year involving air weapons—is insignificant when it is not insignificant when it harms or maims an individual or an animal. I do not think that we should dismiss that in the way in which I think that he did hear this afternoon as being insignificant. The bill also makes provision, I believe, in improving the way in which we deal with some licensing provisions around alcohol, which I believe will help to support our licensing boards in making sure that we continue to make progress in tackling Scotland's unhealthy relationship with alcohol—something that costs this country each year some £3.6 billion in the social and health costs associated with it. The other part is about metal theft. We have all experienced the impact of metal theft. I have no doubt that, within our constituencies and the provisions within the bill, I believe that we will make significant improvements in this area as well. On the issue of sexual entertainment venues, it has been very clear that the lack of sufficient legislation in order to licence for sexual entertainment venues has not been acceptable. The provisions within the bill will help to strengthen local authorities to make the decision based on local circumstances as to what they consider to be appropriate within their local area and to do that in a consultative and collaborative way with their local communities. This is a legislation that covers a number of different licensing areas within Scotland, but it is a bill that, past today, delivers a significant improvement in improving public safety on air weapons, in improving public health and how we deal with alcohol licensing, and in dealing with the scourge of metal theft. Equally, it is also tackling violence against women that takes place within sexual entertainment venues and the legislation that we pass here this afternoon will help to deliver in all those areas. I believe that that is something that will make sure that Scotland continues to be seen as a progressive place in dealing with those issues. That concludes the debate on the air weapons and licensing Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 13634 and 13635 on approval of SSIs. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move on designation of a lead committee. Motion number 13637 on committee membership. The questions on those motions will be put at decision time, to which we now come, and there are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 13606, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division and members should cast their votes now. Result of the vote on motion number 13606, in the name of Michael Matheson, is yes, 92, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed, and the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland bill is passed. The next question is that motion 13634, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 13635, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The fourth question is that motion 13636, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on designation of a lead committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. The final question is that motion 13637, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on committee membership, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. On that concludes the decision time. I now close this meeting of Parliament. Good recess.


Hi everyone, my name is Julia. I'm a software engineer at Crunchy Bananas.  The last time I spoke at Ember Comp was 2019 and a lot has happened since then. I became a parent for the first time. I learned what it is to be truly deeply tired. And my relationship to the world around me shifted dramatically. It was so hard. It was joyous, it was terrible. My life was in a constant state of chaos. These were new experiences and new problems that required substantial adaptation. And it required an immediate shift in perspective in order to manage the complexity without drowning. So something happens after you've exhausted all episodes of Chef's Table and you haven't slept for months. You start to ask yourself questions. I needed to frame my experience as part of something larger in order to move forward. What gradually emerged was a system, the various mechanisms of my life adjusted to meet new demands. When I returned to work after parental leave, I was struck by the parallels between the problems I was solving as an engineer and the challenges I was navigating as a parent. I began to understand my relationship with my work and my development team differently. Just as I was cultivating a system as a new parent, I began to view systems thinking as a crucial aspect of successful development. First, let me loosely define what I mean when I refer to a system in this talk. Here, I have to acknowledge my brilliant uncle William Donaldson, his writing is a key reference point for this talk and much of my awareness of systems thinking I owe to him. In his book, Simple Complexity, he writes, what distinguishes a system from merely an assemblage of the elements is the interactions the elements engage in by design or by happenstance and the way those interactions shape the system dynamics. By design or by happenstance, this is important. A system can exist without being organized or efficient, which brings me to the first lesson. If you're not careful, everything is going to get sticky. A system is in place, whether you've designed it with intention or not. My parenthood journey did not begin with organization. I had no idea what I was doing. I began with a reactionary system to survive those first few months, and it was painful. When the system of your app designs itself through happenstance, every part is impacted. It can be easy to wind up with redundant server requests, unintended side effects, or a code base that no one enjoys working on because of the complexity of making even small changes. It also becomes a significant mental burden to keep track of a runaway system. A simple question from my pediatrician, like how many ounces of milk does he drink in a day? Felt like I was being asked to solve complex equations because I had no reliable anchor points. It can be tempting to react to messiness with a plan for the perfect solution. Entire industries exist to sell us systems that will solve all of our problems. As I struggled to regain control of my life, I downloaded various apps to help me manage my baby's day. I read books about how I could apply a structural approach to encourage sleep. I scrolled feeds for parenting hacks. And none of it worked exactly as promised.  A well-designed system embraces the inevitability that things will go wrong and not fit. Part of the design must include some kind of escape valve that allows you to contain a negative impact. It has to be flexible enough to allow for messiness and inefficiency as you work towards improvement. What I had failed to recognize was that a system is not a static structure. It is constantly evolving and growing. I began to conceptualize each day with my son as an iteration of the system, rather than a failure to adhere to boundaries that no longer served us. Iteration is a key process for any application that intends to scale. Similarly, it is essential to consistently re-evaluate the boundaries that you are imposing throughout your code base and whether or not they still fit your needs. This can be particularly difficult. Anyone who has worked on long-lived applications knows how legacy structural decisions tend to calcify over time. And this leads me to the next lesson. Change is inevitable and it is constant. And the anticipation of change must be built into your decision-making. You must strengthen your ability to pivot when a previous solution is breaking down because there is no finish line.  This is not unlike spending weeks building a feature only to be told by management that it needs to completely change. And it can be hard to let go of the work that we are proud of. But the real job of an engineer is not only to build but to know how to pivot and to write code that maintains optionality for the future. I ended up ditching elaborate recipes for my child because it wasn't working for us in the larger context of our day. The meals I serve daily might not be Pinterest-worthy but they achieve my ultimate goal which is to keep my child healthy and fed. If my child is being picky, I can easily swap out carrots for grapes and not feel disheartened. For me, it is counterproductive to insist that he eat something using the rule because I said so. I'm not willing to declare dinner time a failure because it doesn't strictly adhere to my expectations. I'm also not willing to abandon dinner time completely and let him eat applesauce pouches all day. There has to be a balance while we work to iterate and improve. These are the kinds of trade-offs and decisions we are constantly making as parents and as engineers. If you conceptualize your system as a set of rules, there is no room for growth without conflict. Any deviation, even a necessary one, will cause friction and using rules as a way to enforce your system inadvertently discourages engagement and analysis because adhering to a rule does not require contextual awareness. Framing things within context is essential to moving forward productively. When you're working within a certain vantage point, a lack of context about the rest of the system can inadvertently create competing interests.  Approaching resistance with explanation and context is far more fruitful. And system awareness should not just be reserved for those with more senior positions within the system. Children are constantly searching for context by questioning why repeatedly. Contextual awareness is essential for processing a barrage of new information and by providing them some level of context, we empower them to help towards our shared goals. Because context is not just about aligning all system parts. It is also about building a path towards greater system knowledge for everyone involved. A junior developer's awareness of Ember data likely begins with the outermost API and a conceptual model of the store that exists for the life cycle of the app. A more senior engineer has probably brought in that contextual awareness to include adapters and serializers, internal library code, and so on. When system awareness is present at all levels, the door is open for everyone to scale their knowledge up and contribute meaningfully. We don't want developers to be siloed, making components in a box and never engaging with the rest of the application architecture. My son is two and his understanding of each day generally falls into one of these models. Food, rest, and play. And those core concepts will still be in place as he grows to understand them with more complexity. As an adult, my understanding of food as a concept is far more nuanced than his. I understand how food intersects with physical health, mental health, and even social issues. But the shared mental model of food as an important part of each day is in place for us to expand on together. Ultimately, we are both engaged in the system of learning together. And it's important to note that the learning is not one way. I am constantly evolving and learning how to be a better parent every single day based on his feedback. So what has all of this got to do with Ember? The last time I experienced such a transformative life event was in 2016 when I was first learning how to code. When I spoke at Ember Comp in 2019, the main thesis of my talk was that Ember's conventions facilitate communication, collaboration, and growth. I still believe Ember excels at this, but a lot has changed in Ember since then. I first began working with Ember version two. The framework has shed a lot of weight since. We can now rely on native solutions for many legacy Ember features, and Ember has pioneered many concepts that have been adopted by the broader ecosystem. Which begs the question, as Ember feels lighter and closer to native JavaScript than ever before, what exactly is Ember providing? I have come to think of Ember as similar to a climbing wall of anchor points. It gives you just enough of a foundational system to forge your own path, because of course no one system can meet the needs of everyone. When you start with Ember, you're starting with those conceptual anchor points that are the building blocks of a great system. It empowers developers of all skill levels to engage with an application at the system level. And Ember provides a system without imposing unrealistic rigid boundaries. There are APIs for isolating those dirty diapers that inevitably will exist, so you can still move your product forward. You need to use jQuery for something, put your jQuery code in a modifier instead of allowing it to halt forward momentum completely. Having drive-through franchise for dinner one night doesn't need to negate all of the progress. Ember's approach to deprecations is about ensuring the integrity of these conceptual building blocks while moving the technology forward. Nap time can be deprecated in favor of quiet time, but the system model of rest remains in place. Ember embraces that there is no finish line, both for itself and the applications built with it. I will quite literally never be finished with raising my son. Similarly, it is not an option for me to just throw my hands up, declare defeat, and start over. You can choose to see mistakes made along the way, or you can choose to see lessons that gave way to growth, refining your system. This is hard work and it's messy. To borrow Ember's marketing slogan, it's ambitious.


So you've got too much to do to watch this video, we'll help you find a way to empower others so you can get some of that precious time back. Welcome back and congratulations on taking one more step towards becoming one of the great leaders of tomorrow. All this month at Evil Genius Leadership we're talking about freedom and independence and today we're going to talk about how to free up some of your time to work on the things that are most important to you. We can do this through delegation and we've talked about delegating to others as a way of focusing our own effort as well as developing our team member skills. A concept that goes hand in hand with delegation is empowerment. Before we empower others to act for us there are a few things that we ought to think about. True empowerment is more than just handing out tasks or delegating work to other people. Empowering others is about providing resources they need to get the job done and the ability to make decisions about how to use those resources. So before we empower anybody in our team we want to consider what we're going to hold those team members accountable for and how much authority we're going to give them to make decisions. These two concepts go hand in hand because accountability without authority can result in ineffectiveness and authority without accountability leads to abuse. So just for fun let's build a checklist of the things you want to consider before we empower one of our team members to take on some more responsibility. First what is the task, project or responsibility we want them to take on? To what degree are we going to hold them accountable for the outcome? Does success or failure lie on their shoulders alone or will we still hold some accountability for the outcome? What resources will they need to accomplish what we're asking them to do? What decisions are we willing to let them make about using those resources themselves and are there any decisions we want to hold on to ourselves? How much autonomy are we willing to give them and how much oversight do we expect to provide? And finally how will we measure progress and determine if they're successful? So the answers to these questions depend a lot on the experience of the person you're empowering and the amount of trust you've developed between the two of you. If this is the first time you're delegating to this person and they've got low experience you may give them less autonomy to start with and hold more oversight of the process to yourself. This is great if you're trying to develop trust and also great if you're trying to develop young leaders on your team. The flip side of this is that the more authority and autonomy you hold back from this person the more time and effort you'll have to put in yourself to make sure that the job gets done and that limits your freedom and keeps you from working on the projects you think are the highest priority for your time. And these ideas are useful even if you're not the boss. If you're looking to take on more responsibility at work and convince your boss that you should be more empowered think through the questions we asked on our checklist and use the answers to make the case to your boss about why you should take on some new challenges. Empowering is a great way to develop young leaders on your team and it frees you up to focus on the bigger picture. Developing a strong sense of accountability among the members of your team will help them maximize their performance and accomplish their mission better than ever before. If you found this helpful don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter and join us every Friday at 10 a.m. Pacific time for a live interactive leadership discussion on BLAB. Click off on that globe to the right that'll get you to subscribe to our email list and that'll bring all of our content direct to your inbox. Thanks for watching I really appreciate it and remember the future is out there. Lead the way.


Hey guys real estate gaming here today, we're gonna be playing this game of Barbara obby and Roblox. I'm here with Quote brand brand as you can see Ed Spider boy. Oh look he has a birdie too. How awesome, okay, so let's begin with this hobby Oh, yeah, by the way, I got the new spaceship back. Well, it's not new, but it's new for me I got it right now. Just a couple minutes ago. Isn't it awesome? Okay, let's begin you guys Okay, so let's see. Is there dialogue? Okay, please take a seat Ah, I'm bald.  Okay, that part that crazy barber is making people bald. Let's escape. Okay. I don't want to end up bald like my beautiful hair Isn't it so beautiful? It's marvelous Okay, let's get out of here before he cuts our hair. Oh, no, be careful. We don't want to fall down there whatever that is into that pool Okay, oh Geez those things are shooting. Okay, so watch out for the shoot shampoo dispensers Okay, so we have to be careful here because those things shoot shampoo at you.  He made it man spider boys a pro Okay, I don't know what's going on But where do we go? Okay, I'm just jumping whatever we made it Okay, sweet. Oh no, Brad Brad. Come on. Let's go. I'm not mad, bro I think I'm not no just run through it since you have children. I won't do anything to you Okay, checkers checkers are like the easiest in the obvious.  Don't rush, bro That's why you don't rush, bro. Oh No, well, I was gonna take the butt. I think it's having trouble. Oh God. What is this? Oh, they're combs Dang like a spider boy in a pro right now Okay, we got this. Oh, no, Brad Brad got stuck back there in level three. Wait. Oh go go go Oh, no, I don't like three first person on those because then you can't see where you land Wait, where are we at that? We were just the barbershop now. We're looking at the dumpster place So, oh we don't jump on that Wait, I've known right Okay, what's so stinky out there in the way now we have to go back out great. Oh Nice cold brand-brand kind of twist. What I stepped on the pool. It's so nasty Hey, Brad Brad Touch it. I swear. Oh, they have a coil. What if we buy the coil that'll help us out? Oh Dang someone got like by the car. I don't know why I keep dying here Okay, that's it no more. I'm just playing around now. Now. Let's take this serious. Oh Geez, okay. Now we have to dodge traffic. Oh Me and spider boy just got oh spider boy got spiked two times in a row Oh, geez. No, okay. That was so close What? This obvious broken. I swear. I didn't touch the water How did it even get me? Okay? Nice. Let's see. Let's find a way to get up to the roof Okay, it seems like spider boy really found a way Jump up here then climb up there. I think oh wait you climb on the roof on the lining of the clothes On the roof want you to get on the roof, bro Think we jump that way Wait, what way do we go? Oh, we're supposed to go on that wire Spider boy knows what's up, man Okay, let's go spider boy. Oh Dude, that's so close. No, I don't want to get electrocuted What the card goes through the wall No, no, we have to go back out there. Come on. Okay. Now. Let's take this serious.  Oh God that was close. What it sent me black. I'm black. I'm back when they jumped This thing is not playing fair.  I Can feel this. Oh That's so close. It's so scary Okay, now what when I jumped here, okay now it didn't send me back I swear I sent me back the first time. Yay. We made it. Oh God Now what okay do we well now it seems like we're in the attic avoid that acid Okay, so now we're in this attic filled with acid. Why will it be acid and an attic first of all? Oh What was that sound? Okay, let's just move on We jump up there Okay, we do Okay Where's this thing taking us first?  That was nasty and now we're like in a factory. Okay. Now. We're back in the barbershop. Oh Okay now all the badge. How do you get that? I think you have to get it once you're done. Oh Geez we have to dot these these clippers oh Oh God that was close on you this jetpack would actually work and help me fly over this. Oh God now we're stepping over mannequin heads. I Died. Oh, no. Yes. I know that part is kind of hard the one with the light pole.  Ah perfect cut. I'm bald quick get out of here Yes, I'm out of here. I don't want to get bald either.  Look at that. Whoo. Okay. Oh Great now where are we at? This is I thought it was a barbershop not a salon. Oh Okay, let's be careful here. Okay with some Mr. Polarize Okay Lipstick, why would we want lipstick? We do not wear lipstick.  Okay.  Fat Paps in the building Great, what is this? I'll be ending geez Okay, let's jump over these. I think these are blades that they just shave you with Oh, no, he wants it to take a seat. He's gonna cut our hair next Subscribes to flat gaming. Oh No, hurry down this giant slide. We're almost to the exit. Yes, we're almost out of here. Oh God, I want this game out of here. Oh No, oh, dude Dude, I landed perfect right on the edge. Did you guys see that? It was so epic. Oh Okay, now the slime More slimy. Oh god, everybody's like a level 8. I'm the only one in level 20. Oh No, I didn't notice that. Oh, that should have killed me. I got so lucky. I guess look at me, huh? Yeah, oh, no, what is this? Okay, that's one giant hair blower. The trick is trick here is to jump Okay, so are we supposed to not get sucked in? Oh, okay, so we have to jump straight into it or do we? Well, we go to the store. Okay, there you go. Oh, no, not what event. This better not be a tricky maze, man And it is oh, oh God Okay Let's see Eenie meenie miney moe. I don't know where to go. Let's just pick nope. That's the wrong way. Oh God, no, I'm gonna be lost here forever. That's another dead end. Great Okay, mr. Polarize. This is oh, I found the ladder. Never mind. Oh, it's about to get another serious on mr. Polarize here But we made it Which was we were lucky enough because I had no idea where to go. Okay. Oh, we're back to this place Drop. Oh, God, that's a lot of rusty checkers. Oh Oh Okay, we got this now what did we go here? Supposed to climb up to the of okay. Oh God, what's going on here? Oh, what we just touched that thing. Oh Oh Okay, so we touched it the first time nothing happened to us Until the second time that we actually touched it. Okay. Now we know not to go that way To not go that way how many levels are there here? Geez? It's already on the 25th level. I Think that should be oh God. Oh, we just got smacked by a chair. Oh great Why is there moving chairs here? Look at this this bad this year. Oh, oh God, that was so close. Well, you will never escape. Well, guess what? Look at me. I'm walking right out the door escaping as you speak You evil barber Okay, quick. Let's run down the street. Okay. I think we're finally gonna make it out of this obby Safe and sound. Oh, no, we have to walk away. I thought he was gonna do that super that fuss that fast-running Oh, like this is where everybody's at The cool brand man. I see you Do you think you saw me? Cool brand man. Can you see me? Look at me. I'm over here Oh, no, my friend is locked up in that evil barbershop Poor guy. I would help him escape, but I don't want to go back in there. Oh, yeah Let's go find the secret badge Since we dare see it where it was we have to fly over the map though So he's a carpet speed coil, but let's see how cool. Oh, no See, this is why I didn't want to use the carpet because it always sends you flying The thing goes crazy Okay, now let's go find that secret badge. It was somewhere outside Okay, I think I should have gotten the path because those are easier to control. I think oh, it's right there It's right above this Yeah, yeah, let's go Let's go Get the secret badge with mr. Polarize himself. Look at this guy. Just chillin here having a nice little picnic Do a little victory dance for beating this obby. Yeah Hey, let's go Mr. Polarize your obbies ain't no match for the king of obbies our GMC 95 and I will see you guys next time a See you guys next time. Thank you for all the support. You guys are amazing and if it wasn't for you I wouldn't be here. I don't know what I'm doing, but I'll see you guys next time


Good morning, everyone, on this first day of March, Friday, and this is the 10 o'clock Tiger Financial News Network Market Update, the Dow is down 104 at 38,892, we've got a sudden spike at 10 o'clock, there must be some economic news, maybe a FedSpeak or something like that. So the Dow hasn't been able to get close to the 39,282 all-time high from just every week ago, but it's holding very nicely and that nine-period moving average is still over the 14 looking at the S&P, Sbx.x, okay, and the S&P right now is trading at, I've got this one, it didn't slip from me, we've got the S&P up 5 at 5102, at 5111.07, it breaks to a new all-time high, and that extends, we've got all day to do it, but that will extend the weekly chart in leg B. If the Dow doesn't make a new high, it's made a peak B in the weekly chart, spectacular moves, all of them say intermediate term, very bullish even if we have a sharp pullback at some point soon, 123, QQQ, all-time high, extended leg C in the weekly, we're looking at it up 2, at 441.212, and the IWM has it come back strongly today, it's up 52 cents, not strongly, but it's come back nicely, 2 or 4.26. This is the index that one has to keep an eye on, because if these small caps can keep building up some kind of support, what we're looking at is, there could be a rotation as some of the huge leaders take a breather, so we're looking at the bonds right now, bonds of trading down 430 seconds, not that good, that means deals are still high, crude oil is trading, much higher, it's up 1.51 at 79.77, I've been talking about this for a while, just a slow creep higher highs and higher lows, very nice, not a big move yet in crude oil, but it is breaking to the upside, now let's go to the, we want to go to gold. Gold is up 4 at 2,058, was up much higher earlier on at 2,066, and this is going to be interesting, when I get back, we'll talk about this, because some of the metals, for instance, lithium seems to have had a move out of the blue, well from the last week, had a very good move, it seems to be stronger right now than gold, just talking about this metal, I'll be right back for the tight continuation, I'll check up my opening for a daily newsletter, see you in a few minutes.