Okay, I think we'll declare it 1015 and begin the lecture on Hayek and Friedman This is a lecture that I draw largely from contribution to forthcoming volume called Elgar companion to Hayek in economics Although there are seeds of this lecture also in my book in time and money So Hayek and Friedman are the featured economists, but as typical in macroeconomic matters Keynes is right in the middle of it. Okay, and so I want to start by a very summary comparison of Keynes Friedman and Hayek and show you that in some ways Friedman is more like Keynes in other ways. He's more like Hayek. Okay, so let's look at this at Looking at Keynes, we say that we see that he theorizes at a high level of aggregation certainly does So he argued that market economies perform perversely Especially the market mechanisms that are supposed to bring saving and investment into balance with one another Seeing unemployment and resource idleness as the norm Keynes calls for counter-cyclical physical and monetary policies and Ultimately for a comprehensive socialization of investment that quoted phrase is drawn from his swan song chapter chapter 24 in the general theory Now let's compare that with Friedman and the point I want to make Primarily is that Friedman is theorizing at a still higher level of Aggregation this this sort of takes him a distance away from Hayek The equation of exchange that we'll get into shortly most of you are familiar with it MV equal PQ Which is says essentially the mount bought equals the amount sold. It's a tautology, but a very useful one as Friedman demonstrates It makes use of the all inclusive output variable Q Putting into a clips the issue of the allocation of resources between current consumption and investment for the future in other words that Issues that both Keynes and Hayek grappled with are simply out of sight In Keynes in the Friedman's theory because of his level of aggregation although Friedman is very much a classical liberal and Believes as you know that markets work And so he sees no problem Emerging from the market itself and so that there's a change in focus here He focuses on the relationship between government controlled money supply and the overall price level Now let's compare Hayek and we see that he's an in-betweener in some ways between Keynes and Friedman Capital-based macroeconomics is distinguished by its propitious Disaggregation I've voiced that on students so they have to look up the word propitious well-chosen Disaggregation which brings into view both the problem of intertemporal resource allocation and a potential for a market solution right Keynes brought into view the problem, but no scope for a solution and Friedman hid both the problem and the solution So Hayek showed that coordination of saving and investment decisions could be achieved by a market-governed movements in interest rates He also recognized that this aspect of the market economy is especially vulnerable to the manipulation of interest rates By the central bank Okay, so we've got Friedman and Hayek as cohorts is in their support of liberalism generally, but we've got Keynes right between them in the sense of level aggregation and Ability to deal with the issues at hand here Now the subtitle of this talk is how methods shape substances. I just listened to professor Long's Lecture and Think that mine at least in the beginning can dovetail with it fairly substantially, but then we head directly into macro as you might expect Contrasting methods and here I'm going to take my cue from Alan Meltzer who is a Monitorist and who is a Keynes scholar. He's written a book on Keynes and Here's what he says about methods first Keynes Keynes was a type of theorist who developed his theory after he had developed a sense of relative magnitudes and Of the size and frequency of changes in these magnitudes right He concentrated on those magnitudes that changed the most often assuming that others Remained fixed for the relevant period so Keynes didn't hesitate to assume a fixed structure of production Thinking you're hoping you would stay fixed during the period over which he was analyzing movements in Animal spirits and that sort of thing right so you get the impression here He's just looking around and seeing what hits him in the face. He wants to hit you in the face Magnitude of movements variation of different magnitudes. That's what he's going to theorize about When Melcher says this he doesn't say it in a critical sort of way he just says that's this kind of economist He was well, guess what Freedman says I believe that Keynes theory is the right kind of theory right so here Friedman is a Keynesian in this sense and Its simplicity is concentration on a few key magnitudes and what makes them key well They flop around a lot, you know, they have a lot of fluctuation and Potential fruitfulness and where's the potential fruit? Well, it's ready made for econometric studies Okay, if you've taken a portion econometrics You realize that you need the econometric equation and then you need some variables that flop around a lot Okay, otherwise, you're not going to be able to get the correlations Freedman claimed Famously back in the late 60s that we're all Keynesians now the first time I came in contact with this Freedman quote. I thought I'm sure I'm sure he doesn't mean that he's in favor of stimulus packages and Crated expansion for getting the economy going and that sort of thing Felt like I knew Friedman stuff well enough to know he didn't mean that he was accused of meaning that in fact In a time magazine article he explained how he'd been misinterpreted. He didn't mean that well At least that's what some of us were pretty sure of but what did he mean? And he explained in the article that we all use the Keynesian language and Apparatus and at that time the Keynesian language and apparatus was something that goes by the name of ISL M analysis the big multi-quadrate diagrams that show the Keynesian magnitudes Moving around as they do Later in 1999 he claimed that Force-fitting his own theory in terms of those Keynesian Magnitudes that particular apparatus was the worst mistake of his career and yet. He never says what he should have done what sort of Framework theoretical framework did he have in mind? Instead so Monetarism got presented back then and still yet in terms of the Keynesian framework. He wrote a two-page or two issue article in the JPE where he set out The monitor's view using the Keynesian apparatus. You'll notice so When he says we all that's a little bit too all-inclusive isn't it we all that is Keynesians and monitors Not we all including Hayek Because Hayek didn't use ISL M analysis, okay Now Hayek, and I get this from a pure theory of capital Hayek says the role of the economists. Well, actually this is my Paraphrasing the role of the economists Hayek points out in the pure theory of capital 1941 is precisely to identify the features of the market process that are hidden from the untrained eye And if you want to underline the differences in your notes it's Keynes hit you in the face flopping around variables Versus Hayek Hidden from the untrained eye. That's why an economist becomes trained So he can see what's hidden from the untrained eye the local news Anchor can tell you what's flopping around Okay For Hayek then again, this is paraphrased from my contribution to the Elgar companion For Hayek then the cause-and-effect relationship between central bank policy during the boom and the subsequent economic downturn Have first order claims on our attention Despite the more salient co movements in macroeconomic Magnitudes that characterize the post-crisis spiraling down into deep depression, right? Yes Yes, we know about how an economy can spiral down into depression with both output falling and money supply falling and so on but What we're more interested in is how did this all get started? You know what happened during the? Pre-crisis period To trigger that kind of a response Okay This is out of his No bell talk and you can see how it relates to what we've just presented Hayek says there may well exist better scientific evidence and scientific is in sort of scare quotes or sneer quotes That is empirically demonstrated regularities among key macroeconomic magnitudes for a false theory Which will be accepted because it is more scientific than for a valid explanation Which is rejected because there is no significant quantitative evidence for it emphasize that quantitative call a show later that maybe there's some qualitative evidence for it that the auspices are privy to but the Monitors tend to overlook or downplay Now here I want to contrast Freedmen and Hayek in terms of their focus and Precisely the the different questions they ask in any Field and certainly in economics early in macroeconomics when you see economists coming up with different answers The first thing to suspect is maybe they're asking different questions And they each have answers to their own questions, but then it's important To look at the questions and say are those really the questions when most need answered So let's take a look at it and I'll try to drive the point home here. Here's here's Keynes Keynes attributes the downturn itself to Psychological factors affecting the investment community rather than the movements in the interest rate and Here is the direct quote. He says and this is in his chapter on notes on the trade cycle chapter 22 He says I suggest a more typical and often predominant explanation of the crisis is a sudden collapse in the marginal efficiency of capital And if you know that your Keynes, I mean me see the marginal efficiency of capital is just is just investment demand The demand for loanable funds to undertake investment Purpose in other words all of a sudden the business community Cools its heels loses its nerves turns pessimistic. This is all psychological talk and Therefore Quits investing That's that's the cause of the downturn, but it's almost a throat clearing remark In Keynes because what he's more concerned with is not what caused the initial downturn His main focus is on the dynamics of the subsequent spiral downwards That's a multiplier and all that stuff and on the policies aimed at reversing the spirals direction that stimulus packages Okay, and all that so he's he tells his story of business cycles Peek-to-peek in other words he starts with the downturn. Okay. We got a downturn now. What's gonna happen? One of the things you can look for when you hear Keynesian talks or you're reading They'll talk about how a bad situation gets worse Keynesian theory is largely about how a bad situation gets worse and it makes you wonder well Wait a minute wait a minute And we're started in the middle of our story why did it turn bad in the first place and of course Keynes answer is the psychological aspects of things now This is still Friedman Or this is Friedman Friedman's dismissive of the whole issue of the cause of the initial downturn in 29 referring to it as and I'm a collector of these phrases If you if you come across others, let me know Referring to the downturn as an ordinary run-of-the-mill routine garden variety recession He doesn't use them all at once, you know, I mean it's just one one at a time But to say it's a garden variety recession really is to say that the method. It's not anything that would Attract the economist attention. You don't need to explain a garden variety recession because it's just a garden variety recession Okay, but once you get the garden variety session then some bad things can happen and make it much worse so again his focus is also the same as Keynes in that sense and so his focus on policy is on policy blunders That occurred on the heels of the downturn and on the correlation between the decrease in the money supply and the decrease in real GDP and Those are the two things that hit you in the face as a big changes So he's Keynes in certainly in that respect and a typical way that Hayek or that Friedman would conclude a lecture or conclude an article Let's see. Do I have it here to pass it up? Let me go back for just a minute. Okay. I Missed one little quip there, but that's okay So Hayek then focuses on the policy-infected aspects of the boom And their implications for the boom sustainability, so he's asking a different question. What was it going on before you got that? garden variety recession To cause the garden variety recession which then got turned into a monumental Great depression the post bus reallocation of labor and capital takes time But the particular dimensions of the depression its length and depth Are to be explained largely in terms of the policy perversities in each particular cyclical episode in other words the Austrian theory in the business cycle is not a theory of the depth and length of Historical business cycles it doesn't explain the depth and length of the Great Depression Or the depth and length of our current downturn It explains why there was a downturn and how that subjected the economy to still other forces that made things worse many of those forces political It's almost as if I'm calling into question here something that Austrians often say And that is the bigger the boom the bigger the bust is that true? Can we claim that and I would say yes, but only in a limited sense think of it this way Mainstream economists when they talk about unemployment, they divided into categories, you know about this you've studied this stuff There's frictional unemployment. There's structural unemployment And we've named those to get them out of our way so that we can analyze the third category Which is cyclical unemployment that is it's not structural is cyclical, right? Well in the Austrian view What counts as cyclical unemployment is a particular kind of structural unemployment in other words this intertemporal structure That's what's out of whack right, and so at the point of crisis the crisis is all about How out of whack the economy is because of structural maladjustments? and if you focus on that in other words the cyclical Component of structural unemployment Then it's true that the bigger the boom the bigger the bust you've got more structural unemployment is going to take longer to Write the economy with a larger amount of structural Unemployment, but it's not true bigger the boom the bigger the bus beyond that is certainly not true with a great depression because that particular amount of malinvestment and dislocation and so on Was swamped. I'm talking about just in historical terms. It was swamped by perverse policies of all sorts Including tariff policies including trying to prop up prices in terms of burning potatoes and burning Are killing pigs and plowing under cotton in terms of make work projects in terms of monetary policy and all the rest so That's a particular Historical episode that we have to look at at piecemeal to see what's going on Okay, Friedman's monetarism now see in in this lecture. I don't have a bunch of interlocking graphs Because I'm just working with monetarism, which is largely MV equal PQ and his application of that equation of exchange is based on his Empirical finding that the velocity of money Is constant or nearly so tolerably slow actually has an upward trend to it, but that can be taken into account. It's very stable In Friedman's view at least in normal times And that's what Gives them an anchor to work with the rest of the equation and by the way, there was a long period at the University of Chicago when Many many dissertations written under Friedman Were about the stability of the velocity of money right and looking at different countries in different time periods and monetary data and uh output data And finding if there was any evidence that velocity was changing much in a successful Dissertation was one that showed pretty conclusively that velocity is not changing much Which seems like kind of a limp conclusion, but it's a critical conclusion and is what allowed Friedman to show such a strong relationship between the money supply and the price level because he knew it as Many economists knew at the time that output grows pretty Not very steeply output grows it, you know 3% a year something like that maybe four So if you got that nailed down and you know the velocity is not changing much Then you get a pretty hardcore relationship between money supply and the price level So output that's q grows slowly Which means the price level moves with the money supply So i'll put a bar over velocity uh and i'll show Output increasing but only slightly And then money supply increasing Fairly dramatically. Well, can we predict then the price level goes up too, right? And that's you know a hat tip to Friedman for this The equation of exchange has been known for many many decades before that But Friedman almost single-handedly was was able to wrench it back into existence And uh beat some Keynesians over the head with it, right? And he was fairly successful at doing that and and uh Our hats are off to him uh for that. There was a little problem here though We get uh, yeah the money supply is what's causing the prices to go up you identified that as the The cause on the one hand the effect on the other on the basis of the lags But he also measured the lag in his his uh phrase repeatedly uses a long and variable lag and if you had to pin him down he'd say oh 18 to 30 months And I want you to make a note about that 18 to 30 months. It'll come back uh to us In the later part of the lecture and that was a little bit of a thorn in his side He wasn't quite comfortable with that long a lag. Why should it be so long? Why should it be so variable? And even in one of the last things he wrote about Uh the issue this was in monetary mischief a book In the 90s. I can't remember the publication date, but he listed this as one of the Problems remaining to be solved how How do we get a better handle on that lag and why is it so long? Why would it take 18 to 30 months for more money in the economy to bid prices up? It just seems like it would happen sooner than that Especially if you're working with mvq will pq. Okay. Well, we'll come back to that Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon other people knew that uh earlier uh including David Hume But it's direct quote from Friedman and he made that statement sing. Okay, he drove the point home And again, he beat the Keynesians over the head with it and he even influenced Economics in the policy realm in the in the Reagan administration and in the Thatcher administration Turn the tide on the issue and The tide is an apt metaphor because the tide comes in and the tide goes out They turn the tide but the tide didn't stay turned But at least you have to credit him for turning it when he did Hayek for all of his debating with Keynes Unfortunately didn't turn the tide in quite that way So Friedman's monetary rule. Well, it's just a rule to avoid inflation If the if quantity is growing at a slow rate. Well, so should the money supply Actually a little faster if you want to take account into slight rise in velocity, but I'm ignoring that And if you do it right, then you get a constant price level a stable price level These days stable price level Goes by the name of two percent inflation But here I'm just taking constant price level stable price level just As an illustration of the equation of exchange and the quantity theory of money Now a problem that you might see with that now that you know some of the Austrian theory Is is to think well now wait a minute when you increase the money supply That stuff comes through credit markets and it puts downward pressure on the interest rates or about that So we don't want to forget Our old friend The loanable funds market. Okay, then and money comes out through Credit markets increases the supply of loanable funds Yeah, we did have and it gives you that Decrease in the interest rate which causes some problem. This is not any part whatsoever of Friedman's theory and Laier will see why But it's just out of play Which is what leaves that long lag as a mystery I will argue Now Friedman declares the 1920s as the golden years of the Federal Reserve So he's he's on a par with Keynes here that neither Keynes nor Friedman saw any problem during the 20s It was only when we bumped into that garden variety recession That the problem started so Friedman is with Keynes here Golden years of the Federal Reserve ignores interest rates during the 20s because They didn't change much in other words when when they hit you in the face changes. How much would they have had to change? you know The interest rates stays within a fairly small band Maybe jumped up to 50 or so that that would have gone into their econometric equations But it didn't change much and more on this later because it turns out It historically is actually true that during the 20s there wasn't much of a change in interest rates But with Hayek's methodology He's able to tease out the problem in any case For Friedman though, they just don't pass the Keynes criteria They'll ask the burning question here. What if those interest rates should have changed? But weren't allowed to they should have changed but weren't allowed to Didn't breakthroughs in technology increase the demand for lovable funds and put upward pressure on interest rates? Yeah, any historian knows that in the 1920s that there was tremendous increase in technological innovation From mass producing automobiles to electrical appliance to process food chemicals of all sorts There's there was tremendous investment opportunities and plenty of entrepreneurs who wanted to take advantage of those and therefore Made for an increase in the demand for lovable funds Okay, that would put upward pressure on interest rates. Isn't that right? In fact Hayek talked about that in prices and production He called it an interest rate break B r a k e in other words as the interest rate goes up it limits It limits the extent of which the entrepreneurs can take advantage of these technological innovations because they're aimed at future output And consumers want some current output too. Thank you very much. All right So the rise in the interest rate would be just a normal market condition Now it turns out that the interest rates weren't allowed to rise because the central bank was accommodating accommodating the increase in the demand for lovable funds with an increased supply And therefore putting downward pressure on interest rate with the net result that the interest rate didn't change. This is the hidden forces To you know the the untrained eye has to see these hidden forces And this this would be Hayek's view That a reserve guided by the real bills doctrine met each increase in the demand for credit with an increase in supply thus keeping the rate from rising So seeing no change in interest rates Friedman dismissed interest rates as a potential independent variable in his econometric equation Well, that's sort of hardwired into his methodology Isn't any of you have taken econometric scores? How many have taken econometric scores? Okay, bunch of you You know that if if your independent variable doesn't change you're in trouble Is it's got to change to explain anything if it doesn't change then out with it, you know, it's not gonna It's not going to help you And it's true historically it didn't change in fact as I'll point out later, but I'll mention it here too because it's relevant Is that when I had some correspondence with Friedman over article of his and a comment of mine in the journals He he told me that I should not be paying that much attention to interest rates because they didn't change and he even Attached a photocopy of a time series of interest rates. He says look at the 20s the interest rates aren't changing It's so much for interest rates So that certainly was his view about Interest rates So seeing no change in interest rates when they should change Should have risen because of the technological advances Hayek was able to identify some critical market forces hidden from the untrained eye. That's a huge difference in methodology So a query here Uh at which view Friedman's or Hayek is more firmly anchored in the empirical that is historical circumstances of the 20s Austrians get a bad rap by saying they don't like empiricism They just don't like plunky empiricism plunky is a Rothbardian term by the way They don't like plunky imperialism Empiricism they want a broad-based empiricism that includes Historical understanding of the period and what was going on at the time the austrians were being a little more Empirical I think than the monetaries Uh, and I put in these slides just to show you a start difference between the dot-com boom in this respect And the housing boom is sort of rings true when you see what's going on with the dot-com episode Like the 1920s You had lots of opportunities Because people want to borrow lots of money It was a digital revolution. All right. And so what would happen initially Is that the demand for loanable funds? Would rise okay, so the demand for loanable funds shifts rightward and The fed should have allowed it to shift rightwards. That's how the market works That's what brings forth the additional saving You can see that additional savings there in the horizontal arrow, but the government steps in the fed steps in and puts a lid on that interest rate keeps it from rising All right And as a result you kill off the say the extra savings that would have been available And you replace it With money created by the federal reserve All right. So here's another example of a boom Where the increase in credit Rides piggyback on another Shift namely the shift in the demand for loanable funds Now let's contrast that And we had low interest rates during that period but not all that low they didn't change much just like in the 20s But if you look at the boom bust in the housing episode you get a different story Because what was driving that boom Was not Technological innovation so much although there was some during the period but more More predominantly it was policies by fanny may and freddy mack. They were subsidizing Lending by eliminating the risk from 30-year mortgages. So that subsidy is sort of a subsidy to saving okay In other words more people could borrow more money So there's an increase in the supply of saving uh because fanny may and freddy mack was Siphoning off the risk associated with all that lending that put downward pressure on interest rates The fed steps in and lowers the interest rates still further And why'd they do that well partly they were trying to get the economy to recover from the dot-com bust And partly they were trying to keep resources from leaving Sectors that were not housing in other words All the sectors that weren't building houses would have to pay higher interest given so much of the available funds Went into housing So the interest rate was lowered still further and that's why during that episode you got incredibly low Interest rates, all right That's what that says And if you want to look at the fed funds rate during both those periods It looks like that And it it shows the period During the dot-com boom when interest rates were so-called too low for too long And the reason they were too low for too long was partly because of that effect of fanny may and freddy mack and of course after the bust and lower still were down to zero and With no sight you know change in sight okay Friedman's idea of monetary contraction Is the same thing it's just the money supply going down now instead of up And so if if there's a reduction in the money supply And prices are sticky downwards All that's necessary actually is that Prices don't immediately adjust to the new equilibrium Then we get a lower money supply And consequently guess what a lower real GDP There it is, okay So evidence shows that between october 1929 and march of 1933 decreasing m was the essential primary dominant cause Of the decrease in q in output the way Friedman would conclude this This is this is sort of paraphrase the way Friedman used to write and talk The correlation between movements in the money supply and movements in total output leaves no doubt About the central issue The central issue being one that you can Deal with with the econometrics Now to drive the point home If it hasn't already been driven home, I want to spend a couple of minutes on The case of the cabbage eating mississippi monster. Have you heard about this? It goes like this Suppose it in late october of 1929 A thousand pound monster descended on mississippi soil It's been the next three and a half years Eating all the cabbages and in quite a few rabbits Between tupelo and pascagulla Okay, by early march of 33 the monster weighed 4000 pounds Two investigators are just sent to mississippi to handle get a handle on the situation. One's from vienna. The other was from chicago You see this coming The b&es and investigator asked where in the world did his hideous thing come from? Okay Then after further study Discovers that it was that the monster was unintended consequences of some ill-conceived government sponsored by awnings project Case closed. We got that one figured out The chicago economist shows up shoves the austrian aside And says never mind never mind how this thing got here The real question is how did it grow from a thousand pounds to four thousand pounds? How did an ordinary run-of-the-mill garden variety monster quadruple is weighed in 40 months? Okay, chicago's answer of course is it was all those cabbages He couldn't get good data on the rabbits So the correlation between Cabbage consumption and weight leaves little doubt About the central issue Okay That's hyacinth freedmen in a cabbage patch. I guess I don't know So query here. Do we suspect that the data availability is what led chicago and to his conclusion and the lack of hard data pertaining to the monster's origin caused him to be dismissive of the questions about where the thing came from So these and related suspicions are what underlie the message in hyax nobel addressed the pretense of knowledge All right Now let's see where we go I'm going to zip through some things here because I want to get some other things but Yeah, you've seen this inflation is always an everywhere monetary phenomenon, but boy that hinges critically on Velocity actually being constant or stable predictable. Okay And it turns out that that's what did Monetarism in this form in That's what did it in Prices move with the money supply. Yeah, if V is constant And so let's look at the first the inflation Rate and it looks like this You get it on there. There it is the money supply Has a much stronger upturn In the recent years. This seems not to be mimicked In the actual inflation rate So is the equation of exchange wrong? Well, it's not wrong. It's just that the velocity has become unstable Let's look at velocity If you look at Velocity just up through Into the 80s about 82. It looks like that. Okay Which is not exactly constant, but it's stable. It's predictable. It rises at a fairly slow rate. I mean the The scale exaggerates the rate, but it rises At a rate that can be taken into account with the equation of exchange But if you look at velocity beyond that If I can get it, there it is It goes wild All right, so starting in 82 if you want a particular date The economy went wild We can explain why as I will the velocity of money became unstable After 1980 Friedman's policy rule lost its velocity anchor The federal reserve abandoned the money supply targeting In favor of interest rate targeting Didn't do any good the target the money supply because the velocity didn't change Or the velocity was unstable And we can look at a plot of velocity. There's m2 another version of it Very unstable Let me just mention the the reason it became unstable was because of a so-called deregulation act in 82 it was really re-regulation, but they called it deregulation where A certain Requirement was eliminated called regulation q It's not q as in quantity. It's just a the regulation after p Well, it's not p for price. It's just in alphabet. Okay the qth regulation and the qth regulation um Kept banks from paying interest on checking accounts and it It kept banks from allowing people to write checks on savings accounts. So it made a gave us a crisp definition of Money namely m1 Okay That was eliminated. So it blurred the distinction and Nobody knew just where to draw the line on money. We'll see that shortly The other thing that went wild and you've seen these graphs before with Bob Murphy Okay excess reserves demand deposits the money multiplier All these things went wild and just made Controlling the money supply for the business of stabilizing the economy impossible um Irony of monetarism. This is relevant to regulation q The monetary rule It allows the economy to perform it as laissez-faire best according to Friedman Presupposes a critical piece of intervention. That's the irony. You have to have that one piece of intervention Regulation q that makes the money supply operationally definable but after 82 You got greenspan saying things like this. We don't know what money is anymore he actually He actually said that in sort of a forlorn tone When testifying before the joint economic committee, we don't know what money is anymore And it got popularized by Jay Leno who used it on In his uh in his monologue he quoted greenspan. He says, you know, I don't know who should be running the fed but It should be somebody knows what money is, you know, I Didn't know what money is anymore so that explains why they switched to uh interest rate targeting At that period they didn't know what money was anymore Okay, we got time to do this and maybe one other thing here Friedman's plucking model How many have heard of Friedman's plucking model some people some people have it's not very well known uh, this is this is a something that Friedman Invented back in the 60s but brought it out again in the 90s uh and uh the occasion was that In 92 that was his 80th birthday He was invited to a monetary panel to present a paper. Well, he hadn't written on money in years and so he he dredged up a section of an old report in progress from the early 60s and introduced what he called was the plucking model Plucking model is is sort of stylistically Empirical and it goes like this He says we can imagine a a Growing economy with no cyclical problems at all And you can see the upward growth there He referred to it as an incline plane an incline plane. So imagine this incline plane slope like that to represent you know healthy growth But if he said if you look at the actual track of the economy It it has lapses from that. It says if it gets plucked down So he says imagine a string where it comes up with this metaphor. I don't know a string glued to the bottom of the incline plane But at various points And to various extents the string gets plucked down Now it's not like a guitar string where it snaps back or uh, and it's more like Taffy or something you pluck it down. It stays down. So See if we can draw the string. There it is. Okay Uh, and sometimes you see some are worse than others and so on And this is this is his plucking model He called it the plucking model And it's my drawing. It's not Friedman's. He just talked his way through it But if you read his Text what you get is that the the down pluck is the bust and the up pluck is the boom And then he says In the 93 edition but not in the 63 edition. He says Those austrians are just off base. They've got a Boom bus theory and they need a bus boom theory All right, well, you can see here. They're misidentifying Friedman's misidentifying the boom. That's a recovery All right, it's a recovery And he doesn't see the Boom at all the real boom comes before the bust And he's got it concealed because he's plotting total out cup A total output if he plots The different stages of production you'll see some are going up and some are going down Okay, and at an empirical level The the net movement may be very little and so it doesn't pass the Keynes test All right So he ignores what's going on before the bust But picks up the bust And so this is this is his model. Let's see what I've got here Oh, yeah, there he is He was in there somewhere I'll say before I go on that This is where Friedman and I had our correspondence on On the whole issues and this is where he sent me the Photocopy of the interest rate not changing during the 20s which he considered Sort of a game changer in our debate, but really wasn't Why was Friedman so unreceptive to the Austrian theory? Well, you got some idea already But I can draw on my first lecture I hope most of you were here to hear the first lecture on Keynes around on Knight and Clark And it goes like this see we're still trying to explain that 30 Month lag 18 to 30 month lag Interest rates seem to be no part of the problem And our question is what goes on in Friedman's mind During that short run those critical 18 to 30 months Well, guess what? He goes for the Clark Knight model in Looks like this First he talks about what happens when there's more money and it doesn't come in through credit markets It just gets in the hands of consumers gets in the hands of people This is where his helicopter thing comes in, you know helicopter flies over the landscape and drops Money and is picked up by people. So they're the holders of cash And so look what he says. He says holders of cash once the helicopters out of the way Bid up the prices of assets If the extra demand is initially directed at a particular class of assets say government securities or commercial paper or the like Now see he hasn't got the fed buying those things. He's got these people who've already got the money from the helicopter Uh, the result will be to pull the prices of such assets out of line with other assets And thus widen the area into which extra cash spills the increased demand will spread sooner or later affecting equities houses durable producer goods Durable consumer goods and so on Though not necessarily in that order These effects can be described as operating on interest rates and he puts it in quotes on interest rates, okay If a more cosmopolitan and I put in there that is austrian Interpretation of interest rates is adopted in the usual one Which refers to a small range of marketable securities Well, the austrians are not talking about a small range of market securities They're talking about the general intertemporal terms of trade through financial sector Now here's where he brings in night and clark and I've drawn my Model up there and instead of calling out capital. I say sources. That's night And instead of saying consumption, I say services That's night sources yielding services. And if you didn't have that diagram up there to know what we're talking about You make your head swim to read this next passage, but let's read it and see what he says see if you can follow it I'll see if I can follow it. Okay The key feature of this process during which interest rates are low Is that it tends to raise the price of sources That's interest sensitive capital goods of both producer and consumer services Relative to the prices of the services themselves It therefore encourages the production of such sources And at the same time the direct acquisition of the services rather than of the sources But these reactions in their turn tend to raise the price of the services relative to the price of the sources That is to undo the initial effects of the interest rate The final result may be a rise in the expenditures in all directions without any change in interest rates at all In other words after you get the boom in the bus and everything clears the interest rate might be the same Interest rates and asset prices may simply be a conduit Through which the effective monetary change is transmitted to expenditures without being altered at all Well, the reason they're not altered is because you have this timeless Sources and services moving first up and first down. Okay, then down and in the end They had nothing to do with anything All right But how then does Friedman account for this lag? We're back to this lag because if that's what happened and it happened in such a clean fashion that nothing really happened With real capital or whatever then then where's the lag? and Friedman has to think hard for this and he actually Wrote a whole article on the lag structure and it finally it finally came to him what it was That would account for the lag and here it is see if see if it sounds familiar Friedman accounts for the mp lag of 18 To 30 months he says well, you know, it may be that monetary expansion induces someone within two or three months to contemplate building a factory Within four or five to draw up plans Within six or seven to get construction started The actual construction may take another six months And much of the effect of the income stream may come still later Insofar as initial goods used in the construction are withdrawn From inventories that only subsequently lead to an increased expenditure by suppliers Has anyone ever heard a story like that before anyway? This is the Austrian theory the business cycle for crisis. Okay. Now what doesn't make sense say that You know this this this article is in that optimum quantity money and other essays in 1969 book What doesn't make sense is that Friedman thinks that the those austrians are silly. They got all this capital stuff. We don't need it And just we just leave it alone And the only time we need it the only time we need it is bring it in to explain that lag And then once we've got that lag explain we get it out again, right? Well, no, I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way if this explains the lag Then this is the theory, right and all of the prattle about sources and services Goes away Now so what i'm suggesting here is that during that All that planning all those That's when the economy is in the boom period All right, and then when it all comes to naught because of resource availability Then you get the downturn And there's nothing Run of the mill about it or there's there's nothing Um garden variety about it. It's it's the expression. It's the explanation of the downturn. Yeah. Yeah, there's a secondary contraction Hayek knew that he wrote about it before Cain's ever wrote the general theory, right? But those are complicating factors and no more I've got a couple of minutes. I got to show you one other thing if it comes up next. Oh, yeah, I think it will I can't help but tell the story I Was in Menlo Park. That's when the Institute for Humane Studies was there right next door to sandford Sandford University in the sandford Freedmen was at the Hoover institution And he parked there close to the Hoover Tower And I'd been told many times that his license plate was the equation of exchange and I wonder Is that really true? I mean vanity tags were in in california, you know, they didn't start in alabama. They started in california vanity tags so When I went to the library a time or two or three or four I always took my camera thinking eventually I'll find I'll find it okay, and I looked and I looked and I didn't find it. I'm sorry. I didn't find it But a photocopied A photoshopped A 1970 Cadillac. I know you drove a Cadillac. I don't think you drove one white a red with a white vinyl top But you drove a Cadillac And it had a california plate on it and I did a little photoshopping and we got mv equal pq out of it Okay, so I could show it to my students or whatever and then Something appeared on the mancube blog Out of the blue a student sent me this He got around And mancube is asking how can you identify my car? Does he have one of these tags? No, his is ec10. I wouldn't do that at all. I wouldn't put my Course number or anything else on it. That's that's it. Okay. Well, there were some comments Let's see if we can get some comments. So, you know, I hate to spoil things But I must say I think Milton Friedman has a better play Okay This is from an article I came across he says years ago trying to find Friedman's apartment in san francisco I knew I was in the right location when I spotted a car with a license plate reading mv equal pt Well, t is the fisher as serving fishers transactions version of the equation of exchange So someone else writes in says Milton Friedman's license is mp equals pq not mv equals pt Here's the picture And it's a french side. It turns out. Are we on internet here or not? Let's see Yeah That's france And it's scrolled down. Yeah, I see down there it says la vauture. Is that the way you pronounce that? Of Milton Friedman So we finally get to see the real one They cribbed it from me, okay And the worst thing like the worst thing is on the same side you find they complained That that the equal sign had been dubbed in said well somebody's dubbed in the equal sign I thought I did a pretty good job of it In fact better than Friedman because eventually another student showed me a picture Oh, this this goes on That's pretty ridiculous. He says And then the next one I love economy Well, let me go back to that one. There's Friedman's real tag and he's got a y in there That's What does that mean that's supposed to be in there? That's a nominal income though He would use a lowercase y To mean real income. I can just hear Friedman Trying to get the department of motor vehicles to give him a lowercase y there They wouldn't do it. You could have put q in equal pq. That would have been fine with him But I don't know. I assume that was already taken. Is that it? Yeah, that's true. That's true. Yeah, that's true So anyhow in case you're doubt, that's the real picture in mine is a funny one Okay, thank you much


So I'm going to review a book that I Was expecting not to like but I really really enjoyed it and it is so good good. They can't ignore you by Cal New ports and I have a few notes here That I took while I was reading the book. So the first one Basically, it's the things I liked about the book. So the first one is It's hard to predict the right passion. So it's hard to Predict where you'll end up, which means it's hard to figure your passion out right from the start so Don't try to figure things out start taking small steps towards something you're interested in explore your options be practical and Move forward from there The next note I have is Thinking that there's some magic job waiting for you out there and I like to translate this into Online business terms, which is thinking that there's some magic passion or perfect passion out there for you Which there probably isn't and you may only find it years after you've started your path So the important thing is getting started. So don't wait for perfection Start taking small steps Start experimenting and seeing what happens and the third thing I liked and I really liked this one way was To be so good, they can't ignore you which basically means cultivate the skills you need In order to be valuable in the marketplace so if you if we take a common example, which is I want to start a blog and I will start a blog So if you want to start a blog you have to look at How you're going to make money what you're going to provide for people that they will be willing to pay for and read So you have to become good enough so that people will want to read and buy stuff from you a Good example of what not to do is to start a blog about how to make money blogging When you aren't making money blogging Because you aren't delivering any value or anything new to people point number four I wrote down was Don't try to figure your passion out in advance, which is Kind of like one of the previous points But the thing is that you can't figure life out. You can't figure out what your passion is You can't figure out where to find your perfect job. You just have to start you have to follow the clues You have to listen to your intuition your inner GPS as I like to call it and you have to take it from there You don't have to figure life out because life will figure itself out when you get out of the way so point number five was skills first So don't just quit your job and expect miracles to happen. You have to Cultivate your skills. You have to become good. You have to become better So if you want to start a blog about growing tomatoes Do you know how to grow tomatoes or people interested in that? How are you going to do that? Do you have a mentor you can ask questions from or? someone Who can give you feedback on? What you need to do so there are a lot of things you have to consider Number six is deliberate practice, which means that you put in real work For example if you want to write a book then start working on your book Start improving your writing skills start reading more stop spending time checking email Being on social media or whatever small tasks that you use to distract yourself from putting in real work so deliberate practice means Putting in work that makes makes you uncomfortable that stretches you as Cal used the word stretch in the book, which I really liked so stretch yourself find your comfort zone push beyond that and Enjoy your discomfort zone and the next point was that most people stumble on what they enjoy so instead of Thinking that you have to figure life out and find the perfect passion look at it as A time to play and experiment and have fun while also being practical. So Don't worry about finding a big thing Just start small start with the next step and then start moving forward from there That's how I built my my business and I found my passion I stumbled on it after just being so sick of my excuses that I started taking action and the next Point that I really liked was to provide real value and all of these points I'm covering are kind of blending and merging together, but I Really think they hold all of them hold value because they come from different angles So the next point was to provide real value So if you're growing tomatoes and people want information on that, can you show them step by step how to grow? tomatoes indoors outdoors how to solve different problems such as Weird creatures eating their tomatoes or whatever comes up So are you able to provide real value to people? if not then Work on improving yourself first and your skills before you start trying to sell people stuff and I'm not talking about You don't have to become an Expert and know everything to help people and get paid You just have to learn what you need to learn in order to help people move forward So you could help beginners grow tomatoes and you couldn't know more than them without being the all-knowing Expert in tomato growing the next point That I wrote down was do what people are willing to pay for so find the intersection between what you want to do what you're Good at or want to learn to become good at and what people are willing to pay for So it's not just about following your passion But about finding the intersection between what people want and What you want and then I really liked This one because he said or I'm wildly paraphrasing here.  So if you want to start your tomato growing blog and You want to build it into a business that supports you then Use the job you have use the security you get from there use the money you get to fund your business to Experiment to learn to make mistakes and to grow So don't be in a rush to get anywhere because there's nowhere to get life is a continuous journey and Even if you build your business, even if you are living a passionate life You'll still have new goals. So for example, I've been doing work. I love for many years now and I Still want more. I have more goals because life pushes us to grow. So we're On a never-ending journey. So if you're chasing happiness You'll never get there because happiness is a habit that comes from the inside and the last thing was Little bets and I talk about this a lot on my blog in my courses and everything I do and I Use the term baby steps Because if you want to start a business if you want to find work you love you have to start small you have to start by experimenting So if you do have something to offer with your tomato growing blog then start With a small product create an e-book see if people want to buy it And this is assuming you build an audience. So make little bets as Cal puts it and See if things work and if they don't Try something else and use your job in the meantime to support yourself Why you make these little bets now there were a few things I didn't like but They are minor details. For example the definition Cal uses for passion seems to be people going after a fantasy of thinking that if they can only find their passion and then Do What they love or follow their passion, then they'll be happy, but that's a fallacy So that's a minor detail about this book where I differ, but I really really enjoyed this book I read it in one day and I recommend you pick it up because it contains a lot of practical tips and It explains a lot of things that I Already do and teach But it talks about them in a different way So I have I just have to say that if you're Looking to do work you love and get paid to do what you love. I recommend you pick up so good They can't ignore you by Cal Newport, which you should be able to find in any offline or at least online bookstore


into a process and my experience not just in this area but in other areas is that public bodies decide which part of the process you can enter when and for what. It's very rarely that an individual controls that, so it's important that people are educated about what rights they have, what the routes they have if they believe their rights are not being met. I think that that should be happening for most young people at the level of the school and for looked after children where they've been looked after. We have you here. Obviously, we had a discussion that you mentioned briefly earlier about the discussion that we had with the commissioner for children and young people about overlap. I just wondered what your view was. I know that you submitted some views in writing earlier on, but I just wondered if you could expand on your views as to whether or not you see problems with the possibility of overlap between the new investigatory powers of the commissioner and the powers of your own office? The short answer is yes, but that is true of a number of organisations and we find ways to manage those downs so that incidents where something falls between the cracks is kept to a minimum. I think that the processes that I've heard described will take a bit of time to put in place. I think that they'll take a bit of time to bed in. I think that the anticipated volumes will need to be watched closely. I read somewhere about the number of investigations between one and four and the likely number of approaches to the office being in the region of 8900. I think that that will have to be managed very carefully. I will do anything that I can to try to help young people to access routes to get things resolved where they think they need them to be resolved. The Government and Parliament have decided that one of these routes should be through the Children's Commissioner and my office is committed to trying to help them to make it work, but it looks to me as if there are a number of complexities in it that will need to be ironed out. Given that you have just said that, how confident are you that it can be worked out to—there are always overlaps, as you say, in difficulties sometimes, but how confident are you that those complexities can be dealt with in a harmonious way? It's more important that it's clear for the users of the system as to who deals with their complaint. We are all public servants, so we all have a duty to make this work. We've spent, maybe, in the past 18 months of non-talking with the commissioner about what an investigation looks like, what a complaint looks like, what a front-of-office, a house office looks like, what a process looks like, what you do when you have to disappoint people, which we do at least 50 per cent of the time. The difference between having a part of your office that is there to make decisions about things that children bring to you and another part being an advocate for children and how to keep these separate and those kinds of things. I'm confident that we can all work together and try to make this work, but I think that it will have to be resourced and there will have to be a lot of goodwill, and there will have to be a lot of patience, because I don't think that this will be up and running on day one. I think that it will take a bit of time, and it might be something that you want to think about reviewing at some point. I thank you very much for that. I know that that wasn't entirely on topic, but see it as you were here. I'm glad that you said that. Can I just check one final thing with Sally? The support service, you've referenced that a couple of times in your answers. For children, I wondered whether, if you're content with the Scottish Government's proposals for the service and whether the extension of rates would become available to them under the bill, are you content with any plans or proposals to raise awareness about the support service that are adequate? I think that they're adequate. As many people have said in response to the bill, there's no point in extending rights to children under the legislation unless they know about it, and they have support to access and exercise those rights. We've already talked about the complexity of the dispute resolution framework in additional support for learning. We consider it absolutely essential to have a children's service as the one that's been described with four elements—information and advice advocacy, legal representation and a service that can gather children's views. We think that those four elements are comprehensive enough to allow children to know about those new rights. We also think that it's an opportunity, as others have commented, to continue to raise awareness of the additional support for learning framework, which gives further rights to children and young people. We think that the bill is an opportunity to extend the information that is provided to children generally. What we'd want to see with the children's service is that we consult with the target audience of 12 to 15-year-olds and talk about how they'd like to access the different elements of the service and their views on delivery. We would consider that essential before anything else happens in terms of planning or the detail of the service. Thank you very much for that. I thank everybody for their time this morning. We do, as I say, appreciate you taking the time to come and speak to the committee. We find it invaluable in our work in examining the bill, and I briefly suspend to allow the witnesses to leave. Item 5 on our agenda this morning is to consider a draft memorandum of understanding on the BBC and its future engagement with the Scottish Parliament. A paper has been circulated by the clerks, and we have also received a letter from the Scottish Government yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary. I presume that everybody has had an opportunity to read those papers and indeed the letter from Fiona Hyslop, so I am just going to throw open and invite comments from the members. The purpose of the item, though, is to allow the committee to consider the draft memorandum of understanding and agree any comments that we want to pass to the Devolution Further Powers Committee, who will report to the Parliament thereafter to inform a subsequent chamber debate. They are the lead committee on this item, but with those comments can I ask members what views they have on that particular item? It is really from the point of view that the draft memorandum is concerned with how the BBC engages in consults with the Parliament and government, and not with the subject matter of programming and activities, and really looking from the point of view of editorial and operational independence. I would like to ask that there is a commitment from the BBC to send its annual reports and accounts to the Scottish Government and a commitment from the Government to lay these before the Parliament. The accounts are fine, but I have not got any problem with that. However, if the annual report is not quite to the liking of the Scottish Government and the Parliament, is it possible that that could stray into programming or activities by editorial or operational independence? If we are being sent an annual report—I understand the accounts—that is not a problem. However, if we are being sent an annual report, what is it reporting on and what are we scrutinising on? If we are not happy with how much has gone to religious broadcasting, educational broadcasting, political broadcasting or how it has been done, is there the opportunity for the—I hope that there is not—is it likely that the Parliament could say, well, we do not like the way you are doing this, that or the other? It is just the report that I am not sure about. In the memorandum of understanding, it talks about the report with reference to covering areas such as the finance administration and the work of the BBC. It is the work of the administration that I am okay with. That is what I am not sure about. If we go back to the original Smith commission agreement, it says that it should be the same for the Scottish Parliament and the Government as it is for the UK Parliament. It is just about laying the report. There is a clear view about the separation here. A protection of independence and territorial independence of the BBC. I appreciate that and I bow to your superior knowledge being a member of the other committee. Paragraph 2, annual report and accounts. To comply with any directions, after consulting the BBC by the Secretary of State or the Foreign Secretary, is there the information to be given in the report about finance administration and work? What I am saying for the BBC Scotland is that it will presumably consult with the Parliament and the Government to decide what will be included in that report. I am just asking if there is the potential for that to stray into the work and operations of the BBC. That is all. I can only give you my understanding. My understanding is that that is not the case. It is nice to hear evidence from the convener. It is not the case. It is just about the input of the report as opposed to not about the actual editorial independence and decision making processes of the BBC. It is more about what ends up in the report rather than that. It may be a fine divining line, but it is not supposed to be about the editorial independence of the organisation. I think that it is an important issue at this time of the charter coming under review and moving further to the world. Obviously, that is for the charter. I appreciate that. The charter deals with that area, and it is not for the Government either. The further devolution is important to clarify those issues at this time. I thought that the paper was helpful and the letter from the cabinet secretary. I thought that the draft MOU was a fairly reasonable reflection of what emanated from the Smith commission. Obviously, the lead committee will take its own view on that. I was not quite clear why Fiona Hemslock was saying in her letter that, although the present draft presents some detail on how consultation on the terms of reference for the charter will be agreed, it does not currently provide for a role in determining the content of the charter. The process of consultation seems to be reasonably clear. Some of those things in practice do not necessarily work out as intended, but I did not see the problem that Fiona Hemslock was identifying in her letter. Obviously, the lead committee will have gone into this in more depth and will be able to cross-reference it with the work that it has already done in relation to the Smith commission, but, as it stands, the MOU, to me, looked at a reasonable reflection of what emanated from that. The one thing that I would certainly say is that I have some sympathy with the letter from the cabinet secretary. It is on the basis of the work of the devolution further powers committee that has been on the principle of trying to ensure that everything that comes out of the Smith commission agreement is followed up either through memorandums of understanding or through the legislation. It meets what was in Smith, if I can put it that way. It has been taken forward on a unanimous basis in terms of the report of the devolution further powers committee to try and make sure. I know that we all have different views on going beyond Smith or not, but the idea is to try and bring the Parliament the opportunity to examine exactly what is being proposed and whether or not it meets the original Smith recommendations. For me, that is the core point of the letter from the cabinet secretary, where she says that, in her view, the current draft of the memorandum of understanding does not yet fully deliver the role that the Smith commission outlined. She makes reference in her letter to a particular point about it being the governance of the BBC in the same way as for the UK Parliament. The Scottish Parliament should play the same role. There is a question mark, if nothing else, or it may be a question of clarity. It may be nothing more than that, but at the very least we should, when we are writing to the devolution further powers committee, point out the correspondence that we have had from the cabinet secretary, although I know that she has copied in the convener of that committee. In my view, I think that the principle would be to ensure that there is a unanimous fear of this committee that, whatever is agreed, it should meet the spirit and the substance of the Smith commission. Is that agreeable? And we agreed to write on that basis then? Okay, we'll do that then. Thank you very much. I think that we did create an item 1 that we would now move into private session for item 6, so I'll only move the committee into private session.


Okay, so this is part two of the problem I started online, and so it has to do with this slide at the fair. I think I figured out what the problem was with my last calculation, but I'm not going to say what. So this question says, here's your slide, and I'm going to model it as a Bing Street, even though it's not. And then it has some level part like that. And so the question is, how long should that be? So you need the data from the first part, and I said 32 meters per second, and that's questionable. So let's just use something I got from the video. I actually found that the initial velocity was around 7 meters per second. So let me use that. And so the question is, how far should you design this such that people will stop and not crash off into the ground, which could be anything like asphalt or something? Okay, so I'm going to do this as a kinematics problem, a force and acceleration problem. It could be done as work energy. But again, let's just do what we did before. First we need to choose our x and y axis. If I have the slider on this part, then they'll be moving that way and accelerating this way. So it'll be all in the x direction, and that's good. Free body diagram, here's the slider, and then we have the gravitational force, we have the normal force, and then we have the frictional force. So it's very similar to the previous problem. We'll use the same model for friction that the magnitude of the friction force is in coefficient, which I found before, UK was about 0.31 times the normal force. So in the vertical direction in the y direction, there's no acceleration, so f net y equals zero is n minus mg. Okay, so in that case, now these are the y components of the forces, that's why there's a negative sign on the minus mg. And so here you can see that n does equal mg, so that's a little bit different. So now I can find the friction force, the magnitude of the friction force is going to be UK mg. And then in the x direction, f net x equals max, call that my positive x direction, so it's going to be max equals negative mu K mg. And the negative sign here, if you look, that's my positive x direction, so that's pointing in the negative x direction, I need that negative sign there, and the mass is cancelled. Okay, so I have the acceleration, which I also actually is weird because I actually used this, I measured the acceleration to get the coefficient of friction in the post, so I didn't really have to do that. I could have just started with the acceleration, okay, sorry. Okay, so now how long does it need to be? Well, if you want to use kinematic equations, you could start with this, v final squared equals v initial squared plus 2A x minus x naught. I could use that, and then I could just solve for x minus x naught is going to be the distance s and just solve for that. I think I have a little bit of time then I would like to use, not use that equation because no one really knows where that, forgets where that comes from. So let's just do this with basic things. Let's say acceleration is the change in velocity, and this is just all in the x direction, so I'm going to leave off, really this should be A x v x over delta t. And also I can say v x average is delta x over delta t. I can also say the x average is going to be the final which I'll just call v plus the initial over 2, that's the definition of average, and actually that only works if the velocity is changing at a constant rate, so you can't always say that, but that would be true if your acceleration is constant. Okay, so right here I want to find x, delta x which in this case is just s, but I don't know delta t, but I do know delta t from up here.   So now we can just put in our values, my final velocity is going to be 0, I want them to stop. My initial velocity I'll use is 7, and the acceleration is this value right here, negative. Okay, so let me put that in. So 0 minus initial velocity squared, 7 meters per second, quantity squared, over 2, negative 2 times A x, which is 0.31 times 9.8, let's just write it as meters per second squared, it's the same thing. And now let's just first check the units, on the top I have meters squared per second squared divided by meters per second squared, second squared is canceled and one of the meters cancel, I do get meters. And so I get, and it's going to be a positive number too, because these are going to cancel. Let me just put this in my handy-dandy calculator here, one second. Okay, so I have 7 squared, 3, 1 times 9.8, and I get 8 meters. Wow, that's two fails for me in a row, 8 meters, what 24, I guess that's not too bad, 8 meters isn't completely unreasonable, if you look at those tracks, I mean they're pretty long, the level part. And in fact, I saw people going over the end, I saw them sliding and they didn't even come off the end. So I don't think that's too unrealistic and I'm okay with that, are you okay? Let's all be okay with that, okay.


Hello, welcome to English 2332 online here at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi. I'm Dr. Eric Luttrel. I'll be your professor for the next 15 weeks. Our course is titled, The Literature of the Western World from the Bronze Age to the Renaissance. We'll start with some of the oldest literature in the world, which originated around 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, which is modern-day Iraq. We'll read the story of Atrahasis and then the epic of Gilgamesh. Both of these works survive on fragments of clay tablets written in cuneiform, one of the oldest or maybe the oldest form of writing. But they're only fragments, so there are words and lines missing here and there, and that leaves gaps for us to fill in, gaps in the text on these tablets as they've come down to us today. Most popular translations of Gilgamesh try to fill in those gaps with some creative interpretation by the translator, but I've chosen a text that doesn't do that. Stephanie Dolly's edition in Myths from Mesopotamia gives you only the lines that survive. That means that you have to fill in the gaps as a reader. But this isn't really that different from what we do when we read a complete, say a modern novel or other complete text. How we fill in gaps in a work of literature is part of what we're going to focus on in this class. After Gilgamesh, we'll read the biblical book of Genesis, a book that many of us may feel we know quite well. However, you may find that the familiarity is deceptive. We're going to read Genesis the way the biblical scholars read it, and we're going to find that Genesis also requires us to fill in many gaps, and we may find that people tend to do that by inserting assumptions that originate outside the text, rather than coming from within the text as we have it. We'll then move from the Levant to the world of Ancient Greece and study three works by two authors about one character, that is the Greek titan Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans. We'll read the theogony or the origins of the gods and the works and days by the poet Hesiod. Then we'll read a Prometheus bound by the playwright Aeschylus. This will also be where we introduce a genre of theater alongside epic and prose narrative. We'll read sections from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. I expect that many of you have probably read the Odyssey or released parts of it. You probably remember Odysseus's adventures with the Cyclops and the Lotus Eaters and Calypso and that sort of thing. But what many people don't notice, sometimes don't even read, is the part that leads up to those adventures and describes how Odysseus himself comes to tell those stories within the narrative. So there's a narrative within a narrative. Instead of focusing on Odysseus's adventures, we're going to focus on the part where Homer portrays Odysseus as a storyteller and the events that lead up to his opportunity to tell his own story to the Phoegetians. As we move a few centuries ahead, we'll read Virgil's Iliad and we'll see that Virgil has borrowed some of the obvious story elements from Homer, but he's put them in a distinctly Roman narrative. The rage of Achilles and the trickery of Odysseus made them interesting characters in Homer's day, but the Romans want a hero that puts duty first. The Latin word Virgil uses as pietas, where we get our modern word piety. It means fulfilling your duty to fate, to the gods, to your nation, even in the face of furor, which is not just anger, but any kind of passion. That's the Latin word for passion, such as the passion to fare between Dido and Aeneas, that tempts Aeneas to settle down rather than fulfilling his destiny. After spring break, we'll move from the classical world to the early medieval world of Northern Europe. We'll start with the Old Norse saga of Rolf Krocke. You may not have heard of this one, but it shares a historical backdrop and at least one character with the Old English poem Beowulf, which we'll read next. In fact, both Beowulf and Rolf Krocke's saga belong to a family of folk tales that have been found around the entire northern hemisphere, from Iceland to Russia, and even over into Native America and Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Both of these texts also deal with a problem that was new in the Middle Ages, that is how to integrate old pagan stories into the new Christian religious worldview. We'll move down to Spain in a time when it's divided between Muslim kingdoms coming in from North Africa and the Christian kingdoms backed by the rest of Western Europe. In the Song of the Sid, we meet Rodrigo Diaz, a Christian who fights against Muslims, but who also fights alongside Muslims and Christians against other Christians and Muslims. His Muslim soldiers respect him enough to call him Said, which means Lord or Commander. And that leads the rest of his men to call him El Cid, or Mio Cid, which means my Lord or my Commander. El Cid was not a Lord, however, he was not a noble, but he becomes one of the most powerful people in Spain through his victories on the battlefield. At the time, in medieval Europe, before El Cid, he weren't born a noble, you didn't matter. But El Cid is going to change all of that, and this poem really focuses on how. Then we'll return to England for the High Middle Ages. We'll read the general prologue to Jeffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and then read the Wife of Bath's prologue and tale. Besides being one of the most modern characters in the Canterbury Tales, we'll see the Wife of Bath, like Odysseus, knows the power of a good story. Just like El Cid gives voice to the commoners, the Wife of Bath is going to speak up for women in a time when women were usually portrayed merely as the objects of men's affections. But we'll read her remembering that this is a man's story about a woman. In fact, it's a man's story about a woman who tells a story about a man who's trying to understand women. And we'll finish the semester with William Shakespeare's Othello, the Moorish Venice. Though this was written and performed in England, Othello is about an African who becomes a general in the Italian city of Venice and is then dispatched to defend the island of Cyprus. This play in this way reflects an expanding global consciousness in Shakespeare's day. Othello, the character, has some of the same pietas or sense of duty as Aeneas in the Aeneid, but he's up against more than just passion. The character of Iago brings in a Machiavellian type of character that is relatively new to Shakespeare's day. He embodies the dark side of social intelligence. And in him, Shakespeare creates the kind of villain that we can still see today in shows like House of Cards or Game of Thrones. So from roughly 1700 B.C., that's 1,700 years B.C., to 1600 A.D., 1601 actually, this is when Othello was written, 3,300 years of literature. That's 3,300 years of insight into how the world works, how people think, what matters. There's a lot to learn from the content of these texts, but there's also a lot to learn in the act of reading them. Some types of classes focus on information content. You learn the facts and the formulas because they're things you need to know when you leave the classroom. Other types of classes teach skills. So the information you learn in a class may become obsolete, but the skills you learn can be used when the world has changed. This class tries to teach both. We will deal with the content because it's valuable for its own sake, but it also helps to sharpen skills that we need in the real world. Now, the real world may not be something you typically associate with a literature class or with the act of reading. So what kind of skills can you expect to develop in this class? Psychologists and neuroscientists have recently begun to study how reading affects the way we think and interact in the real world and what they found may be surprising. People presume that reading is just a form of entertainment and entertainment is usually assumed to either be a waste of time or worse mixes lazy, both physically and mentally. But studies like this one by Gregory Burns and colleagues at Emory University have found that reading a novel causes developments at the neuro level that are similar to learning from direct experience in the real world. Neuroscientist Noreen O'Sullivan and her colleagues at the University of Liverpool found that reading difficult literature made people better able to deal with ambiguous situations in the real world. It improved mental flexibility and the ability to think ahead when confronted with uncertainty. They say that, quote, exposure to literary texts can support a more fluid and flexible representation of meaning in order to allow for multiple potential truths to be weighed with similar levels of curiosity. Noticed more easily and updated as new information becomes available, end quote. Figurative language that is used in literature, devices like metaphor, irony, new ways of describing familiar things, these can also improve our real world thinking. In the journal Neuropsychologia Isabel Bourne and her colleagues at the University of Berlin say, quote, figurative language is usually more distinct, complex and unpredictable than literal language and thus requires a range of different cognitive processes such as focused attention, semantic integration and semantic selection. End quote. They find that processing metaphors requires us to keep two conceptualizations in mind at the same time, two different ways of imagining the same thing. And reading irony requires us to add social intelligence to that mix in order to distinguish between the way things really are, the way things might be, and the way a particular character thinks they are. The implications are not only that we become better at modeling the physical world, better at understanding other people and understanding how those other people themselves understand the world. Psychologists Raymond Marr and Keith Oatley come to a similar conclusion. They argue that fiction is a sort of virtual reality simulator that we enter into in order to practice one of the most difficult things our brains ever have to do on a day to day basis. That is understand other brains, understand other people. They say, quote, narrative fiction creates a deep and immersive simulative experience of social interactions for readers. This simulation facilitates the communication and understanding of social information and makes it more compelling, achieving a form of learning through experience. Engaging in the simulative experience of fiction literature can facilitate the understanding of others who are different from ourselves and can augment our capacity for empathy and social influence in court. For the journal Science, David Kidd, who by the way is the author of the journal Science, and his co-author Emmanuel Costano tested people's ability to figure out other people's ambiguous emotional states after reading either a scientific work or a fictional literary text. And what they found is that people's social intelligence has actually improved more from reading the difficult literary fiction than it is from reading science or nonfiction. They say that, quote, our contention is that literary fiction uniquely engages psychological processes needed to gain access to characters' subjective experiences. Just as in real life, the worlds of literary fiction replete with complicated individuals whose inner lives are rarely easily discerned but warrant exploration. Whereas many of our mundane social experiences may be scripted by convention and informed by stereotypes, those presented in literary fiction often disrupt our expectations. Readers of literary fiction must draw more flexible interpretive resources than the feelings and thoughts of other characters. That is, they must engage in theory of mind processes, end quote. I'm going to come back to this term, theory of mind, in a later lecture. But you can think of it as an ability to think about what other people are thinking and to think about what they think you're thinking or what they think someone else is thinking or what they think someone else is thinking that someone else is thinking. You get the idea. This research tends to center around three aspects of real world thinking that are developed when we read literature. They are narrative framing and that's the framing of real world data into the narrative form. Number two is the conceptualization, addiction. In other words, the words we use to describe reality. The figurative language such as metaphor that we use to represent the world and usually to understand complex and abstract phenomena in terms of simpler or more concrete concepts. And then number three, the use of theory of mind or social intelligence in order to understand how other people think. I'll develop each of these three elements in later lectures and then we'll apply them to the text that we're reading. To develop these skills we have to go beyond what most people do when they read for pleasure. So most of us, most of the time, read a text in order to find out what happens. In other words, to find out the plot. If we just look at a narrative to the plot, we fail to notice how we are getting that information. What might be oversimplified and what might be left out. It helps to think of a text like an iceberg. 90% of an iceberg's mass is floating beneath the water. What you see is only 10%. But you wouldn't see that 10% without the 90% below the surface holding it up for your attention. In this class, we're going to do the difficult work of mapping out that 90%. The narration process is a framing, language choice and social imagination or theory of mind. So here's how to get started. We'll be using Blackboard for all of our interactions. And as with any class you take in college the first thing you want to do is read the syllabus. So I've posted it here. The syllabus contains all the course policies, grade percentages and assignments and due dates. At the top, you'll find my contact information. I've taken it out because this is on YouTube. But after that is a list of books that you'll need for the semester. The first one you'll need, the one you'll need for our first readings is Stephanie Dolly's Myths from Mesopotamia. They have several of these at the Tamio C.C. bookstore. You have a few weeks before you'll need the next one which is the Aneed. They're listed in the order that you're going to need them. Check the reading schedule on the left to see when each book is going to become necessary. Besides these books, there will be other readings that are available online or on Blackboard. Those are the books in the unit they belong to on the left. So for example, while we're reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, using Stephanie Dolly's books Myths from Mesopotamia, there's going to be an added reading. We're also going to read a new tablet that was discovered and translated since Dolly posted or published her book. And to get to that article, you go to Unit 3 on the left. It says Gilgamesh. Click on the link and then you'll see the article. And after this, we'll move on to Unit 4. In Genesis, I'll post the text in the Unit 4 section. Then the links to Estuulis' Prometheus Bound in Unit 5 and so on. I'll also include sections labeled optional further reading in those same sections. As it says, these are just optional. They're not required for the class. They're just if you happen to be interested in this material. But it might be something that's useful to you when you're looking for ideas for your essays. Now, speaking of essays, next on the syllabus, you'll find the grade distribution. There are five things you'll be doing to earn your grade. The Blackboard Discussion Forum, the quizzes, two essays, two exams in the term of the final, and 10% of the grade will be for other assignments like peer review exercises. The first Blackboard Discussion Forum, sorry, the first is the Blackboard Discussion Forum. This is my attempt to make up for the fact that we can't have class discussions and talk about your readings to face in a classroom. For each unit, sections 2 through 12, excluding section 1, there will be a discussion forum for you to discuss something about the text that you're reading. You can ask a question to me or to the rest of the class, or both. You can offer up an interpretation of some part of the text to see what other people might think. Whatever it is, you'll need to explain it, make it specific, cite passages that make us to exactly what you're talking about and that's why it needs to be specific. Don't just try to offer explanations of the entire text. Try to really say on this page or in this section we find this and I don't know what to make of it. What do you think? Or here's the way I interpret that. But you'll need to contribute at least one post that has at least 150 words to each of these units. You can submit more than that one post if you want to. You can reply to other people's posts, but you'll need at least one significant 150 word post for each unit. And if you want to make your long post to reply to somebody else's post, then by all means. That would look a great discussion. There will be a forum for each unit starting with unit 2. Click on the unit to read and post. The due date will be posted on each discussion board. I'll only grade what is posted before that date. So be sure to check the date for each board. You can still post in that forum after that date but it won't count toward your grade. Quizzes are not posted in the unit since they'll be given every week rather than with every unit. To get there scroll down to the menu marked quizzes down below all of the units 1 through 12. Every Wednesday a quiz will be posted in the blackboard quizzes section. It will cover the readings and lectures of that week. It will be available for one week. On the following Wednesday that quiz will be closed and the quiz for the next week will be open. Once a quiz closes it can't be made up. So give yourself time to do your readings, watch the lectures, and then take the quiz before the Wednesday deadline. The purposes of the quizzes is to ensure close reading. Ensure that you're reading closely. You're looking for certain looking to see how the narrative worked why the characters are portrayed the way they are, what sort of metaphor is used. In other words, you're applying the theory from the class to the text of the class.  But they also help to ensure that the assignment is meant to be formative rather than summative. Those two terms you don't actually need to know but formative assignment you learn something. A summative assignment is there to see if you learned something. So in taking the quizzes you'll realize, oh I should have gotten that but I got it wrong. I don't know I never thought of this I never thought of the text the way that this quiz question poses it. So it's better to do that during the quizzes and to make that formative assignment and to make it sort of low stakes, I'm going to drop 25% of the quiz questions in your final grade. That means you can basically make a 75 and still get 100 on the total quiz score. Essays also have their own section on the left down at the bottom. You will write two five-page essays during the semester. One is due the Friday before spring break the other is due at the end of finals week. Keep in mind that you'll have a midterm or a final exam on those same weeks. So you want to start a couple of weeks early. You'll be able to choose from several topics. I'll post a list of options in the essays section and you can choose one of those options or if you want to write about something else email me with your proposal for your paper. Your essays will be submitted using Safe Assign which checks for plagiarism. Any incidence of plagiarism will result in a zero on that essay which is 15 points off of your final grade. And depending on the severity it may be reported to the Office of Student Affairs and be entered into your student record. So please make your own arguments use your own brain and cite all of your sources. If you bring in a text that we don't read in the class but it's about our text I encourage that but you need to cite your sources. You need to have your own idea and you can use other sources but be sure you've cited them. The assignments grade will be composed of everything that's not an essay, quiz, exam or discussion post. This will include things like the War of the Ghost assignment that I'll introduce at the end of the next video. Most of these will be lightweight assignments. So basically as long as you do what the instructions ask you'll get full credit. There may be some peer review assignments. If you get a grade from a peer that you think is unfairly low you can appeal it. Just send me an email and I'll take a look at it. The midterm and the final will be found down in the exams section. The midterm will start the week before spring break or it'll be open for the week before spring break. The final will be open for all of finals week. The midterm exam will cover the questions or I'm sorry, will consist of questions covering all the readings and lectures assigned in the first seven weeks. The final exam will cover the same conceptual material, the theory, the terms that sort of thing from lectures from the entire semester. But it's only going to cover the readings that were assigned after the midterm. So in other words, starting with Ralph Krocky, Saga and Beowulf from there to the end of the semester. I may end up using Examity which is a test proctoring service where you can use a computer with a camera built in or attached and then take the test while someone monitors you. Someone who works for the service will watch you take the test just to make sure you're not cheating. I may not decide to go with that. I'll have to see how feasible that is. But I'll let you know either way as we get closer to the midterm. Either way be sure to carefully read the instructions before you start the test. Ensure that you have a reliable internet connection and check the computer hardware requirements posted in the exam section of Blackboard before you begin that exam. Once you begin the exam you're going to have a limited time to complete it. So once you press start the exam the timer will start and no matter what even if you log off, even if you become disconnected or whatever that timer is going to run out. It might be like an hour or an hour and a half. But after that hour and a half no matter what happens to your computer falls in Oso Bay it's still going to the due date is still going to be one hour and a half after you press start. So be sure that everything is taken care of as far as technical requirements ahead of time. You're also only going to be able to take the test once. So don't think I can take it and stop and then start again later. So that's how the course will work. Take a look at the syllabus take a look at Blackboard and email me if you have any questions when you're ready move on to the next video which is titled What is Narrative?


Hi everybody. I'm Jim with opensource.com. I hope you're having a great summer wherever you are. At number five, three open source alternatives to Microsoft Publisher. Jason Baker says you don't need a proprietary tool to design a great layout. Check out his list of open source alternatives to Microsoft Publisher for designing your next print layout. At number four, build your own open source solar panels. Don Watkins talks with the inventors of the Sunzilla project who've made solar panels easier, cleaner, portable, quiet, and completely open source. At number three, four open source tools I used to write a Linux book. Not me, but Steve Avadia spent the last year writing a book to introduce desktop Linux to non-technical users. The title of the book is Learn Linux in a Month of Lunches. In this article, he shares the open source tools he used, plus a few things like, you know, pens, paper, and post-it notes. At number two, when Linux is the face of kindness. When people are experiencing hardship in their lives, Phil Shapiro tries to lessen their burden using refurbished Linux desktops and laptops. And finally, at number one, top 10 Raspberry Pi add-on boards. Hats are an add-on circuit boards and accessories that add functionality to your Raspberry Pi. Check out these 10 from Ben Nuddle of the Raspberry Pi Foundation. That's it for the top five this week. Thanks so much for joining me, and I'll see you next time.