So, thank you everybody for being here this morning. I'm Jonathan Newman. No relation to Patrick Newman as we've already covered I want to start off with a short story. I Was perusing the New York Fed blog so the people at the New York Fed they run this blog and they write about different topics And this was a few years ago And I found a blog about the Panic of 1819 which I was sort of interested in so I read through it and I'm also a professor of economics and so I read papers that my students write and one of the jobs that I have when I'm reading papers is You know you got to check for plagiarism. You got to you know Make sure that the students aren't copying somebody else's work Unfortunately, while I was reading this blog from the New York Fed there were some there were some bits in there And here's here's what here's what I found there were some bits in their blog that sounded exactly like Rothbard's book the Panic of 1819 like that word for word actually so I actually did I feel like I I did catch them Plagiarizing Rothbard and the way that I know that actually did catch them is because they admitted to it afterwards So after I guess they saw there was a bunch of web traffic going to their article from visa start organ They're like what the world? Why is everybody going to this old article about the Panic of 1819? You'll notice that they added this author's update Murray Rothbard's the Panic of 1819 reactions and policies was an additional source for this past For this post and should have been cited. We regret this omission To which I was thinking man. I hope you regret it. Yeah And so the reason I start off with this is because I want to cite my sources here at the beginning major Source for this talk is what I learned from Roger Garrison both at Auburn University and also in his lectures here And not just the content, but also his style. I've got some hopefully I've got some amusing moving parts in the PowerPoints Rothbard was or excuse me. I Garrison was very famous for his the moving parts of his of his PowerPoints so here we have Mises and Rothbard. They're fighting Against Friedman and Cain's so here we go there. They're about to throw the first punches. Oh The first a little bit about The title so I was very intentional with the title It's a long title Austrian economics versus Keynesian and monetarist macroeconomics And there's just three points that I want to make about the title first is that Austrian economics is not divided into micro and macro so Hopefully you've seen over the course of the week That we progressed from talking about human action And what are what are some of the things that we can say about human action that are necessarily logically true? What can we derive? What are the implications of the fact that we make choices? So which is a sort of a micro focus we look at one individual making a choice and we tease out What sort of things apply to all humans making any sort of choice? And then we develop into a theory of prices a theory of money a theory of Interests and so we can talk about how credit markets work and it turns out that this sort of like smoothly flows into talking about Economy-wide phenomena like inflation and business cycles and economic growth So there's not there's not Austrian microeconomics and Austrian macroeconomics. It's one Edifice it's one body of economics and it's all interrelated There's no if you if you found out something that works in the art that you see in the macroeconomy it doesn't really accord with what Austrian micro might say then that means there's some sort of disconnect. There's something wrong So that it doesn't it seems like that the macroeconomy shouldn't be thought of as anything more than just the sum of all the Individuals preferences and their exchanges and what's going on. So so why would we expect any To use a different set of tools to talk about macroeconomic phenomena as opposed to what happens at the micro level Okay, so for Austrian economics all cause and effect happens at the micro level However, it does not mean that we can't talk about economy-wide phenomena. We can so we have this integrated fully integrated body of economic theory Mainstream economics however is divided. There are microeconomists and they're actually subdivided into further fields There's like labor. There's health. There's energy all of these different subdivisions of microeconomists In the mainstream and they all do their own little things in their own little fields and then there's this other group this other umbrella of macroeconomists and just from personal experience talking with people who work in both of those fields they They don't understand each other like I've been in seminars where it was a macro Topic that was being presented and the microeconomists that were sitting there. They told me afterwards. I This doesn't make any sense to me So it's it's not just that you know, they're they're doing different things. They're focusing on different things They literally don't even understand each other, which is good evidence to show that it's it's almost like two totally different sciences two totally different fields, but this definitely doesn't apply to the To the Austrian school. So this is why I called it Austrian economics versus Keynesian and monetarist macroeconomics. So there's this this entire body of thought That we're putting up against just the macro theories from the monetarists and the Keynesians Finally, notice that it's Austrians versus the the Keynesians and the monetarists So if they're grouped together and they were on the right side of the screen and the street fighter example So they're together and I hope that we'll have time to show that the monetarists and Keynesians are actually very similar they have very very similar ways of approaching answering macroeconomic questions and actually Their policy prescriptions can line up as well Okay There's some fraying at the top so it even mainstream Macro economists understand that there's there are some serious issues with macroeconomics as it's performed today And I have a few quotes to to show you this so Noah Smith is saying was commenting on how nobody in the academic Academic macroeconomics was able to predict the the the most recent financial crisis We have a quote from Paul Romer. This is a from a great paper about mathiness where he says presenting a model is like doing a Card trick everybody knows that there will be some sleight of hand There's no intent to deceive because no one takes it seriously. So this is a pretty serious indictment against how macroeconomics is done Larry Summers says real business cycle models have nothing to do with the business cycle phenomena observed in the in the United States Robert Solo who who developed a very Important growth model and mainstream macro has a serious critique of the dynamics to cast a journal equilibrium models man Q who wrote a very important principles of economics a textbook Said that the work of the past several decades in macroeconomics looks like an unfortunate wrong turn and finally one of the Presidents of the the Federal Reserve district banks says that macroeconomics is very little to offer By a way of answers to the questions of why doesn't economy have business cycles and why do asset prices move around so much? So this is a pretty serious indictment and what I'd like to offer today is that Austrian economics Fills this gap. It it doesn't have these sorts of errors. And so we'll see why Okay, so a brief review of what Austrian economics has to say about macro questions macroeconomic phenomena I'm I'm glad that David Howden at the beginning of his talk. He he showed how I think he got this from Hayek We need to understand how things can go right before we can analyze how things go wrong And so the way things can go right for a macroeconomy is if we lower our Rate of time preference if we decide that we're going to decrease how much we want to consume today Which means that we free up resources that can be used for investments so that we can produce more Then what that does is there's a total restructuring a total reallocation of how resources are used in the economy away from consumption and Towards production which means that we're allowing for more production of the goods that we would like to consume in the future So this is the path to economic growth.  Entrepreneurs will change the way that they they're producing things in accordance with the societal rate of time preference So hopefully that's just a brief review of what you've already learned so far this week How things can go wrong start with manipulation in credit markets So specifically through the banking system if we have an increase in the supply of money This artificially lowers the interest rate and distorts the way production is done So new money enters circulation through credit markets, which is a special case of can't he on effects and it lowers the interest rate Entrepreneurs bid for factors of production and begin to implement new longer lines of production just as if there were increased savings Incomes increase which lead consumers to consume more and bid at the prices of consumer goods real investment However, has not increased so the entrepreneurs will find an increasing scarcity of the capital goods Required to complete their projects which leads to an increase in the cost of production beyond what they anticipated And so they abandoned those projects So this is this is just a very short description of the Austrian boom bus cycle and and it has a very specific very certain Beginning so we know exactly what causes it and we we can trace through the pattern of what will happen When we see this manipulation in credit markets Okay, so now let's do an overview of Keynesian Macro economics, and we'll talk about the I'll do Austrians versus Keynesians and then I'll do Austrians versus Monitors and then at the end I have a slide about how the monitors in Keynesians are the same So Keynesian macro is based on the circular flow model So the this is sort of the the base This is the foundation of Keynesian macro economics, whereas the base or foundation for Austrian macro economics are talking about economy-wide things would be looking at the structure of production So Keynes decided to look at the economy as if it's a circular flow We have the households and individuals who own the factors of production own the firms and also consume the output from the firms They're on the right-hand side and they purchase Goods and services from the firms in this top market. There's the market for goods and services at the top and then firms produce that output by using the factors of production that they get from the households and Individuals in the bottom market. So they purchase those factors of production in the bottom part And so we have a flow of money that emerges in the economy So households and individuals are spending that spending is revenue for the firms And then the firms take that revenue and they pay it out as income to the factor owners So the people who own the labor own the capital and anything that's different They it goes to entrepreneurship or entrepreneurs So entrepreneurs are entrepreneurship is viewed as a factor of production in this model Which is very different from the way Austrians would treat entrepreneurship So this is taken as an equilibrium condition if we have Income which is capital Y in this model if it's equal to the level of expenditure, which is capital E Then Cain said we have an equilibrium This this economy is stable the spinning on the top half is the same as the spinning on the bottom half The flow is is even and so if we can set these two Magnitudes these two spending flows equal to each other We get income equals expenditure and this is the equilibrium condition in the Keynesian model Expenditures are disaggregated a bit into consumption spending investment spending and government spending and also net exports But just for our purposes today. I'm just going to assume a closed economy So consumption spending is C Investing spending is I and government spending is G the first graphical model of Using this equation was called the Keynesian cross or the incoming and expenditure model So you take those three components of expenditure and You stack them on top of each other and that gives you the total level of expenditure in the economy So you have consumption spending and then you add investment spending and then you add government spending And that gives you the total level of expenditure notice that there's this diagonal line coming out of the origin That's the equilibrium condition line That's the line where all levels of it of income equal the levels of expenditure And so if we have if our economy is is on that line It means that we're in macro macro economic equilibrium from the Keynesian perspective. Okay, so you'll notice that only one of the One of the components of expenditure has a slope and that's the consumption function there at the bottom The consumption function is the only one that has a slope and it's it's totally dependent on income So you add the intercept is autonomous consumption and you have Income multiplied by what's called the marginal propensity to consume which turns out to be the only Variable that goes into determining the Keynesian spending multipliers Which you've heard a lot about I'm sure and then you you stack on investment spending Which isn't dependent on income importantly and government spending which also was not dependent on income Notice the slope of the that investment spending line and the government spending line is totally dependent on the the consumption Function so you just sort of stack it on top in my classes I like to refer to it as a stack of pancakes You've got a stack of consumption pancakes the stack of investment spending pancakes and a stack of Terrible tasting government spending government spending pancakes Okay, so the reason I talk about the stack of pancakes is because it makes it easier for students to think about taking some of those pancakes out So if we start taking away some spending and in the Keynesian model what's typically done is we say there's this Unanticipated decrease in an investment spending so you see that investment spending line What I'm about to do when I when I click the button here is it's gonna fall But you'll notice that the top line falls down at the same rate. It does the it does the same exact thing So and that's because what we're going to stipulate is that there is no response from the government There's no government policy that steps in it says we're gonna change the we're gonna change the way We're spending because of the change in investment spending. So so watch what happens when we when we have an Unanticipated decrease in investment spending. Well, it wasn't very smooth So they both fall together and the economy collapses and the reason for that is because of a very important Keynesian assumption that's that's put in and that is that wages are sticky Everybody's heard of this the whole sticky wage thing and so since wages are sticky if we have a decrease in spending Which means that firms are receiving lower revenue They firms still have to pay those those higher wages or those stuck wages And so they decrease output But then they can't lower the wage so that they can have full employment at the new lower level of spending and the New lower lower level of output. So there's this inherent mismatch. There's these inherent persistent Disequilibria and labor markets because wages are stuck at too high of a level for whatever reason There are few reasons that are offered like maybe there's a psychological reason workers don't want to accept a lower wage. There are maybe Legal issues so like what if the wage is at the minimum wage already, which means it's illegal to lower it So whatever the case if we have sticky wages labor markets can't clear and so the economy just spirals down into depression So like there's this initial decrease in investment spending that causes the whole economy to collapse Which by the way in the Keynesian system would happen a lot because investment spending is considered as very unstable It's guided by these animal spirits. It's impossible to predict If investors are optimistic, then they'll increase their spending if they're pessimistic, then they'll decrease their spending That's that's basically it just comes out of nowhere there's just the major changes in investment spending that come from nowhere and Because of this inherent instability of investment spending then the entire macroeconomy is is in this fragile position so the whole economy crashes Okay, so let's look at the ha the story of the Keynesian story of how things can go right So we had this this unstable investment spending component However in this scenario here, we're stipulating that the government spending component Completely makes up for any changes in the investment spending component So that there's a rule so there's a change in investment spending then the government Increases or decreases they're spending to perfectly offset it so you notice that the top line doesn't move in this case So the animal spirits are moving that investment spending line up and down So investment spending increases and decreases all the time because of animal spirits But the government thankfully is there to step in and prevent us from spiraling downward into depression Because whenever the investment spending pancakes come out the government adds some pancakes right on top So the total stack of the pancakes doesn't change So and that's what matters We just want the stack of pancakes to stay the exact same size so we don't have the spiral downward effect because of sticky wages. Oh By the way So we're in the judges room We're I guess I should say the judges jurisdiction and so he allows questions People have encountered these models in their classes and so it's okay with me if you raise your hands We can have a more informal Question and answer if you'd like so if any question if you have any questions along the way, please please raise your hand and ask Okay, so this is the the Keynesian story of things working right Government saves the day is the moral of the story So that was an early Keynesian model the There was another model in between so there was the ISLM model and then after that came the aggregate supply And aggregate demand model, but the story didn't really change So the the policy prescriptions don't change if we have the if we have any sort of Unanticipated decrease in spending this time. We'll call it aggregate demand So aggregate the aggregate demand curve is that downward sloping Curve here in this graph if we have any decrease in aggregate demand Then we pull away from the long run level of output the full the full employment level of output We slide down the short run aggregate supply curve Which has its own really weird reasons for being slow sloped upward like sticky wages and misperceptions Other sticky prices. So there's some some funny things going on in the in the way that these Curves are sloped, but the the moral of the story is the same So the only hope is for some non-market entity to decide to increase spending to offset the original decrease so I've seen this graph used to explain the Great Depression So there was this unexpected unexpected decrease in Investment spending and then there was a subsequent decrease in consumption spending and thank goodness FDR came in and increased government spending and then we had a huge increase in government spending with World War two And that's what allowed at the aggregate demand curve to to get us back to our long-run equilibrium question Okay, so sticky way the question is about sticky wages. What exactly are sticky wages? So sticky wages is the site this Keynesian idea that Wages can be stuck for for non-market or maybe even non voluntary reasons So we we know that wages are set by the labor's diminishing marginal Revenue productivity, sorry searching for the word revenue productivity However, if there is some sort of decrease in demand for labor Based on the change in there in the in that workers revenue productivity Then what they what a Keynesian economist might say is for some reason the equilibrium wage in that labor market won't come down For whatever reason and and it could be that though the workers just won't accept it They won't accept a lower wage or it could be that there are regulations or cultural reasons for this So there I've seen a number of different reasons for it But the idea is that for some reason wages won't come down to the market clearing rate another question Yeah, yeah, so it's it's a there's this distinction between nominal wages and real wages So the even even if the workers can achieve the same or even a higher real wage by accepting of lower nominal wage The argument is that the nominal wages won't go down They're not so they won't accept the the lower pay even if the goods and services that they can purchase with that lower Nominal pay is the same or even higher so as it's a lot of the reasons have to do with the psychology of workers and the wages That they'll accept good point any other questions before we move on okay good So let's compare the Austrian story with the with the Keynesian story So the the shape of the business cycle for Austrian economists is boom and then bust So we have this we have a cause of the boom and the cause is the artificial credit expansion So it's boom and then bust for the Keynesians the the shape is bust and then boom So there's this unexpected decrease in investment spending that sort of comes out of nowhere and then the government steps in saves the day Or there's some other exogenous increase in spending exogenous exogenous just means outside of the system There's some sort of increase in an invest investment spending or government spending or consumption spending perhaps That allows aggregate demand to increase so that we get back to our long-run equilibrium and we're out So it's a bust and then boom So so a lot of times when Austrians and Keynesians are debating each other discussing business cycles with each other Just because the shape is different in the in the minds of these economists there They start to talk past each other So the if you consider the the bust is the first part of the business cycle Then you're gonna talk past or you're not gonna be speaking the same language as somebody who considers the boom as the as the first phase of the cycle The causes are totally different the cause for Austrians is the artificial credit expansion for Keynesians It's the instability of investment spending specifically an unexpected decrease in investment spending and the diagnosis For Austrians is the malinvestment and overconsumption that that dr. Howden talked about in his in his lecture So we we produced the wrong things in the wrong ways and consumers Increase their consumption beyond what they would have done absent the artificial credit expansion For Keynesians the diagnosis is there's there's this steep decrease in aggregate demand The cure for Austrians is to simply let the busts run its course dr. Howden did a good job explaining how the recession is actually The healthy process of figuring out where the factors of production Should be in the structure of production So how should we be using all these capital goods and in labors that we have available? How should we be using all these resources in a productive and profitable way and that's what the recession is It's discovering Refiguring out how to how to how to produce the things that consumers demand the cure for the Keynesian is both Expansionary monetary and expansionary fiscal policy So I didn't talk through the details, but there are two ways to increase aggregate demand by policy You can just increase government spending which is a component of aggregate demand and we saw that directly in the old Keynesian cross model We just increase government spending whenever there's a decrease in investment spending Then we avoid spiraling downward into depression. However, in the aggregate supply and aggregate demand model It's it's common for students to to list out what what are the shifters of aggregate demand and one of the shifters of aggregate demand Is monetary policy it turns out that if you increase the money supply through credit markets, you make it you make it cheaper for Businesses to borrow to purchase factors of production You also make it cheaper for consumers to borrow to purchase homes and cars And so you can increase consumption spending and investment spending through expansionary monetary policy There's not as much literature that I'm familiar with but you can also it seems like it's easier to increase government spending as well when you Engage an expansionary monetary policy because the government can finance debts cheaper. There's less literature on that though So the moral of the story here is you can use expansionary monetary or fiscal policy to increase all sorts of spending In the economy and that's the cure To restate the cure Austrians would say we need to let consumer demand dictate how the factors of production are allocated how resources are allocated We want prices to be in accordance with what consumers demand Including the imputation of value from the consumer good back to the factors of production So we want consumer demand to reign supreme the cure for the Keynesians restated is the government needs to step in and be in charge of what prices are and what spending should be This is a very critical point in in my lecture the prevention for Austrians is don't let Don't let there be an artificial credit expansion basically leave money production out of the whims of bureaucrats Don't don't let money production belong to somebody who can just increase it or decrease it especially if the increases come through credit markets the prevention for Keynesians is the is Let let the government have complete control in these sorts of cases So if we need the government to have the ability to increase and decrease spending Increase and decrease the money supply in the case we have this all of a sudden decrease in in aggregate demand All right So the reason I said this is a critical point is because you'll notice that the prevent the prevention for the Austrians is the cure for the Keynesians So the Keynesians say we need to use expansionary monetary policy to fix the recessions Austrians say no That's what caused the problem in the first place. That's how you prevent future booms and bust That's how you prevent the the business cycle So there's a very extreme divergence of views in terms of the the view on expansionary monetary policy Okay, I'm about to move on to monetarism any questions about the differences between Austrian school and Keynesians. Yes Yeah, there's a great paper by dr. Salerno that explains this the secondary depression in in the boot Austrian boom bus cycle story the paper is Austrian business a reformulation of Austrian business cycle three am I getting that right and so he I recommend that you read That paper that explains that secondary depression. Yeah, it's a very good very good paper Any other questions? Okay, so monetarism It's not very complicated really It's really just one equation. They sort of hang their hat on this this quantity theory of money so we can explain Almost all maybe all macroeconomic phenomenon just by looking at the quantity theory of money also called the equation of exchange Okay, so let's review the elements here. So we have the money supply is M Skip over V for a second P is the price level which I talked about in my previous lecture if you weren't there There's no such thing as the price level. I'll talk about that later And then Q is output sometimes it's T for the total volume of transactions or lowercase y for real output I prefer just Q. This is how Roger Garrison taught me and by golly I'm gonna follow Roger Garrison so in in V equals P Q All right, so the reason I saved V for last is because it's actually Defined by the other elements in this in this equation So V is called the velocity of money or the velocity of circulation of the money supply The turnover rate of the money supply or how many times the average dollar is spent in the economy which you Get by taking the total level of expenditure which is prices times the quantity P times Q and you divide it by the money supply So V is literally it's it's like when it's like super endogenous It's just defined by the other variables in the system and rock part in the man economy estate has a very good section Talking about how absurd it is to have a variable in this equation That's that's only there because you need it to make the two sides Equally each other and the reason this is important is because There's no such thing as the velocity of money in in purely Logically derived economic theory. So the velocity of money doesn't enter into anybody's choice There's no like when I'm going out to the grocery store to purchase, you know the elements to make a burrito perhaps I'm not considering. You know, what is the velocity of money today? I'm also not considering. What is the general level of prices? I'm making my own individual choices based on my value of the of cat the cash that I have my cash balance and also the Goods that I would use to to to construct the burrito. Okay, so the velocity of money is a is a strange Figure here, but in its defined as total level of expenditure P times Q divided by In the money supply. So if you have a hundred dollars in a very small economy a hundred dollars worth of spending and Only twenty dollars exist in this economy. So the true money supply the money supply for this economy is twenty dollars. It would take Spending that twenty dollars on average five times to achieve the total level of spending So that's a good way to think about what the velocity of money is. Okay, so how do we use or how do we think about this equation? so they It depends on who's writing which monitors your reading Freedmen probably the father of monetarism Assumed that the velocity of money is relatively constant doesn't change much from year to year and over the time spent that he was looking at it There's been some debate over whether or not he fudged the numbers or that he smoothed it out too much But in his his book a monetary history of the United States Over the time period that he was looking at. Yeah, it was relatively stable now outside that time period It's been shown that there have been some pretty big changes in the velocity of money, but for Friedman's Use of this equation he assumed the velocity stays constant and as a policy goal We're gonna try to stabilize prices so the policy goal of of Keynesians was to maximize employment and we want to maintain that full employment level of income the policy Goal for monetarists is to keep prices stable and the idea here is that if we keep prices stable That makes it easier for consumers and businesses to make decisions about the present in the future So we so if and if they can work confidently with less uncertainty Make those decisions because of a stable price level prices aren't changing too much then we'll have consistent economic growth Which would look like this so we'll have you know study increases in Q study increases in output Which means for the for this equation to balance out you have to have the same increases in M at the same time so simultaneous or or Yeah Balanced increases in output with increases in the money supply So here you can see immediately there's going to be a big disagreement between monetarists and Austrians about That about increasing the money supply Specifically because Austrians will say if you increase the money supply then you're going to start the boom bus cycle Okay, so this is one way of looking at the at the elements of the equation of exchange The way I've seen some monitors described the the Great Depression is that there was the Fed allowed this big decrease in the money Supply so they allowed all the bank failures, which caused the money supply to collapse so the money supply decreased and There was this big decrease in output and actually was so big and because of the the price the price level Excuse me the money supply was falling prices also fell in the velocity so we had this this Decreases all around so the the Great Depression was just money supply is falling velocity of money was falling as people They're more reluctant to to spend money so the velocity of money decreases prices also fall in output Obviously fell by about a third. So this is the monetarist This is really the the main apparatus that monetarists used to analyze macroeconomic phenomena Okay, so this is not cherry picking. So this is a direct quote from The book by Friedman and Schwartz so here They say changes in the behavior of the money stock have been closely associated with changes in economic activity money income and prices The interrelation between monetary and economic change has been highly stable monetary changes have often had an independent origin so If if we have a central bank that has discretion over the money supply, that's that's what they're talking about that independent origin They have not been simply a reflection of changes in economic activity So so we can use in as a policy variable So it's outside of the market system use in as a policy variable to achieve the macroeconomic ends that we would like Namely stable price level so that we can have consistent economic growth. Okay, so what are the Austrian responses to this? There are quite a few Probably the most fundamental response is that the analysis starts with data Availability as opposed to sound economic theory, so they're not starting from the ground up How do people make choices? Why do people purchase this as opposed to this or or talking talking about things from from a microfound out foundation as some Economist might say it starts with well, we've got this money supply data We can construct data on the velocity of money by taking total expenditures and dividing it by the money supply And we know it's true So it has to be true that the money supply times the number of times it's spent It must be equal to to total expenditure price times quantity So we we have this data So let's use this as our main apparatus of considering changes in the macroeconomy as opposed to the the Austrian method Which was we start with human action You get diminishing marginal utility you get law of demand law of supply and onwards and upwards until you construct this massive Business psychotherapy or critique of socialism for example Another criticism is that Well, this really isn't a criticism. It's just a statement MV equals PQ is a tautology There's really no argument over the truthfulness of this So even if you consider P an array of prices or a vector of prices You can still multiply it by the vector the horizontal vector of all of the different goods that are produced in the economy So you can still calculate total spending on the right hand side and that must equal. There's no argument over this The money supply times the the velocity if the velocity is defined as whatever number it takes to get these two sides to equal each Other so there's no argument over the the truthfulness of this equation The argument is over the cause and effect and just if you just look at an equation the cause and effect Isn't clear in fact if you notice the two examples that I went through one time I started with an increase in output and said well the what that implies is that we need to have a monetary policy like this and in the other example I said well suppose we allow the money supply to collapse What's going to happen to the other variables in the system? So so there's this big question over what which variable causes what? Which which one is endogenous? Which one is exogenous? What? What direction is is the cause and effect here and it's not clear just from the equation where that is as opposed to the Austrian Apparatus the Austrian theory where cause and effect is at every step along the way Here's a nice quote from Mises He says it's essentially nothing. He's talking about the equation of exchange It's essentially nothing but a mathematical expression of the untenable doctrine that there is proportionality in the movements of the quantity of money And of prices so this is not just an critique of the equation of exchange But also of thinking about changes in the money supply having a proportionate or even effect on the the general level of prices So so Mises did a total smackdown of this of thinking about That relationship as a mechanical one So if we increase the money supply there's going to be this sort of effect in general on the price level and thinking About all prices changing in one direction versus another direction Mises just totally smashed it so it turns out that there's no way to do that even in the angel Gabriel model There's no way to say for sure that all prices are going to rise evenly or decrease Evenly if there's some sort of change in the in the money supply Austrians would also say there's no such thing as the price level so as a number So we can't just plug in one number in this in this equation. There's no such thing as the price level it's The closest thing that we can get to is a constellation of prices one of my favorite analogies is the swarm of bees Analogy that the price the price level is like a swarm of bees So all of these prices that are moving in relation to each other the swarm can go up Then the swarm can go down But if you're just looking at the midpoint of the swarm of bees and you're sort of missing the whole point You're missing the all of the relative changes all of the canty on effects that might happen Another criticism is that there's there's no reason to seek to stabilize P in fact Austrians would say like the whole point of prices is for them to be able to move up and down in accordance with the The total stock of some good and the demand for that good. So we want prices to fluctuate We also want prices in general to be able to fluctuate in accordance with people's change in the demand for money So like we need prices and the entire price level to be able to fluctuate So there's so seeking to stabilize the price level is it seems first of all it seems sort of arbitrary like why why seek to Stabilize something that we need in the functioning of a market economy. We need prices to be able to change We've already talked about how V is pretty much meaningless There's a another quote from Mises here the the mathematical economists refused to start from the various individuals demand for and supply of money They introduced instead the spurious notion of velocity of circulation Fashioned according to the patterns of mechanics Mises also criticized the the idea of money circulating Period so money actually doesn't circulate. I didn't give a moment all dollars are held by somebody They're in somebody's cash balance So even in a transaction at one moment the money belongs to one person in the next moment It belongs to the other person It's not really good to think about money circulating through the economy even though I tend to use this phrase as well but if you're you if you're Thinking about the circulation of money either from a Keynesian or a monetarist perspective And you're sort of missing out on the fact that money is demanded to be held in individual cash balances by individuals as opposed to thinking about money is this independent Abstract variable that's that's flowing through the economy either in a circle or it's it's being Turned over like in the the quantity theory of money Once again similar to the Keynesian Critique that we saw from the Austrian is the policy prescription in a recession which is expansionary monetary policy Restarts the boom bus cycles so Friedman was Very famous for saying that the Fed should have stepped in during the Great Depression or during the initial crash in the money Supply they should have stepped in and prevented that decrease in the money supply by bailing out banks by increasing the money supply in various means So this is what causes the boom bus cycle for Austrians once again So this is a good analogy of the problems of monetarism from Roger Garrison This is a story of the the case of the cabbage eating Mississippi monster So we'll we'll work through this and see what Garrison has to say suppose that in late October of 1929 A thousand pound monster showed up in Mississippi It spent the next three and a half years eating all the cabbages in quite a few rabbits between Jackson and Pascagoula By early March of 1933 the monster weighed 4,000 pounds. It's a big monster Two investigators are sent to Mississippi to get a handle on the situation. One is from Vienna. The other is from Chicago The Vienna the V&E's investigator asked where in the world did this hideous thing come from so the analogy here Austrians are they see a business cycle and they look for what is what caused it what caused the boom that preceded this bust And they're gonna look for expansionary monetary policy They're gonna look for new money entering the the economy through the credit markets And so Garrison says here I seem to stack the cards against the Austrian It's it's hard to even imagine an insightful answer to this question unless of course the monster turns out to be the unintended consequence of some ill-conceived government sponsored by onyx project, so I wonder if Stranger Things could approach Roger Garrison for some ideas on Stranger Things season four. This would be a great story there The Chicago and shows up Shoves the Austrian aside and says 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 recession excuse me monster? Quadruple its weight in 40 months So how do how do these small recessions turn into big recessions the Chicago answer of course is it was all the cabbages It's the cabbages fault that the the monster was eating. He couldn't get good data on the rabbits, unfortunately The correlation between cabbage consumption and weight gain leaves no doubt about the issue So this isn't this is a fun story to show how Monitorists look at recessions and business cycles compared to how Austrians look at business cycles So Austrians show up asked what caused where did the monster come from? Where did the the bust come from and they're gonna look at the boom? Chicagoans when they're looking at changes in the variables after the fact when they're looking at you know changes in the money Supply changes in price changes in output Once there is a bust then there they can talk about all they can talk about this all they want to But they're still not asking the right question, which is where did the bust come from in the first place? Just as an aside if you're interested in researching Sort of the shape of Friedman's business cycle model you should Google the plucking model PLU CK plucking model So like there's this long run growth trend and you can pluck down this line and get the bust and then the boom So the shape for the business cycle for monitor is is the same as the Keynesians is bust and then boom So so Keynesians and monitorists are in the same camp in terms of shape as well as the other things Which we'll get to in one second Milton Friedman died Before the financial crisis, but he lived long enough to have the opportunity to see what was happening While the housing bubble was being inflated And so a professor Salerno found this quote enough. I think import Friedman was interviewed by Charlie Rose December of 2005 when it was it was becoming very obvious that there was a housing bubble and Actually, even in 2002 in 2004 you can find some of the early earliest Austrian predictions of the housing bubble and the consequences that came so here's what Friedman said the United States is At the peak of its performance in its history There's never been a time in the United States when we have had the state of prosperity its level and its spread That we've had in the last 10 or 15 years There's never been a 15 year period in which there has been so little fluctuation in prices in inflation inflation has stayed around two or three Percent or less for the last 15 years. It's unprecedented I certainly do and then it's implied in the interview give credit to Alan Greenspan for that I think monetary policy is primarily responsible for it. So so Friedman totally missed I know it seems unfair because he's dead now, but I Mean if if we can show monitors didn't predict this not just Friedman But other monitors didn't predict this but Austrians did it seems like we should you know take a good look at the perspective In which they were predicting what what happened. Okay, so I said at the at the very end We would talk about the similarities between monetarism and Keynesianism and here they are So both start their analysis with data availability What sort of macroeconomic aggregates do we have available? What can we tally up? What can we count as opposed to the Austrian position, which is let's make an entire edifice of necessarily true apogetically certain Economic theory and then see what we can say about the economy as opposed to what the monitors and Keynesians do Which is what data do we have and what can what can we do with that data? The MV equals PQ equation I don't know if anybody picked up on this is actually the same thing as the Y is equal to E equation They're both tallying up total expenditures for the economy just in different ways So the Keynesians they'll disaggregate expenditure between consumption spending investment spending government spending and net exports the monetarists will Disaggregate it. This is actually there's less Disaggregation there's more aggregation on the monitor side than there is on the on the Keynesian side So at least for Keynesians they disaggregate Q into the different types of products that that people are consumed or consuming and using Consumption and investment in government, but we just have Q. We just have total real output there for the for the Monitor, so there's a higher level of aggregation even on the monitor side The policy prescription is the same so Keynesians would say yeah We can use expansionary monetary policy to get us out of a depression to solve the bust So we had the bust and then the boom Keynesians would add yeah We can also use fiscal policy monitors are generally distrustful of using fiscal policy and using that part of government to fix the problem But they're a okay with using monetary policy just like the Keynesians are so there's a total total alignment in terms of the policy prescription from both monitors and Keynesians and here I have a couple quotes here's one from Friedman We all use the Keynesian language in apparatus and he just says that he rejects the Keynesian conclusions So I would argue that I don't know about that his conclusions seem pretty similar a quote from Krugman that I got from a Robert Murphy blog post You can always count on Murphy to find those good Krugman quotes So Krugman said old-style Friedman type monitors who focus on monetary aggregates are essentially in the same campus Keynesians So why don't they just you know hug and kiss and and just make it clear to everybody in the world? So thank you very much


It wasn't working before, I apologize. Okay, so I want to preface, I'm gonna give a little bit of preamble and that we can from that preamble introduce ourselves. So on the program, it says, Hillish Patel Community Organizer and I have to say I bristled at that a little bit. I have organized in the past, primarily around education and with and against Chicago Public Schools, but I'm not currently an organizer. And for me, and I was talking to someone earlier and saying that I grew up as a dancer, but I'm no longer a dancer. I don't have that daily practice anymore. And so I think about that. What does it mean to have a daily practice? And for me, not only am I thinking about what does it mean to have a daily practice, not only as an organizer and as a dancer, but also how do you split these things into two different pathways? What does it mean to be a dancer? What does it mean to dance? And so with that, I wanted to ask you who you are and what you do at Chicago United for Equity and what does it mean to have a civic practice, which is something that I see you do every day and I'm curious how you articulate it. And you might be like, well, I really don't know, but I'm putting you on the spot. Thank you. My name is Nikita Brar. I am the co-founder and executive director of Chicago United for Equity, but more importantly, I am a Civic Systems Organizer. And so what that means to me in my civic practice actually starts with stepping back a little bit and connecting to the frame of the conversation today that was laid out so beautifully about belonging to a place. So I can't tell you about what I do without telling you that if you're from Chicago, the first question you're gonna ask me is what high school did you go to? And I did not go to high school here. I have been here for about 10 years. I grew up outside of the city, lived in Oakland, lived in Michigan, and then returned here. And in returning here, right, I think my, in answering your question of what's your civic practice, it's like I came back to Chicago with this appreciation that I am a visitor here and that it is my job to pay attention to the stories of this place. And the irony of course is that the stories of this place made me feel immediately a sense of belonging because I'm a kid of the diaspora and a kid of a particular diaspora from Punjab, which was divided and given power associated with who you are and how you were seen as more or less human. And so coming to Chicago in developing a civic practice was like finding myself. It was like finding parts of my family. My, I feel a deep connection to my ancestors here because the stories of how they navigated power and they had to navigate it without language for it. I feel like my civic practice is very much rooted in this like, for a person who doesn't consider themselves deeply religious, it feels like a deeply spiritual practice to ask myself what it means to belong. And Chicago right now is grappling with that conversation about what it means to belong, who is allowed to belong here. And so my civic practice is both on a day to day basis sitting on, sitting at coalition tables where we are debating policy and people's everyday lives and what we are going to do to try to make them better. But it is also very rooted in who I am and who came before me and what I want to leave behind. And we'll treat this other dialogue so you can put me on the spot too. But one of the things, not to make a complete linear connection, but this idea of not having power and not having language, there are a lot of people that I talk to on a daily basis who will talk about engaging with quote unquote politics or civic issues in Chicago and will use that same language. I feel like I don't have power, I don't have the language. Can you talk a little bit about how you react to that and how you educate people on that and then if it's applicable, the people's budget? Yeah, I mean I think that question of how you feel about your relationship to power in Chicago is relevant no matter what power position authority you hold, right? I saw that when I served on the local school council for a school called National Teachers Academy and was really involved because my family of educators, both my grandmothers were educators, I was a teacher previously and so it felt very important to me to be rooted in place by being rooted in my local school community. And very quickly learned that the public school system had intention to close the school down and so the first sort of thing that I knew to do was to go talk to families, parents, grandparents and say, do you know this is going on? How do you wanna get involved? And in door knocking, I would have these conversations where you would meet these historians of debates about power who'd say this happened to us a generation ago. They cut the bus line, they made sure we couldn't get to school and there's this massive displacement that happened and I would say, okay, so you're ready, right? We're having our organizing meeting on Thursday, are you coming? And they'd say, I've done this before, I've fought this fight before and I don't have it in me to fight again. Now juxtapose that to in the same campaign we would have parents and family members sit down with members of the Board of Education of Chicago and we would say to them and they would, you know, here's what's going on, here's a story and at the end they would say, I feel for you, I think this is wrong that the mayor is pushing this but I don't have the power to change it. And so I think I grapple a lot with what it means to be a Chicagoan, to have the sort of experience of feeling like I'm just one of so many and how will my voice ever make a difference and also to sit in places of formal authority where you would imagine they do have power but they don't feel powerful. And I think a lot of that in terms of the people's budget and kind of like what is the goal of the organization that I have been part of for the last seven years is really how do we shift the relationship between people and the power they perceive themselves to have and the authority that they feel they are living under. And so that changing and shifting of your relationship to power doesn't happen just because you have more information. It happens because you choose to participate and say, though I see very clearly a history of time being wasted in the civic system, I am going to choose to participate in it anyway. It is logical to sit with a history of disenfranchisement of civic trauma and to say, I do not wanna participate in this. It is courageous to say, I acknowledge that history and instead of walking away, I choose to participate in something that may take more than my lifetime to achieve. And so I think the harder part of that people's budget which we built out of the summer of 2020 and the uprisings, we had been talking about what it means to take a racial equity lens to the city budget process for years. Since the very first cohort of fellows that we hosted had raised it as a project they wanted to work on in 2017. And in 2020, we said, this is the moment. If there was a moment to talk about the city budget and to bring people's, not just anger and frustration but their hopes into this space, this is the space. And so we started to have these conversations in different neighborhoods of Chicago where you bring a budget board by and we'd say, we're not gonna talk about the budget. What we're gonna ask is very simple. What does your community need to be safe and thriving? And everyone has an answer to that. And so asking questions that invite every single person to have a place to participate and setting the table from there and then saying, okay, so now let's talk about what are the different areas of needs and where would you put your dollars with real tokens and people actually playing that game the way that I remember sitting with my grandmother and playing games around, right? Like that's the sense of community that we wanted to create was not this idea of a policy person sitting at a board with a presentation, but actually we are all policy makers and what could it look like for us to engage beauty and art in creating that space? And it was a beautiful project. I remember, in fact, I found a Post-it note the other day in a journal where my team and I had sort of laid out our goals for the project and one of them was to create beauty. And we don't talk about beauty as an act of civic service, right? But to build something beautiful that inspires people and we got into the budget and we talked about how many millions are in this and billions are in that. But the more important thing was at the end for us to be able to say, okay, we sat in a group of 10, Halesh, who do you think should represent this conversation to your alderman? And for Halesh to say, well, I think it should be so and so and to watch people say, me. I'm shocked, you want me? I'm not a leader, right? And there's like this, of all the things that I like to do, that is what I love to do is to watch people see that they have power, that a group sees them as a leader and a leader full presence. So I think that's the beauty, right? It's how do we create that?  How do you think about that in your civic practice? Well, I mean, I think about leadership a lot. Ways in which to define it, ways in which to subvert it and then how people, for me, how do I say this? Ambition's not a bad thing. I know that people who wanna be, I'm not negating people who wanna be leaders, but the leaders that I find often who are doing the most sustainable and productive work are the ones who didn't anticipate being leaders, are the ones who got called to do it or got pushed to the front. And then quite often in their path, I get to meet them where they say, can you tell me how to be a leader? Can I get some training? I'm like, you've been doing this for five to 20 years. And they're like, I don't know how to do this. I'm just like flying by the seat of my pants. Not only that, I have 20 young people who I'm building the capacity of and I have no pathways to give them. And what does that look like? And so there's this collective definition of leadership, this identification with this one particular individual. And then there's this subversive idea, quote unquote, subversive idea of collective leadership. But really this infusion of care gets pushed to the side. And it doesn't just push to the side in conversations, it gets pushed to the side in funding.  And I think there are vehicles and apparatus, I can think of one person in particular who, Angelique over here who very intentionally said to me, like, no, we want to do that. We want to create a vehicle to do that. And I think there are spaces to do that. And so I think in terms of my civic practice, I think about that. So I'm someone who weaves all that in, but I'm also a poet. So I try to bring beauty to, but also not just beauty for me as a poet. It's not just about bringing beauty to the table. It's about bringing discomfort, letting people sit in discomfort. And allowing, as you, you know, as we're thinking about municipal spaces, government spaces, pushing them to be in discomfort, that it's not just that you're creating opportunities and moments for people to be heard. You're like, no, I'm gonna shift the power. You're gonna be in discomfort and we're gonna push and distribute the power over here. So I think about that quite a bit. I feel like in what I'm hearing from you, this idea of discomfort I think is really, really powerful because we've been playing with this concept of just saying like leadership, because we have fellows every year who are sort of labeled as leaders and they're also uncomfortable with the title, right? Of being a leader as a singular practice. And we've been sitting with like, how do we help describe the types of folks that we see as leaders? And one phrase that we keep coming back to is the idea of courage over comfort. That they're practicing courage despite the fact that it is uncomfortable. Is it brave if it's hard or is it brave because it's uncomfortable and you choose to participate anyway? If it doesn't feel like it's difficult, then I'm not sure it's courage, right? And I say that because I think it's incumbent on all of us to actually practice being uncomfortable, practice being in spaces where our voice doesn't carry the same way and we still participate in raising it. Yeah, I wanna add to that that in addition to the discomfort and this was mentioned earlier with what you know, what one of our speakers was saying that this deliberate shift away from the binary that people that we're in order to and I don't know if this is gonna make sense or that come out the way I want it to, you'll probably do a better job of this than I will, that you want leaders, you want civic practitioners to sit with multiple things at once and that to quote a colleague and an old friend that you want to queer the civic space, you wanna disrupt the binary because power exists in the binary. People, governments, entities really love the binary. They love it when it's like, here's good, here's bad. Go out and do with it what you will. But disrupting that is where that discomfort lies as well. Yeah, and I think that can get super tangible when we start to look at where Chicago is right now. We are in a space of sort of saying like we have this incredibly progressive mayor, we've got a city council that is different in realignment, we have all these things in place so shouldn't we just be happy with what we've got? And there's a remarkable, and maybe just remarkably predictable path to sort of saying like, well, any resistance to the idea that this is enough is you're just asking for too much. And I think it's part of our job to say, yes, we can celebrate what we have and in fact we must be audacious in pushing ourselves further. That it's quite important that we hold true to the idea that it is not our job to protect leaders from critique, it is actually our job to create critique. That critique is what sharpens us. And I think part of the culture that we sit in and the culture that we have to challenge and to disrupt is this idea that because I'm on your team that I'm always gonna be your biggest cheerleader. Yeah, and you have to agree with everything that I say. Of course, of course, right? And so like part of, I mean, I sit and I reflect on that and I think, wow, it must be hard to be friends with me. Because like the people I love. You have no idea. Because the people I love the most are the people who are gonna hear it from me the most because I care enough about them to challenge them. If I don't really care about you and we're not really in relationship like that, I'll let it go. I don't want to invest my time. Well, and then when we do our hour long talk, whenever we do our next hour long talk, we can talk about the South Asian-ness of that, but we'll come back to that. Max, I wanted to do a time check. Three minutes, okay. What do we want to talk about for three minutes? Well, the one thing that, and I don't know how to incorporate this in, but this came up this morning super early when I was on a phone call. There's this constant idea and maybe this isn't the direction to go, but that there are people, and again, when I say there are people in power, it's a little bit of a nebulous, but there's this constant regurgitated idea that you just need to know your place. And it could be when we're talking about civics or racial equity or when we're talking about any sort of power that what are you doing? You don't know your place. You don't know your place in the system of things. You don't know your place in this system that I've created, et cetera. So that's one thing I wanted to bring up. I only have like two minutes to talk about that, but yeah, we need to sit with that idea because that's such a racialized concept, right? It's such a power, it's power enforcing itself to protect against critique again. You just need to know your place. Who's told to know their place? I remember when I worked at the governor's office, I was one of two women of color and I'm barely melanated. So the idea that, like, and I was told that, you gotta know your place. And so, you know, I sat with that a lot, the folks that were peers to me, but we weren't really peers because in that hierarchy, right? It was, they were never told to know their place. They were invited to lead conversations. And so, I rebel against that idea, but I also, I think it's important that we envision what it looks like when we are in leadership. And to envision what it is that I will build differently in order for the realization of the younger me to be able to thrive. And I say that because I think in many ways, I think it feels like enough to just be in power and to use the structure that existed to drive a different outcome. And that feels like quite enough for a lot of people. And it takes a lot more imagination to say, I'm not just gonna be in authority, I'm gonna restructure authority so that no one here could ever be told to know their place. And it takes quite a bit of confidence actually, quite a bit of confidence in your own leadership in order to be willing to do that. So I think that's what I invite us to do in this conversation throughout the rest of today and tomorrow is, you know, how do I cultivate a quiet sense of confidence that allows me to challenge and disrupt power structures and to say we deserve better? I think that's great. I think that's a great way to end it because I know Max has been giving us time, time's up. Also kudos to Max for keeping on the grammar with all the time stuff. Thank you all. Thank you.


It is Sunday, February 4th and it's like 8.30 at night and I haven't recorded a dang thing for you all all day today. It's Super Bowl Sunday here in the States. The lighting is weird because it's so dark. I spent the whole, my husband went to a Super Bowl party with some college friends. I stayed home. I'm not really into sports. I had to work on the secret project and I wanted to get a big bulk of it done, which I did today. I also got the vlog for a last week edited and loaded already today and a bunch of stuff like that. I spent basically the day at the computer editing video, deleting things that I recorded that I thought, what the heck is that? And I didn't use the word heck and I thought, okay, that's just not even YouTube worthy.  So yeah, it's out of here. It was just bad people. Bad packed. I need to double check the trash can and make sure, yeah, let's get rid of that too. So yeah, so it's all gone. Thank goodness. That's all. That took all day. I haven't done anything else.  I'm going to turn it off for the day. I'm going to look at any posts that are on here on my iPad out in the other room. So anyway, I hope that you all had a great day and that you have a great week going forward. If you are a sports fan and you watched the Super Bowl, I hope the team won that you wanted to win. So anyway, tomorrow is a day that I can spend filming and creating art with and without the camera. So I look forward to that and yeah, getting laundry done, you know, stuff like that has to be done. All right. That's it for right now. I will see you tomorrow. Bye guys. Hey guys. How are you today? It is Monday morning, February 5th and you know, today's gotten off to a bit with a bang and it's not a good bang. So anyway, I am headed out to go run some errands. I'm going to take you with me as usual. So I started off this morning by doing chores, you know, laundry and stuff like that. We transplanted some plants around the backyard over the weekend as you probably saw in last week's vlog. So I went out this morning to go water them so I can make sure they live and don't die. And then while I was trying to do that, I got a call from my husband that he was being sent home from work because the doofus decided to try to go to work even though he wasn't feeling well. That's what he does. He doesn't take time off like he has to be dying to take time off. Not literally, figuratively anyway. So they're like, dude, you need to go home.   Go home. So they sent him home and while I was finding that out, we found out a friend of ours who gets some food over to them. I don't want to interfere with their time with their mother, but I want to support where I can. And if all I can do is sort of sneak in the back door and leave food in the kitchen while they're spending time with her, I can do that. So I'm in communication with them to try to figure out how to get that done this week. So, you know, I got the work done on the secret project yesterday, as I already mentioned yesterday when I was taping and that's all done and submitted. I'm nervously, anxiously waiting to hear back on that. So anyway, I can't say too much more about that without revealing what's going on. I got an unexpected affiliate request from a art supply company to do things here on YouTube with them. And of course, I would not do that without telling you all that that's what the video is about. I'm not about hiding things like that. So I am in communication with them about that. That's pretty exciting, especially because it's a company I like and they have products I like because I wouldn't do this with a company I wasn't sure of. So we will see how that goes. That happens. It's been an eventful morning. I'm telling you all. So anyway, we're headed to Michael's. I created a journal page recently. The video's not released yet. It won't be released until the end of the month. And I mixed a custom color for the page and I love it so much that I'm going to go see if I can find a bottle of Americana paint in that color or something super similar because I want to use it again and again and I don't want to keep mixing it. I only want to do that once or twice and after that, that's just too many times for me. So we're going to go see if we can find that. I'm going to pop in a Dollar Tree really quick and see if there's anything interesting there. And then I'm going to go get the mail and then go home and check on the husband and maybe make him some chicken soup because, or pastina, which is, you know, the Italian mom's version of chicken soup. So see if we can get him better, pump him full of vitamin C and date quill and all of that stuff. Let him get some sleep. That's the biggest thing he needs to get some sleep. So anyway, and he has some, he has some things he was supposed to do this afternoon this evening and I may need to run errands for him regarding those two, some Masonic stuff. So we'll see. I'll bring you with me if I do. All right. That's it for the moment. I'll be back. Fun fact, what kind of music do you all think I listen to while I'm driving? I like almost every kind of music out there known to mankind. There's not too many I can say I don't like. But the more anxious I am, the more calming music I need. When I'm in my studio creating, I like to listen to oldies and my Pandora mixes oldies, Celtic music, church hymns, some opera, some like nature sounds, it's a mixture of things. And oh, I can't go there. And when I'm driving, I'm in a really good mood, which doesn't happen a lot in conjunction with driving. And I'll just put on rock and roll. I like rock and roll very much. That doesn't happen a lot. Most of the time, driving stresses me out. And so I'm usually listening to classical music, something soothing and calming. Yeah, because I really, really, really get stressed out while I'm driving, which is funny because I used to love driving and I used to drive as part of my job. And anymore, I just can't do it. It stresses me out to the max. So classical music, Mozart, especially, I like Mozart, Chopin's not bad either. KDFC, it's the local Bay Area classical music station. Thumbs up to them. Alrighty, I'm all done with that. Have you guys ever left a job for whatever reason, voluntarily or not? And when that happens, you maybe don't really miss the job, but you miss the people you use to work with, or maybe you miss aspects of the job.  Maybe you miss aspects of the job and the people you use to work with, yeah. So that's me. I used to work for American Greetings. I was a greeting card merchandiser for them, and I was an installation coordinator. And since I'm obsessive compulsive, straightening up things is right up my alley, makes me happy. And I loved the parts of the job I loved. I especially loved some of the people I worked with. And it's a long story why I don't work there anymore. We won't get into it right now, but I was just in Dollar Tree and I ran into one of my old co-workers, Linda, who is the sweetest lady on the planet. She's worked for the company for 30 years, and she's still doing it, and I was so happy to see her. It was so nice to see her. So anyway, small world. I found my paint colors. I found actually two of them. This one's pretty close to the color I wanted. This one's like a shade darker. They're both really pretty. They're both folk art paints. One is blue lullaby, and the other one is French blue. So anyway, I'm going to go see if the mail is ready early and then go home and check on the husband and see how he's doing. I'll be back. Good morning everyone. It's still technically morning. It's 11, 10, and I've spent the morning getting on the treadmill. I've got a couple of racks to send out in my creative year group, or rack is a random act of kindness. I need to go to the grocery store, get the mail. I also have to make a grocery delivery to a friend whose family is going through a hard time. So I'm going to go do that too. Oh, and I put selected stamps and stencils in my Etsy shop on sale for 30% off while supplies last. If you've been interested in buying one, how is the time to do it because I don't do this too often. With the release of the new sets for 2018, I need to really reduce the inventory on some of the older stuff. So anyway, go check it out. I'll put the link to the Etsy store in the description below. I also have some random art and ephemeral boxes I need to put together. Hopefully I can get that done soon and get that out to you, so I'm going to work on that. Right now, I'm going to go make that food delivery and I'll be back. Hello, everybody. It is Wednesday, February 7th, dog Carol over me. It's just before lunchtime. I'm getting a later start getting some errands done than I thought it would be. I spent the morning doing some writing for the secret project and working on that and doing my daily thoughts posted all over the Facebook groups and the quote and I packaged up three new mystery boxes for sale in the Etsy shop and I'm going to rather than making it a separate video, I'm going to include the footage like right here somewhere. So you'll see it probably speed through of a few minutes of the footage. These boxes include some really old, not very well done artwork that you are free to paint over or do whatever you want with. Some folders of ephemera and FYI, the folders are made out of large sheets of watercolor paper so the folders themselves could be cut up and used for something. Some small envelopes of small collage and ephemera bits and miscellaneous pieces and each box has a creative memories bag intended to hold paper punches and I've included some paper punches for my stash that I cleaned out some stuff. So I'm asking $50 each for the box that includes shipping, they're in my Etsy shop, I'll link the description below if I forget, somebody remind me. And yeah, they've got to go, if you all don't want them then it's going to goodwill. So they've got to go. What else? I have an inventory reduction sale going on over in Etsy on selected stamps and stencils, mostly older designs from 2016 and 2017. So if you're interested in either getting some of my stamps or stencils, you don't have any yet or adding to your collection. Now is a really good time because I don't generally put them on sale. I think it's only happened once before so now is a good time to get them. Got to get packing tape and a neat toothpaste. We're down to the little small sample size tube. The one that's in your travel toiletries bag from when you go out of town. So yeah, didn't realize we had no more toothpaste. So I'm going to go do that and I don't want to go there too late because at like two o'clock it gets crazy. So we're headed over to Target right now. It's a little closer to my house so we're going to go just go there and we have some friends who I said yesterday I made a food delivery to that are going through a hard time and I wish them... I don't want to get into specifics on YouTube but I wish them all my best and all my love and support and one of the family members has a channel here on YouTube. His name is HandyAndy. I'm a super nice guy with a fun workshop in his garage. I will link his channel in the description below. He needs subscribers and yeah, he's got some fun videos over there. I can't think of anything else at the moment. I want to do a journal page and I need to do my daily drawings from yesterday and today because I was tired last night. I didn't get them done last night so I'm going to do them today while I'm on the couch catching up on my soap opera. Yes, I watch a soap opera at General Hospital and watching it since junior high school. Since the days it was in black and white or at least our TV was black and white. When Jesse was still a nurse, if anybody out there is an old General Hospital fan, you'll know what I mean. My husband's been sick for two days so he's back at work today, feeling better. No, he didn't have the flu. He's had the really bad cold and sinus infection that's also been going around besides the flu so let's change lanes. So anyway, he's back at work today. He's all better and I'm taking vitamin C like a crazy woman trying to not get sick so I think that's it for the moment. I'm going to go walk around Target and see what fun stuff we can find to buy that we don't really need. Hopefully we don't do too much of that. All right, I'll be back. We're going out to dinner later with friends and I'll see if I can get some footage. We're going to Harry's Hoff Brow for those who live in the Bay Area. Pretty good place. And I've been playing with my Dana Wakeley journal again and I'll show you. Let me flip the camera around. Chunky stuff and staples and yeah, I like so anyway now it's got to dry before I can do other stuff. I'm looking at a few projects over here for videos. I'm waiting on stuff to dry. But anyway, that's it for the moment. I'll be back. Laundry and I finished a few journal pages that I started last night and shared kind of a halfway point last night on social media. I'll insert pictures like right here somewhere of finished pages. I'm working on episode two of a new YouTube video series. I was not only experimenting with a couple of techniques, but then I'll share on the episode two, but I was using elements in some of the journal pages. So there's a hint for you all. So look carefully. I'm headed out right now to go get the mail. I've had the car today. My husband is out doing a Freemason thing and he took his car so I could have the car today, but I didn't really feel like going anywhere. There's a couple places I'd like to go, but I don't like driving that much. So they're kind of far away. So I think I'm in the mood, but I am headed out to go get the mail and it is warm and toasty outside. So I don't really want to walk, although I probably should for my health. It's probably healthy to get the steps in. I just don't feel like it. It is Saturday evening. It's like 1015 and I spent the day working on finishing some journal pages and catching up on my daily drawing and stuff like that. Having a little cleaning and sorting of images in the space next to my table where I have stuff that I like to grab easy and then when there's nothing in there I want to use when I'm working on a page, then I go into my bins of things and wait, trying not to make you see, there we go, my bank of drawers. But I do have, sorry, I don't want to make you dizzy. I do have a little Ikea cart back there it is. So in the top of the Ikea cart are the journals I'm currently working on and then there's a bin of things that I pull from. At some point it gets really messy though and so, oh there's my hallway, at some point it gets really messy though and I have to clean it and sort it and reorganize it periodically or it just gets overwhelming and I, yeah. So I finished my some journal pages and then I cleaned that out today. I had some stamps for inventory come in from the manufacturer only they gave me the wrong packaging, the stamps, well that was an abrupt ending wasn't it, something wrong with the footage or I accidentally turned the camera off, I don't know. But what I was saying was my stamp manufacturer sent me the wrong packaging on a shipment of inventories for the stamp, new stamp designs and they didn't want the old packaging back. We got the issue corrected, the stamps that they're fine but I have all this old packaging so I spent some of trying to grab the camera because I'm holding it without covering up, sorry, grab the phone without covering up the camera. Alright, so they, so they, I have all this old packaging which is on card stock like this with a kind of glossy back. It's what you usually stick the cling mount stamps to. So I took a couple of sheets of it last night and I cut it up to use for embellishments and other projects. I've got a bunch of it left over. I don't exactly know what I'm going to do with it. I might put it in Happy Mail, send it to the design team, I don't know. But I took some of it and cut it up so I spent some time last night fussy cutting over, before and after I cleaned out my embellishments there that are by my desk, by, behind my head. There we go. So yeah, I got all that done last night. I didn't get a lot, a lot of else done to be honest. And today I've spent most of the day so far editing videotape. We are babysitting the puppy but she's out in the other room with grandpa. So anyway, that's it for right now. I hope you've enjoyed the vlog and if I forget to put any relevant links in the description let me know. Leave a comment, like, share and subscribe and above all go out and have a great day. Do something nice for yourself because you deserve it and I'll see you later. Bye guys.


Welcome to Burn2Learn everybody. This is Rod Davis and in this video tutorial We're going to teach you each step to follow to install Microsoft Outlook 2016 First open your browser We use Google Chrome and then go to www.office.com www.office.com forward slash my account Now we are at the sign-in page for Microsoft Outlook 2016 You need to now put in your email or phone number and your password Once you're comfortable that that's correct Click on the sign-in button and your page is loaded and you're now at the next page Where on the top left you need to click the orange install button to install Office 365 Once you click this it takes you to the next page where you click the orange button for a second time to install Now we have three things to do First we need number one to click the setup Which then puts a setup action button at bottom left of your screen Click that setup button And when you click that it asks you do you want Microsoft Office? You should answer that yes Now you're staying online and depending upon your connection speed This connection can be made immediately or can take up to two hours since we're a training We've made it immediate so our installation is complete. Okay now that we've installed Microsoft now let's open Outlook go back to our screen click on our windows and find Office Outlook and there it is Outlook 2016 we click on that So click the next button here, we're asked do we want to configure with another Email and the answer is yes So we click next and here's where we put in the email address that we want to configure with my Outlook 2016 we're going to put in our burn to learn as our name and burn to learn training at gmail.com As our email address now, we're going to put in our password two times Now if you have Something other than a standard email server you can click the manual process Otherwise, it's automatic So you click next and everything looks fine and we click finish and now Congratulations, we have now Not only opened Outlook we have configured it with the email address That we want to use First things first we have to accept this as you can see we have configured with our gmail account Now if you would like a real training on how to configure with your email Manually you should check out video to until then have fun Want our accelerated learning program? Become a member of the inner circle and accelerate your learning with these seven learning tools one Direct chat with experts for fast answers to your questions to one-on-one coaching to grasp more complex computer skills or needs three an interactive coding platform to teach you coding skills and concepts for an Exclusive video library not on YouTube to build your knowledge on many topics Five a placeholder that automatically returns to the exact place where you stopped watching six downloadable exercise files to lock in your learning on especially tough topics and Seven continued access to our free videos on YouTube So click this button to begin a 14-day free trial after the free trial You can join the inner circle for a low price of 999 per month Use your free trial to look around and check us out then start learning computer skills on an accelerated basis on burn to learn


PDZ domains are protein interaction modules that recognize specific amino acid sequences at their C-terminal ends. These domains play important roles in various biological processes including transport, ion channel signalling, and signal transduction. Recent advances in technology have allowed researchers to gain insight into how these domains interact with each other and how they can be used to modulate cellular activity. This article was authored by Xinjie J and Li Hojin.