The Jacksonians succeeded where the Jeffersonians failed because of greater tenacity, refusing to work with the opposition, the increased influence of free market thought, and tactic cooperation with free market British politicians. Critically, they triumphed with the executive branch, morphing the office from a corrupt shield into an anti-crony sword. That is the words of Dr. Patrick Newman joining me once again here on Liberty versus Power. Again, if you have not gotten your copy yet of cronyism, you can get a discount in the Mesa Store with the LVP as the code. Patrick, this is a fun episode today. We have made it to the Jacksonian era.  So what do you think of that term Jacksonian democracy? What does it mean to you? It's a very interesting discourse out there within historical circles. Yeah. So first of all, thanks, thanks, though. Glad to be on again and talking on this podcast. Second, I'm glad you mentioned the book. And for those of you watching the video, you might have seen me searching around. I've always wanted to have a copy of the book to actually show on the screen like though. And of course I said I have it and I guess I left it on the other chair. And so now I don't. So again, for this episode, I still don't have the book. So but anyway, with that extraneous material aside, we know what's Jacksonian democracy. So as you mentioned, Andrew Jackson is an extremely controversial president, but he's also someone who's left a profound legacy in, you know, in terms of the presidency, in terms of democracy, in terms of the United States government, even regarding central banking, monetary laissez-faire and so on. When a lot of people think of Andrew Jackson, they think of at least initially the founding of the Democrat Party, which relates to the Jacksonian Democrat. Well, what exactly was a Jacksonian Democrat or Jacksonian democracy? Well, Jacksonian democracy was democracy by the average person. So in that time at the average, the white, white male, okay, they, there's the belief that they should have the ability to vote in that their voting is actually a way of enacting change. Okay, so that's in person, particularly what a Jacksonian Democrat refers to in, in particular refers to the idea that the people are going to choose the president. So the people will decide who the president will be, not necessarily the state legislatures or Congress, right, which is seen as very corrupt, you know, the electoral college was a shield blocking the will of the people, but it was the people who could actually change the system and in particular reform the system. Because even though most people, when they discuss Jacksonian democracy, they mainly focus on the actual suffrage in question of voting, they don't necessarily talk about how by and large, this suffrage in this voting was directed towards reducing cronyism, decreasing the government's involvement in the economy and trying to bring about laissez-faire. So Jacksonian democracy is really a different strategy for trying to achieve laissez-faire at the state and federal level. And one of the things I think is interesting against some of the different narratives out there about, you know, what are some of the forces that be stirring, you know, this, this political change is that, you know, for one, like they're really much, I think there was sort of a backlash, right, to, you know, we saw this play out with obviously the motivations of the old Republicans, the Martin Van Buren's out there that were trying to reclaim kind of those Jeffersonian ideals, but also you had a tremendous amount of change happening to the life of your average American. I know Harry Watson and his book Liberty and Power, he talks about, he calls it the market revolution and how some, there are some kind of materialistic changes going on in terms of commercial activity, but also the dynamic in which ideas were easier to circulate within smaller towns in particular. You had, you know, growing, strengthening of the post office system, you know, kind of during the early days of the government, things like that, so that some of these smaller towns had an opportunity to play a more active role in terms of political discourse. Is this a period with less gatekeepers? Is the concept of sort of the natural elites, is that changing and during this period and how much of that is perhaps a backlash to kind of this corruptive class that was able to take over the old Jeffersonian party? Yeah, so that's a great point you make. I would say that it is, you know, there are less gatekeepers, so to speak, in this era, okay, the people are voting more often. There's less policies or at least less, you know, on the terms of presidential elections. State legislatures are deciding. They electors less and less. Technology is very different. You've got newspapers. People are reading more. They're able to, you know, to learn about information and also articulate it in their own newspapers or little asides. I always, I mentioned this, I think, before that newspaper is back in the day. They would always have columns of just, you know, almost letters to the editor, but they were short, like one sentence, two sentence, little tweets, basically, that people would put in about various information. And so these newspapers, some of which would cycle, you know, maybe twice a day or something, you would get, it was the tweets of tweets of the era of ye old Jacksonian tweets. And it was seen, okay, the people have abilities that they didn't have before. They have more freedom at least to try to do what they want to exercise their ideas to learn about ideas. So yeah, the Jacksonian era, it was a reaction against the natural elites. I wouldn't say it was a reaction against elites per se, but it was a reaction against the the elites entrenched in the government. One of the things that Jacksonians were very big on was rotation in office. So they thought that, all right, you know, the office is not like a privilege that people have. So if you're serving in government as a politician or bureaucrat, doesn't mean that you're just allowed to keep serving in that position as long as you want, you know, on the taxpayer dime, they wanted to circulate elites. So they wanted natural elites. I guess you could say the natural elites are those created by the market, not those artificially created by government fiat. Yeah, that's one point that you highlight within the book. You've got a great quote here, you know, that you talked about how Washington had turned into a swamp. And many officials viewed, you know, their titles as property rights that they could bequeath to their sons. I mean, this is very much almost like a European aristocracy sort of dynamic that it would make sense that would have emerged during this uniparty system. You know, you don't have those those inner party dynamics at play. And of course, here you've brought conflict back to politics. And you highlight how between the Washington administration and the Quincy Adams administration, a total of 213 officials had been fired during that time within the Jacksonian administration. Over 250 were terminated. I think this goes into again, that dynamic where there is virtue within that sort of partisan process of, you know, creating itself a bit of a check on this entrenched bureaucracy involved here. Really, I mean, this was going after the deep state of that era. And then also as well, not only the changeover within these official titles, but can you talk a little bit about that dynamic of Jackson's having a kitchen cabinet different than the official cabinet administrators of the past. Some of these different dynamics again, like the way that Jackson was going about these things. In fact, to put on that still, and I know you mentioned in the past how one of the differences that Patrick Henry had with Thomas Jefferson was a belief in the power of the executive branch within this. I mean, all of this kind of goes to this much larger point, right, of, you know, the role of the executive branch, you know, Jackson himself seeing himself as the embodiment truly of American democracy, the true representative of the people. This is the very dynamic, even if the underlying ideology, you're perhaps very similar to the old Republicans, you know, the ideals of the Jeffersonian era. There really is a very different view structurally of how this government should operate and does operate during this period. Oh, yeah. So in terms of the removals, the Jacksonians were very big on removals, making sure, trying to institute some form of the old anti-Federalist rotation office. They did not want politicians and bureaucrats remaining comfortably positioned in their jobs. Okay. And this was to prevent an entrenched bureaucracy and entrenched sort of oligarchy from taking place. Jefferson had wanted to do that. Jefferson had failed. He only removed fraction of the people who some of his more radical supporters wanted him to remove. Jackson went much further. Okay. So Jackson was the idea of rotation office, which was deridingly referred to as the spoil system is actually a great reform, a great anti-Crony reform, precisely because it prevents a bureaucracy from being developed. Jackson also had sort of informal advisors, if you will, he rotated his cabinet, not just through frequent rotations of his actual cabinet, but actually by using a different cabinet, the so-called kitchen cabinet of his informal advisors who, you know, they would speak, you know, he let them into the back of the White House and they'd talk shop and all of that. And they would be the ones really kind of directing Jackson's program and they would sort of have less, there would be less oversight on them as opposed to the traditional cabinet, which Congress had a say in. Okay. Congress at least has to approve the people running the government cabinets, right. The president can nominate them, the Senate has to confirm them. And the Jacksonians big enemy at this point was Congress. It was always the legislature because unlike the Jeffersonian era of Thomas Jefferson and, you know, of the anti-Federalists beforehand, the Jacksonians realized that basically Congress is actually the enemy. You can't achieve reform through Congress because of the constant pressure for elections and really just the constant pressure for privileges. Okay. So without rotation in office and with all this unlimited government power, Congress is going to quickly become actually the proponent of cronyism. It's going to propel it rather than stop it. So the Jacksonians, many of them were strict constructionists. They were people who were previously very anti-executive power. They sort of turn to the executive now as their savior. And this is a brilliant strategy. This is why I kind of think Patrick Henry was sort of on the mark in some of his earlier kind of splits with Jefferson, whether or not Henry had really developed these ideas as far as some people later is probably unlikely. But he at least had an inkling of this is that, well, the executive, you know, it's this one guy who can, if you've got the right person, he can sort of get stuff done. Because the Jacksonians said, all right, particularly by using the veto, transforming the presidential veto into a tool that can actually strike down cronyism, the president has the ability to decide whether legislation is good. And if it's constitutional, the presidency can actually reform the government. Okay. And this is a very novel idea. It was very controversial. And this is really, I would say probably Jackson's most lasting impact, at least just you turning the presidential veto into something that people regularly use. It's no longer really the anti crony sword that the Jacksonians hoped for, but it still is reasonably the realistically the only way you could get something done. If ever a Ron Paul candidate were to become president, the only way you could actually achieve any reform is not through Congress, but just through the veto. So the Jacksonians were very, very smart in their analysis of the situation. And it's something that gets neglected, which is why I think it's all the more important that we're talking about it. Absolutely. And that's what I think is interesting. You're trying to pull it out to modern day sort of conversations, right? You have, for example, the interest within certain circles, that would argue that their structures within a monarchist sort of system that lends itself as a better defense of liberty than a democratic system or things like that. Within the American sense, Jackson is, he was kind of a king figure, right? The Whig party arise. They're directly adopting this sort of framework in there. And the reason why Jackson had this sort of power was because of his connection to your average American impacted by the political system and this willingness to assert executive authority. There's this constant kind of dynamic in conversations, not only within libertarian circles, but kind of the right more broadly. Back in the day, there was hope that someone like Ronald Reagan could come in and be sort of a unilateral executive sort of figure and impose onto the post great society style federal government that sprung up, try to restore it down to, I don't know, post FDR era sort of framing and things like that. It obviously didn't happen. Whereas some people would say, okay, well, it's more important to have a greater respect for Congress that the danger comes in putting too much power within the executive branch. I think historically, in comparison, contrasting, say that the Jeffersonian style of governing with the Jacksonian style, this is a period of history where you can really see, I think, the differences in these models. And again, part of that, one of the advantages that Jacksonians had is that only did you have the force of personality of Jackson, the figure, but you had all of these side individual leaders trying to influence policy. They didn't let him sort of rest on his laurels. These are individuals surrounding Jackson with an agenda to push. And so can you talk a little bit about the influence of that kitchen cabinet and contrasted to some of the views of the official cabinet? The official treasury secretary was Louis McLean. His views on this stuff differed significantly from what a William Gouge and some of the other ideological Jacksonians believed in how to go about dealing with the second bank of the United States or some of these other economic matters. Yeah. Jackson, I think I'm glad you referenced the Jeffersonians because I think the Jacksonians succeeded, as you mentioned in the quote at the beginning of the episode, the Jacksonians succeeded where the Jeffersonians failed partially because they used a different strategy. They decided to concentrate their efforts through the executive rather than through Congress per se, though Jackson did have many helpful people who were supporting him in Congress. But it was through the executive veto. It was through the rotation in office enforcing that, et cetera, that the Jacksonians were actually able to accomplish meaningful reform. Okay. Now this led to problems because increasing the power of the presidency increases the corruptibility of the presidency, which is something we'll probably, you know, we'll talk about later in this podcast series. But, you know, still the Jacksonians, you have to give them credit because this totally bushwhacked the opposition. The national Republicans did not see this coming. They thought it would be business as usual in Congress. They were very upset that Jackson was using the veto and the way he was using it. And that's why the Whig Party, right, which guys like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Quincy Adams established, they had named it strategically in reference to the Whigs, the British Whigs who fought, you know, a tyranny in their government. And they're trying to say, well, we're standing up to, you know, an American monarch at certain points, the Whigs actually wanted to try to get rid of the presidential veto. This was not part of their strategy. They were not prepared for this. And this is why, partially why the Jacksonians succeeded. So Jackson, you know, succeeded because he had these, he had this veto and he was constantly able to sort of figure out strategy by talking to his kitchen cabinet. Okay. These are the guys that you mentioned, Martin Van Buren, Amos Kendall, Francis Preston Blair, Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri and so on. These are some of the people who were very supportive of Jackson. And they were always able to push him into the positions that he was naturally supportive of, which was crippling the American system. That was always the number one goal of the Jacksonians, right? So, you know, get rid of the central bank, right? Get rid of protective tariffs, pay off the debt and government federally supported internal improvements and so on, right? So, whereas Jackson's initial secretaries of the treasury were much more, you know, mild and moderate, like some of the people in Jefferson's cabinet, it wasn't as big of an issue because Jackson would fire them if they didn't listen to him. And he would also listen to his own cabinet. So, I'm imagining Jackson going like, you're fired, right? Something like that. But, you know, maybe, you know, we don't know. That's lost to history, I guess. But so, the central bank was very big on Jackson's agenda and on the kitchen cabinet agenda, because you got this central bank, right? It's the original impetus behind radicalizing the Jacksonians in the panic of 1819, turning many of them into supporters of hard money. So, they're against fractional reserve banking. They're against government support of the banking system. They're against the central bank. Are they perfectly laissez-faire? No. Do they have the perfect laissez-faire solutions? No, but no one's perfect, as I'll talk about in a second. So, they wanted to get rid of the central bank, right? So, this really the Jackson's first administration, I think the most important and long-lasting action that he did was the so-called bank war. It was this multi-year-long struggle against the Hydra of corruption, the Bank of the United States, right? Which various political cartoonists back in the day would literally portray as a Hydra with multiple heads and Jackson was fighting it. I'm like, oh, isn't this great? Can't we do this for the Federal Reserve or something like that? But a lot of people think that it was just based off of Jackson's personality issues with Nicholas Biddle or that Jackson just wanted to replace it with his own central bank. That's simply not true. Jackson would, another strategy of Jackson that I like, it's a little devious, but you always got to play hardball in politics, is Jackson did intentionally lie to people and he misled people. He misled his cabinet. He misled, reminds me of someone else. He misled his cabinet. He misled other government officials because he was experienced in war. He was a general and he knows, well, you have to, you want your opponents to fight in the fog of war and not really know what's going on. And for them to only belatedly figure out that, okay, Jackson's not actually listening to his cabinet. He's listening to these other guys, the kitchen cabinet. The other thing is what I mentioned earlier is that the Jacksonians didn't necessarily have a perfect route to go to complete monetary laissez-faire. Some of their initial solutions kind of verged on a central bank, but this was because no one did at the time. There really weren't that many pure monetary laissez-faire theories at the time. Even the British reformers, such as the currency school, had wanted to reform their system by using government intervention or centralizing the ability to issue notes in the bank of England, et cetera. Guys like David Ricardo, John Baptiste, and so on had sort of developed rudimentary ideas like this. But the central point remains uncontested. It's that Jackson wanted to bring the economy closer to laissez-faire. This includes money. And his major goal was getting rid or weakening the second bank of the United States. One of my favorite books out there that really goes to the heart of kind of the energizing spirit of the Jacksonians, the Jacksonian persuasion. And in the introduction, they highlight, again, just the degree to which bank issues really were kind of a key mobilizing factor here. Broadly speaking, the Jacksonians blamed the bank for transgressions committed by the people of their era against the political, social, and economic values of the Old Republic. The bank carried the bad seed of Hamilton's first monster, matured all the old evils, and created some new ones. To the bank's influence, Jacksonians traced constitutional impiety, consolidated national power, aristocratic privilege, and plutocratic corruption, social inequality, impersonal and intangible business relationships, economic instability, perpetual debt, and taxes all issued from the same source. I mean, again, they really touched right there on the—they had their finger in the pulse of just the incredibly corruptive influence of this central bank. And as we have seen throughout these—doing this poundcast time and time again, we saw the role that the central bank and the financiers around it were able to corrupt otherwise good Jeffersonians, otherwise strict constitutionalists utilizing the powers that they had from this institution. And the fact that you actually had someone elected to this position with the support of the people willing to then stand up and do something about it, that is something that is very rare throughout political history generally. And this is what, I think, gives Jackson that—this is why he lasts. It's because he was someone who was an imperfect individual in a variety of different ways, but he set up to accomplish one big thing. And though the execution may not be perfect, he accomplished that one big thing. You know, there's stuff to be learned from that. That aside, can he touch on just a little bit? A little bit. One of the things I think is interesting is he brought up this currency school and mentioned in the opening quote there about the role of British politicians. One of the other, I think, interesting aspects of this era is—we've talked in episodes past about the influence of Adam Smith. There really much was this larger, populist, free-market laissez-faire defense going on within the English sphere. There's a great book on this by Robert Kelly, The Trans-Atlantic Persuasion, that highlights the political cooperation of these sort of laissez-faire politicians within England, within Canada, within America, both pre- and post-Civil War. Can you talk just a little bit about the influence not only of the politicalization of that Adam Smith laissez-faire sort of agenda, but also can you touch on just a little bit what separated the currency school in contrasting to some other economic disciplines out there? Dr. Swarno has talked about how Mises was a currency school free banker. There's interest amongst the economists around Jackson, including Gouge and others, who are also sympathetic to this sort of free-baking tradition that we could also place Mises in. Can you just talk about these people as sort of proto-Austrians in a way, not only their understanding of how free markets work, but in particular this monetary focus? I'm glad you brought that up because one of the reasons why the Jacksonians were successful is because there was a simultaneous free-market movement going on in Great Britain. This includes the hard-money currency school. It includes Richard Cobden and John Bright fighting to lower tariffs. This was the Smithian movement. It really started to blossom this idea of laissez-faire based off the ideas of Adam Smith, then continued on through guys like David Ricardo, John Baptiste, et cetera, not necessarily talking about the theoretical differences between them. Rothbard has done a good job of doing that, but just the broader free-market thrust was really starting to develop in the United States and in Great Britain in the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s. Great Britain, having printed a bunch of money in the War of 1812, or not the War of 1812, excuse me, the Napoleonic Wars, though they also participated in the War of 1812, had to deal with some sort of similar monetary questions that really started to invigorate some proponents of the gold standard and opponents of fractional reserve banking. Basically, why did prices rise so much during this war? Some people said it was the increase in the money supply. Other people said that it was transitory supply shocks. It wasn't necessarily the price of used cars, but it was agricultural reasons, war disruption, speculation on the foreign exchange markets, and so on. These debates continued in the 1820s, 1830s, 1840s when the new opposing camps were either the currency school or the banking school. The currency school argued that they basically argued what was known as the currency principle, which was that banks should adhere to a marginal 100% reserve requirement. For any additional issuance of bank notes and deposits, they needed to be backed by gold. Changes in the money supply should reflect changes in the supply of gold. That's what they argued. The banking school was much more that the banking system needed to respond to the so-called needs of trade that crises weren't necessarily due to monetary phenomenon. They could be due to things like over-speculation and changes in expectations and so on. Mises and Rothbard were always very pro-currency school. Mises had argued that he had developed many of his ideas regarding Austrian business cycle theory from the monetary theory of the currency school and so on. All of this is what we make for great discussion in an economic theory podcast. What matters for us is that, well, the Jacksonians also adhered to the currency school. Many of the Jacksonians were influenced by the currency school, and Jacksonians also influenced some members of the currency school. Jacksonian economists, in many ways, they went beyond the currency school. This is something Mises and Rothbard mentioned, particularly because really the major flaw of the currency school was that they did not recognize that bank deposits were also part of the money supply. They basically concentrated on bank notes. Many Jacksonian economists had recognized that bank deposits are very similar to bank notes, and they also should be included in the money supply. The currency school played an important role in really fostering and continuing this hard money sentiment in the United States. It's something that I think doesn't really get recognized as much, that sometimes people think that the Jacksonians were separate from the British or they were just doing their own things and that, well, it was really all just secretly about slavery or whatever. No, you can actually disprove this by looking at who their allies were. These were individuals in Great Britain who were really trying to bring about their own version of free market reform. The Jacksonian movement, in many ways, is a Smithian movement influenced by the ideas of Adam Smith. Robert Kelly in the Transatlantic Persuasion makes this case very convincingly, and I agree with him in my book, Chronism. That's one of the other slurs that gets thrown around. The Jacksonians were just putting in a whole bunch of country bumpkins that were unqualified for the position. Where it's like, no, there very much was a very nuanced and deep understanding here of what is going on, which I appreciate. We talked a little bit about they've got this critique, they're trying to figure out the solutions. Can you talk about the role of the independent treasury as what they see as a solution to the dangers of the Second Bank of the United States? What is their agenda here in trying to instill an independent treasury as an answer to reining back in this Hamiltonian monster? The independent treasury, it's an idea that actually goes, it's older than the Jacksonians. It really originated with Thomas Jefferson and even John Randolph and John Taylor. This is in the 1790s, early 1800s, Thomas Jefferson, and he had a famous, I think it was in 1792, a private memorandum, a note of agenda. One of the things he mentioned was he wanted to make the treasury deal only in specie. Okay, so to accept only specie as payments and it would also spend out only specie and as expenditures. The idea here was to make the treasury independent from the banking system because starting with the First Bank of the United States, the government stored most of its money at that institution. This was seen as an enormous subsidy because the bank now had a huge amount of reserves that it could use to make loans and do other sorts of business. It was a corrupting influence. Many state banks or some state banks initially, they wanted to kill that bank because they wanted that subsidy. This continued in the Second Bank of the United States where the government would also hold its money at that institution. If they didn't have the central bank, defenders of the central bank said, well, you're just going to keep money in state banks, which will sort of spread out the problem. This is something that Jacksonians initially did. They regretted it. They knew it was the second best solution, but they wanted to institute this old Jeffersonian Randolph proposal to separate the government from the banking system because it was thought that if the government is no longer accepting bank notes for payments, it's no longer subsidizing any institution. It's no longer giving any special privileges to any institution by accepting their notes or by storing money at a large bank. This was a huge cornerstone of the Jacksonian system. It was this independent treasury you use under the the Crony Government Bank Alliance. This was something William Gogh initially proposed in the Jacksonian administration. It took a little bit for it to gain traction. Eventually, Martin Van Buren did institute the independent treasury in 1840. Of course, he signed it on July 4th, which I think means something because that means, in my opinion, it's just as important as the Declaration of Independence. Before we had the success of Martin Van Buren and signing that off entirely, the fight back in this bank war I think is interesting, particularly for the topic of this podcast. You go into details about the tricks used by Nicholas Biddle to maintain his power. Surprise, surprise, a lot of it has to do with bribery, has to do with loans. You highlight various legislators that all of a sudden, James Webb gets a $15,000 loan, and surprise, surprise, they end up being critics of Jackson's handling here. You also point out how the American Quarterly Review, which is an academic journal whose owner was a benefactor of the bank, then became one of the chief propaganda outlets in defense of the bank, which again sounds exactly like academic journals in America today, where the majority of grants are backed by the Federal Reserve. Surprise, surprise, the bias of the academic literature towards digital banking ends up going quite nicely there. Talk a little bit more about the opposition here, that how does Biddle respond to, as soon as he realizes that Jackson is here playing for Keats, what is the pushback from Biddle and the rest of the cronies of the bank? Yeah, so Biddle's upset about this because Biddle thought that Jackson actually wouldn't attack the bank. Biddle had initially voted for Jackson. Biddle thought that, well, this would be, this is one way of appeasing him. We can just continue business as usual. He wasn't happy when Jackson had started to make comments in some of his presidential speeches, criticizing the bank, saying that much of the public didn't like the bank, sort of suggesting reforms along the line of the independent treasury, and so on. So Biddle was very much against this. And he started to, as you mentioned, he started to flex his muscles, use the corrupting tentacles of the Hydra. Okay, so he started to send pro-banking information to important politicians on the relevant committees. He enlisted the help of academic journals, which, as you mentioned, received loans from the bank to defend the bank. And he started lending money to politicians, as well as creating his own propaganda material. And this is the big issue a lot of people had with the bank. It's that, well, it could recruit newspapers. It could recruit politicians. It could recruit businesses by giving them money. It literally has the power to create money. So you're sort of creating this corrupt partnership, right? Because a newspaper might be very pro-bank, central banking, not because it's the best thing for the country, but simply because it's getting money from the bank. Okay, this is an obvious conflict of interest that really the Jacksonians were not okay with. So Biddle is busy doing all of this. He's trying to corrupt the relevant officials. Jackson is not bending. So what Biddle decides to do is using a little prodding from Henry Clay, he basically pushes for an early recharter at the end of 1831, early 1832. And Henry Clay's rationale was this, he said, look, Biddle, if you push for the recharter in Jackson's side, signs the recharter, he's going to look very weak. And because I'm going to be the nominee for the wigs in the 1832 presidential election, all look really good and then all win. His vice presidential candidate was someone who previously worked for the bank. So he's very pro-central banking, okay?  So this is really when the bank war sort of kicked into its high gear, reached its climax when the wigs were pushing for Jackson to actually stand up for his principles. And he did this. He ended up vetoing the bank, and he wrote a fantastic bank veto, and he ended up winning the election. So he won out pretty well. He did pretty good for himself. Yeah. And he also recognized that even though the veto prevented the rechartering of the bank early, it did not stop the bank entirely. He's got this great quote, the Hydra is only scotched, not dead. And again, the way the bank is portrayed during this period as a Hydra, as a monster, all of the great political cartoons of this era, again, just the greed of which this money issue, this central banking issue, was so animated, energy and politics. And this is something that I think is so underappreciated. Today, if we're in a populist age, I mean, the Jacksonian show, this is something, because ultimately it goes directly to the corruption of civic virtue. And that's something that's timeless here. And it's just so much good stuff. Yeah, I love how you mentioned that quote, because one, I love that he wrote the congressman James K. Polk.  And it's like, the Hydra of corruption is only scotched, not dead. He also, Jackson had a great quote, he said to Van Buren, one time he was like sick. He was in the White House and he's like, the bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it. And you're like, wow, this is awesome. Like, here he goes. He's taken off the gloves. The other thing I just wanted to mention very briefly is that Jackson's bank veto, the bank veto, you know, his message is probably the best presidential document fighting against cronyism. He really makes a lot of great arguments. It's not an attack on capitalism. It's an attack on special privileges. He says, you know, the government through the bank has been favoring the rich through all sorts of, you know, subsidies and restrictions. The poor, the middle class, they're upset about this. I need to veto this bank. It's a problem. You know, this is based on economic and strict constructionist grounds. It really was an admirable defense. And what's also important to note, this kind of ties into Jackson's use of an alternative cabinet, is a lot of people for a long time thought that his attorney general later briefly secretary of the treasury and then finally, or perhaps most infamously, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Tawny wrote the bank veto. But in reality, it was Amos Kendall. Amos Kendall is an economist, an economist or an economist newspaper editor. He is mentioned in Rothbard's history of economic thought for developing important insights regarding utility as a source of value, which I just think is completely fascinating aside in itself that the same guy who's writing the bank veto is also doing like marginal utility analysis. I mean, that's, you can't get any better than that. I mean, what more do you want a guy? And he along with France and Preston Blair kind of managed the Washington Globe where he was really kind of a big theoretician, you know, pushing for Jacksonian policies, pushing Jackson to be anti bank and so on. So you have this kitchen cabinet official really writing like this major presidential document, okay? And that's something important that should be highlighted because it shows how the Jacksonians had such a deep lineup. And it was really through this ingenious strategy of having these frontmen and his cabinet do things. And then when reality or look like they're doing things in reality, you've got different people, the kitchen cabinet, executing orders, taking, you know, carrying out plans, et cetera. I mean, it's really, it's a great way at least to try to reform the system. The other thing I think is interesting is that you highlight all of, so after you have Jackson doing what he's doing vetoing, vetoing the recharging the bank, eventually getting, killing the bank entirely, that wasn't like a, okay, well, the federal Jacksonians are doing this and then, you know, the state level officials have nothing to do with the banking and money side of things. No, there were leaders at various, within the states and Jacksonian leaders working on banking policy, trying to bring, you know, a free banking style sort of structure to the state level. You mentioned, you know, up and coming New Yorker named Samuel Tilden gets involved in these areas. So there's, this is not something that's mobilizing within the White House and kind of a federal only issue. This is a mobilizing issue even at the states for the Democratic Party. And can you just mention, you know, maybe a little bit of some of the reforms that were attempted at that state level, even though you still had that issue with, you know, so much bribery, you know, so many loans on the books from like the Virginia State Legislature, I think you highlighted as being particularly in debt and things like that. You know, the same dynamic was playing out in state capitals, not only in D.C. Yeah. So on the state levels, the Jacksonians also tried to institute monetary reform. This is really, particularly the most successful in New York, right? So this is because you had guys such as William Leggett and William Cullen Bryant. They were editors of the New York Evening Post. So this was actually particularly laissez-faire and, you know, laissez-faire periodical. William Leggett was famous for being a loco-foco. We don't need to get into that, but it was just really a hardcore laissez-faire Jacksonian Democrat. I think a lot of people have done great work on the loco-focos. I think sometimes a tendency is to make it seem as the Jacksonians were not laissez-faire. I do think they're laissez-faire. I think, you know, the loco-focos are just even more laissez-faire than them. But there's been a lot of good work done on the loco-focos, Anthony Kamegna, Larry White, and some other people have done good research on them. But the loco-focos wanted to just totally get the banking system separated from the government. So they finally realized that the best way to attack charters on the bank level is not to reduce the supply of charters, but it's to basically issue as many of them as possible to make the charter license valueless, right? If everyone is getting a government license, then no one's getting a government license. It's basically the logic. It's an indirect form of deregulation. And they've hit upon this insight. Mises was very big, expounding, which is that when you have laissez-faire in the banking system, banks won't over-expand credit, because if they do, then they'll lose reserves through the adverse clearing mechanism. So Leggett and Bryant, they realize this, they're pushing for this to New York, or the Jacksonians are doing that, or they're just trying to get rid of chartered banks or make the chartered banks more responsible and take away their privileges, et cetera. In New York and in other states, you did have the Whigs who wanted to have a system of fractional reserve banking, maybe with some deregulation in the chartering system, but to really just add extra regulations by requiring banks to back their notes with government bonds, by allowing banks to suspend in specie payments, and so on, and that this is what the Whigs are pushing for. So in many ways, the 1838, I think, New York Free Banking Act was kind of like a Whig coup, because it had some of these government regulations. But this was kind of the battle being fought on the state level. The Jacksonians were trying to remove government privileges to fractional reserve banking. The Whigs were trying to add new privileges for fractional reserve banks. So the Jacksonians were not as successful on the state level, but they were still very successful because they had the leading spirit behind the anti-chartering movement, encouraging governments to get rid of the chartering system. They were very big also in the general incorporation movement, which was to remove the chartering process, not just for banks, but for infrastructure companies, manufacturing businesses, et cetera. These general incorporation laws, making it so if you want to start a corporation, you don't have to get a license from the government. These really do come from the Jacksonians, and that's something very important. That's something that's still with us. So that was kind of the Jacksonians on the state level. As a side point, interestingly enough, it's not really laissez-faire, but the Jacksonians did always fight to restrict banks' abilities to print small notes, so notes of a small denomination. They basically argue that these were the notes your average person would hold and win bank suspended species payments, which was against the law in many states, but the states always sort of conveniently refused to enforce that law, requiring banks to honor their redemptions. The Jacksonians felt that the poor would be the most swindled by this. So they were always pushing for this, and it deserves some mention that this was an Adam Smith proposal. This is something Adam Smith had argued for. Adam Smith was not really perfect on laissez-faire, and banking was a particularly notorious example of this, but he did have this policy that the Jacksonians also tried to enforce on the state level. So the Jacksonians were really devoted to trying to remove government privileges to fraction reserve banks on the federal and state level. And so we've talked a lot about the theory and a lot of the politics behind it. Can you just talk a little bit about what was the real-life economic environment going on during this time? Because you mentioned how inflation did go up. There were aspects to this, while they're navigating these sort of waters, there was an increase in bank notes, things like that. Can you just talk a little bit about the real-life impact of this on the ground that might have been flowing some politics down the road? Yeah. So sometimes people argue that, okay, Jackson more or less got rid of the second bank of the United States in 1833, when he removed the government's deposits from the bank. So the bank still had, it sort of lived its existence. It was still a private bank chartered by Pennsylvania, et cetera, at least after it lost its federal charter. And they say, well, you saw a tremendous increase in the money supply and in prices after this. So this is very clearly, well, the wildcat banking gone wrong. This is why you need a central bank to provide the wise stewardship over the economy and to regulate the issuance of fractures or banks. In reality, as economic historians such as Peter Temen many decades ago pointed out, this increase in the money supply was due to an increase, a tremendous increase in a species in the country. I always think it's ironic. I think it's very ironic because I've always mentioned parallels with Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump. And in this case, the increase in species reserves was related to politics and financial relations with China and Mexico. So it's just kind of like this weird, all of the stars are sort of quasi aligning here. It's quite remarkable. But anyway, so those reserves went into the banking system so banks could use them to increase their credit. Now, the Jacksonians were pushing for higher reserve requirements. They weren't able to get that done to try, you know, which would have sterilized some of the increase in the money coming in into the country. But the increase in the money supply would have occurred without the second, with or without the second Bank of the United States, much like inflation would have occurred. The increase in the money supply would have occurred during the War of 1812 because the government was going to print money using a central bank or not using a central bank. So this increase in the money supply did fuel a business cycle. And it led to the Panic of 1837, which, similar to the Panic of 1819, kind of radicalized the Jacksonians even further. And they were able to push forward their monetary reform, particularly the independent treasury. By this time, Van Buren is president. He's probably one of my favorite presidents, if not my most favorite president, because he practiced laissez-faire during the Panic of 1837, which is why the downturn was very mild. And he also pushed for this final part of the Jacksonian monetary program, all right, which was to separate the government from the banking system. And this was his great accomplishment. Though the Whigs repealed it a year later, James K. Bulk, he instituted again the Constitutional Treasury in 1846. So at long last, the Jacksonians had accomplished what they were looking for, which was a separation of the government from the banking system and a reduction in monetary cronyism. Well, there you go. So here we have a victory on the side of liberty versus power, thanks to the Jacksonians. Next week's showroom, going to some of the other battles going on during this time within the Jacksonian administration. But this is definitely, again, I think there's so much interesting stuff within this period of just understanding political strategy, what does a functioning republic really look like in practice. Again, that intersection of strong sound economic analysis combined with political power. Again, it's such a fascinating stuff. And again, I think that's one of my favorite parts of cronyism, which again, if you do not have a copy of the book, LVP at the Mises Store gets you a little bit of a discount. Any last words here, Patrick? I would just say that if you're interested in one section of the book to read, I would say this section on the bank war, that's really one of my favorite sections. I think it's a great illustration of the Rothbard's liberty versus power framework. It's a great illustration of how reform can actually be accomplished and how you can actually reduce cronyism and special privileges, and that the Jacksonians are gravely misunderstood, and that we need more people talking about them and promoting their laissez-faire accomplishments, because they really were the most successful promoters of laissez-faire and the free market in American history, and I would say by far. Well, I think that's a great place to leave it here on the Liberty versus Power podcast. Until next time, this has been so official. Patrick Newman, we'll see you next episode.


So welcome back or welcome to the 10th edition of the RCA training tip show where every Wednesday Aussie time I'm going to be your YouTube road cycling coach and host of the show, Cam Nicole. So as a road cycling coach, I get this question a lot and that is, how do I get faster and or stronger on the bike with limited time in the week and also with life distractions getting in the way? Now I get this big time while I personally have a little bit more freedom now that my kids are getting a touch older and I left the corporate world behind in 2017, rewind to 2015. So five years ago, I was in a corporate job working for an American software company flying to the US almost every single month for a week at a time. I had a two year old, a five year old and a wife that was trying to get her business off the ground. All while I was trying to stay fit enough to race for the original amateur informed racing team which included many state tours and criteria in racing. So that was a hectic time as you could imagine and life was like that for almost two years. So I really did learn a lot about what is really practical and possible when it comes to cycling performance and juggling the craziness of life and guess what? There is no magic pill to being a super fast or strong cyclist on a couple of hours a week. Really, you need consistency in your training and I would say at least six to eight hours to be competitive for on-road events, that's six to eight hours a week. Now I know some people are going to argue with that and I can appreciate. Assuming you've got a smart trainer and a thorough understanding of high intensity training, you can probably be competitive on Zwift and maybe even criterion racing on around five hours per week, but it's a stretch. So what I want to do in this video today is share with you a strategy or framework that you can use that I have personally used in the past and still use today that enables you to be as good as you possibly can be with what is practical in your life. So let's break this video into five main parts. Number one, finding your best time of year. Number two, having a clear goal that sits to your schedule. Number three, setting expectations. Number four, using the step ladder approach to your training. And number five, letting it all go until next time. Now I know some people out there may be lifting an eyebrow saying you should always start with a goal, but when it comes to the subject matter of a busy amateur cyclist or athlete, I disagree and I'll explain why shortly. So let's get into point number one, which is finding your best time of year. So what do I mean by finding your best time of year? Find a time of year where there's less travel booked, less birthdays, less work commitments, whatever it may be. Surely there is a section of the year that's going to be a little bit more quieter for you to be able to dedicate some training time to a specific target event. Now how much time do you exactly need at a high level? Now assuming you've got a little bit of conditioning, a little bit of base fitness before you go into a dedicated training block, I'd say 12 weeks minimum for a good block of high intensity or event specific training. Ideally 16 or a touch more if you can, but if you can get 12 weeks in, that's great at a stretch, maybe 10. Now once you've identified this quieter time of year to be able to dedicate, say a 12 week training block, the next question you need to ask yourself is how many possible hours do you think you can train per week without sleep deprivation, which is going to completely disrupt those fitness gains. Now everyone's going to be different. You might have six hours possible, eight hours, 12 hours, et cetera. Either way, you'll know with the variables that you have at hand that you've got X amount of hours to train over this 12 week block during this quieter time of year. Number two, having a clear goal that suits your schedule. So the reason why I have setting a goal coming after understanding the schedule is simply because we now understand what's possible time wise. There's no point in targeting a key event or a goal of yours during a super busy time of year, yet many people do it. So the question we need to ask ourselves now is, what goals or events are actually possible? Now that you have a clear idea of a good time of year where you can dedicate to a proper training schedule, let's look for events that fall at the end of that 12 week period. Now, depending on where you live will depend on what's available, but don't rule out traveling interstate or maybe overseas. This is your goal for the year. It's your time. Now, while you're assessing what is actually possible, please also keep in mind what is practical. Do not pick an event that requires you to ride for 160 miles when you can only train six hours per week. Do not pick an event that has heaps of hill climbing when you don't actually like hill climbing. Pick something that suits your availability to train that you feel matches your strengths as a bike rider. As you know, this is your time. Now, I understand these things may not always be possible, but please keep them in mind now for bonus points. Once we've identified a good event, we're gonna call that your A event. So the bonus points are, can you find some other events? We're gonna call them your C and B events leading into the A event. Why would you have these lower tiered B and C events? Three big reasons. Number one, use your fitness gains wisely. If you're gonna commit to a solid 12 weeks of high intensity or event specific training, why not use that fitness you're gaining for other events too? Number two, match practice. B and C events can be used to sharpen the pencil for the A event. For example, if your A event is a road race, we ideally don't wanna go into that road race cold, having not raced at all leading in. By racing prior, you'll get your eye in, you'll start honing your skills and you'll also push the boundaries beyond what you would most likely be able to achieve in training which is ideal preparation for the big day. And number three is insurance. Meaning that if something goes wrong during your A event, like you get rear ended and stand on the side of the road waiting for a sad wagon, you've at least had some opportunities prior. So number three, setting expectations. So this could be before number two but I like to run it this way because once we've identified the target event, our story becomes so much more compelling to go set some expectations with some important people in your life which may include your partner, close family, your employer or boss, your good cycling mates and maybe even your dog. So the way I would approach this is I would start with my wife Alice and I would wait for a really good time when she's super happy, things are good, life is excellent and I'd sit down and say, hey, I've been doing a little bit of research and I've identified a quieter time in the year to target a cycling event. I'd like to train X amount of hours for a 12 week period and here is the event date with a few smaller events leading in. This is really important to me for X, Y and Z reasons.  And if you don't, it might be time to consider that partner of yours. Now, I'll also personally do this with close family. So I'll call up my mom and dad and say, hey, I'm gonna be training pretty hard during this block. Is there any family events that I don't know about that I should know about before I start this training? So I've set the expectations with them. You might also do it with your employer. Of course, get in the good books first, work hard and drop the news to your boss during a positive review or something like that. Tell them you might be late to work on a few occasions to get some big training rides in for the big event that you're targeting. Once again, if your boss isn't good with this and you've been a good employee, you might be time to reconsider that employer of yours. And the last one is your cycling mates. Find any cycling mates that might want to do the event with you. It's great motivation for training and also awesome to be able to share a training journey leading into a target event with a good mate. So number four, using the step ladder approach to your training. So when the time comes, let's just say you're using the 12 week approach, you're 12 weeks out from the event, what do you do? Now I'm assuming if you're using 12 weeks that you've got a bit of conditioning, you've been doing a bit of riding before the 12 week block. If you haven't been, you're going in cold, you're gonna need more than 12 weeks. But essentially what you're gonna be doing is using something called the step ladder approach, which is a layered approach to training. Now I have a free e-book and video training which talks about the step ladder approach which I'll link to below, but at a high level, you're going to progressively make your training load harder over the course of the 12 week block. You're gonna include targeted rest weeks to absorb adaptations that occur when you're really training at high intensity or event specific focus training. And in the training, I would recommend no more than three high quality, high intensity sessions per week that become more aligned to the needs of your target event the closer you get to event day. Now with high intensity sessions, the reason why we have rest days or easier days in between is purely so we can really absorb the fitness adaptations that occur when you train at high intensity. However, if your target event requires you to go back to back high intensity days, then you might need to start thinking of how you can incorporate that into your training schedule. Number five, letting it all go until next time. So letting it go, what do I mean by that?  I always wanted to be fit, smashing turns at the front of the bunch, fit enough to race criteriums, et cetera. And the fact is if you're a busy amateur cyclist, you've got a busy schedule, a busy lifestyle, it's very, very difficult, near most impossible to maintain good levels of fitness all year round. So why fight it? Just let it go. And the easiest way to let it go is to know that you've got something planned at a specific point of the year. I am going to rip it up. I'm gonna be super committed and I'm even gonna lay off the beers. In fact, I'm gonna put so much energy, focus, and commitment into that period of the year. Right now, I'm just gonna enjoy cycling for what it is. I'm gonna enjoy the social side of it, the mental health side.  Now, the big challenge actually comes when you get to the end of your block of training, let's say it's a 12-week block, and you're super fit and firing.  Everyone is saying you are on point. So what do you do? Well, in my opinion, you stay true to the expectations that you set with the people around you and no doubt you will hold your fitness for probably a month or two anyway, so you'll be ripping it up. You might even target another event while you're holding onto those fitness gains, but either way, you've got a strategy, you've got a framework when something gets in the way or you've lost your fitness, we just let it go until next time. I hope you've got good value out of this video today. If you haven't subscribed yet, please consider doing it below and also give the video a thumbs up if you've got value out of it and I'll catch you all in the next video.


Now, we are getting into the application of work music theorem in the fluid dynamics. So, please, one knowledge theorem is nothing but application of work. Since we are talking about the application of work somewhere, right? So, rather than that, I have seen it. For past 10 years, I have seen it. If you don't fear it, you are not going to understand this work music theorem. Okay, then you have to memorize everything. Okay, understand how things work so that, you know, a cross-section of a bigger pipe, so I will be which it is coming from this side is V1 and velocity with which it is going out from there is V2. Same thing which is shown from this point of the fluid processing, right? In the initial position of the sphere to the final position of the work music theorem. Yes or no? That would be better. This is Uf minus Ui Kf minus Ai. Now, tell me, the entire fluid moving forward to things by using work music theorem. Is it clear now?  It moves forward, distance which is, so force into this, into the displacement which is V1, Ve. This is the work that can work that something is wrong. So, the outside is wrong. The outside is here, both sides are outside. Something is wrong. See, you can say there is something wrong with WP2, whatever. So, total P2, A2, I can say that this is zone 1. This thing is zone 2 and that thing is zone 3. Was zone 1 present for 2 plus the potential of finally minus, I have divided the entire mass into zones. Potential is zone 1 plus potential of zone 3 finally, sorry, initial. Okay, here is the thing. This final potential is zone 2 and initial potential is zone 1, zone 2. Both are same. Zone 2's initial and final potential are same. Yes or no in final? Okay, initial is zone and finally zone 1 doesn't exist. That is also gone. Only zone 1 doesn't exist. What, what? So, finally zone 1 doesn't exist for sure. Finally? So, the one doesn't exist. Oh, I have taken this, sorry, sorry about that. So, finally and initially zone 3 doesn't exist. So, that is initial actually. Okay. So, this is equal to potentiality of zone 3 minus potential energy of zone 1. Now, tell me how we know volume, which is how much? This is mass. Mgh is the potential energy. So, that into g into what? H2. This is the potentiality of zone, it is potentiality of zone 1 which is how much mass. This mass move forward. There is nothing here now. That is replaced by some other mass. But that is not my system. My system is only this mass which has moved that. So, on the mass which was initially present in this much pipe. Yes. This is u2 minus u1. Okay. Find out now similarly, what is kf minus ki? Please find out yourself. You can again divide into zones. This is similarly in data. Equal to? I am saying much pressure. Okay. So, your h1 is equal to p2 plus 2 square plus low g hd. Keep on waiting, right? Okay. Now, tell me assumption that inner flow, not turbulent. Yes, several other losses are there, frictional losses. So, turbulent flow will not have just these energies. There will be energy losses that will happen. So, since you have ignored that inner flow. Okay. So, please write in any question until and unless stated others. Please pay attention. Few point here. That h1 is out of the pipe. And these two points can be anywhere in the pipe. Right? See, two points. I can say that constant throughout the pipe. Can I say it in a flowing water? Constant. Okay. Now, this is, Normal names. Volume is this much. It means that rho g h at that point is that. Fine? So, this one new kind of energy does some work. Energy. Alright?


What a great conference so far. Perhaps you know me from my open source work. I've worked on a number of different projects. Perhaps you've used some of them. I've also done consulting with Tilda, and I recognized a number of our clients here, which is wonderful to see. But the beginning of my career actually was completely different. I studied Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. And the very first job I had was developing software for safely loading cargo onto ships and also salvaging ships that had become damaged so that, say, holds could be flooded so that the ship could be righted without it breaking into and sinking. And as you can imagine, fault tolerance is a very important concern in Naval Architecture. Ships undergo extreme stress. It can be a brutal environment on the sea. And of course, ships must be tolerant of operator fault. This is literally a picture of me at the helm of an Exxon oil tanker. But don't worry, I don't think the engine was on. So in order to engineer fault tolerance in ships, three-dimensional models are made before ships are constructed. They undergo finite element analysis. Stresses are placed on these models based upon predictions for, say, 100-year events, 100-year storms. The worst possible conditions that a ship might encounter. And every aspect of a ship is engineered for fault tolerance. This is a schematic of an engine room. You can see there's a lot of redundancy. These are duplicate fuel oil purifiers. You might be surprised to learn that ships even carry a spare tail shaft in case the primary one is sheared and it needs to be replaced at sea. And to engineer around possible operator faults, controls have to be laid out as clearly as possible. Obviously, they require a lot of training to use. But captains and pilots need to know exactly what controls do what. And the state of the ship, all the systems on the ship have to be conveyed to that central control room on the deck. Because ships are so big and valuable, they also need to be classified by regulatory bodies. And every aspect of a ship's construction and design is analyzed before it can be flagged and insured. I left this world behind when I had to move back east. And in the late 90s, I was probably the only one leaving San Francisco to start a career in web development. So the 90s were pretty fun on the web, but maybe not so serious. And engineering practices left a little bit to be desired. But we were pretty accepting because there was more good than bad. And frankly, what we were shipping to browsers wasn't that complicated. It was markup with sprinkles of JavaScript to enhance the experience a little bit. The serious engineering and fault tolerance was expected on the server side. And with web servers, database servers, of course, the security and reliability of data was still important. So let's fast forward to today where we have a much different environment, much more rigorous engineering practices across the full stack, and wonderful new front-end technologies like Ember.js, which really flip the model from sprinklings of JavaScript to almost a JavaScript core with the sprinklings of markup. What we're building with Ember.js are complex, sophisticated, independent systems that we're launching into our users' browsers. And after the Glimmer demo, I had to update the slide to represent Ember better. So our Ember apps let our users zip around at their whim within our application's domain, getting to the places they need to go as quickly as possible, with as little interference as possible. But make no mistake, these are complicated systems, and fault tolerance needs to be a primary concern for us. And the environment in which we launch these applications can also be severe and stressful. We have multiple devices to support, multiple browsers, sometimes browsers with JavaScript disabled, sometimes with internet disabled, sometimes with the browser itself disabled. And we have users with little to no training and perhaps overly optimistic, too. So when I think about fault tolerance, I like to think about the user experience we want to provide to those users so that they're shielded from any environmental stresses that our application encounters. And when I think about the primary concern of providing a fault tolerant user experience, I like to think of it as a transactional user experience, much like a database has to operate transactionally in order to be reliable. It needs to have these characteristics in order to reliably commit data. Transactions must be atomic, consistent, isolated, and durable. This is the so-called acid test for transactions' reliability. Atomic means that transactions must be all or nothing. If you're editing data on a form that's complicated that represents multiple models, all of that data needs to be either saved together or discarded. You shouldn't, in this case, save the contact without saving the changes to the phone number, even if under the hood you're representing these two aspects of a contact with different modeling. A transaction should be consistent. It should move between valid states. This is a particular challenge for server-rendered apps that push partial fragments of markup to a page. And it's pretty easy for those partials to become inconsistent. This is not a problem for frameworks, such as Ember, in which there's a canonical data model that's driving the bindings in our templates. Transactions should be isolated as well. That means they should allow concurrent changes. Changes, say, if you're editing that contact and you're providing a submit and a cancel button, you're providing a contract with the user of your application to say that you're editing this contact in its own context. This context should be isolated from the rest of the application and should only be submitted back to it when you press Submit or just discarded when you press Cancel. This can be a little tricky to do. It's why a lot of editing forms and modern web apps have simply a done button, say, where you're not providing that same contract of isolation of the edits. And your edits are automatically flowing through to the canonical models in your application. So transactions should also, of course, be durable. Users need to be confident that they're going to persist when you push that Submit button and you expect that change to be saved now and forever. And you expect when you reload your browser that change will still be persisted. So these are pretty hard and fast rules for fault tolerant user experience. These are rules you should not violate or you're really violating your user's trust. Users have a very fixed, hard mental model about a transactional user experience. And if you cross that model, then they'll feel that something is just not right with your application. There's another aspect of fault tolerant user experience. And that is kindler and gentler. It's a forgiving user experience. Applications should try to provide a forgiving user experience for the love of kittens. This is going to make people happy. One aspect of a forgiving user experience is to provide transitional persistence, perhaps meaning to persist data that has not yet been saved but is in the process of being edited. You might have experienced this on GitHub when you're, say, editing or commenting on a pull request and you've entered a comment, you flip over to files changed, the other tab. You think, oh, no, I might have lost that comment. I typed all that out, but you come back and you're delighted that that comment is still there. That's great. And let's see. Another aspect of a forgiving user experience is undo and redo. If you make a mistake, like, say, deleting a few emails that you didn't mean to delete, Gmail is nice enough to provide an undo. Another nice feature that can delight your users is to provide offline support. There are certain types of applications which can really benefit from offline support, in particular applications which are editing, where you're editing data pretty much in isolation, where your data doesn't need to be tied to a response from the server, and there's no reason to block your user from continuing to work with that data when your internet connection goes down. It's an engineering challenge, but if you can solve it, it's a real win for usability. On a related note, a similar feature is to provide an asynchronous interface that's not blocked by the request response cycle with the server, where your user can make changes as quickly as possible. And regardless of the state of your server, those changes can be queued up and synced at your app's convenience. So I've been talking about the user experience that we desire, the fault tolerant user experience. And I'm sure that as developers, you're looking at these different degrees of complexity in the user experience that I'm covering and immediately thinking about engineering those user experiences. Well, Ember is terrific at providing a consistent user experience across your app. As I've shown in the case of, say, bindings between models and templates, everything is mapped to canonical data, and it's a no-brainer to keep your app consistent. Similarly, Ember data also provides that canonical data store and provides for consistency in your data models. And also, through its ability to communicate through adapters with servers of many different kinds, it provides durability. Ember data does require a bit of work to provide atomicity and an isolated user experience. It takes extra code, a bit of customization, to say fork data, provide editing in a separate context, and persist to that data back. Similarly, a lot of the aspects of a forgiving user experience require extra work. I was thinking about these challenges over a year and a half ago at a time when Ember data was less stable and had some engineering challenges, which I'm glad to report many of which have been solved. But when I was thinking about these problems, I thought about the basic assumptions of data storage and the client and the primitives that we use to model that data storage and synchronization with remote sources. And so I started with the basics and with thinking about sources as equal but disparate, containing complex but different shapes of data. And obviously, in order to get these disparate sources to communicate with each other, they'll need common interfaces. And for those common interfaces to work well together, they'll need to normalize data. Data will need to be moved between the interfaces in a normalized fashion that all the sources agree upon. And because I'm looking at modeling a lot of different types of data, I should be a little more specific here. I'm talking about perhaps an app that uses web sockets, might commit to REST, but would also like to provide an offline experience with index DB and have a memory source which contains the canonical data that's presented to the user. So I'm trying to model all of these complex sources in a single application. And in order to tie them together, there's no fixed pattern for exactly how you're going to tie different sources of different types together, so you need to allow for ad hoc connections between them. And the ad hoc pattern that appealed to me most was the event subscriber pattern. Now, of course, with sources that might be local or might be remote, as Ember data's learned, everything has to be promissified if there's a chance that it might be asynchronous. And so if these evented connections could be promise aware, then they could communicate this normalized data across common interfaces. And it's with these primitives that I developed Orbit.js, which is not Ember specific, but it's a standalone JavaScript library for coordinating access to data sources and keeping their content synchronized. Orbit has a couple of primary interfaces. One is requestable and one is transformable. Any source can implement one or both of these. The requestable interface is developer-friendly. It provides find methods and crud methods as well. The transformable interface provides a single method transform which takes an operation. And that operation is JSON patch data. That's a form of normalized data that I arrived at. JSON patch provides an operation, a path, and a value. So there are operations like add, remove, replace, delete. And JSON patch was developed to operate against a JSON document. So internal to each source, you have a JSON document. And these patches can be applied. And the wonderful thing about having normalized data and agreed upon schema is that the patches can also return their inverses, which can then be applied to undo a change. So in order to connect the requestable interfaces with each other or the transformable interfaces with each other, there are different connectors. And these connectors, as I've discussed, are event driven. And the events, say, if you were to take a look at a synchronous event handling, it's pretty straightforward because operations happen serially. But it gets more interesting when you get into asynchronous operations, which we could be talking about with remote sources, say a REST source or a socket. So these events are promise aware. And so the connectors basically translate the events to between sources and sources that want to engage with those events can return a promise. And the event, the originating event, won't be resolved until all the promises that are involved in that transaction are resolved. So that's the async blocking pattern in which sources say, yes, I want to be involved in the resolution of an event. In the async non-blocking pattern, then sources might take a while to resolve, but they're saying, I don't want to hold up the other sources. So they don't return a promise, but they receive the event and they go on and perform their action. So it's with these primitives that the transform and requestable connectors can wire together multiple sources of disparate types, and the normalized data can flow between them. And the promises keep everything in sync, whether it's asynchronous or not. So that's great from a theoretical perspective, but it's not useful without a common library of sources. And so far, Orbit has a few standard ones, a memory source, local storage source, and a JSON API source, which is currently in transition as JSON API nearest 1.0, which is hopefully going to be tomorrow. And so you can believe that this source will be one of the first implementations that's completely compliant. And in order to normalize the data between the sources, they need to agree on a schema. So models, relationships, and keys. Now, since I'm at EmberConf, when I talk about Orbit and Ember, I need to talk about EmberOrbit, which is a separate library that should feel familiar to you if you're an Ember data user. It has a store that encapsulates an Orbit source. And that provides both synchronous and asynchronous methods. The synchronous methods provide direct access to what's in the source with all filter retrieve asynchronous methods to access the requestable interfaces asynchronously. And behind the scenes, you can connect multiple Orbit sources and connectors. And all the data will flow through and back to the store. The model is a representation of a particular record in the store. And the definition of the model informs the schema that's used across Orbit. Just as in Ember, URLs drive application state, the underlying Orbit sources drive the model state in EmberOrbit. So if a socket source is connected to your canonical EmberOrbit store, then the changes that are applied in Orbit will flow through to your models. And your models will automatically reflect those changes. So what are the application patterns that you can use with Orbit and EmberOrbit specifically? Well, you can start by developing your applications with ClientFirst with no concern for other connectors. You can just work with an EmberOrbit store. As your application develops, you can add pluggable sources. You could connect, say, a local storage source and an indexed DB source to provide different capacities for browser-based storage. You could synchronize data between socket source and arrest source, and you could set up different connectors bidirectional or unidirectional between them. And you can provide editing isolation by just simply forking a store, providing edits of any complexity, like a form that's driven by a wizard that has multiple pages. And those edits are done in complete isolation and either applied or discarded. And then that flows back to the canonical store. And last but not least, because all of the changes are deterministic, JSON patch changes, and every source returns its inverse. When its changes are applied to it, those changes can be tracked deterministically, and they can be undone in multiple levels or redone. If you're interested in Orbit, it's getting pretty close to stability. I've been working really hard the last few weeks. I'd hope to get Orbit.js.com up. It's going to be the JSON API work as delayed a few things. But I'm looking to get that up in the next month or so. And I feel like it's getting close to the point where I want to put together the docs and guides to make it a lot more developer friendly. So if you're interested in following the Orbit story, please check out Orbit.js on Twitter or IRC. And even if you're not particularly interested in Orbit, please keep in mind fault tolerance for all of your Ember applications. Thank you very much.


Hi, beautiful. Today we're watching people attempt to give themselves pixie haircuts.  It takes training to do a good pixie cut, especially when you're cutting off so much hair. So, strap in, baby, and let's see what these people do to their heads. Up first, we have a video by Emily Reddabow. I'm about to chop my hair into a pixie cut. I'm starting to get to a point where I only find my beauty in my hair, and I just don't like it when I feel like that.  Oh, God.  I got depressing. All right, I'll just keep out of my depression for my therapist. She's about to cut this all off, and honestly, it looks like she could sacrifice some of those dead ends. I'm happy those are gonna fall to the floor. Also, let's do the roots. Let's bleach the roots. Okay, the back is looking a little movey-off. All right, let's be more generous with the cutting the length off thing, because that was like literally a one-incher. Here's what we have so far. Oh, do you see how uneven it is? We gotta fix that. I do, I see how uneven it is.  We gotta get that elevation in, babe.  Boom, bang, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Make it nice and rounded. Cut it in there. Bang, done. Wrap it around, screw it up. Zing zahng zing, remember I used to give actual like helpful advice in these videos? Those were the days, ma'am. Now it's just me f***ing around. All right, I'll give a helpful piece of advice today. When we're using a razor, you gotta lift the section up all the way, and then shh shh shh shh shh shh. As you go down, we can't just whoosh. That's not gonna make any sense. I really don't know what to do.  To be honest with you, she was on the right track with the whole razor thing. I think it would have been a great idea because it's a little bit easier to cut with a razor on the back of your head than it is with some scissors because you really just have to kind of feel it out, feel the vibes going on instead of like actually cutting and then you can like cut your finger off and it's like not fun, I've done it before and then I have to get my fingers on back on. It looks kind of realistic, doesn't it? Yeah, just like pull your hair up and cut it. None of you guys, I've told me I have long hair, by the way, that's f***ed up. Like I got a f***ing bob and nobody even comments about it. Y'all know who the real ones are now. None of you. What? Do y'all see how bad that is? Mm, crisp. Okay, so we've resorted to just razor-ing everything now. Apparently that's the vibe we're going with. How about this one? It's looking spooked. Y'all, what if we do that again? Basically I kept thinning and shortening my hair to about like one o'clock in the morning. This just ain't it. See, this is what I was worried about. What happened to the scissors? Why are we just razor-ing now? We gotta get the cut in first, okay? Hair update, I guess. Here's what it looks like. Ahem. How goofy does it look? I have no idea what to, how to style it, though. It looks good on me. I'm just gonna be honest. As long as you wear it with confidence, nobody will, nobody else's opinions will matter.   I'm into it. I wish it was like shorter and edgier. For me, personally, nobody asked, but I'm gonna share my opinion because that is what I do best.  I just love this edgy look on you. I wish you pushed it further. Just go for it if you're gonna do it. But also, you look beautiful like this. Up next, here's a video by Victoria Ray.  Oh my gosh is right. She has beautiful hair. It's so wavy and cute.  But I'm also really excited for her. Like, I feel like this is gonna be a good chain if she can like somewhat pull it off. That's gonna be a hard part.  You know, I was really excited for like one second. I thought she was gonna say this is my professional haircut, but no, it is a dog grooming kit, which honestly, it might be fine. It seems similar, cutting dog hair and cutting human hair. A lot of dogs have human hair, or not human hair, but like human ish hair, I don't know. I'm not a dog hair specialist, but it seems fine. We'll go with it. I've been thinking for years, I want this haircut. Oh, that reference was really short. She's really gonna go for it. So I'm just gonna take the length off. I don't wanna keep this. Like so, oh my God, that's kind of a look.  Great idea. And she's cutting above the elastic. Yes. Yo, she is going for it with no fear. Hell yeah.  I know my hair looks really janky, okay. We're gonna put tons of layers in it. It definitely looks a little janky. We better be going in and fixing that all up.  We're gonna do a little trimming.  That's gone. That's years of my life gone. She chopped it, huh? Okay, okay.  Can we please keep that one little strand? It's kind of a moment. You're gonna want to take your comb from where the hairline wants to fall down forward. You're gonna want to separate that from that. So just about here. Okay, so you have that section out. Oh, she's going in with some hairstyles techniques here. She's doing a little horseshoe sectioning. This is good, except I think she missed her bridal ridge, which is like part that comes out the farthest on the sides. She went a little bit too high, but that's okay. At least she's sectioning. And some people start layering from the front while others from the back. I kind of want to go for the front. That way I can get an idea of how long I want it and how it looks good against my face. I think that's a great idea to start from the front and go back. That way you can like, yeah, you can see what you're doing first. So to create layers, you're going to want to take sections diagonally, not like just straight down. I mean, you could do straight down. From what I researched, it gives you like more texture and movement when you cut diagonally. So I wanted to possibly leave it longer, like give myself a little bit of sideburn so I can make like a little purely cute or something really cute like that. Okay, whoa. She's also doing diagonal forward sectioning. She really did research this, but let's see if she can actually pull it off. Like, I haven't seen a real cut yet. So I don't know, girl. I'm going to want to repeat that on the other side and even it out. Like all the way to like the part that you had from behind me here. Okay, so I got the front pieces going. Now I'm going to start on the back. And essentially what you're going to do is you're going to split them middle middle and you're going to start cutting diagonally. I want to leave some length in the back.  I thought all of today's videos are going to be a total fail.  You're doing too good.  Pull it 90 degrees from the head, like straight out from the head all the way up because the natural curve of your head will make it so it's different lengths. Okay, if you're not a hairstylist, I think you should be because even some hairstylists don't understand this concept. I'm telling you, like you are way more advanced than a lot of people. Use some natural talent here. What? This piece is a little bit longer. There we go. Is it perfect? No. Is it good enough? Yeah. This has to be the most impressive at home haircut I've ever seen from a person who's not a hairstylist. I'm going to put it out there. Now, can she do the top correctly? What was that? Who's told you to do it like that? Why is it getting worse now that we're on the top of the head where you can see the most hair? Who? How? What happened? I was very impressed with you until this moment. And now it's all getting weird. Like this piece is really long. I missed that. So I'm going to want to cross check that. What is going on? We need to work on our elevation, babe, because your elevation is dropping and that is not good for our haircut. All right, we're giving ourselves a bang now, but we're still going to add some layers to those bangs, I hope, or else it's going to be way too heavy and too bulky at the front. Once she puts it back, it's not going to sort of blend with the rest of the haircut. It's not going to look right. So I'm going to go in there and make some layers. I'm going to take sections. I'm going to take this middle section. She's doing layers. She's doing layers. I take a little piece out in the front so the front keeps its length. I have this chunk. But then I also take a piece from the back section that I just did. Oh my God, why is this so long? I'm going to tell you right now, it doesn't look completely right. Somewhat right, but like, no, no, no, no. Why is that piece a mile long, babe? This is end result. I love it. I love it. I feel like Betty Boop, but in the best of ways. Just here.  This is what it looks like. You did that yourself?  Like I watched it, but I still don't understand how you pull that off. So I got out of the shower with wet hair, just scrunched it with some of my curl cream, and it just dried like this. I feel like I'm 100% sure that I'm not going to regret this decision. This is your vibe. This is your aesthetic. I'm obsessed. It even matches like your house aesthetic. Like everything's just coming together. This is perfect for you. Great execution.  I don't know how you did that. I'm shocked. Up next, we have a video by Tia Go Solo. I am cutting my hair. I want it short. I've got a comb, scissors, hair bands, spray bottle. Oh, we're breaking out the tools today. We got clippers now. We saw some razors. We saw some scissors. We are seeing everything. I don't know what she's about to do with that, those clippers, because, I mean, unless she's going to shave the sides, I don't know. I watched a Brad Modder video, as all the girls do, about how to cut men's haircuts. But I'm not a man. But I really want that kind of style. I really just didn't think this was going to go in this direction. I don't know why. I didn't think she was going to say she was following my tutorial, but this is starting to make sense. So we're going to take, like, keep, hold that line down back. This is a look. That section looks nice. Just kidding, it's a little low. We need like a big side. You know, we need a little more. Oh my God. Okay, we're going for the first cut. You really did that. I actually did that, because... You're about to cut off a lot more.  And number two. Oh, I like that noise. I like using the look on her. But when somebody else uses it, that noise gives me, like, a little bit of anxiety. Like, a lot of anxiety.  You can stop, but you're not going to, are you? I'm just going to keep going. I think I'm going to just, like, chop the long bits off. It's just making it a bit easier. It's going to be so choppy. So, definitely I've had short hair before, but it has never been this short. You can see my ears. You can see my ears.  I'm so proud of her. It's going forward and this is getting good. It's really showing off her beautiful face. Oh, wait. Sorry. Um, what? Oh, she has literally no hair on the sides of her head now. I'm so happy for her. She's doing a thing. Okay, now I think it's just about time to start dismantling this. Everything is going to be fine. All right, let's see how she's going to cut the top of her hair. Because that seems to be the problem for everybody. They can't figure out how to do the top. Wait, no. What have I done? Oh, she's getting somewhere. I still don't know how she's going to pull this look together. It can't possibly that. Quite possibly the last time. There are bits that are just too long. The issue is that you didn't cut high enough. So now all of this hair from the top is just kind of going over the shorter sides and it's you just didn't cut high enough. I just tidied it up a little bit. Just kind of cut some pieces that were sticking out. It's definitely not so long quality. It's so weird to not like have hair. I'm definitely not mad about this. This is kind of cute. Okay, so it's now the next day. My hair has completely dried. I slept in it just very normally last night and I'm really happy with it. The back definitely does not look good. But it doesn't look bad. And so I'm very okay with how this all turned out. I feel like I'd like to come into my true form with this haircut. Like it's so much nicer and it was liberating and I'm really, really happy with it.  I think you should go even shorter but I do love this look on you. You just rock it. Like what? Next you have to do color.   That's all that matters. Well, there were definitely some major fails and some major slays today. I'm happy for you guys. Get rid of that hair. You don't need that, you know? For my hair care or my hair color line, you can do so with the links right down below or go to xmodhair.com. That's all for today, guys. Thank you so much for watching. Don't forget to live your extra life and I'll see you next time. Bye.