Welcome to Breeder's Syndicate 2.0, where we explore the history of a clandestine scene. Researching everything from cannabis strain history, old smuggling tales from the first person perspective, to breeding science and news on current subculture. I'm your host, Matthew, and I'll occasionally be joined by my homey not so dog, Breeder and Grower from Mendocino, to speak on these subjects and sometimes interview other participants. Our goal is to document this history before it's written by corporations and others who just weren't there. Let's start writing some wrongs. Welcome to the Underground. Hey, what's up, everyone? Welcome to Breeder's Syndicate Reviews. I've already done a review on this product right when I got it, and I did it like maybe 15 minutes after having it out of the box and really not knowing what I had as a product and not knowing what parts did what. And I was trying something new, but it really sucked. So I wanted to redo this, reshoot this, and since I actually understand the product now, I've cleaned it, taken it apart, used it a bunch on different stuff, so I wanted to give it a proper review. So this product is called the, now this part is going to be new to me, trying to get this in shot. The flower, the flower mill, and this is the packaging for it, and again, there's this stuff. And eventually there is a, if I can get the light not to, this is just terrible with this light. Hold on. Maybe I could turn down the lights on so it just stops that. It didn't really help much. Anyways, there's a QR code for it. This is the flower mill. And as it comes, as it arrives, it, you know, it's what it comes with. This is the premium flower mill from Flower Mill USA. Really nice. It's heavy. You can hurt someone with this thing if you wanted to. And when you get it and you open it up, this is what it looks like. It has a, it doesn't have teeth on it, like we are accustomed to seeing. You can see from like this edge, quite a bit different looking. And inside you'll see there's a kind of perforated thingy, and you can unscrew it. And if you bought the upgraded screen package, you can actually change the size of these. And we're going to show you what each size does.  And sorry, I have to slam it out. It's for the top. It sits in here, and this is so when you go to clean it, it's a rotary key cap and you just twist it and bam.  So it's actually pretty frickin' handy, though I don't know where to put the key in the meantime. Like when you're using it, there's not a good storage place for the key. Like if you don't want to put it in the bottom face up so that your bud just hangs in all these crevices, right? So I haven't found a good place to put it other than in the package and then going and hunting it down when I need to use it to clean it. But anyway, what I'm going to show you first is we're going to start with the screen that it comes with. Because, you know, most people, if you're, if you don't order the, if you order the premium flower mill and you don't order the extra screens, I want to show you what you'll get, right? So this is it stock and what I'm going to be, what I'm going to be shredding today is some Santa Cruz blue dream grown by my buddy pack from Santa Cruz goat farm. So, and I'm going to do that for all the screen sizes, the same stuff from the same person so that you get an idea for the same type of blood, but in density and stuff, what you're going to get. And even when I load these, I'm just being real picky about stems just because I am, though, like the owner said, because he wrote me after the first, the first review and was like, Hey, here's my name, here's my number. If you ever need to talk with real friendly, nice guy. And like I said before, this isn't a sponsored video. They're not paying me. I didn't get this for free. I went and bought it. And because I saw it at our candle luminati party.  I was like, dude, what is that? You know, and I saw it in action. It was cool. And it worked really well. So when I got home, I wanted to check it out on more stuff. You know what I mean? You don't really get all get to use a whole another person's grinder for a whole long time. So anyway, so as you can see, let's see if I can get a good picture. Maybe I'll put a little bit more in just because there we go. Well, here we go. I'm Santa Cruz blue dream. I really wish this had like a better macro setting because I want to show you how fine it grinds up. Now, unlike grinders where you push real hard and grind, I am noticing you don't necessarily have to do that like slower is better. So when I'm doing it, we all do it from this angle, maybe because it'll just drop out the sides.  You're not grinding your milling and you're gently pushing it against that screen and rubbing it up against that screen. And what it does is it gives the butter real super fluffy texture. And I don't know, it seems to me and I can't prove it like, like, what do I know, right? But it seems to me like it's not murdering the oils as much, but maybe I don't know. Anyway, let's see. This one keeps coming unscrewed ever since the last time I did it. Okay, see what we got. So there's still stuff left up here. And this screen, and this is this isn't my favorite screen to use to be honest with you, because I've had a lot of stuff like this, you know, and the sticks are supposed to stay up here, but like normal. This isn't the most this isn't like cookies density, but so the fact that it just compressed at all kind of is not a good sign. So I'll break it up some more. Uncompress it and remill it. This isn't this is not my favorite screen. I really feel like the the one slightly finer does a better job when it comes to stuff like this. And like I said, I can't go back and forth. I can only go one way right now because for whatever reason, this thing is unscrewing as I go back and forth.  And yeah, see, there you go. Just flood needed a little bit of fluffing by me, my fault. So there's the finished product and this is what I mostly want you to see up close is the texture. You see how it's kind of when you touch it is still very Marshmallowy being this will squish it will rise back up. Yeah, so that's from the screen that comes with it and granted like I said I did I did a crappy job trying to grind it. There is a little bit left on top and that's it. See. So, this somewhere else. And then we will do the next screen size so I can show you if you did get the other screens which you can expect from those. And luckily with this changing the screens is very, very, very easy. So. Okay, that one we don't mix it up so you can actually see the different densities. So this is the screen we were using. There's basically a screw on the backside you hold it twist it. Boom. And then this is the next size down. That was.  Put that on there you screwed this is the thing that kept coming on screen when I would go both directions, but I haven't had that problem before. So maybe I'm just, I am very, very slow. So, any complications please blame on me, not the product, because really I've had no problems with this thing it's been pretty nice. Pretty freaking nice. I will say. I don't remember the price point on this but it is a plus 100 price point for just the, the, the mill without the additional screens alone it's over 100. So it's not going to be something that you're going to like, you know, get super cheap or it's it's a newer type tech for this market. So I don't even think there's knockoffs or anything like that out there. I mean, but the quality of this is pretty sound. And like the fact that I'm nobody and the owner reached out and was like, well cool, even though it wasn't the best review. So here's the next size. And this is the next size smaller than the screens and there's one slightly smaller than that and I believe too larger. See. And see that the top of this thing is magnetic and and weighted to so it's nice you don't have to push just does it. And see a little bit on top, not much.  Ring her off not so we're busy. Anyway, here's the finished for this size. I don't know if with this camera if it really will be able to show you any like if you'll be able to tell any difference, you know, from the last size. There we go. The texture slightly different with this. It's a little less fluffy, a little more fine. You know, the other stuff's a little more fluffy and this is just a little more fine but you don't have as much. I don't know I didn't ever have as much stuff left over. Okay, so we're going to go to the next. Let's do essentially what will be two sizes up. And after doing all this like a barbarian, I'm putting them all together at the end that kind of slow next size up for two sizes up. So for comparison sake, we're going to jump up to this size. Well, hold on. I think that was what we started with. Make sure. Yeah, that's what we started with. Here we go. This size up so we just use this one. Let's go to that size so you guys can see what that one's like the monster size. So like I did before, I just unscrew it here screw on the other side. Pop it out. I'm trying to show it in camera even though I keep pulling it off because like whenever I'm always trying to find like a tutorial and they take it up camera like the part one part I'm looking for on how to do or undo.  So hopefully I don't do that to anyone here. If I do message me and let me know and I will go back and help somehow explain it somehow because that is frustrating as hell. All right, one last round of a dream here. Usually one thing that you might notice is that if you buy the premium screens or if you buy the premium mill and you buy the additional screens. What's going to happen is you're going to end up with two of the same size screens because in that four screen set. It's an extra screen of one that it comes with. So just be aware of that. I thought it would be like additional screens as far as like additional sizes so then I would have five but realistically like you're going to find one that you work with best. And it's not necessarily going to be the one that it comes with, you know, like I saw in the reviews a lot of people agree with me that that small one is is not the small list but the next to smallest is is the one that they like to so. And that one does not come with the mill that one is only with the additional set, it would be cool if they'd like, maybe what they should do is like let you choose which one you get.  I think that would be a good option. You know, that way you're not spending extra money just to get the one that most people like.  Okay, stuff this one full because it's a biggin got most of the sticks out I could.  And I don't know why I thought that no one ever told me that it doesn't say that anywhere, but you do have to clean it. But it also like, I cleaned it super fast super super fast it comes apart super fast. It cleans super fast because it's not like trying to get between a whole bunch of teeth it's just really easy scrubbing with a brush and bam you're done. Props on that because that was a main point by this grinder was ease of use and I really I kind of was sold on the fluffy texture, you know, I kind of love that. Like that fluffy texture. I thought it was like what there seem to be look like this in this ground. So, you know, for people who like joints to this is perfect, but I smoke bowls and it's it's it's prime really good for ripping and like vaping. Most people know what ripping is but yeah vaping. Essentially. And here's the final one. Let's see if it will adjust ever. There we go. Extra fluff. Watch. It's growing. It's growing. It's alive. Fun, right? Now it's really cool though. Extra fluffy. It's a great grinder. It's a lot of money though at this day and age like we people don't have expendable money like we used to believe it or not there was a collapse in this industry so at the price point of like 150 bucks for a grinder I don't know how many people actually buy this right like being realistic like that's a lot but I don't know any other grinders that offer the same thing at the same time so it's like at this moment like if you want really nice fluffy you know juicy tasty weed it's a great option and it's available I believe the website is flower mill USA.com and on Instagram their flower mill USA. Yeah, I like it. I'm stoked on it. And you know I don't know if it has a lifetime guarantee and you'd go look back but if it did I'd be even more stoked because that would make it definitely worth it. You didn't have to buy another grinder or something went wrong with this one and they replaced stuff that would be cool. I'm not saying they do so don't quote me. I'm just saying if they did that would be cool because I know other places do that for similar price points and yeah. That's a that's a review on this so hopefully you liked it. Go check out riotseeds.com for all your Fibonite seed spray and seed needs syndicategear.com. If you want to check out our breeder syndicate apparel merch stickers all that jazz and yeah usually we're every Saturday 1pm Pacific we usually have our shows then so always pay attention to our YouTube around that time. Cheers. Want more syndicate? Check out our Patreon in the description below. Thank you for joining us on this journey. We are forever thankful that enough people watch us to keep us going. With that in mind you can show your support for the show by liking, subscribing and sharing the show. We don't advertise so we need you. Also hit riotseeds.com and syndicategear.com to show us more support for the show.


Hi, I'm Michael Sabron. I'm speaking to you in front of the Capitol here in Montpure on a lovely October day during the election season. I'm coming in front of the Capitol because I don't want folks to think that just because I'm not an incumbent, that doesn't mean I'm new to the place. I've been following legislative issues here for probably a good decade. Mostly primarily on the mental health issue. I know folks here. I know legislators. I know folks in administration. I know folks that are heads of committees. I know folks in different aspects of the government. I know agency heads. I know folks in the Department of Forestry and Fish and Wildlife and whatnot. You know, I've been the President of the National Anthemological Society for quite a while, so I know folks throughout the state in various capacities. Public service. Most of my lifetime has been public service, whether it's been being a letter carrier, which I very much think is public service, to being a postmaster, which is a whole lot of public service. And then the last six years, I have worked as a psychiatric resident representative for the remote psychiatric service in the Department of Mental Health, and that has me going into different facilities and various homes in the state to see how folks are doing and there's anything that I can help them with as far as needs and issues and whatnot. Because part of what I'm running is because of this past legislative season and the passing of Act 287, which became Act 192, and it's the Code of Judicial Process Law, but it was really another involuntary medication law where they shortened things and sort of like made a class out of certain people and those kind of things. And as part of that process, you know, legislation passes for various reasons, good and bad and those kind of things, but as part of the process that I was involved in, the main impetus or reason for the legislation passing was because it's something that the governor wanted.  And in this bill, I would certainly like to give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt that, you know, she was somewhat persuaded in voting for this legislation because it was something the governor wanted, but it wouldn't be how I would work. I kind of placed myself in the political spectrum in the middle, you know? Meaning that, you know, I'm somewhat of a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative. You know, I think I have different fiscal views than most liberals do, that's for sure. One reason why I'm running as an independent is because, you know, the parties are real entities and they have their own agendas and their agendas aren't necessarily for your benefit, but for some, you know, goal that they may have to pursue, you know, regardless of how it affects its constituents, their constituents. Well, I think the mental health work is very important in the sense that you learn how to relate to people, not only do you learn how to relate to people but you learn how to get things done, who to talk to, you know, how to talk to people, you know, where to go talk to people, you know? And I think it also, you develop an understanding for various ideas, you know, without being judgmental and even sometimes even an appreciation or compassion for different viewpoints. You might have your own viewpoints but, you know, in my work, I'm not an advocate for myself, I'm an advocate for other people so I have to set myself aside and I think that would pretty much do the same thing if I was a legislator, it's like, you know, I'm not here for myself, you know, I'm here for them or for you and to do what can be done to, you know, make things better for folks. So, like my poem, I'm in favor of universal health care in single payer but I don't feel they have to be synonymous with one. I don't think if you don't get one, you have to lose the other kind of saying and also I think I'm more open to various ways of paying for universal health care like not just depending on the progressive income tax which probably doesn't exist now or in the future. We don't have one now. I don't see where we're going to have one. The political will is not there. But, you know, you talk about having a pool of money so my idea is literally to create a pool of money from various sources. You could still have, you know, some kind of income tax. We could keep the premiums. We could have a sales tax dedicated to medical issues. We could even divert, you know, current taxes like the cigarette tax. And no, it hasn't been said much during this election cycle but, you know, I tend to be supportive of making marijuana legal because as a state we can't afford not to. One, I think it's very wrong to be incarcerating people for marijuana related issues. And B, I think there's, you know, quite a bit of money there to be had as a state. I'm not foreincreasing the property tax, those type of things. I think that we need to create new income into the state. I think that we, you know, we need to bring back the capital gains tax that was dropped during the Douglas administration. I think we need to bring in money through marijuana legislation. I think we need to look at all avenues of bringing in money. I don't think it can, you know, be you and I that are continuing to pay what's happening in this state. I think we need to make Vermont health care as affordable as possible. I mean, even now under the current system with the dropping of VHAP and count amount we hear of premiums being too high and folks not being able to bring their kids to doctors and stuff like that because they can't afford it. I think as a society we really all need to buy into this universal health care and all have a similar, you know, experience when we seek mental health care. I think we should do everything we can in physical health care. We should do everything possible to make it affordable for all the folks in this state. I don't think we should be concentrating on car valves, whether it be Medicare or Medicaid or, you know, I think universal health care is, you know, we're going to consider it in a literal sense. I think we should maybe, you know, think what that means before we start doing the car valves. One thing that separates me from my opponent is I am not supportive of the Vermont Gas Line in Shen Plain Valley. I think as a state we have made the decision to not support gas fracking and whether it's in-state or out-of-state, I think that, you know, I think as a people we know that it causes harm to people. I don't think that we should be supporting it. Not only that, but I think we should be taking opportunities. I'm going to be talking about, you know, in such a year, you know, being 90 percent alternative fuels and stuff like that and then we have something handed to us on the plate as far as getting us in that direction and we just totally, you know, bypass or ignore that opportunity. I think the current administration has been very tied to special interest groups that tend to support those in power and, you know, I mean the gas pipeline people might be one of those groups. Another one of those groups is the Vermont Hospital Association. I mean they were a big, big thing behind the S287 Act 192 passing and that's also one reason why I'm not so sure of universal health care really or single payer really happening because, you know, the people that are supposed to benefit are you and I. The people that will likely benefit are, you know, the hospitals and the insurance companies even when we have these things called, you know, universal health care and single payer insurance will probably be the least persons out of when these things come forward. Well, if I become a representative for one thing, you know, I'm not there to do what the governor wants. You know, I'm not part of the administration. I'm not part of the Democratic Party. I'm not even part of the Minority Republican Party.  I'm going to say so what until, you know, I think it meets the needs of my constituents. Some of the things I support are, you know, continue to support public funding for weatherization. I support a person's right to consume raw milk. I support the state divesting from fossil fuel. I think that we should expand the whistleblower protection law to cover people that are temporary or part-time employees so that they can feel safe to report things without losing their work or a source of income cap on the statewide education property tax because I think the taxpayers, you know, can't afford it. Like I said, we just need to look for new revenue systems.  I mean, even it means, you know, diverting of funds from other transportation projects. I think that, you know, we're going to divest from fossil fuels.  I also support the expanding sick leave and annual leave benefits. And on a national level I pose a national ID system. I think over here across the street where it's kind of, you know, getting towards that direction was, you know, needing a passport and a social security card and a birth certificate just to renew our licenses, which, you know, I guess it's a federal thing, but it's, you know, it can be very onerous for folks and very expensive too and, you know, low-income people and people in, you know, coming out of hospitals without IDs and all those kinds of things. It's quite an issue for them to get a personal ID, which is, you know, pretty important to get housing and whatnot. But on the topic of housing, I think certainly the state needs to have more housing, more public housing and probably needs to invest more in public housing. Needs more vouchers for, you know, getting people off the streets, you know, and also even on a local level, I know this isn't very popular, but, you know, my peeler needs a homeless shelter, you know, and even in Washington County District 6 needs a homeless shelter. I mean, I'd certainly be supportive of somebody getting something, you know, a homeless shelter going in my district. That would be very important, I think.


A huge mistake people make about narcissists. There is one thing that people often misunderstand or misinterpret and it's completely understandable because narcissists are manipulative and deceptive. They can cause people to believe something that is not true in order to gain some personal advantage. They can give you a mistaken impression and sometimes they can even fail to admit to themselves that something is true because at times it may appear as though the narcissist is looking for something. It may seem as though they are lonely and they desire companionship. It may seem as though they just want something from you, as though they care about you or they miss you. As though you matter to them, you're special and important, you're something significant and you cannot simply be replaced by another person and it can be very confusing because at times they will show polite and acceptable behaviour as though they desire to conform to societal norms and they want that for you as well. They value families and marriage. They value sustainable things but that couldn't be further from the truth and in fact that is the exact opposite of what they want. Everything you see from them is fake. It's a false image. It's intended to deceive you. It's intended to make them look normal so that they can blend into society. The reality is that they don't even care about you. They don't even know who you are. They don't even view you as a separate person with your own feelings and needs. They don't care about any of that. You could be anyone because they don't connect to people on a deeper level. They can't be vulnerable. All they care about is what they see on the surface which is why they assume that all another person could want is superficial things. Whether it's money, sex or a superficial image of a relationship, family or a marriage which is why that's all you're ever going to get from them. It's not going to get any deeper than that which may be frustrating for you because as an empath or even just a normal human you may desire something more which is something that they can't give to you because they don't have it to give. Their emotional needs were never met when they were children so they can't emotionally connect to you. They can only connect to you on a superficial level and everything they do is designed to mislead you, to tend and entice you into wanting things that you don't actually want because that is how the devil tricks you by making you choose desire over love and that is the only way that the narcissist can function by making you desire something superficial from them because they don't have any love to give. They can only give you a simulation of love and if you believe it it may seem real to you but you will just end up being led down the wrong path because the reality is that they do not care about social or societal conformity they see that as a form of weakness as something that is foolish and unwise as something that puts them at a disadvantage because then the shoe is on the other foot they have to answer to you because then they would have the desire to be liked and accepted so instead they choose to be irritated and contentable because in their minds that gives them power if they're self-absorbed or they act in their own self-interest it means that you can't reject them because they never fully gave themselves to you anyway so they think that puts them in a position of power when actually that is a sign of weakness because it takes emotional strength to be vulnerable so this avoidance behavior is what causes them to have difficulty managing their feelings and emotions because it's what enables their narcissism to continue if they could be vulnerable they were probably fine because then they will be able to accept that they have a problem so then they will be able to fix it but narcissists cannot be vulnerable because they're very afraid so they put up a wall because they fear that they may be susceptible to an emotional attack which may seem to make sense from an emotional standpoint but from a logical point of view it doesn't make any sense because when you are vulnerable that takes emotional power and strength it gives you the ability to make the necessary changes and to direct the course of events while when narcissists are egotistical and in any state of grandiosity that is actually when they are most vulnerable and susceptible to slight to criticism so in a lot of ways they are doing it to themselves they've put themselves in a position where they're destined to receive a lot of emotional pain because their false character isn't real it's propped up by external validation which means that it can also be brought down but a lot of them can't even see it they can't even see that they're doing it to themselves but this is just what they learned a long time ago it's what was taught to them in their childhood which is why even if you're trying to reach them or get through to them they put up a wall they say that you're being too sensitive or that you're overreacting when in fact these are just projections and all you're ever going to get from a narcissist is a projection of who they are being and they're going to assume wholeheartedly that these characteristic traits belong to you when the reality is that they don't even know you they can't even connect to you or feel with you as a separate person because they can't be vulnerable and it's only when you are vulnerable that you can connect whether it's to another person or even to themselves which is why this is often a huge mistake that people make that this person knows who they are and what they want out of life when in fact they're not even connected to themselves so you're trying to connect to something that doesn't even exist something that isn't even there which means that by default you're just going to end up being deceived it's not going to result in anything because there was never anything there to begin with which is why when you start to experience frustration and resentment and you begin to confront them on their inability to deliver or perform unless they can use it to gaslight you or shame you it makes them really mad because you're expecting something from them that they don't even have to give to you they strung you along they give you a simulation of love and while you were wanting to connect to them and you thought that's what you were doing you were just falling in love with yourself because when another person has an inability to be vulnerable will to connect to themselves you cannot connect to them you can only connect to yourself and then you end up projecting these qualities virtues and desires that you have for yourself under them because your brain has to assume that they're on the same page and that you value the same things in order for you to connect which is why you're so easily deceived because what you're expecting from them is what you already have for yourself and you just can't comprehend that someone could not possess these effective components but regardless of what you think or believe reality will continuously show you that you are wrong because the reality is that they simply don't have it so in the end you will always be the one who is left with the short end of the stick because they do not want what you want they don't want a relationship they don't want love that doesn't even cross their minds they know that you want that that's how they were able to trick you in the beginning by giving you the illusion of whatever they thought you wanted to see they reflected that back to you but then they started to dip they started to look for a way out because then they were under pressure to perform and they didn't have that to give to you they never developed these effective components so the only thing they could do is try to twist and hold you responsible or they just had to leave because that is a lot of extra work for a narcissist to engage in it demands a lot of their energy to keep up that facade it's much easier for them to dip out and find another unsuspecting victim someone who will believe in their simulation of love because they can't just bring something out of thin air they can't give you something that they haven't got to give and yet a lot of you think that it's so unfair that they're holding back they're not giving you what you want or what you rightfully deserve and then you see them moving on with their new supply and now it looks like they're able to be vulnerable they're able to open up to this new person they've given them everything they never gave you when that's just a part of the facade they didn't change it's just that it caused an injury when you confronted them that made them feel some type of way it made them feel less than a person so then they had to go out and prove not only to you but to themselves that they do have that they do have the ability to connect to someone on a deeper level when the reality is that they don't you will never get that from them because they never had it to begin with they never learned effect of empathy they didn't get that emotional needs met when they were children and they're not going to start now there's just no incentive for them to do that because they see it as a weakness they see it as something that would put them at a disadvantage so they rely on their manipulation skills they've had a lot of experience with that so they see it as though that's their best chance which is why the best thing you can do is stay far away from them because it's only going to irritate and frustrate you as an empath you're going to take it upon yourself to change or achieve something and the crazy thing is a lot of them will even play on that as well they're so disconnected from themselves that they will focus on your inability to get something out of them while knowing all along that they never had it to give to you anyway which really reveals just how insane they are because they already know that you can't make them happy they know they can't be satisfied and yet they string you along they lie to you they future fake when there's really nothing you can do to change it you can't fix them and you will only burn yourself out trying to do that because it really is an impossible task it's not something you're ever going to achieve which is why yes even as empaths we must set aside our egos and accept that this is something outside of our control you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped someone who sees their lack of connection to self as something that empowers them or something that gives them an advantage they're going to continue along that path and if it's not with you then it's going to be with someone else but either way you should not feel like you're missing out on anything the only thing you're missing out on is more lies and deception because that's all they have to give to you whatever situation they move on to it's just as fake as it was with you and just as you fail to recognize it for what it was in the beginning the same thing will happen to the next person as well but be grateful that you do have this connection to self you do have the ability to be vulnerable and to connect to other people and in fact that is the reason why a lot of them will end up devaluing you and ghosting you because they want to keep you stuck in your ego where you are detached from yourself it makes them look more sane and normal if they can make you just like them but recognize that you do have this power and ability to connect you can't connect to them because they're not connected to themselves but you can connect to someone else and it will make them very envious and jealous because they can't do that so they may try to isolate you they may even start a smear campaign against you so that you don't go on and establish a healthy relationship and become a continuous reminder to them of why they had a history of failed relationships but ironically that just empowers you even more because isolation only strengthens your connection to self which in turn will make your connection to your future partner even more powerful thank you for watching if you found this video helpful please give it a thumbs up share your thoughts in the comment section hit the subscribe button to receive the notifications if you would like to support the channel you can donate at paypal.me-naxafiver you can book a one-on-one with me on my website it's naxafiver.uk thank you for watching and i'll talk to you soon


He plays his game. You know he's an instinctive player and he's a physical player and the things that he does on a field he just kind of stands out. You know a lot of things you can't really objectify but he's got a lot of intangibles that you see on tape that make you want to have a guy like that on your team. Obviously the size stands out. Good-looking kid on film and then you get to practice and you see him close up and you're like okay yeah this checks out. Physical player. Not afraid to come up. He's going to throw his body arounds. That's one of the things you really like about him. His physicality. Not afraid to go up against bigger players coming at him. Doesn't matter like that. So the kids you can tell he fits that toughness the competitive aspect that shows up on film. It shows up in practice. It shows up live when you're at games. Well coming from the program that he came from you can tell that they play together. They play with a bond and and again just the way you see him play on the field as far as the way he runs the ball as far as the way he helps his teammates up just the little things that you see make you make you think that if you get a chance to get this guy he'll fit right in with our locker room.


Hi everyone, I'm Joe for jasphyscasebrakes.com and that is 2022 Panini Gold Standard Football Six Box Half Case Pick Your Team 6. Remember that's the second half of the case, we marked those six right here. Big thanks everybody here for making it happen. Now if you got a rooftop next to your name, that means you won that team in the filler. I think it was Nathan, you ended up with a last spot mojo before we pulled the remaining teams out. Alright, good luck everybody. If it's on the website, no. We're just using that as a sample image to say, hey, this is gold standard. If it's on our social media, then we did pull it, at jasphysbrakes on Twitter, at jasphysbrakes on Instagram. This is jasphysblankcard right here, slow play that hits a little bit. DK Metcalf to 75. It's for Seattle, and it'll be for Justin. CJ Vertle is to 25, that is for Nestor and the Colts. Justin Tucker, the opera singer, 6 out of 2.99, and it'll be for Nathan and the Ravens, last spot mojo.  Once again that is for Justin. Jerry Rice, piece of the jersey to 1.99, Hall of Gold relic for Victor and the Niners. I don't mind the opulence card in gold standard, I thought that was a nice little touch. I think it's a short print, right? If they're going to keep it like that, that'd be great. Maybe they're hinting at, oh, maybe they're hinting at could there be opulence football in the future? Because I think they've only done opulence basketball, right? There is Phil Sims, 24 karat autographs, 4 out of 10. New York football giants, Rob with the G-men, big blue. And then we got Jaylen Tolbert, rookie jersey and autograph, 92 out of 1.49. I feel like he got a lot of pre-season buzz or at least some fantasy football buzz, Terry and the Cowboys. Maybe with that Dak Prescott that may have diminished his value a little bit, but he's got some upside for sure. And that's Barros, yeah, well, not losing Dak Prescott, obviously a blow. But he's coming back this year, right, Dak Prescott? Evan Lloyd to 99. So if they are, if they, I don't know, kind of hang around, I mean, that win against the Bengals was a tough win, it was a hard fought win, there's 299, DJ Moore, Relic, Carolina, that'll be for Ronnie, that could be interesting. Nice quad Relic, DeAndre Swip, 21 out of 25. That is for Nick and the Lions, Kenny Pickett to 299, 399 that is, 282 out of 399, that is for Pittsburgh, Jason Price picking up the Steelers straight up. We've got Golden Age autograph, Billy Joe DePreet, 66 out of 99, Cowboys another one for Terry. Dave Barros, tell me your favorite, he's a Cowboys guy, tell me your favorite Billy Joe DePreet story, maybe that might be before your time, and we've got Hassan Haskins, 61 out of 199, Jersey and autograph for Tennessee, that'll be for Jason Price as well. That's right Terry, that's right, you aren't okay, yeah, I don't think you're gonna have a problem. Chiefs too? Is that the protein that Oklahomans are going for? We've got Brandon Cooks, 5 out of 30, Texans, that's gonna go to Jerry, there's Dak Prescott, we're just talking about him, 75, I guess Casey is only 4 hours, yeah. We've got Gold Rush, Joe Mixon to 299, 003 out of 299, Joe Mixon at Chad Daw with the Bengals, we've got Miles Garrett and the Browns, 75 out of 299, hung on to win, and that is for Dave Barros, Cleveland, this is for you, Tray Lance, poor Tray Lance at 299, given the keys to the car, and he does his ankle, and goes to Victor and the Niners, hopefully he bounces back soon. Now what happens if Jimmy Garoppolo takes him to a Super Bowl and wins one? Golden Age autographs, Andre Reed, nice, 13 out of 25, Jeff with the Bills, Buffalo, and we've got Matt Corral, Triple Relic and Autograph, 40 out of 149, Carolina, that's gonna be for Ronnie, you know what, I love that elf, that's an old school logo for them, I love that elf, and Cleveland, let's keep it. They should also bring back the cartoon character for the Pittsburgh Steelers as well, bring him back too, not so good, Terry, I was on the Pittsburgh side of things, I thought they were gonna keep it a little bit closer, but not quite, and then of course that last touchdown really just sealed it. I wonder how many Draft Kings showdown lineups changed when that Cleveland defense scored that touchdown at the end of the game, TJ Watt to 99, I think they're losing him for a good chunk of the season, there's Jalen Waddell to 99, I should have had Cleveland, I think maybe I got a little too cute with Pittsburgh. That goes to Miami, that'll be for Nestor in the Dolphins, there's Cole Comet, White Gold Relic 192 out of 299 for Matt and the Bears, the press wants Pickett to play so well, but a lot of Steelers fans might want to see Pickett now, here's a triple, Ahmad Saas Gardner, Garrett Wilson, what a game for him last week in Breece Hall, 49 out of 49, triple Relic 4 for Adam and his Jets, I think people in the hobby want Pickett to play too, alright, we got a redemption and we got Kenneth Walker, jersey and autograph to 199, Seattle, Justin, was it Max Muncie walk off time, bottom of the ninth, Dodgers down a run to the Diamond Max, bases loaded, Max Muncie up to bat, Victor saying Raiders original mascot looked like Popeye, bring Popeye back, it's a Golden Debutes autograph, G-E-G-O George, George Pickett, see that catch, Pittsburgh, that's Jason Price with the Steelers, people will be talking about it tomorrow, is the Odell Beckham Jr. catch better or is the George Pickett's catch better, they look very similar, maybe you give Odell Beckham Jr. the edge, right, just because it was like he was hugging the sideline basically, I think George Pickett's may have had a little extra feel ahead of him, but the catch itself though, both catch are still pretty incredible, ooh a grounded third, there you go Max Muncie, OBJ not even close, now you're probably right, I guess the Pickett's catch was so new, there's Derek Carr to 30 and there's Aaron Donnell to 25, Travis with the Raiders and Kyle with the Rams, that's Kirk Cousins, 138 out of 299, Gold Rush Relic for the Vikings, that'll be for Pat, yeah G-Lo, I would love to see Pickett to Pickens, Pickett to Pickens, picked off, that's what we don't want to hear, but you know some announcers are sitting there going, man I can't wait for the Pickett to Pickens picked off, they practice that in the mirror, Pickett to Pickett picked off, AJ Dillon to 299, you like that, Johan Dotson, a couple touchdowns for him in week one to 399, that's for Adam Cofferman, Victor saying the helmet catch was better, Derek Stingley Jr. for the Texans, that's to 199, that'll be for Jerry, and Reach for the Sky, Skymore, Dual Relic and Gold Ink autograph, 38 out of 49, there's a snake in my boot, that goes to Royale, Kansas City Chiefs, alright, final box, wow G-Lo likes that one too, G-Lo likes that, you like that, points, but it's 900 points, that'll be random, that takes the place of a hit, takes place of an auto, but we'll randomize that to one person to break right here, oh yeah that's right Terry, let's go Moop, Isaiah likely, a likely story, that goes to Nathan in the Ravens, we got Sam Howell to 49 for Adam, we got Melvin Gordon the third, 127 out of 299, that is for Denver, Al Canone, Devin White, Buccaneers, White Gold autograph, 140 out of 299, that's for Dave Barrows and the Buccaneers, Chris Olave, piece of his jersey going to the Saints, that's going to go to Kyle, so Thomas what's going on, and Breece Hall, jersey and autograph, 46 out of 199, that is for AK and his J-E-T-S Jets, Jets, Jets, Adam and the Jets, doon doon doon doon, alright let's see who gets those 900 points, let's flip back to the list here, let's gather everybody's names, oh that's not New Dice, let's find some New Dice, there's New Dice, there's New List, and the name on top gets the 900 points, 4-1-5 times, name on top after 5, good luck 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5th and final time, it's Travis Melberg after 5, it's a decent amount of points, 900 points going your way, there you go, I know you can probably, there's like exclusive packs that they sell with points sometimes as well, so that could be something to explore, there you have it, I'm Joe for Jaspy's Case Breaks dot com, thanks for watching, thanks for breaking with us, and I'll see you next time for the next break, bye bye.


Meet Taylor J. She's worked with your faves and sings in Koisan dialect. Muzo Taylor J is determined to become a household name in Afropop music and with the unique ability to sing in several languages, including a dialect of Koisan, you wouldn't bet against it. Taylor has worked with several local musicians including Bisiswe, Big Star Johnson and Uhuru. But now the star is ready to step properly into the spotlight and introduce herself to Mzansi. Taylor J is a singer-songwriter. Her genre is a combination of Afropop and Afrohouse. She has a vibrant energy that is infectious. Taylor has performed in several countries around the world and has captivated audiences with her fusion of languages. She sings in English, Afrocons, and Vernac, including a dialect of Koisan. The reactions to me singing in Vernac has been quite incredible. Local audiences think I am singing in Kosa sometimes but I am actually singing in a Koisan dialect. When they find that out they think it is really cool. While the dialects are not among the 11 official languages, Taylor said she is not singing in it to consciously advocate for its use. It isn't like I'm singing in Vernac because I want to advocate for it. It just feels right and comfortable. It is part of who I am, so why not embrace it?


Thank you very much Professor Sawyer, Professor Webley. Thank you very much for your very warm introduction. I hope not to disappoint you tonight, although I dare not put forward an achievement as great as your son's achievement in passing his driving test, an achievement that still escapes me. I would also want to express my happiness at being here, seeing here not only friends and colleagues from SOAS, but among them as well from outside the school, former teachers, former students and friends who have come from abroad, including professors Kazimierz Waski, Ricardo Belfiore, Gary Dimmski, Alberto Kilosi, Arturo Conal and others. Among you is a small group of individuals who accompanied me on my first faltering steps into academic research, and I have to say when I see the way in which my students here at SOAS get into research that you really do it far more single-mindedly than I ever did. Most prominent among those who accompanied me on those first faltering steps is Professor Anita Pratomowska, along with Miriam Pratomowska-Toperowska. This lecture owes a huge amount to them and their generous support through the most difficult years of a career which is by no means being straightforward. Among more recent friends are my research students, their infectious enthusiasm, their absolute conviction that they will revolutionise in every sense after all this is SOAS, this conviction that they will revolutionise economics. Their dedicated assistance with my own research, seminars and projects gives them a very special place in the genesis of my recent work and of this lecture in particular. I should mention here in particular two friends who cannot be here. Professor Victoria Chick, whose friendship and scholarship were an important influence on the maturing of my ideas on monetary and financial economics. Professor Tadewch Kowalik, whose selfless dedication to the ideals of Oskar Lange and Michael Kalecki have been an inspiration in my work and also a great comfort in some of my difficulties in the past. Before I get onto the substance of my lecture, I want to confess to feeling a certain sadness and even embarrassment at delivering this inaugural lecture. I guess when I look around at the professors at SOAS, it seems to me in my case it's at a rather advanced age. It seems to me that delivering this lecture at my age by and large means that the sadness arises because we're deprived of the company of a number of individuals whose encouragement to the university has meant an awful lot to me in the earliest years of my intellectual development. My father, for example, who instilled in me a love of books, Francis Gunn, Stefan Temerson, from whom I learned that modernism is the only consistent position for a serious intellectual. Tamara Deutsche, whose friend Marion Milliband, is with us today, from whom I learned that the true intellectual is also the engaged intellectual. My embarrassment bordering on inadequacy in delivering this inaugural lecture at my age is also because at my age it usually indicates either delayed intellectual maturity or a lifetime of professional indiscretion. I would like to think that it's the latter. Nevertheless, what tries to make the best of this predicament and seeing its certain advantages, for example, by now I've attended a number of inaugural lectures. The older you are when you get to it, the more inaugural lectures you will have attended. I've learned from them that I should not use PowerPoint, not because it necessarily trivialises the points in this lecture that I would like you to remember, but because I cannot confidently deliver it without technical difficulties or trivialising, so you'll just have to listen to me. As was mentioned before, this lecture has come in various versions. The original lecture was going to be about probably my main contribution, which I've mostly contributed on, which is the topics of money and finance. The subject of most of my books and articles, and I did start sketching something out. At that time I thought, well, of course the ideal person then to comment on this is Professor Arturo O'Connell from the Central Bank of Argentina. But he wasn't sure at that time whether he could make it. As I reflected on it, I thought, well, no, I have my doubts as to the significance of my contribution to financial economics and monetary economics. But I've absolutely no doubts about the contributions of Michael Kalecki and Oscar Lange. I have no doubts about their contributions. And also this lecture gives me the opportunity to give at least a partial answer to the question which those of you that have known me for a long time, Malcolm in particular, have asked on more than one occasion, what has Toporowski been doing these last two decades with his research on Kalecki? Well, this is the starting point of an answer. So let me move on to the substance of my lecture. Oscar Lange and Michael Kalecki, as is well known, were the most distinguished of 20th century Polish economists. However, I want to emphasise that I'm talking about them today, not because they were Polish. There is, I think, no such thing as a national school in economics. The ideas of professional economists in Poland in the 1930s, when Kalecki and Lange were coming to maturity in their ideas. The ideas that were in currency then in Poland and now, like the ideas of most economists in most countries of the world, were and are largely derivative. That is, they are a pale reflection or application of the ideas of what Keynes called defunct economists from the past or from some other country. Yet Lange and Kalecki were anything but derivative. So they were unusual. If I come back to this issue of national schools, what we call national schools of thought in economics, the Austrian school, the Swedish schools, really can just as easily derive from the ideas of particular creative individuals around whom those national schools developed. Carl Menga, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek in the case of the Austrian school, Knut Ficksel, Bertil Olin and Gunnar Myrdal in the case of the Swedish school. And this idea of a national school is false, because if you look, for example, at more recent Austrian economists, the most recent Austrian economists do not even mean central Europeans. Murray Rothbart, Israel Keatsner, famous Austrian, so-called Austrian economists are actually Americans. If we go back into the 19th century, the political economist and editor of the Economist's Walter Badgett, what he referred to as English political economy, was in fact founded by the Scott Adam Smith in Glasgow and not in England. And as an aside, I cannot resist quoting from Badgett. Badgett commenced his essay on the postulates of English political economy published in 1876. He began this essay with the words, Adam Smith completed the wealth of nations in 1776 and our English political economy is therefore just a hundred years old. I think in most cases it is more correct to refer not to national schools, but to the main centres where the ideas of the founders of those schools, where those ideas were promulgated. There's not a Swiss school of thought in economics, but there is a Lausanne school around the ideas of Leon Varras and Vilfredo Pareto. The Swedish school is more correctly called the Stockholm school following the founding of the Stockholm school. In Britain, following the founding of English political economy in Glasgow, the distinctive English contribution to modern economics in the work of John Maynard Keynes, Joan Robinson, Richard Kahn, was more correctly called by Harry Johnson and my first economics teacher, Terence Hutchison, the Cambridge school. And this developed around the ideas of Alfred Marshall, whose methodological principles underlie the so-called Keynesian revolution. But even here there are ambiguities. Harry Johnson for those that are not of a certain age, Harry Johnson was a great monetarist economist who dueled with the Keynesians in the 1970s. Harry Johnson's major accusation against the post-war Cambridge school was that its central ideas were really cooked up outside Cambridge by the poll Michael Kalecki. So Oscar Lang and Michael Kalecki were great economists precisely because they transcended their national background. They were concerned to apply economic theories to economic problems and development issues of their native country. But their starting point was their effort to understand the economics of capitalism in general. That is capitalism as it existed in their time in Western Europe and North America and as it was emerging in the developing countries. It is this understanding of international capitalism that gives contemporary significance to the ideas of Langa and Kalecki. Likewise it is the failure of many lesser theoreticians to transcend the commonplace observations of their home countries that condemns their ideas to a lesser significance. One is reminded of Schumpeter's comment on Marshall, a highly polished surface in which everything is reduced to the commonplace. What a condemnation. Typically Schumpeterian condemnation. I'm therefore bringing these two economists to your attention, not because they are Polish, but because their Polishness has, I believe, obscured the central message of their economics for the 21st century. We may examine their key English language texts and they will have meaning for connoisseurs of inevitably dated socialist planning debates or postcainting economics, the context in which they are mentioned today. To find meaning in their work for the 21st century, it is necessary to dig deeper into their writings in Polish and their debates with other economists. Let me start with the younger of the two men, Oscar Langa. He was born in 1904 to a textile factory owner in Tomaszów near the Polish industrial city of Łódź, then part of the Russian Empire. His family was originally from Germany, but had become assimilated into Polish society, although his parents remained Protestant. In his adulthood he became a Marxist, sorry, in his adulthood after he became a Marxist, a myth grew up that Langa was Jewish since according to Polish anti-Semites communism is merely a part of a much greater Jewish conspiracy. I'm reminded of Keynes' remark for which he was widely disliked in Poland. Keynes' remark that Poland is an economic impossibility whose only industry is jubating. Langa's Jewish connection was much stranger than this. A file on him that was built up by an anti-communist organisation during the war reveals that Langa's father had a Jewish bookkeeper who kept the firm's accounts in Yiddish. An obscure German dialect that's written in the Hebrew alphabet. Langa's father was not comfortable with having his firm's books in a language and with symbols that he could not understand. So he set his linguistically gifted son to learn Yiddish, one of many languages which he was to master. So this is the origin of why Langa was considered Jewish. Tuberculosis of the bone marrow left Oscar a sickly child who took refuge in books and was eventually sent to a sanatorium near Graz in Austria for treatment. He returned to complete his school education in wartime Poland under German occupation, I mean the First World War. By the time Poland achieved independence in 1918 the young Langa was reading the Marxist classics and active in socialist circles. After studying Poznanian Kraków he proceeded to doctoral studies in Kraków in statistics and economics. Thereafter he lectured and was active in a small socialist group that considered itself more radical than the much larger national Polish socialist party. But although they were much more left wing than the Polish socialist party, the organization, Langa's organization was also very critical of the strategy and the organization of the Polish communists. In 1936 Langa left Poland to travel to the United States on a Rockefeller Fellowship, ending up as an associate professor of economics at the University of Chicago where his best known students were Hyman P. Minsky and Richard Milhouse Nixon. Yes, an odd pair. He became an American citizen and threw himself into American politics in particular supporting the war against Nazi Germany. In 1944 after the Polish government in exile broke off relations with the Soviet Union following the discovery of mass graves of Polish army officers killed by the NKVD at Cutting in Belarus, Langa unexpectedly flew to Washington where he met President Roosevelt and then flew on to Moscow for talks with Joseph Stalin. At the end of the war he was nominated as the first ambassador of communist Poland to the United States and was obliged eventually to resign his American citizenship. After two years he became head of the Polish delegation to the United Nations. In 1948 at the last Congress of the Polish Socialist Party he renounced his earlier views on socialism and urged affiliation with the Communist Polish Workers Party. He spent the Stalinist years in Warsaw lecturing at the Party School of Social Sciences before emerging into public life again with destalinisation in 1956. He participated cautiously in discussion on economic and political reform, ending up as the Chairman of the Council of State equivalent to President of the Republic. His health was never good and he died undergoing treatment in Rome in 1965. In his economic analysis Langa was the archetype of the mainstream economist but with a radical twist. There were few aspects or notions of the orthodox economic theory of his time that he could not turn to proving the necessity for socialism. This perhaps explains why he fitted in so well at Chicago. He and Henry Simons and Frank Knight and Aaron Direct are the other main luminaries of Chicago economics. All of them believed that free market competition could bring about the holy grail of neoclassical economics, a full employment general equilibrium. Langa only dissented from his fellow professors because he believed that the processes of concentration and centralisation of capital which Marx had argued would limit the self expansion of capital, these processes were eliminating the kind of flexibility of prices and wages that was necessary to secure full employment. Langa today is best known for the model of the socialist economy that he put forward in his well known controversy with Hayek. Hayek had argued that socialism is impossible because the central planning authority in a socialist economy could not solve the complex equations needed to obtain the prices that would bring supply equality. Langa argued that it was not necessary to solve these equations. All that the central planner had to do was to follow a simple rule according to which they raised prices if shortages emerged and lowered them if there was excess supply. Indirectly a Langa Darg, even if he didn't lay, the foundations of today's information theoretic economics because it was in response to Langa that Hayek wrote his famous essay on the use of knowledge in society in 1945 where he argued that information is not equally available to everyone. The information comes from a process of discovery by entrepreneurs rather than the state. However it is worth recalling Langa's earlier model of the socialist economy which he co-authored with a monetary economist Marek Breit who had fallen into the Langa Kalecki circle in Warsaw in the early 1930s. There article published in 1935 had a number of notable features. First of all in it Langa and Breit annunciate their view that the reason why the capitalist economies of the 1930s would not naturally spring back to full employment was because cartels and monopolies were preventing the adjustment of prices and wages that would make all markets clear at full employment. Secondly they criticised the Soviet system of planning through central ministries which according to Langa and Breit allowed certain groups of workers to exploit monopoly power and secure higher wages for themselves at the expense of other groups of workers. This was a feature reached in European communist economies where certain workers such as miners and workers in heavy industry enjoyed significantly higher earnings than workers in other industries. Actually this criticism of the Stalinist model was one that Langa in later years went to great trouble to try to hide in successive editions of this essay. As an alternative Langa and Breit urged the organisation of industry into autonomous trusts that were not quite syndicalist because their ruling boards would contain representatives of all social groups. But their activity would be coordinated by the market and in a striking anticipation of 21st century political economy the coordination would come in two ways through the market and through the central bank. As with the 21st century new consensus on monetary policy the central bank would regulate the level of investment and aggregate economic activity by varying the rate of interest. One wonders today whether central bank socialism would work any better than central bank capitalism although it was I believe there was talk of it in Hungary in the dying years of the Hungarian communist at the Kadar regime in Hungary. I will pass over to other aspects of Langa's work that may interest the historian of economic thought both of them emerging in response to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. There is first of all Langa's interpretation of Keynes's general theory in price flexibility and employment. This was a booklet that he published in 1943 and this became one of the founding documents of the neoclassical synthesis that came to be ritually denounced in later years by Joan Robinson and the post Keynesians. At the time Kalecki rejected the Langa view as an incorrect interpretation of Keynes. Langa also earlier intervened in the Keynes-Tinburgan dispute about the scope and significance of econometrics. These are less appropriate for discussing before the general audience that we have today. But since we are at Sawas let me conclude on Langa with a few words on his development economics. Langa came to development economics rather later in life. After he and Poland emerged from Stalinist isolation in 1956, Langa travelled widely to Latin America and then he followed Nicholas Caldor to India and Sri Lanka then Ceylon. In India and Ceylon he warmly endorsed Caldor's taxation reforms to raise government revenues and close the fiscal deficit. However in his development economics Langa stayed close to the orthodoxy that he had embraced in the 1940s for Poland. Namely that economic development depended in large countries upon the amount of resources devoted to investment in general and heavy industry in particular. However smaller countries were in his view more constrained by their foreign trade position and would require import restrictions in order to develop. An intriguing aspect of Langa's development economics were the discussions that he had towards the end of his life with Italian economists on the issues of regional economic development in the Italian Mezzogiorno. So let me move now on to Kalecki. Michael Kalecki and Oskar Langa had more in common than their intellectual roots in the discussions of the Zviozek Niesalofne, Mojirfe Socialistithne, the Union of Independent Socialist Youth at the beginning of the 1930s where they met for the first time. Well actually Kalecki was never a member of the organisation but he hung around in those circles. Actually they had far more in common than this. Kalecki's father Abram II was a factory owner but the Kalecki factory was in the middle of the Polish industrial city of Łódź which was also the second city after Moscow to be affected by the 1905 revolution. Abram Kalecki's business never recovered and in 1911 he shut down the factory. Unlike Langa Michael Kalecki lived in financial insecurity up to 1929 when he secured employment at the Institute for the Study of Business Cycles and Prices. A rare oasis of economics research in Poland at a time when university professors devoted themselves to teaching and sustaining the higher culture that they believed themselves to represent. I didn't produce but you just sustain the culture. In 1936 this was what the research assessment exercises put a firm stop to. In 1936 Kalecki left Poland along with Langa to go abroad on a Rockefeller Fellowship. While Langa headed for the United States Kalecki went to Stockholm to study the credit cycle theories of the Swedish followers of Knut Fiksall. While there Kalecki received news of the publication of Keynes's general theory. Among the founding myths of post Keynesian economics is the story put out by George Shackle and Joan Robinson that Kalecki was so shocked to see Keynes's theory was so shocked to see that Keynes's theory had beaten his own to the publisher that Kalecki took to his bed for a week. The book did shake Kalecki but more with the realisation that the key discussions on macroeconomics were now no longer in Stockholm but were in London and Cambridge. So Kalecki left Stockholm and came to London lodging just on the other side of Russell Square in Guilford Street. In fact in late towards the end of her life Kalecki's widow told me that they arrived at Guilford Street, put their bags down and being who they were, put their bags down headed straight for Trafalgar Square for a demonstration support. So they knew which side to be on. He wrote to Joan Robinson after reading her analysis of hidden unemployment and she was so impressed by his understanding of Keynesian ideas that she introduced him to Keynes. Keynes and Mrs Keynes invited Michael and Adela Kalecki for tea at the rather ugly house in Harvey Road, Cambridge, owned by Keynes' parents, a house that John Maynard Keynes occasionally used when he was in Cambridge. Joan Robinson anxious to know what impression her protege had made on the great man for her. Keynes was always a great man even when after Keynes died she concluded that Kalecki had the better intellect. Joan Robinson asked Kalecki how was the tea with Keynes and what impression had he of the great man. Kalecki replied that the tea was fine, that Keynes was like a prima ballerina and Mrs Keynes was like a Cambridge dom. Keynes supported Kalecki after the expiry of his Rockefeller Fellowship while confessing to being confused by some of Kalecki's ideas. In this context I cannot resist quoting this remark from a letter of Keynes to Khan dated 30 April 1938 referring to what Keynes called Kalecki's appalling method of exposition. Keynes wrote, his mathematics seems to be largely devoted to covering up the premises and making it extremely difficult to bring one's intuition to bear. If only he would state his premises in the most illuminating possible manner and be perfunctory over his mathematics instead of the other way round one would have a better idea of what he is driving at. Of course in Keynes's writings it was the other way round, very much so. Keynes secured for Kalecki a stipend from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research to do research at Cambridge and subsequently after the outbreak of the Second World War in Oxford. At the end of the war Kalecki moved to Canada to work with the International Labour Organization and then to New York where he worked for the United Nations. As the Cold War chilled the atmosphere of multilateral organizations such as UN, Kalecki became subject to political pressure over the IMF and World Bank policy and reports that he wrote on member countries. He was spied upon and the Secretary General, Dag Hammersholt refused a request by the Mexican government for Kalecki to visit Mexico as an expert advisor. In 1955 he resigned and returned to Warsaw to take up a key role advising the government there on economic planning. For a while with destilinisation things went well but in the 1960s when the economy started to experience difficulties Kalecki's criticisms of excessive investment proved less tolerable. In 1968 many of his associates were subjected to an anti-Semitic purge, lost their jobs, in many cases were given passports valid for only one journey out of Poland, effectively deprived of their nationality. Among them Kazimierz Waski, who is with us here today. Kalecki resigned from his official positions, made one last journey to England and died in Poland in 1970. Although he had little scholarship about himself, Kalecki was a much more original thinker than Lange, although Lange had the encyclopedic knowledge of economic theory. Kalecki's perhaps best known for having anticipated in some way Cain's general theory. The anticipation was hailed after Cain's death by Joan Robinson and was claimed in private by Kalecki himself. The real story is a complex one that reveals much about the respective personalities of the two men, but actually very little about their ideas. Part of the complexity arises from the very ambiguity of Cain's ideas. Even his most ardent followers admit that there are different interpretations of Cain's, so that denouncing incorrect interpretations of Cain's is today as common among Cain's followers as denunciations of deviant interpretations of Marx are widespread among Marx's followers. It is however possible to identify in the general theory and in Kalecki's work key ideas that they had in common. The first is that in a capitalist economy output and employment are determined by business investment, so that unless investment is high enough the economy is unlikely to be at full employment. Secondly that investment determines saving rather than the other way around. Both men denounce the doctrine of the social value of thrift that so comforted the complacent Victorian bourgeoisie and that it has made such a comeback today. Finally contrary to the neoclassical and the Ricardian Marxist view, both men argued that wage rises would increase employment rather than decreasing it. Underline this commonality of view on how the capitalist economy works was a fundamental principle of economic method that Kalecki explicitly employed to great effect and Cain's in a somewhat more haphazard way, the principle of the circular flow of income. This is the idea that incomes are determined by expenditure decisions rather than being decided in complex games of exchanging resources, capital or labour. The principle goes back to the work of the French physiocrat François Canay but has been lost to political economy by the 19th century with the ascendancy of the idea that prices integrate individual exchange decisions. It's all you need are the correct prices. Nevertheless, a hundred years ago the great Joseph Schumpeter recognised the importance of the circular flow of income. The principle he declared showed how each economic period becomes the basis for the subsequent one, not only in a technical sense but also in the sense that it produces exactly such results as will induce and enable the members of the economic community to repeat the same process in the same form in the next economic period. How economic production comes about as a social process. As long as economic periods were viewed merely as a technical phenomenon and the fact of the economic cycle through which they move had not been recognised, the connecting link of economic causality and the insight into the inner necessity and the general character of economics was missing. It was possible to consider the individual act of exchange, the phenomenon of money, the question of protective tariffs as economic problems, but it was impossible to view with clarity the total process which unfolds itself in a particular economic period, the Schumpeter writing in 1912. Sadly, that principle has been lost again with the new classical economics, new Keynesians, the new neoclassical synthesis and others. All of them returning to the classical position in which for better or for worse, but largely worse prices rather than the circular flow of income are held to integrate economic decisions. However, the similarities between Keynes and Keynes should not blind us to the differences in their respective approaches. Keynes, the moderate conservative, was ever enthusiastic about the possibilities of policies that would allow capitalism to flourish as it needs to if it is to provide full employment. Kalecki was more skeptical. He accepted that fiscal and monetary policies could provide some stimulus to business investment, but he did not regard this as a sustainable position in the long run. More importantly, he doubted the willingness of business to support a regime of full employment. He also criticised Keynes' weak understanding of industrial investment processes and corporate finance beyond stock market operations. Unlike Keynes, Kalecki did engage with the problems of developing countries. Kalecki also distinguished himself from Langa in emphasising that the central problem of economic development is a financial one, but not the saving constraint that has exercised development economists from the time of Gustaf Castle onwards. For Kalecki, the financial constraint appeared in the first instance as a foreign exchange boundary on the amount of investment and consumption goods that may be imported. In the second place, the financial constraint emerged out of the social structure of the economy. Growth in employment at low levels of income would put pressure on food supplied by the agricultural sector. The resulting food price inflation would redistribute income towards farmers and through higher ends to landowners. The higher food prices would therefore fail to stimulate food supplies. This made land reform and the taxation of landowners and the middle classes a prerequisite for successful industrialisation. Kalecki was also sceptical of the benefits of foreign direct investment in fostering the modernisation of the economy. Let me come to my conclusion. In a lecture in 1951, I think it was JK Galbraith who said the words, let me come to a conclusion, words which are spoken by the lecturer in a bid to give his audience hope. In a lecture in 1951, Lange described Kalecki as a left Keynesian. This was the term employed at the time by communists to describe those followers of Keynes, like Joan Robinson, who was sympathetic to Marxism but recognised the possibilities of Keynesian management of capitalism. Lange's own use of the term was not ironic but maybe viewed as such. This was a neoclassical Marxist who helped establish the neoclassical synthesis, pigeonholing a much more radical and original critic of capitalism, which all goes to show we may use labels of convenience but they're rarely illuminating. More generally, the incident and the comparison between the two scholars shows that while it's helpful for the development of ideas and analysis for economists to do battle over theory and concepts, it's not helpful to take that battle and such name calling into the domain of public discussion. In the domain of politics, battles over economic policy must be conducted rhetorically with an appeal to the ideas and currency among the political audience rather than with an appeal to theoretical consistency. Economists have to be aware that in entering public debates they need to use rhetoric rather than analysis, but in using rhetoric and appealing to the often uninformed sentiments of their audiences, economists need to avoid two traps. One trap lies in becoming what Keynes called agitators or mere economic journalists, pervading the warmed up ideas of others and encouraging an uninformed sentiment. The other trap lies in dogmatism or in insistence on the acceptance of certain doctrines whose rationale and application cannot be explained. Kalecki anlanga may be usefully read today as examples of economists whose writings avoid those traps. Although both wrote complex and difficult studies in economics, their arguments are radical in the sense that they do not require prior acceptance of initial premises or doctrines. This has become all too rare in a profession divided into schools of thought in which particular schools are identified by the doctrines which they do not question. The mainstream defined in scope by market clearing prices, Austrians defined by doctrines of entrepreneurship, post Caneans defined by doctrines concerning uncertainty, expectations, endogenous money, one could go on. A very positive side of Lange's work deserves to be recovered today. This is in his engagement with all economics. He did not disengage with the mainstream economics of his time but challenged it and even employed it to draw much more radical conclusions than his mainstream colleagues would allow. A particular need in the 21st century is the urgent need to recover Kalecki's vision and the integrating principle of the circular flow of income. Without it, economists have regressed to those Victorian values that celebrate the alleged thrift of the rich. When a self-professed New Caneansian like the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, attributes the macroeconomic imbalances, the so-called macroeconomic imbalances, the US economy and even the financial crisis since 2008 to the so-called Chinese savings glut, it's apparent that the economics profession needs followers of Kalecki to point out that the Chinese people were never so wealthy nor earned on a sufficient scale to distort the American economy in the way alleged by Bernanke. In our development economics of the 21st century, we need to return to Lange and Kalecki's vision of economic development in traditional society as a social process, a vision that emphasized economic development as changing social structures rather than merely adding to the endowments of individuals. I have a particular and personal agenda in pursuing my research on Kalecki. This agenda is to recover for the 21st century the monetary theory of Kalecki, rooted in Vixellian business cycle theory rather than in the functionalist approach to money that has been predominated in British and North American economics. Central to the Vixellian business cycle approach is the idea that the most important money which determines the scale of investment, employment and economic dynamics is put into circulation by business and not by governments or central banks. Again, if I can quote Schumpeter, I guess I should apologize for quoting Schumpeter more than I've quoted Kalecki, but he was in the same class really, they're all in the same class. A Schumpeter put it, it may be more useful to look upon capitalist finance as a clearing system that cancels claims and debts and carries forward the differences, in other words, practically and analytically a credit theory of money. This is perhaps the key theoretical distinction between Kalecki and Keynes. Behind Kalecki's analysis was a vision of credit as a clearing system of capitalist finance, whereas his preoccupation with policy and his own financial investments restricted Keynes' monetary vision to the clearing of payments between commercial banks and the central bank. Thus, in the 21st century, as our economic ills are blamed even by the leading theoreticians of the economics profession on the past so many of the Chinese, the extravagance of Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians, the prodigalty of governments, the greed of workers, excessive regulation and limited foresight, we should read Langa and Kalecki to remind ourselves that the economy is the most important thing in the world. That economics has to start with the functioning of capitalism in its leading countries and emergent capitalism in developing ones. Only from this foundation can we build theories of economic and monetary relations. On a final note, let me just conclude with the following thought. Research can only be as good as the people with whom the researcher associates. I may have delivered this lecture, but the good things in it I owe to Kalecki and Langa to all those who have encouraged my interest in Kalecki, most notably Malcolm Sawyer and Jeff Harcourt. Also, Julio Lopez, Nomi Levy, John King, Tracy Mott, my brilliant research students, Jago Penrose, Luigi Ventimiglia, Eva Kavoski, Joe Mitchell, Mimosa Shabani and Ilara Marti, who have served with great patience and forbearance as a captive and very active audience for the discussion of my ideas. Finally, last but not least, I owe those ideas to the person who will come off to me, Professor Kazimierz Waski. Thank you very much. It is a great honour to me for me to have been invited here to this ceremony. I understand that this privilege is linked to the fact that I had the occasion to personally both of this economist and to work for about dozens of years with Professor Kalecki. Let me start with some personal information which may be interesting for you and then I will make two comments more in theoretical sense. It is true that Lange was the Deputy Chairman of the State Council in Poland, but this was a position politically without practically any weight, mostly representative. Father, he was not Jewish, but his link with Jews went beyond the George's anecdote about the bookkeeper of his father, as told by Professor Toporowski. Oscar Lange's first wife, Irena, was Jewish. She went together with him to the United States, but after the war she did not return together with him back to Poland. She and their son remained in the United States. His second wife, Felicia, was not Jewish. Now a few anecdotes about Kalecki. After his lectures there were questions and sometimes if questions have been asked, Kalecki answered exactly with the same words as in the lecture. He was a very bad teacher in the sense that he could not understand that people don't understand his reasoning. So he repeated what he said but louder. The second anecdote is when I learned that his work in the planning commission goes to the end because he didn't want, they treated him as a showman to show, look what a great economist we have as an advisor. But this was not Kalecki to play such a role. So he stopped and at that moment the idea came to me to win him for the university.  Outside this period when he was in the main school of planning statistics between about 57, 56 and 60 and 70 when he retired. Well, so I had a great difficulty to convince him that he lectures to students and in the end I got his consent but after a few days he found to me what we made up was two hours a week, one semester. Capitalism, one semester. Socialism because academic year in Poland has two semesters. After a few days he found to me and he says I cannot agree. So what happened? He says I don't have enough material to teach two hours a week. So you see a normal professor teach six hours but then tells everything about the topic but Kalecki was able not only to speak about himself, about what he discovered himself. So I had the idea and said Professor Kalecki please you will teach one hour and the other hour you will answer questions. So as questions were not always asked he asked himself some questions and answered them. By the way I see here in the audience somebody who can say who can who was at that time in Poland Professor Kielosi. Another anecdote. During this time were great discussions in Poland after 56 and before the system changed to the worse about workers about giving money. I think about increasing the role of workers in administration of firms and Kalecki Lange was the chief of the so-called economic council and the two people who were vice president were Professor Bruce and Professor Kalecki. Bruce was very enthusiastic about introducing market economy elements into the socialist planning system. Kalecki was not so. Kalecki understood that if reforms would be indeed deep making the markets influence the behavior of enterprises we will have unemployment. And after quite a time I understand that he was to some degree right. Let us continue. Professor Toporowski is right that schools and economics are linked more with people than with places of institutions. In the years 56, 55, 68 there existed in Warsaw an economic school of thought linked with Kalecki. After he resigned from this position in this school in a sign of protest against anti-Semitic campaign of 1968. This school of thought disintegrated. I am convinced that no inaugural lecture in Poland over the last 20 years has been devoted or could have been devoted either to Lange or to Kalecki. In the course of those years economics has become in Poland has become merely a rather provincial reflection of mainstream economic thinking. Lange is best known for his participation in the debate on economic calculation under socialism. Also he wrote a lot of things in the other direction he can be treated also as one of the co-founders of the no classical synthesis. But I will concentrate my remarks on this topic on the so-called economic calculation under socialism. In this discussion Lange sided with Valeras against the Austrian school and proved that within the assumption of Valerasian model, Mises proposition about the impossibility of efficient allocation of resources under socialism was wrong. Theoretically the central planning board by the trial and error method could substitute for Tottenham or the Auctioneer functions. However, is general equilibrium approach a correct representation of the market mechanism and of the capitalist economy? And if this is not the case, as many are convinced, would not Lange's solution cause greater losses as a piece of normative economy as opposed to a piece of positive theory only? In a capitalist economy the most important functions of the entrepreneur are related to information he has and to motivation which drives his behavior. Within the Valerasian analytical framework entrepreneurs behave like robots that solve system of equation and in this role official of the central planning board especially when equipped with modern computers can surely replace the entrepreneurs. But can they also solve the problem of risk of uncertainty and responsibility for decisions made under these conditions? These are questions which Lange did not even ask because they are beyond the realm of general equilibrium theory. In this sense I believe that Lange's victory in the discussion was a purest one. In 1986 the Financial Times published an article of President Toporowski. Why the word economy needs a financial crush? That article as its author admitted some time ago has had for quite a time a devastating effect on his career and shattered his belief on the role of economics ideas as a vehicle for progress of reason in economics and politics. Kalecki did not need such a lesson. He was not only a great thinker but also a very much dumb to earth person. He had no illusions concerning the evolution, sorry the evaluation of economic ideas on their merits alone. As President Toporowski reminded us in his today lecture already 1943 much more than half a century ago. Kalecki stressed that knowledge of how to achieve and to continuously maintain full employment might not be sufficient on its own to make the industrial leaders achieve that goal. They would dislike government interference in employment problems such as such. Moreover they would dislike the directions of government spending especially if the spending was to subsidize consumption. Last but not least they would dislike the social and political consequences of continued maintenance of full employment. Kalecki was convinced that opposition to the policy of full employment would prevail even in absence business would incur losses. According to him discipline in factories and political stability would be more appreciated by industrial leaders than profit alone. By the way I forgot to mention that Kalecki was very very critical on Marxism. He was never member of any political party perhaps in the pre-war period I don't know of this movement of young people. I remember another anecdote when Kalecki said look if somebody studied Marxism I was a dogma a Marxist his head is lost. He is lost so I say I was too a Marxist so he says perhaps you are different. Not different perhaps. From this point of right now let us come back to my lecture as prepared. I spoke about his article about full employment and if we look at this paper today our present experience of the financial crisis that started about five years ago is very different. No significant changes especially regarding the separation between commercial and investment banking have yet been introduced. No conclusions regarding indispensable regulation of the financial industry have been drawn. What we see instead is a render petition of the crisis. It seems the only subject which is relevant is state debt by the way in the year 2047 the debt GDP relation in the United States was 500%. Of this less than 100% much less than 100% was state debt 400% was outside the state. The financial sector alone had a debt of 125%. Well the similar situation you have in Europe Spain and Ireland had a very low relation of state debt. The Baltic countries almost nothing and still the consequences were very strong and are for instance in Spain very important. What we see is the reinterpretation of the crisis which was not the crisis of state debt into a fiscal problem and this is needed in order to revive the doctrine of sound finance. However in a period of debt-deliveraging of firms and private households in developed economies budget expenditures is the only source from which the required additional demand may come from and yet as we see especially in Europe instead of deficit spending budget discipline is requested. Well somebody may say well if the crisis is related somehow to debt how can more debt solve the crisis. Well this is their point. The point is that this is a little bit paradoxical but the system is paradoxical not the answer. If we speak about income effect of investment what does it mean? It means that what is important is not that they create places capacity it is important that they create jobs when by the way once Galecki said and this will be the end remark. The problem with investments is they are productive. If they were not productive then we could continue but they are productive and this creates a problem. Thank you very much.