Thank you all, and thanks to the Mises Institute, the scholars, the staff, and the Loo Church Foundation for sponsoring this lecture. I came here for the first time 20 years ago as a graduate student and I attended Ralph Raco's history of liberty seminar. It was a week-long event, very transformative experience for me. I met a lot of great scholars, exposed to powerful ideas that have changed the way I've looked at the world ever since. And I never would have guessed then that one day I'd be invited to come back here to deliver a lecture like this, so it's a it's a great honor. And I also would like to thank the scholars who have delivered this lecture, the Loo Church lecture, on religion and economics in past years for their contributions to my own understanding of the relationship between those two things, and I've planned to reference several of them in this lecture. I'm sure that many of you who are teachers, whether at the high school or the college level, have some especially vivid memories from your first year of teaching. And I have a memory like that I'd like to share with you. It came when I was teaching a history survey class my first year at Faulkner. So at the end of one class session the students were walking past me as they filed out of the room. The room was set up like this where the door was over here in the corner so they had to go past me to get out. And the last two students in the room to leave were named Jedediah and Lorianne. Now Faulkner is the university in the deep south if you haven't picked up on that. But Jedediah and Lorianne, Lorianne was an honor student. She was very well read for a college freshman, very sharp. Jedediah, maybe not so much, but he was a great kid with a big heart and you could tell that just by spending a few minutes with him. So anyway, Jed stops as he's about to walk past me. He said, Dr. Jewel, I really enjoy your class. You know, professors love to hear stuff like that, right? So I said, well, thanks, Jed. I'm glad you're getting something out of it. And he said, yeah, I'm not really sure why I like it so much, but I think it has something to do with your your free spirit and your hubris. And so, you know, the teacher in me, you know, wanted to kind of like enter into a Socratic dialogue with Jed to figure out what exactly he meant by using that term and maybe suggest a better word for, you know, but at the same time, I didn't want to seem pedantic, you know, by responding to his attempt at a compliment. So I just, I kind of looked at Lorianne, who was, you know, suppressing her laughter. And I said, I just looked back at you. I said, well, thanks, Jed. I really appreciate that about my hubris. So I tell you that to give you maybe a little bit of a sense of what I'm feeling as I stand up here in front of you because in comparison to so many of you who have spent decades teaching Austrian economics and advancing the scholarship in the field, I sort of feel like Jed, you know, the relative novice who has a great appreciation for the contribution of Austrian economics to our understanding of social life, but who maybe hasn't mastered the terminology, you know, perfectly or learned how to contribute to the field in an effective way just yet. So I hope that if I make any missteps in what I present to you today, you'll treat me gently as I tried to treat Jed gently all those years ago. Now my lecture is titled The Persistent Problem of Objective Value. And I realize that for this group, that might be a pretty provocative title.  And when I was up at Sanford University a few weeks ago and talking to Art Cardin, I know a lot of you know Art. And I mentioned the title of my lecture to him. And he gave me this kind of looks like we can't be friends anymore. It was one of those kind of things. But I want to assure you upfront that I am not intending to attack the foundation of Austrian economics. I will not call the marginal revolution into question. I will not talk about money as a measure of value. I will not tell you that market price is ought to reflect the cost of production, or repeat canards about economists knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. What I will do is talk about a problem that I've run into pretty consistently when talking about economics to non-economists who have serious religious commitments of various kinds. And I actually do this pretty often in my teaching, even though I don't teach courses in economics per se. Now, as some of you know, I direct doctoral and master's programs in the humanities. They are great books based curricula. So when I was in here yesterday morning and learned that Alex Pollock was a director of the Great Books Foundation, I was like, wow, the workings of Providence are strange. I don't know what that means that I'm a great books professor and here's a guy from the Great Books Foundation, but it was confirmation to me that I'm in the right place this weekend. So these programs that I direct are distance programs. I've got students from all over the country, all over the world. And they come from a lot of different backgrounds. Some of them are in their 20s. Some of them are in their 60s. Some of them are full-time instructors at community colleges or four-year colleges and universities. Others are involved in classical education in the K through 12 world. Some have full-time positions in ministry. Others are lawyers. Others are in business. But nearly all of them have a couple of things in common. They're serious about their Christian faith, Faulkner's Christian University. And these students love the Great Books and they love the great conversation. Now, a couple of times a year, I teach an interdisciplinary topical seminar. And I've taught seminars on happiness and justice and wealth and JRR Tolkien and all kinds of other things. And this semester, I'm teaching a seminar on virtues and markets. But no matter what the seminar topic happens to be, I try to make an effort to get the students to encounter the economic way of thinking. So, for example, in the justice seminar that I teach every two or three years, I have the students read Marx and then I follow that up immediately with Bumbawirk's answer to Marx's exploitation theory. So I joke that I'm the only humanities professor in the world who makes the students read Eugen von Bumbawirk. This semester, the students are reading several things, including McCloskey's bourgeois virtues. But they're also reading a lot of Great Books content, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Thomas Aquinas, you know, the usual suspects. Now, almost every time I have students read an economic selection that incorporates, you know, modern subjectivist utility theory, I run into resistance from the students who typically have backgrounds in philosophy, theology, literature or history. Now, my friend Sam Greg at the Acton Institute says it's easier to get economists to think about ethics than it is to get philosophers and theologians to think about economics. So maybe that's not entirely surprising.  It's not simply that my students who are classical educators that they've read, you know, Aristotle's musings on the barrenness of money and the illicit nature of interest. I can tell them about time preference and kind of talk them out of that in three or four minutes. There's something else going on. And I finally concluded that there is a specter haunting my students, the specter of C.S. Lewis. Now, it's almost impossible to overstate the esteem in which small Orthodox Christians hold C.S. Lewis today. But maybe one example will give you some idea of its extent. The late reform theologian R.C. Sprule once told a story about a conference on ecumenical dialogue that he had attended with Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox and other reformed and evangelical clergy. And although at the end of the conference, there were still many differences in their respective views. They decided that they would affirm a resolution about what they all endorsed. And here what here was what the resolution that they all endorsed. Number one, the inspiration of the Bible. Number two, the cannons of the first six ecumenical councils. And number three, the writings of C.S. Lewis. It sounds crazy, but that's the story that he told. Now, although Lewis is best known today to the general public as the author of the Chronicles of Narnia and the Screwtape Letters, his other works of both fiction and nonfiction have had a far-reaching influence on Christians of the baby boom and subsequent generations. On the fiction side to give just a couple of examples, I know some of you probably read these books, the Pilgrims Regress, an allegorical account of Lewis's own conversion to Christianity helped Christians make sense of some of the shortcomings of influential secular philosophies, both ancient and modern.  On the nonfiction side, Lewis's the problem of pain and a grief observed have helped many to cope with heartbreaking loss. His mere Christianity provides accessible, non-dogmatic arguments for the reasonableness of Christian belief. And in fact, these arguments converted one of my students to Christianity when I was teaching in mainland China in the late 1990s. So it's almost certainly the most influential of Lewis's nonfiction works in the broader culture. But among those who already embraced Christianity, Lewis has probably made the biggest impression with the abolition of man, which was originally a series of lectures that he delivered in 1943 and then published in book form a year later. And just in the two or three weeks leading up to this event, when I had already decided I was going to talk about the abolition of man, I was at two different events completely unrelated where people brought up the abolition of man as this really foundational and pivotal work that everybody needs to read. So its influence is very widespread. It's one of the best known modern defenses of natural law. And I want to focus here on Lewis's comments on subjectivism that occur early in that book, because it's here that the popular reading of Lewis I think can create some problems for economists. Oh, by the way, just in the last few days I discovered an article on Mises.org by Daniel Ajamean who delivered the Lew church lecture a few years ago. And that article works to harmonize Lewis's writings on natural law with Rothbard's treatment of natural law. So I recommend that you check that out. So Lewis opens the first chapter of the abolition of man with a discussion of a grade school English textbook that he calls the green book. He doesn't give you the book's real title, he doesn't name the book's author because he's trying to be polite but subsequent scholars have actually come in and positively identified this what this book was. But the authors of the green book reference an early 19th century account by Dorothy Wordsworth about her 1803 visit to a waterfall near New Lanark in Scotland along with her brother, the poet William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Now remember that New Lanark was the model factory town built by the utopian socialist Robert Owen in the in the early 19th century. So Coleridge engages in conversation with some of the tourists who are there and the tourists use various adjectives like majestic and sublime to describe the waterfall. Now the authors of the green book comment on this scene. Here's a quote. When the man says this is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall. Actually, he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really, I have feelings associated in my mind with the word sublime. Or shortly, I have sublime feelings. And Lewis then in his own voice comments, here are a good many deep questions settled in a pretty summary fashion. But he's not finished quoting the green book, its authors go on to write the following quote, this confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something. And actually, we are only saying something about our own feelings. Now in Lewis's view, the schoolboy who reads this passage from the green book is being invited to believe two things. Number one, all sentences containing a predicate of value are statements about the emotional state of the speaker. And number two, all such statements are unimportant. So he goes on to level a lengthy critique of these two propositions, which I'll attempt to summarize very briefly. When Coleridge approves of certain adjectives like majestic to describe the waterfall, he's expressing the belief in Lewis's words that, quote, certain responses could be more just or ordinate or appropriate than others to inanimate nature. The man who called the cataract sublime was not intending simply to describe his own emotions about it. He was also claiming that the object was one which merited those emotions. But for this claim, there would be nothing to agree or disagree about. End quote. So over the following pages, Lewis shows that this conception of a fitting response to the world is found in every great religion and philosophical tradition. And he refers to it as the Tao throughout the rest of the book. Now what all these traditions have in common, he says, is the doctrine of objective value, which he defines as the belief that certain attitudes are really true and others are really false to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are. Now I think the remainder of this paragraph is really helpful and important for clarifying what Lewis means so forgive me for quoting it at length. Those who know the Tao can hold that to call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a quality that demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not. I myself do not enjoy the society of small children because I speak from within the Tao. I recognize this as a defect within myself, just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or color blind. And because our approvals and disapprovals are thus recognitions of objective value or responses to an objective order, therefore emotional states can be in harmony with reason when we feel liking for what ought to be approved or out of harmony with reason when we perceive that liking is due but cannot feel it. No emotion is in itself a judgment in that sense. All emotions and sentiments are a logical, but they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to reason or fail to conform. The heart never takes the place of the head, but it can and should obey it. End quote. Now, of course, I should note that nothing in Lewis's discussion has anything directly to do with economics. The objective value to which he refers is not economic or exchange value. Rather, it's the inherent qualities of other people and things to which we can respond appropriately or inappropriately. So when Coleridge's conversation partner says the waterfall is sublime, he's actually saying that his feeling of humility in the presence of the waterfall is appropriate to the reality. And thus he's referring to something beyond his feeling. Now, Jews and Christians who believe in the inspiration of the Bible can point to the creation account in the Book of Genesis as a paradigmatic example of objective value in this sense. God creates the earth and the seas and saw that it was good. The earth brought forth grass and trees and God saw that it was good. God creates the sun and the moon and saw that it was good. This declaration occurs five times in Genesis chapter one. And then at the conclusion of the six days of creation, quote, God saw everything that he had made and behold, it was very good. Now, of course, this idea of objective value has ethical application as well. So leaving aside the euthyphro dilemma, if you know the dilemma of does God command things because they're good or are they good because God commands them? Just leave that aside for a second. Human obedience to divine commands is objectively appropriate. As Saint Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans, even the Gentiles who had not received the law of Moses could know and obey those divine commands, thus becoming a law unto themselves. Again, nothing directly having to do with economics just yet. Nevertheless, Lewis' howl does have implications for things that economics attempts to analyze, such as market participants' ordinal preferences as revealed in economic transactions. And here's, I think, is where the economists can run into problems when attempting to explain market processes to those who have been influenced by Lewis' writings. Now, I happen to believe that Lewis is correct in this defense of the doctrine of objective value, and most of my students do as well. But the moment I start talking about economic values being subjective, they start looking at me funny. But it usually doesn't take me that long to distinguish economic valuation from the objective ontological value that Lewis describes, but this distinction generally gives rise to more questions on their part, such as to what extent should objective value inform or dictate one's subjective ordinal rankings of goods that then manifest in market prices. And sooner or later, the discussion usually turns to whether state action is necessary or desirable to move markets to be more in line with objective value. Now, the economist might answer that we've now left the domain of economics and have entered the realm of ethics or political philosophy, but not all great economic thinkers have held that view. I know that many of you are familiar with the name Kondiak, Etienne Bonot, the Abbey de Kondiak was a contemporary of Adam Smith. And he's known in the history of thought primarily as a philosopher in the Lockean empiricist tradition. However, his 1776 treatise, commerce and government considered in their mutual relationship, has earned him a place in the history of economic thought as well. I'm going to give a shout out to Patrick Newman for putting me onto Kondiak as a research possibility. In his Austrian perspective on the history of economic thought, Murray Rothbard lavishes praise on Kondiak, arguing that his treatise was superior to Smith's wealth of nations. And the primary reason of Rothbard's preferring Kondiak to Smith is Kondiak's identification of subjective valuation as the source of market prices. According to Rothbard, Kondiak, quote, set forth and defended a sophisticated subjective utility of value, in quote, in which the utility of goods increases with their scarcity and decreases with their abundance. Exchange arises as a result of market participants differing perception of the utility and value of the good being exchanged. Kondiak refutes the Aristotelian notion of equality in exchange, later adopted by some of the British classical economists, by pointing out that, in a market transaction, parties give up a lesser value for a greater. And Rothbard laments that this rebuttal, quote, was promptly lost for 100 years, in quote, before Karl Minger and other marginalists recovered it. Now, despite his importance as an empiricist philosopher, Kondiak also helped pioneer a deductivist methodology for economics that has proved very congenial for the Austrian school, of course. Now, what might surprise you about Kondiak is that he held to a doctrine of objective value that was rooted in his theology. For Kondiak, all knowledge is analytic and part of an integrated structure that might even be seen as one great tautology. To God, all things are immediately and intimately known. As Kondiak puts it, quote, each truth is for him like two and two make four. He sees them all in a single truth and doubtless nothing is so frivolous in his eyes as this science with which we inflate our pride, end quote. Now, this truth includes knowledge of the ontological value of every part of the creation, of course. Obviously, the human mind lacks this capacity and Kondiak approaches economic value with this limitation in mind. Now, in a 1985 article, Daniel Klein states that Kondiak quotes unravels a logical sequence when explaining how value arises for each individual. Sensation is the starting point. Some sensations are agreeable, others are disagreeable, and this relationship between the subject and the object gives rise to need. Some needs follow from our makeup or constitution. For example, we need food to survive. Other artificial needs follow from custom and Kondiak says are sometimes as necessary as if we had been constituted to need it. And the example he gives here is a tribe's need for agricultural implements once it has grown too large to live a nomadic existence. Kondiak then moves from need to utility. A thing is useful when it supplies some of our needs. It's useless when it meets none of them or when we can do nothing about it. And then finally, we make a judgment or estimation of a good's utility. Quote, to say that a thing has value is to say that it is or that we think it is good for some purpose. End quote. So you'll notice that in this sequence from sensation to need to utility to value, there are some links that economists would call objective like the way Kondiak defines usefulness and others that they would normally call subjective such as the final estimation of the individual about a good's usefulness. But Kondiak holds that to God there's no distinction between the two. It's all one kind of knowledge. Now, if you're familiar with the continental tradition of the economic thought in the generations following Kondiak, you might know that JB say was critical of Kondiak and his deductivist methodology, but that destitute to Tracy considered it foundational to sound economic reasoning. Now, like Kondiak, Tracy was first and foremost a philosopher and only secondarily an economist. He's the author who gave us the words ideology and ideologue for better or worse. And he largely adopted Kondiak's framework but with one significant difference. Going back to Daniel Klein, Klein writes, although Tracy saw a necessity in nature, he did not envision an immaculate all-encompassing tautological structure of knowledge. For Kondiak, this fluid comprehension resided in God's mind. But Tracy was probably an atheist. Kondiak conceived of all reasoning, which is ultimately situated in a frictionless context as synonymous with calculation or algebraic expression. All the apparent snags and obstacles wash away when we discover the ideal mathematical form of the knowledge we hold. For Tracy, however, the complications and qualifications involved in non-mathematical reasoning are real and constitute a definite difference between the two sorts of propositions." So what's going on here is, first of all, Kondiak conceives of God's perfect knowledge in mathematical terms. It's all calculation. Tracy doesn't like this. He instead says that not all reasoning is calculation. Reasoning is the genus. Calculation is just one species of reasoning. OK, fine. But along the way, Tracy tables the question of God's knowledge altogether and proceeds as though it doesn't have any bearing on economic science. And Klein approves of this. Klein says that Tracy relieved much of Kondiak's thought of a persistent remnant of scholasticism, while salvaging and modernizing many valuable elements." So for example, where Kondiak writes about needs, Tracy writes about wants. And here's how Klein describes this development. This is a significant improvement because it is a step toward the modern language of subjectivist economics. The need of Kondiak is an element from scholastic thought. The normative and theological connotations of the term go hand in hand with the Aristotelian ethic of man fulfilling his potential, which was prevalent in scholastic thought. Such improvements on Kondiak show that differences between Tracy and Kondiak on philosophical matters were important in the historical development of economic thought." And I'll note in this connection that in his philosophical writings, Tracy also offered a redefinition of freedom away from the classical view of willing what one ought to one of the ability to will and do what one pleases. So that's a significant difference. Perhaps ironically, even though he moved away from Kondiak's mathematical conception of reasoning as necessarily calculation, Tracy held on to an idea of subjective value, objective economic value, writing of a natural and necessary value derived from cost of production to which he thought the market price would tend. Now, whether that theoretical conception on net represents a step forward for economics from Kondiak, I'll leave you to judge. Now, several historians of economic thought, including Joseph Schumpeter and the Mises Institute's own Murray Rothbard and Joe Salerno, have written of the importance of the French liberal school as a preserver of the laissez-faire tradition on a sounder philosophical basis than that of the British classical economists in the 19th century. One historian asked, quote, is there not between Kondiak and Jevons or Bombavirk an uninterrupted connection of economists who found value on desire? We know that all these men were familiar with Kondiak, whose philosophy was prevailing during their youth, end quote. So we can recognize and appreciate the accomplishments of this tradition in keeping alive ideas that would feed the marginal revolution of the 1870s. But we can also point to the potentially negative consequences of the aggressively secularizing nature of the majority of continental liberals in the early and mid-19th century. And I'm aware that Ralph Raco produced some valuable scholarship on religious liberals, such as Benjamin Konstant and Alexis de Tocqueville. But I think the generalization about their secularism stands with some qualifications. Now, once the tradition of Austrian economics proper began with Karl Menger and continued with Bombavirk and Ludwig von Mises, there appeared to be no need to appeal to anything beyond the imputation of value by individual economic actors to explain market processes. And this can be fine as far as it goes, but as so often happens in the social sciences after theology and normative considerations were pushed out in the name of achieving objectivity, the temptation to smuggle them back in through the back door can be very powerful. And by the time he wrote theory and history in the 1950s, Mises himself was taking such a tack. In the chapter titled The Quest for Absolute Values, he explicitly states that economic science cannot say anything about the truth or falsity of judgments of value. It can only inquire into the effects of actions guided by those judgments. Quote, any step beyond these limits is tantamount to substituting a personal judgment of value for knowledge of reality, end quote. Now the reader who makes his way through this chapter will find Mises' dismissal as relevant for economic theory, the dogmas of the creation, the incarnation, and the trinity on the grounds that they have, quote, no direct bearing on the problems of inter-human relations, end quote. He will read about the deficiencies and contradictions of natural law theory with its heap of illusions and quite arbitrary prepossessions. But by the time he makes it to the end of that same chapter, he'll see Mises call economics the product of utilitarianism and claim that social utility, as defined by utilitarianism, must be the sole criterion for legislation and justice. So it sounds as though Mises is coming very close to conceiving social utility as an absolute value. Now he tries to get around this by claiming that utilitarianism is only about means and not ends and that social cooperation is the thing that allows everyone, the maximum capability, to pursue and achieve his ends. But if this is true, we still have the presumably objective value behind utilitarianism that enabling as many people as possible to pursue and achieve their ends is good. So there's a tension between the attempt to make economics value free and the contention that it is the product of a social philosophy utilitarianism with a prescriptive view of what constitutes the good. Now don't get me wrong here. Don't think I don't like theory and history. I think it's an incredible book. I have vivid memories of sitting on the third floor of Strozier Library at Florida State University as a graduate student reading theory and history was the first of Mises' of treatises that I took a look at because I was trained as a historian. And I remember just being blown away on page after page by these incredible insights. It's my first time to really encounter Mises in depth. So I have great veneration for Mises and that book in particular. But I think this is a potential problem for Mises. Now some others of the most prominent authors in the Austrian tradition either omit any mention of the relationship of objective ontological value to economic value or deny that such a relationship exists. Now I know that most of you probably heard the quote by Hayek in the Counter-Revolution of Science which he wrote in the 50s. It is probably no exaggeration to say that every important advance in economic theory during the last 100 years was a further step in the consistent application of subjectivism. But again, radical subjectivism eventually runs into difficulties in its assessment of utility. Gary North who's a great friend of the Mises Institute and who passed away just a few weeks ago and about whom I'll have more to say in a moment was an attendee at the South Royalton Conference in 1974. Now I realized yesterday we got a lot of young people here, a lot of teenagers who may not know anything about the South Royalton Conference. So for those of you younger folks this was the conference in 1974 that would sort of dates the, today we date like the rebirth of the Austrian school in some sense to that conference because in 1974 Mises had just died and Hayek had moved on to other things besides economics and there wasn't really an Austrian presence in the academy but there were a lot of people who were still interested in Austrian economics that got together in South Royalton, Vermont in 1974 and had this conference and that kind of kickstarted the modern Austrian movement. So Gary North was an attendee at that conference and in later years he recalled a debate that illustrates this tension about radical subjectivism. So he says that Murray Rothbard believed that Israel Kersner and Ludwig Lachmann wanted to take subjectivism too far and so he attempted to put Kersner on the spot with the following question. You ready? Some of you may have an answer. If a wine-loving Frenchman survived a nuclear war in a bomb shelter and came out of it as the sole survivor and therefore the owner of all the wine of France is he richer than a nation that had not been at war? Kersner refused to answer the question. On the grounds that the economists cannot make interpersonal comparisons of subjective utility or use statistical aggregates to compare the wealth of nations because this one surviving guy is the French nation now, right? So we can't use statistical aggregates to compare the wealth of nations. Now Kersner's reply was in line with the fully consistent application of subjective value theory. Rothbard, on the other hand, thought the answer to the question should have been obvious. The nation that avoided war is clearly wealthier than the wine-soaked Frenchman. Now I suspect Rothbard's reluctance to go down this radical subjectivist road or rabbit hole if you prefer had something to do with his affinity for Aristotle and the natural law tradition which those scholastic philosophers and Kondiak also valued, right? Rothbard's recognition of the existence of an objective ethic suited to man's rational nature not only guided him toward a political philosophy of non-coercion as laid out in works like the Ethics of Liberty, but probably also put the brakes on some of the tendencies of radical subjectivism for him. Now I mentioned Gary North. I think one of the writers in the Austrian tradition who does devote attention to this question of objective value is North. And after he passed away a few weeks ago, I reworked my talk to talk about North more just sort of as a way of kind of paying tribute to his contributions. Now as many of you know, North believed his calling was to write a multi-volume economic commentary on the Bible and he devoted many thousands of hours over several decades to accomplishing that task. But one of his first products as part of that effort was the 1981 book, The Dominion Covenant which focuses on the book of Genesis. And the fourth chapter of that work is titled Economic Value, Objective and Subjective. Before going further, I'll just mention that Timothy Terrell and Glenn Moots have a co-authored article in the Journal of Markets and Morality back in 2006 that discusses some of these ideas. So I encourage you to take a look at that. Of course, Timothy is a past Lou Church Memorial Lecturer. Now, North agrees with Hayek and Mises and other Austrians that the marginalist revolution of the late 19th century buried the argument that cost of production or other calculations of objective value furnish a benchmark for market prices. However, he maintains that this is not the end of the story. Even though human beings have the power to impute economic value, this activity goes on within divinely established parameters. As North puts it, quote, all human imputation goes on within a framework of God's absolute objective standards, end quote. And North calls attention to the problem of our inability to measure pleasure and pain as a major problem for utilitarianism. And this problem applies not only to situations where one person gains pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Remember when Richard Posner wrote that the real reason rape is wrong is that the rapist inflicts quantitatively more harm on the victim than the amount of pleasure that he receives in return from the ag. Okay, so this is not only a problem in those situations, but also when some economists tell policymakers that taking the millionaires last $10,000 to divide between a poor person and the bureaucracy results in a net gain to society. Now, of course, Lionel Robbins established this way back in the 1930s with his book, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science, but as you probably know, Robbins later backtracked under pressure and said that it was fine for economists to make those kinds of recommendations as economists, even though those recommendations can't be derived from economics. That's just the thing we do, right? That's what economists do. Now, North goes on to write that even economists who recognize our inability to make interpersonal comparisons of subjective utility nearly always end up falling back on statistical aggregates in certain situations. Now, Mises himself did this when attempting to demonstrate the superiority of capitalist economies to socialist economies. He pointed to numbers like capital goods per capita. Rothbard did it in his exchange with Kersner at South Royalton. The Fraser Institute's Human Freedom Index, to which our own Walter Block has contributed, uses GDP as part of its calculations. But if the individual is the only source of economic value, then all of these great economists are caught in a contradiction. Now, North says it's common sense to do this kind of thing and it's appropriate. Mises and Rothbard were obviously correct in their conclusions. They're not caught in a contradiction because they operate within the framework of God's objective standards. So here's how North threads this needle. Quote, there is an overall economic plan in God's mind. North is Calvinist, of course, he's gonna say God has a plan, but you don't have to be a Calvinist to say that God has a plan, right? There's an overall economic plan in God's mind. This forces men to some degree to conform themselves to this plan and to adjust their plans in terms of it. We can therefore say, along with Kersner, that in order to make assessments of comparative wealth, there must be a single integrated plan. Furthermore, unlike Kersner, we can say that such a plan exists. As creatures made in God's image, we can make at least reasonable, useful estimations of the value of capital or other goods. Even though we could not do so legitimately if all value were exclusively subjective, as if there were no overall plan of God. Now importantly, North does not claim to know what God's overall economic plan is. We could think through what would have to be true in order for us to know that divine plan. So imagine a person whose piety and devotion have led him to a state of enlightenment such that his ordinal ranking of ends is perfect from a religious point of view. St. Thoe, right? Or maybe St. Larry. Maybe St. Larry is more plausible over here. I don't know. In other words, St. Larry has flawlessly discerned God's will for his life and understands precisely how to allocate his time, energy, and material resources in pursuit of that will. He is, quote, thinking God's thoughts after him. You've probably heard that phrase before. How would this affect his economic behavior? Now I think it's fair to say that his ordering of ends would remove many things from the category of exchange relationships entirely. E. F. Schumacher once wrote that there can be nothing sacred in something that has a price. And I think there's an element of truth there that more economists ought to recognize. Now I think Peter Jaworski and Jason Brennan are smart guys. I like a lot of what they have to say, but when they start talking about markets without limits, you all know the book, I remember Jaworski saying at an API conference one year that it would be fine for money transactions to enter into some, let's just say, pretty intimate family interactions. And when I start hearing things like that, I think maybe maybe it's time to put on the brakes a little bit, but. That's a particular brand of philosophy talking, not economics, right? When Jesus drove the money changers from the temple, I think he was saying at a minimum that it's not appropriate for market transactions to be everywhere, right? Now I love this quote from Mises's essay in economic calculation in the socialist Commonwealth. Quote, in any place where men regard as significant, the beauty of a neighborhood or of a building, the health, happiness and contentment of mankind, the honor of individuals or nations, they are just as much motive forces of rational conduct as are economic factors in the proper sense of the word. Even where they are not substitutable against each other on the market and therefore do not enter into exchange relationships. That's the quote I always trot out when people tell me economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing, right? But unless St. Larry experienced a divine call to the aromitical life, that's life as a hermit, for those of you who don't know, he will still be involved in exchange. This is true of those, even of those who live communally such as the members of various monastic orders in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches or the Anabaptist Christians in the Hutterite traditions who have established colonies on several continents. Although members of these groups own no personal property and do not engage in buying and selling within their communities, they still make decisions about the allocation of time, energy and the community's resources. And there's often significant trade between those entities and the outside world. But let's leave those folks aside for the moment and focus on the individual saint operating within the mainstream economy, if you will. His supply of and demand or lack of demand for particular goods and services will affect their distribution in the manner described by Austrian economics. And if we extend this thought experiment to include all economic actors having this perfect discernment and perfectly ordered ends, we would then have a situation in which there would be a divinely approved distribution of all goods and services. Just go with me here. If Mises can use the evenly rotating economy as a construct, I can use the divinely ordered economy, okay? Each person would have the correct amount of everything given the current productivity of the economy. Presumably the demand for many goods and services would disappear completely. Weapons of war, prostitution and the like. Demand for other goods and services might increase dramatically. Church construction, pilgrimages to the Holy Land and so on. Charitable giving and the services that it finances might also skyrocket. Note that each person's perfect ordering of ends in this scenario does not imply that each person has the same ordering of ends. The diversity of talents, circumstances and callings within this divine economy would imply a different ordinal ranking of preferences by each person. Just as St. Paul uses the analogy of parts of the body to illustrate the division of labor within the church in the first epistle to the Corinthians, we would imagine a division of labor within the economy writ large in this ideal society. Some are called to life in the monastery and have no need for houses or professional attire. Others are called to marry and have children. They need diapers and school supplies. The elderly need more healthcare than those who are young as do those with rare medical conditions. Practitioners of different trades need different tools. Now we could multiply these examples ad infinitum to show that there would be no uniformity among people's rankings of ends in this society apart from the supreme end of discerning and following God's will. Now in this scenario in which all desires and ends are correctly ordered in an objective sense and market activity reflects this perfect ordering we would have just prices, right? Market clearing prices would be discovered in the manner described by economic science and all the goods and services would go toward their most highly valued uses. So in this very narrow and idealized way we can speak of such a thing as a just price that satisfies both the rational conclusion of late scholastic writers such as Luis de Molina who said that the just price is the freely negotiated market price and also those who claim that prices ought to reflect some value beyond the desires of the parties to the exchange. So let's add a wrinkle to this scenario in which the saints perfect discernment of God's will for their lives does not result in a precise ordinal ranking of all possible ends but that God grants his people who are made in his image perfect freedom within certain limits to exercise their own preferences. Now whether this freedom might be exercised merely in matters of taste, you know a ketchup or mustard on your hamburger or whether it might extend to more substantive questions such as the selection of one's profession or number of working hours in the week, it's irrelevant for the purposes of this thought experiment but in this situation we would expect there to be more variation in the range of possible quantities supplied and demanded of various goods and services. Yet presumably the resulting market clearing prices would be in accordance with the divine will and considered just. Okay, perhaps I'm describing what things will look like in the new heavens and the new earth described in the book of Revelation, right? But it's important to note that even if a growing number of people around the world today suddenly had this sort of conversion experience and perfect discernment and started to order their preferences in this objectively correct way it does not necessarily follow that the overall market would inevitably move in the right direction. So for example, in the economy full of disordered people all of us, one person might have a greater demand for a particular good or service than he ought to. Another person might have a lesser demand than she ought to and those two errors could conceivably balance out making the total demand objectively correct. So if one of these market participants aligns his ends perfectly the total demand could move away from its divine equilibrium so that balance is eliminated. So in principle, I think obviously it's impossible for us to know the particulars of this divine economic plan or what prices ought to be or any of that sort of thing. And so we're correct to say that, look the freely negotiated market price is the best we've got, let's just go with that. So I think we're correct in saying that in the here and now just envisioning this ideal scenario. But again, that doesn't mean we can't affirm the existence of a divine plan even a divine economic plan. So I think the classical theism or really any other form of theism that affirms the existence of a personal God offers us a way out of the dilemma of radical subjectivism. And we can recover insights from the late scholastics, Kondiak and more recent authors like Gary North to help us to a coherent account of subject evaluation within a divinely established objective framework. I can tell my students that Austrian economics is consistent with the truths CS Lewis explains in the abolition of man. And on the question of radical subjectivism, I'll keep taking the side of Mises and Rothbard against Kersner. Thank you. Okay, I think we've got time for a few questions. So, yes sir. Thank you very much for this great talk. It seems that even the radical subjectivist still use the phrase like valuing goods which would seem redundant because you could value things without saying valuing a good. And maybe the term good is just a remnant of scholastic notions. On the other hand, it may speak precisely to a distinction between goodness and value or valuation. So you might say that there's objective goodness and subjective valuation. And that would sort of speak to the metaphysical notions of the transcendental goodness of things. If you know what I mean. So that we could, in other ways, we could resolve this by making a distinction between the valuation, which is a ranking or a choice and the goodness, which is actually objective. And one would value goods as opposed to valuing evils. Yeah, and I don't know all of the history here but my impression is that when the radical subjectivist says valuing goods that his understanding of goods is simply something that somebody values, right? So that is a kind of redundancy. I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction in what the radical subjectivist is saying there. But that's an interesting point that you bring out. I had not thought about that actually. Thank you. I think there have been some people in the Austrian school since this is kind of a contentious issue among some have preferred the term like personal value given that whenever there's a valuation, there's a value or an object that they value. And some thought rather than getting into this fight that has theological implications, maybe just using personal value might actually be a more descriptive and better way around this. Do you have any thoughts on that? Yeah, I think that if you say that, you still run into the problem of, can this radical subjectivism sort of survive even on its own terms? Like this question of making comparisons among aggregates I think you run into that problem. So you'd still have to come up with some kind of solution to that.  Well, that's kind of where I was going. So rather than have this be a point of conflict with Christians. Yeah, I understand. Yeah, and I appreciate that. I'm thinking more of the terms of, in terms of trying to get at this problem of how far can we take subjective valuation? And is there, does it eventually run into a barrier? I think that's the problem that Rothbard is sort of pointing to in that exchange with Kirchner. Okay, thank you. If you had to recommend like a single text or resource to someone who's interested in exploring this dialogue between Christian ethics or theology and economics, what would you recommend? A single text, yeah, it's difficult actually. Of course, there are a lot of really sound authors in the Austrian tradition who have this orientation. I don't know of any treatises that like systematically kind of work through this, so that's a tough question.  But obviously, I think you ought to read Lewis's Abolition of Man to get more of an idea of this objective ontological value and then maybe start thinking about how that relates to the economics like we've been talking about. Thanks. Got a question up here? Since I'm an atheist, my comment might be rather inappropriate because I'm gonna make a statement about Christianity. But as an atheist, I definitely support free will. So to me, Calvinism is absurd. That's why I sort of like Catholics, for example, you know. If you accept a doctrine of free will, man can make wrong choices. I mean, that's what free will means. If God denies to man that ability, then that man now is not functioning within the parameters of a creature with certain particular properties the way that God designed them. God designed man with free will. If that's the case, why is it relevant for a Christian to consider whether a person makes a right choice or a wrong choice? That is the choice, that question is settled between that man and God.  Why is subjective valuation such a problem for a Christian? That's what I'm trying to understand. Well, I don't think it's a problem for Christians.  But within the parameters of what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the limitations of the radical subjectivism. And if we want to say something like socialist economies do better than capitalist economies, what's our basis for doing that if the valuing individual is the only source of economic value? How can we say, unless we just say, well, it's my personal belief that capitalist economies are better, how persuasive is that gonna be to people? So I think that's, I understand the point that you're making and I think that you're correct to an extent, but it's, I don't think that that question quite gets at the point that I'm trying to address here with the radical subject. Well, I was addressing the original point. You said that there are certain Christians who have difficulty with subjective value because they have, they attach importance to their objective value. Why do my students initially have problems with the idea of subjective value? Well, yeah, okay, that's a good question. Yeah, I think what's going on there is that when they first hear the idea before they have kind of it fully explained to them, they immediately think that it's a sort of moral relativism. And what I have to do is say like, well, no, economics as a descriptive science is just telling us how we get to these market outcomes to these prices, how these processes work in the market. And economics as such doesn't tell us about the normative quality of those people's preferences and all of that. So once that distinction is made, then I think almost all of them are fine with it. But then, like I said, they do want to kind of go beyond that and say, well, if they do believe in objective value, to what extent ought that to inform? Like even just in their own lives, it's like how should that inform my own preferences when I go to be a participant in the marketplace and that sort of thing. So sorry if I didn't understand the question at first, but thank you. All right, thank you again.


And now, stay tuned for the mystery program that is unique among all mystery programs. Because even when you know who is guilty, you always receive a startling surprise at the final curtain. In the Signal Oil program... The Whistler.  I am the Whistler. And I know many things for I walk by night. I know many strange tales hidden in the hearts of men and women who have stepped into the shadows. Yes, I know the nameless terrors of which they dare not speak. And now for the Signal Oil Company, the Whistler's strange story. Triple Cross. Ted Lucas stopped walking through the lights over the entrance of a small apartment building highlighted on the words El Congol. The expression on his tight-drawn face seemed to relax a little. He drew in its breath, then walked rapidly to the doorway and inside, paused at the directory. There he ran his finger down the posted list of names until... Claire Henderson. Apartment 214. Well, baby, I finally found you. Yes, Ted, you found her. After six months of running, hiding, you've decided to do the one thing Claire wouldn't expect you to do. Come out of hiding and find her, and make her pay for what she's done to you. You take the stairs to the second floor, follow the hall to Apartment 214 and ring the bell. Come in, Jeff. I thought you... Wrong on two counts, baby. I'm not Jeff and I'm not early. I'm about six months late. Ted Lucas. What's the matter, Claire? Aren't you glad to see me? Well, I'm Ted. Oh, you're just disappointed because I'm not Jeff. But how did you... How'd I find you? I just looked. Yeah, thanks. I think I will sit down. Oh, it's a nice little farm you have here. You must grow a lot of berries, huh? Well, I have a pretty good job. Oh, I bet you do. Claire Henderson, working girl. Where do you work? Oh, I should say who, huh? I'm secretary to Charles Seaton. Of the Diamond and Porter. That's right. Well, well... It was very clever of you.  The old man probably gives you a sack of old diamonds every now and then, huh? Or maybe my 30 grand brought all this fancy stuff.  It had occurred to me. But I didn't. Really, I... I've been worried about you ever since you left. Oh, you sounded worried when I got here. Come in, Jeff. The door's unlocked. I'm just mixing drinks. But I have been worried, Ted. Oh, so worried you couldn't even get in touch with me, huh? So concerned about me, you wouldn't even send me my share of that payroll job we pulled. Come on, Claire, that was a $60,000 knockoff. Where's my hat? I was afraid to send it. The police were looking for you. Very smooth, baby. That's why I didn't take my cut that night, remember? So if the law caught up with me, I wouldn't have the money on me. You, Miss Mastermind, had it. The whole 60 grand, you were supposed to send me half. Man, what a chump I was.  You had my address. You didn't send it. But, Ted, I... You knew I'd figure I couldn't stay in one place very long? And you figured I'd be afraid to come back here? Well, I want my 30 grand. I want it fast. Of course you do, and I've kept it for you. You what? I said I've kept your half of the money for you. Yeah? When do I get it? Tomorrow morning as soon as the bank opens. Now, there's just one thing about it. Oh, I thought that. What's the catch? No catch. With my connections, working for Mr. Seaton, I had a chance to make a good investment in diamonds a couple of months back. I bought $30,000 worth for you. They're in my safety deposit box. Now, wasn't that thoughtful of me?  The diamond market's jumped a little since then. You'll make a little profit when you cash the man. You know, there's something wrong with that. There's something wrong with this, Claire. I don't know what it is yet, but I... But you still don't trust me. It's not hard to understand, Ted.  You thought about nothing else since then.  I don't get this sudden interest in my welfare. You were very short-memory, Ted. I know different than I was when you left. Don't you remember how I was then? I was so sure you'd run out on me. I still don't get it.  Just meet me at the bank tomorrow morning at 10.  I'll be with you. What do you mean? I'm staying here tonight on that cow stand in the living room. Oh, it isn't that I don't trust you. It's just that... Well, it took me so long to find you. I just can't stand to let you out of my sight. Jen! Now, let's five straight games you won. Looks like you can beat me at any game, huh? Ted, it's getting late.  Any time you feel like turning in for the night, you go right ahead. But you...  After the places I've been sleeping, the couch looks like the governor's suite to me. Claire, I'm still wondering what happened to your boyfriend, Jeff.  Looks like it, doesn't it? Yeah. He's nobody, Ted. Just a guy.  Go on, hit the hay, Claire. This is a business call. Pure business. Okay, Ted. That's the way you want it. I'll see you in the morning. You sure will. You stare at the front door of the apartment in startled silence. Your first impulse is to answer the door, isn't it, Ted? But you quickly realize you can't be seen. Could be only Jeff, Claire's date for the evening. But it might be someone else, Ted. You realize you might have been followed. The police could have picked up your trail and wanted to talk about the payroll robbery. You move quickly through the apartment to the kitchen. There, you find a service entrance into the main hall. Silently, you open the door, and peer out at the figure standing with his back to you at Claire's front door. Just a man in a dark suit, Ted. Nothing distinguishing about him. But you take a good long look at him, then close the door, noiselessly.  In the kitchen, Claire, you got any milk? No, no, I hit a table on the way to the kitchen. No. You wait in the kitchen until you hear Claire go into the bedroom and close the door. You're still not sure of her, are you, Ted? The man at the door was probably Jeff, Claire's friend. But you don't know. You return to the living room, systematically turn off all the lights, then move for the front window, which overlooks the street. It's almost deserted, isn't it, Ted? Then your eye catches the figure of a man, standing across the street, leaning against the lamppost and looking up toward Claire's apartment. Same guy. Same guy was here. This is Cupid Miller, or, I mean Marvin Miller, with a message especially for lovers. After all, folks who have never been in love wouldn't know how it feels to fall in love.  I'm referring to Signal Ethel, the premium grade of Signal's famous go farther gasoline. You'll experience your first love when you touch the starter, and your motor springs to life instantly with Signal Ethel. You'll know it's really love when you discover the peppy pickup of Signal Ethel. And you'll agree, Signal Ethel is your one love when you see how its smooth, silent power rockets your car uphill without shifting or pinging. You want to know the reason for all this amour? Like any true sweetheart, this sweetheart of a gasoline brings out the best in any car of any age. So why not show your car that you really care? Treat it to a tank full of the best tomorrow. You and your car will love Signal Ethel.  Strangely puzzled, yes, and afraid too. You've learned to be wary in the six months you've been hiding after the payroll robbery which you and Claire Henderson planned and carried out. But it's more than that now, isn't it Ted? Everything about your return seems strange, ominous. First it was Claire, calmly announcing that she hadn't spent your $30,000 cut at all, that she'd invested it in diamonds for you, and that you'd even make a profit. Then that knock on the door, the man in the dark suit who later took up a post across the street and watched Claire's apartment. You don't know who he is, do you Ted? Or what he wants? All through the long night you sit there in the darkness of Claire's living room, turning the whole situation over in your mind.  It's nearly 10 o'clock when you awake with a start. Ted, wake up!  I must have fallen asleep. Why is Lee sitting up in a chair? I thought the couch impressed you. It changed my mind. Hey, wait a minute. There's a tree out of the window. I don't know. Never mind, no one's out there now anyway. It's funny. What? Nothing, you ready? Yeah. Well then come on, let's do that bit at the bank where you deliver my $30,000 in diamonds. Still don't trust me, do you? No, not yet. All the way downtown in the taxi you divide your time between studying Claire and trying to determine whether or not you're being followed.  It doesn't make sense, does it, Ted? Even if the two of you enter the bank and walk to the safe deposit box section, you're still goaded with suspicion and distrust. Stop looking so intense, Ted. If I didn't know better, I think you had plans to blow the bank up. The bars over the vault make me nervous and quit ad-libbing, let's get this thing over with. May I help you? Oh, hello, Anderson. Hello, I'd like to get into my safety deposit box, please. We'll just sign a card and send it to you there. There we are. This way, please. You don't mind waiting for me out here, Lieutenant? Why should I? You've got to come out this way. You look up with a sense of relief as Claire walks towards you. Smilingly takes your arm. The two of you walk from the bank and hail a taxi. After the cab's underway, Claire silently hands you a packet. You open it. Find an impressive collection of diamonds inside. Trust me now, Ted. Mr. Seton must be very proud of you. What kind of a crack is that? Well, if my trained eye is still in training, you have excellent taste in diamonds. I have excellent taste, period. I'm not sure, but this calls for a drink, maybe. Just maybe. Before noon? Time is relative. You got a particular hangout these days, or will the soothsayer do the trick? I haven't been there. Six months. Yeah, by an odd coincidence, neither have I. Hey, driver, drop us at the soothsayers, will you? I keep waiting for it, but I never hear it. Waiting for it and never hear what? Your apology. Apology? Are you making your devil cross me? Hey, don't get carried away, doll.  It doesn't mean I... Hey, what's the matter? It's that guy. The same guy I saw last night. What guy? Listen, listen, don't act like anything's wrong. Keep sipping your drink. When I give you a cue, take a look at the guy in the dark suit at the end of the bar. Tell me if you recognize him. Okay. Could be your boy Jeff, you know. Whatever he is, I'm pretty sure he's following me. There, see? He's looked away for a minute quickly, you know what? No. No, I don't think. You better be sure, baby.  It's no trick yet, honestly. We'll see. Anyway, you better be rambling along. But you'll see me later, baby. That's a promise. As Claire gets up, walks from the bar.  You're certain this is the same man who knocked at Claire's door last night. When you're determined now to sell the diamonds before they cause you any more trouble, he's still standing with his back to you as you get up quickly. Hurry unnoticed through the door behind you to the back hall, which leads to the rear entrance on an alleyway. Once there, you break into a dead run to the next corner and hurriedly hail a passing taxi. After a few blocks, you're certain you've lost the man you're sure was trailing. You're driven to the office of an old friend. Hurry it up, Markle. Ted Lucas. Long time? No, see. Look, are we alone? Like lovers. Where you been, Ted? I haven't seen you since... Since the last time, Markle, we really must get together and have a nice long chat real soon.  Ah. You been heisting precious stones? They're a gift. Come on, Markle, hurry it up. Okay, okay. Let's see now. You know what, Ted? These are diamonds. Real fine diamonds. They are, huh? Yeah, that much is good. Now, how about the... You got another friend like me, Ted? What do you mean? Where's the rest of the load? How come you're just trying to dump this much on me? Well, this is all I've got. Come on, how much, Markle? Look, don't try to chump me, Ted. Because if I unload these for you, I'll be doing you a big favor. Big? What do you mean? What's wrong with them? You said they were fine stones. They are. Fine and, uh, hot, too. They're hot? Plenty hot. This is only part of that Seton job a couple of nights ago. Seton? Seton, the diamond importers? Yeah, yeah, Seton's. Very smooth job, Teddy boy. Listen, Markle, how much are they worth? These here? Well, as they stand right now, about 35 grand. But to fence them, I'll have to cut them, and then they don't bring so much. Maybe, uh, only 20 or so. I see. You better level with me, Ted. Hall out the rest of that Seton load, and then maybe we can do business. But I won't handle any of it unless I handle it all. It's too dangerous. Yeah, yeah. Well, I guess you're right, Markle. Okay, I'll take these along and get the rest of the diamonds for you. Didn't expect to find you in, Claire. Nor are you in just in the middle of packing. Packing? I don't know what you're talking about. I just got home. That's well, so did I. Sit down. Ted, what's that? Sit down!  You've really got talent. I don't know what you're talking about. Give me a while, baby, but I finally caught on for good this time. Telling me you worked at Seton's. Man, how you worked there. But I did, Ted. I did. I quit a couple of weeks ago. And maybe you got 60, 75,000 bucks in diamonds for Severance Pay? Sure you did. That's where your boy Jeff came in, isn't it?  Yeah, well, you listened to me for a moment. Ever since Shy showed up, he's been dogging my trail. He was going to put me away for you, wasn't he, bright-eyed? No, Ted, nothing like that. Will you let me tell you? You tell me and be quick. All right, all right. We did do the seat and job, Jeff and I, but the rest of it isn't true. I had no idea you were anywhere around. Besides, you got your old cut. Those diamonds I gave you were at least 35,000. Not when they're cut, and I got to be cut a mark or it won't fence them. Now, where are the rest? I don't have them, Ted. Jeff has them. Not if I know you. He hasn't. You don't work that way. No, Ted, I don't. This is the way I work. Oh, you play with guns, too.  Sure, baby. I will play my way. Where do I find Jeff? Better talk fast, Claire. Okay, okay. He's at the Denton Arms apartment 107. 107 Denton Arms, huh? I hope you're telling the truth, baby. You better be. If not, I'll be back and pay you off.  You take Claire's gun, leave the apartment, and then hurriedly double back to the service entrance to the kitchen and silently try the door. It opens. You slip noiselessly into the kitchen, just in time to hear Claire on the phone, giving out all the information you need. Yes, that's right. Now, please, don't ask any more questions. There isn't time. I told you we just left. Yes, he's on his way there right now. Hurry. I thought you weren't going anywhere, baby. Okay. Wanting your boyfriend? I was coming to see him, huh? No, Ted. Figuring on making a quick getaway, weren't you? Pack everything and run for it. No, Ted. Last chance, baby. I want the rest of those diamonds. I told you I don't have them. Okay, baby. Have it your own way. No. Ted, please, no. Now, I'll see your boyfriend at the Denton Arms. After shooting Claire, you slip her gun into your pocket and hurry out the back way of the apartment. The Denton Arms is less than three blocks away, and you decide it's safer to walk the distance, followed up in the late afternoon traffic. Your confidence grows with each step. You'll get the diamonds now, Ted, all of them. Just one more obstacle in your way, Jeff. And you're certain that won't take long. Then you'll make a quick deal with Markle and leave town. You enter the side door of the Denton Arms, blink at the late afternoon darkness of the halls. Make your way to apartment 107. You listen at the door, no sound. And then, hearing a sound down the hall, you step quickly into a recess in the wall by the door. A man walks toward apartment 107. Slows his pace just before he reaches it. It's the same man, isn't it, Ted? The man in the dark suit who's been following. Okay, you're covered. Hey, what is that? We'll talk inside. It's cozier. And I'll give you a clue. We'll talk about diamonds. Okay. I guess I forgot my keys.  Try the knob. Maybe you left it unlocked. Inside. Now, smart boy, we're going to talk business. You and me. Looks like you've got me. You bet I have. I've got you just where I want you. Stop it. Stop engine wear that can cut down your car's pep and power. Cut down your gasoline mileage. Stop it. Stop engine wear that can make your car become an oil eater, make it need an expensive overhaul. How can you stop engine wear? By simply by changing oil, changing to signals amazing new premium motor oil that reduces engine wear due to lubrication 50%. Through newly perfected scientific developments, wonderful extra protection has been engineered into this superior quality new motor oil. New signal premium stops acid corrosion and rust, controls and reduces harmful engine deposits, keeps oil rings clean and free, keeps hydraulic valve lifters from sticking. Yet this heavy duty type oil is yours to enjoy at regular price at Signal stations. No wonder more and more drivers with an eye to keeping performance up and costs down are changing to signals amazing new oil that reduces engine wear due to lubrication 50%. Changing at signal stations. Have you changed yet to signal? Well Ted, you're beginning to track down and overcome all the obstacles aren't you? With Claire out of the way shot with her own gun you have now only to deal with Jeff for accomplice.  You're certain you'll be able to contact Markle later and dispose of him. Now you've ushered the man who's been trailing you into apartment 107 of the Denton Arms at the point of Claire's gun. It's nearly dusk now and you fumble with your free hand to turn on a lamp. Okay, I haven't got much time. Let's have the diamonds. What diamonds? A Satan diamonds. To match these I've got with me. Okay, just a minute. Hey, wait a minute. Look at this. What is this? You don't know? Very much like a corpse to me. Let's see now. The papers on him say Jeff, Jeff Healy. And he's really dead. Shot Jeff. He's Jeff. As if you didn't know. I didn't. I thought you were. So this is where you came this afternoon when you got away from me. Who are you? Linton's the name. Detective Linton. Robbie Division. I'd better hand over that gun. Thanks. That's better. I don't get it. You've been following me around. Ever since I happened to see you go into the El Congo apartment the other night. Thought I'd see what you were up to before I talked to you about that payroll job. We think you pulled it about six months ago. Looks like you've branched out since then. Into diamonds and murder. What are you talking about? A seat and diamond job. You're wrong. I didn't do that seat and job. It was a dame. Clare Henderson and this guy, Jeff Healy. She double crossed me before. Now she's double crossed him. Permanently. Could be. But you were pretty sure Jeff had some more diamonds, Lucas. Well, there's none on him now. Maybe I'd better take a look around the apartment. Won't do you any good. Clare Henderson, she had them even when I... How did you happen to come here?  A woman called headquarters. A woman? Yeah. She said if we come to the Denton Arms apartment 107 we'll find the seat and seat and a murderer. Looks like she was right. She was phoning the cops a little... I didn't do it, I tell you. Maybe not. But if you've got the diamonds on you, like you said, and if this gun is the one that killed Jeff here, you've got an awful lot of explaining to do. I tell you what, Clare Henderson. She was planning on skipping town and framing me. Maybe she wasn't that. Look, I'll give you a break, Lucas. Suppose you take me over to see her, and we'll find out what she has to say, hmm? Let that whistle be your signal for the signal oil program The Whistler each Sunday night at this same time. Meantime, signal oil company and the friendly independent dealers who help you go farther with signal gasoline hope you remember. Regardless of what gasoline you use, you'll enjoy more miles of happy driving if you drive at sensible speeds, obey traffic regulations, and avoid taking chances.  Featured in tonight's story were Bill Foreman, Gerald Moore, Betty Lou Gerson, Larry Blake, and Byron Kane. The Whistler was produced and directed by George W. Allen, with story by Nancy Cleveland, music by Wilbur Hatch, and was transmitted to our troops overseas by the Armed Forces Radio Service. The Whistler is entirely fictional, and all characters portrayed on the Whistler are also fictional. Any similarity of names or resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Remember to tune in at this same time next Sunday for another strange story by The Whistler. Marvin Miller speaking for the signal oil company. Stay tuned now for our Miss Brooke starring Eve Arden, which follows immediately over most of these stations. This is CBS The Columbia broadcasting system.


Family Theatre presents Patricia Neal, Jean Cagney and Glenn Langen. Hollywood the Mutual Network in cooperation with Family Theatre presents Jean Cagney and Glenn Langen in the triumphant exile. To introduce the drama, your hostess, Patricia Neal. Thank you, Jean Baker. Family Theatre's only purpose is to bring to everyone's attention a practice that must become an important part of our lives if we are to win peace for ourselves, peace for our families and peace for the world. Family Theatre urges you to pray. Pray together as a family. Once when told he was a genius, Robert Louis Stevenson said, what genius I have is for work. This is true in part for he spent his entire life learning to write better. But I think there's also genius in the fact that he never lost the vision of his childhood. Else how could he have written the stories you and I have thrilled to when we pretended to be pirates digging for buried treasure? Or kidnapped by wicked old uncles and forced to sail in ships on the high seas? These are the stories that will live forever. But so will the beloved Scotch author who wrote them. Family Theatre takes pride in presenting Glenn Langen as Stevenson, Jean Cagney as Fanny Osborn and Carlton Young as Lloyd Osborn who tells the story of the triumphant exile, the story of Robert Louis Stevenson. High upon a mountain top looking away to the sea is a grave beside a grave. In the distance is heard the roar of the surf and the wind blows. The climb is steep. It would be unlike most visitors to the island of Samoa to make the climb. But now as I sit here upon the summit my thoughts are of this man whose grave I face and of the woman who sleeps beside him. And suddenly it seemed only yesterday and before me stretches the new green forest of Fontainebleau in the south of France. The year is 1876. We'd come all the way from America shortly after my father died. We stayed in Paris for a time then came to the inn at the village of Gretz because mother wanted to paint. Painting, she said, could help her to forget so many things. Mama, what's that? A tiger lily. I'm painting a tiger lily. It doesn't look like one. It looks like any old flower. Oh, run along, Lloyd. Mother wants to be alone for a while with her thoughts. I knew my mother was grieving but I was too young to understand. An artist's colony is no place to amuse an eight year old boy and I was restless. I wandered along the riverbank until I came to where there sat a funny looking man wiggling his toes in the water and writing in a small notebook. He was tall and thin with long golden hair, a tiny mustache and very shabby clothes. I thought he must be terribly poor. You got your toes wet. You must be Lloyd. How do you know?  Where is she? I'm painting a silly old picture. I have nothing to do. Then come sit beside me. I'll tell you a story. What kind of a story? Well, let us see, Lloyd. Look yonder through the trees. It's just an old building tumbling down. That once was a castle belonging to a noble knight. And one day pirates came from far off Spain and sailing through this river reached the forests of Fontainebleau. They were vicious. I'd like this story teller because there was nothing I like better than to hear an exciting tale of adventure. Later he took me for a ride in his boat, the Rob Roy and we paddled upstream until we came to a spot opposite to where my mother sat painting. A lulley, as I call him, suggested we anchor his pirate ship and kidnap the lady of mystery who was obviously struggling with canvas and paint. Mama, mama, I'm a pirate and I sailed up the river to kidnap you and... Kidnap me, oh. And who is... Well, this is Lolly, mama. He talks real funny but he tells wonderful stories. Hello. I hope Lloyd hasn't been bothering you. To the contrary, he gave me an opportunity to meet you. Oh? Well, let me introduce myself. I'm Fanny Osby. Hi, and you're from America and you have two children.  Mystery? Then you know all about me. Certainly. Why? Why? Because you are the only woman in the colony. Is this unusual? Unusual. Do you know you're the only woman who I ever come to grits? No. Obviously Americans are uninhibited. No, I never thought... This colony is for artists. But I am an artist. Huh? Let me see. No. No, you are not an artist. But you do remind me of that flower you are painting. The Tiger Lily. Delicate. Lovely. A passionate color. For a man so young and a stranger too, you really are quite personal. Well, everyone admires a lady as beautiful as you. What is age? And besides, I'm 26. Then you're just plain rude. So I might be. But a man in love can afford to be rude. In love? Yes. A Tiger Lily.  Who are you? Louis Stevenson. Oh, of course. The Scotchman who arrived just last night. Hey, with me, Cousin Bob. We met at the Inman voyage during the river between here and Paris.  I heard about you at the Inn. Well, since we've heard about each other and since we're so well acquainted, how would you like to go canoeing? Oh, I don't think that I... Oh, yes, Mama. You'll have fun. And Lily can paddle good. If you refuse, we'll have to kidnap you. Oh, no. This sounds too dangerous. All right, Lloyd. Come. We'll carry the lady and miss free off to our ship. And then we'll put her in iron and chains. Down in the hole? Aye, aye, laddie. Until we've reached sea. Then what? Then, madam, we'll mock you, walk the plunk. It was good to hear mother laugh again. Young as I was, I couldn't help noticing that Louis and she were attracted to one another. As the summer months passed, I grew to associate them together. And in a childish way, I think it made me very happy. Then one day I came upon them in the garden. Hello. Mother and her easel, neither of them heard me. Because of shyness, I suppose I hid behind the gate. Fanny, I... I can't tell you how much this summer has meant. What inspiration you have meant to me. You're a good writer, Louis. You don't need me for inspiration. You're wrong, Fanny. I need you, but I have no right. No right? Did you not know why it is that I came to the Seuss of France? No. Well, the doctor ordered me to leave Scotland. I'll die. Oh, Louis. It's my lungs. I kind of stand the fog and the cold. So I'm an exile for Medenburg with only tears for the past. Oh, I'm so sorry, Louis. Oh, I despise. Do you know what it is? What it is like to be away from your family, your country. I... I know what it is to be away from... someone.  You never asked me about my husband, Louis. I buried him not long ago. Oh, Fanny, I'm sorry. So you see, we both have our crosses to bear. Oh, I know this is too soon to declare myself, but Fanny, I love you. You're very sweet, Louis, but you must forget all about this. I think you care for me a little. Yes. Yes, I... I think I do. Fanny, I'm proposing to you. I know I shouldn't, but I am. Louis, I think it best to go away. Well, then I'm coming with you. No. No, it's better I go alone. My heart still belongs to... Well, there are so many things I must forget, and I think it's best I try to forget them alone. Mother told me our money was almost gone and we were returning to America. I was happy at the thought of going home, but when the time came to part and we stood at the dock near the ship that was to carry us away, a sudden pain struck at my heart. I thought we would never see him again. It looks so long standing there. This is goodbye, Louis. I wish you would let me come with you, Fanny. No. No, it's better to think of this parting as final. You know I know, Louis. Don't you see, Louis, I must face going home. I have a responsibility to my children, and I must be able to make a new life for myself.  Perhaps someday if it's meant to be, but now there's still too much that ties me to the past. Do you see that, Louis? I... If I should ever send for you, then you'll know that I've freed myself of all memories, and you'll also know that it's you I love. I live only for that day. Work hard, Louis. Time will pass. Why, yes, Fanny, but all my prayers are going to be when you and I can be together. You must write and write and write, Louis. You have great talent. Maybe someday I'll write something worthwhile, sometime. Someday you'll write many great stories, Louis. This I know. And suddenly you'll be famous. The whole world will know the name of Robert Louis Stevenson. Sail for San Francisco. And when I was 11, we moved to Monterey, a sleepy old Mexican town down the California coast. But a quandary my mother was in I'll never know, or the agony that was in her heart. She would sit for hours in the warm sunshine, dreaming perhaps of happier days in Paris and Gretz. Then suddenly a mysterious excitement began, caused by a lot of letter writing. My mother waiting impatiently for the post to arrive with more letters. And one morning with a curious new brightness in her eyes, she said. Lloyd, Lloyd, I have news for you. Lulie is coming. Good, Lulie. All there by, as I planned what I was going to say when I saw you. Oh, words aren't important. No, no, only us, Fanny. We're together again. I'm here, too. Let me look at you, laddie. I'll tell you, I've grown. I got my own boat now. We can race in it, Lulie. I'll play pirates. And dig for buried treasure.  Lloyd would say I'm a baka bone. Gee, you'll make a skinny pirate.  Now, where are you going to stay? I didn't know. Well, there's a house on the hill owned by Senor Gortez. And you'll love him. He's a nice picturesque old pezzano. And you can rent a room there just for the time being. Lulie, I've waited a long time. Wait, wait, Lulie. Lloyd, dear, will you go out into the garden? No, no, no, let the Lord hear what I'm about to say. You may not like it, laddie, but I hope you will.  What, laddie? What do you say?  I was speechless. I knew I should say something, but what? My hand crept into his and a sense of happiness came flooding over me. From that day forth, Robert Louis Stevenson became my bosom friend. Now as I sit here upon the summit, and those years are behind me, I realize what a driving will he had, as if time were growing short and everything might not be accomplished, that the things he had to write might never be written. He had been in Monterey only two days when Senor Gortez brought us the terrible news. Senor Osborn! Senor Osborn! Senor, open the door! What is it, Senor? Oh, he must come quickly. What has happened? Is it Louis? Senor Stevenson, he's very sick. You mean he's had an attack? Yes, Senor. Is he dying? I do not know, Senor. I must get a doctor quickly. Come, there's no time to lose. Hard journey and lack of food that caused it, and the cold Monterey fog. It had all been too much for Louis, but with mother's strength and courage, she nursed him through. And soon the day came when he was able to sit up again. Funny, give me some paper on my pen.  You need rest. You've found it, woman. I have got to write. You will write, but not until the color comes back into your cheeks. The armature immaculate. I will call the story, and... Oh, it's the fog coming in from the sea. I'll close the shutters. Lassie, the room will be dark and unfriendly. It's not a very nice room, but as soon as you will, and... there, then we'll be married, and then... why, Louis? Louis, what's wrong? I... I received a letter from my family in Scotland. They have stopped my allowance. Oh? What will I do? Is it because of me? Because I'm older than you? No, no, no. Because I have two children and I'm American? No, no, funny. You know what it's not. No, Louis. It's easy to understand their way of thinking. If they only knew you. Some prospect are husband and kin to be. How will I take care of you? Well, if you can't take care of me, I'll take care of you. We'll go to some place high in the mountains where there's lots of fresh air and sunshine and no fogs to make you ill. Oh. It's just what you need. But my friend, we're... we're not Miss Monterey. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters, but getting you well and keeping you happy. This is it. This is Silverado. And there, there's the bunkhouse we're to use. Our new home. You can't mean it. There are no windows in the place. Gee, it's falling down. Well, this is it. Because there's the mine right behind the house. It fits the description all right. Jean Ghost wouldn't have lived here. Louis, it really is pretty awful. Aye. Nothing but dust and sand and weeds growing through the floors. Where's the furniture? Oh, what difference does it make? We'll make furniture in windows and we'll have fun cleaning it up. The only thing that matters is that you get well. What would I do if I weren't for you, Fanny? You've saved my life already. Well, I'll boast to say that I don't think many wives are better loved than I. But then, few wives have a genius for a husband. Are you all right, a Buddhist, Fanny? What do you call us? Um, Squatters. Good. I'll write about the Silverado Squatters. Beginning of our living a life of gypsies. For as soon as Louis completely recovered, we set sail for Scotland by invitation of his parents who had forgiven him when they learned how near he was to death. It was then in his home in Edinburgh that the idea for a story came. A story that was to bring Louis fame and fortune. The morning was rainy and I, hard up for amusement, was drawing a large map of an island. Well done. And how are we here? A map. But it's not very good. Certainly it is. Here, let me have a jog. Now, this is spyglass hill. And this is rum coal. And here we'll put three red crosses. And above them up we write, Treasure Island. Gee, now it really looks like a map. Pirates. Very treasure. A man maroon. Where you going with my map? Beginning of Treasure Island, which later Louis said he wrote for me. And it was the beginning of a new life where it made travel possible again. As gypsies we wanted to England, France and finally back to San Francisco. Louis writing as we roved and from these travels came many more stories. Kidnapped, black arrow, Prince Otto. My friend was a famous man. But in spite of his refusal to be an invalid, his illness forced him to bed again. And one night mother and I were awakened by loud cries from his room. Louis, Louis, what is it? I was dreaming a fine bogey tale. I think we were given orders that he was not to be interrupted even if the house caught fire. For three days he wrote without stopping, sitting up in bed covering page after page. And at the end of those three days he called us to his room and read his first draft of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And what do you think of it? I think it's wonderful. Good. Are you funny? I, uh, it could have been a masterpiece. Could have been? Yes, dear. You, uh, you missed the point. What point? Well, you made it a mere story. You took a good man whom you've called Dr. Jekyll.  I know all this. Well, don't you see it, Louis? This Dr. Jekyll should never become another man. Mr. Hyde is simply Dr. Jekyll's split personality, his other self. Why, we're all Dr. Jekyll's and Mr. Hyde's. Two persons, one bad and one good. But most of us overpower the bad with the good.  I'll write to entertain, not to preach. Perhaps so, but you could really make this a great story. You're wrong. It's already a great story. My mistake wasn't reading it to you. Now, I'd like to be alone, please. It was the first time I'd ever seen him angry. We went into the parlor and I turned to my mother, but neither of us spoke. She sat pale and desolate, staring into the fire. The room was dead silent. Then, after what seemed like ours, we heard him descending the stairs. He was carrying the manuscript. He crossed the room and threw it into the fire. Louie, what are you doing? You will write, Fanny, after I re-read the story, I discovered I had missed the point. Fanny, can you forgive my temper? I'm afraid the Mr. Hyde came out in me. Certainly, dear. Mind the other. Because of your wonderful help, this story will be a masterpiece. The case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was his most famous story, but with it came more serious illness and nearly cost Louie his life. Once again, he was ordered south. I remember him saying, Keep me well until I'm 40 and I'll live to 90. We sailed to Hawaii, the Gilberts, Australia and back. Then, because Louie and mother felt they had found the place where they could be truly happy, we hired natives and built a rambling house at the foot of Mount Bahia and we made Samoa our home. Ah, Fanny, it is the Garden of Eden, paradise. Ah, yes. Oh, look at the flaming hibiscus dancing through the jungle and the coconut palms bowing their heads as if in prayer. The beauty reminds me of you. You'll remember long ago the tiger lily. Delicate, lovely, a passion of color. How could I ever forget? This is a land for artists, free souls. For we can live like kings in a house that climbs a hill, a beautiful, proud hill.  I has something I want to show you. So lonely up here. From this summit, you can look out to the sea. Almost as if you could look across it. Do you miss home, Louie? Aye, sometimes I feel that I must go back even if it means my death. Being in exile has had its merit, dear, not Miss San Francisco. No, not really. San Francisco wouldn't be home unless you were there. You've never been sorry, then, being married to me? Sorry. Oh, Louie, my life has been beautiful. We've had the world together. What more could we ask? I guess we've had wonderful experiences, you and I. And left many friends on every continent. You know, it makes a man feel important as if he had accomplished something in life. Before he dies. This wind, it gives me a cold chill. Let's go back to the house. No, no, no, wait. I have something to tell you, Fanny. You see, you and I have always lived in the fear of my death. But when it comes, I want you to bring me back here to this summit. And when your time comes, my darling, I want you to come back here and sleep beside me. For together we can eternally look out to the sea, toward home. Some day soon, he said, I want you to make a path up the mountain. And when I die, you're to bury me there upon the summit. And this verse is to be inscribed there in bronze. Under the wide and starry sky, dig the grave and let me die. Glad did I live and gladly die, and I laid me down with a will. This is a virtue grave for me. Here he lies, where he longed to be. Home is a sailor. Home from the sea. Under Hunter. Home from the hill. I guess there isn't one of us, but has to admit that at times we get to worrying. We worry about a lot of things. Business affairs, our jobs, our future, the future of our country, and the future of the world. And when we pick up the papers and see accounts of the horror of war, when we see that one marriage in three goes on the rocks, when we see reports about juvenile delinquency, we even begin to worry about our own family. Yes, there are many things today that tend to separate a family. That's why we need all the help we can have to bring our families together. There's nothing that will bring a family closer in unity and understanding than the simple, the common, bond of trust and faith in God. The simple expression of that faith, the daily practice of family prayer, is the greatest inspiration and example we can give our children. Family prayer can and will bring God's blessing on our home. The blessing of harmony and understanding. Because a family that prays together, stays together, and a world at prayer will bring a world at peace.  The Wood Family Theater has brought you Gene Cagney and Glenn Langen in The Triumphant Exile, with Patricia Neal as your hostess. Others in our cast were Carlton Young, Joel Nestler, and Paul Duboff. The Triumphant Exile was written by Dale Newton Whitney with music composed and conducted by Harry Zimmerman, as directed for Family Theater by F.J. Mansfield. This series of Family Theater broadcasts is made possible by the thousands of you who felt the need for this type of program, by the mutual network which has responded to this need, and by the hundreds of stars of stage, screen, and radio who have so unselfishly given of their time and talent to appear on our Family Theater stage.  This is Gene Baker expressing the wish of Family Theater that the blessing of God may be upon you and your home. And inviting you to join us next week at this time when Family Theater will present Aubrey Totter, Gene Cagney, and Ronald Reagan in the Kiss of Salome J. Join us, won't you? Family Theater is broadcast throughout the world and originates in the Hollywood studios of the world's largest network, the Mutual Broadcasting System.


Facebook, a platform that connected whole world socially, where users post comments, share photos, links and many more things. All was going well for Facebook. But, suddenly in early 2018, we noticed an immense decline in number of Facebook users. Which was trending for days, where millions of people came together to abandon and delete Facebook including politicians, celebrities and other dignitaries. Why? What happened? Why delete Facebook campaign? Aren't people satisfied with what Facebook is offering? So many questions but no one to answer. Well, everything has a reason behind. It all began in 2014, when a Cambridge student named Alexander Kogan developed an app called This Is Your Digital Life, where more than 270,000 people gave away their personal information. He passed along this information to Cambridge Analytica. This incident came in too limelight on March 17, when Christopher Wiley, blew the whistle on Cambridge Analytica. He revealed in an interview with The New York Times in The Guardian that, user data sold to Cambridge Analytica was used for psychographic profiles to manipulate the 2016 presidential election campaign. According Christopher Wiley, Cambridge Analytica had apps on Facebook that were given special permission to harvest data for not only the person who uses the app, or joins the app, but it would also then go into their entire friend network, and pull out all of their friends' data as well. So, if one person, if you join the app, Cambridge Analytica would not just see your Facebook profile, they would be able see all the Facebook profiles of everybody you are friends with. On March 20, a Federal Trade Commission, FTC, inquiry was launched into whether Facebook had violated a settlement reached with the U.S. government agency in 2011 over user privacy protections or not, regarding which CEO Mark Zuckerberg was urged by lawmakers to testify before Congress, following to which on March 22, he posted in Facebook post and gave an interview to CNN, in which he mentioned that. I want to start with just a basic question, Mark. What happened? What went wrong? Well, this was a major breach of trust, and I'm really sorry that this happened. We have a basic responsibility to protect people's data, and if we can't do that, then we don't deserve to have the opportunity to serve people. Finally, on April 10, Mark Zuckerberg appeared before a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees, where several questions were put up. Facebook after all these crises and after facing so many hardships didn't give up, instead, Facebook came out with more major features, advanced policies, and bans to make platform more secure and safe like never. Let us look at the list of changes and updates Facebook implemented within this year amongst all the chaos, disorders and hardships. The first and foremost steps Facebook took was it suspended Cambridge Analytica and SEL Group from Facebook, pursued forensic audits to investigate Cambridge Analytica claims, and also took steps to protect election security that included. With no links with IRA and to completely ban it from Facebook, 70 Facebook and 65 Instagram accounts as well as 138 Facebook pages that were controlled by the Russia-based Internet Research Agency were removed. Not only IRA-linked accounts were removed, Facebook also removed around 10,000 accounts of bad actors. With so much in mind, Facebook now gives users an option where users can measure Facebook's efforts to keep bad content off. Talking about elections, Facebook has brought up some new rules and policies for election related and issuance, also, they are working on new election partnership with the Atlantic Council and on protection from abuse for Mexican elections as well. Regarding the data, Facebook is working to give people more controlled experience. Following to which, it launched data abuse bounty program for reports of data mishandling and has also updated plans to restrict data access on Facebook. Excluding the main, there are some additional steps as well taken by Facebook that includes features to provide more context for people, so they can decide for themselves what to read, trust and share. It is providing new privacy laws and offering new privacy protection to everyone. Also, revealed what information do Facebook advertisers know about users. Seems like Facebook amidst all the turbulence and hardships have outperformed other social platforms and is continuously working on new criteria and policies to stay on top, all we can say is good luck for the future to Facebook.