Now, as a monetary economist, I don't pretend to judge Rothbard's other economic contributions. Rothbard was mediocre to bad. His version of the Austrian business cycle theory was naive. It depended on an equation that holds only with the help of about a dozen auxiliary assumptions, all of which are patently false. Milton will always seem to be me, the bigger man, as well as a better monetary economist. The foregoing statement was, I told you to be surprised, was written by the prominent free banker, George Selgen, in a blog post on July 28th, 2011, entitled, I think rather modestly, Me, Murray and Milton. Now, Murray Rothbard does not need to be defended from the slings and arrows of lesser critics in any area of economics, let alone monetary economics. And I here refer to Selgen as a lesser critic in the same sense that I would refer to myself as a lesser scholar when compared to Rothbard. Rothbard was first and foremost a monetary economist, and I would argue the leading monetary economist of the latter half of the 20th century. But it is an interesting and instructive exercise to compare the monetary economics of Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman. I will do so by contrasting the analyses and predictions offered by Milton Friedman with those of the proponents of Rothbardian monetary theory with respect to the monetary policy that culminated in the housing bubble asset boom and financial meltdown of the last decade. I choose to proceed in this manner because Milton Friedman was an avowed positivist, the very first in economics, for whom the one and only test of the truth quotation marks of a theory is how well it predicts. Actually, Friedman explicitly rejected the idea that a theory can never be verified, that is, that its truth can be ascertained. According to Friedman, a theory is merely a conjecture based on observed empirical regularities in history, which is only tentatively valid until it is falsified by new evidence that contradicts its predictions. Once a theory fails an unspecified number of empirical tests, it is supposed to be revised or discarded completely. Friedman's theory of method of deriving economic theory is best exemplified in his great book A Monetary History of the United States, an 800 page tome that he authored with Anna Schwartz and has become one of the most influential works on monetary economics published in the latter in the second half of the 20th century. In this book, Friedman and Schwartz sought to establish the validity of a very mechanical and aggregative version, macro version of the quantity theory of money. Friedman Schwartz concluded their study from their study that, quote, inflation was always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon or more famously and concisely that money matters. It was this work and Friedman's stream of scholarly and popular articles defending its main thesis that eventually persuaded most monetary economists to abandon the naive Keynesian income expenditure framework and to adopt the quantity theory as an explanation of inflation and depression. By the late 1970s, Friedman's arguments had prevailed even among policymakers at the Fed and in government agencies. There is undoubtedly an important kernel of truth in the quantity theory, as Friedman states it, which is the positive causal relationship that runs from money to prices. In other words, a change in the supply of money and circulation will cause a change in prices in the same direction, all of the things equal. But there are also numerous flaws in Friedman's version of the theory. For my purposes, I'll only need to briefly mention one. Because Friedman treats the relationship between money and prices in a macro and mechanical manner, he focuses narrowly on the effect that a change in the total quantity of money in the economy has on a single variable called the price level. The price level is defined in terms of an arbitrary average of prices, of which there are many, the CPI, the CPI with energy and food, prices excluded, the GDP deflator, something called the PCEPI, which is the Personal Consumption Expenditure Price Index, and Alan Greenspan's favorite, the CTPIPCE, for chain type price index for personal consumption expenditures, and so on. Actually, the real problem is not that there are too many indexes, but that there are too few. In fact, everyone has his own personal index of inflation based on the kinds of goods he purchases and in what quantities and qualities. So any statistical index that presumes to identify the price level is completely arbitrary. Murray Rothbard always delighted in pointing out to me that his personal rate of inflation was grossly understated because he bought such an enormous number of books, an item that was not included in the official price indexes or had only minuscule weighting. Rothbard argued, all such indexes are strictly arbitrary and there are a huge number of possible indexes. All of which create insuperable economic distortions. Which one should be used? There is no non-arbitrary answer. Even if we confine ourselves to the consumer cost of living index, the obstacles are insurmountable. Whose cost of living do we measure? That of the classic date in Ohio, blue collar housewife, two kids, or that of a bachelor professor in California, Murray's aspiration. Every individual and group in the country experiences different costs of living indexes. And one overall index will fit none of the actual living individuals concerned. Unquote. Mises puts the matter more pointedly. He says, a judicious housewife knows much more about price changes as far as they affect her own household than the statistical averages can tell. She has little use for computations disregarding changes both in quality and the amount of goods which she is able or permitted to buy at the prices entering into the computation. If she measures the change for her personal appreciation, by taking the prices of only two or three commodities as a yardstick, she is no less scientific and no more arbitrary than the sophisticated mathematicians in choosing their methods for the manipulation of the data of the market. But really there's a much more important problem with the Friedmanite quantity theory, which is embodied in the use of a single valued price index. And that is the assumption that the main effect of an increase in the supply of money is to cause prices to rise at the same time and in equal proportion. This yields a definition of inflation that refers exclusively to the general movement of prices and completely ignores other more important effects of changes in the money supply that include artificially depressed interest rates, distorted structural production and relative prices, and the falsification of profit and wealth calculations, which we are seeing being unwound today. All of this leads to asset price booms and bubbles, which are left out in the monetarist telling of the story. This one-dimensional and unrealistic view of inflation has led quantity theorists from Irving Fisher to Friedman to advocate a monetary policy that stabilizes prices as a necessary and sufficient condition for preventing an inflationary boom and its inevitable collapse into a depression. Yet prices were stable during the 1920s, leading up the stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression. And it was Irving Fisher, the leading proponent of the mechanical macro-quantity theory, and according to Friedman, the greatest American economist to ever have lived, who assured Americans in 1928 that they had entered an era of perpetual prosperity, his words, because the Fed had learned how to stabilize the price level. Now, the Austrian economists, such as Mises and Hayek, strongly dissented from this view at the time. And they warned that any attempt by the central bank to stabilize prices by spending the quantity of money that would artificially depress interest rates and stimulate an inflationary boom that was concealed in the 1920s by stable prices. But nonetheless, there would be a resulting depression. So Hayek commented very bitterly a few years later on this tragic course of events in 1932. He wrote, we must not forget that for the last six or eight years, monetary policy all over the world has followed the advice of the stabilizers. It is high time that their influence, which already has done harm enough, should be overthrown. And I would say the same thing about the price stabilizers since the mid-1980s. OK, so now let me turn to Friedman's predictions and interpretations of events after 1985. So as a leading advocate of Fisher's quantity theory after World War II, whereas the leading advocate, Friedman also adopted Fisher's views on the importance of a stable price level to a well-functioning economy. To achieve this aim, he advocated that the Fed increase the money supply at a rate sufficient to offset the price-reducing effects of increases in the demand to hold money and of increases in real output. He held this view until his death in 2006, as we'll see. In fact, he reiterated this view in a number of remarkable articles that he wrote between 2002 and 2006, where he effusively praised the Fed and especially Allen Greenspan for finally learning how to maintain price stability. He argued that Fed monetary policy was significant in promoting unprecedented prosperity and growth in the US economy beginning in the mid-1980s. In these articles, he was totally oblivious to the formation of the greatest bubble in US history. His bad monetary theory led to a bad interpretation of the development of economic events in the 20 years leading up to the financial meltdown. So let me go through the articles and give you a taste of what he was saying. In a Wall Street Journal article in 2002, Friedman argued that the Fed on the Greenspan was acting correctly to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression after the recession of 2001 by rapidly expanding the money supply to prevent price deflation. Now, he wrote, what the future brings will depend, of course, on how monetary policy evolves while the current rate of monetary growth of more than 10% is sustainable and perhaps even desirable as a defense against economic contraction and in reaction to the events of September 11th. Continuation of anything like that rate of monetary growth will ensure that inflation rears its ugly head once again. In other words, Friedman was endorsing a policy of quantitative easing as early as 2002, so you get the economy back on track by flooding it with money and then you pull back. In August 2003, in another Wall Street Journal article, Friedman blithely ignored the housing market bubble and the rapid run-up in stock prices that was becoming apparent even to many media commentators. Instead, he addressed the question of why the macroeconomic performance of the US economy had become so good after 1985. He maintained that the reason was that the Fed and other central banks had found the correct thermostat, which was the equation defining the quantity theory. So, according to Friedman, quote, the basic responsibility of the Federal Reserve is to produce as close an approximation as possible to price stability. Sometime around 1985, the Fed appears to have acquired the thermostat that had been seeking the whole of its life. And then he goes on to say that a convenient way to talk about monetary theory and policy is to use the equation of the quantity theory, M times V, money times the velocity of spending money, equals P, the price index, times Y, which is the output. He thought that this, in fact, was the correct thermostat. And he talks about how anytime people want to hold more money, the Fed should expand the money supply, that is, if velocity slows down, and they should also expand the money supply when there is an increase in the amount of goods and services being sold in the economy. So going back to quoting him, he says, prior to the 1980s, the Fed got into trouble because it generated wide fluctuations in monetary growth per unit of output. Too much money chasing too few goods. Far from promoting price stability, it was itself a major source of instability. Yet, since the 1980s, it has managed to control the money supply in such a way as to offset changes, not only in output, but in velocity. And then he asked the Alibis question, which he says, where did this new thermostat come from, and why did it occur then? He goes on to say that central banks to world over perform badly prior to the 1980s, not because they lack the capacity to do better, but because they pursued the wrong goals according to a wrong theory. He's here referring to the Keynesian theory. So he goes on to explain, the accumulation of empirical evidence on monetary phenomena improved understanding of monetary theory, and many other phenomena doubtless played a role. But I believe they were nowhere near as important as a shift in the theoretical paradigm. The MV equals PY is the key to a good thermostat and was there all along, okay? All right, so no word at all about the bubbles that we were experiencing. Okay, he didn't see any clouds on the horizon in 2003. That was August. What about 2004? In 2004, in his contribution to a retrospective on the publication 40 years earlier of his great book, Monetary History of the US, Friedman's assessment of the Fed and other banks' performance, other central banks' performance was absolutely glowing. He still saw no ominous clouds on the horizon, only an onward and upward movement toward greater macroeconomic stability as central bankers continued to learn and implement the policies of price stabilization taught by his book and his numerous followers. Friedman reported, since the 1980s, central banks around the world have reacted to the mounting evidence of monetary research by accepting the view that their basic responsibility is to produce price stability. More important, they have succeeded to a remarkable extent as they have discovered that, far from there being a trade-off between price stability and economic stability, they are mutually supportive. The variability of prices is less by an order of magnitude since the mid-1980s than it was before, not only in the United States, but elsewhere in the names of many other countries. So he says, their success in controlling inflation has altered the empirical relationship between short-run movements in money and enominal income. Short-term changes in the quantity of money can no longer be regarded as largely exogenous. In other words, the Fed now is simply responding to changes in velocity. That is, if the spending of money slows down, the Fed has a method of responding automatically to that, and also to changes in output. As output grows, you want more money to support that growth. So he concludes, if the central banks continue to be successful in curbing price fluctuations, they will have converted the quantity of money from an unruly master to an obedient servant. Again, no problems at all in 2004. He didn't see any, didn't predict any. Now for 2005, and I recommend this televised interview with Friedman very highly. On December 26th, 2005, Friedman sat for a remarkable televised interview with Charlie Rose, which covered a broad range of topics, including the performance of the Fed under Alan Greenspan. He gave no indication, even at this late date, that he had a clue that monetary policy had stimulated a dangerous housing bubble, or that a bubble even existed. In fact, he again effusively praised Alan Greenspan and gave his approval to the Fed's recent monetary policy. The interview is worth pointing at length because it demonstrates how a very bad monetary theory gives rise to wildly false interpretations of the economy's performance. Note how Friedman is almost monomaniacal and his sole focus on price stability in this interview, and how this drives his appraisal of the state of the US economy. So let me read part of the Charlie Rose interview. Friedman, the United States is at the peak of its performance in its history, it's 2005 now. There has never been a time in the United States when we have had the state of prosperity, its level and its spread, that we have had in the last 10 or 15 years. There has never been a 15 year period in which there has been so little fluctuation in prices, in inflation. Prices meaning this price index, this arbitrary price index. Inflation has a state around two or 3% or less for the last 15 years. And I would ask, according to which price index, Milton, it's unprecedented. I certainly do give credit to Alan Greenspan for that. I think monetary policy is primarily responsible for it. Charlie Rose, you think that Alan Greenspan was the greatest Federal Reserve Chairman ever? Ever? Friedman, there has been no chairman since the founding of the Fed who has anything like as good an outcome. Because he took the containing of inflation as a chief task of the Fed. Let me put it this way. In the first 75 years of its existence, the Fed on average was a major negative feature in the economy. We never would have had the Great Depression if there hadn't been a Fed. Well, I agree with that, but for different reasons. Since then, since 1982 or 1983, the Fed has been a beneficiary for, he means to say, has been beneficial for the economy. So that I had never, I very seldom had anything good to say about the Fed before the 1980s. But since Alan Greenspan took over, I have very little but good to say. I think his successor is a very able man, meaning Bernanke, and he like Greenspan takes keeping stable prices as a major function of the Fed. And I have a good deal of confidence that he will continue in Alan Greenspan's path. And so now for the kicker, he says, you can make a good argument that the Fed overdid easing money a little, that they kept the Fed funds rate at 1% a little too long. But of course, he brushes this aside. And you know, that it's a natural tendency that you overdo things, he says.   It's very hard to calibrate. That was Greenspan's genius, his words unquote. Okay. On November 17th, Milton Friedman passed away on November 16th. On November 17th, one day after his death, 2006, an article by Milton Friedman was posthumously published in the Wall Street Journal. Its title was Why Money Matters. In the article, Friedman compared three episodes of monetary policy, which he called, in positivist jargon, a major natural experiment. These episodes were the booms of the 1920s and 1990s in the United States, in the US. So he hasn't seen any boom yet in 2000, has never mentioned in any of these articles, since 2001. And of the 1980s in Japan. So we have the 20s and 90s in the US and the 80s in Japan. He does a very good job of showing that all three booms occurred during periods of rapid economic growth, sparked by technological change, and were accompanied by a stock market boom that terminated in a crash. Monetary policy, according to Friedman, was also very similar during all three booms. And I would agree with him up to that point. But monetary policy diverged widely among the three economies after the boom. The monetary supply contracted sharply after the 1920s boom collapsed in the US. After the Japanese boom of the 1980s ended, the money supply stagnated, it was pretty flat, and then began to grow very slowly. After the collapse of the 1990s, tech bubble in the US, high tech bubble in the US, the money supply continued to grow rapidly, 10% more, as he has admitted in an earlier article, or pointed out in an earlier article. The conclusion that Friedman drew from this natural experiment was that the highly, that the highly expansionary monetary policy that the Fed pursued after the 1990s boom in the US caused a recession of 2000 and 2001 to be very mild and allowed the US economy to avoid a 1930s style, great depression, or a 1990s Japanese style, great recession. Now, there is an interesting point to be made about this article. Friedman did not give the slightest recognition to the fact that the rapid growth in the money supply, which had continued through 2005, from 2001 through end of 2005, the money supply increased at about $1 billion per day. Okay, and it had doubled, increased by $2 trillion, okay. But Friedman doesn't refer to that at all. And so he doesn't refer at all to the housing stock market bubbles that were clearly evident and peaking by 2006, when he had written this article presumably. In fact, Friedman argued, from this article I'm quoting, monetary policy played a role in these earlier three booms, but only a supporting role, his words. Technological change appeared to be a major player, unquote. Now, of course he couldn't, of course he could not admit that monetary policy caused these booms because what occurred in those three decades? Prices didn't rise during the 20s in the US, that is, consumer prices, rose, didn't rise very rapidly in the 80s in Japan, and they rose pretty slowly in the 90s in the US. So this contention perfectly exemplifies the mindset of price stabilizers like Friedman and Fisher. Since there was very little change in some randomly selected price index, or set of price indexes, in the 1920s, 1980s, and 1990s, well then monetary policy could not have been the cause of the boom. And the same thing was true, of course, from 2001 to 2006, when Friedman was writing these articles. So he didn't see any boom. Let me just say a few words about the Rothbardians who foresaw the bubble beginning in 2003. I don't want to, I don't have much time, but I'll just mention that there's a very good article and Mark Thornton that points out that people like Peter Schiff, Christopher Meyer, Frank Schostek, and Mark Thornton himself had a number of articles, clearly foresaw the housing bubble, okay? And pointed out the reasons for it, the fact that an increase in the money supply has not just increased prices, but more importantly, distorts interest rates, distorts the structural production, and causes entrepreneurs to miscalculate. I myself wrote an article in 2004, and I'll read a little part of that, in which I predicted, I hadn't realized this, Mark never cited me, but I went back and I looked and I actually did write something. I was commenting on Greenspan's monetary policy report to Congress in mid-2003, and there's a very slow recovery occurring from the 2000-2001 recession. And I wrote the following, if we look more closely at Greenspan's testimony, we find that in his cynical attempt to manipulate markets, he has profoundly contradicted himself. While he was pointing to the remote probability of deflation with one hand, he was encouraging the housing bubble with the other, okay, and that's 2004, I'm writing this. Thus he noted a solid advance in the value of owner-occupied housing, I'm quoting Greenspan here, noting changes in technology and mortgage markets that have dramatically transformed accumulated home equity from a very illiquid asset into one that is now an integral part of households' ongoing balance sheet management and spending decisions. Now, from that Greenspan speak, what he was saying in plain English, I'm getting back to what I'm writing about him, this statement means that the ready availability of cheap mortgages via internet shopping has fueled consumption spending as people cash out some of the gains realized in the ever-expanding housing bubble. And I regard myself as a hardcore Rothbardian and following along in his path. I don't think I was doing anything original here. Others also, as I pointed out, made the same points. And then I continued, by the end of 2003, the September 2003, the yield on 10-year treasury bonds and the rate on conventional mortgages had risen by nearly one percentage point, indicating spreading anticipation of future inflation as the Fed continued to expand the money supply rapidly to get the economy back on track. So I see this, why doesn't Freedman see this? Indeed, one perceptive journalist in Campbell pinpointed the real and present danger to the economy, unrestrained monetary creation, blah, blah. And then I provingly quote Campbell, and I'll stop here, he says this. He says, the danger to our minds is that Greenspan's solid advance is not solid at all. It is all based on flooding markets with liquidity, forcing down mortgage rates to indecently low levels, cutting rates on savings deposits, encouraging the creation of more and more debt, and encouraging spending based on extracting equity from an asset whose price is inflating recklessly and which subsequently, like the equity markets, is likely to fall. So I conclude that based on this comparison of the Freedman-Knight and Rothbardian interpretations and predictions of the sequence of events that culminated in the financial meltdown in 2007, as a monetary economist, Mill Freedman is manifestly much inferior to Murray Rothbard. Thank you.


What's up everybody on the mangas, you are awesome and it's about time I do another one of these full rundowns. There's still a lot of confusion out there about who is developing what and there have also been many changes since I made my last breakdown. I'll give a brief explanation of each game followed by what I see as the pros and cons. I'll have timestamps listed below if you want to skip around. If you enjoyed my content, please leave a like and subscribe. Today I'll be talking about Fault, Overprime, Predecessor, Core, Phoenix Rising, Ethereal, Stemina, and Revenblade. Links for more information about each game listed in the video description. Fault is a Paragon Resurrection project in production by Strange Matter Studios. They do plan for a eventual release on the PlayStation console. The game is currently available for purchase via Steam. Strange Matter's approach to Fault seems to be to use the tried and true systems for other MOBAs combined with their own ideas to create a very competitive game that diverges from the Paragon formula, one of course that will hopefully allow Fault to eclipse its inspiration. Fault's current lineup includes Decker, Grim.exe, Boris, Severog, Chimera, Pong, Gideon, Lieutenant Bellica, Countess, Narbash, Muriel, Twinblast, Murdoch, Sparrow, Greystone, and Steel. Fault is very accessible with solid servers and a comparatively large player base. If you pick up Fault, you will find a game. They've added many unique twists that make the game interesting and they have proven time and time again that they are willing to listen to the community and adjust the game as necessary. Strange Matter has taken a very aggressive monetization strategy with Fault, having various tiers to buy in in order to play, combined with a battle pass and premium currency. The first few months have also been played by bugs, poor matchmaking and horrid optimization. OverPrime is a Paragon Resurrection Project in production by Team SoulLeave. They plan for eventual PlayStation release. The game is currently available to anyone for free via their Discord or website with future plans for Steam. SoulLeave's approach to OverPrime seems to be to emulate the later, faster iterations of Paragon, while also bringing back fan favorites like the OverPrime dunking mechanic on both Legacy and a marvelous styled map. The current OverPrime roster includes Lieutenant Bellica, Murdoch, Gideon, Twinblast, Kuang, Countess, Fingmeow, The Faye, Rampage, Kalari, Sparrow, Narbash, Greystone, Kaibara, Muriel, Severog, Halitzer, Sarath, Grim.exe, Borus, Shinbi, Grux, and last I checked that they were working on Gadget. OverPrime is completely free and available to anyone. They have a ton of variety coming from the massive hero roster and multiple maps. They've also improved the game by leaps and bounds in the last few months. I have high hopes for this one when it comes to Steam. SoulLeave's focus on adding in multiple maps and heroes comes at the cost of polish. Many of the animations are bored and the projectiles come from behind your hero instead of the hero themselves. I personally don't like the speed of the game. I'm sure others will. And also adding in things like travel mode and prime dunking brings with it many of the problems associated with those mechanics. predecessor is a Paragon Resurrection project in development by Omeda Studios. They plan for eventual PlayStation release. The game is available on Steam but only if you're lucky enough to have received an alpha code for testing. Omeda seems to be focused on providing as much polish to their game as possible with predecessor having the subjectively best Paragon feeling. The playable roster for the last alpha test was Sparrow, Murdoch, Narbash, Muriel, Chimera, Fingmeow, Severog, Gadget, and Gideon. predecessor is extremely well optimized with very few bugs. They have made some changes to improve upon Paragon. However, the game retains that undefinable Paragonish quality that we also desperately seek. While the game is downloaded via Steam, it's only accessible to those who have somehow gotten their hands on an alpha key. They also had some balance issues. The ADCs were stupidly powerful early game to the point that you could just play them anywhere. There's also less variety with a smaller hero pool. Or it's a Paragon inspired third person MOBA in development by Metabuff. They plan for eventual PlayStation release. It currently isn't available to play and is really only a concept for now. Core started out as a Paragon Resurrection Project, but recently announced their new direction, which is to create a third person MOBA with their own assets. The proposed roster is currently unknown. I actually like that Metabuff pulled out of the Paragon remake race and are instead focusing on their own intellectual property. One thing I've learned from this ongoing process is that everyone's idea of what made Paragon great differs in its damn near impossible to recapture even a fraction of the old player base. Metabuff does not have the best track record with the community. From shady announcements to no info at all for a year, many people have lost faith in this company. I'm willing to give them a chance to see what they do, but even I am a bit apprehensive. Phoenix Rising is a Paragon inspired third person MOBA in development by Visionary Games. They have mentioned in the past that they would like to release the game on PlayStation. The game currently isn't available for play. Visionary Games were the first to attempt to resurrect Paragon in some form. They decided early on to use their own intellectual property. The company suffered a variety of setbacks and splits that has led to very little information about the progress of Phoenix Rising. The projected roster is currently unknown. Visionary's decision to stick to their guns and use their own IP even after Epic released the free assets may still prove to be a good one for reasons I mentioned when talking about Core. Players will go into this one without the shadow of Paragon affecting their expectations. The numerous setbacks suffered by Visionary have led many to believe that the game is dead. While I personally still check in on this one, I can't help but be dismayed by the lack of information. However, I will keep tracking Phoenix Rising until it either releases or Visionary calls it quits. They were the first to give us hope and I feel that both the community and all of the follow-on projects owe this studio a debt of gratitude. Ethereal is a very ambitious third-person MOBA in development by Undying Games. Undying plans for eventual console release, however they aren't as tied to that console being PlayStation as the other ones are. The game currently is not available for play. Unlike most of the games on this list, Ethereal wasn't inspired by Paragon. The game entered production before Epic shut Paragon down. Steve Superville, the man who pretty much created Paragon once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that he wanted to create a MOBA where the gameplay actually matched the cinematic trailers. This too was the inspiration for Ethereal, and I for one count that as a huge positive. The projected roster includes Iran, Leia, Talos, Noxus, Dante, Marina, Malaya, Exile, Calia, Zero, Asheron, Dr. Grace, Grognark, Malware, and Nikolai. Ethereal has plans to shake up the MOBA genre with a vertically tiered map, 6v6 gameplay, and flying heroes. They have great looking character models, fully fleshed out lore, and voice acting for each myth. Ethereal is the one I am currently looking forward to the most. The hype for Ethereal has been a rollercoaster ride of missed alpha dates, causing some people to doubt that the game will ever release. While I have my own reasons to have faith in their project, I can't really share them because I've signed like three different NDAs with Undying. Project Stamina is a third person class-based MOBA-ish game that aims to resurrect Gigantic using their own intellectual property. They planned for eventual console release, however Gigantic was an Xbox game, so that's probably the console they'll go with. The game isn't publicly playable, however they have had some pre-alpha playtests with a handful of people, one of which being me. Project Stamina does not have access to the assets used by Motika to create Gigantic, and are instead using their own characters, maps, and lore. Project Stamina is the name of the company and not the name of the game. They recently announced that the game's name reveal will be part of their upcoming trailer. The characters we currently know of are Kira, Matani, R4, Geist, Aka, and an as-yet unnamed character built via community polls that they have codenamed Cake. I'm not sure what the alpha roster will be, but I have personally played Matani, R4, and Kira. Out of all the recent game tests that I've done, Project Stamina has felt the most fluid and responsive. The community is welcoming and pleasant enough that I feel the need to mention it. They also have fully fleshed out lore. Most impressive are the systems that Project Stamina is creating so that they can expand the game in the future. Project Stamina as a company are very well organized. I really don't have much bad to say about Project Stamina. I didn't play Gigantic, so I can't really make any comparisons. I haven't gone into this one with any expectations, so I'm always impressed. Revan Blade is a third-person class-based arena brawler in production by Medallion Slate. They do expect to release the game on console, however which ones will be a decision for the future. Revan Blade is currently available to everyone via their Discord, however live play tests are only held on Wednesdays and sometimes Sundays. Revan Blade is an extremely fast-paced and fun game that has very low system requirements. I was introduced to this one via Project Stamina and have been hooked ever since. While they don't have names for their heroes, there is currently at least one character per class with an archer, tank, mage, assassin, warrior, healer, and fighter. The fighter will eventually be rolled into the warrior class. Revan Blade is extremely accessible with very low system requirements and a free download. It's easy to pick up and hard to master. The small community allows for direct contact with the developers. The low-poly count art style can be a turn off for some people. I actually like it, but I can see why others don't. I hope this video was helpful and I wish all of these companies the best, but for now this is the mangu signing off. You guys, have a good one.


The challenge of the Yukon on King Wonder dog King swiftest and strongest of Eskimoly dogs plays the trail through storm and snow for Sergeant Preston as he meets the challenge of the Yukon Sergeant Preston was typical of the small band of Northwest Mounted Police Preserved low and order in the new Northwest country where the greed for wealth and power led to frequent violence and bloodshed But in spite of the odds against them Sergeant Preston and his Wonder dog King met that challenge and justice ruled triumphant Many Jones had passed the half century mark But years of hard-living and work in the Yukon country had made her as tough and rugged as an Olo tree She sighed luxuriously as she stretched her feet in their rough wool socks toward the stove In her small cabin and then began her usual imaginary conversation with her dead husband Well Jim put in a big day's work today Keep working I soon have enough to go back home and buy that house we planned for old age But I ain't so keen about it now that you ain't here no more Sometimes I think I might stay right here in the Yukon the rest of my life Springs here snow will be gone in a few weeks Come in Oh, Annie. Oh, hello Sam. Come on in. Who's that with you remember Nate Roberts? Oh, sure, Nate Just wondering whether it was someone I'd have to put my shoes on for pull up some chairs and set And this fire feels good cattle's getting ready to boil. I'll make you some tea. Oh, don't bother Annie.  Yep doing all right, too Why do you have your work for a woman in it used to it worked right along with Jim to Here they was killed everybody thought you'd pack up and go back to Indiana after Jim's accident Well, I need more money to do that Annie that clean of yours don't pay enough with one person working It ain't much good. That's where you're wrong Jim and I always had faith in that claim now. It's working out. Yeah thinking of selling it. No I've been hitting richer pay dirt lately, and I got a funny hunch that it's gonna get better Hey, that's the one else coming take a peek out the window Nate sounds like a dog team Preston good Seen him since before Jim died. Yes, I better put my shoes on you always look so spankin Spain Well, we gotta be running along any morning. Why don't you stay a while? I make some tea. We got some business to tend to a town Well, I'm doing fine.  It's just in time for some tea. Thank you, Annie. I Was sorry to hear about Jim. They told me about it in town. It was awful sudden. I Ain't quite used to it yet. I Keep thinking he'll come in any minute Just happened a little over two weeks ago What actually did happen a cave in on the ridge leading beside the river He was alone found a place where the rock had loosened Must have stepped on it and gone over the edge somehow The ice had just broken up in the river and I guess he hid his head on a piece of it Found his body about 50 feet down river caught in some branches at the side of the stream You're planning to stay here, honey. Yeah, Sam and it was just asking me They seem to think I pull out now the gym's gone. Of course. It's kind of lonesome Come here, King Now if I just had a dog like you around me, would you like to have a dog? Sure would and planning to get one I always wanted one, but Jim never liked him. That was the one thing. We always argued about He was so dead set against it that I didn't insist. Well, I'm looking for a home for one of my sled dogs right now Which one drinks a big black one.  I remember him You mean you want to give him away? Well, I'd like to find a good home for him They have another dog for me at headquarters to take its place. Where is he now? He's outside had to bring him home on leash tied to the side of the sled Sure like to have him if this friendly. I'll bring him in, Annie. If you like him, I'll leave you in here with you Just to hear King, I'll be right back. Come here, King That dog is half as nice as you Sure be a pleasure to have him Here it is, Annie. What do you think of him? Oh, he's beautiful. He's my big fella. Come here, Jinx The biggest dog I have. Do you like him, Annie? Do I like him? We're going to be pals, ain't we, Jinx? Well, he seems happy about the arrangement. I don't know how to thank you, Sergeant Look at him putting his big head in my lap After all these years, I finally got a dog Sam, I guess your scheme didn't work as well as you thought of it, old fool I never thought she'd try and mind that claim by herself after Jim was gone Thought she'd give it up, go back to the States If she keeps digging, she'd be able to find out just how valuable it is Look as if we went to a lot of risk for nothing Well, I ain't giving up now She's dead set and working it herself She ain't a woman who's scare easy You can tell that by looking at her I wasn't thinking of scaring Jim had an accident, ain't no reason why she can't have one, too But you wouldn't want to hit her over the head the way you did, Jim She's a woman as bad as a man All right, then, if it bothers your conscience, we'll just push her off the ridge into the river Suppose you think drowning's easier I'm afraid of it, Sam. It's too risky Well, it ain't risky at all Annie has to go that way every day on her way to the clay We'll tell everybody we're going out of town We won't be around here when it happens And we won't be back for three days afterwards Why three days?  And he'll meet with an accident Hello, King How are you, Husky? Hello, Annie Aren't you all pretty early this morning? Hi there, Sergeant Didn't expect you're back here this soon Well, I made a quick trip I can cover a lot of ground in a week with this dog game Well, hello there, James How do you like him, Annie?  No, I'll just give you pot luck Jinx and I are going to the claim town We'll be back just after dark You'll be here about that Gotta watch, that's why I have to go by the sun All right, Annie, thanks I'll be seeing you Go on, Jinx I'm so black I can hardly see in the dark I'm late Sergeant Preston will be waiting I realize the time was passing so fast Hey, watch after I've seen a rabbit or something No there, who is it? Rabbit Let me go Sam, stop Push her over No, no Take care of her I wonder what she's yelling at Sounds like she was calling Jim Maybe she thinks her dead husband can save her Listen, I guess that's the end of her She won't stand a chance in them rapids Let's get out of here fast Back the way we came Sergeant Preston stood in the door of Annie's cabin Looking anxiously into the darkness His dog King stood beside him I think she should have been here a long ago Wonder if we ought to look for her, boy What is it, fellow? Do you hear her? It's coming now, I guess Sounds like Jinx Annie, that's you What? It's Jinx, all right Where's Annie? Come here, Jinx Oh, fellow, you're soaking wet What's this called under your collar?  Annie Find her, Annie Annie, it's Preston, where are you?  Yep I knew you'd be here for supper So I stuck my wet mitt in under his collar And told him to go home I sure got bruised up in them rocks Couldn't have got here alone We know now that Jim's death was not an accident Sam and Nate wanted that claim Funny Certainly ain't a rich enough one to commit murder for Maybe they know something about it that you don't I wish I knew what it is We may be able to find out soon, Annie I'm going to take you into town and hide you for a few days I'll spread the word that you're missing And I'll keep an eye on Sam and Nate A little too soon to be seen around Annie's claim, Sam She's only been missing five days Nobody's gonna see us way out here Searched all over this place once They won't do it again But Sam, maybe we'd better wait We're going, we're gonna open up that rich vein Get everything out of it It's bigger than we think it is We'll file a claim after all the excitement's died down But ain't, we'll take all we can out of it And get out of this territory Nobody'll be any the wiser All right, here goes And I'll help you There'll be rich men at no time And it'll be worth all we did Poor Annie She'd known this was right under her nose Hello, Sam What's the idea of this? Oh, what, what Oh, where'd you come from, Sergeant? What just happened to see you coming this way? Well, uh, we, uh That is, we heard Annie was missing and we, uh Oh, we thought we'd look over a claim See if it was worth, uh, taking over You seem to know just where to look, too There's nothing wrong about it Annie hasn't any heirs This place will be anybody's where they're taking Who said Annie was dead? Well, nobody, I just thought I ain't as bad as you're gonna be When this stretcher built the neck at the end of a roof You murderin' bummin' Annie, where did you come from? She's been standing behind that clump of trees listening, Sam Well, what, well, look out, Sergeant Well, go away! No! Help, take him off! Help me! What, King? Let him go, fella! Help him, boy!  They knew where the rich vein of gold was. Get going, you two, I'm taking you to jail. Watch them, King.  These copyrighted dramas originate in the studios of WXYZ Detroit, and all characters, names, places, and incident used are fictitious. They are sent to you each week at this same time. Hue Holder speaking. This is the Michigan Radio Network.


Your coca-cola bottler presents, Claudia, based on the famous play and novels by Rose Frankin. Brought to you transcribed Monday through Friday by your friendly neighbor who bottles coca-cola. Relax, and while you're listening, refresh yourself. Have a Coke. And now, Claudia. Mom, I wish you wouldn't work so hard. I like that coming. Gives me a nice, satisfactory feeling. I also wish you'd let me help. I had the baby weeks ago. Not even three, so sit still. Besides, you're more of a help doing nothing. Whee! The telephone! I can answer it, can't I? That'll give you a nice, satisfactory feeling. Oh, I wonder who it is. Why do we always have to go through that? You better turn off the vacuum, Mama. Oh, all right. Yeah, she's here. For you, Mama. You don't have to sound so disappointed. Well, give it to me. I just don't know who it is. I can find out for myself. Hello? Yes, this is Mrs. Brown. Oh, I see. I see. Mama, who is it? Or I will if I can. Yes. Yes, what? Thank you for calling. Goodbye. Well? Aunt Louisa's made. She's taken sick. The maid? Claudia, Aunt Louisa. She asked for me to come right over. Oh, I bet she's crying wolf again. Claudia, a little respect. Oh, I respect Aunt Louisa a lot. I think it's wonderful she's lived to be so old. But certainly no fault of hers. I hope she lived to be a good many years older. I suppose you do have some kind of feeling toward her, just seeing as she's my father's only sister. But otherwise, she's not your type. Too many allergies, Mama. One of them on the loose right now. Are they inheritable? I'd hate to think of my son having... No, more than your faults. That's a relief. Well, I suppose I better go. I hate to leave the house in the middle of cleaning it. The tidy soul will survive, Mama.  Go see Aunt Louisa. Your cut took so pang. Maybe I can finish cleaning the living room first. You better hurry. She might be better before you get there. I was going to clean up the kitchen, too. It's a worse mess. So it's a mess. Who cares? I don't. I do, but I guess I'd better go. I'll be back as soon as I can and finish then. Don't hurry. Here's your hat. Thanks. Claudia, just one warning. If I find the house any cleaner or neater when I come back, if I find that you have lifted one finger, I shall be furious. And I mean it. I won't lift even one pinky. Why don't you take a nap? Your son is. Me nap? What for? What for do you think? Now, Claudia, I am serious. Oh, Burr, so am I. I'll be back at the latest in time to get dinner ready. I am tired of being treated like an orchid.  Thank you. Now, remember, I want to find things in just as much of a mess.  I won't touch a thing. Sleep, sleep, sleep, sleep. Mrs. Brown's residence? Oh, it's only you. I was using my party voice. Hello, David. No, Mama's not here. She's gone out. No, I'm not doing anything. Mama says I shouldn't do a thing. Oh, you're as bad as Mama. I promise, I promise, I promise. Oh, David, I forgot something. I love you. Most of all. Oh, and Bobby sends his love. All right, I'll pull his ear for you. Goodbye. A book. I suppose I could read a book. Look at this page. How'd you know I was wishing for somebody to talk to?  Hello, Mrs. Norton. My, you're looking wonderful today. Come in, come in, come in. I come to call on young Mr. Norton. Young Mr. Norton, I'll be very happy to see you.  No, no, no. For young Mr. Norton, I keep on the hat. Bobby's in the bedroom. Just two minutes ago he asked me when he was going to see you again. So? Yes. Then I have come at the right time. It's only one thing that matters at the time, Bertha. Is something wrong? Mama had to go out and David isn't home all. They'll be furious with themselves when they heard you've been here. They will live. The baby gained half a pound. How's Fritz? Fritz is fine. Good, half a pound. Yeah.  Pretty soon he's taller than you. Oh, I hope he'll be. He's so fast, Mrs. Norton. One day my Lisa, she was a little baby and now I'm a grandmother. Yes, it goes very fast. Sometimes I can't bear to hear the clock ticking. But when it goes slow, that's not good. Bertha, it should seem fast. Now, my hat is on straight. We go in. Oh, you don't have to tiptoe. He doesn't wake up for anything. That's a good sign. The baby should not care for anything except to sleep and eat for a year. A year? Or he's a vegetable. So so. Ah. I see him. So warm. I haven't bothered to put any blankets over him. Oh, he's gotten so numb. Look, he can't bend his legs. They're so fat. He can't straighten them out either. Just like what I thought. What is? He will look like his father. Oh, you better not tell David that. If he thinks there's any resemblance between him and this sleeping vegetable, he'll be furious, furious, outside, but inside, smiling. You've been picking up, if you like. No. Oh, he's still here. Libeous kid.  We like him. Sometimes I look at him and I can't believe he's mine. I feel like a mother, and yet I... I don't feel like a mother.  Tiptoe toes, you will never forget. You bet I won't. Well, I feel warm in here. Why don't we go sit in the living room? Yeah, but I only stay a moment. Oh, Bertha, don't rush away. You'll hurt my feelings. I think you really didn't come to see me. Well, I didn't. You don't have to be so blunt about it. Mrs. Brown, she's well. She's fine, but she's working too hard. She won't let me do a thing around the house. I'm nervous away for a vacation, so you'll just have to forgive the mess around here. Oh, it's not such a mess. But, uh, I think now the baby has seen me. I take off my hat. Good, then you're going to stay a while. And now I go into the kitchen. You stay where you are. You are company. Oh, but I'm not used to just sitting around. I go into the kitchen. Bertha, don't go in there. There are a million things around. Well, it's not so bad. When I first had the baby, my house was much worse. You probably didn't have any mama around. I was not so lucky. Bertha, what are you doing, rolling up your sleeves? Rolling up my sleeves. But what for? Here, now where is a big pot? Bertha, what are you doing? Nothing. I boil these two little baby things. Bertha, that's not what you're here for. It's a nice surprise for me.  No, while we're waiting for the things to boil up, you have the vegetables for dinner. Oh, yes, they're in the ice box, but you're not to have anything to do with them. Oh, nice pot roast. Good. I fix it with a nice gravy.  All you do is work, work, work, work. You work at home, you go visiting, you work again. It is nothing. I like to do this. I forget how just to sit in a chair and drink a cup of tea, and I like to help you. But you're not helping. You're doing everything yourself. If I don't mind, you do not mind. And I don't mind. Well, this is certainly wonderful of you. I feel like a nincompoop.  Maybe I should make a goulash. Goulash. You have carrots, I mean. Potatoes, parsley, celery. Yeah. I make a good Hungarian goulash. Mr. Norton, he will like it. He will love it. Oh, Bertha, we're really lost without you. Oh, no. But I like you to see. I can't wait till David and Mama come home and find everything all cleaned up. Dinner's all ready. The baby with his bottle. And me sitting on the sofa like Lady Beard. Hey, Claudia. Claudia, anybody home? David, you're home at last.  Well, you're looking very fresh and resting. I am. I am. Sitting down on the sofa with a book in your hand. Oh, I'm not reading. It's just a stage prop. Oh. I want you to notice I have been relaxing. Ooh, it's good to be home. How does blaze is down there?  I'll take a shower in a minute. How's the youngster? The young man is fine. He's been asking for you. He's all bathed. He's had six o'clock bottles, so he's through eating for another few hours. Good. Say, I thought you said this apartment was a mess. It doesn't look a mess to me. Doesn't it? No. I should hope not. I hope you haven't been cleaning up. Oh, no, no, no. I've been relaxing. Oh, that must be Mama. Mama, must that be you? It must be. Welcome into your house, Mrs. Brown. Sorry I'm late, but I'm Louisa. How is the old girl? No wonder Claudia has no manners. The old girl is not so well. There's a slight heart attack. Well, what do you know? I'm very glad I went. Well, now I'll get dinner on. We'll have to have scrambled eggs. It's so late. Oh, don't bother, Mama. I suppose it's going to cook all by itself. I'll put the roast in the oven and I'll mix some iced tea. Oh, iced tea. I'd like to bathe in it.  I don't know why everybody's so warm. I'm cool as a pickle. Claudia, what have you done? I haven't done anything, Mama. David, will you come in here a moment, please? Coming, Mother. Why is everybody going in the kitchen? Why doesn't anybody stay with me? David, look at this kitchen. Well, I'll be. It's a mac. When I left it, it wasn't. What is that wonderful smell that's cooking on the stove? Goulash. What goulash? Onions. Wait till I give her a piece of my mind. Claudia, look me in the eye. Which one, Mama? Both. I thought you promised me. I'll take care of her, Mother. Claudia, have you no better sense than the wax of floor on a day like this? Oh, is the floor wax too? You must have been in that kitchen for hours. The baby clothes all washed, the bottles boiled, dinner on. It was a nothing. A nothing? Why, it would have taken me all day to do all that work. Oh, go slow, Mama. When a person's efficient, it just gets done as if by itself. Aren't you going to congratulate me? I am not.  David, I love you. You have no more sense than you were born with. It's not sense. It's system that counts. It's not system. It's good, hard, elbow grease. Now, look at this living room, Mother. Vacuum, the tables, polish. And the window seals washed. I don't understand it after she promised me, David. I give up. I am so talented, Mama gets up. Yes, you are. I'll admit it. Thanks, Mama. Mrs. Norton, if I ever catch you acting so foolish again. Aren't you proud of me at all? Not at all. Not impressed, either. Oh, she doesn't look tired, David. I don't care how she looks. She has no sense. Well, you have exhausted if I had done all she had. Not if you'd done it the way I did, Mama. Sometimes the duties of a homemaker are lighter in summertime, but often they're even heavier. More laundry to do or get done. More dirt tracked into the house. Cooking is much more uncomfortable in the heat. Lady, you deserve the pause that refreshes. Why don't you take time out right now for a bottle of delicious ice-cold Coca-Cola?  We think he is. I'm so glad it turned out so well. He's a good baby, too. Hardly cries. He's still very young. There's time. I know what you mean. The Norton should go back to the farm. It's very warm in New York for the baby, too. If you think it's warm today, Bertha, wait till tomorrow. The weatherman predicts a real sizzler. Another hot day. And how hot exactly you'll find out tomorrow. Till then, so long, Bertha. Nice to have seen you. Well, same with me. Goodbye, Mr. King. As I was about to say, every day, Monday through Friday, Claudia comes to you transcribed with the best wishes of your friendly neighbor who bottles Coca-Cola. So listen again tomorrow at the same time. And now this is joking, saying, or a boar. And remember, whoever you are, whatever you do, wherever you may be, when you think of refreshment, think of Coca-Cola. For Coca-Cola makes any pause the pause that refreshes. And ice-cold Coca-Cola is everywhere. This broadcast of Claudia was supervised and directed by William Brown Maloney. And now here's a word from your friendly neighbor who bottles Coca-Cola.


Following a best interest process, child migrants may be assisted with return and reintegration to their country of origin as one of the sustainable solutions that ensure their protection, survival and development. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has non-discriminatory guiding principles that explain the child's best interests and their right to survival, development and treatment in line with their age and maturity. There are a number of different types of reintegration programming that take children into account to a greater or lesser degree. We recommend a child-sensitive approach which ensures that reintegration programs in general can respond to children's vulnerabilities. Children have a distinct set of vulnerabilities. Physical. Children are more susceptible to malnutrition and disease because of their fragile immune systems. Dependency. As children rely on adults for their livelihood, neglect and abuse will compound vulnerabilities. Institutionalized disadvantage. Children tend to be devalued based on perceptions of their age. The EU IOM Knowledge Management Hub and Samuel Hall, in cooperation with Save the Children, developed a monitoring toolkit including a set of good practices for the reintegration of child retainees. The monitoring toolkit and good practices offers a set of practical tools including a quantitative survey, case studies, focus group discussions and key informant interviews that consider the diverse experiences of child retainees. The toolkit was developed for stakeholders in reintegration who need tailored tools to monitor the reintegration of children and for staff working in countries of origin and host countries responsible for planning and coordination. Access the toolkit on the return and reintegration platform today.