We still have time to stop the most catastrophic outcomes. It's not too late. So what have economists contributed to understanding the problem of climate change? Earlier, we talked about the shortcomings of conventional approaches, but there's another indictment to level at the profession. They've been late to the game. In part, this is because in some ways they got it horribly wrong at the beginning. There were a few important interventions just as the reality of global warming was being recognized in the late 70s and early 1980s. William Nordhaus himself weighed in with a 1979 paper that argued that global warming would be positive. The main argument had to do with higher productivity in agriculture. This paper obviously suffered from many flaws and set the debate off in exactly the wrong direction. Another crucial intervention was from Thomas Schelling, who helped write a highly influential National Academy of Sciences report in 1983 on climate change, the first such report. Schelling argued that instead of reducing emissions, people should just migrate and adapt. It would be wrong to commit ourselves to the principle that if fossil fuels and carbon dioxide are where the problem arises, that would also be where the solution lies. Now why did economics take this tack? One reason is the dominance of trade-off thinking. As any Econ 101 student knows, the big message from the discipline is trade-offs. The idea is that the economy is functioning optimally and there are no free lunches, that is, ways to make one person better off without harming another. In the environment case, trade-off thinking appears in the guise of, say, climate protection versus consumption. The logic of this argument is that to get a better climate, we have to give up consumption. This argument is encapsulated in this simple graph, which is called a production possibility frontier. The no-free lunch idea means that we're on the so-called frontier, or outer edge, in which climate mitigation entails giving up other goods and services. That's the basis of the cost-benefit calculations I've discussed earlier. Now there turn out to be multiple problems with the production possibility frontier approach. The most serious is that a well-functioning climate is the basis for producing goods and services, not an alternative to them. Trade-off thinking may make sense for small choices within a healthy ecosystem, such as whether or not to turn some land into a park or how much non-lethal pollution to abate. But it's a disastrous idea for problems that cause planetary disruption. One reason is that it overestimates the positive contribution of more income to wealthy nations who are historically the biggest polluters. In 2017, the richest top 1% of people in the world captured 82% of all the increase in GDP. In 2020, the top 1% of households globally owned 43% of all personal wealth, while the bottom 50% owned just 1%. Another reason for the late start of economists as climate activists is that externalities didn't just apply to the climate. The discipline itself had an externality problem. Climate change economics was quite literally externalized from the core of the field itself. Looking at the last decade as the urgency of addressing climate change is much greater, the top econ journals clearly did not step up. One way to see this is through an analysis of journal publishing, the lifeblood of many disciplines. We did a simple analysis of articles that mentioned climate change or global warming in either the title or the abstract in the top five journals in the field. From the time James Hansen delivered his pathbreaking testimony to Congress identifying the threat of climate change, that was 1988 to the present. Since then, these journals have published thousands of articles. What we found is striking. Two of the top five journals had zero articles with either of these terms in the title. Only two had the term in the abstract and not the title. Altogether, only 35 articles appeared with these terms in the title or abstract over this entire period. Other researchers have done something similar. An analysis of the top five econ journals over the period 1957 to 2019 found that of nearly 20,000 articles published, climate change and global warming appear only 26 times in the title and 32 times as a topic. Just half a percent of articles had it in the title and under 2% as a topic. Now it's also the case that climate economists themselves are externalized from economics departments. Quite a few of the top departments in the country don't have members who work on climate change. Sometimes there's only a sole faculty member who works on these issues even though some of these departments have 50, 60, even 70 people. Given that climate destabilization is an existential threat to humanity, this absence is striking. These universities all do have economists who work on climate, but they're more likely to be located in policy schools and research centers. They are externalized from the core of the discipline. And that situation comes with another kind of problem. Those centers and schools are much more likely to have financial ties with fossil fuel companies. One inescapable fact is that energy and environmental economics, the standard term for the subfield, is tied up with fossil fuel companies. The National Bureau of Economic Research, the nation's most prestigious economic research institute, has an energy and environmental program and it takes funding from ExxonMobil. In fact, ExxonMobil is one of the few corporate sponsors identifiable on their website. Policy schools and interdisciplinary centers that have economists are also funded by fossil fuel companies. The MIT Energy Initiative's founding members are N.I., an Italian oil and gas company, ExxonMobil and Shell. Chevron is a sustaining member. These companies also sponsor the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Shell is a sponsor of the Stanford Energy Club and the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. And the latest trend in financing between the fossil fuel industry and higher education is the American Petroleum Institute's educational partnership with historically black colleges and universities and other minority serving institutions. This is a particularly insidious move by the fossils. While HBCUs and MSIs deserve far more funding than they get, fossil fuel extraction has been highly and disproportionately harmful to black, brown and indigenous communities. From the Gulf Coast of Louisiana to the poor neighborhoods of Los Angeles, black, Latinx and indigenous communities are exposed to a much wider range of toxic pollution and environmental harms than whites. A recent study by historian of science Benjamin Franta entitled, Weaponizing Economics, revealed the central role of economists who were paid by petroleum companies in promoting models that churned out results opposing climate action by claiming it is too expensive and that climate impacts wouldn't be too bad and that delay wouldn't be too costly. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that for those pushing for an effective climate response, the discipline of economics has mainly been a weapon used by interests whose main motive is to avoid action. These ties between fossil fuel companies and energy and environmental economists suggest the need to look more closely at the fossil fuel companies themselves to understand why climate action has been so difficult to achieve. Now on one level this seems obvious. We have a great deal of evidence about how these companies knew about the destructiveness of their products, hid their findings, funded climate denial and captured politicians to do their bidding. One part of their success has been the way responsibility for emissions has been obfuscated by what I call the Pogo problem. This term is from a classic cartoon strip entitled Pogo. Its famous line is, We have met the enemy and he is us. Not ExxonMobil, but me and you. For years the Pogo formulation dominated the popular consciousness about climate change. It takes the view that we're all responsible because we drive cars, take airplanes and use fossil fuels. This formulation underlies the production possibility frontier tradeoff between mitigation and consumption. It underlies efforts to get people to change their habits, to screw in new light bulbs, to eat less meat, to be the change. And here's a tidbit. The very concept of the carbon footprint, a Pogo idea if there ever was one, was invented by British Petroleum in 2004. What size is your carbon footprint? Ah, the carbon footprint. Naming consumers as the problem suggests we're all responsible because we're all consumers. It deflects attention from the producers. Pogo reasoning underlies the free rider approach I discussed earlier because the diagnosis of free riders suggests the needs to corral everyone into a solution. All countries are thought of as similar, all people, agents, to use economists term, are alike. The integrated assessment models of economics are also built on this principle. But we just need to look at the patterns of emissions to see that the Pogo story is deeply misleading. Its alternative is the political economy approach. It starts by looking at who has interest in continuing to emit greenhouse gases. Who's benefiting? Who is bearing the costs? When we do this, we're right back to the fossil fuel companies, the countries they come from, and the people who are disproportionate emitters. Equal responsibility and impact is not what we find. This is a highly concentrated problem at every level we consider nation, corporation, household. The responsibility for emissions is highly disproportionate at every level. We've already looked at current emissions and how they are coming from a few countries. What are called legacy or historic emissions, the cumulative pollution a country is responsible for historically, is slightly more disproportionate. Four entities are responsible for two-thirds of all historic emissions. What about by corporations? There are 100 so-called carbon majors, the entities that are most responsible for carbon pollution. Are many of the same names we've already been talking about? ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, Coal Giant, Peabody, and Total. These 100 companies account for 71% of all emissions. Historically, they account for just over half of all the emissions that have ever been produced. There's another type of disproportionality or inequality, and that's by household. Emissions vary a lot across households, with the most well-off being responsible for far more carbon pollution than middle and low income households. This is true both within individual countries and across the globe. Within the United States, for example, households that earn more than 200,000 a year, they're about 6% of the population, had a per capita greenhouse gas footprint that's 2.6 times that of the lowest group. They earn about 15,000 a year and account for 9% of the population. The top group emits 32 tons of carbon, whereas the lowest group emits 12. The global average when these calculations were done was about 5 tons, and the U.S. average was about 18 tons, or more than three times the global mean. This disproportionality also shows up if we think about growth in emissions. I especially love this visual, the Brontosaurus shape of global responsibility for polluting. Here we divide into what are called ventiles, or 20ths of the distribution, which allows us to see the extreme disproportionality more clearly. The impact of the world's richest people is unmistakable. Nearly half of the total growth in emissions from 1990 to 2015 was due to the richest 10%, those top two ventiles, with the richest 5% alone contributing 37%. The remaining half of emissions was due almost entirely to the contribution of the middle 40% of the global income distribution. That represents the next eight ventiles. The impact of the poorest half, the bottom 10 ventiles, practically negligible. What all this means is that some people have strong interests in the status quo and prefer to forestall climate action. They are unfortunately the most powerful companies in countries. Others have strong interest in vigorous action. They are island nations, the poorest countries and regions, and the poorest households. In the United States, Latinx and African American residents are the strongest supporters of climate action, while whites, and particularly white Christians, are most likely to believe the disinformation campaigns of the fossil fuel industry and their allies, and to support climate denier politicians. This makes sense given that Latinx, African Americans and indigenous people are already suffering the greatest harms from climate change and are likely to be most vulnerable going forward. But these groups don't have much power. That's part of why emissions continue to rise even though it's a suicidal path for humanity. So what are the key elements of the political economy explanation for climate action? The first is the opposition of the fossil fuel industry to climate action. In 2015, some bombshell reporting unearthed the dirty secret of these companies. They knew. Exxon and other companies had a long history of doing climate science themselves. A trove of documents as well as information from company scientists has established that as early as the 1960s and to some extent earlier, Exxon and Shell knew what their products were doing to the planet. By the early 1980s, internal documents reference, quote, potentially catastrophic events if fossil fuel use is not reduced. Coal companies such as Peabody Energy, now bankrupt, also knew at that time. In fact, Exxon had been doing observational climate research in the oceans and in the 1980s developed a sophisticated climate modeling group that was able to fairly accurately predict much of what would later happen and what subsequent models found. But in 1989, not long after James Hansen's testimony to Congress, the company shifted to climate denial and its researchers lost their scientific objectivity. We also know Exxon spent millions setting up phony think tanks that push climate denial, successfully creating uncertainty, and bamboozling the media and the public. Exxon is now being sued by Massachusetts Attorney General Mora Healy for its deception. And numerous cities and other entities around the world are also suing these companies for the damages that their destructive products have caused. The second part of the political economy explanation is what we call captured government. While the fossil fuel companies worked on political opinion, in many places their most potent weapons have been politicians themselves. In the United States, the link between fossil fuel companies and elected officials' climate positions is typically through a flow of money. The fossil fuel companies capture politicians in numerous ways, through direct campaign contributions, PAC contributions, lobbying, advertising, and policy influence. Even in 2021, a non-election year, fossil fuel companies were set to spend $55 million in direct funds to candidates. And this is only a small fraction of what they'll spend indirectly through PACs and related groups.  In 2018, oil and gas companies gave more than $84 million directly to candidates running for the U.S. Congress, twice what they gave in 2010. And all that money has bought the fossil fuel sector a powerful veto machine in the U.S. Congress because this money purchases votes. For every additional 10% of congressional votes against the environment in 2014, a legislator received additional $5,400 in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies in 2016. Now in the United States, the fossil fuel industry has historically supported both parties, which has been key to climate inaction. In recent years, their control of policy has been more lopsided. They've got a complete lock on the Republicans where it's fatal to support climate action. At the same time, Democrats have been slowly weaning themselves off fossil fuel money. That's why climate policy has gotten as much of a hearing among Democrats as it has. There are still 30 GOP senators and 109 House representatives who do not acknowledge human actions causing or impacting climate change, a majority of Republicans in the U.S. Congress. Over the course of their careers, these representatives received over $61 million of direct funding from gas oil and coal companies, or about $450,000 per person. Perhaps most concerning is the fact that climate denial is not going away. Of the 69 new representatives and senators elected to Congress in 2020, one-third deny the science of climate change, including three of the four new Republican senators. There are no Democrats who actively deny climate change. However, in 2021, Joe Manchin, the most influential person in Congress on climate legislation as head of the Senate Committee on Energy, as well as the Democratic Party's 50th swing vote, received more money from the fossil fuel industry than any member of Congress, be they Democrat or Republican.  He has been successful in eliminating the strong climate provisions from the Biden administration's Build Back Better and Infrastructure bills, and as of this filming in preventing Build Back Better from becoming law. Kristen Sinema from Arizona has joined him in this potent climate obstruction. Manchin, who hails from coal company, also has extensive personal and family interests in coal production. He and Sinema have the lowest lifetime scores on climate and national environmental issues among all Democratic senators, according to the League of Conservation Voters. Now the U.S. is one of the more extreme cases in terms of fossil fuel control of the state, but it reflects the general pattern that countries with larger and more important fossil fuel industries are less likely to support ambitious climate goals. Those without national fossil fuel sources have been stronger on climate. It's not true in every case. For example, there are some places like Brazil where forests are the more relevant resource. But in general, there's an association between climate stance and size of fossil fuel industry. Here's one measure of how major countries' climate policies stack up, the Climate Action Tracker. The countries in orange have an insufficient score from Climate Action Tracker. The red are highly insufficient and the black critically insufficient. The climate laggards are places like the U.S., China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, all with large fossil fuel sectors. Iran and Iraq are also in that category. But other fossil fuel dependent countries such as Australia and Canada, Kazakhstan are also highly insufficient. Of course, it's not only fossil fuel companies who determine climate policy, although they are the main actors in many places. Other constituencies also weigh in and influence government policy. Labor unions, especially in carbon-intensive sectors, have also played an important role in some countries in forestalling climate policy. Matto Mildenberger's analysis of climate policies shows that in a number of countries, Australia, Norway, Germany, a coalition of companies and labor unions have come together to veto carbon taxes or to reverse them after they've been passed. Because the carbon-based economy is so widespread and climate action requires full decarbonization, there are plenty of people who stand to lose when policy is enacted. So that's the core of the political economy approach, linking action and inaction to economic and political interests. Solving the political economy problem requires new ways of thinking about transcending the interest-based conflicts that have led to gridlock and climate inaction. That means not only just transitions, i.e. protections for workers and residents who will lose in the transition, but also out-of-the-box approaches that provide benefits that haven't typically been part of the climate conversation. Because the misdiagnoses and old approaches, like pogo or technocentrism, have been too narrowly focused. In fact, when we consider all the other problems that capitalism is beset with, extreme inequality, structural racism, sexism, the democracy deficit, overwork, we can see that there are double and even triple-dividend approaches that can make people better off while also vigorously addressing climate destabilization. We take those up in the next episode.


Hayes, like to goers and welcome back to another video. For a lot of people, falling in love and finding your soulmate is the ultimate goal in life. And while it would certainly be wonderful to meet the perfect person for you, it definitely doesn't mean that love is all there is to life. But when you make a conscious choice to remain single, oh boy, the battles you have to face then are of a totally different kind. That's because the not-so-single half of the population takes it upon itself to convince you otherwise. What matters is not what everyone else is doing or what other people think you should be doing, but what you want and what's right for you. So with that said, here are eight things only single people can relate to. One, feeling replaced by your friend's significant other. Ever since your friends all started dating someone, do you feel like you hardly see them anymore? You're happy for them, of course, and you try to be as understanding as you can. But there are only so many times they can turn down your invitations or cancel on you at the last minute before you start to feel like you've been abandoned. Everything you used to do with them, they want to do with their significant other now, like go to the movies or eat at new restaurants. And you can't help but feel at the slightest bit of jealousy that this person is now who they want to spend all of their time with. Two, having to be the third wheel all the time. Are you always the third wheel when you hang out with your friends and their partners? Does your friend's significant other tag along on most of your get-togethers now because they want to get to know you better and befriend you too? Which is really nice of them, you have to admit. But it also makes you miss the days when it used to be just you and your friends and no one felt left out. Sorry. Three, having to stomach a lot of PDA. Whether it's from your friends or couples you see passing by, public displays of affection are honestly uncomfortable for other people to watch. And no, it's not because you're bitter about being single or anything, but after a certain point it starts to get... exhausting. Listening to your friends telling you about all the different reasons why their partner is so dreamy. Having to awkwardly stand around while they kiss and call each other cute pet names. Seeing them act so happy and lovey-dovey all the time. Yeah, no thanks. It might be fun for them, but it's certainly not fun for you to watch and have to stomach it all the time. Four, always being asked why you're still single. Do others badger you relentlessly about why you haven't found someone yet? Do they pressure you into dating again? No matter how many times you tell them, you don't want to. From your friends to your relatives, to people you barely even know. When you're single for a while, sometimes it feels like that's all anyone wants to talk to you about.  Oh well. Five, being comforted because of your relationship status. Sad to say, most people just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that some of us are actually happy to stay single. A lot of people give us comforting pats on the back whenever the topic comes up and try to encourage us with platitudes like, don't worry, it'll happen for you too, or you'll find someone eventually just hanging there. As if being single is somehow synonymous with being miserable. Six, being bombarded with personal questions. What happened between you and your ex? Why are you having such a hard time finding someone? Don't you ever get lonely? Is there anyone you like? Once people learn you're still single, they'll start to bombard you with really inappropriate personal questions. They're convinced their questions will help you find your next date. Have you ever thought about dating so and so? And of course, isn't it time you moved on already? Single people have to put up with hearing such insensitive questions when frankly, it's not anyone's business but yours, why you choose to stay single. Seven, constantly being set up on blind dates. Do people keep coming up to you to say, I know the perfect match for you, or you should really need so and so, you'd make a great couple. If only you had a dollar for every time you heard those things. And while your friends and family members do have good intentions, you can't help but feel fed up over their constant attempts at playing matchmaker and setting you up with someone. And eight, feeling pressured to find someone already. Has anyone ever teased you about being single?  They make it seem like there's something wrong with being single. But the truth is, you're happy to stay single for now because you know that the journey is every bit as important as the destination. After all, there's a lot of freedom, independence, fun and excitement that comes from being romantically unattached to someone. In the end, being single allows you to focus on yourself and it can be a time of great self-growth and self-discovery. It's better to stay single and wait for the right person to come along than settle for anything less. Did you find yourself nodding along to any of these points? Have you seen similar situations in your surroundings? Do let us know in the comments below. Also, remember to like and share this video with others you think might benefit from it. Subscribe to Psych2Go for more videos. Thanks for watching and we'll see you in the next video.


Good day, May 40 here. So out for a walk in westward at UCLA, doing a little pine cone nationalism here and been listening to Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes and I just shut it off at the sentence where he says, Man is most dangerous when he is most at ease because then he is most likely to want to share his wisdom. That's great. Man is most dangerous when he's most at ease because that's when he's most likely to want to share his wisdom. So a lot more mask use, I'm noticing in westward and by the more intelligent sort. So often you see a lot of mask use by morons, but I'm seeing a lot of mask use by Asians, the most intelligent sort. Pretty dramatic increase, probably like a 100% increase over the over the past three weeks as California seems set for a COVID surge. And you've seen one homeless person in westward. Westward and UCLA are absolutely lush, so no signs of water restriction. So we're in the middle of like our worst drought ever in California and we're due for restricting water use to just once a week for lawns and outdoors. So you've got to believe that a lot of gardens are going to take a really big hit, but no signs of that yet in westward. So Australia had an election on Saturday. It's mandatory to vote in Australia. And I noticed news reports say Australia moved left, but not very dramatically. So it's not even clear that the Labour Party, the left party is even going to have a majority. They'll probably have to rely on votes from independents and greens. So virtually all the independents, quote unquote independents who've been elected to parliament are of the left, except for Bob Catter. So Bob Catter is probably the most right wing member of parliament. He's from Queensland and the Liberal Party, which is the party of the Senate right in Australia, they got absolutely decimated in their traditional strongholds in the cities. So Josh Freidenberg, the treasurer of Australia, Jewish, he was seemed to be on tap to be the next Prime Minister of Australia. He lost his seat in Melbourne, like his seat, incredibly affluent area. You'd have a very difficult time finding any home there for less than five million dollars. And it looks like he got edged out by an independent. So. So the left did really well. Well, look at look at this call. So you got you got a little robot there delivering to to Bruins. So Freidenberg, the Australian Treasurer, looks to have lost his seat, which is absolutely stunning because he would seem to be on track to be Australia's next Prime Minister. And lost out to the independence. So the so-called teal independence did really well in Australia, and they were very savvy. They only ran on three issues, climate change, essentially government. Meaning National Integrity Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission. So they kept their run just on those three issues. And they were able to unseat the ruling Liberal Party, which had held these seats forever. These are traditional Liberal strongholds, but pretty much all the moderate Liberals are gone. So the Australian Liberal Party's lost pretty much all its Liberals and it's now become a real Conservative Party and increasingly a party of the working class. And so the rich suburbs in Brisbane, in Sydney and in Melbourne switch from the centre-right Liberal Party to the independence who really parties to the left, but were very savvy in how they presented themselves as just being all about climate change. So the Greens did really well. Labour is heading into power with just like 31 percent of the overall vote. Right. So I know we've had American presidents who've won with with what, 43 percent. I think Clinton in the second term he won with just 43 percent. Australia is going to be governed by the Labour Party if they just got 31 percent of the vote. And Scott Morrison is resigned as the leader of the Conservative Coalition. So probably Peter Dutton, a former policeman from Queensland, looks like to be the next leader of the Australian Liberal Party. He's not someone with an excess of charisma. He's just kind of blunt. I don't know how he's going to appeal to independence. He probably steered the party in even a more conservative direction. So the Liberals, was that drone I just showed law enforcement? Well, it was there was a law enforcement officer that went before it. But the the drone robot thing said it was there to bring food to Bruins. So I'm here at UCLA, so I'm not exactly sure. But increasingly hear about food being delivered by drones. So certainly the way the way of the future. When I came to UCLA in 1988, there was so much construction going on, like construction everywhere. And now I don't see any construction going on because all those buildings that they were working on in 1988, they're all here. It's just an absolutely magnificent campus, magnificent hospital system. Now, Westwood used to be the centre of nightlife in Los Angeles until there was a gang shooting, a member of a gang shot an innocent UCLA student or innocent young woman trying to retaliate against another gang and they were shooting it out. So that was 1987. And then overnight, nightlife shifted away from Westwood. So when I came here, things were still hopping a little bit at night. So my friends from Northern California like to just hang out in Westwood and watch all the the Beemers and the Mercedes and the really flash cars drive by because in Northern California, the the ethic is that you hide your wealth. But in Southern California, people tend to be much more relaxed about displaying their wealth. So Northern California and Southern California are like two different countries, like completely different ethic. So Labour Party, the Senate Left Party, looks like they're going to govern. And it's the first Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. He's the 31st Australian Prime Minister, but the first one not to have an Anglo Saxon or Celtic name. So all of the previous 30 Australian Prime Ministers all had Anglo Saxon or Celtic names. So I've had Americans ask me. Why is it that all Australians have names like Smith or Brown or like real Anglo Saxon names? So Australia is still profoundly influenced by its Anglo Saxon heritage. Even more concentrated in Australia than it is in America. Almost all its institutions come from the Anglo Saxons. And Australia has a parliamentary political system. So virtually nobody in the world has followed the American presidential model, except for perhaps France. That's the one exception. But everyone else follows a parliamentary model. And one advantage of the parliamentary model is that a government can be overthrown. So in the presidential model, supposedly a president should rule for four years. But after Watergate, we now have impeachment is used to get rid of a president, which is kind of reminiscent of how parliamentary democracies work, where there can be a vote of no confidence in the government or there can be what's called a spill in Australian politics where you've got to say a party in power such as the Liberal Party under Malcolm Turnbull in 2015, 2016. It wasn't very effective. And so there was a leadership spill. He survived the first one. And then a few months later, there was another one and he was deposed. Scott Morrison was installed as the leader of the Liberal Party and also as prime minister of the country. So that's what you can do in a parliament. You can get a new leader of the party. You can get a new prime minister without an election or you can have a vote of no confidence in the in the government to force an election. And also governments can choose elections within some time periods. So in Australia, you have to have one at least every three and a half years. I think in the British parliamentary system, you have to have an election every every five years, but governments will choose choose to call an election when they feel like they're best situated. So the current the current Australian government prior to this election, the conservative coalition, they basically waited the last moment to call an election because they've been running behind in the polls for about nine months. And no one who's ever been as behind as consistently behind as the conservative coalition has been this year in Australia has ever come back and actually.


The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, Rural Development and Food Security Honourable Alfred Prosper continues his familiarization with a visit to agricultural divisions in the south of the island. Minister with responsibility for agriculture Honourable Alfred Prosper, on the continuation of his tour, got a first-hand look and updates on the ongoing developments at the Violet Agriculture Livestock Centre. The livestock station currently in phase 1 will see the development of approximately 30 acres of land where its operations will focus on growing the livestock industry in tangible ways once completed. Services to be offered will include animal health advisory and treatment services to facilitate improved livestock production. Minister Prosper expressed his satisfaction with the station's progress and noted that the station will provide many opportunities particularly to young farmers by producing breeding stock and allowing them to multiply for the purpose of selling to farmers. I see tremendous opportunity for our young people to get into livestock production. I see tremendous opportunity for our young people and our current livestock farmers to benefit tremendously in terms of making money from livestock and I am really really happy to see the beginning of this station in terms of providing the services to our farmers because I think at this time our farmers desperately need that type of service and I was very happy to know that the ministry is focusing on more in-depth research being done in Violet in terms of livestock production. The second leg of the tour continued with a visit to Regions 3 and 4 where the minister met with the staff of the Regions to discuss the programs in place for farmers. This was followed by a visit to the Prairie Alasini unit where the minister was apprised of the various challenges being faced by the unit. I know this unit from what I gathered has tremendous challenges and one of them that concerns me very much is the fact that insurance coverage has not been dealt with in a manner that will protect those officers given the risk involved in the performance of their duties. This is something I think the ministry needs to tackle here on and I'm hoping that in addition to problems with lack of vehicles and uniforms and office space those problems will be addressed in the short to medium term to ensure that these people feel comfortable performing their duties at the level and standard attack that I expected. As Minister Prospect continues along his familiarization tour, he reaffirmed his commitment to improving the agriculture industry of St Lucia. From the communications unit of the Ministry of Agriculture, I am Anisia Antoine reporting.


Hey there lads and ladies it is Petrifying Pumpkins here and welcome to another episode of PSVR news. Today we've only got two things to talk about but two fairly interesting things so let's just hop right into it. So first on the agenda is a No Man's Sky desolation update that is live right now, came out of nowhere so what does this add to the game? So what this brings to No Man's Sky is basically a bit of dead space kind of a vibe or a bit of aliens kind of a kind of a horror element so what you're going to see is you're going to find these desolated wrecks out in space you either come across them or you can buy them from these like vendors around the world or the worlds I should say seen as those like infamous amounts of them you'll come across these ships each one of these abandoned ships is procedurally generated so apparently according to the No Man's Sky patch notes and all this kind of stuff no two interiors are going to be the same now that's not to say they're going to be like unique wildly unique you know I have a feeling they'll probably start to feel the same ish to some degree so in these desolated ships you're going to find basically the crew that was there beforehand is going to have like left in a hurry there's going to be hazards there is going to be you know possibly evil alien creature things dwelling in there the AI systems on the ships are going to turn on you and attack you apparently even the stories are going to be procedurally generated which is kind of interesting you're going to be finding logs from like different crew members detailing what happened on the ship until finally you find the captain's log and that will give like the final hours of the ships you know journey I'll be it's going to be interesting to see how procedurally generated that can be like I wonder if I do this 10 times is it going to be unique every single time a unique story told every single time but anyway very cool free updates it was 11 gigs for me and now however I haven't updated No Man's Sky in a long time so maybe that was included in previous updates as well but it took me 11 gigs to download this thing I haven't tried it out yet because it's basically just fresh fresh off the tweets you know so it's coming straight from Twitter to this youtube channel right here and into your ear holes now there are a bunch of other things added with this patch including some like blooming and stuff like that and even some viewer things nothing major now it's kind of like head bob when you're walking and stuff like that nothing really worth getting too excited about but the meat of this update are these big abandoned you know desolus fraser ships that you can explore and then you can get loose out of so if you're one of those people who's already put hundreds of hours into No Man's Sky and you're looking forward to more content this is going to make you very happy I think and of course anything horror related plus virtual reality relates it is going to be just they're just work off each other they amplify each other very well so I'm actually looking forward to trying this out for myself so moving on to topic number two once again we've got some alvo to talk about so yesterday alvo's official youtube channel released this video that you can see playing behind me it is a tour of their desert map environment as you can see the cameras set up they have it on a track either or maybe someone's controlling us free control basically it's giving us a good look at this desert map as you can see it's a very bright map it is kind of pretty large too I'm not sure you know what we were expecting in terms of size I think we knew some of these maps were going to be bigger especially considering you move a lot faster in this game can compare to something like firewall it's a lot more fast-paced so these bigger maps like you might think whoa these are huge but you're going to be moving faster you're going to be able to get through them quicker we've got some interiors here too of course there's different levels going on in this map so it's not just a big flat plane we've got these buildings like a little built up area and then there's like a more of a desolate area surrounding these I know what you call as a town I suppose it's a small town so yeah there's lots of potential for vantage points and stuff like that but what about Alvo itself how about that open base you know where is this so the last we heard they were going to have a virtual reality consultation with Sony that was on the 15th so today's the 16th so I imagine they had that yesterday maybe we'll get some news later on today I've been checking their discord there's been nothing yes this video went live yesterday I'm not saying there will be an update today but there might be some kind of there might be more information from the developers so I'm going to keep an eye on the discord if you're following this game I recommend you do the same and that's really all there is to say I know a lot of people who want more Alvo more solid Alvo details the release date for the base or something but these are the only kind of breadcrumbs we're getting so we'll have to make do with this and at least we're getting the map you know we're getting a look at these other kind of perks the kill streaks the dogs the drones stuff like that so hopefully it's just got to get past Sony's Q&A fingers crossed it can do that first time around not guaranteed that it will apparently it's kind of a tricky thing because Sony according to some are kind of vague with their requirements so they'll wait for you to dismiss it and then they say oh no this is wrong this is wrong fix this fix this so this could set it back if that were to happen but we'd have to wait and see fingers crossed that it won't get delayed and we have it in our hands within the next few weeks hopefully the open base at least anyway so that is it for this episode of PSVR news let me know in the comments below what you think about both these things you excited for no man's sky excited for alvo of course a lot of stuff happening soon the big one being dreams virtual reality sport coming out in like less than a week now i'm super excited for that i'm going to be doing a lot of dreams we are on the channel i think so hopefully we'll have a lot more dreams to talk about soon so that is it for this video lads and ladies but before i go let me give a special thank you to my patreon supporters whose names are on the screen as i speak thanks to their generosity they're helping improve this channel over time and in particular let me give a huge shout out to the following chopped 517 tradition pete hawkins crumb and columbus thomas the third thank you lads very much for that generosity it is very much appreciated also let me thank decepticon for letting me use his music if you're interested in his music then check him out over on decepticon.com you'll find him on spotify on bandcamp and all those places so you can check him out there that is it for this video lads and ladies i'll see you in the next one bye for now petrifying punk


Why do you keep watching these videos? It's because they help you get better at this game that you love What if I could personally coach you? How much faster would you improve? This is Tylee. When her mom asked me to start training her She was a tier 3 player. Her coaches overlooked her She lacked confidence and both her and her mom were frustrated Because they knew she had so much more potential. After only one season of working with me Not only is she on the tier one team. She's ranked in the top five players of the club and she's the starting central midfielder She's playing with way more confidence and she's finally getting the respect that she deserves from her coaches and her teammates Now you probably live in a different country. I can't spend time with you in person But I've created the best next option for players who want more than just another YouTube video the Progressive Soccer Online Academy 12 weeks to your own player transformation story if you want to be successful in this game long-term You need to understand how to become your own best coach You're the only player who's there 100% of the time. That's why it's so important that you take responsibility For your own development over these 12 weeks I'm going to teach you how you can improve every single area of your player development Each week you'll be given detailed lessons to study on your own time Before the weekend's live question and answer session with me I'll ask you to send me your personal questions relating to the topics of the week So I can help you overcome your problems and achieve your goals faster every day You'll have a quick but challenging 15 minute workout to complete which will get harder as the weeks progress You'll also receive weekly analysis of professional matches So we can leverage and learn from the best players in the world You'll get access to the private facebook academy group All the players in the academy will be encouraged to communicate with each other Ask questions share advice motivate one another In a positive environment where everyone involved wants to help you succeed It doesn't matter if you want to become a professional player or you just want to dominate in your local league This is for players of all ages and abilities and you can enroll from any country in the world However, this is only for players who are willing to put in the work Players who are going to watch every video lesson They're going to complete every workout Participate in discussions and positively engage with players who are going through the exact same process I'll be opening up applications for the academy starting next week Before june 1st. I will select the first group of players To become progressive soccer academy members. There'll be more information about this exciting new opportunity coming out next week Are you going to be a part of it comment below? I'd love to hear what you think and I'll see you real soon


Hello, how are you? My name is Hafsa Muhammad. I'm a fashion designer. I'm also a fashion entrepreneur and I'm running a fashion show that is called Isli Fashion Week and we are inviting everyone actually and whether you're a Muslim or non-Muslim, but although it's a more modest tea and it is happening at Sa'ali Muslim Club, 18th March this year, inshallah, and we expect you all to be there and those who are with me today, this is Eve. She's a model and she's a designer also. Hi guys, my name is Hosna Samu Ibrahim, owner and founder of Dona Muslima. It's a modest fashion brand based in Kibra. So yes, I would love to invite all of you to Isli Fashion Week, which will be happening this coming Saturday on the 18th at Sa'ali Muslims. You're all invited and you can purchase your tickets online and also at the gate. In case you don't have any plans for the weekend, come and enjoy some modest fashion. I'm a creative designer myself, so I don't really conform to the norm of societal pressure about how a Muslim woman should dress. As long as you feel comfortable and modest, that's modest enough for you and modest tea is derived in Islam, it all comes from the heart. Your connection with God, your relationship with God will guide you to dress modestly. But yes, that's kind of the fashion you're into. Come and check out some of our designs. Thank you. Hi guys, my name is Evelyn Jerry. I am Miss Kavika of Kenya, right now, the reigning and I was approached by Hafsa. Because she was looking for a plus-size model and she didn't get one. I'm the only non-Muslim model in this show and also representing the Kavi girl. I appreciate the fact that they decided to accommodate the Kavi girl and we would like to encourage more Kavi models to come up and as we have been doing the training, one thing that has occurred to me is that there's no difference between a Kavi model and any other model. We have been trained the same. We have been doing the same kind of work and it is important for us to, as Kavi models, not to expect special treatment because we are Kavi, to do the same amount of work that every other model does. And at the end of the day, you are the one to earn your respect and everyone else will treat you better. We'd like to invite you for E.C. Lee Fashion Week. We have 10 designers. It's going to be beautiful and I know people have a different they have a different idea of what a Muslim should wear and I want you guys to come and see for yourselves how creative we all are and it's open for everyone. I am not Muslim, I'm Christian, but E.C. Lee Fashion Week is all inclusive and it's female only. It's female only. So I would like to encourage the adults to come up, showcase your designs and yeah, that's it for me. Probably maybe I can just ask, we've seen many fashion weeks here in Nairobi and in Kenya at large. What is going to be one of the things that will make E.C. Lee Fashion Week unique? Yeah, E.C. Lee Fashion Week is actually very, very unique and in its own ways, one of it being it is first ladies. You can't find anywhere a lady event where there's, you know, and we see also we destructed men and men were like, why are you destructing us from the event?   I'm a Muslim. I'm also a fashion designer. I'm being looked down upon because, you know, and whatever I'm bringing is boring to them.  So that also encouraged me to make it like to bring all the designers together so that we can pay little. And even she can as well talk about that.  Yeah, my question to is what inspired you to come up with the show and also to be precise, ladies show. Why not? Yeah, ladies. So let me start with the ladies first, because that is one thing that a lot of men have purchased our ticket. So we are refunding, actually we are doing refund. And we tell them, give it to your girlfriend or your sister or something. So we did it, ladies, because whatever we are showcasing is only for ladies. We are looking for the market of ladies and it is coming also. Me, I'm talking and me as a designer, actually, I'm a sport designer.  Yes, more dusty ones.  The other, why we made it ladies is because our market is ladies, whatever we are selling is ladies. Each collection we are doing on everything is for ladies. But next time, inshallah, since that we may want to, I will add some men, inshallah. Let's add one. Maybe I can add on the reason why we are doing ladies only. For us, especially as Muslim women, we, one of the reasons why this is only a ladies event. We want a space where we feel safe because, apart from the fashion show, there are some people who will be performing, there's some entertainment. And as Muslim, there are also some Muslim reserved women who, of course, will not want to be in the midst of men. So we want to put the bomb by two as ladies and also most of our collections, the designers are going to feature Ramadan is starting next week. So most of our designs are going to feature Ramadan collection and Eid collection. So it's more to showcase for the ladies and just a safe space for ladies to come together, discuss our network and also just have fun. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe I can just ask something about is this a one-time event or is a recurring event which is going to be happening every year? It will be, it will be a recurring event every year. It's that's why we are calling fashion week. It should be even twice or twice in a week, you know, in a month. You know, this is our first time. Yeah. But it will be very recurring every year. I know one of you, Nasra, also did a show of course. Some of you, maybe you were there. Did you learn maybe something from her or maybe some of the people who are watching this video will say, ah, maybe one of you, Nasra, Fanyahivi, Piawaoka, Mok Fanyahivi, Hivi. Nasra event, I wasn't there by that moment, but I would love to be there because we are supporting each other. You know, we are very few in this industry. Nasra is a good friend of mine, but I didn't do it. She can be a role model, but before that, I was doing a Burkini, me myself. I used to do it alone every year. Then I decided this time, why am I not giving chance to, you know, call. I used to call it a Burkini, but I changed to Isli because I saw many girls who are very talented from Isli or Muslim or it's not necessary a Muslim, but, you know, who have that anger? They are so hungry to come and, you know, showcase their thing, but money is slowing them down. So that is why I did. And where are we different? Do you ask? What do you ask? Where are we different from the modest? Yeah, modest are female.  So if you go back there, you can see a lot of comedians who are coming. But if you come to Isli Fashion Week, you will see more of like the leader even is a designer. That can tell you more, right? Yeah, but I know hard feeling for Nasra. I love her also. Sorry. And like for me, I was part of Nasra's show as a designer. And it's not a competition. We all are trying to as a designer, we're all trying to get ourselves out there. We're all selling the same ideology of modest fashion to Muslim and non-Muslim women who like to dress modestly. It's not a competition. We're all pushing the same agenda. She did her event. We went or we were all went and supported the designers. I was among the first modest fashion show I entered as a model. But with two, two, three years, I decided to venture into designs. And the one last year I entered as a designer. And it's basically we're doing the same thing, just trying to put ourselves out there, put our creation out there for people to enjoy. Maybe she was there. You can ask her. No, no, you can ask her that question. Where was it different though? What did you see different? Right? Yes, it's different from what we're going to do this weekend in terms of, as I've already said, this is a ladies only event. From the other one, yes, it was totally different. She brought her guests. They appreciated what we presented. And with this one, it's going to be more of networking for the ladies and there are some big personalities also coming on board, which will be unveiled later on our platform, the Isli Fashion Week. So yes, it's different in the sense, not in ideology, but in the sense of the message we are sending as Isli Fashion Week. So the other day, you know, who don't talk about it. I don't know if she's going to be part of it or she's going to come as a guest, or she's going to come as one of the people who want to find out the projects. Yeah, Huda is a great supporter. If you know that, if she see a young girl doing something, she's the first person to support. Apparently, she's sponsored an event, yeah, and Rich Beauty. And we are here sending thank you so much, Huda. We really appreciate it because I just texted her where nobody else believed in me. She believed in me. I texted her. She doesn't know in person. I've never met with her. She has never done. But I texted her. I told her I'm running this and this. Can you kindly come on board? And, you know, I don't ask much. This is, you know, what I'm saying. She's told me how much she was in Dubai by that moment. She's sent it until today.  But I don't know if she's coming, but her assistant told me like they are coming because they are a part of the sponsors. I don't know about Huda if she's coming. I would love I'll send this to Huda. If she's watching today, I will invite her. I would love to see her on board. Yeah, thank you very much. One more time, talk to anyone. I'm by Bado Harja Co. convinced. It's your time to convince them to come. Oh, my God. My question was, do you think the reason to why you've decided to host the female for the fashion show is because of the culture oriented about the most? Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, I don't want to. I don't want, you know, to say it more to culture, but deep insight. That's what you touched, right? And, you know, and it's more, it's yeah, it is more to culture, but can you just take that one away? Yes, yes, because I don't want to be labeled. Let me help out and say that even, let me say, a good example is like for us ladies, we just really saw my boarding school, your girls, you have so much fun with boys are not around, right? Very true. So we want to create that space where ladies can just come and be themselves, voice your opinions without being judged and feel confident, interact with other ladies, learn from other ladies, because it's we just want to create a safe space for ladies. Apart from learning and interacting with others. Yeah, so there is another person who's 100. He put, I think, 20,000 worth tickets for his fans only. And we really send in thank you so much also to him. And what advice or something? I don't know. What did he ask? To talk to the fans about Malaysia, to maybe have to listen. Oh, OK. Where they can rest together. Anyone who are interested, please kindly come and support us. It's our first time, you know, not everybody can support you. So we love you.  You see, if you only remain in, so we will love you to come on board. And thank you so much for your time. My girls, tickets is 1000. Oh, yeah. VIP is 2000. And you know, the regular one is 1000 Kenyan money. Did you have something to say or we just end?  And I actually concur with what they've said about women coming together and supporting each other. And also, there's that feeling when you are just with your girls, you are free, you're able to be yourself. And I'm hoping that all ladies can come and like and actually learn from the modesty fashion and see how we can all dress well and creatively without necessarily exposing ourselves. OK. Yeah. Thank you so much for your time. And we wish you all the best. Thank you.


This is Think Tech Hawaii. Community matters here. You know it's time for a major change in this country and in this state, but Roger Epstein and me wear a kupuna. And we need the younger generation, even the Z generation to step up. We need them to think about these things and take action about these things and be intellectuals about politics and government and learn perhaps what they didn't learn in school. So that's why we're here today. Originally we styled this income tax for the Trump family because of the articles, especially the New York Times, two weeks ago about what a team of reporters found out about Trump, that he and his family hadn't paid taxes in years. Maybe that's why he doesn't want to release his tax returns. Nevertheless, they found out and they wrote it up. It was a big flurry of activity for about three days. And now, Roger, we're in the doldrums again. That's why we're going to keep this conversation alive. That's why we scheduled this show, talking about the income tax side of things. So last week we talked about the Trump family estate tax and how they were able to transfer a billion dollars worth of value for about five million dollars in tax, but if you looked at the actual rates, it should have been 500 million dollars, maybe 550 in taxes. How did they do that? Well, they used a combination of existing methodologies that are accepted by the IRS. They squeezed those for all they were worth and then they did a little finagling on their own outside of what was really permitted. So they were on the line and then over the line. Yeah. So what they did was they had extremely low valuations of the property. There's an old thing I hate to denigrate appraisers, but your national institute is MAI, which they say is made as instructed. So they got a guy in New York who's known for taking a low ball valuation beyond anything anyone else would ever consider reasonable. Then they took huge discounts claiming that they were transferring a minority interest in these companies that owned all their properties. Well they owned 100 percent and they gave it all to their kids. So how do you do that? Well, they worked it out so that senior Fred, they gave away a very small percentage so he was down to 99 percent. He gave 49 and a half to his wife. Now both of them are below 50 percent. You get a big minority discount. That sounds like bull to me as a matter of fact. But this is in the area of acceptable planning techniques that they extended way beyond what a legitimate tax lawyer like myself or anybody else in the country would have permitted them to do. By the way, Roger Epstein is a tax lawyer and been a tax lawyer for almost as long as I've been alive. You're only 50. 50 years. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he's also a founder of the Asia Pacific Group which does business deals between here and China, right? Right. The last thing that they talked about in that article was how they siphoned off income to the children by using a dummy company. And that goes beyond what you would expect, what would be legitimate. What they did essentially was the companies that Trump had which were worth a billion dollars. So you can imagine how many expenses they had. So all those expenses reduced the value of the company, whatever expenses. So the way you value a company is you take the income. Let's say the company earns five dollars, Jesus. Five dollars is their income. Jay, you're always talking to me about my bad writing. So this is worse than I've ever done. But we're using your new equipment here. Quite small, Roger. Okay. So five dollars of income. The way you value a building that makes five dollars of income is let's say you multiply it by a number. Let's just say 10. We want to get a 10% return on our money. We multiply it by 10. So a building with five dollars of income is worth 50 dollars, okay? If you want to reduce the value of the building, you increase its expenses so that its net income is less than 50 dollars, okay? So if we put it down to 10 dollars of net income, now the value of the building is only 10 dollars instead of 50. Okay. So let's get rid of that. Okay, we're going to get rid of that. So anyway, the main idea is the more expenses you have, the lower the values you're building. So after you get that, then you can take these discounts. You can low ball the numbers, all kinds of things. All different ways. Layers of reduction of value. But here's what they did that the commentators are saying was fraudulent. They had the kids, Donald and his three, four siblings, they created a company which was a management company, quote, okay. The management company did absolutely nothing except re-invoiced costs. So Fred Trump's company has a $100 bill, an item that they had to pay for. They bought something or services. Instead of sending the $100 bill to the service company, they sent it to the management company. The management company then rewrote the bill for $150. And did nothing else. And did nothing else. And then the cost to the Trump company was $150. The service provider gave them a bill for $100, they padded it for three. Your expense, smaller value. Right. Not only that, it also allowed them to raise all their rents because the rents were capped. But if your expenses go up, then you can charge more to your tenants. So they deceived all the tenants too. But that was a, I would say this goes beyond the pale of legitimacy because there were no services provided.  That was basically how they got their values down from $1 billion to $41 million. That's a long way, Roger. That's a long way. What does that mean? 4%. Yeah. And 96% down. Yeah. Just make it $1,000 and $41. Yeah. And then you can see what we're talking about. Yeah. Okay. Wow. That's extraordinary. Extraordinary. So would they audit it? Anybody know? They were audited. The IRS didn't call them on it. It's not been my experience in 40, 50 years with the IRS and in private practice. I found the IRS takes a very tough position on these kind of audits. And I've done many audits with the IRS. So I'm very surprised, but they got away with it. They got away with it. And this is one of the lessons we're going to talk about today. This is a mentality that you take it to the limit and then you fight about it if you get caught. And if you don't get caught, God bless you. That's the mentality. That's what he's doing in the president's. That's what he's doing in the president's. We'll talk some more about that. Okay. So what did he do in the income taxes? That was his father's deal in the income taxes. And Trump, of course, this is a big part of the article. It says that Trump got so much money from his father, and that's how he made all his money, even though he says he only got $1 million from his father as a loan. He paid it back. He did it all on his own. Okay. He was in debt to his father, $15 million. This is way, it goes through all the things his father did for him. But he couldn't pay it back. And he had a number of companies that were failing. So the father took his, the notes, the father took his $15 million that Donald Odom put it into his failing company. That essentially eliminated the obligation of Donald to have to pay back the money. He forgave it. He didn't forgive it. If he had forgiven it, either it would have been a gift that he would have to pay gift taxes on $15 million at 55%, so $8 million. Or Donald would have had $15 million of debt forgiveness of indebtedness income. Instead, he put the money into the company. And then some period later, he sold the stock, became worthless because a company was worthless. So the debt was essentially canceled without any tax. And then he sold the debt, he sold the stock back to Donald, the portion of the stock he got and took a loss on it. Low price. Yeah, he sold it for nothing, $100, took a whole loss on everything. And didn't disclose that he sold it for Donald, which according to the New York Times article, was false. I'm not 100% clear on that, but I believe what they say that he wasn't entitled to take the loss, but he took it anyway. So you throw it on the wall and see if it sticks. You throw it on the wall and you see if it sticks. So this is what I'd like us to move on to discuss today. This is a symptom of the mentality of the rich people in our country. Not all of them, of course. And they pay a lot of taxes. But they, I mean, Fred Trump paid $5 million. But he was supposed to pay $550 million.  Second of all, that reflects a state of mind to cheat the government and cheat the system. And when Trump walks around and says, I didn't pay any taxes at all, he's not the only one, by the way. A lot of people say, I didn't pay any taxes at all, even though they made a lot of money. What troubles me is I believe, and maybe it's just me, there's a we are the government, the government is us. We participate in the government, the government pays back. The government is a collective of all its citizens. And when you say you don't want to pay taxes or you go to these lengths not to pay one penny or some very small amount of taxes, you're really saying is, I don't want to contribute to the country. I don't want to contribute to the cost of doing government. And I think we want to look at that as a philosophy of Donald Trump and the Republicans. And I say that very clearly. So Trump said, when he had a debate with Hillary Clinton, he was in the back saying, I didn't pay any taxes because I'm too smart. What does that say for the country? Exactly the opposite of what you're saying. I'm too smart to pay taxes, smart people and rich people don't pay taxes, why should you? That's a goal. If you were smart, you wouldn't pay taxes either. That's the implication isn't, all right. Ronald Reagan changed this principle in our country. If you want to look at it from that period, and it goes back much farther. But in our modern day, Reagan said, government is not the answer. It's the problem. This is not what you said, Jay. You said government of the people by the people for the people is supposed to be a government. We want a government that helps us all to function. And in fact, if we didn't have the kind of government we have today, nobody would be making these kinds of hundreds of millions of dollars. Because the system wouldn't work. It would be a socialist system or our authoritarian system. Well, if we were all so smart, we didn't have to pay taxes. We'd be living in a state of nature. And you wouldn't be able to walk out of your house, assuming it was your house. So the Republicans have said to us since Reagan, government's purpose is to defend the country and fix the roads. It's not to make sure people have a place to stay or to live or get enough food. All these things are for charities. They're not for the government. They shouldn't be doing any of this kind of stuff.  And that is, if we can't cut back on all these social services, what we should do is dramatically cut taxes. And then we'll quote, starve the bear. And so you see right after the tax cut, which had so dramatically favored the rich and the owners, the people that have the capital. So dramatically favored. The next thing happened, he's not going to pay the already agreed, already voted on, raised to government people. And what did you say the other day?  Yeah, he's trying to do a 5% cut across the board of all federal salaries. In fact, all federal budget. Every department is supposed to cut its budget 5%. So there's two things that that does. Number one, it can reduce the salaries of the employees in the government. Or number two, it can cut back on the people who are regulating other people. So this is the other idea that there shouldn't be regulations. He's killing the EPA. So many other departments that are watchdogs are now, the Fox is in the henhouse. And so, but I want you to see that not as a conspiracy. I want to talk about it as a philosophy. It's a philosophy that I think we have to recognize. There's a lot of people that believe that, that government shouldn't do that. That if you make money, you made it on your own, you should be able to keep it. Why should I give the government anything? And the opposite of that is what you said, Jay. You should put in money into the hopper because that's what we need to live on. That's what the government needs to, and what is the purpose of government? Is it to provide for citizens for the welfare of citizens? Or is it to protect people so that they can make money so that they're not, no foreign powers come in.  These kind of things, and even our streets and roads are struggling now. So years ago, when the Republicans cut these taxes back at the end of last year, people don't understand, I don't think, the significance, the devastation of the funds they were cutting back. It's $1.5 trillion, $150 billion a year for 10 years. I've heard talks of, the Republicans have been talking about a 15% tax rate across the board. A 15% corporate rate, they cut it to 21%. That's all they could manage under certain rules. It was half of what it was. It was 35%. And so if you cut it to 15%, the Treasury departments own people said, well, you have to impose a value-added tax to keep the budget. So the value-added is a national sales tax. So the Republicans say, look, the corporate tax rate in all these other countries is lower than ours. Of course, they have a national sales tax. We don't. So if we want to cut it to their rates, and now it's lower than many of them, then we're going to have to have a national sales tax. Isn't that regressive? Of course it is. Or we're going to have to cut all our services. So one or the other.  And now Trump, who has no shame and an incredibly thick back, he says, I'll just do it. I don't care what anybody says. He's doing it. I'll do it. I'll lie about it. I'll convince other people that it doesn't. Well, isn't it in the interest of a coal miner, for example, or somebody at the Walmart end of things working in Walmart? Economically, it is absolutely. Couldn't it be anything farther from his best interest? I'll give you an example. In the tax bill, they had cut for corporations to 21%. So some businesses aren't incorporated. So that cut helps all the owners of businesses. Doesn't do anything for the worker. It does everything for the owner. Now, if you're not incorporated, they said, hey, you're not getting a lower tax rate. So they arbitrarily said, you get a 20% tax deduction off the top from what you make. So your business generates $1 million a year. You should be paying. Before the tax cut, you'd pay tax on $1 million. Now they say, no, forget that. Just pay tax on $800,000. Take $200,000 and throw it away so that the individuals, the partnerships, and the sole proprietorships, the owners of those companies will be at the same right as corporations. Now, for an individual, here's what they did. They said, you're moving allowance. If your company makes you move from Washington to Minnesota, you used to be able to deduct the cost because it's out of your pocket. Cut that out. The whole focus, and this is part of the mentality, the whole focus is on people with capital create all the jobs. And because they create all the jobs, we should really give them a break in taxes.  And this is part of trickle-down economics. This is the way you're steering. And they don't get the same government services, social services they got before. So the big question I put to you about this, extend it out to the people in the coal mines and the people who work at Walmart, and everybody sort of below the line on this, near poverty, who can't really afford to get out of whatever their status is, who are never going to be rich. I mean, the Republicans say, well, if you only worked harder, you'd be just like me. And you wouldn't have to pay taxes either. You'd be rich. But that's not likely to happen for most people in this country. So my question to you is, on a macro level, what happens to the country? We've never really been faced with a premeditated ideological change like this that is actually being implemented while you watch. We can listen to the hot news about this, that, and Kavanaugh, whatnot. But at the end of the day, our wings are being pulled. Our economic futures are being mangled. What is going to happen to us, Roger? Look at this. We had this kind of system earlier. We had a system back when the Industrial Revolution started, 1880s, 1890s, 1900. We had child labor paying nothing. We had people practically working for slave wages. They couldn't do anything. And if you were rich, you were rich. And if you were poor, you were poor. OK, when Roosevelt came in during the war, he changed a lot of stuff. We implemented regulations. We cut out child labor. We have tremendous regular that keep the richest people, the capitalists, I don't want to say capitalists, like we're talking, capitalist people that put in capital. This is who is running the Republican Party. These are the Trumpians. No, actually, a lot of the Trumpians don't know A from B. OK. They're the coal miners. They support him for reasons that are not clear to me. So look at this. What's happened since 1970s is the relative value of labor and capital has changed dramatically. So when I graduated, when you and I graduated from college, we were making $10,000 a year. We could buy a house for $15,000 or $20,000. One and a half to two times our salary, our annual salary. Today, if you graduate $35,000 a year, you're making from college, maybe. What can you buy a house for, $350,000, $10,000? Plus, you've got to pay your college loan back. The college, we went to school for $100 a semester at state schools. Today, that school's $4,500, and you've got to borrow all the money. It's outrageous. So when I went to school, it was $200 a year. Today, it's $9,000. That's 90 times greater, where salaries have gone up from $10,000 to maybe $35,000 three and a half times. Not enough. So it's this skew between the value, the relative value of capital and labor that's killing us. And it's not bad for the big guys. They're happy to keep wages low. In fact, that generates an enormous amount of money to them. And not only that, but it doesn't give you any options. You're not making enough money to buy your own house or even start your own business. You've got to go out and get other people to help you just to start your own business. Where does it go? I mean, extend this five or 10 years, because I think it's going to continue for five or 10 years. There's a lot of worries about that. So if it continues, and already, not just the coal miners, but in Hawaii, 50% to 70% of the people are living paycheck to paycheck. A lot of poverty. What happens? Well, you have either one of two things. You have either a revolution of some sort, whether it's violent or it's what was the movement on Wall Street? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wall Street today, or where everybody camped out down there and complained. So you either topple the system and make them re-implement these. Make them put in some better wage laws and fairer situations like that. Or you have an autocratic system with a dictator, which Trump says he'd like to be. He wants to do away with the two. He thinks he's going to get re-elected, and he'd like to go 16 years or forever. He admires Putin and all these. Or you have that kind of dictatorial system where people just suffer along and do whatever they have to do. Now, we already, in the 70s, put our spouses to work. So up until then, a man went to work, and that was it. The wife stayed home, took care of the kids, but it only took one salary to keep the family going. Women went to work in the 70s, and then in the 80s, and then all this movement, which is great for women, and it gives them more opportunity. But now you've got to have two salaries to make ends meet. And now, today, maybe one or both of them have to have two jobs. So now you've got three, maybe four salaries. What happens after that? Well, we're going to begin to have multi-families coming together. The other big thing that's happening to us, Jay, in addition to the debt you mentioned, the other big thing is pensions. We gave up what's called defined-benefit pension plans because General Motors was going broke. They couldn't afford it. Interest rates went way down, and their investments didn't grow.  That was a defined benefit. You had a benefit from this pension. Now we've got defined contributions, 401k plans. There's no more pension. Whatever you put in there, and if your employer puts in a little bit, that's what you got for retirement. People don't have $50,000, $75,000. They're going to retire at $65,000 and live 30 years. They don't have the money. They don't have the money. That's just beginning to kick in. People without pensions are beginning to kick in. So we've got all the elders who are going to come out with nothing to live on. So we're going to all move in together. We're going to have to have smaller places to live. We've got more people. There's twice as many people, or maybe three times the number of people there were in the 50s and 60s when we were growing up. So we're going to move into smaller quarters. The Japanese have done that for years. And it's a kind of serf them we're heading for. Yes. Let me add one thing. I saw this movie, a very disturbing movie. The other part is, can you change it? Can you overthrow it? Does our democratic system work? Do you believe it's a government of the people by the people? Well, we'll get our first test of it. We'll get our first see what people really want. If we can't change it. Well, before they know what they want, do they know anything? Do they know that he's doing this to them? This is what's going on. They know that the Republicans have a plan here to make us all into feudal serfs. No, because he lies constantly. The President of the United States tells his constituents in Arkansas and Alabama, he's going to do away with the Obama health care. And he's going to give them better health care at a cheaper price. That's a lie.  Not only was it always a lie, but now his Congress, his Republican Congress, is doing the exact opposite. And they're trying to make health care more expensive to prove Obamacare doesn't work. And they're cutting back 5% of the government spending. That's going to trickle down to, that's what trickle down is. You don't get these, what they call, benefits. When I was working practice in law, I was paying $30,000 a year for social security and medical. Then when I turn around and get it, it's an entitlement to me.  Well, I think if you try to distill this, shake it, and bake it, what you get is that him and his friends are trying to get richer by hook or crook, throw it on the wall, see if it sticks. And they're dumping on everyone else who is not rich. This is not the American dream. This is not where we were going. You know, remember, Kennedy had his inauguration. You know, this is not what we aspire to. And I mean, there's got to be a break on this. Either we've got to change it at November time, which I'm not optimistic about, or there'll be violence. There'll be revolution. Because right now it's not acceptable. You know, one thing I just want to mention before, for your reaction, there's a movie out on Netflix called Repealing Roe. Repealing Roe. And it's about the attempt of the very same Republican crowd with the aid of the evangelistic Christian community to repeal Roe since 1973, when Roe was first adopted. And Roe has been, certainly we all know, has been very weakened. But if Roe, with the help of Kavanaugh, gets repealed now, either, you know, by a Supreme Court decision, or little by little by 1,000 cuts in all states, and we don't have Roe, what's the effect of that? And how does that comport with what you've been talking about for the last 20 minutes?  They can't get an abortion. They wind up having kids, lots and lots of kids, who they can't afford, who the government isn't going to support. And now you get an accentuation of the same process. Absolutely. And people don't remember anymore when poor people had to go to back alleys and use coat hangers. It's coming back to get abortions. See this movie. Yeah. And the other part is, and I'm not saying, again, it's not so much a conspiracy, but just a mentality. If people are struggling, if people are poor, they're forced to work at whatever wages they can get. If you stop regulation, then they're forced to work for you. So it's consistent with the idea that we create the jobs. We should be able to decide how much we pay people. We should make as much money as we want because we're the good guys. And it's a mentality. And so the question is, is that what the people in the United States want? And if so, can we show it through the democratic system of voting people out? Can we show it through the democratic system of going out in the streets and petitioning? There's been more of that happening since Trump came then since the 60s. You remember what it was like in those days. This is almost maybe more in some way. But Trump's plan is to beat you down. He does so many things that it wears you out.  There's not as many people picketing anymore. You get distracted. You get distracted. You got to go to work. You got all kinds of things. You can't work on it. And what Trump has practiced his whole life is how to do this. He's been sued 4,000 times. He cheats people. He does nasty things. He blames them for it. When they sue him, he's got all the money to fight him. And that's the problem. So bully, it's dishonest. And it's part of this whole mission of putting a little guy down. How long can we tolerate that? So, Roger, we've got to talk about this and more. We've got to try to make people aware of the stakes here, which are huge, which are our national future. You're right. I couldn't agree more. This is our future. And two more movies that people should see. And Michael Moore shouldn't have named his movie Fahrenheit 11.9, because people think it's all the same. It's not. It's much different. It's much better. It shows what's going on in this country and what we have to do to stop this kind of thing. And a movie, a front line movie, called Trump, shoot. It was about two weeks ago. And it really goes through. This is PBS going through some serious, hard looks with honest facts about what has happened in the Trump administration, where it's headed, where we're going. And you ask yourself, does democracy work anymore? And I think we're about to find out. We are indeed. But you know one thing that seems to work is that you and I can talk about the movies. That you and I can sit here and have this conversation. You're absolutely right. So the press is so critical. I mean, not only must we have the free press, we must listen to the free press. I've got to tell you a story. I've been involved with China for many years, as you know. And I worked with the law firms and bar associations in Shanghai and Suzhou and Beijing. And I was taking lawyers to come to stay at our office down here for three months at a time, less 10 years. And there was a guy came into my office. One of the smartest people I ever met was a 40-year-old lawyer in Shanghai. He and I were talking about politics and religion. He said to me, Roger, I wouldn't have had this conversation with a person in China unless I knew him for three years. So it's a great blessing what we have here to be able to talk about anything and free speech and freedom to petition and go out in the streets. And they don't have it in other places. So Trump would like to kill that. He has denigrated the press unmercifully without, I mean just, it's grotesque what he's done. And it's so over and over without any basis for it. Yeah, and even now he's denigrating the investigation into Khashoggi in Istanbul. Again, denigrating the press, denigrating the truth. So it's really important that we have this conversation really important that we cover it. When are you coming back? Whenever you want me. What I think we should talk next about is if we can't rely on a federal government, what does Hawaii do in the Trump era? What can we do? You know, in the 60s, states' rights were for the South who wanted to keep Jim Crow laws in there. Today, maybe states' rights are about California doing what it wants to do and Hawaii doing what it wants to do. If you believe, Jay, what you said, that government is about serving the people, being the servant of the people, being for the people's welfare, whatever that means, of course it includes economics, of course it includes having representatives and many other things.  And now how do we pay for it? Instead of how much money do we have and what do we do with it? And you look at the real sources. And one last thing about this economics, if you say, across the board, everybody should pay 15%. And I'm making $15,000 a year and I pay $7,500. And you're making a million and you say, I'm paying $150,000. Well, I'm left with $42,500 to try to make my way in the world and you have $850,000. Not fair. You have so much discretionary income that you only gain because you were in this system. Something on the little guy. You should get more, but you shouldn't get 400 times more. You shouldn't have this huge skew that we've had where wages have gone up two or three, four times and the cost of everything else has gone up 10 or 15 times. And the guys that own those things have made four times what we've had and now it's hard for the little guy to live. Thank you, Roger. Roger Epstein, from your lips to God's ears or at least from your lips to the people's ears. Thank you so much. Let's keep talking, Jay. Thank you. We'll keep talking. All right. Aloha.