Hello in this lecture we will define form W4. According to fundamental accounting principles Wild 22nd edition the definition of W4 is withholding allowance certificate filled out with the employer identifying the number of withholding allowances claimed. When we're thinking about the form W4 we're thinking about that form that we're going to have employees fill out at the time of employment or the form that we would fill out at the time of new employment reason being is that the employer is going to be in charge of or assigned the task by the government the IRS to withhold the federal income tax from the employees wages and then remit that money to the IRS directly. Therefore the employer needs some way to figure out how to calculate how much should be withheld from the paycheck. We could think about how that might be done we know


The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore for the 21st century. In short, we need a great reset. Welcome to World Versus Virus, a podcast from the World Economic Forum that aims to make sense of the COVID-19 outbreak. This week, as we rebuild the global economy, how can we make it better than the old one? This episode is all about the great reset. The best memorial we can build for those who lost their lives to the pandemic is that greener, smarter, fairer world. The CEOs of Microsoft, BP and Mastercard added their support for the great reset as it was launched this week by the World Economic Forum's founder, Klaus Schwab and Prince Charles. As we move from rescue to recovery, we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity you've never had before and may never have again. Subscribe on SoundCloud, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Robin Pomeroy and this is World Versus Virus, the Great Reset. In January, the World Economic Forum held its annual meeting in Davos. It was the 50th year of the meeting established by Klaus Schwab. At that point, people were just starting to talk about a new virus that had infected a few hundred people in a city called Wuhan in China. A panel of experts was hastily assembled to discuss how much of a threat the unnamed disease might pose and a new partnership to develop vaccines was created. But most of us weren't paying much attention. Less than five months later, now everyone knows about COVID-19 and even in those few lucky places where the disease has not spread, people will still feel the impact as it causes what is likely to be the biggest economic slump in a century. So where do we go from here? As governments pump money to try to revive the economy and deal with mass unemployment, can we build back something better? All the voices you'll hear in the episode this week were recorded at the June 3 launch of the Great Reset. By the end of this podcast, you'll know what that phrase, the Great Reset, actually means, why it's important and where things might go from here. Launching the Great Reset, World Economic Forum Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab. It is obvious that behind the midst of the most severe crisis, the world has experienced since World War II. 75 years ago, countries and people came together to shape the post-war global order, which brought us decades of peace, increased global cooperation and prosperity to hundreds of millions of people around the world. The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore for the 21st century. It has led bear the fundamental lack of social cohesion, fairness, inclusion, and equality. Now is the historical moment, the time, not only to fight severe virus but to shape the system for the need for the post-corona era. We have a choice to remain passive, which would lead to the amplification of many of the trends we see today. Polarization, nationalism, racism, and ultimately increased social unrest and conflicts. But we have another choice. We can build a new social contract, particularly integrating the next generation. We can change our behavior to be in harmony with nature again. And we can make sure that the technologies of the forced industrial revolution are best utilized to provide us with better lives. In short, we need a great reset. We have to mobilize all constituents of our global society to work together. We must not miss this unique window of opportunity. The idea of a great reset was welcomed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and by the head of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva. Will history say that was the great reversal? And we actually today see very worrisome signs. 170 countries are going to finish this year with a smaller economy than they started. And we already project that there will be more debt, more deficit, more unemployment, and there is a very high risk of more inequality and more poverty unless we act. And that takes me to what is it that would make it so that history would look at this crisis as the great opportunity for reset. What we see is inevitably a very massive injection of fiscal stimulus to help countries deal with this crisis and shift gear for growth to return. But it is paramount that this growth leads to a greener, smarter, and more fairer world in the future. And it is possible to do that, provided that we concentrate on the key elements of a recovery now. We don't wait for the days to come. For the fund, what we see are tremendous opportunities. Let me first talk about green growth in the future. We can put in place public investments and incentives for private investments into low carbon and climate resilient growth. Not only that, but many of these investments can lead to job rich recovery. Think of mangroves restoration, reforestation or building insulation and think of the key sectors for reducing climate intensity where both the public and private sector can invest. I am particularly keen to take advantage of the low oil prices today to eliminate harmful subsidies and to bring in place carbon price as an incentive for the investment for the future. So we now have to step up, use all the strengths we have. In the case of the IMF, $1 trillion lending capacity and tremendous engagement on the policy side to turn a page to have that history be about the great reset, not about the great reversal. And I want to say it loud and clear, the best memorial we can build for those who lost their lives to the pandemic is the greener, smarter, fairer world. Prince Charles has been a champion of environmental causes for half a century. He said the great reset was a chance to solve the climate crisis and restore the natural world. To seize this window of opportunity, I believe we need to do five things. First of all, to create momentum for the great reset. We need to capture the imagination and will of humanity. We will only change if we really want to change. Secondly, the global economic recovery must set us on a new trajectory of sustainable employment of livelihoods and economic growth. To achieve scale, we must not be afraid to reorientate our longstanding incentive structures, which have been having such perverse effects on our planetary environment and on nature herself, if we are to reap the benefits afforded by a more sustainable world. Thirdly, we must redesign systems and pathways to advance net zero transitions globally. And in this regard, carbon pricing can form a critical pathway to generally sustainable markets. This reset moment is our opportunity to accelerate and align our efforts to create truly global momentum. Countries, industries, and businesses moving together can create efficiencies and economies of scale that will allow us to leapfrog our collective progress and accelerate our transition. Fourthly, we must reinvigorate science, technology, and innovation. This crisis has shown the importance of investing in science, technology, innovation. We are on the verge of catalytic breakthroughs that will alter our view of what is possible and profitable within the framework of a sustainable future. And fifthly, we must rebalance investment. Accelerating sustainable investment could offer significant economic growth and employment opportunities, including in green energy, the regeneration of nature and landscapes, circular bioeconomy, ecotourism, and green public infrastructure. It is time, therefore, to align sustainable solutions with funding in a way that can transform the marketplace. This would be the most dramatic act of responsible leadership ever seen by the global private sector and would at once provide a catalytic incentive for the public sector to follow. We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis. And as we move from rescue to recovery, therefore, we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have a gain. So we must use all the levers we have at our disposal knowing that each and every one of us has a vital role to play. The Great Reset launch also hit from a few of the world's biggest companies. Here's Microsoft CEO Brad Smith on the role of digital technology during and after the pandemic. I think interestingly, the pandemic has clearly accelerated the adoption of digital technologies. As people are needed to work from home or study from home or as governments needed to operate from home, it was digital technology that they turned to to sustain the continuity of society around the world. And as people return to work, I think we can continue to expect digital technology and data fundamentally to be the infrastructure for this decade and for the Great Reset we're talking about here. I think the great opportunity we have is to put this technology to work in a way that is going to advance all the goals that everyone has been talking about today. I think that needs to start with what it will take to promote a more inclusive jobs and economic recovery. I think that means recognizing that broadband has become the electricity of the 21st century. We need to spread broadband technology more broadly. And then we need to couple that with new initiatives to equip more people with the digital skills they'll need, not just to have a tech job, but a job that is increasingly tech enabled in almost every part of the economy. And we need to do this in a way that remembers that there are more than a billion people on the planet that have some kind of disability temporary or permanent. And so we need to ensure that all of this works for them. I think as we do that, there are a couple of other things that are really a paramount importance. We need to sustain people's trust. And that means protecting their privacy. It means protecting their security. It means that ensuring that these new technologies, especially artificial intelligence, are deployed responsibly around the world. I think we have the opportunity to recognize that data and technology more broadly are indispensable tools to solving almost any of the problems that we confront. And so when it comes to protecting people's fundamental rights, as we're seeing in the United States today, we've been focused for several years on using data to shine a light on disparities, for example, between the practices of police on African-Americans and blacks in the United States in comparison to other populations. And that is, I just think a slice of what we'll need to address around the world. And then finally, I think it's right that every part of this conversation recognize that in all probability, the greatest challenge of this great decade, a great reset, the greatest opportunity this decade is around sustainability. That's why we as a company committed that will be carbon negative by the year 2030. But I think what we really have the opportunity to do is unite the private sector, use digital technology to better measure scope one, two, and three emissions created in the building of products and empower consumers around the world. So when they make a choice about which product to purchase, they can see what was emitted in terms of the amount of carbon to create that product in the same way that they can read the nutritional content on a label at the grocery store or a food product. If we can empower consumers with all of this, I think we unleash this next generation to have a much broader impact more quickly. And what about the energy transition, the need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels to avoid climate catastrophe? This is Bernard Looney, the CEO of BP. You know, we at BP, we welcome this great initiative. On February the 12th of this year, BP set out an ambition to become a net zero company by 2050 or sooner. And not just that, but actually to help the world get there. And I think a lot of people have asked if the pandemic has somehow slowed our energy in this area. And if anything, I think it's increased it and we're as if not more committed than ever to make that happen. You know, we all know there is a carbon budget. It is finite, it is running out. But I think a better way to explain it might be some refinery workers that I was speaking to in the United States just a few weeks ago. And they thanked me for the commitment to the energy transition. And I asked them why and one of them said, given the choice, I choose my grandchildren every time. And that was coming from someone who has worked in hydrocarbons for his career. So that is what this is about. And we have some thoughts on what we think should happen. Obviously it's against a backdrop where growth and employment is core and governments will be facing higher deficits, higher debts. So we need to think about how we can do this at low or no cost to the taxpayer and in some ways increase revenue. There are three policy points that we would just quickly touch on. The first is that any recovery stimulus should have green conditions attached to it. Kristalina mentioned this. I agree with her 100%. We're seeing some of that here in Europe and we absolutely encourage and actually advocate for that. Secondly, energy prices should reflect real costs. Israel has talked about carbon price. Kristalina talked about abolishing subsidies for fossil fuel production. We agree with all of that. And in fact, we advocate strongly for all of that. And then thirdly, supporting decarbonization in emerging economies. We want to make sure that in those countries people are not forced to choose between a clean energy and supporting jobs, as Sharon pointed out, supporting jobs and livelihoods. They shouldn't have to make that choice and building back better ought to be about closing the gaps that exist in inequality and social injustice rather than widening them. So just in closing, I would say we need our imagination here. We're seeing today, every day, the art of the possible. The possible is being redefined each and every day right now. So the next time someone tells us that tackling climate change is either too costly or too difficult, I think we need to remind them and remind ourselves of what just is happening right now. Bernard Looney talked of the need to reset jobs and livelihoods. Another participant have more to say on that. Sharon Burrow, who is head of the International Trade Union Confederation, represents around 200 million workers in 163 countries. COVID-19 has starkly exposed the existing fault lines in our world. We had already income inequality that was fueling income, race, gender inequality. It was about despair, it was about anger. It was resulting in a distrust even of our democracies, even of each other, I should say.  If we don't have full employment at the center of recovery and building resilience, then we will go back into the same spiral. We also need of course job creation to go along with that and investment in enabling green infrastructure, in industry policy to help us shift the transition, adjust transition on all these fronts and of course in care and in eco systems repair. And we can never again, we can never again allow our health, education, care systems to be underfunded. Adjaye Banga, CEO of Mastercard, said it was time for any company's resisting policies such as regular reporting of their environmental performance to stop being armchair critics. What Klaus was referring to, which is an effort at the WEF around the International Business Council to develop objective measures that can be put into the way all of us report out. I think that's an outstanding way of doing it because you create transparency and you create a level playing field in how people speak about the importance of these. And by the way, you ensure that investors begin to pay attention to it as well. So I think this is a, it's a brilliant idea and I'm all very supportive of it. I would say one thing about cynicism, Adrien. The time for cynicism is a little behind us and the idea of looking ahead really requires us to put cynicism away and start thinking about constructive participation. So you're welcome to have a point of view and you're welcome to have a discourse but being an armchair critic is really not acceptable. And it's time to come to the table and make a difference. I think that's the point that we all need to emphasize for each other. There were several other fascinating speakers at the Great Reset launch to find more of our coverage, visit weforum.org. And in the coming weeks, we'll be covering the Great Reset Dialogues, events that will bring more stakeholders from around the world together to seek a better world post COVID-19 and in the run-up to Davos next January. As well as the website, you can find us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube and on Twitter using the handle at WEF. Thanks to Gareth Nolan as ever for help with the podcast. Please subscribe to receive it every week. Just search World vs. Virus on Apple, SoundCloud, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's give the final word to Klaus Schwab who chose to end the launch with a reflection on racial tensions in the world and how the aims of the Great Reset could also help long overdue progress on civil rights. When I stood 21 years ago together with Vanessa Mandela in Davos on the stage, when he said, we should lay the scorch of racism, of divisiveness to rest. This requires strong democratic institution and the will of everybody and the culture of compassion. None of this is possible without a strong economy and a cohesive society.


Mother, is Maxwell House really the only coffee in the world? Well, your father says so, and your father knows best. Since father knows best, transcribed in Hollywood starring Robert Young as father.  The coffee that's bought and enjoyed by more people than any other brand of coffee at any price. Maxwell House, always good to the last drop.  John Greenleaf Whittier wrote, for example, What moistened the lip and what brightens the eye? What calls back the past like the rich pumpkin pie? Well, in Springfield, in the white frame house on Maple Street, the Andersons have a very definite answer for him. And it has nothing to do with pumpkin pie. Like this. Frankly, Margaret, I think the whole idea is ridiculous. But, Jim, after all, I had to be pleasant, and he's only going to be in town for a few days. He sounded cute on the telephone. Kathy, be quiet and drink your milk. Gee whiz. He hasn't been in Springfield for almost 20 years.  He isn't getting anything upset, dear. I merely ask him to have dinner with us tonight. Why didn't you ask him to spend the weekend? We could have Bud sleep in the chandelier. Jim, there's nothing wrong in asking him to dinner, is there? Why can't he eat in a restaurant? There's nothing wrong with eating in a restaurant once in a while. Why, Jim? When I have business in another town, you don't see me going around mooching dinners. And I had as many old girlfriends as he ever did. Oh, that's what it is.   Betty, in just about two seconds, the brown-eyed father is going to rear his ugly hand.  Yes, Father.  Yes, Father. Jim, I really think you are jealous. Jealous? Me? I haven't got a jealous bone in my head. But I don't see any reason for inviting him to dinner. Oh, Dan.  Jim, that's not so. He was a very nice boy. Who was, Mom? Well, if he was so nice, why didn't you marry him? Oh, Dad. Because I loved you and I didn't love him, that's why. But he was still a very nice boy. Who was, Mom? He was a big hunk of muscle, that's what he was.  Jim, you're not being fair. Charlie was just as intelligent as any boy in your class. Charlie who, Mom? Just because he had a raccoon coat and a couple of silly letters on his sweater. So help me, Margaret. I can't understand what you were thinking of when you invited him to dinner. Who, Dan?  Oh, holy cow. Can I even know who you're talking about? No. Holy cow. Eat your breakfast and be quiet. I know who they're talking about. Kathy, behave yourself or go up to bed. I just got up. Well, behave yourself. Yes, Daddy. And sit still. Yes, Daddy. Man tries to have a peaceful breakfast with his family and what happens? Nothing but noise and excitement and confusion. Jim, you're making a fuss over absolutely nothing. I'm not making a fuss. And it isn't absolutely nothing. How would you like it if I dragged all my old girlfriends in for a dinner? But, Jim, Charlie Warren is a happily married man. Charlie Warren? You mean the Charlie Warren who played football for Springfield? Yes, dear. Big T. The man runs around with a silly hunk of leather under his arm. But Charlie Warren, Dad, holy cow. Who's Charlie Warren? Who's Charlie Warren? You might just as well say, who's Red Grained? All right, who's Red Grained? Betty, it only happens that Charlie Warren is the greatest athlete in the history of Springfield. That's all. The way you said it, I thought he was somebody important. Would you care for some more toast, Betty? No, thank you, Father. Boy, just wait till I tell the fellas. Charlie Warren in my house. But if you'll take up a collection, maybe we can build a shrine. Jim. Make this place a national monument. Charlie Warren ate here. Jim, I certainly hope you're going to be civil to the man. Oh, I'll be civil all right. I'll be so civil he won't know I'm around. Well, I don't think that's necessary. Matter of fact, I won't even be around. I'll be in the den working on my income tax return with Hector. And I hope you and Charlie have a lovely time. Jim Anderson, you can't work on your income tax tonight. You just can't. Would you like to make a small wager? But Jim, Charlie Warren is our guest. He's your guest, my pet. If you want to clutter up the house with your old boyfriends, go right ahead. I'm still going to work on my income tax. Jim, won't you please be sensible? I've already invited Charlie. I can't break the date now. Well, Hector's going out of town in the morning and this is the last chance he has to help me with my tax return. And for your information, Charlie Warren runs a very poor second to my income tax. Now, if you'd be so good as to pour me a cup of coffee. Jim, if you really loved me... Oh, that's fine. That's just wonderful. Twist the whole thing around so it's my fault. I didn't say it was your fault, dear. All I said was... May I please have my coffee? Of course, dear. Thank you. Jim, don't you think just this once... Margaret, this is your house.  But it's your home. And if you want boyfriends running in and out of the hallways... Jim, you're being very unkind. Charlie Warren was your friend, too. My friend? Will you certainly spend enough time with him? I had to. If I wanted to see you, I'd have to see him, too, didn't I? I saw enough of him to last me a lifetime.  Now you're being childish. Charlie was just as much your friend as he was mine. Oh, he was, was he? I suppose he asked me to marry him. Well, no, but... Mom, you mean Charlie Warren asked you to marry him? Yes, but he did.  Holy cow, Mom. If you could have married Charlie Warren... Oh. We're about to say something? James Anderson Junior? Uh, well, I, uh... Uh... Boy, it's sure hot in here, isn't it? What's so wonderful about being a football player doesn't take any brains to be a football player. Kick a ball, jump on somebody's neck. Don't even know which way they're running half the time. Hmm. Hi, Jim. What you doing? Counting your money? Oh, hello, Hex. Sit down. I've already had lunch. Well, sit down anyway. What's the matter? Is something wrong? Uh, maybe we'd better not work on your tax return tonight. That isn't going to make you feel any better, you know. Hex, do you remember Charlie Warren? Charlie Wa... Oh, you mean Big Charlie, the flapper's favorite? Flapper's favorite. Oh, gosh, I haven't seen him in almost 20 years. Why, what about him? He's in town. He is? Well, what do you know? What's he doing here? Eating at my house. Yeah, that's right. He was a friend of yours, wasn't he? He was not. Well, when you and Margaret were... Oh, yeah, I forgot. Big football phony comes into town, gets everybody all excited. Giving you bad time around the house. Oh, you ought to hurt him. But can't even figure out why his mother married me. That makes it nice. Yeah, just fine. Well, I guess we'd better forget about that income tax session tonight, huh? I guess so. Probably have to sit around all night hearing him yap about football. Makes me sick to think of it. You know, Jim, I'd just been figuring if we don't make it tonight. I'm stuck. We can do it over the weekend, can't we? I won't be back until Tuesday, and that's the 14th. I'll be up to my ears. Maybe you better get somebody else. Unless... Unless what? Well, I was just thinking. You know, we could fix this guy, Charlie, but good. Oh? How do you mean? Well, I come over tonight and we give it a big buildup. You know, I'm your tax counselor. Take care of all your major investments. Stuff like that. Big business. I don't know. Why not? We don't have to prove anything. It won't be as though you're doing the bragging. You're very modest about it. You even try to stop me a couple of times. I do, huh? Oh, sure. You're very embarrassed. You don't like the whole idea, but do I stop? I do not. I keep right on going. I lay it on thick. Even though I try to stop you? Sure.  Well, we fix him. Anything he's got, you've got twice as many. Anything he's done, you've done twice as much. When I get through, I guarantee you'll sound like a combination of John D. Rockefeller and Fort Knox. You couldn't run in little Ben Hogan or Sammy Snead, could you? Jim, you're the greatest golfer since Bobby Jones. Yeah, a guy comes around, tries to bust up a happy home. Serve him right, wouldn't it? Certainly would. Well, no heck, it wouldn't be right. Okay, if you'd rather sit around and listen to him brag. Well, maybe if I... you think he will, huh? Jim, you don't know what they're like. When Charlie Warren gets through talking, you'll be lucky if you don't wind up living in the garage. I know, I've been through it.  Sure. With me, it was a polo player. Pretty rough, huh? I had to buy Elizabeth a fur coat before she'd even let me in the house. I don't know. A man tries to live an honest, decent life, and what happens? Just because he wasn't a football player, he doesn't amount to anything. Everybody's ashamed of him. How's about it, Jim? Do we give him the business? Well, all right, let's do it. Okay. We'll teach him a lesson, won't we? You said it. Stick his nose in where it doesn't belong. Say, heck, I don't know if Charlie was in the service, but, well, if you'd like to put in a little General MacArthur... Okay, General. Anchors away. Well, Father's planning to get a lot of pleasure out of showing up Charlie Warren. Maybe he will, and maybe he won't. You just can't tell about some things. Other things, though, you can count on for a world of pleasure every time. Coffee is one of them. Truly good coffee, I mean, like Maxwell House, with all that wonderful good to the last drop flavor. Morning, noon, and night, that famous flavor means so much more real enjoyment it really pays to remember Maxwell House is true economy. Yes, it pays to remember that in these days of higher prices, and a neighbor of ours could tell you why. The other day she bought a cheaper coffee, thought it would be more economical, but the first time she served it, it tasted weak somehow, so she started adding more and more to the pot. But the flavor she expected just wasn't there, and cup after cup was left unfinished. That opened my eyes to something she said, Maxwell House is true economy. Sure it is, because every pound gives you so many more truly good cups of coffee. Just see how much more you enjoy that wonderful good to the last drop flavor, the clear, rich taste, the roaster fresh goodness vacuum packed in that familiar blue tin. You'll know Maxwell House is true economy. Yes, for your money's worth and more, get Maxwell House coffee. Always good to the last drop. It's dinner time in the White Frame House on Maple Street. The roast beef was wonderful. The cake was delicious. The coffee a sensation. And strangely enough, the conversation isn't quite as belligerent as we thought it might be, like this. How about another cup of coffee, Charlie? Well, thank you, Jim. That'll be fine. There you are. Thank you, Margaret. Oh, holy cow, Mr. Warren. There certainly must be one football game you remember. Well, that was a long time ago. But if Mr. Warren doesn't want to talk about football, why don't you stop bothering him? But holy cow, Dad. Isn't it that I don't want to talk about it, but it's just that, well, I haven't seen your mother and father in over 20 years. We've got a lot of other things to talk about, much more interesting things. Holy cow. But just can't get it into his head that there is anything more interesting than football. I can't either. Well, that's a fairly common thing when you're young. I used to feel the same way myself. Remember, Jim? Yes, I certainly do. My whole life was wrapped up in football. I ate drank and slept football. Silly as character in Springfield. Mr. Warren, you weren't. But will you please stop arguing if Mr. Warren says...  Holy cow. You'll notice, Charlie, that Bud doesn't have anything to do with plain ordinary cows. Just the holy ones. Yes, I've noticed. Oh, it's too bad Mrs. Warren couldn't make the trip with you, Charlie. Well, maybe the next time. Say, Jim, do you remember the night the old high school burned down? Oh, do I? I celebrated for three weeks. Jim? Well, what I mean is... Charlie, remember how the principal... What was his name? Baker, wasn't it? No, it was something like that, though. Baker, Baylor. That was it. Old man Baylor. Yeah. Remember how he came flying down the street in his night shirt? And all you could see were those long, skinny legs. Yeah. You mean that's better than football? Bud, please be quiet. And don't say holy cow. Well, what can I say? Nothing. Gee whiz. We'll talk about football the next time, Bud. How'll that be? Okay. I don't know what gets into that. Boy, I swear I don't. Well, he's just a boy, Jim. Of course, I don't have any children, sir. Don't you even have a little girl? No, Kathy, not even a little girl. Not even one? Not even one. Gee, that's awful. Kathy. Well, she's right, Jim. It is awful. I'd give anything for a family. Well, Charlie, make me a reasonable offer and you can have mine. Father. It's all right, Betty. I know what he means. And I know what you mean to him. Yes, sir. Wonderful wife. Wonderful home, three wonderful children.  Well, you won't get any argument out of me on that. I didn't think I would. But we sure used to have some pips, didn't we, Margaret? Long into the night, hour after hour. And if you want to know the real honest-to-goodness truth, Charlie, I married Jim just to stop the two of you from talking. Mommy, you dip. Kathy, be quiet. That was a joke. It was? Yes, those were the good old days, weren't they, Jim? Yes, sir, they certainly were. I sure wish we could have them back. I know one guy who would do things a lot differently. Oh, I don't know, Charlie. You led a pretty exciting life in school. Sure, big Charlie war in the campus idol. I didn't even know what time it was. You didn't? Gee, I'm only nine and I do. Kathy. Kathy, will you please be quiet? I didn't say anything. What I meant, Kathy, was that I had some pretty strange ideas about what was important and what wasn't. I just couldn't think of anything but football. Well, gosh, what's wrong with that? Don't you like football? Oh, it's all right, bud, but not if you build your whole life around it. It might have been a lot better off if I'd taken your dad's advice. You would? Well, Mr. Warren doesn't mean that. Oh, it's true, Jim. Well, you're one of the most successful young executives in Springfield. That means more than a bunch of newspaper clippings and a couple of gold footballs. Jim, your mouth's open. Hmm? Oh, well, I, uh, how long are you going to be in Springfield, Charlie? Just a few days, Jim. Well, you know, it's sort of silly. You staying downtown at the hotel. Why don't you move your things out here? You can take Bud's room. Why, Jim? Oh, I don't think so, Jim. Where would Bud sleep in the chandelier? Oh, well, we'd, uh, we'd find a place for him. I'll answer it, Dad. Good grief, I forgot all about Hector Smith. Excuse me, Mr. Warren. Sure, go right ahead, bud. Charlie, you remember Hector Smith, don't you? Hector Smith. You mean the mathematical genius? That's the one. Well, sure I remember him. Good ol' Hector. Well, he's supposed to help me with my income tax tonight, but... Well, go right ahead, Jim. After all, I run a pretty poor second toward income tax. Well, well, well, Charlie Warren, you old son of a gun. Hector Smith, well, for gosh's sake. Well, how are you? Charlie, have it changed a bit. Oh, go on, I put on over 40 pounds. 40? Oh, you're kidding. Good evening, Hector. Oh, hello, Margaret. Hi, girl. Hello, Mr. Smith. Hi. We were just having a coffee. Heck, how about a cup for you? Well, you talk me into it. Hector, about that thing we were talking about... Oh, sure, sure. What do you think of Jim, Charlie? He's done all right, huh? Hector, I was just telling him, Hector, he's made a wonderful place for himself in the world.  Well, you don't know the half of it. Hector... Now, isn't that just like a modest as the day is long? Can't stand to have people talk about his success. Hector, will you forget about the whole thing, please? Well, you don't have to tell me about it, Hector. I'm as proud of him as you are. Then you ought to know the whole story. You've got no idea how successful he really is. Hector, please. Look at him, he's blushing. And I don't blame him. A man who makes the kind of money he does. Hector, Charlie doesn't care anything about that. Well, sure he does, don't you, Charlie? Why, of course. You know, if Jim didn't have me to fix up his income tax return, why, he'd be paying for the last war all by himself. Would you really? Oh, Hector's exaggerating a little, Charlie. You know the way he is. Oh, now wait just a minute, Jim.  Nothing exactly. Crooked, you know, to shave a little here, shave a little there. Throw in a haircut every once in a while. Hector, please. Charlie, you may not believe this, but the money Jim makes on the golf course alone would take care of both of our salaries. Oh, no. Well, long as he declares it on his income tax return. That's what I mean. He'd like to, but why should he? Who knows about the $10,000 or $20,000 he picks up? Why, Jim? Margaret, don't listen to him. You know the way I play golf. Yeah, yeah, you ought to see him, Charlie. It's a joke. You know, if he wanted to, he could beat Sammy Hogan every day of the week. You mean Sammy Snead? Yeah, yeah, that's what I said, yeah. He's too smart for that. He keeps just far enough ahead, sort of leads them on, and then when they're ripe for a big bet, wham, he hits them with the works. For $20,000, huh? Oh, that's nothing.  Will you please stop it? You see that car he's got outside? Just keeps it for sentimental reasons.  Daddy! You know that $35,000 job they had in the magazines with the leopard skin upholstery? Father! And he's gonna give that old heap to Bud. Holy cow. You know, just to run around in. Hector, will you please drink your coffee? Oh, hey, that's right. I forgot all about my coffee. Charlie, you know the way Hector is. Once he gets started with figures... Say, Charlie, did Jim tell you about the letter he got from General MacArthur? Hector! Daddy! Did you get a letter from General MacArthur? No, Kathy, I didn't. I don't even know General MacArthur. How do you like that? MacArthur leans on him through the entire war. Counts on him. MacArthur depends on him, tells everybody that Jim Anderson won the war for us in the Pacific. And listen to him. Hector, I wasn't even in the Pacific. I was in Europe. You see, won the war in Europe, too! I don't even admit it. Charlie... Oh, it's all right, Jim, I understand. He's proud of the fact that you fought overseas. I wish I could have been with you.  No, I came up with an athletic heart. I'm awfully sorry, Charlie. We didn't know. Oh, wait a minute, Jim. There's nothing seriously wrong with me. That's active combat, that's all. I wound up pounding a desk in Washington. Oh, there's nothing wrong with that. Matter of fact, it worked out fine for me. That's where I met my wife. That's how I got my job. Say, Charlie, what are you doing these days? Well, I thought you knew, Hector. I'm with the government. Income tax division. That ought to convince Hector and Father of one thing. It always pays to do some investigating before you act. Sure, it pays to know all the facts. And here's another case in point. There's so much more pure pleasure in truly good coffee. It's important to remember this fact. Maxwell House is true economy. Yes, Maxwell House is true economy. Now, you can find cheaper coffees in the store, but will you find economy in them? Not when you add more and more coffee to the pot, yet still can't get the flavor you want.  No, you can't call that economy. But Maxwell House is true economy. So many more truly good cups of coffee in every pound. Such extra richness and flavor. So good to the last drop, you drink every drop. Yes, there's real reason why more people drink Maxwell House than any other brand at any price. Maxwell House is true economy. Tomorrow, get your money's worth and more with Maxwell House coffee. Always good to the last drop. Now it's breakfast time again in the White Frame House on Maple Street. It's a pleasant day, not too warm and not too cool. A very pleasant day indeed. For everyone but father, thusly. But you said the government gave you $600 on account of me, so why can't you raise my allowance? Kathy, I didn't say they gave me $600. They allow me to deduct it from my income tax. $600. And all I get is 35 cents a week. What are you kicking about? One minute I've got a car and the next minute I haven't. After I already told Joe Phillips. Well, you had no right to tell him, dear. You knew that Mr. Smith was only joking. Some joke. Ha, ha, ha. Mother, isn't Mr. Warren the sweetest man? Yes, dear, he's very nice. I'll tell you one thing. He's certainly changed. Well, somebody has, but... Never mind. I'm almost through with my breakfast. All right, Kathy.  Hello? Oh, hello, heck. No, I was just finishing my breakfast. This afternoon? All right, let's say about three o'clock. Okay. Say, wait a minute, heck. I thought you were going out of town. Oh, I see. All right, heck. Three o'clock. See you later. Is there anything wrong, dear? No, it was just Hector. Oh, I thought he was going out of town. He was, but... Well, he's decided he'd better spend the next few days revising his own income tax. If you like good things the easy way Good things the easy way No time, no trouble No grounds, no fun And it's good to the very last You know what? Yes, instant Maxwell House means great coffee instantly in your cup. Here's real instant coffee. All pure Maxwell House coffee in instant form. Enjoy instant Maxwell House, instantly. Good to the very last You know what? Join us again next week when we'll be back with Father Knows Best starring Robert Young as Jim Anderson with Roy Bargy in the Maxwell House Orchestra and yours truly, Bill Foreman. Don't forget membership cards for the Robert Young Good Drivers Club are waiting for you at your local NBC station. Get a man-to-man or dad-to-daughter pledge and sign up today. Be a good driver. Get your membership card in the Robert Young Good Drivers Club today. Now until next Thursday, good night and good luck from the makers of Maxwell House, America's favorite brand of coffee. Always good to the last drop. Father Knows Best was transcribed in Hollywood and written by Ed James. Now stay tuned in for ScreenGill Theater, which follows immediately over most of these stations. It's ScreenGill Theater with the Foreign Affair next on NBC.


I'm sorry not to be there with you and Helsinki, I'm glad to be part of the panel looking forward to the conversation. I'm going to be presenting some work that draws on my 2020 book, How Insurgency Begins, as well as a newer working paper that builds on it with co-author Stephen Rengases. And the research question that I want to focus on today, it's a secondary question to the book in the central one for the paper is why and how do rebel groups, non-state armed anti-state actors use violence during the initial stages of their group formation before they become a substantial threat to the state they seek to challenge. And before I provide an answer, it's worth pausing to ask why I think we don't already know this. I already have an expansive large literature on conflict onset, but in fact, focus is very little on conflict start, especially in the highly weak state context that are the center of the book and the paper that I'm presenting here. And what I mean is that most studies, at least in the social sciences, examine the correlates of conflict onset usually defined as a threshold of violence, usually 25 recorded battle-related deaths. And most leading theories of conflict onset take for granted the existence of an already formed organization. Something that looks like this, distance army, Uganda, one of the cases I studied for the book. And so they're insurgents, they don't have fancy uniforms or heavy conventional military equipment, but they're a sizable organized group. But of course there's an earlier phase, a period when people initially begin to come together to begin conspiring and committing violence against the state. Period when rebellion may look something more like this, a small group who are clandestine, still building an organization, and while they may be starting to commit violent acts, haven't gained substantial coercive capacity or organizational capacity, right? And so using fieldwork throughout several reasons of Uganda for the book, I retrace groups in this earlier phase and contrast it to after they become violent groups and ask why. Why only some make it to viability? Why don't scholars usually study these initial phases? And the answer is pretty simple. It's really hard to do so systematically due to lack of evidence, right? Nation rebels are often clandestine, often informed in very remote areas of low capacity states where journalists are only minimally present if at all. And so the early phases leave just kind of a faint imprint on news media or even the historical record sometimes. And so I'm going to argue today, even beyond this, that the rebel groups also often in the initial phases commit violence in a way that makes them difficult to distinguish from criminal groups, okay, which exacerbates these problems of making it hard to detect them and count them early on. Okay, and the consequences of this is that we have sort of an omission of small conflicts in our body of knowledge, I think, and of systematic evidence about the very initial phases even of those go on to become large conflicts. And so my evidence for this is I collected, but if that was all conflict onset articles since 2013, major conflicts in political science journals and found that 78% of them rely on one of four data sets. So the data sets have obviously been an incredible public good for those to study conflict, but they happen to they intentionally omit rebels that fail early, those that don't cross thresholds of at least 25 battle related deaths, right? So it's an intentional but this leads, I argue, and I'm going to present some evidence today that supports this that it leads to really substantial omissions. And you may reasonably wonder like, well, who cares if we miss out on small conflicts, right? Of course, it's a large scare violence that we should be most focused on stopping. But, but of course, there are, you know, small conflicts can cause really grave humanitarian issues for the people who are affected by them. But it also means from sort of inference standpoint, it's very easy to because of issues of the selection of problems and the data confuse the causes and processes about the start of conflict with those of its escalation. And sort of more simply means that we might just sort of mischaracterize what's going on at the start of armed conflict, right? And why they erupt. And I'm going to argue actually today that this common characterization of conflict erupting doesn't really capture what's going on at the start of conflict for a large portion of armed conflicts that they often simmer first at a very low level. Okay, so this is, this is important to understand, you know, to get a clear picture of how conflicts began, both for theoretical micro foundations and for thinking about how one could intervene effectively before conflict does escalate. Okay, so what I'm trying to do here today, and in this broader project is to bring into focus these early stages of rebellion that have largely remained obscure. So why and how do nascent rebels use violence? A core part of my argument, and recall, this project is focused on very low capacity states. Those are the minimal presence to detect emergent threats in their peripheral territories. Okay, so that's a key scope argument of what I'm going to argue here. And I argue that in those contexts, barriers to entry for rebels are low, right? Where states have trouble detecting emergent threats, rebels can and do start poor, right, without substantial material resources or substantial weaponry, weak from military standpoint, and therefore vulnerable to fee. Not all will, right, but the modal group is the most common for this to happen where barriers to entry are low, which they should be in low capacity states. And therefore, right, if states, even if they're weak states, but if they receive accurate information about who the rebels are and where they are, even low capacity states should be able to end a poor, weak rebellion. Right, and this makes nascent rebels in these contexts really reliant on civilian silence, right, if civilians inform the state, if they know that there's a rebellion forming, they know who and where they are, right, then that can lead to the demise of the rebels in a very early stage, right. But this means that committing violence is really dangerous for rebels. It's a very public act, right, it's a very conspicuous act, right. So why do it, right? Why not just lay low until you're ready to go with a strong army and you're no longer so vulnerable, right. I argue that while it's dangerous and also be useful, right. If nascent rebels use violence carefully, right, if they're sure to attack targets that they think they can sort of successfully attack, right, then they might gain arms, right, even just attacking at night a couple police officers and gaining their weapons can be really useful for these nascent rebel groups, right. They're poor, they need weapons. At the same time, they want to test and shape their operational environment, right. Early attacks can help them understand how quickly the state may be able to identify them, right. Back in the, in the early phases, they may still be able to just give up and melt back into the population. They may also be able to shape the operational environment with sort of careful, select targeted killings of those who they think may be likely to attack them and turn them into the state. And this may importantly shape civilian beliefs about them, right. If they commit violence in a way and then, you know, sort of quietly whisper through the community that, you know, about how competent they are and how serious they are, right. They may demonstrate to civilians who are wondering, maybe perhaps seeing them or wondering about turning them into the state may convince them to, it's not a good idea to share information with the state, right. But this, I argue, you know, the culmination of key empirical explanations is that we should expect rebels to commit small scale attacks, right. They are weak, weak groups and therefore if they're going to be successful and gain arms, right, and commit targeted killings, right, these are going to be small attacks in small number of people, right, carefully planned. So probably in frequent or sporadic, and we shouldn't expect like very large public declarations of credit claiming, right. Not the kind of thing that would show up in the newspaper, right. There could again be whispers to trusted people who they think won't let them out, right. But we wouldn't expect public proclamations of this was us in these early phases, right. And by the way, I should say, actually, by the way, meanwhile, governments, right, don't usually have an incentive to declare this, there's a there's a rebellion here at least early on when they're still figuring out what's going on, right, and they're trying to convince civilians that anything going on should be shared with the state. Governments tend to have incentives to discredit new armed groups, right, and we see pretty frequently in qualitative accounts of early uncertainty of governments calling them bandits, mere bandits. And then this is going to change after groups become viable and talk about this more in the Q&A, but like groups with political aims are going to need to invest in military training and larger scale attacks if they're going to extract political concessions to the government, right. So that's here's where they're going to diverge from what we would expect from most criminal, not all criminal groups, right, that would have not have as political aims tend to have more economic aims. Okay, so we'd expect violence is grow and scale and frequency after groups become viable, right, and diverge from criminal groups. And I use two forms of evidence in the in the paper, I should say this this builds on some some case evidence, right, they trace out some of those ideas through case studies in Uganda using fieldwork in the book. But for the paper I introduced a newer data set on rebel group formation in Africa and the aim of the data set I worked with undergrad research assistants to try to as close as possible code all instances of rebel group formation in Africa from 1997 to 2015. I can talk about this more in the Q&A, I mean we're we're certain we fell short in capturing all groups because in several cases, we sort of saw traces we were using a mix of Akled and GTD to first look at conflict events and try to figure out if we're identifying a group formation, other secondary sources, human rights organization sources and geos, right, but this is all work you know using the internet and libraries from the US. There was no fieldwork as part of this and we you know saw traces of maybe there was a rebel group here but we just couldn't pin it down which which demonstrates the importance of local local sources more than the conclusion. We were able to capture 151 rebel groups in these countries this is a map of the number of groups we captured in each country we we we coded in each country during this period and only 33% of those groups that we counted or in these are commonly used conflict event data sets you should do pre-o the Uppsala pre-o armed conflict data set or the global terrorism data set and right so this is evidence that the existing data sets are on armed groups are really missing quite a lot at least in in Africa of armed group formations right and it's worth noting just with basic regression analysis is it not surprisingly right groups that committed larger scale violence right at least an an attack a single attack that resulted in at least 25 battle related deaths that sort of high conspicuous types of violence is highly correlated with inclusion in those data sets right so this is just more evidence that it's sort of the lower level groups that don't make it into the data sets right and then among these groups quite interesting for interruption but may I ask you to wrap up more thank you and yeah great I'm almost there so only 18% of those 151 groups committed one of these substantial attacks in their first year right and and about a third only committed one of these substantial attacks in their first three years right so again we see that many groups initiative 40% of them went on to endure so many sort of flame out quickly but many go on and endure for quite some time but still in their initial for a few years are only committing smaller scale violence okay so limitations with the data preclude a lot of fancy analyses with them so we turned to historical cases where there's actually really good evidence from rebellions that are known for how large scale and political and ideological they were we actually went back and retraced them just as in Napoleonic Spain the 19th century and Mao's CCP and Republican China vietnam in in French into China and we retraced them you know with a variety of historical sources and you know it helps to support the theoretical and contentions that it was really difficult to distinguish these groups in their early phases from criminals right again even these groups have went on to become sort of iconic examples of political ideological large-scale rebellions so I hope I've contributed here is some new theory and evidence on early rebel violence that shows that rebel group formation is more common than we usually assume or count in our data sets and this is just due to to really um severe measurement challenges that point to the importance of things like Aklad's uh conflict observatories that make use not only of news media but the local sources um and implications for conflict prevention in the state suggest is that you know early rebel violence is often small scale and ambiguous in nature right and may even appear criminal so we should we should be you know tracking criminal violence and really scrutinizing it with local sources if we're interested in understanding the early stages of armed conflict onset thanks a lot for your time