I'd like to welcome and thank all of you for coming to what is really a trial balloon of sorts It's a it's a new concept that we're trying at the Institute It's really going to hopefully morph into a half-day seminar that we can offer out on the road in America And very much appreciate your being here as we try this and welcome and good morning to our online audience In many ways those of you here in this room and many of you online are not the target audience ultimately for this boot camp concept Because you already come to the Mises Institute with a lot of knowledge and understanding of Austrian economics a lot of background But I think even for someone who's fairly well-versed Boot camp might help you identify some of your blind spots a lot of us have read Different authors. We've read some Hayek. We've read some Mises. We've read some off bar But we don't necessarily know how everything fits together So the concept behind boot camp was very simple and it's something that some of our donors have been pressing us for for years He said, you know, let's create a course where we take the entire universe of economics as huge as that may be and Sort of distill it into about six silos and if you take those six silos, they're necessarily superficial Because the time constraints, but they're very broad And so you can really take almost everything about economics and compress it into a course and give someone a Really basic understanding and what we would hope to do would be able to just take an intelligent layperson off the street a Person who's perhaps never had economics in high school or college Who's not inclined to spend their free time reading a 900 page human action Who's not going to as let's say as an adult go sign up for a community college class that meets every Thursday night at 7 o'clock And that's kind of difficult You know the concept is just say hey give us a half a day of your life And if you just do that We certainly hope to spur a further and greater interest in studying Economics beyond that, but if you just do that a half day with us You will know more about economics than 95 percent of Your fellow laypersons and if we can do that, you know, we can help intelligent people Have a framework to analyze the economic issues of the day the Political promises we're all going to be inundated with for the next 16 months. So that's the concept behind boot camp We hope you enjoy it and we hope to roll it out in some cities going forward and The syllabus alone I think could benefit The average person if you just read the syllabus You would have you would begin to have an understanding of at least from an Austrian perspective how we see this vast University call economics and really a lot of the yeoman's work behind this was the the mind and the experience and knowledge of David Gordon who was able to take a lot of Broad and tough concepts and distill them down for so we're gonna have six different teachers today and we're starting with Bob Murphy So thanks so much for coming in a round of applause for Bob Thank you Jeff. Thank you everyone for coming here. We recognize that the average person doesn't think when he wakes up on a Saturday morning What should I do? I know I'll go listen to economics lectures for a while. So we appreciate that Also, I just want to underscore what Jeff is saying We we are all big fans of the Austrian School of Economics and of Ludwig van Mises in particular And we do agree with what Jeff said there that if you take this this boot camp You will know more than more economics than 95% of your neighbors and about 93% of professional economists, so So part of what we're doing here is we want to explain to why do we like the Austrian so much? So I want to just give you some Guidance here make sure as these lectures go on that you're following along with your your packet We're gonna try to follow that syllabus pretty closely And so you'll see an outline of where the lectures are headed and then we're gonna aim to do like a 30 minute or so chunk Of lecture and then leave time at the end for Q&A because we know that if you have questions That's probably sometimes where the most learning occurs So let me just first sort of give a big picture in terms of this this odd term action and praxeology and then and why does Mises title his famous treat as human action? Let me try to give you a little background about that so what the there was a revolution in Economics in it formally occurred during the 1870s of course have been germinating earlier than that It was the founder of the Austrian school Carl Manger who was as widely recognized among all economists as one of the three pioneers It was called the the marginal revolution where the old classical approach people like Adam Smith and David Ricardo the way they would explain market prices They would look at the cost of production and then this new so-called marginal revolution Instead explained prices in terms of the consumer and the subjective valuation So I think in the next few lectures you're gonna get more of that I don't want to take too much time there But what I want to explain is Mises says in human action that once that revolution occurred The economics per se was no longer a self-contained discipline. It wasn't that all the things we want to talk about in economics Could just be contained there that the new methods and tools that were unleashed or You know unraveled if you will during the so-called subjective revolution that really occurred in the 1870s That once that happened it was no longer just applying those tools to narrowly economic things like the price of wheat or wage rates Or the business cycle that Mises said this open up a whole new field of the study of action per se Okay, so again, that's one of the reasons that Mises book his famous book is called human action not you know Principles of economics or something like that that you might have otherwise expected because he was realizing Economics is just a subset of this broader field of Praxeology is the term Mises used so where that term comes from what that means Praxeology, it's a sort of intimidating term It just means like this the study of action or the logic of action per se All right, so it's it's economics is just a subset a part of the broader Praxeology if you want to get an idea to remind yourself of where does that term come from I was just curious to see what it would say I went and just googled You know Greek word praxis definition to see and it's it'll pop up and it'll say its practice is Distinguished from theory. Okay, so that word praxis, you know when the roots there one of the possible English Translations of what that means is practice is distinguished from theory, right? So in conventional everyday usage people often say, oh, yeah, that's true in theory, but what about in practice? All right, so I really like That because it underscores what the Austrians in the tradition of Louis van Mises are doing Just so let me just be clear about this We are not building hypothetical models where things happen and then we hope that that sheds some light on the real world what? Starting with Carl Manger and continuing with you know his his followers in the tradition of the what we call the Austrian school What they're trying to do is explain how do people in the real world act? And so in particular if we want to know where do market prices come from what causes the business cycle? Where why is there a long-term institutional unemployment all of these things about the real world? We want to know really what's happening, okay? Whereas in other schools of thought they build Hypothetical little models and to make a bunch of assumptions and they draw conclusions and study that little Simulated reality and then they hope maybe that's close enough for that will shed some insight into the real world But that's not what the Austrians do so I'm going to be clear about that another Distinguishing feature another way to clarify what it is that the Austrians are doing is That we are not studying you might have heard the term Homo-economicists or economic man and that was something that was Developed again in the classical period and then even to this day many economists and other schools Use this framework where they're saying well, let's assume people are really selfish So let's assume people really just care about money and study that aspect of their Behavior and that's what economics does But then there's all kinds of other stuff like philanthropy and things over here Like a mother caring for her child and that's outside the scope of that is not at all what the Austrians do Mises is saying we are in praxeology. We study action per se and then yes If somebody happens to be very selfish and cares about money then that falls under the umbrella of what we're studying But Mother Teresa also falls under the umbrella of what we're studying So what do I mean when I keep using this term action? It means purposeful behavior All right, so it means people who are Choosing action or who are behaving in a certain way in order to achieve a goal that the people have okay and that's really what action means so it's distinguished from reflexive behavior and Don't be intimidated by this. This is very straightforward So we do it all the time in everyday life and you do it so automatically you don't even realize it But just let me just give you an example to make sure you see the distinction If if I take a rock and throw it up in the air and it goes up and then comes down and someone says hey Explain the observations that you just you know witnessed what just happened there. What is that reality? Nowadays if people said oh well the rock in the beginning wanted to get away from the earth And then it changed its mind and wanted to get closer to the ground and that's why that happened That would appear to us to be very primitive and unscientific right that would just they would be crazy You know the rocks not a conscious entity with desires that that language just sounds silly Don't even you shouldn't even talk like that But yet if you see a plane start to go up and then storm clouds form and the plane comes back down And you say explain what you just saw it would be perfectly sensible to say Well originally that they wanted to get to Toledo But then the pilots saw the clouds and maybe you know the air traffic control told them actually no There's clouds ahead come back down because it's too dangerous and they you know, they didn't want to take that risk That is perfectly scientific, you know scientific There's nothing wrong with that and that's how we talk in everyday language and that's perfectly justified All right, and so you see there's this divide there among the other differences between those two scenarios one of the importance ones is that to say The pilot has subjective desires or intentions, okay So that notion of intentionality is key to what we're doing in praxeology and so what Mises was arguing is that we can carve out this whole new field of Scientific inquiry that we as people studying human behavior and let's call it praxeology and what we're studying is just the logic of that fact that people Have desires and then they use their mind to to try to pick means to achieve those goals Okay, and so as we go on you'll see This fleshed out more in terms of relationship to things you normally think of as economics like prices and business cycle That's where we're going with this whole bootcamp. We're building up to so you understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle by the time This is done But Mises more so than most any other economists want it to be clear about this is the foundation of what we're doing Let's be clear on what economics is Before we just jump right into the interesting stuff because if you don't have a good foundation the whole thing could crumble okay, let me Give one more clarification on What Mises means by this this idea of action which you might you might call purposeful behavior It has to do with this word rational All right, and so again, I'm trying to make sure you don't get confused with what other economists are doing compared to the Austrians that Some economists say oh well economics, it's kind of assumes people are rational Let's see how far that gets us in terms of predicting human behavior And then you know in the real world people aren't totally rational, but that's a good benchmark You know to sort of give us a frame of reference again That's not what Mises means purposeful behavior means when people have a goal in mind And they choose a means to try to achieve that whether or not Their means this is a good one is successful Okay, so if you see people doing a rain dance and we with our you know view perspective Think that off since those people don't understand Meteorology dancing around like that and chance during things. That's not gonna make it rain Nonetheless that is action. Okay, because you could say why are they doing that? It's not just because of the laws of physics or chemistry or biology We can say oh because it hasn't been raining They're concerned that they're gonna lose the crop and so that's why they're doing this ritual because they believe perhaps We would say erroneously that doing that will cause it to rain Right, so they have goals in mind that they're trying to achieve and they're using their minds their reason To try to achieve them even if we happen to think that the means they're picking are not really going to be successful in this particular example Okay, and that's it's important to make that distinction because otherwise you lose the You lose that ability to distinguish Purposeful behavior from just natural reflexes if we look back in human history lots of humans were doing things that from our vantage point We think were Unsuccessful attempts to achieve their goals, but nonetheless. They were clearly engaged in Purposeful behavior, you know if you looked at what doctors were doing 200 years ago a lot of that We would now say that wasn't a good idea or that they they were barking up the wrong tree But clearly if we're trying to understand what was going on We need to know they had goals in mind and so you'll see if you're just wondering Well, what does this have to do with conventional economic topics? It goes back to this revolution I said in the 1870s to explain market prices to know, you know, why do cigarettes and Tobacco have such a certain price You need to know that people enjoy smoking, right? If you didn't know that that this would just be a bewildering array of statistics But once you know, oh, there are some people they enjoy smoking cigarettes or pipes or what have you Then it all falls into place You understand why they pay money for those things and then why ultimately it makes sense for farmers to be growing Tobacco and selling that for money and that's the causal chain of explanation And so the point is it doesn't matter whether you you as an analyst think smoking is good or bad for the person The point is you need to be able to explain market prices and why does tobacco have a certain price You need to know that there are some people who enjoy that The you know the buzz they get from smoking a cigarette and so they Think that okay if I want to satisfy that a good means of doing that is going and buying cigarettes Okay, so that's the idea where here you just need to be able to understand When people have goals in mind and then set out to achieve them You study that process and one of the offshoots of that Discovery or that that study is up now. You can explain market prices The modern way that we've realized is a much better approach than what they used to do under Adam Smith and so on Okay, so now I'm going to move on to Roman numeral number two in your outline on method so if I've explained to you what Praxeology is and how economics is just the best developed component of this broader study of human action What is the exact method in praxeology that we use to to advance our knowledge? So here Mises argued that and this is where a lot of people Criticized him and I'm going to come back at the end of these remarks to address some of these criticisms But let's first make sure we understand what Mises is is saying He was saying that we start with this idea that that humans act that people have purposeful behavior They have intentions desires and they use their minds their reason to try to achieve their goals And then we can as an analyst just step by step deduce certain implications from that and That is is what we're actually doing in economics and we might supplement it with certain Other things like to to talk about the availability of labor versus land and so on and later lectures People will get more specific But Mises wants to be clear that is what we're doing and notice this is totally different From what they do in the natural sciences right in physics or chemistry or biology We don't have any internal knowledge of what it's like to be a hydrogen atom, right? We don't have any knowledge Well, at least I don't maybe you guys do but the point is that's we can't just sit there and run the thought experiment and say Well, gee if I were hydrogen added, you know what I want to bond with oxygen or I'm not sure You know that you can't you can't think like that, right? And so all that's available to you is to make Testable at least in principle Hypothesis or your guesses about well if the initial conditions were such-and-such You know it would maybe would end up looking like this or this theory is correct This is what we would see in the laboratory or if we're doing astronomy We'd say if you know these are our predictions with the sky would look like this on this date And then you can point the telescopes when that data occurs and look up at the sky and see where we write And if we were then you say, okay, that's you know That's good good evidence in favor of this particular theory the theory might still be wrong But okay so far looks pretty good Whereas you can point the telescope and the stars are totally not where you thought they were gonna be you know Okay I don't have a good Model of how the heavens work or how the how the universe works in terms of stars in their motion Okay, so that's what they do in the hard Sciences or what I call the hard sciences the natural sciences you might call the empirical sciences Mises is quite clear that in economics That's not what we're doing and it's a mistake to think that we should copy those methods To try to gain the prestige of the physicists, you know because the general public really thinks the physicists are smart And that that's the model of how science ought to behave and Mises is quite clear that no That's that's a dead end you're gonna run into problems with that that what we're doing in economics Which again is a subset of praxeology is we are starting from the idea that Certain things if you of life it makes great sense to interpret what's happening by saying there is another Mind at work there and to see the implications of that and then let's just study that fact. Let's follow those The deduction of that to its logical conclusion All right, so there's this term that floats around I struggle whether even to bring us up, but you might hear if you read more So I just want you to know it is the term is a priori and all that means is you can have this type of knowledge without Going out and looking at the outside world for empirical verification. It's stuff. You can know just by thinking it through Okay, so I'm obviously not getting too philosophically savvy here I just want you to be familiar with the the big picture of what these terms mean So that's one way that people describe what Mises is saying is going on in economics Okay, so let me give you just some examples of what I mean by this So you can understand There's this principle in economics called diminishing marginal utility All right, and so let me just walk you through how using this deductive method You could derive this insight this you gain knowledge about how does economics work or you gain a principle in economics, right? So this idea of it's called diminishing marginal utility Again in the next lecture, you're gonna learn more about these concepts But I'm here. I'm focusing on how would we come to this new principle? How would we know it's true is an economist? How would you get it across? So what what it means marginal utility is saying if I get one more unit of a good, you know, right now I have five apples. What if I get a sixth apple, you know, how much satisfaction does that give me? How much happiness does it give me and the idea of diminishing marginal utility is that as you get more and more units on The margin, you know the utility from additional units is smaller Okay, that's the idea and so how would you go about proving that? Well, if you were steeped in the in the logic and the methodology of Chemistry and physics you might say, oh, well, let's let's conduct a bunch of experiments Let's get a thousand test subjects. We'll put them into, you know, a control group and it's in a Treatment group and you know, maybe we'll do a double blind study We won't tell them which one will give some of them five apples some of them six apples and so on and when We'll give them a survey, I guess and ask them how much did you like that that sixth apple, you know so you're running the difficulties but The point is you a lot of people would think that's the way you learn new knowledge about the world, right? Because we that's that's just the scientific method, isn't it and the point is with this No, that's not at all what we do what we do in economics is We just think through the logic of the situation and say, okay If people really value apples of apples are a good and that just that term You know to for it to be a good means that it's something that you benefit from that you enjoy and say, okay Suppose you had gave someone the first apple and they had all sorts of possible Uses of the apple they could just eat it directly to satisfy their their hunger They could use use it maybe in an apple pie. They could you know if they see some guy teaching economics on a sary mooring He's really boring. They could just throw the apple at him, right? There's all sorts to hopefully that's pretty low on your list Priorities, right? So there's all kinds of things you could do with units of apples and the point is in principle You know, we as the outside analysts don't know how you rank them You know some are more important to the person some are less important There's various things you could do technologically in your mind You could think of things I could do with apples and the point is if I give you the first one and you have a hundred Different things you could conceivably do with one apple Which use are you going to devote that one apple to the first apple to though your most important end the least important The one in the middle and so if you think through the logic of that if you only had one apple clearly You would devote it to satisfying the most important thing to you that you could achieve with one apple Right and you can see if you just think through the logic of what I'm saying there once it clicks with you What do I mean by those words? It's obvious that that has to be true, right? Because if instead you You know if you if you use it to be planted in your back or you gave it to your the squirrels or something You just threw it out there. So I want to feed the animals. It wouldn't make sense to say all that person Really was was starving to death and his most important use for that apple was satisfying his direct hunger But he chose instead to renounce that and to give it to the squirrels because even though feeding the animals was much Less important to him for some reason. He acted irrationally if you start talking like that The point is as a praxeologist. We know that doesn't make any sense by his action He is demonstrating that for this particular person at that moment in time when he made that choice Feeding the animals was the most important end to him or goal to him that he's satisfied with one apple It has to be because that's what he chose to do. Okay, so you see how that logic works And so then if I gave the person a second apple what end is he gonna devote it to? The second most important that could be satisfied with apples and so on and so forth And so you see the more apples we give the person's gonna then devote them to successively less important ends And so that's the sense in which you can build up this law or principle of diminishing marginal utility And so you can see how on the margin when you give the person the thousandth apple That's not a big deal the person or the person had to give up the thousandth apple. Yeah, no big deal Because you've already satisfied the first 999 uses that you can make with apples Okay, and so that's again notice you you wouldn't go test that that wouldn't even make sense once you understand What we mean by those terms then the result pops out. You just have to think it through But at the same time notice that's probably not something that would have occurred to you If I didn't go down that path right or unless you've heard it before right the average person going through life Would not all of a sudden say well, yeah diminishing marginal utility obviously and then move on You know, that's not something that would just pop into your head So I'm giving you real knowledge about Reality or the world and how things work and get I'm equipping you so you can better navigate through your life Now that you have that principle under your belt, but the point is how did I get that knowledge into your head? I did not show you a bunch of statistics I didn't say well We ran this controlled experiment and actually 72% of the time that people did such and such with that seventh apple That's that would be missing the point You would that would be confusing you as to what it the type of knowledge was that I was giving you okay? So that's just one example the kind of thing we do. Let me give you another example We could and again in subsequent lectures. They might give you more specifics here But we could derive step by step a proposition saying if The Federal Reserve pumps more dollars into the economy Prices will be higher than they otherwise would have been Or I could say the dollar will be weaker than it otherwise would have been if the Federal Reserve pumps more dollars into the economy Okay, and so there There's no way to falsify that statement right if suppose that the prices are certain You know, however you want to measure them or a certain level you have a consumer price index basket or what have you? The Federal Reserve pumps in a bunch of dollars Then you wait a month and measure prices again a month later and you look and what if prices went down? So it looks like the dollar strengthened you say up that proposition was wrong then, huh? You say no we said other things equal or then they otherwise would have been okay So the point is had the Federal Reserve not pumped in dollars prices would have fallen even further Okay, and so what you're these these principles or if you want to say laws of economics are giving us a Technical term would be counterfactual propositions. They're showing us. This is what would have happened and now this is what's going to happen instead So it's compared to some future possible reality. It's not compared to the present so Properly derived economic principles or propositions. They don't let us actually predict the future per se We don't know what prices are going to be like next week Because there's all sorts of things that could change how could we predict that some humans? They have free will we we don't know what they're going to do But the point is what we can say with certainty is Whatever they're doing if there's more dollars in the economy than the purchasing power power of dollars is lower than it Otherwise would have been okay, so that's the kind of knowledge we get And again, it's important to realize that that there's a two-pronged thing on the one hand Don't be misled and think that you're gonna have the kind of knowledge that lets you make predictions The way that physicists can say if we accelerate, you know electrons around this thing as such and such We predict these things will pop out of our observations, you know They can make those kind of where astronomers can say if we point our telescope at this date at the sky Assuming there aren't clouds in the way We're gonna see the stars in this alignment. They can be pretty confident of those predictions. That's not what we're doing in economics But at the same time don't then think okay economics is just privative and waste waste of time No, there's lots of good information we can get from the study of economics in the proper Missessian method But again, you got you can't it's you're not gonna get the kind of knowledge that some people think it ought to be Spitting out you're gonna get a different type of knowledge so we can know that oh geez at the Federal Reserve pumps in a bunch of money That's gonna weaken the purchasing power of the dollar so people who are relying on pensions and whatnot are gonna be hurt by that If if their dollars are nominated at retirement plans, we can know that sort of thing But again, we can't predict. This is exactly what's gonna happen with CPI and so forth Okay, so now I'm gonna move on to Roman numeral three if you're following along this idea of Methodological individualism so that again big words, but it's a very straightforward concept what that saying is the Austrians Their approach the method they use stresses individualism But to be clear in this context, we don't mean in a in a political sense We don't we don't mean that all of the individuals more important than than the collective and the rights of man and so forth I mean there is a lot of overlap between people who happen to be Austrian economists and have those views about the dignity of the Individual and so forth, but here we mean strictly speaking as a scientific discipline In economics, how are we going to proceed in Austrian economics for sure? What we do is try to explain Market aggregate events if you will always tracing it back to the actions of individuals Okay, so this is again. It's consistent with this idea of of saying economics is a subset of the study of human action Well, humans are individuals. It's individuals who act all right and so Just to give you an idea of the way to think about this people a lot of times in everyday language will say things like you know Oh and 1941 this country bombed that country, okay, and that's that's actually sloppy talk, right? A country doesn't do anything, right? There's individuals that make decisions more appropriate to say the political Leaders in this group decided that they would like the ramifications from pursuing this type of foreign policy they Decided to speak commands or you know write out instructions to their subordinates and then those military officers Thought about the pros and cons and decided they wanted they would they would achieve their goals by obeying those orders And so they flew the planes they decided to press the button to drop bombs and so on right so that's actually the more correct Analytically way of describing what it was that happened right so an everyday language. It's not a big deal if you say you know Oh the bills blew that game. They missed the field goal, you know fair They do that a lot by the way, but that's that's not a big a big deal There's no harm there, but strictly speaking as social scientists We need to be clear that everything is ultimately grounded in individual action Groups per se don't act Now to be clear you're not throwing out the insights of sociology and other Discipline so it's certainly true that You know mob mentality could take over right somebody there's a horrible crime was committed a group Comes together and grabs somebody says this guy did it you know Jim saw him do with his own eyes And so maybe the crowd gets worked up and they they go ahead and do vigil any justice and Whereas no individual would have done that in an isolated context That's you know things like that can happen and as praxeologists were not we're able to rely on that sort of insight But again the way you would describe that is say the individuals in the crowd Decided to go along and say yes go ahead. Let's do this In that context whereas perhaps in a different context they would have chosen differently But again, it's not that the crowd per se does something. It's always individuals making decisions And so this you know when you realize that if you're if you're familiar with other Economic schools of thought you can see just this huge gulf between the Austrians and these other schools If you read somebody like Paul Krugman, I don't know why you would do that But let's say you did he lost a better something you read him all the time. How does he explain recessions? It's all aggregate demand is too low, right? They just focus on these big aggregate statistics There's not enough spending and so therefore such and such needs to happen Right and so again, that's just the furthest thing from the Austrian approach Which ultimately grounds everything back in individual action now Don't don't misunderstand the Austrian certainly do have the ability to explain big macro events Indeed, that's why I think it's so crucial in these times for people to know about the Austrian school because it's their theory of the business cycle That is so necessary right now people need to know that because if it's right That means what central banks have been doing since 2008 are setting us up for another crisis Okay, so it's really important that people are familiar with the teachings of the Austrian school But my point is Where they start the ground floor and their explanations is not looking at What's the total money supply and what's the velocity of circulation and all these big aggregate statistics that a lot of other economists look at No, the Austrians always start with individual action And what are the incentives facing individuals and then what makes them choose what they do to achieve their own subjective goals Okay, let me just give you one last thing here now for roman numeral four and then we'll have time for a few questions The critics of praxeology. Let me just pick one great example So in light of what i've been saying so far One obvious objection that the people will bring up is they'll say this is completely unscientific You guys are very dogmatic. You're telling me This a priori approach this deductive method that you can just be sure you're right no matter what happens That you know, doesn't that make you think that you're therefore immune to correction and that if you're walking around the wrong theory in your head Then how we how will you ever learn the truth? You know, should we we empirical economists are much more scientific and humble We make predictions And if they're wrong then we we correct our theory and move on whereas you guys are just stuck in your own little world With no connection to reality. All right, so i'm exaggerating and trying to be flamboyant here Just to make sure you get the nature of that type of critique. All right, so Very quickly the way i would handle something like that is to say okay number one We have an example where all of us concede this method of starting with axioms and then logically deducing implications from them Is clearly the appropriate method and it clearly gives us information about the real world It's not we're just spinning our wheels in transforming definitions That are mere tautologies. Okay, and that example would be geometry You know if you've studied that in school the things like the pythagorean theorem and so on Your teacher can define what a triangle is what we mean by a straight line at an angle and so on and then Give a proposition and say oh, here's the pythagorean theorem Right if these if you have a right triangle and such and such then it's a squared plus b squared equal c squared And then go through and actually prove that to you So once you understand how that works You now have that knowledge forever Very if you if the proof really clicked with you when you understood the steps in the proof You know that's true now you don't have to go out and measure a thousand triangles that satisfy the you know The initial conditions and see and test is this thing really true Even if it turned out that you measured a triangle and it looked like it wasn't true You would know you you screwed up the measurement because you have that a priori knowledge, you know No, the pythagorean theorem is true. I saw the proof of it All right, and so that would just misconstrue what geometry was doing if you thought you had to go out and test stuff To see is the geometry right or not right that the proof is correct All right, so that's just again one example at the same time though. It's not that we're just spinning our wheels It's not that we're just saying hey a bachelor is an unmarried male And therefore now you know things about the world whereas there you can see well That's kind of just a linguistic convention. That's not really telling me anything about reality You're just telling me this is how we've decided to use these terms Okay, whereas a pythagorean theorem when you when that clicks with you or anything in geometry You really feel like there's something deep going on there and that even you know aliens if they had minds that could understand the terminology We could teach to them and they might you know appreciate it Okay, so that's whereas telling them a bachelor is an unmarried male At best that would be giving them trivia about the way we use language You see that whereas the pythagorean theorem you get the idea that that's something very deep and mysterious About logic or something. Okay, so that's the kind of thing that mises thinks economics is that you don't Learn it by going out and measuring observable things you think through the logical implications of certain starting points But yet the knowledge that pops out of that process is real Relevant knowledge you you know something about the universe that you didn't know before That's why we still teach geometry Right that if you're going to have someone who builds a bridge That person you you hope has previously studied geometry in addition to several other things right and so That's it does help us navigate the world even though geometry per se and the proofs in that Do not flow from you know testable empirical observations Okay, i'll stop there. Thanks everybody


We are here at the World Telecommunication Development Conference 2014 in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, and I have the great pleasure of being joined by Mr Farooqi, who is chairman of the Telecom Commission for India. Mr Farooqi, thank you very much for being with us today. Nice being with you. I would like to start off by asking you about this conference, the World Telecommunication Development Conference 2014. It is once every four years. The previous one was in Hyderabad. I would like to find out what has changed since the last conference, and what is the state of play at the moment? Well, one thing is that I am very happy to see that Hyderabad Action Plan and Hyderabad Declaration are all being pursued very diligently, and the suggestions given by the participants there being acted upon. But we must recognize that this is a sector in which the technology is moving at such a pace that every four years you need to look at it again. The second thing is that its relevance to the society is changing exponentially. So I think that is another area which has to be looked at. It is no longer a technology which is just of use for somebody. It is a technology which has got a great driving force for the society. So I think these last four years were very exciting, but the next four years are going to be many, many times more exciting and challenging. Why is this particular conference important, do you think? I think one very important thing is that voice, which used to be major driver for telecom in the past, has actually had more or less played out. And now is the time for data to embark upon a similar miraculous, you know, exponential growth. And therefore this is very, very important because data has a reach and importance which goes far beyond communication. It has great relevance for, you know, removing inequalities. It is for financial inclusion as we are seeing in some of the countries. It has got great role in education and increasing the reach for education and health. So I think this is going to open up a completely new dimension. The second thing is that we have still not seen the whole thing play out. There's going to be many more things now with the Internet of Things, the machine to machine communication. So there is going to be a need for much greater firmness, much greater reliability in communication. If you have machine to machine communication, you naturally have to be sure that, you know, it doesn't fail. So I think these are all challenges where interconnectivity and global cooperation becomes even more important. So I think WTDC in that sense is a man. Also it's, you know, it's focused on broadband. I think together these are going to be really landmark events for the telecommunication. You quite rightly mentioned their broadband. Broadband for sustainable development is very much a theme for this conference. What are the particular regional concerns in India with regards to this? Well, I think the first and foremost I would say is the question of reach, accessibility, and then second I would say is affordability. You know, these two would together define how much the broadband can actually be an effective driver of sustainable growth in the world. Because if you see today, many places while broadband is available, its use is largely confined to the affluent few and also into the cities rather than to the villages. So in India, we have actually embarked upon a very, very ambitious project. We're going to connect 250,000 villages at an estimated cost of about, let's say about four to five, in between about four to five billion US dollars. And that is going to actually, in our way, a game changer in terms of what broadband can do for the masses. And so in terms of the outcomes of this conference, what outcomes would you like to see come from here? Well, I would say that, you know, this is an important thing because we would like some of these thoughts to be reflected in the strategic plan. Because we would like this to go to the planning potential in a very positive frame so that the entire, you know, the broadband, the potential broadband to revolutionize and change for the better. The lives of the people can be actually given effect, can be put into practice and completely adopted by the planning potential. Mr. Faruqi, thank you very much for keeping with us today. It was a pleasure talking to you. And thank you too.


There's conventional ways of thinking that we've been conditioned through... Is it useless then? The foam? People are conditioned to expect a very foamy, almost burning, freshness feeling. It provides more surface area for the toothpaste and the toothpaste to actually get inside of your teeth. So, you know, foaming agents are great because it does help add to the kind of dispersion of the toothpaste and making you feel quite fresh.


What's going on everyone? Sam here with late sports cards, Ruppin 22, Bowman Inception, Baseball Hobby 8 box, half case break number 10, random team style. There's a look again at your random results. As always, you can find these on the website, under the results tab, as well as the link in chat. It's good luck here guys. 10 to go on number 11. That's breaking next. Just 10 to go. We have 11 and 12 with spots still available. That's what we need to fill up, and then we're on to two full cases, divisional style, and then we're into Phoenix PYT football, base and base. There's a blue, Simon Juan, 23 out of 99. Got for the pirates, Yordani De Los Santos, 9 out of 75. That's when they're pirates, and a Dalen Lyle to 3.99 for the Nationals. There you go Dodge, not going hit list buddy. Dalen Lyle. Nice segue on that one too. You can just get recap on this there, unless there's like a big mag or something. Oh, there's the plumber. Look at the wind dude. I know. It's going to be so hard to play. That's all they were talking about, the strategy to the fancy. Oops, Tyler Whitaker. That's going to the Astros. Accidentally grabbed the auto. There's a Daniel Vasquez, 23 out of 75 for the Royals. Well as a Robert Hassell, 19 out of 99 for the Padres. We've got Rain Duncone, 7 out of 25 on the Orange for the Dodgers. Nice one there, L.A. Rain Duncone. Rain Duncone. Am I tweeting it when you get a chance to do number 11? I do. Unless you do. Yeah, you're good then. Cool. Got Thaia, Joshua Baez. There's a Felix De Jesus, 62 out of 99. Nice one here, going to the Red Sox, and Manny, that is Alex Pinellis, 1 out of 50 on the Gold. First one stamped. And then Cameron Colley, 290 out of 399 for the Rangers. So I'm there. Better redemption. Anthony Volpe, Gold, 19 out of 50. Nice one here, going to Matthew B. How about A, Inception, Silver Signing, Khalil Watson, number 200. Congrats on that one, man. Nice Watson. We've got Chase Petty, 198 out of 399 for the Reds. Congrats, Sinsy. Again, guys, just 10 to go in the next Inception. 10 to go. There's a West Calf, 43 out of 75 for the White Sox. Nice one there. Got Gold, William Bergoya, that is 1 out of 50 for the Phillies. Nice one there, Philadelphia, going to Namkew. Congrats, Namkew. Sean, just dropped you guys that link again. Eddie's Leonard, 29 out of 75 for the Dodgers on the Color Match. Again, guys, 10 to go. 2 more Inception, half case, random team breaks. And then we are on to full cases in Phoenix Football PYT as well. An RPA, Carter Jensen, 2,399 on the Auto for the Royals, I believe, base and base. That's base, base. There's a Cesar Paredo, 67 out of 99 for the Orioles. And then going to the Pirates, Michael W, Leeover McGuero, that is 6 out of 50, 2 color, 2 color. I don't know, 3 color, 3 color, Color Match, RPI. Red Sox, Red Sox. Nice, there we go. Let's go, Wahoos. Let's go, Wahoos. Oscar Colas and Westcath base, to 99 is Cooper Kinney. Nice one here, going to Felix and with the Diamondbacks. How about a Jordan Lawler, Silver signings, 68 out of 100. Nice one there, congrats, Felix with Arizona. Silver signings, Jordan Lawler. And another nice one for Dodge. How about a Christian Vecchero? There we go, buddy, 58 out of 200. That's who you're looking for with the Nationals. Congrats, man. Nice, Vecchero. There we go, Dodge, congrats, man. Got a Vecchero and a Dale and Lyle. Ah, good day, Andrade. There's Red, Roberto Campos, 405. Nice one there, Detroit. Congrats on that, Tigers. We've got Blue Wambin Show, 20 out of 99 for the Cardinals. And Trey Sweeney, 12 of 50 on the gold, going to the Yanks. Nice one there. That'll do it for the break, guys. Thanks again for the fill. A little behind, so we're going to skip the recap. Up next, we've got number 11.


Mack Hankins with greater size at 611 into the game and trice lets it go again he's in rhythm and the lead is up to eight beautiful work on the dribble penetration by Scruggs motoring it up the floor and that three ball is put down by Kasselin who you mentioned as the grad transfer and you make him the captain before the season even starts as Davis and boy you talk about playing big and you're only down six points as well as Wisconsin playing well Wisconsin had gone six of its first 10 halfway to a double double halfway through the first half that time at just a solo takes it off the rim and then attacks the 10 happen. You have to give him something to do it half counted in one. He goes reversal uses the rim as a shield go for half eight points for boards three assists. Gooden is wide open for the trade so much better balanced shot there half rejected nice work by Hankins they can spread the floor with this lineup and you see a thing of beauty there with Dmitry Trice who is absolutely on fire. Beautiful cut beautiful cut and half on the receiving into the bounce pass entry from Trice 26 to 16. White uniform Davis says oh what a scoop to the well you just love to watch him play given they're inviting the three pointer from Kasselin now. Great follow Zach Hankins sometimes a missed who can be your best offense to stay on the floor and you see those shocktakes. Count this spot now remember when that one fell they are now three of 14 as a team setting up for the pick and roll half rejected by Hankins Pritzel and off the heel they'll set up for one. Nodgy Marshall brings it down the floor. Marshall going crossover at the buzzer and lead from that perspective. Trice he has just been outstanding from the perimeter. He just kept going whatever he wanted to do. Kasselin in traffic rejected by Reaver he's going to have to solo here a step back three count it you know as I said pedestrian game but he's got game late clock. Yeah they're all playing for money now and there's half again right off of the time out with a shark pass from Trice little Iverson into and Hankins well you know what if the big fellow is going to run the floor you got a rewarding Davison off the curl boy oh boy on the wing twice what he's just been dynamite tonight right that's how clean the game has been from them from the perimeter Hankins nice reversal he's sort of out hapt hapt that time committed underneath well natural leader only to play basketball but led his high school to stay champion championship as a football player. And Trice just knows how to lead no matter what sport it is I think that's that's what makes him so special in their mouth and talk I think probably Jones is probably the guy that he's got his hands full tonight for the scoop to the hoop the challenge half a little bit with Tariq Jones scored earlier that's a great move with his athleticism sort of pointing good but I don't respond good and again on the drive and a follow plus one for Hankins but just put him on the line. Why not why not tell him I mean he's going to beat you he's only 50 percent of the house down with time winding down as Davison loads up carries it in rattles at home and he gives the J.P. McCure sign in the aftermath to figure it out fast but you're going to learn a lot about yourself and I think you learn more about yourself from losses that you do way this does not fall and that's going to do it Wisconsin gets win number one of the Gavit tip off 77 to 68.


What's up everybody, Jason here for jasperjayscaserace.com 2023 gold standard football six box half case break Pikachu number four just sold out with this 12 team R&B guys. Falcons, Panthers, Dolphins plus more, look at that. All of these teams here, you get a piece of them via a serial number break. You go by the first number on the left side of the serial number dash. And like I said, everything should be numbered for the most part. So here's the dice roll, here's the customer names and the numbers, let's click roll. It is a two and a one three times, good luck. One, two, three. Three, A-A-Ron down to Alexander, last bar mojo. You know what, he fumbles it. Wow, he recovered it. One, two, three. Nine down to five. All right, so A-A-Ron nine, all more with two, A-A-Ron with three and one, Joe with four, William zero, Andy and all redemptions for those teams. Joe, you with eight, Barry with seven, Will with six and Alexander with five. So there you go guys, so now in a separate video we will start the break. So good luck everybody, should be a fun one, thank you.


The defending champs are in the whole two games and nothing. First time in the history of DeSera. It's like, it's crazy. Really? First time in the history of the Steph Courier, since 07, I think? Wow. Well, I'm just saying America's team is showing everyone why they are America's team.


Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I think we're going to try to get started So I'd invite you if you'd like anything else from the buffet table. There's a few nice desserts over there or coffee or tea Please help yourselves My name is Lisa Cardi and I'm delighted to welcome you all here today to CSIS and to the Global Health Policy Center It's a great honor to have with us this afternoon the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway his Excellency Jona Stor as well as Ambassador Vegar Stolman and the rest of the Norwegian delegation Mr.. Minister, I bring particular greetings from John Humray the president of CSIS who's very sorry that he can't be here with us today John's traveling overseas, but he's a great admirer of your work and deeply appreciative of your visit here with us At CSIS we like to describe the Global Health Policy Center as the bridge between Foreign Policy and Global Health In fact the contributions of Norway and Minister Stor your own personal leadership in this area long before it was a Recognized field have clearly demonstrated the importance of linking global health and foreign policy And the critical advances that can be made in both fields when they work together I think everyone here knows that Norway has long been visionary in helping set the global health agenda From its early support for the Global Alliance for Vaccine to the immunization and the Global Fund To its ongoing leadership around the MDGs and the 0.7 commitment to overseas development assistance To the Minister's own direct engagement and launching the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative With six other foreign ministers an initiative I think that for the first time this fall will result in a report to the UN General Assembly by the secretary general of the importance of health and foreign policy Minister Stor has been deeply engaged in all of these processes for more than two decades First as director general of the international department in the prime minister's office Then as ambassador to the UN organization organizations in Geneva followed by an assignment as chief of staff to who? Director general Brogurt Lynn a period as secretary general of the Norwegian Red Cross and then chief of staff to Prime Minister Stoltenberg Mr. Minister, thank you for bringing your wealth of experience to CSIS today and for sparing us some time in your busy schedule We have an audience that's very anxious to hear about Norway's experiences and to hear how you think the US should be Looking ahead to the critical challenges of the future Thank you for those nice words and happy birthday if this is World Health Day You all knew of course And I recall from my days at WL show that that was a day we should be Have respect for so that being said is a special pleasure to be here Send my regards back to John Henry and we have Norwegian government a lot of contact with this fine house and fine center And I appreciate that I had this opportunity to come and talk to you And I you know when I am invited to talk about this issue I always start by saying that it is a fair question. Although I see friends around here who would have an idea of the answer Why invite the foreign minister to speak on health? What does he know about medicine health systems health purchased hospitals? mental health and other diseases The answer to be honest is little and Certainly far less than any health minister and hopefully far less than many of you But here is the point when I had the privilege of Serving the World Health Organization with dr. Brunthlin from 1998 I had the opportunity to discover how much more there is to health The global health and the strict medical side of the issue I did so by seeing listening and working with some extraordinary people from the global health community from around the world and there are some of them here today who I Remember as good friends and very inspirational people for me I learned from them a few very important lessons and I'd like to share a few with you I learned that health is more than a budget expenditure It is an investment in human dignity Human development and thus in economic development and welfare of people Communities and nations needs to be said. I believe I learned that investing wisely in health was a powerful tool to the fight against extreme poverty Poor health breeds poverty that we have known but we now know much better how improved health breeds growth and Development the equation works both ways offering us a powerful opportunity to both fight poverty and stimulate development Finance ministers need to know My own as well. I learned more about the amazing work that is carried out by health workers all around the world from modern and Sophisticated clinics in both Oslo and Geneva where my wife has given birth to our children To the local facility in an Indian village where brave midwife Helps a mother to save both her newborn baby's life and her own life Because she gives birth there and not on the floor at home at her mother's in laws house I learned about how much more we could accomplish by working differently by Reaching out to other partners beyond health By assembling the evidence necessary for dr. Bruntlin to call presidents prime ministers Finance ministers and tell them you too are health ministers Your decisions matter to health get to work and get engaged. I Learned about the opportunities and complexities of these new partnerships About the new financial resources we could mobilize through creation such as Gavi And the global fund to fight htb and malaria but also about the very complex landscape that we are about to create With private public interactions and sometimes the lack of overview and unity of purpose The price we are paying by seeing the you and relatively go down Being a foreign policy man myself. I learned how much global health matters to foreign policy and security policy How health holds perhaps the strongest stories of globalization talking to young people? Of all ages you can use health as the lens to explain what globalization is really about How an outbreak of a pandemic immediately will challenge our diplomatic and security systems? How modern states might be brought to closing borders? Norway closed its border with Sweden in 2000 because of the outbreak of food and mouth disease in Britain and I remember I advised the minister of the agriculture at the time that closing a border is relatively easy Opening it again is much harder How the ownership of a virus quickly becomes a diplomatic struggle between the north and the south? Patents how a polio immunization campaign can offer the opportunity of a truce and perhaps by the be the first step towards peace and the peace process and Finally, I learned about what it takes to make a difference in health. I remember at Paho in 1998 Bill Fagy told this masterfully when he described all the efforts that would have to fall into place to immunize a child From the initial research in some laboratory through testing production Transport establishment of the cold chain in some tropical country and the training of the nurse at the local health station With the injection and the clean and safe needle All of this and much more in a long row until that lucky child would be protected for life against fully preventable diseases Dr. Fagy drew on that saying ambassador from Tanzania Which also became the title of Secretary Clinton's books on ten years ago. It takes a village to raise a child Dr. Fagy elaborated on that title beautifully by saying it takes a whole the world to immunize the child So this is me a foreign minister who had the privilege to discover the world of global health and With the ambition of continuing to deal with it As an interested person, but also as a foreign minister with all the challenges and in settings not always accustomed to these issues And in this context, let me add another thing that I learned and still learn The importance that professions break out of their boxes and dramatically improve their interaction health professionals in particular Who are boxed in if I may say so a famous Norwegian public health official Mr. Carl Evan who took part in the drafting of the Constitution of the WHO back in 1948 He said that to him economists were worse than TB Now in these days of financial crisis, he may have had a point actually But another point far more relevant I believe is that the health profession and the economic profession can now do a lot by maximizing their efforts and working together As we see they do I believe we made a contribution to this with the report of the Commission on macroeconomics and health in 2000 to 2001 that highlighted the potential of investing wisely and Strategically in health as a strategy to fight extreme poverty So in short Global health is more than an issue. It has to do with managing complex international relations important principles and major challenges of inequality and Injustice it involves changing financial priorities and establishing organizations and working relationships In short, we must reach beyond our grasp to fulfill our task So what is the Norwegian approach to this? Health has always been a major issue in our development policy Since 2000 we have scaled up We have been focusing on taking the lead in three concrete initiatives First Gavi and I I recall this story when Jens Stoltenberg became Prime Minister in March 2000. I came home from WHO as his chief of staff and He had read about Gavi and the immunization efforts to the good all and I had written articles about that in Norwegian papers So he put into his government platform the short document to Parliament in addition to all the Infrastructure and hospitals and butchers and pensions one line Norway will take the lead in helping immunizing every child Very strange sentence in the government statement. It wasn't really debated in Parliament, but it was the ambition So he were the first government to pledge to the partnership of Gavi and we have remained commit committed since And you know of course about What Gavi has done and how it is organized and and and it's it's ambition I believe the results have been impressive Doble at show estimates that between 2000 and 2008 some three point four million Future deaths have been prevented Through immunization campaigns supported by Gavi That is the equivalent of the number of inhabitants in Chicago and Washington DC combined And I use these figures when I speak to young people in Norway Because there was in addition to me coming from Geneva There was a one person who really convinced the Prime Minister's to put this into his Parliament speech and that was the head of the social democratic youth And I'm using this argument to say that you know it matters to engage in politics. You can achieve great results and and this young Youth leader she's now member of the cabinet, but at that time she was an activist and it led it to the government Investing billions over the years for Gavi and when I say that you know 3.4 million future deaths have been prevented. I say that she can probably not claim honor for all of those But in a way she can Because in a world where young people are cynical saying, you know, nothing works. Can we make a difference here is an example? It really can matter Successful, but we must not be complacent We must constantly look for improvements be accountable and transparent and ready to adjust as we go forward, especially in these new initiatives Second Norway has been actively engaged with a global fund to fight AIDS tuberculosis of malaria. I remember Jim Sherry And I went to Brussels on complex meetings In the setting up of that institutions the global fund It's also a creative mix of governments private sector actors support from WSO unites and the World Bank We have seen huge boost in treatment counseling and prevention of HIV AIDS Distribution of 70 million bed nets the most cost-effective measure we have for preventing malaria as well as delivery of 74 million malaria treatments and Detection and treatment of 4.6 million additional cases of infectious tuberculosis Today we stand on the threshold of a real breakthrough in the battle against malaria There are people working hard for that here in this room for so long at the core of global health efforts and frustrations and Third if I were to mention on methodology, we have pushed for more results-based management in the way we do global health Global health issues cut across traditional organizational structures in international affairs and should be addressed Accordingly unites was set up to work primarily through its sponsoring organizations in the UN system While also forming partnerships with the broad range of NGOs governments and other actors Rollback malaria stop TB are other partnerships that were formed anchored in WSO reaching out So I repeat here accountability and transparency is key and both may become harder with this new complex landscape In order to keep the trust of both taxpayers and private investors we must constantly work on our methods on how we spend and invest and monitor and report and If we were to add to this this long list and I know as we discussed over lunch that many of these achievements are right now As we speak being challenged because of the financial crisis Money going down burden on poor people going up and we will see dramatic figures But if we look at the last decade, we see some extraordinary results It's worth reminding about them more than 200 million children have been vaccinated in low-income countries by vaccines previously not available and The old rule of thumb I believe it was that 10% of them would die if they were not immunized so by immunizing 200 million We get we get close to that 3.4 million lives saved deaths from measles dropped by over 90 percent in sub-Saharan Africa major achievement More than 100 million bed nets have been distributed in South, Saharan Africa It can be expected that malaria mortality can be rolled back by more than 90 percent in the coming years We can fail, but we can also succeed Treatment costs for AIDS reduced from more than $30 to less than one more than three million people are on treatment as we speak That's impressive but far too little as I think dream would would say if it if he's the same man that I knew a few years ago in short These are telling figures Gavi and the global fund alone may have saved six million lives Based on an investment of some nine billion dollars Six million lives by nine billion dollars. I think it is it is a reasonable return on investment Then some have asked isn't there a risk that we could lose coherence in our effort to promote global health if we concentrate on just a few diseases at a time and Don't we rise risk to lose overview by having all of these complex partnerships operating together With nobody keeping an overall coordinating function and this touches on my real responsibility as a foreign minister Responsible for support to the UN and to the established international system. I believe this is a very valid point and There should be no and there should be no Not it should not be our ambition to cut those answers or to cut that debate short It is a debate on the matrix of horizontal versus vertical intervention And it is a debate on the governance of global health now that voluntary contributions outstrips the regular budget of the WHO I remember at my time the WHO an ambassador moves. I think that was just when you were there The voluntary contribution kept coming up and right when I was there it cut the 50% So the majority of double HL spending came from voluntary sources governments mainly and The rest the other 50% from the regular fees sort of say Norway was a case in point because Norway is a small country So our our fee was small but our voluntary contribution was high today. I learned it is 80 20 and That is you know in a way a good news because double year chose butchers has I learned in fact increased So dr. Brunnen and dr. Lee and dr. Chan have been able to convince governments very hard not to have zero Level but to have a slight increase because the health tasks are daunting But even with an increase in the regular budget it is 80% voluntary 20% regular So it shows something about the volume, but it also tells us something about the governing bodies of double HL Having influence basically only over 20% of what the organization does I think it is a huge challenge to the international system. We need to discuss it because the alternative is not a rollback The alternative is to innovate the way we run this landscape Norway's Consistent approach as we support new partnerships because there is no alternative and we fought in 1998 and Jim will remember The nostalgic view inside of the HL saying that it says in our constitution Enjoy you came when when this all started to change it says in our constitution that we are the lead agency in health So why should we engage? Why should we engage with Gavi when we can do immunization ourselves? Why should we even accept unates when we can do AIDS ourselves? And I think that is one of the achievements of dr. Brunnen actually that she forced that through There is no alternative if you want to mobilize resources competence skills and engagement But we have had a consistent approach to keep focusing on the need to strengthen the UN and the double year show and UNICEF and to keep a strong double year show at the core as a standard setting and normative agency respected and I think dr. Chun is doing a good job about that these days although it is it is a hard hard job Let me then move on to the MDGs the Millennium Development Goals and make a few reflections on our progress Norway has kept the MDGs as the guiding principles for our development cooperation and Let me say that our development cooperation with this government and the same government program. We adopted in 2005 Now has reached 1% of GDP It was a goal we set and we have been gradually climbing and for this year for the first time we have reached 1% Three of the MDGs are on health and there is where we have tried to maximize our contribution Important progress has been made on MDG 6 on Halting and reversing the spread of HIV AIDS tuberculosis and malaria and making effective treatment available The US engagement under President Bush has been essential for success so far and will be equally essential in future efforts There has been some success on MDG 4 on reducing the mortality rate of children under the age of 5 Primarily due to the immunization campaigns But the drama still unfolds far too many children still die of causes that are easy to prevent This is not high-tech. It is low-tech and it's a challenge of really distribution and logistics as a contrast to these relative success stories or at least progress We have failed miserably on MDG 5 Reducing maternal and infant mortality The goal set in 2000 was to reduce maternal mortality by three quarters by 2015 and making reproductive health accessible to all Today one mother and eight newborn babies die every minute Hardly any different to the situation ten years ago It is a terrible figure It is still the case that the first day and hour in the baby's life is the most dangerous one And for millions of women nothing can be more dangerous than giving birth On reproductive health there has been some progress on the availability of prenatal care But the huge unmet needs for family planning undermines other goals So what are the main reasons it boils down to the discrimination against women and their nutritional social and economic needs and rights and the lack of available and reliable quality health services and On these factors of course women will be extremely vulnerable now with the economic crisis hitting and Even where health services do exist they tend to be poorly adapted to women's needs and out of reach in practical terms We have worked to find some practical ways of addressing these issues Reaching the pregnant woman following her through the her pregnancy with enough assistance to make it safely to deliver It need not be too complicated In India together with the government of India and selected local governments We are focused on the need to get the pregnant woman to deliver in the health facility and not on some dirty floor That simple the method has been to make available a small financial incentive to the woman in short paying her To choose the health clinic over the family Which is in itself may be a liberating Activity and I said mother-in-law because in some of these special District that that really has been the challenge not a small burden to overcome in many settings We do these programs in Pakistan India Tanzania and Nigeria We have established a partnership to promote maternal health What we have seen is a tenfold increase in the number of poor women delivering their babies in health facilities From less than a million to ten million achieved in just four years. This is India thought that district simply by paying for them to do so and Consequently, we have seen a dramatic drop in both babies and mothers dying This was one concrete example What should then be the way forward promoting effective and viable health systems is key We all know that and we all know how complex it is We must provide accessible primary health care services educated health workers available and affordable medicines and Diagnostic services and the governance structure that is efficient and reliable. This is not news to you. It is not rocket science either To reach the MDG goals by 2015 We will need to do even more for women and children Invest more and more work smarter and more strategically together. I am pleased to see the new US Administration give high priority to maternal and child health and I was pleased yesterday In my one-hour meeting with the secretary that we spent a lot of time on this And then I could really see her geared up and motivated and stimulated about it One example Norway and the US will now both be candidates for the UN Human Rights Council There's a lot to be said about that council. It's better than the Commission, but it is not good enough But I think that Norway and the US and Belgium will be three countries joining on that Western ticket We will already now start preparing to work closely together on human rights as we know them But also on these issues because they need to be brought on on for they are more important Than statements on the formation of religion that we see this body now now dealing with and The secretary was geared up for that, so I'm happy to see that one major challenge is money Especially now that we are in the midst of the financial crisis Eight budgets private budgets for those purposes. They will go down for certain although it is highly regrettable We need to protect the health sector to the maximum In Europe work is progress is in progress to identify innovative finance mechanisms to help reach these goals We need to develop new opportunities and take these initiatives further Promising work is on the way unit aid brings in additional millions by modus taxed on air tickets We support new initiatives that would stimulate other innovative financial mechanisms from governments to individuals In addition as I started we should also see foreign policy in the broader sense through a health lens I learned this at WL show all about all the links between foreign policy trade policy and health And as you mentioned in 2006 I invited six other foreign ministers from Brazil France Indonesia Senegal South Africa and Thailand To join me in declaring that global health was quote a pressing foreign policy issue of our times Some of those ministers had changed in between But they didn't hurt to get Bernard Kushner and The one I launched it with those to bless II is now the UN Secretary General's special representative on innovative finance mechanisms geared up on this So health does more to people you know when they get into foreign policy. They tend to stick to it in March 2007 We adopted the Oslo declaration that states that investment in health is fundamental to economic growth and development Threats to health might compromise the country's stability and security building capacity for global health security Facing threats threats to global health and making globalization work for all all depend on conscious use of foreign policy instruments and on political will and I think a similar point was made by then senator Barack Obama when he reflected on American national interest in global engagement This was back in April 2007 and I quote since extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding ground for disease Terrorism and conflict the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and Joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need. I agree Encouraged to see this policy put out in practice in the budget proposal from the US State Department in which global health is a priority area and Encouraged by the potential for taking this forward after my meeting with Hillary Clinton yesterday The foreign policy and global health initiative as I mentioned is all about engagement and outreach building political alliances among states with different outlooks in different regions And that's why Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil are important Different priorities and different geographic affiliations But with a strong and consistent political will to promote global health as a common cause Our method of work is not to form a separate organization or a fixed structure We meet from time to time as ministers and our experts meets regularly to address new issues So these are Some of my reflections I have this famous quote that health is simply too important to be left to health ministers alone. I Say that to my health minister colleague, you know to keep him geared up This is not to underestimate health ministers, of course But to highlight that finance ministers prime ministers presidents and foreign foreign ministers are needed as well They cannot point to the health ministers say this is your business because so much of what we do is also part of that bigger health landscape So thank you for listening and thank you for engaging in this and I'd like to applaud the CISS for really putting this program This new program about smart interventions is nobody called it smart smart global health policy. I would like to be part of that Thank you I'm inspired So, thank you very much. Mr. Minister that was for me truly inspiring but also a very pragmatic way of thinking about this very complex world And I have at least three or four questions. I could put to the minister But I'm gonna have to exercise some self-restraint here because our time is limited I think you probably have about maybe 10 minutes or so for questions so 15 wonderful, so we will take them maybe in groups of three I'd ask you please to identify yourself first My name is joy I wanted to first of all, thank the the minister for for this very very Not not fresh because it's not new but a very very Forward-looking because he has taken a new concept and really pushed it. I think to the limits particularly During this time when we need a real Dedicated leadership to keep us on track in the health sector. I We have been working with the other I work for the World Bank. We have been working with the PEPF, UNA's The global fund WHO etc to to see to to assess the impact of this crisis on the HIV-AIDS treatment and prevention and care programs in countries What we are finding is that because of the budget cuts to ministers of health They are not a lot of countries are not able to continue to enroll new patients into the HIV-AIDS treatment programs And we have had very very you know a I mean aligning copy mechanisms some patients are sharing tablets Some some mothers are refusing to continue treatment if their husbands and children cannot assess the treatment so we are really having a huge crisis which has the potential of of having a resistance building to the first line of treatment and Which is therefore going to wipe access to first-line treatment at a time when second-line treatment is totally Unaffordable for developing countries now. I was very interested when you talked I mean it is something that I'm familiar with about the conditional case transfers in That are enabling access in India and in some other countries, which your country is helping to finance Do you think that there's a possibility to restructure? temporarily the financing of The global fund and Gavi to be able using mechanisms such as that to be able to meet this new threat To global health that has a potential of a totally disrupting the health systems and Reversing the gains that we've made in the recent past Sir, how are you Tom Colson in the Deputy Surgeon of the Navy? Our Navy and our other military Forces in the United States have been carrying out health diplomacy and humanitarian assistance throughout the world Sometimes a very visible way is when our ships go to the Pacific and to South America and other in other times in more Smaller association with other countries. I was wondering you mentioned Health as a security issue and I was wondering about your opinions when military forces carry out humanitarian assistance missions such as we're doing I'm Judith Coffman an independent consultant formerly of the State Department and WHO When we talk about health diplomacy a lot of what people talk about is that providing health programs doing health programs Helps generally in security and foreign policy I'm curious about the way you and your foreign your fellow foreign ministers have conceived of ways That foreign policy can help support global health and the role for diplomacy in global health well First to joy, I mean I I think what you point to there is very scary Because what we actually see is that there are very hard-won gains that are extremely vulnerable than fragile And when when we have this this dip that we have now It is not simply that they will be out of of Function for some months and then come back. Hopefully when things Turn something will be destroyed Which cannot be put easily together Whether you know this kind of approach that that that I Illustrated here with the Indian example can be used with a global phenomenon. I don't know I remember the World Bank. I think it was in 2003 the world development report had a lot of reflections on these financial incentives Which are very very minor and and becomes you know for a Norwegian if you if you keep an Norwegian perspective Something very questionable Because our approach will be the universal rights You don't pay somebody that will take the money and go and buy the service The government will secure the service by universal care and it's your right and Remember I was advising that report and I was brought that perspective into the debate because I felt it that he was lacking But I think it is a very important point that that report raised Because here what you do with that woman who gets that small incentive where you actually pay her to go and give birth in the clinic Is something different because universal care cannot be even envisaged under those circumstances. I Think still is an interesting approach and as I said, I think it had a double meaning It was a liberating effect for her being able to exercise a choice In a very difficult situation at the same time it took her to the clinic and not to the floor But maybe you know and we would be ready and I think we are already working with bank Colleagues to see if there are lessons learned from the way we well evaluate this project Which can be you know extrapolated and used for for others But I you know we have to be cautious because there's not one size fit fit all in in the setting But let us you know share lessons learned both success stories and and Failures failures can be as useful to share because we will we will get some Some lessons for it. So, you know, I would be be ready to be very direct here to say that That that we come to the bank and share the experience if we haven't done it already We will look into that On the Navy perspective here, you know, you also trigger me as a former secretary general of the Norwegian Red Cross Where we always would be very, you know puristic in our view about military and humanitarian aid And the need to have very separate mandates I know how tempting it is and you know, we see it in Afghanistan that you have this kind of Country X ink approach is to say that we go in and we are Army and then we bring in the NGOs and we bring in development and we put put it all together And we win hearts and minds and it all ends up And the Red Cross would then say the ICRC would say that, you know, we are neutral and We provide aid to those who are in needs and we don't distinguish between friend or foe You need that humanitarian space and I adamantly believe that is right and We try at least as as Norway when we are in Afghanistan with troops that we don't bring Humanitarian aid as part of the mandate of the troops and it's it's it's highly possible To separate and distinguish those mandates and carry it out with doesn't which doesn't blur because once What you risk doing? This is another story but not another issue, but what you risk doing is that if you mix it And it and the circumstances on the ground change The ones you have helped will become perhaps the minority if the power of balance changes And and and the ones who then were helped will be vulnerable when the new guys come in and so on But that being said, I remember I spoke about this as at the British Military Academy and one of them who were serving in Iraq was saying that I will not stand next to somebody suffering Saying I can't help them because I wear a uniform for of course you can't and most of the the aid Organizations and humanitarian organizations had to get out of Iraq simply because it was too dangerous So what I really believe is that our our commanders and our officers and those who plan just have to be very aware of these issues And it should be part of the training knowing what obligations the Geneva Conventions put on us when we do provide aid and Then of course, I think the Navy and the Army can be very important and abling forces To create the environment in which we can give aid But I am among I think more on the purist side that I would very much caution against mixing this together now to Judith You know the the the project I I I urge you to read that Oslo declaration You have well and and maybe also the follow-up papers for me That initiative was first and foremost to get colleagues engaged and have a debate and you know sensitize ourselves about what this would mean What what I now have is Bernard Couchner coming to me to me and say why don't you and I Norway and France? Quickly see to it that the the hospital in Gaza is being rebuilt Because we all see that if it isn't This is the Al-Quds hospital and there's the chief hospital But the Al-Quds hospital is has been destroyed and if we don't there's going to be more suffering and and the way we build it We build it can perhaps be a Project which can bring together parties who wouldn't be brought together under other circumstances Now he has of course his background from from the sense of frontier. I have my great cross background. So we aren't in a way doing this a bit in disguise, but but We have a greater sensitivity to those issues And it's it's a bit like the previous question. I think we have to be able to see to not Not mix it together so that we reward that side in the conflict with humanitarian help help as Part of our total total project But that we as I said try to see foreign policy also through a health health lens And what I'm encouraged by is that that our experts when they meet regularly now start to bring these issues up in a different perspective One example just to mention You know Indonesia has been wary about sharing the virus of some of these bird viruses And I remember last summer Ambassador Holbrook wrote an article where he was very very harsh on Indonesia saying that this is really holding the world hostage and I have worked a lot with my Indonesian colleague, Minister Birayuda on this and Norway has tried in Geneva to Help and bridge those gaps Because what he is saying is that I'm not stupid. I know that that virus has a value It's worth something and I know they are those who would like to get hold of it to be able to produce vaccines and Then have income from that source and I'm not against that but I want to fair share And until there is a system for doing that We will be difficult this I think and remember ten years ago We had that in WTO on all these patent issues And this is highly ideological and controversial and WTO is constantly in a row with the US on this We had Ambassador Moose coming in protesting and being very angry with us But we have WTO has to push this issue and we have to push our you know Awareness and readiness to bridge that gap Because it can be bridged I believe and I think through this initiative we have launched It has given us access to Indonesia in a way we wouldn't have before and perhaps then we can help in Geneva To to find find a solution Hi, I'm Jim Sherry. I'm the chairman of global health at Georgia Washington University Jonas, thank you for your continued sharp thinking and your tenacity on these issues A question on on the World Health Organization and the related organizations your continued Conviction on the centrality of WTO and the international System is one I share But it's one that is not broadly shared And it's probably much less shared on this side of the Atlantic than on the other side of the Atlantic with the emergence of other entities How how would you what what is your thinking about how we approach improving the governance? of the international system in particular that the relations between these now separate giants that are moving on the international scene, whether it's a Global fund or a WHO etc. And how to do that to try to have the WHO not by declaration, but re-earn its centrality Could you elaborate a little bit more on the conflict where there's a lot of discussion here Well to Jim, I think you know the first point Which is the easy answer is to say that let us agree that this is an issue and Let us let us convene in in loose circles You know like this and then bring bring together The key players and and agree why it is an issue and why we need to deal with it there I think one can come Some way without challenging the integrity of those who participate. I know that among these Seven or eight or ten giants there have been ideas of agreeing on on the map If I understand correctly What what do we see and what would be the kind of division of labor and there are there are some objections to that And there are some who are in favor of it I think that the W. H. O.'s role will Change for good Because it will no longer be the organization doing health at the global level That was in a way by an explosion simply broken around 2000 and it will not come back into the old way But I think still double H. O. Has and that I haven't been you know into that for for some years probably Fundamental strategic we thinking about how double H. O. Would do is do its work When I was there remember it was an and draw you remember it was a combination of being strong on standards and norms In Geneva and with the governing bodies, but also with the field activities advice to health ministries and The argument was that unless you are out there in the field doing all these things you cannot play the role as the norm and normative Organization which is probably true At the same time with your experience at urn aids Perhaps urn aids was as it best before it got engaged in the field. I don't know But but you know during during this decade the discussion has come, you know Unates has to go into the field. There's a kind of a law of nature that that happens But maybe double H. O. I don't say this as Norwegian policy I just say it on the basis of one own reflection. Maybe double H. O. Should purify that role as norm and standard set there As the convener among those giants to agree on broad maps of strategy Where the Gates Foundation and where the different foundations and initiatives can come in and and agree on some of the main main main Main avenues, maybe something along along those lines On Afghanistan What you say in your question Does not seem to fit with Obama new strategy because here and as I have spent time in Washington during these days to learn We are there to to to fight and eliminate al Qaeda and Then what happens in Afghanistan is a bit of a different issue. I Think that this is going to be an issue. We have to discuss that because I believe that in order to succeed on the first goal We also have to see to it that Afghanistan hangs together and that it has a state and something which which is Meaning for its its citizens and there there are major achievements on health in Afghanistan The number of children being immunized has gone from 10 to 80 percent The number of children who go to a clinic and have primary health care has gone from 10 to 70 80 percent. I Went there up in the Northwest Afghanistan in October and I went to these schools Which used to be in these tables for the Taliban horses. It's now a School for girls. So so I believe, you know, we will have we are not there without troops to do that But in order to pull those troops out We have to do that because that is what is going to bring at least some stability and ownership On on on the health side. So but that is probably the easy part, you know But we have to do it the challenge here and I say this very openly when I'm in this country that is that The US is critical of his allies are putting too many restrictions on his troops I think that is a valid criticism criticism. If you are the commander of troops in Afghanistan You would like to have your troops with as few caveats as possible But if you move into the civilian side in the way you give civilian aid The number of caveats and special arrangements that donors have is just making this a nightmare 80% of money coming into Afghanistan is going outside Atkin budget There's between a half and one billion dollars that goes unaccounted for and I think the US for one which is the biggest provider No money is going through those channels and there are good reasons because there is corruption and there's all the rest of it But we know from 50 years of development cooperation But if you don't do your aid by building ownership, it's a short-lived thing So, you know, we have the strength and and we go all go to conferences and say we need more coordination But the readiness to be coordinated as a part of that statement is very weak So I don't know what is worst caveats on your military troops or These mass split in the way you give aid. I Probably think the latter is the worst Because you have 40 or 50 major donors and they all go about it their own way splitting up national priorities We have decided from the Wheatsons side that We we give now as much aid as our military contribution costs About a hundred and forty million dollars So we have a hundred and forty million dollar worth of military. We haven't to find that equation But it's it's reality now and we we have decided that 20% of our aid will go to the province where we have our troops But 80% will then go according to Afghan and UN priorities But if we all bring all our money to the part of Afghanistan where we have our troops There will be a huge distortion according to the needs and Everything will be more difficult And that brought me to Afghanistan So, I think Mr.. Minister, we could keep you here much longer having discussion, but we can't so on behalf of our guests I want to thank you very much for sharing your experience sharing your view of the world Sharing the really the wealth and the very broad perspective that you have on these issues and giving us a lot to think about In the United States certainly is this debate So please join me in thanking them