Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, and Mr. Teddy Gleason. The President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. Thank you all very much. Members of the Cabinet, Senator Hawkins, members of the House of Representatives who are here, the distinguished, and you ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for that very warm welcome. If I'd gotten this good a reception in that other Hollywood, I wouldn't have left. But it's a pleasure to be here at this gathering of the International Longshoremen's Association. And it's always a pleasure to be with Teddy Gleason. I'll tell you what I've always liked about Teddy. He sticks by his union. He sticks by his friends, and he sticks by his country. The kind of integrity and loyalty that is hard to come by today. And one reason that I wanted to come here was to thank Teddy and you members of the ILA for your generous support and encouragement. Having the support of union members like yourselves has meant a great deal to me. I hope I've returned that support. One of the things that I'm trying to do for union members and for all Americans is to fix things so that you can keep more of your hard-earned money in your pocket where it belongs. Not long ago, inflation was public enemy number one. We were told it could be a decade or more before we could ever hope to conquer it. Well, we brought inflation down from double-digit to 3.5% for the last year and less than 2% for the last six months. And that has helped the working men and women of this nation. You hear a lot about compassion in Washington from those who want us to return to the policies of the past. But their compassion is not for people. It's for programs. Now, maybe there's a little compassion for the people who make careers out of running those programs. What would have happened if we had permitted inflation caused by some of those programs to remain double-digit? A family of four and a fixed income of $20,000 a year would be $1,700 poor in purchasing power today. On top of that, they would have been made even poorer by much higher taxes.  The prime rate was 21.5% when we took office. It is less than half that now. Housing starts are up, auto sales are up, consumer spending is up, personal income is up, productivity is up. Our factories are beginning to hum and people are being called back to work. Since last December, 1.1 million more people are working. Let me just pause if I could for a second and interject something else about the unemployment picture. There's no question that in every recession unemployment is the last of the economic indicators to improve. And as tragic, I wish it could be otherwise. I know a little about that subject. I was job hunting for my first job in the job market in 1932 in the depths of the Great Depression. But we have to understand that there's more than just people who have lost jobs who are out of it. 30% of today's unemployed are new entrants into the job market. It is not a static pool of people who throughout the entire recession have been there unemployed. 70% of the unemployed today have been unemployed for seven weeks or less. And of all the weeks of unemployment, 50% of them are accounted for by 3.5% of the total unemployed. But that doesn't mean that we don't think there are things that can be done about it. That's why we advanced spending for the next several years in public projects to advance it to the present so that we could stimulate more jobs in that way. And that's why we are dwelling on job training for the change that have occurred in the job market. The recession that we're emerging from has been very difficult for many union members, especially those in autumn and steel as I mentioned before. But what we're doing is something that Washington has never had the self-discipline to do in the past. We're building a recovery that won't lapse back into inflation as soon as we turn around. We're building a recovery that is based on economic growth, that is based on government, not based on government temporarily pumping more money into the economy. The recovery that we're experiencing is an honest recovery. And we're building it to last. Just look back at the recession since World War II. I've heard a figure seven before, this present one, maybe give or take one or two, that's about right. Again and again, the quick fix was applied and inflation rose higher than it had been and they laid a foundation for the next recession which usually followed in just two or three years. You know, one of the things that I'm proudest of from my days in Hollywood is that I serve six terms as my union's president. Now, six terms, I'll let you in on something. I don't think I could take six terms in Washington. But I'm very proud of my union service. And let me join your union leaders here today and say be proud of your service and of your union. Be proud of what unions symbolize. Free unions represent free people. Someday let us hope that the members of a union called Solidarity will be able to assemble like this and enjoy what ILA members enjoy every day. The freedom we love. Our democracy encompasses many freedoms. Freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, and so many other liberties that we often take for granted. These are rights that should be shared by all mankind. This union has always patriotically stood up for those freedoms. And that's why I want to talk to you today about freedom not in the United States but in part of the world that's very close and very important to us. Central America. We all know that Central America suffers from decades of poverty, social deprivation, and political instability. And because these problems weren't dealt with positively, they're now being exploited by the enemies of freedom. We cannot afford the luxury of turning away from our neighbors' struggle as if they didn't matter. If we do turn away, we'll pay a terrible price for our neglect. In April, I reported to the Congress that the problems in Central America have the potential to affect our national security. This is still the case, and I want to reinforce it. Many of our citizens don't fully understand the seriousness of the situation. So let me put it bloody. There is a war in Central America that is being fueled by the Soviets and the Cubans. They are arming, training, supplying, and encouraging a war to subjugate another nation to communism, and that nation is El Salvador. The Soviets and the Cubans are operating from a base called Nicaragua. And this is the first real communist aggression on the American mainland. And we must never forget that here in the Western Hemisphere, we are Americans in every country from pole to pole. This Florida community, where we meet today, is closer to Nicaragua than it is to Washington, D.C. Two-thirds of our foreign trade, nearly half of our petroleum, passed through the Caribbean. It's well to remember that in early 1942, a handful of Hitler's submarines sank more tonnage in that area than in all of the Atlantic Ocean. And they did this without a single naval base anywhere nearby. Today, Cuba is home to a Soviet combat brigade, a submarine base capable of servicing Soviet subs, and military air bases visited regularly by Soviet military aircraft that control our shores. If the Nazis during World War II and the Soviets today have recognized that the Caribbean and Central America is vital to our interests, don't you think it's about time that we recognize that too? Some people throw up their hands and say, well, there's not much we can do down there. They say poverty and violence, repression in Central America, just the way of life. But democracy can't work. Well, I say baloney, and I think we'd all say something stronger if we were down in the docks. Costa Rica is as strong a democracy as you will find anywhere with a long history of peace, free elections, and stability. They don't even have an army. If democracy can work in Costa Rica and Honduras, if it can work in El Salvador and Nicaragua and Guatemala, there is still time for the people of Latin America to build a prosperous, peaceful, and free future. And we have an obligation to help them for our own sake, as well as theirs. People throughout Latin America are waiting to see if Republicans and Democrats in this country can work together to make the United States what it should be, a loyal friend and reliable defender of democracy and human decency. I believe that we must exercise that leadership, and the time is now. Since I spoke to the Congress Enable in April, Cuba has sent one of its best-known combat generals to Nicaragua. More Cuban soldiers and Soviet supplies have arrived in Nicaragua. This cannot be allowed to continue. Tomorrow, July 19, is the fourth anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution. This was a revolution that promised to bring freedom to the Nicaraguan people. History will call it the Revolution of Broken Promises. Tomorrow, the nine military commanders who rule Nicaragua with Cuban and Soviet power will indulge in boastful revolutionary reverts. But there are few left who will believe them. This consensus throughout the hemisphere is that while the Sandinistas promise their people freedom, all they've done is replace the former dictatorship with their own. A dictatorship of counterfeit revolutionaries who wear fatigues and drive around in Mercedes sedans and Soviet tanks, and whose current promise is to spread their brand of revolution throughout Central America. What kind of freedom have the Sandinistas established? Just ask the 1,300 stevedores at the Nicaraguan port of Carinto. Last month, their union assembly was packed with Sandinistas, and six union leaders were arrested. Their presumed crime was trying to develop ties with independent trade unions, including some here affiliated with the Ave of LCIO. I can tell you one thing. If all the longshoremen in Carinto were like Teddy Gleason, the Sandinistas have got a real fight on their hands. As a matter of fact, if they've got one like you, Teddy, they may be like those two fellas that were up sawn on a limb and one of them fell off. And there was a wildcat down below, and there were sounds of struggle coming up, and the one up still up on the limb called down, and said, hold on. He said, come down and tell me how to let him go. What kind of democracy is it? Ask the Nicaraguan refugees who risked salvation and attack to escape to Honduras. Let me read to you directly from a newspaper article. One Nicaraguan man still filthy, ragged, and above all hungry after an odyssey that began five weeks ago breathed a note of thanks. God has smiled on us. Imagine, with barely clothes on his back and nothing in his stomach, he believed that God has smiled on him because he'd arrived in free democratic Honduras. This man fled Nicaragua in May with many others when they learned the Sandinistas planned to relocate their villages. Let me quote again what one of the many others, what they had learned and what they had to say. They said, we left everything. We left the pigs, the corn, the animals. This year they wouldn't let us plant because they wanted us to move closer to the military basis. They wanted us to be in the militia, and we did not want to be executioners. But when the Sandinistas first took power, all their neighbors hoped that they would embrace democracy as they promised. In the first year and a half after the Revolution, the United States sent $118 million worth of emergency relief and recovery aid to Nicaragua, more than provided by any other country in the world. But the Sandinistas had lied. They rejected their pledges to their own people, to the Organization of American States and to the world. Let me say a few more words about those specific promises. The Sandinistas had promised the Organization of American States that they would hold elections and grant all human rights that go with an democracy. In short, they literally made a contract to establish a true democracy. The dictator, Samosa, was then persuaded by the OAS to resign and the government was turned over to the revolutionaries and recognized officially by the Organization of American States. So far, so good. But then, one faction of the revolutionaries backed by Cuba and the Soviet Union seized total power and ousted their revolutionary comrades who had been fighting to establish a real democracy. Nicaragua today is a nation abusing its own people and its neighbors. The guerrilla bands fighting in Nicaragua are trying to restore the true revolution and keep the promises made to the OAS. Isn't it time that all of us in the Americas work together to hold Nicaragua accountable for the promises made and broken four years ago? There's a vital link between what's happening in Nicaragua and what's happening in El Salvador. And the link is very simple. The dictators of Nicaragua are actively trying to destroy the budding democracy in neighboring El Salvador. El Salvador is moving toward a more open society and government in the midst of a foreign-supported guerrilla war. National presidential elections are planned. Through their peace commission, they've offered to talk even to the violent opposition about participating in these forthcoming elections. They've implemented an effective land reform program which has provided land for over half a million Salvadorans. And they've given amnesty to former guerrillas. This is El Salvador's revolution. This is one that is building democracy. Contrast this with the corrupted revolution in Nicaragua, one which has repressed human liberties, denied free unions and free elections, censored the press, and threatened its neighbors and violated a public pledge. It's time El Salvador's recognized for what they're trying to do and it's true that their path has been a hard one. Peaceful change has not always been easy or quick. We realize the human rights are not all in El Salvador that we would like them to be. The killing must stop. But you have to realize much of the violence there, whether from the extreme right or left, is beyond the control of the government. El Salvador is moving in the right direction. Its elected government is committed to further improvement. They need and they deserve our help. Just remember that scene last year, after months of campaigning by a variety of candidates, the people of El Salvador were offered a chance to vote, to choose the kind of government they wanted.  They destroyed hundreds of buses and trucks to keep the people from getting to the polling places. Their slogan was brutal.  But on election day an unprecedented 80% of the electorate braved ambush and gunfire, and many of them trudged for miles to vote for freedom. Members of our Congress who went there as observers told me of a woman who was wounded by rifle fire on the way to the polls. She refused to leave the line to have her wound treated until after she voted. Another woman had been told by the gorillas that she would be killed when she returned from the polls. She was a grandmother and she told the gorillas, you can kill me. You can kill my family. You can kill my neighbors.  The real freedom fighters of El Salvador turned out to be the people of that country. The world should respect this courage and not allow it to be belittled or forgotten. And I say that we can never turn our backs on that. The United States, the United States has only recently attempted to correct past neglect so that we could help Central America struggle for freedom. We're working for political and economic development. Most of our aid is not military at all. 77 cents out of every dollar that we will spend this year will go for economic assistance, food, fertilizers, and other essentials to help break the vicious cycle of poverty. And make no mistake about this. Of all the words that I've spoken today, let me underline these especially. America's emphasis in Central America is on economic and social progress, not on a purely military solution. But to give democracy and development a chance to work in the face of increasing attacks, we're providing a shield of military training and assistance to help our neighbors protect themselves. Meanwhile, the trade provisions of the Caribbean Basin Initiative will stimulate production and employment. Last week's congressional vote on the CBI is a step toward more work for their longshoremen and ours. Nor is that all. We are actively supporting the search for political solution and dialogue among and within these nations. We know that peace ultimately can come only if people talk to each other and learn to accommodate in an atmosphere of freedom. To this end, I dispatch my special emissary to the region. Despite the fact that the guerrillas rejected our offer, we remain ready to facilitate free and open elections. We also support the process started at Contadora for a multilateral approach to peace. In my speech to the Joint Session, I asked the Congress to join me in a bold, generous, bipartisan approach to the problems of peace and poverty, democracy, and dictatorship in this region. Many members of the Congress have responded in a genuine spirit of cooperation, despite divergent views on specific strategy. Senators Jackson and Mathias, congressman Barnes and Kemp, have suggested the formation of a national commission to build on our bipartisan concern for these key issues. I agree with them that this is a good idea. So today, I am announcing a bipartisan national commission of Central America. The commission will lay the foundation for a long-term unified national approach to the freedom and independence of the countries of Central America. The commission will be honored by a very distinguished American outstanding in the field of diplomacy, virtually a legend in that field. It will be headed by Dr. Henry Kissinger, who will present recommendations to me later this year. Their focus will be on long-term looking to what it is that we want and what we must do in the years ahead to meet the underlying problems of the region. In the meantime, we must not allow totalitarian communism to win by default, but we cannot succeed unless the Congress approves the necessary resources. All that our neighbors ask is for the tools to do the job themselves. And I ask you and every American, regardless of political party, to join in a common effort to promote freedom for all the people of this hemisphere. Just as you work so your children will have a better future, the United States must work so that the fledgling democracies of this hemisphere will have a better future and so that our own future can be more secure. The legislative branch must bear its share of responsibility for ensuring this promise.  I met with the heads of several of the states of Central and South America, and I pointed something out to them that very often we tend to forget. This Western hemisphere is unique. We are, as I said before, 30 countries down there, the three here in the Northern continent, but we are all Americans. We cross a line into another country. It is still North and South and Central America, and we haven't gotten together the way we should. We don't know enough about that area and we need to do more. Can you imagine what a power for good in the world, these two continents linked by the interests of Central America? We worship from South Pole to North Pole the same God. We have the same heritage coming here as pioneers to these virtually undiscovered continents. And what a power for good we could be with all the resources available in these continents if we help them in achieving what we have achieved here in this land, in freedom, in economic progress, in standard of living. Human rights means working at problems, not walking away from them. Without the necessary funds, there's no way for us to prevent the light of freedom from being extinguished in Central America. And then it will move on from there. A truly bipartisan approach to these problems can produce the kind of progress that will help the people of the region help themselves. You know, I've heard already and before knowing Teddy Gleeson, you know I've heard that ILA stands for I Love America. And that's true. America has a more patriotic union than this one. This union is great for the same reason America is great because so many different groups are working together, pulling together toward a common goal. The cultural diversity of this union in this country make us both strong and free. President Harrison once said in America a glorious fire has been lighted upon the altar of liberty. Keep it burning and let the sparks that continually go up from it fall on other altars and light up in distant lands the fire of freedom. Today I ask you to join me in an effort to keep the light of liberty alive in Central America. We must never let freedom fade where there's a chance to save it. We must never let the enemies of human dignity die out simply because it's the embers I should say not the enemies of human dignity die out because it's easier to turn the other way. With a timely investment now we can save freedom in Central America and I believe we must make that investment. I believe we have a moral responsibility to do so and I believe with the help of organizations like the ILA we will succeed in expanding freedom for the people of Central America. Thank you and God bless you. President, I'm simply overjoyed by your visit here this morning and I think I speak for the rank and file of the ILA. I think they welcome you here today and welcome to hear your programs and we will participate in those things and we remember from going to school we spent all too long we left in the seventh grade Mr. President but we remember to mind road doctrine and that's what we should take care of and make sure that America is safe and on behalf of this organization I'd like to give you this little bag I know you can't make it home and whenever a Gleason or Reagan gets together there's always a time for a storm. And I don't sound so good don't hold it against me. We'll stop with your old song that we signed 60 years ago when we first married. When you're old When you're old Those gold is the same as the day I've changed your name.


This research paper examines the efficiency of power plants in Russia, as well as the techno-economic processes and indicators involved. It also provides recommendations for the practical application and improvement of these plants. The capital expenditure for solar water heating SWH, plants with a drain-down system is 1.4 to 1.6 times less than traditional SWHs with circulation systems, while their payback period does not exceed 5 to 5.7 years. Biogas produced by specialized plants has a cost of 5,000 to 60,000 per cubic meter, but the price of biogas produced in low-energy power plants is approximately 0.000 to 270,000, making it more affordable than natural gas. Therefore, the use of biogas is economically viable at present. This article was authored by Alexei Mykolov. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Today is the 6th of December. It's the second last day of the COP. We have less than 24 hours to go to finish The news is partially good We had a completion of the Kyoto protocol track one of the three major issues that we needed to resolve in Doha Seems like we have the second commitment period for the Kyoto protocol The other two tracks on finance and loss and damage are still going on The presidency has asked the South African minister to do consultations on loss and damage and the Maldives minister to do Consultations on finance and they're consulting with ministers from different countries The loss the loss and damage track South African minister had consultations with different ministers just an hour or so ago She met with the minister from the Gambia Fatou guy representing the LDC group and various others as well We're hoping that sometime tomorrow the president and the chairs and the facilitators will be able to produce some Draft texts, but we're not sure what that will be and whether or not that will be acceptable on the loss and damage issue the Two extremes are the demand for an international mechanism from AOSIS backed by the G77 in China and The US wanting to kill the work program here on loss and damage and not continue it The European Union have put in a compromise proposal that continues the work program But does not support the international Mechanism and AOSIS and the least developed countries are still pushing for that remains to be seen whether they'll get it tomorrow I'll do my final report after we get a result from Doha. Hopefully in less than 24 hours from now


What's your blizzcon predictions? I mean they have just released a cat-a-shirt on blizzcon store so that is semi-confirmed Yeah, it's a kind of a shame, isn't it? Like everyone wants classic plus, right? So obviously it's gonna be cat-a. It's just uh afk do nothing milk angle But maybe they'll do classic plus as well. Who knows worst case scenario is there's no classic plus no cat And then wrath just like ends or whatever. I don't even know what they would do like just think of it like this, right?  You know, that's the diff


I love my village, but wouldn't it be great to see it grow? And I would love it if we had some sports facilities nearby. And if the community worked together, we could really do our part to prevent climate change. I can't believe how long it takes to get here. There's always so much traffic. There's got to be a better option. And then we could use this car park for something more interesting. Don't forget the milk! Got it mum! This place is so boring. I wish I'd make some new spaces around here. Like maybe some more green spaces and more things to do. Places to go on a weekend with the girls. And opportunities to get out and meet new people. This place could be really amazing you know.


In this video we provide the solution to question number two for practice exam number one for math 1030 In which case we're asked given this graph that you see here to the right Which of the following edges is a bridge now there's two ways you could approach this problem We could just go looking for the bridges inside the graph and see See if we can find them all or we can just go pry process of elimination go through these and see which of these are Bridges I'm going to take that second approach here because the graph actually could have more than one bridge In it and this graph definitely has more than six edges So I'm just going to check to see which of these are remember a bridge is an edge Which have removed would disconnect the graph So if we are looking on this graph here look at a x if I remove a x then it turns out the graph is still connected You can reach every other vertex that's still available like in particular you can get anywhere So a x is not the is not the bridge without b y if you remove b y right here Notice how the graph is still connected In particular b can still reach every vertex it could before and so b y is not the edge there That's a bridge if you look at cx something similar is happening if you take out cx You can actually still get from c to x if you detour through b so it's not going to be a bridge B x same thing there if you take away b x you can still get to you from b to x like so And so since there still is a path from b to x that means the graph has to still be connected What about x y here if you take away x y I? Can still get from x to y and therefore since there's still a path from x to y you cannot be a bridge If we're moving an edge if they were to disconnect the graph I mean those two edges and there's no longer a path between them if you can still find a path from the From the two vertices you remove the edge from it means it wasn't a bridge So by process of elimination looks like it's got to be f But let's just check it if you were to remove f Excuse me the answer f which is az if you took away az then aha the vertex z would be isolated from the rest of the graph There is no path between a and z anymore and therefore it turns out f is in fact the correct answer We perhaps could have found that out earlier By looking at the graph but because it turns out that's the only bridge that's on this graph But nonetheless f is the correct answer az is a bridge and the other five are not


I don't need to tell you how much we all owe to our honored guest this evening. When Milton Friedman came on to the intellectual scene in the 1940s, many of his ideas were considered heresy. His doctoral dissertation on monopolies in the medical profession was so controversial that its release was postponed until after the end of World War II. His ideas about free markets and monetary policy turned the conventional Keynesian world upside down forever changing the world's macroeconomic landscape. Dr. Friedman has illuminated the importance of preventing government from manipulating markets. He has drafted a whole series of constitutional amendments to limit taxation and government spending, to limit debt, to limit the money supply, tariffs, and government interference with market pricing mechanisms. Professor Friedman's views remain very controversial here in Washington. Indeed, the very thought of being unable to manipulate the money supply to win re-election or to impose a tariff or quota to protect a politically important constituency or to control the price of something as important as oil or health care, the thought of not being able to do that inflames the White House and Capitol Hill with angry passion. But out there in the real America, free markets and free men understand Dr. Friedman's views. By virtue of their clarity and authority, many of these ideas have left the world of opinion and entered the rarefied air of fact. But the great advantage of being correct, this Nobel economist, did not need to hedge his bets or cushion his ideas to make them politically fashionable. Like the great president he inspired, instead of catering to the conventional wisdom, he redefined convention. His were the opening shots of the Reagan Revolution, and indeed we've seen that day where shots heard round the world, except maybe in Little Rock. Some would like to call his notions conservative, but Dr. Friedman was neither conserving nor inventing his political philosophy, he was rediscovering it, reclaiming the lost intellectual heritage of the classical liberals, such as Adam Smith and John Locke. In this respect, he, as well as the Cato Institute, are profoundly liberal, and for rediscovering what it is to be an American, and what it is to be free, Leo Milton Friedman, the Chicago school he founded, and the Cato Institute of great debt. The epilogue of Dr. Friedman's book, Money Mischief, concludes with words spoken on the floor of the French National Assembly in September of 1790. And I quote, gentlemen, it's a disagreeable custom to which one is too easily led by the harshness of discussions to assume evil intentions. It is necessary to be gracious as to intentions. One should believe them good. But we do not have to be gracious at all to inconsistent logic or absurd reasoning. Bad logicians have committed more involuntary crimes than bad men have done intentionally. The gentleman who spoke those words was a deputy from Nemours, my great-great-great-great-grandfather, Pierre Samuel Dupont. Two hundred and three years later, it's very clear that Milton Friedman has exposed more inconsistent logic and absurd reasoning than any person since. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to present to you the Nobel Prize winner, the economic trailblazer, author, scholar, statesman, and champion of political freedom and economic liberty, Dr. Milton Friedman. Thank you very much for that. You embarrass me. It's a great honor for me to be introduced by Pete Dupont, who has kept alive that tradition, which is, I don't know how many, great to the cube to the fourth, great to the fourth power grandfather, enunciated during the Revolution in France. He is one of the few politicians in this country who has consistently stuck to principle and has not modified his principle with one of those buts that everybody has who believes everything you say but. And I am delighted also to be here on the occasion of the establishment of the Cato Building, since I thought it was inadvisable to build the building, but I also thought it was inadvisable for them to move out from San Francisco to Washington, to move from paradise to the evil city, but they survived the move and have really been remarkable in maintaining themselves as a bastion of principle and not yet having been corrupted by the atmosphere which they breathe every day. Now the building has a one great virtue that it got you a little farther away from the most corrupting aspects of that atmosphere. It is a beautiful building and it's a real tribute to what Ed Crane and his associates have been able to do at Cato. So I'm very pleased to be here on this memorable occasion. Fortunately also it's only really 6.39 my time, so I don't have to worry that it's late for you people. I have sometimes been known as associated with the aphorism, there's no such thing as a free lunch, which I did not invent. I wish there were more attention paid to one that I did invent and that I think is particularly appropriate in this city and that's that nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own, but all such aphorisms are half-truths. One of our favorite family pursuits as we've driven from one place to the other or done something else that you have to have somebody to keep you, something to keep you occupied with is to try to find the opposites of aphorisms. It's not hard for most of them, for example, consider history never repeats itself and there's nothing new under the sun. Which half do you want to believe? Or look before you leap, but he who hesitates is lost. So every aphorism or almost every aphorism has its opposite. And that includes free lunch. And the opposite is clear, there's no such thing as a free lunch. The best things in life are free. Now the best things in life are free, that aphorism was invented by a popular songwriter in the middle 20s and the example he gave was love. Love can come to anyone and the best things in life are free. And I'm not sure these days even most people would regard love as a free good. But the reason I bring that up is because in the real world, in the world of reality, in the economic world, there is a free lunch, there has been a free lunch, an extraordinary free lunch, and that free lunch has been free markets and private property. If you consider what explains, why is it that on one side of an arbitrary line there was East Germany before communism fell, on the other side there was West Germany? What explained why West Germany had such a different level than East Germany? It was a free lunch. It was a fact that they had a system of largely private markets, largely free markets. Same thing goes for Hong Kong and mainland China. The same thing goes for the development of the United States and of Great Britain and of all Western countries. None of us have grown and prospered or very few of us. There may be a few examples, but very few of these episodes of growth and prosperity have derived from some deliberate government messing in and seeing to it that things improved. But they've been a free lunch provided by a set of institutions which are invisible, which as Friedrich Hayek would always say, are a product of human creation but not of human planning, not of human intention. And now the reason I bring this up now is because it seems to me we in the United States at the moment have available to us if we will take it, about as close a thing to a free lunch as you can have. It's a funny thing. After the fall of communism everybody in the world agreed that socialism was a failure. Everybody in the world more or less agreed that capitalism was a success. And every capitalist country in the world apparently deduced from that that what the West needed was more socialism. And it doesn't matter whether you're talking about the United States or you're talking about Germany or you're talking about Britain or many another country or Japan for that matter. But that's obviously absurd and let's look right now the opportunity that we have to as close a thing to a free lunch as you can conceive of. President Clinton has said as part of his program that what we need is widespread sacrifice and concentrated benefits. He doesn't stress as much the fact that there would be concentrated benefits as he does that we absolutely have to have higher taxes and sacrifice in order to get this so-called deficit under control. The fact is that we need exactly the opposite. What we need and what we can have and what is the nearest thing to a free lunch is widespread benefits and concentrated sacrifice. It's not a holy free lunch but it's close to it. Let me give you a few examples. The rural electrification administration was established in the 1930s in order to bring electricity to farms when about 80 percent of the farms did not have electricity. We now have 100 percent of the farms have electricity. They shifted to telephone service. Now 100 percent of the farms have telephone service and the rural electrification administration keeps on going Maryland. Suppose you just abolish the REA. All it's doing is making low interest rate loans to concentrated interest mostly to so-called public utilities, the electric telephone companies. The people of the United States would be better off, they'd save a lot of money that could be used for tax reduction, but not only would they be better off, who would be hurt? A handful of people who deserve to be hurt. They have been living high on the hog. They have been getting government subsidies at the expense of the rest of the population. I call that pretty nearly a free lunch. Let me give you another example. This illustrates Parkinson's law. In agriculture, in 1945 there were 10 million people employed on farms, 10 million both either family or hired workers. And the Department of Agriculture had 80,000 employees. In 1992, there are 3 million people employed on farms and the Department of Agriculture has 122,000 employees. If we take the part of it that's most specifically agricultural, the money that is classified as being spent for the stabilization of farm prices and farm incomes, we were spending $1,500 in 92 prices adjusted for inflation. We were spending $1,500 per person employed in 1950 and $5,500 in 1990. Now suppose we just abolished that program completely. Most consumers in the United States would benefit. Food would be cheaper. There would be less of their tax money going to encourage farmers to produce goods to be stored in warehouses to be destroyed and given away. Isn't that almost a free lunch? Not even the farmers who get these monies now would really be as badly off as they think they would be because most of the money they get, they just spend on producing things they shouldn't be producing, buying fertilizer they shouldn't be fertilizing, and so on down the line. So we have a free lunch there. And you can keep on going. There's hardly an item in the budget which does not offer such an opportunity. It is said, what the liberals will tell you about this, what the Clinton people will tell you, is that well all of those things are there because the people want the goodies, but they're just too stingy to pay for them. That's utter nonsense. The people don't want these goodies. Suppose you put up to a referendum of the American people, a simple proposition. You buy sugar and you have two choices. We can set up things so you buy sugar that is produced out of beets grown on American farms and cane sugar in American farms and so on, or you can get the sugar from El Salvador or Philippines or somewhere else. Now of course if you insist on having home grown sugar it will be twice as expensive or three times as expensive as if you have sugar from abroad. Suppose you had a referendum on that. Do you think you'd get an overwhelming vote to have the higher price sugar and not the lower price sugar? Nonsense. The people don't want that. A very small group of special interests, a selected group, that concentrated benefit group want it, and the people never hear from it. The people never have a chance to express their will. We are not governed by the people. That's a myth that carries over from Abraham Lincoln's day. We don't have government of the people by the people for the people. We have government of the people by the bureaucrats for the bureaucrats. Again, let me take another myth. President Clinton says that he's the agent of change without asking what kind of change and whether it's good change or bad change, but leave that aside for a moment. That simply is in the economic area for the moment, that's false. And the reason why he gets away with it is because of the great mistake of talking about the 12 Reagan Bush years as if they were one period. They weren't. You had Reaganomics, Bushonomics, and now Clintonomics. Reaganomics had four simple principles. Lower marginal tax rates, dereguless regulation, restrained government spending, monetary policy devoted to stable prices, noninflationary monetary policy. Well, Reagan did not achieve all of those. He made good progress on them, as you all know. What was Bush's policy? It was exactly the opposite, as judged from what happened. Higher tax rates, more regulation, increased government spending. So that was a reverse. Now, what is Clinton's policy? Higher tax rates, more regulation, more government spending. So far from being an agent of change, Clinton's economic problems is Bushonomics writ large. He is a true, proper successor of Mr. Bush. We know what the results of reverse Reaganomics were. I hope we don't see the results of Bushonomics writ large. On a more fundamental level, if we get below this immediate surface, our present problems, both economic and non-economic, arise mainly from the drastic change that has occurred in my lifetime and in the lifetime of many of you here about the relative importance of two markets, two different markets, for determining who gets what, when, where, and how. We have two such markets. We have the economic market operating under the incentive of profit. And we have the political market operating under the incentive of power. And what has happened in my lifetime was that the relative importance of the economic market has declined in terms of the fraction of the country's resources that it is able to use. And the importance of the government market, of the political market, has greatly expanded. And to summarize, but I want to go on in a little greater length, but to say in advance, what we have been doing in my lifetime is to be starving the market that has been working and to be feeding the market that has been failing. And that's essentially the story of the last 50, 60 years. The world was very different when Rose and I were growing up. We are in the process of trying to write our memoirs, and that has led us to go back and rethink and relive our youth. And we are struck enormously by how different the world is. We are far wealthier today than we were then, but we are less free and we are less secure. Economically, we've done enormously well. In terms of the kind of society we live in, we've done very, very badly. Let me suggest, let me show what's happened to the relative importance of these two markets. I graduated from high school in 1928, a long, long time ago. When I graduated from high school, total government spending in the United States at all levels, federal, state, and local, was a little over 10% of the national income, about 11%, 12% of the national income. Two thirds of that was local. Federal government spending was about 3% of the national income. And that's roughly what it had been since the Constitution was adopted a century and a half earlier, except for periods of major war. Half of that went for the Army and Navy. Local government spending was something like 7, 8, 9, local, state and local, and half of that was going for schools and roads. Now, today, total government spending at all levels is 43% of the national income. And two thirds of that is federal, one third state and local. The federal portion is 30% of national income about, or 10 times as much as it was when I was graduated from high school. And that figure understates the fraction of the resources that is being absorbed by the political market. Because in addition to government spending, government mandates a great many expenditures on all of us which government never used to do. From the simple thing of requiring you to pay for anti-pollution devices on your automobiles, to the clean air bill to the aid for disability, you can go down the line. If you add in the costs imposed on the private economy, that essentially the private economy is an agent of the federal government. Everybody in this room was working for the federal government about a month ago filling out income tax returns. Why shouldn't you have gotten paid for being tax collectors for the federal government? But that's a use of your resources. So I would say that at least 50% of the total resources of our nation, total productive resources, are now being organized through the political market. In that sense, in a very important sense, we are more than half socialist. So much for the input. What about the output? Consider the private market first. And there has been an absolutely tremendous increase in our living standards, almost entirely due to the private market. A gentleman whom I don't really know, but by the name of E.B. Lee, graduated from the Harvard class of 1934. And at the 55th reunion of Harvard in 1989, he read a little piece about entitled As We Were, and I want to read that part of it, which deals with the physical conditions, because it brings it out better than I can any other way. And here's what he wrote. We were before frozen foods, computers, radars, credit cards, and ballpoint pens. For us, time sharing meant togetherness. A chip was a piece of wood. Hardware meant hammer and nails, and software was what you slept in during the hot weather. We were also before ice makers, dishwashers, clothes dryers, electric blankets, and disposable diapers. When we were in college, it was a privilege to go. Pizza, Cheerios, frozen orange juice, and instant coffee were unheard of. AIDS were act of charity or breath mints. In our day, grass was mowed. Smoking was fashionable. Pot was something you cooked in. And fast food was what you ate during Lent. Farmers and businessmen took risks without thought of going to the government for help. And I cannot resist quoting from a non-economic part of his, Paul, he went on to non-economic part, but I just want to quote one sentence. We were probably the last generation to think a girl needed a husband to have a baby. We were young and gay. Speaking for myself, I would say that radio was in its early stages. Television was a futuristic dream. Airplanes were all propeller-driven. A trip to New York from where my family lived 20 miles away in New Jersey was a great event. And I never was west of the Delaware River until I went to graduate school at the age of 20. Truly, a revolution has occurred in our material standard of living. And a revolution has occurred almost entirely through the private economic market. Government's contribution was essential, but not costly. Its contribution, which it's not making nearly as well as it did in an earlier time, was to protect private property rights, to provide a mechanism for adjudicating disputes. Beyond that, you have to recognize that there were some spin-offs from wartime research that private industry was able to use. But certainly the overwhelming bulk of what I've described as a revolution in our standard of life came entirely through the private market. Now, in sharp contrast, look at what the output of results of the greatly expanded role of government has produced. Whereas a private market produced a higher standard of living, the expanded government market produced many problems. Again, the contrast is sharp if I may make it that way in our own personal experience. Both Rose and I came from families with very low incomes. Incomes that by today's standards would be well below the so-called poverty line. But we both went to government schools. We both thought we got a good education. Families in our condition, at our families today who had an income corresponding to what we had then, would likely be much less fortunate. Their children would have a much harder time getting a decent education. As children, we were able to walk to school and we weren't afraid of being mugged. And we can walk in the streets almost everywhere. An interesting contrast is that in the depths of the depression in 1930s, when the number of truly disadvantaged people, in great trouble, was far greater than it is today. There was nothing like the current concern over personal safety. And there were very few homeless beggars littering the streets. What you had on the streets were people trying to sell apples. There was a sense of self-reliance at that time, which is if it hasn't disappeared, it's much less prevalent. In 1934, I was a graduate student at Columbia University and we thought nothing of walking across Morningside Park down to Harlem and going to the entertainment places in Harlem. There was no, the subways were safe. They weren't, there was no graffiti. There was no danger of being mugged. It was a different world. Moreover, you could even find an apartment to rent. After we got married and moved to New York in 1938 to get an apartment, we looked in the apartments available column of the newspapers, took a half a dozen that we wanted to look at, looked at them, rent in one. People used to give up their apartments in the summer in the spring, go away for the summer and come back in the autumn to find a new apartment. It was called the moving season. Now, New York today, probably the best way to find an apartment is to keep track of the obituary columns. What's produced that difference? Why is the New York housing a disaster today? Why does the North Bronx look like parts of Bosnia that have been bombed? No question. It's not because of the private market, it's because of rent control and it's because of government activity. Again, when we moved to Washington in 1941, it had a population of 700,000. The metropolitan area had a population of perhaps a million. Today, Washington DC has a population of 600,000 and the metropolitan area of four million, almost all making a living out of spending other people's money. And are they spending it very carefully? Despite the current rhetoric, despite all the emphasis today on the economic problem, that's not our real problem. We are a very prosperous country. Our economic problems are rather minor at the moment. The economy is basically very strong, amazingly strong. It is really a miracle, really a tribute to the strength of what private markets and free enterprise can do. That with fewer than half the total resources of the country, our private enterprise system can produce the highest standard of living in the world. The standard of living that's the envy of everybody around the world. Our real problems are not economic. Let me give you one example of why, even in this area, as I say, I'm inclined to say our real problems are not economic despite the best efforts of government to make them so. I wanna cite one figure. In 1946, government assumed the responsibility for producing full employment. We passed the Full Employment Act. In the years since then, average unemployment has averaged 5.7%. In the years 1929, when government didn't make any pretence of having anything to do with unemployment, unemployment averaged 4.6%. So, our unemployment problem, too, is largely a government-created problem. But nonetheless, economic problems are not the real problems. Our major problems are social. Deteriorating education. Lawlessness and crime. Homelessness, which is a misnomer. It's the littering of the streets with people who are mentally ill, who are beggars or loiterers. Not loiterers, no. Ha, ha, ha, ha. I said loiterers. I may say that in 1933 or four at the depth of the Depression, you couldn't walk down a street and find somebody as we do in San Francisco all the time who was sitting there with a sign. Please contribute so I can get a shot for my cat. At any rate, the collapse of family values, the crisis in medical care, teenage pregnancies, every single one of these have all been either produced by or exacerbated by the well-intentioned efforts of government. I don't need to demonstrate that to the Ocato audience, Charles Murray, who's in the audience. His book, Losing Ground, is really persuasive evidence of the extent to which this is a government responsibility and with respect to most of the others. The so-called homelessness on the street, largely a result of the emptying of the mental institutions by a philosophy of liberation and so on. I think it's easy to document two things, that we've been transferring resources from the private market to the government market and second, that the private market works and the government market doesn't. What's hard to do, much harder, is to understand why we've done that. Why is it that supposedly intelligent people, well-intentioned people, have produced results like that? One of the answers we all used to give and are all attempted to give and which is certainly part of the answer is the power of special interest. The fact that the 3% of the population who are in agriculture are widely distributed among some key states and therefore they get a political power out of all proportion to their influence. You have the people who come to urge tariffs, the customers who will be hurt don't come and testify against them. They don't know they would be hurt and moreover, each one would be hurt a little. It doesn't pay them to go and testify and so on. That argument has been made many times and we're all aware of it, the power of special interest. But I think there's a much more fundamental answer which is more extensive, more basic. And that has to do with the difference between the self-interest of individuals when they are engaged in the private market and the self-interest of individuals when they are engaged in the government sector. If you're engaged in a venture in the private market and you undertake a project and it is a failure, the only way you can keep it going is to dig into your own pocket and so you have a strong incentive to shut it down. On the other hand, suppose you start exactly the same enterprise in the government sector with exactly the same prospects of success or failure. And if it then fails, you have a much better alternative. You can always say, oh, we know, we really should have done this on a bigger scale. It wasn't on a big enough scale. And you don't have to dig into your own pocket. You have a much deeper pocket to dig in, namely that of the taxpayer. And perfectly good conscience, not being dishonest or anything. You can try to persuade and typically succeed in persuading not the taxpayer, but the congressmen who are in charge of the taxpayers' purse, that this is really a good project and all it needs is a little bit more money. And so, to coin different other aphorism, if a private venture fails, it's closed down. If a government venture fails, it's expanded. And I challenge you to find any exceptions. We sometimes think that the problem is to elect the right people to the Congress. I think that's false. You won't believe me, but I believe myself when I say that if a random sample of the people in this room were to go, were to replace the 435 people in the Congress and the 100 people in the Senate, the results would be just the same. You're all principled, that would include me too. I'm not leaving myself out of that. Because where people stand dependent, where people stand depend on where they sit. It's an old, old aphorism and it's true. And the people in the Congress, in the Senate, are fine decent people, they want to do good. It isn't that they're deliberately engaging in activities that they know will do harm. It is that they are immersed in an environment in which all the pressures are in one direction and one direction only. There are a few exceptions. Dick Army is one. There are a number of others. But people don't do bad things for bad motives. Everybody does things for good motives. But here, the Congress are besieged day by day with people urging them to do good. And it's very hard for them to avoid that. And what you find, and there have been some recent studies that demonstrate that, is that most of the pressure for more spending comes from the government itself. It's a self-generating monstrosity. And the only way, in my opinion, you will change it, is by changing the incentives that the people in Congress have under which they operate. Changing what is in their self-interest to do. Same way in the private market. If you want people to act differently, you have to make it in their own self-interest act that way. As Armie Alchin always says, there's one thing you can count on, everybody in the world to do. And that's to put his self-interest above yours. I have no, unfortunately, panacea for changing the self-interest of the people. The constitutional amendments that Pete referred to would be fine, that's fine. I'm all in favor of them, but you're not gonna get them. There's no mechanism whereby you're at the moment going to be able to achieve anything like that. The only thing on the horizon is how he riches Pete's scheme and others of us, the term limits movement. A six-year term limit for representatives would change drastically the incentives under which they operate. I'm afraid we'd lose Dick, but we'd gain even more. Not in the way of better people, don't misunderstand me. But in the way of a change in the incentives under which people operate. But I think that those of us who are interested in trying to see to it that we reverse the allocation of our resources, that we shift more and more of our resources to the private market and reduce and have less and less resources in the government market must turn our attention away from the immediate sort of direct action of electing the right people. At one point, we thought electing the right president would do it. We did it and it didn't. We have to turn our attention to how can we change the incentives under which people operate? Term limits is one movement and it's an excellent movement and it's making real progress. There have to be, but there have to be other movements. Some of it is being done now on the state level. Wherever you have initiative, referendum, you have an opportunity to change. On the whole, I think that the pure democracy in that sense, I don't believe in democracy. Nobody believes in democracy. Nobody believes that a 51% of the people vote to kill the other 49%. That's appropriate. And pure majoritarian rule would say it is. But what we do believe is in giving everybody the opportunity to use his own resources as effectively as he can to promote his own value so long as he doesn't interfere with anybody else. And on the large, experience has shown that the public at large through the initiative process is much more attuned to that objective than are the people they elect to the legislature. So I think the referendum process has to be exploited. Term limits is one. In California, we are working very hard on initiative for parental choice in schools, effective parental choice, which will be on the ballot in 1994. Maybe we won't win it, but we've gotta try. At any rate, that's the world that Cato is trying to contribute to. And it's trying to contribute to it in many different ways. By documenting these points I've just swept over in broad generalities about the way in which these government programs are doing harm about the unintended consequences of these well-meaning programs, that's one way. And that will wake the public at large up. It's gotta bring, we've gotta bring home to the public at large. That they are being taken to the cleaners. That it isn't true that these government spending is for the goodies they want. It's not that at all. And as they become aware of that, as public opinion changes, you will eventually, maybe, will be able to get more institutional changes which will establish the appropriate incentives. Let me close by telling one more story that your hi-hat business reminds me of. This has to do with what changed Britain when Thatcher came in. The one person who had more to do with that than any other, in fact, is a person most of you never heard of, though some of you here surely did, Antony Fisher. Antony Fisher was an air fighter, a fighter in the Air Force, fighter pilot in the Air Force, during World War II, who somehow or other happened to get hold of Friedrich Hayek's book Road to Serfdom in 1944, just after it came out, who was persuaded by it and decided after the war that he wanted to do something that would promote a free society. And so he went to see Fritz Hayek at the London School of Economics and he told him he was thinking of getting elected to parliament in order to try to influence matters. And Fritz told him it won't do any good getting elected to parliament. You'll just be one vote there, you'll be like all the rest. You won't get a real change unless you change the thinking of the intellectual community in Britain. That's what you've got to do. So Antony, Tony went away and he started a business. He looked, he wanted to go into an agriculture in some way and he wanted to find an agricultural enterprise that government didn't control. And the only thing he could find that government wasn't controlling was chickens. As it happens, there was a revolution in the production of chickens in the United States at that time. He came over to the United States, learned about that, went back and started it in Britain and was an enormous success. He finally built up a large public company that was sold. But with some of his first earnings, he started the Institute of Economic Affairs, a free market think tank in London. He hired Ralph Harris, now Lord Harris, Arthur Seldon, now Sir Arthur Seldon to run it. And the Institute of Economic Affairs in turn changed the intellectual climate of Britain, changed the attitudes and values of Margaret Thatcher. And without the Institute of Economic Affairs, you never would have had the Thatcher revolution. That's a good example for Cato of what a think tank can under the best of circumstances accomplish. Thank you very much. Thank you, Milton. I want to thank Rose Friedman and Milton Friedman for making a special effort to come out from their beloved San Francisco to a city that's not their favorite to join us this evening. Let me just make a personal note and that is that everyone agrees Milton Friedman is a great economist, but there can be debate over which academic has been the most important economist of the 20th century. I do not think, however, that there is any debate over which academic has done more to inspire people around the world and to promote the ideas of liberty around the world. And that person is Milton Friedman.


I have lived the first 44 years of my life in Birmingham. It's a big city in England. It was a great place to grow up. Four kids still are around England. I was always fascinated with taking things apart and trying to rebuild them. After high school, I trained to be a jeweler and I did that for 14 years. I could literally make you anything. I moved on to the construction industry where I learned carpentry and then all the aspects of plumbing and electrics and stuff. But I just wanted to do something completely different and it just put another feather to my bow. I originally came to the United States to be with the woman I'm now married to. She's originally from California. We met online. I'm fortunate to be one of the success stories that she was the person who I was thinking I was meeting when I did come over. We spoke for about 12 months, 18 months. Back and forth and then I told her one day that I was coming over to see her and she didn't believe me until I sent her the screenshots of the air ticket to come over and she got all excited. That was the start of everything. You can find out a lot in 12 months about each other. We're both painfully honest. So by the time I did come over to meet her, I felt like I've always known her. 2014 when I moved over, I've been so settled here. I feel so much at home. My main difficulty is people understanding me because of my accent. Some people get it and they can understand me normal and some people just, they'd look at me blank like I'm speaking Swahili and I'd go, okay, I can't help it. I was just born this way and I just grew bigger. I actually love how pleasant people are here, how welcoming they are. The majority of people who I've met have been lovely people and also the food's great over here. I was city waiting for my wife to finish work one day and on the radio there was an advert for trucking. And I thought, oh, that'd be a great way to see the country. And I get paid to do it as well. Thank you very much, sign me up. That was the best decision I ever made, work-wise. I wish I'd done this job years ago. I actually like my own company. I can't annoy myself that much and I love the peace and quiet. I actually said to my wife that I would do over the road for a couple of years and maybe I'd come and I'd stay over the road. I just, I'd love driving all over. I love Oregon because that reminds me a little bit of England with a greenery. Utah's a beautiful state. Differences in all different states. It's just like driving across Europe because every state feels like a different country, almost. It's beautiful. I actually don't really feel like I'm that far away from anyone. The good old phone keeps me in contact, which is great and having the headset on so I can always speak with my wife. My kids in England, they skype me. A video call me on WhatsApp or whatever. I always feel connected. I've been a trainer for between 12 and 18 months. It's been a real good experience. I just love to pass what knowledge I do have in the short period of time I have been driving to a new driver so he doesn't have to struggle. I think as you go around the country and you go into these different terminals, you realise just how varied the driver pool is. Everywhere you go, there's somebody new who's going to give you a different perspective of their little patch of America. I'm like a big sponge talking to people and taking it all in. There's some lovely people that work for me. When I first thought about doing trucking, Knight was one of the first to reply to me. My recruiter at the time, she was so amazingly helpful. That girl was like, I mean, she came across as really professional and then they helped me through the process of going through, starting the orientation and now to this and everybody who I've dealt with seems to step up to the plate and do exactly what you ask and need. What actually more can you want? That's why I'm trying to do my job. Everybody else seems to be doing theirs, right? So I just want to be a part of the team.


of where PollinTech is today. We've invented a process to mechanically pollinate crops as a supplement or as a replacement for bees. AESU brings some very unique things to a partnership. They're inspiring entrepreneurs and students like myself to create our own companies. We've received workspace for offices, guidance. We have mentors that we can access, both faculty and business leaders in the community that come in and help. I'm not sure we could have pulled off PollinTech without ASU.


I am here today to celebrate the National Lottery's 27th birthday and to reveal this beautiful art installation. The installation is beautiful and there are 636 bowls on there. The 636 bowls represent the 636,000 projects. The props represent some of the community projects that the National Lottery has funded here in Northern Ireland for example the arts or sports. If I could make any positive change for my local community it would definitely be where my passion lies, which is in the arts. I have actually seen the positive impact of the funding first hand on so many different projects. I've been to Derry before for the kinship care project. I grew up in many different places that the National Lottery actually funded. I've been to desks and the nerve center and yeah I've seen it first hand. It's something that I feel very very passionate about. I love the work that they do. If people want to apply for funding you go to the National Lottery, good causes page and search for funding.


Hi everybody. So, I'm Lisa Larson and I teach to row. And in fact, I'm going to be teaching a beginning intermediate to row class in about three weeks on June 22. It's been be online via zoom. So, if you're interested, I will put the link down in the description. But the last time I taught a class, I remember looking around and looking for a flip through that compared the Pam Pamela commemorative set. And the Pam's vintage to row which I didn't find so I thought maybe I would do a flip through for you guys. So, as you see, Pam's commemorative set comes with this nice bag. I actually bought it in this full set, which comes with a book and the bag comes with a. It comes with the pictorial key to the to row. And it comes with a bag, and all of that stuff. Now, I bought this when it was very, very early. And so this was the only way to get it. But I think now you can buy it just as, as a single deck. I would tell you though, it's probably best to not buy the borderless one, because I did look at a wonderful flip through. When somebody compared this deck to the borderless one that they sell and there was something it looked like they had just, they had just taken the borders off instead of resize the cards so that the perspectives were off a little bit so wouldn't I wouldn't suggest that. But this is a beautiful deck. It's supposedly the coloring that should be the most original to Pam's original artwork and color. And in fact there's another deck called the original true I'm going to pause this for just a second and go get that deck. Okay, I'm back and just for reference. This is the original. It's called the original writer weight, and I'm not going to be doing a flip through on this one I'm going to be doing these two today but just so that you understand the difference. I'm not really fond of these too much they are, if you can see they're really glossy, which I'm not really fond of, and they have kind of a green tinge to them, everything has a green tinge to them. So I'm just, I think they were trying to go for what this deck actually is but they just didn't didn't do a good job at it. I don't know some people may really like this deck and you know that's that's fine but but just so you understand there's a difference between the commemorative deck and the original deck. So, like I say you probably can get the commemorative deck and just like a regular box like this or a tin I'm not sure, but this, this commemorative set is how I bought it. So, okay, so I'm going to be looking at that one, which I just absolutely love. And I'm also going to look at the Pam's vintage to row. And this is a deck which is it's a limited edition. This I believe is the second. This is the box to it. This is the second edition, I believe. Although I will say that I thought the second edition didn't have this little curly queue up in the corner which I really love on these. I don't know if you can see them then this one is the best to see it there it's like a little curly queue right there. But, but this is more of a a vintage look. Okay, and these like I said this is a limited edition you can only get it at a couple of little card shops online. And I absolutely love both these decks. I wanted to show the difference between the two, because both of them are meant to be as close to the original Pam coloring as possible now before we get started to I just want to let you know that both of these decks have smaller cards. They have the playing size cards, the playing size deck. So there's the difference in the size so this is just a little hand deck which and the vintage which I just love I actually use these size cards a whole lot more than I do the these decks, I don't these are still pretty stiff because I don't use them that much. And then this other deck, the this one comes also in a nice little tin. And backs are the same.  All right, so let's get started. Let's take a quick look at these guys. So like I say this is the commemorative deck and this was made to look as close as possible to Pam's coloring. The backs are gorgeous. I absolutely love the backs of these with the rose that's on the death card and Pam signature and the cards are nice. Pretty good stock. They're not too glossy they've got kind of a matte finish but nice nice thick stock. And these cards. I am so in love with these cards, the vintage cards. This is the back. Again they have the lilies and the rose kind of a kind of a rose there. What I love about these two and I don't know if you can see this too much but this is a real linen look to it. It's got a linen, it doesn't have a sheen it's a linen feel you can feel it. The cards are nice. They're not quite as thick as these ones are, but they've got that linen feel to them which I absolutely absolutely love. So obviously one's bordered one's not, but I'm really looking at the colors now which I love and and this deck here comes with a couple of extra cards of Pam's. This one and this one, which are beautiful, which I just stick them in there and use them as extra cards if they come up and the small vintage deck comes actually with nine of those extra cards. Oops, sorry for shaking that thing. Nine extra cards. I don't, I don't have them in there right now but so just so you know but they're, they're kind of nice to, I think this is just a beautiful. I think that's a beautiful card that I can read and that's kind of nice. It's a little bit interesting with the skulls down here and the stars and the sun and look at these at yards almost they're part of it seemed like they're part of the sun but I almost kind of look at them this as yards so anyway. Okay, so flip through. We'll start going through these puppies. So you can see, let's see here. Okay. Here's the full magician. I priestess. I just love this one here. There's a little bit more of a ground under her there than there is on this one. And also you'll notice, well, when we get to the minor arcana these don't have numbers they do on the major arcana but on the major arcana they don't have the names of the cards so you see that. Okay, we have the Empress down here. We don't have that down here. The higher fount lovers, the chariot strength, no fortune, justice, hangman. Oops, where did I get those mixed up hang on death temperance devil. Here's the judgment. So in our corner and again you see that the aces don't have the, the name down here but these also don't have the numbers on the vintage duck. And she aces. And again you can see these beautiful little curly cues on this vintage duck I don't know if I accidentally got the original or not. And there are flip throughs that will show the difference between the first edition and the second edition swords. And you see both of them have the Pam's little signature down here. Next up again there we go. I just like the look. I love this it makes me feel like I'm kind of involved in the card. I'm not separate from I'm not looking at it it feels like I'm in it. Now and I wouldn't be able to tell you I'm not I'm not really versed on Pam. I'm not ABC and D so I wouldn't be able to tell you what this one is and what this one is but you know if I look I, it looks like, you know there might be a slight difference in here and now if I would say that there's some kind of difference in here at all it would be, you know maybe there's a difference between the A and the B and the C and the D, which again I am not well versed in. And there's plenty of things on YouTube where they will educate you on that. And last but not least the wands. That's another one where I kind of wonder if there's just a slight difference. If one is, you know, an ABC or D and the other one is another one. I kind of see a little bit difference in the head there. And if any of you out there are familiar with that. And you can recognize the difference between those I'd love to have you put in the comments so that I know. And there you have it, the difference between the Pam commemorative set. And the ham vintage deck. Now I will, again, just give you a slight look at here's the small vintage deck you can see that it's very similar to the hand size. But interesting I don't think the hand size one have those little curly, curly cues in the top that I was pointing out. I'm just noticing that now I'm not sure I don't think that every car has them on the on the regular deck but I'm not seeing them anywhere here so. But you know, I love, I love having a nice small deck I have small hands. Again, for the commemorative deck. There is hand size playing card size deck as well. Oh there's one of those cards. There's one of those cards that just that they just put in there. And this is actually this is interesting. I forgot about that. So this small deck here, that one, which you get in a nice 10 has an extra card I think it has two extra cards, and I can't I can't remember I didn't remember that at all. So there's an extra card like I say I will just stick those in there and and read them as an extra card. You can see they're very similar similar and look, and you know in choosing the reason I did these two decks is because in choosing these two decks. You know, you would want to choose these two decks one of these two decks, if you like that old world kind of feel and that you know something that's opposite of the radiant row you know I mean I love the radiant row. And there's some really beautiful the illuminated to row and there's some really beautiful clones out there, but you know it's just a difference in preference. And if you have a preference for this kind of old world feel, then these are the two decks that I would choose from. If you're just learning, you want to make sure that you understand that you're not going to have the names down here on the, on the cards or the numbers on the major corner, or the aces. And you won't have the numbers on the minor corner, so you know you get used to it but you do have to be aware of that because it might trip real real beginners up a little bit. And that's something that can't be overcome if you really like that look. So anyway, I wanted to let you guys know because, like I say I teach classes and I require in my classes, I teach with a writer weight Smith clone. Because I feel I'm, I'm one of those people who just feels that if you learn this deck if you learn the writer weight Smith deck, and learn it well you can go and you can use 80 to 90% of the other decks out there on the market. Because, I mean there's a reason that this one is so popular there's a reason why this one is a classic. And, you know, I just think that learning on this is is really valuable and then you can move on to other decks all the cat decks. And there's a crow deck that I got recently that's beautiful. So this is the deck that I have people get when I teach my classes, like I say I'm teaching a class, starting in three weeks from Monday, which on June 22. I will put that information in the down in the description. And I thank you for watching and go forth and have fun with your to row.