Well, I'm sure that most of you watching have already heard about this by now But on Monday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the don't say gay bill into law Which effectively bans teachers in Florida from even acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ plus people in grades K through 3 Now we don't know what the parameters of this bill are in actuality. It was left purposefully vague It says grades K through 3 But it leaves the door open for higher grades also, you know proponents of the bill like Ron DeSantis will say You know, really this is about you not teaching our children to be gay and indoctrinating them into a gay or trans lifestyle But one that's already not happening to you can't do that. So what exactly is going to be the effect of this legislation Well, as I stated at the start of this video it's going to force teachers to play it safe and just pretend like gay people and trans people don't exist and One Florida teacher spoke out and explained what this means for him as an educator in the state of Florida going forward I have a child in kindergarten right now. I know exactly That my my child has two teachers one of which has a daughter at home and is single the other is married and has four children I know everything about their lives because my kid tells me absolutely Absolutely, you are 100% correct That's what we do as educators. We build relationships with our kids and in order to build relationships You talk about your home life. You talk about what you do on the weekends. That's building community I it scares me That I'm not going to be able to have these conversations with my children because they're going to ask me what I did on the weekend I don't want to have to hide that my partner and I went paddleboarding this weekend because then they ask Well, what does partner mean mr. Binar and you know, I'm worried it. Can I tell them what it means? I'm also worried for my kids I have a little girl this year who has two moms and the kids are curious about her two moms They want to know about her two moms, you know If they come to if they go to her and ask her about her two moms And she doesn't know to say they're gonna come to me and ask me and then You know, so what do I do it just it opens up? for parents to really take some legal action against the schools and teachers and I am afraid for myself my colleagues and my students how do you expect to navigate that that situation because For as a parent of a young child I want to celebrate difference and I want my child to celebrate differences as well and to learn about them Absolutely, you know, it's hard to navigate Especially when you have words that are injecting and indoctrinating when you have those words coming from You know our state legislators and you know our higher government those words Those are synonymous with some very hurtful words and so when we think of when I think about navigating this bill You know, I am gonna be mindful, but I'm going to follow my kids discretion and what they want to discuss And if they ask me, I'm gonna be true and honest to them because it's who I am and he may very well lose his job If he is indeed honest, which is horrifying teachers don't know what they can and can't say because of this bill It's a form of censorship and the GOP just spent all of last year screeching about cancel culture and how they're against Censorship, but now all of a sudden in 2022 we're seeing them promote censorship because of the resurgence of Homophobia now the question is how do you sell the American population on homophobia when they've largely moved on and they embrace same-sex marriage and LGBTQ plus rights Mostly, how do you do that? And why would you want to do this? Will you do this by selling homophobia as protecting children? You don't just come out and say well, I'm against same-sex marriage point blank. No you sell it as I think really We have to protect children from these gay people who want to groom your kids And they've learned from the CRT debate, right? They've learned that you can get people to care about cultural war issues If you frame it in a certain way and protecting children is something that is going to resonate with a lot of Americans for good reason We all want to protect children, right? But that's why they do it and the reason why they're doing this is because if they stay, you know focused on these cultural war issues Then they don't have to focus on health care They don't have to talk about how they don't have a plan for education or how to fix poverty in the United States or climate change They could just focus on these issues that pull people in. You don't have to think much about them Most people have an opinion of LGBTQ plus rights So, you know, it's an easy political win for them if they can actually adequately Foster homophobia once again and that is what they're doing So because they found a way to reintroduce homophobia to the masses again and sell it to them in a persuasive way They've effectively ended their tactical retreat because they lost the gay marriage debate So we haven't heard the GOP talk much about gay rights in the past five years I mean they focused heavily on trans issues, but there's a reason why they're talking about this again And it's because they've ended their tactical retreat on gay rights and journalist Mark Joseph Stern Broke this down in a really interesting thread on Twitter. He writes last week I wrote about the GOP ending its tactical retreat on same-sex marriage and turbo charging its anti-gay agenda There's a cultural element to this too We're seeing the party's media figures attempt to resuscitate the kind of casual homophobia that seemed to be waning It's not just the resurgence of Republican claims that gay people are groomers who indoctrinate and molest children It's the return of nasty drive-by homophobia the casual mockery of same-sex couples that works hand-in-hand with anti-gay legislation It seems to me that casual mockery of gay people and their families is on the rise among the conservative media figures Whose job it is to restore a cultural environment in which anti-gay legislation is deemed acceptable We are backsliding on gay rights with truly shocking speed Bottom line the surge of anti-gay legislation cannot be separated from the rise in casual homophobia among the GOP's media figures Who are striving to create a cultural environment in which homophobic laws can flourish once again And it's happening with lightning speed and that should alarm everyone who cares about LGBTQ plus rights That should alarm everyone who has a loved one who's gay or bisexual or trans or non-binary Because this is what the GOP has chosen to focus on right and they are absolutely disciplined In their messaging so now they've chosen To go all in on homophobia again, and this is what they're doing. Why again? It's because if they focus on this if they distract you with this They don't have to focus on the fact that they don't have a plan To fix our broken healthcare system or education system They don't have to focus on the fact that if you're a millennial in this country, you can't buy a home You basically you can't move out from your parents house. They don't have to focus on all that just stay bickering About these cultural war issues that society has largely moved on from because we're going to reintroduce these issues And frame it a little bit differently so people who previously weren't susceptible to homophobic rhetoric Now are opening their minds to it Notice how we taught you about critical race theory and how that's indoctrinating children Well, we know another way that the libs are indoctrinating children They're indoctrinating them into the gay and trans lifestyle That's what they're trying to sell to people. I mean Joe Rogan. He's notoriously transphobic But for the most part he hasn't been homophobic to my knowledge But yet when he talks about the don't say gay bill He Used their framing he said well, look, I think people Don't just want you to groom their children. That's pretty simple, right?  That's grooming my child because if they're kissing and they can be married that implies that they can also have sex And I don't want my kid learning about that. That's grooming.  There's no friendship there. There's no romance there.  It's all Homophobic so they're ginning up homophobia and they're selling homophobia to the masses under the guise of we need to protect children And it's the most disgusting and insidious form of homophobia It might not be the case that they're overtly going after same-sex marriage Although they will if they can successfully overturn real v.   They're going to find out that their friend Has two mommies or two daddies. They're going to find out that their teacher is actually a trans woman That's a part of life but These reactionaries want to stop any progress that we've made over the course of the last five years Because they don't want to actually see society progress when it comes to other elements of life health care education They want to hold us all back by distracting us with these culture war issues And it's gross and I wish that people would see through it But they don't see through it. They're falling for it and my hope is that Leftist allies who are straight push back vociferously against this new wave of homophobia that we're seeing Because if not then it's not just going to be these don't say gay bills that we see We will actually see tangible gains that we've made Be erased


This program is providing students with intercultural opportunities both abroad and at the local level. Post-secondary institutions are going to be looking for these intercultural competencies and skills. We're creating a very diverse BC economy and a very diverse BC society and we need students to have these skills to succeed moving forward. We begin by the process of who are you, what is your culture. So it's really interesting for me to explore that with them and open their eyes to the self-discovery of who they are and what they're becoming. The idea of understanding their own culture and their own world view before they look at others I think gives them some grounding and then also allows them to see their biases and how stereotypes fit into their own set of ideas. Focus study on the development of intercultural skills is going to be very important for making a more inclusive society. I think it's really cool just to be able to see your life and your culture through a different lens. It really opens your eyes to another way of thinking and another way of just interpreting or seeing your life. It's a personal aspect of it, so personal stories, learning about where people come from, what's that like coming here, that sort of thing. Learn more about yourself and your own culture, kind of. You get to see the differences and see what you can learn from differences and get to know new people. I want to fully understand my culture and this course is going to help guide me through my journey. Everybody in my class had such new perspectives when they came out of it. I think everybody became a lot more open-minded. It's amazing.


Ensuring gender inequality in our society today, first of all, watch out for signs for domestic violence and help women gain power. You don't have an organization where it's only men or only women. You want to be able to put them in almost in the same space. Let your women be in leadership roles and leadership positions. Don't say, oh, because they can't do this, or the men can't do this, the females can't do this. Make it as equal as possible where we are and women don't sit back, it's time for you to get up and do something. All right. Let your voice be heard. Educate the next generation. Teach them. The next generation coming. They're moving a little faster than us, so it's time for us to sensitize them. Go to schools. Express yourself. I mean, with the media, this day, it's one voice, one word, and people are out there either being inspired or being taken in a certain space with it. Know your rights. Even know your rights. Talk to somebody. Know your rights. Absolutely. I think it's fantastic. And if there's any conversation about this going on that you can find for your social media or in little groups, churches, wherever you can be in religious centers, join the conversation. Talk about it. Speak about it. Speak up. Do something. Just don't sit back and wonder and watch. You must always speak up.


Hi guys, I'm Byron, I'm your Speaker of the Caucus and I just want to remind all of you to go out and vote for your student government. Elections begin May 10th and end May 11th at 11.59 p.m. You can vote in person here in Building 8 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. or online at elections.highline.edu. The link is below. I just want to thank all of you two birds and remember to vote.


Why you should never call a narcissist out?  Why you should never call them out on their nonsense? You cannot get a therapist to help them to understand that they are the narcissist You cannot show them one of my videos They are never going to get it You cannot call a narcissist out It never works that way because they're self-absorbed and lack empathy In their minds, they are always the victims Things are only being done to them While they cannot do anything wrong to anyone else So they are never going to process in their minds that they could be the problem They are never going to see it as though they have hurt or manipulated you Unless they believe that it was justified And then that's just going to give them narcissistic supply It's just going to make them feel powerful and in control of the situation Which in their minds is everything that they should aspire to be You might get to a point where you've taken so much unwarranted abuse from the narcissist Where it's made you so hurt and upset That you just want to come out and tell them what they are But if you do call them out If you do tell them that they are the narcissist They are just going to turn it around and call you the narcissist And then they're going to go on another one of their hour-long rants About all of the reasons why they think you're the narcissist Which may be considered further abuse and harassment But most of the time they're not even aware of what they're doing And even if they are In their minds they believe that it is justified They believe that as long as they do it it's okay They had to do it it was necessary or you deserved it They will gaslight you They will make you doubt your own memory perception and sanity They will manipulate you They will insult you And by the time their rant is over You are going to think that you're the narcissist You're going to be so hurt and confused by all of the insults they're throwing at you That you may actually begin to question if it is you Because that's the clear difference between us We look at ourselves We question if we're doing something wrong or if we treated it someone unfairly While they just don't care Or they might even see themselves as being powerful For putting you beneath them You cannot call the narcissist out It isn't going to work because they're not even going to listen to you They have never listened to you They have never valued anything you've said So why would they start taking you seriously now? When you tell them that they're the narcissist The narcissist is never going to listen to any negative feedback about themselves I know that when many people have watched my videos They feel like everything suddenly makes sense They finally understand why the person they're with Is always playing the victim And why they're always made to feel like everything is their fault They finally understand that they're dealing with someone who is self-absorbed and lacks empathy Someone who doesn't care about what they want or how they feel They finally get it While they always feel invalidated and confused They see my videos and it all makes sense And they may want to share this information with the narcissist Hoping that it's going to change something But that's really not a good idea And it isn't going to change anything Because narcissists have no desire to change They think that they're perfect In their minds everyone else is the problem The world needs to adjust itself To accommodate their needs or expectations Yet at the same time they cannot see how that is the foundation of narcissism If you call a narcissist out on their behavior You will be putting yourself at risk of danger or harm They will go insane They will fly into a rage It will be a very unpleasant experience for you And even though you may have told them that they're the narcissist They are not going to hear you They are never going to look at their own behavior And think that they need to make any adjustments You can show them books, videos Take them to therapists But none of it is going to make any difference They're not going to want to change anything They will only use those resources To point out your faults and mistakes Whether they are real or imagined It's just going to make things worse But I can understand why you would feel like telling them You feel like you've received this revelation You understand their motives And you just want them to realize The true purpose of their actions You can figure them out all you want But it's not going to change anything They're not suddenly going to be nice to you Just because you've figured them out Instead of trying to call the narcissist out Focus on protecting yourself Don't engage in their arguments Observe, don't absorb Respond, don't react Don't personalize what they're saying to you Manage your expectations The best way to show the narcissist That they're a narcissist Isn't by calling them out It's by gradually pulling back the narcissistic supply Gradually distancing yourself They may try to pull you back in When they realize you're no longer playing their game But you don't need to tell them that you've figured them out All you need to stop, all you need to do is stop engaging That will tell them everything you need them to know Thank you for watching I hope this video has it with you Please like, comment, share and subscribe Click the bell icon to receive notifications for my future videos If you're allowed to donate My PayPal link is in the video description Coaching inquiries, you can email me at narksoverevercoaching at gmail.com Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon


Oh It's inability to tackle me. He should lose the game automatically for his inability It's an embarrassment This man is like good. I feel like I know his name. I feel like he's actually good When you play this For me like when I play anybody that's like decent, I'd be happy The amount of running that I run into I fight the run is so Dude, I feel like the run is so good. Every run goes for 10 yards on me. Thank you. Every run goes for 10 I mean the way that dude bumping on them people The fact that he games like really cost the base money. I don't know It's like bro, if they would hold these blocks a little better. How do I think man's will be for no money spent boys I don't know.  Like you don't even have to have the right alignment to stop the running man We gotta play that Vincent. We gotta play Please thank god, we gotta get this juke off man. Oh my god, if y'all would block him He's just absolutely molested Carmichael right there. How do you expect it to get someone different? Yeah, well the aggressive catch like there was some point in the year where they they patched something His inability to tackle me he should lose the game automatically for his inability to tackle.  No way you didn't hit the buyers with that Oh my god, he's wide open for us. Oh, he's doing for a stripper fumble. Oh, yeah Hit there bro. That was the one dude that was manned up. Absolutely a waste of a man up right there. Holy Oh my god, I was looking on the other side of the field. There's just no like, okay. Just get that like holy I really stopped looking that side of the field though. I thought he would try to try to fit in the wheel routes of the running back I don't know the way I play offense, dude If I have like a double sided play where like there's options throw left or right when I see the user on one side I'm definitely going to the opposite side. I'm not even like trying them at all, dude Wait put his flat shorter for the running back.   See he runs like cover for me. There's all this I mean, holy s***.  Well, if I have seven convert hooks over here, I'm not running on that side of the field Glad you guarded.


Then we will talk about the cyclical pricing and what is cyclical pricing? Cyclical pricing related to the fact that there is always the instability in the economic condition. It is not constant. There may be expansion, there may be contraction in the economic activity which is typically known as the business cycles. And we also get different phases of the business cycle like starting from whether it is recession, whether it is boom, whether it is revival or whether it is the growth. In all these cases we get different stages of the business cycle and in all these phases either there is expansion of economic activity or there is contraction of economic activity. So the seller has to be very careful in deciding the pricing at the different phases of the business cycle when the economic activities are contracted and when the economic activities are expanded. So firms need to consider the economic condition in formulating the policy. So whether firms should continue the same pricing strategy irrespective of the phases of business cycle or they should adopt a different strategy across the phases. So the challenge is for the seller is to know whether they can do the same pricing in all these phases of the business cycle or they have to follow the different pricing strategy in the different phases of the business cycle. There are two kinds of pricing, one rigid pricing where the same pricing is being followed in all these stages and second is the flexible pricing. So coming to the rigid pricing companies should follow a stable pricing policy irrespective of the phases of the economic cycle. So whether it is a recession or expansion, if the consumer can postpone their purchase they would not be affected by a fall or the increase in the price. So company in this case of rigid pricing company generally follow a fixed pricing policy in all these phases of the economic cycle. And whether it is a recession phase, whether it is a expansion phase consumer cannot postpone their purchase, they would not be affected by the fall or the decrease in the price. So if the firm reduces its price to attract demand, consumer can wait for more decrease in price and in that way it generally reduces the price. Because once the consumer knows that there is there is a reduction in the price because of this economic activity they will anticipate that again there is going to be decrease in the price and if they are going to wait for the decrease in the price there is a going to be effect on the quantity demanded. Similarly, in the phase of expansion if firm increase the price consumer may hasten to buy in fear of the further increase in price. So even if there is a increase in the price still people they will consume more because they are going to anticipate that this is the phase of expansion or it may happen that again the price can increase and that is why they increase their consumption with a high price also. So neither in recession nor in expansion firm is getting benefit by changing the price. Here we have flexible pricing and under this flexible pricing firm keeps their prices flexible to meet the change in the demand or the typically the challenges in the demand and generally the flexible pricing is more relevant in case of the FMCG goods and the agricultural products because they are generally they changes with respect to the different phases of the business cycle. So in case of flexible pricing if you look at during the recession prices should be reduced in view of declining income of the consumer because there is a recession in general the market is going on a lower side and income decreases. So during recession price should be reduced in view of declining income of the consumer whereas when income rises price can also be raised to take advantages of higher demand especially when the supply is less elastic. So in one case if there is a recession price to be reduced because there is a decline in the income but when there is a increase in the income there should be increase in the price to take advantage of the higher demand. There is a increase in the price people that demand more and since that they demand more prices can be increased because if the consumer is not responsive to change in the price still they will continue the same amount of the demand and there is one more backdrop over here is also income is going on a increasing side. So in that case if they are increasing the price still the quantity demanded is going to maintain and there whatever the high price they are charging that is accepted to the consumer. Here one more point to note is that if the quantity is increase in a higher price the supply is also has to be less elastic because if the high price again supply more it is not going to give the benefit if supply is more than the demand the price has to come down again. So supply has to be less elastic high price can be charged if the income is increasing. Then we will talk about the multi product pricing and multi product pricing here is specifically relevant to those firm who produce large number of goods which have some kind of interdependence either in term of production or in term of the demand. Now what is a multi product pricing? Multi product pricing is relevant to the firm where they are producing more than one products and they are interdependent in term of production of the goods or in term of the demand for the goods. What are the options for multi product firm? Either they produce and sell it final products to the end consumer or they produce and sell only which are used as the intermediary goods. So either they will produce or sell the final products to the end user that is option one for the multi product firm or they will produce or sell only the intermediary goods which will be by the other firms to produce test as a final product. If the firm only producing only produce the intermediary products they use these goods internally for the final goods of production, sell part of to it to the other firm and sell it to the other firm. So when they are producing the intermediary products what are the options for them? They use these goods internally for final goods of production it is not going to the outside market or they will sell part of it to the other firms or they will sell all this product into the other firm. The pricing strategy has to be different in all these three cases whether it is getting used for the final products whether part of it is being sold or enter intermediary goods is getting sold in the market. And this pricing is dependent on the fact that what is the interdependence between the products when they are interdependent on the basis of the demand, when there is interdependence on the basis of the supply and when it is input and output kind of relationship. So we will start with the demand interdependence and here we will talk about two kind of goods one is substitute goods and second one is the complementary goods. So if it is demand interdependence then substitute good is one where both the goods they are related to each other and that is why there is a demand interdependence. Now what happens in case of substitute goods optimal output of each goods will be less than when there is no demand interdependence. So if there is no demand interdependence generally the optimal output for each good will be less as these good compete with each other in the same market and sale of one product cannot be enhanced at the expenses of the others. So the firm cannot sell maximum of either of this product both the goods they goes from one firm. So generally the optimal output for each good will be less because there is no interdependence and they are operating in the market independently and they competing with each other in the same market and sales of one cannot be enhanced at the expenses of the others because they are independent. So firm cannot sell maximum of either of this product if there is no interdependence. If the price of one commodity is increased it will push its customer to the substitute that generally happens in case of a market. Seller must trade its own product on the same pattern as those of competitor. Generally they have to charge the same price for both the goods or differentiate the product and take advantage of the perceived value pricing. So if it is both the products are substituted either they have to charge a price which is same or they will differentiate the product either on the basis of the content or in the basis of the service associated with it or the basis of the packaging or with the basis of the quality and they will say these two products are different and on that basis they will give a perceived value if the consumer is perceiving a higher value product for a product they will charge a higher price and they are perceiving a lower value for a product they will charge a low price. So both the products seller trade as the own product either they he will produce the product in the same level at charge the same price or he will differentiate it and the take the advantage of the perceived value pricing. And in this case generally the pricing is followed as the going rate pricing or the combination of the cost based pricing strategy. So if you remember the going rate pricing is the same pricing for the all the substitute products in order to avoid the price war or in order to avoid the uncertainty associated with a different market different price being charged for the different firms. Then we will see the demand interdependence in case of the complementary goods and what are the complementary goods when one goods cannot be consumed without the consuming the other goods. So in case of complement goods and increase in the demand for the other as well and optimal output is greater than when there is no demand interdependence. So optimal output is greater when there is no demand interdependence and increase in demand of one will be always leads to increase in the demand for the others. So increase in price of one good would result in the decrease in the demand for both the goods because both the both the goods they are complementary in nature. So if the increase in the price of one goods that leads leads to decrease in the demand for that goods and that simultaneously leads to decrease in the demand for the other goods also because both of them they are complementary in nature. Now, what is the pricing strategy that has to be in case of complementary good? Pricing strategy should be either product bundling because it is a complementary product or loss leader where the price of the product can be taken from the combined value of the product by charging low price to one product, but the complementary product is on a higher price. So, the pricing strategy in case of the complementary goods when it is a multi product pricing either it has to be the product bundling pricing strategy or it has to be to the loss leader pricing strategy. Then, we will come to the second category of multi product pricing where there is a supply interdependence between the product. So, here the firm has to first decide whether it would further process both the product or would dispose of the joint product and process and sell only the primary product. So, since the firm is producing the multi product it has to choose one of this option they have to further process both the products which is in the intermediary in nature or they would dispose of this joint products or the process or sell only the primary product. If the option taken is the first option then the pricing method should be the cost plus where the full costing has to be taken which consider both the variable cost and the fixed cost. And second option is the marginal costing of the joint product and in this case the marginal costing has to be taken marginal costing where we only consider the variable cost not the full cost which is consist of the fixed cost and the variable cost. So, when they are disposing of then in this case they are following a marginal cost pricing method and when they are not disposing of they are doing it and for processing for the generally they do the full cost pricing method or the cost plus pricing method. Then the third category is input output relationship in case of a multi product pricing and what is input output relationship large firm producing multi product bearing an input output relationship and what is the input output relationship? Suppose a sub drink manufacturer also producing in a bottling plant or if you take the example of tartarsans they produce iron and steel in one set of they produce they produce trucks and car in the other set of. But when it comes to the relationship between both this product produced by the same company iron and steel is being used to produce the truck and car and similarly when it comes to the final product by the sub drink manufacturer the bottling plant is always the complementary product because the final product of the bottling plant has to be taken to the software manufacturer then only sub drink manufacturer then only it can be the final product. In this case generally the pricing strategy is followed as the transfer pricing about which we will discuss bit later that what is transfer pricing and how the pricing has to be determined in case of the transfer pricing methods. So, in this case in case of input output relationship if the one product is the input and the other product is the output because large firm produce the multi product in this case generally the transfer pricing method has to be followed. Then we will talk about a pricing strategy known as Ramsey pricing and what is Ramsey pricing? This is developed by Frank Ramsey and the initial contribution of Frank Ramsey is the model of taxation and according to this model of taxation government should let be high tax on the goods which had low price elasticity and low tax for the goods which had high price which had high price elasticity. Why this has to be followed? Because if you look at what is higher if you are giving a high tax on the basis of this model of taxation if you are giving high tax you are leaving high tax on low price elasticity and low tax on high price elasticity because if it is low tax and high price elasticity because if tax is low this is the market where the responsiveness is more. So, if it is low tax it cannot if you are combining with the market still since the market is elastic at least there is a responsiveness is more, but rather than low tax if it is going to be high tax it is going to have more effect on the quantity demanded if the seller is trying to charge it to the or trying to transfer it to the buyers. That is why the low tax is given in case of the high price elasticity and why high tax on the low price elasticity because here the consumer is not very sensitive to the change in the price. So, in this case if the high tax is being charged which further leads to increase in the price this can be followed because there is less responsibility to the change in the price. So, the basis is again how the consumer is going to react in case of the change in the price and the change in the price has to be on the basis of the whatever the imposition of the tax. So, on that basis the model of taxation says that government should always leave a low tax in case of the high price elasticity and high price elasticity product and high tax on the goods which has the low price elasticity. Form should fix up the price close to the marginal cost of the product which has highly elastic demand and should change the substantial margin and according to this Ramsey pricing the price deviation from the marginal curve marginal cost should be inversely proportional to the price elasticity of the product. So, whatever the deviation for the marginal cost if it is more then it is the price elasticity is less and if the deviation is less then the price elasticity has to be more. Then we will talk about one more kind of pricing that is transfer pricing and transfer pricing are the charges made when the company supplies goods services or the financial to another company to which it is related as its subsidiary or the sister concern. So, generally this kind of pricing are it is more also in the internal manner because this is the pricing to that company which is related as the subsidiary or the sister sister concern. So, charges made when a company supplies goods services or financial to another company and the another company is either as a subsidiary or a sister concern. And when firm is vertically integrated it encounters the problem of fixing up the price of the product demanded and also for the internal. Now, here what pricing has to be what pricing strategy has to be follow because here pricing if you related it is related to the subsidiary sister concern and there it is going to like Tata group and just now we are taking the example of one group they produce iron and steel the other group they produce truck and cars. So, the final product of iron and steel is used as the input in the truck and car industry. So, in this case both of them they are subsidiary both of them they are the sister concern. In this case the pricing generally follow it is the transfer pricing and here if you look at the firm is vertically integrated and that is why there is a problem that what how to fix up the price for this kind of the situation. So, if in case of transfer pricing use of these goods typically the goods from the another industry of this typical group use of these good is the part of the total cost of final product, but involve no cash outflow rather it is only the transfer of account from one subsidiary to another. So, since this is the transfer of account from one subsidiary to another this is generally known as the transfer pricing because there is no cash outflow it is in the same group it is just transfer of account from the one industry to the another industry for a typical business how this generally use in the large organization for transaction between the various divisions internal pricing as opposed to the external market. So, when there is a large group of industry is there this is this transfer pricing is generally used when the transaction between the various division takes place. So, there is no cash outflow basically it is the transfer of account from one division to another division and it gain more importance in when the MNC started when we started the multinational corporation after the liberalization this typically this pricing technique gain more popular after this introduction of MNC. And this also often misused to ever takes on the net profit and that is because this is basically transferring account from one division to another division and that is why it often misused to evade the taxes on the net profit government keeps strict check on the transfer pricing. So, that the corporate may not evade the tax payment it helps related entity to reduce the global incidence of tax by transferring high income to the low tax jurisdiction and greater expenditure to those jurisdiction jurisdiction where tax is high. So, generally if it is there working in a group this incidence of tax can be planned according to the transfer pricing they generally transfer the high income to the low tax jurisdiction. So, that they pay lower tax and greater expenditure to those jurisdiction where tax is high and in that way generally as a whole as a large organization they can reduce that whatever the imposition of tax or the what is the effect of the incidence of tax. So, all regulatory authority generally they agree that transfer price should be at the arm length price the basis of the transfer price should be the arms length price and what is arms length price that the same price should be charged whether the product is transacted between the related party or with the third party. So, armor length price is one whether the transaction is between two party of the same industry or also between the related party or also with the third party and all regulatory authority they agree that the basis of the transfer pricing should be at the arms length price. But there is some potential problems if the product is transacted only between the related party there are various options for determining the arm length price and what are the options for determining the arm length price the comparable uncontrolled price methods, resale price method, cost plus method and transactional net margin method. So, these are the options to decide the arm length price and any of this method can be followed to decide the arm length price when the transaction is essentially taking place between the two related parties. The transfer pricing law requires company should submit details of its own transaction with others. So, whatever the what is the requirement for this transfer pricing the requirement for this transfer pricing that this law requires because this is given by the regulatory authority and this law requires that company should submit details of its own transaction with others major problem with non availability of the comfortable information in the public domain. So, what is the problem here in case of transfer pricing the regulatory authority requires that the company should submit details of the own transaction with others, but it is difficult to know the transaction you can at least give the details of the firm's own transaction with others, but what is the other transaction with the third party that information is not available in the public domain and that is generally the challenge or what the it comes when it is about the applicability of the transfer pricing. Then we will discuss few more types of pricing like peak load pricing and also this seal bid pricing strategy, retail pricing and administer pricing in the next session and after that we can do a comparative assessment that what is more applicable in the real world put which kind of pricing is being followed more in case of the real world.


Aaron Powell And I'm Trevor Burrus. Aaron Powell Joining us today is Brink Lindsey. He's Vice President for Research at the Cato Institute. So this is our first episode of Free Thoughts since bringing in the Trump regime. We're going to talk about an article that you recently published at Vox titled, Liberals and Libertarians Should Unite to Block Trump's Extremism. So this goes back to a project of yours for quite some time, namely, liberalitarianism. So what is liberalitarianism? Brink Lindsey Well, it's a terrible sounding word that I didn't make up. But I wrote a piece for the New Republic back in 2006, 10 years ago, in the waning years of the George W. Bush administration at a time when libertarians were utterly disgusted with Republicans in the White House and Congress. And so liberals and libertarians had a lot in common. They both had a lot of dislike for what was Republican control of Washington. So taking advantage of that opportunity and seeing that the historical ties between libertarians and conservatives were unraveling, I proposed that in place of the old libertarian right-wing fusionism. We might explore a libertarian left fusionism, which the New York, New Republic headline writers dubbed liberalitarianism. So the idea was conservatism has in recent years or had in recent years morphed away from any real concern with limited government and becoming more and more of a kind of just raw right-wing populism. And this was in 2006. This was in 2006. So I was a canary in the coal mine back then. At any rate, with the right having so little to offer libertarians, it seemed, and with liberals having been out of power for a long time, it seemed like perhaps it was worth seeing, exploring our common ground and seeing if there were ways to compromise away the areas where we disagree. So that article went nowhere. That idea was talked about a lot, but at the time this was just after the 2006 midterm elections where the Democrats swept both houses of Congress. So they were feeling pretty heady and like they didn't need anybody to tell them how to change liberalism, that liberalism looked like it was on the rise. That feeling was strengthened a couple of years later with first the emergence on the scene of the charismatic Barack Obama and second with the financial crisis which gave a black eye and conventional wisdom at least to free market economics and made liberals even less likely to want to make nice with libertarians. Then during the Obama years, this idea of a kind of emergent democratic majority really took hold in center left circles. The idea that with rising percentages of the population counted for by ethnic minorities that there was a kind of demographic destiny to democratic control of American politics in the 21st century. So here liberals felt like we can do fine on our own, we don't need any help from libertarians and that was the dominant sentiment. Meanwhile, libertarians were skeptical from the outset because of deep-seated suspicions of and constantly being rebuffed by people on the left. Those feelings got turbocharged with the election of Barack Obama who freaked a lot of libertarians out with his decidedly left of center viewpoints. And then with the rise of the Tea Party, it looked like right wing populism had a libertarian flavor to it again and so this idea of a liberal libertarian fusionism just completely fell by the wayside because liberals thought they were doing great all by themselves and libertarians thought that really their best bet was the populist right rather than ganging up with anybody against it. So all of this occurred to me that the 10th anniversary of this piece was coming up just with the surprising election of Donald Trump and I went back and looked at that piece and I saw that the last lines of the article were something like can liberals and libertarians learn to work together? Maybe not, but if not the most likely alternative is for them to languish separately and so I thought, wow, that looks pretty much on the money. Linguishing sounds like, I wish we were languishing, we're cowering in fetal positions terrified of what might happen next. So I decided to trot this argument out again and see if in liberalism's dark hours there were any takers for moving liberalism in response to Trump in a more libertarian direction. The overlapping views though of the people on the left and right who seem to get the electorate excited in this last election, namely Trump and then on the left Bernie Sanders because Clinton very conspicuously failed to get anyone excited. It seems like a flat out rejection of a lot of what you're advocating that if there's anything the left and the right seem to agree on now, it's say being opposed to trade, it's being opposed to the dynamism of an economy that you call for. It's wanting to shut down. It's a kind of nationalism, whether it's a right-wing semi-xenophobic form or kind of a left-wing trade union form. So if that's what they seem to agree on, why would the left in any case decide to jettison the one thing that the American populace seems to like? Well, yes. Populism had a big year in 2016 in both parties. The Sanders Phenomenon now overshadowed by the amazing rise and victory of Trump. But if Trump hadn't happened, we'd still be talking about the incredible Sanders Phenomenon because it was so surprising. So yes, a sort of virulently anti-market populism was waxing on both sides of the partisan aisle. And lots of Democrats now or lots of people on the left now are thinking if only we had run Bernie, we would have won. This proves that we need to double down on hardcore leftism rather than mushy establishment, technocratic neoliberalism. And so for sure there are strong voices on the left side of American politics today urging to a fighting fire with fire that we can fight right-wing populism with left-wing populism. I have two problems with this. On policy grounds and on political grounds, on policy grounds, it's awful. It's the antithesis of libertarianism, so I'm not interested in it. On political grounds, I think battles between left-wing populists and right-wing populists tend to have a kind of Bambi versus Godzilla outcome. That if you're going to organize people on anti-intellectual passionate us versus themism, blood and soil works a lot better than whatever kind of attenuated class consciousness there is in the United States. So I think as a political stratagem for the Democratic Party doubling down on Sanders' populism is just a terrible idea. But it may very well carry the day. So I wrote this piece with very low hopes that anything would come of it. There is within the center left today the policy views that I would like to see elevated and prioritized. They're there. That is, there are people on the left who support a kind of pro-market pro-growth reforms. So this isn't something like completely alien that you have to graft over onto the left from other quarters. It's just elevating these voices within the center left and making these reforms a higher priority. But right now, I'm not seeing that working out. We'll see what happens over the tumultuous days, weeks, months and years to come. Has it struck you as odd for a while or at least maybe even before the first libertarian peace that there is an alliance or has been an alliance between the right and libertarians? Is that always kind of irked you or did it only irk you in that 2006 era? Yeah, it didn't irk me until around the time I wrote that article. So from, I came of, I was a teenager and sort of became politically aware during the Carter years. And from that point forward, I was philosophically a libertarian, but in sort of the real world a conservative sympathizer. I thought that on the three big issues of the day, economics, national security and social issues, Republicans were clearly right on two out of the three. I was a Cold War hawk. That made it much easier. And on the issues where they were wrong, social conservatism, it tended to be more lip service than real substantive policymaking. So to me, back then in the 80s, it was an easy call to think that my libertarian ideas would on net be advanced by conservative Republicans gaining power. So be careful what you wish for. In 2000, that wish came true. Republicans had control of the White House in both houses of Congress and proceeded to govern an extremely unlibertarian manner. So it was really disillusionment with getting what you had hoped for and seeing that it didn't work out at all well and seeing the drift of conservatism away from being really interested in the government and more towards bashing the left and sort of stoking the id of the right-wing base with red meat. That seemed much more what conservatism was about in the O's to me at that time. And so I thought, I just don't see how libertarian ideas are going to have larger sway over American life when they are framed in a package with social conservatism in secular decline and the kind of neanderthal, anti-intellectual populism. So you're making these arguments to politicians. You're saying here are the policies that you on the left ought to advance if you want a prayer of coming back into power, giving a counter narrative to the Trump populism. But these people are beholden to their voters. And the voters seem to not be interested in these issues. And so going back to, so part of your, a lot of your argument depends on like, look, what we want is, we want prosperity. We want growth, but we want a couple that with protections for people who are hurt in a dynamic market. But the people seem to think like, we've, so the argument, say the argument for free trade and the argument in favor of immigration as a source for economic growth are about as well settled as policy arguments get and have been for, since the time of Adam Smith at least, and yet the voters continue to reject them. And they seem utterly uninterested in the data and evidence and arguments. And so why would these proposals work, I guess, even if they work? Like even if they lead to the policy outcomes we want, why would politicians embrace these things if the people don't seem to care and seem to want to trade off America rah-rah or class consciousness for growth? Well, I'm aiming a policy vision at politicians, not at voters. I think if there's anything we learned over 2016 is that voters don't start with a bunch of policy positions and then see which team lines up with their views. That's just not the way it works at all. Over the course of just the past year, Republicans have completely flip flopped their views on trade and Russia, just because team membership in Team Red now entails new views. So really, for the typical voter, policy positions are very lightly held. The one deep choice that voters make is, what team am I on? And these days it's a pretty easy choice to make. It's the team that doesn't hate my guts. So we have these sort of political identities, cultural identities with very little necessary policy content to them, and then scrambles amongst interest groups and ideologues to try to get the elites that match up the identity with a policy program to get your favorite things onto that program. So what policies go along with conservatism and with progressivism, I think, are not generally up to the voters, just in terms of how things work. As far as my message to policymakers of either party, I start with, for swearing, any expertise about what wins elections. I'm a libertarian. Most of my views are very unpopular. The idea that I will say, you know, do the libertarian thing and you'll win a lot of votes, that's just, it's the pundits fallacy that people, ideologues of all types are prey to, and it's especially sort of unconvincing coming from the group that never wins elections. I start with we have a substantive policy crisis in the country. We have the combination of slow growth and high inequality, high inequality, meaning that just looking at the growth rate doesn't tell you how lousy things are for most people because most of that growth is going to people at the top end. So if you put together slow growth and high inequality, you get to the point where over the 21st century, the typical household today is making less than it was in 2000. Maybe it's going to catch up this year, but basically it's been stagnation for the 21st century. It turns out that, so first, that's bad. Just in material economic terms, the average growth rate in the U.S. for the 21st century has been 1% annual growth in real GDP per capita that compares to the average growth rate during the 20th century of 2% growth. Is that that big of a deal though, one or two percent? Yeah, so it's half. So it's the difference between income, national income, the economy per head doubling every 35 years or doubling every 70 years. So will the economy double over a person's normal lifetime or quadruple over a normal lifetime? In other words, by the time you're old, will the economy be size A or size half A? Or if to say if it was 1% for the last, for the 20th century, it would be like 1965 now or something like that. So compound interest works wonders over the longer term. In terms of the stakes and the possibility of rising living standards, those possibilities are much narrowed by halving of the growth rate in terms of political economy, a whole bunch of our government programs are based on this idea of constantly increasing dollars that we can spread around. If that's slowing down, the problems with the long-term fiscal viability of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security get all that more severe. But then beyond these dollars and cents issues, there are increasing reasons to worry that economic stagnation is just very bad for liberal democracy. Back 10, 12 years ago, a Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman wrote this book, The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, which argued at length that economic growth goes along with greater openness, cosmopolitanism, tolerance, and by contrast, bad times or prolonged deterioration or stagnation in economic circumstances lead to a kind of defensive crouch values, protectionism, xenophobia, nationalism, scapegoating the other. And this is really a question about rates, not levels. So poor countries that are fast-growing, people are optimistic and on the go, rich countries that are stagnant get really irate, petulant, pissy, anything above. Trumpy. There you go. Trumpy, yeah. So here, when Friedman was making this argument a while ago, it all seemed sort of intellectually compelling. Now it feels viscerally compelling that over the past year, we've seen the rise of these populist movements that we're just talking about, which there's an ongoing back and forth about the extent to which economic anxiety underlies the Trump phenomenon in particular, or whether it's just racism or racial resentment. I don't think you can separate the two because the data show that bad economic times tend to bring racial resentment and sort of opposition to them, to the surface, make it more salient. When you look at, particularly at sort of relative gains over the past 20, 30 years, everybody who's less skilled is swimming against the tide of an economy that's oriented more and more towards people with high skills. But sort of swimming against that stream has been the lessening of discrimination against blacks and women over this time period. So that despite a sort of pervasively less favorable environment for working class people, women and blacks nonetheless have registered strong income gains because the reduction in discrimination has outweighed the economic factors. So you have smart income gains for women, blacks, and men are just absolutely at the bottom of the barrel. White men have been relatively worse off over this period, and unsurprising then that you're seeing these spasms and convulsions of protest and a sense that the governing institutions are illegitimate because they're not working for me anymore, all of that concentrate amongst white men. So I think it's very clear that the Trump phenomenon and populism more generally has tied in with this underlying economic malaise of slow growth and high inequality, and I don't see any way to do anything about it except through some kind of libertarian program. Well, do you think that the conservatives are, are you prepared to, I mean, I agree in the sense that I think you've diagnosed the problem correctly and there has to be something done particularly on the regulatory side, but it also seems like you've taken conservatives and written them off. But, I mean, there was a huge never Trump, and, and those people, I mean, there might be more never Trumpers in two years in the conservative movement than even now if he can, if he does particularly crazy things, which I think is a pretty good bet. Yeah, let me, let me back up. When I say the libertarian program, I mean a moderate, a moderate libertarian program that combines free market reforms with a, a reassuring enough safety net that, that the whole package is viable. I could picture that being situated amongst, on the Republican, I can picture Republicans forwarding that agenda. I can picture Democrats forwarding that agenda. I think, I think this kind of moderate libertarian economic policy fits better with social liberalism than it does with social conservatism. So, I'd rather see that package on the, on the left than on the right, but I can, there's lots of reform icons who are talking about a same, a general, the same kind of deal. We've got to revive growth with freer markets that we have to make that possible and allay people's uncertainties and fears and anxieties through a more effective social policy. So, I think that's, that is the program that works, that it works politically in that I don't see any way we can, we can move forward with free market reforms in the current atmosphere of anxiety where free market reforms are just going to make people feel even more exposed to, to volatility, creative destruction, et cetera, heighten their defensive crouch, unless it's packaged with a program of, of, with social policies that sort of take the rough edges off of, of creative destruction. Talk about welfare state kind of, or retraining or things like this. Yes. So, those are the. And in particular, the way I see things, there is an underlying demand for government backstop against uncertainty, against change, against downward mobility, against whatever. Bad things, the hazards of life. And nobody has done anything to, to reduce that public demand. That demand is there. And so, it's like squeezing a balloon. If you squeeze one set of policies as they answer that demand, you're going to get a pooch out on the other side. And conservatives have been relatively more effective at squeezing on, on spending growth. That is, so redistribution, it's, it's, it's easy to rail against freeloaders and, and that suits conservative rhetoric. It's hard to get anything done in Congress these days. So, big new spending programs are very hard to pass. So, what happens, so that's, that's a relatively easy bridge to hold. But when you hold it, what happens? That demand gets pushed into less transparent. It gets pushed into regulations that prop up existing businesses and protect people that way. It gets pushed into tax credits that, that do the same thing as the social programs supposedly, but on the cheap, but end up directing most of their benefits to high-income people who get the tax write-offs. So, you get, you get policy pushed into even less libertarian friendly areas that gum up the economy and, and, and that are less visible and, and therefore have fewer constituencies that might oppose them. The way I see it, the best libertarians can hope for in the current environment is, is to make redistribution as open and, as transparent and on-budget as possible, not have it buried in the regulatory code, not have it buried in the tax code, but have it up in front in terms of, of money transfers. First governments are pretty good at writing checks. That's one thing they know how to do so they can at least do that competently as opposed to micromanaging how people live their lives. They don't do that very well at all. Secondly, there is an ultimate constraint on how much fiscal transfer they can do, which is that they have to be paid for by taxes and people don't like paying taxes. So, the constraint ultimately on the degree of redistribution is people's appetite for taxation. That appetite is not voracious, so that puts constraints on government. Whereas in the current environment, when everything is fair game for expressing this demand for, for backstopping, there are no constraints because, because regulation and its effects are just completely invisible to everybody. And so, I think we're in a much less free economy, much less free society today than we would be if, if instead of pretending it was possible to eliminate all the redistribution possible, we instead focused our efforts on channeling it into those areas where, where it doesn't have all these pernicious ancillary side effects. Just shifting to that to a more transparent social safety net and more transparent redistribution policies risk though deepening the cultural and racial divides in this country. So, there's a, there's this very deep rooted, you know, the, from the conservative side argument that we don't want to give money to moochers. We don't want to enable the lazy. And so, that's the problem, one of the problems with redistribution, the other one being the kind of what's mine is mine argument. But at least with our existing system, we're saying, look, if we're going to give you money, we're going to help you out because you're poor, we're going to give you, give it to you in the form of reasonable things like housing assistance and paying for food and paying for education, like stuff that we in kind of a paternalistic sense know is at least good for you. Whereas if we just cut you a check, I mean, it is true that a, this is not all people, not all poor people are poor because of a lack of self-control. Self-control or foresight or wisdom. But many are that they're going to just blow it. They're going to use it in ways that aren't good. It's not going to help. And it's going to look, that transparency is going to make it even more apparent that those of us who do learn and earn a living are simply paying for the lifestyles of those who don't. Which I mean, to double down on that, I'll add one more. That was part of, for example, the Hillbilly Elegy book about discussion that the welfare state has destroyed in his mind many parts of middle America in a way that is not adequately appreciated. Maybe those people went and voted for Trump for some reason or whatever, but they're waiting for the government check. They're not working anymore, all this stuff. So maybe it would have a backward effect. Yeah, I think, first, the fears that if we provide cash benefits to poor people rather than in-kind benefits, they'll squander it on junk food and alcohol are wildly overblown. All the social science we have on this shows that this is just not a serious problem, that in fact the money isn't wasted that way and there are all kinds of enormous benefits to the poor to get the money rather than to be forced to bow and scrape for all these cobbled together in-kind benefits, all of which have different, often confusing criteria and eligibility requirements, etc. So there's a lot of degrading, oppressing paternalism of the poor that could be eliminated and the experience of poverty could be less degrading and less awful if you just got money rather than having to go through all these bureaucracies to get handouts. Beyond that, I think there's a big distinction between helping poor people contingent upon work and helping poor people with no work requirement or work contingency. What I would favor in terms of expanding the safety net would be something that builds on the current earned income tax credit, which is a payment to working poor people, but which currently only covers working families. So the people who are sort of most, that we're most focused on now dropping out of the workforce, etc., are single men. They are not covered by any work encouraging social program at all. They face a whole range of social programs that cut against and undermine work incentives. So I would like to see welfare policy very much have a pro-work orientation and which would require rethinking a lot of how we do things right now because the current welfare state is larded with anti-work incentives. I don't think, in terms of the question of deepening cultural divisions or racial divisions, I mean the EITC never comes up as something about freeloaders. It doesn't give off that vibe at all. I think people are okay with helping the working poor get ahead in a way that they are not okay with helping people not work. So I think that a more moderate libertarian, libertarian social policy that was much more tied to encouraging work rather than providing an alternative to work would mitigate rather than exacerbate these social divisions. So let's talk about the other side of this too, because I'm sure some of our listeners are thinking right now that we have here a reported libertarian saying he's okay with the welfare state. We can talk what that means, but what kind of things do you think we can, in this sort of trade that we would make with liberals if they would listen, where we would say, okay, you can have your welfare state, but we need this, so to speak. What are those things that we need? I mean you talked about these restrictions, but what are they? Yeah. So first I resist thinking about this in terms of trading, because that looks like two big voting blocks sort of, okay, I take some of column B and you take some column A and we'll put it together and we'll have a new party. But libertarians don't have that to offer. We don't have any voters. So all we have to offer is ideas. So what I'm offering to liberals is, hey, these are ideas that are most associated with libertarians, although you'll see through the links that plenty of people in the center left buy into the idea that markets work too. But if you borrow these libertarian ideas, you will advance your liberal values more effectively and stave off the Trump apocalypse as well. So it's not this, what do libertarians have to give up? Right now, libertarians are completely in the wilderness if a presidential candidate in 2020 were a kind of pro-market, pro-growth Democrat running against protectionist Trump. I don't think he would have any problem attracting a fair number of libertarian-ish voters. So it's not like libertarians have to give up something and give up the welfare state. It's just if liberals would elevate a pro-growth, pro-market orientation, they would certainly attract more libertarian-ish voters or college-educated whites still, Hillary lost to Trump. So that would be, so we need to get the growth, as you said, but that, first of all, growth is something that the liberals are often quite suspicious of, and markets too, and not just the Sanders type and the deregulation stuff. If we're talking about deregulation, they run away too. And if their opponents in elections can say, this guy voted to deregulate the economy, then that could be a cost to lose. But some of the regulations you talk about fixing to fix growth, you think are a specific type of regulation that the liberals should be concerned with. Yeah. So this ties into work I've been doing on the policy side. I did a paper last year with the, I'm good with wacky names, libertarians, and this paper, Low-Hanging Fruit Guarded by Dragons, which outlines a pro-growth policy agenda specifically designed with the idea that it might appeal to people across the political spectrum. So my argument was, we're in a slow growth era. It looks like it's not just a sort of cyclical hangover from the Great Recession, but rather they're kind of deep structural reasons why growth in the 21st century might be harder than growth in the 20th century. And so unless we improve our policy game, we should expect lower economic performance, and that's a bad thing. So we're in a growth slowdown. We ought to do something about it. The left and the right both have a stake in this. They may have big differences about how they want to spend the extra money that more growth would bring, but that's an argument for another day, and they both have a stake in getting to that other day. The question then is, okay, what is a common end matter if everybody's got different ideas about means to that end? So I was groping, well, what's a common means? What are policies that might command a scent across the ideological spectrum? And thinking about the problem that way, I started thinking about policies that might fit that bill, and then I thought about what they had in common, and what occurred to me was they were all species of what I called regressive regulations, so regulations that interfere with a new entry by competition, entrepreneurship, and do so in a way that shifts income and wealth up the socioeconomic scale, so regressive redistribution. So why are these particular kinds of policies not ideologically polarized? Well, first, even though Republicans typically are a pro-market, they're also pro-business, and these regulations are ones that actually help existing businesses fend off competition from new entrants, and so the oxen being gored by pro-growth reform here would be core Republican constituencies in many cases, and so not likely to find these amongst the sort of hobby horses of right-wing pro-growth reform. Likewise, because they haven't become right-wing hobby horses, they aren't immediately anathematized by the left, and even though people on the left tend sort of instinctively to valorize regulation as controlling greedy corporations in the name of the people, even they can smell out a racket and see that sometimes what's being justified in terms of the public interest is really just a way to redistribute money to plutocrats. So, it seemed to me that this ideologically was sort of a no man's land where you could maybe get around the polarization of Washington these days through weird odd bedfellows kinds of coalitions, and the issues that identified, which is high-skill immigration, intellectual property, patents and copyrights, occupational licensing and zoning, those are all areas where there are divisions within the left, divisions within the right that are starker than the divisions between the left on the one hand and the right on the other. And so, I think this, when we now shift back to kind of thinking about liberal terrians, could a Democratic party actually be more free market-oriented, seizing upon this agenda would be less of a stretch than moving in sort of stereotypically pro-market directions. Stereotypically deregulatory directions. When people hear deregulation, Republicans and Democrats, they tend to think about removing costs that burden existing businesses, health, safety, workplace regulations that add cost to business and slow them down and increase their burdens, reduce investment, reduce profits. Progressives automatically have a warm fuzzy feeling about such regulation. That's the whole reason we have government is to do those kinds of things. So anytime they hear deregulation, they hear like an attack on truth justice in the American way. When you see though that a big part of a pro-market deregulation agenda isn't removing costs from existing businesses but rather removing subsidies from existing businesses that shield those businesses from competition, then the feeling is very different and one that would be less of a dramatic shift by Democrats to make. Our conversation so far has focused almost entirely on economic issues, but when you listed that the three big ones that you originally thought the conservatives had two out of the three on, there's more to it. There's the social issues and there's the foreign policy and those are things that yes libertarians are free markets but we also care an awful lot about social freedoms, about civil liberties and about a let's call it more peaceful foreign policy. And you say so in the beginning of your article you list kind of the summary of what libertarianism would mean from both sides. And so you say with respect to economic issues, the libertarian proposition would look more libertarian on regulation and more liberal on redistribution which is what we've been talking about, but you also say that regarding social issues and foreign affairs, the hybrid I had in mind would maintain the commitments of contemporary liberals. And I guess if contemporary liberals are liberals as we've seen them for the last at least eight years, they don't look all that good or even all that libertarian on social issues and foreign policy. They've been pretty consistently pro-war. They have been fairly opposed to civil liberties or at least not that opposed to the government violating them. I mean I remember the shortly after the Snowden revelations came out, it was either Slade or Salon published a piece because Cato had kind of gotten out in front of that issue and they published a piece that was basically warning their readers away from the libertarians. These guys may look good on this, but don't be tricked. They're really free marketers. They're just pretending to care about this sort of stuff, but the left didn't really care much about that in part because it was their guy doing it. And then on the social freedoms issue, yes, they want to elevate the status of gays and blacks, but it's about elevating the status of traditionally disadvantaged groups, often at the expense of other groups, the identity politics. They don't seem to care much about social freedoms and we see that with what's going on in college campuses and kind of the declining support for free speech. So is there really on that side of things, on the social side, the civil liberties side and the foreign policy side, do liberals at least in a contemporary sense offer libertarians much at all or anything really better than conservatives do? Yes. So first I would distinguish between liberals and the entire left. There's certainly an illiberal left and I've got nothing to say to them. They are not interested in anything I have to say. So I'm talking of the left of the center is a big space in American politics and those people closer to the center are the people who are likely to possibly be interested in what I have to say. Those on the far fringes of the left of we're not going to come to any kind of agreement. So and if one always sort of leaps to saying well the left can't be partners with libertarians because look at these crazy loony lefties on the far fringe that just doesn't have anything to do with anything. Life happens at the margins. If more centrist center lefties become more libertarian in their outlook, that pushes the world in a good direction regardless of what the people in the French are doing. So there's that. Secondly there's a big difference between what liberal people think and what democratic office holders do. So yes, the Republican Democratic Borg, National Security Borg seems to be promiscuously interventionist regardless of, you know, on both sides. Still, there is much more anti-war sentiment on the left than there is on the right. There's drug warriors who are Democrats. There are surveillance state enthusiasts who are Democrats, but you're going to find more support for ending the drug war. You're going to find more support opposing the surveillance state on the left than you do on the right. So on a lot of social issues, yes, public opinion on the left and the right isn't what we want it to be, but I say on a number of these issues where historically the left was better than the right, still historically the left is better than the right even if Democratic office holders aren't and even if everybody on the left isn't and some people on the left are getting even worse. It seems that some of the things you list, I'm not exactly sure why, except for maybe Trump. And meanwhile, I think, you know, I would be unsurprised if over the coming years this flip on free trade doesn't really get cemented and it will happen not because liberals are pro-market. It will be because liberals are against bashing foreigners. So it will be their internationalism rather than their, you know, sympathy with Smith and Ricardo that carry the water, but that's okay. Well, it seems that except for the, I think you might be right about immigration and trade, but a lot of these things that are strangling the economy are kind of things that Trump has kind of intimated that he might understand and if he seems to maybe understand anything, and that's a big if, but he might understand how businesses and growth are hampered by regulations of the types you mentioned. So for, I mean, obviously on your list of things that we can kind of the low-hanging fruit as you put it. So he's not going to the high-sealed immigration, we'll just say he won't get into that. But the other three patents and copyrights, occupational licensing and land use regulations, aside from the fact that land use is very local. But I bet we do better trying to get this administration to look at those than to try and galvanize the liberals to push that or resist along those lines or anything that you're discussing. Yeah. So on just to take those specific issues on occupational licensing and zoning, they're both state and local issues. They're limited, not zero, but limited things the feds can do about those. And for sure, Republican policy makers are increasingly interested in those and would be sympathetic. But also, Democratic policy makers and left-of-center economic analysts and experts have also been focusing on these issues a lot. The Obama administration did policy papers on occupational licensing and zoning that were both very good. This was doing a policy paper saying this area of policy is problematic, is about the least thing you could do. It was just sort of dipping their toe into the waters of this kind of pro-growth, pro-market reform. But they did agree that it was very hampering to growth and ability. They put down a marker and one could have imagined progress in those areas under a Clinton administration. So I think on those areas, I think it's going to be completely... I don't picture Trump being interested in policy at all. So these are too subtle to be the obvious things that someone would do if they want to rev up the economy. And particularly if they want to do deregulation. Now, this does not exhaust pro-growth possibilities for deregulation in the areas where regulation does serve at least a has a kind of plausible connection to serving the public interest and protecting third parties on health and safety environment. Nonetheless, there are a whole host of regulations that are overkill, regulations that were a terrible idea in the first place, regulations that may have been okay once upon a time, that are completely outdated, or aggregates of regulation that each individual one maybe makes sense, maybe is defensible, but when you pile them together and see all their interactions, the whole thing becomes a mess. The Mike Mandel, who's a Democratic policy walk with the Progressive Policy Institute, talks about this kind of regulatory buildup as pebbles in the stream. You throw some pebbles in the stream, the stream of commerce keeps going and no problem, and each pebble, no big deals, indiscernible impact on anything, but over time you keep doing them and then you're going to dam the river, you're going to clog the stream, and that's where we are. So he has proposed a kind of regulatory improvement commission to weed out excessive regulations in areas where typically Democrats think this is a good idea, we have regulations in this area. And so on that front, still one can picture more centrist Democrats thinking, okay, health safety environment, regulation a good idea, but we can have too much of a good thing, and we need to do some updating, modernization, pairing back, etc. So I could picture that kind of agenda possibly attracting a Democrat, but easier to picture a Republican doing it, and that's the kind of thing that I would imagine and expect Republicans to take a whack at in the next couple of years, and good for them if they succeed.  You're predicting it'll turn out better this time around than it did the last time you proposed it. Anybody who's been paying attention and who's optimistic on January 24th, 2017 is, I want, they're smoking. So no, I'm not optimistic about anything right now, hopeful always. So prognosticators took a beating last year, so I don't even want to try to predict the twists and turns of American politics of the next coming year. So who knows how things could shake out. One possibility is that Trump really does succeed in moving this party durably in a Trumpist populist direction, and that Republican party becomes a kind of white nationalist party, and the Democratic party becomes the kind of cosmopolitan party, in which case just refugees from the pro-market refugees from Republicans could inject a kind of libertarian flavor into the Democratic party through a process of realignment. That's something that could happen, or it could be that we have, we degenerate into an authoritarianism on the right versus an authoritarianism on the left, and so I'm looking for hopeful agendas on how to get there. But no, optimism seems fast all right now.


I mean the fun. It's a fun game to watch. It's a fast game to watch. It's a physical game to watch And I think that's why people have have come out, you know to the games And that's what we're gonna kind of continue to try to show and you know kind of add that entertainment value of a you know high fast-paced physical fun game I mean that's been goal number one from day number one It's the first year of this program. We told the guys the one thing we could control and the one thing we could win was to have the highest GPA and the guys bought into that and and achieve that You know last year we didn't achieve that, but I think we finished the year with a 3-3 or 3-4 GPA The guys know that's there's two athletes It happens every year, you know if a guy isn't pulling his weight in the classroom He's he's not gonna play and the guys know that and that's kind of established into our program So the guys know that they need to do their part on on that side of it because at the end of the day You know, they're gonna need the the degree and the work to to fall back on and and they've done a really good job with that I think our our goals going into the year. I don't think change last year. We had three goals at the start of the year Win the Mac Receive a buy in the in the uchc tournament and win the uchc tournament We won the Mac We finished in the top two of the uchc, which got us a buy However, we didn't win the the uchc tournament. So I think those are our three Primary goals and the three big boxes to to check The added bonus for our league this year is this will be the first year that we can we can play for the aq So that is kind of the ultimate goal to get the aq and and make the national tournament I to kind of reiterate. I think the team The team being The bond of the team being strong guys willing to to put in the work day to day guys being able to and guys being willing to hold each other Accountable and push each other day to day. I think will go a long way in us creating the habits we need to be successful We need to we need to be more consistent I think we I think we played 11 or 12 our overtime games last year. So there's a real thin Thin margin in terms of winning and losing at this level. So making sure here, especially early on that we're You know paying attention to the to the details so we can You know come on top of a lot of those one-goal games


I think opportunities like LIYSF are very, very useful. You get to meet other people from different places, particularly different countries. You get exposure through talks to a number of different subjects. I think it will broaden horizons enormously and perhaps convince the kid who's really interested in theoretical physics that they're not alone. There are others like them.


Hola Woodworkers, Paul Croson here, small workshop guy. I try to produce a video every Saturday morning at 6 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. I'm running a little behind this week like I often am. So this is going to be kind of short but a little bit interesting. What I'm going to introduce you to very quickly, my new playlist that I'm adding which is the Old Coot Van Conversion Adventures. What I've done is I've ordered a Ford Transit with a high roof and the long wheelbase and I'm going to do a DIY van conversion. And my van won't be here for six or eight months. But anyway, I'm going to film a whole series of videos of my Old Coot van build and my van life and then I'll be doing traveling around the country, visiting some workshops, filming those, and also showing kind of like the beautiful scenery that I'm going to try to take in in my remaining part of my life. So I am excited. I've got some things that I'm working on. They're pretty, pretty exciting, pretty stimulating keeps the old gray matter working. Now, what I'm going to leave you with is that little video about the van build. Very short one. That's just a teaser. It's not the real video. I'm working on that. Stay safe in your workshop.


Since the human genome was first mapped, how our genetic makeup varies from one person to another has been the subject of countless studies. One important result of these efforts is the field of molecular diagnostics. With the capacity to identify specific genetic variations in patients, molecular diagnostics represents an invaluable toolkit for today's health professionals, who can now chart highly individualized treatment plans for their patients. Molecular diagnostics can be used to detect and monitor disease, to detect the risk for disease, and to help health care professionals determine the best forms of therapy for their patients. To explore where the rapid growth in molecular diagnostics has taken medicine, LabRoutes is hosting its inaugural Molecular Diagnostics Virtual Conference. Participants are invited to listen to and interact with leaders in the molecular diagnostics community as they discuss the applications, challenges, and implications of a wide range of techniques spanning this growing field. Keynote speaker Dr. John W. Longshore, Director of Molecular Pathology at the Carolina's Pathology Group, discusses recent progress in using genetic markers to select appropriate cancer therapies. With the goal of helping cancer patients gain access to high-quality biomarker testing, Dr. Longshore reviews the various steps of this therapy selection process, from tissue acquisition and processing, to result reporting. Dr. Raiad Samara, Global Product Manager at KIAGEN, delves deeper into the topic of disease monitoring by examining the challenges associated with the sensitivity and specificity of genetic assays. Focusing on next-generation sequencing and liquid biopsies in particular, Dr. Samara describes how KIAGEN has overcome these challenges in analyzing genetic variation. Dr. Ed Baker, Senior Director of Scientific Affairs at Roche Molecular Diagnostics, describes one area of molecular diagnostics that has successfully addressed its own set of challenges, cervical cancer screening. Dr. Baker discusses how screening guidelines for physicians have evolved from being experience-based to being data-driven, and what these changes mean for molecular laboratories and OB-GYN physicians. Of course, the power of molecular diagnostics extends beyond cancer monitoring and detection. Dr. Rodney Arsenaes, Clinical Scientist at Pathology Consultants of South Brewerd, explains how molecular diagnostics can be used to manage healthcare-associated infections, such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. The identification of patients with MRSA is crucial to limiting the transmission of infection through healthcare workers. Dr. Arsenaes describes how molecular diagnostics has helped establish an active MRSA surveillance program in a large community healthcare system. Together, these keynote and featured speakers, along with a host of other scientists and healthcare professionals, provide an overview of the current state of molecular diagnostics. By recounting their successes and struggles at the virtual conference hosted by lab roots, they provide valuable lessons for the entire molecular diagnostics community.