Hello, friends. We're going to give it a minute for people to join. Hello, everybody. I see, I already see friends I know in the, in the attendees. Hello, Esther Kwan. So many people. Hello, everyone. Thank you all for being here tonight. Welcome everyone. I'm going to also put if you have had a program with me. I'm Anisa. I'm your librarian at San Francisco public. Here is links to tonight's document. And it's a live doc. As our presenters speak, I'll add some resources, particularly if they pertain to the library or NPS. I'll add them as they talk and they'll be available for you to just grab that link and go. This event is also being recorded on YouTube. So. All of our nature boost are on there as well as many, many virtual programs we do. And live in person are also found on the San Francisco public libraries, YouTube channel. All right, I'm going to go ahead and start with the announcements while we still have people filtering in. They can catch up with what all the announcements are. So this is tonight. We're here to celebrate. We're going to talk about some of our weaving stories, which is our Asian American native Hawaiian Pacific Islander heritage month. At SFPL. We love to call it weaving stories because it really brings in all of the amazing people in San Francisco. And one thing we do. We really try hard to do at San Francisco public library is not just program in May for AA and HPI, but all year round. So you should start to be seeing more diverse programming happening, not just in the heritage month, but also, but also all year round. And that goes for all of our campaigns. So keep an eye out for that. And today we are here. Part of our nature boost was a partnership with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. And we love them. They're like our soulmates of the natural world. And this has been an ongoing partnership for quite a long time. And they also play a big role in our summer stride, which is coming up. So get that, get the word out about that.  If you do your 20 hours reading, and we have a lot of programs around that. So our library does want to acknowledge that we occupy the unceded and ancestral homeland of the wrong, you touch your lonely people who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula. We recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. And as uninvited guests, we affirm their sovereign rights as first peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders and relatives of the wrong, you touch community. And you can learn a lot about the wrong, you can learn a lot about the wrong, you can learn a lot about the wrong. So we have a lot of programs. We're at the library, and at NPS. If you've never visited Alcatraz, you should. They have an amazing exhibit right now. And we just had Karina Gould from the Segurate land trust who graced us with her amazing presence. She is just a powerhouse. And this is an all women led organization out of the East Bay. And if you just Googled SFPL, Segorte, you would find her amazing talk that she gave just like a month ago. So it was really great. And now I'm going to breeze through some upcoming programming on the same page of bi-monthly read we have at the library we'll be having for May and June. Here Madden who will be in convo with Matthew Clark Davis and virtually June 21st you can pick this book up at all 28 locations right now. June 6, the amazing and part of San Francisco royalty Daphne Brooks if you all know who were now in the morning is or by chance the SF Giants voice of the SF Giants were now Brooks. Amazing little sister who's just brilliant and she wrote a book called liner notes of the for the revolution. And this book is goes into all sorts of deep music and acclaimed women who made their life and their musical peers. And it's part of Juneteenth and part of June is black music appreciation month. So don't miss this San Francisco royalty. She's brilliant. And I'm so excited I've been wanting to have her for a very long time talk to us. We partner with the grotto where have every month June July and August virtual events check that out. And she's going to be amazing award winning Sarah Novak on her book about, and she's going to be talking about connecting on writing and connecting with the deaf community. This program will be in American sign language, and an interpreter and captioning services will be provided. So, she is winning all sorts of awards right now is will be a must see author talk. We're excited for a new partnership with 18 reasons they're a great organization in the mission, working on cooking classes but they're going to come do a tour with us at the heart of the city farmers market. And we might have some fun swag to give out that day and some farmer market dollars. First one is Wednesday June 7 and then we'll have two more throughout the summer. And I encourage you all not to miss this day at the new farm if you have not heard about the new farm. It's out in Bayview it's connected to natives. Bay natives nursery. It's out by Heron head park. It is so fun. Oh my gosh they have a stage. It's just family and community. It's just a great mix of people. We're going to have chickens goats books lots and lots of books. Bookmobile will be there. We're going to have live crafting we're going to have live music and live dance. 12 to 5 July 15 do not miss it. All right, enough. I'm excited today to have we have Jackson lamb, Carmen chan, sharing it, we in and Christina Martinez, all Rangers with the parks, the NPS, we love them, and they're going to be talking to today about the exploration of history of Chinese in the Bay Area through the lens of the Golden Gate National Park concerns me. All right, Jackson take it away. And he said, Wow, that the library does a lot of stuff. That's incredible. I'll definitely be looking forward to doing some of that stuff. So hi everyone my name is Jackson lamb I'm with the Golden Gate National Parks. I have my other colleagues here with me. I'm excited to be joining you all tonight and sharing a little bit about Chinese history here in the Bay Area. And, as Anissa said how it relates to our national parks and our national heritage, of which our parks speak to places like Alcatraz near the Bay Area to do all these places talk, talk about our shared legacy and history together and tonight we're just going to be sharing a very, very small part of it. I will also start by saying, most of us don't usually do a lot of virtual programming so if we're kind of fiddling around or there's a bit of a hiccup, we're usually in person at our parks so please come out and say hello. We give in person programs all the time but this is such a great opportunity with the public library that we've been doing for the last couple years so we definitely want to continue going so what I'll do is I'm going to try to attempt sharing a screen right now to see if I did this correctly. Anissa walked me through this so I think I'm doing this correctly I'm getting a thumbs up from Carmen. Thank you for that Carmen. All right, so to start off. Today we're going to be talking about Chinatown this our presentation is titled uprooting Chinatown, which is talking about how Chinese community Chinese American community were continuously attempted to be uprooted by outsiders. And Chinatown has a lot of significance to the San Francisco in the Bay Area. We all have some familiarity with it but it's certainly a much more prominent in the histories of Chinese Americans and for Chinese who are still in the area. So for a lot of Chinese Americans San Francisco is where it all started. And so that's why we're here today. Also joining us are my colleagues and what I'll do is I'd love to for them to to introduce themselves. And then we'll jump into it so let's go Carmen Christina and then Sherry. Hi, my name is Carmen. I'm born and raised in San Francisco. And luckily I just recently got a permanent job and I'll be working at the Presidio. If you all ever want to come down to Presidio. We got buses that reach to you at the same time. We got some free shuttles and also, let's have fun. It's a recreation area. And let's learn. Hello, everybody. My name is Christina Martinez. I usually her a pronouns, and I am part of the education branch of Golden Gate National Recreation Area and I am based out of the Presidio. And it's been an amazing journey learning more about the local communities, and especially Chinatown since I live a couple blocks up the hill. So I hope that you all learn as much as I have already. Hello, everyone. I'm Sherry Guillen. I usually her a pronouns as well. And I am in the education branch of Golden Gate National Recreation Area and I'm the education program manager at Fort Point. So if you're an educator, if you know an educator who maybe wants to ever plan a field trip to Fort Point, definitely reach out to us and we can definitely put our website in the in the links as well.  I'm Chinese American I was born in Guangzhou China and emigrated to the United States when I was one years old. So my own family's story of emigration is towards the latter end of the second wave of Chinese immigration there's there's three waves three big waves. One, this is the first one that we're going to be talking about today. And mine was part of the second and there's continuing the third wave which continues now. And all of these phases are a little different but today we're going to be focusing on the first wave, which is a starts around the mid 19th century. And it starts with wealthy merchants but later swells to laborers and workers with the allure of gum son which translates to from Cantonese as gold mountain. Lastly, what I'll note is this is we're hoping that this is a conversation between all of us including the presenters and the participants here. This is a Q&A portion I'll try to monitor that as best I can and show the other hosts and participants panelists. So if you do have questions drop them into the Q&A portion or through the chat. Sometimes it's a little hard to keep up with chat but either way, let's let's talk about this. And we also might be occasionally talking over each other or not talking over each other but we might be adding something to each other slides as well. So let's jump into the next part. So overall just overall for today we're going to talk about the motivation for immigration, the mounting discrimination leading to anti Chinese logs, place earthquakes at the time in the early 1900s, and then ending with community resources today with Carmen and then we're going to, we're going to try to reserve about 1015 minutes at the end of the program for Q&A. So the motivation for immigration from China to the United States. So there is both a push and a pull, and what was pushing people away from China at the time. And we won't be spending a lot of time here, but reviewing some of what was happening in China at the time so in China, there was a lot of political and economic turmoil at the time. And on the time in the mid 19th century there was a large rebellion against Qing dynasty, and that was happens to be the last imperial dynasty of China. Before there are other political systems this was the last dynasty. So there was a lot of rebellion going on. And so this is a drawing on the left side one of the battles to the left. And of all this, there was about death rates of up to about 20 million people so it was a very very turbulent time at the, at the time. And so, many, many of the people decided to leave. And it's no coincidence, coincidence that many people who came to America at that time came from the southern areas, which is consequently where my family came from as well. So this, this one rebellion was just one of many simultaneous uprisings that was occurring throughout China at the time. So that was a bit of the motivation for the push for Chinese to leave China. And then now Carmen is going to share a little bit about. Well, if you're leaving China, where do you go from here.  But that's because just at the right time. The gold rush started, because the gold rush started everybody thought that it's a great rich kind of thing where you get rich and then you go home. But at that point, once you started making money and sending the money home, your family expects you to continuously send that money in, so they can continue their current lifestyle which is improved. So they kind of get stuck at while woman here during the 19th century were told that they would be provided with jobs. And they were lied to. They were instead put into forced sex labor industries. If some of them were lucky. They would actually end up getting freed by a man, but they would still be paying for that woman. And then there are many more situations and nuances within that system that made it harder for the woman to actually be able to leave those contracts. But we can continue on to talking more about what we know about the bachelor society that did happen in Chinatown. So after people finding out, Oh, there isn't as much gold in order to be able to make all this money. They found other job opportunities such as railroads. They were able as well as African Americans they did actually build the railroad. African Americans from the South, while us Chinese wise, it would be from the West Coast, heading towards the middle. Because they were building this whole entire place. They also were given some of the most dangerous jobs. Some of them were actually told to blow up parts of the mountain, in order to actually making like a tunnel for the railroads itself. At the same time, they also had harder jobs, as in like they would end up having like longer hours compared to their European or European American counterparts. And because of that, they also were treated not as kindly sometimes, because they would be the ones who get paid less. And they would actually make a third less than their European American counterparts. And there are some things which did go well with them, one of which is that when they asked for better nutrition and their food, they were able to ship in vegetables but that did cost more money. On the other hand, there's a situation called the worst winter. What ended up happening is a lot of snow fell into the cave that they were working at. Because a lot of snow fell into the cave that they were working at, many of the people actually froze and died. In the spring, they would end up finding these bodies and then this is when the Chinese people actually did the first strike. The first strike, they had a lot of people, but they didn't have everyone. They demanded better hours, better pay. But that's when the Central Pacific Railroad said, if you're going to do this, then we are going to bring in African Americans who are working in the south to do your job instead. That's when it ended. Even though it would have been more expensive for African American people to be shipped in to the West Coast in order to work on a railroads. They still use that as a threatening point. Not only that, not only that, this is important because it shows that they were willing to fight back when the stereotypes at that time was that they would not fight back. And that was the main point as to why Central Pacific Railroad hired so many Chinese people. Now if we go into agriculture, agriculture. Agriculture in California, we know that a lot of it was built and a lot of it was actually built by the Chinese. They created all that irrigation systems, which we ended up benefiting afterwards too. And then domestic servants, of course, made them were chefs and then some of them were laundry workers. And then even some of them at like one of more famous houses in SF, the historic house, they had a Chinese man as a laundry worker there when the kids were running around. With that being said, I am done with my part of the section. Oh, right. And that's the definition. If you all just take a moment to just look at the slide, you'll end up seeing that there's words as well as very, very two different sides to that picture. In this case, we can look at the man's arms, and you see that he's doing all these works, all these jobs. And then you see the men on the other side, kind of waiting, waiting for a job. And that's also because the Chinese men took jobs that paid less, but at the same time, the American dollar and money was actually much stronger and when they sent it back to China, it's a lot of money. But not only that, if you were to look at their hairstyle, their QQ. That's something which causes a lot of difficulties for them, because it's such a weird hairstyle to maybe European Americans and Europeans that it, that they end up pointing it out. And they also point out like that their clothes, their hair, everything looks so much more feminine compared to the European American men or European men. And if we were to go into language, Chinese sounds completely different. Like I can say my name is Carmen, but when I say it in Chinese, it sounds completely different. And if we were to look at the food as well as their music. It's so different that people are just like, what are you eating, as well as the opera Chinese opera is completely different by their inflections and their tones. But that of course does not stop people from coming to America. I'm done with this portion. Thank you, Carmen. So as Carmen kind of walk us through, you can see that Chinese immigrants were really playing a really important role in the economy. But we're all going to see because of that, that pretty soon they're almost immediately they're going to start to face racial discrimination, which is soon going to be reflected in the local state and federal laws that are clearly race based. And so what you're going to see almost immediately at first is what is the 1852 foreign miners tax. And so this was actually building upon a prior law that existed in 1850. And that was something that California adopted, which was the foreign miners license law, and that charged all non US citizens about $20 a month. And so what happened though was that fee was seen as pretty high. And so it was actually repealed, but in 1852 they bring it back. And this law is mostly targeting actually Chinese immigrants and Latino minors as well, because European minors they typically were not forced to pay this. And so this actually, you know, prevented people from going into mining because of the tax that was so high. Because what was happening was during the height of the gold rush, about 20,000 of the 67,000 people who were coming to California that year. Those were from China. And so Chinese miners, they were, you know, constituting a significant portion of the miners. And so they found themselves really being treated harshly by other miners, especially white miners. And they were kind of at a disadvantage because they also didn't speak the language. And so the, you see that right from the beginning that they are being taxed and they are being treated unfairly. And they are passing laws that are racially based. And so then another major law that is going to happen that is local is the San Francisco Q ordinance. And so as Carmen mentioned the Q that was a long sort of braided hairstyle that was a mandate of the King dynasty. And so the cues they were sort of an important identity marker for many Chinese immigrants. And so not only were they an important kind of identity marker but they were also politically pretty important. And they needed those to be able to return to China, because again they were mandatory under the Qing dynasty. And so to lose one's queue, not only prevented you from going home but it was also sort of seen as a mark of disgrace. And so the Q ordinance, what that did was it made it possible for Chinese prisoners to have their hair cut after arriving at the jail. And so you see them again being targeted in this way racially. And you're going to see the same thing as well with the laundry ordinance. And so the laundry were one of the businesses that a lot of Chinese immigrants were involved in and did very well in. But again, you there are laws that were passed around that time in order to make it more difficult for people to be able to run those businesses. And so we're going to see soon after that these laws are going to start to, along with these laws there are also kind of social movements political movements that are going along with that. Next slide please. And so what you start to see happen is what's called the Chinese must go.  And so what you see that his fingernails kind of are curled up like talons and over his hand or sorry underneath his hand are some of the trades and services which were associated with Chinese at the time and so that was like cigar making andry. Anything clothing box factories. And so this sort of imagery was really popular at the time because it was used to sort of as a propaganda to sort of have a fear of Chinese immigrants and to sort of kind of have white people being this as a sort of like enemy so and so you see that the Chinese immigrants really start to become a scapegoat, especially with the depression of 1873, which really caused a lot of widespread unemployment. There were a lot of labor strikes as well. And so the, what you will see happen was that Chinese laborers were sort of made into those scapegoats because again they were willing to work for a lower wage. And so a wave of sort of anti Chinese sentiment is really going to start to build. And one of the people who really kind of gets this movement going is a man named Dennis Kearney who was a labor worker in in San Francisco and so this slogan was actually adopted in California's first statewide anti Chinese convention, and it was something that he typically ended his speeches with was that the Chinese must go and so you start to see this movement really growing outside of San Francisco and outwards into federal law. And so, next slide please. And so you here we have an example of some of the different ways in which different acts were being passed and so not only was legislation being passed that was targeting Chinese immigrants, but you also have violence that is happening. So you see that in 1871 there is a law thing with Massacre 1885 there was the Rock Springs massacre. And so they are not only the targets of laws but they are also targets for violence as well. And so they're really sort of the really being targeted in many different ways. So, next slide please. So all of these kind of local and state laws that are being passed are eventually going to reach federal laws and so what you're going to have in 1882 is the Chinese Exclusion Act. And so this was signed by President Chester Arthur. What it did was it made it illegal for Chinese workers to enter the United States. And it also was, it also banned anyone from who was born in the US from ever becoming a citizen. And so initially, this was a 10 year ban on immigration of Chinese laborers. And again, it prohibited the naturalization of Chinese persons so even if you were born in the United States, you could never become a citizen. And so this made it really difficult for people who wanted to go visit back home with China. They would have to get the proper certifications in order to be able to get back into the United States. And so it was, it was the first federal law that was really targeting a specific group of people based on race or ethnicity. And so this was again, an initially a 10 year ban. But what happens is in 1892 after those 10 years are up, the Geary Act is going to extend the act for another 10 years. And it's going to now force Chinese immigrants to carry permits. And in 1904 Congress is going to make the act permanent. And so this law was actually in place for about 60 years. And so during that time, again, you, it was banning the, it was banning Chinese immigration and it was also not allowing the naturalization of Chinese persons in the US. And so we see that this law, you know, is targeting them. But there are people who are going to fight back against this. And so we get that with the example of long Kim arc. Next slide, please. And so before that, though, there were also other people who were fighting against these unfair laws, challenging them using the courts. And so you have these examples here, people who were, you know, again, trying to overturn these laws that were unfairly discriminated against them. And so it was really important for people to challenge these laws and they also had the support of their community as well. And so we'll, we'll get a little bit more into that with the, with the case of us versus one Kim. So next slide please. So we have one Kim arc. And so one Kim arc was actually born in San Francisco in 1873. And he was the son of Chinese immigrants. And he had, you know, grown up in the United States, and he and with his family. His family decided to actually return to China, but one Kim arc decided to come back to California. And so he was working at a restaurant. And he was decided one day to go to China. He was able to do that a couple of times. The first time that he returned into the US it was difficult but he was able to get back in but the second time that he comes back. He is not going to be allowed to re enter the United States, based on the grounds of the Chinese immigration act, where they're arguing that he is, because his parents are Chinese, then that he is not able to enter. And so that's going to happen in 1894 when one Kim arc is just about 21 years old. And so what's going to happen is one Kim arc he is not going to, he's going to fight this and so he's going to do this with the help of the community. And so here we have again one Kim arc. And on the left here we have what is known as the Chinese six companies. And so this was a group of some of the biggest merchants in Chinatown who were sort of kind of business organizations. But this was, they provided a lot of help to the community and so they provided a lot of services such as helping people travel to or from China, or they would help people who were sick, or they would help return bodies back to China for burial. And so they played a really important part in supporting one Kim arc with his case. And so what's going to happen is that one Kim arc is going to sue and this case is going to go all the way up to the Supreme Court. And because he believes that, you know, that us born Chinese should not be denied American citizenship. And so this case is going to actually establish what is known as birth rice, or sorry, yeah, birthright naturalization and so they're going to use the 14th amendment, which had been passed after the Civil War, saying that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction there of our citizens of the United States and of the state were in their reside. And so it's thanks to you know one Kim arc that you get this really great sort of establishment of what it means to be an American and really proves that case of birthright citizenship. And so you're going to see, you know that this is just one example of Chinese people in California who were fighting back against those unfair laws. Thanks Sherry. So we just got a quick overview of the ordinance ordinances the laws the policies that were set in place right to actively discriminate towards Chinese immigrants. So it's definitely, you know, really important to keep those policies in mind. And all of that kind of starts to kind of really be exacerbated the anti Asian sentiment, the racism, the policies kind of really start to be exacerbated by public health crises. And so I'm going to start transitioning into how infectious diseases really played a role into exemplifying and really amplifying already existing anti Chinese sentiment in San Francisco and even you know around the United States and around the world. So this image here is an illustration that was in 1882. So the date that was before the plague was officially identified in San Francisco in 1900. But this illustration already shows how infectious diseases like malaria smallpox and leprosy were already being blamed on Chinese immigrants. So again, this idea of who are we going to blame who's going to be the scapegoat for, you know, any issues society is having and Chinese immigrants were unfortunately subject to that. So as we can see here, you know, infectious diseases have a long history of stigmatizing and ostracizing Chinese immigrants. And in fact, misinformation spread by San Francisco officials regarding the spread and prevalence of leprosy in Chinatown was a prime cause of anti Chinese sentiment in California since the 1870s. Smallpox epidemics that afflicted San Francisco in 1869 1876 and 1888 were also unsurprisingly blamed on Chinese immigrants. And we're going to see that same pattern when we're talking about the bubonic plague, which again March of March and March of 1900 is when it was officially found. So a bit of background on the bubonic plague. I'm sure you've heard about it in your history books, but it is a disease that has killed about 200 people throughout the course of three major pandemics. And the third plague pandemic began to spread throughout the world. Port cities, you know, trade really has expanded in the 19th and 20th century. So this third plague pandemic really kind of started to spread in the second half of the 20th century. Even though the plague, you know, has been around for centuries, the plague wasn't really well understood by the time it hit the shores of the United States. And so keeping this in mind that plague epidemiology was still poorly understood. It's really important because we'll touch up on this later how this disease was really not well understood. So although, you know, epidemiologists during this time period already kind of knew about the bacteria that cause plague. They didn't really know how infection occurred in humans or how it was being spread. So instead, the plague was already being racialized and begun to be seen as an Asian disease due to observations that were made in areas like China, India and the Middle East. Observations that were happening in those areas was that the highest death tolls were occurring in poorly sanitized cities.  Maybe the clothing does play a role and we'll get to back in a little bit. And so people are starting to notice seeing these higher death tolls right in these communities. However, there were also European colonists living in the same regions, but they were not succumbing to the plague at the same rates. So this was these observations were sufficient for the general public to start perpetuating the idea that Asians were more susceptible to the plague simply because of their race and were also carriers of the disease. The belief of racial superiority was not only due to genetics, but also diet and lifestyle. So there was this other idea that was being perpetuated that diet had a huge role in making people more susceptible to the plague. It was believed that a diet rich in protein obtained from meat provided greater immunity and resistance against disease, whereas by contrast, a diet with rice lowered immunity. So we can see here this dichotomy of the meat and rice diet that was already kind of again perpetuating even more racist ideologies that Asian people were more susceptible to the plague. There were carriers of the plague due to their genetics and also the diet that they were eating. However, class and social standing definitely played an enormous role on who was more susceptible to the plague. Europeans living in the same areas actually usually wore clothing that were pants and boots and that actually deterred and kept fleas from biting. And fleas, as we now know, were actually the vectors that were transporting the bacteria that caused the plague. Whereas the poor individuals that were living in this area didn't really have access to these type of clothing that protected them more from flea bites and their full-fledged exposure. So again, this shows how the plague was already racialized before it reached the U.S. soil. And in fact, Dr. Rosetta E. Taylor in her book The Environment and the People in the American Cities from the 1600s and the 1900s quotes, the pattern of infection and death from the plague dovetailed with the racial theories prevalent in the United States. So as we already talked about all the policies, all the anti-Chinese sentiments that were already in existence, the plague was just kind of, you know, amplifying that. The plague also strengthened the arguments of white supremacists who believed that Europeans were superior to other races and had somehow developed immunity to the disease. So this already existing racism, xenophobia, and lack of understanding of how plague was truly spread really set the stage for the public health response in San Francisco's Chinatown. Next slide. So how did San Francisco respond to the plague when it was officially, you know, identify that somebody got the plague in March of 1900? So, of course, there was concern of contagion. And so, of course, quarantine was used as a tool to segregate and eventually, you know, isolate residents. And then we're already interested to definitely displace Chinatown. So unfortunately, this public health crisis, we know that the bubonic plague was very deadly, right? This was kind of really used as a reason to isolate and eventually displace the residents of Chinatown. Quarantines and even fires were already used as tools to deal with the plague. And in fact, this actually happened in the Chinatown of Honolulu in 1899, where fires were used as a way to kind of get rid of the plague. Again, at this time, they didn't fully understand how plague was, you know, actually spread. So fires were used as a tool and definitely quarantine and isolation. So this was already done in other Chinatowns in what is now the United States. So there was quarantine, there were orders. And the next slide, we're going to see exactly, you know, what these quarantine orders were imposed by the city of San Francisco. Actually, the case that was involved due to these quarantine orders. So I'm going to read this quote here. So the quarantine order says, or this case, right, that came due to these quarantine orders that were set in place when plague was in San Francisco Chinatown, Ju Ho versus Williamson in 1900. The reason for that, that this case happened is because Ju Ho and other people felt that this quarantine was only being imposed on the Chinese residents that were in this area. So not everybody was being quarantined. And like this quote says, that it is not enforced against other residents of said district than those of the Chinese race, and that by its enforcement, that said Chinese residents of said district are deprived of equal protection of the laws, and of the rights and liberties under the Constitution of the United States. This case was important, because Judge Moro threw the quarantine out on legal grounds, it lumped all the Chinese homes and businesses together, while exempting white occupied buildings. It didn't distinguish between home of plague infested and homes of healthy Chinese, but confined them all together increasing risk of transmission. It forbade Chinese from access to physicians of their choice. So we really see this case play out and kind of really highlights the way that San Francisco handle this public health crisis and how the way it handle it really was shaped on already existing discriminating policies and sentiments at the time period. Next slide. And so, again, fully people didn't fully understand how the plague was spread, but there were so many people that were suspecting that rats were being made the main carriers right of these fleas that were responsible for the plague. So definitely there was concern to target rats. As you can see here on the stats, you know, what were they doing to handle the rat populations, what were they doing, how they were killing them, and even how they were testing rats for the plague. And very interestingly enough about, you know, the study of the plague itself during this time period, there were already doctors in Asia, quite a couple of Japanese doctors that were already kind of suspecting that not only were rats responsible, there was really the fleas that were carrying the rats that were actually transferring the bacteria that was causing plague. However, the larger global medical community didn't really take these doctors seriously, and it wasn't until about 1903 when British, you know, journals started publishing some of these same findings that people were starting to taking that seriously. So I thought that was a very interesting side note about plague epidemiology and how what it took for people to start kind of taking new findings seriously. But at this time we already see that people know that rats have a role to play. And so we have here an image of how the rats population was being dealt with. Next slide. And so just a quick overview of the bubonic plague in San Francisco against the disease that, you know, struck the world through three different pandemics. And this third wave of the plague kind of really struck here in San Francisco from 1900 to 1904. Really by way of infected rats from cargo ships. Again, the Bay Area has long been a really kind of big source of ships for trade. We see that even before the gold rush during the gold rush. So it really was an important place for trade. So it was really kind of a matter of time until something like the plague was going to end up here. But of course, unfortunately, it was already racialized before it hit US soil, and it continued to be racialized when it arrived here. And so another kind of thing to note, right? There are already existing social conditions that worsened the spread of plague. So Chinatown was densely populated, but it was also poorly maintained during this time period. A lot of major cities in the late 1800s and early 1900s were not very well sanitized, but you do have to take in mind how certain communities, especially communities of color, immigrant communities, we're not going to get priority for sanitation. So this was already creating a space where plague was going to spread a lot faster. Another thing to note is that once rats were controlled, the plague stopped spreading. So again, if you tackle one of the main vectors for transferring the plague or the curious of the plague, the plague was going to stop spreading. Eventually there were 119 reported deaths, but many, many were unreported. And again, the Chinese that were in this community were targeted for years afterwards. So just because the plague ended, that did not mean that the anti-Chinese sentiments ended with that. Next slide. So just kind of a quick note on here is that the plague may have ended in 1904, but there was a resurgence in 1906 after the earthquake. So this is just kind of a quick graphic highlighting that. But on the topic of natural disasters, public health crisis, the 1906 earthquake kind of brought on another situation where again, racist sentiments were kind of amplified. Again, people use this tragedy as an excuse to really try to displace the residents of Chinatown. So the 1906 earthquake definitely really pivotal to the history of San Francisco. A lot of the structures were destroyed since a lot of these buildings were made out of wood. So really a lot of devastation was brought to the city. And even after the earthquake, there were a lot of fires that happened, and those fires really had a huge impact. Not just on the infrastructure, but definitely on Chinese history here in San Francisco. Next slide. And so kind of a quick note about the earthquakes since I'm running out of time is that again, public officials of San Francisco use this tragedy as an excuse to try to again relocate the citizens of Chinatown. And there were attempts to relocate the Chinatown residents to Hunter's Point. They were even trying to incentivize it. But again, Chinatown residents wanted to rebuild instead. Next slide. And so how does this tie into really Golden Gate National Recreation Area? So after the earthquake, there were definitely a lot of refugee camps located in what is now composed of the park. And you can see this image here near Chinatown, near Fort Mason. There's just a Chinese section of the refugee camp in the Marina District, but there were actually more refugee camps located in the Presidio of San Francisco. So that is really how this particular event really connects to the park itself. And just kind of really highlights how these parks are really important places for dialogue and highlighting the local history. Next slide. And so quick notes. You know, like I mentioned, we talked about the plague, we talked about the earthquake and how these natural disasters not only amplified racial sentiments, but it also definitely, with these natural disasters, you really see how racial sentiments existing policies and interest to displace Chinatown really influence how city officials responded to these. So this quote, I'll just share this from Huang Yao. I'm sorry if I mispronounced that. Following this natural disaster, a human created disaster has also come to us. Not only did the government not extend the helping hand to us they wanted to take advantage of the earthquake to take Chinatown away from us. So many consequences from the earthquake happened and when those fires occurred actually there were a lot of records that were burnt and these records were important and Carmen will share more about those. And then the island, also known as Ellis Island in the West was an immigration center. It was not only an immigration center for Chinese people but Asian Americans as well as people from all over. The average state is about three weeks to six months, yet someone stayed until for 22 months, which is hard on people. But if we're talking about Angel Island we're going to have to go all the way to when they're actually on the boat. Well sorry before they're on the boat they actually bought their way in because their paper son's paper daughters which means that they paid money in order to say that yes I am this person's child because everyone in San Francisco said yeah I'm a citizen. No records you can't find out if they are telling the truth or not. So everyone took this opportunity to bring their families, but at the same time, there was also lucrative business to bring in people from all over. And in this case, all these people will be learning from coaching books which are pretty much books to describe, like, how does the house look like all these questions that you're expected to answer and know the answers to. If we kept on going into that, once they got off the ship, which they always try to look in their best and fanciest clothes in order to make sure they look as rich as possible. That wouldn't stop people from having to deal with some harshness in it, such as for women, some of them have to be undressed in front of doctors and these are male doctors and they're trying to see whether or not these people brought diseases in. That's one of those things that made it harder for them. But of course, there's also the situation of that some people had to stay there longer. And then there's also the situation for Asian American women, as people have said in the chat. The Page Act is pretty much trying to stop Asian American women to come into America because of immoral reasons and that was because of their forced sex labor contracts. Now these women had to fight and combat that and they've been asked many questions including like, what ornaments did, what jewelry did your husband give you on your wedding day? And one of them answered, what I'm wearing right now? All these things he bought for me on my wedding day. But if we were to continue going down through the list of it, that when it comes down to paper sons and paper daughters, some of them are still living to this day as paper sons, paper daughters, but it wouldn't be this specific generation of the people going to Angel Island the first time. It would actually be just people coming in later on. And just so you all know, Angel Island was active as an immigration center from 1910 to 1940. And then they would end up closing it onto the next slide. So we'll now talk about community resources. The community actually responded to a lot of situations for Chinatown and Chinese people living in Chinatown, such as Cameron House, also known as Donald Dina Cameron's house, Donald Dina Cameron house. And they, pretty much what they do is that they actually help a lot of women out in domestic violence situations, but at the same time, they've also expanded it understanding that anyone could be in those situations. Additionally, they've also had places for them to stay, which they still do. They also offer classes, which is very important. And then one of the notable people other notable people other than Cameron, Donald Dina Cameron is also tightly on Schultz, who was a Chinese girl living in Chinatown, who ended up helping Donald Dina Cameron later on, and then would end up working at Angel Island for a little bit as a translator, but she always kept an eye out for women. Gamun women's residents. This one is pretty cool because this one also gave women a place in order to go babe as well as also help them with other things too. And so they were constructed in 1868. Then we look at Wuyi Joy Lock Family Resource Center. They were built in 1970s in response of the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, they provided family services for people in general and assisted with giving daycare to families for the frontline workers from their most recent pandemic. As a feel y'all are here, you know that they're awesome and amazing. And not only that they have so many more library courses so many more programs, so many more abilities to actually be able to help you with research. So why not go to them. Why not go to their free free libraries. They're amazing. They provided me a lot of fun when I was younger. Now the CHSA, the Chinese Historical Society of America. They're also the historic YWCA from my understanding. This building ended up changing its purposes from not helping not just helping women, but it actually ended up changing for the purposes of giving a voice. Not only that their current exhibit is actually going to be the Bruce Lee exhibit which is pretty cool. And they also still have like a community, they have a community after school program for children still because people still need that. The YMCA y'all know it. They're actually amazing. They're awesome. They're also great for summer programs for when parents are at work, but these programs can also be enrichment activities for children, as well as there's so many more. And these are just some other resources in Chinatown. But if you were to look at San Francisco as a whole, there's so many to understand that communities in general need to help. And so they're going to provide for it. And I am done with this part. Oh, any resource for mental health? Yeah, there's actually CYC Chinatown Youth Center or Children's Youth Center. They actually provide therapists, but they also have a lot of, a lot of after school programs, not only that, I know that there's some in the Richmond, which is a Richmond. They also help a lot of Chinese American families there too. And there's so many more, but I don't fully know them. Thanks, Carmen. Yeah, so these are just a couple of the organizations that, you know, some of them go back a really long time. The camera now is going back to that time. A lot of a lot of these are recent as well but what it shows is, there's a lot of resources that come out of the community. So even though that there's not a lot of financial resources, that sometimes it's people, it's people as resources and helping each other out. And so this was how people, how Chinese Americans were able to remain in Chinatown, despite all these repeated attempts despite the discrimination, despite the anti-Chinese policies that people were able to stay. And so thanks, Carmen, for covering all that. So to end our presentation here, just to thank you from all of us and also some of our contact info, information in case you want to email us about anything. We all work for the National Park Service, so you know you can email us and we'll try to get back to you. And I also saw that there was a lot of great conversation and questions that were going on in the chat. I tried my best to try to keep up with it. And so did Anissa, but it looks like we still have about two, three minutes or so. If there are any outstanding questions, I don't think you're able to come on camera, but you can type it in or put it in the chat or in the Q&A. And Christina, Sherry, Carmen, Anissa and I will stick around until eight o'clock for another, you know, three, four minutes. But thank you all for joining us. Let me see if I can go back to some of the other Q&A. There was a question about children at the time and if they were being educated. So my answer was, I don't think there was a lot of children coming at the time. And I assume that later on as the communities grew and that there were children that they were educated in the public school system. What I will say is that there are photos, including in this one of what looked like children. They are children, sorry, they are children. But these happen to be the children of the wealthy merchants that came on. So this was in the very first waves.  That these aren't the bulk of the Chinese who came as the workers and the laborers. The children that you see in the photos that we share are of the wealthy people because they're the ones who can afford photos at the time. So I got a lot of photos of just, you know, poor people, because can afford them. So yeah, so it's a long way of answering. They probably, if they, if children didn't have to work because labor laws were more lax at the time, they probably went to the public school, if the family could afford to send the child to school. That's my assumption. Anyone else have anything to add about that. That's totally correct in my opinion. What else do y'all do at NPS. Well, my role is more front facing usually while everyone else y'all have a lot more projects in my opinion, but I did get the opportunity to be able to participate and try to lead our ability to go to private rate so that's something different. Yes, no. We all do slightly different jobs for the Park Service, but we're all part of the same team. I work with the outreach in it. And Jerry do the education programs and working specifically with K through 12 institutions from all over the Bay Area. Let's see we have the Mamie tape I'll look into that Denise thanks for the heads up. Did the images come from the NPS archive. I don't think so. They, some of them come from internet sources or Anisa has helped us with some of them as well. Sherry, did you have something to add. Yeah. So, there were a couple of questions I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about this but with the one Kim art case. So that was a successful case and so yes he, he did win that case and the Supreme Court did roll that yes he because he had been born in a state where he should be allowed citizenship. And so yeah that was the outcome of that case. Yeah sorry if that wasn't clear. And the tape be hurly case that's another really great one. There's so many cases that are really worth looking at. And you know, we only had more time. We could definitely talk a little bit more about this. But to piggyback on the one Kim arcade, he won he won the case but by the time this is years later it has to go to the Supreme Court has to go through the entire system before it gets to the Supreme Court. It was probably a decade later before it was decided and so by that time long time market are even denied entry entry back so he went back to China he couldn't come into the United States, when he tried to come back that second time. So, and there's not a lot known about what happens to one can mark after he returns to China, and then years later the Supreme Court deciding on this particular case. So yeah that's that's definitely one of the landmark cases that is actually it's coming up it, you know has come up in modern day, you know recent court proceedings that that case is brought up still to this day. Okay, so I think that's all the time we've got we're at eight o'clock thank you all for for joining us tonight if you do have any additional questions, please email us and get in touch I'm going to stop sharing the screen right now and also hand it back to Anisa. Yay, thank you so you see why we continue this partnership because it's just so rich and so fascinating, and I threw the link into the chat once more for the document, which has all of those resources that I could keep up with. And they provided so much for us tonight. And this is why we continue, and we'll have to have you back for I am thinking of like housing issues that would be an amazing one so planting that seed now, my soulmate. And library community, thank you for coming out tonight we appreciate you we love you, and we'll see you all next time.


Something that I always think about a lot and often is how salespeople struggle with price, price objections, and lying customers. Let me explain to you what I mean when I say lying customers. I see customers all the time probing for a better deal, getting discounts on deals when they shouldn't because a salesperson isn't prepared to handle the objection. If you want to become deadly at closing on the pencil over price, in any situation you want to watch this entire video. This video I'm going to give you something special. I'm going to give you the exact word tracks that I use as I teach you how to close. So number one I'm going to do it myself and then when it's done I'm going to send you over the word track. So you guys can print them out, memorize them, go crush it, guys let's get to the video. What I'm about to do is grab one of my coaches and I'm going to use him as an example so I can show you how this works. Now look, you see the number below? You see the number? Do me a favor. Text this number right now. This is not my cell phone number. This is my community text line. When you text this line, I am going to send over the word tracks to you so you can memorize it and become great at this. Guys, we'll see you in just a second. Okay guys, so listen, I'm going to hit Ryan with the price objection here. And what he's going to do is going to run through one, two, three system, right? And then we're going to break down and go through the psychology of each one of the steps, why we did it that way, and then that's it. Remember, there's three types of sales people with three types of customers. Good, great and unstoppable, okay? So the first one's got to be good and it's going to take that customer that's asking for a better deal. He got it out of his mouth, he had the chance to ask for it and then you're going to close him down. And then there's that great customer, you know what I'm saying? That one that's just a little bit more difficult, you got to be ready to go another round with him. Without discounting your deal or saying, hey, what did you expect to pay for it?  And then you got unstoppable, which means you got that one customer that's got the relentless approach on trying to get a better deal and you got to hang in there on the one, two, three account. And by the way, we teach the house the mansion of how to be a great closer. This is the basic foundation. If you can memorize this, me and you can go very far and you will be the elite. So with that being said, let's run through this. I'm going to say, so, hey, Ryan, I appreciate it, man. But look, I think the price is just a little bit too high. Yeah, I would say, hey, look, I'm glad you asked that Andy. So look, what we do here is actually called market-based pricing. Look, the research has shown 90% of my customers, they don't want to haggle the price and they'd like to get the best price up front. That's why we actually use very expensive and accurate tools that find vehicles just like the one we're looking at right here in our marketplace right now. Then those tools, they price all of our vehicles for us to ensure we're always priced below market. Look, according to stats on this particular truck, we're looking at its price 85% to market, meaning look, we're actually 15% below fair market value. But look, not only a greater price, we're also high in all the critical areas important to you and your family, like price, payments, and trade ins. And I apologize, I forgot to ask it, when did you want your first payment due? Beginning of the month, middle of the month, end of the month, what's going to work best for you and your family? Hey man, I totally get it and I'm glad that you guys have these tools and all that stuff, that's great. So are you saying you can't get me a better deal? Yeah, look, I understand and I apologize Andy. You see, I didn't explain my pricing policy up front. Look, we've learned, like I said, 90% of my customers, they want to get the best deal up front. And the other 10%, well, they want to negotiate and haggle. But look, it's 2021, it's the age of transparency. I want to take care of my customers the way they've asked me to.  Would that be trustworthy or respectful? Absolutely not. See, I'm looking for a further relationship than just today. I don't want to just sell you this vehicle.  So with that being said, have I offended you in any way, in any way at all, by giving you my best price up front? I don't know. Thank goodness, Andy. Sound right here, let me get your new car cleaned up. Okay, so you're saying there's not a way at all that I can get any kind of discount? Yeah, well look, I completely understand how our price, it may seem just a little bit higher. The reason it looks like that is we're also hiring all the critical areas important to your family. You see, we can't be the highest in all these areas and be the lowest in price with great business. It just doesn't work that way. But we can't afford to be just a little bit higher in price as long as we're the lowest in total cost, since that's the real money spent. Wouldn't you agree? That's it. Guys, listen, this is a one, two, three count on price objections. One, two, three. The first close, the first close, your customer, when you lay out the pencil, right? And look, we know hundreds of word tracks. I've talked Ryan, what, maybe four or five hundred word tracks now? Easy, easy for you. And these are just a couple of baby ones. This is the baby food. If you like this stuff right now, and by the way, if you want to see these word tracks that he just said, make sure you text the community line. You'll see it right here on the screen. Text this number and what we'll do is we'll send you over all three of the word tracks so you can memorize them tattoo them on your heart and you can use them. You don't have to be a second rated version of me. You'll be a first rated version of yourself. But know what you want to say. You see, when this price lays, it hits the table. Price, it's something that people think that they can negotiate with car dealerships. It's just a known factor out there. So what they want to do is they want to get it off their heart and ask for a better deal. When they ask for that better deal, there's a difference between being prepared and truly being prepared.  They're memorizing them like saying the ABCs when they were a kid. And basically what happens is that when you know it so well, you can say it with conviction. You can say it with believability. You can say it with confidence and you can just say it with love and smiling eyes and say, hey man, you know what? I'm so glad that you asked about the price and then go right into it. You're not nervous. You don't seem concerned. So your customer doesn't seem concerned. And since your customer asked for a better deal, guess what? They have the right to ask for that better deal and we're okay with it. As a matter of fact, we expected it. And the fact that they got it off their chest and they were able to ask it and that we could handle it in a professional situation without friction. Remember, during training, friction is good. Friction creates growth. But during negotiating, friction kills deals and is bad. And if you notice, when I told Ryan, hey Ryan, I'm going to have to have a better deal here. Did you notice he didn't challenge me? The most two important things that you could have during negotiation is trust and rapport. And you've worked for an hour or two to build massive trust, right? Me and Ryan have this trust. Well, when Ryan says, hey Andy man, that's my best price. I can't get you a better deal.  And I didn't want to hear that. What I wanted to hear is that he was willing to work for me. But what he did is that he handled himself in a very professional manner. He served me with the word track back. He looked at me in the eyes. He didn't break eye contact with me. He didn't flinch. He didn't get triggered. And he didn't make a mistake and say some silly words he didn't mean to say. So, what happens is we see salesmen crumble and fall apart by price objections every single day. And the reason why I put together this little format. Number one, the first price is that we use expensive tools that price our vehicles for us. So it completely takes it off of us. And it lets the customer know that all the research has been done. And we did it because we want to make sure they got the best deal. And we checked out the radius. We paid for the tools. It does the work for us. It's amazing. Now that I've explained that, I apologize. I forgot to ask you, when did you want to set your first payment dude? And he diverts. He goes into a diversion method after the first close. Now if the customer says, you're saying you can't get me a better deal. Hey, I apologize. Look, this is completely my fault. Go into an empathy close. I didn't explain our pricing policy to you up front. You see what we've learned is, and then you go into handling it without offending them. And at the end, you say, sir, have I offended you in any way? In any way by giving you my best price up front. The guy's going to say no.  And you're going to say, thank goodness. And the second you say, thank goodness. And you put your hand out, they grab it. You got a deal. Sign right here. Let me get your new car cleaned up. Thank you so much. And if they hit you with the third round, it's the deal is that, hey, we may be a little higher in price, but we're lowering all the, what? We're the lowest in cost. Ownership cost. So guess what? Since we're the lowest in cost, we can afford to be a little higher in price. Because guess what? That's how great business works. As long as we're the lowest in cost, we can afford to be a little higher in price. And what that means is that we service our vehicles to be like new for our customers unlike our competition. So a lot of the times you can continue to go, especially with the pre-owned vehicle, that's a great way to go. My idea with you guys is that I just want you to have something tattooed on your heart. We're going to have some skeptics that are like, oh, I handle it like this. Oh, I handle it like that. Guys, listen, man, I made 716 grand in my last year selling cars. I have 40 or 50 ways tattooed on my heart to go handle a price buyer. Yes, there's different ways. Yes, I know my customers. I'm always playing chess with every single one of them in front of me. I have master closer seminars every month. And I teach 50 different ways to handle a price objection. But this is the foundation of a great salesperson who wants to go to the next level and who wants to learn some word tracks and be able to sit there with the customers that saying, hey, man, I'm not paying that. I've never paid what somebody's asking or I need a better deal. And guess what? This is not a motive close. He did not say to me, I saw a cheaper one down the road at ABC Motors. That would be a motive close. That's for a different video. This is called price, price objections and lying customers. Lying customers that say they need a better deal, only probing for a better deal. And here's the neat thing. Remember this. We negotiate every single day. These customers negotiate once a year. We buy cars, what, every day? We sell cars every day. But guess what our customers do? They buy cars once a year. And our customers are buying cars once a year and they're negotiating better than a salesman that sells cars every day. Guys, I think it's time to get back to the training board. I love you guys. I appreciate you. I'm grateful for you. If you've enjoyed this video, please take this video, like it, comment below. Let me know what you thought. And then secondly, share it with one of your sales friends. Somebody that's in the sales business can work almost in every field. Yeah, 100%. And guess what? Share it with them so you can share the love. Thank you so much. I appreciate you. We'll see you in the next video. Don't forget to text the community text line so that we can get you the word tracks. Guys, we love you. We'll see you soon.


So, good morning, good afternoon and good evening, depending where you are. Welcome to another online platform seminar. Today we have Lester Chen presenting his very interesting research on equilibrium selection in platform competition. But before I let Chen start, let me just quickly remind about how this new format works. So we have an hour, 40 to 45 minutes is for Lester's talk and then the rest for Q&A. During the talk Lester is going to make a couple of stops for clarifying questions. Those questions you can write them in chat and I will ask them in bulk. For the Q&A at the end, you can just unmute yourself and ask a question. So with that Lester, the screen is yours. You can now start sharing the slides and take it out. Yeah, sure. So let me first share the screen. So let me see just a moment. So can you see my cursor moving? Yes. Oh, great. So thank you Hannah for the introduction. And I also want to thank the organizers for giving me this opportunity to present my paper. And once again, Lester Chen and I'm a job market candidate from Boston University. And today I'm going to present one of my paper, which is about two side markets. So one of the most difficult challenges in two side markets as emphasized by Kyle's and Julian's seminal paper is the chicken and egg problem. In short, typically there are positive cross-size network effects in two side markets, which leads to the multiple equilibria issue. So for the typical market model, state one, and all agents simultaneously make their own and suppose for simplicity that from the same side are identical. Then there can be two equilibria in stage two. All agents join the platform, or no one joins the platform. If they're competing platforms in equilibrium, all agents will coordinate on one of the platforms if the network effects are strong enough. But which platform will they coordinate on? In other words, how should we deal with multiple equilibria? So in the literature, researchers impose various selection criteria to single else and equilibrium. So a popular selection criterion is to select the Pareto dominance equilibrium. However, this criterion often fails under platform competition because coordinating on one of the platform need not Pareto dominates the other. And there are other selection criteria in the literature and I'm not going to go through them one by one. But each selection criterion only works for some cases, but not the others. Moreover, different equilibrium selection criteria often leads to different predictions and implications. And therefore, there's a methodological challenge in selecting a suitable equilibrium. So in response to this challenge and this presentation, I'm going to propose using another approach called the potential game approach to resolve the multiple equilibria issue in two side markets. And as we will see, this approach has so less micro foundations in the game theory literature, wisely supported by experimental results, and it can select a unique equilibrium for many two side market models. So the concept of potential games was formalized by Mondra and Sheppley. And in short, a game is a potential game if it is strategically equivalent to an identical interest game. And first, let us take a look on this example in which the two players simultaneously decides to join platform A or platform B. So coordinating on either platform is an equilibrium. But player one prefers to coordinate on A, while player two prefers to coordinate on B. So clearly, Pareto dominance is not applicable. And in fact, none of the population criteria in the literature can unambiguously select a unique equilibrium for this model. But now let me show you a selection criteria that works. So first of all, observe that this game is strategically equivalent to the following identical interest game in which the two players shares the same utility function. So I just need one number for each cell. So to see this, suppose player two joins A. For player one, joining is better than joining B by three units in the original game and by nine units in the identical interest game. Similarly, if player two joins B, for player one, joining B is better than joining A by one unit in the original game and by three units in the identical interest game. See that the change in player one's payoff from switching actions is proportional to the corresponding change in the identical interest game. And the same logic applies to player two. And therefore, these two games are strategically equivalent. So any game that is strategically equivalent to an identical interest game is called a potential game. And the corresponding common utility function is called the potential function. Moreover, for any identical interest games, generically, there's a unique Pareto dominance equilibrium, which corresponds to the maximizer of the potential function. And for this example, it is both players joining A. As proposed by Mondra and Sheppley, the selection criteria based on potential games is to first transform a game into an identical interest game. And then select the corresponding Pareto dominance equilibrium. And it is called potential maximization. So let me give you an intuition why potential maximization makes sense. Suppose the two players indeed played this identical interest game. Then we probably would expect that they are more likely to coordinate on this Pareto dominance equilibrium. And if we also expect that two strategically equivalent games should have similar strategic behavior, then we should expect that they also coordinate on A in the original game. And in fact, for two player-to-action games, potential maximization always selects the risk dominance equilibrium. So in the game theory literature, many equilibrium selection criteria coincides with potential maximization if a game is a potential game. So as mentioned, risk dominance coincides with potential maximization for two-by-two games. And for more general games, the unique equilibrium under global game selection, perfect foresight dynamics, and log linear dynamics is the potential maximizer. And even without relying on other selection criteria, the potential maximizer itself is also robust to incomplete information. Moreover, potential maximization is wisely supported by experimental results. Therefore, this selection criterion is justified by many micro foundations and experimental results. Although potential maximization is applicable only to potential games, many two-side market models are indeed potential games. So for example, for the four most cited papers in two-side markets, all of their main models are weighted potential games. And therefore, we can apply potential maximization to resolve the multiple equilibrium issue. And in what else, I will apply potential maximization to a special case of Armstrong's model in which agents from the same sites are identical. And I'm going to derive some novel insight into two-side markets. So maybe I can pause here to see if there are any questions. There are no questions in the chat, but if anyone... Is it possible to ask a question? Yes, go ahead. My question is this. You said that there are many experimental results that support the choice of equilibrium. Can you say something about them? Sure. So basically, these experiments are lab experiments, and then they usually will play some kind of coordination game. So I guess all this research is comparing Pareto dominance and risk dominance in two-by-two games. So those are the experiments. But actually, for more general games, like ours of two-by-two is not ethical. And one of the extensions is potential maximization. And then people find that, like, times will co-ordinate on the potential maximization. I ask because in my experience, typically in coordination games, when you take them to the lab, you don't get clear results. And none of the equilibrium selection criteria that we use in theory actually has any predictive power in the lab. That's my experience. I see. I see. I think that's actually true. I mean, in mixed results. So sometimes you can find that it supports potential maximization. In other contexts, maybe other equilibrium. But at least we have some research that supports potential maximization. And maybe there are also other literature that supports that in other environments. All right. Maybe I can use the model. So in the model, the multi-platform size of agents, side-one agents and end-to-side-two agents. So the payoff of a side-one agent from joining the platform depends also on joining the platform. Measures the per-interact benefit with each participant set by the platform. The payoff of a side-two agent takes a similar form. And if an agent does not have the platform, his payoff is equal to his pro-platform. C and C2 are the marginal cost of an agent. And the timing is standard. The platform prices stage one, and all agents simultaneously make their joining decisions. Interested in the sub-game perfect equilibria of this game. So now analyze this model. And first, that's by the platform are positive or too high. I think we lost for a moment and lost the slide. Welcome back. When do I get lost? I think we're fine on the setup. You run triple D and maybe we lost a couple of seconds, but I think we're good. Maybe I will repeat this slide. So basically, when the prices set by the platforms are both positive and not too high, there will be two equilibria in stage two. So all agents join the platform or not one platform. And under Pareto dominance, all agents will join the developer equilibria. And therefore, under Pareto dominance, the optimal pricing strategy for the platform is to set the highest possible prices of size. So all agents will join the platform in state focus. And therefore, the platform's equilibrium profit is given by this. And actually, for this, we verify that Pareto domination proven that insulating tariffs and for quality with the monoclip platform. So in other words, these are the typical selection criteria. So now let us enter the same model. So first of all, we show that every second in stage two is a weighted potential game with the potential function given by this. And the proof is simply to verify that the function find here is indeed potential function. So to see this, for size one agent, suppose there are n1 size one participants and n2 size two participants. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but there is a clarifying question about a previous slide and I think it may be worthwhile. Previous, even earlier. Yeah, platform optimal pricing P1 is equal to V1 and two and why is it V1 and two and not V1 and one. Because so you can see that's the payoff here. So basically the payoff of a size one agent depends on the number of size two agents. And if everyone, every size two agent joins, then it is V1 and two clear. Michael does that does answer your question. You're muted. I guess into that's not the total number of agents is it that are joining platform one. So small letter and two is those who joined the platform and capital letter and two is those with the agent. And in the first equilibrium, which is all agents joined the platform will small letter and two becomes capital letter and two. What about capital letter and one. I mean, how what is the total number of agents available. Total number of site one agents is capital and one total number of site two agents is. I see, I see those are the different sites. Okay, thanks. Now I'm not confused. No problem. Yeah, welcome. Okay, so let us continue the proof of this lemma by showing that every sub game. Indeed, a way to potential game and the proof again is to verify that this function fine. Indeed, the potential function. So for a size one agent. Part of this and pay off. And join the platform or not for simply you want. And if these sites are one agent joins the platform, there will be M one plus one site one participants. And if not, there will only be M one site one participants. Therefore, the corresponding difference in fine is given at this. And with some simple occasions will arrive this fall should clearly the change in these sites one agents pay off from switching actions. It's proportional to the corresponding change in. And the same logic applies to a site to agent. And therefore, every sub game in stage two is indeed a way to potential game with the potential function given by fine show after identifying the function. The next step is to identify the potential maximizer. And when there are multiple equilibria in stage two, the potentials of the two equilibria are given by this. So the first one corresponds to all agents and second one corresponds to no one joining the platform. And potential maximization is to select equilibrium with a higher potential. And the following lemma. So basically, under potential maximization, the platform has to leave enough surplus to agents by setting sufficiently low prices in stage one, such that all agents will join. Otherwise, none of them will join the platform. And therefore, potential maximization imposes an additional concern to the platform's profits maximization problem in each one. And generically, and with a loss of generality, assume that the per interaction benefits V one is less than V two. And by solving the above problem, we find that the platform's optimal pricing strategy is to set zero price on site one and the highest possible price on site two. Therefore, the platforms believe by this. So maybe I can pause here for Steve, any questions. There are no more questions in the chat. If anyone else has a question, you can just unmute yourself. Just to clarify, this is also the payoff and the pessimistic belief. Yes, so basically this, if we apply pessimistic beliefs, gets the same outcome here. But let me delay the discussion. To buy the results, I will come back to the pessimistic beliefs. It's the same prediction. All right. So let me first discuss my results and then we'll go back to that point. So this table summarizes and compares the results with the benchmark results. So first of all, under both criteria, the platform charges site the same maximum price and fully extracts their shares. By contrast, and potential maximization, the platform provides access for sites, leaves them lots of shirtless. And therefore, the equilibrium profits is also significantly lower. In this case, I call size one, the site and site two the money side key key implications in this model. The first key implication is that the platform always subsists one side and monetizes the other. So this is actually a very common pricing strategy in two side markets. For example, women enjoy free admissions on ladies nights while men pay an admission fee. Shoppers pay nothing to shopping malls while retailers pay the rent. And consumers are essentially charged to use credit cards while merchants pays for the service. And in the literature, this pricing strategy is caused to divide and conquer strategy. The key in this side is only as V1 or V2 is larger. So as we see size in the total to on each side. So this implies that the platform need not monetize the sites with more agents. So for example, shopping malls have more shoppers than retailers, but only the retailers are charged. And similarly, the money subsidy size is independent of the marginal cost C1 and C2 for serving the agents. So for example, for open SS journals, marginal cost of an additional reader is zero and revealing a paper is costly. But these journals only charge all of this. And the third key implication is about the optimal design of the platform. So oftentimes, and V2 are not extortionist, but rather the platform's endogenous choice. So for example, shopping malls are often decided to maximize the shoppers travel distances by creating popular source far from each other. This benefits the retailers, but harms the shoppers. And therefore, the following discussion is comparative statics by varying V1 and V2. So under political dominance, the optimal design of the platform is to favor both sides. That is to increase both V1 and V2. But this is not true under potential maximization. So as we can see, the platform's equilibrium profits is independent of V1, as long as V1 is less than V2. Therefore, the optimal design of the platform, moreover, under political dominance, the social surplus is just equals to the platform's profit, which means that the optimal design of the platform also maximizes social surplus. By contrast, under potential maximization, the optimal design of the platform is likely to be socially suboptimal, because the platform has no incentive to increase S1's agent surplus. So as we can see, different selection criteria can lead to totally different predictions and implications. So this is the methodological challenge in two-sided markets. Nevertheless, potential maximization gives more realistic predictions in this model platform, for the gene agent model. In particular, the platform always divides and conquers. The optimal design of the platform only depends on per-inch benefits. I mean, the money subsidy size only depends on the per-interaction benefits, and the optimal design of the platform is to favor the money size only. And in fact, these predictions are capturing many distinctive features of two-sided markets, which means that these distinctive features need not rely on platform competition for genius agents. But in fact, it relies on the suitable equilibrium selection criteria. So now I will pause here and I will first answer Bruno's question. So it is true that if we applied pessimistic beliefs on this model, we will get exactly the same results here. But I don't want to overemphasize this point, because this is really a non-generic result for this highly stylized model. So later on when I generalize the model to platform competition, then clearly they are not going to coincide. And also, if we have heterogeneous model, it's not going to coincide. And I can actually tell you the rationale behind why in general they are not going to coincide. So under potential maximization, if we go back to the previous page, you can see that the platform can actually So it is OK that I charge both sides, but it turns out that if I do the maximization problem, it is not optimal to charge both sides. It is better to charge one side and leave the surface on the other side. But if we applied pessimistic beliefs, basically you cannot charge both sides, because whenever you charge both sides, then there is no participation equilibrium. So that force will force you to have to subsidize one side and charge the other side. So the driving force is quite different, so we will express that they coincide in a more random case. And the third point that I want to make is that, as you can see, this table represents predictions under a typical selection criterion versus potential maximization together with pessimistic beliefs. Suppose if we don't know about potential maximization, which is justified by many game theory literature and experimental results, then we can believe that this is more justifiable on the right-hand side results. So I guess this is my comments. Hi Lester, we lost you for a moment as well again. Really? Yes, the internet connection seems to be bad. So we did not hear the last couple of seconds, just so you know. A couple of seconds, I'm talking about this on the left-hand side. It is representing a prediction under a particular dominant relation proof. And on the left-hand side, this is the right prediction, because it is justified by many discussion criteria. But now we have justified which potential maximizing more micro-fundered equilibrium selection criteria that makes right-hand side more plausible. Yeah, I think you can, there are no other questions? Sure. Okay, then I will continue and go back to... Sorry to interrupt, can you just try to turn off your camera and see if the quality is better for everybody, just to hear you and see your slides? I see, let me see. Let me see. So I'll stop the video and start the video again. Just stop your camera. Just click on the... Go ahead. Oh, you mean I just stopped the video? I see. Okay, sure. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay, so in the remaining time, I'm going to demonstrate how potential maximization can resolve the multiple-equilibrium issue under platform competition. So the base nine model is generalized into a duopoly platform model with platforms A and B. So now, A and B set prices in stage one, and all simultaneously make their joining these stages. Now, in this model, each agent has to join one and only one platform. So basically they decide to join either A or B. The pay of an agent from joining platform M depends on the number of site two agents who also joined platform M. And I allow the site one agents to derive different per interaction benefits at different platforms. And the pay off of a site agent takes a similar form. So for simplicity, I assume a way is the margin cost of serving the agents. And following I'm trying them right, I assume that the price of subscription fees sets by the platforms are not negative. So they argue that this is a reasonable assumption on pure subscription models because strictly subsidizing agents is obvious selection problems moral hazard problems. So now, let us analyze this model. So first of all, I define P1-Telta and P2-Telta as the price differences of platforms for site one and site two, respectively. So when the price differences not too large, there will be two equilibria in stage two. All agents join A or all agents join B. So clearly, and in fact, amongst all popular selection criteria, only for quality is applicable to this model. So for quality, as we have discussed, this is also known as optimistic pessimistic beliefs. So at the end of this talk, I will further compare for quality potential maximization. So now let us analyze this model under potential maximization. So similar to the baseline model, we can easily show that the potential function given by this. And simply to verify that the function phi is defined here in this, the potential function going to skip the proof. The proof is very similar to the proof. So after identifying the potential function, the next step is to identify the potential maximizer. We call that there are two equilibria in stage two when the price differences are not too large, and potential maximization is to select the equilibrium with a higher potential. And it is summarized by the following lemma. Under potential maximization, we can view all side one and side two agents as a representative agent who either joined platform A or platform B. So more precisely, we can view V1 times V2 as the value of the platform. These two terms as the prices of joining the platform. And the representative agent will join platform that gives him a higher net value. And therefore, under potential maximization, when platforms A and B set this in one, analogous to the standard patron competition. So generically, and without loss of generality, assume that your A is higher than that of B. So the standard patron competition would imply that B will set zero both sides so that this will slightly undercut B such that it kept the entire market. And therefore, this inequality sign becomes an equilibrium. With some rearrangements, we will obtain this equation. Project constraint, platform A will maximize its profit by optimally on the two sides. And therefore, this problem will do a unique equilibrium outcome with summarized following. So first of all, these two tiers are both generic and without loss. So the first one is about the second one is about the two sides. So then I've already explained it determines the identity of the dominant platform. And the second one states that the average, this condition determines the money subsidy side of the dominant platform. So in this case, side one is the subsidy side and side two is the money side. So similar to the baseline model, the dominant platform always divides and conquers. Now, the money subsidy size depends on the per interaction benefits across average per interaction benefits across the two platforms, rather than its own per interaction benefits V1A and V2A. And therefore, accomplish first the money subsidy size of a dominant and I'm going to use the following example to illustrate this point. So in this example, A favor side one more than side two, but B favor side two much more than side one. And suppose initially that A is a monopolist. And by the previous analysis, we know that it will monetize side one and subsidize side two. Suppose B now enters the market and under platform competition by the previous proposition we know that A still dominates the market. But now A subsidizes side one and monetizes side two. And therefore, the money subsidy side of a dominant platform is reversed under platform competition. Observe that if A and B are separate monopolist, then B actually makes a higher profit than A because B can extract more surplus from one side. So this implies that the optimal design of a monopoly platform might not work well under platform competition. So under platform competition, if the two platforms are very competitive, then the optimal design of the platforms tends to favor both sides because the platform with a smaller product of V1 and V2 is defeated in equilibrium and has zero market share. But if one of the platforms is inferior, say if both V1B and V2B are close to zero, then these two terms are close to zero. And these whole term is close to V2A, meaning that's the optimal design of A tends to favor only the money side in order to extract more surplus from that side. So let me pause here to see if there are any questions. No questions in the chat. So if anyone has any questions, you can just unmute yourself. Okay. I think at this point, maybe you should continue and then we will move to Q&A. Sure, sure. Yeah. Okay. So lastly, I want to spend some minutes to discuss the quality and potential maximization. So for the quality, most of us know that the quality is to assume that all agents always coordinate on the pre-specified platform whenever there are multiple equilibria. And therefore, the quality trees platform is symmetrically. By contrast, potential maximization trees platforms are symmetric in the sense that the identity of the format for with a specific is has to determine which platforms should be the platform. So potential maximization. So in the previous example, the one with a larger product of one and two. Calibra is dominant focal because all agents coordinate on this one, but this is an equilibrium rather than as on the start. Let's say I just wanted to let you know that we keep losing you. So, so unfortunately, yep, I think we lost Lester all together. I hope he comes back soon for Q&A. And at least what we can say is that I think we got the most of his presentation in. So, I guess we'll wait a little bit longer. And in case he's not coming back in another minute, I think we'll need to call the seminar short. Yeah, so I guess let me thank Lester in absentia for for the, you know, I think it's an interesting concept. I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask him at the end, but I guess I'll ask him privately. I will share a question with you. So something to ponder. He mentioned that some of the platform competition games can be represented as potential games and wonder to what extent this concept and how general this concept is and which platform competition games can be characterized as potential games and which cannot and where we can apply this concept or not. Otherwise, I thought it was, it was interesting and again, thinking Lester in absentia since he's still not back. And with that, I think we are going to end the seminar. I had a question to more general question. We may want to think about and that is, as far as I know, websites, dating websites for heterosexuals usually charge both sides, men and women. And the competition doesn't seem to force a zero price on one side and not positive price on the other. Maybe they're both willing to pay an equal amount. I don't know what the reason might be. So I can actually chime in on that. Having done some research on dating sites specifically as platforms, for legal reason in most countries, for legal reason of gender discrimination, they are not allowed to charge different prices to the two sides. And in fact, the bars nights out, policy has been challenged as gender discrimination and in some jurisdictions they had won. So nights, ladies nights out are banned from in some countries in U.S. But for only dating sites, it's just illegal. Well, I'm also, I do remember a very long time ago when I was dating. They, I was there, there were platforms of specializing women. They weren't online, but they were still platforms and they, and they kept inviting men please, please join. It's free for men. And, but I guess they had women that had a very high willingness to pay. All right, guys, I think we have Lester back. So maybe we should give him the opportunity to continue. Okay, so let me just finish the last part. So I'll continue at this. Please. Lester, we still can't hear you. At least I can. No, we can't. Lester, I actually have a suggestion. Oh, he's gone. Maybe he can wrap up without slides. I think we can hear him well without slides if he comes back. I think the lesson here is that the internet has to be before is very important. Yeah, we did. Yeah, we did testing. And was there any issues yesterday? No. So I guess it happens. So, Andre, I'm thinking about just, just calling it. I agree. I think it's, I mean, honestly, it seems like his internet is very bad. It looks like it's red, whatever, red color, which means it's not working well. Okay. So, yeah, so, so thank you very, very much. Anyone, everyone who participated and thanks to Lester and I still think we got some interesting ideas here and obviously questions. And I'm looking forward to another seminar in two weeks. Thank you.