Good afternoon, everyone. The topic for my lecture today is, how poor countries become rich or stay poor. So the broad topic is about economic growth, which is a big or core component of the broader field of development economics. Of course, that's a field where every fallacy alive exists. Anybody familiar with development economics, every fallacy ever refuted is still part of that canon as of today. I mean, not too long ago, I was sitting where you were actually a few, probably three or four years ago. So it's great to be on the other side of the podium. And I thank Dr. Salerno, everyone else at the Institute for giving me the chance to speak. Now, I want to start with this quote by Robert Lucas, the father of rational expectations in macroeconomics. He also wrote some stuff about growth. Now, in a paper in 1988 titled on the Mechanics of Economic Development, he said, I do not see how one can look at figures like these, that is, of GDP growth, without seeing them representing possibilities. Is there some action a government of India could take that would leave the Indian economy to grow like Indonesia's or Egypt's? If so, what exactly? If not, what is it about the nature of India that makes it so? The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering. Once one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else. Now, of course, there's a lot of truths to what Lucas is saying, and largely because once you start reflecting on the phenomenon of economic growth, you begin to, the first thing which pops into your head is how recent it all is, and how lucky you are to have been born at this time and living in a certain place, where you take so many things for granted, we take so many of our consumer goods and services that we utilize on a day-to-day basis for granted, but the sliver of human history through which this has been true is extremely small. And what makes it even more fascinating, of course, is that even today, if you were to go to parts of Africa, parts of rural India, many other places in Latin America and Asia, you almost like you're stepping into a time machine. You go back to the way human beings lived generation after generation after generation, except for probably the last three or four generations, when, of course, we have this common expectation, especially in the developed part of the world and a few parts of Asia that are developed and other parts of Latin America as well, that every generation succeeding is going to have a better standard of life than the previous one, that the consumer goods and services available to every succeeding generation is going to be better than ours. This, of course, is only true for about three or four generations. So what makes economies grow, right? That's what Lucas is saying here, that once you start thinking about these questions of what makes growth possible, what makes the sustained improvement in standard of living possible, it's a fascinating question. And then, of course, as Mises once remarked, and he was writing around 1949, that even the average Joe or the average guy on the common is now able to enjoy luxuries that are goods that were impossible for even kings of old to enjoy. Think of how much pleasure, tyrants like Louis XIV or Henry VIII would have taken from an iPod or a smartphone. They loved it, but, of course, they didn't even have clean water. And most of their infants died, not even of the kings, but, of course, of the general population before the age of one. So once you start thinking about this, you begin to realize this is the core, a very, very big part of what an economist should be thinking about. Now, the Austrian school, of course, has had a long history of talking about growth. And in this lecture, what I want to do is, to begin with, I just wanted to talk about, very briefly, some of the preconditions for growth that many thinkers in the Austrian tradition have pointed out should exist for growth to happen. Then I want to talk about a case study of a country where these preconditions or these recommendations were not followed and take a look empirically at what happened. And I'll be talking about the case of India under central planning in the second half of the 20th century. And then, time permitting, I'd like to finish by just talking briefly about the pitfalls or the possible problems with using GDP as a measure of growth, especially where the government plays a huge role in allocating resources. Now, of course, in the Austrian school itself, all the great minds have contributed, have said something about growth, right from Minger down to Rothbard, including others who would, you would classify in a broader Austrian tradition like Frank Fetter and William Hutt. Everyone said important things about growth. What I'm going to present here is just a very brief summary. And probably the best way to understand it is just to go back to basics, talk about the simplest construct that economists use. We use it very often, that of Robinson Crusoe. Or if you would rather have it, you can think of Tom Hanks and Castaway, but I'd rather think of Robinson Crusoe. And basically, think of this guy stranded on the island as being faced with two possible production processes that he could undertake. There is one process where he can devote an hour of labor time to fishing with his bare hands. This is a very short process. He will fish and he'll probably get the fish very soon, probably within the hour itself. And his productivity will be about one fish per hour worked. On the other hand, he could, of course, devote an hour of labor time to constructing a raft in the net. But of course, it'll take him a long time to construct the raft in the net and then use the raft in the net to fish. I've just thrown up numbers here of 200 fish after 40 years of work. And so productivity of roughly five fish per hour worked. Now, even though this example highlights different processes of production and two different periods of production, that is time periods between when production begins and when the consumer good arrives, what Robinson's really faced here is an inter-temporal choice. He's got two choices or a choice between fish now versus fish or fish in the near future versus fish in the more distant future. And to begin with, we could just think of this example and completely abstract from time altogether, right? We could just assume or what I, in other words, completely abstract from what role time could play in his choice. So assume that he doesn't care whatsoever about whether fish come now or fish come later, right? Now, in that situation, of course, he would always undertake the more productive process. He would always undertake the longer process, simply because given that he's devoting one hour of labor time, a certain amount of leisure he has to give up, a certain amount of cost involved with that devotion of one hour of labor time, he's going to get more bang for his buck. And so he will always, if we completely abstract from the temporal element of the present and future, undertake to the longer process. Now, of course, just thinking about this makes one realize that that's quite an absurd assumption that that is probably not how he will act and that it is likely, not definite, but likely that he could choose the shorter process. Now, of course, the very fact that we can even conceive of him being able to choose the shorter process in the condition or in the example we have chosen says something about how human beings value satisfaction at different periods of future time, right? So the present and the future and when satisfaction arrives matter. And this, of course, gives rise to the crucial concept of time preference, which is basically that individuals, all else equal, would prefer satisfaction in the present as compared to the future. Or in other words, consider if Robinson was faced with two different production processes, both of which yielded him a certain, let's say two fish per hour worked or 10 fish at the end of the process, but one was short and one was long. He would in that case never choose the longer process. So in other words, time needs to be economized and we don't undertake a longer process just for the sake of undertaking the longer process. That in a nutshell is what the concept of time preference really implies. That what that also implies is that we care about when we obtain satisfaction in future time, right? Now, an implication of time preference, of course, is that Robinson, in order to undertake the longer process, is going to have to overcome whatever time preference he has. Another way to understand time preference is to say that future satisfaction is discounted as compared to present satisfaction or that you place a premium on the present as compared to the future. That a given amount of satisfaction is preferred in the present as compared to the future. And so he would undertake this process if he can overcome whatever his rate of time preferences. By rate of time preference, what one means is the amount of additional satisfaction that will satisfy him in order to wait longer or engage in this longer production process, right? Overcoming that rate of time preference, which is something that is subjective, right? Is something, is a decision that he would have to make while making this decision between two different production processes. And assuming that his time preference, rate of time preference is low enough, that is he places a low enough discount on the future as compared to the present, and assuming he does undertake this longer process, the first thing he has to do, of course, is save, right? And by saving what one means is reducing present consumption below its possible level, right? In fact, as Bumbawa pointed out, saving is just another way of saying that you have to release resources from the shorter process and devote it to the longer process. Now, of course, the form that saving can take could be in many different forms. He could decide to just work longer, and so he fishes with his bare hands, but then he also works longer and gives up leisure in order to obtain the more fish in the future. But of course, then he's giving up leisure, which is present consumption, and he's reducing consumption in the present below what it could be. Or he could fish with his bare hands and gradually set aside fish bit by bit so that his fish accumulates and then he goes on this longer process and consumes the fish that he saved in the meantime. The form of saving might be different, but saving is necessary for undertaking any extension of the period of production. And that, of course, the amount of saving, therefore, is limited by the amount of the actor's rate of time preference. Another way to think about how time preference can be subjective is to think about different Robinsons on different islands. So you could think of a Robinson with a low rate of time preference and a Robinson with a high rate of time preference. The Robinson with a low rate of time preference will be much more productive. Why? Because he would have saved and invested in a raft and a net, in a bow and an arrow. Maybe he's built himself a house, et cetera. But the Robinson with a high rate of time preference is probably still fishing with his bare hands. He can't obtain any meat. He's probably sleeping under the stars, et cetera. And what we mean by the rate of time preference being subjective is that it can vary for the same person across time, and it can vary for different people at the same point in time. So everybody places a discount on the future, on future satisfaction as compared to the present, but the rate at which you do so can be different and therefore your decisions of which production process to undertake in this scenario would be different. So the reason I went through this example in a little detail is to call two important lessons for economic growth, which also apply in the more complicated scenario where you have division of labor. The first, you can quote Hayek, where he says, which of the many known technological methods of production will be employed is determined by the supply of capital available at each moment. Or in other words, the rate of time preference restricts the amount of saving we're willing to undertake. And as a result, it limits the possibility or determines which of the different production possibilities that confront us we will undertake, whether we do go for the longer, more productive process or the shorter, less productive process. And of course, the fact that life constantly places before any individual in our example, this choice between present and future and a more productive process, which is longer as compared to a shorter one, which is less productive, is something which is just an empirical fact, as Bombawar pointed out. If nothing else, he would have to maintain the capital goods he's produced in the past, which again is an inter-temporal choice. But even if he doesn't want to add to his capital goods, which he's already, he would still have to maintain, in other words, he'd have to replace them as they wear out because they're not permanent. And again, that means trading off the present for the future, because he could fish with his bearer, he could fish with a raft and net and then not care about the future, or as he's fishing with a raft and the net, he could still set aside some time to build a new raft and the net, which he can use once this one wears out. Now the other insight is, we can quote Mises on this. He says the difference between production without the aid of capital goods and that assisted by the employment of capital goods consists in time. He who produces with the aid of capital goods enjoys one great advantage over the man who starts without capital goods. He is nearer in time to the ultimate goal of his endeavors. So think of the two Robinsons, right? And think of you and a helicopter and maybe you're a producer of one of these shows where these guys get stranded on the island and then fend for themselves. But you're looking at these two different guys and one of them has a low rate of time preference, one of them has a high rate of time preference. And you're looking at their activities and you see how he's far richer, he's far more productive. The stream of consumer goods that is flowing out every moment in his economy is much more than this guy. And if you know this economic theory, you say, oh, of course, that means that in the past, the guy with the low rate of time preference was willing to give up presents satisfaction and trade it off for the future. He was willing to save in the past. But now that he has these goods, it's like he doesn't have to save anymore as long as he has those goods, right? So it's like if you could airlift the goods from where the low rate of time preference is to the guy with the high rate of time preference, he would essentially be given almost like he would be saving time because he wouldn't have to give up in the present. He wouldn't have to make sacrifices in the present, but he would have all the goods, right? Which he would have, otherwise it would be impossible for him to produce without saving and trading off present satisfaction for the future. Or he could think of Robinson waiting out into the ocean and finding his ship and saying, oh, all of a sudden, there's actually a little, maybe a little trunk in there with a bow and an arrow and an axe and all these tools which otherwise he would have had to take time to produce. Essentially, that is what Mises is saying. So it's almost like with capital goods, you are further along in time towards the attainment of goals which he could not attain, but for the fact that you had to save, right? Because you could not employ and you could not be more productive if you had not sacrificed consumption in the present in the past. All right, so these are the two main conclusions I wanted to derive from that simple example. And of course, while these are true in that very simplistic scenario, they're also true in the world of today. And that's the power of the constructive problem of that guy stranded on the island because the only difference if you transfer these concepts from the case of Robinson Crusoe to modern society is that it's much more complicated because in any modern economy, you don't just have one man's labor. You have lots of different types of labor services, lots of different types of land. You have many different capital goods which you carry over from the past but nevertheless, you still have the same choices. You still have different temporal patterns in which you could allocate these resources, but you still have the choice of how much you want to save, how much you would like to invest, how many of those resources will be deployed towards embarking on production processes which will yield their fruit later as compared to now. So these choices, of course, exist in any possible institutional framework both for the man stranded alone in the island as well as in any modern economy. And so therefore these conclusions apply just as much to a modern economy as they do to the case of Robinson Crusoe. But the big difference, of course, when we start thinking about a modern economy is this is where we have to bring in a Mises' discussion of the problem of economic calculation because when we spoke about the individual on the island, the production processes we were talking about were extremely short. He could make decisions about how to allocate his labor because the production processes involved, even though one was shorter and one was longer, were relatively short. And I'm sure you've discussed this in depth in your lecture on the problem of economic calculation. The big criticism Mises made of socialism was that, well, in a socialist framework where production processes, you're assuming that this czar wants to create a modern economy like the ones we live in where production structures involve many, many different kinds of capital goods, heterogeneous capital goods, also very long production processes which sometimes take years to complete. And there are many different relationships of complementarity and substitutability between all of these different producer goods and capital goods that basically a dictator or a czar who is essentially in the same position as Robinson Crusoe, except facing a much, much more complex situation, will not be able to make any meaningful choices about how to allocate the producer goods or the higher order goods in his possession. So if he wants to decide how to allocate a unit of coal, whether to this purpose or that purpose, he won't be able to make this decision simply because he won't be able to impute value from the consumer goods back to this higher order good because in order to do that, since value has no unit, he would have to work through all the different relationships of complementarity and substitutability within the production structures. So that implies therefore that if we wish to grow beyond very, very basic production processes, one has to have private property and exchange and money prices for both consumer goods as well as producer goods. So in a sense, once we use, take these lessons and we start to translate them into the case of an economy with division of labor, we realize that calculation and calculation using money prices forms the key and the institutions needed to generate the possibility of economic calculation become absolutely crucial for growth because if growth is supposed to be about embarking on longer and more complicated production processes which are more productive, then that implies that one has to be able to calculate with money prices in order to be able to make meaningful choices about which processes to embark on and which not to. And of course, and as Mises notes, he's talking about all these ventures and processes, he means these different production processes being carried out in any modern economy are intellectually controlled by capital accounting, the acne of economic calculation in monetary terms. Capital accounting starts with the market prices of the capital goods available for further production, the sum of which it calls capital. It records every expenditure from this fund and the price of all incoming items induced by such expenditure. It establishes finally the ultimate outcome of all these transformations in the composition of the capital and therefore, and thereby the success of the failure of the whole process. So in other words, capital goods have to have prices and these prices are of course prices that are appraised by different entrepreneurs and they have to make use of the tools of modern day accounting and in order to be able to calculate profits and losses and capital gains and capital losses in order for these allocations of resources to be made and in order for economies to grow. Now Mises makes another point which is also very important once we start talking about growth in the framework of division of labor and that is a point with respect to international trade and this goes back to the second lesson which we were talking about in the world of Robinson Crusoe. What Mises says and it's very interesting is that he says the capitalist West lent to the backward countries and this he's talking about when the international capital market really became important in the 19th century, lent to the backward countries the capital goods needed for an instantaneous transformation of a great part of their methods of production. It saved them time and made it possible for them to multiply very soon the productivity of their labor. These nations of Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa have been able thanks to the foreign capital imported to reap the fruits of modern industry at an earlier date. They were to some extent relieved from a necessity of restricting their consumption in order to accumulate a sufficient stock of capital goods. So in other words, trade in capital goods is like airlifting goods from the Robinson who would save more in the past and transporting them to the Robinson who'd not saved as much in the past. So what Mises is pointing out is that trade of course also of course helps each region, each country whatever region you wish to choose specialize in the production processes in which it has a comparative advantage. But it also very importantly once the trade reaches capital goods effectively implies that nations can essentially save time to reap the fruits of modern industry at an earlier date than would have been possible. So in other words, the preconditions for growth from this very brief summary that I've provided basically involve the necessity of saving as well as a certain institutional framework of private property and market prices and international trade. So in other words, if a poorer country developing nation was to come to somebody and ask for what advice would you give us if we want to trade, if we want to grow and if you want to improve our standards of life? Well, you'd say, well, put in place the institutions which will ensure that the savings that you generate are allocated in the best possible way and open up doors to trade, especially including in capital and capital goods, right? But this is precisely what in soon after World War II when development economics first originated and became a self-conscious discipline, a separate discipline within the broader field of economics, this is essentially what the advice that developing countries got from development economists was essentially the opposite. Now, one point on which development economists did stress and stress correctly was the necessity of saving. They did say that the poorer parts of the world suffer from a lack of saving if they have to improve, if they have to grow, they need savings in order to produce capital goods, but they neglected the institutional underpinnings. So they said, well, trade is bad, right? There was a lot of trade pessimism that it won't help developing countries to engage in international trade. And of course, markets are bad. So in other words, the best pathway to industrialization is of course to generate savings and invest in these capital goods, but do it all domestically. So produce all the capital goods yourself and secondly, do it led by essentially planned economic regime, right? And one of the poster trials of development in that era was India. And if you look at the structure of the Indian economy at independence, now of course it was highly agrarian. So to give you just a brief history of India, so India was ruled by the British from about 1857 to 1947. Officially it gained its independence in 1947. There had been some industrial activity in India while the British were there, but it had not been extraordinary or had been really clustered in a few geographical clusters or areas. And so the country remained highly agrarian. Most of the labor force was employed in agriculture. The industrial sector, most of it was geared towards production of consumer goods. So most of the capital goods were being imported from abroad as of independence in 1947. Now of course, greatly influenced by most of the advice given by the newly emerging field of development economics, India did a number, took a number of steps. Firstly, in 1950, it set up a planning commission. You know, decided to plan, have five year plans a lot like Russia or the Soviet Union, except of course that in India, not all of the industries were nationalized. So what happened was that you had a huge public sector which developed and which continues to exist despite the reforms recently. And what you also had hand in hand with the huge public sector developing was a huge amount of controls on whatever private industry that had developed in the pre-independence time. So you had a very stringent licensing regime. So if a private entrepreneur wished to expand production, if he wished to change his line of production, if on a certain, in his plant, if he wanted to stop producing one kind of motorcycle and another kind of, and switch to another kind of motorcycle, if he wanted to change his input mix, if he wanted to move from one area to another, all of this was licensed, right? So in other words, he had to get permission from a licensing committee who would then grant him permission and say, okay, you can do this or not that, you can produce X number of these, X number of that. And the idea was to coordinate all of these licenses in line with this five year plan. So in other words, to make the private sector essentially do the bidding of the central planners. It's very similar to the economic regime which existed in many, during war, for example, in the US or even in Nazi Germany, where, and Mises talks about this in depth and Hayek as well about the kind of regime which prevailed in Nazi Germany where you had private property in law, but as far as economically it was concerned, there was effectively no real private property because you had to follow the commands of, in the case of India, the Planning Commission. Now, of course, you also had huge restrictions on international trade. So India became nearly autarkic in many ways, especially with respect to imports. And so you had this huge, along with all of these licenses which you had to get from, in order to change any kind of make any decisions on what you can produce and how you can produce, et cetera. You also had to get licenses if you wanted to get imports of any inputs and you had separate set of bureaucrats who dealt with that. And of course, you had many other regulations which I'm not getting into. So in many ways, India adopted what the economist Michael Heilperin in his book, Economic Nationalism. I think it's for sale at the store here. He termed economic nationalism. He said it's a mix of socialism with autarky. And of course, in a way, a lot of the growth theories of that time were leading countries exactly to this path of economic nationalism because the recipe for growth was supposed to be increased savings, industrialized, but do everything domestically, don't trade, right? Which is kind of like reinventing the wheel because why wouldn't you trade capital goods? Anyway, so this I picked up a little quote from the first five year plan in India. So you can see that the economists who drove the whole planning process, they admit that they accept the fact that the key is stepping up the rate of capital formation. The level of production and material wellbeing a community can attain depends in the main on the stock of capital at its disposal. That is the amount of land, productive equipment, et cetera. But of course, this is a quote from the first prime minister, India. This is a classic. He says, I believe as a practical proposition that it is better to have a second rate thing made in our country than a first rate thing that one has to import. So this was the kind of mentality with respect to trade. And so what you really had was a philosophy of trying to rapidly industrialize a nation by producing all the capital goods domestically. And of course, in order to do that, you have to plan because in order to have that kind of control over the allocation of resources, you would have to have a planning authority. So what happened as a result of this experiment? And as you can see, this violates or this does not take seriously the recommendations made as to the institutional preconditions needed to adopt or to develop a modern production structure which is complex and which can be yield much greater levels of productivity. So India started planning in 1950 and the first 15 years generated quite respectable rates of GDP growth. So GDP growth was about 4%, averaged over the first 15 years. Population, of course, as ever in India was booming along. So per capita, it came down to about 2.1% to 2%, which was not great, but much greater than what existed before independence from all measured data. So in the literature, even recently, this was considered a period of great, of a big step forward. A small, maybe not a huge step, but nothing like the GDP numbers coming out of the Soviet Union, but much better than what existed in a market-oriented economy before independence. Now, of course, you can see here, this is the, I've given you a few numbers on the percentage output change. What I call basic industry there is a term used, you can think of those as really the commanding heights, kind of like iron, steel, cement, aluminum industries like that. You can see the huge difference between the percentage change and output over the period 1955 to 65 in consumer goods, especially like food-related and industrial and the capital goods and intermediate goods, you know, and this kind of reflected the planning process and how they wish to allocate resources, right? But of course, as a result of all of that, and again, there are more numbers here about specific goods, so you can see textile machinery grew at a rate of 440%, machine tools by some 3,500, of course, the base in this is very small, so that's why you get these crazy figures, but basically, there are a lot of resources that are being funneled. The idea is to get, you know, what I want to get, the idea I want to give you is that lots of resources were being funneled to these capital goods industries and the consumer goods industries were kind of being starved for any sort of output. Now, of course, you might, someone might turn around and say, well, of course, this is exactly how growth occurs, right, you save, you give up, consumption in the present, you allocate resources towards those goods that will yield you consumer goods in the future, that's how growth is supposed to work, except no growth happened. So, you can see here, I take, there are two consumer goods which basically entered the consumption basket of literally every Indian. You know, this is a time when India was much poorer than what it is even today, and really the only, you could, in many, for many people, the only two goods that they acquired through the process of exchange was cloth and food. And as far as cloth was concerned, it was mostly cotton cloth. And as you can see here, there was some update, you know, increase in the per capita availability of both of these goods, but that was mostly in the first five years and that was mostly kind of a, that was all the war, there had been a lot of dislocation because of the Second World War and there was some recovery post-war which can account for some of that improvement, but really if you look at it from 55 to 65, there's literal stagnation. In fact, you had the curious case of the amount, the third point there of actually the level of domestically produced food grain availability being constant at 14.9 ounces per head per day through this period. And that's very ironic because actually during this period, the share of employment in agriculture actually went up. So, at the end of this period in 1966, India suffered from what was a near famine. You know, there was a huge failure of rains and there was drought and there was a big failure in agriculture output and it was ironic in that most of the imports which saved, you know, Indians was coming from the US, right? This is the famous PL-480 scheme where wheat was shipped from US to India. So you had this irony that the most industrialized nation in the world was shipping food to the most agricultural nation in the world with 72% of its workforce is employed in agriculture. As a result, you know, at the end of 15 years of this sort of experiment of rapid industrialization through planning. Now, of course, nothing happened from 65 to 80 either, right? The numbers stay more or less the same. There wasn't much improvement in per capita living standards or anything of the sort. Let me just skip ahead here, do you do? So I also analyze the period of the 1980s because that's another period when GDP growth in India was quite respectable. But I want to come to these figures here which kind of give you an idea of like the per capita intake of calories in 1989, 90 in India was lower than that of Brazil, China, Mexico and Egypt and kind of rough figures for the average consumption of cloth in 87, 88, the average Indian male consumed three meters of cloth in the forms of shirt of shirts and 0.6 meters as trousers. So that basically amounts to one shirt and half a trouser per annum. So dire poverty on average. And this is after about 45, 50 years of this experiment. Now, of course, things improve much better post reform and I won't get into that here. Another point I want to hit on is the quality of the goods. So you can see that this massive reallocation of resources towards funneling all these resources towards industrializing the country domestically through planning didn't really work as far as the output of consumer goods was concerned, right? But that's how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to save in the present in order to get something in the future, except Indians were forced to save but didn't get anything in the future, right? Or the vast majority of them didn't, a small percentage who lived, who were politically connected did, which is as the usual case here as it was in the Soviet Union. Just some figures on the quality of some of the consumer goods which were being generated from all of this production on the third point there. So in 84-85, the average call completion rate, so if you've made a phone call, that was only 40%. So in other words, you had to call 2.5 times to reach somebody else, right? Why was that? Because the equipment, and that's the first two points there, which the kind of switching equipment within telephone exchanges was mostly pre-World War II or just post-World War II technology, largely dilapidated. Now, of course, that was local calls. So if you make long distance calls, you had to make five attempts in order to get through. So in other words, it's not that the other person isn't picking up, you just don't get through it. It falls somewhere along the way. And in fact, I remember as a kid, you couldn't call, you would have to actually call somebody and they would manually connect you. Even this is as late as like in the early 90s. This is something which went out of, which in the West is unheard of, but we had to do that when you call long distance. And of course, the lines were terrible all the time. So even if you got through, you could barely hear the other person. And so everyone's always shouting. And so even today, I make fun of my parents and their generation. They have cell phones now, but they still shout. It's like, what's the point? We can hear you. This is a much better era. You don't live in the socialist era anymore. Of course, televisions, so as of 1989, 75% of annual production was still black and white TVs, even though most of the world, including large parts of the world in Asia had moved to color televisions. Why was this? Because well, the licenses weren't given out to produce color television. The quality of these TVs, as measured by government report, was well below international standards. And of course, the best part of it is that you had only one TV channel, which wasn't even 24 hours.  So at 7 AM, the TV would start. And as far as watches are concerned, you can see as of 85, 86, 96% of watches made in India were mechanical.  But of course, worldwide, the proportions stood at 24%. And all of these changed quite rapidly after liberalization. I have a paper on this, which you can look at in the independent review if you're interested. So with the time remaining, I just wanted to sum up a few thoughts, end with a few thoughts on the use of GDP accounting. So as you can see, most of the periods I looked at in my research were periods when India's GDP growth went up under this regime of planning, much like the way Soviet Union was producing these gigantic GDP growth figures. And so the question is, why does GDP as a measure fail, you know, in these sort of, in these scenarios? For example, the research of Warren Nutter in, I think, was it the 60s? I believe it was the 60s, even then showed that, you know, a lot of the goods being produced in the Soviet Union, despite the high GDP growth rates were of poor quality. You know, most of it was going into producing armaments, etc. A lot of it was not even trickling into consumption expenditure. And the real problem here is, of course, again, the institutional framework doesn't exist. And so there is no connection between investment and consumption, right? So you have, because, of course, the Austrian argument of the need for calculation assumes that the socialist dictator will actually try and make any calculations. Of course, in reality, they don't. It all becomes just a whims of politics, right? Someone wants a factory of this in his region, you know, the resources are funneled there, etc. So what happens ultimately is that you have all of these resources funneled to the capital goods industries, but without any price system or any sort of profit loss system at work. And so you have all this idle capacity building up. You have roads going to nowhere, right? You have a glass factory which won't have the raw material source close by. Milton Friedman, when he went to India, called these the modern monuments, right? Like the pyramids. Of course, all of this contributes in the year in which it was undertaken as opposed to capital goods production. And it's a final good. If you're familiar with the term, then of course, all of this goes in as part of GDP, except nothing comes out from consumption. So as the great classical liberal economist, the only one before, I believe, I think 1985 or so that India ever produced, B.R. Chenoy, whose daughter, Suda Chenoy, was a famous Austrian economist, and her, I think, denoted, and her library to the Institute. He said that when you have such planning, you should look at consumption figures. You should forget about GDP figures. Just look at per capita consumption figures. And in fact, some of the figures I showed you were from some of his work and his daughter's work. Suda Chenoy. Robert Higgs, Dr. Higgs also points this out in his famous paper, talking about the myth of prosperity in World War II. He makes the same point that once you lose the framework of private property and the market system, then of course you kind of lose all track of how investment is being undertaken and GDP growth, and GDP growth rates kind of lose their meaning. And so you have to take all of these with a huge pinch of salt. So I think my time is up, and thank you for listening, and I hope you enjoy it.


Thank you, Yizir. And now we will hear from the student elected to speak from the bachelor's class of 2016, Alexis Farmer. Alexis is from Detroit, and she has excelled here at the University of Michigan academically, as well as in the community, through her extensive service and engagement activities. She has completed a number of policy internships, including work for Governor Rick Snyder and gubernatorial candidate Gretchen Whitmer. She's a columnist for the Michigan Daily, writing bi-weekly articles on political and social issues. And she's mentored dozens of younger students, supporting the successful transition of underrepresented students from high school to college. In recognition of her leadership, she was given the MLK Spirit Award this January. Alexis graduates with university honors, with a BA in public policy and a minor in international studies. She has secured a position as a research and program associate at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York. And I'm so pleased to welcome Alexis Farmer to the podium. Alexis. Everyone doing okay so far? Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to get through this thing called life. Rest in peace to Prince. My fellow four school students, soon to be alumni, family, friends, faculty, and staff. We gather to celebrate and acknowledge one of many transitions in this thing called life. Graduation is a point of transition, a pivotal moment in life in which we must reflect and commemorate our journeys at the University of Michigan and the Ford School. This thing called life that we are living is filled with glorious and arduous endeavors, each of which contributes to the development of our character. Our character comprises of the mental and moral qualities that are distinct to our individual egos. The Ford School has challenged both of these dimensions, questioning our intellectual and ethical ethos in uncomfortable ways. I had an idea that the policy-making process was a difficult decision-making procedure, but my first simulation of this experience occurred in Public Policy 320, an introductory course for BA students titled Politics, Political Institutions, and Public Policy. During one of our lectures, we were discussing human rights and counterterrorism, specifically in the Middle East, in order to better understand the challenges confronting terrorism, which laws and norms apply, and the roles of individuals, institutions, and unofficial actors in the policy process. The discussion was framed by narratives of who a terrorist is, as defined by the media and propagated by political rhetoric. While I recognize that 320 was an introductory course that covered a wide range of issues with insufficient time for depth, I sense the fear of a single story being told. I was uncomfortable in a classroom where terrorism only seems to be attached to foreign affairs, when there is domestic violence happening within our borders, such as rampant anti-blackness and unlawful police shootings, mass shootings invading safe spaces known as schools and churches, and the criminalization of homelessness. I felt compelled to speak, but I was anxious to do so. I was very aware of my identity as a black female and very cognizant of the space that I occupied in the classroom. I did not want to be the angry black girl, but in that moment I was okay with owning that title because it was less about me and more about what had been left unsaid, and so I spoke up. To my surprise, my classmates acknowledged my bravery once the discussion had ended, and my GSI even offered me the space in office hours to further dissect the issue. This moment was only the beginning of many conversations within the Ford School, in which my classmates and I had to reckon with the dissonance embedded in the policy process. Speaking up taught me that growth demands a temporary surrender of security. There will be many times in life where we find ourselves uncomfortable, and when we need to expose a little vulnerability, whether that's in the classroom, like quantitative evale, that struggle, okay, you feel me? Okay, the holiday party mentioned, a little embarrassing, right? Okay, or the diversity, equity, and inclusion townhouse, or the workplace. We allow ourselves to be honest, fully present, and committed to working through these uncomfortable moments. We are better able to address and adhere to the truth. It is imperative to recognize how our identities are directly tied to our pursuit of justice in order to recognize the truth. We must apply the lessons learned from our moments of internal and external conflict as we prepare to become public servants. Those lessons are pertinent for those of us who are seeking to be a part of the same institutions that are responsible for deteriorating conditions of human equality. There are government establishments that have undermined public trust, perpetuating dehumanizing policies that fracture independence and liberation, such as a display of anti-queerness in North Carolina, environmental injustice in Flint, and immigration discrimination from Syrian refugee intake, just to name a few examples. In our efforts as public servants, we have a moral and mental responsibility to not perpetuate the structural violence that is ever present in our society. Now, more than ever, do we need to be active solicitors of peace and security. In an article by New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, he observed, it seems as we grow older, we are haunted less by what we have done than by what we have failed to do, whether through lack of courage and attention or insufficient readiness to cast caution to the winds. What's done is done, but the undone is another matter. In the spirit of the MLK symposium theme, hashtag who will be next, I charge that all of us have the courage, attention and sufficient readiness to adjust the policy problems that have been left undone. The gravity of power that we have and will acquire as our expertise sharpens requires for us to be considerate of the spaces we occupy and thoughtful about what we do with the power that we hold. Today is a culmination of years of hard work and I have hope from my experiences after 320 that we will all continue to ask ourselves the difficult questions necessary to catalyze real and lasting change. As Maya Andrew wisely noted, history despite its retching pain cannot be unlived, but if faith was courage, need not be lived again. History has its eyes on us. We need to have the courage to honestly and meaningfully engage with the present that history has brought us in order to transform the world that we live in from the inside out. I have no doubts that we are capable of doing so.  You all are accomplished human beings who are going to continue to strive towards greatness defined on your own terms. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to learn from you all and from the four school community. Thank you.


The Jack Benny program, transcribed and presented by Lucky Strike. The cigarette that's toasted to taste better. If you want better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste, yet it's the toasted cigarette. Friends, this is Don Wilson. There's no doubt about it. If you want better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to taste better. Naturally, Lucky's better taste begins just where you'd expect it to begin, with fine tobacco. LSMFT, Lucky Strike means fine tobacco. And then that tobacco is toasted. It's toasted. The famous Lucky Strike process tones up Lucky's naturally good tasting tobacco to make it taste even better, cleaner, fresher, smoother. So next time, get better taste. Get Lucky Strike. The Lucky Strike program starring Jack Benny with Murray Livingston, Rochester, Dennis Day, Bob Crosby, the sportsman quartet and yours truly, Don Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, Jack Benny's birthday is February 14th and whenever one of Jack's birthdays rolls around, it's quite an event. Last year it was more than memorable because everybody was making preparations and, well, let's go back to last year and look in on some other. The regular weekly meeting of the Beverly Hills Beavers will now come to order. The motion before the club is resolved. The Beavers will give Mr. Jack Benny a surprise birthday party and for this purpose will withdraw our entire treasury of $1.43. I second the motion, Stevie. Thank you, Joey, but call me Mr. President. No familiarity during meetings. Any questions? What is it, Cliff? Well, I'm a new member of the Beavers and I'd like to know who Jack Benny is. Don't you know who Jack Benny is? No, who is he? Who is Jack Benny? He's only the greatest fool back to Yale ever had. And he quit football because he was afraid of hurting his hands and that would stop him from playing the violin. That's right, Cliff. He's one of the world's greatest violinists. Well, if he's the world's greatest violinist, how come I never heard of him? That's because he's so modest. He goes under the name of Yasha Heifetz, the birthday party. Let's all go over to Miss Livingston's house and she'll give us a list of Mr. Benny's friends. All those in favor, say... Not the living room? Yes, Miss Livingston. Oh, won't Mr. Benny be surprised when he finds out you're giving him a birthday party? He sure will. Tell me, Pauline, how does my new dress look? Oh, it's lovely, ma'am. Only if I had nice legs like yours, I wouldn't hide them with such a long skirt. Men like pretty legs, you know. Yeah. And to think that for four years I hid mine behind a counter at the May Company. But I'm not trying to be glamorous tonight. You know, Bob and Don are married and Dennis is too young for me and Mr. Benny is too old for me. Well, I'm surprised to hear you say that anyone is too young or too old for you. Why? Anything between the Boy Scouts and the Townsend Club is okay with me. Why, Pauline, I didn't know you liked men so much. Oh, I do, ma'am. Well, I like them so much that I... Well... Well, you'd think me silly if I told you what my favorite dream has been for years. No, I won't. Tell me, what is your favorite dream? That I'm a Dixie Cup in the New York Giants' locker room. Well, come on, Pauline. There's work to do. Yes, ma'am. Say, would you please tell me one thing, Miss Livingston? Don't you ever go out with Mr. Benny just the two of you alone? Occasionally. I remember one very warm night last summer when Jack drove me up to the top of Mohallen Drive. Geez. How'd you make out? Fine, I sold more good humors than he did. Now, Pauline, you set the table and I'll get all... Miss Livingston's residence. Just one moment, please. Miss Livingston is the baker. He wishes to talk to you. Oh, good. Hello? Yes, I want the cake delivered as early as possible. How many candles? Thirty-nine. That's right, thirty-nine candles and a ranger in the shape of a question mark. Miss Livingston, how old is Mr. Benny, really? Oh, I'm sorry, I can't tell you. You see, Mr. Benny and I have an agreement that says it's both a lot of embarrassment. An agreement? Yes. I never tell anyone his age and he never tells anyone my salary. But, Miss Livingston, if Mr. Benny pays you so little, how can you afford this nice apartment and all your nice clothes and everything? My mother writes for Jackie Gleason. I'll go over the invitation list and start calling. Oh, Miss Livingston, what are you going to do about music? Well, I've been trying to reach Charlie Bagby, the piano player, so he'd bring the boys and the band over. I've tried to get Charlie three times. I wonder where he is. Four ball in the side pocket. Watch it, Mel. Okay, Charlie.  Gee, I'd love to, Mel, but I can't. I've got ten ball in the corner. Well, uh, why can't you come, Charlie? Well, it's Jack Benny's birthday today and me and the rest of the boys in the band are throwing him a surprise party. Seven ball in the side. Hey, uh, how old is Benny, anyway? Oh, I can't tell you that. Oh, but do you know how old he really is? Yeah, but I can't tell you. Sixty-two ball in the corner. I mean, combination shot off the six and two ball. Oh, well, your musician's going to have to party. Over at my house, I had a swimming pool put in last month and I just filled it. Everybody will have fun. Ain't it pretty cold weather for swimming? Yeah, but once you dive in, you won't notice it. Oh, is the pool heated? No, it's filled with old crow. Thirteen ball cross-corner. Well, that finishes the game.  Yep, you owe me two bucks. Oh, okay. Here you are. But don't you feel ashamed of yourself taking money from a guy who's on unemployment relief? No, you make more than I do. Well, I better start calling some people and inviting them to the party. Me and the musicians are given. Well, gee, mother, why do you want to leave the house just because I'm giving a surprise party for Mr. Benny? I think you're wasting your money on that mean old man. Oh, no, mother, that isn't fair. Mr. Benny has been like a father to me. Why, only last week he gave me advice on how to be popular with the girls. Oh, he did, huh? Yeah. He took me aside and said, Dennis, my boy, you're missing a lot. You ought to get a girl in on some moonlight night driving her over to Lover's Lane. Put your arms around her. Pull her up close to you. Put your face close to hers and... Yes? Then what did Mr. Benny tell you? When he got to that party, he painted. Look, Dennis, let me give you some advice on that. Yes, mother?  Yeah. And someday you'll meet the one girl you'll want to spend the rest of your life with. And it will probably be when you least expect it. Gee, say, Mom, how did you first meet father? We were matched together in the Golden Gloves. Well, Dennis, I've got to be running along now. I hope your party turns out nice. Thank you, mother. Well, I've got to get everything set for the party. Now I better see if I have everybody's phone number. I've got everybody's phone number, but Don Wilson's. I want to call him and his wife. What is it, Pudgy? Oh, honey, the table looks beautiful. Oh, thanks, dear. But if this is to be a surprise party for Jack Benny, I think you better start calling your guest. Oh, I will as soon as I finish wrapping this present for Jack. Well, I hope you're giving him an appropriate gift. What's in that package, darling? See if you can guess. A watch? Uh-huh. I'll give you a hint. They're round and firm and fully packed. It's all free and easy on the draw. On the what? Draw. Now, what is it? A box of Prayolas. No, no, no, Pat. Now, list again, sweetheart. Take last night after dinner. I went into the living room, sat down in my easy chair, struck a match. Now, what did I like? My mother's picture. Guessing while it was burning, what did I like with that? Darling, don't keep me in suspense. Why did you buy Jack for his birthday? Oh, but dear, it's so obvious. Now, look at the letters on the box. You should be able to figure out what it is. L-S-M-F-T. L-S-M-F-T. Oh, I know. A long silk muffler from Tubby. Oh, no, no, no, dear. It's a cardinal of Lucky Strikes. And L-S-M-F-T stands for Lucky Strike, means fine tobacco. Oh, well, everybody knows that. Well, then why'd you make me tell you?  Oh, doc, come on, dear. Let's go through this list and we'll figure out anyone. Hmm, fine thing. It is my birthday. I'm all alone. Nobody even thinks of me. Nobody cares. No cards. Not even a phone call. Who is it? It's me, boss. Rochester, I don't want to talk to anyone. Leave me alone. Leave me alone. Leave me alone. Quiet, Polly. When I want your help, I'll ask for it. Boss, you haven't eaten all day. You want me to get you something? I don't want anything. Just leave me alone. Okay, okay. I wonder what's wrong with him. He's kept himself locked up in the den all day. Maybe he bit on a horse. No, if Mr. Benny bit on a horse and that horse lost, he beat it to death with his bare hands. Rochester, if you don't mind, I'll have my dinner served in bed. What's the matter, boss? Don't you feel good? You've been brooding all day. I haven't been brooding. What's wrong with him in the den? It's my own business. Wait a minute, boss. Huh? Have you been crying? Why, what... what makes you think I've been crying? There's a rainbow in your little blue eyes. There is? I mean, who cares? A lot you or anybody else who worries about me anyway. You're wrong, Mr. Benny. I worry about you. Oh, you do, eh? Saturday? Uh-huh. Saturday, February what? The 14th. Well, doesn't that mean anything to you? Saturday, February 4th. Oh, my goodness, I forgot to put the garbage out. Now, let's not talk anymore about it. You go in and clean the den. I'm in the kitchen and have a sandwich and a glass of garbage. I mean, milk. Okay. Well, it won't take long to straighten up the den. I'll put these books away on the shelf. Hello, hello. Well, hello, Polly. Here I am all alone. Nobody cares. Today's my birthday. Today's my birthday. Stupid. I better go out in the kitchen and fix things up right away. Excuse me, boss, excuse me. Rochester. Wait a minute, boss. Rochester, what are you doing? I'm pulling a candle on a cranker, it's Polly. He's in my room. He's usually so cheerful and... Hello, Mr. Benny's residence. Rochester, this is Miss Livingston. Oh, hello, Miss Livingston. You'll never guess whose birthday it is today. I know Rochester, and that's why I called.  A party? Yes, do you think you can get him out of the house? Him? Certainly. Well, he sure fooled me laying an egg this morning. What are you talking about? This isn't the parrot's birthday. It's Mr. Benny's birthday. Oh, he thought everybody forgot about him. Oh, no. When I called the gang, I found out that everybody was going to give him a party. So we all decided to come over to Mr. Benny's house and surprise him. Well, bring some food with you. The time lock doesn't open the icebox till 6 in the morning. Don't worry, we have food. You just get Mr. Benny out of the house for a little while and don't let him suspect anything. Okay, Miss Livingston. And leave it to me. I'll get him out of the house and I'll be clever about it. Hmm. Gee, I feel a lot better taking this little walk, but I can't understand Rochester throwing my hat in cold out. When I went out to get him, he slammed the door. Gee, I've been walking for about 40 minutes now. I'm kind of tired. I think I'll walk across the street and get on a bus for home. Find birthday up. Gee, look at this theater marquee. Now playing. The horn blows at midnight. I guess they're reviving it again on account of the Academy Awards. I think I'll go to see it again. Rochester, we've been here four hours now. If Mr. Benny only went out for a walk, why isn't he back? I don't know, Mr. Day. Well, I've waited long enough. I've got to go home. Me too. I wonder what happened to the boss. Yeah. I beg your pardon, Mr. I'm the manager of this theater. We've shown you the horn blows at midnight three times. Now will you please go home so we can close up? Okay, okay. By the way, Mr. the girl at the box office told me that you haven't sold a ticket all week. That's quite right. Well, if that's true, how come there's someone sitting in almost every seat in this theater? We rented out as a storage room to a mortuary. A mortuary? You mean all the people in those seats are... That's amazing. I'll say it's amazing. Yesterday, right in the middle of the picture, three of them got up and walked out. Gee, I... I wondered why the guy at the door didn't tear my ticket. I better go on home. Old Dark House. What a birthday this was. Fine loyal gang I've got. I got a good notion of fire every one of them. If I hadn't eat talent, I would. Yeah, I'm tired. Well, I might as well go to bed. Now, who can that be at this time of night? Hello? Hello, is this Jack Benny? Yes. Well, this is Western Union. We have a singing telegram for you from your sister in Chicago. Oh, a singing telegram for my sister, eh? Well, that's cute. Go ahead. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Well, thank you very much. That was swell, really. And I do think that... Look, I've got to get away now. Happy, happy, happy, happy, happy birthday to you. Look, look, kid. Awfully sweet of you. Now, if you just... Well, thank you, thank you very much. You're welcome. Yes, you're welcome. Jack will be back in just a minute. But first, a word to you smokers who are looking for better taste in a cigarette. If you want better taste from your cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste. Yeah, it's the toasted. Cigarette, they take fine. Tobacco is light. Tobacco is mild. Tobacco too. And it's toasted. Yes, it's toasted because the toasting give a right through soul to get better taste Cigarette, Lucky Strike is the brand to get. It's toasted to give you the best taste. Yeah, it's the toasted. Friends, if you read the comics, I guess you know all about Little Iodine. The fellow who draws Little Iodine is the famous cartoonist Jimmy Hatlow. He's got another comic strip, too, called They'll Do It Every Time. Well, Jimmy Hatlow's cigarette is Lucky Strike. Jimmy says, yep, I'll do it every time. Light up a Lucky because they taste better. Friends, many millions of people smoke Lucky's because they've found that Lucky's taste better, too. A Lucky taste better because it's toasted to taste better. Of course, Lucky's better taste begins with fine tobacco. Fine, light, naturally mild tobacco. And then that fine tobacco is toasted. It's toasted. The famous Lucky Strike process brings Lucky's naturally mild, good tasting tobacco with its peak of flavor, tones it up to make it taste even better, cleaner, fresher, smoother. Yes, that's why Jimmy Hatlow and millions of other smokers will do it every time. Light up a Lucky. Why don't you light up a Lucky, too? Remember, it's toasted to taste better. Gee, it's 9 a.m. Sunday morning. Gee, I hope I have a good show this afternoon. Good morning, Rochester. Ah, good morning, boss. A little more chivalry today? Yes, I feel fine. You should have come back earlier last night. Why? The whole gang came over to give a surprise party and celebrate your birthday. What? A surprise party for me? My whole gang? You mean Mary and Don and Dennis? Gee, they didn't forget me.  Well, I can't help it. I'm so happy. Good night, Polk. The Jack Mini program is written by Sam Perrin, Milk Joseph Berg, George Balzer, John Tackeberry, Al Gordon, Al Goldman, and produced and transcribed by Hilliard Marks. Filter smokers, here's the true tobacco taste you've been looking for. Filter Tip Tarleton gives you all the full, rich flavor of Tarleton's famous quality tobacco and real filtration, too. Filter Tip Tarleton incorporates activated charcoal, renowned for its unusual powers of selective filtration and used far and wide to purify the air we breathe, the water and beverages we drink. Look for the red, white, and blue stripes on the package. They identify Filter Tip Tarleton, the best in filtered smoking. The Jack Mini program is brought to you by the American Tobacco Company, America's leading manufacturer of cigarettes.


Good morning, Matthew. Good morning. I didn't see you in work adventure. Did you who did you find people? I found some people I solved the maze. I was very proud of myself because that was that was a challenging little puzzle there There's Ben. Hello. Okay, Ben. Good morning. Good morning. Did you get into work adventure yet? No, I had to take my kids to school. So family adventure. Yeah. It was so far as chaotic as expected. And maybe we found out already there's a little bit too much space in there. Yeah, next time we'll have a more compact map. But social distancing. No, that's the beauty of virtual no need for social distancing anymore. So I did a thing. Hold on. What did I do? I did a thing. I did a thing to help us with this because I was someone says that they fell into a 404 hole. And I've got some other really interesting feedback already. So I'm going to link this in the reception as well. But people can leave feedback about the their their work adventure experience on this mind share ticket right here. So I'll just pin that for the moment. I'm definitely looking to improve this. These are experimental maps. I hope everyone has fun with the chaos of it. That's the beauty of release party. It doesn't have to be as Marie, this is an impressive lineup.  Yeah, mini conference. What's up? So yeah, I'm really excited. We have tons of awesome sessions, lots of community stuff this time. So you know, revamps and logo and I'm going to talk about the zine tomorrow. So that's a lot of fun. And then I think today we have Eva doing a round of trivia in the middle of the day, which is, you know, everyone's favorite. And I was helping her out with some F 34 specific trivia questions just yesterday. So Ben, she told me you're not allowed to win. So there's that disqualified. That seems fair. We're like, all questions about like the release. Oh, hi. Hi. This session is not set up correctly. Can you jump off the screen for us? Yeah, okay. Thank you. Sorry for folks. You know, it happens giving us a little bit of I think we might have to go in and adjust some of the sessions here. So I'm gonna probably do that after this invite people to not join in even though we love you, right? We love Brian too. Oh, no, he's gone already. It's when you start, it tells you join, like, as soon as you hit the screen, it tells you to it's actually the only reason I'm able to be here because of how I'm not properly an organizer of this event for some reason. Also, so you are a fancy button. You're attached. No, I didn't. I just clicked the regular button. So I've clicked the fancy button. So I use your Fedora product email. Oh, I think back to the red hat one, because that wasn't any way track of every day. So anyway, we have lots of exciting stuff today. And I totally want to also say thanks to the folks that helped me out. Obviously, Matthew, Ben, the bull, Nick, the bow, the the outreach, the intern applicants helped us with this work adventure thing. And, you know, all the other people helped promote the mind share committee. So yeah, thanks. Thanks for everybody. But then most of all, thanks to the entire community for making this awesome release. Everyone's super excited about it. I've seen so much great press and the excitement coming up to the release party has been like, it felt like more intense. Everyone's like, telling me how excited they are about it here and there. So just super thankful to be part of this great community. So I'm going to pass it off to Matthew to say whatever he he wants to say. Yeah, I welcome everybody. This again, the best release of Fedora Linux ever. And we keep doing that every time, which is a good direction going in. So I'm excited and happy and proud of everybody. It's fun to see so many people here. I think 300 people signed up for this release party. And I see there's 115 here now. So Oh, that's 14 now. You scared someone away. Oh, no, I scared someone away. I know that two of those people are me. But it's okay. We're kind of making this up as we go along. But the secret is there's really a really great agenda here. This is basically a mini conference, I said that already. But it's a lot of fun stuff today and tomorrow. And I'm looking forward to all of it. I guess, maybe we should do a round of little introductions here. We said in the description for this says has a bunch of acronyms. So I am Matthew Miller. I am the FPL Fedora project leader. I've been doing this for almost seven years now. And I think I've got the hang of it pretty well. But feel free to tell me, you know, what what I could do better at any time. My job is really to help you all make the project work as best as possible. And Marie, Sure. Hi, I'm Marie Norden, and I am Fedora's Community Action and Impact Coordinator or FK. And I've been doing this since the end of 2019. Well, it's basically just 2020 is like COVID happened. And I was here. So and it's been awesome. But I've been involved in Fedora since 2013. And you all know me from badges and the design team and all that stuff. So it's been a lot of fun being the FK though. So thanks for having me. And Fedora Conference Social Club. Yes. All right, Ben, your turn. I'm Ben Cotton. I'm the Fedora program manager, also abbreviated FPGM. Been in this role for almost three years now. My job is basically the chief cat herding officer for Fedora, shuffling all the paperwork, walking off the clipboard, stuff like that. But I've been in the Fedora community since 2009 when I joined the documentation team. So I've been around a while. And it's really exciting to have our seventh consecutive on time release. That even though I have absolutely no ability to make that happen or not happen, I take credit for that anyway. Exactly.  I'm really good at sending people emails until they just finally say, All right, stop, I'll do whatever you're asking me to do. Just quit annoying me. Yes, that's a very important skill. Nice. So I guess we can kind of wrap up a little bit and have a few minutes before the next session here. But we had a really cool idea to try to take a group picture in work adventure right after EFAS Pub quiz. When is EFAS Pub quiz? It's in the middle of the day today. And so at that time, I will drop a link in the chat, pin it to the general session and say, Everyone come here and gather and congregate. Now someone had the idea to actually try to spell Fedora. I have no such high hopes. None whatsoever.  Are we taking a screenshot of the little avatars or are we taking a screenshot? So we're not trying to get everybody into a screen sharing thing. No, I mean, there is jitsies and we could attempt that, but it would make almost more sense to do it on hop in that way, like just, you know, make a session group picture. I think the idea is that we have these, you know, bizarre little avatars and we're making funny configurations and what like trying to very badly spell Fedora with our little avatars. That sounds like an excellent plan. Nothing, nothing can go wrong. Nothing, nothing at all. So I don't have anything more for intro. How about you guys? Nope, I'm good. I'm looking forward to it. What's the next session? Okay, let's see. What's the next session? Oh, you guys can see the next session at the top. There's a little schedule button. So the first session is going to be on localization. Okay, translations and internationalization and all those awesome things on looking forward to it. I'm heading over there right now. Okay, see you in a bit.