So behind me is the start line of the Tenere Blue Trail, 101 kilometres. 100 metres into the race, and we're just at the standstill trying to get through a bottleneck here. So here we are at the first aid station. 11 and a half kilometres into the Blue Trail, and we are climbing. We're about 800, 900 metres up now. You can see the town down there. It's an amazing view of lights all the way up the top. Absolutely incredible. Just running through the forest. There's been quite a bit of level or downhill running at the moment. And we've climbed about 1500 metres. So this is aid station number three at 21 kilometres. OK, so three hours, 39 minutes, and the cutoff is four hours, 15 minutes. So that's quite good. And we've got 10 and a half kilometres to the next stop. So this is the checkpoint at 31 kilometres, nearly 20 miles. We've climbed over 2000 metres. So about a third of the climbing that we've got to do is about five kilometres to the next aid station and then 12 to the next after that. And then it's a really big, steep climb all the way to the top of Manton. It's a real mixture of rummable ground, but also really rocky, difficult, volcanic terrain. OK, I've been running for just under seven hours and done 35 and a half kilometres. It's getting light now, definitely getting light. This aid station and then one more before the climb to the top. So there's still some work to do. Still some work to do. Over 20 km still to go to the top, 38 kilometres, seven hours, 26 minutes. It's light. We've made it through the night time. Let's hope I don't have to put head torch on again later on. 3000 metres climbed now. So we've arrived at quite a pretty little church backing on to Teve Mountain Volcano. And this is the final aid station before we head up there. Forty eight and a half kilometres. And we're doing OK. I feel I feel obviously I feel tired because it's such a lot of climbing. But relative to CCC and Transolcania, I'm actually doing all right. Yeah, tired, tired, tired. I am fatigued. OK, so we've done 54 kilometres. Now, as far as I understand it, the top of there, the top of Teve is 58 kilometres. So we've got four kilometres to go to the top. It is really hard. It's it's very hot, although there is a bit of a cool breeze because we're so high up. So that's one saving grace. I'm worried about my water because I've got a lot of water or coke left. So I'm trying to conserve that. And because of that, I'm parched as well. And it's a barren landscape. A lot of it is this sandy stuff here. And then a lot of it is just volcanic rocks, boulders to climb over. So better get on, I suppose, 4K to go to the aid station at the top.  Just about one kilometre to go to the top and to the aid station. But everybody's running out of water. It's so hot, we're all parched. So very amazingly, some of the well, obviously the race directors left loads of water down here for us, which is an absolute godsend. Unbelievable. This is the top of the climb. And he did it. And we did it. Well done. And you can see for miles, right? I'm so dizzy and tired with the altitude. So we're 3,500 metres above sea level here. OK, I've literally had 10 minutes rest in there. I had some tea, threw up massively, which was awesome. And now we've got 13 kilometres to go to the next aid station. We're all very tired. So for me, I didn't bring my watch charger with me. So my watch has died. So I'm now relying on other people to tell me how far to go to the next aid station and what the time is in the race. So we are at 72 and a half kilometres with Cibo, Kimado and we have another big descent to come. And then we've got that nasty climb right in the clouds now. I could probably take my sunglasses off, actually. I won't be needing them anymore. This descent has gone on far too long now and my legs have had it. My quads are absolutely wrecked. So look, we are here and we've got a big 500 metre, at least 500 metre climb now. And then it's down to the finish. So I've just done the 500 metre climb up through the forest, back touching the clouds again, we're that high. So now it's downhill to the next aid station. It was so hard. It was just never ending. And then hopefully back onto the beach to the finish line. And that there is what we just climbed up all the way to the top of that from down there. Do you remember my first transvolcania video where I was walking down the street backwards? Well, it's come to that again. We're going backwards and I think it's quicker. Still got 9K to go. K to go. Not long now. I'm not going to make it before the sun goes down behind the sea. To the aid station, 10 feet from the trail.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaskiescasebrakes.com coming at you with a one box break a formula one 2020 tops chrome f1 hobby edition random team Number three and we're going by the racing teams here and I guess the f2 teams as well We're going by group brake checklist calm They do a great job at organizing this here So the link to that spread if you're watching live the link to that PDF is in the chat Big thanks to Danny and Joshua for getting into it. They're the teams right here. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it four or two six times one two three four five and Sixth and final time after six We got Danny down to Danny four or two six times for the racing teams one two three four five and Sixth and final time after six we got renaught down to Ferrari All right, so Danny you have all the teams except for Joshua, you've got Williams racing and Haas f1 Danny has the rest. I'm not sure if there's gonna be any trades But let's alphabetize by team Constructor the constructors the teams the racing teams. I don't know too much about the teams but I Think like yeah, but Aston Martin Red Bull Max Verstappen is one of them trying to get into a little more f1 Someone really like Sergio Perez for BWT Not too familiar with the f2 drivers like one bit But they could be f1 drivers someday and that'd be it'd be a good thing After there's there's Haas, I'm assuming the same same Haas at Stewart Haas here in the States McLaren has Lando Norris. I know that guy. I think I've heard of Carlos Sainz as well Valteri Bottas for Mercedes AMG and of course Lewis Hamilton That's the main guy that we're looking for among others but you know There's Charles Leclerc for Ferrari, you know, I'm certain that that there's probably a lot of Low-key really good drivers that are on there that actually probably do well on the secondary market I was also quick look at the checklist looks like no trades So let's close up the trade window TWC trade window close. Let's print and let's rip and another one box break in the store right now If you want to get into it You can run it back. I Wouldn't mind learning a little more about the f1 Sometimes just rip and open products like this is a good way to learn the at least get familiar with some of the names in the sport All right, so here's the final printout right there hot off the presses We get along one time. There we go. That's a little small on the camera. Maybe but thanks very much everybody It is the season. I had to move the mic around a little bit. I don't want to create too much noise Well, there should be a way to just pay with a Card Rex Without PayPal. Yeah, even Jonathan place was able to place an order Yeah, I'm seeing a few people Placing orders It's not the only way to pay ladies jump in fact, it's actually probably probably better if Don't use PayPal helps this side a little bit Oh, Mike white Jets quarterback getting his hand looked at so who's the other who's the backup backup quarterback? He's the backup. Who's the backup to the backup? Yeah, that's what I hear Jeremy PayPal is down But that's not we have multiple ways to pay Other ways to pay on just these case breaks calm with a major credit card or debit card Jeremy saying Shane Falco is that another is that another driver that we should be looking out for I don't know what a Shane Falco is. Oh this It's counter ease I've never seen that movie Some Lewis Hamilton right off right off the bat. Oh, that's right. They got Joe Flacco back, right? There should be one autograph in every box, right? There's Max Verstappen. I think it's got to be I think it's Verstappen and then Hamilton, right? Yeah, the top the top three guys top three drivers Verstappen, I mean it's Verstappen and Hamilton either one of those guys are gonna be Gonna be the champion at the end of the season which is almost done I think the I think the racist weekend is Is in Mexico City and then I think they go to the Middle East for the final handful of races and there's our autograph and There is a parallel 004 out 399. Sorry. There's Pierre Gasly for Alphatari and the autograph is F2 driver from compost racing Jack Aitken and F2 compost is for Danny 24 out of 50 gold waves That's pretty cool. There's a Verstappen refractor Botas There's Verstappen again another Lewis Hamilton, and we've got a Pedro Piquet from F2 Charuse racing and that'll be part of that McLaren combo McLaren and Charuse That'll be for Danny 43 out of 50. Yes, Hollywood indeed. He was That was the the reference that went over my head There's Lance Stroll orange parallel, but does not seem to be numbered There's Verstappen again along with Lewis Hamilton So apparently this dude I think they I think there's a joke on on the F1 tour they call him Maz's spin because apparently that's a thing that he does apparently His Russian oligarch dad or something like that had pretty much bought a F1 team as a vanity piece for him to drive in I think he's regularly in the the back of the pack Not very not very good So at least that's what my my F1 watching friends say I know when this first came out I want to say that all of these individual cards would have some pretty strong Pretty strong sales in a second a market. I don't know at this point if just the base Lewis Hamilton's are still selling like hotcakes. I'm not sure think I think I think Derek Carr Was showing a support for for him as a friend. I don't think he was really Saying what what he did was right now probably probably not Probably PR wise probably was best not to really make that public I guess you can tell your friend privately that you're with him, but there's a refractor max for stopping There's a Lando Norris bet is he I? Guess he is Fifth in the table. I Mean at that point should we top load everybody then Charles should Charles the clerk be top-loaded Sergio Perez I guess we can go down that that road, but all card shit In case I miss any but there's Lando right there I think one of the younger drivers on the tour right coming up the ranks It's already up the ranks people like Lando Norris There's Yuki Sonda 22 out of 50 gold wave More max for stopping and that my friends is that Another f1 break in the books There you have it ladies and gentlemen got another box in the store I kind of like the design of this f1 and I kind of kind of gets my My f1 juice is flowing kind of gets me thinking about The races and all that season is almost over so want to try to get into it this year Maybe even a little bit next year as well. I'm Joe for jaspys case breaks calm We'll f1 with you some more next time. Bye. Bye


Hi everyone! Welcome back to another tutorial video! This time I will be talking about a step-by-step process of how I paint the face with watercolors. A few things to note before we get started. This video will only be focusing on how I paint the face so it does not include the hair. This video will show my style of painting which can be considered messy by a lot of people since I avoid blending the paint and I like to preserve the texture and layers that I naturally get with watercolors. However, if that is a style that you want to learn, you can continue watching this video. I will not be going through what watercolor materials, tools, or brands are the best ones to use and I will not be going through all of the techniques that you can do with watercolors because there are a lot. I will only show the techniques that can be applicable to how I paint the face. With that said, if you want to see an in-depth video on how I paint the hair or how to do a different style using watercolors or different art materials or watercolor brands that I like or an in-depth video on techniques then let me know in the comments down below and that might just be the next video that I make. I will also leave some awesome resources in the description box where you can watch and learn a variety of techniques, tips, and tricks to help you get a better understanding of how to use watercolors to paint basically anything you want and in any style that you want. And speaking of awesome resources, this video is sponsored by Skillshare and I want to thank Skillshare for sponsoring yet another video. If you don't know what Skillshare is, Skillshare is an online learning community where you can learn a variety of creative skills ranging from drawing, painting, animation, photography, freelancing, and so many more. And the best part is that the classes are taught by professionals who have established themselves in their respective fields. Many of the classes also have assignments and projects that you can participate in, get feedback from your peers, and also get feedback from your teachers. So if you are interested in checking out Skillshare and signing up for their classes, the first 1000 people to sign up using the link in the description box will get a free trial of Skillshare premium. That gives you unlimited access to all of their classes available. And after the free trial, Skillshare premium costs less than 10 US dollars per month if you pay annually, which is still a really good deal considering the amount of skills and knowledge that you can gain from Skillshare. So once again, the first 1000 people to sign up using the link in the description box will get a free trial of Skillshare premium. I highly recommend you guys take advantage of this offer and check out the links in the description box where you can learn the basics and advanced techniques on how to use watercolors for your drawings. Now let's start with knowing a little bit about watercolors. So what are watercolors? Watercolors are paints made of pigments suspended in a water-based solution, hence the name watercolors. This also means that they are used with water and they react and dissolve when water is added, allowing you to create beautiful textures and effects with this medium, which is why I love using watercolors. So because the pigments are diluted in water, that means that watercolors have this translucent look to them, which is really great for layering and it also helps create a soft dream-like aesthetic, especially if you're into that. However, you can also create vibrant and bold colors with watercolors, but that depends on how you control the medium. Pan watercolors or tube watercolors. Watercolors come in a variety of ways, but the most common forms are in tubes or in pans. The best way to know what to buy is do your research, read reviews from people, watch videos of people using different brands of watercolors. I can make a separate video on this, but really it comes down to personal preference. I actually prefer pans, so in this video, that is what I'm going to use. What is the water to pigment ratio? Because watercolors are used with water, the water to pigment ratio is important in creating the desired effect you want. So a simple rule I like to remember is that the more water I use, the more translucent and softer the colors are going to be. However, the less water I use, the less translucent and more vibrant the colors are going to be. Mastering how much water to use basically comes down to actually using the medium and practicing with it and getting a feel of how much water is just the right amount of water for your personal preference. I do recommend doing practice tests like this before getting started on a painting. That way you can get to know the watercolors you have and you can get comfortable with the medium as well. How do you mix colors? I can create another separate video on this as it touches more on color theory. However, in this video, I will show how I mix colors that I use for skin. Starting with beige to create this color, I mix burnt sienna and white. Burnt sienna has this yellowy or orange tint to it, which I really like for skin. To create purple, which is the shadow color I use, I mix the beige color with a bright warm purple. And I like my portraits to have a warm tone to them. So the colors I use, especially for this color palette are always on the warmer side. To create red, I use this color for blush. So I mix the beige that I created once again with a warm red color. And to create yellow because I like to add yellow to the skin, I use a small amount of the red mixture that I just created. And I add a yellow ochre, but this yellow ochre is actually really bright. So it creates this slightly orange yellow. So notice how I used white in all of the mixtures. This pretty much gives the colors a bit of a dull look, which sometimes that's what I'm going for. It also makes the colors look a little bit milky, which I really like sometimes. The colors aren't as saturated and they're softer too. However, when I want to create vibrant colors, I basically just emit the white from any of the mixtures. To make darker colors, I simply add more pigment to the mixture. So for example, to create a brown and a really nice warm brown color, I mix burnt sienna and burnt umber together. So this might be too dark. However, I can change it to a lighter skin color by adding more water and still keeping that vibrancy. For a dark purple, I like to use that same brown mixture and basically just add purple to it creating this really rich color that I love to use as a shadow color for darker skin. And sometimes I use it for light skin as well if I want some heavy contrast in there. And if it still looks a little bit brown, then obviously I just add more purple. It's as simple as that. To create a dark red, I use once again the same brown mixture and I add lots of warm red. And finally for the yellow, this one is slightly different since I use a watered down mixture of the dark red and then I add a yellow to it. It creates a similar shade to the previous yellow. However, this one is not as dull, but also this one is a little bit darker too. So these are the colors that I like to use for the skin. It has taken me a lot of practice and experimenting to arrive at these colors, which I really like. And these became my go to colors, especially when I'm not in the mood to mix things up. However, as a beginner, I highly recommend that you play around with what colors you get when you mix things together, because that can help develop your own style and your own color palette. Once again, if you want a separate tutorial on how to mix colors and color theory, let me know and that might just be the next video I make. Now let's talk about my favorite techniques to use with watercolors, especially when I am painting faces. So these are the ones that I have tried and tested and they work really well for me when it comes to painting portraits. Number one wet on dry. This is one of the most commonly used techniques. And I highly recommend that you start with this as a beginner. It is super easy. All you have to do is apply wet paint onto a dry surface. By using this technique, you can create precise shapes since the paint doesn't bleed outside the area that you paint it on. It also dries with nice crisp edges, which look really cool, in my opinion. It's perfect for beginners as well, because this technique gives you a lot of control with the paint. Number two wet on wet. This technique is another commonly used technique. And you will intentionally and unintentionally encounter this technique when using watercolors. It's once again, super easy. All you have to do is apply water onto a dry surface. And whilst it's still wet, you add paint on top of it. You'll notice that the paint bleeds and you're not really able to get clean crisp edges with this technique. However, this technique is really useful in creating flat washes, because you get an even spread of pigment onto the paper. And it's really helpful in blending colors seamlessly together. The paint can be harder to control. However, that's also the beauty of watercolors. They are unpredictable and the way they react with water naturally can create these beautiful textures in your drying, especially when it dries. So I highly recommend that you play around with the two techniques that I just mentioned. Number three bleed. This technique combines the use of wet on dry and wet on wet. It's when you paint a surface using a wet on dry technique. And whilst the paint is still wet, you grab a different color and paint the area next to it. When the paint touches the other wet paint, it creates a bleeding effect similar to what you get with a wet on wet technique. If you want to create a beautiful blend of colors, however, you can use this technique and basically just run your brush back and forth until you're happy with the result. And you get a really nice blend of those two colors. Another thing to note is that the amount of bleed depends on how much water you use. So if you want to create a nicer blend of colors and you want more control, make sure that you don't actually use too much water. Number four, lift. So this technique is commonly used to fix mistakes and I use this a lot. For example, you've added the wrong color or there was too much water or too much pigment. So in order to fix this, all you have to do is dip your brush in clean water, paint over that surface and then dab the wet area with a paper towel. And you might want to repeat this a few times depending on how much pigment you want to remove. You also want to be careful when doing this since you don't want too much water on the paper and you don't want to rub the wet area or else it'll damage the paper. So try not to rush and also try to prevent this from happening, which is actually possible. If you ever feel like you have too much water or too much pigment on your brush, all you have to do is dab your brush onto a paper towel to remove excess water and excess pigment.  And now that you have a basic understanding of watercolors, let's actually start painting the face. So I have two demonstrations right here in this one video. Feel free to watch this again. There is a timestamp so you can come back to this specific spot so you're able to watch both demonstrations clearly. I will be painting a light skin color and a dark skin color since I don't use any special techniques to color dark skin. I basically just use the darker colors that I have shown in this video. So that's why you're getting both of them in this one video. So I start with the sketch of a female face. If you want to learn how to draw faces, I have a video tutorial that you can watch. It will be linked in the card section of this video. I also have a video on how to shade faces so you can watch that too and come back to this one, especially if you aren't sure how to shade faces just yet, because in this video I won't be going through how to shade. I'll basically just assume that you know how to shade already because the first thing that I do is know where my light source is coming from so that I know where my light areas are and where my dark areas are on the face. And that's pretty important because I use the wet on dry technique to paint in the dark areas of the face first. So that could be around the inner part of the eyes, the right side of the face, under the chin, the nose bridge, cheekbones, basically any area which doesn't get a lot of light. And in order to get a vibrant color for these dark areas, you can use the technique that I showed you when mixing colors. But basically in summary, I just make sure to pick up a lot of pigment on my wet brush and to use less water. The next step is make sure that these areas are still wet. I dip the exact same brush in water to increase the water to pigment ratio on my brush. This results in a softer, more translucent paint. And I basically use that with the wet on dry technique to add this paint areas next to the dark areas. Then I make sure that I let it touch the wet areas so that the paint bleeds. It can either create this instant gradient or this amazing interesting texture because of the bleed and because it's so unpredictable. And it always has a different outcome. However, if you want to create a smooth gradient, you can use the technique that I showed you before where you run your brush back and forth the area to blend those two colors seamlessly. And you can also just manipulate the paint even more by adding more paint or pigment or adding more water to that area. So I do this pretty much all over the face. I add this translucent paint to the light areas and I'm making sure that I deliberately don't paint on areas that are the highlighted areas such as the nose, the cheeks, the chin, under the eyebrows and basically anywhere else that I choose to leave white. The next step is to add a purple layer to the dark areas for some added depth. And I like to wait until the previous layer is a little bit dry. So it's not super wet but it's kind of just a little bit damp. I like to use purple for the sole reason that I just love this color for shadows. You can absolutely use a darker shade of brown or literally the same exact color if you don't want too much contrast. It's completely up to you but for me personally I love using purple for skin. And because this can be a strong color I add this sparingly to the areas that are really dark or sometimes I add it as a shadow color. I also use less pigment compared to water on my brush and the fact that the previous layer is damp means the color won't bleed too much to the layer underneath. However if I want to blend that purple and the layer underneath together all I have to do is add a bit more water that reactivates the layer underneath especially if it's not super dry yet and that spreads the purple pigments out and then it creates this nice blend. The next step is to repeat the same method with this layer as I did with the previous layer so I dip my brush in water so that the purple is a lot more translucent and then I add this to the light areas. And because there's more water especially on the lighter areas you can barely see the color purple but it's just enough to add that layered look to it which I really like for skin. By this time the paint is also quite dry especially the layer underneath so it actually creates these nice edges to the layers creating that texture which I really love to preserve which is why I don't really blend watercolors too much. I do blend colors as you've seen me do it but only in areas where I feel like it's necessary. Once again I let that next layer dry a little bit so it's not super wet it is still a little bit damp and that's when I add the third layer which is the red layer so I add this to the cheeks the nose the lips and other parts of the face as well to give it some warmer color so that it's not super dull. I use the same method where I start with a highly pigmented brush and then I blend it out by dipping the brush in water and then using that to blend and spread the red pigment out so it looks like a natural blush and a great tip when working with watercolors is to also have a paper towel on hand so you can dab the brush onto the paper towel to get rid of excess water or excess pigment especially when you're adding layers like this where you don't want it to be too overpowering and you only want a subtle hint on the skin. And the next step is adding a yellow layer to the light areas of the face and I don't even wait for the red layer to dry so during this part some of the layers underneath would be already dry that doesn't really affect this layer because I think it looks best when using a wet on dry technique that way you get those crisp edges onto the brushstrokes that you create which once again I really like that so I make sure to use more water than pigments when it comes to the yellow layer because I don't want this to be super overpowering. It can be difficult sometimes so I always like to keep a paper towel in hand so that if I add way too much pigment sometimes I just take my paper towel and dab that pigment away so it just creates this subtle warm yellow light on the face. And the last step is to do any final touches or fix any mistakes by using a paper towel or water to lift unnecessary marks on the paper like I've showed you before. I let that dry and then I move on to adding ink for the line art or pencil for texture. As a bonus I will let you guys know a little bit about how I use colored pencils to enhance the way I color skin because watercolors and pencil go hand in hand for me. As you know I love using purple, red, and yellow for the skin. I use those same exact colors when it comes to pencils. However I do add blue into the mix as well. I like to add purple and red or magenta and blue to dark areas so that they kind of pop and it doesn't really matter if they're the exact same shade as the colors that I used with the paint. I have only these four colors that I use pretty much for every skin color and it just I just like how it looks. It kind of looks like pop art a little bit but not really. So that's what I do. I sometimes add yellow to the light areas to give it a warm tone and then I go back with the red to color in the cheeks, the nose, and the lips just to emphasize those areas so she looks like she's glowing or that she's blushing and it overall creates this nice warm tone. And that's how I paint the face using watercolor. I don't always paint skin in this step by step manner. It can appear a little bit rigid and sometimes it can be repetitive especially if you're doing it all the time. So sometimes I do change it up but majority of my drawings use this exact method. Maybe not to the tee. Maybe there are some changes in between. Like sometimes I might paint the lighter areas first instead of the darker areas. However for the most part this method has been modified to my liking and to create a result that I really like when it comes to watercolors and to skin. So that is something that I have developed and I've been using it relatively consistently for my watercolor drawings. So that is why you're getting this video and I hope that this helps. Like I said there are a variety of classes on Skillshare and they have videos that can help you out with more basics and more advanced techniques with watercolors if that's something that you want. However if you want to see me do an in-depth video on that let me know in the comments down below. But for now I highly suggest that you check out the list of resources in the description box including some classes on Skillshare because it will take time for me to create another tutorial video. But I hope that you liked this video. If you did please give it a thumbs up. Don't forget to subscribe. Push that notification button to know when I upload next. And don't forget to share and leave some feedback down below as well. So thank you so much for watching and know this was a long video. Thank you for bearing with me and I hope to see you in my next one.


The study reveals that axolotls contain cells with AER characteristics, but do not fully reform AER cells during regeneration, and their mesoderm displays part of the AER machinery, suggesting a program for limb, re, grove. This article was authored by Zhixing Zhang, Rita Iris, Georgios Sissios, and others.


So it's a little bit of a worthy Harriers meet-up at Hove Park Run today. Right, here we go with Hove Park Run and we are off. So me and Ellis are going to try and do about 24 minutes this morning. So very helpfully at Hove Park Park Run, they have paces. So we're following the 24-minute pace soon. It's just up ahead.  So here we go. Cutting across the park, 438 for the first kilometer. So the thing about Hove Park Park Run is it's deceptively hilly, but also deceptively fast. So second kilometer, four minutes, 44 seconds. How are you feeling, Ellis? All right. I'm not excited about hillies, but... What's your name? I'm Ben. Ben, do you always pace Hove Park? Just occasionally. I'm also was out here for a little bit, so keeps me steady coming back. We're all going back. Yeah. Nice. Is this your local? Yeah, yeah, I live just around the corner, yeah. What's your best time on this course? 20, 18, something like that. Nice one, 15 maybe. I can't remember. So there's some scope for getting up to 20 then. Yeah, yeah, yeah. One day because I've gone a bit longer at the moment. So not right now. So just past the start. Again, now we're going on our final loop. We are 15 minutes in. So we've got nine minutes to do this last loop before we want to get under 24. I've lost Ellis. Ellis has gone. So he's on for 23. What I find incredible about Park Run and lots of races is the number of volunteers that are called Marshall. Four kilometers done, so one K to go. So I've just sped up a little bit. Lovely bit of downhill there just to increase your speed. But the last 500 meters or so is our 23 minute pacer. So I've pushed it a bit in the last kilometer. 22.54. Thank you. 73rd. You all right? What place you get? 67. 67, well done. How was that for you? I couldn't keep up without Sir at the end. So we've done Park Run. We're sitting at the cafe having our coffee and baking an egg sandwich. Really enjoyed that beautiful sunny day. Brighton and Hove Park Run as it's officially, it's actually Brighton and Hove Park Run. It's not Hove Park Park Run. So Brighton and Hove Park Run, which was my original Park Run actually. I've done more Park Runs here than I have at Worthing because Worthing wasn't around when I first started doing Park Run. So it's nice to come back here after so many years. A really lovely Park Run, especially on a nice day like this. If you want to see the last Park Run I did, the last video of a Park Run, then click that link right there. Otherwise, we'll see you on the start line next time. Take care, bye-bye.


One of the questions I think in social sciences where we've got the most data and actually have I believe a definitive answer regarding, and they're not a lot in social sciences where this is true of, is this question of capitalism and socialism. We've been running this experiment for 250 years. We've tried different degrees of capitalism, different degrees of socialism. We've tried them in different parts of the world with different groups of people and no matter where you try them, no matter whatever you try them, no matter who tries them, you get the same results. To the extent that you practice capitalism, and I'll define what I mean by capitalism in a minute, but to the extent that you practice capitalism, you get wealth creation, success, longer life, generally a happy and more prosperous people. And to the extent that you practice socialism, you get the exact opposite. Ultimately you get starvation, death, and destruction if you do it consistently enough. And there really no exceptions to this. It's truly stunning and amazing that there are really no exceptions to this because the reason it's stunning and amazing is that you would think it was the other way around. Because I'd say for the last hundred years, but certainly for the last few years, there's ever increasing interest in socialism and ever increasing dismissal of capitalism, even on the right. I don't think Donald Trump is anything close to being a capitalist. He wants tariffs and he wants to control where you start your plans and who you employ.  So capitalism is being dismissed even though it works. And socialism is being embraced even though he doesn't. And you go, what is going on? And to me that's the biggest mystery in our political, economic, social lives today. Why is this happening? So we're gonna try tonight, I will try, to give you an explanation of why I think it's happening. But let me first give you a little bit of evidence that the claim I just made is true. Because I don't expect you to take me on faith. I expect to be able to produce evidence to suggest that capitalism indeed succeeds. So let me ask you, I think I might have asked you two years ago the same question, how many people 250 years ago, before capitalism, for capitalism and socialism, before how many people 250 years ago were really, really extremely poor. Like extremely poor by the UN, United Nations definition is $3 a day or less. What percentage of the world population was under, was living on under $3 a day or less? 300 years ago, 250 years ago. Take a guess. Yeah. That's good. That's a good guess. 95%. That's about right. And by the way, when I ask you a question, don't raise your hand. Just yell it out. We're not in class. Right? So 95%. Almost all of humanity was poor. Poor beyond what we would recognize as poor. Because nobody in England lives on $3 a day or less. You'd have to go to places in Africa, you'd have to go to places in Asia to see that kind of poverty. Where there's no electricity, no running water, and you're barely surviving. But everybody was like that. 250 years ago. And then something miraculous happened. Because after 100,000 years, where basically nothing changed. It's pretty amazing when you think about it. You were born with the same stuff you died with.  Nothing changed for generation and generation and generation. You know, we all expect our children to do better than us. We expect economic growth. But for 100,000 years, there was no economic growth, basically. Or very little. $3 a day or less. For 100,000 years. And it continued and continued and continued. And then suddenly it went through the roof. And when did it start going through the roof? It started going through the roof in the late 18th century, early 19th century. And it only started going through the roof in certain parts of the world. In those parts of the world, primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, parts of Europe, that adopted certain ideas. Ideas about individual freedom. Ideas about property rights. Ideas articulated quite effectively by John Locke, the great philosopher. And those countries that adopted these ideas, their economies just took off, even though Locke was not an economist. He was a philosopher. Free trade, specialization. But they're sensual characteristic of all of that. Free trade, specialization, private property, all of that basically sums up into one idea. And that is the idea of freedom. The idea of freedom. But of course, you can go in front of any audience in the world, no matter what the audience thinks, right? They could be left wing, right wing, middle, fascist, communist, whatever. And you ask the audience, do you believe in freedom? And every hand goes up. Because one of the clever tricks we always do is we never define our terms. We never actually say what we mean by the word. So people mean very different things by the term freedom. So what do we mean? What should we mean by the term freedom? What would John Locke think the term freedom actually meant? Somebody want to yell it out? Liberties of people. So you've done a trick they replaced freedom with the word liberty. What does that mean? What does it mean to be free? Yeah. So the ability to act as one chooses provided one doesn't inhibit on other people's ability to act. Yes, up to a point. But what the left, many leftists would say is if I'm hungry, if I have an empty stomach, my ability to act is limited, right? I can only, I can pursue food.  So unless you give people food, and this is by the way their justification, for welfare status, unless you give them food, they can't be free. But is that really what we mean by freedom? Certainly not what John Locke meant by freedom. What do we mean by freedom? And it's interesting because freedom is actually a negative concept. It doesn't tell us something positive, as you just articulated. It actually tells us something negative. Freedom is the absence of coercion. Freedom is the absence of force. Freedom is the absence of authority. And in the absence of, you are free to pursue your life, to pursue your values, as long as you don't infringe on the freedom, in other words, use coercion against somebody else. So freedom is the absence of coercion. And in many countries, not enough in my view, but in a few countries, starting in the late 18th century and into the 19th century, they allowed for some freedom. In the United States, if you were male and if you were white, you were about as free as any human being has ever been on planet Earth. But if you were black or if you were woman, not so much. But during that century of the 19th century, we were freed up. Suddenly, for the first time in human history, your life didn't belong to... Who did your life belong to before this revolution happens? Who did your life belong to? The state. The state in one form or another. The king, the tribe, the pope, the collective, somebody else.  And once that is established, that sense of individualism, coupled with the idea that we have the tool to take care of ourselves, which is reason, economies just took off. And wealth was created on a scale never before seen, not even close. Rome didn't come close to this. Greece didn't come close to this. The Ottoman Empire didn't come close to this. Never. And China didn't come close to this. It just took off. And since then, every country that has adopted some freedom in the realm primarily of economics, in other words leaving people free to produce what they want, to consume what they want, to charge whatever prices they want, to pay for labor what they want or what the market facilitates. Every place that has adopted this has gone like this. If you look at Asia, Asia for the most part stayed really, really, really poor for a long time, well into the 20th century. In China, in the 1960s, between 40 to 60 million people died of starvation. Some of the most fertile land in the world and they died of starvation. And then, they got a little bit of economic freedom.  And today, you've got a massive middle class in China. You've got hundreds of millions of people have come out of poverty. You've got a relative dynamic economy, which is struggling right now because they've moved away from those principles of freedom, but to the extent that they practice them, it goes like that. India struggled. Post-colonialism, post-independence, struggled to create any kind of economy. Stayed dirt poor for decades. And then in about 1992, they decided to liberalize the economy, to open up markets, to allow people again. The economic freedom that we, I think, for the most part take for granted. And the Indian economy went like this. And this happened in South Korea. Do you know South Korea, North Korea? You ever seen that satellite picture? South Korea is all lit up and North Korea is completely dark. There's no electricity in North Korea because they're so poor. It's real. But the reality is that after the Korean War, right after the Korean War, South Korea was actually poorer than North Korea. And yet today, it's hundreds if not thousands of times richer. All because they liberalized the economy a little bit. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, even places like Thailand and other places in Southeast Asia that did maybe less liberalizing. Vietnam now, which is supposedly communist, but is really liberalizing the economy and opening it up and allowing for free markets is taking off. What has been created, even if you go to Africa, places like Rwanda, Botswana have done the same thing, established private property, allowed people the freedom to make choices, and their economies for the first time in African history, doing really, really well. It works everywhere. And the flip side is socialism. Everywhere it tried. It fails. Everywhere. Take Sweden. Sweden's everybody's favorite example. I just came from Stockholm a few days ago. Sweden used to be, before 1870, the poorest country in Europe. They were really, really poor. Many of the Swedes emigrated to America as a consequence of they were starving. And then they adopted private property. And they adopted principles of free markets. And within 50 years, Sweden became, on a per capita GDP basis, the richest country in Europe. Because it was actually had the freest market in all of Europe. It was the most capitalist economy in Europe. And they went on around 1960. The Swedes decided that they were going to experiment with socialism. And they started taking all that wealth that they had accumulated and started redistributing it. And even nationalizing some of the industries and nationalizing certain parts of their economy. And what happened to the Swedish economy? They got into more and more and more debt. Their growth rate slowed and slowed and slowed. And by 1994, Sweden was on the verge of bankruptcy, just like Greece was recently. And in 1994, Sweden started reversing. They started undoing a lot of the socialism. They started reducing the amount of taxes. Reducing the amount of government spending. Actually cutting government spending. We don't know what that is in America. We think cutting government spending is reducing the rate of growth of government spending. But they literally cut government spending. They cut regulations. They privatized all the government run businesses. And today, Sweden's a pretty good economy. It's not the richest in Europe. But it's pretty good. Anybody know who the richest economy in Europe? Put aside Luxembourg, which is too small to count. Who's the richest economy in Europe in terms of per capita GDP? Germany? No. Germany's kind of middle of the road. On a per capita base. It's the biggest economy in Europe. But it's on a per capita basis, not that wealthy. Anybody know? Vatican City. Not really, because they don't have GDP. I don't think they have a GDP. I don't know what they produce exactly. Yeah, I think it's actually an insult to you guys. The richest country in Europe, and the first economy, or the second first economy in Europe, is actually an insult to you. So who would that be? Ireland. Ireland is richer than you guys. On a per capita GDP basis, significantly richer than you guys. Because what's Ireland done? They cut taxes. They flattened copper taxes at the lowest copper tax rate. I think I'm on western countries. A lot of countries have tried to match it. They deregulated. They freed up the economy, and they've done fantastically well. Again, same thing. You know when they built a wall between east and west Germany? I have to tell this to young people. It was not to prevent people from escaping capitalist west Germany to wonderful socialist east Germany. It was the other way around. Because in socialist east, life was miserable. It was poor. It was horrific. Socialism. Venezuela. We'll just do Venezuela quickly, because it's in the news. Venezuela used to be the richest country in Latin America on a per capita GDP basis. Richest country. And there was another country in Latin America called Chile. Chile was the poorest country in Latin America on a per capita GDP. This is, let's take it back to the 1970s. 1970s. Chile is the poorest. Venezuela is the richest. Venezuela also sits on the largest oil reserves in the world. They have more oil than Saudi Arabia. It's harder to get to because it's primarily in the ocean. But they have it. It's theirs. And between the 1970s to today, two interesting things have happened. Chile has become the richest country in Latin America. And Venezuela has become the poorest country in Latin America by far. And we're talking about a relatively poor region. And Venezuela is not poorer than the poorest. And what's the difference between the two countries? The fundamental difference between the two countries is that Chile adopted free market policies. The free market was organized, if you will, by what were called the Chicago boys. These were economist trains at the University of Chicago by people like Milton Friedman. And they did superbly well. They have become the richest country in Latin America. Venezuela voted in a committed socialist, Hugo Chavez. And Chavez nationalized farming. He nationalized the land. He gave it to collective farms. He nationalized the food industry, the whole supply chain of food. All of that is now owned by the state. And the consequence, nationalized the oil. Oil was already nationalized when he took over. But he nationalized all the supply chain across the oil industry. It used to be just the oil itself and the oil wells. He had nationalized everything. And what happened? Well, what happens whenever you do this? Whenever you implement socialism. Food, right? Stop growing. Magically. It turns out the collective farms don't work. It turns out that we all own property together. Nobody owns it. Nobody takes care of it. And nothing happens. The oil industry didn't innovate. There was no capital investment. And the oil, it's expensive to pump out. They aren't pumping any out. There's no revenue.  A country that used to be rich. Three million refugees. Two million in Colombia and in Brazil. Not rich countries that you want to escape to. And yet, people escaped Venezuela to go there. Literal starvation in the streets. Babies dying for lack of food. There are no pets in Caracas because they've eaten them. There are no zoo animals because they've eaten them. Because when you're desperate, you'll eat anything. And that's what's going on. They're desperate. Socialism. Because what socialism means, the two primary characteristics of socialism, one is massive redistribution of wealth from those who have the wealth to those who don't. But the second characteristic of socialism, and you can see this in Jeremy Corbyn's rhetoric, is the nationalization of the means of production. Or handing over the means of production to the workers, rather than from the capitalists or from the entrepreneurs or from the management class, as they call them. So two features of socialism. Redistribution and nationalization. And that's exactly what happened in Venezuela. Massive redistribution, nationalization, poverty. That's what happens every time socialists do it. It happened in Sweden. It happened everywhere. Capitalism, on the other hand, is characterized by 100% private property. Ideal capitalism, capitalism, pure capitalism. Everything would be privately owned. You'd have a government that did only one thing, and that is protect us. Protect our rights. Our right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  That's capitalism. To the extent we move towards that direction, we have economic growth, poverty gets reduced, and we have success. To the extent that we go towards the path of socialism, we have the opposite. Over the last 30 years, we said 95% of people 250 years ago had income of below $3 a day. How many today?  Anybody else? What's that? 40? What's that? Five. Okay, five is the closest. Eight. Eight percent of the world population today lives on less than $3 a day. 30 years ago, 30 years ago, it was 30%. Today, it's 8%. Over the last 30 years, 1.1 billion, with a B, people have come out of extreme poverty. Not because of foreign aid, not because of redistribution of wealth. By the way, all those numbers are UN numbers. You can check them on the United Nations website. Not exactly. I'm not a fan of the United Nations, but in this case, they have the numbers. Not because of any of those things, because countries like India and China and other Asian countries and some African countries have adopted some, a little bit, of capitalism. 1.1 billion people we should be celebrating. We should be out in the streets. We should be committing ourselves to more capitalism because it works. And yet we're doing exactly the opposite. Your generation is probably, I don't know, feels, at least to me, like your generation, probably the most pessimistic. You think 40% of the world is good, poor. It's just not true. You think the world is going to end soon for a variety of different reasons? And your generation is enamored with socialism. It's probably not in the school, but out there in the world. So we're back to the question of why. Why is it? So let me ask you this question, and please just yell out the answer if you want. What is capitalism about? What are markets about? You go into the marketplace. Why are you doing it? What's the purpose? So suddenly on one side of it, it's to make a profit. So why did Steve Jobs build one of these iPhones to make a profit? He made a lot of money on this. He became a billionaire. Apple became the biggest company in the world based on market cap. So a big part of going into the marketplace as a producer, as a seller, is to make a profit. Is it only about profit that Steve Jobs get up every morning and say, I'm going to go make a profit today? Is that what got him excited? Maybe a little bit, but what else? Yeah, innovation, right? He loved doing this. Steve Jobs loved innovating and making beautiful things. He loved going out there every day and challenging himself and pushing himself and doing the best that he could do. But at the end of the day, who did Steve Jobs build this for? Really? I mean, he didn't ask me what I wanted. He didn't do any focus groups. Never did consumer surveys. And in the morning, did he wake up and say, I wonder what consumers want. I'll give them that today. Who did Steve Jobs build this for? For Steve Jobs. He loved doing this. Steve Jobs was motivated by Steve Jobs. He was motivated by making money, but primarily he was motivated by love. Love of producing beautiful things. Love of making amazing technology. Love of innovating. He did it for himself. He lived a pretty full, engaged, passionate life. On his death bed, he was talking about this stuff. Still giving advice to the engineers on what they should be doing, because he loved it. Now, I like to say, when I went and bought my first iPhone, it was 2008, and the economy in the U.S. was spiraling downwards. We're going into recession. And I went to buy the iPhone because I wanted to help stimulate the economy. Because that's why you guys go shopping, right? Because you care about your fellow man. You want to make sure they have jobs. You want to make sure that they have a job, and they keep working and everything like that. And the economy, we're told by Keynesian economics that consumption fuels the economy. So you want to consume because you care about the economy, right? Anybody shopped for that reason? It's always one. Why do you go shopping? Why did I buy the iPhone? Really? Yeah, it makes my life easier. In this case, I think it makes my life better. I love my iPhone. Costs a thousand bucks. How much do you think I get out of it? How much do you think this is worth to me if I paid a thousand bucks? What's that? No, if it was worth a thousand bucks, I wouldn't bother. I'd be indifferent. Yeah, a thousand bucks in my pocket and iPhone, I wouldn't care. But I cared. I ran to the store. I got one of the first ones. Why? Because I believe it's worth much more than a thousand bucks. Indeed, I think this is worth tens of thousands of dollars to me. I can face time with my kids when I'm traveling around the world. I can read emails at any time, anywhere, including up in an airplane. I can watch movies. I can access every piece of music ever composed, any time of day, at a marginal cost of zero. I love music. That to me is unbelievable. I mean, you guys take it for granted.  But this is an amazing piece of technology. I can access all the information that's ever been produced by humankind pretty much at a relatively low marginal cost through this. So I go into the marketplace to buy an iPhone because it's going to make my life better. You might go and buy a nice pair of shoes because you think those shoes will make your life better because you like the shoes because they make you feel good. But the point is, when we go into the marketplace, we're going there to do what? To pursue what? To pursue pleasure, to some extent. But it's not just pleasure. What else are we trying? What are we pursuing when we go into the marketplace? Broader than pleasure. Self-interest. Self-interest. Capitalism is about self-interest. It's about the pursuit of self-interest. Nobody in capitalism is thinking, oh, this will be good for society. It's not how we think when we engage in production and consumption. We're thinking about making money, making our lives better, doing stuff we love and enjoy. We're thinking about buying stuff that'll make our life better, make our family happy. We're all in the marketplace. And every marketplace is like that. If you go to certain parts of the world, we haggle because everybody wants the best deal because you want to make the best deal for you. You're not there for the guy who's selling you the stuff. You're there for yourself. Capitalism essentially is about self-interest. That's what makes it work. That's what makes it run. That's the beauty of it. And Adam Smith, in the wealth of nations and in theory of moral sentiments, recognizes this. He says, the baker doesn't bake the bread for you. The baker doesn't care about you. He bakes the bread because he's trying to put food on his family's table. He's trying to make a living. He's trying to make his life better. And everybody in a capitalist economy is trying to make their own life better. But what do we mean, Todd, about self-interest? What does everybody tell us about self-interest?  And my mother taught me since I was this big, this big. She said, think of others first. Think of yourself last. Virtue, morality, the good, the noble is about sacrificing. It's about thinking of others. It's about doing for others and expecting nothing in return. We build statues for saints. And saints have done what? They have suffered for others' benefit. Not for their own. We believe it's kind of almost in our DNA that self-interest is bad. When we call a kid in the playground, he's selfish. What do we mean? Does it mean he takes care of himself? No, what do we mean? He doesn't share, okay? But more than that. So he doesn't share as one, but that's kind of the mild form. When we call a kid selfish, what do we mean? What's that? He only cares about himself, which means he'll do what? What will he do? At the expense of others, always at the expense of others. He will lie, cheat, steal. He'll do whatever it takes to get his way. He doesn't care about anybody else except himself in that sense. And we associate behavior, affiliated with selfishness, with lying, cheating, stealing. That's what we think of selfish self-interest of behavior. So here we have a category. We have capitalism, and we think capitalism is about self-interest. We all know this. Everybody knows that capitalism about self-interest. Companies are there to make a profit. People are there to buy stuff that makes their lives better. So we know that that's about self-interest. And yet we also have this category of self-interest, the same category of self-interest. And that category says self-interested behavior is bad. It's not noble, it's not virtuous, it's not good, and it almost always leads to lying, stealing, and cheating. So really bad behavior that we can all agree is not good. Okay, so capitalism is self-interest, self-interest is bad, therefore capitalism is bad. Because capitalism encourages, rewards, promotes, self-interest. If self-interest is bad and that's what being rewarded and promoted, then capitalism must be bad. Now Adam Smith knows this. He understands this in the wealth of nations. So he has a little trick. I don't think anybody buys the trick, but he has a little trick. And he says, look, it's true that self-interest is bad. Mullily. But it turns out that economically, it's actually quite good. And if you add up the self-interest of all the people in a society and through the invisible hand, society is better off.  So what he's saying is, morally, if you will, that if you add up all the little vices, all the baker caring about himself and the grocer caring about himself and the consumer caring about himself, if you add up all these vices together, you sum them up, you get a virtue. Now that's magic. And nobody believes it. Nobody believes it. We know deep down, most people know deep down, capitalism is immoral. It works. Yes, everybody knows it works. Even the socialist knows it works. Marx, Marx, Karl Marx, knew capitalism worked. He writes about it. He writes about it. It's the only thing that's ever raised people into into middle-class students. The only thing that's ever produced any will. But Marx also knows, knows and has conveyed it to all of us and that it's immoral because he says capitalism is about self-interest. And self-interest is bad. I'll give you an example. Steve Jobs, not Steve Jobs. I always get them confused. Bill Gates. Bill Gates used to be the richest man in the world. Who's the richest man in the world now? Jeff Bezos, at least until he gets his divorce. Then he's going to have less than half of what he used to have. Bill Gates. Bill Gates built a company called Microsoft. And Microsoft is the most successful company ever up until Apple. And how do you become successful? How do you become a billionaire? How does it happen? How do you become so successful? What do you have to do to make billions and billions and billions of dollars? Anybody know? What's that? Solve a problem everybody has? Yeah, in a sense. So you have to produce a product or service that everybody wants.  Hundreds of millions of people, maybe even billions. But they don't only want it. They're willing to pay for it more than what it costs you to produce. Now, why are they willing to do that? Why are you willing to pay somebody something more than they could produce it for? Because you believe it's worth to you more than the cost. Same reason I paid $1,000 for my iPhone. And you're able to do this over and over and over again, a sense of the buying product over and over and over again every year, every two years, every three years. That's exactly what Microsoft did. They created software that changed the world. I would argue, I think it's obvious. Changed the world for the better. People bought it over and over and over again because they believed that it would make their life better every time they bought it. And they're willing to pay a lot of money because it was making their life significantly better. So Microsoft, via Steve Jobs, by Bogues, made the world dramatically better. Dramatically.  It's hard to imagine how much better we are. And he touched. He touched. Every human being on the planet, I believe, is better off because of Bill Gates. Because even people who are getting aid in Africa, who are too poor to use a computer, are benefiting from the fact that the logistics to get them to aid is run by a computer and they're more efficient and they can get more aid for the same dollars. So Bill Gates has made the world a better place. He's bought more people out of poverty. He's helped the world in more ways through Microsoft than probably anybody. So how much moral credit did he get for all of that help that he gave when he was at Microsoft? How much moral credit? Building statues for him? Paintings and museums? Naming streets after him? Yes, no. We like him morally. Not just businessmen. Businessmen we all admire him. But as a moral person? And the answer is no. He gets no moral credit. Zero. Actually a little negative. We actually dislike him a little bit. Why? Yeah, because while he was helping the world, while he made the world a better place, he was ultimately doing it in his own self-interest. And what's the expression of the fact that he was doing it in his own self-interest? He became the richest man in the world. Now it's interesting. I use Bill Gates because Bill Gates then went through kind of a transformation. He left Microsoft. And he started a foundation. And he put all his money into the foundation. And he started giving the money away through charity. That's a good charity. He probably does it very well. And he probably changed the lives of maybe tens of thousands of people. But not billions. Not hundreds of millions. And yet now, he's a good guy. Now we love Bill Gates. Now morally, he's cool. He's changing the world less. But now he's not making anything. He's not benefiting from it. He's not profiting from the fact that he's helping the world. That's an interesting transformation. You've got to build, create something, change the world. And if you make a profit, you don't count morally. But give it away, all the wealth that you created. Give it away. And ask nothing in return. Now you're morally good. Something's wrong there. That can't be right. And if the standard is helping other people, which we're told is the standard of virtue, then shouldn't he be a saint because of Microsoft? Didn't he help more people there? But it turns out that the standard is not just helping other people. It's what you get. You know, Kant said, Emmanuel Kant, the philosopher said, that you must help other people. And if in helping the other, you even think about it and make me feel good to help other people. It's not moral anymore. Because you get a benefit from it. You're motivated by the benefit. Now I think this is perverse. I think there's something wrong with the moral code we hold. I mean, to put it bluntly, why should I sacrifice? Why should I live for others? Why is my life not as important as anybody else's life? I've got one life, at least, I believe, as you were told, I am an atheist. So I believe this is it. You've got one life. And why not make the most of it? Why not live the best life that you can live? Right here on earth. Making the most of the time you're here. Achieving the best things in life as a human being. Now what would that require? What would it require to live a good life?  You think that involves to be really what I consider really self-interested? You think that involves lying, cheating, stealing? Anybody know Bernie Madoff? Bernie Madoff? Yeah. I need to update my examples. I'm getting old. Bernie Madoff ran the biggest pyramid scheme in history. He stole something like $60 billion from his investors. You know what a pyramid scheme is? You get money and you promise a very high return, but you can't generate it, so you get money from these people and give it to those people. And now you have to pay these people back, so you have to get a bigger group over here to give you money and give it to those people. And constantly you're paying out the high return, but you're doing it by getting money from other people. Somebody might have created this massive pyramid scheme. He lied to everybody. Most of the people who gave him money were friends of his. He was caught ultimately. Not by the government. They're not that competent. He was caught by a son who turned him in. He's in jail today. He has a real, he's a guy who made, who had $60 billion. He was rich. He had anything he wanted. And yet today in prison, he says, I'm happy in prison than I was before he was caught. And I believe him because lying, cheating, stealing does not lead to a good life. It does the opposite. It destroys goodness.  It's faking. What's the way in which you're being survived? What is the tool that makes all the values around us here possible? From the technology we're using, I guess to videotape this, to the chairs you're sitting on, to the beautiful building we have, everything, everything you have, the clothes you wear. Where does that come from? What's that? Trust? Yeah, trust is an aspect of it. But how did, anybody here have the gene for hunting? Even in Britain, nobody has a gene for hunting. How do we hunt? When we were hunter-gatherers, how do we get meat if we don't have the gene for hunting? What's that? We learned it from whom? And where do they know it from? And where do they know it from? Experience. Experience. From where? How do we get an iPhone from experience? Well, somebody had to invent the tools of hunting. Somebody had to invent a bow and arrow. Somebody had to invent the sphere. Somebody had to invent traps. Somebody had to invent strategy, hunting strategies. Somebody had to use his mind to figure stuff out and solve a problem. Probably killed them. We don't like people who shake our world up too much. But at the end of the day, every step in human progress is a consequence of somebody thinking, creating, inventing, innovating, producing. We don't know how to do agriculture until somebody discovers how to do agriculture. We don't know how to hunt until somebody discovers how to hunt. We don't know how to build buildings until somebody figures it out and does it, and teaches us. And yes, then we learn. But all of that is a product of human reason. Our mind is our most important and most valuable tool for surviving as a species. Because physically, we're pathetic. Look around the room. It's supposed to be a joke. It didn't work. We're weak. We're slow. We have no fangs. We have no claws. You try running down a bison and biting into it. You can't do it. So we have to use our minds. Our minds are our most valuable tool. And to use our minds, we have to accept facts of reality.   So we need to accept facts of reality. We need to accept truth. And lying pollutes ability to think. Lying is incredibly destructive as is stealing, as is cheating, as is all of these activities. That's not its self-interest. Self-interest is about using your mind to pursue the best life you can live, and being the best human being that you can become. Now, I believe in a moral theory that says that that is the good. Going back, it goes back to Aristotle. Aristotle believed that morality, that ethics, was the study of those virtues that made us as human beings the best that we could be. Noble, great. But it wasn't about what we did with others. That was just one aspect of morality. It wasn't the essence of morality. The essence of morality was about what we could do with ourselves, what we made of our own lives, what choices we made to make our life the best that it could be. Now, I think only a morality like that, started with Aristotle, Ein Rand, maybe a most important contribution, is in that field. It's only a morality like that. They can justify capitalism. Because to me, Bill Gates is a hero. I mean, I would build a statue to him, named Streets After Him. Much rather do that than do it after politicians, who I don't produce, build anything. Whereas this guy actually changed the world. He applied himself. He applied his mind to a problem, solved it over and over again, lived a full, complete life, embraced and loved what he was doing. That's what life should be about. That's what capitalism is about. But as long as we look down on self-interest, as long as we look down in creation, production, and the passion and love of work, as long as we think those are ignoble ideas, and we think the nobility is all about sacrifice and giving and charity, then capitalism is not the system for us. So to me, if you want capitalism, maybe you don't, but those of us who want capitalism, which really required to attain capitalism, is not so much teaching more economics. We know the economics. We've got great economists that have solved, pretty much given an answer to every objection possible to capitalism. Friedman and Hayek and Mises and many, many of them. It's about changing our approach to morality. It's about changing our approach to ethics. It's about viewing self-interest as the essentially moral thing in life. Self-interest properly understood. Self-interest is rational and long-term. What really has to happen in the world around us is not an economic political revolution, but a moral revolution. Thank you all. I'll take questions, and if there's a strong young man who can do this, I appreciate it. Open. On anything. I think it's a fallacy to think of economic growth as the only source of life standard. I think of life standards. Above a certain threshold in developed countries, the extra GDP that you get doesn't actually affect life standard as much. By following this blind utilitarian logic, you just tend to disregard a lot of societal issues that arise, such as the massive longevity gradients in developed countries like the US, where the low end lives significantly shorter than the higher end. I just can't conceive of a moral system which glorifies solely the individual and encourages the disregard of other people. I think that's fundamentally against ethics in general. Good. So you said a lot there. I'm not a utilitarian, so let's get that clear. I don't believe in sacrificing my minority. For a majority, I believe the only standard is the individual, so I'm not into utilitarian math. I think GDP, growth in GDP has enormous benefits in terms of standard of living, including primarily for the poor, more than anybody else. It's true that an extra billion dollars of Bill Gates or any of these billionaires makes no difference to his standard of living, zero. Because he's not spending it. What's he doing with the billions of dollars? Investing it, saving it, but he's not spending it. So there's no impact on his standard of living.  So as GDP grows, the benefit most of the benefit accrues to the poorest people, even if you can't measure it in terms of income. And the smallest benefit accrues in terms of standard of living, not in terms of money. Money, they get most of money, the rich. But in terms of standard of living, because the extra billion or the extra million doesn't make any difference at the top. But it makes a huge difference at the bottom. And we don't know how to measure this as economists. I mean, this is one of the sad things about economics, but it's part of the nature of economics. So you can't measure how valuable this is to me. All an economist can tell you is this is worth more than a thousand dollars to me. But the fact that this has improved my life by tens of thousands of dollars, there's no measure of that. I'll give an example with regard to inequality, right? So everybody read Harry Potter? He hasn't read Harry Potter. Harry Potter's great, so you should all read Harry Potter. Harry Potter's fine. Anyway, I figured that I spent about $3,000 on Harry Potter over the years. I had to buy every book twice for both my sons who were about Harry Potter's age. And as the books came out, then I had to buy an audio copy for myself. And then there's just all the other stuff that's related to Harry Potter that you buy. So I became, over this period, according to any economist who actually measures this stuff, I became poorer by $3,000. Literally $3,000 left my bank account and went directly, almost directly, into whose bank account? What's that? JK Wallace, bank account. She became a billionaire. I mean, this is horrible. Inequality went up. I got poorer and she got richer. But did I get poorer? Why did I buy? Why did I spend $3,000 on Harry Potter? Because it made my life richer, better, more fun, spiritually more. I got huge spiritual values from reading Harry Potter, right? And I happily gave up $3,000 to get those spiritual values. And she got rich. Great. Good for her. I didn't get poorer. It's not a zero-sum game in life. It's an ever-increasing game. So, no, I don't think you should minimize GDP growth indeed. If you want to help poor people, the one thing that most helps poor people is rapidly increasing GDPs. As I said before, 1.1 billion people have come out of poverty over the last 30 years. That's not something to sneeze about. That's not trivial. That's major. 1.1 billion souls now are not starving. And how? Because GDP went to 12, 15 percent in places like India and China. That's great. And in developing countries, it's still true that the poor people and the middle-class people and the rich people, and we could all be living better. Why not live better? I'm always for better than worse. And what they've got to ethics, most of the world agrees with you, right? Most of the world believes that thinking about yourself and a morality of self-interest is not moral. It's not morality. This is where we fundamentally disagree. I think that's the essence of morality. Iron Man wrote a book which has a shocking title, but I encourage you to read it because even if you disagree with it, it'll challenge you. It'll cause you to think and defend your own moral stand. And the book is called The Virtue of Selfishness. But it's not the selfishness of doing whatever you feel like doing. It's not the selfishness of lying, cheating, stealing. It's not the selfishness of getting drunk and snorting cocaine. It's the selfishness of living a full, complete, virtuous whole life as a human being by the application of your reason. So again, you don't have to agree with it, but a little bit of challenge is always good. Again, following the Aristotle's tradition. So Aristotle thought that kind of life was virtuous. He was pretty smart. Okay, somewhere here. If you're against state control, et cetera, why what do you think would happen to the minimum wage if the capitalist was selfish? Because obviously you could argue that it would be in their interest to drive them up for skilled labor. But if every single business owner would drive them down together, wouldn't that be in all of their self-interest? What would happen to the minimum wage, or what would happen to the lowest wages, let's say, under capitalism? I don't know. I mean, I suspect that if you converted the world right now to a capitalist economy, I think the bottom wages would rise dramatically. Because the only thing that drives wages is not what the employer wants to pay you. And you'll discover this when you go out into a job. The employer can want to pay you the lowest he can get away with. But if you're worth more than that, what will you do? Better learn this quick, guys. You won't take the job and what will you do? Because you have to work. You'll get a different job. You'll go convince this competitor that you're worth $1 extra than what the previous person had. So in a competitive market, which is what essentially capitalism is, the employers, we're talking about every company in the UK, don't get together and decide what they're minimum wages. They compete. And they compete for the best workers. So if you're actually, if you're getting paid $7 an hour, and you can actually produce $15 an hour, I'm hiring you for $13. Because I can make money off of you. Nobody's ever going to hire you unless they can make money off of you. Just nobody's going to pay you more than you're worth. And you're worth, in the economy, your worth is measured by how much you produce. If you produce 10, nobody's going to pay you more than 10, which is why a minimum wage, control, what's the minimum wage in the UK, seven pounds, 40, something like that? What if you are, what's that? 783, thank you, 783.  You can produce at five. What you actually produce is five pounds an hour.  Employers don't do that. So basically what a minimum wage does, a minimum wage by government does, is take the poorest of the poor and tells them you will never have a job. And that's exactly what happens. I know, I don't know much about the UK in terms of these things, but in the United States, if you're in a city youth and you haven't finished high school, and you can't produce at seven bucks 25, and now they're raising it to $15 an hour, you will never have a job.  Why not let the kid get a job at five dollars an hour, five pounds an hour, and learn a little bit skills and become more productive, and then get to seven, and then learn a little bit more skills and then get to nine, and one day he could be running the joints. But if you don't give him that first opportunity to get that first wage, then he's never going to have an opportunity to rise and be successful in life. But it makes us feel good. We're middle class. We feel good. We've done our bit today. We raised the minimum wage. People are making more money today. Oh, we can all go to bed early and feel good about ourselves. We did our moral duty. No, I can't think of a law which is more insidious, more evil, more destructive. And I get angry about this because I care about that kid in the inner cities. Then the minimum wage law, which basically prices out a whole group of people that we never think about, that we don't want to know about, that we send them a welfare check and we turn our backs on them because we don't really care what happens to them. But if you care about individuals, I care about individuals, not groups, and I care about that kid, then I say give them a job for two dollars an hour. It's better than nothing. And let them learn and let them advance and let them get better. So if I were in charge, the first thing I would eliminate, first thing would be the minimum wage law. Okay, so sticking with the theme of like government intervention in the market, it could arise that there could be failures within the economy. So for instance, if you take as an example, smoking, people who like smoke could have an effect on the NHS, which would cost the government, and that sort of, just as an example, money. But would you, seeing as you're advocating a completely free market, be alright with people suffering the consequences on their health of smoking if there wasn't any way for a government to intervene? Yeah, so this is a problem, right? And this is one of those topics I can't talk about because it's, in the UK it's like religion, right? You know, the NHS. One of the reasons, one of the reasons I despise socialized medicine, and the NHS in particular, is because it creates those kind of trade-offs.   You think the government's not going to start telling us we shouldn't eat so much meat, we shouldn't do this, finding us if they catch us eating some bacon in the morning? Because the NHS, the NHS will go bankrupt because you're getting obese or you're getting high blood pressure or anything. The beauty of a private health care system is that I get to pay for my expenses. And if I live a healthy lifestyle, my insurance rates will be very, very low. And if you choose to smoke, and if you teach to eat badly, and if you choose not to exercise, your insurance rates would be very, very high. In other words, I'm paying for my risk, you're paying for your risk, I don't now have to intervene in your life. You want to ruin your life by smoking? Smoke? I can think of even worse things that I allow you to do in my free market. Your life is yours. You don't, you want to ruin it? I certainly don't encourage it, I teach against it, but it's your choices. Personal responsibility. In a real sense, the NHS destroys personal responsibilities. It makes us all our brother's keeper. I'm not my brother's keeper. Not my real brother and not my pretend brothers. It's hard enough to keep myself. It's hard enough to take care of yourself and figure out what's good for you. It's hard enough to avoid smoking yourself. Never mind worry about other people smoking. But now the government, the government has this incentive. We have to keep people healthy. So we have to intervene in all their day-to-day activities and all their lives. I think that's authoritarianism and that's very dangerous and that's a product of socialized medicine. You've spoken very damningly about nationalization of services so far. I wondered if you could make a brief exception to geographical monopolies that are particularly lazy and inefficient. For example, the UK train service whereby there is only one option per railway line and they have basically got themselves into a position where quite frankly they can be late, inefficient, expensive and there's not really very accountable. Yeah, I mean, I wish I knew a lot more about the UK train system. I don't know that much and about the privatization of it but let me just say I'm not going to make any exceptions. I'm not going to make any exceptions. Even if the train system today is bad, I don't know how many, I mean maybe some of your teachers were alive when it was run by the government in the 1970s but it was much worse. Not a little bit worse. It was much worse. And the fact is that the train system was not truly privatized. It was sold to private enterprise but it is heavily, heavily regulated and controlled. And much of the land that you would need in order to actually compete with the train system or build a new train system or build a high-speed rail is controlled by government and government tells you what you can and cannot do and how to do it. So in a free market, if the train system was really that bad, somebody would compete them out of existence and competition is possible in almost any realm of human endeavor. So no, I don't believe there is such a thing as natural monopolies. I think there are no monopolies in a free market. There's always competition. There's always the potential of competition. There are always substitute products. There's always price pressure. There's no example that I know of in history. In a truly free market, or as close to free market as we've come historically, where a monopolist actually behaves like what you're taught, a monopolist does. What does a monopolist do? Raise price as low as quality. But that doesn't happen when you leave markets free. Now the rail system again is not free. It's heavily controlled and regulated by, I don't know, the transportation ministry or whoever the minister is and the department that it is. In the United States, railroads were the first things to be regulated in the 19th century. So every example I know of what seems like a monopoly, again, in a free market. Prices always come down. Quality always goes up. Look at Standard Oil in the 1870s. Look at Alcoa Steel. Look at IBM. Look at Monopoly after Monopoly after Monopoly that actually improved our lives, lowered prices, improved quality because they knew there was competition. It's only when the government shields them through regulations from competition or through the control of land in the sense of railroads do you get the bad quality and the bad service and the bad pricing and it's still better than it was run by the government. Well, Yaron, thank you so much for answering those questions so expertly. I know you're all very tired boys and I sense that, but you've done very well indeed. I think Yaron is impressed by the questions as he always is at Radley. And also Yaron is very tired as well because he's been on tour. Are you going back to the States, sorry, back to Puerto Rico soon or not? I go, I soon. I go to Prague tomorrow. Oh, that's right. And then I fly to Puerto Rico on Sunday. So maybe I'll go to the beach on Monday. Sound good? Well, we wish you well. And again, a final comment. I don't care if you agree or not. I'm certainly not, we're not selling Aaron Yaron's ideas at all, but you have been able to go through the spectrum of ideas here about economic ownership and value and so on. And these things are going to be important for you for the rest of your lives. And so start thinking about them now. We could, for example, in Britain have a general election over the next few months where these issues will be absolutely at the center of the debates. They certainly are in the United States at the moment. And they're going to be in the European elections, for example, in May, where we're going to see all sorts of interesting things happen there. I can almost guarantee it. So Yaron, thank you so much for coming. A great pleasure.


So, good morning. The Commission meets today in public session this morning to hear from staff on recent enhancements to security and protection of radiation sources. The staff's anticipated path forward on source security and development of the 2014 Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force and development of the quadrennial report to the President and Congress. Under the public session, the Commission's staff and selected members of the Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force will meet for a closed session to discuss finalization of the Task Force report. I want to note while that the second session is closed, the Task Force report will be made publicly available once it's finalized and sent to the President and Congress. I anticipate that the report will be completed sometime in early August. The events of 9-11 put an emphasis on security of risk-significant radioactive sources in the United States from potential terrorist threats, including acts of sabotage threat, theft, or use of radiation sources in radiological dispersal devices or radioactive exposure devices better known as dirty bombs. The Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force was formed to evaluate and provide recommendations relating to the security of radiation sources in the United States to the U.S. President and Congress on a quadrennial basis. As the chair of that Task Force, I appreciate all the hard work that the staff has put into working through the interagency process to draft and consolidate comments on the 2014 Task Force report. I'd also like to thank the agencies that have participated in the Task Force. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and have resulted in many key accomplishments in the area of source security since the Task Force was established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. So we're going to begin this meeting with a session of presentations from the panel. We have about 35 minutes, I think, for the presentations. Would either of my fellow commissioners have any comments? No? All right, then I will turn it over to Mark Satorius, our executive director for operations. Good morning, Chairman, good morning, commissioners. This morning you're going to hear from the staff and the organization of agreement states on their perspective regarding the agency's more recent activities in the area of source protection and security. With me today are Brian Holian, the acting director of the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Mike Welling, the chair of the Organization of Agreement States, and the director of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Radioactive Materials Program, Adelaide Ghientanelli, chief of the Source Management and Protection Branch in FSME, and Randy Raglan, senior inspector in Region 1 and also the team lead of Region 1's Part 37 team. Today the staff will highlight topics such as the roll out and implementation of the new Part 37 that was added to the Code of Federal Regulations, finalized the third report to the President and Congress from the Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force, and efforts to address the recent reports from the Government Accounting Office. But before we jump on those topics, I'd like to take just a little time to briefly summarize the history of source security over the last decade, and highlight some of NRC's accomplishments in these areas. Can I have the second slide, please? Following 9-11, NRC worked internally and with other state agencies to identify priority actions for enhancing the security of risk-significant radioactive materials and facilities. In 2003, NRC began issuing security orders using a graded approach starting with large radiator licensees, manufacturers and distributors, and licensees who shipped large quantities of radioactive materials. Finally, NRC worked with the agreement states to develop the increase controls requirements. In 2007, NRC and agreement states issued the last set of orders to approximately 2,800 licensees. Since then, we've continued inspecting licensees for compliance with security requirements, and we began our public process to establish security rules in the federal regulations that would replace the orders. In March 2012, the Commission approved a final proposed rule that incorporated requirements from the orders and included lessons learned from our implementation of those orders. In March 2013, 10 CFR Part 37 was issued with a compliance date for NRC licensees of March 2014. While we've made great strides in improving the security of radioactive materials, we've also worked diligently to improve the tracking and management of radioactive materials in the United States. In 2008, the agency deployed the National Source Tracking System and began shaping what is now the Integrated Source Management Portfolio. We've done that by adding web-based licensing and the license verification system. These source management tools, combined with NRC's security requirements, create an integrated and comprehensive program for the management and control of radioactive sources in the United States. Can I have slide three, please? NRC inspectors have extensive experience evaluating the security orders and have recently been inspecting against 10 CFR Part 37. Staff plans to gather two years of operational experience, such as NRC inspection findings and agreement state implementation experiences, to continue to identify ways to improve source security and 10 CFR Part 37.


Hi, my name is Cameron Duquette and I'm a PhD student at North Dakota State University's range science program. As you may or may not know, grassland birds have undergone a steep decline in recent years and when you consider the impacts to North America's grasslands, it's easy to see why. North America has lost 80% of its historic grassland cover due to land use change. Grassland birds are sensitive to vegetation structure and natural disturbances like fire and grazing served in the past to keep vegetation structure diverse and support a wide variety of grassland bird species. Since our grasslands historically experience fire and grazing, you can think of grassland vegetation as along a continuum, ranging from short-statured vegetation with little to no litter to areas that have not burned in a long time and have high litter, our grass dominated, and some woody cover. Species have varying preferences along this gradient. Some, like chestnut-colored longsperrs and kielbier, prefer to nest and forage in open areas without much vegetation cover, while other species, like clay-colored sparrows and bobble ink, prefer areas with thick litter. Seasonal grazing systems tend to homogenize vegetation towards the middle, so you have grass dominated and all of your vegetation is the same height. And this fails to provide diverse habitat requirements for a broad range of species. So what we wanted to do is see if other grazing practices had the potential to enhance grassland bird habitat. So we compare traditional season-long grazing to patch-burn grazing and twice-over-rotational grazing in terms of grassland bird community composition and nest success. So you'll probably hear a lot about patch-burn grazing today, but for the uninitiated, I'll go over it really quickly. So the basic idea is that each year you burn part of your pastures, and then when that regrowth comes back, it's high protein and low lignin content, so the cattle really prefer it. They graze the heck out of it and keep it short, and that allows the other areas to grow up. And so from year to year, you're moving that disturbance around the pasture. We burn our pastures on a four-year rotation, and so you get that diversity of vegetation across the landscape, so that gradient that I was talking about. And so to assess how the birds are responding, every year from 2017 to 2020, we perform nest dragging surveys through our pastures to find grassland bird nests. So we stretched a 100-foot-long rope between two people. It had aluminum cans tied to it, and the idea is the cans rattle around and scare the adult birds off the nests, and that allows us to find them, because they're pretty secretive. So after that, we would go back to found nests every three days or so and assess the nest fate, so whether the nest had fledged, hatched, or been depredated or abandoned. Once nests were done, we performed vegetation surveys at the nest, and that way we could relate the nest conditions to nest survival. We also assessed community composition, so what birds are using these habitats. And we walked transects through our pastures throughout the breeding season, and for this we compared patch burn, season-long grazing, and twice-over-rotational grazing pastures. And we looked at the composition of species in each, as well as the diversity in each. So overall, we detected 60 species in our transect surveys, and we found that responses to the treatments varied by species, which makes sense, because you've got a variety of requirements based on what species you're looking at. So for instance, grasshopper sparrows, they specialize in kind of the middle of that gradient, and they're also not the most selective, so we didn't find a significant difference between the treatments. Whereas on the other hand, clay-colored sparrows nest by weaving tall grasses into the base of shrubs, so we found that in the twice-over-rotational and season-long pastures, we found that they were more abundant there. And on the other end of the spectrum, chestnut-colored longspirrs, which if you remember, they prefer that newly burned, short vegetation. We found that they reached their highest abundance in the patch burn pastures. And then as far as nesting, we didn't see a huge variation in nest survival between the treatments, but again, we saw that the patch burning allowed the species to select the vegetation structure that they prefer. So we found over 1,900 nests over four years from 32 species, including nine species of waterfowl, six species of shorebird, and 13 species of passerine. So that's your perching birds. So we found, again, clay-colored nest success was higher, where visual obstruction was high, which is going to be more prevalent in the rotational and season-long, whereas in contrast, grasshopper sparrows nest survival was higher when you have those shorter vegetation types. And so I think altogether, our research shows that a wide variety of habitat requirements requires a wide variety of management schemes. So patch burn grazing pastures had the highest diversity followed by the season-long pastures and then the twice-overrotational. But in the twice-overrotational with that more substantial vegetation structure, it provides important habitat for some conservation-concerned species like bobbling. So I think the take-home here is that there are a lot of ways to skin a cat, and as long as you're getting diverse habitat conditions in your rangelands, you're providing for grassland bird diversity.