Okay, you ought to be able to get the loads in these plates depending on how they're connected. Let's say it was pretty obvious, pretty obvious. Load P comes in, goes through the shear surface in the bolt, comes out load P, and this one in the right-hand plate. If you put load P in there because the strength of the bolt at yield here is the same as it is there. That means that half will go this way and half will go that way. Here it is failed. You'll notice that this top half, if you draw a free body of it, there's one shearing surface.  If they're basing it on ultimate times the area of the bolt.  The bolt is in double shear at that point. That's why that loads twice as big. These are the ones that get interesting. Total load is the load P. A third goes in that plate and two-thirds goes in that plate. Reason to be in if you draw a free body of that top plate. Let's just say that force is shear in the bolt. Then he says a third and a quarter we'll see. Whatever this force is, it's the shear in the bolt because that's one bolt that's been cut. Whatever that is to pull this little plug right here out with this plate, you're going to have to have shear bolt, shear bolt. You have to have two times the shear in the bolt. This one has two shear in the bolt and this one has two shear in the bolt and this one gets pulled loose with one shear in the bolt. So you add up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, let's see, just on one side. 1, 2, 3, 4, that's got to be a total of 4. Since this one's going to be twice that one, then this will be a fourth of P, two fourths of P and a fourth of P. Whereas on this side, these have to add up two shear in the bolt. This one has to add up to two shear in the bolt because it's got to pull that little plug out on two surfaces. So that's a half of P and that's a half of P. You only have this many plates. These are the forces you get. So obviously, if you're asked for the bearing stress someplace, you're going to have to know how much load is in each plate so that you can get the bearing stress in that plate. If all the plates are the same thickness, then obviously either this plate or that plate would be the one you would be checking because it's going to have twice as much load in the plate. Now we were working with columns, trying to find out how strong they were. In general, we had a strength F critical. Here we go. Based on Euler and his opinion, worked nicely with a correction for the columns aren't really straight. Then past that point, we have an empirical solution, a combination of theory and practical things, namely that this is going to come in at Fy. So we had two different equations. We found a break point at which the two equations controlled to the left, to the right, different equations. We had a bunch of tables that also were worked out for us. We had two basic tables so far. One of them would give you F critical based just on the strength of the steel and the KL over R for your shape. And if you wanted to use that one, you could see if that's one of the first one that shows up here. Now they don't use that one. They're using the second table. Second table would tell you not the critical stress, but it would actually tell you the load that's in the column. So we already did one with the stress. Now we're going to do one with the load tables.  He wants you to put 275 kips on the column. Effective length is 24 feet. I don't know if that's a pen pen 24 feet. I don't know if that's a fixed fixed with a point six of the length is equal to 24 feet. Doesn't matter. Effective length is 24 feet. He hasn't told me how it's braced. So it's must be unbraced. And if it's unbraced, it's going to buckle about the weak axis. So by not saying anything, he's said a lot. And he wants a 992 50 ksi steel shape. So what we'll do is we look in the book and we say, what did we pay all that money for? The guy says, well, I have tables that'll give you the permitted strength, the fee of point nine times a nominal carrying capacity of a w eight by 58 of different links. Not only that, unlike that stress equation, which has no idea what the shape looks like. This is basically the allowed stress. You will still have to check it for slender elements. In my case, if it has slender elements past some point, I will appropriately calculate the true load. The nice plus if you're not going to go to graduate school. So we come down to a 24 foot column. So we've got a little note here says effective length KL with respect to the least radius of gyration. Well, since they normally buckle about the weak axis, that makes sense. That's what he is tabulating for us. If you'd like another $50, he'll include another table for effective length about the strong axis buckling. These have are sub y embedded in the numbers. We go to 24 feet. We need 275 kips on a 24 foot length. No, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, there's another page of eight buys next to this. Here's the Oh, there are no, there are no more eights. That's all the eights. Okay, an eight by won't work. Now we'll see if some 10 buys here are our lighter shapes. We're gonna start down light till we find something that works and will not go any higher. We need 275 kips on a 24 275. No, no, no, yes. That's what it's all about. Is it simple? Yeah.  Yeah. Would we turn you loose with this without you understanding hopefully what's going on? No, you'd kill us all. So I'm going to tell you that a 10 by 54 is an acceptable shape. Now I'm going to go to the 12 buys. Would you remember the number 54 for me 10 by 54? I'm in the 12 buys. I'm on the 24 foot unbraced weak axis length link. I need 275. No, no, no, no. That's it. It's guaranteed. Good to go. If you don't believe it, you're welcome to go put the kale over R into the appropriate equation either to the right of the break point or to the left of the break point whatever this KL turns out to be and multiply that times the gross area and multiply that times what? Repeat.  The resistance factor of how big? Yeah, well, this is a column. And here let me give you a little hint. There we go. There's a little hint. The guy says they may forget what that number is. He says I said, okay, if they forget it's in the table, right? Well, yeah, but I had this little space left at the bottom. Okay, good enough. What is this? Is this lighter than the last one? 10 by 58 is okay. This is heavier? That's what he found. You're right. It is heavier. Okay. Let's see if a 14 by is better. Looking for the same 275 on a 24 foot unbrace weak axis effective length. No, no, no. 275. Yes, even heavier. So as the column gets deeper, it's a lot better for a beam. But as it gets deeper for a column, usually the column, the squatty ones that have more moment of inertia about both axes turn out to be often will be better. But you have to check them and see. Now he says what if the shapes are not in the column load tables? Well, then about all you can do is drop back to your critical stresses or the equations and make a guess. First, he suggests this as good as any. There's a lot of different suggestions in different books. He says pick a f critical. How? Just pick one. Well, how about 83? How does that sound? 83. A 992 steel 83. We'll guess the critical buckling stress is 83. No thoughts on the matter? Like one. Okay. Well, you could start at the bottom. Yeah, you might get a number because one is possible. But how are you going to get a critical buckling stress bigger than f sub y? For any reason to start out any lower any higher than 50. That's if the column has no length. So he says my guess is probably a pretty good number is he's telling you the procedure first. Pick a f sub critical. Theoretically as maximum at f sub y.   We just discussed has to be actually will set it equal to but it has to of course be greater than the request. That means the gross area you come up with has to be at least this big. Then you go pick a shape that has that much area. Then you compute the truth, the real critical buckling stress for that shape. And if it's perfect, it's perfect. And if the thing is 10 times too big, well, then you're going to have to change the critical stress such as you get a more reasonable shape. And if it's unsafe, you pick another critical stress the other way. Then when you're through, you're just out of luck. You got to do your own slenderness ratio calculations and your own comparisons. And it's all it's up to you then. Hopefully everything will be in the table. Tell you now it won't be. So he says I need an 18 by shape of a 992 steel dead, live, effective length. This is about the weak axis and said otherwise. So I guess it is. So we'll be able to use those tables as long as this is about the exact the weak axis. Looking your tables, you see they go up to 14 buys. And then the 18 buys can be used as columns if that's what we're using in the area. But they're not that commonly used. And so he doesn't have them in the tables. There are no tables for them. So we pick the ultimate load. He says I'm going to go ahead and pick about two thirds of 50 ksi. I'm going to start at 33 and see what happens. And now that I have nothing new to tell you, this is identical to what you did before today. The last thing we did, you calculate the required gross area, load divided by nine tenths of 33. 20.2 square inches of steel. He's going to try W 18 by 71. He needs 20.2. He needs 20.2. Here are 18 buys needs 20.2 20.2. There's the first one W 18 by 71. Here's that what he's trying? Yeah, that's where he got the first one from because it was the lightest one that had the required 20.2 square inches of steel. Of course, it's on page one dash 20. This is in your properties of shapes. Page number should be listed. Here it is. So now that we've decided to do an 18 by 71, I tell you he's right. You can check these pages. It has, well, there it is, has 20.9 square inches, has 20.9 square inches, has a K of 26 times 12 inches in a foot, the minimum radius of gyration for a W 18 by 71. W 18 by 71 must be on the next page. Here I tabulated what I found on the next page so I didn't have to sit here and fumble. There they are. This one has 1.7. So he has effective KL over R. So 183. Less than 200. What's that all about? What's 200? That's not a break point.  If you say, well, in this case, I'm going to because I need to, that's okay. But they don't even have table values past that point in any of the tables. They want to lead you away from that so you don't get stuck by mistake. Here is your equation for now let's see 183.5. Here is your Euler opinion of life. I squared E divided by K over R squared pi squared E. There's your K over R squared 8.5 KSI. That's Mr. Euler's opinion. I don't know if that's going to put you to the left or to the right of the break point. I'll have to calculate the break point. That number comes up so often it's probably good for a tattoo someplace. Just put 4.71 square root of E over F sub y is equal to 113 for 50 KSI steel. Our KL over R is oh good lord 185 and the break points 113. So our KL over R is way bigger than the break point number 113. So we are way down in here. Our critical stress will be this big or this big or this big depending on where our 183.5 falls on that curve. It's easy enough 0.877 times what you just calculated F sub e of 8.5. That's just no stress at all. This could possibly work too too little critical buckling stress.  That was a bummer. So he says since this was so far off he's going to go to a stress about halfway between what he guessed and what he got. He doesn't want to go all the way to 33. He could. He can try anything he wants to. It's his time. He's going to try 20. Then they've got a new gross area with a 20 KSI in here giving you 33.3 square inches of steel necessary. Come back here and you look for 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33. There you go. A W18 by 119. You're 18 by 119 and he repeats just like it says on the shampoo bottle. Rinse and repeat. And you repeat till you get the right answer. This may be the right answer. He recalculated the critical stress. Breakpoint still the same. Our break point turned out to be at 116. That was our KL overall for this shape. And therefore, we are a little to the right of the breakpoint. Therefore, we're still using the Euler equation 0.877 times 21.27 f sub e for the critical buckling stress, put the critical buckling stress with a 0.9 times area 589. Cowley man, bummer. Still no good. There's very close try the next size and it works. Oh, no, no, this is true. Our made up number C was just to get us a shape. At that time, the made up number went away and is no longer discussed. At that time, you see, you say, I think this shape may work. And the first one didn't work horribly. Well, that may be the made up numbers part, but it was no part of checking if it works. No, what you did was, yeah, you can start at anything you want to. You can start at 50. I give you a much smaller shape.  And then when you put the little tiny shape in there, you're going to get whatever you get for f critical, but it's going to have such a horrible slenderness ratio that it's not going to work. So you're going to say, okay, 50 was a bummer. Me, I said 20 was a bummer. I forget what it was, whatever we started with was really bad. So whereas I'm going to go for 20 up to 30, you're going to be coming from 50 down to 40. Go either way. Doesn't make a bit of difference. Because every time you make a guess to guess a shape, you're going to check that shape. And if that shape works, it's good. It's got nothing to do with the guess. The guess would just lead you into getting a starting point or something to analyze. That's what all design really is in general. Make a guess at something, then you check it. Down at the bottom, he says the shape is not slender because there's no footnote when you go to the dimensions table. There's our dimensions table. He says there's no C on here, so it's not got any slender elements. Then he said, so local buckling does not have to be investigated. You just did. You just investigated local buckling by looking at this thing and saying doesn't have a C on it. Look at this one. That one needs to be investigated because you used a bad set of tables for F critical that didn't have slender and element buckling taken into consideration. You have to do that on your own. This was a loud stress design. As always at some time during the semester, I start drawing and can't stop. So here is case D all nicely drawn out. Somebody asked, Well, how could you really get such a thing? That's case D. Here's how you put the brace rod in there. So these things mean no translation at the top. Without the brace rods, it translates at the top. See the no brace. This one looks fixed. It's really looks fixed. This one looks fixed. It's pinned. The plate will bend. The footing will bend. This is pinned here. This is pinned because it's not welded nice and solid and there's not a lot of other detailing to get the load through there. But dang, the plates 18 inches thick, and he's got 43 bolts on it on a eight foot by eight foot by 30 foot footing. Why do you might call that fixed? Don't have to spend a lot of money just to make it fixed. Usually it's not worth the money. That's case E. Here again is other tables we can use. These are usually pretty good for single story buildings. They're real good for multi story buildings because as you go on up in there, these things aren't really fixed or pinned. They're attached to girders and we'll get into that later on. Just need that table. Here's the thing squats down with brace rods and horizontal loads. You notice it doesn't move enough to count for anything without the brace rods. It moves to the right. This buckles as a 0.7 theoretical practical point eight. This buckles theoretically at a two fixed and pinned. And when it's this way, I believe practicals also to upside down like this. And this is the ground. And that's the column or the girder. I believe that's 2.1. More review. There was Mr. Oilers opinion. There was point eight seven seven. There was the spot where things just went terribly awry 113 for 50 ksi steel. Here are the equations that control if you're forced to use them. You will be forced to use them for 56 ksi steel because your critical stress tables don't have anything but 50 ksi steel 36 ksi steel things they really make on quizzes. You find some very novel steals. Here's the same picture. The only thing is that I like this. The book uses this. The examples in the not the code, but the specs use this. But some people do this. Some people the break point is fixed. In other words, it's fixed at 4.71 square root of so and so. For KL of R it's fixed at 0.44 f sub y in this direction. Want to use that for the break point? Good enough. Same thing. Same thing showing some wrinkling showing basically the comparison between global buckling and local buckling. Global block buckling has a break point and two different equations. Local buckling has the same thing. Have a break point above which you have slender elements, although we don't cover how to do it in 4.46. You'd have to assure me that the shape you're going to use has no reduction of load by telling me there you are to the left of when the radius of gyration of the little element itself really gives you fits. Once you get into beams, you're going to find we couldn't live with just two regions. We got three regions. Initially, it was proposed to have five. That's what the engineer said.  So give me give me three. All right. Here's an example that you probably should check out. Here's the same column 30 foot long. It's a weird number 23.35 feet long and 15 feet long. How much load does it carry? Here's the kale of our about the weak axis is not braced for this are 2.48 for a 992 steel. Here's your kale of our break point. Here is you are 145 is to the right of the break point. And therefore you are in the elastic region. And therefore f critical is 0.877 11.9 KSI is how much stress you can put on it. That still has to be multiplied times 0.9. And then that has to be multiplied by gross area. That would tell you the load. If you increase it to 23 feet, you redo the K. Oh my, it comes out 113 right on the money. And that's something. Use either equation. They both give you the same answer. I would certainly use the this equation because it's a lot easier than this equation. The stress permitted goes from 111.9 to 19.66 for a 15 foot column. You put in the new length our kale of our 72. That's the left of the break point. That means you're over in the goofy equation region, the in elastic region. There's your f sub e Mr. Oilers going right on through the roof to 53 54.3. The true critical buckling stress is 0.658 f y over f sub Euler times f y goes to 34. And so you ought to look at that. You ought to see what's going on. Here you were in one region. Here you were smack dab in the middle of two regions. Here you were in the in elastic region.  Lambda sub R means that's a break point number. Plano lambda with no subscripts is you. That's your. So in other words, you will be checking is lambda sub u is it less than or greater than the break point lambda when the radius of gyration really kills you. See this shape here? See how that's lambda sub R right there. Below this point things were going pretty good. Past that point, man, I mean, you are really taking a hit.  Here's your lambda sub R is 200 right there. Didn't be out there. I'm sorry. That's not your lambda sub R. That's your lambda. Lambda sub R is fixed. Lambda sub R is 113 for 50 ksi steel. Regardless of what the whether it's a wide flange or what I'm sorry. No, no, look at here. Yeah, that's not linear. So if you're saying is it a direct function of your lambda? No, flat, flat, flat, flat, but you get nothing. You get nothing.  Geez, man. Okay, now you get something. They get a lot. Now you keep a lot. It's not linear. No bore on effective length. So far, our shapes have been buckling about the weak axis, which makes sense. However, if you come in here and realize that your pinned pinned column is very weak about the weak axis, you see what the shape looks like. If you look at the top, here's the flange, there's the web, there's the flange. If you say this is terrible, I'm not getting any strength out of it. If you brace it in the middle, you will force the shape to buckle in two nodes, making the effective length half as much as it used to be. Picking up a factor of about four, as far as strength. Now then, the thing is, if you do that, now it's possible that it won't buckle about the strong weak axis, it'll buckle about the strong axis. It's going to buckle about the whoever's got the biggest KL, KL over R. That's the one that's going to buckle about the largest slenderness ratio. You want to see me make it buckle about the weak axis? I put another one of those here, I put another one of those there, and you say, well, it's still buckle about the weak axis, even though it did one, two, three, four nodes, okay, nine more there, nine more there, nine more there, nine more there. I'll get to the point where the whole thing won't buckle inside the wall. This is usually where the sheetrock is. It'll buckle in, and all the little kids will get hit with bricks. It'll come into the building instead of buckling in the wall. And here that is. Here's that brace. You see that brace you put there to hold everything? Guess what happened when it buckled? The brace just went with them. It just went over like that. You say, well, I'll fix that. I'll put a wire out here in the street, and a wire out here in the street. Now it won't buckle about any axis. Not gonna work, not worth it.  This one, KL, about the X axis, he has his 26 feet. Here the KL, the effective length is 13 feet. Some good reading, mostly what I said. Here's a kind of a picture of it. That's a wire going down to the, going inside the wall. It's forcing it to buckle out of the paper and into the paper, making it a shorter effective length. How effective is the true length over L? That's true length over 2. Here it is when it buckles in the plane of the paper about the strong axis. There it is, another attempt trying to make it make sense. But the only thing I know is to go tear the sheet rock off of something and show you because it's hard to draw it. There you go, man. That took an hour. Here's a girder and a girder, and it's pinned at the top and pinned at the bottom, and here it is braced about the weak axis. It could still fail about the strong axis, but if it fails about the weak axis has to fail, fail, fail, fail, go back to zero, fail, fail, fail like that. There's a base plate, strong axis buckling. What we really need is we need like a picture of it drawn in 3D and get it on a computer and then where you could roll around and see this stuff. There it is buckling about the weak axis. So, example 4.9 has a W12 by 58, 24 feet long, pinned at base, braced in the weak direction, and it's braced at the third points. At every 8 feet, he's got a brace. He's pretty smart. He braced the weak axis. You know, he didn't brace the strong axis. Here's this brace. See that little circle thing there? There it used to be. When it buckled about the strong axis, it buckled on a 24 foot length and the little braces just went along for the ride. So that means that the kx about the strong axis is 24 feet long, times 12 inches in a foot. x, the ky about the weak axis, they're only 8 feet long, times 12 inches in a foot. The radius of gyration goes with the buckling axis. It's buckling about the x-axis, 5.28. Check it out. Look it up in the book. You shouldn't believe anything. That means that the slenderness ratio for buckling about the strong axis is 54, and the slenderness ratio, the k over ry, is only 38 for weak axis buckling. It means you have put so many braces in there, it will not first buckle about the weak axis. It'll buckle about, it will not first buckle about the weak axis, right? It's going to buckle about the longer slenderness, the strong axis. Once I know that, I don't even check this. There's no reason to put this number into the critical stress equations. There's no reason to go look it up in the tables. This is the way it's going to buckle. So then again, I go and find out where I am with respect to, oh no, he says, I was getting ready to go find the break point, find out which side I was on, and all that kind of stuff. He says, look, remember that table 422? I forgot about that. He says, go look it up. You have a k over r of 54.55. Here's where I got the r from. That's the gross area. You'll notice this particular shape has no slender elements. That one wouldn't be my first choice. Got slender column elements. It has slender elements as a column. This one down here has slender elements as a column and in flexure. We'll get into that later. All right. And there's where I got the radius of gyration strong and weak from that table. And here are my critical stress numbers. I'm going for a 50 KSI steel. I'm going for a 54.55 and 54 and 55 is between these two numbers.  Don't go all the way up to 36.4 because that's not true. You can interpolate, but that's not the purpose of this class is to teach you to do that, nor for you to take that amount of time. They're reasonably close. Just pick the lower of them and say the strength is 36.1 KSI. That's the F critical. So he interpolates 36.24. 36.24. There's your 36.24. There's your, uh oh, he forgot the fee. I'm sorry. It's built into built into what? Oh, it's built into the tables. It's already there. How do you know that? Well, that's not fair. Proved to me that it's built into the tables. I see you looking at them checking all my numbers at the top of the column. That's exactly right. It says fee, F critical, fee, F critical. And if you don't believe him, you know, if you're not sure what he used, then you look at the bottom and you see what fee is for use in that table. And therefore that shape is good for 616 kips. No slender elements, so it's okay. If this thing that we now chose had slender elements, we would have to know how to do check the slender elements or forego the use of that section in this class. Now, if you say boring, well, that's because you haven't seen any of this yet.  It really is. Here's a yardstick. I'll leave it for you to check it out. Check the moment of inertia about the week, moment of inertia about the strong. It's braced about the week at these points. And you should be able to find out, strangely enough, the KL of R for both of them turned out to be about the same, but this would still be the choice because it's bigger. Now, he says the available strength in these load columns are based on the effective length with respect to the weak axis. That's right. He warned us about that in the tables. See if I can find one right quick. He warned us that this was only good about the weak axis. So I won't use it for strong axis. That's quite obvious. Don't use it for strong axis. He says, well, not quite that simple. You remember how you got that answer? Yeah, I used a KL of R. He says, and you divided your KL by R sub Y. And I did indeed and says, and then we used one of the appropriate equations to calculate the critical. Yes, that's true. That's what we did. And then we got the strength.  Yes, you would indeed. It wouldn't mean anything to me. He says, don't give up just yet.  I said, well, yeah, but that's not what you did in the tables. He says, if you will take the K X sub L and divide it by the R X R sub Y, you will get a K, which won't make any sense, but which if you enter it in the table in effect, you have taken the R sub Y back out and put in R sub X, you will get the right answer. I don't believe any of this. That guy's nuts. What's he smoking? I don't know. He says, well, give it a try. Just give it a try. See, you like it. Just give it a try. It's okay. Got a compression. Remember, shown so-and-so, pinned both ends, supported in the weak and at mid-height. Okay, this thing is going to either buckle nine-foot weak axis or 18-foot strong axis. He says, got to have a service of 400. That service is just dead plus live or whatever, just the sum of the load. That's what they call a service load. Equal dead and equal live. So half is dead, half is live. If it cares, I still want to slide the lightest shape. Great.  I need 560 kips. Get out of the way. Give me my tables. I need 560 kips. He says, assume the weak axis controls and enter the column mode tables with nine feet. Okay, sounds good. Beginning with the smallest shape, nine feet need 560. Check this out. This is, those are the, that's the other table. There's a nine feet I need 560. Now, I notice I cross these out so I don't get accidentally get some loud stress. Starting with 8B, I need 560. No, no, no. Been here before. There you go. That'll work. If it buckles about the weak axis, I get 634 kips. 634 kips. He says, now don't forget to check the strong axis because you don't know which axis is going to buckle about yet. No, that's true. So I'm going to go to 8 by 58 and I just want to calculate it the long way for a W8 by 58 because he's fixing to use some phony nonsense here. W8 by 58. Here's a W58. I promise you I used all the numbers that are in the book. Buckling load, if it buckles about the strong axis is it's k is a 1. It's not nine feet long. That's 18 feet times this. And I see he is this written down. I say, what, what the devil are you doing there? He says, did I do something illegal?  You multiply it times 1. He says, well, just leave it alone. Okay. Here's my 1. There's my 18 times 12. He says r sub x over r sub y. Anything illegal? No, no, no. Times r sub y. He says, do you see how you have taken the x thing and divided it by r x over r y? I say, yeah. So he says, well, put r x over r y in there. There's r x, there's r y, 365 over 2.1. That is 1.74. Put the r sub y in there. Well, that's 2.1. I said, you just put it in. You took it back out. He says, that's what I'm telling you. You can do in the tables effectively. You can divide this by this and you get the right answer if you use that as the k l over r nonsense. He says, keep trucking. All right. So here we go. This is what I would have done in the first place. This is one times 18 times 12. That times that's 3.65. That's what I would have used 3.65. All this didn't change anything. He says, therefore, the k l over r is 59. That's 59. Now then, go to the critical buckling stress for 59. There's 59.11. The answer for 50 k s I see is somewhere between 34.6 and 34.9. If you interpolate it, it gets 34.8. And therefore, you get an answer for an 8 by 58 is 595 strong axis buckling. Oh, goodness. Sure glad I checked it because it didn't come up to the 634 we were planning on. Okay. Now, it's okay. Even the 595 is still above the required. And so I'm getting through with it here. But by the equations, we get 595 strong axis. He says, look, come up over here now and see what I was trying to get you to do. What I was trying to get you to do was to take the k l over r for the strong axis, which was 18 feet and divide it by r x over r y. You and I just calculated that r x over r y was 1.74. So okay, I'll do it divided by 1.74. That's a slenderness ratio of 10.34. Where'd you get it from? He says, you saw where I got it from. He just don't like it. I say, well, it's not nine. And it's not 18. He says, it's funny. Enter the 10.34 into the table. Okay, 10.34. Here's the table. Here's the table. Kale funny is 10.34 10.34. I need 560. No, need 560. No, need 560. No, need 560. It says a W 8 by 58 will give you in that region. What did we pick before? W 8 by 58. 8 by 58. W 8 by 58. What were we trying to get lost in this stuff? W 8. That's right. We were trying an 8 by 58. Okay, and look at what this phony thing tells us. The phony thing tells us we'll get 560 guaranteed. I mean, even if you interpolate to 10.34, the two numbers that are on the phone right around the phony number are going to give you the same number. And as a matter of fact, when you interpolate it, you know what? That dang thing works. You get 596. Now, if you're not thoroughly confused, then you're not listening. Those of you who aren't confused, you say, maybe I'll figure that out tomorrow. No, you won't. Practice with it tonight. We'll do some more of that next time. It's good stuff. It really is. Thank you. Hey. You too.


Gweyf yn ddod i'r stathiaeth. Mae'n ffraid gael gael gael Paul Mason yn ddod, gan gydag hwn i'r ddysgu, a'r hyn yn ychydigig i'r disgustion, ac yn ddod i'r ddod i'r ddod i'r dyfodol. Rhan o'r pethau o ddod i'r ddau'r ddod o'u cyd-degon o'r ddod i'r defnyddio. Mae'n mynd i'n ei gweithio amddangos i'r cyffredinol, a oherwydd o'i gynnig wedi'i gydag i ni i cwng-dynch, ers y gallwn yn gyfnod o'r ffordd i'r gweithio i gydag i'r gweithiool a gweithio'r freig i'r rhaglen i'r llai. Felly, rydyn ni'n bwysig i'n bwysigio allan o'r byd. Felly, rydyn ni'n bwysig i'r gweithio ar y gweithwyr, ..on any part of the discussion and debate. We need you to talk into the microphone for the recording. Before you raise your question or make your contribution, please wait for the two people with the microphones to come to you. Could I have a show of people who want to contribute... ..or ask questions straight away? I'm falling down on my gender aspiration. OK, so we've got someone here at the front... ..up there as a second. So if we could start here and then move over to the back there. Where's the second microphone? And another one over there. So where's the second microphone? OK, thanks very much. My name's Chris Knight. I've been heavily involved since October the 15th with the Occupy movement, particularly Occupy London. I get the feeling that the recommendations from the platform in so many different ways kind of imply... ..we've got to rely on this, that or the other... ..parliamentary forces, politicians. And I'm just saying... ..what's wrong with the idea that a lot of us are beginning to come to... ..which is so much simpler. Occupy London is all power to the 99%. That's the agenda. And then another slogan that suggests the mechanism. And it's extremely simple. Occupy everything everywhere. And I would suggest that rather than ask lots of intellectuals to give us... ..I'm really interested in all this. I think it's very important to understand stuff. But essentially we've got to boil it all down to something simple. And what's the objection to what we're doing now around the world? Just get hold of everything, get hold of every building, any factory that's been closed, any bank just occupied the thing, reclaim it right around the world. It has the advantage, doesn't it, of simplicity? Thanks very much. There was somebody here who... Yes, I wasn't going to ask a question, but since you said woman, Ken, it's a question for... ..and it cost us. You mentioned this war time and there was a default in Greece that there would be war time measures. My question was about the situation in particular of agriculture. We know that Europe has been subsidizing the periphery to not be agriculturally productive anymore. And it seems to me that it's more successful, you have a more successful default and a more successful independent industrial economy if you have agriculture. I think not having food production under your control is difficult if you devalue the currency, so that's my question. Well, if you turn into drachmas and you don't produce your own agriculture and you have to import food. Okay, thanks very much. There was somebody over here. Thank you. Really interesting discussion, really timely, thank you. It's interesting with all this news from Brussels that it seems everyone's forgotten what's happening down in Durban with the COP of the climate negotiations. So one of the things that environmentalists have been saying for a very long time, not just environmentalists as well, is that growth, GDP growth, is not the only measure of benefit. So if we now have this situation where it looks like we're not going to be getting a lot of growth anyway, plus we need to be starting to revamp the way that we organize ourselves in order to, well, one, cope with the climate change that's probably already happening, and two, look after the resources, the biodiversity, et cetera, that we have to sustain that and maintain diversity and maintain the cultural diversity and the grassroots level work and organization that we need to just be resilient to survive in a good way through this time on an ecological level, which in the end does come before all this economic stuff. So I'm just wondering if you have any ideas there about how we can bring together these two discourses, which many people do bring together, but here have so far been kind of kept a little bit apart. Thanks very much. We've got a question or a contribution right down here at the front if we could bring the microphone down here. Thanks. Hello, my name is Paolo Chiochetti. I just had a general question to the panel. There is somehow an idea from the different contribution that there is a kind of kinesian way out of the general crisis, either with more deficit spending or with devaluation and the reconnection of the industrial base of the country. I wanted to ask if it's really so. I agree very much with the conclusion of the reports, but I'm a little bit puzzled by the idea that we can get simply a way out of the crisis by deficit spending, because first of all, that was what was done in 2007-2008 and that produced the sovereign debts. So I'm not sure if it can be done afterwards and secondly, because during the Great Depression, the way out of the crisis came only after massive destruction of the fixed issues and the real capital and the destruction of... completed the section of means of reduction in Europe. So that was my question. Thanks, Paolo. There's a question here. Just one point and two questions. George, you mentioned... spoke about the potentiality for the rise of xenophobic fascistic forces in Europe as they did in the 1930s and I think it would be like-minded in the extreme to rule out that possibility on a large scale. At the same time, I think Stathis is right that this threat of nationalism, of xenophobia, of anti-minority prejudice and so on is not in the future and coming simply from the far right, but is built into the crisis ideology of the European elites and of the European states now. When you read in the best-selling Austrian paper, which is not a Eurosceptic paper, it's a paper which is for preserving the eurozone, Greek and Wales, Greeks out, not even Greek and Wales, not even Greece out, but Greeks out. You just think of one syllable difference on what it connotes, plus all the anti-migrant labour measures which are taking place and so on. That's important because the kind of approach which Stathis and Stathis and others are arguing for is often characterised, certainly in that UBS report, as opening the door to national chauvinism and so on. The national chauvinism is upon us and is upon us from the very people who were meeting in Brussels yesterday and yesterday and this morning, despite all the cross-estations of a greater, deeper Europe and so on. So that's a big observation. Two questions. One, I also don't have faith in Francois Hollande or in the SPD to return even to the days of Andreas Papandreu or let alone to something which is more radical. Do you think that is primarily because of the ideological buy-in to 30 years of neoliberalism, the idea that there is no alternative and so on? How much of it is that and how much of it do you think is structured into the very nature of the contemporary crisis and the way in which it is refracted through the mechanisms of the European Union? In other words, there isn't really the wiggle room for that. I'd like all the panel to say more about what they think are the social and political forces that can be, not sucked out of anyone's thumb, but potentially can start to impose this kind of solution given the fact that at the elite level and amongst the political classes in Europe, it's not something that they want to turn to. How is it that we can impact on the political situation in order to have meaningful political effect? Thanks very much. I'm going to take one more contribution then we're going to have a comeback by the panel and then back to the contributions down here on the... When we're thinking about solutions, we need to be clear about what the solutions are. The ECB have plenty of money. In fact, the Fed could possibly bail out the eurozone. They got $3 trillion stashed in various accounts. They bought $50 billion worth of European debt just the other day. There's no shortage of money, but there's a political imperative to reduce the working conditions of the workers outside of Germany. Therefore, in that sense, there is no alternative for the ECB. Therefore, when we're looking at what are the alternatives, I think we've got to be clear. I think I largely agree with Kostas' analysis, but if you're saying that you're going to seriously break with the eurozone, break with the ECB, break with the euro, if you're going to wipe out all of debt owed to those banks, to the ECB, to those governments, you're going to have to break with capitalism. That is an anti-capitalist, socialist, revolutionary agenda, and I think we have to be quite explicit about that. This is really, you hear it often on the left, there is no alternative, blah, blah, blah, all the rest of it. We've been around a long time, we've all heard those stories, but when you look at Greece, you can honestly say there is no capitalist alternative that is going to solve the Greek problem, if you want to put it like that, in the interests of the workers. And even UBS, I mean okay, it's exaggerated, blah, blah, but if you read their report, it's quite clear, it says, there's never been the break-up of a fiscal union without civil war quote from UBS. So the capitalists are quite clear what it involves, and I think from our point of view as socialists, if we're going to be serious about the alternative, we also need to be clear about what it involves. It involves a socialist anti-capitalist alternative. Thanks very much. So we've got a very wide range of contributions covering agriculture, occupation, climate, Keynesian deficit spending, xenophobia, ideology, and whether there is a solution to any of this within capitalism. And each of the three panel members have got two minutes each. So, Coster, since you started off so magnificently, maybe you could deal with all that in two minutes. Agriculture is a very important thing here because it is a pressing issue in Greece. The policies that have been applied to the country the last two decades have been disastrous. Greece used to have food cell sufficiency, it doesn't now. It imports huge amounts of food. Let's say, isn't this a bad thing necessary? It is a bad thing now, we now know it's a bad thing. And reliance abroad for food isn't necessarily a good thing, but this country might discover it in the coming years because Britain is also dependent on huge food imports. So how do you deal with it? There has to be rebirth of agriculture and I think exit is necessary for that. Exit is necessary for this. It would allow Greek agriculture to come back to life and it would allow actually food production perhaps to become cheaper. Food is actually very expensive in Greece. It's a very expensive thing. It's one of the peculiar things of entering the Euro. It hasn't been cheaper. The imports have not actually worked out in relative price. Quite why that is, is a difficult question of political economy, but it definitely is expensive. And it's actually more expensive than Britain in absolute terms, never mind relative terms. And if you put it in relative terms, it's phenomenal. So exit is important for agriculture to, in a sense, recover, revive, and cheapen food production to improve the conditions of working people in a domestic context. I think that would be a benefit of exit, not a problem. Green growth is also very important. That's probably more important elsewhere than in other countries of Europe than Greece. It's obviously a path of development. It's obviously a path of jobs. It's obviously a path in which it appears mature. Western economies have got a comparative advantage, but this would require the right alliance or social forces to make it come about. You know, do something about houses, improve the green properties, do something about production of clean energy, and so this requires a different alliance. And that is a growth area in which a transformed society could give, to which a transformed society could give far greater emphasis than private capitalist interests could ever do, I would argue. Now these are the more practical questions. Now let me come to the ECB. Just say one thing about the ECB. Theory says that the central bank does what it does because it relies on a state. The central bank has got fear. It issues its own money, and this money is accepted generally, not because it's disembodded power in midair, but because it relies on a state. The power of Bernanke comes from Obama. It doesn't come from Bernanke himself. The power of, you know, Mary Wing King comes from Cameron. Cameron, that's where it comes from ultimately. In other words, the tax-collecting powers of the state are ultimately the backup for the capacity of the central bank to issue ffiat money. It would take the state away, the central bank cannot do that. Now the ECB has been a bit of a juggling act all this time because there is no state I can do that. It's an alliance of states behind it. It's got problems. When you ask it to replicate what Bernanke is doing, you come against the structural differences between the ECB and the central bank like the Federal Reserve, which has a federal state, or like the British Central Bank, which has a unitary state behind it. That's not an easy thing to resolve because the states that back up the ECB have got their own differences. They're not allies. They fight it out. That has to be factored in. It's no use asking the ECB to do what other central banks do and think that he can technically and easily solve it because he can't. There's a political economy in which we've seen it being played out all the time. If it was so easy, why is it that Draghi doesn't see it? If it's so easy, why isn't the Tricia doesn't see it?  No, no. There are interests behind, which are very, very important, which we've got to factor in. We've got to analyse. I can't say any more. Now, I'll probably run out of my two minutes. You have, of course. Just one thing on... I'll come back to Social Democracy possibly afterwards. One thing I want to say about the alternative. Yes, we are arguing about an anti-capitalist alternative here. We should be clear about it. The issue for those who wish to propose different things, alternative things in Europe at the moment, the way I see it, is as follows. We've got to put across ideas that solve the crisis. That must be paramount and solve it in the here and now. Not in three months or three years or a decade from now. In the here and now, people want a solution now in the way in which the crisis affects them. It affects them very differently in Germany to what it does in Greece. We must propose solutions that work in the here and now, but these must be part and parcel of a broader programme that actually transforms and changes society and economy and makes for growth, makes for jobs, makes for greater equality. In my understanding of it, an anti-capitalist work doing things. It's actually a way of reversing neoliberalism, reversing all the trends that we've observed the last 10, 20 years. That's what's at issue.  The sooner we start thinking about in those terms, the better for all of us. Thank you, George. I don't know. I could give a very short answer and say the gentleman over there is absolutely right. Socialism is the answer. Full song. Problem is that... Yes, yes, now. So it's a crusty old socialist. I believe that. And I've been standing up for socialism and democratic socialism as opposed to social democracy for many years. Nevertheless, one of the things I have to recognise is that so-called actually existing socialism as we knew it in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is dead and buried. And so are many of the institutions which helped sustain a socialist or even a social democratic tradition. Primarily trade unions. When I was young, I used to go on marches. There were trade union summer schools and there were socialist summer schools and whatever. All of that seems to be gone. Now, forget about my youth. Let's just come back to the here and now which we were talking about. Some of the people I say in touch with quite closely over the European question are the European TUC people in Brussels. And the sort of arguments which I put about looking at the neoliberal underpinnings of the euro as we have it present and working on a long-term strategy to change that are the sorts of arguments which appeal to them and cost us your work will certainly fit in with that view. Unless you've given up totally on existing trade unions, unless you've given up totally on political parties or whatever. And here I just want to come back very quickly to a point someone else made about the 99%. Yes, yes, occupy London, occupy everywhere, if possible. The person who argued most eloquently for extra parliamentary politics, ironically, was Ralph Meliband, father of young Ed. What have we got now? People sitting and Ed appearing at parliamentary question time doing a little song and dance act which is largely irrelevant to the questions of the day. I'm deeply disturbed as I think most of you are. Nevertheless, we've not got any easy answers. We've not got any ready solutions and we have to keep plugging away, defending certain interests on the left and trying to build the institutions that keep the left movement going. That's all I can say. Thanks, George. Of course there are still trade unions summer schools. Staffers, would you give your two minutes in response to the six questions and the 45 points raised? Right. One thing about agriculture which in Greece is absolutely obvious, the European Union has destroyed agriculture and has paid people not to produce. It had a deeply corrupting effect in societies by on the one hand conducting a violent capitalist concentration of agriculture and on the other hand by softening this capitalist modernisation by making somehow former farmers or agricultures into transforming them into social parasites into people just expecting to receive their cash from the European Union. This deeply corrupting and corroding effect of the European Union, especially in Greek society hasn't been commented upon. In order to be corrupted, you need someone to corrupt you. The European Union has been a much more powerful corruptor I think than most actually Greek politicians. Now, the discussion about kinesianism, socialism and so on, there are two ways of putting things. The first is to say what is specifically kinesian in the agenda costs us and other people are putting forward. There are some elements which could somehow bear a family resemblance with kinesianism. For instance, the idea that state intervention is needed in order somehow to reconstruct a productive infrastructure in countries which have been deeply damaged by those dynamics of the polarized development I've been talking about before. This is integrated into a framework of changing social relations, of changing the social balance of forces and first and foremost, it is integrated into a framework which poses in a very concrete way the terrain of the confrontation with the strategy of the adversary. For me, this is the essential point. If we are to be serious about socialist politics, I think that we should abandon this narcissistic radicalism of much of the discourse on the left. Personally, I'm really absolutely fed up by the type of discourses saying that I am more radical than you, and that socialism is the solution and so on and so forth, because the point with all those things is not that they are in a way intrinsically wrong, is that they are intrinsically abstract and therefore irrelevant. To put it differently, socialist revolutions didn't happen to realize immediate socialist aims. When one looks at the immediate, immediate aims of the big revolutionary upheavals in history, let's take the Russian revolution, for instance. We are astonished many times by how modest the objectives of the revolutionaries were. The Russian revolution was about immediate peace. It was about land. It was about workers' control which, as Lenin emphasized, didn't mean at all socialization of production. This is something that came much later in the course of the Civil War when the socialist had shut down all the factories and so on and so forth. So this upheaval didn't start with presumably this abstract radical slogans you find in brochures or in books. It started as an immediate answer to the terrain where the class struggle and the divide between opposing forces was happening. This is what we have in a way to reinvent now. Where is the demarcation line? For me, Costas and his work are tremendously important because they show this is where it is happening. This is the demarcation line now. This is where the confrontation, the real confrontation happens. There is much, you know, one of the reasons there is so much confusion on the left in Europe today is that because it's absolutely fine to talk about socialism, et cetera, I can say that the Greek left, I mean the majority of the Greek radical left are absolutely fine to talk about class struggle about socialism, anti-capitalism and so on. But a large part of those same people say, exiting the euro, oh no, no, no, that's really not possible. I mean starting a confrontation with the European Union, but this is pure madness. I mean how can you say this type of things?  I read all the programmes of, you know, the main candidate of the radical left, Mélenchon and his left-tron, which is an umbrella with the Communist Party and other forces of the radical left in it, and they have no clear position about the sheer legitimacy of the debt. So this is, I think, where concretely speaking, socialist politics is at stake today, and that's what we have to work on. On an agenda, on a transition programme which is adapted to the requirements of the current situation, actually, and which opens up really a possibility of a concrete break with the current logic. How far this break will go, this depends really on the level of the class struggle. But what is politically urgent and analytically urgent for us to think where it happens, to see the points, to see where, you know, the knots, actually, of the whole problem. Thanks, Dadi. Okay, we'll take another batch of questions. We've got one up here at the top. Hello. My name is Jaya Breckie. I'm not a socialist, so I don't have a problem with narcissistic radicalism, hopefully. I'm curious, though, about the, and I haven't read the RMF report yet, so I can't say... I can't talk with that much about, or a response to that, but I am curious about the general comments tonight that seems to be placing mainly a focus on, well, kind of the causes and solutions of the crisis being solely within the EU, and also that there seems to be a focus on the welfare state as the kind of limit of imagination for any alternative. Yeah, I mean exiting the euro in order to re-establish a strong redistributive state in order to create a competitive country where you'll essentially have uneven and diverging competition on a global rather than EU scale does not sound exactly anti-capitalist to me. Okay, thanks very much. Hang on to this gender question, though. We're failing. Okay, up there. Thanks. Yeah, just picking up on what Sathys said, which is what he described as narcissistic radicalism, one of the things I do think is important about the work we've done with the RMF is that it is absolutely necessary in the crisis to get beyond the point of saying there is a crisis of capitalism, therefore you need socialism, and just making a grand declaration about it and getting down to the brass tacks of what are the steps that are necessary now to address the questions that people are actually confronted with. And the most obvious one, anywhere inside the EU, anywhere really inside the developed world where this is being applied, is precisely on the question of austerity, which means in the first instance, presenting a case for, actually, the defence of the welfare state as it exists, and a light to that, I think, also, a defence of democracy as it exists. And yes, of course, you want to then say, well, actually, we can do this better. There are other things we can do. There are other steps we can take, but these two things are absolutely central. It seems to me absolutely critical at the moment that the big historic gains in Europe since the end of the Second World War, which are a kind of form of parliamentary democracy and a form of the welfare state are in serious danger of being undermined and lost and torn up and torn to shreds. And if we have a left that sits there and says, well, you know, this is a big crisis, hey, let's talk about anti-capitalism, let's go and talk about something else entirely, let's not address the specific questions that we're now being confronted with, then we will fail. And there's no reason to suppose that, in the midst of what I'm quite certain is going to be a worsening and developing crisis that is going to get a lot worse before it gets better for anybody out of this, that if we're in the middle of this thing, simply washing our hands and making rather crude, abstract propaganda about it, then we're not going to get anywhere. So what's absolutely critical about the RMF reports, at least in my reading of it, and I confess to having some input into the thing, in a rather small sense, as one of the tables used earlier, but in the midst of this thing, we have to say what are the steps, what is the mechanism, what are the movements, what are the social forces we talk to, how do we get out of this, what are the practical things we do, and that shows us a strategy from where we are now, rather than just a declaration of where we'd like to be. Thanks very much. I've got someone in the back row. Thank you for the opportunities created by agenda discrimination. There's a flicker of a feeling across some journalist's maps. I think Larry Elliott said this on one occasion, that behind the Eurozone crisis is basically a tax strike by the very rich, and I'd like to dwell on that for a moment and ask the panel what they think of the notion of a once-off levy or a continued wealth tax. Various commentators have suggested recently that a 2% wealth tax would wipe out, for example, the British deficit in a relatively short space of time. If it was levied on the richest ex-people in Britain, I think ex was the thousand, another suggestion has been a sort of emergency levy of 20% of the asset holdings of an equivalent slice of the wealthiest people in the country. If that sort of solution was applied Europe-wide, it would perhaps be a correction of this tax strike effect, which of course also extends to big companies, as we've seen in the Rowsabout Vodafone and so forth. I'd just like to know what the panel think about that. Thank you. Thanks. We've got someone quite close by. Hi. Yes. I think George is right to point to some of the problems we have on the left, but I think he's overly pessimistic when he says that we don't have trade union marches anymore. We've just had a week ago of a largest strike in Britain since 1926, and I personally was on a 20,000 strong protest in Manchester, mainly formed of trade unionists. If you look across Europe, there's quite serious resistance in Greece. There was a general strike last week, a very large general strike in Portugal the week before that. Worker struggles and resistance has formed part of the backdrop to what's going on, and it's not much so that Sarkozi, although I'm sure he's exaggerating, does say if we don't get it right at this summit, we will face an uprising by the people. I think there's an element of truth to that. That's one of the things that they have to factor in now in the discussions is the resistance they face. The second thing I wanted to say is that I think there is a bit of a danger of a false counter position from some people and what staff has said and what other people have said. You see, on the one hand, it's absolutely clear that the left has to provide practical leadership. The great strength of what Costa says is that it's absolutely clear to me if you look at what's happening in negotiations today, by talking about entrenching and enshrining the right to do to Europe what they've done to Italy and Greece. That we have to be absolutely against this and have no illusions in Europeanism and all the rest of it. We have to fight very hard and give practical solutions. However, that doesn't mean that we're not interested in talking about socialism and I want to defend a little bit narcissism on the left as well. It's absolutely true that the Russian Revolution was fought over peace, bread and land but the fact that there were thousands of people prepared to advance those slogans required there to be a group of people who won to revolution in socialist politics and at the moment alongside developing resistance there's clearly a large minority of people who are questioning capitalism. I don't think we should be ashamed of saying that capitalism is part of the problem and beginning to talk about what a socialist solution to the crisis of capitalism would look like as well. Great. Is someone down here? I would also like to kind of follow on from the last person who spoke to say that I'm finding this distinction between supposedly practical in the here and now and non-practical to be delayed for the future quite problematic and for me it's fundamentally important that one of those practical in the here and now questions is how do we organise, how do we relate to each other, how do we socialise, what does that mean and I don't think it's narcissistic to address that because if we are talking about what's close to a war time economy with an incredibly strong state then those questions have got to be continuously addressed in the way that we try to do that because otherwise there's a very kind of potentially scary future in such a strong state too. Thanks. We've got a couple of people down here if we could bring a microphone down here. Thanks. A couple of historical quotes. David Ricardo said the big, words to the effect, the big restraint on government is fear of the people. The other one is what the Duke of Wellington one of our finest soldiers said on viewing some recruits to the British Army in Spain he said, I don't know what they do to the enemy but by God they frighten me. Well looking round this room this evening and listening to what's being said I don't think the British ruling class is going to be afraid of you at all. You're very good at talking but when it comes to actually getting down to some concrete action you're very weak and that is one of the problems with the left and that's why I'm proud to say I'm not part of the left. Lenin put forward three slogans it's been correctly pointed at Peace, Red, Land. Well what we've done in Lewisham is put forward a three word slogan people before profits we're not a socialist group we've got left wing people in this but thank goodness they don't dominate otherwise we'd never get anything done. We've contested council elections we've written a manifesto on which we all agree by consensus and do you know the words capitalism the words socialism and the word democracy don't appear in it once and we've contested elections and done quite well in one ward in a by-election we pushed the Tories into last place we got 8% the Tories have previously got 10% in that ward only got five so we can take votes from right across the political spectrum and what we've done just recently we're a South London group but we're not afraid to venture north of the river and we've moved into Heston Feltham and Heston in West London and I had the privilege of being parachuted into the constituency I'm the first candidate to be parachuted into a constituency without the benefit of a parachute we've got no organisation there I don't know how we're going to do we managed very quickly to get a leaflet out we're pushing out another one tomorrow I think we need to bring the Lewisham points to an end what I'm saying is we are setting up a movement we go out and talk to ordinary people about issues that affect them we have policies we have a website I think we've got that people before profit lovely, thanks very much now we're going to just take a couple more especially if anyone wants to make a point that hasn't been made in any similar form before honestly ok, so I'll take one down here and one other with a genuinely new point ok, we'll have to just pick it around a moment it's just on the issue of Europe as far as I know it's been attempted to be united before under Hitler and that was a sort of military attempt it didn't actually work out this time round it's been attempted to be united again under a political attempt so the issue is that they're trying to create the United States of Europe but if we go back in time Lenin did actually argue that the United States of Europe would either be unrealisable or it would be reactionary I think we are living through the reactionary phase of Europe now the question to the panel is is that America's role in all of this seems to not actually appear I mean the two characters installed in Greece and Italy belong to the trilateral commission they are both Bilderbergers and we have got a crisis of the dollar in other words since the Lehman's crash can you wind up because we are a bit short of time America's been frightened that big investors would leave going to the Euro so therefore we have a lot of instability within the Euro fantastic thanks okay one last question over there hello Peter Logan I don't represent anybody but me a couple of years ago Wilkinson and Pickett's book The Spirit Level had this sentence in it something like this it said that nowhere is there a popular vision of how to create something to the benefit of the vast majority now in recent past this word vision has popped up loads of times I have been aware and this is what to my mind is lacking we do not have a vision and the problem with visions which has been partly articulated from the table is that you cannot translate a vision into policies this is why politicians are unable to have vision because they have to deal with it every day vision is a long term thing but we do need our dreams I mean after all when Martin Luther King his speech about the dream it wasn't what are we going to do about that it was to the whole point of that is that many people will then share that dream that is to bring people together in the same dream now I have all sorts of problems but just one thing I want to say here is that there has been a fair amount to talk about job creation this is obviously a problem all over the place we need to wind up a bit the huge problem I have with the notion of job creation is that most of what we do already is a total and utter waste of time ok thank you very much apologies to anyone else who wanted to make a point to ask a question but I think we've come to the end of our time so I'd like to ask the three panellists to give a final summing up and if possible to address some of those points and raise cost as fast I will be very quick I think that in the coming years labour movements, intellectuals and others will face three major problems in Europe and we've got to be clear about them there will be a problem of debt first of all you've got to be clear about it the problem of public debt is going to be with us it's just started to emerge the awareness of it in Europe is very low that's going to be a major problem in the coming years we've got to default on the debt dealing with it and defaulting on it that's going to be with us and you've got to realise default on the debt is an anti-capitalist thing because it challenges property rights it basically says to the creditor you're not going to get your money back and you're not going to get your money back because I say so if you're asking me what is anti-capitalist that's anti-capitalist and of course it can happen in many different ways and that's for us to decide to work out what is going to be with us is inequality inequality has become gigantic and the effects of it are beginning to be felt across Europe and dealing with it is going to be a major issue it already is a major issue it will become even bigger and that of course ties in with tax the point that was made previously because tax has been a key way in which inequality has increased risking the rich from paying tax basically so if we're going to do something about inequality we're going to do many things but one thing we've got to do is reform restructure the tax system redistribution of income and wealth in this way that's going to be with us third thing that's going to be with us is of course unemployment unemployment is very serious unemployment is of paramount importance because employment is what defines workers you cut workers off from employment they become a mass, they become nothing if you cut them off from the norms the habits and the systems of work they become nothing but a paramount task for people who think about alternative organisations of society is to protect employment job creation is of great importance in everything we've got to do so these three areas will be with us in the coming years we've got to devise alternative ways of handling them and of responding to them what's the vision in doing that, the vision would be to propose ways of dealing with this while shifting the balance of power against capital and in favour of labour that's really what the the near term vision should be shift the balance in favour of labour change the balance in society in favour of labour and of course that's why exiting the eurozone and defaulting on the debt is a key way of doing that if it's done the way in which I described it or in similar ways shift the balance against capital in favour of labour for the first time in three decades it's right in front of us can we do it? I'm not terribly heartened the reason is the left has been terribly battered the last two three decades it's been battered organisationally and it's been battered intellectually and in terms of ideas and concepts where is the confidence I observe this audience and other similar audiences where is the fire where is the confidence where are the ideas where is the desire to take on the capitalist world and do something about it I don't see it and where is the awareness of the problems that have got in front of us it doesn't exist as powerfully as one would like to see therefore the task we've got in front of us unfortunately and that's for those among us who are hot headed the task we've got in front of us is one of rebuilding the confidence of the movement and of the left becoming capable of answering the real problems of society not the problems of the amphitheater not the problems of the small group in the pub where I can win the argument against you and I can have 15 people while you've got 12 that's not the issue the issue is to be able to put across ideas, proposals measures inspired by a vision that can persuade large numbers of people who are not there yet and we've just started the rebuilding of this capacity to do so Thanks, Coste George, what would you like to say as your two minutes? Yes, I'd like to follow very briefly on one of two of the things that Coste has said and one of two of the things mentioned by members of the audience I think the point about defence of the welfare state was extremely important I think the whole notion that in the post-war period the working class both in Britain and on the continent throughout continental Europe won a post-war settlement which is now being dismantled is absolutely central to any political project including this political project and I'd say Coste is perhaps one of the ways we need to shift our thinking isn't focusing a bit more on that right? Let me take up a point about Leriaria text strike and all that The problem is not so much about taxes the problem increasingly is about the rich not paying their taxes I don't know how many of you follow a chap named Richard Murphy who's an excellent blogger he's one of the founders of the Tax Justice Network Take Britain How many of you have seen those posters talk about scroungers people who hang around and live off welfare the treasury estimates that we lose perhaps one billion pounds a year from welfare scrounging at a maximum What we lose from tax evasion and avoidance an official estimate is up to 70 billion pounds a year So if you want to talk about redistribution you have to start about talking you have to talk about really enforcing the tax system we already have as well as making it more progressive I've written various things for compass about that but that's another story We do have one good thing at the moment coming out of the meeting in Brussels and that's the acceptance of the FTT the financial transactions tax at even the limited version of the financial transaction tax accepted by the Eurozone which excludes Forex transactions even that limited version would be worth would raise the European budget by about 40 to 50% it's worth about 60 billion euros per annum Final point about trade unions resistance and that kind of thing and this ties into all the points made about socialism on its absence My point was really about the institutional foundations of ideology Why is it that there are not more people on the ground and in the marches who are fighting to defend the welfare state and to present Why is it that we have the most reactionary government that I can recall in my lifetime people like Osborn and Cameron who are the very they represent the ruling class what better representation could you have of the kind of naked arrogance of power part of the reason you have it is because there are not the institutions there to fight against it we used to have something like 40% of people employed in industry in this country and many of those who trade unionists today only 15% of the workforce is in industry the rate of trade unionisation in Britain is miserable I believe you with one final thought if you go to the Nordic countries you find that between 90% and 95% of the population belongs to a trade union whereas in Britain I think the comparable figure is 18% I think it's a bit higher than that but anyway between 18% and 25% one of the great successes in the Nordic countries in the 1960s and 70s when they had hegemony was to hand the whole pension system to the trade unions to administer not to the city as under Thatcher but to the trade unions so if you want a pension and in the Nordic countries you get genuine pensions, real ones you belong to a trade union and that's one of the things that keeps the system together I shan't go I mean there have been a lot of points raised I'd love to go into them in more detail but costless has covered much of that already Thank you Jude Staffers could you wind up, conclude and tie up all the loose ends in two minutes Of course, of course, of course That's exactly what I'm going to do We have to be lucid I think first of all about the level of resistance if we compare the level of the attacks their gravity and the level of resistance throughout Europe I don't think that the image is particularly positive first point Greece is a specific case because the gravity of the Greek crisis is just incomparable with the rest and even in Greece, despite the very high level of resistance and actually an ongoing popular upheaval this is what exactly is happening thinking in terms of political alternative is very, very difficult actually because there are all kinds of reasons blocking things on the left about which I spoke previously very briefly the second thing is that by themselves resistances do not provide the solutions even at a quite significant level they may very well end up being defeated Just to give you a recent example France for instance has been characterized in a full decade between 95 and 2006 broadly speaking by a very high level of resistance to neoliberal projects and some of those mobilisations were partly successful in 95 and 2006 for instance However, the final outcome of this was Sarkozy by far the most neoliberal president of the post-war period being elected in 2007 so the political terrain is of course of paramount importance Last reflection on this we really have to think about the lessons of the Argentinian experience especially from the standpoint of Greece for two reasons the first is that I think that the deepest reason why no one comparable even remotely to a Kehna has appeared or might appear in the foreseeable future in Greece is the fact that Greece is different from Argentina in that it's not a country in the periphery of the world system it's not a kind of national or even regional crisis it's a small country yes but which is part of the very centre actually of the advanced capitalist countries of the core capitalist countries which means that the Greek ruling class and the Greek political elite are organically linked to the ruling classes and to the capitalist project of the European Union so you see the level of confrontation is at a very different level this is what prevents I think in a much deeper way a Greek Kehna to appear The second lesson from the Argentinian experience is that you can have relatively spontaneous popular movement as successful as kicking out a president of an elected president out of office however if you don't have an alternative you end up by at the very best and the Argentinian solution is not the worst thing that might happen but you end up certainly by having someone from within the system which just accepts a kind of minimal level of compromise to get out of the situation The final lesson of the Argentinian experience is that the left wing forces which did exist and do exist actually even now in Argentina have been completely overwhelmed by the very forms and the very ways popular protest and popular movements occurred and this is something we are witnessing now I mean actually what is happening is that we are realizing that a whole series of social sectors are organizing or acting in ways that are completely different from the traditional ways of the workers movement and the traditional ways to which the left is used to and this poses all kinds of new organizational issues this poses new kind of intellectual issues and we really have to work on that to reflect seriously on that reflect strategically on all these issues and the time is pressing Thanks very much Stathis That brings us to the end of the meeting I'd like to thank Costas, George, Stathis and Paul Mason in his absence and thank you to all of you for coming and participating in such a successful meeting Thank you very much Chinese style, everyone applause


All right, so we have a bunch of Middle East, Hamas, Israel, Houthis, Red Sea, Iran, Iraq, updates. So I'm just going to run through them. Nothing too much in depth here, but just a general analysis. I did a show on Tuesday about what it means for Israel to win and what I think the likelihood of it winning. So if you're interested in a more in-depth analysis of the Israeli Hamas battle, battle war, really the Israeli-Palestinian war, please go and watch that show from a couple of days ago. I'll just say this. There's growing skepticism in the United States and in Europe and in Israel itself about whether Israel can win, not just win in the strategic sense in which I meant on Tuesday, but even win in the tactical sense of defeating Hamas. This is because I think in the U.S. and in Europe and in Israel, the push is to have this war shortened and to have Israel stop soon. And there's also this notion that Israel cannot and should not kill a lot of people. And of course under those terms, it's very unlikely Israel can even win a tactical defeat of Hamas. As I said the other day, to win even against Hamas, Israel has to make sure the Palestinian people suffer, starve. I mean, humanitarian crisis is not a bad thing when it comes to Gaza. It's a good thing because that'll mean the Palestinian people will start putting pressure on Hamas. Also all these news articles think that the more the Palestinians suffer, the more poor Hamas they become. It's just not true. That's not how it works in history. The more they suffer, the more anti-Hamas they'll become. So humanitarian crisis Israel has to inflict. Second, Israel has to kill a lot of people affiliated with Hamas. We're talking about thousands of people. And a lot of civilians will die in the crossfire. So you're still looking at lots of casualties on the ground. Of course, the casualties coming out of Gaza, the numbers that Hamas reports don't separate civilians from military personnel, Hamas military personnel, because Hamas military personnel all dressed up like civilians. So you can't tell. But also because Hamas has no interest in telling you how many of its own people have been killed. But close to anywhere between 40 to 50 percent of the people killed are probably Hamas operative. And it's going to have to destroy all the tunnels, not some, but all of them. And that's going to require time to find them, discover them, to bomb them, to destroy them.  And given the way they're fighting right now, it's going to take them months, months to do this. And it's true that if they stop fighting in the next few weeks, as Biden administration wants them to do, as the Europeans want them to do, some Europeans already turned against Israel, then they can't win.  Never mind win-win. That is defeat to Palestinians. They are really, really stuck, right? All right. So that's quickly on kind of the pressure worldwide. Israel is still fighting on the ground. As I said the other day, it has now entered central Gaza. It is significant battles in the center of Gaza, still significant battles in Hanyunas. And they're still cleaning up operations in the north. They have not finished in the north. They keep kind of declaring victory in the north and Hamas keeps popping out of tunnels. So there's still a lot of work to do just in the northern Gaza of destroying tunnels and of finishing off the remnants of Hamas in the north. This is not going to end anytime soon. Again, the way they're fighting now, it could end very fast, but Israel is not willing to do that. And the world would go apoplectic if they did. All right. At the same time, Israel is also conducting major operations, major operations in the West Bank. As of late last night, early this morning, hundreds of armored vehicles and thousands of Israeli troops entered several cities across the West Bank, including Janine, Nablus, Hebron, Ramallah, and Jericho. All in an effort to capture, destroy, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad infrastructure in the West Bank. This could get ugly. Supposedly, early this morning, there were firefights going on all over the area. This is the largest scale combat operation by the IDF in the West Bank, probably since 2003, probably since the Second Intifada. So this is the second front Israel is fighting on. It's going to be interesting to see how successful they are. And they're trying to hear, they're trying to be preemptive, good for Israelis. This is exactly what they need to do. They need to be preemptive in the West Bank. They need to stop it before these terrorists do harm. And they're arresting them. They're killing them. They're taking the weapons away. They're destroying their infrastructure. At the same time, they're constantly back and forth with the Hezbollah in the north. They never did the preemptive strike against Hezbollah in the north. So they are now tit fatat in the north. At some point Israel is going to have to do more than that. I talked about that on the Tuesday show. They're also bombing Syria over the weekend. Over the last few days, they killed one of the leaders of the Iranian Republican Guard in Syria. The Iranians in mourning as a consequence. And so they are actively, very active in Syria. It appears, yeah, it appears the guy died with his mistress while his wife was at work. So that's kind of what's going on in Israel. At the same time, Iranian affiliated forces continue to attack American forces in Iraq and in Syria. America continues to do almost nothing. They did bomb some facilities of these Iranian-backed forces in Iraq. But it's pathetic, pinpricks. They continue to say, be careful. Don't make us angry. At some point we'll really go after you. Nobody believes them. And the consequence of that is basically American troops are freefall. You can shoot at them. You can injure them. You can kill them. You can do whatever you want to them. And the Biden administration will do nothing. This is a continuation of the Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden policy in Afghanistan and a continuation of their policy in Syria and Iraq.  And it's hard for me to express how outraged I am and how outraged you should be. These are your kids, our kids. And they don't care.   Evacuate. Do what you did in Afghanistan.   So bring them home or penalize Iran, penalize their attackers. So finally, the Houthis, of course, the U.S. has a big carrier group and other attack ships in the area of the Red Sea and the Sea of Aden. And over the last few, I guess 48 hours, 24, 48 hours, they have knocked out of the sky over a dozen drones, a couple of anti-ship cruise missiles, and other missiles launched in the direction of ships. I haven't found the news story that tells me what ships they were targeting, whether they were American ships or commercial ships. The America, with regard to the Houthis, is playing defense. They're just knocking stuff out of the sky. They refuse to attack them.  Most of them don't want to be part of this coalition. Most of them refuse to engage in a preemptive strike. So in attacking their attackers, all they want to do is pretend that they're there but that the United States basically is responsible. And the U.S. for now is only playing defense. By the way, a few days ago, a ship was attacked off the coast of India by a drone launched by Iran, directly from Iran, not the Houthis. Iran. And what did the U.S. world, India, anybody do about it? Yeah, you guessed it. Babkas, nothing. So the U.S. is trying not to escalate. It's trying, it'll do anything, not to escalate. It'll basically sacrifice its own troops not to escalate. It'll play defense forever, even if shipping is stopped in the Red Sea, just so it doesn't escalate. I mean, they're so afraid of escalation.  And a proposition guaranteed, guaranteed to create more violence in the future. American weakness always leads to more violence in the future. That is always the case.


This is Ken Hellevang, agricultural engineer with the NDSU Extension Service, and we're looking at a series of clips on cleaning a flooded house. And this is the final of five video clips in the series, and this one is on drying the structure. It's very important that we focus on drying the structure because that's what's going to prevent any mold growth in the future. And mold growth, as we found in the earlier presentations, is indeed a health hazard, and we don't want that mold in our home, or it'll start causing us respiratory problems in the future. So the structural drying is a critical step in the cleanup process. For structural drying to occur, we need to open all of the enclosed areas. So we're talking opening the walls, if we have the floor, even if it's a vinyl and we got water underneath, we need to open them up so that we can dry. And this drying may take just several days, or it may take weeks. It'll depend on the drying conditions, how much airflow that we have going through the structure. Shown here are two different pictures of homes that are in the drying process. And I wanted to just show the house on the left there. You can see the white discoloration that is on the brick-facing. And that's because moisture is coming through the concrete. We have this effervescence of moisture that comes through. And as I indicated in the earlier slide, it's critical that we make sure that the weep holes are open so that the water drains out. And then we need airflow both on the inside of the structure and on the outside to facilitate that drying. On the picture on the right, that moisture is showing up as a darkened color. And again, it's indicating moisture is coming from the structure. And if you look closely, you can even see that there's moisture inside the house. And there'll be condensation issues on the windows if we're not getting that moisture removed from the home. And if we don't keep the humidity level low enough, that's going to lead to mold growth for certain and probably structural deterioration as well. The drying process really involves circulating air across those surfaces. We need to get them opened up. We need to get airflow blowing against that surface to aid in the drying process. And then we need to make sure that the air that we're moving across the structure is dry air. And the way that we do that is to bring outside air in that's dry and it picks up moisture from within the house and then we exhaust that to the outdoors. And what we recommend is that you put a fan in the window facing out again so that we're drawing the air into the house and blowing the air to the outdoors. To get a good suction created within the house, we need to put some kind of sheeting or whatever around the fan and close the fan so that we make sure that we're able to create a vacuum. And we'll want to move a lot of this air through the house to help with the drying process. Frequently people will ask about using dehumidifiers. Should I be running a dehumidifier rather than opening up the house? And I really recommend initially that we ventilate, we use fans and we bring outdoor air through. And that's important because we can remove gallons of water a day with moving outdoor air through the house. Where most of our home dehumidifiers are going to be taking out pints of water per day. And so once we start getting the structure dry down, then we can go to using dehumidifiers. But initially what we're going to want to do is to be using a lot of outdoor air moving by to dry the structure. I really encourage people to be measuring the relative humidity to know how we're progressing with the drying process. And humidity gauges are available both in a digital format as well as the mechanical types. Regardless of which one you're using, I recommend that we calibrate it to make sure that it's giving us accurate readings. And the best way to do that is to take a cup, put a quarter cup of salt in there, a half a cup of water into that cup, put it into a plastic bag like a gallon ziplock bag, put the cup and the meter in there, seal it up and let it sit for 12 hours. After that 12 hour period, we would expect the relative humidity within the bag to be about 75% assuming room temperature. And so that'll give us an indication of whether the meter is giving us an accurate reading or not. And then we can probably modify the reading to give us an accurate reading. And what we want to do is to measure the humidity in the house. Since moles will grow at humidity levels exceeding about 70%, our goal should be to keep the humidity level in the home in the structure under 70%. Moving a lot of airflow through to keep that drying process going and keeping the humidity level under 70% during that drying process. Particularly as we start getting later into fall and into cooler temperatures or into spring, if we're looking at spring flooding, we can enhance the moisture holding capacity by adding heat to the air. But it's important that we do both warm the air and move the air or exchange the air that's within the house. The other thing to keep in mind is that the warmer it is, the more rapid mold will grow. And so there's a little bit of a balancing act. And generally what we look at is keeping the air temperature in the home or in the structure under about 72 degrees. That's warm enough that we get good evaporation occurring, good drying occurring. But we're not so warm that we're really enhancing the mold growth. But we need both the warmth and exchange in the air. If we don't have the windows open to bring dry outside air in, we're just going to create a sauna. We're going to have warm, moist air in the house and not accomplish drying. And so we need to still, at least periodically, be opening the windows, getting the air exchange, as well as having the warmth to help enhance the evaporation. We need to continue drying until the moisture or the content of the wood is low enough that we're not going to have mold growth. And typically what we're looking at with mold growth, again, is moisture contents of the wood exceeding about 15%. So our goal should always be to get the moisture content of the wood below 15% as quick as we can. And also we can't be enclosing any walls or doing any reconstruction until we're below that 15% moisture content. And what we have on the slide here shows that if we're at 70% humidity at roughly room temperature, that puts us at just under 15% moisture. And so you'll see different numbers. Some will say we need to be down to 13% moisture to assure that we're not going to have any mold growth. And that is going to be safer, but certainly we need to be under 15%. The only way that we're going to know when the moisture content is low enough is to use a moisture meter. Actually check the moisture content of the wood, check the moisture content of materials. There are a couple of different kinds of meters. Some of them actually have little pins on the end that you push into the wood and measure the moisture content or the material. Others have some pads on the back and you just set it on the surface and it will measure the moisture content that way. But it's important that either you check the moisture content or have someone else check the moisture content before you do any rebuilding. Make sure that the wood is dry. The NDSU Extension Service has moisture meters available in our county extension offices that you can check out and use to check the moisture content. Many of the contractors and other places will also have meters. But look to make sure that you're getting an accurate moisture reading. Verify what the accuracy of that meter is that you're using to assure that that moisture content is low enough for safe rebuilding. The saturated soils will take a long time to dry out. And so we can very quickly dry out the main floor, the structural wood. But when we start talking about basements, it's going to take a long time for the moisture that's within the soil to dry out. And that moisture will be moving into the basement. It may initially come in as shown in this picture in liquid form, but more frequently it's going to be in a vapor form. And so it will look dry, but there may actually be gallons of water per day coming through the concrete, which is fairly porous to vapor. And it'll come through in that vapor form and add to the moisture load in the home. And so we need to be concerned about keeping the ventilation going, not only to dry the materials, but to handle the moisture load that will be coming in through the basement. One of the things that we recommend to really determine if the moisture is still coming through is to just take a piece of clear plastic. Maybe a couple, two or three feet on a side, tape it to the floor, tape it to the wall. Make sure that it's taped tightly to that surface. Let it sit there for a day or a couple days and look to see if moisture accumulates on the backside. It may actually show up as condensation on the plastic. It may show up as a discoloration or darkening of the concrete, but look to see if that moisture vapor is still coming through. And that'll give us an indication of the amount of moisture that's coming through and whether it's going to be safe to start rebuilding. And frequently we're looking at this dry down process in the basement of taking months. And so even though the main floor we can dry and probably rebuild fairly quickly in the basement, rebuilding really needs to be delayed until we can be assured that there's no moisture coming through. Another thing that we'll frequently see after a flood event or when we have a lot of moisture in the soils is that we have this white fluffy material that shows up along cracks in the floor or maybe even just showing up on the concrete floor on the block wall as shown in these pictures. And that is not mold. What that is is a salt. There's salts within the soil and as the moisture moves through the soil it picks up the salt. As it comes through the concrete the moisture evaporates into the air and leaves the salt deposit behind. And when it typically will look like a white fluffy material and you can determine if it's a salt by putting a little bit of water on it and it'll typically dissolve. Or there's some salts where you need to put on a little bit of vinegar for it to dissolve. But most of ours just a few drops of water and you will see it disappear. And a fairly easy way to determine whether it's salt or whether it's mold growth and frequently it's going to be salt accumulation. And it really doesn't create a health hazard but is an indication of moisture coming through the soil and it will continue until that moisture around the house has dissipated and that area is all dried out. So that brings us to the end of the section on drying your home and how important it is that we do dry out the structure. This series of five video clips hopefully will help you as you look at doing the cleanup in your own home or if you're looking at having someone help you with it to know the steps that they should be going through. So this has been Ken Helving, Agricultural Engineer with the NDSU Extension Service and we have a lot of information available on our website that you can find by just doing a search for NDSU flood information.