Our topic this morning is game theory. Or I kind of added a subtitle to that game theory, an entrepreneurial twist. So before I get into this, I do want to say one of my favorite ways to do economic research is to take two fields that are generally developing separately from each other and then smash them together and see what happens. So I know Dr. Thornton earlier, there were some people that heard his lecture on skyscrapers and he referenced something that I did there, where kind of my idea was Thornton had presented this idea about skyscrapers being connected with the Austrian business cycle theory. I said, well, what if we take this, take what economics tells us about land use and take what Rothbard tells us about wages, smash it all together and see what happens. And it turned out that Dr. Thornton is totally right, so it wasn't very original, right? But I had another reason that he was correct. So I kind of had the same idea here, was taking kind of a traditional approach to game theory, in particular the prisoner's dilemma and asking the question, what happens if we really take seriously the idea of entrepreneurship and apply it into these game theoretic ideas. So before we get into that, you want to share Rothbard does actually mention game theory in Man-economy and State. It's deep in an appendix, that's appendix A for chapter one. He says, outside of economics, the rest of praxeology is an unexplored area. He lists a few different points that would be considered praxeology, but that are not economics. And he mentioned specifically that a theory of games has been elaborated. By the time he was writing here, game theory was already starting to get a start, and he considered this to be part of praxeology. And I think that's quite true. It's a logical working out of the consequences of the fact that we're applying means to attain our ends. So let's go ahead and look at kind of the traditional prisoner's dilemma. Now how many of you have seen the prisoner's dilemma presented before somewhere? Okay, so it looks like roughly half, maybe a little more than that. Okay, well, let's walk through it.  And the police catch them, take them into separate rooms as the story, and then give them each kind of this plea bargain. They can either confess or not. And here are the consequences. If they both confess, then they're both obviously going to be charged with a fairly serious crime, but they also participated in this plea bargain so they get five years in prison each of them would. Now, if neither of them confess, we can't really get them on the most serious charge or evidence isn't quite that good. That's why we care about the confession. But we can get them on a lesser charge and put them away for two years apiece. Now, if one confesses and the other doesn't, that's where things get very interesting. In that case, the one that confesses, we make a really good plea bargain with, you get to go home. Whereas the one that didn't confess gets put away for a very long time, we can get them on a very serious charge and also they didn't participate in any plea bargain. So in this case, say if Clyde confesses and put us in the first row here, well, Bonnie does not confess. Clyde, being the confessor, gets to walk away while Bonnie gets put away for 10 years. So then we start thinking about the incentives that Bonnie and Clyde have for confessing or not. Now, in this case, they're in separate rooms, they really can't collaborate on what they're going to do, they have to make their own independent decisions. So we'll think about Clyde first. Clyde says, well, I don't know what Bonnie's gonna do. She might possibly confess, she might not. Well, in the case that she does confess, if I also confess, I'm in prison for five years. But if I don't, I'm in prison for 10. So in that case, confessing looks better. On the other hand, maybe Bonnie's not going to confess, in which case I can be faithful and not confess either, in which case I'm in prison for two years, or I can go ahead and confess and just walk out free. Well, in that case, confessing looks better. So Clyde concludes that it doesn't actually matter what he thinks Bonnie's going to do, confessing looks like the best option. Because this is totally symmetric, Bonnie is facing exactly the same incentives, she also concludes that it doesn't matter what Clyde does, that it is best for Bonnie to confess as well. That's all the arrows point us toward this outcome, where both of our criminals decide to confess, and they get put away for five years apiece. I'll say you present this, and I'll often have an astute student say, but why would you do that? When obviously you're both better off, if neither of you confessed, that as you each would get two years in prison instead of five, assuming that we don't like being in prison, which I have not yet been in prison, I can't say for sure whether it's good or bad, but I'm going to keep trying to avoid it, the stories don't sound positive to me. Anyway, assuming that they don't want to be in prison, this is clearly a bad outcome for both of them. They would prefer if neither of them confessed. So the story is, well, now this is true, collectively we get this bad outcome, but individually they each had a really good reason to do what they did. After all, even if Clyde knew for sure that Bonnie wasn't going to confess, he still wants to confess that he gets zero years in prison, which is even better than two. So each of them faces individually these very bad incentives that lead us toward this bad outcome. So there we go, five years each. We can also apply this to other cases, the tragedy of the commons, Dr. Terrell mentioned earlier this week. So here we have Bonnie and Clyde, rather than deciding whether they're going to confess, they're deciding whether they're going to use some kind of common pool resource or not. Right now, but it ends up, if they both use it, this common pool resource gets depleted, we have desolation of this resource and that wrong button again, right there it is, okay. But one of them could use the commons and find it very useful. Well, if the other one didn't use it, then naturally they would find it useless. On the other hand, if neither of them use it, they can at least look at this common pool resource and enjoy this pristine but basically useless wilderness. So here we would face very similar incentives as before. That is, Clyde would say, well if I don't use the thing, well Bonnie does, well then I get absolutely no use from it and I see Bonnie deteriorate it, I may as well get some use from it, even if that ends up being bad on the whole. On the other hand, if Bonnie doesn't use it, then I can at least get some use from it, do some damage, but not a whole lot, that's still better for me than just looking at the thing. So Clyde has a very good incentive to use the commons, as does Bonnie. So we end up overusing the commons. So here we could apply this to things like overfishing in international waters, that kind of thing. We all have an incentive to pull fish out of the ocean, but the result being that fish populations decline. We could also apply this to the case of public goods. So we have the choice with a public good, do we help fund it or do we just free ride on what everyone else is paying? Well, if both of us fund it, then we can split the cost, we're each paying a reasonable amount as far as we're concerned, compared to the benefit we're getting. We have these beautiful highways that we all get to drive on, the costs are split in what we consider to be a fair way, just in the sense that we each benefit more than it costs us individually. But if one of us is the only one that pays, say Clyde decides to free ride, well, Bonnie pays the thing, in that case Clyde can still drive on this highway. He gets the full benefit with none of the cost. Well, Bonnie ends up paying more than her own individual benefit. So we end up with Bonnie's very unhappy with the situation. Clyde, though, is very happy. This is even better than down here with the beautiful highways for all because now Clyde doesn't have to pay any of the cost. Or we could have everybody free ride, in which case, who will build the roads? Nobody bothers to answer that question. He's just kind of pose it as if it answers itself. But if we all try to free ride in this case, in that case nobody's paying to provide this resource, so it doesn't get provided at all. And that is, in fact, exactly what the incentives tell us to do. Clyde says, well, Bonnie's gonna free ride. I don't wanna pay the whole cost myself for a very small part of the benefit. On the other hand, if Bonnie's going to fund the thing, well, then I'd rather not fund the thing, let her pay the whole thing. Well, I just get the benefit for myself. So Clyde wants to free ride, Bonnie wants to free ride. And here we are in our libertarian utopia with no roads as many would claim. Okay, all right. See, here I have to think about myself and my own preferences. If I can get everything just dropped to me out of the sky, I don't feel any need to leave my house. I'm okay with that, right? Yeah, Amazon, let Amazon have drones to drop off my packages. And with the internet, I don't have to leave my house. I'm perfectly content. But anyway, maybe roads aren't as useful as many people like to think. Anyway, so we can also apply this to a more economicy, and in this case, a macroeconomic case. This would be what is kind of a traditional Keynesian coordination failure, right? So Keynes would say there's this kind of depression trap when it comes to the level of wages. So here, Bonnie and Clyde, rather than being criminals, are kind of entrepreneurs, employers, they have a choice of what they do with wages. They could try to keep wages low, or they could increase the wages for their employees. And here, by the Keynesian argument, if we all increase wages, then everybody has more money to spend, we spend more, we get these multiplier effects, dah, dah, dah, and we end up with an economic expansion. On the other hand, if we all keep wages low, then nobody has any money to spend, the economy stays depressed. On the other hand, when we think about these mixed cases, if Clyde keeps his wages low, his costs are nice and low, while if Bonnie's increasing wages at the same time, some of that money is going to get spent at Clyde's business. So now he's earning greater profits. Meanwhile, Bonnie's having to bear the entire cost of these increase of wages and only seeing part of the benefit in the increase in her business. So if she would find that costly, Clyde would find that profitable. Naturally, if Clyde were the one increasing wages, while Bonnie didn't, it would be flipped. So making this kind of argument, Keynesian would say, well, see, because of this, both Bonnie and Clyde want to try to keep wages low. After all, that's the only thing that gives them the possibility of having this great profit for themselves, while having the cost on the other. So we end up stuck in this depression forever, unless we have somebody come along and force us all to increase wages. So this would be various applications of that traditional prisoner's dilemma. All right, yeah, so we're stuck in the depression. So our typical conclusions, let's say that in these type of cases and these prisoner's dilemmas, these individuals are choosing optimally for themselves. They're doing the best they can for their own. Confessing is, in fact, the best option if I want to shorten my own prison sentence. But at the same time, because of the interaction between our choices, we end up with these really bad outcomes that we actually agree are really bad outcomes. Nobody likes the depression. We'd rather have the economic expansion, but I'm not willing to change my outcome and increase my own wages to push us there. That would mean taking on the cost myself. All right, so the natural conclusion that many would point to it then, well, obviously we need to have the government step in, increase the minimum wage to say $15, $20 an hour, whatever it happens to be, this will get us out of the depression by increasing wages. We increase the level of income. People can spend this money, oh, and we get this wonderful multiplier effect. It gets us out of the depression. Or if we have a public good, we can't trust people to just fund it themselves. We need the government to step in and force everybody to fund the thing. And in fact, if we go back, let's go ahead and go back to there. Right, okay, if we step in in this case and we force everybody to fund the thing, we in fact all agree this is better. We'd rather have these beautiful highways than have to face the question of who will build the roads. So that is kind of the traditional way we do this. So fund public goods with taxes, force people to pay for the thing, and in fact the people will agree this is a better outcome. Similarly with the use of the commons. Let's limit the amount that people can use them. So we put regulations on how much you can fish or hunt or what have you. In order to prevent this overuse that would deplete that resource. Presumably this would also suggest that we need to by force prevent our prisoners from confessing. You never hear that as being a natural implication of this. I feel like there might be some other interests we need to consider in that case. All right, but never the other cases. It's kind of weird. All right, anyway. So we need the government to do these things to get us to that better social outcome. I suggest we should seriously question this. And in fact, as I find that many of my students say, no, wait a minute, this doesn't feel right. You feel like there should be some way to fix this. Well, I think if we take entrepreneurship seriously, we're going to have two elements that are going to come in. But first, Mises, when he talks about entrepreneurship, it's really largely about this idea of foresight. You're acting under uncertainty and if you're a really good entrepreneur you have a better sense of what's going to happen and you organize resources in order to deal with that future that you see more clearly than others do. So a successful entrepreneur in the Misesian view is someone that has very keen foresight, has a better view of the future than most do. I would say that it's sure my hope that being a good entrepreneur and being a good economist do not necessarily go hand in hand is I know from my own experience in making investments, I'm not a great entrepreneur. My foresight is very bad. I actually have a one Ameritrade account where I literally have $1.19 in it. Every single company I bought in that account went bankrupt when I was in college, so. Oh well. All right, so terrible entrepreneur. I hope I can still at least be a mediocre economist and a comparative advantage. Anyway, so Mises says it's all about having great foresight that'll make you a successful entrepreneur. Now Kirstner's view is that it's really a lot to do with alertness. So Kirstner has this view that there are kind of these opportunities that exist out there. And some people have better sight than others, some people see them while others don't. So entrepreneurship is really about seeing and seizing these opportunities. When I think of the Kirstnerian entrepreneur, I think of say when we're going out to lunch and we see everybody's trying to stream through like one half of this double door. So the Kirstnerian entrepreneurs, the person that says that there's another half to this door, we can open that and I'll get outside faster. So the opportunity exists, somebody just has to see it. And so what if we take these two points, foresight and alertness and grant it, say to our prisoners. So they're thinking as they're committing these crimes, that they know there's some possibility they're going to get caught. What might we possibly do to try to end up with a better outcome in that case? So let's revisit the prisoner's dilemma. Now here I would suggest that entrepreneurs would not just declare this game lost. Oh well, we're going to end up taking it into separate rooms. They're going to ask us to confess. We all know the incentives.  We end up in prison for five years apiece. Well, it was nice. See when we get out. This is not the approach that entrepreneurs would take here. We know that there's a better outcome possible. So entrepreneurs would take it into their hands to change the game. So here I think of entrepreneurs as being game changers in the game theoretic sense. So game theorists already know that there are lots of ways we can change the prisoner's dilemma to end up with a better outcome. So one of those would be repetition. It ends up if you take people and you have them repeat this prisoner's dilemma multiple times, now we have the possibility of, if you confess on me in the first round, I'm going to punish you in the second round. On the other hand, if you play nice with me in the first round, I can reward you in later rounds. Now we've changed the game in such a way that we can start enforcing better outcomes. And this is very well known amongst game theorists. This is not an original insight from me. I'm just suggesting that maybe entrepreneurs are going to try to set this game up, so it's repetitive. In fact, this idea of repetition, you can also set up this game matrix to think about trade policy and show how everybody wants to be protectionist because we perceive that as being better. But then we develop the World Trade Organization, which by design is supposed to repeat this game of trade policy and by doing so lead to freer markets. So taking this insight was something that economists literally did and applied in the real world in trying to design the way the World Trade Organization and previously GATT operated. So maybe it might be that our criminals are entrepreneurial enough to do the same thing. So Bonnie and Clyde agree that this is going to be a long lasting relationship. They're going to commit lots of crimes together. And even if they go to prison for a while, they'll get back together afterward and commit more crimes. If so, now they both have an incentive to be much more loyal to each other and to be less likely to confess. So if this is true, then okay, what are we going to get from game theory? Well, I suggest we can do a re-envisioning of how we use game theory. So the key assumption that underlies all the stuff that I did there at the beginning is that the game is fixed. We have this stuck matrix we have to deal with and under those assumptions, we end up with this terrible outcome in prisoners' dilemmas. With entrepreneurs, it simply isn't true. People after all are creative. Entrepreneurs are people. We're creative problem solvers. You give us a problem, we look for a solution and we know that solutions exist. So what we need to do then is ask the right question when we approach these kinds of cases. That is, how might entrepreneurs try to improve this game? We know the game naturally lead to a bad outcome. Entrepreneurs sensibly, if they have foresight or reasonable in their reasoning, also know this. What are they going to do to try to fix the game so we end up with a better outcome? And if they're not doing things to try to improve the game, why aren't they?  I just think about this analytically. So why is it that in this particular case we end up with this bad outcome despite the fact that a better outcome is available? It might be that there's something else going on. There might be some kind of hidden cost involved that we just don't take account in that matrix. So for example, it might be that Bonnie and Clyde, while they're thieves, they also have a very strong sense of honesty, hypothetically. So maybe they say, I'm always going to tell the truth regardless and this has a very important, it's a very important moral stance I take even if I don't particularly care that much about property rights. In that case, confessing what carry with it, it's something like, okay, this is going the wrong way, isn't it? Okay, confessing what could carry with it. Oh, this huge cost of all I did the wrong thing, that kind of thing. So we end up with the outcome opposite of what I predicted before or it might be the other way around. It might be that not confessing is something that you think is absolutely horrible. So then confessing would in fact be the better outcome is you're willing to put up with the prison sentence. It's possibility. So there might be these hidden costs we can't see because after all costs are subjective. So maybe there's some kind of rule, preventing this from happening. It might be that there's just not actually possible given the institutional framework we're in for us to improve the game. So then we can identify what is the rule that is preventing us reaching that better outcome. So then I would suggest there is one sense using game theory wrong. So we can look at those previous examples, things like depressions and wages, commons and public goods, these kinds of things, just taking what we said at the beginning at face value, that's not what we wanna do. Why is it that we're not ending up with a better outcome? Now here I would suggest that Austrians are not immune to using game theory wrong by my view. Here there's a paper written, I'm Curly and Dempster, they're writing about business cycles and they presented this kind of game theoretic construct. Here I've reconstructed. This is pretty much straight from their paper from 2001. They were thinking about why is it that people invest during the boom when we know it's going to end? There's no way this is possibly going to last forever. So why is this happening? And they suggest, we can answer that with game theory. Now I have my own view of why that's happening. See me later this afternoon when I talk about errors, business cycles and fiscal stimulus, I'll talk about that there. But here's their idea. So we have say one individual firm, we'll just call it Firm X, and there's all the other firms. And you have the choice of either increasing investment in the midst of the boom or of just maintaining your old level of investment. Now if everybody increases investment, then our relative profits, compared to other firms, are going to be the same. We're all acting the same way. We end up with the same outcome. But we end up with the boom bust cycle. So we're all increasing investment. This cannot be sustained. Eventually it has to collapse. On the other hand, we could all just maintain investment. In which case again, our relative profits are going to be the same. We're acting the same way. We end up with the same result. But we don't get the boom bust. Without this excessive investment, we've not gone beyond what is a sustainable production possibility point. So we can just kind of continue what we're doing. In effect, we're just ignoring the credit expansion. Saying, yeah, no thanks. We're just going to keep doing what we did before. So between the two, I think most of us prefer a more stable economy to a less stable. So we'd say that this would be a better outcome if we all maintained investments. So why don't they? Well, it's what happens off of those two points. If I'm firm X and I increase investment in the midst of the boom, I can actually profit from this. After all, interest rates are low. It's a good time for me to go out and fund investments and it's going to be more profitable. If nobody else does this, then my profits are going to be higher than anybody else's. So I have the possibility then if others are maintaining investment and I increase investment, I end up with a higher relative profit compared to others. On the other hand, if everybody else is increasing investment and I don't, my profits are going to look relatively low compared to others. But if I increase investment, I'll at least be on par with everyone else. The result being that firm X has a very strong incentive then to increase their investment, regardless of what everybody else does. So each individual firm, so replace X with Y, Z, A, B, C, D, et cetera, all of the various firms in the economy face the same kind of incentive. So we end up with all the firms in the economy increasing investment during the boom and we get the boom bus cycle. Okay. So, here we face the question that I just raised. Well, why would we end up with this bad outcome? Why don't entrepreneurs fix it? What is preventing them from doing it? So there are a few things that I think are wrong with this. One is that they assume for entrepreneurs a very short-term perspective. If we believe in the boom bus cycle as being a real thing, and if we believe that entrepreneurs are forward looking, I'm not just interested in what are my profits next year, but over the very long haul. If you're somebody like me, I guess I'm old enough now, I remember when the dot-coms got started in the 90s. Stocks are doing remarkably well. People are throwing lots of money into these companies despite the fact that very few turn to any profit at all. This would suggest that our entrepreneurs are somewhat forward-looking. They may not be very good at it, but they're not just worried about present profits or profits next year. They believe that these companies will be profitable further in the future. Now, if we do have very rational firms here that know that it's not just we have relative profits that are equal, but there's going to be a boom-bust cycle, this bust is going to drag down our profits, give us losses in a few years. So why is it they ignore this, these future losses when they're thinking about these things? A second point is this idea of relative profit. It's kind of weird to me that relative profit is what firms are worried about here. When much of the time we don't really think of firms as being worried about relative profit, so except relative to other opportunities available to me, for example. So I thought that was kind of a weird thing, but most relevant to us here is that they're not asking the right question. That is why don't firms organize to prevent this increased investment, which is going to hurt all of them in the long run. Why don't they come up with some organized way of just maintaining their original level of investment? Okay, and they don't offer an answer. I'm not going to offer an answer either. This is something that came to mind as I was reading it. Why not? What is it that's going wrong here? Now there are also ways, though, that we can use game theory right, and we also see Austrians do this. My first example is not going to be from an Austrian. So game theory can inform us when is it that entrepreneurs are going to really go out and have to see creative or institutional sort of solutions to nasty problems. So I think my favorite example here, is Splitter Steel. Splitter Steel is part of a British game show, I believe it's called Golden Balls or something like that. So the way the game went, I don't actually know what the early rounds were like, but you have these two players that are accumulating some sum of money, and at the end they play a game that looks shockingly like a prisoner's dilemma. It's not quite a prisoner's dilemma, but it's very close. Where they have this option, each of them has two golden balls, one of them says steel, the other says split. And here are what the incentives look like. So we have in this case, say there are two people, Ibrahim and Nick. Ibrahim can either steal or split, Nick can steal or split. The rules of the game are that if both choose steel, then they each walk away empty handed, so you get absolutely nothing. If they both play split, then they split whatever that total amount was, I believe in this case was 50,000 pounds, so they would each get 25,000 if they both play split. If one plays split while the other plays steel, whoever the stealer is, gets the whole thing. So if Nick plays steel while Ibrahim plays split, then Nick gets the whole 50,000, while Ibrahim gets nothing. If it's the other way around, then Nick would get nothing, Ibrahim gets the whole 50,000. As we look at the incentives, say okay, for Nick, if he believes that Ibrahim is gonna play steal, it really doesn't matter what Nick does, he's gonna walk away with nothing. So that doesn't tell Nick what to do. But if Ibrahim plays split, then Nick can possibly get the whole 50,000, instead of just 25, if he plays steel. So either Nick, he doesn't really know what he would do if Ibrahim plays steel, it doesn't actually matter. His decision's going to be based on if Ibrahim plays split, then Nick can get more by playing steel, similarly for Ibrahim. So we'd expect then, each of them has some reason then to play steel, we should see them each walk away empty handed and the game show now has lots of extra funding for their next episode. So what happened in this case? In this case, Nick was a very entrepreneurial player. He said, I don't like this game, I'm going to change it. So here's what he suggested.  Now, Ibrahim should believe him after all, that's what the logic says. But, I'm going to play steel and then I'll split the money with you 50-50. Okay, and this is, naturally, if it's his 50,000, he can do what he wants with it. If he wants to give half of it to the other player, there's nothing saying he can't. So what do you just do? So Nick just changed the incentives that Ibrahim has to face.  I'm a man of my word, which is kind of great to hear. I'm a man of my word, I'm very honest and I'm going to play steel. And Ibrahim looked at him and said, you're crazy, you're absolutely insane. You're going to lose yourself, this 25,000 we can get if we both play split because you're making this promise to play steel. Why should I go along with this? But I think that Nick managed to get Ibrahim to think hard enough. He said, okay, well, in this case, if I really believe, Nick, that he's going to play steel, then I'm going to get nothing if I also play steel. But if I play split, I can get 25,000 if I believe this guy. On the other hand, maybe he's lying, in which case he's going to play split, in which case I could possibly get the whole thing from playing steel. But Nick tells me he's honest.  He seems just nutty enough to do this. So, sure, why not? So the outcome we ended up with was right here, was okay, Nick's going to play steel, Ibrahim's going to split. So that is what we would predict would happen. Well, it turns out that this isn't actually what happened. After managing to convince Ibrahim to pick split, when they both revealed they actually both played split. Right, because it turned out, what Nick also did was remove his own incentive to play steel, as long as he could convince Ibrahim that he was going to, which is kind of hilarious. I guess that saved him writing the check afterward or something, so. All right, so they ended up splitting it, okay. All right, so this was a case where I think this was a good, entrepreneurial player. Knew this game was coming, they always end this game the same way. And had in mind a way to change the game to change the outcome. Now, Puerto de Soto presented actually, in some ways, a very similar way of asking the question by facing this kind of dilemma. So we have two banks, Bank A and Bank B. And in this case, he's trying to analyze are they going to expand credit or not? And he suggests that if neither of them expand credit, this would be basically very conservative banks, we're operating according to 100% reserve principles, that kind of thing. We would both certainly survive this, we maintain solvency, liquidity, and all of that. We earn a relatively small profit. We're only earning, say, the fees and then whatever legitimate lending we're doing of stuff that's lent to us, a relatively small profit. On the other hand, if we both expand credit, then we would also both survive. But we could earn a very large profit from lending our deposits. So in that case, between the two, not expanding, everybody not expanding or everybody expanding, expanding looks good. But then you have these off cases. What if Bank A doesn't expand while Bank B expands? In this case, Bank A is very nice and stable, it's going to survive. While Bank B, we're going to have a credit, see confidence in them eroding over time, they're eventually going to hit the point where they're going to have a liquidity crisis, a bank rent is going to ruin them, Bank B is totally going to fail. That's not a good thing. Similarly, if Bank A is thinking about them individually expanding without the help of Bank B, they know they're putting themselves at risk and they're possibly going to fail as well. So hard to, DeSoto says we really have these two possible outcomes. Either nobody is going to expand, in which case we're all going to survive but earn a small profit, or we're all going to expand and everybody survives and earns a large profit. This is actually not a prisoner's dilemma. It's not so clear which of these two we're going to choose. We would call this a coordination game and the ability of these two banks to coordinate is going to determine the outcome. There are lots of things in life that are coordination games, it turns out. Even simple things like which side of the road do you drive on is a coordination game. It doesn't particularly matter whether it's right or left as long as you do what everyone else is doing. So here in the States, drive on the right, please drive on the right. If you go to the UK, drive on the left. It's going to prevent head-on collisions both of those ways. Now, I don't know why the rest of the world hasn't agreed with us in the States. It is the right, not the wrong side of the road, but yeah, well. All right, so we need some kind of coordination then to determine which of these happens. Well, where DeSoto says it's obvious which we were going to try to coordinate. So in this world, we all earn small profits. In this world, we'd all earn large profits. So we have a very strong incentive to try to change the game in such a way that everybody wants to expand, that we eliminate this fear of failure if you're expanding on your own. So what does he suggest? He says if we have really prudent bankers that are worried about failure, they're not going to expand because of that fear of failure. On the other hand, if we have very imprudent bankers that are really just worried about chasing that large profit, then they're going to expand regardless. But every banker, no matter how prudent you are, has an incentive to try to coordinate the credit expansion. If we can all do it, then it's not dangerous. So bankers are going to push for some kind of organization of this credit expansion, which takes the form of the central bank. So we change the game. We have some kind of bailout introduced where we have a central bank, guaranteeing you're not going to have any problems with liquidity crisis. We'll just provide you with money if that happens to come up. So in that case, if, okay, so we have the same thing if none of us expand or if we all expand. We've just changed things in these off corners, right? So if bank A doesn't expand, they're naturally going to survive, right? If bank B does expand in that case, then they're going to get bailed out and earn a relatively small profit, right? Okay, so we no longer have to worry about failing if the other bank doesn't expand while we do. So it may as well go ahead and expand. Same thing for bank A. We're going to earn a small profit either way if we don't expand. So we each have some incentive then to go ahead and expand the amount of credit we provide and earn these larger profits as we've eliminated, right, this negative outcome if we don't, sorry, if we expand but the other doesn't. All right, so eliminate the fear of failure by eliminating the possibility of failure and we end up with credit expansion. And this is exactly the way that DeSoto uses this example. He says, let's lay out what does the game theory tell us? Okay, either we're going to have prudent bankers that don't or imprudent bankers that do. Really, we'd all rather if everybody was imprudent, let's find a way to enforce that outcome. And that's exactly what we see banks do. So if we start thinking along these lines, say, okay, how is it then that entrepreneurs are going to try to solve these various cases we've provided before? So with the prisoner's dilemma, I've already mentioned before, one possibility is to repeat the game. So we build this criminal relationship. We have partners in crime, we commit crimes together time after time after time. This in turn provides us with the possibility if we get caught, we don't want to confess on each other because there's going to be the possibility of betraying in the future. So we can enforce better outcomes here. Or it might be that we just have straight up an enforcer. This is the case that I call breaking confessor's kneecaps. So, okay, we agreed we weren't going to confess. You went ahead and confessed anyway. Well, we happened to have a third friend that's standing outside in the alley with a baseball bat.  We're going to change your incentives a bit.  Or perhaps worse. You do have a family for now, after all. So some kind of enforcement mechanism we create. Interestingly, that's not that different from funding public goods with taxes. It turns out we've enforcers making you fund the thing. So how about the tragedy of the commons? Or what's the solution there? Well, here, kind of weirdly, this is something that's basically consensus at this point amongst most economists. The way you handle this is you privatize the commons. And this was something I wasn't aware of until Dr. Terrell mentioned it. Manger actually talked about this. Years ago, 100 years ago, Manger says, oh, you need to give this common resource over to some private individual to regulate the use of it. That's exactly what is considered to be the best case now. I know there was one example. I don't remember the African countries involved. I think it was Kenya and one that they were bordering. They were having a problem with elephant poaching. And so poachers were killing these elephants and was hurting the elephant populations because tusks are very valuable. Well, the one country, I think it was Kenya that did the wrong thing, if I recall correctly. Or they said, well, no, these elephants are a national treasure. Poaching is illegal or going to enforce laws against poaching very severely. Turns out, though, it's very difficult to enforce these things because elephants are wandering out across the savanna. It's very difficult to catch all the poachers that go out there. So they saw their elephant population decline, despite the fact they're claiming how important these elephants are to them. One of the neighboring countries was a little bit more informed by this slide and said, well, this is what we'll do. Just declare a date. Any elephants on your land at this date belong to you. Do with them what you will. You want to harvest them, whatever. It's up to you. They're yours. Well, it turns out people are very protective of their own property. So once you make these things private property, people don't want to just slaughter them all. In fact, you want to start increasing the population so you can slaughter small amounts of them and have a regular income. This shouldn't be shocking. Are we really worried about cattle populations in the Western US? I am not. We intentionally are breeding them because that's a profitable thing to do. Same thing with basically any kind of domesticated animal. By privatizing them, we've protected their populations. So that would be another thing if you really love pigs, eat more pork, right? And it's very much along the lines of what Dr. Terrell said, if you love trees, use more unrecycled paper. Or you're encouraging entrepreneurs to produce more of the thing. But for that to happen, we have to privatize it to start with. If the only way you can own the elephant is by killing it and sneaking it out of the country, then that's what people are gonna do. If you give them an option to own it some other way, perhaps while it's still alive, they're going to have more of an incentive to keep it alive and let it breed. So the tragedy of the commons, privatize them. Take the commons, make them no longer common if at all possible. And then with public goods, there are actually a number of ways that we can try to deal with public goods apart from taxes. One method that is quite successful, it turns out, and that entrepreneurs have figured out is having some kind of matching fund. So rather than saying, if we go back to the original example, I made it sound like Bonnie, if she decided to fund the thing, was committing to make sure it was fully funded. Maybe you don't make her do that.  This is in fact exactly what the model for Kickstarter is. So as long as we hit whatever the goal is, then yes, I'm willing to put forth my 25, 52, 200, $2,000, whatever it is. If we don't hit that amount that we need, though, that thing expired and I don't have to give you the money. So we could do the same kind of thing with any public good. One of my favorite examples of this was reading Rainbow, which I have very fond memories of as a child. There was Jordy LeForge telling me about books, because I also watched Star Trek at the time. So anyway, it was this great program, encouraging reading, telling us about kids books funded by PBS, so it wasn't perfect. Well, they decided they were gonna come back and they were going to fund themselves by Kickstarter. And they raised millions of dollars in order to make, I believe they were kind of going the app approach now. So to develop this app, they needed some money to do it. There were so many people that loved reading Rainbow, they were willing to pledge money to get this app developed, they raised millions of dollars to do it. Without the need to go begging to PBS for more money to make this happen, we funded it jointly through Kickstarter. So there's the possibility here by having some kind of matching fund, have your payment be contingent upon others paying, by doing that we can also possibly fund public goods without running into the same problems that we described earlier with the prisoner's dilemma. And so there are other solutions out there. And the thing that kind of depresses me is that these solutions are not new. I'm not the first person presenting these. I can claim exactly zero originality here. Yet despite this, whenever we say we should privatize the roads, well, who will build the roads?  I may not love roads that much, but I'm willing to pay $50, if the rest of my neighbors pay $50 to repave my road, that kind of thing. And we have options out there and we do use them already. So anyway, so there are these other solutions out there for solving the prisoner's dilemma where we don't get stuck with this bad outcome. Entrepreneurs are in fact creative people, they see these problems coming and they come up with solutions to them. And so, I'm just kind of concluding, there are a couple ways we can approach game theory if we really take entrepreneurship seriously. One is the wrong way. We just end up all, we're choosing these lousy outcomes because we have these individual incentives to do it. The conclusion being we need to eliminate individual choice, throw in taxes, for example. The right way to think about it is to realize that lousy outcomes are going to attract entrepreneurs. When we see problems, creative problem solvers, that is people, entrepreneurs, are going to try to find a way to solve them. So we need to ask the question, when they're not solving these problems, why aren't they fixing them? If they are solving them, what are they doing to fix them and might there be other ways that we can use those same solutions to also fix these problems? That's kind of a fly by, but thank you very much.


What's going on everyone Sam here late sports cards rip in 23 tops Cosmic Chrome baseball hobby six-box half case break number 49 Random team style so look again at your end results as always can find those on the website under the results tab as well as link in chat Good luck everybody. It's up Rashid Tony with a ginner spot. Thank you, Tony. Rashid, how you doing tonight? 17 to go Rashid apparently works in sonar for the Navy. She told me I don't sound like a sonar You True Yoshida and Tommy Edmunds Hopefully we pull sonar and our top chrome mixer Corbin Carol rookie alvarez Larry what up, dude? What up Larry? Francisco Alvarez Thomas Carroll and Jordan Walker got the I've even got the shirt on the SNS express Pena wit J rod you're gonna do a dice roll unless it's numbered if it's numbered I'll do a separate random at the end for the star clusters And the before I'm gonna go to the middle with Bobby wit go to the middle Christian Mackenzie Poohulse Dylan season what I said by Rashid apparently Rashid does work in the Navy sonar I Was like when he said that I was like, yeah, all right. I'll wear that one then my stock of Yoshida blue to 99 Gold Max Meyer rookie auto to 50 Congrats Marlins rookie auto to 50. I may add Brandon Marsh who needs a hit today? We do more than we need air to breathe right here Apparently now Rashid it does work for the Navy Alcantara Tremantini, I didn't mean it. I didn't mean it like I didn't believe you. I believe believe me. I believe you Bobby wit ET talent and that gallon blue Dan to be to 99 Cubs Tell him good the Jake treatment Oh It goes on my way to Orlando Acts like Shaggy do Francisco Alvarez That is the son one soda Nice one there Yes, thank you for your service Rashid. Yes, all jokes aside. Thank you Even though you crushed my dreams of sonar Thank you Launch an orbit Kyle Schwabber These man Say nucleus of Mastafa Yoshida and O'Neill cruise Wow tier one Wambulance Tier one details. There's tier one slugger triple auto relics one of the mock-ups is Otani Matui Gunner Henderson and Each year. Oh, yeah, that's nasty. Yeah, we are Blake. Oh, yeah Schwabber and base Volpe what you say? Rushman wit and Riley Greene Stella Nova Anthony Volpe on the super short print case it congrats yanks nice one there Volpe. Oh You're gonna be there Blake.  Let's go that guy a bot when we see him Lord Tommy Henry refractor Ryan Nelson Jordan Alvarez green space dust Francisco lindor to 75 Nam cue the 10 box spot Michael with the Rangers in dual case and Austin with a spot on Friday So thank you to the all three of you down to 16 to go on 10 bucks now. Oh that worked out perfect then Hell yeah Nick Prado refractor rookie Because I don't think Donnie's going I think Donnie's one of his buddies is coming in to town That is a aqua equinox Tyler Freeman 199 Josh young Josh Chisholm Ruchman and Gunner base It's a gold Kate Cavalli to 50 nice one there. Congrats Washington Corbin Carroll launched an orbit of Devers and Gunner great back there. You can see the new scar.  How you doing, buddy? So nucleus of Oswald Paraza and Jordan Groeschens. I know feeling bad about crippling Nick Chubb. Yeah That was a brutal injury, but it would it could happen to anybody. You know what I mean? Yeah I'm sure you're on the yeah I know Rob's on the fire Matt Canada train who Andre's him and as James Outman refractor and base I think it's a coordinator. Do their coordinators horrible Corbin Carroll wander and base. Yeah, I can't see there you go. I can and needs to go There CJ Abrams to 75 Walker and base.  Yeah, true. This is a good point Vaughan Practor of Nemo Yeah, jet sweeps.  It's a supernova Corbin Carroll. Nice one there. Congrats to wall. There you go, buddy Case hit supernova Alejandro Kirk. I would say so on that. Yeah Launch an orbit of Griffey Siga That is bad. We got an orange Brett Beatty Three of 25 going to the Mets Congrats New York Trenton T There you go, buddy. I The auto that's awesome. Dominic Fletcher Groschens actually just We've got to eat Soto I have to imagine re on me. So it's probably middle of the order. Yeah, I'm bloom out No, that's true. I agree with that O'Neill cruise and I also think Mike Kafka had a lot to do with that because he was the QB coach there While my home started really popping off. I mean Kafka is gonna eventually get a head coaching job most likely Jazz Chisholm refractor auto nice one Marlins another Is he marshes Get on cast the honest so we can at least see Harsh get on dude We'll have to wait a whole nother happening That's Aaron judge and base What a bad smell Right now coaching is super important In all professional sports, you're right Wayne. I know Stroud was top passer yesterday. There's Med Rosario to 99 I think it's good man Nucleus Bregman Matt Chapman That's a thing that Lane texted us about Amazon Joey Vada Ronald Acunha We're watching the Phillies game Phillies Braves Yeah, it's a true Blake very true Rowdy Calez at a showhead launch an orbit Yeah, they're gonna be hard to beat in the world series and then inevitably make make it Yeah, or got out somehow Charlie Blackman a 199 aqua equinox Trade Turner Michael Harris rookie Really that having a sign for it's a little weird, but every now and then Amazon I'll do that We'll do like late Drop off late deliveries and stuff Bellinger Adley rookie watch an orbit Bladdy Josh Bell Unless you want to stomp it might be able to refractor Carlos Correa Oswald for Ozza And last pack here Base and set well into this Aqua equinox boba shut to 199 for the blue jays Josh young Ownerships attempt making an escape go for the Xander. Yeah, I'm probably to be honest Vaughn Can you just the whole another base good lord? Launch an orbit you're done Gunner rookie Yeah, we're behind we're watching it on like a streaming service. So we're a little bit behind. Oh, yeah, mookie is Astronomically appreciate it Rob. We got it. We got it over here though. We we found a way. Don't you worry appreciate it though, man? appreciate it Yeah, we got a we found a way right here. We are rocking and rolling Corbin rookie nest their Cortez refractor streaming service Yeah streaming service Be so good Alvarez meneses and refractor of our Nato base Stop Jonathan That is the son of Masataka Yoshida planetary pursuit who grads Red Sox Josh with the Seahawks got Thank you there Tom picking up the Colts and a bunch of Pyt's Walter V with a 10 box spot Timothy W 10 box spot and Steve picking up the Tigers in our dual caser. Thank you to all of you True waters to 75. Sorry, Manny Launch an orbit one Soto Carlos Rodan Pete with a 10 box spot as well. Thank you Pete pdh appreciate you buddy Pena ET talent and base Get a flawless football tomorrow everybody flawless football That is gonna be fun There'll be some bangers in that that's their Cortez Mookie better than trout That's Christopher Morrell and Bryson Stott tath my luck. Hey, you tapped your luck for maybe a day or something Manny He'll be back. So I got a Corbin terrarium anus next break It's called Schwabba Michael Poglia. They're a guy to be up already.  They're gonna score like five runs Another Stella Nova and it's gonna be Michael Harris this time congrats to the Braves Nice one Atlanta Edward L. There you go, buddy. So two Stella Nova's and a Yoshida two Stella Nova's and a Supernova will have a couple planetary pursuits in this half case plus three autos. So not too shabby Yeah, Anthony Volpe DL Hall refractor Javier Assam Cisco Alvarez Fractor Matt Chapman for a baby. Oh, I might need an update. Just just kidding. Just kidding Blue is Trey Turner 299. That is a Mercury Aaron judge nice one there yanks Congrats Yankees I think they have a tour. I think Mookie's pretty slept on right now I mean overall like all-time trout I would say is better but right now if you get if you said hey the Yankees could get trout or Mookie bets I would take Mookie bets. I would take Mookie bets for sure I mean obviously trout like so dominant so dominant for so many years Bobby Whit But I mean right now I'd want Mookie. There's Goldie launch and orbit Morena But I would probably still take trout all time That is Jose L2 by nucleus Kyle Schwabba. Let's pack the break is base a quick recap here We had our color is 2199 Boba Shet Charlie Blackman to not to 99 is gonna be a med Rosario dancing Swanson Trey Turner Masataki Yoshida 75 drew water CJ Abrams Francisco lindor to 50 Kade Kavali Garrett Mitchell the son of Soto and Yoshida Stella Nova Michael Harris Mercury Aaron judge auto of jazz chisel that is to 50 at Max Meyer Corbin Carroll supernova is Anthony Volpe nice one there and a orange of Brett Beatty orange ray wave auto to 25 I'll do it for the break guys. Thanks again for the filth coming up next is the second


Well, we have another challenge in maybe two hours, or at least are objective in terms of the end of the conference, it was called 3.30, and it'll go by fast, I suspect, because we are going to do it with agreement, and in terms of what is the outcome from each of the panels. Prior to doing that, along the way, certainly we didn't ask, or I certainly didn't ask hard questions, which are good questions, you know, from what's next, you know, as a sad one, you know, etc. Okay, and I'd like to come back and set the context again, like, if you know, allow me four minutes. The first thing, just to cut to the quick, is that relative to the supposive, and sort of what we hope, right off the bat, if you want to call it an outcome, first and foremost, that you can leave today, and what you've been engaged with, and been a part of, you walk away, that it's something you can use in the work that you're doing. That's on the front burner, and at some level, that's a success, at least in my mind, because it's a supposive, because why are you going to impose on people's time, ask them to commit more, but the fact that add to their additional commitments, and then have them go, and be in disbelief, and so that's number one, that you can walk away, some of what you picked up the last day and a half, it will help with the work that you do. The second is that we can walk away with the idea that moving forward, there are some things that we can do together to build for this. So at the very basic level, those are the two outcomes, at least as supposive partners, we hope that we can achieve, and I just wanted to mention that. The second thing, and all I need to do is get you back at us, or at me, at the end of the day, and there were a few things that I debated about saying at the beginning, that's the declarations, because having this kind of a form, you know, you're kind of looking at one another, you've got different perspectives on a variety of issues, and how to do it, what to do, you know, where to put our focus, where to put our priorities, etc. Sometimes we get into some traps, but I think that they're still maybe applicable, so forgive me if maybe I should have did it at the beginning, or maybe after you hear them, I shouldn't have said them at all, okay, and I didn't need to be said, so I'll take ownership of that. The first, and I'm thinking of a medium, because I had them down, the symposium is not a signal, it's a signal a reliance on public policies and programs for strengthening Latino families, nor to exclude the private sector engagement toward increasing economic mobility. So there's nothing here that said, we're not going to engage the private sector, or that we're going to be reliant, because people tend to want to interpret, they just want to program, right? Here comes the four, none of this is farther from the truth, you know, at some level you could say this is just democracy at work, you know, we want responsive public policies because you know they affect our lives. So, you know, so I just want to mention that, and I think some of that, and depending on the group we're in, maybe housing, labor reform and a little bit more than in education, and healthy human services, where the private sector probably gets more engaged, where you want more partnerships with public policies, etc., etc., but that's not exclusive from healthy human services or education, because of the issues that's going on in education. So I just kind of want to mention that, in no way do we propose to be reliant, quote on problem. The second one is, because the symposium is explicitly a Latino agenda, does not preclude alliances with non-Latinos or working with other political parties, or all political parties, okay? However, it does suggest that sometimes we engage with partners unprepared because we don't have our stuff together, and even at a basic level, if I can't just say one story in this, in this, or this point, you know, and I had a policy center that does La Fe Policy Research and Education Center, which by the way, our parent organization, the Center for the Salute Family, La Fe and La Plaza, it's been there for 65 years, and the meeting was engaged a lot more than in the past, maybe in Austin, and got together with different groups, you know, and I remember the first meeting with a group of maybe 50 progressive organizations, and not 50 individuals from different progressive organizations, primarily non-Latino, exactly there was only four or five, okay? Put on the table in a conversational Medicaid, hey, I want to take $500 million of the $200 million by Indian budget for Medicaid, and to put it into primary care, okay? Shift some of that money, and I almost got lynched, okay? And within two hours, I would drive back to Austin, give me a lot of head of the ARP, Juan, what are you doing taking away money for the elderly? And I said, hey, if I'm taking any money away from the elderly, I can't help it if you folks are older than the Latinos, they're my gravity, you know, we need access to regular primary care, you know, we don't necessarily, so even though we spent two, you know, two-thirds of our Medicaid budget on seniors, now seniors, we have some seniors that are under nursing homes and blah, blah, blah, but maybe not in proportion, but blah. So you see my point, so, but and I knew the response was going to be, I just wanted to make it clear that we're on the same page about redoing something to Medicaid and not allowing the state to create more barriers within the program, but we also have a fundamental difference, okay? Because it was my way of saying, if I'm going to support you on these progressive causes, are you ready to put at another 500 million on top of the two billion? You see my point? So that's what I mean, that it's not about not putting creative alliances, of course we want to create alliances with non-Latinos, other organizations, okay? The business sectors and so on and so forth, but I'm just saying sometimes we're just not ready, okay? Because when you get into that room with other groups to negotiate the policy positions, you and I know that's not easy, right? Even among ourselves prior to when we get to the legislative session, and that's all I'm saying by that. Do we have our own agenda and our own data, etc., etc., okay? And any one of the issues that we're concerned with? That's a question. The last one you kind of heard, you did hear yesterday when I said that, you know, there are Chicanos in the room, Mexican-Americans and Latinos and it doesn't matter the label we feel and the feel more comfortable with it. Once it matters to us individually maybe, but in the context of that, we're also into different generational perspectives and how we view that, how we view the world without the more personal experiences where we grew up. You know, because growing up in the valley, it's not that Chupan as possible or plain New Texas or Thailand as a Latino or Houston. So we may have experienced the same things, but I think we just need to kind of respect that. But the question is, is how do our ideas and our experience, you know, how do we fit them together into some kind of strategy that makes sense for our community as a whole? And that's easier said than done. I know that. The last one was, that's not that our observations or perspectives regarding money, political power or risk be self-imposed barriers to creative and constructive discussions. That one I probably should have said at the beginning. I looked at them on the net also, we're screwed.  And I know we're going to make more, but I just want to, but it's often difficult because we put these self-imposed barriers for that. And sometimes because we get frustrated right now, who's got the control of the legislature and what is going to do with it for that? But we're here, so I know we're going to want to do something for that. And the battles are not necessarily all there because someone may point it out, you know, you got maybe the real groundwork we're going to need to do is at the local level, but not because we might ask greater control and power at the local level city by city and then move on to the state. And so again, I just wanted to mention that. I think that the other thing, as far as, and we'll get closer to as we degrade relative accomplishments, you know, in your binder and have a chance to read them, but they were the intent to provide a sampling of what I think is service of good work that's been done. I think I alluded to amount of helping human services, housing and education and labor employment. If we talk about a strategic effort to put an agenda forward from a Latino lens in any of these areas, each of those areas have something that's actually there as it may be a strategy or closer to it. It's probably education. You know, if you look at education, we do have a Texas Latino Education Coalition. We do have folks for organized political action that has been very involved with them. We do have a certain level of local or statewide representation of Latinos in different disciplines, by the way, not just grassroots but educators, folks who are involved in litigation. So by comparison, and there is a document that's it there that I know that that group worked with as a maybe a little beginning, but there's not a similar thing in helping human services. So we're not as comparatively speaking as far as head with those set of issues and maybe even in housing or labor employment as we are with education. So I just want to mention that there are some things and some assets, if you will, in there that we can build from. And there's another document in education in there that came Education First that's in the final Nationalist piece of work that looks at it from a certain perspective that should tie in well to, I think hopefully we've tried it well, but they probably maybe had some of that in the discussions in terms of thinking about strategies, in terms of how do we gain the influence to make some education policy changes in the direction some of which are there, maybe some new ones that came up in the conversation but moving forward. And so there are pieces there. And so I just wanted to mention the other document that's there called Strong Families and Child Children's Future Blueprint. And it's basically it's more like a template tries to convey at least the advocacy behind that that I'm advocating for at least from my perspective is that we try to frame our policy strategies short and long term from the standpoint Latino families. How do we strengthen Latino families in ways that they can gain economic ability? Okay, because if each of us have a dream, my dream is that I would never have a single Latino family have to have panel, Medicaid, you know, food stamps. Why? Because economically, they don't need to do that. Now, that doesn't mean that we don't need a cent in that for them. But if I have swenils, it's the swenils that we, you know, we're an empowered, strong families and we have those resources. So that might be nothing that I'll achieve in my lifetime. But it doesn't, you know, so I'm just saying the framework of a family because you can certainly tie in education to how that strengthens family. You can certainly tie, you know, again employment, you can certainly tie housing that they all contribute in one way or another to economic mobility because I have access to health insurance and I don't have to risk that if I get sick and I'm not able to get employed. So there's a lot of arguments can be made into the idea of strengthening the family. My argument to you is if we're about family, then maybe that's maybe the top rank and then we have these components. And that's not usually exclusive that each of those areas have a strategy for us. So, you know, I try to throw in there, how can we kind of do a strategic mapping when we bring in the different components with the kinds of policies we want as outcomes out of these areas? Notwithstanding the reality that we, I know you discussed that we're going to get into the degree, how do we get it done? But I'm still back to one central message, our question. Where is our, that we get people to sign on year by year, that this is the direction we want to head that helps strengthen our families in all of these areas? And multiple Latino organizations have signed on to it? Okay. Non Latino organizations have signed on to it because we brokered it, you know, for different sectors. And that might take us five years, 10 years, okay. And some elements of that plan, you know, we, it may be more short term, then we get other elements to buy into it or that, then maybe more long term strategy. So I don't know if that makes any sense. But the basic idea of that is just think the thing, how can we possibly be bringing together a statewide strategic plan, you know, for strengthening Latino families now? If folks want to argue, call it something else, that's okay. You know, that's, that's not up to me. I'm just, just like, it's just a, an idea was meant to be thought of. And so all of that said, you know, from the standpoint, as best I can answer the questions that people were asking, what is going to come from this today? So the short answer is, we're going to take the product of what we discussed on the debriefings. And like I said, the presentation, etc. And, and see what we could mesh together as a, I'll go ahead and just right now, call it an action plan. We may decide to give it a different title, but some kind of strategic plan that incorporates these. And in a way that makes sense and it's logical and it's meaningful. And then I want to give it back to each and every person in the room, we're going to give it back to each and a person to give you some time to review it and say, is this kind of what you think we said? And how do you feel about what with this plan? In other words, will you write off on it, so to speak? Because you were here, okay? So they just sort of capture those things. And, and to the extent that after a good amount of time, you know, and so it becomes a product of some level. And yet it's not a finished product. It's a working plan. But that that is, that it's a quality, at least a suspicion quality that not only do we give it to you, but are we willing to do we share it with others that we want to build from it. And what we might some somehow tie into it in terms of doing something next year or whenever, I'm not sure, but I'm just saying as an immediate product, the idea is to come up with this sort of a working document from the symposium that in and of itself will have value. The other piece that's a little more difficult is because that, that piece might be more strategic in nature. And, and you might not feel that, well, it doesn't help me to date with this issue. But the other part was depending on each of the groups, like if, if there's some things that come out of education, because they may be a little bit more further ahead, that the content of that, along with different pieces, might feed into having developing a good sort of strategic sub, like a brief, you know, that's a that might have a utility for advocacy or for whatever. I'm not sure that but the main thing as far as an immediate was that and on the final question, well, what can we do next? You know, what's next? Well, I'm not going to say anything about it right now until we have the debriefing. And we're going to have to answer that question, you know, because I'm just responding to from the work that's been done here, from the time investment, in terms of something on paper to get back to folks. This is what we're going to get back to you and see what you think and whether or not that document can work in a way that we can build on. And so I'm not making any presumptions about that, because otherwise I'd be lying to you. So I don't know if that helps a little bit. But I'd like to go ahead and go into the heavy, each of the facilitators, and I need to, I don't want to be, in case I forget, I know it's hard. Okay. And the group dynamics, you know, has a way of coming to life on its own. And so I'm going to ask, start, you know, let's start with housing and then work back from that. And then after housing, you know, if we could do a healthy human services and then neighborhood employment and education. And I'm going to ask them to take, you know, 15, not more than 20 minutes to summarize the outcome from their discussions.  What are, generally speaking, what are the key, some of the key issues for us? And even though we can make a long list of people who already felt they knew what they were, nonetheless, what are the kinds of policies that would be responsive to those issues to improve our community in those areas, either that exists or don't exist, and we want to see happen. But then the real hard one, the real hard one, as you know, is what capacity do we have to make that happen? Okay. And that, again, when we talk earlier, the whole idea of what is our organizing capacity to collaborate and move that agenda policy-wise and get it approved, if you will. As an example, you know, what is our policy development capacity that either we have now or don't have and need to build to better support the data analysis, et cetera, to get those things done. And then the communications in terms of the messaging and a message to different audiences, not just Latino, but across the board, because we know we have to do different messaging for different audiences. So it's, again, relative to what is our strength to get this achieved, and not only vastly in terms of the group in this room, but how do we broaden that for the outside of the group or do something else to follow? So that was kind of the general guide for the facilitators to use, and that's what I'm saying. It was a very challenging thing, and I'm sure it can be frustrating, but that's part of the process. I'm sorry, but I see it. And so with that said, with that statement, it's a good puzzle, though. I'll see you.


T.E.F.L. Malaga Art, nature, culture, beaches, fiestas, real Spanish traditions, enchanting neighboring towns and villages and plenty of sunshine, these are just a few of the reasons why you should choose Malaga as the city in which to earn your T.E.F.L. certificate. Malaga is the main city on the coast to Del Sol in southern Spain, where the sun shines for more than 300 days every year. Malaga is also a city renowned for its culture as it is one of the oldest cities in the world, with a history spanning around 2,700 years. It's not surprising that the city is a strong candidate to be awarded the European Capital of Culture in 2016 when you consider the wealth of culture it has to offer the birthplace of Picasso, where you will find the largest collection of his works at the Picasso Museum. The Alcazaba Fortress and Palace, home of the rulers of the Muslim Sultanate of Malaga. The Roman amphitheater, built in the age of Augustus. The splendid cathedral, constructed during the first half of the 16th century. The historical district of Malaga, where architecture from different centuries mingle, as is to be expected in a living and constantly evolving city. The Andalusia region is also the undisputed home of the Flamenco. There are special festivals throughout the year dedicated to flamenco dancing, although you can experience it on a daily basis in many local bars, together with the classical Spanish guitar, as popularized by Andrés Segovia. Modern Malaga is the main tourist center on the coast of Del Sol, with sunshine and beaches, restaurants, tapas bars and much more. Malaga is certainly a food lover's paradise, with literally hundreds of bars and beach side restaurants serving low-cost dishes such as freshly grilled sardines, a range of local fish and seafood called Fatora Malaga and all varieties of Mediterranean cuisine. Malaga Nature and Beaches. Plius. Pliadola Malageta, this is a very popular beach with the local people, one mile in length with good facilities and lifeguards. This blue flag award at Urban Beach is located only 10 minutes from the center of Malaga. It is easily accessible by bus and has a good variety of restaurants and beach bars. Playa Palo, situated next to El Candado Marina, ideal for sailing, diving and swimming, with plenty of small codes, lifeguards, a promenade, a pleasant atmosphere, a range of restaurants, beach bars and a car park. Playa Hulun, a fairly busy beach town, accessible by bus, which has its promenade named after Antonio Banderas. You will find a good atmosphere here, with beach bars, lifeguards and good facilities. Playa Las Aucasias, this is a very popular beach, so it's a good idea to get there early. The beach is 1,200 meters long with fine grey sand, excellent facilities and long rocky break waters that divide it into sheltered sandy coves. It is very popular with young people and great at night with its lively promenade, it's only a 10 minute walk from the TEFL training center. El Torso Park Nature Reserve, this delightful mountain range in Antiquara can be found 30 kilometers north of Malaga City. The park is known for its unusual limestone rock formations and within the 17 square kilometers are some of the most beautiful and impressive limestone landscapes in Europe. There are three routes through the park for walkers, the longest of which allows you to see the coastline of Africa. National Park of Malaga, the Montes de Malaga, covering an area of 4,762 hectares, is located 14 kilometers to the north of the city. The park is full of small valleys carpeted with pine trees, a species abundant in the area. In addition to the beauty of the landscape, this service is provided by the national park, such as parking spaces, picnic areas and toilet facilities, guarantee a pleasant visit, while at the same time protecting the environment. At the same time protecting the environment, TEFL course in Malaga. Our TEFL course in Malaga is situated on a hill overlooking the beaches of the famous coast of Del Sol. The mini campus offers exceptionally facilities and services including great classrooms, a study center and a computer lab. The high quality residence has everything you will need to successfully complete the course. The accommodation included with your Malaga TEFL course fees is in a facility with more than 100 bedrooms, each with an ensuite bathroom. You will also find a restaurant and bar, swimming pool, a dance studio, multi-activities room, three terraces and gardens and a mini gym. Wi-Fi is also available. The course fees listed on our website are inclusive of course related lessons, materials, teaching practice, assessments, certificates, references, lifetime job assistance and more. We have no hidden costs or extra charges, so the prices you see on the site are the prices you will pay. Getting started. The first step in enrolling on our TEFL course in Malaga is completing a free application. If you are at least 18 years of age and speak English fluently, you are eligible to apply for the course. The application is brief and we will send you a prompt reply. Once approved, you will receive additional information about the course content and schedule, your accommodation options, travel arrangements, as well as payment options and more. Apply to take our TEFL course in Malaga now and soon you could become a certified EFL teacher. If you would like to move on after the course, we offer lifetime assistance finding jobs and our certificates are recognized worldwide.


So this is what I put together to try to characterize today's conversation, and I think we can think of it broken up into a number of groupings. So the first one had to do with, you know, what is really the potential of the, you know, natural nature-based climate solutions? And there's, it seems like huge uncertainty. And there are some fundamental ideas, you know, this is a haystack or a silo, and that will have a very big impact on how we eventually end up answering that question. And then associated with that was also the rate of scale-up of these solutions, what's possible. So in the area of the terrestrial ecosystems, you know, things like protecting forests, restoring forests, you know, there seems to be, you know, very significant potential for doing that, and also reducing emissions from land use change, that sort of low-hanging fruit. Beyond this, there are some more challenging opportunities involving enhancing natural sinks, and a great deal of uncertainty around the potential for this, and also just having to deal with things like the variability, as we saw from Rob from year to year, there's tremendous difference in the uptake. We then moved on to talk about oceans, and the key opportunity here seems to be to try to enhance the biological pump, and that the parts of the oceans that are, well, many parts of the oceans are nutrient limited with one thing or another, but the southern ocean is particularly interesting, and it's iron limited. However, there are significant questions about permanence, and if you look over longer time periods, that CO2 that was taken up ends up being recycled and perhaps remitted, and there are also ecosystem impacts associated with large areas of the ocean that are being perturbed by sort of ultra fertilization. So that was a little bit on the science side. On the side of sort of social issues or other things we need to consider, whatever we do, we shouldn't use nature-based climate solutions as an alternative to energy decarbonization. It won't be available fast enough, and at this big enough scale. We also need to think about the water balance associated with manipulating ecosystems, and we saw some really interesting data showing how forests actually, reforestation or aforestation reduced watershed flows in streams and so forth. There's also an issue of cost, equity, and also just thinking about the energy balance, because many of these things have large energy inputs as well. So then more on the social fronts. If we can identify co-benefits, things like preserving jobs, engaging and inspiring the public, that will help accelerate and deploy these technologies. But again, there's a significant moral hazard associated with having people believe that there's a long-term solution that would negate the need for short-term action on fixing the energy system. And then finally, this last idea of two important greenhouse gases that we haven't really talked about, both with significant potential for improvements. So this is sort of a little bit of a mind map. We also do have some very nice collection of research needs. All of this material will be available. We don't have time to go through this today. And likewise, some key takeaways.


diabetes is an inflammatory condition. What are the real benefits of pomegranate? When is the best time to eat pomegranates? Hello everyone, this is Dr. Ahmed Ergin and today we are talking about pomegranate. I will talk about the benefits of pomegranates and how it affects your blood sugar and best time to eat pomegranates. Yes, you heard me right, that is actually the best time to eat pomegranates. Even the side effects of eating too much of it will be in this video. So, did you know that people with diabetes who actually drank pomegranate juice for three months had a lower risk of atherosclerosis, which is hardening of your arteries or artery stiffening according to a recent study. So, pomegranate juice actually appeared to reduce the harmful LDL cholesterol levels. As you know, the LDL cholesterol is known as the bad cholesterol. But wait a minute, isn't that the pomegranate full of sugar?  Oh poor thing, don't watch, I'm eating pomegranate. You're diabetic, I'm so sorry. Okay, let's get to the bottom of this. For those of you who do not know, diabetes is an inflammatory condition in which the pancreas is unable to excrete enough insulin or your pancreas is unable to use the insulin correctly due to insulin resistance. And in most cases actually you have both, causing the blood sugar levels to be higher than you want to see. Well, this causes unmanageable levels of glucose levels or sugars in your bloodstream, which affects the diabetic person's energy levels, their metabolism and inflammation levels as well. Now, chronic inflammation is a huge factor in variety of serious illnesses including diabetes, right? In reality, elevated glucose levels and diabetes is a result of chronic inflammation, not the other way around. So on the other hand though, the high blood sugars definitely worsen that inflammation. So it's like a chicken and egg story, but I'll explain to you more. The trick is to eat the pomegranate or drink the juice, but not let the blood sugars go super high. We'll talk more about that in a second. By the way, if you are enjoying this video so far, please smash that like and subscribe button. And if you have something to say, please write a comment. The only rule is to be nice and gentle. So what are the real benefits of pomegranate? Pomegranates include flavonoid antioxidants, which have potent anti-inflammatory properties, reducing the consequences of high blood sugar, such as muscle soreness, exhaustion and everything else you may be experiencing. Also, there are substances in pomegranate that reduces the resistant hormone levels. So the higher resistant hormone levels, the higher the insulin resistance, unfortunately, which causes the problem in the glucose uptake in your body. And that results in glucose accumulation in your blood. And there you go, you have diabetes. Now, as fat cells store more and more fat molecules, they release several products that can modify the body's sensitivity to insulin that includes the free fatty acids, the tumor necrosis factor, and also a hormone called resistant, which is recently found to cause insulin resistance. The good news is that especially there is a substance in pomegranate, it's called allergic acid, especially in the juice that has been linked to reduce production of the resistant hormone, which is a hormone that increases insulin resistance. So the lower the resistant, the better the insulin resistance. So in addition to that, having one glass of pomegranate juice every day has been shown in numerous scientific studies to drastically lower the harmful LDL cholesterol levels in diabetic individuals. Well, this greatly reduces the risk of heart disease, especially if you cannot take cholesterol medications and your cholesterol remains high, because heart disease is the most commonly seen problem in type 2 diabetic patients. And that's what we have to avoid. Let's get to the nitty gritty part of eating pomegranates, guys. So the pomegranates actually are 14 grams of sugar per 100 grams. So don't let that deter you though, but pomegranates provide still 7 grams of fiber and 30% of daily vitamin C requirement in that 100 grams. There you go. The vitamin C you need to protect you from COVID as well. Well, masks first. Also, the glycemic index of pomegranate is 53. This puts the pomegranate juice in the low glycemic index category, which means that it is slowly ingested and digested. Let's remember that glycemic index quickly, by the way, because some of you may not be familiar with it. It's a number that indicates how much of a particular item raises your blood sugar levels. So foods are rated on a scale of 0 to 100 and classified as low, medium, or high glycemic index foods.  Now, the low is less than 55. The medium is anywhere from 56 to 69 and 70 and higher is considered high glycemic index. Although pomegranate juice has carbohydrates, it also has phenolic chemicals and it helps with the actually weight loss and the fiber in it helps control your hunger and appetite. So what other benefits do we get from pomegranates? Well, there are numerous health benefits that, for example, has been shown to reduce the arthritis pain. It lowers your blood pressure, preventing heart disease, as we discussed, fighting the bacterial and fungal infections, and improving cognition. So we have vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K. They're all immune boosting elements. They're all found in pomegranates. Pomegranates are high in, like we said, vitamin C, the dietary fiber, folate, and potassium, which makes them one of the finest foods for your heart and, of course, the blood sugar control. It's not going to lower your blood sugar, but it's going to help you prevent the complications from diabetes. As a result of that, diabetic patients should have the pomegranate or pomegranate juice in moderation. But I say moderation. I would say a one medium size pomegranate or a cup of pomegranate juice will definitely be helpful. Keep in mind that depending on your blood sugar levels and the severity of your disease, you should still talk to your doctor and an nutritionist on a regular basis to get advice on how to effectively incorporate these wonderful fruits into your diabetic diet instead of avoiding altogether. Because everybody is different and some of you may perfectly tolerate up to two large pomegranates maybe. However, some of you may have a significant blood sugar spike even after a small pomegranate or a cup of pomegranate juice. If your blood sugar really spikes significantly after a small fruit like this, I would advise you. Talking to your doctor, maybe consider using a medication or a supplement to help control these blood sugar spikes instead of avoiding all the healthy foods that are out there that can potentially give you a little blood sugar rise. Instead of avoid pasta guy is the bread, the potatoes, the rice that you really actually eat and never tell me about it. Instead of avoiding pomegranates, avoid rice.  You will get a lot more benefits from eating that pomegranate rather than your rice. When is the best time to eat pomegranates? I promise you about this and I'll tell you right now. I would say eat pomegranate on an empty stomach first thing in the morning for the best results. You may have it as a pre or post-workout snack if you're not a morning person or if you're not working out in the morning because it actually lowers the melatonin levels so the nighttime consumption may not be the best time for it. Pomegranate overconsumption has some risks too.  On the other hand, the only problem that you may experience with eating too much pomegranate is severe constipation and some intestinal blockages have been reported as well. So calm down, so just eat one pomegranate or drink one cup of pomegranate juice and call it a day. And I'm calling this the end of this video so guys remember to like, share and subscribe and write something in the comment section for us to know what you think. See you guys all later.


So what did you think of the program? I thought it was an incredible opportunity, you know. We should definitely, it's definitely something that should be done in later years, again and again. This is like applying real-life skills and really the real-life engineering opportunity, the real-life absolutely unique opportunity for students. And as it designs that, I have to try it at the right angle and overall many designing aspects. My favorite part was probably a testing section for design-wise, creating these interchangeable parts. I went a lot.


Hi, you guys Lindsay here welcome back to my channel inside the Hymn today. I am going to be Showing you and talking to you about McCalls 7 6 6 0 This is one of the patterns that they released as part of their fall It had to have been fall. It definitely wasn't pre-fall and I don't think it was winter but it's one of the newer patterns that they released and it's basically just a Loose fitting pull over top that has a lot of different variations to it And I love patterns like this because it's like a one-stop shop for many different looks And so I thought for this video and to properly like review it I would try and make as many of the options as I could so as you can see from the pattern There are some versions with like a mock. I guess mock turtleneck. Is that what it's called? and Then there is a v-neck version as well, and then there are a few different sleeve versions There is a long sleeve And then there is this kind of like bubble sleeve And then I took it upon myself to create a third sleeve variation Which is the bubble sleeve without the bubble and I also Made this pattern into a gathered skirt dress an elasticized waist dress Which is super simple and you can do to any top pattern that you have And I'll explain a little bit more about how I did that whenever I show you the dress later on in the video But I wanted to talk a little bit about the fit I thought that the bodice portion of the pattern was pretty spot-on The bust fit really well. It's sort of loose like it explains The hip is a little bit looser as well Which is great if you're someone pear shaped like me and you need that extra room in the hip Also, something that I don't find very often is a very generous sleeve I feel like the width of this sleeve is very roomy So much so that I ended up taking mine in something. I don't have Big arms. I don't ever have to do like full bicep adjustments or anything like that But I also don't have chicken arms either Normally sleeve patterns fit me pretty good Like right out of the gate without any alterations and this one ended up being a little bit Looser and a little bit big for me. I thought Um And I'll show you a couple of examples because I the I made one Top that actually has my wearable muslin. That's the red one that I'm going to show you later And then the other two were after I made some alterations So you might see some differences in the kind of shape of the sleeve there This is the top in case you're wondering why I'm like Touching on it. It's because this is one of the versions that I made um So yeah in terms of fit. I think it's you know It's very easy to make it right out of the gate and be just fine Or make little tweaks to it depending on your body type Whether you have a smaller arm or smaller waist or smaller hips Um, I don't feel like this one of those patterns that you're going to make and You know, it'd be too small if anything you might consider Making a size smaller, but just check the um Finished garment sizes and compare that to your sizes to see where you fall But if you make the size that you always make in mccall's patterns I think that you would be you would find it to be a little bit more roomier than what you're used to Which could be nice for the winter time. You don't always want something like so Skin tight on you in the winter. Um, okay, let's see the um So, okay, so the bubble sleeve This is obviously like the design feature that this pattern was showcasing and None of the versions that I'm going to show you today Have the bubble sleeve, but it's not because I didn't try I tried to make the bubble sleeve and I think that A couple things one because the sleeve is very very roomy um, this bubble sleeve ended up looking very large and overwhelming and also I found the sleeve in general To be very long when I was making the bubble sleeve. I Wasn't factoring in any fit issues and I didn't make a muslin of it or anything None of that and when I finished it and put it on it was just very heavy And probably the fabric choice wasn't that great for that type of sleeve either So I ended up it was this fabric here What I ended up doing was just chopping it off at the elbow and making it like bicep length sleeves instead I had full intention of going back and trying to make the bubble sleeve again with the thinner arm Making that thinner arm adjustment On the bubble portion of the sleeve as well and then shortening the whole sleeve on top of all of that But I do feel like fabric choice is very important too And I didn't feel confident that I had a great fabric choice for that particular sleeve. Um, the sleeve is A lot. It's a bold design choice. So I was thinking that solid fabric would be better But it can't be too too drapey because then the sleeve will just kind of like flop It had to have a little bit of structure to it And so for all those reasons, I just never ended up making the bubble sleeve It is definitely something that I want to make and I think it looks super cute on the pattern cover Just didn't make it around this time around But it will happen. Um, the versions that I did make, okay, let's go through them I decided I would try and do like a date night version a weekend version and like a work appropriate version so Here we go. The first version is a date night version This is the first version I made the fabric is um, not super stretchy. It came from joanne Um, it is kind of like a take on a rib knit kind of It does have like some texture to it and also the fabric has like it's not a solid red It has like little speckles of black in it, which I thought was really pretty I ended up just making the collar out of the same fabric Which is my not sure you always have this one Does give you instructions on how to use rib knit if you'd rather do that But I didn't feel like this I wanted this to be a little bit dressier And so that's why I went for the collar in the self fabric I also made the um, like the regular Hip length. I didn't make the tunic version. I made the shorter length, but I did not add A band to the waist nor did I add a band to the wrists and that's simply because like I said I just wanted it to feel like a dressier blouse more so than a athletic Athletic type of um Sweater sweatshirt type of top And then for the outfit I just paired it with an a-line leather skirt and some leather like fold-over booties that I had And I thought it was really cute and just like really fun and flirty for date night um, the next Version of the top that I made this is for the weekend and this is the dress version that I made So I basically made the same exact version for date night except I did the band in pontinette And the wristbands also I did add wristbands to this one and put it in pontinette And I wanted to kind of do a contrast version Where the bands were a different fabric than the main part of the garment because I did want to highlight them a little bit Um, and then to add the skirt it was super simple You just take the you measure the width of the like wherever the Top falls at your natural waistline measure that width um Cut a square fabric that's like two two and a half times that width um And then gather up the skirt attach it to the top and then um, make a little casing for the elastic and tighten the elastic to however tight your waist is and then you've got a You know elasticized waist um Dress I can do another video and show you exactly step by step If that's something that you're interested in just let me know in the comments and I'd be happy to work on that for you guys um But so yeah, so I made that and just made it knee length Um, and I just thought it was like a really cute thing just to kind of throw on For this outfit.  Maybe spring um Dress that that is just quick and easy That was the whole point of it because nobody likes to fuss around on the weekend, right? um, and then the third version is for work and that's again what I'm wearing today and it is the mock neck version not the v-neck and um, I just paired it and the Without that I paired it with some kind of high waisted wide leg pants and some pointy toad booties and Cute jewelry and was kind of out the door. Um, I have worn this outfit to the office and got tons and tons of compliments I just love like a wide leg pant with a high neck just I don't know the whole silhouette feels very chic to me um, the fabric for this work one um, also came from joanne and it is seriously so soft It's like a super lightweight sweater knit, but it's got like a fuzzy texture to it I don't know. It just it's very comfortable very soft. Um, it's just you know, really really easy to wear um So yeah, those are the three dresses or the three Versions of the top that I made One that I made into a dress, but um the three versions of the top that I made and they all I feel like Stand apart from each other Like I don't think you could wear the two of them back to back or all three of them back to back And anyone would know that they're the same style lines or the same pattern or a version of the same garment I feel like they all look different and that was kind of the the whole point of me wanting to do a video Like this was to show that you could take one pattern and really make Different garments look Completely different And then just leave in the comments Um, let me know one thing that is on your sewing wish list something sewing related that you Have on your wish list simple as that So I really hope that you enjoyed the versions that I made and I hope that this Inspires you to look at some of the patterns that you have and think of ways to make them more versatile And other ways to make a pattern you might have already made So with all that thank you so much for watching. I will see you very soon and Goodbye