So, we will continue our discussion on theory of perfect competition. So, if you remember in the last class, we discussed about the long run price and output decision. Then we talked about that when there is a imposition of tax generally, who takes the maximum load, whether it is the buyers or whether it is the sellers. And then we examine the case of stock market, whether this is part of perfect competitive market structure or not. Then we will take one more example today in order to understand that whether there is an application of competitive market in the real world or whether there is evidence of perfect competitive market, form of perfect competitive market structure in the real world. So, generally we will take the example of the credit card industry. And if you see credit card industry seems to be a concentrated industry, Visa, Master Card and American Express are the most familiar names and over 60 percent of all charges are made using one of these three cards. So, if you look at if you are holding a credit card, either it is a Visa card, either it is a Master card or it is an American Express card. So, maybe they originate from different financial institutions or different banks, when it comes to type of cards, either it is American Express, Master or Visa card. And if you look at 60 percent of all charges are made using one of these three cards. So, when it comes to the characteristic of perfect competitive market structure and this credit card industry, the number and size distribution of buyers and seller is somehow comes to a equal characteristic, because there are large number of buyers. If you look at people, they prefer to use some more credit card rather than debit card or operating in cash and there are number of sellers like if you take any bank specifically, whether it is small in size, but still they offer a credit card, at least to those people, those who are holding an account in their bank. So, there are large number of credit card service provider and also there are large number of users of the credit card, which has some similarity with the characteristic of a perfect competitive market structure that there are large number of buyers and large number of sellers. And although these card are the choice of the majority of consumer, these card do not originate from the same firm. So, number of firms, but if you look at the product, the credit card is the product which comes from the number of firms, but if you look at it is a identical product because it is a credit card. Similarly, if you look at it is a relatively homogeneous product because the utility of the product is remain same, whether it comes from HDFC bank, whether it comes from ICICA, whether it comes from SBI, whether it comes from any of the banks, the usefulness or the utility of the product is the homogeneous product. So, credit cards are relatively homogeneous product, even if it originate from the different firms, still it has the same utility or the same usefulness and that is why it is a relatively homogeneous product. Entry into and exit from the credit card market is easy, like if you have a repaying capacity, generally you get a credit card. So, there is also an entry into it and exit from the credit card is also like you can just get out of it after paying all this to you. This is from the consumer perspective and from the firm's perspective also, there is no hard and fast tool that whether you should offer a credit card or not. If the bank has the capacity to offer a credit card, generally the firm or the bank they offer it or otherwise they generally exit if they are not feel that it is not a profitable business for the firm. So, it would seem that the credit card industry meet most of the characteristics to be perfectly competitive market, at least when it comes to large number of buyers and sellers, when it comes to homogeneous product, the number of buyers and sellers in the product they are large. It is a homogeneous product because the usefulness of the product is remain same whether it comes from the bank x or firm x or firm y or when it comes to the entry restriction, there is no entry barrier, there is no entry restriction, there is free entry into free exit into the firm. Now, the question comes is there any imperfection here in case of the credit card industry. May be the when you talk about the imperfection, yes because when you analyze it, it is not the same product because we get different category, there is a product differentiation because what facility we get it in the master card that we do not get in the visa card and that we do not get in the American express card and otherwise also if you take it in a different angle, what facility we get it in the American express card or a visa card, we do not get it in the master card. Similarly, when you talk about that homogeneous product, again the homogeneous product may be different because if you look at the cap like the what is the credit card limit, may be for one card limit is 40, if it is a gold card, if it is a platinum card or if it is a again there are different scheme, the credit card different schemes are coming and in that case you get different cards into the different cards and different credit limit and also the different faces sometimes we get the cash pack offer. So, if you analyze the product in that angle, again the question comes whether it is a homogeneous product, may be that time the answer is no. Similarly, free entry and free exit may be also a relative concept, if you analyze it may be again it is not fit to be perfect competitive market structure. So, may be out of these outliers, again when it comes to a comparison between the credit card industry and whether it is a perfect competitive market structure, may be closely the answer is yes because at least there are a few features which gets there is a resemblance with the perfect competitive market structure. So, then we will take our discussion into the next form of market structure that is the monopoly. So, in one extreme we have perfect competitive market structure and in the other extreme we have the monopoly. So, in today's session we will talk about the features of monopoly. So, if you look at perfect competitive is the one form where there is no competition at all there are large number of firms and in the other end we have the monopoly where there is a single firm there is no close substitute product. So, two extremes. So, we have already discussed about the perfect competitive market structure, then we discuss about the monopoly and we will do a comparative assessment between the perfect competitive market structure and the monopoly market structure. So, in today's session we will talk about the features of monopoly. We will find out what are the reasons for monopoly, generally why the market emerge in the form of the monopoly. Then we will look at what are the different types of monopoly. We will check the demand and marginal revenue for a monopoly how it is generally derived. Then we will talk about the price and output decision in the short run and long run and then we will talk about the supply curve of the monopoly firm and how the generally the measurement of the monopoly power is done. So, the word monopoly comes from a Greek word mono that is single and polo that is sell. So, it is a form of market where the single seller sell a product which has no close substitute. So, we can do a quick mind game over here that when we think about a product immediately we need to find a substitute.  So, if you look at if you closely look at there are some form of substitute is not there may be sometime it is close substitute, sometimes it is a distance substitute. Like if you look the case of railway may be there is no close substitute the railway, but there are some distance substitute like when you take the take the mode of travel as air take the mode of travel by road there are substitute available railway is not the only products available in the market. So, that is the reason when at least for a product we get close substitute or distance substitute we cannot call it monopoly it is not pure monopoly because still some close or the distance substitute available. Similarly, when you talk about monopoly and we are always saying that is the extreme form of a market structure can we get the evidence of pure monopoly in the real world. Maybe the answer is again no either it is a monopoly because of regulation either it is a monopoly because of the natural factors or maybe it is a economic monopoly. But again you take a specific example suppose it is rock suppose it is salt. So, for the time being when you do when you think over it maybe there is no close substitute to salt because this is the only product and if you want to use salt that is the only form of product there is no close substitute. But you think it over again it is not salt there is also a substitute that is called rock salt right. So, maybe the product there are few products in the market if you look that is the only product in the market but still it has some substitute. So, we cannot say there is one product which has no substitute and that is the reason we can say that there is no pure monopoly at least in case of a real market real world situation or the market situation because it is pure monopoly is one where there is no close or no distance substitute should be available in the market and that is quite hard to find in the real world example and that is why we say that maybe the monopoly comes in the form of regulator the monopoly comes in the form of the natural factor but not as a pure monopoly and that we will discuss in the due course of time that what are the different kind of monopoly and how they have formed or how they have emerged themselves as a monopoly market in the market in the real world situation. So, when you look at the features of monopoly there are single seller single product there is no difference between the firm and the industry because it is the single product and the firm produces all the individual firms or the number of plants they produces all the product. So, it is not number of firms at the industry there is no difference between the firm and industry because there is a single seller who sells of producer sells the entire product that is required in the market. Independent decision making because there is no competitor. So, the existing firm has not has to take care of the what will be the competitor reaction when it comes to regarding the decision about the price and output. So, in this case there is a independent decision making and also one of the significant feature of the monopoly market structure it is a restricted entry and why we call it a restricted entry because there is a entry barrier may be sometime this is man made otherwise it is natural also. There is a entry barrier whenever a firm interested to produce a product it is not that it is free it is not that they can just entry into the market and they can produce and they can sell it in the market. So, that is the reason this form of market is different from the other form of market because at least there is no entry barrier in case of the other market, but in this case specifically there is a entry there is a entry barrier. Then we can analyze that whether it comes natural or whether it comes as a whether it comes there is a reason behind this monopoly. So, the main cause or the main reason that monopoly generally arise from the barrier to entry and there is a entry barrier and that leads the market into the monopoly market. Now, what are the entry barriers over here? The barrier to entry before getting into the what are the different kind of entry barrier we can say what is barrier to entry or how generally we define the barrier to entry. Anything that impets the ability of the firm to begin a new business in an industry in which the in which existing firm of earning positive economic profit. So, it is a kind of situation any factor which stops the a new firms or the which stops the firms to get into that business is generally the generally known as the entry barrier because that that generally create a barrier for the new firms to enter into the market where the existing firm they are getting the economic profit there or they are getting the normal profit they are getting the super normal profit. Then we will see where the where what is the source for this barrier to entry. Barrier to entry is any factor which stops the entry of new firm into the industry or start a new business into the industry. So, what would be the sources of the barrier to entry or generally from where this entry barrier comes? First, when the firm they have a ownership of a key resources generally they that stop the other firms to enter into the market because they have the ownership of key resources and that is the reason they have also ownership to produce the product in a more cost effective manner. Any new firm enter into the market they have to get the resources which may be more costly as compared to the cost of production of the other firms who is who is having the ownership of the key resources. Second, when the government gives a single firm the exclusive right to produce some goods like if you look at everybody cannot produce the equipment required for defense. The government gives the single firm the exclusive right to produce some goods. So, here it is a regulation that creates an entry barrier for the other firms to enter into the market. Third sources of source of barrier to entry is the cost of production make a single production more efficient than a large number of producer. So, cost of production. So, if you remember in case of cost analysis we discussed about the economies of scale. So, there are different states when the firm expanding the scale of operation at a lower cost of production, from expanding the scale of operation at a constant cost of production and from expanding the scale of operation in a increasing cost of production. So, in this case if the existing firm they are operating the scale expanding the scale of operation at a lower cost of production they get the cost advantage and they get the enjoy the economies of scale which may not be possible for the new firms to enter at that stage in case of the market. Because the existing firm they are producing the product at a lower cost of production any new firms they enter into the market they have to any new firms enter into the market generally they have to compete to the existing firm at a higher cost of production and which may not be profitable for them and that stops them to enter into the market because the cost of production make the single producer more efficient than the large number of producer. So, generally barrier to entry comes from three sources. One when the firm is the ownership of key resources used for the production. Second the government gives the single firm the exclusive right to produce something and third the cost of production make the single producer more cost effective than the large number of producers in the market. Then we will see what are the types of barrier or what are the common entry barriers. The first one is economies of scale. So, when the long run average cost declines over a wide range of output relative to the demand for the product there may not be room for another large producer to enter the market. Like in the previous case we are examining that when one large firm is producing at a lower cost of production there is no scope for the other firms to enter into the enter into the market producing at a higher cost of production and competing with the existing firm. So, in the existing firm is enjoying the economies of scale they are producing the product in a most cost effective manner and that reduces the scope of the other firms to enter into the market. So, when the long run average cost declines over a wide range of output relative to demand for the product there may be there may not be room for the another large producer to enter the market and this serve as a one kind of entry barrier. Then barriers created by the government license exclusive franchises if it is given by government then like that creates as a entry barrier like we are taking the we are talking about the example of the supplier of the defense equipment. Everybody cannot get into the market it should be through the government when they are giving a exclusive franchising when they are giving a license to do that then only they can get into this and this serve as a entry barrier for the other firms into the market and they emerge as a monopoly leader. Then we have input barrier that is one firm control the crucial input in the production process like if someone is having the key ownership of the resources whether it is a technical know how like you can take the example of IBM who specializes in the man frames. So, any firms they enter into this may be they are not the specialized because the IBM they are holding a crucial input in the production process of the man frame and that serve as the input barriers for the other firms to enter into the market. Then brand loyalty strong customer allegiance to existing firm may keep new firm from finding enough bias to make entry worthwhile. Like you can take the example of Johnson and Johnson it is like for the baby product if you look at they are the market leader because till the time people they have the brand loyalty there are many more brand it has come in the market in the recent time. But if you look at people they have still the brand loyalty for the people and that makes them the that makes them actually the firm to become monopolist and brand loyalty serve as a input entry barrier. Like Microsoft when it comes to the window or when it comes to the any other Microsoft process we always say that Microsoft is the market leader. So, the brand loyalty for the Microsoft generally takes the other firms out of this market and that is why it serve as a entry barrier because people they have a confidence on the brand they have the loyalty for the brand and which acts as a barrier to the other firms to enter into the market. Then we have something called consumer lock-in and what is this consumer lock-in when the potential entrant can be deter if they believe high switching cost will keep them for inducing many consumers to change the brands. Like sometimes the switching cost from one brand to another brand puts the consumer into the lock-in situation and that leads to that leads to the situation where the other firms they cannot enter into the market. Like you can take the example of a mobile service provider when you have one connection from one mobile service provider you do not change that easily because it again use a again leads again requires a switching cost or the high switching cost because it may be high but there is some amount of the switching cost may be in case of mobile service provider at least when you need to buy a sim when you need to put a recharge card and which is to which generally consider as a part of the switching cost. So, generally when people they move from one product to another product they look at what is the switching cost available with this. So, if the switching cost is high generally people they take this to a that takes as the if the switching cost is high and let me not get into the change into the other product I am ok with this product. So, this thought process itself because the consumer is not changing the brand because there is a high switching cost that leads to the entry barrier for the firm into the other firms into the market. Similarly, if we have a network externality which serve as a entry barrier it occurs when the value of a product increases as more consumer buy and use it and make it difficult for new firms to enter the market where the firms have established a large network of buyers. So, when we are moving to a new place you can take the example of a we can take the example of a may be it is a phone connection or it is can be a buying a laptop buying a computer. Generally, how do you take a call that which one to buy you say that which product is more common in this area whether it is it is a mobile service provider whether it is BSNL whether it is pod upon whether it is air tail and if it is you look for the tower which gets a better connectivity and what people they are using more in this market. So, that that leads to the fact or that leads to the this fact leads to the decision of the buyers that what they are buying and this is generally called as a network externality because the benefit reach to the other consumer when one consumer uses this or similarly, when you are planning to buy a laptop you always say that who is the nearest service provider. If it is Sony vio the nearest service provider is there you generally buy it if it is del if you find that the nearest service provider is there generally you buy it. So, it is about the next network externality because since many firms they are using many consumer they are using the single product that that leads to the positive external benefit to the other firms in term of the other facility available with respect to that firm and that generally creates a entry barrier for the other firms to enter into the market.


They're too high for him, breaks for Gary Thompson, hoaxes towards the back. For the 18-yard box, stands one up towards the back post, Thompson's in there, Thompson with the header well, surely!


Item number SCP-226 Object Class Safe Special Containment Procedures SCP-226 is to be kept in a locked cabinet within the site's ██████ secure item storage unit. Any personnel wishing to use SCP-226 must have approval from any personnel with at least level 3 security clearance. Description SCP-226 is a cardboard box measuring roughly 30 cm x 20 cm x 4 cm. It has a lid that fits securely over the bottom half as with any common puzzle box. The surface of the box is a deep black, with the word FEAR scrolled with white ink on the upper right corner of its lid. Within the box are 1000 cardboard puzzle pieces, each measuring roughly 2 cm in diameter, also considered SCP-226. When completed, the puzzle always forms in a rectangular shape, however the design and order in which the pieces fit together change with use. SCP-226 aligns itself with whoever initially opens the box. When opened, the pieces change design, and the completed image will show what has been discovered to be the greatest fear of the person who it is aligned to. The image on the pieces did not change after the box had been opened. Recorded images on SCP-226 are as follows. A bloated corpse sinking under water. A set of gallows with several nooses attached.  A darkened window with a mutilated hand scraping across it. SCP-682 A human figure completely covered in various insects such as bees or centipedes. The cross-section of a coffin buried in dirt, with a person inside slamming her fist on inside of the lid. When completed and taken back apart, the lid of SCP-226's box will flies with the air and secure itself back on the lower half. The puzzle pieces will disappear, presumably returning back into the box. SCP-226 will then become unaligned, and align itself with the next person to open the box. Additional Notes SCP-226 was first discovered by now defunct Mobile Task Force-12 on ██-19██. At the time, the Task Force was investigating reports of a possible SCP in a series of tunnels underneath a church in the city of ████. Due to an equipment malfunction, MTF-12 had lost communication with the surface and was stranded within the tunnels until repairs were made. The Task Force discovered SCP-226 on a wooden table within a stone room, surrounded by several chairs. Believing it to be a simple puzzle, MTF-12 decided to open SCP-226 to pass the time. When completed, SCP-226 depicted the exact scene of MTF-12 sitting at the table working on a puzzle. However, Agent ████████████████████████ appeared to be viciously stabbing several other members of the Task Force with a standard-issue combat knife. The puzzle was taken apart, transported back to its box. Repairs were soon made and MTF-12 returned to the surface. Note, regrettably, an accident en route to the surface caused the death of Agent ████████


Ah, we're back, we're live. This is Think Tech talking about history lens today with John David Ann, history professor at HPU. We get together a couple of weeks and we learn so much about history. It's very important that we do this, because, you know, as George Sontiana said. Well, something about repeating the past. Repeating the past. I'm not sure it's true. I would argue that Sontiana was actually wrong. But anyway, we don't have to debate that. No, no, no. Let's talk about our selected topic here, which is Abraham Lincoln and American Exceptionalism. Can you tell us what American Exceptionalism is? So exceptionalism and American exceptionalism is this idea that somehow the United States is special, it's unique, its mission in the world is kind of driven, maybe even by God. It's a nation that has this unique, special, very good kind of message for the world. That's American exceptionalism. Where did it come from? Well, when did it come? Right, right. So before we start talking about the history of American exceptionalism, let's talk about American exceptionalism today, because there are some very live debates going on today about American exceptionalism. The political right, the right wing, has for several decades said the left wing doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, this idea that America is a special place, has special mission. And so this has been kind of a, it's been a hammer that the American right has used against the American, the political left. The political hammer. That's what it is. And in debates, so I think really ever since the 1960s and the Vietnam War, then the left has been accused of a lack of patriotism and also of denying American exceptionalism. And the truth is that in, since Vietnam, then academics have kind of attacked American exceptionalism pretty seriously since that time period. But to really think about American exceptionalism, we can go to the most recent debate, which was when President Obama was in office. And then right wing Republicans accused him of not believing in American exceptionalism. So if we can bring up the slide in which Obama states his, so this is what Obama said in response to that accusation, he said, I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. So Obama is making a very interesting, very sophisticated argument about American exceptionalism that it's a mythology, national mythology that various nations participate in, that each nation has its own kind of belief in its exceptionalism. And it's not an unalloyed endorsement of American exceptionalism. So is it true though? Does every nation have its own kind of exceptionalism? I think so. Part of nationalism, part of national identity. But even more so, it's a specific kind of nationalism in that it endorses the nation as a kind of special unique place that's got a special something, a special mission that it can bring to the rest of the world. So it could be different nations? It could be different. Yeah, it could be the same, it could be the same, but still there's this animating spirit that somehow, and also it could be connected to God. The language associated with American exceptionalism is sometimes quite religious, so you could have a situation where American exceptionalists talk about a God-given mission in the world, and this is certainly true historically, that you see this actually quite often. But today, really, it's focused on the American role in the world. I think another example is the neocons, the neoconservatives around the time of the invasion of Iraq. Before that, we're saying, hey, the United States has a role, it has a mission in the world to save the Middle East for democracy and freedom, and the neocons made this as part of the justification for going into Iraq and invading Iraq, so you see that kind of rhetoric, and so I suspect they weren't particularly pleased with Obama's very self-reflexive response to their question about whether or not he believed in American exceptionalism. When you go to Vietnam, and you have all the liberals who oppose Vietnam, huge numbers of people, including a lot of students who oppose Vietnam, you can say it's anti-exceptional, but really what it was is we think you're doing the wrong thing. We think the country hasn't got their act together, it's act together. So this is where the right kind of stole a march on the left and used their opposition to the war in Vietnam to accuse them of not being patriotic, and accuse them of not believing in American exceptionalism, because part of what Vietnam was about, if you believe in American exceptionalism, was saving the Vietnamese from the evil of communism and creating a small United States of America right there in Vietnam, so that's where it became politicized. It was politicized actually long before that, but still it became kind of hyper politicized. And for a less sophisticated audience, so to speak, it's really a statement that you're not patriotic. I don't believe in the country. Yes, at one level that's part of it, but honestly American exceptionalism goes deeper than that and connects to the history and the mythologies that make the nation supposedly special. So it's not just love for the nation, but it's actually more of an identity and a narrative that's created in a language that's created about the nation. So one of the things, of course, that happens then is the left is critical of American exceptionalism. If we can bring up the book by Andrew Basavich called The Limits of Power, yes. So this is a book published in 2009, and notice the title Andrew Basavich is The Limits of Power, the End of American Exceptionalism. He's arguing that the United States in the post World War II era has abandoned its exceptional mission and has become a superpower and imperialist like the British, like the Germans and the French and other European powers, and has really abandoned its ideals of freedom in favor of hegemony. So one part of American exceptionalism is the academics in the post Vietnam era have really attacked American exceptionalism. So it's created an atmosphere between the political left and the political right where, well, the Republicans will say, hey, are you exceptional enough? And Democrats might even say to the opposition, hey, are you exceptional? You believe in American exceptionalism. And apparently President Trump doesn't think American exceptionalism goes far enough. It's too limiting. And he didn't really explain what that means, but that's kind of par for the course. Well, he didn't make it an American exceptionalism. He diminished it, in a sense, by comparing it with exceptionalism in other countries. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we really don't know what Donald Trump thinks about American exceptionalism, except that he thinks that we haven't gone far enough. Well, that's a mixed bag. He's an isolationist. He doesn't want to be the world's helper or keeper. Right. He wants to be a global leader of humanity, whatnot. At the same time, he wants to be Mr. Big. Right. So it's hard to, you know, it becomes a definitional problem. I like the way you said it. Exactly what he wants. Mr. Big. Yes. Yes, no, exactly. So yeah, there's real confusion, real confusion with Donald Trump on this issue. But when we think about American exceptionalism, I think it's, you know, important to go back and study the history of it, because really American exceptionalism encapsulates historical identity and historical narrative. So if we can go back to really the kind of the founding moment of American exceptionalism, it really begins with the sailing of the Puritans across the Atlantic to land in Massachusetts and start the Massachusetts Bay County and onboard the Arabella, which was the ship that they sailed on then. Their leader, John Winthrop, who later became governor of Massachusetts, he gave a sermon. The sermon is called A Model of Christian Charity. And in that sermon, he talked about a city on a hill. So if we can bring up the slide of John Winthrop and the Puritans. This is a fascinating, it's a fascinating slide, there it is. So John Winthrop said, in that sermon he said, for we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world. Now, interesting about that sermon is it's quite negative if they fail, right? Winthrop says, we can be a city on a hill, in other words we can be a shining example for the rest of the world, but if we fail, we will be a cursed people in the rest of the world will look at us and say, oh, these idiots, they didn't make it. Yeah, that's so interesting, so that makes it an imperative. It does make it an imperative, right? So the pressure is on after that point, the Americans, if they believe in Winthrop's language, have to be a shining example. They have to be not only unique and exceptional, but an example for the rest of the world. It's a beautiful idea, except for the reference to religion. If you take the reference to religion out of it, you can't take it out of it. I guess you can't. I guess you can't. Too bad. Winthrop was a pastor, he's a deeply religious man, but I guess the question is, if God is in there, and Winthrop's statement, what happens when you get to the Constitution and you have separation of church and state? Right, right, right. So the thing is, there's separation of church and state, but there's never an abandonment of the belief that the United States is blessed by God with an exceptional mission in the world, and is really chosen by God as an exceptional country. That kind of religious language stays in ideas of American exceptionalism, right through the revolutionary period, and into the early national period, right through into really the late 19th, early 20th century. It's only really in the post... It's not there anymore. It's only in the post-World War II period that religious illusions within American exceptionalism are taken out. They slowly disappear from the language. What about the resurrection of religion, though, in the last, what, 10 years, 15 years? We have so much more religion going on in the country now. Is that a resurrection of this earlier idea? Well, I think for one thing I don't think... I would disagree with you, actually. I think there's not as much... You can look at polls showing that Americans see themselves as becoming more secular as a people, and young people in particular, about 65% of all young people have never actually been to a church. So actually, what I would argue is that actually fits with the erosion of religious language in American exceptionalism. American exceptionalism has become shorn of its religious associations. But in the time of Winthrop, and in the time of the revolutionary leaders, and in the time of Abraham Lincoln, the religious language was very much a part of American exceptionalism. The beliefs that God had somehow chosen us to be this... On the inside, a nation that's special, committed to certain values, liberty, freedom. And then on the outside, a nation that's an example for the rest of the world, Winthrop's idea of a city on a hill. The chosen nation. Yeah, chosen nation, yes. So it's an interesting way to think about the country. And in Winthrop's language stays very powerful in the first part of the history of the nation. So it's a very powerful thing. It's permeated. I mean, even... Of course, I have to agree with you that there's not so much religion around anymore. But the essential self-perception, the identity of the nation does include this notion that it is the chosen nation. My mother used to say to me when I was a kid, she said, Thank God you were born in the United States. It is the greatest country on Earth. So illusions to American greatness, that connects to this older idea of American exceptionalism. There's no doubt about that, that somehow the United States has become a great nation because of this special mission. And it really is... What happens at a certain point is the language of American exceptionalism becomes kind of detached from the historical narrative, the historical realities. It becomes basically whatever you want it to become. So in the case of the Trump campaigns, you know, make America great again, then is this American exceptionalism? Is it American hegemony? I mean, what is this exactly? It becomes sully that becomes... Anything you want it to be. Yeah. Essentially the... Different for different people. That's right. So the language has become very muddled, the language of American exceptionalism. One thing is very clear in politics is that if you're... If you want to be on a national political stage and somebody asks you, do you believe in American exceptionalism, then you better have an answer ready. Whether it's Obama's answer that's kind of self-reflexive, while all nations believe in American exceptionalism, or whether it's yes, freedom and liberty for all, this kind of an answer. Because it is still, even though there's been a tremendous erosion of exceptionalist ideas in the United States, it's still something that has political currency. Oh, can you imagine if a politician gets up and says, no, I don't believe the United States is exceptional. I don't think it's a great country at all. Right, right. So this is the issue really. When we look at the history of American exceptionalism, we can see it eroding from the post-World War II period, as I think you can argue for American nationalism more generally, as the United States became more and more involved in the world, then its identity as a special place, as an exceptional nation, became eroded. As the world changed, as other places in the world emerged after the war, as we collectively, globally, became conscious of them, then in a relative sense, the United States was not necessarily at the top of the heap anymore. Right, right. But maybe still an exceptional nation. But American troops and the American military staying at its bases after World War II, staying in the world, all of those military bases, all of the interests that the United States now had as a superpower, made it much more difficult to define itself against others and define itself in a way that made the United States special. Post-World War II period, the United States came to look like more of just kind of your garden-variety hegemon. And so garden-variety hegemon. OK, OK, yeah, it's worth another quote. But the history of it is fascinating. And to do that, maybe we should go back and look at some important kind of stages. So after John went through it, and after the Revolutionary period, when American exceptionalism becomes defined in less religious terms through freedom and liberty, through the Declaration of Independence, shall we say. After that, then American exceptionalism becomes embedded in the identity of the nation. But the nation is on the horns of a terrible contradiction because, of course, you have the exceptional nation of freedom and liberty. And then you also have a nation of slaveholders. So this makes for a real problem. And what it means is that the Civil War period is going to be crucial in defining kind of the next stage of American exceptionalism, because the war is about American identity. And in fact, it's got to be a factor that leads to the Civil War. Because some people are saying, we're exceptional. We can't have slavery. Exactly. So this makes the argument more caustic somehow. Yeah, it makes it more of a challenging argument to make. And some Americans become quite concerned. Lincoln is one of those who becomes quite concerned about the state of American exceptionalism. And Lincoln refers to American exceptionalism or the American nation as an experiment. It's an experiment in republicanism, because the nations of Europe, of course, are monarchies. So it's this experiment going forward. So Lincoln has great concerns that this nation won't survive, that it will die. The experiment will die.  And he believes, like John Winthrop, that when American exceptionalism dies, then actually the monarchs in Europe are probably cheering. And they don't particularly like countries that have had revolution. That's right. Republican countries, revolutionary countries. So the monarchies are cheering. And there's a sense among other nations that, well, this experiment failed. We don't have to go back to that. So Lincoln was quite concerned. He understood the Winthrop thing. He understood. He watched it happen. He was a very smart guy. He was a political genius. Absolutely. So he probably, I'm guessing, you can confirm to me, he probably used this whole notion. He was selling it. He was selling American exceptionalism in becoming popular, in having his will done in Congress and in the nation. Yes, he was a true believer. There's no doubt about it. He was a true believer in the founding principles, and therefore definitely endorsed American exceptionalism. But Lincoln's a candy politician as well, so it wasn't just American exceptionalism. It was the idea that if this experiment fails, if the Civil War goes the other way, the nation's become broken up. And this experiment in Republicanism and democracy fails, then Lincoln would have felt like, oh, I failed not just the United States of America, but I failed the world. So there's definitely a strong linkage between Lincoln and John Winthrop. He will buy into that. And yes, eventually, yes, I think so. So the first couple of years of the war, the war is being fought on the basis of restoring the union. Soldiers join up on the basis of restoring the union. And so the union itself takes on this kind of inviolable, sacred entity, right? And I think these soldiers who are shedding their blood, they actually believe in this. They have to. If they don't believe in it, why would they be shedding their blood? They're not fighting for slavery in the first couple of years. They're fighting for their nation. And so I think they do. I think they believe in it. And I think that's why the war is so vicious. It's about these competing versions of this nation. Historians have argued that the Confederates are also fighting for an identity. They're fighting for a nation. And they're fighting not necessarily for a Confederate nation, but maybe for their chance to come back into the union and have their version of the union succeed. Like different terms. Yeah, that's right. A different kind of exceptionalism than the American exceptionalism of freedom and liberty. Although they would say no, it's still based upon the Declaration of Independence and liberty.  The word union carries so much with it. Not only the fact that the country was called the United States, but I think there's almost a biblical resonance there in the word union. We are together. And you can sell that to a lot of people based on their fundamental appreciation of the world. Yeah, certainly the nation is quite religious in this time period. You have the second great awakening in which about 25% of the population is converted to evangelical Christianity. So religious or what we would call eschatological language is actually fairly commonplace in secular speeches, in the speeches of politicians. So this is not really unusual at all. And it comes into a lot of different places. So when did it come out with Lincoln? I mean, for example, we talked before the show about the Gettysburg Address. Is exceptionalism in the Gettysburg Address? Oh, I think so. I think it's definitely in the Gettysburg Address. But the problem for us historically is we have to get to the Gettysburg Address. And in order to do that, we have to look at 1863. And so 1863 is a turning point in the war. OK, why do I need to talk about war when we're talking about American exceptionalism? Because if the North loses the Battle of Gettysburg, if the North loses the Battle of Vicksburg, then Lincoln has no chance to transform the nation with a speech at Gettysburg. That's why. So the battles are actually quite important. So the Battle of Gettysburg, let's take that first. And so we can look at, if we bring up the map of the Battle of Gettysburg, the Battle of Gettysburg takes place right around the time of the Fourth of July, the celebration of American independence. And so it's between July 1st and July 3rd is the battle. And the Battle of Gettysburg is so important because this is the second time that Robert Lee has brought his army into the North, into Northern territory, this time into Pennsylvania. Which was a free state. That's correct. And so the Union, once again, has to fight against this Southern army in Northern territory. If Lee succeeds, I think it's quite possible that the foreign powers would have recognized the Confederacy. The turn of the tide. That's right. So it's a very important battle. And so the Union actually is able to fall back into positions that resemble a fish hook. If we can bring that up once more, we can see. Then you see the shape of the blue part. That's like a fish hook. This is an exceptionally strong battle formation for fighting a battle because you can move troops between it very easily. Troops between the different parts of the fish hook. And so over a couple of days, then the Union fought off offensive after offensive. And really, in the process, decimated Lee's army. Lee lost about half of his army in this battle. Yeah, it was a very serious loss for Lee. And so this battle, which ended on July 3, along with the Battle of Vicksburg. Now can we bring up the Battle of Vicksburg slide as well? The Battle of Vicksburg slide, this battle ends on July 4. So you have these two major battles. This is a battle on the Mississippi River. And it's a very, my apologies for the complexity of the slide. But if you follow the blue line, that's Ulysses S. Grant's army. You follow that blue line from Louisiana on the left-hand side and then follow it as Grant crosses from Louisiana into Mississippi and then marches his troops to Jackson, Mississippi, and then back towards Vicksburg. Then this is one of the most successful battle campaigns of the war. And it ends with the capture of Vicksburg and then the capture of all of the Mississippi River by the Union. This means that the Confederacy is now divided into two. And it means that the Union looks like it's winning the war. So Battle of Gettysburg, Battle of Vicksburg. And together, those two give Lincoln and his administration a real boost. I mean, this is. He's waiting for this. It's absolutely. And as you say, this sets the stage to make a fairly lofty proclamation. I think so. Lincoln has been thinking about the proclamation of the slavery proclamation that he did in January 1st, 1863. And so that was limited, right? But now Lincoln is thinking further about the issue of slavery in the war. And Lincoln has decided that, look, fighting for the Union is not going to win the war. We need to transform the purpose of the war. And I think Lincoln starts to believe that the war is really about ending slavery. It's really about what Lincoln calls a new birth of freedom. And so let's talk about the Gettysburg address. If we can bring that up. This is really kind of Lincoln's moment. And yeah, I mean, this is the moment when Lincoln says, look, this war has been fought on the basis of a union. Now we're going to fight this war on the basis of slavery and freedom. And Lincoln. Exceptionalism. That's right. Yes, this is a classic statement of American exceptionalism. My apologies, it's a little bit blurry. So Lincoln talks about a new birth of freedom. And when he discusses this, what he's talking about is the end of slavery. A new freedom in which there will be no slavery in the land. It's a redefinition of the country. It is. It's a redefinition of the country. It's a transformation of the purpose of the war. And it's really something that allows Lincoln to push forward on the ending of slavery towards the end of his life. In 1865, when Congress takes up the question of ending slavery with a constitutional amendment, then this is at Lincoln's behest. Lincoln is saying, we need to go forward with this. And it's really amazing. We study this in school. And I don't realize until now with you, John, how critically important Lincoln was to American history and therefore the world. And how he did change and how brilliant he was in his vision and his ability to change the whole direction of the country. It's really seminal in our nation and our world. And I think this is why we consider the Gettysburg Address today one of the most important or maybe the most important speech in the history of the country. Because Lincoln took a situation that was a contradiction within the founding principles of the nation. And then he drew out the sacrifice of the soldiers. He talks about the sacrifice of the soldiers in the Gettysburg Address. And then he says, we're going to have a new birth of freedom. And that means that the rest of the war is about ending slavery. And next time, we're going to talk about the rest of the war. Right at times, John. Exactly. Good. Thank you so much. Really appreciate this. No problem. It changes my view of everything. And I hope you guys out there appreciate it to the same way. All right. Aloha. Excellent.