President of the United States. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, and thank you, Max, for taking me back to that other life of mine. I'd never heard that story before. I'm delighted to be with all of you distinguished ladies and gentlemen this afternoon, and I'm pleased to be back in the home of your winners, those great Detroit Tigers.  We both took over struggling teams, but now the future is looking bright again. But it was here in Detroit that we embarked on a new beginning for America four years ago, and I'd like to speak with you today about what I consider the most important issue in the 1984 campaign, America's Choice for the Future. This election offers the clearest choice in 50 years on the direction our country should take, a choice of whether we go forward together with the courage, common sense, and new spirit making America strong again, or whether we turn back to those policies that weakened our economy, reduced opportunities, and reversed America's tradition of progress. I believe America works best when we trust our people, all our people, when we trust their vision, faith, judgment, and courage. When we give them opportunities to climb higher and reach for the stars, a million dreams can become the golden dream of America. But we know that in the recent past, our government had stopped placing trust in the people, and too many dreams were allowed to die, higher taxes, more government spending, and greater government intrusion. The same approach advocated today by my opponent had dramatically changed the landscape of America. We saw a once-proud nation staggered by steady erosion of economic growth, punishing inflation and interest rates, a record peacetime tax burden, rising unemployment, and weakened defenses. We saw policies with devastating results, families encouraged to break up, bedrock values of work and strength of neighborhoods undermined, crime going up, our children's achievement in school going down. In retrospect, there was only one thing fair about those policies. They didn't discriminate. They made everybody miserable. In short, America wasn't working very well. Now, I know the last administration didn't want these things to happen. I don't question my opponent's good intentions. He sincerely believes his philosophy of bigger government is in the best interest of America. Well, I would simply suggest that all of us remember, given the track record, that there is a well-known road paved with good intentions, but no one wants to go where it leads. You know, I was once asked how I hope personally to be remembered for my time as custodian of this office. I was appearing just a week or so ago before a college group when that question was asked by one of the students. Well, knowing that I believe that Americans do better by themselves, I said that and with the courage of millions of Americans are coming to grips with the problems that had built up for more than a decade, I said I would hope that I would be remembered as having given the government of this country back to the people. Together we've made a new beginning, restoring America's economic and military strength, her sense of community and fidelity to shared values in her spirit of national unity. We recognize that much remains to be done to help the people that were hurt most by past mistakes, but we believe our policies now in effect with the initiatives we're supporting for the future will continue to improve life and opportunity for all Americans. And with your support, we're going to get that job done and get it done right. In 1980, history gave us a great challenge to rescue a nation in crisis and to save America's future. We met that challenge. In 1984, America's being challenged again, this time to shape our future. We must make this nation so strong, so united, that when today's young Americans become tomorrow's leaders, they will inherit an America that can remain the great shining light for progress and peace for generations to come. And that's why I'm urging all of us in 1984 to join together. Let us go forward and build an American Opportunity Society, a society that ensures that every individual will have his or her chance to climb higher, to climb up to the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society, to achieve the fullness of creative human potential. There's a true and tested path to a bright and hopeful future, but it's not the path of good intentions by bigger government. It's the path of greater responsibility in government and greater opportunity for every man, woman, and child, and that's the America we've been working for and that's the America we mean to keep working for. Common sense and opportunity are essential to successful policies for economic growth. And economic growth is essential to a just and fair society. Federal spending growth, which reached a 17 percent annual rate in 1980, contributed to back-to-back years of double digit inflation and a 21.5 percent interest prime rate. The highest since the Civil War. Retirement savings were devastated. A family with the average amount of life insurance in 1976, $30,000, saw its value shrink to $20,725 in 1980. In 1979 and 80, working Americans weekly earnings declined in real terms by 8.8 percent, the worst drop since World War II. Young families couldn't save to send their children to college. Tuition costs had soared 41 percent in just four years. Soaring mortgage rates meant 10 million families could no longer afford to buy homes. The rates on car loans jumped from 10.9 percent in 1977 to 16.5 percent in 1981. Grocery bills increased by 50 percent and the price of a gallon of gas more than doubled. The needy were hit hardest of all. A family in a fixed income of $8,000 in 1979 was about $600 above the poverty line. But in 1980, it was almost $400 below it. As double digit inflation, they wrote a purchasing power and pushed the poverty line up. Inflation reduced the real value of government benefits and especially hurt the poor who were forced to spend a larger share of their income on necessities. In the last administration, per person aid to families with dependent children fell 10 percent. The value of the maximum allotment of food stamps fell by almost 6 percent. Now, these policies didn't just create unfair hardship. They were the very essence of unfairness. Despite the great torrents of rhetoric about compassion, the only people who benefited from those high inflation and interest rate policies were people wealthy enough to invest in expensive inflation hedges. Working Americans and the needy were left out in the cold. Inflation and high interest rates are not caused by people living too well. Inflation and high interest rates are caused by government living too well. So we took action to bring runaway government spending under control. We cut its rate of growth by more than half. Experts warned it would take 10 years to bring inflation down to the level of the 1960s. Well, we did it in two years, and today the third quarter gross national product deflator is estimated at 2.9 percent, and inflation stands at only 4.2 percent. Not only are we determined to keep inflation down, we will not be satisfied until inflation is 0.0. Interest rates have fallen by more than a third. That's still not enough, but the prime recently dropped, and I think we'll see more of that ahead. What has this progress meant for Americans, especially families of average means? Well, in contrast to that 8.8 percent decline I just mentioned in real weekly earnings, in the last two years they have risen 3.2 percent. In December 1980, the weekly food bill for a family of four was $86.90. If inflation had continued at its double-digit rate, that family's food bill would be $127.57. But inflation down dramatically has kept that family's food bills down to $98.50. Roughly one-fourth the rise that continued double-digit inflation would have meant. While the value of the maximum allotment of food stamps fell by almost 6 percent in the last administration, the value of that same allotment has gone up by almost 8 percent during our administration. We decontrolled the price of oil, and our critics claimed the cost of gas at the pump would skyrocket. Well, the price is down about 8 cents from where it was three years ago, and we decontrolled. The decline in interest rates, while not yet enough, has reduced the average cost of home mortgages by $143 a month, put home ownership within the reach of 5 million more Americans than before, and made car purchases more affordable too. Too many families are still not where they need to be, but our progress has made them more financially secure. They have more opportunities, and I happen to believe this is what fairness is all about. In 1980, the Misery Index, you remember that? It was coined in that campaign to be used against Jerry Ford. It was the combination adding inflation rate and unemployment rate. Well, it was twelve and a half when they used it against Jerry Ford. They didn't mention it in 1980 because it was 20.5 by then. Today, the Misery Index is down to 11.7. We've made progress, but we can make more progress bringing inflation and interest rates down if the United States Congress would make more progress bringing federal spending down. Some of the congressmen here at the head table are applauding that also. I'm asking for your strongest support for two long overdue reforms supported by the American people, but resisted by the Democratic leadership, a constitutional amendment mandating that government stops spending more than government takes in, and a line item veto giving a president authority to veto individual items on appropriation bills. Now, just remember, you don't need to make them see the light. You just have to make them feel the heat. Forty-three state governors have this authority, and when I was governor of California, I used the line item veto more than 900 times. But legislation for a line item veto is tied up in the Congress. Tell the Congress to give democracy a chance, and I promise you, we'll get rid of the pork barrel spending that slips through every year. Incidentally, none of those more than 900 vetoes in California were overridden. Democrats in the House killed the balanced budget amendment in 1982, and their leadership still resists allowing a vote on that amendment. Now, I recognize that idea wouldn't be a cure-all. It wouldn't even go into effect right away, but I believe it would force the leadership of the Congress to work with the president on long-term budget of real discipline, one that would not penalize those dependent on government for help, and its high time that this be done. If we'd received all the cuts that we've sent to Congress over the past five years, the deficit would be $40 billion less than it is right now. Having inherited the legacy of 42 unbalanced budgets in the last 50 years, I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. We do not have a deficit problem in this country because the American people are not taxed enough. We have a deficit problem because the federal government has spent too much and taxed too much far too long. Getting spending under control for good will keep the deficit on its downward path, help bring inflation and interest rates down more, provide greater security for all our people, and give investors and businesses the confidence they need to make long-term investments for our future. But the other side of that equation is pursuing incentive policies for growth. And to meet our challenge, to build an American Opportunity Society, we must have tax policies that spur America to challenge the very limits of growth. Now, I believe that the tax policies in place before we got to Washington were anti-growth, anti-people. Government always under the guise of compassionate, penalized Americans with record taxes that reduced rewards for hard work, thrift, and risk-taking. They wanted us to substitute limits for the American dream, and for once they managed to do what they wanted. Economic growth fell from 5.4 percent in 1976 to a minus three-tenths of 1 percent in 1980. Savings fell, as inflation raised marginal tax rates so high it didn't pay to save. By 1979 and 1980, investment was declining. Inflation had driven up the replacement cost of business equipment, but the tax laws mandated such slow write-offs for the purchase of new equipment that many businesses were using up capital every year rather than replacing it. Little wonder that workers' productivity fell in 79 and 80, the first back-to-back years of decline in post-war history, and that housing, steel, autos, and our basic industries were in a slump. In 1980, auto industry unemployment was over 20 percent, five times higher than in 1977. Between 1978 and 1980, steel workers unemployment more than doubled, machine workers unemployment nearly doubled, and between 1979 and 1980, unemployment among electrical equipment workers rose 50 percent, 7 percent, and for construction workers it rose 37 percent. America was sinking, losing our can-do spirit and our stature as world economic leader. So we began with a common-sense principle. Government must remove the burden of excessive taxes and restore opportunity to people. We designed a program to take America in a new direction, and then we fought for and won a 25 percent tax rate reduction for everyone who works and earns, tax indexing to keep government from using inflation to profit at your expense, a new capital cost recovery system shortening depreciation schedules to encourage modernization of plants and equipment, estate tax reductions for family farms and small businesses, a reduction in the marriage tax penalty, an increase in the child care tax credit, deregulation of banking allowing a higher rate of return for small savers, and new incentives for IRAs and KEO contributions. The best collection of incentives for progress since the administration of John F. Kennedy, but even with this entire program in place, taxes average about 19 percent of gross national product that is still marginally above historic levels. As I said, the American people are not undertaxed. Over 90 million Americans will file personal income tax returns this year at rates about 25 percent lower than four years ago. A family with a 1984 income of $15,000 is paying $281 less in taxes than of our rate cuts hadn't passed. A family earning $30,000 is paying $914 less, and wealthy Americans are paying a higher share of the total tax burden than they were four years ago. Our critics complained our tax cuts were unfair. This was after they fought the idea of any tax cut when we made it a major issue in the 1980 campaign. They also tried to do away with the third year of the tax cut and do away with indexing, which doesn't help those in the top tax brackets at all, but does help working families trying to keep from being pushed into those high brackets. Some people have labored so long at making government bigger, they've developed a knee-jerk addiction to tax increases, and every time they're knee-jerk, we get kicked. Now, I majored in economics, but I never appreciated until the great hue and cry over our program how true it is that economics is the dismal science. When the shaky economy really started a falter in July of 1981, many blamed it on our program. Well, the trouble is, our program hadn't even been adopted yet. We were still operating on the same budget we inherited. Our tax cuts and budget savings were not passed until August of 1981. The first tax cut didn't become effective until October of 1981, so that made it only a one and a quarter percent for the year, and the full tax cut didn't go into effect until 1983. Nevertheless, a sizable body of politicians and economists were ready to pronounce judgment on our program early on, in one case very early on. In August of 1980, before I was even elected, my current opponent said of our plan to reduce income tax rates across the board that it's based on a two-cent theory. Every leading economist rejects it, and for good reason, it is obviously, murderously, inflationary. That's right, he said it was inflationary. I would have thought he should have known better how to recognize policies that are inflationary. Lester Thurow, an economist often seen and quoted, said in October of 1982, just before recovery began, that the engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come. That's right, he said years. John Kenneth Galbraith, also in October of 1982, said, we have an unprecedented experiment in economic policy. It has failed. That's right, he said it failed. And permit me to quote my opponent one more time. In December of 1982, he said, at most I can only see a modest or anemic recovery coming as a result of the recent declines in interest rates and some pickup in consumer buying. And that's right, he said anemic. Well again, I would have thought he should have known better how to recognize anemia. What actually happened from strength in autos and construction and renewed leadership and high technology, from a rebirth in productivity and surging investment to the creation of six million new jobs, America is in the midst of the best economic expansion in over 30 years.  Now also, one year ago we put into place a real job training program that substitutes the make work policies of the past with training for real jobs in the marketplace. Over 700,000 people have been served by the Job Training Partnership Act, with a job placement rate in excess of 70%. Next year we'll do better, we'll serve a million people. What we're seeing all across America, but what too many old guard economists still won't acknowledge, is the power of incentives beginning to create an American renaissance before our very eyes. Commitments to the venture capital industry increased six-fold from 1980 to 1983. Business investment has risen almost 26% during this recovery, faster than any post-war recovery, and more than double the rate of any recovery since 1958. The U.S. Patent Office records indicate that there have been on average about 6,000 more patent applications filed each year of this administration than during each year of the previous administration. New business incorporations set a record last year, and will probably do so again this year, and private research is growing strongly with the computer industry's 20% annual increase in research and development expenditures for 1983 to 1985 leading the way. Just as many failed to foresee when I was growing up how dramatically the invention of radio would transform our economy, so are many today ignoring how technological breakthroughs in computers, robotics, biotechnology, and information processing will revolutionize our economy with new jobs, products, and progress in the future. Our economy is no longer, as some believe, an old and quivering thing in the industrial age. It's being transformed into a strapping young adolescent flexing its muscles in the increasingly advanced technological age. Our secret weapon is the power of productivity. We've seen efforts to expand productivity pay off right here in Detroit for your automobile industry. New leadership by management with aggressive, wise investments in new technology, together with strong, spirited cooperation by labor, have enabled Chrysler to expand productivity from 10.2 vehicles per employee per year in 1980 to nearly 20 vehicles per employee this year. Other currents of progress, our gathering momentum, and will make our economy and society stronger and more successful. Three years ago we established a national commission on excellence in education, then went forth to lead a grassroots crusade to restore in our schools needed discipline, new emphasis on basics, merit pay for teachers, greater parental involvement, and standards of excellence that again sought the best for America. Schools and communities all across America responded, and we're beginning to see the results. After 20 years of steady decline, scholastic aptitude test scores have risen two of the last three years, and this year's jump is the biggest in 21 years. And that's just a start. Young Americans are trying harder, they're doing better, and they can and will do better still. Their improvement should give us confidence that our workforce will continue to grow more productive and more competitive in a fast-changing world. And something else is invigorating America, giving us new hope for our future. Those guiding values of mind and heart and spirit, our faith, our love for family and neighborhood, our belief in peace through strength, and our commitment to protect the freedom which is our legacy as Americans, all have gained a new sense of worth in our lives. All are infusing America with a bounce of confidence and optimism that many thought we'd lost. This new spirit is not only rewarding in its own right, it too helps our economy, helps our productivity when men and women from labor and management come together in the workplace with renewed confidence in what they can do by pulling together as a team. In 1980, with Washington in charge, all they ever did was fumble. But in 1984, the people are back in charge and America is scoring touchdowns again. And I think the world's about to learn that once we Americans put our minds to it, and are provided the proper tools and equipment, we can out-produce, out-sell, and out-compete anybody anywhere in the world. Every American who wants a job can find a job. But my message to this nation is we can meet this challenge together, and we will, because all of us are creating something new and very much better than before. Not only are Americans working again, America is working again. We see what progress opportunity is bringing, and so we know that for our future, nothing less than an American Opportunity Society will do. But we won't create those opportunities until we simplify our tax system to bring yours and everybody's income tax rates further down, not up. Extend the full benefits of IRAs to spouses working in the home as well as those working outside the home. Pass enterprise zones legislation to store distressed areas such as you have here in Detroit. Couple enterprise zones with a youth opportunity wage to help teenagers learn skills that escape dependency and get on the economic ladder. Go forward with initiatives to help public housing residents purchase their dwellings and take on the responsibility of home ownership. Make America's educational system a great center of leadership for excellence, and summon all our skills and determination to push back the frontiers in space, technology, and science. Everything that we've done, everything we mean to do, is to give the American people opportunities to make this great free nation greater and freer still. And that's why the choice in 1984 is so clear, because my opponent's policies would take us off the path toward an Opportunity Society and put us back on the path toward defeatism, decline, and despair. My opponent, who opposed our tax program, said it would be murderously inflationary before inflation went down, said there would be no recovery before recovery began, and then said recovery would be only anemic before the strongest economic expansion in 30 years, and now says there's no denying that the deficit must be reduced with tax increases. Well, forgive me, but judging from the record of those who are philosophically or constitutionally opposed to what we're doing, we might be better off if we consulted astrologers about what the deficit will be in 1989. But there are two things we do know that are not a matter of prediction. First, my opponent is committed to large spending increases and a tax increase equivalent to $1,800 per household. And second, those policies which he has supported all his political life gave America an economic hangover that we must never, ever suffer through again. The differences and the choice for the future can be summed up this way. He put his faith in more power for the government. We place ours in more opportunity for people. He sees America wringing her hands. We see America using her hands. We see America, or he sees America divided by envy, each of us challenging our neighbor's success. We see in America inspired and uniting for opportunity, all of us challenging the best in ourselves. We believe in knowing when opportunity knocks, and he goes out of his way to knock opportunity. I believe that we've all worked too hard, come too far, to go back to those unhappy days of Washington controlling our destiny. But if we believe in ourselves, stick together, set our sights high for growth, and like our Olympic athletes, go for the gold, then nothing can hold us back. America will be a rocket of hope shooting to the stars. Thank you for welcoming me back to Detroit for giving me this chance to speak with you. And thank you for what you're doing to make America the source of all the dreams and opportunity she was placed on this good earth to provide. God bless you all. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Now comes the hard part. We'll start the question and answer period with questions submitted from the audience. Mr. Fisher will be our moderator. Mr. Fisher? Mr. President, the first question, of course, would be about the automobile industry being in Detroit. The question is, four years ago, when you successfully ran for presidency, you said you wanted to help the auto industry. During an interview last month, you suggested the auto union should show wage restraint and aim at higher industry productivity. It appears the UAW and General Motors have achieved that goal. Now what happens to the remainder of that equation? Extension of voluntary restraints on Japanese autos until the end dollar misalignment and other problems with Japan are resolved. I missed the last couple of words there. Well, I think the one thing and some figures I know I threw a lot of statistics at you in there, but I think also when the auto industry's unemployment was up where I said it was, today it's down to 6.4 percent. And yes, I guess I would have, I made a general statement when I knew the negotiations were going to begin, that with our fight against inflation, I just hope that everybody in the marketplace will keep inflation in mind and observe some restraint to make sure that we don't turn that tiger loose again. Now with regard to the voluntary restraints, they were put on by the Japanese industry itself and believe me, totally voluntarily. Air Minister Abe had come here and we met in the Oval Office and talked and I told him our situation and as frankly as I could and what we were up against and he went back and very shortly they announced they're willing to have a voluntary restraint on imports. We never at any time asked for that and we've since made great progress with Prime Minister Nakasone who I believe is sincerely dedicated. He's got some political problems. I can understand that with his legislature and he is working hard. We've just had meetings recently in which we have probably increased the beef exports to Japan more than double over the next four years and they again, without any urging from us, they modified somewhat but held their voluntary restraint and I'm hoping that they will continue but I don't happen to believe in protectionism. There are times when necessarily to let some industry that has been overwhelmed by some happening let it get back on its feet but for the most part I believe in free and fair trade because protectionism is a two-way street and again I believe with what our industry is the automobile industry is doing and the product they have. I think parents out there ought to argue with their young people when that first car time comes along and they start looking at foreign brands because I think we're making better than anybody's making. Thank you, thank you. Mr. President, what was it like to meet Mr. Gromiko, were your talks constructive? Do you think you could become friends? I'm having a knuckle or something up here that gives me trouble, Max. I'm having awful trouble with his writing too. Oh, what was it like to meet Mr. Gromiko were my talks constructive and I think we could become friends. I don't know whether we could become friends or whether that's important but I think the talk was very constructive and all of us in Washington are very encouraged by the outcome of those talks and we made it very plain. We don't like their system, they don't like ours. We're not out to change their system and they better not try to change ours but we are the two superpowers and between us we could if we got careless we could destroy the world but by the same token if we decide to stand together on some issues that should be of interest to both of us namely reduction and hopefully elimination of nuclear weapons we can save the world and I think I think that they've gone home with a recognition that we're looking at them realistically but at the same time we are ready to to join with them in approaching this principal problem of runaway armaments in the world. All right up here I hear better. Who are you rooting for in the World Series? That's an unfair question. I'm supposed to be president of all the people. However, I know why he's asking that you see years ago I was a sports announcer and I was broadcasting mainly the Chicago Cubs games and I was broadcasting them in 1935 when the Chicago Cubs set a record that still stands in all of baseball. The only mathematical chance they had to win the pennant was to win the last 21 games of the season and they did it but you can imagine that that build up all that way that there just had to be a psychological let down after they had done that and so Detroit beat them four games straight. Well thank you all very much for all of that and I'm sorry I think I talked too long or I could I was wanting to do more questions but I guess we've run out of time. Thank you all very much. Thank you Mr. President. Thank you Mr. Fisher. Mr. President before you leave the city of Detroit there is one thing you must take with you. We Detroiters hope it will bring us all the luck we need in the next few days. To make the presentation here is the man who has given new meaning to the domino theory. Mr. Tom Monaghan. Mr. President I have here a symbol of of a winner which fits you perfectly. I have you here I appreciate this very much and if things shouldn't go exactly right you remember I played Grover Cleveland Alexander with the great picture and the story of his life and I might call on you. I'm sure you feel more confident already knowing the president will be wearing the right hat and now ladies and gentlemen I know you join me in thanking the wonderful Cass Tech High School band for providing the music. Finally Mr. President we thank you once again for being with us today. The meeting is adjourned.


I'm Marcia Joyner and are you counted? And today we are going to visit with the people from census that actually do the work. And we're going to talk about why this is the most important time of your life. You must, you must, you must be counted. So that's what we're going to do today. And so let me introduce our guest. I'll start with Annie Mae. Where are you? Can you raise your hand? There she is. Hi again. And Elizabeth, is that that I pronounced it right? Yes. Yes. And Elizabeth is her, she's responsible for counting Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. Is that correct? Yes. There are two of us, which is Charlotte Poye, our team lead. Yes. She is a partnership specialist team and I am responsible for the native Hawaiian Pacific Island count.  Let's start with Annie Mae. Talk to me about what it is exactly that your group of people here in Hawaii do. What, what is it, do you, how do you count, what are you counting for, and where does all this what happens with the money? Oh, let's start at the beginning. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, it's been a year or almost a year since we first came to your show, Miss Marsha. And you really have navigated this journey with us, this census journey. And it, you know, supposed to be end last May and we're still here, you know, to the unprecedented pandemic. But our team actually is the community partnership and engagement team. So there's actually seven of us right now here in Oahu. We work with our local government, our state government, the local government, and our community organizations to make sure that our hard to count populations here in Hawaii are counted and that they are educated about the importance of the census. So our main purpose and role is really to educate and encourage our community to respond. And we have, since we started last year, we have created numerous hundreds of partnerships across the state of Hawaii, whether it's government, nonprofit partnerships, businesses, churches, faith-based organizations, you name it, we have touch base with them and to really help us and multiply the effort that the US Census is doing, we cannot reach all of the communities, you know, but with the help of our partners, we were able to do a really effective outreach across the state of Hawaii to make sure that everyone is educated about the census and know the importance of the census. And, you know, we do it for apportionment purposes, for redistricting, and also to make sure that we get our fair share of federal funds that goes to our schools, our healthcare system, our roads, you name it, any program that the federal government is funding, it is based on census count. So it's very important that we respond. And as you know, I have been campaigning for years to have everybody counted because if everyone in Hawaii is counted and you don't have to be a citizen, you don't have to have any of that, you just have to live here. Exactly. If everyone does that, we can have a see a third district, CD3. Some of the states have already lost count, so we can add a congressional person and that would be wonderful. That would be wonderful and we shall know after the result of the census is calculated and that would be nice. But yeah, it's very important for our voices in government to make sure that we are accurately counted. You don't have to be a citizen as long as you live here in the United States, you should be counted in the census. Elizabeth, am I saying this right? Elizabeth? Yes, Elisabeth. Elisabeth, I like that. Okay, now you were from where sweetheart? I'm originally from Samoa, from the territory of the US, which is American Samoa and also have lived here since 1998. Oh great. So now you're responsible for counting people from that are Hawaiian and Pacific Islands, right? Is that correct? Yes. Our focus with our CPAP program, which Annie had explained, is the development of our partnerships within the community and also working diligently to ensure that partnership is well-grounded in terms of supporting the census operation within our state. So all of us are unique in our own culture as well as our languages. So since I speak Samoan, I was selected to be a partnership specialist, also pushing for the general population count, but more focused on the Pacific Island communities. So even with Far, Charlotte Foy is our team lead. She's also Native Hawaiian and her and I are also the ones that are focusing more on the NHPI, Native Hawaiian Pacific Island communities. Yes. Well now tell me about all of the different islands that live here, Tonga, the Marshall Islands, the Micronesians, you name it Guam, Saipan, and they all have different languages. So how do you deal with that or do they speak English fairly well? Most of them speak English fairly well. There is a percentage of community members that needs language assistance and the US Census Bureau have been doing such a wonderful job building those resources to help support our community members and that's the purpose of our of our program, our CPAP program to identify partners that are able to provide that assistance, that language assistance. So we have the Micronesian community with you know Marshall Islands, with different islands in the Micronesian area. So all of that population is here. So we built a strong partnership which is part of our responsibilities as partnership specialists to build a strong partnership with our community leaders such as the Marshallese Consulate General's office, you know, Miss Isabella Silk, who heads that, you know, that office. They've been working diligently to assist us as well as the We Are Oshania with Josie Howard and her organization. So the partnership within the community really helps us, like how Annie explained about looking at faith-based organizations. For example, with the Samoan community we reached out to church leaders.  Even the outer islands, you know, outside of Oahu, there are several churches there as well. So with the church leaders, we build that partnership and empower the community. We provide the education outreach through our program and that supports the push in order for the community to be counted. We have a strong partnership with MCOL, which is the Marshallese community organization of Hawaii. And the people that are in that MCOL organization are church leaders from the Marshall Islands. So now tell me about the language, all of those different languages. And you do have someone that speaks all of them. I was a guest at an event and I think most of them were Marshallese, but they had four different languages so they had to interpret each one at a time. So the event went on and on and on. So you do have people that speak all of those marital languages. Yes, you know, we worked with the Hawaii government, Complete Count Committee, which is headed by Dr. Eugene Tien, and in the wonderful Office of Defense. And they provided brochures that are is translated, census brochures from the state level, which is translated in different languages, which includes a lot of Pacific Island languages. So the brochures were very useful for a lot of our education outreach and we were able to utilize some of those language materials. Even on our, you know, some of our partners have, you know, they translated a lot of our census materials. So when we know we're in a community, we're a large population of Marshallese, for example, we make sure that we have those resources and materials ready from the state level as well as our partnership, the community-based area. Well, what about the neighbor islands? How do you, you have people, partners on each island to do the census on each island, do you? Annie, we do have our partnership specialist in the Big Island, which is Mr. Tim Solis. He's our partnership there, and we also have some of our CRRs, we call it CRRs.  I believe Maui, we do reach out to Maui from Oahu as well as when we have support from our ACO, we do provide that assistance to those, to the people living in Maui. Maui, what about Molokai, you know, those Niihau and places like that? Yes, we've been doing some outreach. Annie will share more about some of the outreach because she reached out to Manai as well. With Molokai, we have a strong community partnership with Queen Lilio Kalani Trust and several organizations. We even worked with our government agencies like, for example, Department of Education. Our library services here in the state of Hawaii with the head librarian Stacey Eldridge has been wonderful in terms of providing assistance with our different community areas. So, we reached out to several organizations on Molokai as well with Niihau. We work closely with the community college in Kaua'i. We understand that there's a large population of Niihau community members living on Kaua'i. So, you know, our team lead Charlotte Koi have done several outreach engagements to, you know, develop m-claws to enumerate our Kaua'i residents there in the Niihau, I'm sorry, Niihau. Now, for anybody that's watching that doesn't know what we're talking about, Niihau is a little island right off the coast of Kaua'i. So, Kaua'i Niihau. And they are the ones that, those Hawaiians speak the real Hawaiian language. They don't have the university's Hawaiian language or this other language. And the former mayor of Kaua'i, which includes Niihau, was making a big, big push to have them, the original, those that speak the original Hawaiian, to come to Kaua'i to teach the language, to use the language. And that's just a side note. It has nothing to do with census. I thought since we're talking about it, we have, again, for people that don't know what we're talking about. We have eight major islands. And so, when I talk about, I asked you about neighbor islands, that's what we're talking about. Neighbor islands, Kaua'i, Niihau, Lanai, Molokai, Oahu, Maui, and the Big Island. Did I leave out anybody? Did I leave out or not? Yes, and so for all the islands that we have, and language is very important. And we've been working really hard to ensure that the assistance and the language support is provided for our community members. We even have Hawaiian translated brochures. And we're so grateful to the state office, the deep-bed state office, which worked with community members to help translate all of our census materials in our native, you know, the Pacific Island languages, as well as all of the languages in the state of Hawaii. We live in an ethnically diverse society. And even in Hawaii, you know, it's a lot of cultures and languages. And that is so unique. With the work that we do, another unique thing about it, we establish partners in the community or in the government level. And that's how you know networks and be able to identify the resources out there to support the census operation. And that is the most beautiful, you know, thing about working in this work, the census. And it's helping us. And what we are encouraging our community is not to wait. This is the time for everyone to respond right now, because it's very important for all of us. And we matter in terms of our own community and our own cultures and we are unique, but we do matter to be counted in the census. Oh, now I have one question speaking of languages. We have pigeon. Now, anybody translate to pigeon? Well, we have our native Hawaiian community members that are fluent pigeon speakers. Yes. We actually have a strong partnership with the University of Hawaii you know, Native Hawaiian, you know, organizations. We also have, we've established a partnership with our, you know, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kamehameha, CNHA with the Council of Native Hawaiian Advancement. Actually, I want to mention in this show that the coordinator or the coordination of all of our native Hawaiian Pacific Island organizations is under the CNHA, which is the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. Yes. Can we have somebody from them on your show? Richard, right? Yes. Richard Matheros is our coordinator for the NHPI Complete Count Committee. And it's been such a wonderful job, you know, working with our organizations in the community to inform them and also to educate them. We even hosted some education outreach that is done in, you know, people's native language. Like for our Samoan community, if we have to relay the message of the census message to our leaders, we have to, you know, use Samoan language. What about now the people that are still in, not the ones in Hawaii, but the Samoan population in Samoa? What about them? Do you have special people that go to Samoa to do the work? That's a very good question, Marsha, because it brings us to an issue that the Census Bureau have come around with in terms of working with our community. We, you know, through our community outreach, our census engagement activities, working with the food distribution and some of the partners in our community organizations, we realize that there are a lot of our stranded residents from outer, from, you know, islands of the Pacific. They are stranded here in the state of Hawaii, some in the mainland. What do you mean stranded? When COVID happened, you know, the borders of the islands have been closed. Yes. So we are trying to help some of the residents in terms of assisting them with their questions and even, you know, their concerns of not being counted. So we are able to connect with the coordinators from the census coordinator in the state, in the U.S. territory of American Samoa. Jason Goff is the coordinator there. And he's working collaboratively with our leaders here, as well as our regional office, to communicate the message to our residents that are here since borders are closed in the islands due to COVID-19. So they are able to be counted. So one of the things that they had mentioned is for American Samoa census, they have to do it face to face. It's all paper-based. So it's a great idea that they share and communicate it with our leaders so that we can assist our residents here, our people that are here in Hawaii. So they've seen the commercials. They are, you know, they've seen the signs and everywhere at the stores and even banners. And they asked the questions. So it's a good thing that they know census is important. And they want to be counted. So I just received the, you know, the estimate number of Marshallese that are stuck here in the state of Hawaii, which is over 200. And even out in, you know, and there's more about 100 out in other states outside of Hawaii. So with the American Samoa, through our community outreach with food distribution, helping the community through food distribution, they were able, we were able to work with a group of American Samoans under the Two Fatasi Alliance for American Samoan Community. This organization was established because of all the people that were stuck here due to COVID. And they, you know, were able to send us, you know, information that there's over a thousand of community members that are, you know, stranded in terms of because of moving, not able to go home because of the borders are closed. Yeah. Well, what do we do as the Census Bureau? You know, when they ask the question, when they inquire about how to respond, we have that communication with our coordinator in American Samoa territory, ensuring that we are counting our population, but the ones in the U.S. territory that are here in the state of Hawaii and outside of the Navy. Now, tell me the seven territories. We have 50 states plus seven territories. What are the territories? We have Guam. We have American Samoa as another territory. Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianas, and do I have it all? D.C., District of Columbia, District of Columbia. That's six. I have one more. Have one more. Samoa, American Samoa. Yeah, we counted American Samoa. American Samoa. Okay. Yes. Yeah. I'm looking at a truncated map of the Pacific. And all of these islands, Commonwealth of Northern Marianas, Republic of Bilal, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Nauru. And that is 50,000 islands. My god. And so not all of them are territories, right? Yes. Okay. Okay. Now, let's talk about, we've got every, oh, the one community we didn't talk about, and that is Chattatou. I know Robert has been on several times, and he's really working on it.  Actually, yes. Robert has been so amazing. We're so happy that he's a part of our team. And so he can speak to our Chinese community members. And I always look at our census tracts, and these census tracts are doing well. Chinatown is doing well. Some of our areas in Waikiki, where there are a lot of vacant units are a little bit problematic because, again, the vacant units, nobody can respond. So it doesn't, you know, it affects our initial self-response right now. But I am really happy to say that our census tracts in those areas in Chinatown, except for one or two, are actually doing well. It's actually the areas in Waikiki that we have a lot of census tracts that are not responding very well. But now how are we doing overall for your territory? So overall in the state of Hawaii, we have a self-response rate of 62.4 percent. And then we have a door-to-door, we are also measuring our door-to-door enumeration rate right now. This is the non-response follow-up where our enumerators are doing the really important and, you know, hard job right now of going and knocking on doors of every household who hasn't responded yet. And that is 36.2 percent. So if we combine our self-response rates and our door-to-door enumeration rates, we have a total combined as of yesterday, 98.6 percent of households are already enumerated in Hawaii. Yes, so we are in our last push. Elizabeth has been all over the island, spending our banners. Everyone, Jesus has been working with the Spanish community and of course our Robert with the Chinatown community, Chinese community, and with our lawmakers as well. So everyone is like in the last push of the census as well. So and shout out to Sharon, our Chinese community. So yeah, every and Tim over at the big island is always out every day because he's able to do all the questionnaire assistance. So we are just, you know, in our last phase and thank you to all our partners who have journeyed with us through this whole census journey. Yeah, we only have a minute left. Well, yeah, thank you. Miss Marcia, thank you so much. Real quick, tell us now that you collect all of this stuff, where does it go and what happens and we only have a minute. So tell us once you collected, you have collected all this then what? So, you know, it goes in our security systems. It's going to be reviewed for completeness and accuracy. And it's going to be processed and we will submit the portion that counts after it's done. Okay. Then it goes to the president. The president. And that's the next step after the processing of the data. Yeah. Okay. Well, again, it's been a pleasure spending this year with you. And I hope this isn't our last time. I hope you don't shut down before we get to do this again. But again, thank you both. It's been a pleasure spending the year with you. And we'll look forward to seeing you again. Thank you so much, Miss Marcia. I'm honored. Thank you.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casewrakes.com coming at you with 2019 and 2020 Panini Noir basketball four box pick your team number seven I know this was supposed to go last night, but we thought we had this case We didn't have this case it got delayed to today, but I think for the most part everyone was Was pretty patient with that and was able to wait The 12 13 hours it took to get for this to get here, so I appreciate that Thank you very much for your patience and thanks everyone for getting into the action Not sure who has a last-bought mojo in this which is kind of crucial ladies and gentlemen People don't get the last-bought mojo. They're just like Something's off Very important the last person to pick their team was Looks like the wizard Steven P. All right, so there you go Steven It's official now. You got the last-bought mojo star next to your name We did run a number block randomizer for the pelicans and the bowls So that's the block of numbers right there remember zero gets any and all redemptions for those two teams in that break This was done in a separate video, so you'll find the you'll find that video on This channel right here All right, good luck everybody. Thanks again for your patience on this Hopefully This has been well worth the wait. I hope Derek D needs a little bit of fire here The Josh proofs in the house looking for some looking for the answer see other Steven right here last-bought mojo guy with your second break Hoping for some new guy mojo. It has been known to happen It's like plain operation got to be careful with this box here. You have to find the right Spot. Oh, there's a redemption down there interesting and the box construction it catches on that little little flap right there Sort of catches right there got to be careful with it. So if you ever buy a personal box of this You got to be got to be careful. I think we have one or two personal box available on our personal box site Instagram live at jasper's breaks if you're interested All of our personal boxes live on jasper's calm all the group breaks still live on jasper's case breaks dot-com Start with a Jason Tatum 10 of 10 Wayne with the Celtics Isaiah Thomas 39 out of 99 wizards Steven base cards look really nice. I love these Nicola Yolkic 12 out of 99 may have to find some some I'm a Lakers guy may even find some Lakers base cards All right, rookie jumbo material the seer little 54 out of 99 for the trail blazers. That's going to be for Derek D 55 out of 99 Kimba Walker box office memorabilia still in his Charlotte gear there, but this will go to the Celtic Swain stock go by the logo, of course the card We've got Zion a Zion relic new wave jerseys 25 out of 99 So the pelicans are a number block team So pelicans five is Chad we go by The number directly to the left of that slash of course 13 out of 99 Isaiah Roby Three-color jersey and autograph for the Mavs. That'll be for who who a Lynn The Dallas Mavericks there you go. We've got reigning nights Dan Marley To 99 gold ink autograph for the Miami Heat Wayne stock Should we save the redemption? Brandon Clark in focus 69 nice out of 99 Memphis Grizzlies that will be Jason Greenwood with that one. There you go Greenwood Jason Jason G with the gris Nice and the redemption Who could it be now? Shadow signatures the shadow knows To 24 you guys remember the shadow radio program Radio drama everyone listens to those are Z no a ad ad Mer All Scofield All right, not the Zion that I was hoping for but Steven P is happy because he's got a little new guy mojo He has the wizards and a free top loader There you go. All right box one in the books Box two on the way Good luck everybody Yeah, Derek Admiral Scofield seems to be a popular redemption in our cases here All right, there's another redemption down there All right See what we got Although it's in it's in a different position. It's the it's a few cards up Interesting to investigate Yeah, Steven P's I'll take it. All right. There's Andre drumming to 25. That'll be for the pistons That'll be for Matt Stubblefield We've got RJ Barrett four out of ten It's a good-looking card there for the Knicks Adam Kelly There's Zach Levine for the Bulls 77 out of 99 That goes to speaking to Ryan Shackleton checking in and gets his first card of the break It's a little base card Zach Levine Oh You're at the beach Nice, how was how was the beach? All right Goren Drogic to 99 It'll be for the Miami Heat Wayne stock little wrinkly on the top or the penny sleeve there. It's all right We've got dish night Eric Bledsoe 16 at 65 and that'll go to Neema and the Bucks Game more material New wave jersey Rui Hachimura 33 out of 99 for Steven and the Wizards nice Scott he's got plenty of upside Hachimura and Revealed the redemption early, but I knew it was in a different spot right there rookie patch autographs black and white Jordan pool for the Golden State Warriors The redemption was closer down there the Zion alert there Jeremy Tillon with the Golden State Warriors the pen back in the cap.  Oh a sneaker spotlight autograph. These have been hot 67 out of 99 Montrez Harrell David Baker with the Montrez Old Trezz Trezy that stuff is pretty nice We've got whoa Gary Payton 19 out of 99. That's Prince Supersonic stuff of course goes to okc Nice spotlight signature some good good-looking photography there They got to bring the Sonics back to Seattle That goes to Josh Josh Givner and the Oklahoma City Thunder Nice there you go, and then we've got showtime signatures Alan Iverson 32 out of 99. There's the AI that Josh Proust was looking for One of one of my favorite non-laker players Alan Iverson is up there And I love that sort of it's kind of hard to see when you're kind of looking on it But I do like that sort of black on black Design that they have there with the logo Alan Iverson looking good He's got a great You're welcome Josh. He's got a great Hall of Fame speech They got inducted. Oh Ryan was at the shore 90 degrees Yeah, that's cool.  That's a redemption And that's a base card. All right. I got to change that box design next here That's a redemption on the very bottom interesting All right. Good luck everybody Nine out of 25 Terry Rose here. Hey, no worries Josh on that glove Gary Payton now no no Pacers thus far Peter not yet anyway, but we have two full boxes ago when you just started this one Nikhil Alexander Walker seven out of 99 so far so good on this This case marinated nicely This is a Shea Gilgis Alexander's cousin going to oh, this is a pelican. So that's a number block team So pelican seven that'll be for Ryan Shackleton That Ben Simmons 53 out of 99 sixers that'll be for Josh proof Getting basketball back folks excited about that Casey Ocbala for the heat Wayne with Miami. We've got Newsreel jerseys, there's Montrez again 31 out of 65 going to David Baker and the Clippers Cam Reddish 66 out of 99 for the Hawks Wayne stock and the Hawks Town Horton Tucker for my Lakers two out of 99 rookie autograph for Evan and the Lakers For the Bulls Richard Hamilton 27 out of 40 that goes to Chicago 7 Ryan Shackleton. There you go Ryan on the board with a hit now Nice nice piece of the Bulls jersey there. Oh another sneaker spotlight Jason Williams Nice five out of 99 Grizzlies Jason Williams, by the way Jason Williams play for the I do not remember Grizzly's edition of Jason Williams, by the way Was it Vancouver Grizzlies? No, it was Memphis He he was there twice He went to the he went to the Memphis Grizzlies after his stint with the Kings and Then went to the Grizzlies then the heat then the magic and then back to the Grizzlies for his last season Huh Well Grizzlies Jason Greenwood with the Grizz.  All right Who do we got rookie patch autographs color? card 368 Z JZ I Oh N W I L L AM S O N Rookie autograph rookie patch autographs color Zion Williamson Ryan Chacklin was like man, we are due Finally our first one after a zillion cases Pelicans number block zero JC JC uva Congrats, man That is awesome And you get a free top loader to sign your card Zion. All right. There you have it. There it is All right, finally, but wait, there's more a final box You get John Marant to close things out. This has been an excellent case ladies and gentlemen Robert greasing another one's coming. We got a frame base card on the bottom That's pretty cool, and it's for Josh and the Sixers that blank card right there One out of 25 nice Solid break for the Sixers We've got go go batadze to 99 For the Pacers that'll be for Peter Westbrook 84 out of 99 for the Rockets. That will be for Jeremy Tillman We got Demontus a bonus to 99. I'm not sure Colby Check the website jazby's case breaks calm. Tell me how many teams are left in that court Kings But we are kind of booked for a good chunk of the evening so we'll be getting to that in a little bit There's the first hit for the Pacers Peter on the board Dramon green 20 out of 99 That'll be for the Warriors Jeremy Tillman elegant decor Romeo Lankford seven out of ten Nice, thank you L. Tran for looking three spots left in that court Kings. Let's get that locked in Otherwise, we'll put them pop them into number blocks. I'll be Wayne in the Celtics Last few cards here Chuma Okiki 70 out of 99 Orlando Magic Derek disser on the board More bulls Wendell Carter, Jr. This time for number 5 25 out of 40 nice patch there, too like the bulls have a lot of lot of interesting young players It all just comes together could be Be interesting Chad with number five two more to go ladies and gentlemen We've got oh Kendrick Nunn Spotlight signatures nice. I like that gold ink on there Five out of 125 Wayne stock with the heat. Are we buying a lot of stock in Kendrick Nunn? I think so he'd have a great team too Nice so that's for Wayne in the Miami Heat got that team straight up and the last one is Cam Reddish, that's another one for Wayne stock who picked up the Hawks Straight up 83 out of 99 three color jersey and autograph There you go boys and girls another excellent case of 2019 2020 panini noir basketball, I appreciate everybody getting in I think this word I don't see any more cases. I think this might be our last case for now But I think there's a couple personal boxes left on jaspys.com if you want to check that out and And if we stumble into any more of these Get into it on jaspys case breaks calm. I'm Joe. I'll see you next time for the next break. Bye. Bye


I'm of the opinion that it's better to teach a man or woman to fish. Thanks! Hey, teach a man to fish, huh? But at least the administration tried something after unnecessarily shutting down the economy for way too long. Larry, I don't know what to tell you. If they're closed, they're closed. By giving every man, woman and child a fish. A little gift. A gift. Right? But it turns out that fish wasn't a gift after all. But it's not a gift to anybody. Instead, alone. The administration now taking the equivalent of at least five fish back. You didn't say no takebacks. Through an inflation tax. Who would have guessed? In the future, looking back, we may find the administration gave out the equivalent of a sardine in the form of a few thousand dollars just to turn around asking for a five hundred pound tuna in return. It's just a lousy rip-off. In the form of an inflation tax. Interest, you see? And I thought the gas stations were supposed to be the prize gougers. I'm starting to think we're the fish round here. You're not a fish. You're a man.


Climate change is upon us and the consensus is growing that we need to deal with it not tomorrow, not in 20 years, but today. Greening our economy requires banks to be stable because they're crucial to that transition, but they're exposed to climate risks too. That's why we looked at how banks are taking both climate and environmental risks so things like biodiversity loss into account in their business. We ask some questions like, do you have people responsible for climate risks in your organisation or is your business ready for the transition to net zero? Today we'll talk about the answers we got and whether what is written on paper actually happens in practice. You're listening to the ECB podcast bringing you insights into the world of economics and central banking. My name is Katie Ranger. To take us through what we found in this review, I'm very happy to welcome Executive Board Member and Supervisory Board Vice Chair Frank Eldersen back to the podcast. Frank, great to see you again. Thank you, Katie. Wonderful to be here. Now before we kick off, I just want to give our listeners a couple of facts about this assessment that we've carried out. We've been somewhat of a pioneer as supervisors in pushing the climate agenda and this exercise was no exception. Together with the national supervisors, we looked at 186 banks with combined assets of 25 trillion euros and that made it the largest supervisory exercise ever carried out on climate and environmental risks globally. Now the assessment which we know in the jargon as a thematic review was all about seeing whether banks are managing these risks in the way that we as supervisors expect them to. They'd already done a self-assessment last year and that was all based on a catalogue of expectations that we outlined in 2020, but this year it was us doing the assessing. Now Frank, let's unpack the overall findings, take a bit of a high level view of them. How are banks doing? I mean, you spoke in a speech in June this year when you talked about the preliminary results of good and bad news. How do things look now? Well, let me start by summarizing. Banks have started walking the talk, but there is still quite some walking distance to cover. Not to say actually there's a long way to go. Before we as a supervisor are satisfied with what banks are saying and this is actually the most important part of course, what banks are actually putting in practice across the board of all their activities. So all in all, I think you can say the glass is no longer empty, but it is not even close to half full. So let's start with the good news. Banks have made considerable progress. They have come a long way. Over 85 percent of banks have now put basic practices in place for managing climate and environmental risks in most areas. They incorporate the impact of these risks in their strategy and they have set initial objectives like achieving net zero by 2050 or gradually phasing out coal from their businesses. So I would say the institutional architecture to deal with the risks that stem from the climate and environmental crisis is there now. OK, so institutional architecture. What exactly does this mean on the ground in banks? What is what is happening concretely? Well, this covers different aspects. And for the moment, still focusing on the good news, I'll get to the other part. I'll remind you, don't worry. So banks have maps out where they are exposed to climate and environmental risks via the loans that they give to their clients. They have allocated responsibilities within the organization to deal with these risks and they have developed initial strategies to mitigate the risks for at least part of their exposures. OK, so they've identified the risks, found people to deal with them and identified sort of an initial way to deal with them. Right. So so let's make this concrete with an example. Climate has made it, if you like, to the top level. Almost all banks have given their management body, so their word, responsibilities in this area. And many consider climate expertise a must when choosing their top managers. Another example is data. It's a big topic and we have covered this, actually, in one of our other conversations about the member, Katie. So so the issue being a lack of robust data. And we welcome that most banks are analyzing their data gaps, because first you need to understand what data is missing so that you can actually then decide on the actions that that you have to take to, you know, to get the ball rolling. And in terms of data, I mean, this is important for climate because it's quite a new area for banks. And then it's still very much an area where they need to work on ways to get the data. And in some cases, the data just isn't there yet, right? Exactly. But you cannot hide behind those data not being there. Absolutely. Now, summing up, we saw a number of good practices and it shows that banks can innovate to tackle the challenges that they face in this vitally important area and that they can meet our supervisory expectations. OK, so good news is that banks have significantly improved, I'd say, since last year. They're starting to treat these risks like the other risks that they face. Let's go to the bad news. What's the bad news, Frank? Well, so so there is this progress. But of course, if you start with doing nothing or hardly anything, then anything you start doing is already significant progress. But there are still many things that concern us as a supervisor. There is still a long way to go. So let me just mention, you know, some of the most prominent issues. The processes that have been established they need to be much sharper and more precise to to make sure that banks, you know, really plan with more rigor what they need to do. So they're not quite developed enough yet. No. So what we see is a lot of what I would call basic tools, very blunt tools. And this is a start and a good start, but it's not enough. It's clearly not enough. And even for for for those banks that have more elaborate, more sophisticated, more granular processes already now in place, which, of course, is a good thing, then we see that they do not implement them consistently across the board. So that's this idea that you mentioned that they're not walking the talk. So, you know, to go on, there are gaps in how comprehensively banks address climate and environmental risks. So also to make that more concrete, a bank may look, for example, at flood risks for for its mortgages. But then they may omit to look at droughts for its large agricultural portfolio or the impact of CO2 price for its large energy clients. So they look at some and and and that that we, of course, welcome. But the danger is that that one becomes complacent and forgets about all the other things that also need to be done. Firstly, all banks we identified blind spots in the identification of risks. And 60 percent of those were considered to be major gaps. 80 percent of banks see themselves exposed over the short, medium or longer term to at least one risk type. And this is a big increase compared to last year. But they underestimate just how big that impacts could be. OK, so there's still quite a bit of work to be done. Now, you've obviously highlighted all these things to the banks. What exactly do the findings themselves mean for them? What are what are they going to do with that information now? Our findings will have concrete consequences for for banks. As I've said before, this is the year where the rubber hits the road. You know, all the banks we looked at received in depth feedback, flagging shortcomings and a clear timetable to tackle them. And on average, more than 25 shortcomings per bank were identified. OK, and these are things that they then need to remedy. They really need to tackle them. Exactly. And for two banks, we went a step further even. Our assessments affects their capital requirements. That's how much capital they need to hold, basically. Exactly. This means that they will have to put more money aside as a safety net to counter their high risk exposures to climate and environmental risks. So overall, what we want is that the banks meet our expectations by the end of two thousand twenty four at the latest. And we will monitor the progress that the banks may towards meeting that objective. And more importantly, we will not just monitor progress, but we will enforce progress so that our end of two thousand twenty four deadline for full compliance by all banks with all our expectations is met. OK, you kind of preempted my next question, Frank. Which was what happens if they don't?  Right. Well, I preempted it maybe because I'm I want to be adamant about this. So we are ready to take all supervisory measures that we have our at our disposal to enforce alignment with our expectations. And we are already asking banks to take action with some of them having received twenty five deadlines to act on. So they have homework and in our annual supervisory review process, we have already tasked 30 banks to remediate shortcomings by issuing legally binding requirements. We expect banks to follow up on these requirements and continue to work on full compliance with our expectations. And where we continue to see shortcomings, we can apply further supervisory measures, including capital requirements. Now, we've looked at the high level findings. I want to drill down a bit and look at a couple of the specific areas that the review looked at it looked at three main areas, governance, strategy and what we call risk management. Let's zoom in on two of those strategy and risk management. I want to look at strategy first. Now, what do we mean by that? Well, it's about banks understanding how they can be affected by climate and environmental risks and making sure that they steer their business on a path that will be viable and profitable in the years to come, even in the face of these risks here in Europe. We have a very clear objective here. The EU has set a legally binding goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. So, Frank, in terms of strategy, how are banks doing there? Many institutions have taken steps to understand how climate related risks might impact their business model. And they set out initial ways to adjust their strategy. So, for example, by communicating how they want to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or earlier in their own operations and in their lending activities. OK, so set out initial ways. Could you give me an example of that so I can imagine exactly what they're doing? So there's a small group of banks that are using what are called transition plans to see whether the business that they are engaged in will still work further down the line. So the background is that science is clearly telling us that we need to make massive changes across the economy, not only in the sources of power that we use to fuel our economy and everyday lives, but also the transport we use, the way we produce essential industrial goods like steel and semen, what we eat and how we produce it and, you know, and so on. Everything basically. So so we need to rapidly deploy green technologies and face out carbon intensive ones in all these industries. And this is what underpins the European Union's flagship European Green Deal package. Now, banks also understand that the commitments of governments will have a massive impact on the economy. And as a consequence, the citizens and companies that are their customers. And that is why banks are developing these transition plans to make sure that their strategies and risk management practices remain fit for purpose in a world that is on a path towards Paris. So does it mean that they will stop doing business with certain clients? Well, what we see is that banks adjust their products and set policies to phase out specific activities. So they have indeed also started talking to their clients about how they can adjust their business in a way that is compatible with where the bank wants to be in the future in terms of reducing the climate and environmental risks in in its portfolio. OK, so they're talking to their clients. It's not just a sense of it's not just a case of dropping them. Shall we say? Exactly. And we have seen banks that that require clients to implement time bound action plans. So importantly, these banks have processes in place to respond to cases where engagement fails, such as an as ultimately abandoning client relationships. So first, what you typically see is client engagement trying to convince and this trying to convince can become stricter by setting time bound deadlines, but then ultimately that can lead to abandoning relationships with certain clients. And this shift is key for banks themselves. A business with clients who may no longer have a sustainable source of income as a result of the transition comes with financial and even reputational and legal risks. That's just undeniable. So it sounds like you did actually see quite a few promising things in this area of strategy. Well, it shows that progress can be achieved, but there are, of course, some issues in most banks approach. It is still early stages. For example, going back to to one of the examples I mentioned earlier, some banks commit to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, which, of course, is very good. But they rarely provide concrete intermediate targets, highlighting how they are going to actually achieve that. OK, so the detail is lacking. Exactly. You know, many times I say it's easy as a CEO of a big financial institution of a bank to promise something that will be delivered by, I don't know, three, four, five CEOs down the line. True. Yeah. So saying net zero by 2050, although a completely necessary condition is not a sufficient condition, you need to understand what you're going to do today and tomorrow in the next two years and the next five years. So these are these intermediate milestones that we need to see. And some targets are just simply not ambitious enough. And also banks often don't say what will happen if they miss these targets, which is an important fact. So their strategies do not yet make their business model resilient to these risks or address all risks comprehensively. So they're still exposed in nine out of 10 cases. We found that bank strategies do not respond to all the risks to which they are exposed now or are likely to be exposed to in the future. For example, they don't consider all the geographical regions in which they are present, which is so important because climate and environmental risk is very much about geography in some cases. It is. And there's also a lot more focus on risks related to the energy transition than on physical risks of the climate and environmental crises, which are also important for banks' business. So overall, at this stage, institutions institutions still take too much of a wait and see approach in their strategic response to climate related risks. OK. So in other words, banks are moving forward, but their strategies are still far from being future proof. Blunt question. What is actually holding them back from doing all of this? I mean, it is clear that this is something that will ultimately affect banks' businesses in a massive way. And it's not as if they can just adjust later because later will be too late. So why aren't they acting now? OK. Let me let me start with the positive. What we are seeing is that banks have made considerable progress in helping the economy becoming greener. They are keen on new sustainable business and many actually have concrete plans to steering more of their funds towards sustainable business in the near future. But bank strategies are typically set for a three to five year long horizon. Climate and environmental risks tend to have a much longer horizon. Than other risks. In other words, these risks build up over time. OK. So the timelines don't quite line up there. Exactly. So careful planning and immediate short term action are needed. So it's not only a matter of looking further into the future than banks would normally do. It is also a matter designing a measurable pathway with concrete goals showing a bank what it needs to do today to maintain a resilient business model further down the road. So really about mapping the journey out in a detailed way. Exactly. And that's why it's so important that banks remedy the shortcomings that we have found and meet our expectations by the end of 2024 at the very latest. The transition plans I mentioned earlier. They are a very useful tool for that. They can help banks see where they might face risks because their business model is not aligned with the EU's, by the way, legally binding objective of being carbon neutral by 2050. All right, let's turn to the other area that I wanted to focus on risk management. Now, this is all about banks understanding how they can be negatively affected by climate change and the transition to a net zero economy and them working to mitigate the risks from that and ensuring that they are able to cover potential losses. Frank, this is a hugely important area for banks. Their core business is all about lending money to all kinds of clients. And that includes those in very carbon intensive sectors that are massively exposed to climate risks. Are banks taking this into account enough in their risk management processes? OK, I'm here again. My answer is going to be yes and no. So let me start with the positive. Almost all banks use at least basic ways to measure climate related risks and use solutions like proxies and assumptions when they do not yet have the data themselves. Many banks, I would say, have started to think about climate related risk when working out what we call their capital adequacy. So the right amount of capital that they need to hold to cover the risks linked to their assets. They need to do more work here, though, on quantifying these risks. At the moment, they often just describe them. They don't quantify them. And we also see progress in due diligence. Most banks are collecting information when choosing new clients. Now, on the more negative side, most banks have not yet developed methods that provide really detailed and forward looking data to understand how big the risks are. For example, farmland in certain regions might be more impacted by a rising number of drought and heat events than in other areas. And even within the same region, some farmers may have successfully adapted to climate stress through methods such as smart irrigation or more robust crop types. So the risk differs across the region. And while it's great that banks are taking those steps that may help identify where the risks lie, using proxies and assumptions doesn't provide that full picture that they need. Banks are struggling here. And this is why we have just published a list of good practices to help them learn from each other. OK, so they're practices that you've seen in banks that you've looked at. And the idea is to share them with all the banks so that they can learn what each other are doing. Exactly. You know, as a supervisor, we have this privilege that we can look, if you like, in the kitchen of each of these different banks. And of course, they cannot because they are competitors. But I think it is also fair to say that by having compiled these good practices, we hope that we can help banks to make that journey so that they can leverage on good practices that we have seen. And of course, we published those on a no-name space. But we have seen across the banking sector. OK, so there's still work to be done as well in the area of risk management. But there are some promising signs that banks are able to do that. Now, I just want to go back to something that was part of my last question. And that's this fact that banks still fund businesses that are not helping us move towards a more sustainable economy. Coal mines, for example. And banks do often come under fire for this. So shouldn't they just stop funding carbon intensive activities? You know, Katie, I'm glad you asked this question because it comes up all the time. And it's a fair question. For me, the answer is the following. Governments will have to decide when the last coal mine needs to close. That's up to them. That's up to those who are democratically elected.  And of course, there are transition risks related to any CO2 emitting sector. And that is, of course, very much the case with coal. Us as a supervisor have to make sure that banks manage their climate related risks, actually all their risks, but also their climate related risks and therefore also their transition risks in an adequate manner. So there will be a bank that will grant the last loan to the last coal mine in Europe. What is not OK if that bank does not have a clear plan what it will be doing the next day. So coming to that point, they need clear transition plans, how their whole balance sheet and if then the last loan will be that last loan, that is OK, as long as they have planned how they face this out. And they should ask the same thing from their clients. Their clients should also have these transition plans because in the end, the entire economy will become pairs aligned. And that means that banks to be able to manage their climate related risks will need to become pairs aligned as well and the sooner, the better. OK, so it's all about looking to the future, basically for them. Looking at the future, knowing that governments are implementing in a legally binding way, a pairs compatible path way towards net zero and making sure that as a bank moving in that same journey, you manage all your climate related risks in an adequate manner. And that is our role to to supervise that they do so. As part of that role, we're doing a few things to get banks management of climate and environmental risks to to where we want them to be, as you've just described. This review that we're talking about now was one of them. Another was the climate stress test that we spoke about on the podcast earlier this year, Frank, and we'll definitely link to that episode in the show notes for our listeners. Now, let's look a little bit to the future. What are the next steps for us as supervisors in this whole thing? OK, well, while backed by a central team of experts, this thematic review that we are talking about here today was done by the joint supervisory teams that are actually at the very hard of our day to day banking supervision. And with this, the supervision of climate and environmental risks have become fully embedded in our banking supervision. We are treating climate and environmental risks now in the same way as any other risks that bank banks face. And we will, of course, continue to do our part as supervisors. We will share best practices. We'll follow up with more assessments and we will take strict action when needed, which may impact capital requirements. OK, so these risks will really become a fundamental part of of what we look at as supervisors. What about for the banks themselves? Where should they go from here? Well, banks need to continue the progress that they have already made. And I would add not just continue, but they should accelerate. The current rate of change is not sufficient to reach the deadline that we have set for full compliance with all our expectations by the end of 2024 at the latest. Now, there is reason to be hopeful for each of our supervisory expectations. There is at least one bank and often many with good practices. The strategy, governance and risk management practices that some banks have started to adopt confirm that what we are asking for can be done by the banks. And maybe interesting also to add is that these are banks with different business models of different sizes in different geographies. So it's not just one or two niche banks that are good at this and the others can't. We see good practices across a wide range of different types of banks. And this gives gives hope that, you know, all banks can do this. Yeah, that's very promising. I mean, that it's not just the biggest banks or, as you said, the niche banks. Exactly. So it must be done and it can be done. Frank, thank you so much for breaking this topic down for us. Now, before we wrap up, we always have a question that we ask all our guests on the podcast. And that is for a hot tip link to the topic we are discussing today. Frank, do you have something for our listeners on the topic of climate and environmental risks? Right. Well, I thought about this a little bit and I have two things, but they are interrelated. Something to look out for this December is that leaders from around the world will meet in Montreal in Canada to define the future of the world's biodiversity. And and why am I mentioning this? You will have noticed, of course, that throughout this episode, throughout our conversation now, we have been talking all the time about climate and environmental risks and to protect the world that we live in and the biodiversity that we all rely on. We need new ways of protecting fresh water, marine ecosystems, new ways of reducing pesticides and plastic waste. And and again, we all need to do our part here. And so far, lots of all this is poorly defined and needs much more attention. And that is why I'm eagerly awaiting the outcome of the UN Biodiversity Conference in December, because in the end, all these things, as I said, also translate into risks for the financial sector. And that's why this is within the mandate of us central banks. This is I think I've seen this in the news. This is the COP 15, right? So we've got the COP 27 this year. And the COP 15 is the biodiversity part. Exactly. Exactly. So that is that is December. And then somebody hinted to me. So I looked at that and I thought it was very interesting to mention also to in the recent publication in a magazine of the Smithsonian Institute and and and they drew attention to Von Humboldt, the very at the time celebrated and well known scientist who made major contributions to science by showing maybe for the first time the interconnectedness of climate, geography, nature and human societies. And and I thought that was revolutionary at the time. But it is still very much relevant today. There is a wonderful book, of course, that he wrote and many books. But there is also a new show in the Smithsonian American Art Museum. So if you have time, at least to visit the website. OK, great. Two very interesting hot tips, as usual, Frank. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me, Katie. Well, that brings us to the end of this episode. I want to thank Frank Eldersen, executive board member and supervisory board vice chair for breaking down the results of our thematic review of climate and environmental risks on banks for us today. Check out the show notes for further reading on this topic. You've been listening to the ECB podcast with Katie Ranger. If you like what you've heard, please subscribe and leave us a review. Until next time, thanks for listening.


Today in this topic we will see the divergence theorem, myself Piyusha Shedgar, Electronics and Telecommunication Department, Walchen Institute of Technology, Sola. These are the learning outcomes for this session. At the end of this session students will be able to define divergence, they will be able to state and explain the divergence theorem and again they will be able to solve the problems depend on this divergence theorem. These are the contents we will cover in today's session. So before going to start, divergence theorem, you can pause video here and you can recall what is the Dell. So as you know that Dell operator is used in the last PPT's, so you can pause here and recall that what is Dell. Yes, the Dell is one of the operator which is defined by, it is nothing but vector differential operator. It is represented by the symbol nabla, so it is represented by this Dell symbol, so Dell is used to take the differentiation, partial differentiation with respect to each axis. So let us start with the divergence, divergence of a vector, any vector at any given point suppose the point P is defined is nothing but the outward flux per unit volume. So as the volume shrinks about that point P. So divergence of a vector V written as dive of V, so meaning of this dive of V is nothing but the divergence of V vector represents the scalar quantity. So when you are taking the divergence of any vector, so it results in scalar quantity. So this equation defined by this divergence of V, so divergence is nothing but you are taking the dot product of this V vector, so Dell dot of V is nothing but the divergence. So divergence of V vector is defined with this equation, dow Vx by dow x plus dow Vy by dow y plus dow Vz by dow z, where Dell operator is defined by this partial differentiation with respect to x, y and z and whereas V is one of the vector defined by Vx A bar x plus Vy A bar y plus Vz A bar z. So remember that this V vector is defined in Cartesian coordinate system. So what is this physical significance of the divergence? So divergence of a vector field is the extent to which the vector field flux behaves like a source at a given point. So it is used to measure the outgoingness of the flux, a point at which the flux is outgoing is defined with the positive divergence and it is often called as a source of that field whereas a point at which the flux is directed inward has negative divergence and is often called as a sink of that field. So if the greater the flux of the field through the small surface enclosing a given point then the value of the divergence is greater at that particular point whereas a point at which if you are considering the zero flux in that case the divergence obtained is equal to 0. So the zero divergence is enclosed by that surface. So meaning of this is nothing but outgoing flux is equal to the incoming flux in that case the divergence is equal to 0. So continuing with the physical significance of the divergence, the divergence of the vector field for that consider one of the example of the fluid or liquid or gas flow. So moving gas has the velocity, a speed as well as the direction. So the velocity of a gas forms a vector field. So if this gas is heated it will expand. So if it expand causes a neat motion of a gas particle outward in all directions. So there will be the outward flux of the gas through the surface. So the velocity field will have the positive divergence everywhere in this case as we have seen in the previous slide. Now suppose the gas is cooled it will contract. So more room for gas particles in any volume so the external pressure of the fluid will cause a net flow of a gas volume inward through any closed surface and therefore the velocity field has negative divergence everywhere when the gas is cooled. In contrast in an unheated gas with a constant density the gas may be moving but the volume rate of a gas flowing into any closed surface must equal to the volume rate flowing out. So here you can say that the net flux passing through this whatever is the volume is considered of that fluid is equal to 0. Thus the gas velocity has the 0 divergence everywhere in this case. So let us discuss about the properties of the divergence. So first property of the divergence a field which has 0 divergence everywhere is called the solenoidal field. A field which has the 0 curl, curl means nothing but when you are considering the cross operation with respect to any vector with the del operator. So del cross any vector is called as a curl. So a field which has a 0 curl everywhere is called a irrotational field. The divergence of a vector function is always a scalar function. Fourth property the divergence of a scalar field does not make any sense. Divergence of the curl of any vector must be equal to 0. So when you are taking the del cross any vector operation so that operation is nothing but the curl operation and when you are taking the divergence of that curl operation of any vector field it results in 0. So del dot del cross of a is nothing but any vector is equal to 0. So recall the Gauss law, Gauss law states that the total electric flux passing through any closed surface is equal to the total charge enclosed by that surface. So this can be defined in another way that the electric flux out of a closed surface is equal to the charge enclosed divided by the permittivity. Permittivity defined with the letter epsilon. The electric flux in an area is defined as the electric field multiplied by the area of the surface projected in a plane and perpendicular to the field. So according to the Gauss law statement mathematically it can be represented with psi is equal to integration of d psi equal to integration d bar dot ds bar whereas d bar dot ds bar is considered with respect to the surface it can be equated to the total electric flux. So as you know the relation between the d bar and e bar it given by this equation d bar equal to epsilon not e bar. So by putting this equation you can form the equation in terms of the e bar or you can write this equation in terms of e bar as psi is equal to epsilon not integration e bar dot ds bar and according to the definition of a Gauss law the ratio of this psi is can be represented with q enclosed by the surface divided by epsilon. So whereas this can be nothing but the total flux within a closed surface whereas q enclosed by epsilon not is proportional to the enclosed charge psi is proportional to the charge. If the charge is not placed at the origin that means it is placed either any point is defined with the reference point point p suppose. So in general the charge can be obtained in terms of the volume charge density. Volume charge density is denoted with this rho v. So consider this is the figure for the Gauss law. So charge is suppose the not placed at the origin this is nothing but the d bar dot ds bar is given by the charge value or it is equated to the flux passing through this surface. d bar is the flux density ds bar is the differential area. So the q is represented in form of the volume suppose the volume is considered. So q equal to integration rho v dv and according to the Gauss law then you can equate these two equations with respect to surface and with respect to volume. So q is defined with d bar dot ds bar integration is with respect to surface and whereas the volume rho v dv. So this is nothing but total flux crossing the closed surface whereas this is the total charge enclosed by closed surface. So q is equal to represented with this d bar dot ds bar equal to integration rho v dv. So this is like consider this is the first equation. So according to the point form of Gauss law rho v is defined by del dot d bar. So if you are putting this rho v equal to del dot d bar in this equation you are getting this equation as d bar dot ds bar is equal to del dot d bar dv integration with respect to surface for d bar dot ds bar whereas the integration is with respect to volume for del dot d bar dv. So this equation is nothing but it is called as the divergence theorem. So this relation is also called as the Gauss theorem. So how to write the statement for this theorem? The integral of the normal component of a vector function over a closed surface s equals the integral of the divergence of that vector throughout the volume enclosed by the surface. How to define the divergence in different coordinate system? So divergence as you know that the divergence is nothing but the dot operation. So when you are taking the dot product with any vector and del operator is used for that. So del dot a bar is equal to dow ax by dow x plus dow ay by dow y plus dow az by dow z. So remember that here the vector is considered as a a bar, a bar can be defined with a bar equal to ax a bar x plus ay a bar y plus az a bar z and this is nothing but the Cartesian coordinate system. Next define the divergence in cylindrical coordinate system. So cylindrical coordinate system having the coordinates are r, phi and z. So del dot a bar for cylindrical coordinate system is given by 1 upon r dow by dow r ar plus 1 upon r dow phi by dow phi plus dow az by dow z.  These are the references for this session. Thank you.