Hi, this is Gio. Welcome to my channel. Now, what I'd like to do in this video is continue our conversation we had regarding economics from the previous video. In the previous video, what we did was we talked about disruptive innovation and how new technology, new ways of doing things, can play out into, in this scene, right? Which is basically one of the foundations of our current economic system, right? Our current economic system is one of the foundations is based on disruptive innovation, where basically new technology coming onto the scene and challenging old technology and how our society grows with new innovations and new ways of doing things and new mindsets, right? The other foundation of our present economic system is based on growth. It's all about growth, growth, growth. And what we're going to do is take a look at a formula, which is basically an interest rate formula, compound interest rate, if you want to think about it. If you've done high school mathematics, you would have encountered this in grade 10 or grade 11. In grade 10 is the basic equations that they give you in grade 11 in my part of the world anyway. They get into more complicated questions. So we're going to start off with that. And what we're going to do is we're going to look at different growth rates. And we're going to create a table and then we're going to create a graph, a visual. And that'll give us a pretty good idea of how growth comes into play, okay? And we'll talk a little bit about a few different things. What the growth rate tells us about our economy and how the system is laid out, okay? Now, one of the first formulas, we're going to look at the formula first, okay? One of the formulas that you would have encountered if you've done high school math would be basically it's the growth rate formula, which is the formula that they give you is this. Let's make sure we can get this on the map. A is equal to P1 plus R over N to the power of NT. Now, if you've done any level of high school math in grade 10 or 11, you would have seen this, okay? And these are all just variables, things that we can plug in numbers for, depending on the situation that we have, right? T is your time in years, years, and this is T, okay? Is the number of compounding periods, right? So N equals number compound periods, okay? For example, what that means is if you're getting interest paid to you once per year, then N is 1. If you're getting paid interest monthly per year, then N becomes 12. If you're getting paid quarterly, then it becomes 4. If you're getting paid daily, then N becomes 365, okay? So it's basically the number of times per year that interest is being calculated and deposited into your account, okay? R is your growth rate, okay? R is your rate of growth, rate of growth, or your interest rate, right? Your interest rate. What the interest is that you're getting paid. And if you're getting paid interest, then we have a plus here, right? P is your principal, what you started off with. And we refer to that as P. And A is what you end up having, final, total. Those are basically what the variables represent. And what we're going to do is we're going to do a simple example. I'm going to lay out a simple example that way we'll do the calculations and we'll change the N. But we're going to basically stick with a simple formula where we don't have an N. We're just getting paid interest per year because we're going to look at an extended period of time, okay? So I hope this makes sense regarding the variables. So let's lay out a problem, okay? Let's assume we have the following. Let's do this in black. Is that good? Oh yeah, nice and dark. It's morning right now, so we're getting reflections from the windows. Hopefully that's not interfering with the text that we're writing down, okay? So let's lay out a simple interest rate problem, okay? Let's assume we had $100, and we're going to deposit that $100 into an account that pays us, let's say, 5% interest, okay? So we're going to deposit into an account that pays us 5% interest and we want to find out how much money we have at the end of one year, okay? One year, one year. And we're going to compound, we're going to be paid this interest once per year. So our N is going to be one. For one year, compounded annually. That basically means once per year. The calculation is pretty simple. All we do, we put $100 for our P. We put 5% for our rate, but we can't put percentages in calculations and formulas. We have to convert 5% to a decimal. And 5% as a decimal is 0.05, right? You just divide 5 by 100. You can think about these two little dots here for the percent symbol. That's two decimal places that you're moving things or dividing by 100. So all you do is just move the decimal place over to. RT is one, and we're compounding annually, which is once per year. So our N is one. So the calculation becomes A is equal to 100 times 1 plus 0.05 over 1 to the power of N is 1 times 1. Our time is 1. If you do this calculation, you end up getting 100 times 0.05 divided by 1 is just 0.05. You put that together, you get 1.05 to the power of 1, which happens to be $105. That's how much money we'll have at the end of one year if we take $100 deposit into an account that gives us 5% interest compounded annually for one year. Which is a simple calculation, which makes sense, right?  No, we're okay. Now, what I want to show you is what happens if we change the N? Okay. Let's not compound annually. Let's compound daily. Compound and daily. Which basically means they're going to take 5% and divvy it up according to how much interest you're getting paid per day over a year, right? Which is basically taking 5% and dividing it by 365, right? So you're going to divide all that up, okay? Over on a relative to daily basis, right? For one year. So what we're going to do is, I got my calculator here. So what we're going to do is, what we're going to do is daily means 365. So we're going to change N and make it 365. So this guy becomes 365. 365. And this guy, this N becomes 365 as well. 365. And our T is still one. One year. Okay. Hopefully that's coming out. Make it a little too light. Let's see if this is dark. Oh yeah. Nice. I'm going to make this 365. Okay. So what happens now is, let me take this out. Our 100 is still going to be 100, right? Because we haven't changed our principle, what we started with. This is going to become one plus 0.05 divided by 365. 0.05 divided by 365 is 0.001369. And the whole thing to the power of 365, right? So what we got here is, we're going to add one to that number, to this number. We're going to have 1.0, let me write this down. Rewrite it because we're tight on space. 0.001137 to the power of 365. Okay. So I'm going to take that to the power of 365. I'm going to get 1.0512. I'm going to multiply that by 100. And basically we end up having $105.13, right? So did that come up? I think so. That's on the board. So if we compound on a more regular basis, shorter, well, more higher frequency, shorter wavelength, I guess you really think about it as a wave, then we end up making 13 cents more per year if we get paid the same interest but we're compounding on a more regular basis at a higher frequency, right? Now this principle here, compounding interest is an extremely important property of our economic system that really governs how our economic system works. And this principle kicks us into a concept called differential accumulation. And differential accumulation is something, I wrote down the names of the professors that came up with this principle, because I'm bad at pronouncing names. Their profession is political economy. So as we talked about in the politics video, you have to talk about politics, economics and one breath, right? They're not disconnected. So the two people that have come up with this concept of differential accumulation are Jonathan Nitzan and Shemshon Beshler. And Shemshon Beshler is an Israeli professor and Jonathan Nitzan is Canadian Israeli professor. And their idea, their model states that accumulation of wealth, accumulation of capital is relative. Relative to the averages, okay? And basically their principle, their idea relates to compounding trust because it states that basically the idea behind it is once you're ahead of the game, once you're beating the averages, then in the limit you will acquire all wealth, right? And they consider wealth, accumulation of capital as being accumulation of power, right? Which is pretty much what our present economic and political system is, right? The more wealth, the more capital you have, the more power you have, right? May it be with Citizens United or the way our political system works, right? How elections end up working. Because if you look at elections, usually the person that spends the most gets elected, which is a weird concept, right? So what we're going to do, we're going to take a look at this system, this idea related to differential accumulation and take a look at a visual of how this plays out and what this really means in our present economic system, okay? So I'm going to remove these guys right now. I hope that, you know, as a simple example, 12 cents extra per year may not seem like a lot. But if you do this to the limit, which is one of the powers of mathematics, okay? One of the things that math allows us to do is to model any system that we want and take a look at that system over an extended period of time. Take a look at it to the limit, right? Let it play out until the end and see what happens, right? And based on differential accumulation and compound interest, compound growth, right? Exponential growth really is basically exponential growth, right? With exponential growth, compound growth and differential accumulation, basically if you take this concept to the limit, then in the limit, one organization, one company, one institution, one entity obtains everything because they're constantly growing at a faster rate. So if you're growing at the highest rate possible, you trump everyone else, right? In the limit, relative to everyone else, you obtain everything, okay? So what we're going to do is we're going to use the same formula, okay? But so we're going to go A is equal to P1 plus R over T because what we're going to do, we're not going to compound per year. We're just going to look at a few years, right? Which sort of has the same effect as compounding, right? But what I want to do is make the formula simpler. So we took out the end here and we took out the end here. So we're going to be paying out interest once per year, okay? And what we're going to do, we're going to look at... I sort of put a table here together, you know, just at the calculations. And what we're going to do is translate this table here. And what we're going to do is look at a few different rates of growth, okay? And we're going to start off with $100. So what we're going to do is we're going to start off with $100. And $100. And we're going to look at one, two, three, four, five different cases. So one, two, three, four, five, right? And if we take this over here, you'll be able to see it perfect, okay? So we're starting off with $100. And we're going to look at what happens to a rate of growth at one year, at five years, at 20 years, at 50 years, and at 100 years, right? What happens to our capital, right? What happens to our investment, to our money, right? Over a 100-year period. And we're going to look at those intervals, okay? So we're going to look at one year. We're going to look at five years. We're going to look at 20 years. We're going to look at 50 years. And we're going to look at 100 years, okay? If I had more space here with label these years and stuff like this, which is something you should do. And what we're going to do is we're going to set a baseline, okay? We're going to assume that $100 at the end of 100 years is not going to grow, right? So we're going to assume an interest rate, growth rate of zero. So we're going to call this one, we're going to call this one our baseline, okay? At zero percent.  So basically what happens here is, let me write these down. So we have sort of a linear table going across or 100, 100, 100, 100, and 100. So what we have, if we have $100 right now at point zero, I guess, or one year, right? At the end of 100 years, we have no growth rate, we're still going to have $100. So let's draw, let's create a table. 50 years and we're going to go across as well. That way the numbers stand out. Stand out better. Our eye can pick up the numbers because I do want the numbers to show up well. Right, so let's make this tighter. And we got this guy down here. Easy peasy. Now what we're going to do is, first thing I'm going to look at is 2% growth. And the reason we're going to look at 2% growth, because 2% growth is basically for the western world, is the rate of inflation that the central banks try to shoot for. So basically anywhere between 1.5, 1 to 3%, so we're going to go with 2%. Basically what that means is our governments are devaluing our money over time. And they're shooting to have an inflation rate of 2%. And basically what that means is your money is basically depreciating 2% per year. So if you had something that you could buy for $100 at year zero, then next year if you had a 2% rate of inflation across the board over everything, then that same item was going to cost you $102. So let's fill in these numbers here and see what happens. We start off with $100 at a 2% rate of inflation. And what happens with our money over 100 years? And this is the formula we'll be using. We put in 100 here, we put in 2% here, which would be .02, and we take it to 1, 5, 20, 50, 100, and we put in those numbers in here. And if we do that, this is what we end up with. At the end of one year, we end up having $102, right? If we're investing now, right, or if something is costing you $100, you can think about it the same way. You can think about it as you taking money and putting into an account, right? $100 into an account that's paying you 2% interest per year. At the end of the first year, you get $102. At the end of five years, you would have $110. At the end of 20 years, you would have $149. At the end of 50 years, you would have $269. And at the end of 100 years, you would have $724, right? On the same level, if something you wanted to buy now costs you $100, a year from now would cost you $102, five years from now would cost you $110, $149, $269, $724 after 100 years, right? That's inflation. That's basically the concept of devaluing your money. Your money doesn't go as far, right? And anybody, if you buy groceries, if you buy food, you would have noticed that that's one thing that's happened over the last 10 years or so, nine or 10 years or so. Food prices have gone through the roof, right? For me, I get a lot of honey. And honey, 10 years ago, you know, one kilo bottle, right? Jar would cost me anywhere between $9 to $11, right? Or even less sometimes. Right now, one kilo jar of honey is costing anywhere between $16 to $20, right? That's almost doubling the price within 10 years. So we went, you know, if a jar of honey cost me $100, right? Or if I could buy 10 jars of honey for $100, 10 jars of honey five years later costing me $110, according to a rate of inflation of 2%, but it's costing me more than that in nine years, right? Now, let's take a look at another interest rate. Let's take a look at an interest rate of 5%, okay? This one is at 5%. Hopefully these numbers are showing up. They're pretty small, but you know where we're putting them in, right? So interest rate of 5%, what we could do is erase these and put them together. That's okay. We'll do it this way. So 5%, and this is what you end up having, okay? If you invest $100 at 5%, after one year, you have $105. And we did the calculation for this in the previous example, right? At the end of one year, you've got 105%. At the end of five years, you have $128. At the end of 20 years, you've got $265. So at the end of 20 years, at 5% interest, you have almost the same amount as if you were investing at 2% at the end of 50 years, right? Wow, huge difference. At the end of 50 years, you have $1,147. And at the end of 100 years, $100 is going to be $13,150, right? Wow. 2% to 5%, that's a little bit over twice as much, right? Two and a half times more. 2% to 5%. You're getting interest at two and a half times what you're getting at 2% relative to 5%, right? But at the end of 100 years, the multiple here, actually let's do the multiple here, how many more times is that? $13,150 divided by $724. You have 18 times more money, right? So this multiple here is 18 times from here to here, right? From here to here, $11,47 divided by $269, this is 4.3 times, okay? Over here, the multiple is decreasing, right? $265 divided by $149 is 1.8 times, 8 times. And over here is not that much more. It is 1.2 times if we're rounding to one decimal place, right? So this concept of compound growth is not, growth over an extended period of time is exponential growth because if we're growing at any percent above zero, it's exponential growth, right? This exponential growth becomes more prevalent as time passes, right? So just imagine a mode of be like 150 years from now, 200 years from now, you can do the calculations, right? And this is really important when you consider a present economic system because we have institutions, right, that have been around, have existed for hundreds of years, right? Some of the largest institutions we have in our society are universities, right? There's universities that have been around for, I forget the numbers, right? 5, 6, 700, 8,000 years, I don't know. They're into hundreds of years, right? So just imagine if those universities had $100,000 years ago, 800 years ago and they took $100 and invested it in property or invested into ventures and they were getting a growth rate of whatever it was over an extended period of time, right? Then in 800 years, 500 years, wow, their investment is worth a lot of money, right? And if you take that into the context of you as a human being, your lifespan is limited, our lifespan is limited. So when it comes to our present economic system, if we as individuals competing or competing with institutions that have a longer lifespan than we do, then in the limit, in the long run, we all lose, right? Any institution, any corporation will end up owning everything because what they end up making is huge compared to what we end up making, right? And this is only 5% growth. Let's take a look at 10% growth, right? What happens if we have here 10% growth, okay? And just so you know, 2% is a rate of inflation. If you're making an investment and you're not beating the rate of inflation in the long run, you end up losing money, right? And that's where this one comes in. I did this one before we do the 10%. Let's do this one. This one, let's assume we're losing 5% per year, right? Minus 5% per year. If you're losing 5% per year, then what you end up having is this. Okay. This becomes 95%. After the first year, you lose 5%. You lost $5 out of 100. You've got $95 left, right? At the end of 5 years, you've got 77%. At the end of 20 years, you've got 35%. At the end of 50 years, you have 8%. And at the end of 100 years, your $100 is worth 50 cents, right? It's not worth anything, right? Especially if you consider at a rate of inflation of 2%, the item that you were able to buy for $100 at present was going to be worth $724, right? It's no longer worth 100. The 100 has lost this value, right? So the same item that you could buy now for $100 that 100 years from now is worth $724. If you're losing 5% per year, you're down at 50 cents. You probably can't even afford to pay to look at that item, right? So that's what happens if you don't beat the rate of inflation to a certain degree, right? If you're just making even money, right? If you're taking your investment and just putting it under your couch, right? And 100 years you come back, you're still your $100, then if you wanted to buy the same item that you could 100 years ago that item is not costing $724, right? That's 7.2 times more than what it costs you at present, right? So even if you're breaking even, your money is not worth anything, right? In the limit, okay? And that's one thing all financial advisors or the first principle, one of the first principles is a handful of first principles when it comes to investing money, right? One of the first ones is preserve capital, right? Don't lose. Because if you lose, then it takes more to come back up, right? If you lose, for example, if you have $100, right? If you lose 50%, then you're down at $50, right? But to come back to $100, you have to gain 100%, right? It's a weird concept. It's a weird concept, okay? And that's sort of how this growth works out here. And in general, if your rate of inflation is 2%, you have to beat the rate of inflation in our present economic system. And we're only talking about money, okay? Fiat currencies, okay? And certain other types of investment, but basically investing in our current economic system, our prevalent economic system right now, there are different models than this, okay? And we will talk about those models later in the future, right? What I want to do is really emphasize how our present system functions when it comes to Wall Street and banking and stuff like this, okay? So you have to beat the rate of inflation. 5% growth per year is considered to be pretty good if you're investing money, okay, into the markets. So if you're investing at 5%, you're beating the rate of inflation by 3%, right? So you're more than doubling the rate of inflation, which is a good thing. And the average is, I don't believe they're at 5%, and it might be now because we live in a bubble economy, there's tons of flow of money into the markets right now. We'll talk a little bit about that, but if the averages are less than 5%, then you're doing well. If the averages are 4% and you're making 3%, you're still beating the rate of inflation, but you're below the average, then you're losing out in the long run, okay, in the limit. Now let's look at 10%, and if you're making 10% growth per year, you're doing phenomenal. You're pretty much set, okay? So if you're making 10% growth per year, after one year, you have $110. After five years, you have $161. After 20 years, you have $673. After 50 years, you have $11,739. And after 100 years of investing your money, $100, a 10% interest per year, you end up having $1,378,000. And $61, but we're just going to put it as 1.3 million, 1.4 million, really, right? The multiple, wow, right? Relative to someone who's getting 5% interest, 1,378,000 divided by 1,3150. 5% to 10%, that's double. So you're making double interest rate, right? At the end of 100 years, you have made 105 times more, or you have 105 times more money than someone who was getting paid 5% interest per year, right? Just because you're making double the interest. Incredible, right? You're beating inflation by 5 times. And the same item, if we assume 2% inflation over an extended period of time for 100 years, if something was costing you $100 a present, 100 years from now, it would cost you $724. You have 1 million, 1.4 million dollars, right? So instead of buying one item at present, put your money where it pays you 100% interest, you can buy, well, how many? 13,000, 14,000 of the same item, relative to this person. Or for someone who's just matching inflation, they could buy one of the items. You could buy 14,000 of them, right? Yeah, 14,000 of them. Incredible, right? And this is something that our present economic system, really huge, is based on, right? That's one reason why when people are trying to go get mortgages, when people are trying to go get interest, they haggle over 1%, 0.25%. They haggle over 0.5%, right? Because when you're taking a mortgage to buy something large, maybe a house, or you're taking money out to invest in a company, whatever it is, right? If you're over an extended period of time, if you're paying a little bit more percent than over a long period of time, that ends up being a huge amount of money, right? Incredible, incredible. Now, what I want to do, this is in table format, so it doesn't, I mean, it does a nice visual when it comes to the multiples, we can see it, right? Because, you know, this multiple from here to here is, what is that? 1, 3, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3. So that number divided by this number, divided by 7 to 4. 1,900 times, right? 1,900 times from here to here. So if you're just matching inflation compared to someone else who's making 10%, so they're making 8% more than you, right? The difference is 8%. 1,900 times more money in 100 years than you do. Again, if you consider this over a lifespan of corporations, then as an individual, if you're in conflict with a corporation, if you're trying to compete with a corporation over property, over investments, right? You have absolutely no chance, no chance. And what you have to appreciate is this situation has been going on for hundreds of years, right? This isn't something new to our present economic system. Well, to a certain degree it is in the last 100 years when the gold standard was taking off, right? But where money has been just flowing into the markets and the devaluation of currencies has been happening across the world, right? But this is something that has been happening for extended period of time because we're not just talking about fiat currencies, money, right? We're talking about property as well. We're talking about anything, right? Education, right? The cost of education. This is the model that is flowing, or following, right? Education, when I, you know, post-secondary education, university education when I went to school was a lot cheaper than what students are paying right now to get an education, right? It's, what is it, over one trillion dollars of student debt right now, right? So what I want to do with this, with this data, is put it on a graph, okay? And what we're going to have to do is put this on a linear, we could put it on a log-log graph, but I'm going to put it on a linear log graph, okay? Because the differences here from 100 to 1.4 million is too huge for us to put on a linear scale, okay? So let me erase this part of it, and I'm going to keep those numbers there, okay? Just to show you how this works. So this is 100 years, right? This part was 100 years. And this is how much money we have. What we're going to do is put this on a Cartesian coordinate system, and I'm just going to do a simple one right now, and then we're going to erase this and do a bigger graph. So what I mean by a linear log graph, we're going to put our x-axis as time, and we're going to go from 0 to 100 years, right? If we put $0 here, and if we put $100 here, right? We're okay to graph this up with the 2% interest, right? But as soon as we go higher, you know, we can't make this $200. We can't make this $300. Because if we do this, we've got to go up to 1.4 million. That's too... That's huge. We basically have to take it up to a level where, you know, I don't know if you can hear it, there's a plane flying above us right now, right? The graph is going to be gigantic, right? So we can't do that. So what we're going to do is put a log scale on here. We're going to go from 1 to 10 to 100 to 1,000 to 10,000. And what that means, a log scale is each level, segment, is a multiple of 10, okay? It's a power of 10. And that is going to allow us to graph our limits on here, okay? So I'm going to erase all this. And what we're going to do is, again, we're still following the same equation, right? So let's put this on a X a little bit more here, so we can label it. So our X axis is going to be time. And we're going to go from 0 to 100 years, okay?  So I'm going to break this here. I hope that's in the middle. That's 50, okay? This becomes 25, but I want it to be 5 ticks here. So 25 here. So this is 20, 30. So 10. There should be more space here. Let's do this. So that's going to be 25, so that's 20. So that's 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, right? And then 10, 20, 30, 40, 50. So we have 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100. Right? On our Y axis here, we're going to put money, right? And we're not going to go from 0 because you can't take a log of 0. We talked a little bit about this previous ASMR video where we're trying to visualize exponential and logarithmic functions, which is basically what this is, right? This is an exponential function, right? So we're doing an exponential function on a log graph. So we're sort of layering logs and exponentials together, right? So we can't take log of 0. So we have to start this at 1. And then we're going to go up by multiples of 10. So this is going to be 10. Our next tick, if we do the same amount here, our next tick is going to be 100. And just to save us room, I'm not going to put down 100. I'm going to put 10 to the power of 2. That basically means 100. I'm going to go up one more. 10 to the power of 3 is 1,000. 10 to the power of 4 is 10,000. 10 to the power of 5 is 100,000. 10 to the power of 6 is a million. And 10 to the power of 7 is 10 million, right? So let's put our lines on here. Now what I'm going to do, I'm going to put the rate of inflation, the 2% growth rate in red. So we see where we end up going. So we're starting off, we're all starting off at $100. We're all starting off here, no matter what your growth rate is. And at the end of one year, we're here, end of one year we've got $102, which is basically almost exactly where it is. At the end of five years we've got $110. And the way, I should explain this, the way the logarithmic graph works, let's assume we're taking this segment here. Actually let's go from 10 to 1,000. So I'm just going to take this, I'm going to show it to you, and then we're going to erase it. So if this is 10, here's our line. If this is 10, here's 100, and here's 1,000. The way it works is, 50 is not in the middle, right? That's 10 to 100, but 50 is not in the middle because we're not dividing this up evenly. What happens is, from 10 to 20 we get a fair chunk here. And then to 30, it's a smaller segment, goes up to 30. 50 ends up being about 65% in the way up, 60, 70% in the way up. So this mark here becomes 50, right? Same with this, 500 is not in the middle, 500 is like up here. So the log scale basically starts off small if we're going from here to here, right? Starts off small, the increment starts off large, and the increments become tighter and tighter until we get to the next segment, and then we start off the same way again. So from here to here would be 200. And then it crunches up, crunches up, crunches up tighter and tighter and tighter. They increments. So we're only going to approximate it. I just want to show you that just so you know how log scales work, right? So at the end of five years, we're almost at the same place again, right? 2%, where are we? At the end of 20 years, we're at $149, right? So 20 years, we're at $149, we're about three quarters of the way up, okay? At the end of 50 years, we're at $269, 50 years. Oops, we're not up there, we're here. Am I bad? At the end of 20 years, we're like $149, so we're like here, right? Haven't gone up too high. At the end of 50 years, we're at $269, so that's $1,269, it's going to be like here, right? At the end of 100 years, we're at $724, so we're still below this line, right? So we're like here, approximately, right? So our graph is pretty much a linear graph going up to 100 years, right? And this is a 2% growth. Now, let's do the decline for now. Let's do where we're losing 5%, okay? So you see how that works, because that's a pretty important visual to have as well, right? At the end of one year, we're at 95, which is basically, you know, here, same place. At the end of five years, we're at 77, so we're like here. At the end of 20 years, we're at $35, so 35 will be around here. At the end of 50 years, we're at $8, so we're like down here. At the end of 100 years, we're at 50 cents, which is basically at zero, while we're below one, right? So we're here, like... So this is what the graph of losing capital looks like, and this is negative 5%. I hope that's clear, that if you're not, if you're losing a certain percent every year, in the limit, in the long run, you're out. It's done, right? Let's do 5% in blue, okay? So if we're going to graph the 5%, at the end of one year, we're at 105, which is basically the same thing, we're here, right? At the end of five years, we're 128, which again is, you know, here, pretty close. At the end of 20 years, we're at 265. So right now, we're doing a little bit of breakaway, right? Very little. There's a small gap, there's a logarithmic, right? At the end of 50 years, we're at 1,147. So that's 1,000. So there's a definite break out there, okay? At the end of 100 years, we're at 13,150. So at 13,000. So there's 10,000. 13,000 is just going to be up there, okay? So this is what it's going to look like. Now these would be a little bit smoother, there wouldn't be curves going up and down like this, but my ability to draw graphs approximately is not the best, okay? So this guy goes basically like this. That's a little bit better. So this is at 5% growth. And this number here is 13,150 dollars, right? Here. This number here, the red, the inflation was 700, 724 dollars. And that one we're not even going to bother writing down because it was 50 cents. Let's do the 10% growth. Let's do the 10% growth in orange, purple. Let's see. That's purple. Distincter from that guy, isn't it? Or should we do orange? Oh, I like orange better, right? Or is that too much like red? Let's do purple. So 10% growth. 10% growth. At the end of one year, we're still here basically. 110 dollars. At the end of one year, at the end of five years, we're 161. So we're still pretty close here. At the end of 20 years, we're at 673. 673. So there's a definite breakout there. At the end of 50 years, we're at 11,739. So if that's here, we're here. This line, the blue line should be a little bit lower, I think. That was at the end of 50 years. And at the end of 100 years, we're at 1.4 million basically. So we're up here. That's 1 million. So if we go across 1.3, so we're a little bit higher as well, right? So we're here. And this is at 10% growth. And the number there is 1,378,000 dollars. This graph that you're seeing, these gaps, if you haven't got a really good appreciation for logarithmic scale, which is what pH for chemistry, pH scale is like, what the Richter scale is like, right? This gap here is enormous, is huge. And this is sort of the whole concept of compound growth. And the whole principle, what differential accumulation is based on, the model that Jonathan Nitzan and Shemshan Bashlar have introduced, which is basically saying that if you're not, you as an individual, you as a corporation, you as a state, you as a country, right? Because this doesn't just apply to us as an individual basis. This applies in our economic system right now. And us as individuals, small companies, huge corporations, conglomerates, and even countries have to follow this model, right? Or are forced to follow this model. If they're going to follow some of the measures presented in the way we gauge the health of an investment or a country, right? Whether it be GDP, CPI, maybe for the stock market, whether it be PEE, or whatever it might be, right? Their growth rate and stuff like this. Differential accumulation states this. If you're not beating the averages, then in the limit, this is what happens to you, right? Because if we take this, the rate of inflation, someone who's just matching the rate of inflation relative to someone who's making 10% growth, right? Then this money here, these funds here are nothing compared to this, right? Because this person here, this individual here, this organization here can afford to buy out this person 19,000 times over, right? Because that was a multiple. That was a difference that we had, right? I believe so anyway. What is that? 1,302,3 divided by 724. Yeah, 19,000 times over. So even though they would have started at the same amount, at $100, over 100 year period, 100 years ago, then in 100 years, this person, they're not worth the amount of capital, right? They've accumulated, and in differential accumulation, capital is considered to be power, right? So the amount of power that the purple person has accumulated relative to the red person is 19,000 times more, right? And this is an incredibly important sort of concept to appreciate regarding our growth rate exponential functions is because even though us as individuals have certain lifespan, they're way less than 100, you know, 70 years, 80 years, or work lifespan or investment lifespan or even shorter, then if we're comparing us as individuals to organizations that have a longer lifespan than us, much longer lifespan than us, then in the limit they own everything, right? They have all the power, which is, if you want an example, one of the places this is happening that has been happening in the last 30 years or so is in Japan, right? Japan had some serious economic downturns in the late 1980s, and they haven't really been able to come out of that, right? And what's happened right now at present, I can't, I forget what the numbers are, the Japanese government owns a huge chunk of most of the corporations in Japan, right? And what's going to happen if you extend this, not even to the limit, like if you extend this a couple of decades, two or three decades from now, then the government in Japan will own everything, right? So in Japan, the perception that there are different companies that are not linked together, they're individuals, right? They're distinct companies is going to completely disappear in a couple of decades, two or three decades, I haven't done the mathematics for it, but right now it's more than 20%, more than 20, 30%, it might be less than 50%, let's assume it's 20%, they own 20% of all the corporations, right? It's because they keep on printing money and buying their stock of these companies, they're investing in these companies because they've been printing money off the yang-yang. So in the limit, they basically end up owning all the everything, right? All the corporations in Japan. That model is sort of relevant to Canada and the United States and Europe as well, to a certain degree, but in the large part of the United States because what's happened in the last few years is there's been a huge influx of funds, right? With the interest rates being really low, then what banks have been doing is investing that money into the corporations and investing that money into markets that are paying them more than what they're borrowing the money at, right? So incredibly important, why don't I show you one more thing? I printed out some graphs and I want to sort of make sure that this is you appreciate that this is not just on an individual basis or just related to the stock market or you buying a home or doing an investment in a property or whatever it might be. This is related across the board. This applies across the board, right? So keep this graph in mind, right? Very important graph, right? And keep this number in line, which is what the base inflation rate that most Western countries are shooting for, right? Now, the way the money is created, the way the money is generated is, you can look into it, we're not going to really go into it. It's basically the rate of interest that me and you individuals that is set within a country, within United States, let's say, is set by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private company, right? It's not government controlled. The government doesn't, you know, who we elected to government has no say in what the Federal Reserve does, right? So the Federal Reserve really sets the monetary policy for a company. The central bank sets the monetary policy for a country, right? And depending on the country you're in, for most Western countries, our elected leaders have no say in that monetary policy, right? So this is the graph of the Fed's funds rate from 1952 to 2000 to present right now, right? On this side, we're in 1952. In the middle, we're in the 1980s. I don't know if you weren't around 1980s, it was insane. The Fed's fund rate, you know, I think it peaked at 18, I think 19%. So the money that banks could borrow from the Federal Reserve were 19%. And on top of that, if you wanted to borrow money as an individual, you had to go to the bank and they would tag on an extra whatever percent on the Fed's fund rate and they would lend it to you. So if you were borrowing money way back then in the mid 1980s, right? Or early 1980s, you were paying ridiculous amount of interest, right? You compare it to now and it's mind-boggling, right? And right now, where we are, we're on this side of the graph, right? We're basically the Fed's funds rate is basically at zero, right? It's sitting at like 0.25% or something, right? So let's erase this, okay? Keep this graph in mind, okay? Let's erase this. So the Fed's funds rate looks like this. This is time. This is 1952. Let's say 1950 to 2016, right? In here, we're going to go 0% and we're going to take it up to 20%, right? Here's 10%. Here's 5%. And this is now the linear scale. It's not logarithmic, so all the increments are the same, right? And this is 15%. If we go, where does it look like? So the middle is a little skewed, but basically started off, you know, the graph, let's do this in red, okay? So the interest rates look like this. Basically, it's a semi-normal distribution. Went up in the 1980s huge and it's come down to, what is it? In 2008, or basically, it just went down, right? It's lined, in essence, right? So this is the Fed's funds rate, where money lenders could borrow money at, right? And then we ended up paying a lot higher percent, right? So for example, if you were borrowing money at prime plus one or something like this, whatever the prime rate was, plus 1%, or whatever, and that means you had an immaculate, you know, if you're doing that, immaculate, what do you call it, history, right? A credit score or whatever you want to think about it. But we ended up paying a higher percent, right?  So the banks would borrow money and then their business is to lend money so they would tag on a certain percentage and lend you money and that difference would be their profit, right? Or they would be their revenue, their profit would be whatever money they're offering, costs and stuff like this, right? Right now we're sitting at basically 0.25%, 0%. Some places, you know, there's negative interest rates coming up, which is devaluing your money if you looked at the negative growth rate. That's what's really going on in certain parts of the world. There's negative interest rates, right? So just imagine what would happen here if this gap between what the banks were getting money and what we were getting money was getting bigger and bigger, right? Then that means there's more revenue, more profits for the banks, right? And we end up paying a lot more and in the limit, banks, if they're making the profit, if they're basing on profit, they're making a lot more money than me and you could ever make because their gap is huge, right? They're getting the money at a much lower rate than we are, so they're paying a lot less interest, right? So what's happened right now is the banks are basically getting money for nothing, right? The money lenders are getting money for nothing and what they're doing is they're parking their money in places where they're getting paid a little bit more, some of it, and some of it, they're putting into huge types of derivatives, putting into crazy markets and what that's doing is increasing the profits that they're getting multiple-fold, right? And what's happening is it's sort of related to the previous video that we did with mergers and acquisitions and disruptive innovation, right? Which connects up to differential accumulation and stuff like this, right? With these banks, if our present economic system is addicted to growth and it is addicted to growth, right? It's all based on growth, growth, growth. If they're based on growth and interest rates are sitting at 0% and there's a sort of a pyramid scheme where everything was based on growth so people who have invested in the past are expecting that growth. Then what's happening right now is because there's so much money out there, so much money has been printed or typed into existence, right? That money has to go into play and what's happening is there are different types of financial instruments being created, short-term form being derivatives that are basically turning our present economic system into casino capitalism, right? Which is a huge, huge problem for us, especially if you consider the previous graph where if as an individual you are making 5% and let's say banks or money lenders or large institutions were making 10% then what we have relative to what they have is nothing, it's Trump change, right? And that's sort of the concept of differential accumulation and one more thing I wanted to sort of lay out there which is really important to appreciate, right? Especially when it's related to our political system and how our economic system works, right? Let's do another graph here, let's just do one more simple graph, right? Let's call this time again and let's call this interest or rate, right? Interest rate, rate in percent, okay? Let's go zero to 20% again. Here's 10%, here's 5% and here's 15%, right? Now the rate of interest that an individual can borrow money at is based on your credit score, your credit history, right? If you've borrowed money and you've paid that back, right? If you've invested money, how much capital you have. So it's really based on how you've performed financially in the past, right? It sort of looks back at your history and decides if you've been a good person, right? A good citizen.  Let's call this zero to 20 years or something, right? You've been in the markets for 20 years so you can get interest, you can get a low interest rate, right? If you've been good, you can get an interest rate, you know, fairly low, right? One of the places where you can get really cheap interest rates on borrowing money to buy something would be car loans, right? And car loans are sort of where we are where the housing market was at in the 2000s, right? There's a lot of people borrowing the subprime rates where the interest rates are going to go up and stuff like this, but we'll forget what the technicalities of that, right? Let's assume you can get interest rate at 2%, right? Or 2.5%, right? So you're paying this interest rate, right? Over time, the odds are that's going to go up. That's based on you having good credit if you have good credit, right? Banks right now are getting money and money lenders and even large corporations because when you're borrowing money, I'm not sure if some of the stuff I haven't bought a new car for a long time. I'm not sure if you're borrowing the money. I don't think you're borrowing it from the car company themselves. I think you're borrowing it from a subsidiary of the car company. But they're basically getting their money at very low rates, right? At 0.5%, oops, 0.5%, right? 0.5%. So if a company is money lenders getting their money at 0.5%, right? And then lending it to your 2% or 2.5%, they're making 2% interest on that loan, right? Which is not bad. That's the rate of inflation. They're matching the rate of inflation, right? And if the way you're borrowing money is based on your credit history and if you've got bad credit, or if you're borrowing from credit cards which is a nasty thing to do, then you're paying 10%, 15%, some places I think they're paying like 18% interest, right? 18%, 15%, 10%, right? So this 2%, even if their interest rate doubles, right? The 5%, they're way ahead of the game compared to these people, right? And if you extend this to the limit, if you're constantly carrying a balance over on your credit cards and constantly paying interest in the limit, the graph, the previous graph we did with the log scale, 5% loss of $100, it dropped down fairly quickly, right? It went down to $100 became $35 in 20 years, right? But if you're paying 10%, you're losing 10%, 15%, 18%, that's what you're paying, then your money basically just drops down, right? You're done for it, right? And all of this is based on your credit history.  I mentioned that our present economic system is rigged. It's a scam, right? And here's one reason that's the case. If the rate of interest that you're paying is based on your credit history, right? Then what the moneylenders, the banks are paying should not be 0.5% or 0.25%. This should be way up here. This should be paying the most highest interest rates possible from the Federal Reserve, from the central bank because they created, they brought on the largest economic collapse we've ever seen in our present civilization, really. And the last present economic system, really, right? In 2000s, building up to 2008 economic downturn, right? They were caught robosigning mortgages. They were caught fixing labor, the liberal rate is the interest rate that people borrow money at, right? They were caught straight out scamming people. They lied. They sold instruments that were, that they raided the credit agency, they paid off credit agency to rate their instruments at AAA, but they were junk, right? They collapsed, right? And in that 2008 downturn, hundreds of thousands of people, millions of people lost all their savings, right? They became bankrupt, right? So our money lenders, our banks have some of the worst credit history ever, right? And if you're borrowing money, if me and you as individuals are set to the standard that we have to borrow money based on credit history and what we've done in the past and how well we've behaved, right? Then the banks should be held up to the same standard, but they're not. What they're able to do is borrow money at basically zero interest rate. They've actually been given the power to print money or create money out of thin air, right? So they're creating money and lending it to us at 5%, 10%, 15%, 18%. And they're banking the difference. And if you consider the other graph, the log scale graph, right? If they're meeting this much interest, right? On what they're lending out, then their log rhythmic scale goes up like this, right? And in the limit, they end up owning everything. And that is a major problem. That, for anyone that's looked at the present situation, there's only one place that leads to it. Okay? That gives only a certain select people complete control over everything within our society. And that is a huge problem. And that is the concept of differential accumulation. Because if money lenders are able to compete, are able to acquire money and lend it out to people at a higher interest rate than they are getting, right? Even though their credit history is worse than any other human being on this planet, or any other institution on this planet, right? They pulled scams that were into the trillions of dollars, right? Huge. So, if that's the case, then our current economic system is a fast-moving freight train heading towards a wall, right? And the outcome, you know, we've never been here. As far as I know in our civilization, we're not sure how it's going to play out, right? There's the concept of jubilies where all debt is forgiven at a certain point. But that concept becomes irrelevant once the money lenders own everything, right? So if institutions, certain institutions or governments end up owning everything, then wiping out debt is irrelevant because they own everything, right? And they're competing against individuals for property, for investments, right? And, you know, that's sort of where we are in our present economic system. And again, I'll mention this again. This goes beyond just on an individual basis. This goes beyond a certain market. May it be finance, may it be real estate, may it be education, because everything's been commoditized. Basically, everything is a market. One of the most recent bonds, the derivatives that have been being packaged and sold to people, they've gone beyond mortgages. Obviously, the mortgages were one of the causes of the 2008 class, but it was beyond that, right? More than that, right? But one of the packages now that they're putting up, because this model, the way we are right now, has an addiction to growth, right? So money is being created out of thin air and that money has to go into play, right? It has to go into play to generate more money. And because the money lenders and all these people generating money and those who have been accumulating at a higher rate than others for an extended period of time, they have a lot of money to put into play, then what's happening right now, running out of instruments for people to put money in, right? The real estate markets are overextended in a bubble. The stock markets are in a bubble and they could go higher, right? And you never know when a bubble burns, right? They could double, they could triple over the next few years or it could completely collapse, right? But one of the instruments that just blew me away when I heard about it was money lenders, people who are looking for places to invest their money are so desperate. They've gone to, I believe it was Verizon and gotten Verizon to create an instrument and I think they raised $1.2 billion, $1.5 billion by these bonds they put out and the bonds were based on cell phone bills, right? So they took everybody's cell phone bills that they're collecting over their monthly bills and they packaged that into an instrument and they offered that as a bond, right? I don't know what a nitty gritty is all of it and they raised $1.2 billion or $1.5 billion with that, right? So all of a sudden, all that money went in and they're guaranteed that money that went into that bond is guaranteed a certain percent. I don't know what the percent was on it. It's irrelevant right now, right? So there's a lot of money being created and a lot of money looking for different interest rates to get into, right? And if you're getting the interest rate, you're okay. You're beating the averages, differential accumulation. You have to beat the averages because if you don't beat the averages over time you're worth nothing, right? You lose capital, you lose all power, right? So that's one place where the bubbles are being created and the last thing I want to mention with this is this goes to, this connects up to geopolitics. This is huge in geopolitics. This is one of the main driving factors for foreign policy, okay? And I printed off some more charts here. Here's, I mean, before the 2008 class the Federal Reserve stopped reporting M3 and this is the chart of the money flow. They stopped reporting the M3 which is basically the quick money that was available because there's so much money being generated. There's a few graphs that we could go into discussion here but one of the things I want to point out is this connects directly into foreign policy, how governments behave because these growth rates are not just based on an individual basis or corporate basis, they're based on countries and one thing that has happened in the last 30 years or so Asia, China has been growing at anywhere between, sometimes it was growing at 10%, anywhere between 6%, 7% to 10%, so 8% growth, constant 8% growth over 30 years, right? And we looked at that, right? We looked at 5% and 10% and we saw what the graph of that looks like There's Google data available and you can look at GDP growth rate and I just printed this off, right? The top two lines, these guys are China and South Asia. That's their growth rate and I'll put on my glasses here. So this is up to 2014, okay? And China, on average, has been growing if I do an approximation, it's around 8% or 9% per year since 1980, right? And South Asia just, recently they broke out in 2000s, 2002 and they're growing around, what is that, around 7%, China is around 7% now as well. The bottom country is here that I printed off, okay? The next highest one is United Kingdom. The world, so United Kingdom has been growing around 3% in 2014. The world average was around 2.5%, Canada was around 2.5%, United States was around 2.5%, Belgium was less than 2%, France was almost 0%, Japan is negative growth and Italy was negative growth in 2014 and a couple of years before that as well, right? So if you take a look at the graph, the log graph that we did and you consider that Italy was growing in negative percent and China was growing at 8%, right? Then you can see what's happening, right? Where the power is going and China is not the only place where we're seeing this type of growth, Africa is as well, okay? And Africa is huge. It's going to be, it is a major player. It is going to continue to become a major player, which is one of the reasons why the United States foreign policy Pentagon basically broke off a new segment section in their strategic command, I guess, and they created Africa, Africa Central Command, okay? And if you're interested to connect this into politics, because I don't want to really go too deep into politics on this, I just wanted to link it up with the politics video that we put out. But if you want a little bit of further reading on this of how differential accumulation, right? Accumulation of capital, accumulation of power, right? And how that is related to beating the averages, right? It comes into geopolitics, how that comes into play. I put out an article, I didn't print off the date on this. I forget when I wrote this. It was a few years ago. It was part three of a series I did regarding Africa because it became obvious that things are changing a lot, right? And countries are chasing growth and preservation of wealth and preservation of their currency, right? That comes into a petrodollar and gold standards and Bitcoin and a lot of different currencies and stuff at play right now, economics works. But one of the places that a lot of this is getting a lot of action is Africa. And the main article I titled that the future of Africa looks bleak. Here is why, okay? And I'll link to the third part of that series that I put together. And I titled it, Recolonization of Africa, The Symptom of our Addiction to Growth, Differential Accumulation, Why GDP Growth Rates Influence Foreign Policy? That's a pretty heavy duty title, I guess. But I'll link it up in the description of this video. And if you want to see how this differential accumulation, how these growth rates, how these charts play out with foreign policy and what's going on in the world and where conflicts are occurring and where countries are going and making business decisions, you can read that article. And I do provide charts to the growth rates and embedded in the article of the length of the charts for the Google data of the different GDPs. And there's some other charts that, just from the US government, just pulling the stuff out and some data you can look at that's on that article. And you can see where that leads into the limit. I hope you enjoyed this. It's pretty important. I try to put in a lot of ideas together for this. I present it in a courier way. And I hope it was a good flow to it that the visuals all made sense and gives you a pretty good idea of how things are playing out. Where we go with ASMR math and economics after that, I'm not 100% sure how it made up my mind, we could go down any of these avenues, any of these charts, graphs. I may go down and look at some of the indicators, maybe country-specific GDP, CPI or whatever it might be. I might go into the stock market some of the indicators there, some of the terminology used there and what they mean, what they represent. Or we may come up and just do some personal finance that I really want to do actually. So I'm leaning towards that, to do some personal finance because I'm not really interested in how the game is played on a geopolitics level or on a corporate level when it comes to the stock market or Wall Street because it's not things that I'm involved in anymore. I've lost interest, I'm more interested in different models that are more localized, communal, right? Corporate models, not corporate models, cooperative models and personal finance. So I might go towards that and at some point most definitely when I made the comic book videos I mentioned that at some point we're going to be looking at the economics of comics, investing in comics, publishing comics or what may come of that, right? And I believe going into personal finance and linking that with the comic books will work out nicely because it's a lot of the indicators that we can create for that are also relevant on a personal level when it comes to personal finance or what type of decisions we need to make on an individual basis to make sure that we're not being buried left behind based on inflation beating the averages and growth rates and how all that stuff is playing out and we definitely don't get caught in the bubble once it bursts, right? Because if you're going to be playing that game you must have an out. You must make sure you have an exit plan because once it goes if you get caught in this wake, you're done for. Okay, that's it for now. I'll see you guys in the next video.


So if I'm driving up in the herd right here and she's right there and she goes to the right I got to get over there. Okay, because some some of your amateurs You're you're not you're not once you get the cow cut You're not thinking about the next move and you need to be thinking about Stopping that cow right off the bat.  I'm no control It either runs that away or if the turn back stops and turns it and then I'm turning this way and I'm long Okay, so really think about being that mirror image of that cow.   Good and another step or two to your left.


Because extroverts feel introverts are people who need help You need to be more social. You need to get to more parties. Come on. I'm gonna invite. Leave me alone. I hate parties Because parties are full of small talk Believe me, you don't want to get into small talk with an introvert I was at a party recently that I didn't want to be up and I met a guy in the I said hi What's your name? He said I'm Peter. I said Peter. What do you do? He said I'm a postman I said Peter. What do you feel about the future of the post office is in our country?


Remember the good old days when a trip meant a jolting, rough ride over a dusty, rutted cow trail? Well, probably not. But can you relate to this? Life in the fast lane today. Modern-day traffic on smooth, surfaced, paved highways and interstates moves like lightning compared to the snail's pace of a century ago. And as population grows, so do the number of vehicles that travel every roadway in the country. As travel increases, so do the maintenance problems of these roads. More vehicles, heavier loads, weather damage and age all contribute to the deterioration of an asphalt surfaced road. Good maintenance starts with road patrol, identifying problem areas and planning repair work. Along with checking fences, signs and culverts, a supervisor also watches for defective spots on the road surface that need to be blade patched. Blade patching can correct rutted, shoved out areas, large alligator cracks and potholes too large for hand patching. Each area to be patched is marked and materials needed or calculated. Equipment is checked and prepared for patching, dump trucks, a loader, broom, roller, asphalt distributor and of course the motor grader. An important part of any maintenance activity is a good traffic control plan. The safety of both the work crew and the motoring public depends on it. The importance of proper signing, good transitions and alert flag people can never be overemphasized. Once traffic control is in place and everything is at the job site, preparation of the area begins. The first step is to cut off high spots and clean any old cracked or broken material out of the hole. The surface must be clean in order for the asphalt tack coat to stick to the mat. If the shoulder is higher than the mat, it's a good idea to cut it level with the mat so water can drain away. Feathering out waste material leaves a good appearance. The tack coat is sprayed evenly on the area to be repaired. Pre-mix is then spread or dumped from the dump truck extending a foot or two beyond the tack coat to ensure having enough material. Dumping should start from the end where blading will begin. A straight even windrow is essential to laying a good patch. The blade operator works the windrow from both directions always bringing it to the starting and ending points of the patch. Windrowing to the center of the patch eliminates the chance of losing material off the shoulder. A slightly angled blade with a little down pressure will tend to even out the pre-mix but prevents cutting into the old mat and getting chunks in the material. At the end of the patch, turning sharply toward the windrow as the material feathers out leaves it within 5 to 10 feet of the patch. Tailing out the windrow this way puts it in the correct position for the next pass. After the windrow is even in size, the final pass should leave the material at the inside edge of the patch. The aggregate size will affect how thick each layer is. But in general, a lift should be no more than one inch thick. Laying material should be done in low gear with the throttle open. This will give you live controls without excessive ground speed. Too much ground speed will cause a bounce in the machine putting washboards in the patch. Productivity with a motor grader is made by making fewer passes not by higher speeds. The operator makes as few passes as possible so the material will not separate. Too much working will separate the rocks and fines and the rocks will whip off the surface. Material should be forced under the blade so that the surface will be tighter but not so much pressure should be applied as to cause the patch to tear. The toe of the blade must be set correctly. If it is too loose, a ridge will be formed where the blade picks up the windrow. Quality is a prime consideration because this will be a permanent repair. The toe of the blade is positioned slightly past the outside front wheel at a sharp angle. The mold board is pitched slightly forward and raised just enough to allow material to flow underneath. Pre-mix coming out past the blade should not fall under the rear wheels. The material must be carried just beyond the patch. The beginning and end of each patch should be tapered to smooth transition from the patch to the existing road surface. The motor grader straddles the windrow and the operator applies slight down pressure to the mold board to start onto the patch area. He raises the toe gradually first and then the heel. When reaching the opposite end of the patch, the toe is lowered a few feet from the end and when about half of the blade is off the patch area, the heel starts lowering. The wheels are turned sharply toward the windrow at the end of each pass after leaving the patch area. This turn continues until the material under the blade is in line with the windrow. This is called a turnout. Rolling each lift with a steel wheel roller begins at the shoulder and progresses toward the crown of the road. Each pass overlaps to eliminate lines and to ensure good compaction. The next lift carries material back from the shoulder to the center line. The blade angle is not as sharp on the first pass so the windrow will again even out. One way the operator can tell if the blade is the right height above the area already laid is to watch just behind the toe of the blade. It should just touch and roll a rock or two now and then as it moves along. Again the machine straddles the windrow to carry premix towards the center of the lane. The operator stops on a level road surface and puts the blade in float position to adjust to the road contour and to pick up excess material. A blade not equipped with a float setting would require necessary adjustments. As he drives forward he watches the mold board and when it has material in it makes adjustments to follow the taper started by the first lay down pass. Adjustments are made only if necessary during this pass. Fine adjustments at the other end will run in the taper. As many passes as necessary move the material back to the center of the road. Approximately two-thirds of the material should already have been laid. The rest of the material will put a finish on the surface of the patch. By using a sharply angled blade on this pass with some down pressure any loose material will be removed. During the finish lift no more adjustments than necessary are made. Again the number of passes is determined by the width of the patch area. The material should run out just before reaching the end of the patch and there will be no pile left. A very small amount of material should roll off the edge along with the chunks. This will assure that all drag marks can be filled and the surface will be even clear across the patch. If material does not come out all the way it will leave lines running in and out which are called scallops. Rolling down the chunks along the edge leaves a good appearance to the patch. The material may not run out just perfect. The operator has to take the windrow back to the center and then complete the patch. He leaves room to put a wheel between the windrow and the edge and carry it back. The material should never come clear out to the edge until the patch can be finished. If there is just a small pile at the end of the patch it can be blended back over the patch but it should not be strung out down the road. A final rolling and cleanup completes the patching process. A good finished patch should have smooth transitions, be level and be evenly compacted so it will last as long as the surrounding road surface. Let's review the process. First identify area to be patched and plan the job. Second set up traffic control for the work zone. Third cut off high spots and remove old broken material from the area. Fourth sweep the patch area so the tack coat will stick. Fifth spray the tack coat evenly on the patch surface. Sixth spread or dump premix extending slightly beyond the tack coat area. Seventh windrow until material is straight and even leaving windrow at the inside edge of the patch. Eighth lay material in lifts of no more than one inch using low gear with the throttle open. Ninth the first lift moves the material to the shoulder in as few passes as necessary beginning the taper at each end of the patch. Tenth compact each lift working from the shoulder towards the center line. Eleventh the second lift moves the material back toward the center with fine adjustments made only as necessary. Twelfth the finished lift lays the rest of the material so that only chunks and enough material to fill all drag marks is rolled off the edge. Thirteenth final rolling and cleanup completes the patching. Fourteenth remove all traffic control devices. A good patch means highway dollars well spent using good materials, skilled operators and the correct procedures. It extends the life of the road and smooths the ride for the motorist. In fact if it's good he'll never know it's there.


Hi, my name is Patricia Foucault. I'm the director and producer of a documentary called The Ground Truth, which I made at the beginning of the Iraq War. And I'm holding up my poster so we can put a face to this war. I started this movie because I read a tiny article that said in the very beginning of the invasion, a nurse was putting wounded soldiers in cardboard boxes and using her hair dryer to keep them warm. And I thought, oh my God, if the American people knew this, they would not let us stay in Iraq. But of course we did. And what happened over the next three years is that I became more interested in what happens to soldiers and veterans when they kill people, something we have absolutely no comprehension of. It's not just the wounded, it's not just coming back without a leg. It's coming back with a cliche that we talk about the invisible wounds and the invisible scars of war. But what does that mean? I did an interview with a doctor who said, you understand that we destroy three generations every time we go to war. And I started to notice it. I started to see the pain of children. I watched the veterans that became my friends take hammers and put it through windshields and destroy their relationships and their marriages. I watched them unable to have a job. And all the time our attitude in America is, if you just stay still long enough, eventually you'll be fine. Eventually you'll recover. And it doesn't happen. And what really became the thesis of my film is that we never see war. We wave goodbye when they go on the plane in the tarmac. We wave hello when they come back. And everything in between is not really in the news. It's not really in our culture. And we have no idea what they go through. So when I made the film and it went to Sundance and people started seeing it, I got really tired of the questions. Should we divide a wrap? What should we do? Should we bring them home? What about our killers? And I decided that the real question was what happens if you drive home and there's a tank on your street? What happens if a guy gets out and shoots your dog and pulls your cable and pulls your television and pulls everything and says, hi, we're here to help? We understand that you have a democracy that is suffering because your last two elections were fraudulent. We understand you have the largest prison population in the world. We understand that 40 million people at that time did not have health insurance. And so I felt that it became more important to put a picture to what war would look like in this country and to create an understanding, a personal understanding of what killing really does to another human being. We still don't get it. I'm not sure where we're going, but I think it's terrific that Code Pink and Jody Evans has created the tribunal because we have yet to be accountable for this war and we're just moving on to the next one. So it's an honor and a privilege to be here. Thank you.


The Bemidji School District is inviting the public to be part of the search for a new superintendent. The school district says School Exec Connect has been contracted to lead the search. School Exec Connect consultants will meet with board members, school staff, parents, students, and community members individually and in focus groups in the next two or three weeks to determine the challenges, strengths, and goals for the district. Staff and community members will have the opportunity to provide confidential written feedback to the consultants through the district's website. Now here's what the timeline looks like. Candidates will be recruited from February 12th through April 9th. The board and consultants will then meet to review and select candidates on April 13th. Five to seven recommended candidates will then be interviewed on April 14th. The field will then be narrowed down to two or three finalists and will be invited for an all-day interview, that process so we will include open forums that will be available to staff, students, and community to provide input into the selection. The district plans to act on the new superintendent's contract in May. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.