I want to begin not with directly with the question in the title but with a couple of questions that political leaders everywhere ought to be asking themselves. What are the choices that we have to build an economy that is productive and competitive and that provides opportunities for people in all parts of our societies to do well? How can our communities, often with very few economic resources of their own, at the very least survive and in the best case prosper in the global economy? Now, unfortunately, these aren't the questions that our politicians spend most of their time debating, mostly they're preoccupied with trying to manage the immediate problems of the economic cycle. But when the recession recedes in memory, as it surely will, the longer term questions will remain and we'll still be looking for answers. Two of the answers have now become the conventional wisdom, that we have to accelerate the transition to the knowledge economy in which the dominant activity is the creation of ideas and knowledge and innovative products and services. And second, that we must look to higher education institutions to help with this transition because universities are the key source of the discoveries and there's technically trained people that are the most important assets in the knowledge economy. Moreover, universities, unlike almost every other kind of economic organization, tend not to move. They're committed to their regions in a way that many of the traditional stalwarts of local and regional economies, the banks, the insurance companies, the old manufacturing firms and so on, no longer are. So universities everywhere are being asked and urged to embrace the third stream mission of local economic development by promoting patenting and startups and so on. But about both of these answers, there are some points where the conventional wisdom may need a little bit of tweaking. For example, innovation isn't only about entrepreneurship and new business formation. It's true that the role of entrepreneurial firms has become progressively more important in innovation, especially in the last decade, and that universities have become more visible as incubators of these startups. But that's not all there is to it and there's a larger system within which innovation occurs. At MIT, we have many visitors who want their own universities to become drivers of economic growth and they come to Cambridge to see what's happening. But sometimes they only seem to see what's on the surface. They see the startups that are clustered around the MIT campus and all the new office buildings and lab spaces. And when it's pointed out to them that that's just a part of the larger innovation system, they say, yes, yes, please show us your technology licensing office and tell us about your business plan contests. But even that is still just a relatively narrow slice of the innovation system and there's much more of it that's invisible, kind of like the submerged part of an iceberg. And I'm going to say a bit more about that part in a few minutes. Another misconception is about how long it takes to build an effective innovation system. My research team at MIT is currently doing some work in Brazil. And things aren't going terribly well down there at the moment, as you know, there's a political crisis and the economy is doing poorly. But on innovation, where historically the Brazilians have struggled, they've been doing some good things over the last few years. They've been investing in the university system, they've been investing in their national labs and there's a much stronger dialogue between government and industry than before. But people there are complaining. Look, they say, it's not working. There isn't enough patenting. There aren't enough startups. But really, it takes more than a few years to see these kinds of outputs. And if you look, for example, at the life sciences sector in the Boston area, we've recently woken up to the fact that it's now probably the strongest such cluster in the United States. But that's the opposite of an overnight success story. It took decades to build and the single most important factor was the sustained flow of basic research funds from the federal government to the excellent universities and teaching hospitals in Massachusetts. Of course, the venture capital community and the culture of entrepreneurship have also been important, but the sustained federal commitment to supporting outstanding researchers has been by far the most important factor and it took decades to bear fruit. There are also some other misconceptions about the economic role of the university. Here's a view that the bell towers of academia have replaced smokestacks as the drivers of the American urban economy. Now, if you take a step back, that's actually quite a remarkable statement. It says that universities not only have to fulfill their mission as educational institutions, which many of them are struggling with, but that they must also be the salvation of our struggling economies. It's a nice thought, but I'm afraid it's a rather unrealistic one. If you consider, for example, the question of startups, sometimes it seems I, of course, talk to a lot of students and sometimes it seems that every one I talk to is working on a startup, sometimes more than one, and it's terrific to see that activity. But it's also important to recognize that the number of university-related startups is only a very small fraction of the overall rate of new business formation. Even with the most generous accounting, it's almost certainly no more than two to three percent of the total in the U.S. And if we consider only the startups formed around university-generated IP, the fraction is less than one in a thousand. Similarly, the rate of patenting by universities is less than three percent of the overall rate of patenting in the economy. And even the most prolific university campuses from a patenting point of view, places like Stanford and MIT, receive a total number of patents that's modest by corporate standards. In fact, if Stanford and MIT were companies, neither of them would be ranked in the top 100 patenters in the United States. None of that is to say that university-related patenting in new business formation aren't important. And of course, in a few fields such as biotech, the impact is much higher. But we do need to keep all of this in perspective relative to the growth and job-creating capacity of the economy as a whole. A second misconception relates to the economic payoff to universities themselves. In fact, the expected financial return to universities from tech transfer is low. For U.S. universities as a whole, licensing income is only a small fraction of research revenue, somewhere between four and six percent, and we'll never replace research revenues as a—excuse me—research grants and contracts as a source of revenue. For example, at MIT, we receive about $80 million a year in revenues from licensing royalties and other intellectual property. And that's nothing to sniff at. But it's still only five percent, roughly, of the total MIT research budget. So the point is that technology transfer provides many benefits, but we shouldn't expect it to transform the finances of the university. And we absolutely shouldn't expect that income on intellectual property can be a substitute for direct research funding. In fact, the licensing of intellectual property is just one of many ways in which knowledge flows out of universities into industry, and almost certainly the most important of those ways is recruiting. There's an old adage, many of you probably heard it, that the best form of technology transfer is the moving van that transports the new PhD from his or her university laboratory to a new job in industry. And according to Gordon Moore, one of the founders of—or co-founders of Intel, this is even true in the land of Google and Facebook. And all of this suggests that we need a more holistic view of the university's role in the economy and in innovation. And this in turn also requires a more complete picture of the local innovation systems of which universities and other higher education institutions are part. Sometimes they're a small part, sometimes they're a large part. In our own research at the Industrial Performance Center, we found it helpful to think about innovation in terms of four separate processes. First—so here, of course, this is my definition, it's a very simple definition, but that's my definition of innovation. The application of new knowledge to create values, not invention. If you've invented something but you haven't done anything with it, that's not innovation. It has to create value for someone or something. But here are the stages of innovation that we found useful to differentiate. First of all, the discovery of and development of new technologies or new business models, let's call this option creation. Second, determining the viability of these options in the marketplace. You can think of that as demonstration. Third, the cost reductions and other improvements together with the development of complementary infrastructure like manufacturing systems or regulations or, importantly, education and training that occurred during the initial period of take-up. Then finally, the learning-driven improvements that occur as innovation is adopted on a large scale. The picture here might look similar, but in fact this representation is very different from the traditional linear view of innovation that starts with basic research in the lab, followed by applied research and then development and then demonstration. In the first place, it's not a linear process. Knowledge and information flows up and down the chain in both directions. Second, what I've called option creation isn't the same thing as basic research in the lab. In fact, ideas for innovation can occur anywhere along the value chain. For example, in manufacturing plants among groups of users and in all kinds of other places. And basic research can provide valuable knowledge at each stage of this process, not just at the front end. And third, innovation doesn't stop at the point of commercialization. In fact, the continuing improvements that are made to a technology throughout its lifetime often have a cumulative benefit that greatly exceeds the initial gains that are achieved when the technology is first brought to market. But the most important thing about this picture is that a healthy innovation system is one in which all four stages of the innovation process are operating effectively and where there are strong handoffs between them. And here, there are at least three kinds of gaps or traps to worry about. One of these is the capital gap. We've heard a great deal about the valley of death between the lab and the first implementation of a commercial product or service, and that's important. But what's also important and often a bigger challenge is to raise the capital that's required for scale-up. And partly, this is because the capital requirements here are much larger, very roughly. They increase by an order of magnitude as you move from left to right, each step, in fact, from left to right. And even though the investment risks are lower at the front end, at the latter end than at the front end of the process, they're still too great for traditional forms of project and corporate finance. But the knowledge required for effective investing at these later stages is too deeply rooted in market conditions to rely on government-led decision making. This is a problem that varies by sector, and in some cases it doesn't seem to be a problem at all. But in other sectors, including, importantly, energy and clean tech and so on, it's much more serious because here the amount of capital that's required to achieve scale is often particularly large, and the time to profitability is long. And also, policy and regulatory risks are well above average. The second gap is about geography. In innovation, proximity tends to matter, and there are benefits to locating manufacturing close to R&D and design, especially when manufacturing technologies aren't yet mature and when product technologies are still evolving and don't lead themselves to modular design. We know that when manufacturing moves overseas, innovation has a tendency to follow. The third gap is a bit harder to explain. Basically it occurs at the interface between option creation and demonstration, and it has to do with the very different management skills and styles that are required for successful management of those two stages, and the difficulty of transitioning from one to the other. By the time we get to the point of demonstration, the most important activity is basically problem solving. Anybody who's been trained as an engineer understands what's involved in problem solving and what it takes to manage it. You define your goal, you figure out the resources you need to achieve that goal, and also the constraints on time and money and people. And then you divide the problem into its component parts, and you assign each part to the appropriate specialist, and the specialist solves the parts of the problem, and then you put them together, and you try to do all of this as quickly as possible. That's the essence of the problem solving method, and the basic approach is an analytical one. But at the prior stage, at the option creation stage, before you figured out what the problem is that you're going to solve, it's very different. It's more like a freewheeling, open-ended conversation, sometimes literally between customers and suppliers, or between designers and manufacturers, or between researchers and just about everybody else. And the goal of the manager at that stage is to get the conversation started, and to seed those conversations with good ideas and interesting people, and to keep the conversations going. We call this interpretive management to distinguish it from the analytical approach. An analytical manager is a strong, decisive leader, a problem solver. But the challenge for the interpretive manager is very different. This is a quote from the American movie director, Robert Altman, who talked about what his approach is to directing a scene. He says, I'm looking for something I've never seen, so how can I tell them what to do? And the key here for the manager or the movie director isn't to get closure, but rather to get the conversation started and then to keep them going until good things start to happen. And so these are two vastly different roles. We liken the second role to be the sort of thing that the hostess or hostess of a cocktail party is doing. It's actually very difficult to think in these two modes simultaneously. And yet the key to building and sustaining a creative company, and the same is true of a successful regional economy, is to create an environment in which both of these core processes of innovation, problem solving on the left side and interpretation on the right side, can take place in parallel. And there's another challenge. And that is that problem solving thrives in a competitive environment. To get rapid, effective problem solving, there probably isn't anything better than having efficient, well-functioning markets. But especially during the early stages of developing genuinely innovative products or services when things are ill-defined or ambiguous, you need sheltered spaces where the new possibilities can be explored, where it's possible to have conversations about half-formed ideas before anybody has figured out exactly what the product or service is that's to be commercialized, or even what the problem is that is to be solved by that new product or service. And as competitive pressures have built up in our economies, the scope for conversation and interpretation has narrowed. Places like in the U.S. Bell Labs and many of the other great corporate research labs where this sort of thing used to happen have been shut down or have been converted into something else. And so we need new spaces for this. And today one of the most important such spaces is the research university. In addition to their role in fundamental research, it's at these universities that companies can participate in the open-ended explorations of new technological and market possibilities from which ideas for new products and services are sometimes hatched. I have an example. My colleague, Professor Phil Sharp of our biology department, predicts that the next revolution in life sciences, which will facilitate advances in agricultural productivity, biofuels, ecosystem engineering and healthcare, will require the integration of the life sciences with the physical sciences, engineering, and the social sciences. And he predicts that this will occur on university campuses along with the convergence of scientific discovery, invention, and entrepreneurship. The next thing I want to talk about is scale-up. This is a topic that has received, and by that I mean scale-up of business enterprises. It's received a lot less attention from policymakers and researchers than how to, who are interested in economic development than how to cultivate startups. And yet when it comes to the health, local, and regional economies, the ability to grow larger-scale companies is no less important than the process of new business formation. Here's a slide that paints a picture of the role of scale-up in Massachusetts and California. There are about 2,000 companies here in more or less evenly divided between four groups of industries, advanced manufacturing, computer-related life sciences, and software and internet. And the companies in these four industries account for about 50% of all companies that have gone public in Massachusetts, I should say, over the last 25 years. And in the last five years have accounted for all or 90% of all venture-backed startups in the United States. So this is a fairly large portion of the technology sector. The 2,000 or so companies here includes every company that went public between 1980 and today in these four industries in those two states. And each data point represents a year of revenues for a company. And the number of people that were employed by that company at the midpoint of that year. Clearly there's a clear correlation here between employment and revenues, but as you would expect, a lot of scatter. And the suggestion of non-linearity in the software and internet case is quite interesting. Now why an individual company would want to gain scale is, I think, self-evident. But what about the benefits to a region? Again, it goes without saying that every region would welcome the job-creating benefits of a rapidly growing economy. But if you were given the choice between $110 million companies, $100 million companies, and $1 billion company, which one of those options would you prefer? Other things equal, assuming they all had the same number of jobs. Well we can't run the experiment, but it is clear that large companies provide certain benefits to regional economies that small companies, even lots of them, cannot. For example, in addition to jobs, which in this little thought experiment I'm holding constant, is management talent. A larger company provides a training ground for senior managers that deepens the region's managerial talent pool. It's a valuable resource for the regional ecosystem, and as one of the companies we, CEO, or one of the companies we interviewed said, as companies grow there are positive externalities to the region. Several senior executives from our company have gone on to other companies and taken a leading role there. This recycling of talent helps smaller companies in the region grow to scale. And similarly for entrepreneurial role models, entrepreneurs who grow companies to scale themselves become role models for other entrepreneurs who see the possibilities and may as a result set their sights higher than they would have otherwise. And scale companies themselves can serve as role models. As one of the other CEOs said, if there are five to ten companies in the area that have scaled up, it changes the perspective of everyone. Large companies also serve as anchors for regional clusters, providing jobs and training, R&D, and infrastructure investment, as well as generating spin-offs and other knowledge spillovers. So what do we know about how companies stop being startups and start growing to scale? And is there something about a scale-up ecosystem that's different from a startup ecosystem? Well, every company is different, but somewhat arbitrarily we divided the scale-up process into three stages, each presenting a different set of challenges from an innovation point of view. Some companies in the startup phase are focused on technological innovation, developing new markets, raising capital, and recruiting talent. Talent is, technical talent is critical at this stage and recruiting the right team to help get a product ready for the marketplace is a top priority. And raising capital is more or less a non-stop activity. Many important decisions that are taken during this phase shape the future growth trajectory of the company. For example, the form of capital that's sourced. It may last for ten or more years for some companies, but for software and internet-related companies, this is often a much shorter period. In the second scale-up phase, the company's product has been established in the marketplace is achieving some revenue success, although the company may still not be profitable, but the team that helped the company get up and running and that developed the core product typically needs to be augmented or even replaced at this stage of scale-up. These internal functions start to become important. Things like human resources, customer relations, supply chain management, and new senior management may need to be hired that who have experience running a company of scale. Often companies turn over their senior management several times during this period. New rounds of financing are needed. The company may even consider an IPO at this stage. Another key issue during this phase is the challenge of balancing innovation with execution, with innovation often taking a backseat to execution. In the third stage, many of the challenges of growing to scale have been overcome, and companies are focused on execution. But another challenge is to maintain capabilities and space for innovation in order to develop the next generation of products and technologies. So companies that are negotiating these transitions employ a variety of strategies. Some are built to sell, and they don't even think about going beyond the start-up phase. But others are headed by leaders who are committed to building firms of scale. Some of those rely exclusively on organic growth, while others obtain key capabilities through acquisition. Acquisition activity can cut both ways for a region. On the one hand, innovative local companies that are acquiring other firms to gain scale and expertise will enhance their impact on the regional economy as they grow. On the other hand, if smaller innovative local firms are themselves acquired, it might be good for the company executives and investors, but it may be less good for the region. In the best scenario, the acquired company stays in the region. The innovation continues to be pursued within the acquired firm with positive spillovers in talent and technological development, and then larger amounts of capital are available to pour back into the innovation ecosystem through new ventures. And we've seen that nice scenario happening repeatedly. But there can also be a downside, especially if the acquired company's capabilities are relocated elsewhere. This is a chart, it's a busy chart, you probably can't make much of it, but it's showing who has been acquiring Massachusetts companies that have gone through an initial public offering in the four industries that I mentioned before. The disproportionate number of acquisitions by California firms of Massachusetts firms in software and internet and also computer-related areas is of some concern and suggests the possibility of a long-term shift that may negatively affect the ability of our regional economy to realize the downstream economic benefits of our innovative capabilities in those areas. The situation in the life sciences maybe seems to be a bit different in this regard. So finally, let me come back to the role of higher education institutions in regional economies. Earlier, I called for a broader view of this role, augmenting what's now become the standard model of university-initiated technological entrepreneurship with other important functions including providing spaces for the open-ended interpretive conversations where ideas for new innovations are born. But now I want to call for an even broader view which takes account of the different patterns of innovative activity that may be going on in the regional economies in which these institutions are located. Several years ago, at the industrial performance center, we conducted a study that was designed to capture some of this diversity. We identified 24 different locations, most of them city regions, in six countries and in each location we focused on a particular industry and on the change in the mix of products and services produced by that industry over a period of time which ranged from 10 years to 30 years. And we were particularly interested in the contribution, if there was one, of local universities to these transitions in industries or in the products they produced. As you can see, the sample includes mature industries like cars and industrial machinery and newer or emerging fields like optoelectronics. It includes relatively prosperous regions like the Boston area, Cambridge and the UK, as well as less favored regions like Allentown, Pennsylvania, Youngstown, Ohio and places like that. Some of these locations are home to first-tier universities, some to universities that are in the second tier, and some don't have a university at all. We used a comparative methodology where possible choosing at least a couple of locations that were matched in the sense of being home to the same industry. And what we found was quite interesting. First, as we expected, the university role in these cases wasn't limited to the creation of new knowledge. Sometimes that was an important contribution, but we also saw several other roles. For example, they were playing an important role in attracting knowledge from elsewhere, most importantly in the form of people, students and faculty. They were unlocking knowledge that was tied up in existing firms and industries by helping to see the new possibilities that were obscured by old ways and traditional ways of doing things in those firms. They were helping to adapt knowledge from elsewhere to fit local circumstances, and they were helping to bring together to combine areas of activity, business activity, technical activity in the region that previously no one had recognized were connected. And also, by stepping back a little bit from the details of these 20 odd cases, we were able to identify four basic types of industrial transition in the regions that we studied. The first, the birth of a new industry with no antecedent in the region is the scenario that's most closely associated with the university role, that's what people think about when they think of Stanford or MIT and so on. The second is very different. It entails the importation of an industry into a region from somewhere else. And there are examples in our sample, the development of the electronics manufacturing industry in the Taipei Shinchu corridor in Taiwan and the automotive cluster that was established in upstate South Carolina and Southern North Carolina. In the third kind of transition, an industry in a region goes into decline, but its core technologies are redeployed and provide the basis for the emergence of a related new industry. And an example of that is the development of the advanced polymers industry, advanced polymer engineering sector in northeast Ohio, which grew out of the remnants of the failed tire industry in that part of the country. And finally, the fourth pathway involves upgrading of an existing industry in a region by infusing new technologies and enhancing the offerings of the product or services. And in our cases, that was the story of what happened in the NASCAR auto racing cluster in North Carolina, where over a period of decades, the application of advanced engineering tools and materials contributed to an enormous improvement in the performance of those NASCAR and also was associated with the emergence of a multi-billion dollar motorsports entertainment complex near Charlotte. And in a very different way, this was the story of the industrial machinery industry centered in temporary in Finland. Now in practice, the distinctions between these four types of transition aren't always as clear as this would suggest, but the taxonomy is useful because in each of our cases, one of these four categories did seem to dominate, and what also became clear is that the patterns of innovation associated with each type of transition are quite different. So for example, if we compare the indigenous creation of a new industry, that's the type one case, and the type four case of upgrading an existing industry, there are clear differences along most of the dimensions of the local innovation system, the kind of financing arrangements, the culture of innovation, the kind of anchor institutions, the most important kinds of education and training inputs and so on. And we also noticed that there are distinct patterns of engagement by higher education institutions in local economic development depending on which of these processes is taking place. So for example, for type one transitions involving the creation of a new science-based industry, the highest impact educational outputs of local universities are PhD level scientists and engineers with an interest in entrepreneurial careers and with some exposure to entrepreneurial business practices. And the other kinds of activities that are important here are mentorship programs for new businesses, proactive technology licensing programs, programs to broker ties between academic researchers and local entrepreneurs. For type four transitions involving the upgrading of existing industries, it looks quite different. The most important educational outputs are likely in this case to be bachelor's and master's level engineering graduates with knowledge of the industry's practices and problems. And other important things that universities do in this case are likely to include the development of industrially relevant degree and continuing education programs, internship and faculty leave opportunities in the local industry and technical problem solving through contract research and faculty consulting. For type two transitions involving the relocation of an industry or companies into a region, the key university activities in this case might include responding to the local manpower needs of the relocating firms, for example, by developing customized curricula and another important role maybe to provide technical assistance to local suppliers and subcontractors who are trying to engage with the incoming firms. And finally, for type three transitions involving diversification out of an old industry into a new one, a key role for the university in this case may be to cultivate links between disconnected players in the region, between startups and established firms, for example, or by establishing on campus forums for discussing new applications of local industrial technologies. If nothing else, all of this should cast doubt on the idea that there's a one-size-fits-all approach for the university role or the higher education institution role in economic development. What it suggests instead is that these institutions need to understand the pathways along which local industries are developing and what innovation processes are associated with them. They need to be able to say to themselves, this is the kind of region we're in, this is the kind of industry that we're engaging with, and because of that, this is what we at our education institution need to be doing. And the answer won't in general be the same for every institution. Indeed, the answer is likely to be different in different parts of the same university. So let me wind up here with a couple of closing points. First of all, I want to suggest that we need to shift in how we think about, make some shifts in how we think about this problem. We need to shift from thinking only about technology transfer from universities to thinking about technology take-up by industry, which is a very different thing. We need to shift from thinking only about universities as solving problems for industry to thinking about them also as public spaces for the identification of interesting new problems that might be solved. We need to shift from thinking only about universities as fountains of new knowledge to thinking about them also as forums bringing together otherwise disconnected local actors into contact with each other. And we also need to shift from thinking about local industries only as more or less self-contained clusters to thinking about them as hubs or nodes in global networks of knowledge and value creation. And finally, for takeaways I've said all of these things. First of all, innovation is about more than discovery and invention. It's about absorption and application of new knowledge which might not have been developed locally. In fact, in many cases it may be coming from elsewhere. Second, we need to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to the development of local and regional innovation systems that different industries are going along different pathways and they need different kinds of participation by governments and by education institutions. Third, the standard model that we have come to think of of the economic role of the university is way too narrow. There are many ways in which universities contribute and we need a broader, more holistic and more differentiated view of this role in local innovation systems. And finally, building one of these systems is it takes time. It takes time and it takes patience and if universities are in it only for the money, they're going to fail. Thank you for your patience. I went a little bit longer than I had hoped but I hope that's not too long. Thank you.


Welcome back to my YouTube channel, this is Daniel Rossell here, the very random YouTube channel continues to get random. Today we are checking out some more amazing nature in Jerusalem. This place has more than 2,000 animals stretching over more than 200 different species with their particular focus on Afro-Aziatic species. So we've just seen kangaroos, I'm about to crawl into this little thing here to go check out meerkats at eye level and this place is usually packed with children. We're coming here on a Thursday, took a little extended lunch break at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon and that's my pro tip. There is literally almost nobody here. If you're in Jerusalem and you like animals, this place is really, really, really interesting. Cost is 64 shekels for an adult pass which works out probably in the region of $15 but if you're going to be in Jerusalem for a while, the prices for the annual memberships are actually pretty competitive when you look at how much the day passes cost. If you do go for the memberships it doesn't include the aquarium, we're going to have to do the aquarium another day but today there's lots and lots to see in the zoo. So I'm in one of my bubbles here, they've got these little bubbles, very, very clever. They've built them into where the wildlife are roaming so that the wildlife can behave more naturally. They've got some kind of like boulders going on around it as well and we're waiting here to see some meerkats approaching this. This is, we've just seen some kangaroos, the capybarras weren't there today but they have an amazing pond as well full of different kinds of flamingos and lots of families out here enjoying this whether you're a nature buff or you want to bring the kids to check out some of the wildlife. So the zoo was renamed from the biblical zoo to the Tish family zoo in honour of the Tish family but it's still referred to popularly by residents of Jerusalem as the biblical zoo in Hebrew Gan Chayot Ha-Tanachi. Now I mentioned at the start of the video this zoo has more than 2,000 different animals and a particular focus of the zoo is on maintaining or maintaining small populations of animals that were mentioned specifically in the Hebrew Bible which is called in Hebrew that Tanach, that's how it's why it's commonly referred to as the biblical zoo. Another cool little fact about this zoo connected to the places in and all that is that four to six weeks before the Jewish festival of Pesach which is a Passover in Hebrew in order to maintain the kosher, the coaterness of the zoo and I guess of the animals as well if that's the thing. They begin swapping over from feeding the animals wheat-based products to rice-based products because of the prohibition that Jews observe during Passover of not eating hamates and then afterwards they gradually bring them back I guess these must be Sephardic animals if they keep kidney out and then they go back to their usual diet. Lots and lots to see here African animals from all over the world but particularly if you're a big Bible buff you'll probably be able to recognize some of them from literally the pages of the Tanach.


All right, I think we'll get started now. The topic today, apriorism and posthum in the social sciences, is a rather abstract one. I thought that wouldn't be a very popular lecture. I was considering trying to, as an incentive to get people to come to lecture, I was considering passing out copies of the written exam but I didn't think that would go over too well with the people administering the program, so I didn't do that. I should say some of the material that I'm giving in this lecture will repeat points I made in the first lecture I gave on praxeology. This is a difficult topic and I don't think, I think hearing the same thing another time is sometimes helpful in learning. It reminds me like most things I'm old now and I always have stories. My favorite teacher at UCLA was Walter Starkey. Once he was giving a lecture and someone put up his hand and said to him, you're giving the same lecture as you gave last time. He said, that's the trouble with you Americans. You never want to hear the same thing twice. And just one addition to that is I saw a couple of years ago there was a biography of Jessica Mitford who was one of the famous Mitford sisters in England and mentioned she had been on a, was going on her first lecture tour of the United States in the 1930s. In the book it said she'd gotten a letter from her friend Walter Starkey at Trinity College Dublin which said, you have to be careful. Americans never want to hear the same thing twice. So at least he was consistent. Now, what I want to talk about today is we'll start with a claim that Mises makes with I think a very significant philosophical claim. He says that economics can contribute to epistemology. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. Philosophers at least at the time he was writing don't study economics much. There are, you can get various books dealing with philosophy of economics but those books usually don't claim that economics, studying economics can help you understand general problems of epistemology but Mises makes this claim. And what is the nature of the claim that he's making when he says that economics can help us contribute to epistemology? He says that the economics comes up with general laws. We have laws of economics that you've studied in the lectures this week, law of supply and demand, law of diminishing marginal utility and so on. But the way these laws are arrived at, the way we prove these laws is different from the way laws are established in the physical sciences. Now, I should say when Mises claims that economics can make a contribution to epistemology, he isn't confining himself to Austrian economics. He means standard price theory of a sort that you would get in regular neoclassical economics as well or at least economics that was taught at his time. I think nowadays it would be much more mathematical and used a different method, but he had in mind economics at the time he was writing and before standard price theory and he thought that the way economics proceeds what was making a contribution to the theory of knowledge. Now, if he's right, we have a problem is that he says that economics is making a contribution to the theory of knowledge but why hasn't this been studied much by philosophers? If you read books on epistemology at around the time he was writing, you won't find discussions of economics. And Mises had an explanation for this. He said that there are many people who don't like the notion of economic law because this limits what the government can do. For example, suppose that the economy is not doing very well so some people say, well, the way to solve that is to just have the government print money then everybody will be prosperous in the early 1930s. There was a Huey Long in Louisiana had programmed every man a millionaire where he proposed giving everybody a very large amounts of money. Sounds like a good idea, but there are economic laws that show that it wouldn't succeed in attaining the ends of making everybody prosperous. So many people don't want there to be economic laws because this restricts what they can do even though one might think what people should take account of existing scientific knowledge. Many people don't have that attitude. They put one in mind of the... People have that attitude, put one in mind of the man who read so much about how bad smoking is for your health that he gave up reading. Now, in the physical sciences, as Mises presented them, people were studying matter in motion, for example, take a very simple example. In Boyle's law, we have the pressure of a gas times the volume will equal a constant. So we get this law by experimenting and we find that that's true. But when we say this, we're not attributing conscious purposes to the particles. We're not saying, if you have particles with gas, we're not saying, well, one particle will say, well, I have to adjust the volume. I have to go apart from another particle so that this equation will turn out to be true. This will just be a description of how the particles, in fact, operate. They won't be saying that particles won't be thinking of themselves, how do I maintain this relationship? So what we have in physical sciences, we're simply studying, looking at particles in motion, trying to come up with laws about them. Now, what Mises says, well, in the human sciences, especially in economics, matters are different because we're not limited to observing people just as physical bodies. People have purposes we know from just by thinking of our own actions and we can see actions of others. We know people act in the meaning by that that they have purposes that they want to achieve. People have means, they use means to attain ends. So we can use that fact that we know that human beings have purposes to come up with laws in a different way. We're not limited just to observing people as if they were a collection of material particles and then just noting their motions. There are people who have tried to do this. One could take behaviorist psychology as an attempt to do that, just to limit our study of human, what human beings are doing to external behavior. You all know the story of the two behaviorist psychologists who met each other on the street and one said to the other, you're fine, how am I? I must say I'm glad you laughed at that. I told that story to Friedrich Hayek in 1969 and he laughed also. Now there are some people who would question what Mises said, not on the grounds that they deny that human beings act, but they think Mises shouldn't have made a separation between the physical world and human beings. That some people think you can attribute purposes to nature. Also there were German philosophers in the 19th century. Friedrich Schelling is one who thought that there were purposes in nature. Now for most of these, it wasn't that they thought that there was purpose in the sense that there were minds in nature that were acting consciously, but some philosophers thought we could apply the notion of purpose without thinking of a mind. We could have what's called a natural teleology. We could attribute purpose to matter in various ways. This is a position of course, Aristotle had that view and there are many people who hold that view even today. There is, for example, Thomas Nagel is one who is very attracted to that view that there can be purposes in nature without claiming that nature is mental. But whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't alter the fact that people do act and we can. If Mises is right, come up with laws based on being aware of that, being aware of that human beings act and not viewing human beings as if they were simply collections of material particles. Now, when we say that human beings act, there's nothing mysterious about this. It's something we grasp right away, as I say, from our own knowledge. We know we have purposes and we act and we can see other people acting. One mistake I think people make, it's a very dubious philosophical move. They think, well, all I can really see is certain motions of people's bodies. It's just an inference that other people have minds or purposes or act, but I'm not really directly aware of that. Well, I see no reason to adopt that view. It's not a theory that people act. It's something that we directly grasp in experience. We know that people act. It's a given what Mises calls an ultimate given. And there's nothing mysterious about thinking that we can use. We need certain concepts, like the concept of action, to understand what people are doing. Consider this analogy. Suppose someone's talking in a foreign language that you don't know. You would have to learn the language to be able to understand what they were saying. So in a similar way, unless we have the concept of action, we wouldn't be able to make sense of what people are doing. And Mises' essential argument is, since we can make sense of what people are doing, we can do so only if we have the concept of action. That shows that our concept can be used to give us real knowledge of what's going on in the world. Just say these concepts are ones that we have to grasp in order to understand what's going on. We wouldn't have, if we didn't have a concept of action, then the world wouldn't make sense to us, at least the world of human action wouldn't make sense to us. We would be faced with what William James called a booming, buzzing confusion. We wouldn't know what was going on. One point to avoid here, when we say we have to have these concepts in order to understand human action, I don't mean by that that these concepts are biologically innate. This is a logical claim. We wouldn't understand what was going on unless we had the concept, but we're not making a claim of how, sort of a claim about the human brains or how people came up with the concept. So it isn't a question of innate ideas. It's just saying we need to have these concepts in order to understand what people are doing. Now, when we study action in this way, this is what studies human action by thinking about the concept of action. This is what Mises meant when he spoke of praxeology, the science of action. We're using the concept of action in order to understand what human beings are doing. In his earlier writings, which you can find in the collection of epistemological problems of economics, he uses the term sociology for this general science of action, but then he later adopted praxeology instead. And people, what I wanna suggest to you, however counterintuitive, it might seem is that this notion of a priori concept is really not very hard to understand at all. People make it much harder than it is. They think of a priori as equivalent to mental. So they'll think, well, if you have an a priori concept, it's about some idea in your own mind, but this isn't the case. That when you mean, when you talk about a priori concept, is a certain idea that you need to make sense of some aspect of the world, but it isn't, and in the case of human action, it isn't making sense of what's going on in your own mind. It's making sense or trying to make sense of what's going on in the world. Now, here, and again, I mentioned this in the first lecture, there was a famous problem raised by Descartes, the great 16th century French philosopher, that how do we know that we have any knowledge of the external world? He, of course, famously said, well, he said he can't doubt that he's thinking well, if he doubted that his doubt is a form of thinking, so he can't doubt that he's thinking, and from that, he tried to prove the existence of God and from that, he tried to show we have reason to accept the existence of the external world at least when we're thinking clearly and distinctly about it. This is a very interesting philosophical project that's been continued by many later philosophers, a problem of skepticism, but this is not Mises' problem. Mises is not concerned with the philosophical issue of skepticism and many people, I've had students come up and ask questions like, well, how does Mises get from what's going into, what's in his own mind to anything about the external world? This is not what he's concerned with in the sciences. We take for granted the existence of the external world, say we don't in physics, if we're studying the inner composition of the earth, we don't ask how do we know there is an earth at all or how do we know that there are observations or anything other than mental. Those questions just don't arise in the sciences. So again, this is covering what I've already said. What Mises is saying is given that we do understand action, we see actions all the time, say I'm giving a lecture now, other people are listening to the lecture or I hope, but this is something that we know is taking place. So what we're doing in praxeology is attempting to explain this. Again, we're not in praxeology starting with what's going on in our own mind and then saying, how do we know that there are other minds or other actors? This is resting on the false assumption that praxeology is about the human mind rather than action in the world. Now, we now come to, that's perhaps been not the most interesting topic, but we now get a bit more lively because we can come up with the opposition to Mises. It's always, I think in fun and philosophy, when you get struggles or battles between conflicting groups. And Mises' chief opponents in methodology, people who denied his claim that economics give you this special method of proceeding by a priori knowledge were the logical positivists or the Vienna circle. This was a group that had started, was started by the Moritz Schlick, who was a professor of philosophy at the University of Vienna. And he had a group of philosophers who met with him, that they included Rudolf Karnapp, who became a very famous philosopher of language and he wrote on mathematical logic. There were others, Friedrich Weismann was in the group. He was a friend of Wittgenstein, who sometimes met with the positivists and Otto Neurot, who was the one Mises really hated. He couldn't stand. There were various other people in the group. I should say, if you look at the, most of the positivists were very left-wing politically. Otto Neurot had been a minister in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, which had taken power very briefly in Bavarian in the 1920s. Most of them were very left-wing, but Schlick himself was a classical liberal, but he was probably the only one. There were, the mathematician, great mathematician Kurt Gerdl met with, sometimes sat in on the group, but he wasn't a positivist. He was also very left-wing politically, was sympathetic to Trotsky. Just as a digression, Schlick's career illustrates some of the perils of academic life. One of his students who was a PhD student of his had some grievance. It isn't clear what the grievance was, but he was really upset with Schlick. His name was Nelbach, was the last name. He went to the University of Vienna and he expressed his discontent with Schlick in a rather dramatic fashion. He shot him dead. So then he was then imprisoned and then during the World War II or after the Anschluss, which was the takeover by Germany of Austria in March 1938, that Nelbach applied for release on the grounds that he had been trying to get rid of a Jewish positivist, but Schlick wasn't Jewish, but he was paroled anyway. And I think he wound up his career. I think he lived after the war into the early 1950s. He worked as a forest ranger. But so as I say, you have to be very careful in if you're teaching. I mean, I try to avoid arguments with students. So what the basic idea of the positivist was opposition to metaphysics. What do we mean by metaphysics? Well, this is the contention that just by thinking about the world, we can come up with theories of its nature that tell us something significant. Leibniz would be an example of people. Flossru held that view. Leibniz held that the world really consists of what he called monads, which are spiritual, small spiritual substances. And the entire world is composed of these monads. We think there appear to be to us to be physical objects, but these are just what Leibniz called well-founded appearances. There aren't really physical objects. One very interesting 20th century philosopher who was like that was a British idealist, John Taggart, who in his book, Nature of Existence said, he started with the statement, something exists. And from that statement, he claimed to deduce that the world consists of minds, entirely of minds that exist eternally in the time and the world of physical objects is just an illusion. So the logical positive is that this is really, you won't get anywhere this way. You can't get knowledge just by thinking about things without empirical testing. The only way we can get knowledge is through the method of the physical sciences. Now, Mises thought, that was their main program was opposing metaphysics. Mises thought they had an additional motive in mind that they wanted to get rid of economic knowledge, since most of them were socialists, and Mises is shown by the socialist calculation argument that socialism can't work. He thought that they wanted to deny any knowledge, but the physical sciences, so they could get rid of economics. The one I mentioned, Otto Neurot, who was his particular one he hated, was one he thought had that motive. So what Mises said to counter these positives was they said that you could only get knowledge through the physical sciences, but he said, well, what about economics? This is a science and it uses different methods, deductive method based on setting the concept of action. So he says, well, the positives are wrong because there's actually an example of a science that is not a physical science that gives you real knowledge. One thing I should mention earlier is interesting when you look at Mises' views, he didn't disagree with the positivists about metaphysics. He rejected metaphysics too. That isn't part, I mean, you could have different views but you could think metaphysics really does give you knowledge and still be a praxeologist, but Mises didn't differ with the positivists on that point. He rejected metaphysics and this would be one instance in which Mises and Murray Rothbard had different views because Murray Rothbard was an Aristotelian and Thomist in philosophy, so he would be much more sympathetic to metaphysics than Mises was. But in any event, Mises said, well, look, there's more to knowledge than the physical sciences because we have economics, which proceeds by a different method. And the positivists said to them, economics as Mises practices it really isn't a science because economics doesn't meet what they call the requirements of what they call the verification principle. So what is the verification principle? Well, this is the view that any scientific statement, one that claims to give you knowledge of the world must be something that can be confirmed by sense experience. For example, suppose I say there are more than 10 people in this room, this would meet the verification principle because I could count the number of people and if there were more than 10 people, then that would be a verifiable statement. I could come up with a mistaken claim, say I said there were 100 people in this room, that would still meet the verification principle even though it's incorrect. But as long as you can come up with something that appealed to sense experience, then it passes the test. Now, there's a stronger version of the verification principle, stronger in the sense of more demanding that some of the positivists adopted, which is not only that empirical statement, empirical statement, one claims to give you knowledge of the real world has to be confirmable by sense experience, but that the meaning of the statement is what is required to test it. So the meaning of the statement is what you do to test it, but this doesn't seem very plausible. For example, suppose I say Caesar crossed the Rubicon River 49 BC, it doesn't seem at all plausible to think that what that statement means is that if I look up various history books or various records, I'll find the sentence Caesar crossed the Rubicon River in 49 BC. That would be how I would verify it, but that's not what the statement means. Now, you might think this wouldn't pose a problem for praxeology because suppose I say, for example, you always choose your most highly valued preference. Say if I have a choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, so I like vanilla better, at least at the particular time I'm choosing, so I pick that one. So couldn't I say, well, I verified the statement, I always choose my most highly valued preference because I did pick the vanilla rather than the chocolate and that was the one I most highly valued. So the posivist said, no, that isn't good enough, that doesn't meet the standard because they said that Mises is claiming you can know this proposition a priori, you can know it to be true by thinking about it.  Mises says, well, by thinking about the concept of action, then we grasp that it's true you pick your most highly valued preference. So the posivist, again, you see in philosophy, there's always a thesis and then there'll be an opposition to that counter-objections and keeps going as long as you want. There's always a reply in the works. So the posivist said in response, what Mises is giving here is just a tautology. He's just saying something that really isn't conveying any information. He's just defining highest valued preference as the one you in fact choose. So what he's saying when you said you choose your most highly valued preference, it's just you choose what you choose. This isn't really giving you any knowledge. It's just, it's certainly a true statement, but it doesn't get you anywhere. But is that claim correct? Is what the posivist is saying correct? Well, again, what is a tautology? It's a definition or a part of a definition or a law of logic. So a tautology, as I just mentioned, doesn't give you any information about the world. To give an example that Wittgenstein uses in the Tractatus, suppose you ask someone what's the weather in a certain place and the person tells you, it's either raining or it's not raining. So he hasn't really, what he says is true. It's just an application of a logical law. It's an instance of a logical law, but it doesn't tell you anything.  You can't learn something about the world just by defining a term in a certain way. I should just point out just as a side point, there are philosophers who've denied that at least some versions of the famous ontological argument do claim, for example, that by, from its definition of God, it follows that God exists. So that claims controversial, but in any event, that's what the positive said. You can't gain knowledge of the world just by definition, something, something can't be made true by defining it to be true. Now, what Mises' response here was that the positivists are just wrong about this. We do gain knowledge of the world just by thinking about things. And he gave us an example of mathematics. We learn truths about the world by thinking about mathematical concepts or proving theorems about mathematics. And according to the positivists, mathematics consists of tautologies, but they still give us how on that view, could we explain how we get knowledge of the world? He said, it's just false that just by thinking about things our knowledge is just a system of definitions, just a system of arbitrary concepts. So he said, well, if the positivists are right, how could just a set of definitions give you knowledge about the world as mathematics obviously does, and he thought they couldn't explain that. I should say now, but what about the specific example I gave? One about the preference, you always choose your most highly valued preference. The response here is that it isn't that Mises is defining your highest valued preference as the one you in fact choose. Your highest valued preference would be just something like you imagine you have various actions available to you and you rank them in an order and the highest valued one would be the one you rank first. That isn't defining highest valued preferences, what you in fact choose, but the claim is once you think about highest valued preference, just characterizing that way, you'll grasp, but it's true that that's the one you in fact choose. So he isn't the positivists were wrong in the way both examine that specific case and in the more general point that you can't get knowledge about the world just by thinking about it. So just a little bit more on verification principle. I know this is a, we wanna go on to something else. I know the verification principle is thrilling, but we do have to get on to other things. When Mises is talking about a priori concept, this is just a local matter in the sense that all he's claiming is that we need the concept of action in order to understand what human beings are doing in the world. He isn't making a general claim about all our knowledge that he isn't saying that all human knowledge requires a priori concept. He's just talking about what's required for praxeology. Then another thing on the verification principles, famous criticism of it is it appears to be self-refuting. And it says, well, all true statements are either ones that are tautologies, a priori truths or tautology, or ones that are empirically testable, but that statement doesn't appear to be one that's either a priori true or one that's capable of being testable. Being testable, it's more of a proposal. If somebody, it's just the posers were suggesting this so someone could just say, well, okay, you propose it, we don't accept it and they wouldn't have much to respond. Now I have more on verification, I think we'll, well, yeah, might as well go on with verification. I just can't tear myself away from it. Another, not that I haven't tried, but another problem with the verification principle is the positivists couldn't state it in a way that got them where they wanted. Remember, what they wanted to do was to show that only scientific statements, the physical sciences give you real knowledge about the world and metaphysics is excluded, but they couldn't state the principle in a way that enabled them to have all an only scientific statements as the ones that were verifiable. There are various logical tricks that I won't go into that can show that for any formulation of the verification principle, you could do various things to it, to show that really everything can be, is admitted under the principle, they can't get it the way they want. But I remember once, when I gave a lecture on this subject in one of the early Mises Hughes, I mentioned this point and I said, I'm not gonna go into the logical details. And Murray Rothbard was in the audience, and I said, no, no, no, show us the proof. So I had to think, could I remember how to do it? And I managed to come up with something, but to me, one of the simplest ways to counter the verification principle is to just say, why should we accept this? It seems like just an arbitrary statement, suppose you like metaphysics or you think there's something to it. Why should somebody who doesn't, not predisposed to accept the verification principle, give it any credence? It just seems like, suppose someone said, for example, for a statement to be true, it has to be found in a particular book. Only statements in this book can be accepted as true. We would want to, let's to avoid difficulty, suppose that very statement is in the book, so we avoid a certain problem. So we could still say, why should we accept such a principle? It's just arbitrary, there's no reason to go along with it. Now, I wanna, in the last few minutes, I'll just, a couple of minutes, I'll just mention another objection to a priori truth. This was raised by the great American philosopher, W. V. O. Quine. And what he said was, there aren't any a priori truths because every statement in principle is subject to refutation. We could always say, he thought there were certainly, principle would be very reluctant to give up, principles that he thought were at the core of science, but he thought that in principle, everything could be, any statement could be overthrown by future experience. And he went so far, at least in some of his writings, although sometimes he was a bit hesitant on this, to extend this laws of logic themselves. He said, maybe we could imagine, think abandoning the laws of logic in certain cases. But that seems, at least to me, although Quine was a great flaw through that, seems an implausible position to me. So I'll just finish up with a story about Quine, that Robert Nozick was once upset that there was a review of his book, The Philosophical Explanations that had come out by Carl and Romano, who wrote on, I think it was in Chronicle of Higher Education. So it was a very negative review when he showed it to Quine and Quine said, every knock a boost. Fortunately, that principle isn't reversible. So all right, so having, I hope I haven't bored you unduly with the verification principle. So I think we'll stop at this point. Thanks.


Hi Anna. Hi Bruno, what's up? I thought we could meet for lunch today. I wish I could, but I can't. I have to research Peru for a story. How's it going? Not so good. I've been reading about Peru and listening to Peruvian music. I really want to understand Peru. I hope it's enough. You should visit Peru. I wish. You can. Peruna, I don't have the money or time to go to Peru. My deadline is tomorrow. No, I don't mean to really go there. The museum where I work is having a Peruvian festival today. Hello again, Professor Bott here. Today we will hear about wishes and hopes. Bruna asked Anna to go to lunch, but she answered, I wish I could, but I can't. Listen for more hope and wish sentences. Hi Anna. Hi Bruno. Thanks for telling me about this event. Sure, it's much better than staring at your computer. I hope it helps with your story. I'm sure it will. So what should we see first? Dance and music are very important to Peruvian culture, so let's watch the dancers. Great. Let's go. There's this very special Peruvian dance called Marinera Norteña. I love the Marinera Nortina. Marinera Norteña. Marinera Norteña. No. Marinera Norteña. I love the marriage dance. Bruna, I've read about this dance, but it is much more romantic in person. The dancers are giving lessons after their performance. You should try it. I'd love to, but I'm not ready to get married. I mean, one day I hope to meet the right guy. We'll buy matching motorcycles and ride into the sunset, the wind blowing through our hair. Anna, Anna, the dance just shows the courtship tradition. It doesn't mean you will get married. Oh. Well, I'll try anyway. Don't forget, this festival also shows Peruvian art. I hope I have time to see everything. Anna, I wish I could join you, but I have some work to do. Of course, of course. You go back to work. I'll check out the art. Okay. I'm hoping to finish in about an hour. Let's meet then. Great. See you then. Yeah. Did you notice any sentences with hope or wish? Anna says, one day I hope to meet the right guy. That's an example of using hope with an infinitive to talk about doing something in the future. Keep watching. Section, right? I'm in the art making section. I see that. Your art is very nice. I wish I could do art like that. Oh, no. This one's not mine. This is mine. Wow. Really? That's really nice. Thanks. And thanks for telling me about this festival. I learned so much about Peru. Oh, we still have time. Time for what? Time for marinera notteña. Do you remember what Anna said? I really want to understand Peru. I hope you understand Peru a little better now too. And I wish I could talk with you more about grammar. But that's all the time we have today. Go to the website to learn more.


Hey everybody, it's me, Ethan, CraigheadBlaze here. You may notice, Ethan, you don't seem as energetic as you usually do. Well, that is because you may have seen from Twitter, I unfortunately got COVID. Don't worry, I'm staying inside, I'm staying quarantined away from Mika, my girlfriend. I'm not even seeing the dogs, I'm just going between the bedroom and my office because I have nothing else to do. And so today, I'm feeling well enough, I guess, to try and record. And the new Cuphead DLC came out. And so I thought, what better way to treat myself while having COVID than to play an extremely difficult game? So I'm probably not going to play the entire DLC in this one sitting, but we're going to get an... The Legendary Chalice has an urgent message for you. Find me on the Coast Cups?  I don't remember how to play this game at all. The Legendary Chalice bid me carry a message to you. She needs your help, a far of aisle, a mysterious discovery. The portal waits, let us depart. Yeah! Let me depart! Let me depart, dude! Look at Cuphead and Mugman! Look at the sun in the sky, the delicious last course! It's the delicious last course! Gamers, look at this, huh? This is incredible! What Legendary Chalice could be looking for all the way here? Gosh, Cuphead, I don't know. I hope she's okay. We sure are a far away from home. Chalice, Jumping Jellybean, she voice made it. I have the most amazing news, and it all has to do with this here cookie. Take a bite and see for yourself.  It worked, it really worked. I'm alive again, but now I'm a ghost. Do you use this mortal coil for your own advantages? You duped him, you snooped him. What's going on here? Everything is topsy-turvy. Follow me, boys. I can explain everything for ages. I've been trying to figure out a way to escape the astral plane, but nothing worked. Doesn't that, boys? Let me introduce you to Weed Cookies! Chef Salt Baker, the greatest chef in all the lands. Welcome, friends, to my bakery. Ah, Miss Chalice, I see my cookies is very wonderful. Oh, my stars. The cookie's back. I'm a ghost again. Oh, my, a finicky thing, that cookie. The taste is sweet, but the effect is brief. Fret not, though, my concerned little cups. I've come up with an amazing new recipe. One bite of this WonderTart. You'll have complete control over the astral plane. This WonderTart can bring up chalice bite during life for good. No swapping places or nothing. Indeed, just one problem. The recipe requires exceptional ingredients. I'll buy the most fearsome foes. Wow. Well, if the WonderTart is really what it takes to bring chalice bites alive, then by God, I will find those ingredients. Standard garden, trumpet cups. Fetching those ingredients will be a test of wit and wills. Hear that, guys? Wits and wills. But remember, like any good bake, heart and soul is the ingredient, secret ingredient, secret ingredient. Have you liked the video yet? Have you subscribed yet, you greedy f**ks? I'm sorry. All right, let's go to the first guy here. I'm assuming it's this. An audience of last, the climbing contest, the medal ceremony is about to begin. I have eight coins right now. Damn, leave it to an upright system like me to win the whole thing. Oh. Whoa. All right, here we go. We're gonna go in here. No way out. I don't remember how to play this at all. I don't remember. I don't remember how to play. I don't remember how to play. I don't remember how to play. I don't remember, I don't remember how to play. I don't remember how to, I remember how to parry.  There's these goddamn geese everywhere. There's these goddamn geese everywhere. There's these, there's these geesers and goozers. There's these geesers and goozers everywhere. I don't know. God damn.  My god, dude. The little dude.  I just stay right here It wasn't bad.  I think God damn it. Come on might So I have I have an invincible role Which I didn't know it's a thing. So I think maybe if I dash there's also a Oh Damn dude.  Oh, man, I feel good Come on, baby. I don't want to spend 20 years on this. Yeah, you do it. I don't know. I'm really bad at this game Yeah, yeah, but now there's more What do I go? What's up?  I've got two HP I've got two HP. I've got one HP.  Don't judge me. Don't judge me Don't judge me see what it's like because I feel like what if simple's too simple, you know, and then there's no Satisfaction Dude my guy. I still died on simple.    I'm still Pungoing it dude Well, I got it, but I didn't get the you know, I don't feel good about it remember friends only Best thing I'm batting on regular difficulty Golf all right fine. We'll do this once and then we'll go to the next thing I promise for the next ones. I won't do simple mode because the symbols too dimple I get it the symbols too dimple they this is what they say They've always said this they've always said it my father said it his father before me His father before him is an early.  I've been the powers.  Hey, what if I don't remember how to parry. Oh wait, so it switches her how come it switches her thing so her Perry what her Perry is dash, but Why is that like that?   I don't know that's guy.    Too much for my little brain. All right pals. I'm going to end this one here. I hope you enjoyed me Suffering I've had such a great game.  Hopefully I will be back to normal Sooner rather than later. Stay safe out there friends again. I'm staying inside. I'm not leaving I'm staying quarantined away from Mika and our dogs even so don't worry about it I'm not doing anything. That's too strenuous or anything like that if this was where me out too much I I would stop but I'm getting the rest that I need so don't worry too much about it So thank you guys so much for watching. Hope you enjoyed and I'll see you when I'm better. Bye. Bye


Hello friends, let's work out the following problem. It says solve the following system of inequalities graphically. So let's move on to the solution. The first inequality given to us is x plus y is less than equal to 6 and its corresponding equation of line is x plus y is equal to 6. Now to draw this line we need to have two points. So if y is 0 then x is equal to 6 and if x is 0 then y is equal to 6. So if we want to draw this line we need to plot the points 6, 0 and 0, 6. Let's now draw the line x plus y is equal to 6. For that we need to plot the points 6, 0 and 0, 6. Now when x is 6 y is 0 which is this point and if x is 0 y is 6. So it is this point. Now we join these two points to get the line x plus y is equal to 6. This is the line x plus y is equal to 6. Now we have to shade the region for the inequality x plus y less than equal to 6. For that we take any point not lying on the line x plus y is equal to 6 and we'll check whether that point satisfies this inequality or not. If that point satisfies this inequality we'll shade the region which contains that point. If that point doesn't satisfy this inequality we'll shade the region which doesn't contain that point. Now we take that point to be 0, 0. So when x is 0 y is 0 then inequality becomes 0 plus 0 less than equal to 6 that is 0 is less than equal to 6 which is true. Thimpize the point 0, 0 satisfies the inequality or the region x plus y less than equal to 6. So we'll shade the region which contains the point 0, 0. Now we shade the region for the inequality x plus y less than equal to 6 which contains the point 0, 0. So this is the region which contains the point 0, 0. So let's shade this region. This is the solution region for the first inequality and the solution region also includes this line x plus y is equal to 6 because the inequality contains the sign less than equal to. So we darken this line to show that the line is included in the solution region. Now the second inequality given to us is x plus y greater than equal to 4 and its corresponding equation of line is x plus y is equal to 4. So when y is 0, x is 4 and when x is 0, y is 4. So in order to draw the line x plus y is equal to 4 we need to plot the points 4, 0 and 0, 4. So now we draw the line x plus y is equal to 4 and for that we need to plot the points 4, 0 and 0, 4. So when x is 4, y is 0, so it is this point and when x is 0, y is 4. So it is this point. Now we join these two points to get the line x plus y is equal to 4. Now we have to identify the region for the inequality x plus y greater than equal to 4. So we take the point 0, 0 not lying on the line x plus y is equal to 4. So that the inequality becomes 0 plus 0 greater than equal to 4, that is 0 is greater than equal to 4 which is not true. That implies the point 0, 0 does not satisfy plus y greater than 4. So we shape the region for the inequality x plus y greater than equal to 4 which does not contain 0, 0. So we have to shape the region for the inequality x plus y greater than equal to 4 which does not contain 0, 0. So it is this region. So let us now shape this region. Now again for the inequality x plus y greater than equal to 4, we need to darken the line x plus y is equal to 4 because it shows that this line is included in the solution region. So we darken this line. The region in red is common to both the shaded regions and it is the solution region for the system of inequalities 1 and 2 and this is the required solution. So this completes the question. Bye for now. Take care. Have a great day.


Welcome to Toffy TV, today is the 25th anniversary of Everton's last major trophy, the FA Cup. Yes, it's a sad day in many ways because we haven't won a trophy for 25 years. Both on the flip side, I think it is important to look back at that season and what led us to that FA Cup success. No, we won a trophy, it doesn't matter if it's the last trophy. Too many people look back at it as in like, and I think the club have done this as well, as like something not to be looked at with glory and honour because it was the last time. The plays we won the trophy, it's not their fault it was the last time we won a trophy. So we're going to look back by looking at the season review, 94-95, on this special retro rewatch. There we go. I think we're looking back at the following season. We didn't need to see this. No, but I think this is just giving me the basis of where we started. It's great finish, I'm sure it did. Keeper didn't have a chance. Fisdy, beyond Fisdy. Keeper did not have a chance. No, no. Keeper was never going to say that. It's not going to be there. Straight in. Oh, people on pitch. I think it's all over. Is it John Lucas there? I've always appreciated that lad's bagels. Bagels is good, but I was just wondering if it was John Lucas. I mean, it's the park end, resplendent. Do you remember walking in, seeing the park end? I was walking in. I remember going into this game, first game of the season. I asked the villa and seeing it for the first time. Which is weird, isn't it? That was the first time I'd seen it. I was like, oh, that's good. It all looks boss. I thought it did look boss or first. Look at the shot on the ref. Oh, my God, they horrendous. They don't look the fittest officials, I'll be honest. That Aston Villa kit is horrendous. I love that same shot. Full of hope, where are we on this day? Full of hope, and we all thought, right, that's it. This is it now. Both Vinnie Samway's match action look. Vinnie Samway's is going to be the catalyst of the season. Anders was going to be going Anders. Oh, what a ball. Criam shewet. Shewet, gosh, God. Bolsh next day. Paul McGrath, Kevin Richardson. How did he miss that? How did he miss it? I'm going to finish him. Oh, she was going to try it out. He's the best thing she's sliced red, isn't he? Oh, match action. On my volley day. He's jacked off, lad. My rope and forward, match action. I feel like for a season with you, when the fact that this finished 2-2 had full goals in it. That was seen quite a lot, I've seen a lot of it. I mean, you know. You know, for a set in the tone for day one, it's probably the best football we've played for a while. We're not going to get like 20 minutes of day one, are we? And then Paul McGrath or Richard? Richard still didn't explain for everything. It's a big, big part. I mean, this is the best football. I want to see him really appreciate it at this point. I'll go round the table. Super, footballer. Oh, what a goal. What a goal. Class ship. These are the kind of goals that never get in anyone's list of great goals. Because it was across. Because it was so early. It was across, isn't it? It was so early in the Premier League era. Yeah. I mean, look at the players there. Paul McGrath was absolutely... I know he was coming to the end there, but he was fantastic footballer. Richard still didn't... Yeah, he's not shitting. He's not.  I mean, you can claim it. Look at that. I'm going to finish. Run and miss you. Look at that. That's it back. Cosy. Oh, referee. Sean Shield. Sean Shield. Gary Parker. Oh, is it Gary Parker? Oh, it's the lack of HD. Yeah. Oh, look at that. Is that not going in? It's a good goalie, boss. He just liked the party. I think I was listening to someone saw a man. He was a dain, a fancastic goalkeeper.  And then the new era came in. He just felt... Cos he might have had him, didn't he? And he just... He should have done really well. I mean, he was called a fan. I'm fascinated. Oh, yeah. Now he's debut, wasn't he? Now he's debut. He's debut. God, that kid's bad. It's a bad kid. It's a really, really bad. The numbers... You have to put the letter in massive cos the num... Cos it's terrible, the kid. It's really Joe Parching. To go ball. There he is. And everything's through him. Bar, isn't it? So good. Born on this line. As I said, I just don't think... Lull the weight. I love them. I mean, can see it. Time on the ball. Right. Yes, right. Out, lad. Look out for the interview you call, lad. You have the girl team and the camera with the flash. She wound it on. She was a head of her time. She was. She got a great shot there. She got a selfie. I mean, she's still got the pitch yet. War of fin. It's a war of fin. Flicked on by a pitch yet. It's fantastic. That's not what we're looking for. Tommy Davies. I mean, didn't really bring the best out of something. No, cos it's great, Sarah. It's great, Sarah. I mean, you've got to talk about it. Is Anders again, look? Of course I'm going. Go on, Anders, lad. Look at the way. Head always up, mate. Oh! That's it. Head always up, though, when he's running. Was looking at the ball. New body wanted. Good play. Hell of a player. Very much a year. Mid-19s. Sterling. That does, yeah. It's a swim of the ball. Great, now. That's a great one. That's a great one. That's a great one. That's too easy. That's too easy. That's too easy. That's too easy. I've seen Anders on his own, mate. I mean, no-one seems to like him. No, I don't think anyone like him. Very much in the mull of common, it is. Oh, spes. Spes. Dами des, midweek? Oh, god. She wondered all about... O, mae'l adfrith eich goled gyda'n gwybod i'w inclynyddiwn! Yn hyn o'r cyndaf, mae'n achos eich goleid y ddweud, mae'r gweithio a'r pleid idd yn ymhygio'n gyfar iawn! Fyddech chi oherwydd mae'n iawn i ddarfodaeth. Rwyf wedi bod yn ddweud heddiw ymhell pwng am yr ydydd eich goled y ddweud y gweith. Da'n Sans, mae'n ddweud! Wel drayr 서ch. Os rhan weis. Rhaid ddawg! What's that from there? Rhaid ddawg ddawg ddawg ddawg ddawg. Ychydig ddawg! Wat y grata ni'n stath yn siwn? Diolch i ffein o'r blaenau. Yn 16-29, yn symud i'r dros i ffordd eich bodi chi'n gwybod a'n gwybod. Yn y ddweud hyn nhw. O'w wnaeth i'r fan! Dych yn ddefnyddio y ffaith! Rhaid o'r blaenau i'r ddweud yma! Mae'r cael chi. Cym yn ffordd y las o lefyn. E'n b3, nil. Mi'n dwyneud i eb i ffordd. A dyst. Mae'n ddi'n pi. Yn leis fedd nand, dda'r gau o'n leis, fel y cyfras. O, ei sgwrdd. Rwy'n lof dost, yn ni. Merchu cael ei wneud i fyfaint yn ymddur tyfnio a'r o grants o'r ffa! Fi rai yng Nghymru'r Gweithio a Llywodraeth. Rhysledig yn ei ddyfodol, ac maewn gwneud i chi i ddefnyddio ar y cyfrddor. Maewd am ychydig yn ymgrifoldol. A yna gwneud i chi i gyfrddor anhawn. Ond yn gwybod, yma, wirio'n grych hwnnw i'r gyfrddor. Cefnwch yn ddod o gyfwunadol a chywyddocau'n gondwch gyda i'w budifer arall a'r Ynni, yna mae'r Llywodraeth o'r ffnwys i ddod y Mach, oedd yn nhw'n ddod y Gymraeg? Ynno, mae'n hanes ôl o'r Llywodraeth a'r Rhagdorion, mae'n effaith chi ddod. 다�fodd o'r Rhagdorion a'r Rhagdorion, a'r Rhagdorion. Nid i hynny yw mwy ar hyn amser o'r Llywodraeth. Dwi'n llei'n cael mysiau a'n gallu ddweud y bai, mae'n llei mae'n mysiau! Ond o bo'r rhan si'n ddweud arweinyr ymy'n Lymphar, i'r stath at ry'n mewn amawd eil ac ydy, yn Lymphar agenn nhw! Rheibol Anders, ride out, es! Llydaid! Ride out agenn y byddech chi a'r Lymphar. Pent run ar anlieg, Anders shi pe er blach. Os ydych chi ddorol y gallai iddyn nhw'n gwneud ei cael gofio oherwydd Joe Royal ddim yn! Dylai gofio... Dylai gofio! Rwyf yn bwys. Rwyf yn bwys. Yr hyn ychydig wedi gweld i'r hoff a gorfodd y gaelio fel yma. Yr hyn, mae hyn yn trwy fynd. Yn gyfan 50, mae hyn yn ddod, swnai'n ddymei, a'i ddim yn arddangos ar hyn. Mae'r ddifen sy'n ddifennio i eisiau yn ddim. Yr hyn, mae'n gyflwyno. Mae'r cyfle gwaith sy'n trwy ni'n glwb fel hyn. Oh! Oh, pob! Not the chance. Right out. He's had a few chances here, Annie, to kill him. No, no, I don't think so. OK, we're out. Who's that? No, no, one's right here. There's clearance, and then he was nowhere, so he was left there then. Oh, he's got a good knife to use. David Burroughs. No wonder he had him. Well, he had to be gone early.  Oh! Very frustrating. We've had chances, we've had him again. He's gone. Oh, have you gone? Oh, have you gone? Jerry Peyton. You just remember these horrible night tights. No, no. There's lots of these nights, mate. 3-4, no? 3-3, it is. 3-0, the answer, of course. Oh! He's in ways again. He's been a by farer, a best player. Bats a 3-2. Take a penalty there, he's doing it, mate. Oh, I'm all that. Lovely. What are you doing? What are you doing? Oh, you've had to do a stare at him in your right foot. Right foot, he's gone. Oh, trot your bathroom. Oh, Vinnie. What are you doing? I'm still looking at the team most likely. No, I'm not. He's over, he's done. Ride out, heads towards the far post. Burroughs might pick this up. Oh, he's a little bit lackaday to go. It's a good chance here for David Burroughs. Don't well there to be fair. What are you doing? Go ahead, I'm myself, then, right? Yeah. I mean, a new year's in school. It's nice. Sam Mowys again.  Oh! Yes, Gary Ablitz. Gary Ablitz. Because he doesn't score many, but in front of the adoring Gladys Street fans, Gary Ablitz makes it Everton 1, Leicester City 0. Corner, as you see. Was he wacky with teams that did the edit? Ride out a second again. Of course, safe in the keeper. Sam Mowys. Deaching crosses it, doesn't he? Corners are great.  These do not score from this. Oh, these do not score from this. Yeah. Oh, my God! Oh! What are we doing? Who's just... That was our corner! Who was on the air for that? We had five back. Oh, my God. Mike Walker, mate. Morat. Look at this. Eight games, three points. God, you're bad enough now. I wasn't then, but I wasn't then. Yeah, you know. It's got to take in, haven't we? It's got to take in. Where was the grass? No, I'm doing it. No, what that was for? Mike Walker to somebody. It was gold fun. Diamond, go on, lad. Now, Mowys.  Mowys, Mowys. Oh, Mowys. Boss little player, Mowys. He's like... He's very much many. He was more like a 10 now, wasn't he? Really. I mean, that's a crafty kick back. That's bro. Generally back one of the worst goals ever. That's amazing. That was so bad. That was so bad. No, I'm a catch. It was typical of the day, though. We bought a player based on a couple of goals in the World Cup, and we hadn't even looked at it. We were playing on the goal line 1-0 for Everton. It's got some big goals for us, though. Of course, I'll listen. Love them all, but no problem with them all. Just saying it was typical of back in the day, buying plays in that World Cup. Maybe we're still being doing it. Now buying plays, we don't need. So you pull that back, then. Ian Jarrant. Oh, disallowed. For what? He's not disallowed. He's not disallowed. I'm a cat, he's been in the middle. Oh, my God. Against the Arsenal. See, it shows you, right? And I'm not for one minute. I'm not for one minute. I think he might walk it at all, here. But we bat a QPR should have got them points. We could have been tuning up, here. That goal we can see that against Leicester from our own corner. You know, things might have gone. Walk or watch and the right man. If we could defend. But if we defend, yeah. The mad thing was, there's still a lot of... There's still a lot of... There's still a lot of players on the pitch who didn't turn it round. If you listen to Paul Ryder, Paul Ryder's interview, he'll tell you why. He'll tell you why. There's a lot of things getting beat on there, by the way. There's a lot of things getting beat on there, by the way. Stephens Wharton never scored. He scored a couple of goals like that. It's a simple fact. It's a simple fact. I'm dde. One of his first games. I'm dde, I'm sure I'll go on by. The other team just didn't work on anything. I'm sure they did. I'm sure. There was no one sensitive. It's all settled. It's okay. It's okay. Shewet was important, there's well money in this. Steward massive. The problem with Shewet is that he didn't have any pace. He also didn't have proper position. He never nailed that. But what I think if he did have that pace, then wide right was fine for him because he was skillful enough. He should go play it. He just didn't have enough pace, really. He was good off front, but... Sport is sheep. He began the pace. I think he did have a bit more pace. Look at the gap though. Six points from Villa. What a night. This was a big night. First in November mate. First in November. That was a few minutes. It was ridiculous. It was ridiculous. I've lit that one. The last couple of minutes when we were one little... It was horrible. The leaf at the end was a little... Did he play some nice football there mate? You're right. He had good players there. He tried to play nice football. It almost reminds me of the silver thing and the mountainous thing. No one way. No discipline. No way of the way you're playing. No assistant manager or to... Again, poor Adam said. Good cop, bad cop. What a great idea. What a great idea. I'm coming off shellabating with the crowd. Three canons get back. But it was though, wasn't it? You looked out and when we said this on the mountains we did say run the silver is. It's all well and good having a manager who's got these principles but if he doesn't have people around him who insist on the other things who are drilling people day in and day out we know if I'm like this all three pieces don't matter. Of course they matter. And you need that person next room who's going to go out there and say in every day and go, that way you're going to do an hour of defending. That was the difference with the team.  It just had...  And they were always the kind of goals that knocked the stuff out of you as well. Well especially when you had a lot of the ball like we did, a great shot. Were you shocked that we didn't keep the injured hands? Cos I thought he did well. He was good but I think I just don't think he was fit enough. Was he? He was coming in and he just wasn't fit. He just couldn't do it. He was a good footballer though. God, if he'd have had them, he'd have gotten the injury. That's nailer. We can see he's here with a tight load but we're still only 1-0 up. The last few minutes look to that. We're really... The last few minutes we're really hanging on. And that showed what we were. 1-0 up. And yet we couldn't get the game fit. It must be offside there. Have you not come from behind Bishop? This was a massive result. Yeah. It's a hit. Well done. I'm a big man. I know he doesn't score. Oh. Where's Emma Catty at this point, by the way? It's a lot of new stuff. But again though, that's the thing of rival scoring the goals. He didn't have the thing to go. I don't care how much you cost. He wanted all the nice toys out of the box. He's out the box. We'll put him back in. Oh God! Oh, so good! And I never saw him in his life. Strike, Joe! I'm still at the head. It's so self-feasible. I'm not that well. Joe's fallen back. He wouldn't have played. He wouldn't have got injured in England. The highlight of that don't do it justice. He probably don't show any Western chances. There was a couple of hairy moments. Did we get one off the line or something? Yeah, right at the end. I think it was from Lee Chapman. I mean, we'd had a lot of chances in the game. Oh, that's insane! It's just had a nervousness credit. And he would do. You shared it with those teams in the last five or ten minutes. You know, teams that can play it but they're not getting the results. You're still in the game. You get a corner, their battles go. So many those teams fall away. Just happy to get the three points, yeah.