I have to tell you how Richard and I met. I was living in Dallas practicing law, and I contacted the head of the economics department at the University of Dallas who is here with us, Sam Bostef. Would you, Sam, raise your hand there. And Sam is one of these great guys. It's in academia as an Austrian libertarian economist, and he's the head of the department there at UD. And UD is this fine, excellent private college in Texas. And I hired Sam to tutor me in economics. And so he says, well, show me what you've read. And so I bring in the list, and he says, no, no, we have to go back to fundamentals. So we go back to the wealth of nations chapter by chapter and into David Ricardo's principles and then up through Manger's principles. And we get to human action by Ludwig von Mises. And he says, well, I really have enjoyed the money you've paid me, but I have to, in good conscience, turn you over to a new tutor. He says, there's a guy coming into the department who is the most widely read Austrian economist of your generation, because this guy is a walking encyclopedia. So Richard Ebling became my new tutor in human action chapter by chapter. And we'd go out to lunch afterward, and we'd start testing each other. OK, well, where do you stand on this? You know, Ray, where do you stand on limited government? Well, where do you stand on public schooling? And we're ferreting out who leaked, you see? Who was the wishy-washy one? And then we finally found a couple issues we disagreed on and fought bitterly until finally one day we figured it might be costing us our friendship, especially when he called me a mini-fascist. And so we decided to declare a truce. And then Richard went on to Hillsdale College. He has edited five books and co-edited one book, The Dangers of Socialized Medicine. Richard is also a expert and scholar on the ex-Soviet Union, Russian history, Chinese history. He made several trips to the former Soviet Union during all of the chaos and the dismantling of the Soviet Union. One of those trips was during the Soviet crackdown in Lithuania. Richard was there advising the Lithuanian parliament. We think it was by coincidence that that happened at the same time. We're not sure. We have doubts whether it was a coincidence because a while later he was in Moscow during the coup attempt. So we're not really sure. One of his colleagues suggested that since tanks go wherever he goes, that maybe he ought to spend more time in Washington. Richard helped me to found this organization. The theme of his talk today is very, very important. The world, of course, is moving toward more managed trade. The anti-immigration fervor is increasing at almost an exponential rate. It has motivated us to hopefully publish our third book after the first of the year, which Richard has co-edited, entitled The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration. And that, in fact, is the title of Richard's talk. Richard Ebeling. Thank you, and welcome to our conference. Before I begin my talk, I perhaps would like to amplify a little bit about how I met Bumper and the foundation got started. As he suggested, I had been teaching at the University of Dallas. I'd just take up my appointment. And Sam Bostef, the department chairman there, had recommended that Bumper approach me and have me tutor him through human action. And I was somewhat reluctant to do this, because I had my own regular teaching load, and I have my own research, and I'm trying to keep up with a lot of literature, which is time consuming. But finally, he told me the hourly fee he would pay, and it was a price I couldn't refuse, so I agreed. Now, at first, I was working very hard. I would prepare for an hour or so before our sessions, reading over the chapters that we were going to discuss that day in human action and making careful notes, even though it was just one person in this tutorial. And I was ready. Well, I soon realized I didn't have to hardly do any preparation at all. Because while we would talk a bit about these chapters in human action, mostly what he would want to do is sort of find out how I had become a libertarian, what my views were on this subject or that subject. So really, I was being paid just to talk about myself. Then on top of that, as he said, a lot of times we would want to go out to lunch. And he would say, well, let's continue talking over lunch. So we would often go to this Mexican restaurant, not far from the campus. And invariably, he picked up the tab. So I figured I had it made. I had no work, great pay, and a free lunch. Now, I have to confess that he then went off to the Foundation for Economic Education to be program director there for a while.  And he left before he got his money's worth. So I'm only admitting all this because I assume the statute of limitation on contract breach has now been exceeded. But as Bumper mentioned, the third book that we're going to be putting out, we published last year, Dangers of Socialized Medicine. And then just recently out, Sheldon Richman's book on separating school and state, a third book will be on this topic of the case for free trade and open immigration. And that is the theme that I want to spend a bit of time on with you this morning. If one reads the daily press, one has the impression that the world is a dangerous place, a violent place. For example, our television screens show the mass murders in Rwanda. We see the deadly and seemingly insoluble civil wars in places like the former Yugoslavia. We see superpower-military intervention in places such as Somalia and Haiti.  So this has happened in Egypt as well. And of course, brutal dictatorship, such as Saddam Hussein's in Iraq, or still the functioning gulag in China. Yet, away from the headlines and the media sensationalism, the world appears, in fact, a much more peaceful place of commerce, culture, and communications. It's worth keeping in mind that tens of millions of dollars of goods and services cross borders every day in the form of ever-changing patterns of imports and exports. It's worth remembering that literature, arts, and scientific knowledge of the world knows no borders. Continuously, there appear almost rapid provided translations of works of literature, of scientific works, into numerous languages, works of art constantly travel around on exhibitions from one country to another. And it is also worth recalling that tens of thousands of people, I don't know the statistics, maybe the equivalent of millions of people every day, board aeroplanes, ships, get in their automobiles, or get in trains, and travel from one country to another, constantly every day around the globe. And finally, through telecommunications, through telephones, fax machines, email systems, thousands and thousands of people communicate with each other continuously across not just hundreds but thousands of miles that separate them. There is in fact occurring, and has been occurring for a period of time, an increasing unity of the world. In other words, the globalization of trade and globalization of the world is upon us. Trade, commerce, and investment appear to have no boundaries. In fact, a few years ago you might recall a book that Richard McKenzie and Dwight Lee came out with called Quick Silver Capital, in which they emphasized that by the touch of a button, it was now possible for a person in one place of the world to send information about changing technological ways of combining resources, of shifting ownership and use of assets. In fact, to shift the capital structure of the world in terms of its location, its direction, its application, and its ownership. In fact, this means that the world is now boundaryless in the sense of how financial and in many cases real capital can be transferred, applied, and changed in terms of ownership. In the recent November issue of Atlantic Monthly, the economist and management expert, Peter Drucker has a very interesting article on what he calls the transformation that the world is going through right now. And he says that we are now passing out of the industrial age to what a number of other people have emphasized as the knowledge age. And he emphasizes that knowledge knows no boundaries. In fact, as he says, there is no domestic knowledge and no international knowledge, there is only knowledge. And with knowledge becoming the key resource, there is only a world economy, even though the individual organization and its daily activities operates within a national, regional, or even local setting. By definition, a knowledge society is a society of mobility, Drucker continues. People no longer stay where they are born, either in terms of geography or in terms of social position and status. The essence of a knowledge society is mobility in terms of where one lives, mobility in terms of what one does, and mobility in terms of one's affiliations. And a few statistics to give this indication might be useful. For example, between 1950 and 1990, the United States population increased by approximately 56%. While the number of Americans living and working abroad during the same period increased by 452%. In 1990, 17 million people visited the United States for either business, pleasure, or education. And that was equivalent to 3.5% of the US population. In the major Western European countries, the number of foreign workers as a percentage of their total domestic employment runs as from as low as 3%, for example, in Denmark, to as much as one third of the working population being foreigners in the country of Luxembourg. And these statistics are from the late 70s and early 80s, and I'm sure that that's changed in the case of the common market. In the entire world today, more than 100 million people live in countries of which they are not the citizens. While approximately 17.5 million of these people are in fact refugees of wars and civil wars in various forms of political terror, that still means that there are 80 million people living in different countries around the world not of the country of their birth in which they have chosen to move there for the personal political reasons or economic opportunity. And of course, there has been the expansion of these global opportunities with the slow and somewhat inconsistent transformations of the socialist economies to market economies in Eastern Europe and in Russia. That is now the incorporation of a large portion of the Eurasian continent into a global market economy. Now, when politicians and political analysts and political pundits write about these things, what they say is that the world is moving towards a free market. They referred to the further integration of the common market countries into the economic union as a movement towards a free market. They referred to the North American Free Trade Agreement as a movement towards a free market. They referred to the GATT agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, as a further movement towards free markets. And it cannot be denied that with these agreements there are strong and important elements of freer trade, less regulated commerce, a greater degree of freedom of movement of some people between borders and across countries. And in the case of the common market countries, it has become easier for people to shift where they live to where profit opportunities in terms of livelihoods suggest. But a set of political arrangements among governments that permit degrees of freer trade and freer movements of people is still not a social system of free trade, free markets, and free immigration. It remains a political regime of managed trade, regulated markets, and controlled movements of people. Why? Because it still remains in the discretionary hands of these governments to determine the degree to which we shall have freer trade, less managed commerce, more freedom of movement. Even when more liberal policies are implemented, we remain unfree in an ultimate sense as long as government maintains and claims the right of maintenance of discretionary power to dictate and determine as they see fit to decide how much of these freedoms we shall have. This is an example of the continuing confusions of language, where Americans and many people of the world believe that to have freer trade means free trade. To have less regulated commerce means to have free markets. To have a degree of greater freedom to live where you want means open immigration, and it's not. And these linguistic confusions are important to keep in mind and we need to watch for them because what has been occurring is the same type of linguistic or terminological twisting as occurred earlier in the century with the word liberalism. Bill Beach of the Institute of Humane Studies in his talk last night at the Vienna Coffee Club bemoaned the disappearance of the word liberalism from our lexicon that liberalism had meant free trade, limited government, free enterprise, individual liberty and how it had been usurped by the collectivists of this century to mean its opposites. We are in a period of time in which now in sort of like an Orwellian Newspeak, we have a situation in which managed trade means free trade. Regulated markets means free enterprise and more open borders is taken to mean free immigration. They are not. They still mean the regulated economy and the paternalistic state. But in thinking about these things and understanding these linguistic shifts, we cannot ignore the fact that arguments are being made for government even though the labels have changed to sound as if it's free or trade or free trade. There are arguments still being made in defense of government control to say yes, free or trade, but we can't have free trade. Free or immigration, but we can't have free open immigration. And it's important for us to spend a little bit of time understanding the logic of those arguments and developing refutations of them if we are to prove why these are not sufficiently free or trade and why in fact there should just be no regulated trade. Now I wanted to use a few examples in the time that we have and I want to sort of look at the arguments that are sometimes made for restrictions on freedom of trade and freedom of immigration and offer some counter arguments against them. First of all, the most common argument that is heard against absolute free trade are the arguments of what can be called retaliation and reciprocity rationales. It is often argued that we live in a world of unfree trade, that governments will often impose trade barriers against American exporters who therefore are denied the opportunity to have access to the markets in that foreign country. And in the defense of that US exporter who has denied opportunity, it is necessary for the US government to retaliate to set an example and a warning and to impose a price upon that offending foreign government. The question is when the retaliators make these suggestions, is that we must ask the question, raise the question with them, who is hurt from acts of retaliation? Well, first of all, the person hurt initially and primarily are the consumers in the American market. Why is that the case? Because in fact, when the tariff is imposed, it is the American consumer who ends up paying that tariff. The good now costs more to be brought into the United States. Who must pay that tax? The American importer. And in the long run, since the American importer must cover his cost of production, that additional tariff cost must be reflected in his price in the long run in terms of his general expenses of doing business, which means that the American consumers pay and bear the price in the name of assisting some offended US exporter that the United States government wishes to assist. It's also worth recalling that as a result of this, the American consumer pays more and receives less. Because as the price rises, consumers economize in their purchases and therefore purchase a smaller quantity. As a result, American consumers bear the burden of paying more for the commodity and end up choosing to purchase less for what they are paying more for. It's worth keeping in mind that another person who bears the price is the American importer of that foreign good. He now has to pay more. He now sees lower sales. He sees his revenues go down. He now is put in the position of perhaps being the marginal importer, by which I mean that before the tariff was raised, he was just staying in business. And now the tariff is the make or break and he is forced to leave that import sector and find an alternative level line of endeavor and activity in the American economy, which means he must choose his second best. That is the one that he prefers not to be in. Why? Because if it was the more preferable, he wouldn't have been in that import business in the first place. So the government forces the importer into a second best line of production because it imposes these expenses on doing his first preferred economic activity. It's also worth keeping in mind that it also hurts American exporters. Why? Because since the foreign producer now sells less than the United States because the tariff makes it less attractive to American consumers, foreigners who sell those goods earn fewer dollars. And since they earn fewer dollars, they have a smaller amount of financial wherewithal to buy American goods. And that affects all of the American exporters who would otherwise have been selling goods to those foreign producers who would have sold those commodities to Americans if not for the retaliatory tariff. The question then comes, who gains by this tariff? Not the consumers, not the importers, not the American exporters, not even the offended American exporter who asked for their retaliatory tariff. He's still locked out of that market. He doesn't see an increase in his business. In fact, he may lose some additional business because some of the people who were still buying his product, even with the offending nation's high tariff, may not be able to because they may be the people who earn less dollars by selling less goods in America because of the retaliatory import tax. Who gains then? In fact, only the U.S. government by generating more revenue for its help from the tariff. And even that is problematic because it depends upon how much the imports decrease to determine whether the total tax take is larger or smaller afterwards. The only one who seems assured to gaining are those domestic producers who compete against the goods that are now restricted by the import tax. Who in fact previously couldn't get a larger market share because the foreign goods were more attractive before the import tax was put into effect. But now have a guaranteed market, an increased market because they now have the tariff wall to operate behind. So the American inefficient producer captures more of the American market because the U.S. government imposes a retaliatory tariff to help some other exporter who is upset that he couldn't sell more in some foreign land.  But even if the argument is accepted about this, they say, but wait a minute, the world still operates without free trade. Surely we cannot just lower our barriers and allow goods to just flood into the American market. We must go into negotiation for reciprocity. And as they lower their tariffs in conjunction with us, we will all have a freer level of free, we will lower the tariffs and we will have a open more prosperous level of free trade for everyone's benefit. But we just can't unilaterally lower our tariffs. Well, in fact, the mistake in this argument is that whether America's trading partners do or do not lower their tariff barriers, the American economy benefits by us doing so on our own. Lower tariffs and lower trade barriers means that immediately American consumers have an increase in their real income. How so? They're now able to buy all these foreign goods for less. And at the same time, they will often after making their purchase at the lower import prices have extra dollars left in their pocket to spend on different goods that previously they couldn't afford. So they get the import goods for less and they now have more dollars in their pockets to buy things that they couldn't afford to purchase before. They have a significant increase in their real income. And that increased demand for other things that they now can afford because they economize on the cheaper import is one of the avenues where domestic producers who may not be able to match those imported goods can find alternative employment to satisfy new demands that the American consumer is spending on in terms of his freed dollars. It also means that foreigners will be earning more dollars from selling us more, which increases American export markets as well. So even unilateral trade has only benefits for us and no downsides. It is true, some Americans industries and sectors will have to reallocate themselves, redistribute themselves among the activities they undertake in the American economy. Some will be able to match the new competitors at the lower prices, some others won't. But all changes in an economy involve shifting to changing market opportunities and this will require it as well. But the net effect for the society is that we will all be better off. Now a new argument that has arisen in this context that I want to spend a little time on is a new argument that has emerged in defense of government support of exports and government defenses of import restrictions. And this new argument is what I call the new infant industry argument that has become very popular and particularly with the Clinton administration and those people in academia or the think tanks who advise them. Now what do I mean by the infant industry argument? Well, there used to be an older infant industry argument in the 19th and early 20th century. And this older infant industry argument ran like the following. When a country is just developing and industrializing, it must set up tariff walls to protect its emerging versions of the industries already firmly established and well-established abroad. Because the startup problems of being sort of the late comer are so difficult and the existing industries in the foreign countries are so well-established and so cost efficient that unless we put our own domestic versions under a hot house protection, they will never be able to grow strong, become efficient and be able to compete openly and fairly at some point in the future against the established rivals in the more industrialized advanced countries and other parts of the world. These were the arguments, for example, that many of the German mercantilism protectionists made in the mid and late 19th century against allowing free importation of British industrial goods. The idea is the British had started industrialization first and now Germany was gonna catch up and have matching firms. You have to put their firms, the late comers under a hot house. Well, the new version of this, in fact, is a rationale for artificial support of first comers. It is argued that the specialization upon which a nation fits itself into the international division of labor is something that national economic policy cannot be indifferent about. The choice can have long run consequences as to what industries a country developed and the beginning of new technological innovations. And whether it is first there and captures a niche at first and therefore is secure ahead of the rivals and the pack that is behind it. Basically, it is argued that there are certain technological and high tech industries and industrial activities that can give a country a potentially advanced jump on the rest of the world, a niche that can secure them, a rising standard of living and a higher standard of living and after they're established will be difficult for other countries to sort of nip at their heels at. Now this sometimes is referred to as strategic trade policy and the type of industries that are often talked about, Al Gore talks about this as semiconductors, telecommunications and informational superhighways, financial intermediation and other high tech sectors of the economy. The government must subsidize and support these things, get them established and then we will be there first, secure in the market, having incurred all of the startup costs while our rivals haven't and we will be secure for a long period of time in a rising segment of the economy and that will guarantee us a headstart and a good income position as a nation in terms of the global market. Now to begin with a problem with this is one that was pointed out over 20 years ago by an English economist named John Jukes who delivered a lecture called government and high technology and in this lecture he points out is that what is meant by high tech in policy discussions or debates? And what he said is that high tech when it enters into policy debates in fact it really has little to do with either the industry in question or the degree of the sophisticated scientific knowledge or application involved in bringing it online nor do these technologies really have to do with the amount of capital investment involved in bringing them online. He says that all the time new technologies are put in place and sometimes they involve sophisticated scientific and technological knowledge and information and complexity and they often involve huge and massive amounts of initial startup capital investments and these go on all the time and have always gone on all the time. What then makes these industries that government usually talks about in public policy different? And as he says that high technology means exceptionally high risk technology. Projects to which companies in close contact with realities would not give their support because the chances of profit seem too small, problematic or remote, but where the government for one reason or another feels it knows better. Private enterprises will not jeopardize the requisite shareholders' capital but governments feel justified in risking the taxpayers' money. In other words, what we're talking about are particular technologies that the government presumes to know best should be invested in, where, how, to what extent, by home. In spite of the fact that the private sector has evaluated it as not worth the investment at this time. In fact, if they did offer the attraction of profit as estimated by the market participants themselves, the government wouldn't need to stimulate, direct or coax them into it. They would be already there before the government had even realized what was going on. And all of the arguments against these are basically the same arguments that the economists would make against variations on the central planning thing. How does the government know what the market wants? How does the government know the right technology? How does the government know the proper cost efficiencies and applications of resources? How does the government free itself from the political corruption of pressure groups who'd be more interested in government dollars as opposed to satisfying consumer demand? But it's also worth pointing out that besides the political arguments, how would government know? How would government pick winners and avoid losers? How would the government avoid the corruptions involved in people lobbying for the government investment in high-tech dollars? It's worth pointing out is that always being first isn't advantageous. In fact, we would not always want, from a sort of global or national point of view, for every one of our companies to be the first online supplier. Why? Well, because it's worth keeping mind that the initial supplier is the one who is burdened with the cost of opening this new market and making the product familiar to potential consumers. He must incur the experimentation costs to discover what qualities and features might be most interesting or useful for the consumer. He's the one who has to incur all of the startup investments of getting the bugs out of the new technology. Those who enter the market later in the process, in a sense, can easily ride the coattails of those newcomers, by in fact being successful latecomers. They don't have to break the people's ignorance to begin with, the people already know about the product, all they have to do with their marketing is to persuade the consumers that they have available a better or less expensive substitute about something that is already a known quantity. They also can save on investment and technological costs. Why? Because the first comer incurred all of the technological problems of figuring out what the technology could do, getting the bugs out, what the market was interested in. And therefore, the late comer, the second comer can invest in technology that incorporates all of the mistakes and successes of the first comer and therefore have technological plant and equipment more efficient than the first supplier. But what if the selective, what if governments in other countries still follow this path? What if other governments implement these high tech supported investments, subsidize them? Can we afford to let other countries undertake these high tech subsidizations and sort of jump the gun on us while we just stand still and philosophically and theoretically say it doesn't matter and it's better if another one comes in second anyway because it may not be useful or as efficient to be the first comer on the block? Well, let me suggest the following, that from an economic point of view, it does not matter if other governments subsidize some of their industries into these artificial developments of high tech sectors of the economy. Because you see the end result from our point of view as consumers of that technology is that it is exactly the same as if the innovations in the other country had been, quote, natural. That is if the industries in other countries just had a normal market comparative efficient advantage in developing these technologies first, marketing them first, presenting them to the world economy first. The people who should be upset about this are the taxpayers of that country. They're the ones who through the subsidy are bearing the cost of the startup costs, experimenting with the new technology in the selected and chosen enterprises who have to incur through the subsidy, the marketing cost of that product to themselves and foreign buyers. The taxpayers of that subsidizing country should be the ones that complain, not us. What if our government listening to the interventionist argument say, but wait a minute, we have to guarantee this sector of the economy for ourselves. We're going to put tariffs preventing those countries from importing those high tech products into our country. Their government have subsidized it. We must secure our market in our hot house. Well, first of all, if we keep out those new high tech products that have been subsidized by that foreign government, we in fact impose a severe burden on the American consumer in the sense that we now have to pay higher prices for those new technologies and new products with those technologies would otherwise be the case. And therefore we deny ourselves as a nation a higher standard of living that we could have had in principle. But it also makes it more costly since we're raising the tariff price of importing those products and technologies. We make it more costly for American purchases of this new technology in the sense that it slows down the rate at which American industry absorbs and adopts products and investment activities with these technologies. The tariff makes it more expensive for our industrial and producer sectors to import the products with the technology. Therefore, we slow down the rate at which we are absorbing the new tech possibilities for ourselves even if some of those new tech possibilities have been paid for in terms of subsidies by the taxpayers of other countries. Those other countries that do not impose such import tariffs against the new technologies and absorb them more quickly than our industry is permitted to in fact are given an artificial advantage by our government. All of this means is that it would be better most advantageous for us to again follow a policy of laissez faire to allow those technologies to just enter the US economy. Let other countries either naturally and normally in the market or through the hot house expense of their government subsidies provide them online to us and for us to benefit from them. We gain everything and we lose nothing. It's also worth keeping in mind that this could set up a trade war. What kind of trade war? Well, if all these countries are now going to be trying to fight and jump the gun on each other on subsidizing high tech products and new technologies and to try to be the first on the world market with it, what happens when countries find themselves competing against each other each with their subsidized product? Each with their subsidized new high tech products? Well, I would suggest that if several countries are simultaneously trying to market the same high tech products with subsidization, they will try to cow and intimidate and strong arm their weaker trading partners to accept those products whether they want them or not. And among the stronger nations, what you will have is even more managed trade as the strong countries each combating for the same high tech markets try to divide and negotiate divisions and market shares of the global economy for themselves. Well, you get this fraction of it. I get that fraction of it. So in the name of subsidizing high technology, we create a scenario in which competing governments all doing the same resort to the negotiating table to try to carve up the markets in a politicized, cartelized fashion. And already some advocates are seeing the consequences of this. One advocate of such managed trade said that to break old structures and overcome the effects of the industrial policies of other countries, it may be necessary for America to negotiate affirmative action for imports and foreign investments. So now these races to be first for high technologies around the globe will result in managed trade affirmative action. Each one would be given their fair share of the market. Let me turn briefly to a number of other topics. My talk is on free trade and open immigration. I want to take a few minutes to talk about immigration not as an economic issue but as a human rights issue. There is a lot of literature from a wide number of organizations that clearly have demonstrated that all the standard economic arguments against free trade, free immigration are fallacious. Whether it be the arguments of an economist such as Julian Simon or the fine work done by Stephen Moore at the Cato Institute or numerous other people. It has been demonstrated, I believe, conclusively one reads the arguments that the negative effects that many see in open immigration, free immigration, are not sound and valid. And while not wanting to say it's not important to make all those arguments, there's a lot of literature now on our side of the fence either by people who believe in open immigration or at least make the case for a lot more open immigration to refute those arguments. In my little bit of time here, I want to talk about the human rights element. It's worth keeping in mind that the world has been transformed greatly during the last 150 years by the vast migrations of tens of millions of people across the continents of the globe. Between 1840 and 1940, 60 million Europeans left their home countries and settled on the other continents of the globe. 34 million of these 60 million Europeans between 1840 and 1940, 34 million of these Europeans settled in the United States. 6.5 million settled in Argentina. 5.2 million settled in Canada. Brazil accepted 4.4 million. Australia took 2.9 million. The British West Indies, 1.6 million. Cuba, 660,000. South Africa, 852,000. And they on and on and on. The world has been transformed by these waves of just European immigration. Now what enabled this European immigration to occur? Well, my wife was often a critic of some aspects of my public addresses, always tells me that I read too many quotes in my talk so I'm gonna resist doing this. But there's an excellent passage in a history of the Western world by an historian named R.R. Palmer, a book that published in 1965 in which he talks about these transformations of immigration. And he says in this discussion of his history of the modern world, how was it that 60 million people could just start flowing out of Europe and find new homes in the other parts of the globe? And he says that the most important principle, they were these factors, they were those factors, these influences, those influences would enable people to have the freedom to do this was the liberalism of the 19th century. That no longer did governments tie people to the land. No longer did government restrict people to leave their countries. No longer did government confiscate the property of individuals. People were now free under classical liberalism to live where they wanted. In this new era of liberty that was transforming Europe. And many of them admittedly wanted to come to America. Despite of my wife's criticisms, I have to read this. The rise of individual liberty in Europe as well as the hope of enjoying it in America made possible the great emigration. For so huge a mass movement, the most remarkable fact is that it took place by individual initiative and at individual expense. Individuals and family groups detached themselves atom by atom, individual by individual from the mass of Europe crossed the ocean on their own and reattached themselves atom by atom, individual by individual to the accumulated mass of the new world. And while we as in the United States and the fact that many of our immigration waves have been European, we tend to think of that context. It's worth recalling that during the last 150 years there have been massive waves of migration from other parts of the world to other parts of the world. The movement of people from the subcontinent of India and what is now Pakistan to become merchants, tradesmen, craftsmen and the masters of commerce in East Africa. The Chinese who left China during the last 150 years and opened up and brought prosperity to many markets in Southeast Asia. Freedom of movement has transformed the world for both those who looked for better opportunities and other lands and for the lands in which they settled. And a fine summary of these benefits of immigration can be found in this most recent book by Thomas Sowell on race and culture in the chapter on race and immigration. I highly recommend it. It's an excellent little summary of several of the important themes on this topic of the positive effects of world migration during the last 150 years. But the importance of the immigration subject stems from the fact that there are few issues that touch so fundamentally on the issues of human freedom. As the question as to whether an individual has the right of freedom of movement to leave the country in which accident of birth has placed him and the freedom to settle and to live and to work. And if he chooses to raise a family where he thinks that life can be made better for himself and for those he loves. Why is this a problem? Well, a fellow named Bob Sutcliff who recently published a piece in England called The Index on Censorship pointed out that the dichotomy and the tension and the hypocrisy is in the very United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. The Declaration of Human Rights says, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights says that an individual shall not be denied the right to move freely within his own country. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights says an individual shall not be denied the right of a passport and the right of leaving his country and returning to his country freely as he chooses and without molestation. But what the Human Rights Declaration does is stop right there. Okay. The world, at least in this example of a public statement the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has said you have a freedom to leave. But it says nothing of a freedom of a right to go and settle anywhere. That is viewed as the political privilege, discretion, power of the receiving country. And there is the perversity of it. Even if you can get out, even if you have lived under oppression and tyranny, even if you can get out, you can be not, you can no longer be assured that there is any place in the world that will permit you to come in. Jacob and his remarks and his presentation emphasize some of those unfortunate themes in the case of the Cubans, Haitians and others. In other words, the world has practiced a perverse one-sidedness in its belief in freedom. Now this matters. Let me just give an example from the 1930s. In June of 1939, a German ocean liner named the St. Louis left Hamburg, Germany and came to North American waters. They were carrying over 900 German Jews. Neither Cuba nor the United States would allow that ship to land and those German Jews to disembark and request and receive refuge in the new world. After sailing around for about a week in the Caribbean and off the coast of Florida when the ship was close enough to Florida that the people on the desk could see the lights of Floridian cities at night, that ship then returned to Europe. Many of those German Jews ended up being killed in Hitler's extermination camps. Let's take a different case from that period. And that involves the experience of 20,000 German Jews who between the mid 1930s and 1941 were saved from the fate of many other Jews in Europe by the fact that they were fortunate enough to be able to find a way to traverse Europe and Asia and reach the city of Shanghai on the Chinese coast. Shanghai in the period before the Second World War was practically a free city state independent of Chinese jurisdiction and administered by a city council made up of members elected by the foreign residents of the international sediment of Shanghai, a foreign community that was made up of more than 90,000 Westerners, including many Americans. And in this period when Shanghai was in practically an independent city state, there were no passport requirements or visa requirements to enter and reside in the city of Shanghai. It was an open city. And these lucky German Jews were able to settle in the safe haven. In fact, they settled in a part of Shanghai called the Hong Q district that had been destroyed when the Japanese were invading China. And they made it, they reconstructed it between 1938 and 1941 until all the buildings have been restored. It was commerce, prosperity, little shops and businesses. And they survived the war even after Shanghai was occupied. This independent part of Shanghai was occupied by the Japanese following Pearl Harbor. In fact, the people who are still alive from that group of German Jews recently had a memorial conference in Shanghai in remembrance of their period of being saved from the Nazi Holocaust by being able to escape to a free haven of a free city state. It's not sufficient to be able to have the freedom to leave, though that is absolutely important. People must have the freedom to be able to go somewhere if they can escape from the tyranny they fear. Now, since in our century, free trade has come to mean managed trade through international agreements among governments. Many people in the United States are fearful of agreements that the United States is now entering into such as the World Trade Organization, WTO which is an outgrowth of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The idea being is that the World Trade Organization will become the trade equivalent of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund. And that through this international organization of the World Trade Organization, member countries will become required to be subservient to the rules and the dictates of an international organization and therefore the United States government will give up and cede its national sovereignty to a world organization who might dictate rules and policies involving trade that can threaten the liberties of Americans. Many of our conservative friends and colleagues are concerned about this and quite justifiably if in fact such an organization were to lead to such consequences because in this organization the majority might very well make a decision that impacts negatively in calling for subsidies, regulations, government business partnerships, import restrictions of various sorts that redounds to the disadvantage of American consumers and producers. And whether we are burdened by these things will depend upon the discretion of the United States government in that setting as to whether they abide by the rules or break the rules and refuse. Again, further arbitrary discretion of our economic fates being dependent upon Washington, bureaucrats and political figures as to whether they will abide by an international organization's rules and edicts that may or may not be good for the freedom of the American citizenry. But this need not be the policy and the path that America follows. If we keep in mind that managed trade is not free trade, if we understand that free trade does not require political agreements among nation states, but can just be unilaterally lunges, lower the tariff barriers, lower the trade restrictions, then the United States government need not abrogate or surrender any of its constitutionally enumerated sovereign rights. But needs to be done is for the United States government at home to repeal those legislative acts that have given regulatory and interventionist control of the United States government over the economic affairs of our own citizens. If this has done them from the day, indeed the hour from which these regulatory and interventionist controls were abolished, the United States would from that point have unilaterally instituted free trade and free immigration and it would have been done without the prior approval or consent of any other government anywhere in the world. We don't need to get Zimbabwe's permission. The United States government would have basically returned to the limited responsibilities originally delegated to it in the constitution. What would be reestablished is the personal and individual sovereignty of the citizens of the United States to manage their own personal affairs, to peacefully plan their own personal and individual courses of action, to freely enter into contracts and agreements with others regardless of where those others live anywhere in the world for mutual benefit through trade and for anyone to freely and in an unrestricted manner to enter and leave the United States for any length of time without government approval or molestation. By deregulating the economy and repealing and abolishing all interventionist controls over market activity, all issues concerning trade and migration in the United States at the same time would be depoliticized. By depoliticizing these issues of trade, commerce and movement, they would no longer be matters and affairs of state. They would now be personal matters of private individuals who choose to produce trade and move as they find it most profitable and pleasurable to do so. They would no longer be anything for the American government to negotiate with other governments in the world precisely because the United States government would no longer have the authority to influence or dictate how or in what manner Americans went about their private and peaceful economic affairs, both at home and abroad. The real agenda for bringing a social order of free trade and free immigration, therefore, begins right here at home, not around the negotiating tables of various international governmental organizations. Thank you very much. Okay, I think we have a bit of time left for a few questions. Okay, this is time for rotten tomatoes, banana peels. Yeah. The question is, what about welfare benefits for people who come into the United States? The concern is often expressed that open or free or immigration is inconsistent with the existence of the welfare state. The solution to that, it seems to me, is that you just say all those who come into the United States are not eligible for welfare benefits and that should be the position we take and that that's the first step to repealing welfare benefits for American citizens as well. Now, usually the argument made is that, well, wait a minute, this will create a two-tier society, the privileged of the Americans and the unprivileged non-American citizens. I suggest that we recognize those distinctions all the time.  We have a two-tier system of rights, those who vote and those who don't. Same thing, those people who want to come to the United States do not receive welfare payments and that is the first step to repealing it at home. It is better to make that position than to try to argue about, well, we shouldn't let too many in or what can the system afford? Even the proposal, for example, that has been made by some to sort of auction visa permits into the United States. Sounds good, because why? Some people will say, well, the ones who most want to come here will be willing to pay to come in and those with the most marketable skills will view that the investment upfront is worth in terms of future income to be earned in the American market. It'll pay itself back, so to speak. All of that's true, I don't deny that. But what about all of the people who, because again of accident, of circumstance, of birth and the political and economic environment of their own oppressive government in their home country can't afford to buy or bid for a visa permit? That, it seems to me, is unfair privilege and ranking. So I think that the solution in my mind is just to say, sure, you can come in but no welfare. Is it possible to imagine other scenarios or forms to try to solve this? Perhaps so, but I think that our premise must be freedom, freedom to enter, freedom not to receive benefits because the welfare state is a form of redistribution of wealth and to view that as an agenda from which to go further in our own country. Yeah. Okay, the question is, is it unfair because of the cheaper labor in other countries? For example, imports at low prices from third world countries. In fact, the wages represent the productivity of those workers. Workers receive a wage reflecting their value in a production process. If the wages are low in those countries, it's because those countries are low productivity countries which means they tend to produce products of lower marginal quality. So basically what they're doing is filling niches for low income Americans who otherwise could not afford more expensive products in the United States. For example, let us suppose that you go into what, Kmart or Walmart. What do you find in Kmart or Walmart if you go through the clothing stores? Everybody would concede that Walmart and Kmart is not considered upscale clothes, right? And people who shop at Walmart or Kmart or stores like them as a generalization are sort of in the lower income range. Okay, I think most of us would agree upon that as a generalization. Who is supplying them with the ability to be clothed or to have household utensils? Look at the labels, okay? Made in third world countries, in China, India. My wife and I were in JCPenney's not long ago in Michigan and they were selling coats made in the Ukraine. Many Americans would not want to buy a coat like that. It's quite possible that there are some Americans who have no alternative given their budgetary restraints but to do so. So to my mind, low wage industries in fact are filling the niche of supplying low cost goods for the lower income scale of Americans and therefore are benefiting us. And at the same time, those lower income people, those low wage producers are earning dollars which enables them to import American goods that they have otherwise couldn't afford. Hello. I come from Argentina. All of my grandparents are foreigners, even my great grandparents.  So I have a, let's say, a moral point in favor of free immigration. But sometimes it's difficult for me to, some people ask, what isn't there a need to control the, let's say, the international terrorist movement of people among nations? Isn't it a necessity to check that in the immigration? Well, I think that the question, if you understood, is what about the problems of international terrorism? It seems to me is that immigration has little to do with terrorism. Most terrorists are not coming to the United States to settle here and take a job.  I think that then it's just a policing responsibility that if someone is suspected of likely of committing a crime or if the authorities believe that he has committed a crime, then that's just a matter of police work. But I think that with anyone coming into the country as with an American within the country, the presumption under our law must be that he is innocent until proven guilty, that there must be legitimate suspicion for either his person or his property to be molested through an arrest or a seizure, that he has due process of law. I mean, there could be a lot of people in the United States who might wanna carry out terrorism in the United States or in other countries. Would that justify the United States government on the possibility that there might be American potential terrorists to be snooping around and investigating everybody who wants to move between California and New York? What do you have some left-wing potential bomb thrower? And he lives in California and he says, well, I don't wanna drop a bomb on some capitalist enterprise in California, but it's easier to track me down. So I'll go to New York. Are we now gonna have border controls to check people out as to whether a potential terrorist is going across U.S. state lines? The same logic would require that. So it seems to me is that we just have to respect anyone who comes into the United States with the same liberties and constitutional protections as we normally give an American and to view the United States border internationally as in fact nothing, not much different than someone who wants to cross from New Mexico to Utah. And by the way, I share your imagery of a background of many different ethnicities and cultures because I'm in the same position. My grandparents came from Europe before the First World War. On my father's side, I'm German, Irish, and English. On my mother's side, I'm Lithuanian Jew and Russian Jew. I usually decided that this was great because being both Jewish and German, I assume that meant I was both the chosen people in the master race. The only difficulty is the nightmares I have at night in which one part of me tries to throw the other into an oven, but I've resisted that so. I know that there are most libertarians, I think, despite the fact that there were problems with NAFTA, felt that on balance, we're probably better off having NAFTA than not. And we're identifying problems in the GATT agreement also, and I wanted your comments on the GATT agreement, whether you think on balance, we're still better off going ahead and agreeing to it or not. Well, first of all, as an implicit theme of my comments, I think that we could have all of the benefits that we want from the GATT in terms of our trade gaining in terms of imports without having to do anything other than just say, we're now lowering these barriers. And I think it is very dangerous and undesirable for us to enter into political agreements in which to get other countries to lower some of their barriers, we have to concede non-free market points. Okay, they'll lower this barrier in Mexico if we'll lower that barrier in the United States, but some American producer says that, no, I don't want this barrier lowered because this will hurt me. And there's sort of this political reciprocity of what sectors will be deregulated or open first, to what extent, what tariffs will still be in place, what domestic content requirements are required on both sides of the border. All of the benefits, I believe, that can be received from free or trade can be done unilaterally. It's worth keeping in mind that the most famous historical example is Great Britain. When Great Britain began its path of free trade in the early part of the 19th century, no other country was doing this. They just started repealing tariff after tariff after tariff, a trade import restriction after trade import restriction, and just opened themselves up. I don't think that we should be hostage to what other governments will permit, allow, or demand from us that would still hamper our own free economy at home. So I'm suspicious of these agreements. Even if, often, it seems that once the agreement has been signed, there are categories or corners of the market that seem as a result to be freer, and we might very well be. But I think that the precedent and the principle of doing this through political negotiation hampers us in ways that would not be necessary, and that we'd have most of the benefits if we just did it on our own. Richard, would you comment on the matter of subsidies to foreign businesses which export to the United States? In the mid-80s, the cement industry of Mexico was in a recession, a bad recession, and they started exporting cement to the United States. Their electric power and their fuel was highly subsidized, and they had great advantage over American cement companies. The question is, what about the case where government subsidized the exportation of various goods in general, not the particular form that I used about high tech industries being fostered, and this idea of being first on the block? My response to that is, is that the effect is no different than, from our point of view as a society, is no different than if there had been natural market cost efficiencies introduced in Mexico that had lowered the cost of supplying cement, that had lowered the cost of supplying certain energy sources. I see no reason why the American economy should not take advantage of whether it be long-term or even temporary, increases in standards of living. Think of agricultural fluctuations. Some years, because of the accidents of the weather, we have better crops than other times, and we temporarily have the advantage of bumper crops where certain agricultural goods quote full through the bottom, unquote. We as a consuming public never object. We recognize the hardships the farmer suffers and that he needs to show forethought. I know he gets a lot of government programs, but hypothetically the private farmer would show forethought to have reserves and insurance policies knowing that these cycles of ups and downs in weather occur. But we think nothing wrong with that. We have boons at some times and smaller crops at other times. If another country wishes either permanently or temporarily to subsidize certain of our exports, I don't see why we should not benefit it from it as consumers. And as a society as a whole in raising our standard of living. Again, as I suggested, even with this high tech example or the retaliatory examples, the complaint should come from the Mexican taxpayers because it's particular sectors of the Mexican economy that are receiving the subsidies. Those subsidies on net have to be paid by other Mexicans. Their incomes go down. Their job opportunities are limited. Their savings in capital pool is narrowed for other things that might have been done in the Mexican economy. They're the ones who should be complaining, not us. One more, okay. What would you say to those who would, in regard to open borders, say that this conceivably is deluge of immigrants could perhaps even double the population of this country within a few years when our city's already overcrowded? What about the people already live here by lowering their standards of living by this overcrowding? First of all, I think we have to keep in mind is that we have much as a percentage of the existing population at the time. We've had much larger waves of immigration. For example, in the decades around the turn of the century, immigrants or their immediate children in around 1900, 1910, 1912, if I remember the statistics is correct, represented approximately 20 to 30% of the population of the United States. That's a huge inflow of people to imagine that 20 to 30% of the existing population are made up of immigrants or their children. But that is not considered a period in which America had great hardship or problems. I think that such an inundation would make us a better and richer society. My wife and I drove across the United States this past summer, I was doing some research at the Hoover Institution out at Stanford, and you just get west of the Mississippi, there ain't nothing out there. Now, people say, but how can you settle out there? There's nothing there. But just think of the United States 150 years ago. There was nothing there anywhere. And people said, well, how are you gonna build over these mountains? How are you gonna cut down all these trees? Where are you gonna get the water from? How are you gonna do this, that? Somehow they did. I mean, that's how we got the America we have today in terms of cities, towns, communities, industry, agriculture. So does that mean that every part of Utah or Nevada can be settled? Of course not. But I think there's plenty of space and there is plenty of economic opportunity to take in a huge deluge of people who would add to our labor force and add hands to be worked. Bill Beach last night in his presentation at the Vienna Coffee Club talked about this and he reminded us that in his presentation that every additional person coming in the United States comes with two hands as well as a mind which enhances our productive capability in terms of knowledge and ability and intensification of division of labor. As far as the cities are concerned, go to these cities today where immigrants are flowing in, New York, Boston, San Francisco. What you find are is that the magazine and newspaper stands like in the subways are manned by Pakistanis. They fill that niche. You go to the fresh fruit and vegetable stands. Many of them are Korean. I remember having lived in New York many years. There was a period when all the taxi cab drivers were Jamaican and then they were all Russian and then they became sort of Indian Pakistani and I have no idea what they are now. I mean, they just occupy parts of the city in waves of immigration and then they just sort of establish themselves, get oriented, learn the language, get some forms of education and then disperse themselves even if not them, their children. And by the third generation, they're just immersed in the society as a whole. So they're like entry points and sort of like the pebble dropped in the pool, the wave shoot out over one or two generations. My grandparents settled on the Lower East side of Manhattan. I assure you it's not European Jews who live predominantly in the Lower East side of Manhattan anymore. That wave of immigration at the turn of the century disperse and now a new injection is occurring and another injection will occur. I really don't see these problems and they enhance our society. They enrich our society. They make us a wealthier society. So I say, welcome, come on in.


Moving out? Need more room? Scaling down. With thousands of new properties every day, you can trust Private Property to find your next home. Private Property, a home for everyone.


Hi, this is David Rosales. I'm pastor of Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley, California. In the late 60s and early 70s, people were amazed at a new phenomenon impacting young people. Young people were coming to a faith in Jesus Christ. The press took notice of this and began referring to us as the Jesus people or Jesus freaks. Interestingly, on April 8, 1966, on the front page cover of Time Magazine, the banner posed the question, Is God Dead? Four years later, on June 21, 1971, the same magazine had a picture of Jesus on its cover with the headline, Jesus Revolution. Now, how did this happen? What had led to this radical change? As we look at our day with the violence, the fear, and uncertainty we all experience, we can believe that our times are the worst ever. This obviously isn't true. The actual fact is that in the 60s, our nation was in turmoil. The decade was filled with turbulence, anger, fear, uncertainty, and revolution. The US committed itself to policing a small southeast Asian country named Vietnam. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, and I and the nation watched in horror when Jack Ruby killed the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald on TV. Racial riots broke out in Watts, Boston, Washington, D.C., Newark, Detroit, and at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Raised fists and cries of burn, baby burn rang out in America. During the 60s, Martin Luther King Jr. led marches for racial justice, and his reward was being gunned down in Memphis on April 4, 1968. Later on June 6 of the same year, John Kennedy's brother Bobby was assassinated. UC Berkeley, Harvard, San Francisco State, other universities were invaded by students occupied in protest against the Vietnam War. Four students were killed by National Guardsmen at Kent State. We had the Cuban Missile Crisis, we had the Berlin Wall, and in the midst of this turmoil, hippies came into existence, invading hate Ashbury in San Francisco. Drugs, alcohol, lovins, free sex became the lifestyle of many of the youth. Timothy Leary encouraged us to take acid, to tune in, turn on, drop out. During the same period came a music revolution. The British invasion led by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Animals, the Who invaded America, sweeping the youth into counterculture lifestyles, anti-Christ philosophies. I can still recall the anger that rose in the United States when John Lennon stated, the Beatles are more popular than Jesus Christ. Though it caused outrage, at that time I agreed with him. We had rock music, folk music, protest music, soul music, psychedelic music, and every kind of music you could imagine. It was at that time that singers and songwriters began openly espousing political opinions. Prior to this time, singers and entertainers were expected to entertain their paying audience, but they began to think that they had something to say that everybody needed to hear. Contrary to our selective memory, our revisionist historians, the sixties were anything but happy. We were rightly described by singer Don McLean as a generation lost in space. Paul describes it better in Ephesians chapter four, verses sixteen and seventeen, when he wrote, we were darkened in our understanding, separated from the life of God because of the ignorance in us due to the heartening of our hearts. We lost all sensitivity, and we gave ourselves over to sensuality, indulging in every kind of impurity with a continual lust for more. In the words of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, we were helplessly hopeless. In the darkest moments of these days, God began to move powerfully. Many hippies began to see in Jesus the ultimate hippie, the preeminent revolutionary. His message of love and forgiveness began reaching my generation. Multitudes of hippies came to faith in Christ and it amazed America.  A youth movement hit the United States. The press quickly called us Jesus people. The Bible was being taught. Jesus was being exalted. People were called to follow him and as God's word was clearly presented, Jesus began to break through the barriers. Out of this movement and in many ways leading the way came Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel Ministries. Of course, there were other groups of believers celebrating Jesus, but I got involved with Calvary Chapel in 1970 as a 20-year-old young man. Over the last 50 years, one thing has grown to completely dominate my way of thinking. Sheep need to be fed God's word because it is God's word that guides them and it is God's word that produces spiritual growth and we're living in dark days. It doesn't appear that things will be getting any better anytime soon. So instead of hunkering down in fear, it's time for the church to shine in the midst of darkness. But God has done before. He can surely do again. Don't lose hope. Don't give up. Don't stop praying. Don't stop reading God's word and don't stop sharing concerning the hope that lies within you. It is a time of darkness. But remember that light dispels darkness. We are children of light. So let your light shine so that men may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. If your church has live services and you can go, please do. If your church has online services, praise God. Watch and participate. And if you have family at home with you, do so with them. Don't forget to financially support your church because bills still need to be paid. We're looking at the Book of Revelation chapter 11 this upcoming Sunday morning. So if you don't have a church that has opened its doors to live services, you're more than welcome to join us until it does. And remember, look up because your redemption is drawing near. This is David Rosales, pastor of Calvary Chapel of the Geno Valley, California.


This study investigates the physical, mechanical, and thermal properties of a composite made from rattan and bamboo fiber in a polyester matrix at different fiber loadings 0, 10, 20, and 38%. Better mechanical properties were observed in 38% fiber loading for tensile, flexural, impact, and hardness tests. The composite also showed improved biodegradability and water absorption compared to raw polyester. FDIR analysis was conducted, and thermal stability was achieved at 401.8 degrees Celsius. Phesem was used to investigate surface morphological characteristics. This article was authored by M. D. Rezwan Munchi, S. Shirar Alam, M. Marijul Huck, and others.


Hello everybody, thanks for coming. I am a fourth year graduate student at Oregon Health and Science University and while I'm not actually going to show you data much like Sarah Kate did, I will be discussing one of my favorite topics in science which is cell identity. So as Sarah Kate had mentioned cell biologists, well they look at cells and one of the ways that they try to deconstruct the complexity of a biological system like the human body is by looking at the fundamental units of that body which is the cell. Now cells come in many shapes, sizes, and perform many different functions. So biologists work to categorize each of the cells into a logical taxonomy that describes essentially their lineage where they come from, what they do, how they look, and where they are in your body. The catalog of human cell identities or cell types, when you think of this, this could be the cells that make your eyes function, the cells that produce mucus in your lungs, the cells that help you digest food in your stomach. That list of functional cell types or cell identities is long and ever-growing. As our technologies are improving, we're capable now of exploring cell identities in ways that we haven't before. But what exactly is cell identity? How do we define a discrete cell identity or two different cell types? Historically, one of the ways that biologists did this was actually by looking at the location within the body. As we all know, your organs do different things. Sometimes they have overlapping functions but by and large the role they play in the body is specialized. For example, cells in your lung will contain cilia or these small strings that you see here that will actually whip back and forth in order to bring contaminants out of the lung. Meanwhile, cells here in the pancreas form these circles called ducts where they will bring enzymes that help you digest food into your intestine. But the thing is, location wasn't sufficient for defining these two cell types because they're actually the same type of cell. We call them epithelial cells. These are the cells that align your organs. They share many of the same active regions of DNA. They look the same. Technically speaking, if you culture them in a dish, they're probably going to do the same thing. So if we can't just define them based on location, what else can we do? We can try their appearance. What do the cells look like? This is a motor neuron. You can see just by its shape that the protrusions of the neuron highlight the fact that its role is communicative. It is trying to transmit information from one end of the body to another or another cell. Meanwhile, we have another type of cell. It looks stretched out, doesn't it? This, of course, explains part of its function. This is a myofibroblast. It's one of the cell types that defines the connective tissue in your body. It helps keep things together, keeps things stuck. And more or less like, for example, if you get a wound, it's got to close that wound somehow. Fibroblasts are part of that healing response. But is appearance enough? No. Here's a T cell, which is one of the immune cell types in the body. You can have a T cell that is a killer T cell, where it performs its immune functions by destroying other cells that have been infected by viruses or have turned cancerous. Or you can have a T cell that is called a helper T cell, which actually performs more of a supporting role or a recruiting role by working with other cell types in the body. These cells under a microscope look very, very, very similar if they're not actually, for example, in the process of killing another cell. So while the killer T cells actually work to destroy other cells, the helper T cells work instead to interact with other functional immune types in the body and work to help that immune function in that regard. Despite their appearance looking very similar, their actual functions are very distinct. So can cell identity be described as function? Not necessarily. Just take this killer T cell that I was just describing. We have its active immune function where it'll interact with other cells and destroy them if they become problematic. But we can also have another form of this killer T cell, the exhaustive cell. This is a very distinct and stable state that the cell can take. Often happens, for example, in cancer where the tumor is trying to avoid being killed by your T cells, they will secret things into the micro environment that will tell T cells to just stop doing what they're doing or the T cells can't reach the tumor and they become exhausted. It's like running on a treadmill and never reaching your destination. Cell identity then can also be considered a matter of state. These are very different cell states despite having the same overall cell type. So how do we study cell state? One way is through the field of epigenetics. This is where I work. This is what I do as a graduate student. Basically, epigenetics is a way independent of your DNA code to dictate what type of cell you are. More or less you have in one cell type like the killer T cell, you'll have some regions of DNA active, other regions closed. But that T cell won't have the same active regions of DNA that say a fibroblast or a neuron will have. Figuring out these combinations is part of what I do. I work with chromatin state. To define chromatin, you have a cell. DNA is contained in the nucleus. It's organized into functional units that are replicable called chromosomes. The chromosomes themselves are wound. So if you look here, here's the DNA. They're actually wound around these proteins forming another unit called the nucleosome. So what I study actually is this. These are the regions of DNA that aren't being blocked by these bulky protein histones. And the combinations, basically where in your DNA these are open, dictates in part what state you're in and what kind of cell you are. So it's not just how you look. It's not where you are. It's not what you do. It's also, so to speak, what's happening under the hood. Which regions in your DNA are open? Which regions in your DNA are closed? This is what I study. So to give you just a quick example, here's a pancreatic cell. It's a type of fibroblast. These store fat, they help maintain the connected, like the extracellular environment, the environment in between cells, they help maintain that balance. They don't really proliferate and they don't really start signaling to other cells in this state. But in response to injury, when you get a cut, when you become inflamed, when certain environmental factors like TGF beta are in the proximity to this cell, it will actually transform into a myofibroblast, which has a different chromatin state. So depending on what happens, you can have that same cell. It's the same cell has all these functions. The moment that injury happens, it will transition by remodeling its chromatin, or again, those combinations of open and closed regions to become an activated myofibroblast cell, which has very different function. Again, this was the same cell. It just changed its state. So can we define the full spectrum of states that a cell can take? That's part of the equation of defining what a cell's identity is. So how exactly do we learn about chromatin state? Well, what I use is an assay called ataxic, or assay for transposes accessible chromatin. Just to simplify it, we put all these hyperactive proteins into the nucleus of the cell.  But the only place that they can do that, the only place that they can cut up DNA, are these open regions. So it actually fragments the DNA. And what we get at the end product are just pieces of DNA that were open, that didn't have these nucleosomes associated with them. So what we can essentially do is, when you have a sample filled with different cell types, you can oversimplify it anywhere. Let's just put it in a blender. And then you get kind of like an average chromatin state. It's not representative of every single cell type in there. If you look at it, there's many different cell types here. So some regions will have a stronger nucleosome signal, others will not. It's not perfect. This is inadequate for a heterogeneous sample.  You also have stromal cells, which try to contain the tumor. You have endothelial cells or blood vessels, which supply nutrients to the tumor. Samples are heterogeneous. There are many different cell types, many different cell identities. And even within that same region, some of those, for example, cancer cells can look one way, others can look a different way. It's a matter of cell state. So more recently, within the last decade, there's been kind of a revolution in this type of assay. Rather than taking that average that I was talking about, we're now actually capable of profiling the chromatin state of every single cell in your sample one at a time and then collecting all that information. So we'll know that the chromatin state or the open regions of DNA, closed regions of DNA look like this. And for a different cell that look like that, for a different cell that look like that, this is very, very powerful. So understanding the heterogeneity of a tissue. But the problem is, is that single cell methods are cursed with sparsity. This is just where the information that you've collected is mostly zeros, mostly negative information rather than positive information. You may not just have sampled it or there could have been dropout. So to give an example of this problem and kind of like the point of, you know, the talk here, can anyone here identify what this painting is? It's a famous one. No, close. But this is the point of what I'm getting at. This incomplete painting represents a harsh fact, which is that single cell data is sparse. We only collect maybe one to 3% of all the open chromatin regions I was just telling you about when it's not the single cell level. We only have like, this is, let's see, 100 squares actually, and I've only represented three of those. That's as much information as we can collect on a single cell at a time. So what do we do about this? We sequence more cells. As long as they're in the same state, as long as you're looking at the same type of cell with the same identity, you can just do this again. Make sure, you know, like as long as there's there's some shared identity between them, if we take this cell or this picture and just kind of push it and overlay it on top, we start to see a bit more of the picture. Can anyone identify this now? Again, we'll just take this, you know, make sure that they like find what's common between them and then overlap them. We repeat this again, and we repeat this again. If we continue to do this, eventually we start to see a better picture of what the cell state is. So in, you know, my field, we try to capture essentially the quote-unquote true picture, or the, at least with the type of data I work with, the chromatin configuration that kind of represents the true cell state we're looking at, whether that be, you know, an activated fibroblast or an exhausted T cell. So again, just, you know, it's kind of one, another idea I'm trying to get at here, especially with this whole jigsaw puzzle analogy, is that if you had this beforehand, if you had the complete picture beforehand, even if the cell doesn't have that much information, just overlaying it using a reference enables us to identify what that cell type was. So public data is so, so important. You may have an experiment that didn't work too well, but if another dataset exists that already describes the cell state you're looking at, you can do something like this. It makes unusable data usable. It makes, it cheapens the cost of a sequencing experiment. Can anybody identify, I'm going to identify one more problem before it. Can anyone identify this? Actually, is this the Mona Lisa? Not quite. This is actually the Lama Lisa, which reminds us of another great reason to use reference data, which is that if you have an incomplete dataset, the, you can be fooled. It may look like the cell state you're trying to describe, which is why bringing in public data and cross-referencing information between labs, between publications can be so helpful for things like reproducibility and, you know, confirmation that the cell states you're seeing are the same or maybe even distinct. The point is, is it making these comparisons is important because while they share some similarities, they're not exactly the same thing. So more or less, just to describe, to wrap this up in terms of CSV, in this type of data, remember I say we just get those open chromatin regions, right? We pile those up and then say these are the chromatin regions that were significant. The point of what I'm getting at here is that like all it takes to have a public dataset for something this important is a, sorry, CSV, a tab-separated file that is, you know, for the largest experiments, no more than 20 megabytes. Curation of reference peak sets or those open chromatin regions can vastly improve public data. It can vastly improve sequencing experiments from every place around the world. We're all human beings and we all use the same reference genome when we're aligning things. A cell state that describes, for example, an exhausted T cell state will look very similar from one human to the next. There will of course be differences, but that's the point of what I was getting at with the Lama Lisa, which is like we need to define the full spectrum. But public datasets and curating them are part of the only ways that we can do that. Having that information easily accessible is one of the only ways we can do that. So just that's the end of my talk. Just wanted to say thank you for inviting me to CSVConf to give this presentation. And a lot of these pictures are actually made with AI. So here's the prompts that I used. That's a wonderful talk. Thank you also for saying your prompts for the AI. Good transparency. Has anyone got a question? Andres? Thank you for this great talk. You mentioned some kind of public database with cell state. All in the science community agree that if they get the data they will share and all of you share to the same place and these things exist and everyone respect them and use this data? There are numerous databases where researchers are called to submit their information in a way that makes it easy because a small team can't possibly go through every single publication out there. I actually really encourage my colleagues when they publish a paper and a dataset to find as many databases relevant to their information and put it up there or request that information is put up there for visibility and for the reasons that I discussed here. One of the big ones that I can think of that describes this epigenetics you know kind of focus is actually ENCODE. They're a database. They have many many many different epigenetic cell datasets. But the single cell aspect of that that I was describing the single cell datasets are still they're still being curated. It's not quite as good as some of the more bulk average you know datasets that are out there. I'm just saying there's a bit of a hole for single cell epigenetic datasets. The databases that exist right now are often selected or biased towards those labs that want the highest visibility not necessarily you know just the more we curate the more context we'll have. So it's it's a it's a bit of both yeah. I'm going to be cheeky and ask one first sorry. Have you got allies or a coalition of the willing to help you make that vision a reality? Not quite as in like starting a database or at least you know ensuring that it's part of our standards as an institution to submit these you know these information. Right. What should I call the website? And kind of a related question so you you speak to not only the infrastructure gap of the need for more databases or repositories but also the need to have appropriate documentation and curation for the data that would go into it. Are there existing epigenetic data standards that you know of? Absolutely. I had already mentioned ENCODE but ENCODE does a fantastic job you know with this. Not only do they for every dataset on their website not only do they provide a detailed breakdown of how the data was processed and created but also provide a set of guidelines community standards that they believe you know can serve as a template for future studies especially with how much information you know they've collected. I think it's an absolutely invaluable resource. Again it's just the single cell aspect of this is kind of where it's lacking. But yes they publish where the data was came from, how it was collected, the computational steps that came to you know processing the data and even provide metrics you know for example a dataset of acceptable quality of exceptional quality of poor quality. These are all very helpful especially when you're you know trying to pass it your way through hundreds of datasets. I think it's a really good model for that kind of thing. Any other questions? No? Well there's always the opportunity to use a data table to brainstorm the name of what you want to do this, how you can build on ENCODE, how you can get people together. I guess only take three people at an epigenetics single cell conference and the dream can come true. Five years CSV conference in five years time. We'll hear about it. Good idea. Cool okay thanks so much Kevin.


Stakeholders have commended the master chapter of the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria for their commitment towards service to the society and also admonished them to embrace innovation in order to remain relevant in the evolving world. They made the commendation at events organized by the state chapter of the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria to commemorate the 2022 World Pharmacists Day. Pharmacy United in Action for a Healthier World is a theme for this year's World Pharmacists Day and it aims to showcase the positive impact of pharmacists around the world on people's health and to further strengthen solidarity in the profession. As part of activities to commemorate the day, the state's chapter of the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria staged an awareness campaign, visited motherless babies as well as mobbed-out expired drugs in order to ensure sanity in the profession. While at the state-owned orphanage home and daycare center in Karewa, GRE, they donated drugs, noodles and detergents, among others. Donating the items, the wife of the governor, Lamee Hamadu, represented by the state commissioner for women's affairs, lauded the pharmacist for always engaging in community development projects. The Pharmaceutical Association of Nigeria has done a very great job. On this note, there's nothing we can say but thank you because they say health is went and you are the ones taking care of our health. They say thank you. God bless us. The pharmacists also bought expired drugs in order to maintain the ethical conduct of the profession. While the stakeholders present, commanded the organization for maintaining the best practices of the profession. They are all part of the exercise and in conjunction with the Pharmaceutical Association of Nigeria and in support with the executive governor, Adam Aserai, Lamee Hamadu, because he created a community to map up all the aspects of the pandemic so that we have a clear society. I know that there are people who would have loved to buy this thing from Pearson. I'm not aware of that. But they won't do that because of their training. And it is not out of place to say government should do some kind of intervention for exterior pharmacies who are ready to inflict pains on the people of their community. From the National Drug Reforcement Agency, I'm assuring you that we will always collaborate and partner with you in all your occasions. Earlier, the state chairman of the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria, pharmacist Ibrahim Talba, re-emphasized the importance of the day to pharmacist. We are actually celebrating the Pharmacy Week, which is in combination with the World Pharmacist Day celebration. The World Pharmacist Day celebration comes on the 22nd of September every year. It is actually an international day whereby we try to showcase the role pharmacists and the pharmacist professionals in improving the health care system all over the world. We also try to strengthen solidarity between ourselves as professionals and also our sister professionals in trying to build bridges in terms of healthcare delivery system in Nigeria and other parts of the country. The climax of the event was the road walk from the orphanage home through Atiku Obubaka's way. Down to Government Day Secondary School, Dubelli, for community outreach, of which free medical services were offered.


today's video we are going to talk about cleaning jobs in Qatar expectation, the minimum salary and what to expect remember cleaning jobs or cleaning services like any other jobs in Qatar the majority of the mainstream types of cleaning tends to be categorized by cleaning activity itself the services of cleaning may range from domestic, commercial and what we call jeno cleaning for those that will be coming for the first time for the cleaning services or for the cleaning jobs like when we talk about security jobs remember this time there are a lot of opportunities around in big companies hospitality in malls in airports in hospitals and very many other commercial offices or very many other domestic and residential areas why because we cannot fail to talk about the grand opportunity that has created these other opportunities which is the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 remember this time is Qatar 2022 with the FIFA World Cup and there's a lot of opportunities on ground remember we can also not fail about talk about the services and one of the services we can look at the general services or what you call commercial services like cleaning cars that is also part of another job that we can talk about remember when we are talking about these types of jobs you are normally given what you call induction training for you to do these types of jobs you are given the know-out you are given the training to even know how to use the required equipment remember these are companies that are recruited the companies that look good you or someone will recruit you and they have different different services to offer to the client so you'll definitely know that you will be trained to know how to use some of these gadgets you know so forever remember this will not discriminate between the female and the male and definitely we'll find ourselves doing what is that when it comes to what you call domestic jobs domestic for example nuclear domestic cleaning services they offer cleaning to what you call households domestic households residential area in your server even they may also take up what you call housekeeping services they may also take out ironing laundry at the same time to make sure that at the end of it all the customer is satisfied or is really satisfied with the service that is given to him or her at that very time remember something that still we need to stress that sometime the domestic services may either be paid per hour per week or even month depending on how best the client agrees or the client agrees with the with the person who is giving the contract at that very time and further still when we go to that we can look at what you call the general cleaning or what you call the commensure cleaning we look at offices we look at restaurants we look at cars cleaning in car workshops cleaning washing base that is also another form of services of cleaning that is being provided and all those opportunities we cannot fail to mention what you call the fifth world cup kata 2022 then we also something that we cannot fail to to mention and when you talk about cleaning we talk about what you call fumigation or what you call pesto controls and fumigation in whatever disinfectants building is also part of under what you call cleaning it's a service that is being provided in one way or the other remember still we cannot fail to mention about salary salary what you call the the basic salary in kata which starts with an amount of 1000 as the basic salary with the food allowance of 300 and what you call accommodation allowance with 500 in case you are not given accommodation but remember most of the jobs in kata you are always given accommodation so you will expect what the setup salary will be 1300 kata riyal at that say that will be getting this the starting salary and when we talk about what you call working hours for most of you or for most of you are coming to kata for the first time and those that may be planning to come out come to kata for the first time normally the working hours start from 48 hours a week why do we say 48 hours so if we say 48 hours a week that means you are entitled to work to 8 hours per day and you always have one day off or you work 26 days and you have 4 days off in a month but otherwise depending on any other situation that may may come in and what kind of agreement you may have with your employer what kind of contract you may have you find some other cleaning companies are working for 12 hours or are working for 9 hours and remember but remember those extra hours that will be worked will be regarded to what you call overtime and they will be paid still something that I have to remind you much as we talk about the basic salary we also some companies also consider what you call the experience your salary also the increase also will also be considered looking at how much experience you have in the cleaning for example we look at domestic and we look at housekeeping and some commercial services they also look at what you call the basic cleaning or what you call the experience you have at that very time remember when we are talking about the 48 hours of work that means that that exactly gives us the answer that is supposed to be 8 hours but remember you are always given what you call overtime for that you depending on the kind of contract that you have at that very time and something still you don't have to something still we cannot underestimate when we are talking about cleaning jobs in Qatar is the opportunities are always there that the very many cleaning companies that are doing that and it still need very many cleaners at the time of it all because of the FIFA World Cup and the very many opportunities are coming here so you definitely expect to have and something still we talk about food is some cleaning companies you may find some cleaning companies are giving out food they may give you what you call 4 meals a day from breakfast lunch supper and what you call or 3 what you call dinner company with what you call drinks at the time that can be an individual arrangement and video arrangement for given companies in case you get to learn in that company where they have to give that for that case thank you so much for coming back see Siano remember it makes giving a highlight of cleaning jobs in Qatar thank you so much see again in the next video don't forget to subscribe please Siano if it's your first time don't forget to click that subscribe button and notification bell you will be raised updated when we upload the new video see again in the next video