Hi, my name is Monty Johnson. I teach philosophy at the University of California in San Diego and this lectures on Aristotle's politics, book six on democracies and oligarchies and the kinds of offices in them. An outline of book six chapter one deals with the methodology of the combinatorial study of constitutions in general. In chapter two, Aristotle discusses basic principles and characteristics of democracies and in chapter three, he compares how equality is put into practice in democracies and oligarchies and shows how they put equality into practice differently. Chapters four to five discuss the kinds of democracies and how to preserve them while chapter six to seven discuss the kinds of oligarchies and how to preserve them. Finally chapter eight is about the different kinds of offices in democracies and oligarchies. And by the way I'm using the translation of Benjamin Jowett Oxford 1921, which is in the public domain. Now the first methodological chapter on the combinatorial study of constitutions in general. Aristotle introduces the chapter by stating that he's now considered the varieties of the deliberative or supreme power in states. And the various arrangements of law courts and state offices, and which of them are adapted to different forms of government. That's a reference to the discussions in both three and four, presumably where Aristotle distinguished that there is the assembly or the deliberative part of the Constitution, the judicial or court oriented part of the Constitution. And the assignment of the various other kinds of offices part of the Constitution. And he described how forms of government democracies oligarchies and so on, have different arrangements for these different elements. Then he says we've also spoken of the destruction and preservation of constitutions, how and from what causes they arise. This is clearly a reference to book five and the discussion there of the causes of stasis instability faction civil war, and also Aristotle's recommendations about how to preserve every kind of Constitution, including tyranny and kingship, but especially emphasizing democracies oligarchies and the most stable form polities or republics. Now here, Aristotle points out that of democracy and all other forms of government, there are many kinds, and it will be well to assign to them, separately, the modes of organization, which are proper and advantageous to each, adding what remains to be said about them. Moreover, we ought to consider the various combinations of these modes themselves for such combinations make constitutions overlap one another. So that, for example, aristocracies have an oligarchical character, and constitutional governments incline to democracies. But Aristotle shows ways that in fact, democracies can have aristocratic aspects or even elements of their Constitution and similarly, oligarchies can have democratic aspects of their constitutions. So for example, the deliberative part of the Constitution, and the election of officers might be oligarchical, but the law courts might be administered aristocratically, or the law courts and the deliberative part might be oligarchical, but the election of offices aristocratic. So this is the idea of a combinatorial study is that we look at the configurations of each element, and what modes each of those elements are on, and then how many different ways those can be combined, and then we would classify all of those and we would have a classification of all possible forms of constitution. Now, you might ask why there are differences between kinds of democracies at all. Is there just one form of democracy? No, there are several kinds of democracies. What is the cause of differences between them? Aristotle says there are basically two causes. First is differences in the population for the popular element may consist of husband men, you know, farmers, or of mechanics or of laborers. And if the first of these be added to the second or the third to the two others, not only does the democracy become better or worse, but it's very nature is changed. So if you have a democracy that consists only of farmers, that will be of one quality. If you have another kind of democracy that consists not only of farmers, but also artisans and manual laborers, then Aristotle says, what those two kinds of democracy could be compared, because they have different nature and one of them might be better and another worse. The second cause of differences in combination of democratic and non democratic characteristics and elements. So when you have these three elements, the, if we're talking about a democracy, then the deliberative part, which is supreme, must be democratic. But the other elements, the judiciary, the selection of offices could take other forms oligarchic, for example, or aristocratic. And so Aristotle says one democracy will have less and another will have more and another will have all of these characteristics. And there is an advantage in knowing them all whether one wishes to establish some new form of democracy or only to remodel an existing one. So you could remodel a democracy to make it say less radical by introducing some oligarchic elements, which would temper the radical democratic elements, or you could moderate an oligarchy by introducing some democratic aspects. So to make this method general, we distinguish three elements of any constitution, a deliberative part, a judicial part and an official part. And then we look at the way each of those can be in one of four modes, democratic, oligarchic, aristocratic or constitutional. Now, that means there will be 64 total possible combinations, four modes for each of three elements. Now, notice that those are only four of the six constitutional forms that we've distinguished. If we were to add the two other modes, kingship and tyranny, then there would be six total forms and six pure forms and 216 total mixed forms. But Aristotle prefers to discuss just these four modes, the democratic, oligarchic, aristocratic and constitutional. And in fact, he even tends to focus further on just the combination of democratic and oligarchic elements. That's because these are the most common, but his analysis is focused on the way those get combined. The other combinations are theoretical possibilities, but they may or may not actually have historical correlates that actually existed. They may be merely theoretical, but for almost all the ways to combine a democracy and oligarchy, we can find historical examples. Now, the table on this slide shows how you would have a pure version of each constitutional type. So if the deliberative judicial and official aspects were all democratic, then clearly you would have a democracy, a pure democracy. And so for an oligarchy and aristocracy or a constitutional government. But on this slide, there's chose ways that you could have a pure form of each of these, but then in each column, 15 other ways that you could have a kind of mixed form. So a pure democracy has all three elements democratic here abbreviated by D. So the deliberative judicial and official part of the Constitution, if it's a DDD is a pure democracy. But suppose we put an oligarchic element in for the selection of offices. So we have a democratic assembly, a democratic judiciary, but we have an oligarchic method of selecting offices, then we would have a DDO kind of Constitution. And then the 15 other variations there are all theoretical possibilities for how you could have democratic oligarchic aristocratic or constitutional combinations. And then we show the way that works for democracies, oligarchies, aristocracies, and policies in general. And we consider these variations of democracy, because all of the one through 16 in the first column, have a democratic assembly or deliberative element, which he says is supreme. So we kind of call the thing by what the supreme element is anything that has a democratic deliberative element is essentially democratic. But then, for example, if you have several aristocratic elements, even two more aristocratic elements like variation 11. Democratic DAA has a democratic assembly, but an aristocratic judiciary and an aristocratic official part of the Constitution. So that would be a kind of aristocratic democracy in theory that could exist. And again, you could have a kind of oligarchic democracy. And by the same token, if we looked at the variations and oligarchies, you could have various kind of democratic leaning oligarchies. And again, it would be an oligarch, these would all be oligarchies because the deliberative element in them is oligarchical. But even within that there are ways for having lots of different kinds of variations. Now, as I said, Aristotle is most interested in the variations that mix democratic and oligarchic parts. And that is in part because he believes that a polity or republic, which he thinks is the kind of Constitution best suited for most states, what that actually is is some combination of democratic and oligarchic elements. So we can look at all of the combinatorial possibilities of combining democratic and oligarchic types by simply listing them under each element. So again, a pure democracy has a democratic deliberative judicial and official part. But then we have mixtures that introduce more oligarchic elements, including the third mixture, which you notice two parts, two out of three parts of the Constitution are oligarchic. But we still call it democratic because the supreme deliberative power is democratic. But you could even have a majority of oligarchic elements and still call it a democracy. And similarly with an oligarchy, which is just a sort of mirror image of the combinatorial matrix for democracies, a pure oligarchy has an oligarchic aspect for each element. And then there are every other kind of mixture possible for the three elements, including one in which the judiciary and official branches of the Constitution are democratic. Nevertheless, it's a kind of democratic oligarchy. Now, after discussing those possibilities and the way these can be combined, we now want to know what the basic principle, and Aristotle goes on to discuss in chapter two, what the basic principle of democracy is. What it is that makes a democracy democratic? What is it that is common in all democracies? And the answer to that, he says, is liberty. So the basis of a democratic state is liberty or freedom. That's another way to translate the Greek term alliteria, which Aristotle says, according to the common opinion of people can only be enjoyed in such a state. So it's only in a democracy that people actually have liberty or freedom. And so everyone affirms this to be the great end of every democracy. Okay, but there are two different principles, Aristotle says, of liberty. One of them is the idea of numeric equality, which implies majority rule. But a totally different aspect of liberty is the idea of just living as one likes, having the freedom or license to do what you want. So let's go into a little more detail about each of these aspects of the basic principle of democracy. So first of all, one principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn. And indeed, democratic justice is the application of numerical, not proportionate equality. Whence it follows that the majority must be supreme and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just. Every citizen, it is said, must have equality. And therefore in a democracy, the poor have more power than the rich because there are more of them and the will of the majority is supreme. This then is one note of liberty, which all Democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. So this is fairly profound from the democratic notion of equality. Each individual person is equal to each other individual citizen. Each citizen is equal to every other citizen. That means that whatever the majority of them decide must be supreme. The majority will carry because the majority of equal people agree to it. And that way everybody has an equal say and equal chance that their view will prevail. And so this is the core idea of majority rule. And this depends on the numeric or arithmetic conception of democratic equality. But there's another principle of liberty. Again, that's that a person should live as he likes. This they say is the privilege of a free man. Since on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy. Whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or if this is impossible to rule and be ruled in terms. And so it contributes to freedom based on equality. So I should have the liberty to live as I like and nobody should be able to tell me to live as I like. That would be to live like a slave. But what is freedom but the opposite of the condition of slavery where you live according to your own views and your own principles. So these two aspects of liberty sum up the basic principle of democracy, liberty or freedom. And Aristotle says that democracy or demos in their truest form are based upon the recognized principle of democratic justice that all should count equally for equality implies that the poor should have no more share in the government than the rich, and should not be the only rulers, but that all should rule equally according to their numbers. And in this way, men think that they will secure equality and freedom in their state. So that's an interesting point that Aristotle thinks that if we really take seriously the notion of equality, then we have to think that the. Those who are in the minority are still in a sense equal to us. And so we should take their views into consideration as well, that majority should rule but majority isn't the only consideration if we have a legitimate form of this with there should be some way in which the majority rules in the interest of both the majority and the minority, as each of the rulers is exactly equal to every one of the ruled and every one of the ruled is equal exactly to one of the rulers. Now, Aristotle goes on in this chapter to list various other characteristics of democracy. First, in the cases where there's election of officers, the election would happen by all of the people voting and all of, and the candidates would come out of all of the people. So we wouldn't have, for example, a property restriction that meant the only people that could hold office or people that have a certain amount of money, or a certain amount of virtue or whatever. We would say anybody can be elected and hold the office. And then we say that everybody decides everybody gets to cast a vote as to who holds the office. So again, we don't have a property qualification that say only certain people will vote to decide from a from an even more select group of people who will be a candidate. There's a lot of democracy that all of the citizens can hold office and that all of the citizens should vote on which person in particular should hold it. Also, as we've already mentioned, all should rule over each and each in his turn over all. And so, again, to be a true democratic citizen means to take your turn in ruling over other people. And, of course, in being ruled. So that you should take your turn ruling means that you should actually pay attention to democratic politics and do things like vote and serve on jury duty. And taking your turn in being ruled means you don't take all of that power for yourself. But when you are being justly ruled by other people, you comply with that rule. Now, also characteristic of democracy is that appointment to offices should actually be made by lot, you know, at random by lottery. Since we're all equal, all the citizens are equal. We all ought to have an equal chance of being appointed to the office. Now, of course, that's not practicable in all cases. Some offices require much more experience and skill. For example, military offices, we don't want just any random person occupying those. So we might limit those offices to only people that have a certain amount of experience or skill in the relevant area. Now it is also characteristic of democracy to have no property qualification required for offices or to have an only a very low one. Also, term limits. A person shouldn't the tenure of offices should be brief and a person shouldn't hold the same office twice. Again, there may be exceptions for that in specific kinds of offices, but in general, should have very brief, limited and one time terms in office that will give more people an opportunity to take their turn at ruling and being ruled. Also, all men should sit in judgment on all matters or at least in the most and greatest and most important. And so not that we have a certain select group of people making the decisions on the main issues and then we just let other people have input on the ones that aren't that important. That would be anti democratic. Also, the assembly should be supreme over all causes so that you don't just have people that have been appointed to magistrates and very few people claiming that their views are more important or supreme, even over what the assembly of mass people decides and votes for. Also characteristic of democracy payment for services for showing up at the assembly for showing up for jury duty, since democracies involve a lot of poor people, they can't necessarily afford to take the time off of work so you have to pay them. You have to pay them to do jury duty, pay them to show up to the assembly, pay them for these offices so that they can afford to take time off of working on the farm or hire other hands to help on the farm while they are doing the necessary business and politics. And then Aristotle says, you know that characteristic of democracy is that you have a lot of citizens who have low birth poverty and mean employment, whereas an oligarchy is of course characterized by the opposite where you have relatively well born people who are rich and well educated and so on. Now chapter three is concerned with how equality is to put into practice. So how is this democratic conception of equality that's their basic principle, basic aspect of the principle of liberty and freedom itself, how is it to be obtained. So do we just assign to 1000 more people among the poor, the same property qualifications of 500 rich men, and shall we give the 1000 to power equal to that of the 500. So here Aristotle assumes that the situation is that we have, suppose we have a fairly narrow oligarchy that only has 500 rich men in government, and our population isn't that big but we're going to expand it, expand the citizenship hugely to include 1000 other poor people and we used to have a minimum property qualifications say we're earning 100,000 a year. Now we'll just say that the poor, although they don't, they earn considerably less than this we will include them by supposing that they meet the property qualification. So there's various reasons why this wouldn't be a good way to manage things. So perhaps we should retain the same ratio between them but take equal numbers from each among the rich and poor, and give them control of elections, or of the courts. So, for example, in an assembly you might have a sort of assembly of rich people and then another assembly of poor people, and then let the majorities in each of those decide cases somehow. But always keep them in some kind of ratio or proportion. Now, which of these alternatives would be more just from a democratic perspective, one based just on using absolute numbers or ones using proportionality. Well, in Aristotle's view, both democratic and oligarchic conceptions of justice involve some injustice and lead to some exclusion. So, Democrats, of course, say that justice is that to which the majority agree, you know, majority rules, and oligarchs say that justice is that to which the wealthier class agrees. And in the opinion of oligarchs, the decision should be made according to who has the highest amount of property. Now, Aristotle says in both of these principles, there's some inequality and injustice. One of them is unjust towards the majority. The other is unjust towards the minority. So if justice is the will of the few, any one person who has more wealth than all the rest of the rich put together ought upon the oligarchical principle to have soul power. But this would be a tyranny. So suppose that, you know, people who earned twice as much as the other citizens were allowed to form an oligarchy and that resulted only in 100 people. But then suppose you had somebody whose individual wealth was greater than that 100 people, then by the oligarchic principle that whoever has more wealth should rule, one person would be put in the position of a soul ruler, but this would result in a tyranny. That's exactly the definition of a tyranny, a soul ruler ruling in his own interest and not in the common interest. So there's a problem with the oligarchic principle based on proportionality because these proportions could could go so far as to transform that kind of constitution into another kind. Now, what about democracies? If justice is the will of the majority, they will unjustly confiscate the property of the wealthy minority. So there's not much the minority can do if the majority decides that they should confiscate their property, not just by taxes, but could actually literally seize and redistribute their property. And Aristotle gives plenty of historical examples of this happening. And he represents this as being a fundamentally unjust kind of action on the part of democracies. Remember that both democracies and oligarchies are unjust, deviant forms of constitution along with tyrannies. Now, Aristotle discusses weighted voting as a procedure that could perhaps allow us to balance democratic and oligarchic interests. Or at any rate, it shows us how democratic and oligarchic methods might sometimes coincide, but sometimes disagree. So I'm going to go into a little bit of detail. For the example, suppose you have 30 total citizens and they're divided into two assemblies. One assembly consists of 10 rich citizens. The other assembly consists of 20 poor citizens. And suppose that to be in the rich one, you have to meet a property qualification that's twice as high as the poor one. Now suppose the following voting on a measure. So in the rich assembly, six people are for it, four people are against it. In the poor assembly, five people are for it, 15 are against it. So we total these up, 11 total people are for it, 19 are against it. Now, using the democratic method, which observes numeric equality where all votes are counted exactly equally, the measure would fail. There are 11 votes for it, 19 against it, so it fails. Now suppose we apply the oligarchic method which uses proportional equality and we weight the results. So each vote in the rich assembly like the Senate will count for two votes since they meet a property qualification twice as high. And suppose the numbers look like this, six rich people and five poor people vote for the measure. Then since we double the six rich votes, you get 12 there, 12 plus five at 17 total against it are four rich people and 15 poor people. So eight plus 15 or 23, then the measure would fail because 17 people would vote for it and 23 people would vote against it. So the measure would again fail. In this case, both the democratic and oligarchic procedures yield exactly the same result. But suppose you had the following result. Suppose nine of the rich people voted for it. So by doubling their vote counts as 18 and five poor people were for it. That would be 23 total pro versus one rich person who's against it. So that counts as two plus the 15 poor people 15 plus two is 17 who are against it since 23 is greater than 17, although the numeric majority was against it. So 14 were for 16 against the weighted majority because we counted the votes of the rich for twice as much would be for the policy. And so it means that the oligarchic outcome of the decision making would be other than the democratic decision making. Now what the oligarch would say is, well, we did use a kind of equality. And so Democrats should be happy that we've at least employed that kind of equality, even if it's not the kind that they want in any way they count for their own in their own assembly and so on. But so perhaps if there's a difference you ought to consider the weighted result instead of the unweighted result. But Aristotle says that, you know, you could even reach an even division using such a weighted voting procedure. In that case, there's no greater difficulty because there's no greater difficulty than it present when if the assembly or the courts are divided, recourses had the lot or some similar expedient. So at that point you have to just flip a coin or perhaps you always favor the status quo instead of the reform proposal. Now, the last thing Aristotle says on this is that, you know, what we really have to do is focus on preventing the rich from encroaching on people because it's a much bigger problem in a way than the poor discriminating against the minority. So although it may be difficult in theory to know what exactly is just or equal, should I use numeric or proportional equality, the practical difficulty is of inducing those to forbear who can if they like encroach. That's far greater for the weaker. He means the poor are always asking for equality and justice but the stronger care for none of these things. So it's actually the poor who tend to emphasize the idea of equality. And of course they mean numeric equality, but the poor, the rich should at least be constrained by a method of proportional equality. Now in chapter four Aristotle discusses the different kinds of democracy and here he distinguishes four kinds, referring to his earlier discussion in book four chapter six. He also had a slightly different enumeration of kinds of democracy actually naming five I think in chapter four of book four but in four chapter six. He distinguishes these kinds the first an agrarian based democracy the mass of people live by agriculture and tending cattle. The people are poor and have little leisure and so they're willing to elect the best people among them to offices since they themselves can't afford to engage in politics too much. They will also conduct scrutiny's to make sure that the office holders are good. So then the notables within such a society are fine with the arrangement because they don't feel like they're being ruled by inferiors. And such a democracy Aristotle holds is the most stable because in it there is little inequality of wealth.  This he says is the best and most natural kind of democracy and is constituted out of what he calls a good class of people. Now after this he says we have thus explained how the first and best form of democracy should be constituted is clear that the other or inferior shorts will deviate in a regular order. And the population which is excluded will at each stage be of a lower kind. So the next kind of democracy discussed as a pastoral democracy where the massive people live by flocks. This would also include farmers and people who live by flocks. They're well trained for war and still superior to many lower classes for example of manual laborers. They are relatively more able than farmers to participate in politics because they can move around the country more easily. Finally the third kind of democracy kind of radical democracy. It's constituted by reducing citizenship qualifications to lower and lower classes usually at the instigation of demagogues. Aristotle says this he thinks is the most unstable kind of democracy because so many different classes are included in the decision making. You have not just the upper classes of course but also the middle class and even the lower classes. So that makes it very difficult to reach agreement on anything. And so the notables become discontent prone to stasis factionalism instability even civil war. This he thinks is the most unstable worst and most unnatural form of democracy. But it should be noted this is the democracy that includes all of the classes and includes the most actual people. Now if we look a little more in depth at ways that Aristotle distinguishes different kinds of democracies. According to what he's just said democracies are classified by the population of citizens and but we can also compare this with the proportion of democratic elements within a democratic constitution. So for kinds of democracies radical democracies pastoral democracies agrarian democracies and then there really isn't a technical name for a fourth kind. But the radical democracy has the widest citizenship farmers artisans traders and laborers. While the pastoral must have less you know just farmers artisans and traders or even just farmers and artisans where the agrarian just contains farmers so has the most restricted citizen class. But also the most radical democracy will have the most democratic elements of its constitution as can be seen by the second table. A pure democracy has every element of the constitution democratic whereas there are mixtures which we have less including mix three where the majority of elements are actually oligarchic. But since the deliberative and supreme element is democratic is still considered a kind of democracy. Now when we when we look at Aristotle's evaluations of these various kinds of democracy. He thinks that the democracy is most inclusive of citizenship so includes the most number of people farmers artisans traders even laborers are included. And that has the most number of democratic elements it's deliberative judicial and official sections are all democratic Aristotle thinks that's the worst and most unreasonable kind of democracy. What he considers to be the best kind of democracy is actually the one that has the most restricted citizen class so farmers only and has the least number of democratic elements. Definitely it's assembly is democratic but then you check the democratic impulses of that assembly by having oligarchic or other kinds of constitutional procedures in the judicial and official branches. In chapter five Aristotle discusses how to constitute and preserve a democracy democratic legislators are to be concerned not only with the establishment but the preservation of democracies. So it's much easier to set up a democracy than it is to continue to preserve one and Aristotle thinks that the true democratic legislator is one who can preserve that constitution the longest not just established the most radical version of it. Again he thinks the most radical version are actually the morally worst and the shortest lived. Now property confiscations and taxes state trials things like that although these are common in democracies Aristotle says should be discouraged since they're destabilizing when democracies lack revenue to pay for civic duties. Few assemblies he says should be hold should be held juror terms should be shortened to make sure that as many people can participate as possible. Offices may also be divided so that some are elected others are selected by lot or you divide the same offices. There's two classes of magistrate for one elected the other chosen by lots so you have kind of mixed democratic and oligarchic decision procedures or even division of one office to employ both decision procedures and then you would moderate the democracy more like an oligarchy and that would check its unstable unbalanced elements and thus be more relatively stable and would avoid and co-opt factions. Legislators he says should be careful to distribute surpluses to the poor in order to reduce poverty although these should be fairly limited because they tend to empower demagogues. And he discusses this strategy in some more detail so let's concentrate on it how distributions to the poor should happen in a democracy. The first thing to note is this caution that he has where there are revenues demagogues should not be allowed after their manner to distribute the surplus. The poor are always receiving and always wanting more and more for such help is like water poured into a leaky cask that is it's not preserved for very long and you have to find greater and greater ways to fill it up. Now he says the true friend of the people should see that they not be too poor for extreme poverty lowers the character of the democracy measures therefore should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity. And as this is equally the interest of all classes the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor if possible in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a small farm or at any rate make a beginning in trade or husbandry. Now this is really important Aristotle is saying if you know if anyone cares about democracy and you want to actually preserve a democracy and it is really important to eliminate extreme poverty and to redistribute wealth so that there is more equality and less inequality. Otherwise you will destabilize a democracy that greater this gap between the rich poor the more class warfare you will have. If distributions cannot be made to all of the poor he says then it should be distributed to tribes or other divisions and until there is an alleviation of poverty the rich should pay fees for the attendance of the poor at the necessary assemblies. In return they should be exclude excused from doing useless public services and make the poor do those perhaps but the rich should have to subsidize that the poor can participate in politics. Otherwise they won't have time and it won't be a true democracy and it will just slide into an oligarchy. He also says that offices can be divided so that some are elected others selected by lot or you could divide the same offices into two classes of magistrates again combining both democratic and oligarchy decision making procedures. So in Chapter 6 he turns to oligarchies distinguishing three grades of oligarchy. First the most moderate and hence best form would have two property qualifications a low one for indispensable offices and a high one for the superior offices but those who can meet the lower property qualification are made citizens and are included in the Constitution. The second more narrow oligarchy would be formed by tightening these property qualifications a little more. And the third grade in extreme oligarchy which is of course the worst kind needs to employ even more safeguards beyond tightening of property qualifications. As he says the most clickish and tyrannical of them all answering to the extreme democracy which being the worst requires vigilance in proportion to its badness. For as healthy bodies and ships well provided with sailors may undergo many mishaps and survive them whereas sickly constitutions and rotten ill man ships are ruined by the very least mistake so do the worst forms of government require the greatest care. Extraordinary passage because here he's comparing an extreme oligarchy to an extreme democracy they're both corrupt forms they're both vulnerable to stasis they're both unstable and they have to constantly be shored up by more and more safeguards. Here are the recommendations in chapter seven of how to preserve an oligarchy. Well, first of all, having just seen how to constitute and preserve a democracy, we can basically reason from opposites in order to see how to constitute and preserve an oligarchy. Another point is that law and order is crucial to preserving an oligarchy. Populousness of democracies generally preserves them for numbers to democracy in the place of justice based on proportion, whereas the preservation of an oligarchy clearly depends on an opposite principle that is good order. So populousness of democracies means it's very hard to change anything so they tend to be relatively more stable than oligarchies which can't depend on a high number so they it's more important for them to maintain good order so law and this is why we see oligarchic government forms emphasizing law and order. Oligarchies Aristotle says are best suited for countries which are adapted to cavalry, which is very expensive outfitting horse combat units and also heavy infantry, you know, heavily armored, armed and armored soldiers with bronze weapons and armor. This leaves oligarchies vulnerable to attacks, however, from lighter armed forces in the lower class. And so Aristotle recommends that oligarchs implement military countermeasures by creating their own light armed forces to protect the oligarchy within the city. This is why oligarchies tend to have, you know, private mercenary armies and things like that. Now, moderating an oligarchy by allowing lower property qualifications, at least for some offices can be stabilizing, as we've seen one way to preserve an oligarchy is to moderate it to be more like a democracy. Also, attaching expensive duties, like the financing of festivals or public buildings to high offices will make lower classes not desire those offices, since they won't be able to afford to perform those duties. But they also make the lower classes appreciate that these entertainments and civic improvements have been made available to them.  So one way to entrench an oligarchy is to make it really expensive to serve and make the responsibilities more than the poor can bear. Now, the eighth chapter of book six is about different kinds of offices. Aristotle says, quote, next in order follows the right distribution of offices, their number, their nature, their duties, of which, indeed, we have already spoken, end of quote. Now, despite this claim that next in order follows and so on, the topic of offices does not actually follow on what has proceeded in book five, but actually picks up on where Aristotle left in politics book four chapter 15. Here Aristotle says that no state can exist without having the necessary offices and no state can be well administered, not having the offices which tend to preserve harmony and good order. So that basically is meant to be an exhaustive classification of offices necessary and non necessary ones the non necessary ones, not just for the existence of the state, but basically aimed at the good life harmony and good order. Necessary offices include what he calls indispensable offices and of course military offices. The indispensable offices should be ranked first next in order follow others, i.e. the military offices which are equally necessary but have a higher rank and requiring great experience and fidelity to the Constitution. It's likely that you use a more oligarchic method of election and out of a select group of people and even a select group of people making the decision when you're dealing with military offices because it requires a lot of experience. But this results in basically a three fold division of offices necessary non military offices necessary military offices and then non necessary offices which exist merely to enhance life preserve harmony and create a better order. Later Aristotle mentions a kind of alternative division of offices into basically a group that includes those concerned with God's war and finance those dealing with a certain region of the city and those connected with law courts and deliberation in a bully. But and so there may be other ways to classify other ways to classify these offices, but mostly in this chapter he sticks by the distinction into necessary and non necessary. Here's a list of the necessary offices in the order that he discusses them. You need market managers, town managers, country managers, revenue officers, sacred recorders, which are like accountants basically enforcement officers, auditors, the council or bully and religious officials. So all of those are necessary offices, any state regardless of what kind it is needs those functions preserved means somebody overseeing the market, somebody making sure the town and country is in good order, somebody making sure the taxes are being received. Somebody keeping track of everything that's going on, and then other people to go around and enforce it, people to keep track of accounts, and auditing to make sure the offices are executed in compliance with the law. A council of people to decide what's going to happen and then religious officials like priests and so forth, who are among other things preside in state sanctioned festivals and so on. In describing the necessary military offices Aristotle basically gives us the rank ordering of the Greek military at the highest level you have the generals or warlords under them the admirals, especially of the cavalry and light armed troops. And under that the captains of the cavalry and light armed troops and also naval captains and all of the naval units. Non necessary offices, again that exist. They aren't they aren't necessary for a state to exist, but they exist for the preservation of harmony and order in the state, include what he calls guardians of the law, you know who are being very careful to make sure the law is being observed and it's in good order and that it's understood, and so on. Also, guardians of women guardians of children that is looking into matters and affairs that technically have to do with the household or economic unit but spill over into the political sphere. Very intriguing aspect of politics there. Also the directors of gymnastics and kind of primary education primary basic military training and superintendents of the contest for example the gymnastic contest games, like the Olympic games things like that. Also, dramatic festivals or Dionysian contests and other similar spectacles. So, those are offices you don't need to have a state, but they help preserve its harmony and order, the other offices are necessary for any state. And again, the procedures for selecting those offices could be democratic could be oligarchical could be aristocratic or could be constitutional. And that is one part of one element out of three of a constitution that also includes a judicial element and deliberative element which were described in greater detail in book four. So that does it for book six. Thank you.


Hello, I'm John Young, co-founder of AvonWallst, a selling company, makers of long-tucky spirits. We are a whiskey and rum distillery here in Longmont, Colorado. We've spent a lot of time and effort creating a safe space for you to come and enjoy cocktails. You can order online for curbside or delivery here in Longmont. Down to earth!


Okay, very good morning to everyone. It is Wednesday 28th of August. I hope you are doing well Going to have a look at a few different things this morning an update on what the general media take is on the latest kind of flip-flop from Trump on the status of the Chinese US trade talks and how that's being perceived also a very interesting open editorial piece from the former Fed member William Dudley and the implications of what I think that could have for market sentiment And then a few other bank calls UBS and JP Morgan our latest research notes They issued yesterday and what their outlooks are for US stocks And then wanted to have a brief talk about something which I was questioned and questioned on By one of the guys here yesterday was which is German state elections which are happening this weekend Which might see the far right taking the helm? And is there any type of reaction that I'd be expecting them for the markets on the reopening on Monday? So that's what I'm gonna address first off though a quick touch upon the general market sentiment this morning and things are Relatively quiet. We've had a slight downturn here in the DAX But looks more to me technically led you can see here on the center left chart a technical breach of the pivot level Which was holding the overnight Asia Pacific fairly tight range, and we've just seen a bit of downside come in Likewise in the US futures and NASDAQ also pushing through its respective pivot But otherwise pretty quiet the US 10 year is basically flat up marginally a bit of support again around its daily pivot about two ticks gold Not a little bit of movement overnight But recovered the initial dip that was seen in the first phase of the actual Asia Pacific session Again hugging its pivot level so overall fairly quiet the dollar index is basically flat and the major currency pairs Largely reflecting that type of price movement as well So I'll let Sam go into the charts in more detail probably the one Standout chart if there is in regard to price reaction is that of WTI crude not sure if you guys Saw that last night, but you had of course the API infantry's and we did see a sizeable drawdown and that caused a breach of the previous Well weekly high that was printed on Monday and a snap through that in the failure liquid conditions overnight did see a Push higher in the price and oil trades up about 64 cents this morning All right run through of the major headlines and really I don't want to spend too much time on this because it's very much in fitting of what we were talking about in a briefing yesterday, which is the point of this kind of Almost apparent loss of control that Trump had on Friday when he appeared particularly frustrated by the Jackson Hole speech when Jerome Powell He then lashed out at China Then 24 hours at the G7 in Barrett's started talking about how they're very close to the deal and how they had a phone call Which China said didn't even happen and this is leading to to I think again Just to re-emphasize a very important shift in the dynamic of the trade Negotiation and in general terms what I mean is that a lot of the power now is Transitioning out of Trump's hands and over to the Chinese of which I think is the first time really that this is happening since the entire process has begun and One of the main things here is that China and this had been a growing kind of feeling domestically in China if you read a lot of What analysts have been saying as well as their general state media is that Trump's tactics have further deepened The distrust IE how can you go into negotiation with a guy that changes his mind like the change of wind? and with that feeling then China now have kind of kind of Battle down the hatches if you like and said well, we just need to prepare them for this trade water materially worsen and That's just a matter of fact, but that then is kind of almost calling the bluff of Trump And so this is the kind of situation that the president has kind of landed himself in by being so Uncommitted to a consistent message what this has led to Remember yesterday. We were looking at the percentage fluctuation on the daily from the s&p 500 and the last period of about two weeks That we've gone through has seen the biggest More than one percent swings in the s&p than we've seen in the last 12 18 months that then largely reflective This is effectively the same Narrative that the chart is showing you this is the Chicago board options Exchange volatility index otherwise known as the VIX and so people often look at this as a barometer for general Markets sensitivity and often more of a negative way 20 often seen as the kind of Symbolic threshold of when above that level it tends to be a signal of market stress or panic and can translate into kind of Negative trade certainly helps fuel the further inversion of the two tens yield curve As which we continue to see at the moment and you can see these flash points that we have of when it spikes And then dramatically comes back as the messaging changes to and to and throw The other very important part though, and it's very much an extension of this situation is there was an open Editorial article written by a chap called Bill Dudley now Bill Dudley for those not familiar Was the former head of the New York Fed and the vice chair of the Federal Reserve. He is no longer Part of the Fed. However, he was a very High-ranking figure of seniority within Fed and its decision-making process particularly anyone tied with the New York Fed has that kind of that significance in the value of their position and He wrote yesterday basically highly criticizing the president and Talking about this idea that President Trump's trade war in China keeps undermining the confidence of businesses and Consumers and is worsening the economic outlook and basically suggesting that the Fed should definitely take this into consideration Of what their decision-making would mean in terms of the prospects of him securing second term And so it was highly critical of Trump and his intervention being so explicit We're trying to force the Fed to do certain things now the Fed themselves have come out to try and Deescalate this situation and said look we're not here to get involved in politics. We are independent of that decision-making process But nonetheless reading between the lines You've got to feel that this is you know someone like Dudley to come out like this given the timing of what happened at the end Of last week and given I've counted the tweets in one week Trump has made 11 tweets criticizing Directly the Fed and Jerome Powell and so a little bit of defense tactics perhaps but Ultimately, I feel what this means is that if China now are willing to not play ball and as to other Fed Well, Trump's got a massive problem on his hands because then all of a sudden that adverse feedback loop that we were talking about last week Which definitely plays into a win-win scenario for Trump that starts to dissipate and no longer continues And now he's got to start towing the line basically actually making concrete progress Without being so aggressive, but remember if he dials down too much the rhetoric and it's aggression Well, then that's not gonna sit well with his electorate base Going into a campaign year and hence comes the the rock-and-the-hard-play situation for Donald Trump So now if he cannot rescue or wrestle back control away from what's has happened Over the literally the period of the last couple of days, so I do think it's quite pivotal change here interestingly China overnight have said Well are seen now by the majority of analysts and economists of cutting key rates From September but moves likely to be to be gradual in fashion And so again another step from China looking to manage the process of now Weakening of their currency in an orderly and controlled fashion, which is hugely important For them to have more flexibility and maneuver to now counteract This latest Trump episode without the fear of then mass exodus of capital outflows So cutting rates tax cuts fiscal spending, you know All of that's to come from China given the fact that their rhetoric now is that they're willing to prepare that things are Gonna get a lot worse and that is worrying for for Donald Trump So yeah, I mean that's it's pretty much a continuation of yesterday I mean does this translate into anything immediate for now? No, but I definitely think you know this trade war Is not going anywhere and definitely it's gonna remain a key driving topic over the next 12 18 months particularly It's so key and instrumental to the likelihood or not of Trump securing his second term that this I think we'll look back at this weekend at the G7 in France as one of the pivotal moments of where this whole Negotiation shifts We'll see in time other things that I wanted to quickly run through Equity markets, you know, although we've had this incredible bout of volatility. I was looking at the S&P just talking about more broader global macro issues To a group of interns actually yesterday, and I was looking at the S&P And I was thinking now with all this drama that's unfolding. Where are we at the moment and actually? You know, we're still just a couple of percent of all-time highs So as much as it feels like, you know, the end is nigh and the inversion of the yield curve and so on You know the idea of the fact that it's panic stations just yet. I think is is incorrect and One of the things that was interesting last night was I was reading a couple of bank research reports And here's one out of JP Morgan and They were suggesting that the time to buy equities is fastly approaching and they were sent essentially suggesting that actually come September it's going to be the commencement of an upward trend now supporting that reasoning They were looking at the fact that the ECB is very much likely to restart its QE program remember timings wise we are anticipating ECB will cut its deposit rate by 10 basis points next month and Ultimately the likelihood has grown that they will continue or restart their QE program and announce that in time Towards the year end They were also talking about potential for a deeper fed rate cut as much as I kind of disagree with that at the moment again It's a potentiality signs activity may have bottomed So looking at economic data and understanding the fact that well I'm perhaps now we've hit this trough and the worst economic data point readings And now it's time for a little bit of a rebound perhaps and then improving technical indicators So of course you have to understand that these are sell side institutions They have you know generally aligned that they're trying to Push onto their client base and let's not forget the head of quant trading from JPM said only a couple weeks ago talking about the idea of a August end of August rally on a portfolio Rotation out of the fact that they're underweight stocks and need to build up a position again. It hasn't happened really yet Still got a couple days yet for his call to come true, but definitely JPM Super bullish, but what was interesting. I thought of what definitely makes a market UBS wealth management came out last night and they said they've gone underweight equities the first time since the euro area crisis They're cutting their stock positioning relative to high-grade bonds to reduce exposure to trade war and political Uncertainty so UBS taking the opposite opinion And they're looking to this would be a classic move into safer assets particularly not looking to pick up speculative or junk yielding high yielding bonds Like some of the southern European states for example or more Emerging market status where you can get a higher return but associated higher risk. They're talking about high-grade bonds So higher sovereign credit worthiness looking for a store of value over time with consistent returns for that investment So rotating out of more riskier investments like equities So for them, they're looking at the opposite opinion now One thing I would say is that for me that the fact that this is wealth management division I can understand this from a longer time horizon for the Preservation of looking to mitigate risk to have just a return on investment or capital Over time I would say not to think that these are complete contrasting calls I would say these are different investment durations. This is more medium long-term I would say is this an astute play for the savvy investor This is more relevant for the trader from JP Morgan's point of view because this is looking more in the short-term Reasoning about the next couple of weeks whereas this is talking about the next I would say six to twelve months So yeah, but just quite interested to see how these different You know one of the main things in my role that I always do is I always want to know What other big players in the market are thinking now does that mean that I pin my flag to whatever UBS or JPM saying absolutely not But what I do do is I read not just what these two banks say But what all banks say and that's how I form my opinion about general herd Mentality of whereabouts the market is in its consensus view for what is happening at the moment As a base case scenario very important if you should try to Accertain how markets are going to react by going through that process All right, the final thing now. I just want to mention Before I hand you over to Sam is this is a map of Germany, of course And as you can see these are divided into the different states of Germany of which you're probably familiar with But two of which have come into stark focus in the last couple of days and will do as we go into the weekend is that the anti-immigration and the anti-euro AFD party in Germany took the lead in Brandenburg in three of the last five polls and is in striking distance of doing the same Saxony of which we're going to see state elections taking place at the weekend on Sunday the 1st of September now Geographically just to explain very quickly if you look at where Brandenburg and Saxony is situated So these would contain obviously some of the key areas Berlin its own District if you like in the center of Brandenburg, but then Dresden is in Saxony, but these are on the eastern border of Germany now just a refresher memory of the geography of Germany obviously this is connected to on the eastern side Dresden and Berlin Poland and the Czech Republic and Austria is down at the bottom, which would then be Bavaria So all of these sides here have been ones where immigration has been absolute key part of the political Kind of posturing if you like to gain more popular votes Given the fact that majority of these connected countries on the eastern block tend to be more Far right or right leaning in their political stance Which has led then to a kind of transitioning a crossover to filter in into further increased popularity to the AFD Now the point being here from a trade perspective Do I think that this is going to be a you know a kind of a big gap open in? Let's say the euro currency or European assets on Monday. I think not the Rise of the the the right parties in Germany is not anything particularly new Although it would be somewhat symbolic the fact that if they could win these states sure and have higher Representation just generally in the political scene in Germany but the point is is that this has been a process that's been happening over the last three years or so where Influence power and popularity from the CDU CSU coalition led by Angela Merkel has been diminishing and as a natural European Political development that's been happening across all nations The right leaning parties have been picking up that more traction as those more traditional parties have faded So I don't think it would be a huge surprise is the point So I wouldn't although I will be updating this over the weekend. Of course, I'll be tweeting I don't really see it being too much of a big deal But I am almost sure the press will be make a big deal out of it because it just makes a good Sensational headline about how the far-right are rising and so on in European politics Okay, that is it from me. I'll let you guys Listen to the technical wrap-up from Sam calendar wise today not a great deal going on to be honest There's nothing major coming out of this morning in the eurozone and Equally in the US the only thing really you need to be aware of is the US oil inventory data And just quickly on that note here is the API data from last night We had a drawdown of eleven point one million now expectations were for a draw of just two and a quarter million So much larger drawdown and expected and as I showed you earlier that did accelerate the price of oil overnight And it does hold on to some of those gains at the moment Is the biggest drawdown since June in the headline figure drawdown of 2.4 million and cushing drawdown of 350,000 gasoline to still at draw of 2.5 million. So we'll look at that again later on Okay, let me just hand you over to Sam then and I'll see you in the chat room. Thanks very much Hi guys, so we're all doing well We'll start with that oil chart and you can see and marked up the high that we had back on on Monday So definitely worth keeping an eye is that's not too far away here from potentially getting tested and you can see Around at the pivot 55 of see a key level to the downside and then below that I'll be keeping an eye on 54 58 before we did push higher into the back end of the Session as well to the upside just gonna Move this that way. You can see some quite key levels It's above where we're trading 55 87 not too much in the way of sort of trend lines for now that I'd be You know to bothered about unless we were to really Push on and then we're looking here more towards and above the R1 So for now, I think it's just a case of you know Maybe waiting for that dear DOE data favoring favoring the the upside, you know to to get long That's yeah, where we can get down towards that pivot or 55 26 Before we remain to be seen worth having a look over the current season. You can see well as of Yeah, we still are so currently having that for well down for the day Which would make free so far so worth keeping an eye what happens with this this euro and the dollar in general It's just up a touch on the day See we had that big push on Friday. We've then drifted lowers Trump has eased off a touch So if I put this onto Longer term chart Remove the pivots and this is you know what I'm looking at here for for the euro. You can see we obviously spiked through This trend line a couple of times and really more as a guide not necessarily looking to to get in as soon as we break Or not, but this is a feel for sentiment that if we were to get back below 111 and Kind of this trend that's on here then I would feel pretty confident and we actually do get a test of that low of the year again Each time we've had that push again. We get those breaks through and while previously in the Year where we've had those trends higher and then break that hasn't really happened as much as of late It's more just been a strong push higher Before a gradual move to the downside. We interesting to see what happens. Should we close the day below 111? Certainly something I would have marked up and with the pound as well another up day Yes, so we touch 123 on on the futures and As I've said a few times I really do like the look of a short from from 124 just to Bring in that again here You see that trend line break the low that we had back on the 15th of July or that week So can we get back up to there? Obviously we've had two up weeks in a row Which just looking at the pound here the last time that took place was back in February. So Well, whether we can can get back to towards their 124 this week or not will remain to be seen But certainly a level I would have marked up and from a technical point of view I really do like the look of that as a as a trade really back down towards the the lows that we had Of the year and of course that big 120 handle looking more intraday on On the pound and just bringing the pivots on to give us a bit of a sense of what is going on here to the upside obviously we've got those Well, if I make this a bit smaller you can see that 124 you can see is quite far away But so for that to get here, I would say it's pretty unlikely But certainly if we were just get the trend out To push higher, you know, you look to be having fingers on like this This is a bit of resistance points before we would get to 124 because obviously while that is quite unlikely And you have to see the the highs of today and yesterday all to get through anyway Certainly Yes, they in the brief and this is when that move started to the upside We then broke through and came back to retest what was quite good resistance on Monday So that's still a level 122 56 50 that I would still have on as well And then from to the downside you've got quite a good That's what upward trend as well that I would still keep a close watch if we were to drift lower I think for this market I think a push higher gradually is is is on the cards and then it's just what happens for me at 124 Which will be P. Well, I'm in favor that the euro does overall push lower Speaking of pushing lower. I can't really believe I'm saying this but at the moment I'm I do think equities will will unfortunately drift drift down for, you know, a long time equity ball Yeah, and people won't necessarily believe I'm saying that I'm wouldn't feel comfortable medium term I'm talking now really getting long unless we get about 2940 40 to be honest And just because of just how similar it feels and looks to October November December last year and just a failure here to Really get above that every time Just seems very similar to price action before so unless that was to happen You can see this how good 2900. Yes, they was as a resistance point the low that we had Really on cash open of Friday before that big push lower. So as you'd expect first real test of that pretty strong. So Yeah, sure, you know, that could be the line the sand bias above 2900 sellers in control below But I would this for now be favouring with you know, unless there is any further developments Push to the downside worth having this potential trend on as well over the last couple of sessions and and that will come in around 2862 and a half from the future. So that's something I would would have marked up And of course you have quite a lot of potential support places just below that we did make on On Monday in the Asian session before that big rally that we had of course in the UK Bank holiday So that's something I would would for sure have marked up quick. Look over at gold You can see we did Start the day just pushing higher but the failure to get above yesterday's high source pushed down And so that's a really key level not just from overnight in yesterday, but also from Monday as well So 1554 point six give it or take a couple of cent Either way that will be certainly somewhere to have marked up and that support level that we talked about yesterday's briefing Very key as well. So we've almost got this mini range here It's the upside is is your favorite and sure wait for that to break and we can look for you know Move towards the R1 and resistance that we had back on Monday as well a break of fifteen thirty five point two this lower support as Said yesterday just be aware of any of these previous highs The way gold can move certainly if that was to break Could be pretty aggressive for now though I think I do favor the the upside and one market I do want to touch upon here is just to wrap things up for I'm gonna look at Europe is is silver Which this has been on such a journey really never just playing catch up for much of the year and Just over the last few days is really really accelerated higher and we're now looking at levels Well, you can see we broke above the point from April 2018, but not far. It's in the the journey Here to reach in 25th of January 2018 high doesn't look too far away. It's all a day like yesterday We get that actually have some of my friends that are along silver So they'll be pleased to see just the The move that this is being on but certainly from a technical point of view looks as good a place as any to de-risk around there 18 point 58 or so silver has been on a big move having a look over European socks Did that's pushing down on the first 30 minutes? Oh, sorry, actually, no, it didn't it recovered just pushing down before the open We're just having a little recovery now The failure again You can see just like your US stocks to push on found some resistance really around the R1 and failure to really close Above their source to push down isn't a bit of a choppy range I mean I keep an eye on see on the pivot just due to Definitely put this on a 15 minute how important that whole area has been This morning a good again good a line in the sand as you could want it does seem pretty Choppy so fast and no harm in sort of holding out for that really key level support just below The S1 from the last couple of days You can see yesterday's low as also Monday afternoons Low as well so some point support points below that as well any questions as usual, please do let us know Not hope you have a good trading day


Hey there Psych2Go family. Before we begin, we would like to thank you for your everlasting support. Our mission is to help you gain a deeper understanding of yourself and others in a fun and engaging way, and we hope we've been able to help you in your times of need. Now, let's begin. One of the universal challenges of being human is not knowing what to say to someone who's struggling, especially when it comes to heavy conversations. Talking to someone who's in pain can be difficult to navigate, whether they've specifically reached out to you for support or not. Sometimes emotions come up suddenly and you may find yourself having a conversation neither of you expected. While these examples may not work for everyone, nor should they be used in place of professional advice, we hope they can guide supportive communication when it's needed. With that said, here are six things to say when someone's in pain. One, you have my attention. It can be frustrating when you're trying your best to reach out, but it feels like you're not being heard. This simple sentence can let the person you're speaking with know that you are listening to them and value what they feel and say. It lets them know that they have the time and space to be truthful and voice their needs, whatever they might be. Two, what is your biggest concern right now? Emotions can be messy and unclear, so if you're unsure what's wrong or how you can help, don't be afraid to ask questions. The more you know, the more you can do to support them. It's possible that thinking out loud may help them sort through their emotions and thoughts, but it's just as possible that asking questions might overwhelm them when they're already in pain. If they're unable to answer, simply be there with them. Be patient and keep an open heart and mind. Three, I'm here to listen. As much as you may want to jump in and help, sometimes the best thing to do is to listen. According to a 2007 study conducted at UCLA, talking about feelings can disrupt the activity of the amygdala, the part of the brain responsible for fear, and the fight or flight response. This is why, over time, talking about your problems or emotions help make them feel like less of a big deal, and it's why talking can be one of the most productive things you can do for your mental health. Number four, what do you need right now? Sometimes it's okay to let the person who needs support take the lead. On occasion, those close to you know what might help or how to help better than yourself. This could be because the person is distant from the situation and has a more candid understanding of it, which allows them to make a more appropriate decision. Despite this, it's important to remember that everyone has their own idea of what support or comfort looks like, and that sometimes it's better to seek help from a professional. Don't feel frustrated if your strategies aren't connecting as well as you thought. Five, do you want to talk about it? When someone reaches out, they don't always want to talk. Sometimes it's because they don't feel ready, or they'd rather spend their energy elsewhere. This question doesn't put any pressure on them. It gives you a chance to offer support, but also lets the person involved do what they feel most comfortable with. They can give a simple yes or no. Remember, talking isn't the only way to be there for someone. A little company can go a long way. And six, I want to understand this more so I can help. When someone's in pain, it's especially important to be honest with them if you don't understand the situation or aren't able to help. This will save both of you from spending time and energy on something that won't be helpful to either of you. It's okay to let them know if you can't help, even if they reached out to you, since your mental health is important also. But sometimes a simple explanation is all that's needed to get everyone on the same page. It never hurts to ask. There are many different ways you can offer support to someone when they're struggling. Most, if not all of us, have been on both sides of the conversation, and sometimes we struggle with offering support to our loved ones. We hope that these suggestions help you the next time you're helping your loved one through pain. We would also like to note that some situations are better when addressed by a professional and to make the call most appropriate to the situation. Thank you for watching, and we'll see you in the next video.


Hmm Thanks, mr. V here welcome to another video guys. So in this video I want us to talk about ticket symbol cciv Um, this is church heat capital that is in the process of taking lucid model public So, um, this is a stock that I've covered here on the channel a lot But again recently there's been some crazy news and I want to make sure that you guys are aware of it So that way you're not just jumping in and buying without understanding what's going on In the market. So that's what I want us to cover into this video But before we get started guys, we are new to the channel We took about how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth So that's something that interests you go ahead and hit that subscribe button any notification bell so you don't miss out on new content So guys, uh, if you have been watching the internet, um, you would see that Rumors is out there that lucid model is actually working. Um, or they're talking about the fact that lucid is working with apple to build Uh, a new class of super cool electric vehicles So if you can scroll down here, you see that it's out there on the internet everybody is talking about it. So Uh, what does that mean? Um, again, two things here that I want you to see why this could be uh, This information could be circulating out there The number one thing is that um, most recently when lucid ceo Had an interview and he was asked if apple has approached them For any sort of a partnership The ceo declined to comment which in business almost usually means yes So that is one thing that I think the speculation is out there The second one is that one of apple's key, uh designer or chief designer currently sits on the board of lucid and so All those put together you can see why The internet is kind of like freaking out and thinking that these two companies are actually talking Or working together to try to build a future electric vehicle if you guys remember Apple has been like just filling out the market and testing and talking to other companies We've seen like three or four different rumors come out that apple is talking to other companies So I would expect this continues trying to continue until apple finally decides To make a complete statement if they want to get into the EV space or not But in the meantime what that rumor did for the stock here is Actually gave the stock some spark. So the stock actually went up about 18 Percent uh today based on that rumor, which is good for for some of us There are a long term investment uh investors in the stock So again, this is something that I like to see the stock starts to squeeze back up But at the same time I don't want the stock squeezing up for the wrong reasons because all this is doing is Just setting it up for failure It's kind of come back down because once this rumor Actually get out of the way the stock is going to fall back again But that doesn't mean that this is not a great start to to get into so if we can look at the chart Here, this is just the one one chart. So if we go, this is one day. This is what happened today So the stock actually squeezed up all the way to I think a test life 24 dollars Yeah, 24 dollars and then before pulling back and then just setting around 23 and some change But if we go one month, this is what's been happening to the stock the stock went high And let me see let's do six months. Sorry. So this is six months right here So since the stock is actually sitting high of about 58 dollars and then pull back So one month the stock has just continually on this downtrend and actually hit a low of about 1845 But here's why and I keep talking about you guys buying the stock As it dips because I bought some I bought 250 shares here at 18 I bought another 250 at 19 and I keep adding to my position In in my analysis here, what I've seen is that $19 20 price point right there has been it just acted like support So I think even if even if it pulls back again from the 23 and some change I will see right now It's going to come back to this 19 20 dollar price point Until it starts to squeeze with obvious reasons There was another news out there that there was a lot of people shorting the stock And obviously they're shorting the stock to drive the price down so that a lot of institutions can load up on the stock That's just my personal take here Because people know that this company is a solid company. Um, it has huge potential So they want to buy cheap nobody wants to pay premium For a stock if they can drive it down and buy it at a very cheap price So that's something that I want you guys to to be aware of Before you can get to the stock so again for those of you that don't know a little bit about lucid This is kind of like a luxury electric vehicle brand that's out there Right now they don't have any cars in actual Production per se, but they are in the process of producing their first the lucid air their first sedan Which is going to be going out here. I think early fall They're going to start sending those out to their customers and then they have customers here in the united states in south arabia So again, if you can see here, they're projected range for their vehicle. It's about 500 plus miles Studying price is about 69,900 and this is for the basic If you go to the discovery air Those are other ones and then one of the things that I want to really call out to you guys is that Even when you know, you can reserve the vehicle right now They don't accept any more reservations because they are completely full and they don't want to take more than they can actually Mass produce so right now reservations are closed. Which is insane. So I mean to me I see lucid has huge potential Again, like people that had doubts with tesla is the same thing with lucid The difference here is that lucid has actually learned from tesla mistakes And this is what people are not really seeing here lucid has actually learned from tesla mistakes I don't want to repeat that same mistake So matter of fact, some of the guys that are on the board and as part of the team at lucid came from tesla So they know the inton out and the struggles that tesla went Through to get to the point where they are today. So lucid is actually doing that They have a factory out in a rezoner and they're going to continue to try to expand and build other factories Around the country. They currently are building what they call their lucid studios where you can go there and Sit in the vehicles and see what it feels like and they're building those across the country I know they're doing that just for branding purposes But again, these are some of the things that lucid is doing putting himself up front that Prevent them from falling in the same traps at tesla So if you don't currently have this stock This is not one that you buy and think that is just going to go up tomorrow. You make a turn of profit Guys buy this stock and hold it I don't care if it's one two or three shares that you can afford if you're gonna foot five shares buy five shares and hold it you don't need to have 100,000 or 200 to invest in this if you have a hundred dollars That's a 20. That's at least five shares of this stock buy it and put it on the side And don't even look at it come back after five years and come look at it and then send me An email and tell me that I did good for you. So that's that's how I see this stock my goal is to at least hold over 3,000 shares of lucid if I can afford it I keep trying to dig my heels and find Extra money to throw at this stock because the the potential is there right now Most people look at this and when the price is falling down like these people are complaining You don't want to get in this is the time to buy the secret with investing is buying the deep So when opportunities like this present themselves take advantage of it And I I just cannot recall how many times I've actually talked to you guys about buying the deeps for long term stocks These are the ones that you buy and just let it ride.  I'm talking about here So that's what I wanted to cover in this video again guys the news here is that apple and lucid have been rumored to be working together to create some sort of our Electric vehicle, but the news hasn't been confirmed by either apple or lucid So this is just internet rumor, but again my personal take is that This could be stemming from one or two things number one is that the CEO of lucid In an interview was asked if apple had approached him He declined a comment which in business terms usually means yes And then the other one is that you have our former apple designer Working on the board of lucid so that could be somebody that can bridge the gap between the two companies working together So that's how I'm looking at this and approaching this But again the stock actually popped based on that information So I don't want you to take this pop here very serious because If this is just a rumor it's not going to go anywhere So the stock is going to definitely come back down to this consolidation point here I wish I called is this is even a support to me support would be around 19 20 dollars So the stock would probably come back there which again gives us opportunities to buy more Of the stock so that's what I wanted to let you guys know if you're new to the channel guys We talk about how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth So that's something that interests you go ahead and hit that subscribe button and the notification bell So you don't miss out on new content Also, if you are looking to get started with investing guys Webo has their promotion where if you sign up and deposit a hundred dollars You get some free stocks links in the description below and as always guys Do your due diligence don't be a greedy savage and stay motivated


Let's understand Qable Apex. So Qable Apex is basically a super set of future methods, which provides some extra benefits, extra features as well. So you might have gone through future methods and Apex batch Apex examples. So if we talk about Qable Apex, so it can be known as combination of future methods and batch Apex. So this you will feel in the syntax as well. So in future method basically limitation is we can work on primitive arguments only, but here that limit is not available you can go beyond primitive arguments as well. And in batch Apex like we use three methods start, execute and finish. So similarly like here in Qable Apex you need to define one method. So that's why it is known as combination of future methods and batch Apex. Then if you want to execute your Qable Apex so you need you can call the class by a simple system.nqjob method. So similarly like in batch Apex as well we use execute batch method to execute the batch Apex. So when you call nqjobs method so it returns a job ID that can be monitored. So that ID basically you can use to monitor like different parameters related to Qable Apex. Now let's talk about the additional benefits those are available with Qable Apex. So first is non-primitive types. In case of future methods you are restricted with primitive data types or primitive arguments. And maybe like you can have collection of primitives but that to primitives only. In Qable Apex you can go beyond primitive data types and you can use non-primitive types as arguments. So it means you can work on S objects as well in Qable Apex. Now if you talk about monitoring so Qable Apex can be monitored in two ways like you can monitor it with the help of UI. By searching Apex jobs and quick find and setup and you can see the status of your Qable Apex job. Also when you run nqjob method so it basically returns the ID, job ID and with the help of that job ID you can also monitor your Qable Apex. The third benefit is chaining jobs. So if you want to call one process through another so that you can do with the help of Qable Apex. So chaining of jobs is available in Qable Apex which is not available with future method. So these are some benefits those are additional to a future method that's why we prefer Qable Apex. This is the syntax of future method. So in case of future method you need to use adverite annotation map. Sorry, you need to use adverite future annotation for particular method. So if you use this annotation adverite future so that method will work as a future method that will be executed or synchronously. So here method name is my future method it is receiving a list of string as parameters and you can see string is a primitive type but we are using collection of primitive so that is permissible. And here you can write the code and through this future method we are calling my sync method and we are passing parameters. Basically what we are doing we are defining this my sync method individually. So we can call it directly without making it future method and we can call it through future method as well. So this way like a future method can be useful. Now talking about Qable Apex syntax so here you need to implement a class named as some class so it name can be anything. Now we need to implement one interface that is Qable. So it is kind of similar to batch Apex so in batch Apex also we need to implement an interface and then we need to define start execute and finish methods. So similarly in Qable Apex as well. You need to implement Qable interface and you will be defining only one method that is execute. You don't need to define start and finish methods in Qable Apex. Now if I talk about future method again so in future method you can see we don't need to implement any interface. We just need to use at the rate future annotation to convert any method in future method. Whereas in Qable Apex syntax is totally different. And here in execute method you need to use Qable context instance that is context name can be anything but Qable context this class should be same. And inside this execute method you will be implementing actual code that will be executed while you will be executing your Qable Apex. So this is brief about Qable Apex.