The 1992 World Development Report was on sustainable development and the relation between the environment and the economy. First draft comes, there's this diagram, it has a rectangle labeled economy and an arrow coming in from the left of the rectangle labeled inputs and an arrow exiting from the other side of the rectangle labeled outputs. The caption was the relation of the economy to the environment. So how am I going to say this is utter nonsense in a way diplomatic. So I wrote this very good idea to draw a picture here and the caption and exactly the relation of the environment to the economy is just what we want to see. But we really don't have the environment captured here. We just have this economy receiving inputs from nowhere and sending outputs to nowhere. So why don't we draw a big circle around that the whole thing and call that circle environment and then it will be clear that the inputs are resources coming from the environment into the economy and the outputs back to the environment are waste products and then we can look inside the economy box a little more and talk about what goes on in there. Next draft comes, same thing, only this time the thing had a bigger rectangle drawn around the whole thing just like a picture frame but it was not labeled anything, nothing was changed in the text. So I wrote back, well this is just a picture frame around the picture why don't we set the same thing I said before. Every time it comes the diagram has disappeared, it's no longer there and it's just too difficult to draw that picture. I'd heard that in the US in the early 70s one person's minimum wage supports a family of four but by 2000 it took two minimum wages to do the same thing. I wanted to find out why and why was it that the shirt I was wearing was probably made by someone working in a sweatshop. I thought taking a basic or introductory economics course would help. Waste in one location, simultaneous starvation in another. Isn't there? In this film we'll see how mainstream economists use these models to hide the forces of inequality and environmental destruction. Law of supply and demand. The main supply model will get you a long way in economics. Prices to everything. If the price is $5, people wish to purchase 10 bushels worth of tomatoes. How many bushels of tomatoes do farmers produce? 25. What do we call this? Surplus. You get too many tomatoes. The price is $1. A lot of these demand it is 22. Farmers because the price is low only produce 12 bushels. People want to buy 10 more bushels than are available. We'll call that for short. Right here about $1.89. Aren't there any people who want tomatoes who can't afford them? An economics individual human want that is not backed by purchasing power does not exist. Nothing. It's prayer or something. It drops out of our modeling. So when we discuss a demand we mean what's sometimes also called effective demand i.e. demand backed by purchasing power. Markets. In addition there are some things that are not possible to demand on an individual basis but can only be supplied socially. Some goals are intrinsically social. My goods, my goals are intrinsically connected to other people and it's relational. The assumptions that economists make about people and how they relate individualism, self-interest, unlimited wants. Two facts are true about everyone regardless of gender, creed, color, income. The first is unlimited wants. Everyone has unlimited wants. Take my own family for example. Home, two dogs, cat, two cars, big TV, multiple computers and yet no matter what we have we'd always like to have more. I'd like a double oven. It's not human nature. Well my husband's always dreamed of his own airplane with a home in an air park. At best these are assumptions that might be appropriate for people in our society because of the way our society has evolved and been constructed. Even if we ended up getting these things there would always be something else. Unlimited wants. Markets as they are ideologically abused by neoclassical economists is the fiction that whatever the suppliers supply they do to meet the demands of those who come on the other side of the market and that therefore a kind of efficiency is achieved. Efficiency has to be always relative to a goal. There's no such thing as abstractly just efficient per se. Things are produced that people want. This fantasy avoids dealing with an overwhelming reality which only economics as a profession could choose to pretend isn't there. It's called advertising. I like to take it apart and put it back together. Like instant minced onions. These were things you had to be sold out. The advertising industry, marketing industry, creating certain ideas, certain associations and encourage people to consume more. Consumerism is very destructive. Because it promotes ecologically unsustainable lifestyles. But it's also in many ways very harmful for individual consumers themselves because there are many psychological studies that show that people get most happiness and satisfaction in life, not from consuming more and more and more, but from the quality of their human relations. The mainstream model of markets assumes you have money, assumes you always want more stuff and that stuff is all you want. The law of supply and demand. The economy isn't for labor since labor is just another commodity within it. In 2005 I interviewed the author of the textbooks we used in these courses. These textbooks are amongst the industry standards selling millions of copies and dozens of languages around the world. The weight the supply curve and the demand curve down. You see raising the wage above the equilibrium level causes unemployment. To see how this works, let's look at the labor market for unskilled workers in a large city. As usual, equilibrium occurs at the point where the demand and supply curves intersect. In this case, that equilibrium involves a wage of $5 an hour. Many people may regard this wage as being too low and so governments pass minimum wage laws that mandate a wage higher than the equilibrium level. And suppose a minimum wage of $6 is set. 8,000 unskilled individuals would like to work. But only 6,000 jobs are available. There is a surplus of 2,000 workers. Because the minimum wage law prevents the wage from falling, this surplus will persist. Whenever governments interfere with the operation of a market, they guarantee that the quantity supplied will not equal the quantity demanded. There's a serious problem in all this in that notion of how the market is working. There's no indication that that wage level is going to be at a wage that people can survive on. The other thing that has to be said, when you raise the minimum wage, basically the effect will be to redistribute income in favor of low-paid workers. And low-paid workers with low income will spend much more of their money than the business owner, for example. So this kind of redistribution will actually increase the total demand for goods in the economy. And this may actually increase the employer's demand for workers, therefore shifting out the demand curve for labor. Or you loan people the money to buy the stuff which they can't buy because their wages are insufficient. So kind of ironically, what you're probably doing is loaning them back the money you didn't pay them in wages which you took as profit. So their loss is compounded and over time the inequality spreads. Why someone that works in Walmart makes something like the minimum wage or maybe a little better and someone who owns Walmart makes so much. In the early 70s, someone who made the minimum wage had much higher standards of living than someone who makes it now. I think that's an important topic. The question of why is that the wage gap between skilled and un-skilled workers has grown over time. Why someone that works in Walmart makes something like the minimum wage or someone who owns Walmart makes so much. I think that's an important topic. The question of why is that the wage gap between skilled and un-skilled workers has grown over time. Most people think it's really driven by the changes in technology that have made the productivity of skilled workers higher relative to the productivity of un-skilled workers. If you want to understand what happened to wages, you have to look at political decisions not to raise the minimum wage, mainly in the 80s, that the minimum wage has not been ratcheted up. And when the minimum wage doesn't rise, people above that, you know, folks making a dollar over, they find it hard to raise their wages too. And the decline in unionization, which has been dramatic since the early 80s. I mean, of course, if workers have less bargaining power, wages are going to fall. And the other issue is trade and immigration. We had the continuing flow of immigrants coming out of a third world that was being decimated in those years by poverty and economic difficulty and who looked for a better life. And trade laws and the threat of losing your job because of trade. Trade can make everyone better off. That is one of the ten principles introduced in chapter one. The theory of trade is just the theory of the social division of labor taken to a world level. In other words, Adam Smith, right at the beginning of the Wealth of Nations, said the division of labor is so wonderful because we all do the things that we're best at doing and trade with each other. The division of labor gets deeper as you extend the market. As the market gets bigger, you can have a more and more refined social division of labor and that's what produces the wealth of the nation and therefore the wealth of the world. If this is so, you might ask, why then do we find so much opposition to trade and globalization? How are the rewards from trade distributed? The standard argument is that there are gains and losses from trade. Some people lose. But trade is good because even if the winners compensated the losers, there would be something left over. There would be a net gain with trade as opposed to no trade. The problem is we rarely compensate the losers. Which in the United States, it's manufacturing labor that's primarily been impacted by the opening up of trade in manufacturing with the poorer countries. These are the people that are being hurt. The people that are being helped are not only owners of capital here but owners of capital in the low-wage countries. Historically, the English, the Americans, the Germans developed behind a wall of protection. In other words, we did not have free trade during our period of industrialization. The World Bank's criteria, poverty is less than because people make more wage income but it's just incredible pollution in the countryside through industrialization. So what does it matter if your wages are higher but you can't drink the water? Trade can make everyone better off. The story is Sam Walton, I don't know, he's apocryphal, no doubt. He wants to pay his workers so little that they have to shop at Walmart. Look, everybody wants to pay the least amount for what they get. Whether you're buying labor or buying a hamburger or buying anything. The efficiency in a system like that is that everybody has to be voluntarily engaged in trading something for something. In other words, there shouldn't be a gun at their back. See, you have to give your services or we're going to shoot you or we're going to make you star. On Monday, 22nd of May, 2006, about 100,000 workers from the Dakar Export Processing Zone and surrounding areas protested for higher wages a mandatory day off on Fridays. Regular payments and extra pay for overtime. In terms of current pay, for example, a finished sweater is about 11 cents. The workers demand 16. The inequalities do lack of skill. The lack of skill has a variety of pathologies that generate it. That's where I think, that's to me, that's the button to push. Try to change those pathologies. Poverty wages are caused by individuals' pathologies. Isn't there going to be somebody who works at the cash register at McDonald's? Sure, why not? Why would you want to get rid of that job? I wanted to pay more. Why? For example, I buy my lunch either at the University cafeteria or on Thayer Street. So I'd have to go and ask them what are they getting before I decided where to eat. Do you do that when you go out to dinner? No, that's why I think that... But do you want to do it? No, I want there to be more... You want government to do it? No, I want unions to do it. Unions to do it? Yeah, I want unions to be able to negotiate with their employers what's the fair wage considering the profit of the company. What do you want me to say? I think it's bizarre. It's bizarre, absolutely bizarre. Who owns enterprise? Is it employee owned, co-operatively owned? I get to buy the sweater for a lot less than if it was made in the United States by a unionized worker. Well, I'm not sure. The ILGWU would tell you that the $20 sweater might have cost $23 if it was made in the United States. All the studies say that the $20 sweater would cost at the most $21 for somebody to have made it with a living wage in Mexico. So how many sweaters do each of us need? And I encourage you all to go shopping more. Economists believe that self-interest can be an effective way of organizing a society. If you ask a lot of people, what do you think would happen if everyone believed selfishly? If everyone acts selfishly in society? The result you get from most people, the answer you get is, well, that would be chaotic. If everyone was selfish all the time, it would just be crazy. But, you know, if you look around at the world around you, many market exchanges rely on self-interest. Adam Smith, that idea that when you're looking out for your own self-interest, it's almost as if there's an invisible hand guiding you to perform in a way which will benefit society as a whole. Economic expansion of economics is defined about individual rational autonomous agents making choices. It's leaving out people's ethical dimensions, people's social dimensions, interdependencies, and dependency. There's no elderly people, sick people, children in the models of freely choosing adults. Laborers don't just pop up 18 years old ready to work, and that was built around denying the interconnected. Their wage is what people only accept as far as I'm concerned. As a human being, I can be very selfish or I can be very generous. Through political decisions, you don't allow any kind of labor, as a minimum wage, to start working. You don't allow any kind of wage, as a minimum wage. You don't allow any kind of working conditions. There are regulations. Yes, because we want to protect our fellow citizens, ourselves, from our selfish behavior, because we know that our selfish behavior exists. But this is precisely the reason why we have institutions like the state. Capitalists never accepted the New Deal, for the most part, in the United States. If you've got the economy inside of society, and then all societies inside of a physical environment. Every market has rules. What are the rules going to be, and who's going to make them? Market economy is a situation where there is no government interference. Here's a discussion that always just states against markets. You start off the market, and you don't know where markets come from, and you're hucked under the organized, and people don't steal one another. That's for granted. After that, you know, comes to states. And actually, the thing is that this is kind of both logically and historically wrong. The free market is a situation where there is no government interference. There's no regulating the labor market on behalf of workers, meaning increasing minimum wages, meaning labor unions that establish some basic decent floors for wages. It's not a free market. You only get up the wage of unskilled workers if you hire them. It's not a free market model. It never was. We got a dramatic proof of that. And of course, big banks got bailed out in the most massive bailout, maybe in the history of capitalism. There's on behalf of workers. For example, the dynamics of the apparel industry are best understood in my view by visualizing a pyramid. At the top of this pyramid in the United States are a handful of very well-known brands and retailers. The next layer of the pyramid are all of the less well-known brands and smaller brands that sell to these retailers. Another step down the pyramid are hundreds of thousands of factories around the world that actually produce the clothing. Because the labels, the brands buying the clothing, don't own these individual factories in which they're buying, they have the opportunity whenever they wish to switch from one factory to another. And this creates an intense competition for business. This places those companies at the top of the pyramid in a position of extraordinary power to dictate the price they are willing to pay for the clothing they're buying and the time frame in which it can be produced and that it is the brands and the retailers who define the terms of trade, define the conditions of production. The market is interacting between buyers and sellers. Sellers are represented by supply. Buyers are represented by demand. In society, there are relationships of power. The profits, they're nowhere in the picture. To talk about why people get paid when they get paid, I think you need an historical story. We never talk about power. You know what I mean? Oh yeah, different course. First, imagine a world without politics. Relationships of power. Then, construct your economic model. If you have money, the market is your servant. And if you don't, it's your master. Mark says, you're supplying to me as more or less correct. It's just a trivial statement. Of course the price is different. What do you think? Let's talk about how a system is reproduced that enables people who do nothing socially useful really to earn billions of dollars. That's a more interesting discussion, don't you think? Yeah, yeah. Markets. The emphasis is on exchange value. Water has a use value. Air has a use value. Food has a use value. You're wealthier if these things are available in abundance. But in the capitalist economy, the emphasis is on exchange values. And exchange value becomes possible as goods become scarce. Private riches expand through the destruction of public wealth. To the extent that something that was freely available before is somehow made scarce, then a price can be put on it. Human beings would become poorer as measured riches increased because we only measure wealth or riches based on price. And a price exists only to the extent that something is scarce. Now we'll see model portray profits as costs. Profits don't get figured into the calculation of how many people had to hire at what wage and the textbooks are in discussion. Well, profits are part of the firm's decision. We start off when we analyze something like the minimum wage, look at supply and demand for labor. When you actually look at where the demand for labor comes from, we look at firm's decisions. Firm's decisions come from a profit maximization problem. You start off with supply and demand. For the moment you're suppressing the decisions that lie behind the demand curve. Then later in the course you sort of say where that demand for labor comes from. The demand for labor comes from a firm deciding how many workers to hire, from profit maximization decision. So in the complete model of the economy, you have profits playing a central role, which is that firms are profit maximizing, that's what they're set up to do. Well, that's the other thing. I didn't understand how then these profit maximizing firms always come down to zero profits when in the world they're making profits. Oh, should we read the distinction of accounting profits and economic profits? There's a whole section on that which is, I think, very important. But competitive market, free entry, tends to drive profits down because of course it needs to competition. That doesn't mean that accounting profits, that account will be driven to zero. It means that economic profits as an economist measure it will be driven toward zero. Profit maximization problem. Economic profits as an economist measure it will be driven toward zero. This next part will seem unreal and you're right, but I hope you can follow along with me.  There are many firms, thousands of firms, and each firm acts as a price taker. The professor gets the price and the quantity from the point where the supply and demand model lines intersect. A good example is farming. No one farmer has control of the price. That's determined in the markets. It seems big corporations are creating monopoly though, aren't they? Well, it's an interesting question, how much monopoly power is in the US. That's a very interesting question. And I think what's probably true is that the amount of monopoly is far less today than it was true, say, 50 years ago. If you imagine an hourglass at the top there are the millions of farmers who grow our food and then at the bottom there are the billions of us who buy that food every day. But in the middle there are just a handful of corporations that control the truck and bar to particularly international sale of food from farm to fork. We have tremendous open markets and international trade has been a source of competitive pressures. For the global market in tea, one company, Unilever, controls 90% of the global market. I just added the total cost curve.  It costs a lot to build the factory to produce the first pair of shoes, but the average cost of each additional pair of shoes goes down as you spread the cost over a lot of pairs of shoes until you hire too many workers, let's say, who are now too crowded around the machines. So now the cost of each additional pair of shoes starts to go back up again. Look at the price line. That's how much revenue they're making per unit. How much does it cost them per unit? Well, that's the average cost. Yeah, it's a per unit profit. How much is the area that rectangles the total profit? Profits induce entries. When other firms enter, the supply... For example, shoes goes up. And the price of shoes would go down, down, down, down, down. Shoes get cheaper. The dynamics of the apparel industry. Profits at factories get competed down, put profits to a few retailers, go way up. The model focuses on the many factories and ignores the few market controlling big retailers. By eliminated, he means they've been reduced to what they call the opportunity cost of capital, which I hope to explain next. I mean, my economic profits is revenue minus cost because they're all inclusive, including the opportunity cost of capital. Payments to capital. The opportunity cost of capital is included as a cost. The idea being that the minimum that your investment must do is pay you back the money you would have made should you have made a safer investment. You know, in the classic easy case, you know, if you have bought your US government treasury or a very basic safe bond, that too, it must pay you back so that if the treasury right now is earning about three and three-quarters percent, then the first three and three-quarters percent or so of your profit doesn't, in effect, count because you could have done something risk-free and still gotten that 3.75 percent. You're just earning the opportunity cost of capital, which means that if you had put your money in the bank, then you'd be guaranteed that rate of return. Now, notice the sleight of hand there. Back before regulations, banks failed very regularly. So you couldn't even be sure what the rate of interest was. Putting her money in a safe place where each deposit is insured. The economist's model will subtract the thing that you could have done that was risk-free from the profit that you got. What they want to say is then... At three and three-quarters percent or so of your profit doesn't, in effect, count. They want to say it doesn't count. Instead of saying you get... Three and three-quarters percent. So they want to call that zero. And by doing that, they get the government out of the model. The idea is that all the firm's profits will get competed down to the lowest return on investment. Why would you go to all the trouble of building a shoe factory and marshaling all those resources to build a shoe factory? And imagine all the headaches involved in building a shoe factory. Sounds like a royal pain in the neck to me. In order to get the same return you could have gotten if you had just stuck your money in a risk-free account somewhere. Why would anybody do this? It is an absurdity on the face of it. Economic profits, as economists measure it, will be driven toward zero. Economists getting to zero would include the pay to management and... Oh, that's right. Economic profits is revenue minus costs, but costs are all-inclusive including the opportunity cost of capital and the manager's time and so on. Also all-inclusive including manager's time. Payments to managers aren't separated from payments to workers in the model. In 1960, CEO pay is 40 times the average worker's pay. In 2000, CEO pay is 400 times the average worker's pay. So the opportunity cost of the CEO is now 400 times the average worker's opportunity. Extreme economics taught the capitalist market system as the best of all possible systems according to the textbooks, but there was a big but. Capitalism has no mechanism to avoid severe recessions or depressions. Markets may be efficient according to this view, but they have many problems. These problems required some outside actor to remedy it. Progressive income taxation to reduce the degree of inequalities. Strong trade unions to reduce the degree of inequality. Government action to prevent environmental destruction. Problem also of the tendency of monopoly to develop, which would require government antitrust policy. Well, in the 1970s, the economics orthodoxy changed extremely rapidly. There's no need for the government to try and prevent monopoly. Competition is the normal rule in a free market economy. It became the newly-done idea. In any competitive market, some people are going to win, some people are going to lose. What generally happens is the winners eat the losers. The public, when they look around them, what do they see? A whole collection of visible hands attached to Exxon, other large corporations. It's obvious. These are not small, independent competitors jostling with each other for the patronage of the public. These are large organizations with substantial influence on their markets. The choice of language. Perfect competition. Perfect. This explanation leaves out monopolies, speculation, market-rigging, price-fixing. In product markets, you can see this process which innovation leads to fresh competition, new entrants. It's very difficult to be a stable monopolist. When you're talking about the accumulation of financial wealth, though, it just seems to keep piling up. Right now, as we're talking, corporate America has about a trillion dollars in cash that doesn't know what to do with. Dry profits down. Profits is the opportunity cost of capital. CEOs are the cost. That doesn't mean that accounting profits, that accounting measure would be driven to zero. It means that economic profits, as economists measure it, would be driven toward zero. Right. But it then sort of makes the issue of profits more difficult to tease out or be something that's discussed. Do you follow me? No. For example, Walmart compensation story. The CEO, Mike Duke-Stock Awards, wore worth $24.6 million, not $2 million, making his total compensation for 2008 worth $29.07 million. Correction. It's at a cost. Right. I guess it just seems as though it's a problem that the owners make so much and that there's no way to... It's a problem. When you say it is a problem, you've gone past the science. You've said, I have values judgments that I'm going to impose. Economist's first job is to say, let's understand this phenomenon. Let's step back and let's not talk about good or bad, problem not problem. Why is this happening? What's the right theory to explain this? What's the right model to explain this? How can you explain the data we observe? Don't impose values on it. Let's just look at the facts. In terms of current pay, a finished sweater is about 11 cents. The workers demand 16. The mainstream theory is kind of incredible when competition is perfect, there's no profits. So the mainstream theory is not a theory of capitalism, at all. It was part of the alternative that was crafted to argue against the notion that capitalism exploits people. You will look in vain in the standard of economics or a discussion of Marx. You won't find Marx directly addressed, but he's a ghost of sort of poverty. Economics professor Stephen Marglin teaches an alternative and critical introductory economics course at Harvard, but it is an elective for economics majors and doesn't fulfill the introductory economics course requirement. The idea that, on average, that in general, workers don't get as much as they produce just can be discussed in most economics departments. The return to capital interest profits as being a reward for patients that are invited and saving. Somebody's willing to forego consumption today in order to save and invest for the future and also reward for risk-taking. Patience seems that I've got money and I'm waiting for it to make more money. So there is no exploitation, there's no injustice. There's no predictive value in the Marxist theory for my wage. I don't work with any machinery. Right? That idea, though, too, how we make our income is social versus individual. I'm not sure what that means. Well, the reason I make the money that I do is not because of the one thing I do but because I have a road to get there and a school to teach in. The whole interconnection is the subject of what economists call general equilibrium theory, which is the idea being that there's not just one market in the economy. There's many, many markets in the economy. It affects all the other markets in the economy. And what prices and wages are doing is sort of moving to a cruel right all these markets simultaneously. So what general equilibrium theory tries to do is try to figure out all those interconnections. New classical economics, basically the model doesn't have profits as its central feature even though that's the goal of all business. It's not really part of the model. I know this is hard to believe. Basically, we all felt the whole point on the classical comics and all the graphs, the math and all that is not allow the masses of people to understand it. That's their key point. Not allow us to understand it. And once we do not understand it, we just let it go. It's like, okay, there are some people out there economists who know better and they will take care of everything. First, you learn about the efficiency of markets. McDonald's and Walmart are very efficient operations. And it's that efficiency that is the driver force between world-rising living standards. And then, as a footnote, you learn, well, sometimes this is not the case underlying this concept of efficiency there are no what are known as externalities. When your activity imposes costs on others, the very term externality is misleading. It suggests these are somehow marginal. They are the exception. If you can make money by imposing externalities on others, then why wouldn't you do so? They're not a marginal phenomenon. They are political successes of the economically powerful groups within capitalist society. The wealth inequality in capitalist society translates into political inequality which translates to externalities. And that was just built around denying the interconnected. Macroeconomics looks at the entire economy. Macroeconomics is about employment interest and the value of money. Classical economics feels like a style of economics. It really has a difference between tomatoes and workers. In 1929, the depression starts. The economic solution to the high unemployment during the depression is weight. It will go away. In 1936 Don Maynard Keynes argued that the labor market is not the same as the tomato market. Keynes taught what the government should do in a later recession. Is to spend money on what? Doesn't matter. Keynes actually argued for targeted spending. What should you target on? Well, you target on the unemployed. You give the unemployed jobs. Construction work on water conservation project requires an immense number of skilled and unskilled workers providing immediate employment for hundreds of those who would otherwise be on relief. Don Maynard Keynes argued you can't just take single markets and end up until you get the whole economy. If you're going to look at the economy as a whole you need a different model. You just happen to have one. In that clip you say that Keynes had a different model. What is that model? We use aggregate demand and aggregate supply but it's still that economic X. It's just a very simple two lines they cross. Macroeconomics really came into economics as a critique of economics. And that the critique has been kind of co-opted. If people need jobs, what do you do? You don't give them jobs. President Kennedy's Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg has stated we must create 13 million new jobs in the next 10 years. This is where advertising comes in. You don't want a general increase in demand. You want targeted increases of demand. All spending carries an inflation risk. It's not just government spending as I can private consumption and investment spending. You can use taxes to fight inflation. So the mistake that was made in the 60s by the so-called Keynesians who thought they were following Keynes toward this argument of Keynes. Well, look at what's happening in the 1970s. We have high unemployment and high inflation. Orthodox economists actually said the best that we could do is use the government to control inflation and let unemployment go wherever it's going to go. And that was really the beginning of neoliberalism. Unemployment is always concentrated among the least advantaged people in society. Employment. Everybody who's listening, I want to be absolutely clear. I believe in the market. I think that's the way we generate jobs. I have absolutely no interest in having the government maintaining the levels of intervention that we have right now in the financial market.  Call companies like to do mountain top removal because they can get more call quicker, cheaper with less people. The private sector is a for-profit sector. It creates jobs only so as to generate profit. They're not in the job supply business. They are in the for-profit business. Employment and the value of money. The way to keep your currency strong is to have a strong economy. How do you have a strong economy? By getting everybody to work. On Conservation Project All money is debt. It's the debt of the issuer. If you issue your own currency you spend it into existence. You also could lend it into existence. But you can't run out of it. The Government Accountability Office revealed the Fed provided more than $16 trillion in secret loans. When the government gives money to Wall Street the increase in money will be created at interest. Meaning it will become someone else's debt. For example the banks can borrow from the Fed a quarter percent make student loans at nine percent that the government guarantees. Do you believe the personal retirement accounts can help us achieve solvency for the system and make those future retiree benefits more secure? I wouldn't say that the days you go benefits are insecure. There's nothing to prevent the Federal Government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase a system your life were. At compound interest every rate is a doubling time 5% rate of interest doubles in about 14 years this simply can't continue for long Mark's pointed out All money is debt it's the debt of the issuer. Who owns the power to create money? Today we give it away to commercial banks 80% of bank loans are for mortgages. Who owns the land and the housing? Your life were. Most people pay more money in interest to buy a house than the seller actually gets as the purchase price of the house. More money will be paid to the banks to turn into larger loans. That interest you should pay that to the community because it's a community that gives the value. The value of a house of real estate going up is the value of the public investment roads and water systems better environmental protection investment in the planet and people People don't understand or they misunderstand they think finance is a scarce resource the problem is finding good borrowers Wages are flat What makes bank debt valuable is the borrowers ability to repay it. An absurd human convention i.e. compound interest What makes government debt valuable is the productivity of the nation and its power in relation to other nations. Most countries don't spend their money on importing goods and services they spend it on paying debt. The detonation credits is clothing to export to the US to get dollars to repay the loan plus interest compound interest they have to be able to keep exchanging whatever they're making at a rate that's faster than the growth of their debt. For every dollar third world countries receive an aid. Aid is almost entirely loans. They repay a dollar and a third so even though we import more than we export the value of the dollar doesn't go down as so many countries owe so many dollars. All of the basic natural monopolies that were public enterprise in Europe and still are in Scandinavia and other countries there's no way this infrastructure can be built up without the government doing it. They made America a developed nation. There's nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants. Secondly, be regenerative by design allowing nature to regenerate biological material but also man-made materials their food for the next process. Economists in terms of thinking about distribution of income are driven to thinking about the distribution of productivity. Individuals and also the factors between capital and labor are all the importance of capital and labor in production. Okay. Distribution of income in the distribution of productivity. What does? The oil industry and the banks have gone together. Their idea of development is to make the hole in the ground. They're extractive. In the textbooks it's as if we lived on Mars in an economy where everybody earned money by being productive. How much income really is unearned income? It has nothing to do with labor, nothing to do with enterprise. But owning land, owning mineral rights or oil rights or a monopoly or the largest privilege given by the government is the banking privilege, the right to create credit. Capital in the financial sense becomes debt. No person could amass the physical requirements sufficient for maintenance during his old age because like man it would rot. It would spore. So we have to do an in-run around that by giving our surplus now to someone to invest and then we get in exchange for that the future revenue of the economy which presumably has been enhanced by this investment. Tropical deforestation accounts for an astounding 20% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than all of the aeroplanes, cars and trains put together. And this is a blowout quarter for Caterpillar but you and I were speaking earlier and you said as usual it's not so much about the quarter that's passed it's about what's coming. They have a goal that they have reiterated time and time again of achieving 55 to 60 billion dollars in revenue by 2012. I was sent in Brazil about three weeks ago and demand for Caterpillar's equipment is up 75%. I wouldn't see your retirement account as your politics. I would see your retirement account honestly if you want to do things that are progressive you should make as much money in the account as you possibly can through aggressively managing it for maximum risk-adjusted gain like anyone else and just use the money you make from it to support things like your film projects. All we would need is a more generous social security system a larger one but we wouldn't need all these private pension funds. What is scarce is not money which is debt but the natural world and our ability to do work. Economists claim that all the costs are included in their cost curves but they don't count the gifts of mother nature. The way we deal with nature is more like super-exploitation it's outright robbery you're not providing the basis for the reproduction the sustainability of nature. Neoclassical economists that would seem sometimes at least do not believe in material causation because their production functions K and L, capital and labor They're all the importance of capital labor and production. Well, where's resources? It's not in there. Capital and labor. Capital is generally thought of as produced means of production the gifts of nature are not. The recipe which tells you that you can get a cake from the inputs of a cook and her kitchen and there's no no ingredients are needed. Capital it's not something you can just walk outside and grab. So fish in the ocean. Fish in the ocean are not capital. Oh yes, when extracted they're valued by the marginal cost of capital and labor needed to extract them. Nature is a free good. While Capital in the financial sense not only has value but its value increases exponentially. What is scarcity? People think finance is a scarce resource. Scarcity means that there's not enough of something to satisfy everyone's wants at a zero price. So how do I decide who gets the product? Well, one way is to start charging money. Can you think of any drawbacks? The fact that the wealthy get the goods and services while the poor go without. Not a perfect system but hey, that's capitalism. Anyway, if something is non-scarce, that is there is enough to satisfy everyone's wants. Such a commodity would be known as a free good. Can you think of any free goods? Breathable air maybe? But even this may become scarce at some point. Okay. At the time that you were taking that course. 2004, 2005, yeah. I would argue that yes, we had dampened the business cycle. We couldn't stop it all together. We had hopes that we could stop it all together but there are just too many random shocks. OPEC, things like that are simply not forecastable. So you're saying that it isn't internal in the market economy the instability? No, I think that the private market is still stable but it's going to oscillate. In the textbook there isn't an explanation of how crises happened. Equilibrium gives you this. Equilibrium is a very long run concept. So you're saying that the market isn't going to clear because wages are sticky? Yeah. That was one of the things they simply do not fall. Okay. So but if they did fall you would get rid of them. The unemployment would go away. Do you think that's accurate? Yes, I do. Or? Employment's now zero and nobody's earning much more than a dollar a day. That's an extreme. But it's an equilibrium. Nobody's earning much more than a dollar a day. Remember I told you never criticize a model for being unrealistic. In the textbook then in the classes there isn't any concentration or accumulation. The mainstream theory is not a theory of capitalism at all. What I see as class differences are just not in the economics textbooks. Most people have to live off selling labor. How much income is unearned income? I don't know. I'm not sure of that. I mean I think the basic model in all the economics textbooks today is supply and demand and wages and prices moving to equilibrate supply and demand. That's been true for many, many years and it's true in all textbooks. I mean not just mine. Forget the old Newtonian supply and demand because it's not like gravity. It's the wrong kind of science, the wrong kind of physics. Anything in life that spirals up, up, up or spirals down, down, down is dominated by reinforcing feedback. And the essence of that is that the more you have the more you get. I would eliminate the minimum wage. Now see I don't actually sometimes you think of capital income as unearned income. It's often referred to as unearned income.  Capital income is the return to patience. Patience and 42. Patience and 42. Patience and 42. And things will come your way. A lot of you students are here probably going to go to Wall Street. Some of the smartest students in the world. Does it make sense for you to go to Wall Street? It probably does because you're going to be deciding the future of the U.S. economy. You may be doing it just to get rich. But that's the magic of the invisible hand. Away with that problem. Try hidden magic. It's the perfect solution. Find it hard to take the models that are recited in the textbook and apply them to more journalistic writing. Books like Robert Aaron writes. I think economists are often frustrated by journalistic representations because they seem impressionistic and lacking in rigor. The reason economists tend to move towards math is because math forces one to be rigorous. It's much easier to be illogical with words than it is to be illogical with equations and graphs. That's the main reason why the economics profession has over time. And this is really a 20th century phenomenon. It has during the 20th century moved toward greater use of mathematics and expressing its ideas. The world's five richest people own the same wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest people. The richest 1% will own more than the rest by 2016. As a new study finds the world's eight richest men control as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity. These are the results and actually they should have been the predicted results of relying more on markets because wealth and income don't trickle down. Wealth is more like cream. If you have a theory in which collapse is impossible then you can't talk about collapse. Questions so fundamental that they never actually explicitly get asked what the economy is and what it's for. Economics means the art of household management. We have to take economics out of the equations, out of the ivory towers, make economists of us all. If we have different goals of enjoying work and having everyone share in the abundance of natural resources and products, human products then we have a different measure of efficiency.


Rising, it is I've been here with you, on the part of our plus we're going to be here until 7, taking you home on a choose evening right across the north west and beyond, on linebrillio.com right across our socials, as we speak we are live, bringing you some excellent news if you're a fan of live music here in Ireland or if you're looking for the ideal Christmas present for the live music lover in your life fair to say some good news today, a slew of new gigs have been announced in recent days and I might just give you some ideas if you're stuck for that ideal Christmas gift here is some of the big gigs and fair to say something in here for everybody I think the Prodigy have just announced three Irish dates on June the 23, sorry June 2023 Cork's Musgrave Park that's June the 28th, that's the Prodigy also the Prodigy in Dublin's Fairview Park on June the 29th and a little closer to home, I know a lot of people will be very interested in this the Prodigy live at Belfast, Belsonic Festival on June the 30th so a lot of people finish up exams and all sorts of things, kicking off their summer that'll be a big one, Belfast, Belsonic Festival June 30th and that is, let's see, well the tickets are going to go on sale this Friday at 9am at just under 60 euro, thrift store rapper Macklemore will bring his Ben Tur to Dublin's three arena and that is on April the 4th 2023 of course, tickets on sale this Thursday 10am Folk Troop of the Lumineers, well they're going to be playing in St Anne's Park in Dublin on Friday June the 2nd with support from Sigrid and Vance Joy, that's a great lineup tickets just under 50 euro there on sale this Friday 10am while Lionel Richie, couldn't beat a bit of Lionel he's going to play in St Anne's Park on June the 4th, support from the Human League and also Pulp, which we've mentioned previously on this show they're playing in St Anne's Park on Friday June the 9th and there's more Texas will play the Trinity Summer Series, that is on June the 26th 2023 and tickets are going to go on sale on Friday at 9am and one more here will squeeze in Peter Gabriel, what an absolute 80s legend just announced his first tour in almost a decade and that will conclude in Dublin on June the 25th so loads and loads of Irish gigs to look forward to next summer so yeah, plenty to look forward to in 2023 I was going to go for Lionel but I went for this one instead Michael Moore


Welcome, to the Complete Collection series. Today we'll be looking at Wilt Chamberlain's great stories, told by NBA players and legends. If you have missed any of the other episodes in this series, there is a playlist link in the description box down below and on the top right corner of your screen. Thank you to everybody who recommended that I make a video on Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt has so many stories that there definitely could be a part 2 and even part 3 in this series. If you would like to be featured on the next episode, let me know which player I should do for the next episode in this series. These videos and this series takes me a long time to edit and produce, so all I ask is that you hit that like button, it would really help me out. If you are new around here and you enjoy these types of videos, be sure to hit that subscribe button and turn the notification bell on so you don't miss an episode in this series in the future. Without further ado, here is the Complete Collection of Wilt Chamberlain's greatest stories. Why is it that we don't recognize Wilt Chamberlain? You played against him. For those of us who never saw him live, what should people know about Wilt as a player? Wilt average 50 in one season. Good day. He average 50 in one season. But it feels like Wilt Chamberlain, we look at it and go, you know, he played in a differently, but I think we view it as, you know, that Wilt Chamberlain guy, he scored 100 in a game, like he was an alien. If you have one player in NBA history that you could start a team around, who would it be? I don't need questions like that, it would be Wilt Chamberlain. Why? He's the greatest big man in the history of the game. To say who is the greatest, we would never know that. I mean, in my eye, Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest basketball player. Who do you think is the greatest of all time, Wilt Chamberlain? But we don't acknowledge, when the topic comes up, greatest players of all time, Wilt Chamberlain's name never comes up. I think when you can see the similarities and you understand, this is one way you can judge to me how much impact did each change or evolved again? With all the technology we have today, they didn't have the ankles, the MRI, all the stuff we have now, they didn't have back then. It's literally the word unbelievable, it's very appropriate for him. I would love to see him play against some of these centers today, it would be pretty embarrassing for them to be candid with you. One of the greatest scores we've ever done, I might have never seen someone like that in that era. We talk about these great performances and we show you stats and we show you clips and we compare these people to Wilt Chamberlain because that's basically who set the bar so high. For a younger generation of basketball fans and people that watch and listen to our show, they think of Wilt Chamberlain as the guy who scored 100 points in a game. Or they see two or three clips of him dunking. Explain to everyone just how versatile Wilt was.  Let me teach you who Wilt the still is. Lawyer. First of all, we can't compare that, he's on another level. This is a guy during a basketball season, average 50 points. Wilt's 50, did you feel like that's something he could have done every year? No, that's special, that's once in a lifetime. It seems incredible now to think he averaged 50 points. Yeah, 25 rebounds, I mean that's amazing. At 25 rebounds, 50 points and 25 rebounds.  We got 50 every single night. It was a different game. It was a different game. It was a different game still, 50 points, 25 rebounds, it's 50 points and 25 rebounds. It's a credit to what a physical specimen was and how talented he was. Was a seven footer who literally should have his own record book. This is why a 6-3 guard like Russell Westbrook is being compared to him for triple doubles. A 6-5 guard like James Harden is being compared to him for the way he scores. And a seven foot player like Jokic is being compared to him for having triple doubles. Because he's the unstoppable force in the history of basketball. And it's not just dunks, look at that step back one leg jump shot. People saw Michael Jordan dominate people with the fade away jumper, unstoppable shot. Will Chamberlain invented the fade away. People act like Dirk invented that. Will was doing that there. Finger rolls. Finger rolls, dunks, he could put up video game numbers. Who do you think is the greatest of all time? Will Chamberlain. You think Will Chamberlain is the greatest of all time. So that's the one of the people I am so curious about because when you read about him, you know, you read about how he jumped, you read about what he bench press, you read about his quickness, you know, track, it's just almost, it's almost like, you know, the Bo Jackson, you hear about Bo was a mid, Dion Sanders was a mid, Wilk is in that category to me of Bo, Dion and Wilk. You played against him, right? What was he like when you played against him? Well, you know, there was the two Wilks. There was a Wilk that dominated early on in his career. Then when they said that he, you know, shot too much. People said that he was selfish. So you know what he did? Went back and led the league in assists. He led the league in assists one year. Actually, they played in a triangle offense. A center led the league in assists. Yeah, 1967, 68. I think it was eight and a half. It was the leading number. Chamberlain, back pass for Goodwin. Good! Chamberlain, one of the best in the game and handing off to the cutter. Wilk stopped shooting in his sixth year, sixth or seventh year in the league and became an assist guy and whatnot. So Andy didn't play, he only played 13 years and he played part of one year of that. So he played like 12 years, 12 and a half years, let's say. And he was the all-time leading scorer before everybody else started. He still has 72 records on the books. He's got 68 records by himself. So he's got his, you know, he's tied with four people in another average. I mean, and this has been, what, 40-something years ago. Just numbers in itself tell 50 points a game, 20 average, 20-something rebounds a game. The average for almost 48 minutes a game. I mean, you know. Led the league in assists once, which is unheard of as a center. Exactly. Whatever they said he couldn't do, he did. And now, and that was always what I put my elbow into a solar plexus and I heard him run. And as I was coming back on the court, he was coming after me with his left hand. And I knew that was not to shake my hand because he's right handed. And I knocked this photographer off his stool. I picked up the stool and I reached back to hit Wilk. And by that time, the whole bench on both teams had emptied and Russell was in front of Wilk.  And I was saying, Wilk Chamberlain, I'm going to crack your kneecaps. Well, anyway, that got over. The next night we played in Philadelphia. And so Wilk Chamberlain told me, he said, don't come into the paint tonight.  The first time I got the ball, I went in for a layup. He did not try to block the ball at all. He blocked my body. He put me flat on my back and I remember him coming and getting close to me and saying, the next time you come in here, I'll knock.  And I says, I won't be back. And that all night I did not come back into the paint. You talk about in your prime how you think you would have maybe stacked up against Shaquille O'Neal or, you know, what do you think might would have happened you versus Shaquille O'Neal today? Because people sometimes lump the two of you together. Probably more qualified than anybody for this one. You played, you were contemporary, I believe, for some period of time with Will Chamberlain. You obviously coached Shaquille O'Neal strengths and weaknesses of each. And if you have to rank them, who's number one? Who's number two on that list of two centers? Will Chamberlain was indeed the most dominant player ever. Well, you know, it's as formidable as Shaq was physically. Just stalwart, 300 pounds of steel and agility and athleticism. What was all of that? One of the most dominant forces we ever had in our game along with Shaq. You had more championships than what? Yeah, I got more championships. But, you know, they like I'm very when it comes to basketball conversations, I'm very arrogant. Only want to hear my name. So when they say who's the most dominant player ever, I want them to say my name. I don't want them to be like, ah, maybe Will, maybe Shaq. That's that don't fly with me. I want them to say Shaq. Does that really bother you? Yeah, it does. Because that was my niche. I wasn't going for the greatest player niche. I wasn't going for, you know, the best.  You got to earn that. So Will averaged 50 in one season. He did. He averaged 50 in one season. So I'm mad because I wanted to pass him up in points. Now, if I had to pass him up, I would have arrogantly said Shaquille and it was the most dominant player ever. Don't ever ask me the question again. Yeah, I got more rings in him, but he got more 50 point games. He got more rebounds and he has more points. Shaquille didn't have quite the same athleticism the will had. He had the bounce and he had the the speed. But he didn't have the endurance that obviously by the 48 minutes a night that we talked about.  He had a ray of shots.  And Shaquille was a post sprinter. Shaquille gets away with what I would consider murder. So they let him go.  So so Shaquille is allowed maybe to score some points that maybe he wouldn't get. Well, he got that some deepest in his favor, though, right? There's gonna be a little bit of a drop between four or five guys on. Like, you're my... Where he'd go down and get in the lane ahead of the crowd. And, Will, it was never, you know, much of a post sprinter. He used to take his time. In fact, when he rebounded, a lot of times he'd bank the guards come back to him to get the ball. So he'd be down there when the ball got to the other end of the court. I think that free throw shooting, big weakness on both spots, it really was. Because we're both terrible foul shooters. But other than that, he plays an entirely different type of basketball game. He uses his physicality. He's a big strong young man. And that works well in today's game. If he was facing me and other guys of my time, not so, not so good. I mean, I'm a guy bench pressing around 600 pounds. 600 pounds? Yeah, right. One night, we were in a playoffs against Philadelphia when he was still with Philadelphia. And they fouled out both Walt Bellamy and Willis Reed and I ended up having to be the third center to go in and play Will to double overtime game. So it was one of those things.  He was that strong. He was very strong. Thank you for your question. First of all, you're never gonna say who's the greatest of all time. To me, I think that's more for PR and more for selling stories and getting hype. Jack and Tiger never played against each other. They never played in the same tournament. They never played with the same equipment. They never played with the same, you know, length of golf course. I never played against Will Chamberlain. To say who is the greatest, we will never know that. I mean, in my eye, Will Chamberlain is the greatest basketball player. To now say that one's greater than the other is being a little bit unfair. Everybody always points to Michael in making all these changes or things. But Will Chamberlain was the first one that really made changes. He was the first dominant person of basketball. How much impact did each change or evolved again? Let's talk about, well, Michael Jordan. I'm curious. Michael Jordan, say we had a time machine here. What if we could send Michael Jordan back to playing basketball with you in your prime? When you see Michael Jordan, I'm a product of modern basketball, modern technology. With all the technology we have today, they didn't have the ankles, the MRI, all the stuff we have now. They didn't have back then. But all the great achievements comes from Oscar Robinson, Rima Dujibar, Will Chamberlain. So all the basketball players, way before Michael Jordan, I just got the food of the labor, I guess. I learned so much from these guys watching them and I've kind of gained more of the publicity and more of the notoriety because of me learning from what they have done years way before me.  Are you the best basketball player that ever played? And Michael said, yes, I am. We're at the NBA's all-time team celebration, Cleveland, 1997. When they announced the top 50 players, right? Which you were on that list, right, when they announced them. I heard when they were bringing everybody up at the end of the row is Will and Michael Jordan and they're sitting at a table arguing vociferously as to who the greatest player of all time was and they're really looking for it and just, it's just intense as can be. Jordan and Will were debating on who's the greatest and Stern had to say, come on up here. We're going really at it and one's saying I am, the other one's saying I am, they're going, but you couldn't do this and Meyer, I did this and I was doing this and I changed the game with this. It bothers you when people talk about him as being the greatest player of all time. Well, it bothers me because we all have our opinions. I contend Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player I've ever lived. I would put you number two only because you only won two championships.  He had a lot of stats in this and that. You won two world championships, okay? I have a friend of mine who I talked to about once a week. You know what he says about Michael's four championships? Mm-hmm. He doesn't say anything about it. Because he has 11, Bill Russell.  A lot of guys on those championship teams have done nothing. I won six championship. Bill Russell won 11. Does that make Bill Russell better than me and make me better than him? No, because we play at different eras. So when you try to equate who's the greatest of all time, it's an unfair parallel. It's an unfair choice. Michael Jordan is one of those rare specimens that could have played at any particular time and is a gift that athlete who is using those gifts in basketball incredibly so. I think that almost every man in the NBA should give him 10% of their checks. Now what would his playing style, how would that have translated back then?  Coming into what we call our domain, the pivot for us big guys, we've not been very wise of Michael. To me, there's no real debate, you know, as far as I was concerned. I mean, we've had great players as far as, you know, with Michael and of course, the Bron. You know, everybody, Michael set a tone for the guys from the eighties up. I know that basketball is a team game. Right. And you've already made Michael number one. So if you had to have willed against Michael, my prime and his prime, how much money would you be rolled with that? Close or not even close? Oh, everybody's close, but you know, well, just did things.  I actually saw this and I think to this day, people don't believe it, but he wasn't at the top of the circle, but he was about three steps behind it on a free throw and he ran to the free throw line, took off and dunked the ball. And in the rules at that time, you could. I think I could have been very definitely instrumental because I was chairman of the basketball coaches rules recommendation committee. And I explained to the coaches at the convention what I saw and said that, you know, something's gonna have to be done so that we don't have guys that can dunk the ball on the free throw line and they changed that rule. The rule because you have to stay behind the free throw line until the ball hits the back. You had a little 13 foot lanes. That got expanded. I mean, he did things that into today's is still a part of the game what's made the game what it is today. Revolutionary type of guy. I'll tell you a great magic story. I'm a coach at UCLA and he used to come to the men's gym and organize games. There were a lot of pickup games all the time and he used to make the sides and stack them. So one night I'm watching and Kevin O'Connor in the stands, Will Chamberlain's playing with four of my freshmen against Magic, Bernard King, James Worthy, Byron Scott, and Green. AC Green, AC Green. And it's game point. Magic throws a skyhook. Will blocks it. Magic calls game. And Will says, that wasn't gold tendon. That was a clean block. And Magic took the ball. He said, game over next. And Will said, hey coach, was that gold tendon? And I said, no, that was a clean block. Magic says, what do you think he's gonna say? They're his kids. And Will says, all right, look, we're gonna play a game till 12. We'll do it again, winner stays and there'll be no more shots made at this basket. He blocked every shot, 43 years old. He was blocking everything. It was unbelievable. Somebody used to play in those 80s games who I asked, who's the best player you ever played with or against told me it was about a 50 year old Will Chamberlain at those UCLA pickup games. He was that kind of physical presence. My friend, Will, Norman Chamberlain, was far away the best player I've ever played against. We cannot throw out what Will. Will is Will. I mean, obviously he didn't win championships, but I'm with Shaq, you go with winners because Bill Russell won so much, but when you start saying, which would you start a team with, it's hard to go against a big difference. It's hard to go against him. As far as basketball skills are concerned, there's never been anybody to accomplish what Will Chamberlain has accomplished. And he was an incredible human being, an incredible physical specimen and a great athlete. And I don't think anybody will come along who will be able to match the records that Will has accomplished. He just never had the personnel like Bill Russell had to go along with him. If Will had the good fortune of having as many great teammates as Bill Russell had, I think that his record of championships would have been phenomenal. Keep in mind that in his NBA career, Bill Russell has zero individual all-time records. Michael Jordan has three all-time NBA records. Will Chamberlain has 56 all-time NBA records. Now tell me who's the greatest player of all time. With all deference to Bill Russell and the winning, the men average, I don't care what era, he averaged 50 and 25 for it. He's got to be on Mount Rushmore. He didn't win enough, but he was going against the Celtics every single year. And you can't even argue by the numbers. Will Chamberlain, the most dominant player ever in this game. But we do not acknowledge Will Chamberlain. We have forgot about him. And he's one of the most athletic players who's ever played the game. He led the league in assists. He led the league in field goal percentage, led the league in block shots. He led, whatever you wanted him to do, he was gonna do. People seem to think that your friendship with him helped you a little bit competitively because he liked you so much. That's a crock. Do you know what the NBA rebound record is? It's 55 rebounds by Will Chamberlain. Do you know who the other center was that night? It was Bill Russell. Now, how's that taking easy? Yeah, he did that in November of 1960. So, you know, his second year in the league, 55 rebounds, that to me is incredible because, you know, against Bill Russell, they were the two great rebounders in the history of the game. He called me up one day. Swanson Illustrated had a cover and said, it's Dennis Rodman, the best rebounder ever. Oh, God. And Will was so annoyed. And I created up, so annoyed. So he called me up and he asked me, did I believe in this bleep? And so I said, well, I don't pay attention to that. He says, I had more rebounds a quarter than he had on the whole game. In the 60s, Will was just picked apart more than any athlete. Why doesn't he do this? Why does he only care about numbers? Did you think it was fair? Well, I'll tell you one thing. I never did it in that position. You never said one thing? He got to 100 points against my team, the Knicks. That was in Hershey, Pennsylvania, but I read about it immediately the next day. 50 years ago, please score 100 points. That's right, 100 points. 100 points in one game, which I believe was versus the Knicks, 1962. That's right. Is that right? It's a long, long time ago. Right here, right, right, right. Was there a point? 100 points in one game. The game was on TV, just some pictures remain, but you better believe that night lives on and the memories of those who saw it. He scored 100 points in a game in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Now you were in that game and the night that he got 100, were you cognizant of that? Did you talk about it at halftime or did you treat it like a no-hitter? When Dave Zinkoff, who you remember was doing the game, he started calling every point after that. And he would say, and that's 82, and that's 83. Oh, Zinkoff. Well, then we became cognizant that he had a chance. Get into the big guy. That was amazing. I believe that a great basketball player or a good night for him or a hot night for him can score 100 points. I believe that, sincerely. I'll be the other records I have that they may have a hard time ever taking a look at. They always said he was by far the strongest person who's ever played there.   Will Chamberlain was involved with, with Gus Johnson. Will was standing there. Gus goes up to Duncan. Will catches the ball, throws Gus to the floor, still holding the ball. They carry Gus off the court with a dislocated shoulder from bouncing off the floor. I don't see how anyone in the NBA will ever be as strong as he was. One time in a game, Casey Jones tied him up. He was really upset.  And he picked it up with his arms extended, brought it to his chest and threw a two-handed chest pass with Casey still on the ball. That's how strong he was. He came to the gym and he would do a tricep extension. That like the big guys, the strongest guys would do, let's say 120 pounds, let's say, tricep extension, putting down, right? He would come and he would do 150, 170 pounds with Chamberlain. That's how strong he was. When he made the moves with Arnold Schwarzenegger, they were at the weight room. And Will says, well, how do you do that? And Arnold goes, well, that's where you do it.  So I go, Will lays down on the bench, gets up under it. Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. And Schwarzenegger never came into the weight room with Will to get it. Now, when you're 32 years old, you know, you haven't quite checked your ego at the door yet. And I wasn't quite ready to, you know, to check my ego at the door. So Dick McGuire, who was a teammate of mine, and he said, well, the job is yours. So he offered me the job. I said, well, Dick, let me think about it. We played the exhibition game against the Philadelphia Warriors in Hershey, Pennsylvania. I saw Will for the first time. I said, it's time to go. I said, it's time. I told him, I said, you know what, man, you did me a great favor. He said, what do I do? I said, you know, you took a hand of ringing and gut wrenching decision and made it a no brainer. It's time. When the game ended, I was Dick's assistant coach. And I remember there was a game against Brooklyn. I played with Brooklyn and we'll play with the team from Philly. And we had this game against them and it was one of probably one of the best games you've ever seen, but everybody don't remember because it wasn't on video, it was just pre-video. So, I mean, it was a great game. And I think the, and we had a guy by the name of Jackie Jackson, who was like six foot four and actually touched the top of the backboard. I've heard people talk about guys touching the backboard, this guy can do it. And we ran a play and we used to shoot this fade away jump shot. He used to go up high and shoot it off the glass. So we had a play that we make whoop, shoot this jump shot and Jackie will come up and block it. And we had the play set up perfect.  Jackie came from the weak side and quartered it right at the top of the backboard. And the crowd went crazy. People were running around the place and jumping off the fence and almost jumping off the ceilings and stuff. And it was just phenomenal. And we looked over at Wilton, what was staring at us and he will call time out, just call time out like that. And everybody was still running around and screaming and back then there wasn't high five. They were giving everybody low five and stuff. Everybody was clapping and carrying on. And then the next 15 plays were dunks by Wilk that I've never seen before in my life. He dunked every single way he can be imagined for it. And I hope you guys enjoyed the video. If you did, help me out by hitting that like button, subscribing if you're new for more NBA content just like this and hit that notification button so you never miss an episode in the series. Thank you for watching. Peace.


I am Amare. I am working for Iltre. Basically the issue of adoption of farmers for better productive animal and better productive feed is highly linked with the market, which means whenever we go for higher productivity we need higher genetic make-up, better producing animals. Those needs basically are investments both in terms of labour and finance for farmers. When this higher milk yield comes in, farmers could not sell the milk to nearby market and gain something from that. They are not encouraged to invest in dairy cows. Probably I can share with you my experience in India. We did a kind of water productivity assessment for farming system across different intensification gradient. In one of the sites we had a paddy rice system where really it's a kind of semi-intensive basically. There is no crossbreed cows, they don't have any cooperatives for milk production and they don't have any activities like the other part was feed, supply, improved feed supply, those kind of things. I talked to farmers why they don't adopt crossbreed cows. They mentioned what are you going to do with the milk? There is no market, there is no cooperatives where we can sell and regain what we invested in it. And so I think my perception from there is that really not only improving the productivity, improving the efficiency of resource use, but also linking the output product to the market is a turning point to change smallholders' livelihoods.


When it comes to rituals, yes, there are choices, but what ritual I do, you must also do. There's no such thing. But don't throw the baby with the bath water. We must be able to see what is corruption in this. My question today is, in the world that we live in today, there exist a multitude of paths to traverse, both spiritually and religiously. But I'm confused and as a millennial, I'm really doubting if a ritualistic approach is relevant today. Well, you may be a millennial, but these choices you have only in this country, you better know that. If in many other countries in the world, if you say you have a choice of choosing, generally you will be dead. If you're not dead, you will be harassed in a thousand different ways. In this country, you can choose, which is wonderful. Because we don't have a religious constitution which cannot be edited or amended, here we have a various books which can be amended, which can be debated, which can be… something can be done about it. Coming to ritual, how rituals came into existence is like this. Do you brush your teeth every day in the morning? I'm just asking. You do. I don't do this. This means no. Yes. So, every day in the morning you brush your teeth. Some kind of a ritual, isn't it? In fact, people say morning rituals. They're not talking puja.  I don't do. You don't do.   You say, no, I want to eat. She said, no, no brushing, no breakfast. Are you thankful to your mother? She insisted on the… on your ritual. Yes or no? Are you not… that time you were irritated. I want to eat. What's the problem? Why should I brush every day?  It works, isn't it? At least for everybody else around you it works. So similarly, rituals came for variety of reasons. If you are able to… you said there are multitude of spiritual paths. No, there's only one. If you say spiritual, you have to turn inward. There are no many inwards, there's only one. Hello? There's only one inward. Well, you may go like this, you may go like this, you may go like this, but there's only one inward. So when it comes to a spiritual path, there's only one. You have to turn inward. When it comes to religion, maybe there are choices. When it comes to rituals, yes, there are choices. So when people were not competent, everybody was not competent to simply sit like this and become meditative, then they thought them simple processes. I must tell you this. Many years ago, some institute… these days I don't subject myself to such indignities because I can afford that. Many years ago, some institute who thinks they are scientific, they said they… because I was obligated to them for something and they said we want to study the gamma waves in your brain. I didn't know I had gamma waves. I know I have a working brain, but I didn't know I have gamma waves in my brain. They said, no, no, the gamma waves, we want to study that. I said, okay, what should I do?  I said, I don't know how to meditate. They said, well, you're teaching everybody meditation. I said, I teach people meditation because they cannot sit still. I have to teach them so many methods to make them still. If you want me to sit still, I will sit absolutely still inside out. But, you know, research is funded. Scientific research is always funded. They need a name. They need the category of meditation and gamma wave whatever nonsense. But I'm not going to give them such pleasure. I said, if you want me to sit and do nothing, I'll do nothing but no meditation. Then after much discussion, probably they found a name for nothing and they said, okay, you do nothing. I sat. After about fifteen, twenty minutes, you know that funny place in your elbow where if you do the tongue, it'll go. They're taking a metal object and took, took, took, they're hitting that place. It's just leaving my palm numb. I thought, okay, it's part of their experiment and I simply sat there. Then they started doing my ankle, became very persistent and painful. Then I thought, why are they beating me up like this? Whatever I done wrong. When I opened my eyes, all of them are giving me a weird look. I said, why did I do something wrong? They said, according to our machines, you're dead. I said, this is a great diagnosis. You're making it. And then among themselves they spoke and say, obviously this guy speaking is not dead.  I said, please, I don't like this second opinion. If you give me a death certificate, I don't mind. Being dead like this. But brain dead is not good for me. It'll affect my activity. That's why I'm telling you this is if you could handle everything internally, no problem with you. That's the best way to do it. Simply, this is yoga.  You know how to handle from within. No ritual for you. Never in my whole life have I ever prayed, you know. But I'm prayerful to anything. If I see a mountain, if I see a rock, if I see a tree, if I see a cow, if I see a man, woman, child, I'm prayerful. But I'm not praying. I've never prayed to any god for anything ever. So I'm not ritualistic in any sense because if I close my eyes, I can deal with everything that I need to deal with with my life both internal and external. I want to fix this, I close my eyes. If I want to fix that, I close my eyes. If you do enough sadhana, you can become like this. It's not out of reach. It is available for every human being. They don't pay enough attention, that's all. But if you don't know this, you want to become peaceful. You don't know how to sit still. Then what do I do? I'll teach you one mantra, okay? Say this, every day in the morning, twenty minutes, you say this, now you become peaceful. This is your ritual. If it's working for you, what is your problem? If it's not working, drop the damn thing, do something else. Every day in the morning, you took a swim. That became your ritual. You felt wonderful.  Somebody is doing yoga as a ritual. Somebody is doing puja. Somebody is uttering a mantra. Somebody is singing a song.  But what ritual I do, you must also do. There's no such thing. Something is working for me. I'm doing it. It's not necessary you must do it. But if you ask me, suppose I'm somebody who is doing every day in the morning, Om Nam Sivaya, Om Nam Sivaya, it's working for me. If you come and ask me, I'm feeling freaked. What should I do? Hey, try this Om Nam Sivaya. It's working for me. If you like it, you also do it or you do something else. You do Dam Doom Das Bus. But the thing is it must work for you. That's the important thing. So rituals, rituals were fantastic devices created with certain wisdom. Over a period of time, they might have become corrupt in practice. Over a period of time, they might have become tools for exploitation for certain people. But don't throw the baby with the bath water. We must be able to see what is corruption in this. Eliminate the corruption and use the technique. Don't throw away everything that the civilization has learnt in thousands of years of living and think you will reinvent the wheel tomorrow. Everybody will be queuing up at a psychiatrist. Just know that. The number of people who are queuing up with mental illnesses today is simply because there is no what we used to call as achara vichara. There is no debate about what is this life, why am I like this, what is the nature of my existence, no achara, no vichara and no achara, there is no anything. See, if your mothers or fathers did not insist that you must have the ritual of brushing your teeth, what an unpleasant place this hall would be right now. Because out of your freedom some of you would do or a whole lot of you would come here, decide, I will not brush, what is the problem? No, maybe no problem for you, everybody else suffers.  Especially for girls, isn't it so? If you get into a damn bus in the town, because all these things were thought as ritual, this is how you must approach. When we are growing up in our house, our sisters are there, you cannot even address them in single order.  We want to fight with them, we want to beat them, but no, you have to address the girls in a certain way. When you grow up with this kind of ritual, now you learn how to treat every woman on the street. Otherwise look at the way people are behaving, most uncivilized. Uncivilized means what? The necessary rituals of culture are not there in those people, isn't it? So these can be various kind of rituals, social rituals, spiritual rituals, religious rituals, it doesn't matter. Is it working for you or not working for you? That should be the only question.


Deccord linear charge. Cut a piece of double-sided tape 80 inches long. Peel one side and lay the tape flat on a table with the sticky side up.  Ensure that one end of the deccord is even with the end of the tape. Cut two 80-inch lengths of deccord, three for security doors, and place one on each side of the 92-inch piece of deccord. Ensure that the deccords are tight against each other for the entire length. Use duct tape and cover the deccord and tape. Use the end of the 92-inch length of deccord to form a bite. Use tape to make a buddy tab at the top of the charge and continue to run the tape down the length of the paper covering. This ensures easier separation of the end of the tape and its adhesive backing. Start at the bottom with the paper side inward and roll the charge. This ensures ease of charge placement and prevents the tape covering from cracking or coming off.


Now the ongoing trial of an undergraduate of the University of Lagos, Chidima Ojuku, over the alleged murder of Michael Otage, the chief executive officer of Super TV, has been stored yet again. Ojuku's trial was stored due to a contest of integrity of the deceased bank statement presented before the justice Yatunde Adesoya. The accused who has been charged with murder, stealing and forgery alongside her sister, Chidima Ojuku and one Adedakbo Kodri is done in trial before a Lagos High Court seated in Iguoshiri. The two representatives from Marxist and GT co-banks had appeared in court to tender the statement of account of the deceased as evidence show documents. The first defense counsel, Ojuku however, objected to the evidence being tended saying the document came like a spring of surprise. On his part, the second defense counsel, Babachi Debusari, objected to the bank statement on the basis that it was different from the account details already tended to the court as an exhibit. The Lagos State Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Ademike Oluwa Femi later prayed the court for an adjustment so as to make their needed adjustment. The trial was adjourned until Tuesday, April 26th.


Hey guys, welcome back to our channel. My name is Andrea with Food and Mentory Adventures in Food And I am here today with a Walmart after Christmas clearance haul So today is Monday December 26th, and I found lots of goodies. Everything was at least 50% off. So let me show you what I picked up So I grabbed two bags of these hair bow gummy bears This is my favorite brand of gummy bears. These were I think like $1.74 each Same with the kisses and these are almond kisses And then I grabbed two bags of Snickers minis I will say that the Walmart that I went to they did not have a lot of candy Usually I try to buy the Kit Kats and stuff like that, but they just didn't have a lot of candy at all That's okay because I had a bunch of other stuff I grabbed these treat bags and again everything was pretty much 50% off the the price that you see and then I also Grabbed these gift card holders. I love to give gift cards at Christmas I also grabbed some of these gift money holders as well, and they again were 50% off grab two packages These are some more gift card holders that I grabbed as well And then I grabbed some more gift card holders as you can see I kind of went a little crazy on the gift card holders I Fell in love with this platter. It is a pioneer woman platter They had two different patterns, but this was the last pattern and this and this is a pretty large platter And I don't have one for Christmas. I think this was $7 in something After being 50% off the other thing that I was very excited about was This rectangular Baker set you get two of them in these and this was $9 and I think 98 cents And so what I really like about it is that it doesn't necessarily look Christmasy as you can see that pattern So this is something that I can use year-round. It was just very pretty to me. I grabbed these this little decorator kit and I don't remember how much it was it may have been two dollars. I think but I thought that was a pretty good deal I also grabbed this cookie stamper kit. You get eight pieces and their winter design So it's not they do have Santa Claus, but then they have like snowflakes and things like that And I also think there's a butterfly in there as well. So I had to grab that I don't think I showed you these gift card holders right here And then I grabbed this little candy cane set I saw it in the store, you know before Christmas and did not want to buy it Just didn't want to spend the money on it. It was 798 and then of course I got it for half off So cute and then I grabbed this little tree as well again half off of that 698 I love stuff like this. I grabbed this little mini waffle maker. It was five dollars So they had the snowman pattern and they also had a Santa Claus pattern as well But I like the snowman because I can use this all winter long. I Grabbed this carols daughter What is it? It's a conditioner and an oil and hair scalp blend So I thought that was a pretty good deal And I think it was it may have been seven dollars, but that's still a good deal And then I also grabbed this. This is a brand that I'm not familiar with But I love conditioners detanglers things like that. So I think it may have been like May have been four dollars 98 cents. Don't quote me on it, but I thought that was a pretty good deal. I Grabbed a lot of hair stuff. You'll see again I got this was half price and I got this can to shave butter winter care kit And that's what comes in it and then I also grabbed This hand to care essentials and I thought that was a good deal and it's a cream Which I like so you get coconut waters vanilla cashmere and lavender cream. I Grabbed this this was seven dollars hydrating Styling kit can too and it's avocado based Oils and things so I thought that was a pretty good deal and they're full size So then I also got this a vino body wash set. So you get two body washes and one lotion and Then I grabbed this Garnier and I think this was like may have been 498 as well I thought that was a great deal and this is what comes in there. You get a serum You get all sorts of stuff. So that was a great deal I thought and then I also grabbed this tear tray Decor and here is the size on that and again, it was half price I'm gonna use that for next Christmas and decorated So this is everything that I picked up on my Walmart clearance haul I hope you all enjoyed this video if you did, please make sure to give us a thumbs up And if you have not subscribed to our channel, we'd certainly love to have you Thanks so much for watching and we'll see you all next time