Hi everybody, happy Thursday. I'm Joe for jashby'scasewrakes.com coming at you with 2021 Panini absolute football six box half case pick your team number nine very big. Thanks everybody who bought their team straight up Always like that. Thank you. Thanks to the people who filled up the the filler a little random team We pulled the the remaining teams out turned into a random team break And if you've got a team we put a little rooftop next to your name. So thanks for that And who I don't know who officially got last spot mojo in this Before I pulled out all those teams. This is very important ladies and gentlemen stand by This is very important. I think it was Brad who got the Texans Last before I pulled all those teams out. We'll pull a little asterisk next to your name That means you got the team last that's last spot mojo people say that 70% of time it hits a hundred percent of the time There's the case right there 2021 absolute football Let's pop this open and let's see which six boxes. We're going to do I know where where's my knife? Where's the tools of my trade? It's right here Get it because it's absolute All right There's six boxes over here and six boxes right over here We'll do one two three for the left side and four five six for the right side. I'm gonna select that die And it's one so we're gonna do that back six right here this we will save for next time So that'll be for pick your team at ten Hard to write at this angle, but there you go. You can see I marked all those pick your team ten So you know that they're all from the same case when we do the next break probably tomorrow So keep buying your teams on jazby's case breaks calm. Let's finish it off. All right now. Let's let's roll with this. Good luck, everybody so generally In each case there should be One kaboom and one explosive We've seen some cases With more Than just one of each feel like we've seen some cases with none That's not as common There are points in here as well. So if we happen to pull points Hopefully we don't but if we do That points already come on if we do winner take all on the points. It's just a kid reporter car There are points right there. So we'll randomize that to one person in the break Winner take all on the points Actually, although you can buy exclusive packs if you have enough points. So there's some value there There's Zach Wilson to 75 The Cadarius Tony to 250 Christian Barmore to 100 will sleeve and top load all of those Later on. Let me just slide some of the base cards out. All right, and your hits We got we're gonna start off with a Justin field. That's nice 58 out of 75 Justin Fields nice for Chicago and That's gonna be for Jay Graggs and the Chicago Bears We got Pat Friarmuth War Room Relic to 25 Jeremy H with the Steelers behind Ryan Fitzpatrick Chuba Hover Triple Relic and autograph 118 out of 399 piece of the pigs get in there as well that goes to Donald and Carolina One that team in the random team. He had a touchdown last week. Absolute heroes Dalvin Cook 44 out of 99 Vikings Ron Hollins with Minnesota. Oh and Teddy Bridgewater to 75 Good start. Next box Rough day for the Falcons today, and I was on the Falcons too. I really thought they were gonna They were gonna at least cover today, but What are some of the any any exciting games coming up this week, and I feel like I haven't really Looked at the slate of games Colts bills. Okay, actually that could be interesting Ravens Bears I mean just maybe I guess maybe Lamar Jackson Justin Fields no one's watching Lions Browns right outside of Browns fans me I don't think There's a chance that That they may not even play Baker Mayfield Finn autograph down there Mark likes Cowboys chief. That's right. That should be a good game for sure and a redemption on the bottom right there Texans Titans. No Packers Vikings Divisional matchup. It's pretty good Dolphins jets. No Saints Eagles could be Washington Carolina. No Niners Jaguars. No Bangles Raiders. I'll watch it. I'm a Raiders guy Yeah, it looks like Cowboys chiefs Cardinals Seahawks So there you go. So there's there's some games on Doesn't look super exciting, but We'll all watch of course. I might have grabbed a hit here, but here your non numbered base cards I did grab a hit. There is Alvin Camara and Mike Thomas 80 out of 199. Someone was asking earlier if they think Who it was but would Michael Thomas gonna be the same a lot of major injuries there he is again I think he's been trying to make his way back, but has had some setbacks There is Robert Quinn 47 out of 49 signature standouts another bear for Graggs Devante Adams reveals a Kyle Trask triple red relic and auto 235 out of 399 seem to like I've heard some people say I've been picking up Kyle Trask's because they like the idea of him marinating behind Tom Brady for another season or two Learning from the best and emerging in that buccaneer system, which he'd be really familiar with Matt Lever with the buccaneers It's Devante Adams out was to 75 Emmanuel Sanders to 100 reveals a Jamar chase war room relic to 100 bangles mark Rauw and the redemption is Rashad Bateman signature rookies spectrum orange Rashad Bateman Ravens Yeah purple birds, so that'll go to Sleeve this will go to Mark Dallara, there you go mark like once he kind of gets his Gets going in the league. I don't he'd been banged up a little bit, but once he gets going in the league could be pretty Pretty interesting player although he did sit out Thursday's practice Due to an illness. All right, but anyway There you go mark There's a manual Sanders to 100. All right next box That's more points here, but it's another 600 so now that's a total of 1200 points, which is which is now looking good It's a decent amount winner take all on that someone's gonna win that It's Quincy Roche to 75 Randall Cobb to 50 Justin Jefferson Frank Darby to 250 Devante Adams reveals a chase Claypool and Najee Harris Jeremy H with the Steelers Michael Pittman jr. Reveals in the mirror Smith Marcette nine out of 25 Skull that goes to Ron and the Vikings There's a Anthony Schwartz Triple relic in auto to 399 Cleveland.  I want to say earlier in the season And there's Najee Harris war room to 199 that was the pack with the points Replaces the autograph Another one for Jeremy H and Pittsburgh. All right halfway through this half case break Next one. Good luck By the way, Cowboys chiefs is kind of a big matchup this this week Chiefs are home favorites minus two and a half big total at 56 I mean, I would probably pass on that game, but if he had to choose Probably going with the chiefs at home. It looked like they're getting their their act together again beating up on my Raiders Reporter card more points, huh? So now you've got a ton like 1,800 points now There's some nice exclusive packs. You can buy with those points that Stuff inside could go for a lot. There's Yvonne Holland 75 and Christian McCaffer to 25 at this point Probably want to pull more points and there's a out of 10 CD land Cowboys Chad with the boys We got Aziz ojolari to 250 That's for New York. That's gonna go to Donald behind Odell Beckham jr. Is a Monras St. Brown 009 out of 100 Lions bill with Detroit Canton absolutes Vaughn Miller 005 out of 199 My rivals the Broncos that's gonna go to Mark and there's Michael Carter rookie premier triple relic an autograph 34 out of 399 Jets Jets Jets Jets that's gonna go to Josh Smith With the spot that he won In the random and behind Deandre swift is air raid Kyler Murray It's a cool relic gale with the Cardinals Yeah, if it's winter take all on the points Joe P's pointing out Yeah, that's about a hundred hundred and fifty dollars in value and I think our French had dawg was saying the other day that he had just picked up this exclusive like cosmic basketball pack or something like that I think there are a lot of points, but People people will buy them to get those packs or if you want to save up some points You can end up getting getting an exclusive pack and they could they could hold some nice stuff Nice exclusive stuff. Yeah, even if you don't like the points, they'll sell pretty easy Yeah back in the day Joe P you remember in the old days points were like Points and here's more points Yeah, cosmic select for 5,000 points, but points were like a were were just like pretty much you know Worthless a number of years ago like you weren't able to get nothing out of that reward store But now they've they've really updated and they've done a nice job Panini has done a really nice job putting some worthwhile stuff in there So again, yeah, even if you don't like the point you can still You can still get a get some money out of it, too But now it's not it's not as bad anymore Kaderia's Tony they're 250 and your hits We got groundhogs Aaron Jones 86 out of 99 Aaron Jones banged up a little bit Gotta find a replacement for all my fantasy team Jose got randomized the Packers We got terrace Marshall, Jr. 45 out of 99 Jersey and autograph Panthers that's for Donald and more Panthers Chuba Hubbard one of one Chuba Hubbard for Donald Donald Out of fives and under get the train whistle the world famous train whistle All aboard the big hit Express whoo-hoo and behind the Joe Burrow is your team tandem Mack Jones and Nikhil Harry Yeah, I hope so too Mark Delaar is a little concerned He's like I hopefully they replace kabooms with the points. That's a lot of points for a half case It is it's more than More than usual Why do you ask Rex? What were you looking to sell out? Kaboom. Yeah, I doubt they replaced kabooms. That's generally not their MO They usually replace relics or autographs Julio Jones Got Kirk Cousins Justin Jefferson team tandem to 199 Vikings that's for Ron and we've got Levi on was a rookie Rurike 86 out of 100. Sorry Levi. I'm butchered that if you're watching Bill Norton Lyons DJ T Higgins tools of the trade quad relic five out of 49 We are on to Cincinnati that'll be for Mark Rao and the bangles You know and Kyle Long is a nice Mack Jones five out of 75 so we had a Justin Fields earlier and now a Mack Jones Jersey autograph Derek Henry get well soon Mark has Stevenson to 250 and we've got a Elijah Veratucker 14 out of 75 for the J ETS Jets Jets Jets Josh Smith kaboom behind Michael Pidman is Is a titan it's Julio Jones Julio a Kaboom for Roy in Tennessee got the titan straight up gets rewarded with the kaboom card. There you go There you go ladies and gentlemen really nice break and a lot of points to randomize to one person in the break Winner take all as we normally do it Let's flip back to the list Let's get all the names on one screen right here. Let's grab everyone's names from Gail down to Peter and everyone in between There's the dice. There's the list Let's roll it and randomize it name on top After five gets all the points four and a one five times one two three four and a one fifth and final time after five times Name on top all the points It's a lot Very close Chad. Thanks for giving it a go. Thanks for getting in the break. It's Roy. Wow gets the kaboom and All the points there you go. Thanks for grabbing the Titans. Thanks everybody for watching I'm Joe for jazby's case breaks calm. I'll see you next time for the next part of that break. Bye. Bye


As an initiative of July being considered a Sakuma-Venice month around the world, I would like to take you through to an interesting journey of one Mr. Pradeep Bose in his mid-40s. He presented to us with a history of severe pain in his right hip, radiant in between his thigh and also his leg for nearly four months of duration. The pain was so excruciating that he was unable to lie down flat on the bed, turn to the side and even sleep well or take care of his basic daily activities which was worsening as time went by. So we did all the imaging and our imaging test actually showed a big tumour rising from the right hemipelvisus, the ilium bone and the part of the lower aspect of the pelvic bone. You can see here this was actually the cause for the compression of the sciatic nerve. Last year, the month of May, I started developing right leg pain. I consulted an orthopedist who diagnosed me as having right sciatica pain. I underwent physical therapy and started taking pain medicines. But even after physical therapy, my pain was not subsiding. So my orthopedist suggested to go for a MRI of the pelvis, which indicated right osteocondrosal coma of my hip. I was referred to Dr. Sriman in Manipal Hospital and after biopsy and scans, Dr. Sriman recommended surgery as the best option for my treatment. Further tests such as a biopsy which is image guided by the CT assistance and also a PET series scan indicated that he was suffering from a condosalcoma which is actually a rare form of a bone cancer or a bone sarcoma. Subsequently, we discussed this scenario in the tumor board where all surgical oncologist, medical oncologist, myself and other allied specialties sit together and discuss the treatment outcome with a personalized approach for this individual. With the current evidence of surgery being the mainstay of treatment in condosalcoma of the bone, we offered in the same solution. The challenge in this scenario was that the tumor was so big and it won't actually be the size of a mini-foot bone and this was literally compressing the space where the sciatic nerve comes out from the spinal cord and traverses through the posterior part of the hip and the thigh and the leg to supply to its areas. So myself and Dr. Shabir Zaleri who is a senior surgical oncologist at Manipal hospitals worked as a team and we excised the condosalcoma of the right hand with the aid of advanced intraoperative imaging and 3D modeling to make sure that we remove the right or the adequate amount of tumor at the same time try to save as much as normal tissue bone and especially the sciatic nerve also as possible. We could even you know with a great support from our anesthetic team have a very less blood loss also during the surgery. After two weeks I am off my diagnosis I underwent right amyberectomy by Dr. Sriman and under a scare I recuperated well. Now after six months with regular follow-up with Dr. Sriman and with physical therapy I am absolutely doing fine now. I would like to highlight a special point in the scenario is that individuals with such pelvic tumors tend to present a little bit later than other situations because of the inherent space available for the tumor to grow compared to tumorizing from upper limbs or the lower limb skeletons where they tend to having symptoms a little bit earlier or they get identified earlier because of the swelling. So it's imperative that patients which unexplain cause of pain or swelling in such areas visit the doctor at the nearest facility at the earliest and try to find out what is the causative factor of pain and also help rule out such rare scenarios of bone cancer. It's very heartening to see that post removal Mr. Pradeep is able to get back to his work and he's just walking around like every other normal person rid of his pain and rid of his tumor both at the same sitting.


Moving further down our list of the parts of speech, we have our prepositions. Prepositions show a relationship between a noun or a pronoun in the rest of the sentence. We have three main categories, time, place, and movement, as well as a miscellaneous category that doesn't fit the other three. Here we can have prepositions of time, before, during, in, at, or on. If I said I work at eight o'clock, I'm showing a relationship between the time eight o'clock to the rest of the sentence. We have our prepositions of place, in, at, on, under, and between. If I said the book is under the table, I'm showing a relationship between the table and the rest of the sentence. Then we have our prepositions of movement. These show movement towards, from, to, or through. I could say he walked through the park. I'm relating the park to the rest of the sentence. Finally, we have our others of, with, for, etc. I could say this is a gift for Gary. Again, I'm showing a relationship between Gary and the rest of the sentence. Of course, the prepositions listed here are just a small example of all the prepositions.


Policy Institute, we appreciate you being here today. I'd like to thank everybody on the panel for being here and participating. My only function here is to welcome you and to thank Gabrielle Gurley, who's the deputy editor of the American Prospect for MCing our panel this morning. And I'm going to turn it over to Gabrielle to handle the rest of the introductions. So thank you very much. And I just should add, by the way, that we're happy to have you stay. We'll have Q&A after the presentations, and then there will be food after the panel. So welcome to join us. Thank you. Written has launched us into the topic of the populist explosion. Previously, he was a senior editor at the New Republic and a senior writer for the National Journal and has written extensively for the New York Times Magazine, Mother Jones, and the Washington Post. Welcome, John. Jeff Foe is the founding president and a distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute. He studied, taught, and published on a wide variety of economic and political issues from the global economy and neighborhood and community development to monetary policy and political strategy. Welcome, Jeff. So, John, we're going to let you launch us into this discussion of the populist explosion. This? Okay. And I can't stand up, right? Yeah, there you are. How's that? Everybody can hear? Good. I'm happy to be here. I haven't been in this latest quarters of EPI. I just told Jeff and Larry that when Jeff left, I thought that, you know, the place was going to end up like it is operating out of a food cart. But here we are. This is fancier than anything I've ever seen for EPI guy. And I'm delighted because EPI is one of the most important and also one of the least dependent, if I can put it that way, of the think tanks in Washington. And it's one that I've relied on over the years for my own understanding of what's going on in the economy. Whenever I do these talks, and I've been doing them now since I guess September, and it's like, you know, being on a train and having the landscape keep changing around you each time, I still usually begin with the question that people ask, which is what is populism and why is it even relevant to talk about it at this point in our history? So let me just do that. And, you know, and we'll get on to Trump, and I want to talk a little about France later, too. So what is populism? Well, first of all, you know, political scientists always think they're natural scientists. They think they're physicists or something like this. So they're always looking for a definition that will fit all instances of populism. And there absolutely isn't. It's sometimes just used as a synonym for popular.  But I'm going to use it in a particular way that reflects a tradition of politics that begins in the United States in the 1880s and 1890s. And that's where the word itself comes from. And the basic idea of populism as it begins in the United States then of migrates to Europe in the 1970s or 1980s or so is a demarcation between the people and the elite or an establishment. Now, populism is different from, let's say, liberalism. It doesn't seek to accommodate all interests with a view in terms of liberals towards the working people in the middle class, but still accommodating all interests. It's a politics that's based on an underlying conflict between the people and the elite. It's also not what you'd call an ideology that you can say, well, it's left or right.  A populist like Bernie Sanders, Yui Long, the original People's Party, want to mobilize the middle and the bottom of society against the top, basically. It's a two-prong relationship. Right wing populist Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump, Pat Buchanan, George Wallace, also want to mobilize the middle against the top. The rich people should have to pay more taxes and so on and so on. But in addition, they want to blame the people at the top for coddling a third group, be they African-Americans, Muslims, illegal immigrants, whom they believe are being favored at the expense of the middle. So this right wing populism has three terms. The left wing two terms. But now let me take it back a little. Because right wing populism, and we're talking here about campaigns, we're not talking about governing, right wing populism is not the same, let's say, as business republicanism. You get Pat Buchanan in 1996. I like social security in Medicare. I'm all in favor of him. He didn't want to cut those things. Donald Trump, Donald Trump going after corporations. Marine Le Pen, you know, the main difference you could almost say between Marine Le Pen in France and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, pardon my French, is that Mélenchon, when he was in Marseille, told the audience to have a moment of silence for the migrants who perished off in the seas coming to France. Marine Le Pen would have a moment of silence for the people killed by the migrants. But on domestic policy, very, very similar. I mean, she wants to expand and improve France's universal health care system so it gives equal coverage to people no matter where they live or what their income is and so on. So the Danish folk party, they didn't want to be in a coalition with the right center party because the right center party wanted to cut taxes on the wealthy and they didn't agree with that. So again, these populist parties left and right are sui generis. They're not. You can't just put them in the same category as liberals versus conservatives, left versus right, Democrats, Republicans. What they are and the way I describe them in the book is they operate as kind of early warning systems that there's problems in the politics of the country, that there is a significant group of people in the country who distrust the leadership of both parties, the establishment. And the kind of demands that populists make are generally demands that are perfectly conceivable that you could see happening but are ones that the establishment, the leaders of the existing parties, reject. And the obvious example here is Bernie Sanders and Medicare for all. They haven't counted, et cetera, et cetera. But in the context of the United States, as Hillary Clinton and others kept reminding him, it's impossible. How could you have that because of the existing Congress and you couldn't? So Trump, again, and we'll talk about what it means to govern the wall, this continuous wall, he's going to put a 45% tariff on goods coming that runaway shops send back to the United States. Again, things you could do conceivably, but again that the establishment won't accept. So these populist parties, candidates, operate as a kind of signal that something's really wrong, that there's a lack of responsiveness. Now, first populist, the People's Party, again, the failure of laissez-faire capitalism in the 19th century of our chaotic banking system, early warning sign. A lot of the things that the populists advocated in 1892 only come about in 1935. It takes a long time. So it doesn't necessarily happen now. And we'll get to this paradox when we talk a little about Trump. So Trump, Sanders, Perot, Buchanan, Occupy Wall Street, they're all part of a group that I would see as responding, again, to a failure of elites and the establishment. And the failure in this case, I would identify with the reign of a kind of market liberalism. In Europe, they call it more neoliberalism. That takes command of both parties, really, in the late 70s, early 80s. Corporate mobility, the idea that corporations can move wherever they want in search of lower wages, less regulation. Labor mobility, the fact that we could have a huge influx of unskilled workers coming into our country and not have that affect the wages of the unskilled workers who are already here. Deregulation, beginning again with the Democrats, airlines. And we're seeing the result of that now. Taxes, regressive tax cuts that began occurring with capital gains in 1970. And all this stuff continues with the Democrats.  So again, it's something that has been happening in that has dominated American politics for better or worse for 30, 35 years. And what you could see in this succession of candidates, beginning with Ross Perot, who, again, I think is an important milestone in our political history, is skepticism about these politics. Perot on the great sucking sound that NAFTA is going to create. And continuing again up through Donald Trump and his campaign. And leave aside, again, the governing and what he does. The critique of Caterpillar, of Cav Carrier, of all these companies, Ford, why are they moving jobs out of the United States? The idea that we should buy America, hire America. I'm going to preserve Social Security and Medicare. I'm going to repeal Obamacare, but I'll have a system that's, in fact, more universal and provides better benefit. So the actual campaign, again, you could see, as you could see Sanders' campaign as a critique of this prevailing neoliberalism. Now, the constituency. Let me just mention that before I talk about Trump as president. Who did this appeal to? And here, too, there's an incredible match with one exception between the United States and Europe. Sanders got very much the same voters as Malinchon, Podemos in Spain, young college educated, the heart of his constituency. I went to a Podemos conference in Madrid in February of last year, and I looked around there and I said to myself, my god, you know, if SDS hadn't fallen apart in 1979, and it was 1976, it would be the same people. I mean, they were like the same age, the same people, but they were in their 30s, maybe. Professors were the leadership. So again, if you look at Malinchon's vote, that's where he's picking up a lot of his votes. If you look at Sanders, it's partly this kind of what we talk about post-material idealism of the young and stuff like that, student debt. But it's also, I think, and here I might be on thin ice because I'm among economists here. I think that there is a transformation going on in American capitalism. And all my evidence, of course, is my own children. But again, as kids look out upon the economy now, they no longer see a kind of easy path for themselves. It's become very much a niche economy. And I was just struck by this study by cats and kruger who are liberal economists. And what they concluded was that a striking implication of these estimates is that all of the net employment growth in the US economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangement. Temps, contracted work, part-time work. Again, there's something changing. And I think the young feel it. And I know that's also true in Europe as well, where unemployment is much higher among the young in places like Spain and France. Trump, the left behind, is very similar to the Brexit vote in northern parts of England. Very similar, again, to the kind of constituency that Le Pen gets that the Danish folk party get with one exception. Le Pen actually gets the young. Gets the young non-college graduates. She has a big support there. She has kind of a donut with the young and the old. Again, Trump's constituency is very much like the old Wallace constituency, the Buchanan, excuse older, lower middle class, non-college, not college graduates. And it goes up in our country, beginning, again, through in the Wallace vote. You can see it in 1968 and 72.  And sometimes it's the religious right. Sometimes it's gun rights. Sometimes it's war on terror. But again, it got kicked off in certain ways by the great recession. And a lot of Trump's appeal was economic. And a lot of his appeal was in terms of immigration, which has both an economic and a cultural dimension to it. So what now? Now, the thing about populism is that it is primarily in the United States and Europe. It's not a method of governing, but it's a method of campaigning. And again, if you think about my description of it, it's polarization between the people and the establishment demands that nobody's going to grant right now. So what happens when a populist gets into office? And again, part of what we're seeing is the contradictions working their way out. Trump begins with these two big speeches to his inaugural address and his CPAC address, both of which I assume were written by Bannon or maybe Bannon and Miller that are heavy on the establishment people versus the establishment themes. But then, if you look at the unfolding of the legislation of what he's actually doing, he's begun steadily to step back. Of course, you know that's true on trade, the China, the NAFTA thing has now been delayed. Health care, again, I don't think Trump was lying when he said he was going to have an Obamacare replacement that was better and that he had to help insurance for all, but completely stymied. Now, why is it that he's stymied? Well, again, this is almost a tautological observation. First of all, if you look at the Congress that he faces, who actually supported him during the campaign? Not the presidential final election where it was Hillary Clinton, but who were his supporters when it was the primary? He had nine supporters from the House and one from the Senate. You know who the one is from the Senate, right? He's the attorney general. That's it. So he doesn't have a base for those kind of politics of the campaign in the Congress. It just does not exist. You know, it could exist with some of the Democrats, but again, there's such polarization on other issues and such as immigration that it's going to be very hard. Trump selects a cabinet. Who does he get? I have been unable to find one ex-cabinet head who endorsed him during his primary. I don't think there was. I think the best he did was Flynn, who was a more or less a marginal person. I won't use bad terms here because it's on streaming to all these people. But not the most reputable person. So again, who does he rely on? Who can he put in his cabinet? So he gets people like Betsy DeVos. He gets Mulvaney from the Tea Party, who again, Trump is a guy who wants infrastructure. He never talked about deficits during the campaign, but he's got this guy who comes out of the right, throw the widows out in the snow part of the Republican Party to run his budget. Price at health care price, one of these doctors who wants to screw all the patients and help insurance. Again, completely contrary to Trump's own promises. So he's stuck. Now, maybe he can rally his base. But by my calculations, Trump's base is at best 30% and probably closer to about 25% of the electorate. And I have all these ways I figured this out. But I think the simplest way is that if you look at the exit polls, half of the Trump voters said they were voting primarily because they didn't like Hillary Clinton. So if you figure that out, 50% of 50%, you get 25%. The latest poll has 30% strongly approve of Trump a voter. So he does not have the kind of base, let's say, that Hugo Chavez had in Venezuela. And God help us if that happens here. But he actually had a majority that he could rally against his opponents. Trump does not have it. So he really is stuck as president. What's he going to do? Let me just close by saying, what are the different sides of Trump? And how are they coming out during the campaign and now the presidency? Trump, you have to remember, was a pretty typical New York conservative Democrat, moderate Republican. I think he's a lot like Al DiMotto, if anybody here remembers Al DiMotto. Very similar. Now, we're talking about in the year, let's say, 1996, if you got a sort of cross-section at that point of Trump's brain. It would be very similar to that. It's somewhat similar to Ed Koch. I mean, he says at one point he favors single payer. He's pro-choice. He's very pro-business, again, which is characteristic of that side of a Democrat-centrist Republican, pro-Wall Street. That's one side of him. And that started, again, you can see that emerging in his willingness to, or his apparent willingness to try to make a deal with the Democrats on some things. And also, as well, in his support for things like infrastructure and not wanting to cut Social Security Medicare. Then there's the economic nationalist Trump. I, again, if you go back and look 20 years Trump, I think that's absolutely genuine. I mean, here's a guy who was going to run for president as the reform party candidate. I mean, he is a guy like me who grew up in a generation where, if you went into a store in the 1950s, you looked for things that were made in America. And it had nothing to do with patriotism. It had to do with, we made the best things.  That's his mindset. And when he and his vote, and this resonated with voters, they make America great again. That's what they hear. And again, this was something I think that the Clinton and the Democrats were deaf to. Immigration too. I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure how much that's opportunism, how much that's real opposition to gut-level opposition to illegal immigration. Then there's this element of opportunism, what he had to do in order to win Republican primaries and his change on abortion. You can even go back to the Berther stuff. His appointments, again, reflect that, the votes, price, people like that. So there's these different parts of Trump clashing, and you can see them in the Bannon versus Kushner stories. I mean, they're getting played out there because Kushner is sort of a younger version with the orthodox Judaism and all that stuff added of Trump. But fast forward like 20, 30 years or so. But again, very moderate, middle of the road kind of Democrat, whereas Bannon does represent his more populist hard edge side, more of the campaign. So it's playing itself out now. In my own view, where I expect Trump to go is sort of the path of least resistance, which is to win over the Republican right through the part of his populism that does appeal to them, which is the immigration, the illegal immigration, the deportation, stuff like that. Business, again, the moderate Democrat, centrist, Republican, tax cuts go easy on Wall Street, very contrary to what he promised. But I think he's going to have a lot of problems as president, and I'm not saying anything very original in telling you that, because if he allies himself with the hard right in the House, that position itself is not a majority position in the country. But I don't think he's going to be able to make many deals with the Democrats, because I think they're going to follow the McConnell strategy book in terms of dealing with the Republicans and Trump. So I expect we're going to see another four years of a mess. The only way I could see Trump really getting re-elected is if the economy does well. If the economy does well, people will forgive a lot of his excesses. If it doesn't, I really wouldn't expect to see him around in 2021 as president. And as far as I'm concerned, that would be a very good thing. Thanks, John. So Jeff, let's have you weigh in and respond to this portrait of America and the Trump presidency so far that John has sketched out. OK, well thank you, and thank you all for coming. It's not the first time in our lives I've been on a panel with John Judas. And sometimes I disagree, but I always learn something because he's a smart guy, and smart guys write smart books. So I think I got a lot out of this book. My take, I've got about five takeaways here in my 10 minutes. First, I think that in my view, and I think we agree, partly, at least mostly on this, populism is not much of an ism. And what I mean by that is that there's no idea, there's no coherent idea of how to govern, as John says. On the other hand, it's hard for me to find a real ideological distinction between populism and democracy. I mean, this is, after all, we're supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And essentially, that's what much of this populism is expressing. It's also anti-elite. But in my lifetime, most people running for president from the opposite party have been anti-establishment in their campaign. I mean, Jimmy Carter, with different words, was as much a drain-the-swamper as Donald Trump. So was Bill Clinton. And I think that there's a natural tendency to label Washington as the leadest between among Republicans and Democrats. The Trump is different, obviously. But I think his differences are not ideological. And I think we make a mistake in trying to make too much of those. He's a political huckster with the attention span of a walnut. And I don't think this comes up to a religion or an ism of any sort.  And I think that's what his experience in life has been. And that's what we're going to see as president. I think John's book makes a really important series of differences not only between Europe and the United States, but among or between sections of Europe. There's a right-wing tendency in Northern Europe and a left-wing tendency in Southern Europe. And I think that's instructive. I think there are lots of differences between ourselves and the Europeans on this sort of anger at the failure of neoliberalism to deliver. I think the most common is the resentment about immigration. It just seems to me, although it's got, you know, it comes off in various ways here from Europe. But that is one thing that I think that is common in Western Europe and the United States. And I think we haven't really come to grips with that. America first sounds fascist to most of our years. But for many of our fellow citizens, it seems sensible. If you were president, why wouldn't you put America first? Who else would you put first? And I don't think the Democratic Party and our liberal part of the Democratic Party has really come to grips with this. I watched the Spanish language news at night to keep up my Spanish. And I, for six months before the election, every night there was a story about Obama as the deporter-in-chief. And Obama was trying to come up with some sensible response to this, which recognizes that there's a border between ourselves and Mexico and the rest of Latin America. But still, that wasn't enough for that constituency. And it may, and I'm no expert on this, but it may be one reason why there was a surprising stay at home vote among Latinos. I think the immigration thing, obviously, there's a lot of racism woven into it. But it's more than just racism. And I would warn against the tendency, when we start thinking about this, to ask, well, is this either racist or is it economic and it's fundamentals? And I think these things are mutually reinforcing, and they always have been. My experience of the 1960s, when I look back at it, is that I don't think we could have had the breakthroughs we did in the 1960s if that decade wasn't a decade of rising employment, rising income, so that the white working class at least could feel that, well, they're not taking my job. I think it's a very different economic situation that we have now, and I think that it's important to remember that. I agree, obviously, that there's been a failure of neoliberalism here. I have a little quarrel with John's description of what happened in the 1970s. I don't think that it was driven by business concern with rising wages, because my analysis of the 70s is that wages were lagged prices in that inflation. And certainly since the mid-1970s, wages in America have gone flat while productivity continues to rise, which suggests that sort of fear and anxiety upon an extraordinary fear and anxiety upon the business class was not really at the bottom of it. I think the 1970s inflation, which is critical to our history of this, was just misread by Carter and Carter's people. I remember being at a White House meeting in 1979-80 with a group that were urging Carter to start spending money because the unemployment rate was going up.  Wall Street, we'll get excited about that, et cetera. And finally, I said, aren't you worried about the coming election, going into an election with rising prices and rising unemployment? And one of the members of the Council of Economic Advisers looked at me, rolled his eyes, and he said, do you really think that the American people would elect Ronald Reagan, the star of bedtime for Bonzo? So there's been a disconnect between the Democrats in power and the way the world is going for a long time. John ends with saying the populism signals a crisis. And I think that's absolutely right. I would say that there are three crises that it signals and for which there are no obvious solutions right now. One is the economic one. And I think I would even stress more what John said about the economic situation of young people today. In the 1960s, there wasn't this kind of fear that when you get a college education and you end up $40,000 in debt, you're going to be driving your cab, waiting on tables for a long time, maybe for the rest of your life. That's a real possibility for more young people. And I think that was why that was part, a major part, of the Sanders phenomenon and the backing of Sanders. Yes, it was young people are liberal. Yes, young people are more radical. But I think the young people in the United States now are in real fear and anxiety about their future. 20-somethings are always optimistic. And then they become 30-somethings and they're still stuck. And eventually, they become 40-somethings. And this, I think, is both social dynamite for the future and I think it's optimism for the left. But it needs to be dealt with and so far it's not. Obviously, Trump is no solution, but neither was Hillary Clinton. The second crisis that I would see not nearly as broad is the crisis of the Democratic Party. The party is still not faced what happened in November and still not faced the disaster that it has slipped into over the last half a decade at least. It's not just what happened in the presidential election, but look around the states. And most people here understand this. The Democratic Party, by one count, has the least number of trifectas in the state, and that is governors and lower house and higher house, that it's had since the Civil War. Now, that is a long time. And remember, the Democrats were on the wrong side, generally, in the Civil War. So I don't think they've got it. I think Bunny is still running the party as it has since the 1980s. I think there's very little accountability. And partly, it's because everybody is into the resistance against Trump, and that's natural. I mean, I get 5, 10 emails a day about resistance, plus send us $24. But we've got to watch this. I mean, if there is no analysis, if there's no bringing to accountability what's been going on in the Democratic Party, I can assure you the probability is that it will continue. The third crisis, I think, is in democracy. And this is the one I understand least, but I think it's probably the most important. And in one way, it's the morphing of popular culture and politics. I mean, Trump got a long way with his ridiculous television program, which made him a household word over 10 years. And so what is that? I mean, everybody in this room looked at Trump when he started rising in the polls, and he said, well, this is impossible. This guy can't appeal to anybody. Well, he did appeal to a lot of people, and not because of his haircut, but because somehow or other he learned how to push those popular culture buttons. And in that Asinine television show, he became a household word. This goes back a long time. This is not just a Trump phenomena. After Richard Nixon won the election of 1968, a guy named Joe, I forgot his last name for the moment, wrote a book called The Selling of the President. McGinnis, right. And he outlined the sort of commercial-based kind of television strategy that he claimed put Nixon over the top. There's something about the way people get information. It's not just the manufactured fake news. There's something, I think, that's sort of embedded in our technological culture that makes, in the end, someone like Donald Trump seemed like a doer to many of the American electorate. In the same way, John Wayne seemed like a military hero. John Wayne, who actually was not in World War II, was a draft dodger in World War II. There's something about that that is now pervading our culture.  And I think that's what we did. Well, there is enough of a reaction to Trump now based on some of his more egregious comments about various minority groups, Mexicans, Muslims, American, African-Americans. You've talked about populism as a campaign strategy. Has there been enough of a reaction, particularly in popular culture, that Trump is really expert at manipulating to arrest its further development? Or are we going to be consigned to this nonstop division using the group that's been demonized du jour to continue to have this conflict in American society? Conflict between what? Between a majority group of white Americans whose attention has been diverted over here towards a third group, be they Muslims, be they Mexicans, African-Americans. Is this going to be a continued successful strategy any time the tough questions about how we perceive it, particularly on economic issues? It's long been a successful tactic to demonize the other rather than to deal with the economic problems at hand. Well, let me say a few things. Some sort of footnotes to what Jeff said. And this relates to the immigration question. What has made the issue of immigration so explosive in the last 15 years, particularly in Europe, but also in the United States, is its fusion with Islamic terrorism. I don't know what the PC word for it is today is radical Islamist terrorism. You put those two together, and that's really what's blown that issue up. And again, I think that accounts for a lot of what's happened in Europe with Marine Le Pen's popularity. And you have to remember what happened during the 2015, 2016 San Bernardino or Lando. Again, it's the fusion of those two that's so explosive. And it also really gives Trump a lot of support when he does things like the Muslim ban. It's not that different from the kind of things we pulled off during World War II in terms of the Japanese. People get worried about this kind of thing. So this kind of, let's say, scapegoating cultural nationalism where genuine grievances, again, about unskilled workers taking jobs, bringing down wages, gain a kind of cultural dimension, I think that's going to go on. I don't see that stopping. I don't see it stopping as long as especially as the Middle East and North Africa blow back. So yeah, we're going to have that with us for a while. I just wanted to mention one thing I was thinking, as Jeff was talking about, the 60s and young people. And he was talking about, well, if you had $40,000 in debt, then you didn't worry. I went to Berkeley in the 60s, and it was on a semester system. And there was no tuition. And it cost $80 a semester. I went to City College for less than that. Yeah, no, I know. But I mean, again, the contrast between then and now is so striking. And of what young people thought then. I mean, in Oakland at the time, if you got worried about making a living, you could always become a substitute teacher. I mean, even if you hadn't graduated from college. I mean, the economy was so different than it is now. And the people who talk about this, you know, we have five or 6% unemployment. What are you worried about? Do not understand the fabric of it and how torn it is and the kind of anxiety that it builds among particularly, again, among young people. And I think, again, Sanders, Melanchome, Podemos, all this stuff, again, the left wing side of populism is coming out of that. Well, it's interesting because we're about to undergo another significant economic disruption with the advent of driverless vehicles. Some stay to know in Colorado. They've already put driverless trucks on the road to deliver beer, for example. And right now, that's part of the gig economy. You have Uber, you have Lyft, and people can go in that direction. But if driverless vehicles take home, it's going to be a significant disruption to the economic landscape. Do you see anyone who is thinking about how we navigate that disruption that is going to fall disproportionately on younger workers? Well, I think that it's important to understand that we've always had technological change, right? This has been a reasonably steady factor in the history of the United States since its beginning. I think one of the differences now is that as Keynes warned in the 1930s, the larger foreign trade sector you have for your economy, the harder it is to control it. The harder it is to control business cycles, the harder it is to stimulate growth. And I think that is a fundamental problem we have now. And it's partly about how the world changed, but it's largely that the policy class in this country ignored the implications of it. These jobs at Uber, et cetera, these are survival jobs. They're not jobs for somebody on a career ladder. And so as all of this just continues without any sense of our collective responsibility for these questions, yeah, it's going to get worse. And there was a moment in history at the end of the 70s, the beginning of the 80s, when you could see that the United States was not forever going to be on top of the world economy. And people saw it coming. And there was a drive in the late 70s, early 80s, for something called industrial policy, which really meant looking ahead. Eisenhower in the late 50s appointed, I think it was Brother Milton, to a commission on the future. Nixon had sort of planning commissions. There was an acceptance in our public ethos and our politics of the responsibility to look at these questions and do something about it, either then read a long piece in the Atlantic monthly. That all stopped dead with Reagan and was never resurrected by the Democrats. One other point about the future I just want to drop in. My fear about Trump is that Stymie at home, he's going to turn to the one thing that previous presidents have turned to. And that is the fact that he's got more freedom to roam around the world, as John Quincy Adams said, in search of monsters to destroy. And I worry about that. I think that the automatic genuflection to Trump's attack on Syria by almost the entire republicans except the libertarians and almost all the Democrats, except for that wonderful congresswoman from Hawaii, two terms, two tours of duty in Iraq, a Democratic congresswoman raised the question about the evidence here that it was actually Assad and whatever you feel about that. And she was pilloried immediately by important members of the Democratic Party. I just worry that Trump is going to have all of these problems with tax reform and trade and health care and all of that. And given his adolescent personality, it's likely to go to the place where he can have more fun by himself. You've mentioned that the Democrats haven't figured out how to respond to Trump. How should they respond? What would you counsel them to do? How should they be learning from their mistakes in 2016 and preparing for 2018? Well, obviously, Democrats have to do what opposition does and be in opposition to Trump. But that's not enough. I mean, I don't think resist is enough. At some point, they've got to figure out why in those five states, the five Midwestern states where they lost, why he appealed and they didn't. I don't think it's just a matter of personality. I don't even think it's just a matter of the campaign tactics. I think that the Democratic Party has very little to say about the underlying anxieties and fear, both the fear that generates right-wing populism and fear that generates left-wing populism. So I think it's got to have a serious program. And without a serious program to deal with the economic issues, maybe they'll certainly gain seats in 2018. Maybe they'll win the election in 2020. But I don't think the issues that erupted in November are going to go away at all. What do the Democrats need to do? Yeah, I hate to be in this position because I spent a long time trying to create a socialist revolution and nothing happened. So I don't feel like I'm a good advisor to people, to what to do next. I wrote a piece for the New New Republic. We thank God that Chris Hughes is gone and our former Facebook owner. And what I said in that basically was that the wrong strategy is this kind of parody of Mitch McConnell, which is to oppose everything.  But a lot of people are urging them to do that, block every appointment, oppose every bill, don't work with Trump under any circumstances. Again, if you look at what happened with George W. Bush 2006 to 2008, or go even 2004 to 2008 when the Democrats ended up winning back the Congress and then the presidency, you choose your targets. The health insurance thing is a very good target. I compare it to abortion in an odd way. When abortion rights are threatened by, let's say, the Webster decision, what was that, 1989? Or if they should, God forbid, overturn Roe v. Wade, that fires up one side. If it looks like abortion's getting more permissive, that fires up the other. Health insurance works that same kind of odd way. It seems like once a bill is presented to the American people and we have it, people find all these problems with it. There are a lot of problems with Obamacare. But again, once there, we're in a position of seeing it taken away from us, it entirely shifts. And you're starting to see these polls again in the Washington Post, Catherine Repel today. People are now in favor of single payer insurance again. And again, if somebody tries that when they get into office, they're going to get into a lot of trouble. But I think, again, the momentum is completely shifted on that. And there are issues like that that the Democrats should fire under all cylinders on. Again, trying just to rely on Trump's unpopularity, which Hillary Clinton did in the election, is a big mistake, I think. You have to have a positive program. And it has to be focused on what, again, Jeff was talking about. I heard Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire in August of 2000. What was it, 15? And she was kind of boring, but she was talking about junior colleges, jobs, stuff like that. I said, this is going to be boring, a little boring. But this is the right focus. And if she went farther than that than it's Sanders stuff, she might get in trouble in the general election. But again, they dropped it. So I think, again, jobs, opportunity, middle class, what are people going to do? Not getting into this identity politics thing. Those, I think, were the important guidelines I'd follow if I were running the Democratic Party, which I'm certainly not. The problem for the Democrats, of course, is that once they get too far along on being real about jobs and being real about opportunities, they run into their funders. And that's the knot that they've got to unravel. Because if the Democratic Party is about being as liberal and progressive as Wall Street will allow you, then there's not going to be much of an answer there. Yeah, you see that. I was thinking about that today because Trump did this thing. He's going to review H-1B visas. That's a good idea. My point. And I think those things have just been exploited in order to screw American workers. And actually, H-1B starts under Clinton. What is going to be the response there? Is the party going to say, this is the wrong idea? When Trump, in his first press conference, he had to be kind of president, went after drug companies for their price. Something that's not going to happen now, I'm sure. But he did then. And it was very nice. And Larry Summers then wrote a column criticizing him for sowing uncertainty in the market. So again, I think that I'm, again, I'm just agreeing with what Jeff said. I think that the Democrats have to turn this thing around in terms of what their focus is and who their constituency is and what kind of coalition they want to build in 2018 and 2020. Well, let's move across the pond, if you will. There's obviously also a lot of turmoil in Western Europe. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced today that she's going to call on early election. The first round of the French elections are this coming Sunday. What do you make of what's going on in the UK and France on the populist front, if you will? Well, you know, France, again, this goes back to Jeff's point number three about democracy and how weird politics is getting. You know, if you look at the four leading candidates in the French election right now, Dionne, Mélenchon, Macron, and Le Pen, the two main parties that have been contesting our equivalent of the public and the Democrats, now they're called the Republican and the Socialist Party. Socialist Party, what, 8%, Dionne is probably going to come in fourth. Two of the top three are going to be from parties that were like invented yesterday and Mélenchon and that are mainly identified with their candidates. They wouldn't exist otherwise. So again, the French election is another example of how freaky politics grille in the five star movement in Italy could win. I doubt it because he won't cooperate with the other. He won't build coalitions. So he could get 40% and still not be the, his party still wouldn't be the leadership in their parliament. But something is going on and I don't fully understand it either. And you see it in France. You see it in Italy. That's a weird election in France. It seems to me, I mean, I would be tempted to vote for Macron and I know that's a heresy to say that. But if you look at the Socialists and Mélenchon, there is an acceptance on their part of slow growth. The Socialist Party has this incredible platform where they're for the 32 hour work week and they want to tax robots. Now, if anybody can square that circle for me, they're a genius because the only way you can have a 32 hour work week and still afford it is if you raise productivity in the economy. But you're going to tax robots, which will discourage increases in productivity. So I expected if Macron does when he's going to end up like a lawn, he's going to be stuck. He's just the neoliberal stuff. But he says he's for Nordic socialism or Nordic social democracy. I think if he really were and if there were a party behind him and support, that might be the way for France to go.  So because France does have problems. Less than 1% GDP increases over the last 10, 15 years. 10% unemployment, well, it's 8% now. But they do have economic problems. They do need more churning in the economy in that sense. So again, I think it's a peculiar election where I don't see any of the candidates necessarily having a platform that makes a terrible lot of sense. But again, in terms of the left, I see this very bothersome, worrisome acceptance that we're not going to grow. So we have to just redistribute better by, let's say, confiscatory taxes against rich people. From my standpoint, that might be good rhetoric, but it's not the way to go. Yeah, I think a victory for Macron would just be kicking the can down the road. It doesn't solve anything. I think the stakes, however, are suddenly huge. The stakes of the European Union. And while you could argue that Le Pen, if she became, if she gets elected, would not take France out of the EU or Maastricht, but the sudden vulnerability of this institution that we've been living with now and, for my part, admiring for the last five decades is really in jeopardy. And if that happens, I mean, it could very well be back to where we were before World War II. I was having lunch with a Italian senator who was the head of their Farm Affairs Committee at the time of the debate over the euro. I remember saying, well, I said, I don't know. I look at this, and I wonder what's in it for Italy. And he said, well, he said, you may be right about the economics, but we've had two world wars on this continent, and we're not going to have another one. So it's bringing locking Germany and France together has just been so very, very important for Europe. And the stakes are enormous. And to have to depend on the same old politicians who've screwed it up for so many of the French working classes, I don't know. I mean, I don't know what's going to happen. I didn't think Trump would be president. I didn't think Brexit would win. So I said, we don't know what's going to happen. But I do feel like the stakes are very high there. Any comments on the early election in the UK with Theresa May making that call? Could we be in for any surprises there with the? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know whether. I don't know how seriously to take her hard Brexit, you know what I'm referring to, her strategy of pressing forward and whether there's a secret agenda there. And again, I think that that was an instance where there were real legitimate issues for the people who wanted to leave. But in the end, the UK had, I think, more benefits than disadvantages because they weren't stuck with the euro. I mean, the euro was the nightmare for the EU. So again, I'm not sure what the underlying politics is there. You could read it. Just taking off what John just said about her, how committed she is to Brexit is a little bit unclear. You could read it as wanting a much bigger mandate for herself and therefore having, at the end of the day, having more flexibility with the negotiation. But who knows? OK. Well, I think now would be a good time to open it up for questions. We have some folks roving around with microphones. Why don't we go in the, sure, go in the back there. And please ask your question in the form of a question, if you would, and get as many as possible. Mr. Judas, I'm finna know this week congressional quarterly. This is a bit of a historical question. You alluded to the failure of Lacey Fairbankine in the late 19th century, which, of course, led to free silver. In that context, I wonder if you could sketch out what you think the legacy of William Jennings Bryan has been for you, both American populism and a liberal agenda.  He wrote a mic, wrote a biography of Bryan, and answered that question. I'm going to pay us on it. I'm not the best person to tell you that. Is this on the others? Yeah, there you are. I'm Mark McCarthy with Georgetown University. I want to go back to a couple of the points that were made earlier about the new gig economy and the alternative work arrangements that you mentioned, and then the driverless cars. And I know there's some skepticism in the Economic Policy Institute on the role of technology as a driver of labor market effects over the last several years. But there's some studies that show that jobs accounting for 47% of the US employment are potentially at risk of computerization. You add that together with these new ways of arranging work. There's a lot of pressure for disruption in the labor market. Maybe a much less labor-intensive economy. And so the question is, what do you do about this? How do you focus public policy to address these changes in the labor market? Is it just more worker training? Is it a universal basic income that some people have talked about? What's the best way for those changes to be addressed? Well, I'm going to let Jeff do the work part of it. I want to do another part, which is that I think the kind of changes you're talking about are just inevitable, and they're going to come. And that computerization is going to rule out a lot of jobs that are now done either manually or semi-manually or semi-semi. What, again, I would focus on is economic security and personal security, and whether Americans can feel all right about themselves if they lose a job for six months or a year. And I think that that's going to become more normal. I have a friend, a good friend in Denmark, who, because of various weird circumstances, lost his job as a journalist, couldn't find another job. His wife was a professional. She was an executive. This is a terrible story, but I think it'll make my point.  His three kids, two were going to go to college. One is still younger. Now think about what would happen in America. He ends up being unemployed for about three years. Ruined, right? These people, Denmark, the kids go to college for free. They're now, I think, two are graduating. One is going to college. Wife gets free health care, all taken care of. And he gets unemployment for three years, and he keeps his house. They thought they were going to, again, it's that level of economic security. People don't realize in America the level of insecurity and anxiety that we feel. I mean, I know you guys haven't been to say, oh, yes, I feel it and stuff. But it's there. It's a constant. And that's something that we have to deal with. I think one of the wonderful things about the Sanders campaign was that he spoke to that. And he spoke to that very clearly. And I think people heard that, Medicare for all, free college, all that stuff. So that would be the dimension of it that I would look at. Yeah, I think the first thing we got to do is get off of this notion that the individual solution, as well as the national solution, is to get everybody more trained and educated. I mean, the BLS does these projections of jobs over the next 10 years. And their last projection was that the fastest growing, largest job categories of them. And I've got this is roughly right. I misstated by a little. I think there was one category out of the top 10 that required a four year college. And that was nurses. And there was something like four of them that didn't even require a high school education. So we've got this notion here that if only you better your skills, this is what this new global oriented economy is there for. It is just BS. It's not true. And people are experiencing this all the time. I mean, lots of stories about engineers.  Well, one of the reasons it doesn't produce enough engineers is because kids who would be engineers hear these stories about the upperclassmen or the people who were four years or five years before them getting a job as an engineer. And a year and a half later, the boss comes in with these four people from India and say, I want you to train them on your jobs because they're going to be doing it. So the globalization stuff that Trump is tapped into is, I think, hugely, hugely important. Unionization, I mean, part of this is all about the bargaining position of labor. I mean, if you look at the numbers, the numbers of stagnant wages increase productivity. I mean, for 30, 40 years, we have essentially turned economics upside down. Wages are supposed to be a function of productivity. Well, they're no longer a function of productivity. And the best answer as to why the best explanation is bargaining power of workers. I think things like guaranteed annual income and yeah, I mean, in any sensible society where its leaders were mandated to look into the future and deal with problems that are coming down the pike, we'd be having a discussion about that. I mean, John raised this question, well, how do you keep people or how do people feel about being out of work even if they had some income? Is that welfare or is that something else? There's no discussion of that. So that, I mean, people have been talking about the guaranteed annual income and technology for a long time because we still have a 40-hour work week. For many people, it was a 60-hour work week. But all that hasn't changed. And yet as a society, should we be just taking the increases in productivity and turning them into income that gets redistributed to the top? One would think that it's not too hard to make a political discussion out of that, especially because people are feeling it in their gut. And I think so it's something like that. I have a quick question. I'm a student at Howard University in Jordan Sellers. I look to history around what happened during the Holocaust.  My question was, could you compare and contrast like the populist party versus a fascist kind of a party in really where these political campaigns can lead if they're kind of more of a populist, which is built off race, and if they're more of a fascist party, which is built off of religion? Okay, I get it. Yeah, I just wanna finish off what Jeff and I were talking about, and then I'll get to this, which is that, again, the two prongs for me are economic security and advanced manufacturing. You have to create the surplus on which you can have economic security. Again, the problem with the French, the left is all they're talking about is economic security, not growth, so you have to have both. That's the key, fascism. Now, the key difference between the right-wing populists, and again, I'm talking about Western Europe and the United States, and the fascist parties of the 1920s, and let's talk particularly about Germany and Italy. Two differences. First, the parties today are embedded in a democratic history that just did not exist to the same extent in either Italy or Germany. Those were new countries, again, formed in the mid-late 19th century, different kind of history. Parties, the right-wing populist parties have been in and out of government in Europe, Switzerland, for instance. Again, it's not, I don't think they see themselves in the same way as producing cadre and armed forces that will knock out other parties. The 1920s fascist parties were again in the shadow of the Russian Revolution. You have to remember that, too. And their primary adversary in the beginning were Socialists and Communists. That's one difference in context. The other thing is that those parties came out of a history of nationalism in the late 19th century, where it was integral to nationalism was expansion, imperial expansion, and that part of what was central to a nation's pride was its ability to expand and conquer and go beyond itself. Mussolini was gonna recreate the Roman Empire. Hitler, the third right. So what we have now is almost the opposite. Again, I'm not saying this in order to praise what's going on now and say that it's benign, but the populist parties now are almost, you might say, contractionary, not expansionary. The French, the Italians, they wanna get out of the EU, for instance, to bust up this international, this regional organization, which would be a tragedy in my view, but again, they don't wanna take over other countries. Trump doesn't wanna take over Mexico.  It's much different than what you were seeing in the 1920s.  You probably have time for, we have a lot of questions, actually, go ahead. The disaffection with the elite, the populism that you all have both described has been very clear in public polling for a long time, since at least the financial crisis. It was not hard to reverse engineer President Obama's polling in 2012 from the fact they went to Oslo, to make Kansas to give a kind of a populist sounding speech, which was actually nothing like Teddy Roosevelt's speech there 100 years earlier. And I thought that whoever ran as a Democrat in 2016 was gonna run as an economic populist, because at some point, the campaign is not governed by the fundraisers, it's governed by the pollsters, who are gonna look at the polling and go to the candidate and go to everyone in the campaign and say, holy crap, we may not have been populist before, but we are now. And at least in the broad themes of the campaign, they would be economic populist, they would sound like Bernie Sanders sounded. But Clinton never really did. She seemed to get public permission from her Wall Street funders to say what she had to say in the campaign. They said publicly, we know she had, people still mad at Wall Street, she has to say certain things, but we know she'll be stable, we know she'll be sensible, we know she'll be sophisticated. She seemed to have permission to do it, but she never did. Was that because they thought it wouldn't be credible? Was it because just of democratic cluelessness, which I think both of you have described, with which I do not disagree? Why did she never do that, really? And would it have made a difference if she had? Well, look, Hillary Clinton had this problem in the third, the parties that have already held the White House for two terms, and then they have their candidate running for a third, always have. I mean, how is she going to take a strong economic populist position and not put herself in a position of criticizing the incumbent, Obama? That, again, I think that tension existed. But they got sucked into this idea that comes out of, that I feel partly to blame for myself from Rui and my book of demography as destiny. And they started counting the groups. You get blacks and Hispanics and professionals and blah, blah, blah, and you have this awful guy, Trump.  I mean, and I have some knowledge that that is what the strategy was. So I think they, you know, they gave up on it. And I don't think it was because she was compromised by the Goldman Sachs and stuff like that. I think she could have run that kind of campaign, but the circumstances were such that it just didn't, it didn't happen. Questions, other questions? Where's the mic? Sure, go ahead. Actually, two questions. One has to do with the Democratic Party itself. I first got involved in politics tearing down Dixon's science in 1960. And I followed that, been through the whole thing. And in the 1960s, there were a lot of new ideas and new approaches to everything in the war and poverty. You know that? Since then, since at least 1975, I don't see any new ideas from the Democratic Party. And I'm wondering, do you or do you see what they could do? Because a lot of the populism stuff is based on false facts. So, I mean, could they be populist and still be real again? Well, factual. I don't think it's a question of them not having access to ideas. I mean, we just had this brief discussion here about some ideas about how you could deal with this. I think that the party's leadership has been just basically compromised. And it started with Carter. Clinton did the populist number and that is, he campaigned populist and he governed with the plutocrats. And after a while, that succeeded. And that becomes how you succeed. It's also true that there's a whole industry of people who support the Republican Party and Democratic Party, the consultants and the pollsters who make a living being successful in one campaign or another, 50% with two parties, your candidate is gonna win 50% of the time. And so I think you've got a culture of timidity. And as a matter of fact, both Clinton and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton expressed that when Hillary was debating Sanders. It was the way you succeed, the way you get progress is inch by inch by inch. And if that's your mindset, you're not gonna come up with new bold ideas. And so I think it's not that nobody's got any ideas. I think there are plenty of ideas around. It's just that the Democratic Party has developed this culture. And I think I blame it partly on Judas, but mostly on Wall Street.  They're not losing anything by that. Let's get one more question from another individual. Who's got, let me get, this will be our last question. Ball Booth. John, is there a path to, for the left kind of populism to win? And if so, what is that path? What would it take to, especially in a majority politics country? Or is this just wishful thinking? If you ask most of the Bernie crats, they would say that a Bernie Benign nominee, he could have gotten a lot of the votes that Trump got from downscale voters. If you ask Senator Democrats, they think that's absurd and that he would have been defeated more soundly, much more soundly than Hillary was. So there's no, especially if you got any empirical information as to what the truth of this is, but is there a path? Well, I have a crystal ball, but I left it at home. Look, I don't have good answers to that question. Nobody does, but let me sort of dance around it. First of all, I don't, I think Bernie Sanders would have had a very hard time had he won the nomination. And the reason is the tax and spend question, both in terms of his education plan and Medicare for all as well. If you look at what happened in Colorado, they had a single payer initiative. You know, this was on the ballot, and Bernie went there and supported it, and it lost 80 to 20, got killed. And the reason was taxes. People were scared to death that it was gonna raise taxes. And I think that a lot of that could have been used against him had he been the nominee. Okay, so leave that aside. Now, the thing, I talked about populism as an early warning. I regard Trump as a freak. I don't, I think his election was a, mistake isn't the right word, but it was just a lucky break for him. Things just broke the right way. He had a very poor candidate against him and said, so his election in that sense is premature and he's having exactly the problems you'd expect. It was somebody who had that campaign, got into office and tried to put it into effect. Now, if you had the equivalent of a Democrat, again, who was running against the establishment, who was making demands that nobody in the leadership would support, and this again is the populist framework, and have problems if he got elected, but what he might do is, he might scare the elites in the country, the party leadership into moving. This is what happens in the 30s. In the book, I talk about the early 30s. Roosevelt runs unbalanced budget. One of his first bills that he is to cut the state government workers. Who filibusters it, Huey Long? Again, pushes the, again, the existing establishment to the left. I think that that's really the role, but the actual execution won't be done by a populist party. It'll be done by a party that has moved to the left and has accepted what were populist demands as more normal politics. So that's a kind of semantic answer to you, but that's as good as I can do right now. Okay, so that ends our forum with John Judas and Jeff Foe. I want to thank everyone here in Washington and online for joining us, and look forward to seeing you at our next event. Thanks also to our host, EPI. Anyone who wants to stay, there's.


You know, the thing that always strikes me about Korea every time I'm here is the people. The warmest people you'll find anywhere in Asia and people with a resiliency and a willingness to just get down to work. I mean, it's an incredible country. You think about Korea 50 years ago. It was in ashes and now it's one of the biggest economies in the world. That is a tribute to the Korean people. You know, I think that just like Koreans, British Columbians are used to being underestimated and used to surprising people. And in terms of what we have in common economically, think about natural gas. I mean, this is the second largest importer of natural gas in the world. They have really ambitious plans to grow that. And we have some of the biggest supply in the world.  They want to make sure that they are getting a return on their investment that they've already made. They think British Columbia is a great bet and I agree.


being young is amazing. It's time to explore, learn and enjoy all life has to offer. It's also time to make mistakes and discover what works for you. However, this stage can be overwhelming for most people. The demands of life are more profound. It is very easy to overlook or miss the essential things in life. In truth, the only real pressure are the ones you create in your mind. Life is enjoyable in your 20s. In this video, I will share with you the 13 most difficult things you have to learn in your 20s. 1. Discover who you are. As a young person, this is the first discovery you must make.  The greatest tragedy in life is not death. It is living without having purpose. You might think you know yourself well enough, but there are five questions you must answer in the quest for self-discovery. They are, who am I? You need to clarify your identity. Where am I? You need to understand your origin. Why am I here? You need to know your purpose. What can I do? You need to identify your abilities. Where am I going? Finally, you need to know your destination. According to late Dr. Mausman Rowe, an American leadership consultant, author, motivational speaker and minister, the greatest discovery in life is self-discovery. Until you find yourself, you will always be someone else. Become yourself. Take your time to identify your personality type, what you are good at, what conditions you function best in, what career path is suitable for you, your temperament, your life goals, what upsets you or makes you happy. Having complete knowledge of yourself gives you inner peace and self-confidence. This makes you relate better with others and perform excellently at any given task. When you know who you are, you are less likely to envy others or feel pressured to do anything. 2. Financial Intelligence This skill will enable you to identify financial opportunities even in the most unlikely places. According to an American entrepreneurial and investment expert, Todd Tresider, when you increase your financial intelligence, you increase the number of financial possibilities available to you. In your 20s, you must learn how to create multiple streams of income, understand various investment plans, develop the habits of saving, know how to track your expenses and manage your budget effectively. Becoming financially secure is the beginning of financial freedom. You must also learn to set financial goals and discipline yourself to follow through with them. Money only flows and stays with people who know how to manage it. Money works well for people who know how to use it. If you work for money, you will certainly never be rich. 3. Networking When you are young, it is time to meet new people. You can contact people from all works of life and some of them will share your interests. If you are always on your own, you will not be able to leverage the contacts because you will not have any. Inside information about a non-publicized role, a great business deal, and juicy asset classes to invest in are benefits of networking. You may not like the idea of talking to people you don't know, but remember, the same nervousness you are experiencing, day 2 might be experiencing the same. If you are wondering whether they are friendly, why not talk to them and find out? You can grow in your industry of choice faster when you have a network of colleagues working in different companies in your area of interest. You can collaborate on ideas and discuss training topics in the industry. 4. Goal Setting What do you want to achieve by age 30? Do you want to be a millionaire by age 30? I bet everyone wants to be one, or not even more. But then, if wishes were horses, everyone would write. When you set your goals, are they specific, measurable, actionable, relevant and time-bound? Smart. You will be amazed at what you can accomplish if you just took the time to actually write out your goals. This is a rather challenging but necessary skill you have to learn in your 20s. The most successful people in the world had goals that they worked towards. Success never happens by chance. If you want to be very successful, set huge goals. When you achieve them, it gives you the confidence to dare for more. 5. Self-Discipline Many goals will never come to fruition without self-discipline. What if you had a financial goal to earn over $100,000 before the end of the year? This requires saving half of your income for the year and investing strategically into various projects. Without self-discipline, you may not succeed beyond the first month. The consistent resisting of the urge to get a debit card and splurge over the period is possible only through discipline. You need to learn this now. There will always be things to spend on, but there will not always be time to build an empire. Think critically about what you want for yourself. 6. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving I know it sounds like work, but hey, since when is building a legacy not work? You need to be able to identify loopholes in your propositions and prefer smart solutions. How can you manage your enterprise if you don't know how to analyze your competitors? How can you create value if you do not possess problem-solving skills?  It is in failure we become success. Do not be afraid of pitching your ideas, even if everyone thinks you're dumb. Pure Genius is honed with practice. If you learn theories, the real world will teach you the difference in very unpleasant ways. 7. Love and Invest in Family When was the last time you called your family? I know you think your job is your life now, but trust me, it isn't. Your job will not create beautiful memories with you during Christmas and Thanksgiving. Your job most certainly will not send you a postcard from cancers. Family is really all you have at the end of the day.  Learn to relate better with them. You will be glad you did when you're older. 8. Forget About Your Past and Mistakes Your past is likely as clear as day in your mind. Whenever you close your eyes, you're not your past.  You may never have the chance to un-make your mistakes and apologize to the people you love, but you can resolve to lead a better life. Now, you're young. Let go of the past so that your mind is free from the burden. When you worry about repeating past mistakes, you often end up doing precisely that. Take a deep breath. Relax. You have everything under control. 9. Time Management How many hours do you dedicate to work in a day? How many hours do you spend on personal development activities in a day? Do you find time to meditate when you're young? It's when you have the most opportunity to maximize your time. You want to spend time working on yourself and ideas that you want to develop long-term. If you don't learn time management now, you'll struggle in the future. You need to maximize every hour. If you work 8-9 hours a day, what do you do on your way home while on the bus? When you have taken a power nap and a dinner, what do you do? How you spend your time ultimately reflects on the quality of life you will have. We all have 24 hours. How are you using yours? 10. Personal Branding In the 21st century of Google and online businesses, having an online presence is now quintessential. Being online is, however, not even enough. There are many people online and the need to stand out is needed more than ever. Using platforms like WordPress and Google Suit to build personal websites around your interest, books, podcasts, and publications can go a long way in helping your personal brand. 11. 21st Century Skills If you don't know how to use Google, no one will hire you these days. 21st century skills are now in demand. To remain competitive, learn commercial awareness, be tech savvy, have a project management and digital marketing certification, and you are good to go. 12. Dieting and Exercise Eating healthy and exercising regularly can hold the key to your health in the long run. Starting on time to watch what you eat and create an exercise routine can help you stay fit and healthy for a long time. 13. Relax Trying to make sense of everything can be really stressful. You can get caught up in trying that you failed to actually live. This is a rather difficult thing for most young people to do. Learn to relax every once in a while. If you met your financial goal and became a multi-millionaire before age 30, create time to travel to relax.  You have work to do, but relaxing every now and then can help you recluse from work in the bustles of business and enterprise. If this video inspired you, subscribe to our channel. We love you.


Hi everyone my name is Steph, this is Kidlet Joy where we talk about kids, middle fiction and young adult titles and today I'm really excited to share with you my TBR for the picture this readathon in April. So the picture this readathon is a readathon that is all about celebrating picture books and you know that I love them here on this channel and it is hosted by Shelly from Shelly Swearing-Gen and Jack from Spreadbook Joy and they have come up with this wonderful readathon. I think this might be the third year, I'll leave the actual number of views down below but I think it might be the third year where we just read and celebrate the amazing work that occurs in children's literature through picture books. The readathon is month long, it takes place from the first till the 30th of April and it does have a hashtag, I believe it is hashtag picture this 2024 and there are some really open-ended prompts that you can interpret in any way as well as a bonus challenge. So both Shelly and Jack have picked three keywords to provide prompts for this readathon so there is joy, night, peach, nature, blue and change and then the bonus challenge is to do a deep dive into a children's picture book illustrator. So I thought I would share with you the picture books I'm going to be reading for this readathon. There are a couple of re-reads in here for me for the illustrator deep dive but most of the picture books are going to be new to me books that I'm really excited to pick up in April. So for the prompt of joy I'm going to read The Magical Yet. This is by Angela DiTolizzi and the art is by Lorena Alvarez. I'm really excited to read this one. This one is all about being able to achieve what you set your mind to through the power of yet so I'm excited to finally pick this one up. It's been sitting in my to-be-read pile for a while. For the prompt of night I'm going to be reading What You Need to Be Warm by Neil Gaiman. This is a poem I believe. It's part of his work as the UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador but not only has Neil Gaiman written the poem but there are 13 artists who have illustrated this poem throughout the book and it's all done in this beautiful black, white and orange style. This also fits in for one of my Bookman prompts to read a book that has black, white, and orange cover so I'm excited about that but I've been meaning to pick this up for ages and I've just been holding off on it so I'm very excited Neil Gaiman is an author that I have really enjoyed in the past so I'm excited to see what his poetry is like. Then for the prompt peach I just tried to find something that was vaguely peach coloured. I have tried to just pick things that are on my TBR for this except for the illustrated deep dive and I've gone with Lila Greer Teacher of the Year by Andrea Beatty and illustrated by David Roberts. This is part of the questionnaires series and I've been meaning to start it and why not start here? So it's not necessarily coming up on camera but some of the lines are kind of peachy coloured so I'm excited. I'm looking forward to this one. For the prompt nature I am planning on reading Tree by Claire Saxby and illustrated by Jess Rackleift. This is a powerhouse of an Australian author illustrated duo. This book is coming out on the 3rd of April so it's really good timing for it and I'm looking forward to reading my review copy so I was set in this by Alan Unwin and it is an exploration of the tree and I can't wait. Claire Saxby does an amazing job walking the line of narrative nonfiction so having a wonderful narrative story while also incorporating facts about various things in nature. You sort of heard jam so I'm looking forward to diving into this one a whole lot because these two are some of my favourite author illustrators. Then for the prompt blue I'm going to be reading Books Make Good Friends by Jane Mount. I have sort of flipped through the pages of this one but I haven't really sat down and read it. It is all about celebrating the amazingness of books and the love of reading and a joy of recommending books. Every page has a whole list of book recommendations. Even the cover is just piles and piles of books and at some point I probably want to use this to create some reading lists for this channel as well in terms of things that I haven't read before to try and review. So I'm very excited because I keep going on I'm just going to sit down and read it but I'm like I want time to savor this book. April is going to be my month of savouring books because I will have holidays and I'm using it as a chance to reset before the next term so this book it's the perfect time to read this book. And then for the final prompt change I'm actually going to overlap this with my Illustrator Deep Dive. I didn't have any new to me books in my collection that I'm waiting to read that were about change so I decided to go with one book that will overlap into the Illustrator Deep Dive which means it's a reread and it is Little Light by Kelly Canby. This is a gorgeous book about what happens when you break down the walls quite literally between different groups of people and you begin to learn about different cultures, different groups of people. So it's about change in society. Kelly Canby is an author illustrator who I absolutely adore. I have seen her work in many middle fiction titles. For the purpose of the Illustrator Deep Dive I'm going to be using her as my author to explore but just through her picture book works. So I'm still waiting on one book to arrive. It was the only, it was only one of two books that I purchased for this. So I already owned Little Light. You guys have heard me talk about Timeless before so I absolutely adore this book. It's also one of the CVCA shortlisted books this year so I'm excited I get to go back to it. There's also the whole story which I can't wait to go back and read because the, aside from being just a fantastic illustrator Kelly Canby is awesome at using language and words and wordplay to tell her stories. And then one of the two books that I have purchased for this is Rodney and I don't know very much about this at all. It does have her signature bright color style but the illustrations are a little bit different. There's more of a collage feel to this one so I'm excited to explore it. And then the book that I'm waiting on is All the Lost Things and I am really, really looking forward to exploring these. Now she has also illustrated some picture books written by other people. I'm going to start off with these five and then see if I can get a hold of the other ones and explore those as well. But her five primary works where she is the author illustrator are going to be my target for this. So stay tuned. I'm going to do a video in April all about these Kelly Canby books. I will leave a link to both the Readathon hosts down below as well as their announcement videos if you want to find out more information. I'm really excited to participate. I love picture books so much and April is the perfect time to just take some time and explore them in more depth for a purpose and I can't wait. In the comments I'd love to know if you are participating in the picture this Readathon even if it's just reading one picture book. I do highly recommend it to everyone. Picture books are for everyone.  Even the most simple of picture books can have the most beautiful message so I hope that you will join in. If you want to let me know that you're here but you don't want to leave a comment feel free to leave a treat emoji down below otherwise I hope that we're in the world just staying safe and healthy and I will see you in my next video. Thanks so much for watching. Bye everyone.