Our next conversation is called, Transform the Economy with the Internet of Things. It's a terrific conversation, and it's really, for me, such an honor to introduce Karen Cornblew, who I never had the pleasure of working with at New America. I came just as she had left, and I remember hearing that she had left to go work for this senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. She went on to be his, she was his policy director, and went on to write the platform for the Democratic party most recently. She was the U.S. Ambassador to the OECD, and now she is executive vice president at Nielsen. I'm going to let her introduce the rest of the panel, but I also want to give a quick shout out to my colleague Michael Lindt, one of the founders of New America. This is his idea. You should read it in the materials you have, and look forward to reading the fullness of it when it comes out a little bit later this summer. Thank you very much. Hello, thank you, and welcome to the panel. It's called Transform the Economy with the Internet of Things, and it's going to pick up on one of the points that Secretary Clinton was just discussing, which is how do we spur the economy and create jobs. But I want to put it in context. There are a lot of people who don't agree that we can grow the economy and create jobs. And if you look at some of the discussion that's going on about Thomas Piketty's new book on inequality, you'll see that there's this fatalism. He says actually that the growth rate worldwide will be stuck at 1 to 1.5 percent no matter what economic policy we use. This is a fatalism that's actually quite common. We've given up in a lot of ways from thinking that there's anything we can do about the real economy, that there's anything we can do about growth, that there's anything we can do about jobs. His solution is radical, global wealth tax, but this prescription, this diagnosis really isn't. There's this fatalism that the age of invention is behind us. It's over. And it's sense that there's nothing that policy can do. And that fatalism I think flies in the face of the history of the country as the Secretary was discussing. If you think about what we did to spur canals and highways, and then most recently under President Clinton the Internet, you'll see that there are things that policy can do that government can do that business can do to spur innovation. So this panel I think will try to inject a bit of hope and hopefully realism into the debate about all that. And I just want to remind you that according to McKinsey the Internet has already generated as much growth over the past 15 years as the industrial revolution generated in 50 years. So we've already seen that the age of invention and innovation is with us in the Internet. Now we're going to talk about what's next. And I think we couldn't have a better panel. It's really exciting. I'm very interested to hear what they all have to say having read their work. I'll start with Suzanne Berger. She is Professor of Political Science at MIT. Recently co-chaired the MIT Projection in the Innovation Economy Project. In September she published Making in America. She created the MIT International Science and Technology Initiatives and discusses the MIT France program. Katie George, who's right here, is the author of Next Shoring, a CEO's guide. She serves as Global Co-Leader of McKinsey's Manufacturing Group. And she's a leader within the Pharmaceutical and Medical Products Practice. She also directs the New Jersey office and has a Ph.D. in Business Economics from Harvard. Marco Enantiato, sitting right next to her, is GE's Chief Economist. He's Executive Director of Global Market Insight at GE. He's the author of The Economics of the Financial Crisis and a two times winner of the Society of Business Economists Best Paper in Business Economics. Marco holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton. And Michael Lind is co-founder of the New America Foundation, whose hospitality you're enjoying right now. And with Ted Halstead he wrote The Radical Center, which is New America's manifesto. He's currently Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program. And he's been an editor or staff writer for the New Yorker, Harper's, the New Republic and the National Interest. I bet no one else can say that. Lind is a columnist for Salon. He writes frequently for the New York Times. He's the author of numerous books and his most recent one is called Land of Promise in Economic History of the United States. This is going to be a fabulous, fabulous discussion that will blow your minds away. So I'm going to start with a question for Katie. Just to set the stage for us about what technology we're talking about. What is the Internet of Things? What is the Industrial Internet? What exactly are we going to be discussing and just get our lay people's heads around all this? Perfect. Thank you. It's great to be here. The Internet of Things is transforming the way manufacturing works and, in fact, the way supply chains work across all different kinds of industries. When we think about the Internet of Things, we think about six different related elements. So the first to think about are smart machines. So think about every machine in the world having sensors such that they can transmit real time data about their performance. The second is smart products. So think about, from the time a product is developed, having a product have a digital DNA, if you will, that follows that product from digital product development through sourcing, through manufacturing, into the way it's distributed, and into post-sales service. So you can actually trace if a product is working or not working. Trace that all the way back to some of its basic characteristics in product development. You can trace it back to exactly where a certain part was made around the world and how it was made. You can trace it back to where it was assembled, to what the conditions were in which the supply chain operated, and that it was transported and stored in the supply chain. So smart products, smart machines, the third element is the digital threat. So all of the technology kind of infrastructure and standards that connect all of that together and allow that data to be available and connected. The fourth element is advanced analytics. So when you have all of this data, how do you actually use it to improve decision-making? And so there will be, and already is, just a burgeoning field around how to use this data to make better decisions real time. Fifth area that we point to is cybersecurity. So obviously all of this works only if companies and supply chains and consumers feel protected in terms how this data is leveraged. And then finally, you see that all of this interconnection will create totally new business models in manufacturing and supply chain, very similar to what we've seen in the consumer world. So new digital marketplaces, if you will. Think about in the consumer world, we've connected a billion consumers together, and we all live every day what the impact of that is in terms of how we connect with each other around the world, how we collaborate and share ideas, how we collaborate to create momentum to get something new done, and also how we buy and sell things, totally transformed. Now we're not talking about connecting a billion consumers, we're actually talking about connecting 50 billion machines and it will have the same kind of impact on business models, digital marketplaces, new app economies, et cetera, that you saw in the consumer economy. That's great, thank you so much for explaining that. And Margo, I want to turn to you and ask you about your views. And I was just remembering as Katie was talking really early in my career, I did some consulting to GE and it was in the pre-Internet days because I'm really, really old. And GE had electronic connections with its vendors and it was just starting to think about the implications of that. So you weren't just sending an order to your vendor, but now you could have a real relationship back and forth with a vendor, could start to help you design your product. And that kind of thinking eventually really transformed business, led to all kinds of productivity as the internet spread. What kinds of implications can we see for businesses from what Katie's talking about? Huge implications, actually let me start picking up on something you just said, which is electronic communications have been around for some time and so have electronic sensors. So sometimes when people hear about the industrial internet, the reaction is skeptical, is to say, well, you're talking about electronic sensors, computers, these have been around for a long time. Why do you think this is changing now? What makes it different? And what's happening now over the last few years is a massive and rapid decline in the cost of sensors, but also in the cost of storing and processing data thanks to cloud computing. This is really accelerating things. And from a business perspective, you realize that what is happening is first of all, you are unleashing the power of an amount of information that we never had access to before. We never even thought we could access before. So for business leaders, there is also the challenge of getting their heads around the fact that they now operate in an environment where the range of possibilities is expanding suddenly. Then the challenge is to realize that all these innovations are translating greater efficiency and speed. So Katie was pointing out the sensors and the enormous amounts of data they're generating and how smart analytics then convert this into insights. But what it boils down to is greater efficiency. So you look at the aviation sector, this means for example, less fuel consumption because you understand the engine better, you could operate it better. It means fewer flight delays and cancellations because all of a sudden you can switch to preventive maintenance. So once you understand the machine so much better and the machine is smart enough to communicate with you, you can go and fix it just before it breaks down rather than waiting for the machine to break and then getting yourself stuck on the tarmac because there is a technical problem with the aircraft. It also means enormous increase in efficiency and steps towards greater sustainability by the way. We think about energy and we've talked a lot yesterday about gas. But renewable energy remains important and if you look at what happens in wind farms, you now have wind farms where the different turbines can talk to each other and depending on how the wind switches, the turbines will in a coordinated way adjust the pitch of their blades to operate more efficiently. You're talking about better health outcomes. We had an excellent presentation on the health sector yesterday and it's entirely driven by the cost pressures. And here you have everything from greater efficiency in the operation of hospitals to the ability for surgeons and nurses and doctors to collaborate simultaneously on the same set of tests once a patient comes in, in the crowd, which gives you greater speed and better health outcomes. But what this is telling you is as a company, you're moving to selling outcomes and services rather than just selling products. And that is the first huge implication in terms of business models. The second implication is how you use talent across the world. Look at the point of view of our company. GE has always done a lot of innovation with historically done it in-house. Then in the digital age, you realize that innovation moves faster if you can open it up, if you can access a much broader pool of talent. So we started in a targeted way. We had an open competition where we said, can anybody come up with an idea for a design for a better jet engine bracket? Small thing which fixes the engine to the airplane. And we said, we want a lighter design and we wanted 3D printed. We had lots of great designs coming in, the three best designs from people with no experience in aviation, the top-winning design, a young Indonesian engineer, no experience in aviation, a design that reduces the weight by 80%. Our engineers looked at it and first said, it's not possible, it cannot be. Then they looked closer and yes it is. And we're adopting it. But you start doing it on a small scale like this. You realize that the potential is such that there will be no other way. This has to be exploited. But it's a huge challenge if you really want to have a broader use of this. What do you do in terms of incentives?  What do you do in terms of safeguarding intellectual property? So huge challenges ahead from this perspective. And I would say that from this perspective, the third big challenge you have for business is the shifting nature of competition. Because what this boils down to is the mashing of the digital world and the physical world. So all of a sudden, your range of competitors shifts because companies who were not in your space before can enter into the services, into the digital services. Especially as you have other techniques like advanced manufacturing, breaking down barriers. So changing the nature of economies of scale, making it possible to lower entry costs in different parts of your business. So the change in the competitive landscape, how you use global talent through crowdsourcing, and really how you switch towards selling services and outcomes are to me the three biggest challenges for businesses. That's fabulous. Thank you. And we'll return to all of those issues. I wanted to turn to Suzanne. The secretary used the word ecosystem. And she was talking about Silicon Valley and that you need to have a lot more than just an idea to deploy new technology and to nurture it and to lead to jobs. Can you talk a little bit about that? Yes, I think that we're at the moment of tremendous new opportunities in the United States to really be able to bring our great innovation to market in a way that would really create great new value, both value in the form of new jobs and value in the form of new profits for companies and new companies. But the question is, what are the obstacles that up to now have really blocked us from being able to transform innovation into products that actually reach the market in a way that creates value in American society? And I think that the new opportunities have to do not only with these new technologies that we see, but with the fact that there's a lot more realism in companies about the values of locating production and innovation in the United States. We've gone through a period in which we've seen a lot of outsourcing of jobs. We've seen that people really did not entirely understand the value of co-locating production and innovation. And I think there's a lot more realism today as well as an environment with lower energy costs that makes it possible for us to imagine a locating more of production in proximity to innovation. And that's in a way the real promise of these new technologies, that they will allow us to move more rapidly from laboratory into the market and that they'll reduce what one of my colleagues at MIT calls the tyranny of bulk. That is the need to produce in gigantic factories and to have gigantic workforces in order to move products into mass markets. And I think that these new technologies together with the innovation that we can see across the country really open up great new opportunities but that we have to understand that technology is not a silver bullet. There are really huge holes that have opened in our industrial ecosystem. And if we can't fix them, we're not gonna be able to bring the benefit of these new technologies to land within our own economy in the form of good new jobs or good new companies. What do I mean by these holes in the ecosystem? Well, you could think of them as market failures. That is as difficulties that we have as a society in moving from innovation actually to the market. So something like scaling up a great new idea. When we in our MIT research project looked at startups that grow out of MIT, these companies do great for about five to seven years because they have lots of venture capital funding. But when it comes to actually building a factory after the startup is five to seven years old, these companies just don't find capital in American capital markets. We saw a small scale and medium scale manufacturers in Ohio, in Arizona. These are companies that have great ideas moving up from the shop floor. They don't have local bankers any longer. So these ideas move to market only slowly, slowly, as these entrepreneurs drip in something from last year's retained capital. We see the same issue about training. These are companies that are now much smaller. Apprenticeships have become rare in the United States. And the only way that we can fix these holes, these fix the ecosystem is by some kind of private, public coordination and convening that can both address the issue of scale up, the issue of training, the issue of connecting suppliers within the United States to the centers of innovation and creation. And I think these are the issues we're going to need to address in order to be able to get the value out of these great new technologies. So Michael, what do you say to the skeptics who say we've become a service economy, manufacturing's moving abroad, we're the city of London and poverty surrounding us and that the internet really is an invention that's very exciting at all. It's just about cute videos of cats. How would you put this discussion that we're having in some historical context and give us a feeling that maybe something's going on here? Well, the quick answers, which I'll explain are first, that the real productivity gains come from innovation. Based on technology, not from the initial technology itself, and the second answer about the debate is the future of the economy, manufacturing or services, the answer is yes, because of the increasing blurring of these two separate categories. To explain the first point, economic historians like to distinguish invention from innovation, which are sometimes used as synonyms. Invention is the technology, it's the gizmo. Innovation is what you do with it and there's usually a time lag between invention and innovation when the real productivity gains materialize and this is all very abstract, so I'll illustrate this with the internal combustion engine. This is invented in the 1860s, 1870s, put it on a bicycle frame and you have an automobile. It took some time for the automobility to move into the innovation phase when it really began to transform not just the economy and business models, but literally the landscape and in order to reap the real productivity gains from an invention, you need an appropriate infrastructure, and in this case, a good road system, traffic lights, gas stations, all of this, but then you get both the transformation of pre-existing industries, for example, agriculture by tractors and powered combines, corporations switching to trucking so they could become national rather than just regional corporations. You also get entirely new businesses like when I finally recall from my youth the drive-in movie theater, I think in 1900 if one were predicting the impact of the automobile on society, nobody would have envisioned drive-in restaurants and drive-in movie theaters and this is where entrepreneurialism comes in because at the invention phase of the technology like the sensors, which are the basis of the Internet of Things, R&D is very important, venture capital, government R&D, corporate R&D. It's figuring out things to do with the technology to satisfy needs that nobody actually knew they had. That's the innovation phase and just to answer the second question, servitization is a really, really ugly portmanteau word for a very important process which is the increasing, breaking down of the distinctions between manufacturing and services. In the old days, you manufactured a product and you sold it and that was the end of it and then if it broke down, somebody would repair it. Increasingly, you have companies involved in the entire lifestyle of the product. As was mentioned earlier, they can be involved in the conception and gestation too with mass customization so it's not just, it's conception to grave, it's not even cradle to grave anymore and as some of my colleagues has pointed out, this really is altering the very nature of business models because you have to ask yourself, are you a service and repair company that has a manufacturing line or are you a manufacturing company that has a service business? So let's go back to Marco to pick up on that and maybe you can also talk about what you call the power of 1% and this is gonna lead to a lot of job growth. Definitely, so I'm picking up with what Michael was saying. More and more companies will see themselves as really selling solutions, outcomes, trying to figure out what problems need to be solved and how to solve them through the right combination of products and the associated services. Also, and also the point that Suzanne made on ecosystems is crucial because we can't do it all by ourselves. No single company can. So the solution has to be figured out also by looking not just what the competition is doing as I mentioned earlier, but who do you partner with in order to do this most efficiently? And keeping in mind that the potential in terms of not just business results but also the whole economic impact, so how much can we get from this in terms of productivity, GDP, so higher incomes, jobs being created is enormous. And Michael, you made a very important point which reminds us that these innovations processes play out over a long horizon. The industrial revolution played out over 150 years. And people have the tendency today to look at the innovation coming from the digital age and brush them off. As you said, it's just cute videos of cats.  Unemployment is still high. What are you guys talking about? We have to keep in mind it takes time for the process to feel through. And so the power of 1% is something that we have done in our studies to try to fix ideas, put some numbers on this and asking the question, how much can we get from these in terms of dollars? And the way we've done it is, first of all, to start in going to our scientists, our engineers, our customers in the various sectors and see how much can you get from these innovations in terms of higher efficiency. And across the board, you come to the conclusion that you can get at least 1%, probably a lot more, but at least 1%. And then the temptation, of course, is to say, well, 1%, it's incremental. You're talking about a revolution, what is 1%? But then you think about 1% greater efficiency being applied over huge installed basis of engines, power plants, hospitals. The figures add up very, very quickly to very large numbers, which is how we came in our original study to the impact on productivity and GDP globally to about 15 trillion over the next 20 years. That means over the next 20 years, you add to the global economy the size of the US economy today. So this is huge. That's really... I can just build on that. McKinsey Global Institute did a study of 12 different disruptive technologies to understand what the impact of them could be. And the internet of things, we actually looked at what were the total operating costs of all of the different sectors that would be impacted by the kinds of technologies we're talking about and it's $36 trillion a year globally. So even a small improvement makes a huge difference and that's an annual figure. And Katie, you've talked about some of the decisions that companies need to make about where to locate as a result of all this. I'm gonna talk about that. Yeah, in another study, we looked at how companies were deciding where to manufacture and how macroeconomic trends are impacting that and how that will play out over time. And the technologies we're talking about impact that in a couple of really important ways. First of all, we looked at all of the different sectors of the economy, of the manufacturing economy. And only a small percentage, only about 15% are really driven by labor cost. So this whole question of labor cost arbitrage, offshoring jobs to China, could we reshor jobs from China because their wage rates are going up? That actually only impacts a very small portion of our total manufacturing economy. What's far more important to our manufacturing sectors are first of all, demand patterns and the proximity to demand. So Secretary Clinton talked about the fact that in order to really jumpstart or accelerate the US manufacturing economy, we need to see increased consumption and that's exactly right. If you look at what the most important elements of job loss have been in manufacturing, a lot of it is to do with the fact that we were growing productivity faster than we were growing demand and that became quite acute through the recession. If you look at where we grew manufacturing jobs since the recovery, you actually see it in automotive and related sectors that are really driven by increased US demand. And what's happening in demand in addition to driving localized production is actually an increase in the demand for variety. And so the kind of mass customization that digital manufacturing capabilities, digital supply chain actually enables will put even more premium on placing manufacturing or at least some portion of the value chain near demand and takes away the value of, in some cases, the value of huge economies of scale so that you can actually have much more responsive and short supply chains to meet local and highly variable customized demand. The other piece though that we saw was that increasingly where companies manufacture is based on where they find healthy ecosystems of process innovation. And so digital technology allows you to activate capacity anywhere around the world just as well as walking down from headquarters to the plant floor near your headquarters. So in some sense it allows you to operate and plan and manage capacity globally. But where companies will locate is where they can find the labor force and the whole supply base that enables them to be on the cutting edge and to continue to not just invent but innovate with new technologies. And that's where the importance for the US in creating these ecosystems is so high. So is there hope that this will lead to jobs, Suzanne? What do you think? Yes, I mean I think that the new America Foundation as I've learned over these two days is about ideas and changing ideas and new big ideas. And I think one big idea that we really need to focus on is that we have somehow imagined that production and manufacturing and services are two different economies and that we're moving out of production into services. And I think what you're hearing here in this panel is that almost all great new products and almost all great new companies today are making bundles that are in some way combinations of both manufactured or produced goods, material goods and services. So I would call a manufactured good something that if you drop it on your foot you know that it's been manufactured. And as we looked across the economy we saw it's not only Apple that's making iPods and iPhones, iPads that are beautiful physical objects that people want to hold and if they drop them on their foot you know it was manufactured. But it's valuable because it combines services. It's not only Apple that's doing this kind of combination. It's a manufacturer in Ohio that's making half sleeves that repair oil pipes. If you have a leaky oil pipe in an offshore or an onshore oil installation you can't weld it because the pipe would blow up. And so this company makes the half sleeves that bites into the pipe and repairs the leak. This company sees itself as a manufacturing company but the fact is they send technicians out with the half sleeves and their technicians stand on the oil platforms and coach the divers who are positioning the half sleeve. So what is this company? Well it's a kind of mix of a service together with a product. And I think that's where the new jobs in our economy are gonna come from from these bundles of services and manufactured goods. They're gonna take new skills. They're going to require a kind of proximity between innovators and producers. And I think the question for us in terms of policy is how do we generate these skills and how do we actually change capital markets so we can bring these actually to scale? I'm glad you brought up policy because I wanna get to policy and we're gonna go through one more round and talk about policy and then we're gonna open up the floor. So if you have any questions please start thinking about them. But actually Michael wanted to jump in. Michael, go ahead. So I was just going to jump in very quickly on the show of skills because to create jobs something which is becoming more and more essential is doing a better job at aligning the supply of skills to the demand. And part of it I think is to treat the basic scientific literacy as the new literacy. So it's becoming a more technologically advanced world. We don't all need to be scientists and data scientists and engineers that the level of standard education needs to rise. The deterioration in the education system over the last two decades is part of the problem. But the second is a closer dialogue between education system and industry. And Secretary Clinton mentioned community colleges. We do a lot of work with those because we don't all need to be high flying college graduates. There are a lot of very useful, very qualified, very high paying technical jobs that need to be filled. So filling this gap, aligning, supply and demand of skills is going to be crucial. I just want to make one point focusing on a particular industry that we don't think of as a manufacturing industry and that's medicine. When we discuss medicine in the United States it tends to be in terms of budgetary costs of Medicare or Medicaid or health insurance. But actually medicine is a perfect example of servitization of this fusion between manufacturing and services. If you're having customized physical implants that are monitoring your health and communicating with a hospital or a corporation or some sort of diagnostic system you're seeing that merger of manufacturing and in this case a very customized, specialized, personalized manufacturing. And I think we should embrace medicine, not you don't want to have cost overruns but as societies get richer just as individuals and other costs fall thanks to productivity people spend more on health. And medicine actually is a potential leading sector of advanced industrial economies and it provides everything from unskilled jobs for nursing haids to highly skilled jobs but also it will increasingly rely on manufacturing both as inputs and things that medical providers do themselves. So what are some of the policy issues that we need to confront? How can we not only spur this revolution but also see that some of the growth is located in the US and that people can get these jobs? And I just keep thinking of those huge buildings on the mall, many of which were built in response to the industrial age that you talked about Michael and so we had big industry and we put in place these big agencies that were gonna regulate them top down. Now that we're talking about this decentralized but maybe it's bundled, maybe it's mass customization, does it call for a different kind of policy solution? Katie, do you have any thoughts? Well I think the two things that I see from working in the manufacturing sector that are most important have been mentioned here already and one is education and skills and creating that match and the second is ensuring that small companies, so the supply base, the moms and pops and the ones slightly more sophisticated are able to keep up and able to adopt new technologies as well as to contribute their ideas and innovations into the broader economy. I would mention just a couple more, one is infrastructure, both the physical infrastructure and also the data digital infrastructure, it's crucial and the second one is cybersecurity because all of this is also opening up new areas of vulnerability from an industrial sector, critical infrastructure, so both of these issues are top of mind. I'd like to come back to the education point because I think that what we've seen in this country is a shift from a corporate world 30 years ago where big companies provided many apprenticeships and then people who were trained in those apprenticeships have sort of filtered out into the economy and they were the base of our skilled workforce and what's happened is that as companies have become smaller, leaner, more focused on core competence, you've seen the disappearance of these training opportunities. Take for example, Rochester, New York where Kodak used to employ 60,000 people and had hundreds of apprenticeships and funded the community college optics program. Well, Kodak now has what about 5,000 employees and their apprenticeships are no more but there are a lot of small high-tech optics firms that have grown up in Rochester, New York. Each one of these companies, many of these companies are world leaders in small niches but each of these companies is too small to be able on its own to support training the community college program and the question is how do you pull together? How do you coordinate and convene these small enterprises? These niche firms in order to create links with the community college in order to have a common curriculum and I think across the economy, what we're seeing is smaller firms and the need for the federal, state and regional authorities to play some of this convening and coordinating role. That's what we need to use policy incentives for. Could we do, I mean, are we gonna do that, Michael? Should we start in an industry like health where the government already has such a big footprint? Well, I think if we're talking about a world in which millions of billions of machines and even bodies are communicating with each other, this will require standards and regulations at some point for cybersecurity reasons, for safety, for health and so on. I think the danger is if you do it prematurely you get regulatory lock-in with inferior technologies before better ones have developed. So I'm not really sure what the answer is and of course industry to industry it varies. Although to some degree there will be multi-industry standards because of the way the devices communicate. I think in the United States we can take advantage of our federal system, at least in the early stages of this and allow cities and states to explore things and you mentioned the buildings on the mall. That's essentially what happened in earlier phases of industry and technological progress that is the best practices of the states were sometimes adopted somewhat belatedly and made into federal standards. So I'd like to open up the floor. We're obviously, we have a big idea ingestation here. It seems like we need to put some more detail into the policy framework. So anyone have any thoughts, any questions, any ideas? There's somebody in the back there. Your mic isn't working. Nope. It's flashing green. I think I can, yeah. My name's Rebecca McKinnon. I'm at the New America Foundation. I have a predictable question. Cyber security was mentioned at the end of the panel. What about surveillance? How do we ensure, I mean the economic value of the internet of things seems quite clear. How do we hold government and companies accountable to the public interest? Not only economically and in terms of public security but to the values of democracy and prevent the big brother state from really moving to the next level. Thanks for asking that. It's interesting, there was just this study that I'm gonna talk for a second and give people time to think. There was just this study that came out of the White House on big data and it was just really interesting to see how it read because it said, you know, big data's good for this and it's good for this and it's good for this and then you knew it was coming. But, and all the policy prescriptions were, you know, and they had said, this was what the report was gonna be about, the all the policy prescriptions had to do with the potential harm and danger from big data and a lot of those concerned privacy and privacy is obviously a critically important issue and it's so great that Rebecca asked about it and I'm glad that we had at least the opportunity to talk about the upside at greater length than usually happens here but what do you all have to say about surveillance? I would say that part of the solution to me will come from the market incentives themselves because what you're seeing with the industrial internet is the harvesting of data on industrial machinery and here the companies themselves have a huge incentive to make sure that data is kept sufficiently private, it's not misused and it's not leaked. So there is an enormous amount of pressure and in fact making sure that the safeguards are put in place is a clear enabling condition which unless it happens, the industrial internet will not spread. So I would bet on the market forces on this one but I'm sure some of the other panelists have implementing ideas. I would bet on the law. I think that we will use the law to have some kind of trade off based on a consensus, not everyone will agree, between privacy and accessibility so that for example, it will be easy for your doctor to monitor the implant in you but it will be very hard and illegal for the communications company to then sell that data or maybe the government to track exactly where you are at any moment. No law is perfect, it can be abused by corporations and governments but that's true with standards in general. So you don't wanna see that as an enabling policy framework that would be necessary for the outgrowth of this technology would be that at least people have some assurances that there are protections to their privacy. Well I think that will certainly be part of the regulatory framework. Anyone else? Lenny. I think we need the internet of things right now. It's in the cloud. We can repeat back the question after you ask it. If you turn it on it works better. Oh there you go. Okay. So the internet of things is gonna be obviously disruptive to major sectors of the economy but it's also gonna create all kinds of innovation opportunities. In the connection of people we saw Google and Amazon and LinkedIn be created. Are Google and Amazon and LinkedIn gonna be the winners in this phase or are we gonna see other entities that develop like that to connect in the things side? I think they certainly could be winners and there are many other companies who might enter and innovate in new ways but definitely some of the same kinds of capabilities that we saw play out in the consumer space will be important and will create real value in the industrial space as well. So imagine if you think about Street View right? One of the, we can go look at the Eiffel Tower and walk around it. Imagine using the same thing to actually look at your suppliers factory floor to help troubleshoot an issue. Imagine sourcing ideas for just a few minutes just as we now go to WebMD to figure out how do I think about and interpret the symptoms that I have. Imagine being able to source globally ideas for a yield problem that you're having by being able to identify or characterize the system that you're living with. So I think a lot of different companies are starting to or already getting into this space of providing new services and I think we'll see a lot more come in and I don't know how that competition will play out but we will see a whole new economy around the manufacturing and industrial app space and other related services. It's exactly around the lines of looking at the Google and Apple model because what the race right now is to develop platforms. Now we are developing our own other people as well. The issue is the race to develop the platform that can then capture the largest share of the market. I think we're at the end of our panel time. Why don't we just do a lightning round and see what people might have left off? Do you wanna start with you, Michael? Well, just the point about the platform, I think by its very nature, this is a winner take all market. So it will tend towards a monopoly and probably take on the forum depending on the jurisdiction internationally of a regulated public utility of some kind. Although we're very much in the early wild, wild West phase and as I said, you don't want premature regulation. I would just say think where we were 25 years ago and whether we could have predicted which companies would be strong today. What we need to do is preserve an environment in which things can bubble up from lots of different places within the United States and to put out the kinds of resources and infrastructure that will allow these new ideas to be there. I'm not counting on today's winners being still the ones that we see in 25 years. I hope you're wrong on that. But I would just add that we've focused a lot on the digital in this discussion but the digital is also powerful because it's accelerating other changes which are more in the physical nature of doing things. So think of advanced manufacturing, new techniques like 3D printing, new processes, new materials. So it's really also the digital as accelerator of a more tangible innovation. I would say two things. First, we've talked about this as something that's coming in the future but actually it's here now. So as you said, the cost of sensors have dropped 90% last couple of years. The number of machines connected has increased three times at the rate of the past. So this is already happening and creating value. This is not well it happened and should we place bets on it? This is already transforming the way companies work, GE included, but others. And the other thing I think is exciting is that this really does change if you look at the global picture. This and other trends are changing us away from a win-lose zero-sum game to a win-win opportunity. We're gonna see a lot of innovation and investment in manufacturing in China but we can also see a lot of innovation and investment in the US. It is not in either or it is a both. So I thought this was a great panel. I wanna thank you all. I think this is exactly the kind of conversation and topic that New America has always been so fabulous at nurturing. It's not an issue that necessarily the right or the left is gonna make big hay, attacking the other one for. It's really an issue that's about the future of the country and the citizens of the country. And so thank you all for contributing such thoughtful things. And I think I hope New America will carry on this work and keep in dialogue with all of you and thank you to New America but thank you mostly to the panels. Thank you very much.


Hello and welcome back to the craft box. My name is Brent and today we are getting a new badge Quickly want to just shout out Hunter who came along He wanted to be here. So shout out. We have a free training point buyback. So Yeah, that's fun. So we're gonna buy back all of these actually just a sec I'm just gonna check what we had to start with Um Yeah, okay, that's what I had by Okay So we are going to be getting master of shapes today Obviously We can do that. So, yeah, let's go and do that So the first trainer is and Celestia base camp Which I don't have a mark at but we're gonna hit over there I Did recently unlock the three points trainer so I can get Those ones and as ticker as well So yeah, this is really the only feasible time to do To do this You're getting this badge because you have to get all of the moon skull spells Which can be a slight difficulty because They're not that useful But we we got to get them for the badge There's quite a few and How many are there one two three four? five six seven eight nine ten ten I believe ten so I think I could have got them Just normally but um Yeah, we're just gonna get them on normally. Let's head over to the moon school trainer over here So there's two and Celestia and one in as ticker so Moon school trainer, please Actually, we could probably go to the Arkannum that would probably work as well wouldn't it That one that one Just so it's all in one place. I might go head over to the Arkannum and see we've got the first two here we go um This one train. Yes bandit then ninja and draconian yes, I don't know if we have to learn the shift spells because if we do that's an chrysalis and I can't remember if we have to or not. I'm assuming we might but we will see and And last one right, right, right, right. Yeah, right here hiding away Trying to trick me Okay, there we go. Um, so we must need the shift spells as well, which are an chrysalis So let's head over there. So of course, I'm trying to get all of the badges because why not? Um, I'll quickly just check if we have it already. Don't think we will Oh, we do have it. Oh, look at that. We have it already. Look at that There we go. We did it We obviously it doesn't obviously show so I don't actually know how many we need But it's there. You don't need the chrysalis ones. I can tell you that for sure So yeah, that's cool and I'm in fact probably going to go and Respeak myself again. So Yeah, um I'll probably have another video on respeaking and what I spent my training points on So, yeah, thank you for watching. You should like and subscribe and if you've already subscribed press the weird little bell So you know exactly when I post another video and a member craft outside the box


Why is the Bitcoin worth anything? It's collectible. It's faith. It's it's just like fiat really sure people say oh There's energy involved with it. There's energy involved with creating bitcoins. So what you are doing is Storing value in something that took energy to create, right? But damn Toilet paper takes energy to create, right? So people made money on toilet paper when toilet paper ran low, right last year Is toilet paper gonna run low again? Maybe maybe before I'm hoarding toilet paper now and then when toilet paper prices go up They're gonna sell toilet paper and make lots of money toilet paper is gonna do right but The the the argument that Bitcoin has a value because it takes energy to mine it is A fallacy Everything takes energy Everything takes energy my comic books Take energy, right? So am I it our comic books are collectible or collectibles Worth investing in because they take energy to create no collectibles are worth Investing in because either their rarity there they have cultural significance to them their Functionality their utility and stuff like this, right? So all those people are saying you're storing value energy BS what happens when new technology comes along and it becomes super cheap to mine Bitcoin, right? The energy value of it. So is the price of Bitcoin going to drop, right? The Yeah, there's major big problems


Hawaii Together on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network, I'm Kili Akeena, your host and the president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. We are terribly saddened that we've witnessed the decimation of Hawaii's economy in recent months, especially the tourist industry upon which we relied so heavily. But there is good news. As we move forward, there is a pathway and I've got a guest today who has seen what works as best practices across the nation and the world and we're going to talk a little bit about that. His name is Connor Boyack. He's the president of Libertas Institute in Utah. Connor founded the Institute in 2011 and he serves as its president. It's a sister organization to the Grassroot Institute in Hawaii. He was named one of Utah's most politically influential people by the Salt Lake Tribune and his leadership has led to dozens of policy reforms spanning a wide range of areas such as privacy, government transparency, property rights, drug policy, education, personal freedom and more. Some of you may know Connor's work in terms of the 20 books he's written. Best known are the Tuttle Twins books, a children's series that introduces young people to thinking that is rigorous and yet accessible in terms of economics, politics and civic principles. The California native and Brigham Young University grad, Connor lives in Lehi, Utah with his wife and two children. Connor, good to have you on the program. Aloha. Aloha, Kelly. Thanks for having me on. You know, a lot of people are familiar with the Tuttle Twins, which is a tremendous curriculum and resource for parents. Tell us a little bit about that. So this is a set of children's books that helps kids understand adult ideas, the way the world works. And so we do get into economics and politics and social issues like the golden rule. Our goal is to help kids understand these big ideas about what makes a thriving society a healthy functioning society. And this is content that is not typically taught in textbooks or by teachers. Our school curriculums tend to omit the types of ideas that we talk about, which is sad from a broader social level because these are the very concepts upon which healthy societies are based. And so the Tuttle Twins books kind of fill that void and help parents talk to their kids about these concepts, do activities and lessons and learn about these ideas together. How about that? You know, if it's simple enough and can be understood by children, do you think political leaders could understand it? Well, when asked about what the age range is for our books, I always say it's five to 11 and then members of Congress. There you go. You know, we are facing the same problem across the nation. But recovering from the coronavirus lockdowns is taking a lot longer for Hawaii than for anywhere else in the country. And part of the reason is our isolation. Part of the reason is the dependence we had on one industry, the tourist industry for the most part. But before we start talking about how we can find our pathway out of this, what are we trying to become? You know, what constitutes a good economy? What should we be looking for as the model as we emerge from this terrible season that we've been in economically? That's a great question. I would say that we need to understand what an economy is. It's very easy to abstract an economy, to have it be this kind of mathematical thing, charts and graphs, something big that I can't identify. In reality, the economy is each of us making independent choices that benefit our lives. It's us buying things at the grocery store. It's us going to work and offering our products and services to others. And so in the aggregate, that becomes the economy with millions of people all going about their business and interacting with one another through prices and buying and selling and exchanging. But if we're talking about what is going to make a strong economy, we then have to talk about what is going to benefit these specific individuals, the small business owners, the micro entrepreneurs, the young entrepreneurs trying to get a job and save for college or start their own business. We can't have a functioning healthy economy if we do not contemplate, take it to account and provide a path to success for those who are simply looking out for themselves, for their families, trying to thrive and have a safe and strong family. And so the economy is not a big business. It's not about the Jeff Bezos of the world. The economy really is about the guy down at the local coffee shop or the little food truck on the side of the road. If we don't have the right policies in place that allow them to provide their products and services to others, then we don't really have a thriving economy. What's one or two principles that we need to keep in mind as we reconstruct the economy for Hawaii and everywhere else? You mentioned one thing, the ability of people to look out for themselves. I mean, one economist a long time ago called that enlightened self-interest. Sometimes we hear the phrase free market and a lot of people misunderstand that. They think sometimes that's greed or dog eat dog. But how does the principle of free market really work in terms of empowering and building the right kind of economy? I did a trip a few years ago to Africa with some family members as part of a charity trip. And I distinctly remember driving through some of these remote villages and seeing how there was near universal cell phone adoption, right? There were no telephone wires and all the infrastructure that often has some corruption and intrigue to it in terms of which company gets the bid and so forth. These villages skipped light years ahead of all of that telecom infrastructure. And they skipped to the kind of proliferation of cell phones. And they were benefited here in these remote African villages by access to technology, remote work opportunities, all of these types of things. And so technology can be an amazing opportunity for people to thrive economically. I think the other thing though is barriers to entry, right? If there were no cell phone towers, then there wouldn't be cell phones. If there are laws in place that restrict people, then that's a problem. The thing that was interesting to me about being in Africa was seeing that people had a path forward that even the poorest people now had all kinds of economic opportunities to provide for their families that they never before did. Economics is not about helping Elon Musk get richer. It's about that person in the African village that I met finding a way to immediately triple their family's daily income and move away from being a subsistence farmer to kind of a knowledge worker or a task worker or whatever it is to improve their station and life. To me, thinking about Hawaii, thinking about my state, improving the economy, it's always about the little guy. This is something that left and right can get behind. It's about the immigrants coming in. It's about the young people needing help. It's truly about social justice, about helping people who see these injustices in their life and they're struggling to remove the barriers in their way that allow them to excel. If we have laws in place, regulations, restrictions, and other things that prevent the little guy from starting his little micro business, maybe it's a food truck, maybe it's something else, then we don't really have the right laws in place that are going to allow an economy to recover and thrive. It's always about the little guy and that's why it's so critical that we remove those barriers that might be in the way for the little guy to be able to start and to succeed. You know, Conor, what I hear you saying is that a good economy is not necessarily one in which we give things to people, in which we make promises and fulfill them in terms of their needs for housing or jobs or education or health care or anything else, but it's a system in which people have opportunities in which we remove the barriers so that they can actually succeed and actually provide for themselves. Now, in terms of taking a look at what we have to do in Hawaii, what are your thoughts about this? Is the problem we have economically now something new caused by the COVID crisis and our government reaction to it? Or were the roots of this problem in place long before the COVID crisis? For example, going into the COVID crisis, we already owed a huge amount in terms of government unfunded liabilities to the tune of over $80 billion. We were also rated as one of the worst states in terms of business conditions, conditions that would make businesses thrive. So I've been wondering this a long time, whether it was the actual crisis of COVID and the lockdowns that has caused our economic woes, or whether the roots of those woes are long before we got into that crisis. Fantastic question. And as someone coming from a state that is usually at the top of those business rankings, I will say that there is definitely a contrast that two states at opposite ends of business friendliness can experience similar lockdowns and economic impacts, but come out of it and bounce back one much more quickly than the other. And that's the key, right? We want the the negative impacts that may come justifiably in some cases, right? We want any negative effects to be temporary and time limited and narrow in their scope and their impact. And so yes, if there are exist, I mean think of think of COVID itself, right? Who are the people who are most likely to suffer a fatality? It's people who have some of these pre-existing health conditions. People who are previously healthy are likely to be among the 99.xx percent that get it, have mild symptoms, and then they continue on. I myself am one of those. I had COVID just a few weeks ago. It was extremely mild and you know I'm back at work no problems, whereas other people who have pre-existing health complications you know can can die from COVID. And so it's the same thing or I should say it's very similar with the economy. If there are pre-existing problems that complicate things when you have a new disease vector, when you have a new threat, that that can provide a fatal dose of the problem, whereas other people can weather that storm much better because they have their house in order, because they have those existing. So I think there's a lot of validity to what you're saying. It does speak to the need for broader economic reform so that as new things tend to happen, the storm can be weathered much better. We're going to dive in and start talking about what we can do economically in just a moment. But first I want to thank our viewers because we have a question that has just come in online and it's this Conner. It goes back to our discussion earlier about how we teach children. How do you teach economics while ensuring you keep politics out of it? Great question and thank you viewer for that. That is a great question. You know the proverbial lemonade stand is not political. Kids trying to learn how to make money and what it takes to entice customers and how competition works. These things are very apolitical. There of course in the economy there are business owners who are from the left end of the spectrum and the right end of the spectrum. The underlying principles apply the same and so it is very possible to teach basic economics and help children understand how markets work without having to be political about it. There are a lot of people who have political opinions kind of baked on or layered on top of economic ideas. But the economic ideas are really just about how humans interact. They're about how we exchange and buy and sell and what we prioritize and how we express our preferences in terms of what we buy and so forth. These are things that can have political implications but they don't necessarily need to be political and so it is very possible and I would argue very important that we talk to our kids about the way the world works and that language of economics to understand how humans interact through the marketplace. Conner, the big bugaboo which has been blamed for our economic calamities is the lack of diversification in the Hawaii economy. We basically have military, government spending and in the private sector we have tourism and tourism is our biggest and most profound concentrated industry of all. But legislators have talked about diversification for a long time, haven't figured out how to do that and think that the government can use law in order to bring diversification of the economy about. What are your thoughts about that? I would actually express caution to that. Central planning rarely works typically when economies are centrally planned. There are a lot of unintended consequences that people who are well-intentioned sitting in a conference room cannot anticipate and so it's very important to actually facilitate the kind of decentralized approach where innovators and entrepreneurs again don't have those barriers to entry in the way where they can go experiment and try things out and are empowered to go solve the problem rather than people coming up with a plan and having a program and kind of top-down fashion saying what it should be. We always see more success with healthy, robust economies, diversified economies when it's the entrepreneurs who are allowed and empowered and even in some cases encouraged to go solve the problem themselves and come up with that creativity that well-intentioned people in a conference room would not have been able to do on their own. Well there are a lot of people in Hawaii who think that for an industry to succeed it needs to have the government get behind it and give it tax credits and breaks and special advantages and protections and so forth. What are your thoughts about that? You know that's very enticing I would say and certainly a business owner is not going to turn down a tax break when it comes but you know it speaks to an overall fairness question about if the government should be picking winners and losers and I think generally we see across the country that creates more problems than it tries to solve. We're going to go to a quick break and come back and talk about ways in which we can rebuild the economy. My guest is Connor Boyack, the president of Libertas Institute. I'm Kayleigh Ikeena with the Grassroot Institute. We'll be right back on Hawaii Together on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. Don't go away. Thanks a lot for not going away. I'm Kayleigh Ikeena with the Grassroot Institute. We're talking with Connor Boyack of Libertas Institute. We're going to dive right back into our conversation as we discuss how to rebuild the Hawaii economy post-COVID style. Connor we were just talking about diversification and how it's not the greatest idea for the government to choose winners and losers and back one industry over another. But I'm wondering if there are things that the government can do. You've talked a lot about regulatory sandboxes. In other words a unique environment that allows private companies to develop a product or develop services where we temporarily lift regulations from them and let them just go full speed ahead without any barriers and so forth. Do you see that this is something that could help the Hawaii diversification of our economy? Oh absolutely. Here's a very simplified example of how this would work. Let's say an entrepreneur wanted to create a new transportation network. There's a company on the mainland called Turo where it's like the Airbnb of cars. You can actually share your car with other people and they could rent it for a day or for a week. Well in many locales as in our capital city Salt Lake City there are these laws on the books that were written decades ago that never contemplated this different business style. Never contemplated that people would be able to do this and so there were laws written about car insurance and transporting other people for hire and all these kinds of things that prevented this company from being able to operate. Again it was never the intention of the people sitting the legislators or the city councilman decades ago sitting down saying we want to prevent this totally unique business model we we don't even know exists right now right that wasn't the intention but it was an unintended consequence. What a regulatory sandbox does is it is a legal programs that's set up passed by the legislature and they say look we recognize that there may be unintended consequences in the future and so we want to create a safe space if you will in which a an entrepreneur or a business that finds itself running up against a law or a local ordinance they can enroll and enter into this program and while they're in this program they are kind of shielded from any negative enforcement they're not going to be shut down they're not going to get fines they are allowed to continue going about their business notwithstanding the conflicting law for a period of one to two years provided that the regulators first do an analysis and they say hey we've concluded that this business activity is safe right no one's going to be harmed or injured or defrauded so as long as it's safe we're going to allow it to proceed so that we can watch it and then go back to the legislature and say hey look we've identified here's this problem we've been watching them everything's been safe and fine let's now go fix the law so that they can continue to proceed and so it's a very kind of kind of an incubator if you will for these new business models new companies new approaches to doing things to say look as long as we're safe let us continue to go to market because after all that is the whole idea behind regulations and laws it's to keep people safe it's not to protect certain businesses certain classes certain regions anything like that the whole idea the justification is to keep people safe so as long as you're safe and you go in the sandbox you're shielded from whatever these laws are you're allowed to build your business show the use cases that you're doing well you're you're helping the economy you're serving your customers very well and then you're able to take that evidence to the legislature the city council say hey look everything's fine can we please now fix this and update the law so that we can continue to exceed so rather than an innovative company going getting shut down and then trying to work with the legislature and and legalize their new business model or activity instead of a kind of a fist it's a handshake right it's like hey we're going to work with you we want to support entrepreneurship and innovation and so we have this little safe space where you can stay there while we figure it out and so this is something that utah is leading on many states are now kind of jumping in as well and certainly something that could help hawaii and every other state to say we want to have a way to support our entrepreneurs and build a better economy you know one of the things i like about this is it promotes innovation and it gives an incentive to businesses to try something while at the same time not leaving the taxpayers with holding the bag after something the government invests and fails and that's important the other thing i like about it is it's a natural way for developing regulation see what works and then develop your regulations after that you know our state is so regulated in terms of whether people can actually be licensed or not in terms of businesses you know that our state doesn't allow for lemonade stands that infrequent businesses by minors still require permits it's hard to believe but of course lemonade stands in and of themselves aren't going to revitalize the economy but these kinds of restrictions are part of the problem when it comes to COVID recovery wouldn't you say it does speak to what we discussed earlier and that is you know barriers in the way i gave the example of you know the people i saw in these african villages but every american and and all the people in different states the same principle applies to us as well if we want you know the i mean i think of this family i know in my state and they're an immigrant family very poor but they launched a very small business and there were some regulations preventing them from doing so fortunately they know people like me that could help them get those regulations fixed and it was a success story because clearing those regulations out of the way that family was able to launch their business and succeed and grow and pursue the american dream and so it really comes down to you know the government's role is to keep things safe but to the extent possible let's remove those barriers that prevent people from setting up the businesses they want the businesses use me the businesses that can serve their customers and and this is a definite role for the government is that where those restrictions exist we need to question them we need to question their basis their intent and determine if this is actually causing more harm especially post-covid when you know you're basically going to have to give cpr to hawaii's economy and say you know come back to life it's a great opportunity to come in and say it's something like a regulatory sandbox or other programs where we can go look at our regulations and and try and figure out how we can free up the entrepreneur to go out and serve customers and rebuild the economy it's a great time an opportunity to really try and resolve some of those existing issues i think opportunity is the key word in fact uh you've talked a lot about city and state regulations but as we get beyond the local level what about federal side do we need to envision some changes there in terms of being able to invigorate the economy you know i think you know with hawaii the jones act is the perfect example that the the answer is yes there there's absolutely federal reform that is needed to remove some of these restrictions to just allow again the economy is people like you and me wanting to do business together let's allow free people to just pursue those decisions as best as they can and so things like the jones act i think are a great example where i think a lot of people struggle is that federal reform is very difficult right there's a lot of constituencies and lobbyists and money and and intrigue and maybe corruption uh whereas at the more local level you know as a state level certainly at a local level it's much easier to have conversations with people about these issues and try and set up a dialogue with them and persuade them or discuss you know common ground and and those are conversations that are very hard to have in a country that's so massive as the united states it's much more difficult to have all those conversations enough to then change public opinion and and pursue legal reform so in short i mean certainly federal form is needed i really wish we could kind of address the jones act and and free up some of these restrictions sure but to the extent that that remains difficult to do so again back to the word opportunity you know your legislature and even people at a local level have opportunities to stand up and say you know we want to support our entrepreneurs our young people are you know you know struggling people who are just trying to you know build a better life um there are plenty of opportunities at that local level to pursue some of these changes absolutely and you certainly write the jones act affects virtually every business and consumer in hawaii and in addition to that there are other federal regulations particularly those which affect farmers and their ability to be able to actually be entrepreneurs themselves now let's bring this conversation as we close a bit down to the more personal level in terms of individuals and families that have negatively impacted how can they use their assets in a post-covid world to financially recover do you have any thoughts for them oh uh you know this is where i might say buy some bitcoin half as a joke but um i'll i'll say this i i have a podcast for young people and i've been talking a lot recently about COVID and you know there are a lot of challenges that this whole circumstances has created COVID itself the government's response to it as you point out some of the pre-existing issues that have kind of teed up some states to do better than others but where there is uh chaos there is opportunity right where there are problems there are solutions it is perhaps you know there are fewer times in our history uh that have been better times for entrepreneurs to identify problems that people are having and how can i solve them and so i would encourage people listening looking at their own families how can we kind of lift ourselves up by the bootstrap pursue the american dream you know notwithstanding all the struggles we're having you need to think from that kind of problem solving mindset like an entrepreneur would and say well what what challenges are are created and so let's look at those instead as opportunities what can i how can i take advantage of this what are the problems people have with this and can i come up with solutions that they will want and pay me money for so i can start a business even amid post COVID 19 and still pursue that american dream i still think it's possible no matter the challenges that exist right now for the right people who are dedicated focused and have that right mindset you know entrepreneurs can thrive in any type of economy because people always have problems that they are looking for solutions for and if if our families gather around the dinner table and try and have these conversations and say what can we do how can we be entrepreneurial i think you can do it and i would encourage you to do it great what an inspiring ending to our conversation today but i hope the conversation goes on for all of us Conor Boyek Libertas Institute thank you so much for spending some time with us today really appreciate you being here thanks as always for having me i appreciate it and to our everyone who's watching today we wish you the very best until next time i'm kelly atina on the think that kawaii broadcast network for the grassroot institute


In the 20th century, economics lost its purpose and started chasing the false goal of GDP growth. In recent decades, that has pushed many societies into deepening inequality, and it's pushing us all towards ecological collapse. This century calls for a new goal, meeting the needs of all within the means of the planet. In other words, it's time to get into the doughnut, the sweet spot for humanity. But that's no easy task. Today, billions of people still fall short of their daily needs, from food, housing and energy to healthcare and education. And yet collectively, we've already overshot our pressure on some of Earth's most critical life support systems, driving climate change and the breakdown of biodiversity. What we do to this Earth in the next 50 years will shape the next 10,000. So let's replace that last century goal of endless growth with the goal of thriving imbalance. And if we're to have half a chance of getting there, what economic mindset would be fit for the task?


My name is Jeff Hemingway. I'm the sole quality specialist here in South Dakota. And today we're actually going to look at our sole quality and water movement model. Demonstration here is really set up for small groups, classrooms, farm shows, that kind of display. And we'll just take it apart and actually look at the model and see what the components actually are. So as we take apart the model, you can see that it comes packed. But for the most part, the model itself is actually a number of jars, equipment, funnels, et cetera, set up to really look at a number of different parameters. And that's, well, everything from capillary activity. In other words, that capillary flow upwards, that upward movement of water through soils to hydrologic conductivity, permeability, actually. And then we can actually look at other parameters associated with the various soil samples that we actually have set up for this demonstration. So the first thing we can actually start with is you can actually see that we have an aggregate stability jar. We call it aggregate stability. Actually, it's a slake test. You can see that as I remove the top here, we actually have a screen. Within, you can remove that screen within the jar itself. We're actually going to put an aggregate on the screen. The jar is going to be full of water. And we're going to actually look at to see how that aggregate falls apart, how well it's stuck together, how water stable it really is. For the most part, we're looking at tilled soils that having low aggregate stability will fall apart fairly rapidly. Those that are no-till or under grassland conditions will actually be very stable in water. That's this component of the demonstration. So the other components we actually have are there's two other basic components. The second one I'll talk a little bit about is a capillary activity. That is water movement up through soils. We actually have a bulletin holder here. We'll put a paper towel in this bulletin holder and then actually sit that in a tray that we have within the model of water. You can imagine that with a paper towel in this tray, we're going to actually have water move up through the paper towel to demonstrate capillary activity. We can use that alone with paper towel or we actually have within the kit, there's some food color in the kit too that'll actually help make that more visible for a demonstration. So one or the other that you can actually use within the demonstration. The third basic component that we actually have within the model is a number of jars and there are several of them within the model to actually demonstrate hydrologic conductivity. In other words, water movement through that soil permeability. And that jar that we actually have in here as you can see on the bottom of the jar here is perforated. The jar setup is basic among the jars that we have. We have a catchment vessel. That's just the catch water that actually moves through the jar itself. And there are a number of funnels that are actually set up in the top of the jar itself so that we're actually going to look at as we have various soils. It could be coarse sandy, could be fine clays, could be soils with poor aggregate stability or good aggregate stability, could be layered effects set up within the jar itself. We're gonna move water through that vessel and then catch that. We're gonna look at it's ponding water, if it's not ponding water and talk about reasons why we're actually either having permeability or for that matter not having permeability within this demonstration. So those are the three basic components that we have of the model. And what we're gonna do now is actually set up a number of the demonstrations and look at how they actually should work for your demonstration.


Good evening everyone and welcome. This is Melissa with the stockswish.com and I thought I'd do a video today on a topic. The topic is conviction. Someone in the room had asked me about BBBY that the fact that it was something that I could have called short in the room and long in the room and I called it short in the room. I did it short. It was a short. It was a short. That's it. Okay? Let's talk about this in general and the fact is that you cannot have conviction in a stock in both directions. This is so important that I almost can't believe this gets overlooked, but many day traders fail to understand this concept. You cannot have conviction in a stock to be in both directions. That's impossible. So then you have zero conviction in it. I trade when I have conviction in something and I like to short. I prefer to short although I will go long occasionally. But if I go long, I have conviction it's a long. If I take the trade, if I go short, I have conviction it's short. Okay? Therefore I'm shorting it and therefore I believe the stock will go down on the day, which is how I read BBBY in the gap and I played it short and made money to the downside. Now, I'm going to bring up the one minute chart, this was a ninth, but the point I want to make in this general video today is not really specifically about BBBY, although I'm using this example, I could have pick a thousand different stocks to use in this example. The point is and something very, very important, which I teach in great detail in all my teachings, is that you cannot be flipping things in the different directions in the same stock or the market on the day. If you do that, you will never train your brain right to trade successfully.  And when you train your brain right, you can do that too, which is what I'm teaching people in my class and room. But if you flip something back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, you have no conviction to stop. You won't make money that way. Could you have shorted this and made money and flipped it and gone long and made money? Yes. Is that the proper way to trade? Absolutely not. I would never call a trade short and long than in the realm. I would never tell anyone to do it. That is a horrible way to trade. And you never train your brain to read anything correctly then. People that do that never really make real money to market. So the reality is, you do not short and go long the same stock on the same debt. You have conviction in one direction, whether you short it or go long it.  In the case of BBBY, I had conviction it was a short. I shorted it. I got out at the perfect place and was done. And then you could have reshorted it actually. Now it flipped over the high into 10-15, which is this far here. But there was no proper long set up in this other day. My point is, train your brain to do the correct actions for you to make money in the market. Many day traders don't want to do that because they just want to flip and flip and flip and go back and forth and try to make money in small little moves here and there, wiggly jiggling. I would never be able to take the risk monetarily or size that I do if I traded like that. It would be insane actually. It would be insane. Let's just pretend that I took 100,000 shares short of this. I didn't. But I'm just saying my potential for sizing is I could take way more size than I am right now. Let's just pretend I did 100,000 shares of this. Do you think I would take 100,000 shares of this and exit this here and then flip around and go 100,000, take 100,000 shares long? That would be insane. The way that I trade is actually so accurate, so specific, so detailed, so reinforced. I have such a high level of conviction and confidence in what I know and do, which is why I'm aggressive in my trades and get the best price possible in my entries and make money consistently, is because I could actually run and manage a hedge fund. But day traders that are flipping in and out, in and out, long and short, long and short, killing it and shorting it and buying it, could never run a hedge fund. I would never want anyone like that to even work for me in a trading desk, would fire anyone that did that. If anyone ever came and worked for me, if I ever ran a live trading desk, and I ever hired a trader to work underneath me, if I ever did that, which you know, anything's possible, I could run a trading desk for traders. If I ever did that and someone went short something, flipped it and went long or vice versa, I would fire them. That is awful trading and you cannot consistently make money in the market like that and you never train your brain right. You never, you never know what conviction is. You never feel it. You never know it. It's not part of you. It is in my blood. It is part of my cells. It's part of my brain. This is how I am so accurately able to call BBBY, which I shorted here and put the stop at the right place. And it kept me in it when I went over the high of the day twice and I stayed in the trade and got the short and got out at the right place because I have trained my brain to see well, to see that BBBY was a short on the live day here and knew the numbers because I've trained my brain for the numbers to accurately reprice the action well. And I couldn't do the same thing long, although I prefer to short. It's one of the reasons also I've been able to call the market. When I say the market, I mean the QQQ's and the spies show accurately because I have trained myself how to read gaps, bullish and bearish, to be able to call the market that it's going to continue to make a new high and rally and go to the numbers I said this year. So I'm seeing things way ahead in the chart because of the way that I have trained my brain. And that is so powerful. That is so powerful. And I talk about the brain in the gap class and I talk about it in the wealth manifestation class in great detail, actually. But if there's anything that I can still in you, it is do not go short and go long the same stock the same day. I don't care what you do. I don't even care what strategy you train, whether it's gaps or not. That is terrible trading, okay? You will never train your brain right. Not only that, you have no conviction. You have zero conviction if you're going short and long the same stock, the same day, you don't have any conviction at all than what that stock's going to do or you wouldn't be doing two different directional biases. And it's not about whether or not you could make the money. In the bigger picture, listen to what I'm saying and this is it for the night then. This is not about whether or not you could have made money. I could point out a million things in the market that I could have gone long or could have gone short if I did it here or there or there or there. Okay? It's about knowing, knowing, knowing that if you take it at this price and knowing that if you get out at this price, you did the right trade and you made money. It's not about guessing. I'm predicting knowing and having 100% conviction that if I take it here as a short, it's going to go here, okay? There's no staying power when you don't have the conviction. This is why people end up scalping and they're basically, basically what people do is they're scalpers.  You're taking too much risk, okay? And it makes no sense. You're never with the person or the money that's controlling the stock. You couldn't be. You couldn't be with anyone who's controlling the stock if you're going to directional biases because at any point in time. And this is very important. Now listen to what I'm saying, okay? At any one given point in time, there's only one person controlling the stock in the market. That's it. On any given point in time, on any given day, there's only one power at hand in control, one. So that means if you take opposite directions in it, you're against the control of whoever is controlling it on that live day and you're not going to consistently make money if you trade like that. So you do not go two directions in the same stock in the day ever or the market. You have conviction, you know what that is. You'll never get it if you don't learn. And I'm teaching people how to have it. Great class this weekend. Really, really good questions. The questions I got were good questions. This is a carry on through here now to reinforce the conviction of everything. Have a great week everyone. Earning season is finally here. Spring is finally here. It's going to be a fantastic week. It's just going to be an absolutely fantastic week. I just have a feeling. Have a great night everyone. If you're interested in more information on the next Golden Gap class and you really want to learn how to trade stocks in the right direction, train your brain and get conviction, email me at melissa at thestockswish.com. Have a great night everyone.


The Holy Spirit protects you from harmful relationships. David and his men, defectors from Saul's authority, were hiding from Saul in the town of Ziklag. The warriors who defended the future king had formed a hedge around him. David was insulated, covered, no enemies could approach. David was then approached by more men from the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. He knew not whether they were there to join his ranks or to take his life, and how could he have known? For all David knew, the men who approached him could have been spies sent by Saul.  So David let them join him and he made them officers over his troops. It was the Holy Spirit upon the men that confirmed to David that they were for him, not against him. The Holy Spirit will protect your inner circle by closely connecting you with people of a kindred spirit. The Holy Spirit in you knows the Holy Spirit in them.