Hey, folks! Adam Rulavine here. After quite a lot of work, earlier this week we signed a new syndication agreement for speaking of Bitcoin. That'll see our audience expand without giving up the independence, control, and self-reliance that we've worked so hard to maintain. As of next week, we'll be releasing new episodes on CoinDesk as well as through our private channels, which should eventually result in more frequent new content for you. But for this week, I'd like to share with you one of my favorite episodes from a short-lived series that our earliest listeners will remember. Six years ago, I teamed up with my good friend Arthur S. Falls to broaden the conversation from cryptocurrency to decentralization broadly, as it has and will continue to impact our world. We called it the new renaissance, a phrase I'd begun using before even discovering Bitcoin in 2011, that to me encapsulates the compounding effect of new open-source technologies, as well as older technologies that have been freed of patent controls, and become enabling layers for new technological innovations. Although this discussion occurred more than six years ago, it hasn't aged a day and is in fact arguably more relevant today than it was at the time. I'm very pleased to share this thought-provoking conversation for your listening enjoyment and hope that you have a relaxing day during this crazy time. Thanks for listening. It's the 26th of June. I'm Arthur Falls. And I'm Adam B. Levine. And you're listening to the first episode of the new renaissance, a show exploring the world of disruptive innovation and the cultures that inhabit it. Adam and I have been thinking about this project for a couple of months now, during which time we've spoken to people about subjects ranging from the coming rise of autonomous vehicles, to the NSA's failed battle with the cypherpunks, to the emergence of new virtual realities, subjects linked by an elusive grand trend driving human interconnectedness, free innovation, and extension of the mind. Pinning down a phrase like disruptive innovation can often result in a domain-specific definition, or an expansion on the marketing hype we are bombarded with in tech media. Most likely we think Apple, file sharing, or Silicon Valley. And while for narrative convenience historians may one day cast the valley as the second coming of 14th century Florence. Today, change happens globally. Ideas aren't nurtured in isolation, leaking out as memes carried by inoculated travelers. They emerge from the communal mind of the internet, and they affect us as a global civilization, not just as isolated societies. I think that it'll be really interesting to have this conversation, because I definitely, you know, like, I have my feelings about it as you heard me express over text yesterday. But this is all totally just a thesis. So I really don't know where we're going to go with it.  My understanding of how you kind of view the premise is that we live in a time where there are few social barriers to innovation and to discovering new things. And we also have at the same time this incredible apparatus to enable us to discover and innovate. I would argue that the distinction is in new fields, in new fields that are disruptive. There is a unique opportunity and it's not simultaneous. That's the other thing about it, is that like you look at 3D printing and you can see that there was this period of about five years. We might have already talked about this before. When I got out of my last line of work as a salesman, I was really interested in that because it solved a couple of problems that I had had, which was basically that like if you want to have like a custom made anything that is mass produced, you need like 500,000 or a million pieces. That's like a very normal amount that you would have to order upfront in order to get anything made custom. Whereas with 3D printing, well, you know, it might have a higher per piece cost, but it's possible even at a single unit. And so you look at the way that technology developed and actually 3D printing had its heyday, you know, as far as commercially, maybe 20 years ago. That was when most of the development happened. And then what, it was actually long ago, it was about 26 years ago. And then everything was patented and then it basically sat there for 20 years and nobody touched anything because anybody who did got sued. And so you arrived at the end of that period and that is basically where we saw the RepRap come out. The RepRap used technology, fused filament extrusion that was patented and that had literally a 20 year patent expire on it. And then that allowed about five years of very, very rapid progress where the, you know, the hobbyist 3D printing industry basically was born. And we saw many, many Kickstarter campaigns that pushed forward until they hit the edge of the intellectual property barrier. It was the heated build chamber is the thing. And so we're still waiting, I believe there's another year and a half or two years before the heated build chamber comes out of patent protection. And at that point, then we'll see, you know, suddenly all of these low and cheap printers accommodating that. And because of that, they'll be able to then start building the next steps that come after it. That's what I mean by, it has to be possible. So even though this is old technology, it's still new as far as we're concerned, because it's been monopolized and basically just used for people who had, you know, a couple hundred thousand dollars to spend on one of these machines. So this is where the emissive element comes in, we're no longer being restricted from using these innovations or recombining these innovations that have existed for a long, long period of time, relatively speaking. Right. Proprietary becomes generic. And because of that, then generic can be applied to other things that are generic or even not generic. They can be used as components and things that themselves are proprietary. Say that again. The difference between intellectual property that is controlled versus intellectual property that is not is that controlled, you know, whether through patents or whatever is proprietary, right? It is owned and monopolized by the company that has the protection on it. And they have legal recourse if anybody tries to use it to even not make money, but especially if you're going to make money. So it makes it so that the only types of innovation that can happen are either the most basic and most secret of hobbyist, right? Because again, even if you're not using it for commercial purposes, you could be in violation of somebody else's patent. Oh, and the flip side of that is that things that are kind of just generally available or that have expired patent protection are generally available. And so if technology is generally available, right, I mean, like think about a clock, right? If somebody had a patent on a clock and made it so you couldn't put a clock into anything that needed a clock, then you wouldn't be able to have many things. I mean, like there, there are so many things that rely on clocks at a fundamental level, but even beyond that, the functionality that is provided even when it's not vitally like your microwave, for example, your microwave might work just fine with just an on off button. But at the same time, by being able to incorporate that basic piece of technology into a more complicated piece of technology, you make it more useful, you make it so you don't have to stand there, you don't have to set another time or you don't have to, you know, do anything because it can control itself by integrating technology that at one point was somebody's, you know, lifeblood invention, but over time became this generic piece of kit that could be incorporated into really whatever else you wanted to do it with. So it's much the same here. Sometimes you're talking about process, you know, in terms of like being able to manufacture with 3d printing, you know, and not have to buy, you know, a $400,000 machine instead being able to buy 10 $20,000 machines because there are five companies out there that are making these machines, adding the competitive element into it drops the barrier to entry and by dropping the barrier to entry again, you lessen the restrictions that are sort of normally there. I don't necessarily think that we are in a time when things are really possible or where innovation is really encouraged. I actually think it's the opposite of that. I think that any place where disruption can be avoided to the way that things are, there is a large incentive to do that because people, somebody, somewhere is making a lot of money from the way that things are and it's different people, different places, you know, and each industry has its own Titans and its own monopolies and things like that. And so the places where you see this pop up really are the fringes where there's not much or where as in the case of something like cryptocurrency, it literally cannot be stopped. And so that again, that's another important characteristic of this period we're in is that any, you know, innovation that can be stopped, any disruptive innovation that can be stopped, I guess is the way to say it will be stopped simply because it does make sense to the people who already are in power. There are kind of three things that jumped out of me from that explanation. The first is that we have this, we have this situation where because there is now these patents are expiring on 3D printing because this is a good example, the ability to take those technologies and those innovations that already existed and recombine them with new innovations gives us the ability to produce something an enhanced version of an old technology in the same way that say combining a microwave with it on off switch with a clock gives us an enhanced version of a microwave that may have much more utility than if those two innovations were prevented from being recombined. And also, I think it's interesting that you point out that you use the example of the microwave and the clock because it's a very basic tool for the automation of a machine. You know, just by giving it the ability to control itself in time. Well, it can take over a lot of the cognitive effort that would normally be the responsibility of a person to manage. I would argue it's a good component. I mean, that's the thing is that most technology that's useful, we might think of it as a technology unto itself. We might think of computers. Computers are another example of this, you know, like the processor. That again is something that we primarily know from computers, but it is an open tool. And so as the technology improves, there's nothing stopping people from, you know, manufacturing their own or taking their own chips or using somebody else's chips that they buy in bulk and creating new products with it. So again, like the computer industry actually is sort of the outlier in all of this, really, because in the computer industry, even though there are patents, technology has not really at least obviously, I mean, maybe it has, but at least to my eyes, it doesn't appear that we're being aggressively held back by intellectual property that's controlled for whatever reason, the way the internet and the way computers have developed, the computer business has developed. It's a very competitive market. It's why we see, you know, unlike so many other markets around the world, computers continue to get more efficient, smaller and cheaper all at once. And again, like that's something that should be happening nearly everywhere. But because of the kind of circumstances we find ourselves in, it doesn't. What is the difference between the computer industry and other industries that make it so special, that make it so much more competitive and efficient? To be perfectly honest with you, I don't really know. There really was never a point of monopolization, because you had this differentiation between hardware companies and software companies. And I'm definitely not an expert on this, so this is just kind of what I think of it. But competition is so core to the types of disruptive innovations that we're talking about here. The competition is why people disrupt industries. They see a better way to do it that can obsolete or at least improve upon the existing way. And if they have the opportunity to do it, if they're given that chance, then they take it and they try to make a business out of it. And a lot of times they fail, but sometimes they succeed. And so again, in, well, you know, another thing about computers, though, is that it's a relatively new industry. We had very large IBM style computers back in the 60s and 70s. But the actual like user home experience really has been for most people since the middle of the 90s to now. So we're talking less than 20 years. In the future, we might see Samsung becomes, you know, they come up with some absolutely amazingly innovative technology that they then monopolize and then becomes kind of the gold standard. But again, chances are pretty good that it's going to make more sense for one of their competitors simply to reverse engineer whether it's legal or not their product and offer something that competes. And again, that's possible because there are lots of large players in the space because they've all kind of benefited. This reminds me of the Intel AMD relationship where way back in the day, AMD got its start reverse engineering and producing Intel chips at lower cost. Yeah. AMD was a disruptive new competitor in the space who refused to play by the rules and so benefited by grabbing up market share more quickly than if they'd started from scratch, even though it would later get them in trouble legally. I've got an article I'll be publishing on our blog in the next few days where I explore this idea of disruption and permission by looking at the taxi medallion system and Uber, Napster and BitTorrent. But actually, I think it provides some context to the conversation we're having here today. So let's take a break from this discussion to explore the taxi cab monopoly over time. In my article, does Uber know it's the Napster of transportation? In March of 2014, David Johnston, an influential early adopter and angel investor in the cryptocurrency space, coined what he called Johnston's law, quote, anything that can be decentralized will be decentralized. It's a bold statement, but it comes at a point in history where everywhere we look, we are surrounded by centralized control and the limitations to the actions of the individual that go along with it. Even as recently as 100 years ago, the vast majority of systems you'd be familiar with operated using decentralized decision making and practices simply from necessity. Whether farming or making paper or selling products, the majority of operations were independent and basically at the whim of the person who owned and operated the venture. This is good because since they're in control, they're responsible not to some distant boss, but to themselves. And any failure or missed opportunity is theirs as well as any successes. Decentralization combined with competition and a lack of monopolies doesn't seek to deliver totally consistent results. Instead, it delivers a bell curve as businesses succeed or fail in varying degrees due to the choices that they've made and how the market likes their answers, plus a bit of luck. Decentralization is a core value of cryptocurrency and Johnston identified many, many niches within the global economy where it simply makes more sense for nearly every individual involved to come up with a better way. But if decentralization is so great that it'll be pervasive in our lives, why isn't it already? To answer that question, let's take a look at the taxi industry in New York City. It's one of the largest, oldest, and most controlled licensed livery systems, a term left over from the days when cabs were horse-drawn. It's in the midst of Johnston's law today as Uber and other rideshare alternatives innovate and disrupt the long-standing way things are done. That all started in the late 1930s with the passage of the Haas Act, which for the first time placed a limit on the number of individuals with permission to operate a cab. Previously, to earn your living as a cabbie in New York, you had to find a car and spend your time putting it to use finding and delivering fares. This wasn't a trivial problem. It took resources and work, but there was no need to ask for permission. And most importantly, nobody to tell you no. The Great Depression changed all of that. As the boom of the 1920s became the bust of the 1930s and prospects faded from most corners of the economy, the remaining avenues of opportunity, unsurprisingly, saw enormous inflows of those who now saw this as their best chance to make a living. Early taxis were quite expensive to ride in, and before long the combination of the ongoing slump pushing down the supply of passengers and the inflow of new cabbies creating a surplus of drivers culminated in a crisis. Something had to be done. In 1937, the Haas Act was passed. It created the taxi medallion system, which remains largely unchanged today. In order to operate a taxi, a driver must acquire a medallion which goes on the front of the cab. These medallions never expired, and the maximum number in 1937 was set at $16,900. That's a little more than half a license available per driver operating at the time. So the Haas Act worked to push down the supply of drivers without changing the supply of passengers. And it stuck. The number of legal cabs would never be higher than the year this took effect. And although New York City would recover from the Great Depression, find prosperity, and add millions more to its population over the years, today there are less than 14,000 taxi medallions in circulation. What sold in 1948 for $4,000 or about 4,000 trips at $0.63 per fare to pay off the investment became $26,000 only 16 years later or about $29,213 standard trips at $0.89 per fare. By the 1980s, this was $60,000 or about $19,887 standard trips at $3.02 per fare. Since 1996, we've seen the cost skyrocket from $176.33 or about $33,615 standard trips at $5.24 per fare to pay off the investment to $732,250 or $82,657 standard trips at $8.75 per fare to pay off the investment. And as recently as 2013, individual medallions have been sold for over a million dollars. By any measure, the medallion system raised the cost of both operating and riding in a cab. So what was the gain and to whom it's been argued the taxis were sometimes low quality or had abusive prices in the days before medallions? This might be true, but it's to be expected in a decentralized system that also lacks rules. To this point, the rules of driving a taxi are much the same as those of driving a car. So while a medallion system came with rules and standards for what a taxi must or must not be, that could have happened entirely on its own and at any point. There were two winners of the medallion system. The governmental authority who now has the power to control what a taxi would or would not be and who could be allowed to make their living in that fashion. And perhaps more importantly, the large taxi companies who with fleets of hundreds of cars, the New York taxi cab company opened their doors with more than 600 imported French cabs that went on to be the first, now standard yellow cabs, had a lot to lose. Just like anything else, available supply and immediate demand determines the value of a given service. In the years leading up to the Haas Act, the taxi cab companies were fighting a losing battle as leaner, hungrier competition saw the opportunity to compete for their livelihood and took it. Medallions added a barrier to entry that was easily overcome by those large existing companies, but not nearly as easily for hopeful independence. These medallions or licenses were also perpetual, transferable, and most importantly, there weren't enough of them to go around, even if a third of 1936's cabbies had simply walked away. This meant if you could get a medallion early, it was like money in the bank that would surely get more valuable as time went on. The unfixed growth of passenger numbers would dwarf the fixed or diminishing number of legally usable vehicles. The waves of new drivers during a time of decreased demand was a major disruption that had the potential to fundamentally change the market for transportation. The medallion system was a way to let those powers already in control extend and maintain their dominance, even profit from their eventual demise through the early, indefinite control of permission that allows them to do what others cannot. This isn't to say that the opportunity was uniquely available to these companies, to the exclusion of all others, rather those already in power have a massive advantage in maintaining it, and so often do. Of course, it can be fighting a losing battle to preserve the way things are, but when the transition is won from you being the king of the hill to not being the king of the next hill, your every incentive is to delay or slow the movement, and so retain your position that much longer. Things are as they are for a reason. It might not be great, but change only comes at times of disruption because lacking that, who would bother? Things are great, or at least good enough for those currently on top. Disruption comes in different forms and flavors, by its nature impossible to predict. What can be predicted is what types of people will win and who will lose when the hammer falls and everything changes. Those who are least vested in a given system are much more receptive to critique and suggestion towards its improvement than those who are vested. The master switch author Tim Wu calls this the chronos effect, where early opportunistic innovators who find success with their own innovations soon become settled in the quote, way things are. When in power, rather than enabling further progress of the sort that gave them their place in power, they act to delegitimize, buy out, or crush those who would improve on their improvements. The taxi medallion system was supposed to be good for everyone, but in reality it was a limitation placed on the market that hurt everyone involved. Drivers may have initially wanted less competition in the face of limited takers for their service, and the medallion allowed them to operate where others could not, but this was always an artificial restriction no more real than the ability to enforce it. Really what it did was create two classes of drivers in the system, those who had the medallion and so had the permission to drive but also are made to pay the cost of it, and those who didn't. That cost must be paid for somewhere, and those lacking permission didn't have that problem. The medallion means the cost of legal ride must go up, which means if you're more focused on cash than comfort, there's probably an illegal ride that can better fit your needs. Should people be allowed to use cheaper services that come with fewer guarantees and comforts? In recent years we've seen exactly this as ridesharing applications like Uber and Lyft change the very nature of what a taxi is. Uber is a real company with offices, employees, founders, intellectual property, and staff, but they don't employ any drivers. They're all independent contractors. Drivers self-select within their app and then go through a very basic verification process. Unlike driving a cab, you don't need to buy or lease an official taxi. Unlike driving a cab, you don't need a medallion. Uber is a centralized company that only bothered to centralize its dispatch and support services to enable its decentralized community of drivers to connect with and provide a valuable service to its decentralized community of riders. It's not just drivers who do work the benefits Uber. As part of the experience, a rider rates their drivers after each encounter, and so drivers build up easily accessible reputation scores that can provide some context if they're a good driver to select. What Uber does through riders rating drivers through their app, official taxis are assumed to be safe and worth riding with because they have their relationships or money to acquire the permission to drive a formal cab. One generates conclusions based on a constantly reaffirmed reality. It can tell you many things and the information becomes deep over time. The other generates conclusions based on having paid a bill now or it more likely some time in the distant past. At the time of this riding, Uber seems to be the dominant force in the disruption of taxi services. In reality, Uber is the naps of its market, a centralized company reaping the lower costs of not maintaining a centralized service. Uber seems to deliver on the promise of decentralization in a market that's been getting more expensive and less useful for decades. But if we follow the example a bit further, you'll quickly see the problem. Napster was initially a success, and why wouldn't it be? In a world dominated by CD sales, real and bootleg, Napster offered the ability to, at no cost, download music from the collection of others around the world into your collection. Compared to the existing way of doing things, this was not only revolutionary in its ease of consumption just a few minutes on your 56k modem compared to driving to the music shop, but it was free, never ran out of stock, and had the largest sheer variety of choices the world had ever seen, including many rare, live, or unreleased tracks that would never see the light of day in the legacy system. Those outside the music industry who enjoyed the product of music had a tool here that was undoubtedly better than the one that came before, fast, plentiful, and free. Who could say no to that? It turns out the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America could and would go on to sue the nascent Napster out of existence. Even though Napster the company wasn't doing anything illegal, their users were, they argued, and the courts agreed. The service slid backwards in terms of functionality until eventually being forced to close for good. Napster was held responsible for the actions of its users, even though it didn't know any of them, and they were neither employees or customers. The RIAA argued, and the courts agreed, that the company was what mattered, not the users. And so if the company enables or benefits from illegal uses, it's potentially responsible for moderating or controlling those actions. David Johnston said, anything that can be decentralized will be decentralized, but there's a bit more to it than that. Moving from a decentralized system to a better decentralized system isn't that difficult, but to move from a centralized system to a decentralized system is another matter entirely. In fact, anything truly disruptive that can be stopped will be stopped, because disruption always comes at the cost of the already powerful. The powerful, given the option, will always work to preserve their power until the cost of such preservation becomes more damaging than to simply let progress take its course. Uber recently raised a billion dollars from capital markets with a total company valuation of $40 billion. They've made it further than Napster, in no small part because where the music industry was centralized nationally, taxi monopolies are regional. The media industry was able to pull their vast resources to wage a stalling action filled with scare tactics targeting normal users in an attempt to dissuade its use. Uber, on the other hand, is by its nature local, and their competition is too. A taxi medallion in New York has a different cost, different rules, and a different historical context than one in Chicago and one in Miami. So rather than fighting off pressure from some national taxi foundation, they're waging war against the decentralized cohort of local monopolies. Even so, whether Uber will be the dominant ride share or even still in business in five years seems anything but a sure thing. Napster is instructive here as well, because of course when Napster closed its doors, that didn't end the hunger for this new better way. Napster was the most centralized, decentralized file sharing technology would ever be. They had real servers, kept logs of user information, and even provided some of the indexing power to let users search through their massive libraries. After its demise, alternatives started popping up, targeting those users who'd seen the light with Napster, and were now frustrated by being forced to go back to the old way of things. These new alternatives weren't created in a vacuum. Their founders watched closely the troubles encountered by Napster, and designed their tools in such a way to make themselves safer. Or so that was the perception. The next wave of companies found they had followed in Napster's footsteps a bit too closely, and themselves became targets of the same powers who had stopped that disruption previously. This was essentially an arms race between technology and the legal system. Every time the legal system clamped down, purpose-built technology would allow users to route around it, and in doing so be connected more directly to each other and less to whatever company was enabling them. In the modern age we have the BitTorrent protocol, which can be seen as the evolutionary endgame that began with Napster. BitTorrent is fully decentralized and open source. There is no company that operates it, and there are no servers it lives on. Anyone needs simply list tiny magnet files to become a free to download directory, for files you do not host yourself using bandwidth that you will not pay for. If the file is popular, chances are good you'll download faster with BitTorrent than you would through any centralized downloading service. With all those advantages it seems obvious there's money to be made in providing these services, but you'd be wrong and there's a fundamental point to be understood here. Decentralization and centralization can be thought of as the importance of the crowd or the company. Centralized systems rely on the company to be useful at even a base level. It doesn't matter how many users you have or how long you've been around. It doesn't really matter how much attention the service receives. If a company like Napster goes away, all of its users will need to find something else to do, and so the core company is vitally important. With BitTorrent, not so much. So the end game of decentralization in any business stopped up by legality is to fully disintermediate anyone who in the past controlled access for a fee. But the middleman isn't even the problem, rather it seems to be the rules that govern what the middleman can or can't offer. If the limitations placed on what can be offered to paying customers make the object the customer wants not as useful or desirable because of those limitations, the customer will only be a customer if they have no better choice. Other factors are the ability and ease to enforce the rules if you're more likely to get caught you're less likely to do it, and the severity of the punishment if you're caught it will ruin your life perhaps you're less likely than if the punishment was less severe. If in any way you're motive is profit, you wouldn't create such a product as BitTorrent for the taxi industry. But if your motive is to be able to find a market rate ride easily without needing to wait for one of only 13,000 licensed cabs to pick you up in New York City, it's a pretty perfect solution. Give market participants the tools to eliminate the middleman and you also get rid of the regulations since the middleman is the choke point that can be effectively regulated. And there it is. Disruptive decentralization of any industry can only happen if it seems like a good idea. And it can only seem like a good idea if the industry has become stagnant and unresponsive to market forces and its users. Decentralization quote routes around the damage in the truest sense of the word by simply excluding the no longer necessary parties and connecting users directly to users. Once the world awoke to MP3s, the business of music would never be the same again. At the core, this whole issue is about choice and who gets to make it. Disruptive decentralization is a natural reaction that once begun is unstoppable in any market or industry whose services or products people actually want or need to use. Whether you're talking about healthcare or finding a cab, sharing your favorite music with a friend, or even something as critically important to society is the money that we use. The systems are unwilling or unable to meet the needs and so alternatives that operate outside the system have been found. And we're right back to where we started. Johnston's law states anything that can be decentralized will be decentralized to which I'd like to add the Levine counterpoint anything disruptive that can be stopped will be stopped. And in the pressure cooker world that we call the new renaissance, we all get to watch how right Johnston was. I don't think I've actually given kind of my overview of what I think. Yeah, we've been talking details on it, but we haven't actually talked about the basic case here. No, not at all. Okay, so then let me just go over that real quick. Okay, so about two years ago, I recognized that there was a confluence of technologies. There were a number of technologies that all had these kind of disruptive characteristics about it and also were being developed in a pretty open fashion too. And that combination of things is interesting because it means rather than having to wait 20 years for somebody's to invent it, then the patent to expire, and then to be able to use it without having to, you know, maybe they won't give any licenses to anybody at all, or maybe they just charge a couple hundred thousand dollars per commercial license they sell. Either way, it doesn't really matter. It effectively makes it so that most companies that might do it because they recognize the opportunity to connect those dots are going to because the cost to do it is too great. So because these technologies are being developed in the open and because they're, many of them are open source too. So again, examples of this are the development recently in 3D printing. I've been talking recently about virtual reality. Cryptocurrency is a huge element of this because it provides a kind of a money layer that goes on top of it all. And now with the work that I've been doing recently on tokens, I realized that it also provides a secure access layer. So that's very interesting. But there are a variety of these kind of enabling technologies that because they can all be used together, we can solve problems that didn't really use to be feasible to solve, whether it was impossible or just too expensive. Because of that, because there's this giant pile of opportunity just lying there. For people who have problems, who have problems that couldn't be solved, and who really still feel those problems as painful. Arthur, maybe I'm not sure if you've had this experience, but I've talked to a lot of people who are very interested in cryptocurrency and were really big fans of it, who are older than 60. And many of those people are people who apparently have worked on barter systems and worked on money systems or worked on banking systems, worked on all these different things that were just completely impossible at the time that they tried to do it. And oftentimes, I know people who struggled for 15 or 20 years trying to solve these problems and they had given up. And now they look at this and they say, oh, well, this actually is a component, this one component of cryptocurrency, I can just integrate that and I can do this thing that used to be impossible for me. And so they're re-energized and they come back to productive action because the possibility exists where it previously didn't. So that's an opportunity, again, that's felt first by people who had that problem, assuming they find out about the technologies that they actually can solve the problem for them. But it also represents arguably the greatest opportunity that exists right now. If you actually want to create something, if you don't want to get a job right now, which seems to be kind of the other option out there, you can take these components. And for not very much money at all, compared to even 10 years ago, start to create applications that do things that were impossible. And again, you're doing it for a fraction of the cost of what it would have cost to have failed all those years ago. So the downside to trying is much less. And so because of the downside to trying is much less, we get many, many more people who start these projects. So one of the interesting parts about decentralization is that one hand often doesn't know what the other is doing. Rather than just everybody picking their favorite project, but then saying, oh, well, Bob over there, he's working on that problem. So I'm not going to work on that. Instead, everybody who thinks that the problem Bob's working on is the problem that needs to be solved, they basically all roll their own solution. And then at the point that they come out, we've seen this a couple of times now, we saw it with the early Bitcoin exchanges and things like that. It was like, there was none, then there was one. And the one was the only one for like nine months or a year. And then there was five. And it wasn't because everybody wanted to create an exchange, it was because nobody knew that everybody else was already creating an exchange. And so it just, that's how it wound up happening. Possibilities, again, for pushing forward are not just that one company that you get in a linear system, it's the exponential system because even if four of those projects fail, whilst you still had the one, maybe that's a project that wouldn't have started had the bar not been so low. I see what you're saying. So and then what you've got as well is because of the open nature of innovation, you have the particular elements that each exchange did well, that can then be integrated into others, either by being reverse engineered or by being rolled together by a new competitor that sees an opportunity.  So I mean, right?  And that's a really valuable thing.  But again, you know, like having those big public examples of failures, that's just as valuable as having the ones that succeed because it informs the successes. That's the other part is that everything is additive. So what is created now becomes the basis for what will be created becomes the basis of experience for what, you know, for what the next group of people will do. And again, that's another interesting part about this time is that, you know, is that where usually you see innovators clamping down at the point that they achieve any sort of success. Now, you're not really seeing that now the ability to clamp down is really limited if for no other reason than people in large quantities are building on open source technology, which makes it quite difficult to have a completely proprietary product. Yeah, right.  You know, I've, because I've been wrestling with this myself a bit. And I've been trying to find a way to kind of bring it down to something, to shrink the scope as much as possible. Because when I think the new Renaissance, it brings me back to that time. Remember, Occupy, right? I don't know if you remember. Everyone remembers Occupy and how it kind of, it took off and everyone thought it was this big movement. And then eventually it peated out and everyone went home. And people kind of felt a bit cynical about it. I was talking to a few friends around that time. And I remember in particular, this, this one guy was just like, you know what, the US government is so broken, it just can't be fixed.  Looking back on it now, I kind of see it as an awareness that there is a problem and also an understanding of the intractability of it. And I think that what happened with, with Occupy was when everyone, all these people who didn't realize that everyone cared found this, this central outlet to get together. And while it peated out, the knowledge and the desire for change is still there. And those folks have all moved on to different things. And it seems like a lot of that informs kind of what we know as the cryptocurrency movement. You know, a lot of that ideology is beginning to inform the technology that people are creating, you know, with the purpose of actually freeing ourselves from these centralized power structures. I think that that is very astute. And to be perfectly honest with you, that pessimistic viewpoint is the one that I've had for a number of years now. During the Occupy event, I didn't attend, but I did a podcast that essentially provided a connection between different Occupy rallies and that let people make different reports. I only did four or five episodes. It wasn't very good, very listened to or very long. But, you know, the thing about Occupy is that, again, it's that anything disruptive that can be stopped will be stopped. When you have people in the physical space, I mean, those Occupy, many, many of those events were attacked by police repeatedly. It was not the sort of thing where they just dispersed because everybody got bored and went home. It was really, I mean, there was effort and force applied to make that go away and to make it painful. And it did. And I think that one of the lessons that came from that, again, is that the old ways of doing things that, you know, used to be able to enact change do not work anymore. The system is designed in the way that it, again, anything disruptive that can be stopped will be stopped. In this case, it was disruptive to the way that the country works here. And this was not a thing that was unique to America.  We oftentimes don't have the incentive to do that because we have better ways of dealing. But in this particular circumstance, that's how it happened. It's interesting that you had that sense of cynicism, though, because I think that pessimism, that feeling that the whole world's apathetic and no one cares is in fact a symptom of the world caring. You're actually experiencing flux. You know, you're looking back on the old as the leading edge of the new caring informed population. We have the internet, you know, we're the most connected people. You know, human beings have never been so connected ever before. And as we come to understand the world that we live in and we see the injustices in it, I think it's easy to feel like people just don't care. But in fact, the fact that you feel that is an indication that you do care. And that's the bleeding edge. That's the moment of change that's gradually sweeping through the population. I agree with you. But I don't feel that nobody cares. I feel that there is no good outlet for that caring. I feel like the ways and the methods that previously would have been used to change the governments of the world or our particular governments, wherever you may be, no longer function because the governments of the world decided that they would rather that they not have the accountability. And so because of that, the decision for me isn't to be a pessimist or not. The decision to me is to simply recognize a truth as a truth. The system will not fix itself. The system will not allow itself to be fixed from the outside. The system will not be fixed from the inside because all of the incentives lead to it not being fixed because everyone on the inside benefits from it not being fixed. So my thesis for quite some time actually has been that the system will continue, the governments of the world will continue to operate as they have been now for about seven years and certainly longer than that. But in this acute fashion for the last seven years, until they no longer can. And I think that again, if you look at the world, we've seen that we see that rather than let single small failures occur, we continue to see risk wrapped up into larger and larger and larger bundles to the point where we're no longer talking about a couple of banks failing, we're talking about entire countries failing, we're talking about entire, you know, I mean, again, like this is not even controversial to talk about anymore. The system will not fix itself. So the question is, do you continue to try and work within the system to fix it knowing that it won't fix itself and knowing that you will not have any impact on it? Or do you focus on building things that simply don't have any sort of regard whatsoever at a fundamental, this is how it operates level for the structures that you think are breaking things. And that has been my decision with cryptocurrency and everything else too. Comes down to that word that's starting to be, I see it kicking around a little bit now, illegality, systems that are not capable of recognizing a law or a rule set. They merely exist and participation in those systems is at the discretion of the end user. There's this idea, I think, when I look back at, like, you remember the Iraq war and how everyone got up in arms while that decision was being made. And, you know, no one wanted to go to war because who wants to do that? It's expensive and can wreak your economy. When they look back in history, a lot of people think that the Vietnam War was this highly protested war. And it was toward the end, but not until the very end. I mean, the Iraq war is one of the first examples of the US public actually protesting a war in advance of its beginning. And I think that's a huge indicator that the general public and the behavior of the governing bodies of this country are diverging in their attitudes. And I think that the outlet that people are finding, like you were saying, for many, is this open source movement and the development of these systems that simply don't care about the legal system that they may exist in. I don't know if it's necessarily that they don't care about it because, like, all the projects I'm working on, you know, we're going to be complying with laws and things like that, paying taxes, all of that stuff. There's really no question. Again, if you want to exist in the system, then you have to be developing things that are compatible with it. But I think that the difference is that developing solutions that are compatible, right? There's no problem to Bitcoin or the dollar with them both operating alongside each other. But if the dollar were to fail, there's no problem for Bitcoin. Bitcoin's still there. It's not connected. It's not impacted at all. And that's not necessarily about cryptocurrency. That's about decentralization. You know, so much in our world, whether it be by private companies, by governments, by individuals, whatever, is centralized on a very small group of people. And so that makes it relatively easy to coerce those people or for them to just take actions that are frankly not acceptable. And yet, because they have this proprietary thing, you know, again, PayPal is an interesting example of this. PayPal does whatever they want. Did you hear about what happened with PayPal and Mega, Kim Dotcom's company? Tell me. PayPal issued a public letter that said we are ceasing to process transactions for Mega. But this is not because we believe Mega is doing anything wrong. We've conducted our own investigation into their company. It appears to be upstanding and fully compliant. We are ceasing processing transactions because Visa has insisted that we do so and in spite of our protests. So it's interesting to see that. And you remember when Visa stopped processing, he leaks transactions. So you've definitely got Visa itself as a common feature in these US crackdowns on cryptography. And I don't know, copyright, it's hard to know where in the narrative Mega fits. You know, there are lots of narratives. There's the Kripley-Wolls narrative. There's the anti-copyright narrative, the anti-piracy narrative. But definitely Visa is a tool, is a weapon that the US interests wield without any abandon. Yeah, I would argue national companies in general, you will find if there appears to be a high degree of coordination between the government and the technology that enables, and that's especially true in money. These companies that are national companies, they do what their host country says. And if they don't, then they are punished. I mean, like you can look at rating agencies for an example of this. I can't remember who it was. It might have been S&P or it might have been Moody's. It was either S&P or Moody's. The US was downgraded at its credit rating downgraded after we went through a fiscal clip sort of situation and it looked like there was going to be a default for a minute. It was enough that it caused the rating agency to downgrade them from to downgrade the country from AAA to I think it was just AA plus. And the government, like two days later, brought a suit against them, the Justice Department for something completely unrelated that they then dragged them through court on for about two years until they eventually paid, I think it was a $2 billion fine. It was a very, very expensive fine and had to admit that the government didn't actually, like it was absolutely unreal. But the reality of it was they're never going to do that again. You know, S&P or Moody's, they're never going to do that again because they were punished for it by their host government. And as a result, they lost in a variety of ways. It cost them money, it cost them prestige, it cost them customers. There were a variety of things that happened. So the power that these host governments have over the companies within them is incredibly profound. I mean, again, like if Visa was found to be doing transactions with Iran who were not allowed to do transactions with, if they were to violate any of the rules that the host country has set in place, then their business model is basically forfeit. So they are very, very careful to not step on the wrong side of the line. And if they do, to make it right very, very quickly. And this brings us back to this idea of permissiveness and how you say we don't actually live in a permissive age. We live in an age where our rights and liberties to use an awful word.    We live in a time of really of oppression in the grand scheme of things. It's like that Frank Zapper quote, when it becomes too expensive to maintain the show, the chairs will be taken away, the scenery will be pulled down, and you'll just be left staring at the brick wall at the back of the theater. That is correct. There are three basic states that I think that as kind of broad civilization, obviously this is highly localized, you know, each place has its own kind of blend of these things. But just generically, we can talk about three different states. We can talk about a time when opportunity is suppressed, where it is impossible, right? So where it's impossible to solve whatever the problem is that you're attempting to solve or to solve the problems that society faces, and it's not allowed even if it was possible. There's the times when it's possible to impact society in these positive ways, or at least we think of them as positive ways, because change generally is perceived differently by different people, where it is possible, but it's suppressed, right? Where you're not allowed to actually do the innovation. So it doesn't matter that it's possible.  And that really, I think, is at the core of what we're talking about here. We have all of the pieces in place now. And we're actually starting to see, I think the first generation of these technologies that are being grown in this open fashion that will then enable the next layer of technologies to be in that third state. It is possible to make the changes that people so desperately want to and need to make to the society, whether it be technological or otherwise, and it can't be stopped. And there are some places where it certainly can be stopped. But as a whole, the movement, I think, again, towards decentralization makes it very, very difficult for the age that we live in, the people who control the times that we live in. Our leaders, frankly, that's really who I'm talking about when I say the people who control things. I'm saying our elected leaders all over the world, or not elected in some cases, who have, for whatever reason, made the decision in very large numbers that the interests of the country should come above the interests of the citizens of the country. That has created this situation. It can't be stopped. It's possible to solve the problems. And the problems are so, so intractable and so obvious to anybody who is paying attention. Thanks, Adam, for doing what you do so well. I edited this one and Mark a Million provided the catchy Mozart remix. For those in the know, the magic word for this episode is pilot. That's P I L O T. That's it for now. But we will be back. What did you think of the new renaissance? We're going to be starting off as a twice monthly show with new episodes released in the evenings on the second and fourth Sunday of each month. If you have questions, comments or feedback, please direct them to Adam at Let's TalkBitcoin.com and I'll make sure that Arthur sees them too. Thanks for listening.


Hello and welcome to the session. Let us discuss the following question. It says, find the radius of a sphere whose surface area is 154 centimeter square. Now the formula for the surface area of sphere is 4 pi r square, where r is the radius of the sphere and the value of pi is 22 upon 7. Now we have to find the radius of the sphere. Let us now move on to the solution. We are given that the surface area of sphere is equal to 154 centimeter square that is 4 pi r square is equal to 154 centimeter square. So this implies r square is equal to 154 upon 4 pi that is r square is equal to 154 upon 4 into pi which is 22 upon 7 that is 154 into 7 upon 88 and it is equal to 12.25. So r square is equal to 12.25. This implies r is equal to under the root of 12.25 that implies r is equal to 3.5. Hence the radius is 3.5 centimeter. So this completes the question. Bye for now. Take care. Have a good day.


As I lay in bed at 11 o'clock at night next to my past-odd wife while I play Uncharted The Lost Legacy, it dawned upon me that I haven't done an Ask Adam in a long time, and I'd like to make it a monthly thing. I just answer questions. You ask them in the comments. We repeat every month. Might have a theme, you know, like, what's your favorite, let's do questions based on action movies this month, or let's do questions based on horror movies or directors, something to that extent. And we just keep it open, too. I don't really care. This is all new. It's all experimental. The reason I thought about doing another one of these is because I have been chatting frequently with what I assume are 10-year-old boys over Facebook Messenger, because that's where I'm at at life, who constantly ask me just random one-off questions, whatever comes to their mind. What's your favorite X-Men character? What's your favorite X-Men movie? A lot of X-Men related stuff from multiple people. Might be the same person under different accounts, in which case I'm a little concerned for their well-being. Regardless, I like chatting with people, but I feel rude if I don't answer every question spur of the moment or at all. So ask away here, and I will answer in kind. I am going to be doing another show as well. This one's going to be movie related for the most part, but it's basically going to be a tribute to other content creators on YouTube. Every month or so, I'm going to do a video in the same vein as a Jeremy Johns or a Jonathan Paula, or it doesn't even have to be that big of a person. It'd be someone smaller that I watch and I like. Nostalgia Critic, he is a big creator, but you get what I'm saying. So for the first one, I'm going to be doing an Angry Joe video. I know he's not movies, well he is, but he's mainly games, and he's been taking a break from his game reviews, his Angry Joe videos. So I'm going to do one using his background, his audio, and I'm going to review Uncharted The Lost Legacy because I know he's not going to do it, and I'm going to do my best to kind of represent his style. I think it'll be fun. I might get a lot of hate for doing it, but I don't care. It's out of respect. I'm only going to do one video of each type, so that maybe in a month or so I do Nostalgia Critic or whatever. It might be fun. It might be a complete disaster, in which case, at least I'm trying new things. I'm going to be bringing back Best and Worst. A few people have been voicing concerns about that show not being around anymore, and I guess that's true. I didn't really even think about it. I'm going to be doing Shrek.  So that's almost a chore. I did recently see Logan Lucky or Lucky Logan. Seriously, the worst title for a movie, and I'm almost entirely convinced that's why I didn't do better at the box office because that name sucks. It just does. It was a good movie. It's like an 8.5 out of 10 for me. Really liked it. I smiled almost the entire way through, which I haven't done in a movie in a long time. It reminded me of Ocean's Eleven, and then I realized it was the same director who hasn't done a film in like five years, so that was great. It really is like Redneck Ocean's Eleven. I was going to do a review, but here's the thing. I don't review every movie I see. I don't want movies to be a chore for me. Movies are my outlets. They're my escape. I love going to them. That doesn't mean I want to make them work every time. And I really didn't have anything too insightful or creative or funny to say about Lucky Logan or Logan Lucky, because I don't know what it's called. I'm juggling a lot of things between full-time work, family, freelance work. I'm doing a lot of stuff. I want to maintain some sort of sanity. A special thank you as always to those that support me on Patreon. If you aren't supporting me there, that's cool too, but a dollar does mean a lot, and it keeps the lights on because I do this in my basement. I'm actually in my boxers right now. These are my pajamas. Pop the tea, lay in bed.  That's about it. Yeah, so just ask away. We're going to keep this open for the first time. Ask anything movie-related, game-related. It doesn't really matter. Adam does movies. I do have a second channel, Adam's Take Two, which is completely void of any new content in like two months. Basically what I did is I rebranded Feud Nation to Adam Does Movies. I don't think I ever explained this in a video, so I'm explaining it now for the first time. I pulled all my videos that were not movie-related and re-uploaded them to a second channel, lost all those views, lost all the subs, of course. I had to start from scratch. There's less than 300 subs over there right now, and that's okay. I really just re-uploaded them because I know people really like the regular Adam Rantz videos that aren't movie-related, and I had some other kind of one-off skits and stuff that I was kind of proud of. So you can see them all there. They're not gone. They're not hiding. I mean, they're just not on this channel because I found from conversations with people that YouTube kind of punishes you, your channel for not focusing on lasering in on one certain property or one certain media.  I still do play games though and do other things. I still get pissed at people. I actually had a lady that yelled at me for pouring some landscape dirt into a dirt field behind my house, and it was a pretty epic eight to ten minute back and forth standoff. We live in a new development, but there's old people homes behind us, and oh man, we are just the riff-raff that moved in over here. They are not happy, so I need to do a rant about that. Thanks. Post your questions, and I will answer as many as I can. Take care. Thanks for watching the video. Feel free to check me out on social media platforms for credibility purposes. Intern Sheila should be putting up some graphics for you to digest, I believe. Otherwise, you'll be out on the curb like your mom. Gotta move on. You can also check me out on Patreon.com slash Adam Does Movies. Throw me a buck or two if you want. I run this channel alone. It's almost a full-time job, honestly. Thanks for your time. Sheila, the graphics, now.


The Lagos State Government has promised to continue to provide more grants to teaming youth and reduce unemployment to make the state a resilient city by creating an enabling and sustainable environment for the economic prosperity of Lagosians. Governor Baba Jideh Somwolu said as these are the second edition of the Lagos Employment Summit Health in Lagos. Lagos State House correspondent Love Ikukoyedeku was at event-themed Sustainable Job Creation Strategies, Collective Action and Prosperity for All and brought back this report. Seated here are various industry players, stakeholders, drawn from different sectors of the economy. They are brainstorming on how to achieve sustainable job creation strategies and social solutions to unemployment problems in Lagos states. With an unemployment rate standing at 37.3%, the summit may just be to the rescue. It was one of our strong campaign promises that the Lagos Employment Trust Fund will come out bigger, bolder and stronger and I'm going to assure you that given the score cards that you've seen in less than five years, they've had direct interventions to over 200,000 citizens, but we know that funding is also one of the things that had been the impact that has helped you and to date I think we have committed over 10 billion to the fund and want to also do more. Commissioner for Economic Planning and Budget Sam Egubeh is hopeful that the summit will generate quality employment output and change the narratives. So this conference is targeted at addressing the employment levels in the state through bridging the gap between job availability and employability in the labour market. Delivering their keynote addresses, guest speakers commanded initiatives of the Lagos state government on wealth and employment creation for its population. They called on the state government to increase investments in yields in order to enhance and create opportunities for all. The time to invest in our youth is right now. As policymakers you all have a key role to play in helping our youths in their life journey. Lagos state's commitment is visible in this employment summit today and underscores the high commitment of Lagos to bring those relevant in the employment sphere together and actively seek solutions. Chairman Lagos State Employment Trust fund Bola Adishola also thanked stakeholders for demonstrating commitment towards tackling unemployment in the state. These achievements of the fund within just five years have made it a model across the country and we've seen other states create similar agencies to ensure that employment and entrepreneurship opportunities are created for their youth. Secretary LSATF Tejumola Abisoye who highlighted the achievements of the fund in the last five years called on public and private stakeholders to actively collaborate, design and develop resilient policies and strategies for job creation. From Lagos, Love Ikuku Oyedokun, Plus TV News. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


Hello and welcome to the run-up today. My name is Nyam Ghul Aghgadi and it's always a pleasure to be on the show To talk with you knowing that you're there watching us right here It will be another amazing time to dissect some matters arising on the run-up and the run-up to 2023 as it is Some of the items on the front burner are the fact that tinibus performance at Chatham House in UK has continued to draw Diverse reactions particularly from the opposition parties and supporters who were dissatisfied by the candidates decision to throw some of the questions He was asked to the APC chieftains including the Kaduna State Governor Malam Nasir El-Rufai and immediate past governor of Iqiti State Coyote Fire Me. We'll be looking at the reactions from In this interview that we are going to be having shortly with two gentlemen that will be talking to us And we also have a secular that has been given Just yesterday, I think by the Central Bank of Nigeria about how transactions are going to be made after they or in January or from January 2023 and so many people are reacting to that But we're not talking Intensively about that today. We'll just mention what the provisions of this secular are and what you are going to expect in 2023 when the new Naira Will take its place and they the old ones will be edged out of circulation But like I said, we'll be talking with Mr. Alexa Wilcox who is a public affairs analyst and also with Mr. Theophilos Akatuba right after this break. Stay with us You're welcome back. It's still the run-up and we're looking at what happened at Chatham House in the UK Where the presidential candidate of the APC went to address the press? I remember that other presidential candidates some presidential candidates were at a Presidential debate as it is organized by a media house, but he went to the United Kingdom and he Granted an interview to the press there and he ruled out his plan for Nigeria in 2023 and beyond and so people are Reacting to whatever happened there What the interview was about how the interview interview went and so many other things around that but we have like I said Mr. Alexa Wilcox who has joined us here this morning. Mr. Wilcox, welcome to the program Thank you It's good to have you here We also have Mr. Theophilos Akatuba also standing by to talk with us on the issue. Mr. Akatuba welcome Okay, that means I've done a reunion for everybody here on the show today Okay, well, let's go through the business of the day No matter what divide anybody might be let's just try to x-ray what happened at Chatham House First of all, what is your take on the fact that it had to be Chatham House in the UK? And then how the interview went let me begin with you, Mr. Wilcox To Chatham House It's not out of place that Bola Mettinbo was a guest of Chatham House Chatham House is equivalent of our own issue of international affairs in Nigeria or something above that That's that position because it's a policy Making a body is a policy advisory body that culminate views that takes views from every part of the world from notable people from the world in order to be able to To chat a cause it's a research house And so if you invited the other means you have something of value So I want to congratulate the Bola Mettinbo for being a guest in Chatham House it's just not anybody that can go to Chatham House and make Statement and then be that that is me I think his performance at Chatham House is just there to display to tell the world his position his policies and programs as a president candidate trying to Time to be the president of the most popular nation or a black nation of the world And so that platform was very very apt very very important and from there the entire world I mean the entire world the entire world today has heard of his program has heard of his Manifest to he has been able to break it down and tell them so that they will know what and what is about to do And of course Nigerians to relations on it because from the video. I saw various questions come from various Nigerians and non-Nigerians in diaspora I mean trying to extract or trying to prove or trying to pierce through the manifesto He declared his programs and plans so that they have a better understanding and a better view about him about his programs And what else for the Nigerian people so for me it's a it's a it's a wonderful outing and I salute him And I salute the the Chatham House authority for giving the platform. I think it's something that should be encouraged. Thank you very much Okay Mr. Akatu bar your take on Tinibu in the Chatham house and how he performed in the interview It's our cat over please. Yeah Hello, Mr. Akatu bar. Yes, I'd like to get your own take the performance of Tinibu in Chatham house first of all the fact that he had to go to Chatham house to grant a present of you which Nigerians have been clamoring to hear from him Yes The place where serious-minded people go and interrogate their plan and if you have a plan that you know is Solid and globally relevant to make it a better for the global community to interrogate you and also point out Flood for him to have gone to that platform is the level of confidence that they have in the plan they have put forward for Nigerians to make a decision And that platform is also to reach out to a very powerful Nigerian community in that for Sometimes we are saying that they should vote if you are asking them to even vote in the future They don't also necessary that you present your manifesto because they also stay order even if they are not going to Incaught in the battle the influence before they are familiar but whole and in fact they have a very loud voice on the social media and so it's a very strategic move and the outcome of it is highly commented and I think We must be proud of the president the man who is contested for that office. They are such a Strategic outlook to issues and that that's the pride that I have and I'm very happy When he spoke before the questions, you can see that is someone that understands the theory and understand the whole Okay, well both of you have Spoken well and you commend his efforts you commend whatever happened there that he had to go to that place And both of you also have said that if you're serious minded, let me use the word of mr. Katuga now I'm remaining with you mr. Katuga that if you're serious minded you go to that place and Expose your manifesto to the world as it were now Does this mean that anybody who does not go to Chatham house is not capable of ruling Nigeria? Because a lot of people even call this going to Chatham house all the time like a colonial mentality What would you respond to that? What will be your response to that? If you don't go to Chatham house, then you are not qualified That is not there the other point is that Colonial mentality where you are speaking to your community Who you know beef in these places and you have decided to go there to interrogate and interact with them It's out of respect out of recognition for that consequence And so it doesn't disqualify anymore But it brings your your idea to global interrogation and it makes it even better and illuminate it better for Nigeria At home abroad and the global community who have been interacting with the future president They should put a stop for the quality of matters coming together and build a level of confidence and they prepare them for future Engaged, you know, I'm the one thing Okay, I'm into mr. Wilcox One of the the issues Nigerians are having with the Chatham house interview was the fact that I see what you bother admit to Nubu himself when it got to very critical issues that he was asked Delegated these questions to his left hands as it were including the Kaduna state governor Nasser El Rufai and So many other people that were in his entourage. He Nigerians are not seeing it as a delegation of power or delegation of these questions to the people that he felt were Competent enough to say that Nigerians are seeing it as incompetence on his own part That he could not answer these questions himself. What's your response? Well, I will empathize with those Nigerians real form of empathy for those Nigerians that will be seriously make A political failure in terms of that is very important capital out of the brilliant performance of the APC president Kennedy's Bola metinubu Chatham house. Like I said, I would really empathize with them the fact remains that If anybody has known Bola metinubu right from Lagos as the governor of Lagos, he's a man that is that believes so much in team work I've not been close to him I've not met him one-on-one but from his antecedent in Lagos Is a man with team work? He believes so much in using men to achieve objective That is a clear indication of the man that called for privacy. Remember he's a he's a trade accountant He's a he was trained in some of the best institutions the Lord and go he served in movie, too He understands the elements of team work and Responsibility delegated responsibility now I Was not in the party that draw the APC manifesto, of course, it is not written by Bola metinubu alone That manifesto is a product of the brain of the think tank of Responsible and dedicated men and women that are his Trusted and well selected crafted out persons that he knew possess the capacity To draft a manifesto and to deliver on those on those promises so it is not a part of place to start exposing His personality in terms of delegation. No, nobody knows it all And there has never been a time where metinubu has never claimed to be a master of mood. Oh, no There's no reason what what what you always claim to be is to do it mentality He believes that the tax must be done so he must use me and the rightful of men to do that job So exposing those kind of attributes now is a better thing Look, that is why today you can look back and look at this man and women Well, actually who has built over the years If you say that he's putting everything in his own portfolio that stands only by himself Whatever the pilot in his armpit like so many scum on so many people do You Let me on mr. Wilcox mr. Wilcox just a moment Let me understand this before before there's a misunderstanding somewhere. Let me just understand the statement you made you say nobody Owns knowledge. Nobody has a monopoly of knowledge. He doesn't he has never said he knows everything Are you saying that delegating these things is because he didn't know them and then he But he had people in this entourage that knew these things that these questions these answers to the questions Of the manifesto and of course in the delivery of governors people will bring in their ideas He makes the final call as little as the governor he used every available Human resource that he could gather not just from legal state from every part of the country That's why he has commissioner from every other part of the country. He uses them but he makes a final call And that is where he goes is today He must get ideas even the most trusted president of America becoming as intelligent because he was he has men and we're here He must listen to them or give advices that was bringing the opinion that will look at his opinion and Recovery for him for for if it has been cleansing that he made the final call So exposing the a team that he was that he's likely to walk with at this point Remember this is not the first time he was exposing them. I mean even even if even at the conference in Lagos I mean, I mean when he had the press party in Lagos, he also exposed people some questions He would direct you to the vice president candidate. So we would say, okay He will not answer all this was your answer. He is a master strategist He knows these things but of course he has to also get input from people. I mean It's not shy to ask questions People that have worked with him closely and when at the point when the Emotion was talking about an encounter they had with the dela lucky and the kadosa or what in one I mean in one function He said they even argue with him in the decision that they wanted to make he allowed people He allowed and tap on the intelligence. So asking these people to answer those questions It's not out of place and remember it's one of the questions He will still you will see add to it after they have answered you will not add to that Not because it doesn't know but because he has to expose his team He has to expose that everybody within the team is capable of delivering on those promises. So it's for me It's a perfect strategy. He's not claiming to be a woman's shop shop that he knows everything No, but at the end of the day, the the the past remains that he will make the final call And that is what gives me advantage over other present candidates He will make the final call after taking decisions after taking the imputes from everybody He will see make this show and that's why it's nearly goes into today You think it's only him that built a girl's you think it's only him that staff on beginning No, he uses men and at the other day He makes the final call and that is why I see what Lagos is today. And so that is from Me that's for me is the best strategy anybody can do if being a rugan is not being shown I don't know even in those questions at the end of the some of the answer He still make an impute to add the one that they didn't say That is a man that has that know what he's doing as a president can lead it as a person I'm concerned I think I give him thumbs up in those in general strategies Okay, maybe maybe he's a trailblazer in a lot of things. Let me come to you, Mr. Katuba This is a man who is Who is going for an interview? That's the analogy everybody has been using you want a job and Yes, your CV has told us a lot of things about you, but we want to know how those things that are on your CV You you can put them to practice for instance in our CVs. We also was right ability to For teamwork you like to do to work with a team Ability to do these work under pressure and the rest of those and I've not seen maybe it has happened somewhere else But I've not seen where a president is trying to campaign to become or someone rather is trying to campaign To become a president and starts to delegate Questions that they are asked because no matter how good a document is the person who has to enforce that document is That person when he becomes the president so this need to have an understanding of this document So the manifesto was was put in place by a lot of people. Yes, like Mr. Wilcox has said But do you also? Think it was the the smartest move for Tinnable to let others answer the questions that were asked him directly I like to quickly draw a simple I was I was quite astonished At the beginning I didn't understand it, but then when the time flew down I now understood what it was demonstrated. It was not showing inability to answer The man was showcasing to Nigerians and the world He was showing it. He was not proving anything. I give you an example I was applying for a job of a general manager in Ghana across Adaptation then was toppled and the consultant asked me to bring a blueprint of what I want to achieve in a year and I remember That I drew my plans for the radio station and I realized that there are some things joking that I needed to showcase at the Internet and I also needed to showcase a Marketing plan, you know, I went to that presentation with these things when you go to that I asked them to speak to it and I got that job and became general manager of software And I I just did not realize until he started doing it the the fact that Anyone could suggest that he doesn't know what you want to do is It's laughable, but it's part of the political game. We are all playing now. You can either play it off or you play it low Let me say another thing Anyone interrogating Bola met you now or questioning about what you want to do should remember that you are interrogating the manifesto And that manifesto is a product of teamwork. He knows what it is in it But he will choose man in the group that can mock That can speak to it in a way that I might not be able to do currently But I will be able to tell you where the direction The United States of America the president we say we are going to the moon They have no idea how to start but they do go to the moon. That's why the man is telling you I am a doer. I'm a thinker. I'm a visionary Understand the campaign you are butting in not a man who knows it all for the man who has the vision of where we are going Anyone who want to define leadership if you look at three candidates that have come to an interview and anyone says I know it all Anytime a good thing is done. I'm the only one who does it put everyone else bad I want to give that person a job apart from the fact that you won't really Create a good leader a good leader is not only who knows it But who knows the politics of leading men and women after those in management at the second level It's not about knowledge anymore. It's about ability to money because we want a president that we hit the ground running We said boy, I spent six months and we're not happy but this money's telling you how big cabinet in place We are ready to run from day one. I think Don't want to make political choices should begin to think deeply instead of being shallow. That's my opinion Okay, let me remember to miss a cat sugar if I go back to mr. Wilcox It's it's like it's like someone who has gone to school He wants to become a doctor He may not know everything but before an exam There's the syllabus that comes out and you're asked to study that syllabus You may not know everything because you didn't write the chemistry textbooks You didn't write the physics textbook, but you are given a syllabus that syllabus. Let's say that is the thing We are calling a manifesto now then you're given an exam It is expected that as much as possible you understand the provisions inside that syllabus to write that exam when you finish You can now become that doctor if you like you choose your own nurses you choose your own Lab scientists you choose wherever you are going to choose but this person has not written that exam The exams is already delegating and you're calling that a good show of a leader This is not an exam the Nigerian people who he wants to lead are asking questions even though he went to Chatham house He was talking to Nigerians In members Does it does it show that he understands what is being asked of him? To the shadow minded it will be shadow minded and uneducated But the educated one will be that you call it will know the quality of Of course before him Shalom, you know in terms of human resource and then Capacities where the right people And great leaders so for the Nigerian population Them are followers of opinion Those who know the opinion who believe they are well schooled In a in a wrong way in order to gain sincere you really want that's not developed In national development is a team work the man who they showcase it not that he's Incapable of answering it after all he has different He's been doing the talking in Nigeria For people to know to begin to use to make up for the note If it does something that they are very shocked and give us a bit especially the political opponent Level of a shiwaj is too high in this campaign for all of them. They are speaking and repeating Impotability talent saying to the to the goal ability of the low-minded Nigeria Telling them of Tells you how low they are. They are very disrespected for the people They don't want the Nigerian to be able to afford rise of 15,000 They wanted to leave his life and be looking for 7,500 right that is not available any I'm first candlelight on a shame to have quality of men like that. It's it for people Wicked people want to tell you that you should buy the product at a cheaper rate so that you don't fire to prove Yourself you will not The same rate is a charge for your food Around the town at the level of criticism they have and the criticism is so lame and you look at them They are full I will repeat the work worry at the right time when you have them They don't even talk about simmers deal They don't talk about the Michael also electricity They don't talk about the nutrient revolution Let me go to mr. Wilcox now mr. Katuga, please. Let me go to mr. Wilcox Mr. Wilcox, are you there? Okay, I like the way you gentlemen are talking globally glowingly about them what happened at Chatham house But let me let me just ask As a person Would you rate the the level of security or insecurity in Kaduna state? So high that Nasir El Rufai for instance will will be the one to showcase to the world as a person who knows Anything that has to do with security because he was the one delegated to answer the question on security Well, let me say this. Let me tell you that for It's a comment and I think if I have time to do that we have also expand on that Well, let me say this I think you see if you look at the person's blood maintainable chooses to answer those people You will discover that this appeal I have hands-on hands-on experience on those areas You just talk about Nasir El Rufai Nasir El Rufai has to be dead over one of the over one of the most terrible Domestically influence terrorist activity or insecurity in In apart from I mean apart from Bronu state Apart from Brownian you'll be that book around what Nasir El Rufai to contend with was basically in both internal tribalistic religious and all facet all facet of fair of fair or gamut and facet of fair pit and pit of Architecture here and there that culminate up to into the secret in Cardinal state Because if you go to certain cardinal this insecurity architecture is different Most of them have to do with tribalistic tendencies so as to do with ethnic so as to do with religious and so he has been able to to within the within the conference of his Office powers been able to to still keep Cardinal state going So he is equipped In another in another in another in another a response he asked what they do to respond What they do is his sound economics and I was was have one time as commission of finance under him a sound economics So he asked him to respond. So already let's just summarize this Let's summarize this if for instance, you know who becomes the president and Everybody who answered whatever question is made the minister of that thing. He answered Would you be comfortable with a Nasir El Rufai being the minister for? defense maybe Or internal affairs, whatever is going to be the portfolio that is going to bring peace to Nigeria Knowing what has happened in in Kaduna because experience is not enough If you are a gate man in a university doesn't mean that you're going to have a PhD because you are in there Academic environment. So he has the experience But has he been able has he been able to to use that experience and do the right thing that you are comfortable with that if he Becomes someone that the security architecture is handed over to in 2023 as minister. He can perform Let me say this that we do respect some of your analogies Not totally in tandem with what we're discussing like when you said Nasir El Rufai has had to contend with a lot of things How has he used this this experience that he has had with insurgency and kidnapping and all the other things How has he made it made Kaduna safer because experience is not enough So he has seen these things has he been able to As a matter of fact, let's say this because time is tied. Let me say this I think I will give topsof to the Nasir El Rufai because the gang up against Nasir El Rufai in Kaduna has been terrible Both from religious angle Ethnic angle remember he has to contend with with Zazaki and his and his group He has to contend with what's happening in southern Kaduna and this man is this standard and Kaduna is still is still there Kaduna security has improved to the point that people are still trooping to Kaduna. I just went to Kaduna recently He doesn't have the total the total powers because I mean security for both within the state and the federal Of the federal but within what he had I think I'll give topsof to a man like El Rufai If if the if the incoming president Okay So I don't be interior minister Minister or Minister of Defense, I think I will leave that choice to Balameh if it's so choose But if I as a less as from an outside perspective and I see what Nasir El Rufai has contended with Since becoming governor the gang up either both from religious perspective both from the Ethnic perspective and other perspective. I'm not a fan of El Rufai before now, but I'm speaking from my heart I will give this man a thumbs up because for the way he has been able to manage that diversity Those complexities and Kaduna is still going on today. Okay. I should give him a thumbs up So all right experience. He has killed Okay, thank you 100% If we have government Kaduna for eight years If we have time if we have time we might have to revisit what we are saying now But we have a little guy a judge standing by also to join us on the show. Mr. Judge Welcome to the run-up Good morning. Thank you for having me. Yes. Okay. We're talking about the Chatham house the APC presidential candidate went to Chatham house in the UK and did what he did he was interviewed and He delegated some questions to some of the people that came with him to answer so we're trying to explain what happened there why he had to go to Chatham house and The the action that he took in answering the questions that he answers his general performance there at that Interview so what is your take about the entire Chatham house? event All right. Thank you so much once again and for the opportunity You know, it's quite interesting to have a masterful of metinubu, you know address the world address Nigeria You know from an extension from outside the country Especially because they have been demands, you know For ashua to talk to Nigerians by other Recognized and it's published media houses in the country But up until now he has chosen not to do so and I think that's where I'd like to pick the conversation from Nigeria is our country and I'm sure it is going to win presidency in 2023 It's going to be the president of Nigeria one of the major challenges that people talk about Where the Buhari administration is concerned right now is that he's more Is more used to I mean going out there. He likes showing off outside the country. He likes, you know Making positions normal. I mean it's always getting out to either for medical tourism or one tourism or the other In the name of of official duty. So We are looking forward to a Nigerian president that will be 100 percent Nigerian that will stay back home Look at our issues and address those issues as they emerge per time So I think for me first of all, it is Not acceptable that somebody who is going to be a president Who wants to be a president so to speak Cannot still within the shores of Nigeria and speak to Nigeria Speak to the Nigerian press and speak to the Nigerian people And you know, have them did random access allow them to quiz him over his Ability to provide the kind of governance that is required, especially at this sensitive time in the country That's on the one hand that when we now speak about the issues of the quality of You know, what was said and how the entire interview went I will be very sincere to tell you that It was a brilliant showing there even though it was nasty have to talk about the delegation Listen to the other guest speak earlier about you, you know Asking some of his cabinet members so to speak Prospective cabinet members, you know to also show they are 40 I think there's an opportunity about that again would have been better or at home But have it it's already done. So there is nothing we can do about that, but um We are beginning to look at All of the things that these people say interesting. I mean there is a head point very sometimes you would want to say very very interesting But the question is when we place this brilliant ideas that these guys have When we place it with what is obtainable in Nigeria at the moment Then you find out that there are two words apart So the question is and the interesting thing is that most of them, you know In one way or the other Acquist to the current administration of president Muhammad I want to believe that some of them Members of the party and she was well, I meant in who was the national leader of the party for several years He asked the respect I mean he was there he did the magic in 2015 and in 2019 again, they needed his magic wand, you know to have president buhari Secure a second time in office. So if we look at that he has strong influence Yes, because I know that the next excuse would be that after all he's not in power He's not in office. So he cannot make contributions But I totally disagree with that because if you have brilliant ideas and you know that you always the you always have the president Ayers Why have you not suggested some of these tactics that you intend to run Nigeria with What we don't suggest that to the president, you know, why are you not you have control even over some members of this Of the national assembly that I mean even within the cabinet within the president's cabinet talking about the ministers There are certain ministers that he can with a call he can impress Upon and then say we need to ensure that this and this is done And then you take it to mr. President But where we are right now none of that is done and then new promises are given And then we explain Actually accept them. I think that's you know, uh, it is not mine to decide this for Nigerians But then again, uh, you want to ask Interesting ideas brilliant ideas, but how practicable is it? Why have you not contributed? This why have you not contributed this to uh, uh, the current administration to ensure that things get better at least If they are done that, okay, but you pick up from a very strong point now, you know Manga just just a moment You you have already made that point it should have Uh, you people are wondering you are wondering Why these people who are part of this government will know all these and the things that are happening in Nigeria are still happening Which means, you know, there's a lot of uh questions to be asked there But in fairness to uh, the presidential candidate of the apc He said that the people who organized the debates back home. He is not comfortable with them And uh, a lot of people also have come out to say that if it were a very neutral or National body recognized that does debates, it would have been a different case But this one is a media house that he doesn't trust even in America We have various media houses that have biases for for some parties of some individuals. So, uh, His excuse for you. Is it good enough or not good enough? It is absolutely not good enough. Um, because uh in Nigeria, we have several media houses And I want to believe that not all of them will be against Ashwajibola Metsinubu. Not all of them Will not, I mean the media as far as I know, uh, because I'm fractional. It's fair enough in Nigeria. Yes, uh, We can agree that some have Certain sentiments towards certain people or certain parties and all of that. But on a general ground I mean, we have a more uh, liberal media in Nigeria And then he could have taken advantage of them. Okay, let's even say that Many of them, you know, are not favorable to him There is one that we know he has control over and that would be the television continental tvc Why not, um, you know, organize, um, a debate? Why why I'm, you know, impressed upon the television continental, you know, to organize a debate that will be controlled, you know, they invite the people they want And then they have a debate. I mean That's an excuse, you know, and that's an easy way of saying it is because we don't trust But right now we have not had any Um, they have designed their strategies and their strategies is to use town hall meetings to talk to Nigerians But how many how many Nigerians? I mean the message goes Faster it goes run and it shows that it ensures that you are certain. For example, I'll draw a very quick example When the candidate of the pdp talking about a large article back, I was in Kaduna and he was talking, you know To the Nigerian people and he made a certain point. I'm sure you remember now about why They need to vote for him and all that because He said that but because the media was present They were able to capture it. They were able to report it in the way and of course the banters and the That came after All right, so basically what I'm saying is it is not an acceptable excuse. Um There is nothing that stops a Nigerian A prospective Nigerian president from talking to the Nigerian people in the media that they do organize and understand And then do recovery. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, we've run out of time. Mr. Akatu. We are very very quickly now If you're still there, um, what would you suggest for the future because yes, no matter how we see it It it could also Be a little bit valid that uh media houses could be biased and there should be a neutral ground Uh, so if you're suggesting bodies that should organize, uh, presidential debates Governorship debates and all that in the future. What would it be? Just very briefly please I'm highly disappointed at the Nigerian media And I I feel very sorry for the audacity to say that each of the media houses will be organizing just now And that shows that we really have a big problem in the country If the media the 40th Of frame of this Can not do themselves to get under broadcasting organization Okay, they cannot put themselves to get under broadcasting organization And come with the Institute of international activities and democratic institutes and put the national debate The people that will do the questioning and selected carefully to represent the broad spectrum Of of of of of different and very few people have a choice even 100 days Just a little bit. Just a little bit. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Mr. Katuga. Mr. Katuga. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. You have made the point. I I really asked. Um if media houses come together under the broadcasting organization of Nigeria and organize debates it will be more neutral because from every media house possibly there will be people who will contribute and that is a suggestion I really needed to hear. So, going forward, Nigeria should look for an alternative, not every media house organizing. Well, it's a good point and we hope that those who are concerned should look into it. I'd like to thank you, gentlemen, for coming on the program. Thank you so much for coming on the program today. Mr. Alexa. I didn't have my own last word. We don't have time. I do hope that we'll have another time with you. We don't have time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. And people keep looking at it and understanding it. We'll call you again.  Thank you so much. We'll take a break now and take the news and the run-up continues in a moment. Stay with us.