This course is an introduction to the new area of token economics, otherwise called crypto economics, which is the study and design of economic systems based on blockchain technology. This is a course on both the study, analysis and design of token economies and the relevance of this new area given the current economic context. The first section deals with tokenization, asking what exactly is a token and how do they work. We firstly lay down some of the basics of distributed ledger technology and triple entry accounting before going on to talk about the process of tokenization, the conversion of any asset into a digital token. Here we will look at the two primary categories of tokens, the utility token and security token and their workings. The second section looks at decentralized organizations and the design of incentive structures. We look at how token networks can be used to remove the centralized management structure to organizations and work to better align the incentive structures of producers and end-users. We touch upon game theory and talk about mechanism design, the design of incentive structures to align the interests of the individuals with the whole organization within user-generated networks. The third section deals with the formation of large-scale blockchain networks to expand across organizations and industries to create powerful new ecosystems. Our focus here is on blockchain as a new infrastructure for a global services economy. We talk about the workings of service networks and how they can be automated through smart contracts. Finally, in this section, we look at service-oriented architecture as an important design pattern to these emerging service networks. The last section of the course is dedicated to the growth and development of token economies. Recently, we have seen the rise of initial token offerings as a new model for bootstrapping these economies. We look at the dynamics of how token networks can fund their own development and then use prediction markets and advanced analytics to guide their future development. This course is not an introduction to blockchain. It only deals with what economics will look like once built on that technology. Thus, you will need to be familiar with the basics of blockchain as a technology before taking this course. If you are not already, then we recommend taking our blockchain introductory course first, which provides an accessible and broad overview to the domain. Likewise, game theory is an important component of crypto economics, which we will only have time to touch upon in this course. We recommend that you are either familiar with the basics of game theory or take our introduction to game theory course.


In this video, we continue with hierarchical clustering. So far, we have reduced the data I used in an example to only two dimensions. We said we could use Euclidean distance to measure the closeness of two items. Then, we noted that hierarchical clustering starts with considering each data item in its own cluster and iteratively merges the closest ones. For that, we need to define how to measure distances between clusters. Somehow, intuitively, I used average linkage, where the distance between two clusters is the average distance between each of their elements. Well, that was a long introduction. In my previous video, I simulated the clustering on a scatter plot, and the resulting picture was messy. This time, I promised something better. Let me first explain it in the scatter plot. Again, I start with the data set, select the variables, and plot the data. Since Orange remembers all the settings of the widgets from my previous video, I can develop the workflow just by stitching the widgets together. Let's check the contents of the widgets. In datasets, I load course grades. I choose English and Algebra in select columns, and then visualize the data in scatter plot. When I join the two clusters, I can remember the cluster distance and plot it in a graph. Say I join George and Leah. Their distance is about five. Here is my graph. Then, I could add fill to the George-Leah cluster with the distance of, say, six. Then, Bill and Ian with the distance of seven. And then, a little later on, I add Maya to fill Leah-George at a distance of 15. The cluster merging graph that I'm showing here is called a dendrogram. It visualizes the structure of hierarchical clustering. Note that dendrogram lines never cross, because I start with clusters close to each other, and as I iteratively merge the clusters, the distances between them grow larger and larger. In my last video, I promised that I would now use Orange to perform hierarchical clustering and plot the results. So, here we go. I first need to measure the distances. We have done this already two videos ago when I used the distances widget. Let me check its contents. I will use Euclidean distance, and only for this data set, and I repeat only for this one, I will not normalize the data. Again, I can check the computed distances in the distance matrix. I can now construct hierarchical clustering. The widget receives the information about the distances, and here it is, the dendrogram. I will annotate the dendrogram branches with student name. Great. I remember that Leah, George, and Phil should be close, and that Maya and Eve joined this cluster later. Also, the distance between Bill and Ian is fairly small, but they are far from the George, Leah, and the others cluster. I can cut the dendrogram to expose the groups. Here, I cut it such that we get three clusters. So, where are they in the scatter plot? The hierarchical clustering widget emits the selected data signal. Here, I selected everything, so it should also include the information on the clusters. In scatter plot, I will zoom out a bit to see the student names and color the students according to the assigned cluster. Great. Here they are. I will now minimize the hierarchical clustering and scatter plot widgets and put them side by side. I can now experiment with the number of clusters by placing the cutoff line at different positions. Here's an example with four clusters where Bill and Ian are on their own. No wonder, as they are the only two performing well in both English and algebra. If I want five clusters, I see Jenna, Cynthia, and Fred are on their own. How many clusters are there in our data? Well, that's hard to say. A dendrogram visualizes the cluster structure, and it is usually up to domain experts, in this case the teachers, to decide what they want. We will discuss this a bit more in my next videos. I will also show you how to construct clusters on multi-dimensional data. Remember, everything I've done so far was on a two-dimensional data set. If all the data lived in two dimensions, all we would ever need would be scatter plots, and data mining would be done manually. The extension of hierarchical clustering to multi-dimensional data is simple, so that's what's coming next.


Doing individual work can actually harm their relationship because what happens a lot is that one person might get into self-growth work and they get really, really into it and then they feel that it kind of evolved, they've kind of grown past their spouse. And that becomes dangerous because now it's like, now you become to judge your spouse, which is kind of ironic because if someone's doing self-growth work and someone is kind of elevating themselves, you would think that they would have compassion and understanding for another instead of judgment. But unfortunately it does the opposite because self-growth work is often, it's selfish, it's focused on the self. It's all about me and what I can get out of my life and what I need and what a relationship is about is that unfortunately it's not always about what you want. It's about the dynamic, it's about giving to another person, it's about putting yourself aside for someone else. It's about being self-bless. So although it's wonderful that people work on themselves and trying to grow and it's a great thing, it can definitely help you in your relationship. But when it gets to the point where you begin to look down on the other person and we feel like you've outgrown your spouse and that your spouse is kind of getting in the way of you achieving what you need to do for your life, you have to ask yourself a question. Is there something missing in your self-growth work that you're not getting? Is the conflict in your relationship the very thing that you actually need to work on to actually grow and to become a more complete person? At least in a model of therapy, that's what we believe. You believe that the issues that your spouse is triggering you are the very things that you actually need to work through. So it might be a drag, it might be annoying, it might be a lot easier to go out on a meditation retreat or go out and do some, to an individual therapist and do your own work and like feel good about yourself and it's wonderful but when it comes to the point where you feel like your spouse is kind of getting in your way and that you don't want to deal with the issues that they bring up, the question is why? What are you not really dealing with? What are you kind of avoiding? And what could you actually achieve if you would do the work together with your spouse?


USS Jason Dunham returned to Naval Station Norfolk after a 9 month deployment to the 5th and 6th Fleet area's responsibility. We're very successful deployment, obviously 9 months is a long time to be away from family and friends but very excited to be back. This was the maiden deployment for the guided missile destroyer commissioned in 2010 and named for Marine Corporal Jason Dunham who has posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for service in Iraq. Well it's like a homecoming for our son also to me and like I said before everybody on the ship is like our extended family now. They're our sons, our daughters, our brothers, our sisters and we take that pretty serious. Reporting from Naval Station Norfolk, I'm Seaman Scott Youngwood.


Jason, go ahead. Yeah, so for you at some point, I imagine you didn't know that you were going to focus in on those two words on authentic business. In the beginning, you were just going, I'm going to experiment and throw spaghetti to the wall and see what sticks. And so I'm more fascinated with that journey of getting to the point, I think most of your audiences as well, is getting to the point of, what is my version of authentic business? And that experimentation process, I think, well, yes, I have, let's say, I'm more on the 10 categories than the three right now. Fine, yeah. And now I think as I experiment with those, it's not really a framework yet. At least I don't see it that way. It hasn't, in my mind, come together into a model or a framework or an infographic or a direct, like this is what I do. I do authentic business. I'm not there yet. And so that's the kind of the journey I think that... Well, so you're clear about coming up with content ideas. That's, you know, step one, you're good with that. Step two of categorizing them. You're probably going to be okay with that. Step three of prioritizing the categories. Yeah, you'll play with that. But here's really where it is. I mean, so you're asking about what happens between step three and four. How do we get to the shortest possible phrasing, right? So here's what I would do, Jason, if I were you. I think this is where, well, I mean, essentially this is where work play comes in. Well, and also I think that maybe at some point, some of those categories might end up in the garbage. Sure, of course. I think categories might come along. Yes, yes, right. So... Not that they're not interesting or fascinating and that I don't love them, but it doesn't fit into it. The categories, whether a category should go in the garbage or not depends on two things. One is whether you are going to be stubborn about something, even though the audience doesn't want it. So essentially it's about, well, like I always say, your calling is that intersection between your talents, your passions, your skills, your experiences on the one hand and your audience's interests, the world's hunger on the other hand, it's that intersection between the two. So essentially it's like a constant kind of tug of war. It's like, who has stronger willpower? Does your audience have stronger willpower pulling you in the direction of, oh, you got to talk about phobias or do you have the strongest like, no, no, let's talk about your semantics, right? Like, who has the stronger staying power? Really, it's so one example for, I can give you two examples in my business. One is Facebook ads. Like, if money were no issue in my business and if impact were no issue, like nobody, everyone is full, everyone is happy, everyone in the world is just fine, I wouldn't be teaching Facebook ads, come on.  I'm not a sadist, masochist, both, right? I'm not either, right? Like, oh, but the audience's poll is so strong that I have to teach Facebook ads for my audience that keep asking me of it. And on the other hand, the other example is joyful productivity. Like, nobody, for many years, nobody asked me to teach joyful productivity. Like nobody would pay for it, at least. Yeah, they have fun sometimes when I talk about it, but nobody would pay for it. It's such the worst selling product of mine. But I was so stubborn about it that every year I just kept joyful productivity. Like every year I just kept bringing it, bringing it, bringing it and now literally in the 12th year of my business. No, I think it would start it in the 10th year of my business. 10th year of talking to I'm blue in the face about joyful productivity, the 10th year people started buying it. People started buying it. Like when I launched it in the 10th year, I'm like, oh my gosh. This is like almost two thirds of the many sales as Facebook ads. Hey, almost, it's like half as many sales, but pretty impressive for a topic that I have forced upon the world for 10 years. Now in the 12th year, as you all know, TLC, my TLC program is like, oh my God, what happened? It's doing so well. So it took me 10 to 12 years to pull the world along. So that's Jason, that's, so I'm glad I didn't trash it, but it's almost like you have to be sustained by a popular topic on the one hand that people are willing to buy while you're like educating the world for 10 years on this other thing. It's, you know what I mean? Yeah, definitely. Yeah, so I mean, so I think that it is about work play also I mentioned earlier, like in terms of how do you call the categories? It's work play. Like you just have to go on many dog walks or river walks or whatever, or showers and whatever. And then like, wait, I can call it something different, can't I? What about this phrasing? Hey, let me try that phrasing for a while. See how the audience responds to it. If the audience loves it, great. So that's obvious. The audience doesn't love it, but I'm stubborn about it. Like Joe for productivity, I'm going to keep telling him for 10 years. I really like the phrasing, right? I'm going to keep going for 10 years. So it's really about who's more stubborn and you keep playing with the phrasing. You can always change it. After a while though, once you've published a book on it, you kind of have invested a lot in it, like Joe for productivity. Like if I were to start over, I'm not sure I'd call it Joe for productivity. First of all, there's too many letters. There's too damn long, right? I probably wouldn't have called that. I probably would call it something else, you know? But I'm stuck with it now because I've published a book on it. I've created several courses on it. People know me for it now. So that's, yeah, I think that, yeah, makes sense. Yeah, beautiful. I appreciate you sharing. Yeah, thanks so much.


Let's do this problem now, so it says, if you have a length of 52 yards, how many feet would it be? So notice, feet and yards are not metric units, okay? They're both English terms, so I have to give you that conversion fact. Okay, I don't expect you to memorize them. So notice the length was given in yards here, so we want to convert it to feet, right? That's what a question asks. So how do we do that? But we have to cancel out the units of yards and get the units of feet out of it, okay? So this conversion factor can be written like this, or it can be written like this, okay? Or it can be written like this, okay? Because this equals this, right? This would be like 2 equals 2. Is everybody okay with that? 2 equals 2? If I took 2 divided by 2, what number would I get? 1. If I multiply 1 by any other number, what number do I get from that number? What the number was before, right? Exactly, okay? So since this equals 1, right? I can use any of these conversion factors to change my units. That's what we're getting at here, okay? So let's do that. So yards is in the numerator here, so what? We want to cancel that out and get feet, so we want yards to be in the denominator for what we're multiplying. So which one of these two conversion factors has yards in the denominator left or right? Left, right? So let's just erase this one. Take this, multiply by, like that, and what do I do? Okay, something's in the numerator and that same thing's in the denominator. They cancel out, right? So I get 52, and then I want to divide that by 0.33, and what, how did you guys do? Very good, guys. So when I do something, I expect you guys to have your calculator out doing it, too. Okay, so that may need feet. So notice what I did here, 1.6 times 10 to the 2. This is called scientific notation. The reason I put only two digits here is because my starting number only had two significant digits, so I couldn't put the answer 157 on here, or 158, because I could only go to the right amount of digits on my starting material. Okay, any questions on that? Okay, very good.


We're talking about leadership especially going into the well we already in the 21st century, but we're in this phase This is the open-source era So in your privileged job to be with a lot of leaders throughout time and different locations, right? What's your take on what has changed when it comes to leadership? I think the issue that's changed is is twofold firstly the stakeholders from which you have pushing against you Used to be you were only concerned with your shareholders, right? But now you have your shareholders.  So you've now got employees shareholders suppliers customers yeah Customers saying they're not going to buy something or they are going to buy something so that's on the one side the pressures But the range of issues Has also dramatically escalated in the past, you know, you ran your company And you were a leader just on very narrow grounds profits, right now. It's a question of what policies are we for following and If you're talking about leadership at the greatest and highest levels, you're talking about moral questions, right? You're talking about moral questions, and yes, let's say it straight out. You're talking about same-sex issues You're talking about gender equality You're talking about where you stand between left and right and racism you're talking These are major issues that leaders have no question. No doubt now, but to get involved in so the scope now is a lot Broad it's broader and there are more constituents fighting the issue foot with you So in that regard what kind of leadership do we need we need people who are I Think the days of the I think the days of the technocrat leader There is a role for that person usually as a company's coming out of some troubles And you need or at least you need somebody to clean it up But it's a very company to grow and to thrive you need a visionary There was in the C-suite these days there are plenty of other C's The CFO deals with the finance COO deals with the running of the everyday operations CIT deals with the information technology CMR deals with your marketing So there's plenty of other people dealing with the different things, but you have to be the captain of the ship so and Some captains are quiet and thoughtful Satya Nadella at Microsoft is acquired and thoughtful man Some allowed bombastic and Richard Branson was a good example of a loud CEO, but in either case Everybody involved says that's the leader. That's who I'm following


OK, this is the session on the 70th anniversary of the road to serfdom. And I thought that we, of all people, should have something to say about it, arguably the most famous book in Austrian economics in the 20th century. And so I don't know if everyone knows that when our friend Yuri, over here, Yuri Maltsef and Tom Woods were on the Glenn Beck television show a couple of years ago talking about the road to serfdom, the next day the road to serfdom went the number one in sales on amazon.com, which is pretty remarkable. And I had mixed feelings about that because when my book The Real Lincoln came out, I was on the Rush Limbaugh show after that. Walter Williams' guest hosted it. And my book went the number two in sales on Amazon. But it never made it the number one. I sat in front of that computer for about 36 hours waiting for the two to turn to a one. Because I had the printouts. I had the printout of Amazon with my book, number two in sales, but never happened. So anyway, so I guess I can get my revenge, if I say bad things about the road to serfdom. So I'm just going to make a few comments. I asked the speakers to say something about the applicability or relevance of the road to serfdom today, even if you think it's not relevant today. David Gordon might take that tag. I don't know. And so that's what I plan to do, nothing too heavy duty. But so I wrote down some notes about things that I think should be especially useful in teaching and teaching students or anybody about some of the lessons of the road to serfdom. And we each have about 17 minutes. And so I wrote down a few of my favorite quotes from the road to serfdom. In chapter three of the chapter on individualism and collectivism, Hayek wrote this, the economic planning, which is the prime instrument of socialist reform, can be used for many other purposes. We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice, for example. Planning, therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that production for use be substituted for production for profit. So in other words, environmentalism, welfare state, socialized health care, the public schools, the government roads, it's all socialism. And so the lessons of the critiques of socialism really should apply to all of that because it really is the argument for government intervention in all these areas really is production for use, not for profit, which of course is probably the dumbest idea ever to come along. It seems to be the mantra of the current pope, though, however, he keeps repeating the idea that successful business people are only in it for themselves. That somehow you can make money by only benefiting yourself and not benefiting your customers. But that's what he says and that's wrong. Chapter four is called the inevitability of planning. And here's where Hayek in the road to serfdom comes back over and over again to his knowledge problem even before it was known as the knowledge problem. And he says this, the more complicated the whole, in terms of society, whole society, the more dependent we become on that division of knowledge between individuals whose separate efforts are coordinated by the impersonal mechanism for transmitting the relevant information known by us as the price system. So the more complex, the more complicated society becomes, the more globalization there is, the more important it is to rely on the market. And that's a theme all throughout Hayek's writing, not just the road to serfdom. And that was always one of the key arguments that was made in debates over socialism before the worldwide collapse of socialism in the late 80s, early 90s. On the chapter on planning and democracy, chapter five, Hayek said this, it would be impossible for any mind, this is the knowledge problem again, to comprehend the infinite variety of different needs of different people which compete for the available resources and to attach a definite weight to each. Even if a man takes a warm interest in the welfare of every human being, he knows, the ends about which he can be concerned with will always only be an infinitesimal fraction of the needs of all men. And that's sort of classic Hayekian statement that no human mind could possibly comprehend the needs of all the people. Therefore, the phrases like the general interest, the public interest are just meaningless, social justice meaningless, because even if you are well-meaning, he said, even if you're an angel, it's impossible to process all that information. No human being or group of human beings possibly could do it. And that's another sort of really a restatement of his knowledge problem. And then he goes on the same chapter. He says this, planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and the enforcement of ideals and as such essential planning on a large scale is to be possible. That's why I put this handout around the room that because in the same chapter, he talks about how whenever governments engage in interventionism and one interventionism sort of interventionism fails, they resort to a different kind of intervention to rescue themselves, that fails and it goes on and on. And so they can't, but they will never admit failure. And no matter how much they screw up the healthcare system, for example, they're never gonna admit that socialized healthcare is a bad idea. And so what they have to do is to crush all kinds of dissent on the part of people who have realized that, hey, this is not working.  And when I reread that, it reminded me of all the czars that we have in America today. So I went online and did a little search in the source of all human knowledge, Wikipedia. And it did have a list of these are actual government jobs of people who are given jobs as czars, which means they're unaccountable, even more unaccountable to voters than anybody else. Of course, not even Congress is accountable to voters because they've gerrymandered all themselves in. And so they can pretty much do whatever they want, but these guys, they can really do whatever they want. And no one even, no one knows any of them. Did you know we had an Asian carpazar in the United States, for example? And so anyway, that is what popped into my mind when I reread Hayek's statement about turning to some sort of economic dictator. And these are all areas in which the government has attempted to impose economic dictatorship of some kind that has totally, it issues regulations and orders that are even more detached from public scrutiny than government normally is. Now on the chapter of who and whom, this is something that I always make it a point to tell my students whether we're talking about the road to serfdom or not. He says this, the power which a multiple millionaire in Hayek's days, there were only multiple millionaires. There weren't billionaires I guess. And the power which a multiple millionaire who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work. And the way I tell it to my students is usually the lowliest bureaucrat at the Department of Motor Vehicles has a more of a negative effect on your life than the richest man in the world, Bill Gates ever could. All Bill Gates can do is try to persuade you to buy his products. And you can always tell Bill Gates, go play in the traffic Bill Gates. I'm using, I'm an Apple computer user. You can't say that to the DMV bureaucrat. They'll call the state cop that's lurking in the background to do something.  That's police nowadays seem to be doing a lot of that. But it is true, the lowliest bureaucrat in local government has a bigger effect on your life than the richest people in the world do as far as coercion goes. And then he says this, he says, as the coercive part, this is another one of my favorites from Hayek, as the coercive power of the state will alone decide, under socialism or planning, so will alone decide who is to have what the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of this directing power. So under a planned society or some version of socialism, the only power worth having is political power. And this was long before the phrase rent seeking was invented, I think in the 1970s, that phraseology came into the economics lexicon. But this is basically what he was talking about, I think here, because it is a very old idea, the idea of rent seeking. So once a society becomes sufficiently politicized, the only power worth having will be political power. And the opportunity cost of that is that people will invest less in becoming producers and will invest more in becoming political manipulators. Fewer students will go to engineering and business school, more go to law school, or the Kennedy School of Government, as they call it, places like that to become rent seekers. On the chapter, most people who have read the word, I wrote a serfdom, their favorite chapter seems to be chapter 10, why the worst get on top, why under a planned, government planned society, the worst human beings tend to rise up to the top. My old friend, Jim Bennett, years ago, maybe 25 years ago, told me that he called this his septic tank theory of government. He said, in government, the big chunks always rise to the top. That was in the course of a context of us talking about the road to serfdom at the time, in this chapter on the road to serfdom. But one of the things that Hayek says here is the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism. So again, you don't have to be talking about Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, tending toward totalitarianism is what he said here. And it certainly does seem true, doesn't it, that the people you see in government are the people at the top, the people with the least qualms about brutalizing or plundering their fellow citizens. In the chapter on the end of truth, chapter 11, all of this sounds so familiar to someone like myself who's been in academe so long. Myths are essential to creating a government plan society. The Lincoln myth, for example. Since I mentioned that, my old friend Clyde Wilson, one of my favorite Clyde quotes. Of all the years I've been in academe, Clyde is one of the wisest old men that I've met in academe. And I've known Nobel Prize winners and I've known David Gordon for a long time. But one of Clyde's things that he said, the image of America has changed. It once was George Washington on a white horse and it has become a corporate lobbyist in an armchair. And he speaks about the Lincoln Memorial. Yes, the image of America. So myths are essential. Hayek said, critics must be silenced. Walter Block here, Walter is ill, he's not here. Intolerance is encouraged.  And of course, one of the things I've been observing on the college campuses, and many of you have too in the past 20, 25 years, is many students have been taught now that they're not taught the reasons for free speech. They're not taught the case for free speech. But they are taught why it is that it's legitimate to crack down on free speech. For example, one theory that is very popular among the so-called cultural Marxists who now dominate the American university systems is that speech is a tool in which the oppressors used to oppress the oppressed classes so that it is actually meritorious to censor and character assassinate the oppressors, which are basically, as far as I can tell, white heterosexual males. And the oppressed is everybody else. And so when you see these things on college campuses of a conservative speaker shows up and they scream and yell and they have to call the police and they cancel the lecture or they maliciously libel a good man like Walter Block or something like that. They think they're doing the right thing. The meritorious thing because the ends justify the means. And students have been taught that. And I've talked to quite a few of them over the years and they've been indoctrinated into this idea there. In the same chapter, and this should sound familiar too, Hayek wrote this. He said, the whole apparatus for spreading knowledge, he's talking about a totalitarian society and ask yourself if this fits your society. So the schools and the press, radio and motion picture will be used exclusively to spread those views which whether true or false will strengthen the belief and the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority. And all information that might cause doubt or hesitation will be withheld. There is no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced. Well, I think everybody could recognize a lot of that happening. Although at the same time, we've got the internet on our side and we've got the Mises Institute, which is why so many people hate us so much. And so one thing everybody should understand is that if you're hated by the right people, you know you're doing the right thing. And so every time I run into somebody that says, oh boy, that John Stuart or somebody really that really doesn't like what you're doing, does he? Well, that's good. I'd really be worried if they said, oh, the New York Times loves you. So when we were attacked by the New York Times, that's a big gold star for us if you're doing that. And finally, the final comment I would make is that Chapter 13, Hayek, this is a very quaint. It's called The Totalitarians in our midst. And you read this and you get the impression that Hayek was seeing there writing this thinking, well, I need to warn people that this is England. He's writing this in Cambridge, England, and thinking, well, the Totalitarians aren't all in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia. We've got some right here. And so apparently in his day he had to inform people that there were Totalitarians in our midst. But of course in American society today, they're everywhere.  And so they were polluted with Totalitarian minded people all around. So this is a good warning, I guess, to Totalitarians in our midst. And it's not anything too exotic. They seem to be pretty much everywhere in our day also. And maybe my time is about up. I'll end with maybe one little story. I might have told this some other year at this course, but I met Hayek years ago. I have a picture of me and Hayek in my office. And he told a story. He was at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting in Cambridge, England where he wrote The Road to Serfdom. And he claims to have written it while sitting on the roof of a building in Cambridge, where he and Keynes took Terrans watching out for the German Luftwaffe to bombing Cambridge. And so anyway, he told this story that he said that there's a man, I understand there's a man here tonight. This is a room with 700 people in it at Cambridge University. I understand there's a man here tonight who really should have been the co-author to The Road to Serfdom. And I have not seen him since 1945. And I understand he's here. Where is he? And this old white-haired old gentleman stands up with his cane. And the women were crying. And some of the men were crying. And these were all Hayek fans, Mont Pelerin Society. And a huge applause. And the two old men got embraced and hadn't seen each other in all those years. The next day, Jim Bennett, my septic tank theory, a government friend, we're at a pub. And the old man is there, the old gray-haired old man. And we walked up to him and said, well, that's quite a story. You should be the co-author of The Road to Serfdom. And he said, oh, I don't know what Hayek is talking about. I see him all the time. And we just went to the theater last month with Hayek, so he made the whole thing up, in other words. He made the whole thing up. And when he gave a talk at George Mason when I was there, the first thing he said is, I'm the only human being that I know of who has recovered from senility. And I think quitting smoking did it. It returned oxygen to my brain. So that's one of the things I remember personally about Hayek.