The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 16487, in the name of Johann Lamont, on new report calls for more housing co-operatives in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in debate to press the request to speak buttons down a call on Johann Lamont to open the debate? Ms Lamont, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am privileged to open this debate on the role of housing co-operatives and the potential to address some of the many housing challenges that we face in Scotland. I thank all those who have supported this motion. Thanks to the cross-party group and co-operatives for producing this report, co-operatives UK for publishing the report, Shared Space, house Scottish co-ops, Build Communities and to those including West Whittleburn house and co-op who shaped its findings. I welcome representatives from those groups who I know are in the gallery tonight. I should at the outset declare an interest as a co-operative party member and as a co-operative MSP. The Scottish co-operative party fully supports Labour's ambition to double the size of the co-operative economy. The co-operative movement is, of course, a global movement with values shared across continents. It is an international movement but one that delivers change at the most local of levels, making a real and measurable difference to lives of families and communities. It is a movement of high ideals but based absolutely on practical action, empowerment and democratic accountability and control. Its greatest aspirations judged and tested by the real results that it achieved. Historically, Scotland was at the heart of the development of co-opatives. Indeed, some might argue that we were there at the very start of its development. However, this is a movement that is as relevant and central to Scotland's present and future as it was to its past. As this report emphatically reveals, those values are absolutely at the heart of the success of housing co-ops in Scotland. That report recognised the flexibility, the variety of housing co-ops, meeting the needs of students, of people in retirement, of young people in work or of restoring communities which were poorly served, ill-designed and seen as places where people did not want to live. As one small example of that variety, we can see the potential of the Edinburgh students housing co-op in providing housing of better quality and at a more affordable level than the other options that it might have, a model from which many other students across Scotland could well benefit. I am immensely proud of the work of housing co-ops in Scotland and I have seen first hand the transformation that was brought about by tenant-led Rose Hill housing co-op in Pollock constituency and West Whitleburn housing co-op in Cambuslang. Those co-ops have shown how to create change, not just in the kind of housing available but in how it is planned, how it is maintained and how their communities are then sustained. Those co-opters understand that housing is not just about the bricks and mortar, it is about the other actions that are needed to help local communities to thrive, not just the building but the broader environment, providing services as West Whitleburn does, access to affordable energy, digital services, employment and training opportunities, welfare and money advice. The range of things done in wider action by co-ops is as remarkable as it is creative. From time to time in our debates on housing here and elsewhere, we are all drawn to play a numbers game, focusing, for example, on the number of housing council houses built, but that is truth, ignoring the reality and diversity of social housing. It is true that some of our most effective housing co-opters emerged out of local campaigns by residents determined to take control from their local councils of the decisions that affected them so directly and to resolute in their belief that, as local people, they were best placed to determine and act upon the needs and priorities of their community and their track record proves their case. However, the motion does not just celebrate the reality of housing co-op success, it also asks why there is so much unrealised potential, so much unmet needs. Why are there only 11 registered housing co-ops in Scotland compared to 685 across the United Kingdom? This surely is a lost opportunity, while too many people are being forced into a private sector option with less certainty, fewer rights and at higher cost. What is the role of the housing regulator? Is there an approach that regulates in such a way that unconsciously or deliberately inhibits the establishment of housing co-ops? Will the minister reflect on that conundrum? Will the minister agree to meet with representatives of the cross-party group on co-operatives to explore how any perceived barriers might be removed? Will the minister be willing to look with the group at how the recommendations of this report might be progressed? How can we promote and advocate for the housing co-op model more effectively? As a consequence, there is an increase in the number of co-ops across Scotland. I am proud that the Labour-led administration, very early in the life of this Parliament, established co-opative development Scotland to promote co-opative models in the economy and in our communities. At that time, we deliberately chose to exclude housing from its remit because housing was located in community Scotland, an agency focused on community and economic regeneration, but with, at its centre, housing expertise that had done immense work to improve Scottish housing. Community Scotland is long gone, but the need for an advocate for co-op housing remains. I urge the minister to confirm the willingness to have the remit of co-opative development Scotland opened up to include housing, giving it responsibility for willing the means to increase the number of housing co-ops with all the benefit that that would surely bring. The evidence is there as proof. In conclusion, I would again underline my admiration for all those involved with housing co-opatives who have transformed communities with focus, vision and determination. We have our hands a means of enriching our housing provision and our communities, and a means of unleashing that potential further. I look forward to being part of future action to remove the barriers that are placed in front of housing co-ops and allowing them to flourish. I thank you again to those who produced the report and to all those co-op tenants who have inspired in the creation of co-ops and continue to inspire by their work. I trust that the Government will recognise the key role of housing co-opatives, look at the report and act with all those who have an interest in ensuring that housing co-opatives can continue to serve our local communities. I gently say to the public in the gallery that I understand why you want applause, but we do not permit applause from the gallery. I now call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Graham Simpson. Mr Stevenson, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me start by congratulating John Lamont on securing the debate. I often say that I congratulate James Kelly, who I see from the report, is the author of the forward to the report. It is a very excellent report, too. It does Parliament considerable credit that a cross-party group can produce such a substantial contribution to a very important part of our debate. In her remarks, John Lamont referred to the imbalance in the number of housing co-ops in Scotland compared to south of the border. I am never afraid to pick up good ideas from wherever they come, including south of the border. I turned immediately to section 8 in the report to have a look at what it says there. I will not explore my brief contribution in any great detail, but I think that there is a considerable amount of things to say. The co-operative movement in housing is an important part of creating housing for people across Scotland. It can contribute a great deal to fill the gap that Scotland has suffered from, as the rest of the UK has, since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, which resulted in 2.6 million houses across the UK being sold out of public housing stock. The co-operative housing associations can play their substantial part in creating housing for people who otherwise are going to find it difficult outside the private sector, where it is very expensive often and not always of good quality to have the kind of living space that is essential for people who want a good standard of life. Rent prices are going up. People are encouraged to invest in buy-to-let properties, where the primary focus is for the landlord's interest in making a profit. When you have a co-operative, the people who live in the co-operative housing are the people who are the centre of the decision making. That is right, proper and unlocks potential for many people who otherwise, in too much of their lives, have little opportunity for their voice to influence important things in their life. In general, co-operatives and co-operatives in housing can make a particular difference to the quality of life of the people who live in them. Of course, it is a neighbourly and collaborative way of making decisions that can encourage social bonds and collective responsibility. That strengthens society as a whole. When, collectively, people in co-operative housing decide on what their priorities are for their area, the whole area has something that is an example right across communities. I was particularly interested in the example that has been drawn on here, the Whitlaw Burn Co-op, which extends far beyond simply the provision of housing. Johann Lamont referred to the provision of power and frozen power bills that come from that, addressing the fuel poverty issue, which has been before us this week in Parliament. For young people in particular, there is a challenge. The number of people who are living in rented accommodation has risen compared to my generation and others who followed me, so it is important that we get the appropriate balance between privately owned and social housing, and co-operatives can play a very important part in that strategy. I think that it was the community's committee that Johann Lamont and I were both on, she was the convener and I was a humble backbencher. I remember that time occasionally with fondness. Sometimes I remember the robust engagement that Johann Lamont had with the issues before the committee, as she always does. I congratulate her once again in bringing this important topic to Parliament in giving us the opportunity to discuss. I congratulate all the co-operatives and their members, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Johann Lamont for bringing this debate to Parliament. It is an extremely important issue and I am a huge fan of housing co-ops, but I have to say that we just do not have enough of them in Scotland. If we only have 11 of them, that is nowhere near enough. The issue has not just come up at the co-operatives cross-party group, but it is also one of the several cross-party groups that deals with housing and has also discussed it. It is on the agenda across the Parliament. I read the report with interest. It was a very good report, illuminating. I focused on the case study of West Whitlow-Burn in Camberslang, mainly because that is a very good project. It is just down the road from where I live, so I know where it is. If the people in the gallery want to invite me along to see it, I would be happy to come down the road from East Kilbride. They made a comment in the report, which I thought was very telling. I will just read it out. The attitude of local authorities is another barrier. We are in South Lanarkshire, and there is no history of or appetite to transfer council housing stock to community level, no appetite to give up control. Glasgow is supportive of the idea of housing co-ops, but it does not have the stock. South Lanarkshire and others have the stock, but they do not want to continue as a social municipal landlord. West Whitlow-Burn is sandwiched between two local authority estates, which are failing abjectly. They are dreadfully managed and maintained. There is no tenant input or participation, no transparency. I think that sums up the problem that we have here. It is a problem of culture. In some council areas, they name South Lanarkshire. The issue is that they do not want to give up control. They want to keep the power. They have a we know best attitude. The tenants at West Whitlow-Burn have shown that councils like South Lanarkshire need to give up control and accept that they should be more flexible. Housing co-ops have a great deal of benefits that can deliver affordable housing, help to create and build powerful communities, offer tenants far greater control over the things that matter to them. As Johann Lamont said, they seem to be doing far better at this in England and Wales. We have only got 11 housing co-ops at 685 across the UK. You have to ask, why is that? What is holding us back here in Scotland? Part of it is the culture, as I said. Down in England, they have a community housing fund, which is a national programme to develop a range of community-led housing. That will run until 2021-22. In Wales, they have the Welsh co-operative housing development company, which is putting in 50,000 a year for three years to promote support and increase the number of housing co-ops in Wales. If things are progressing better in the rest of the UK, maybe the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary could perhaps say something about this when she speaks. Maybe the Scottish Government should be looking elsewhere and seeing what is happening in the rest of these aisles and maybe taking on board what is happening and doing it here in Scotland. Thank you very much. I call James Kelly to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Mr Balfour is the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I join other speakers in congratulating Johann Lamont in securing this important debate on housing co-ops. I thank the members of the cross-party group in co-ops for the work that they have put into producing the document-shared space. I welcome the members from a number of housing co-ops, including Wes Whittleburn, who are in the gallery this evening. That is indeed an important debate and an important issue. Reflecting on it, I first spoke about housing co-ops shortly after getting elected as an MSP in 2007. I mentioned Wes Whittleburn then, but when you look at the stats in the motion, there are only 11 registered housing co-ops in Scotland. That is a matter of deep regret. When I reflect back on the early speech that I made, I realised that in that 12-year time there have been very few newly registered housing co-ops in Scotland. We have very much become left behind by that model. The question that you have to pose is is that a good or a bad thing? I would certainly submit that it is a very bad thing. In doing so, I give the example, which is quoted in the report of Wes Whittleburn housing co-op, which I have observed very closely, not just because it is an area that I represent, that is close to where I stay. It was set up in the 1980s when it took over the housing stock from Glasgow City Council. The reality was that the housing stock at that time was in very poor condition. There were a lot of anti-social behaviour issues. The reality was that Wes Whittleburn at that time was a very challenging area. If you go to Wes Whittleburn now, you will see that the area has been transformed. Not only is that original housing stock still there, but it has been modernised to such an extent that the demand for places is great on the housing waiting list. However, it was not just a case of renovating the existing stock. There have been new builds, a community centre, communications co-op and an initiative to secure low energy prices. In addition to all that, rents run at a very competitive level compared with other housing providers in the area. It is a fantastic example of how a local area can be transformed by a housing co-op. The secret of it is down to the community involvement, mainly due to the committee, many of whom go back to the early days, particularly Ann Anderson, who is in the gallery tonight, and the strong leadership from working in co-operation with Paul Farrell, the director. The challenge going forward is that, as we have 150,000 people on social housing waiting lists in Scotland, housing co-ops is something that can contribute to tackling the housing issues that we face in Scotland. Of course, it is when you see the difference that is made in Wes Whittleburn. The fact that there are only 11 in Scotland compared to 685 in the rest of the UK shows that real life has been left behind. The direct challenge to the cabinet secretary and the Government is that the debate should not just be a talking shop, but that the cabinet secretary should engage with the cross-party group, engage with the experts in housing co-operatives, because they present an opportunity and a solution to some of the challenges that we face in housing. I hope that the cabinet secretary, when she closes, will respond positively and take some practical steps to place housing co-ops at the centre of solutions to the housing issues in Scotland. The debate is set in the context that Scotland's housing is far from good, and many people are struggling as a result. There are 150,000 people on council housing waiting lists, rents are continually rising and people are finding it increasingly difficult to find not just affordable housing but appropriate housing. Given that context, housing co-operatives are able to play an incredibly valuable role in elevating some of the issues that are facing the thousands of people looking for a home. I have to confess, Presiding Officer, that, before that motion was put down, I knew little about housing co-operatives, and for me it has been a very interesting learning experience. As other speakers have already said, here in Scotland there are only 11 people compared to over 600 across the United Kingdom. The community aspect of a housing co-operative is a huge strength for that type of housing. Community is essentially built into the design of a housing co-operative, given its nature of group of living and decision making. Here, in Brunsfield, just a few miles, there is one consistent of eight people living together of all ages and stages in a large, terraced house. Tenants from its co-operate detailed in the shared spaces report by the co-operatives UK that the genuine community that they have gained from living was hugely beneficial. This can be an alternative living option for older people who, for example, may be retired, living alone or having gone through life-changing circumstances. According to Age Scotland, 100,000 older people in Scotland feel lonely, or most of the time, and community living could be a remedy for some of those individuals. Therefore, pursuing the establishment of more housing co-operatives could not only help to meet the demands of housing shortages but also reduce the levels of loneliness in Scotland. People who have a disability are further disadvantaged when it comes to finding housing and suitable housing at that. Housing co-operatives could be more of an option for those who need specific adjustments to their home but do not have them supplied by the council. For example, Andy Dufflin and his daughter, who is in a wheelchair or Whitlaw co-op, were able to move into a flat area that catered for his daughter's specific needs. Given again the communal ownership structure of a housing co-operative and the way decisions are made, it may be much easier for suitable adjustments to be made rather than to join long queues that councils often face. Finally, there is the economic benefit to housing co-operatives. Given that, collectively, in the UK, housing co-operatives have a turnover of £642 million. It is also housing that is more accessible to those who cannot afford the rising rents and housing prices, providing an alternative to temporary accommodation and the seemingly never-ending waiting list. Ultimately, pursuing the creation of more housing co-operatives should be part of the Scottish Government's way of addressing housing needs. I welcome the further inquiry into how that can happen, and again I congratulate the motion that is being debated this evening. Thank you, Mr Balfour. I close in Eileen Campbell to close to the cabinet secretary, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, like others, welcome this debate and sincerely value the contributions from all the members who have taken part in it. It has been constructive and informative debate, but I thank Johann Lamont for highlighting the publication of the report, acknowledging the valuable contribution that housing co-operatives provide in the delivery of affordable community-controlled housing in Scotland. More generally and broadly, I also highlight the importance of the co-operative movement to public life, a movement that can paraphrase what she said with high ideals but rooted in empowerment and fairness. As the member representing Clyde Steele, which houses in homes New Lanark, which had Robert Owen playing a pivotal part in that, and is considered to be the father of the co-operative movement, I recognise the value that she attaches to co-operatives in many other areas of life, and not just in housing. I would also like to congratulate West Whitleburn, a housing co-operative in Cambuslang, and I think that it celebrates its 30th anniversary for all its achievements in creating safe, warm and more attractive homes for its tenants. Thirty years of really positively impacting on the lives of many generations and who deserve our thanks for their dedication and commitment, and I am really pleased to see many of them here this evening. Coincidentally, this morning, I attended the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations annual conference in Glasgow. As the national membership body for housing associations and co-operatives in Scotland, its ambition is that everyone has a good home in a successful community, with a range of high-quality, affordable and accessible homes that meets people's changing needs and aspirations throughout their lives. That ambition reflects our view that housing is essential to our shared endeavour to build a fairer Scotland, certainly more than just bricks and mortar. Housing supports our ambitions to embed the place principle at the core of how we work, an approach that seeks to ensure that we make better decisions that have people and communities at their heart to deliver positive outcomes. Crucially, it recognises that local decision making and delivery informed by the people who live and work there, the experts in their community, are key to the social, economic and physical success of places. I know that the inclusive and co-operative approach is embedded throughout the social housing sector in Scotland, and Johann Lamont and many others made that point. It is a diverse sector in which housing co-operatives are one of several social land or constitutional models that are delivering good-quality houses and services to the local communities. The housing co-operative model has remained relatively small in Scotland because, unlike other parts of the UK, we have a strong tradition of community-controlled housing associations. Cooperatives, along with those associations, play a really important role in delivering local, democratically accountable, affordable housing and services to local communities. Given the significant tenant involvement in housing associations in Scotland, there has not been the demand by tenants to grow the co-operative housing model here, but I am really happy to further engage with Johann Lamont to understand the barriers that she feels may be there unintentionally that stymies that demand. The Government is committed to delivering affordable housing, and we have committed to delivering at least 50,000 affordable homes over the course of this Parliament, with 35,000 of those for social rent. To achieve that, we are investing more than £3.3 billion in our affordable housing programme, the single biggest investment in affordable housing since devolution. Of course, yes, absolutely. I appreciate very much your willingness to meet with the co-op cross-party group, because there are a range of issues that we would be aware of. The cabinet secretary would outline the funding around the wider action work that is done by housing co-operatives in particular, because the lesson in Glasgow on elsewhere is that it is not enough just to build houses because you end up knocking them back down again later because you have not built in the thing that sustained the communities in which those houses are built. Absolutely, and that is why I mentioned the place approach, because making sure that we do not just build houses but that it is the spaces in between the spaces to enable children to play, that they are warm and safe, that they enable children to comfortably do their homework, that enables people to live independently until their elder life and to make sure that we have those spaces to enable communities to engage with each other as well. Absolutely, as I take on board what Johann Lamont says, this is not just about bricks and mortar, it is much more important than just that. We need to not just build houses but we need to have sustainable communities as well. Those are all aspirations that are rooted in the national performance framework. I want to point out the commitment to the delivery of affordable housing. The official statistics that were published yesterday show that since 2007 that we have delivered more than 86,000 affordable homes, including 59,000 for social rent, a significant achievement to ensure that folk have quality homes that they deserve. Since 2007, the Government has taken a range of actions to improve housing outcomes for the people of Scotland beyond those ambitious targets, and we are certainly proud of that record. We ended the right to buy, introduced the Scottish social housing charter and the independent Scottish housing regulator, strengthened tenants' rights in the private sector, introduced private residential tenancy, fully mitigated the bedroom tax through discretionary housing payments, introduced universal credit Scottish choices and have worked to cut household bills by improving energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty. We also have a strong tradition of involving tenants in decisions about their homes and communities, and we are the only country in the UK where there is a statutory basis for tenant participation. That is an important point to make in this debate. The Scottish housing regulator's reports on the Scottish social housing charter show that nine out of 10 social housing tenants are satisfied with the homes and services that their landlord provides and with the opportunities that they have to participate. The charter continues to deliver good outcomes for tenants and services users, and I am really pleased that the regulator's report confirms that it is working and delivering better services than standard year on year. However, although that shows that there has been lots and lots of progress that has been made, we are certainly not complacent and we certainly understand that there is still much more to be done. When the First Minister launched our programme for government last September, we made a commitment to plan together with stakeholders for how our homes and communities should look and feel in 2040 and the options and choices to get there. Since then, we have been engaging extensively with a variety of stakeholders, including housing associations, co-operatives and tenants, to help to shape a draft vision and principles for 2040, and we will undertake further consultation with stakeholders on a draft vision, themes and outline options in the autumn. The output from this next round of consultation will help us to inform the vision and route map to 2040, which we will publish. However, let me reiterate our desire for this to be a shared vision, with widespread support from all housing sectors and across the political spectrum. Again, I happily meet Johann Lamont, James Kelly, Graham Simpson and anyone who wants to further make the point that co-operatives need to play a full role in shaping the future housing system in this country. I hope that that offer is received with the spirit that it is intended to make sure that we can collectively work through what all our collective vision is for housing in Scotland and how, in this instance, co-operatives can play its part in doing so, because that is an opportunity and it is a real time to reimagine a housing system and create a vision for housing between now and 2040, and to do that, we need to build on that collective wisdom of our wide and varied housing sector. I would certainly invite the CPG to send in their views into that process. In conclusion, housing co-operatives play an important role, along with housing associations and local authorities in meeting our housing aspirations and ambitions. We welcome the report shared space from co-operatives UK, because it provides a valuable contribution to the debate on creating a vision for housing between now and 2040. Again, I congratulate Johann Lamont for bringing in this debate to Parliament, but I also importantly thank the co-operative members who have attended this evening. I hope that we can also ensure that their views and their expertise are also captured as we shape our new housing system for Scotland's future. I again thank you sincerely to everyone who has taken part. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate and I close this meeting of Parliament.


Welcome to Dancer Citizen Live 2018 Moving the Map. I'm Julie B. Johnson, your host and the co-founding editor of The Dancer Citizen. I'm also a presenting artist in today's program. The Dancer Citizen is an online, open-access, scholarly, peer-reviewed journal exploring the work of socially engaged dance artists. Today we present Moving the Map to introduce you to the work of several Dancer citizens around the world. We're thrilled to offer this inaugural, single-day, multiple-sites, live-streamed dance event from Hamburg, Germany, Los Angeles, California, New York, New York, Atlanta, Georgia, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Contributors to the first five issues of The Dancer Citizen were invited into collaborative process with the journal with the aim of more deeply exploring themes that were generated from the issues. The participating artists' contributions demonstrate the power and the range of Dancer citizenship. The participating artists' contributions demonstrate the range of power and possibility of the work of Dancer citizens. Today we begin in Hamburg, Germany with artists Iria Arenas, J.K.L. Collective, and Hannah Schwadrin. Next we take it to New York with artists Heather Harrington, Myra Duarte, and Christina Castro-Touser. We then head over to Atlanta with me, Julie B. Johnson, in collaboration with Storyground, a dance collective, artist-activist Charmaine Minifields, and live music by O.K. Cello. We finish in Los Angeles with artists Allison Weiber and Bernard Brown, and Sonya Destri will make special pop-up appearances from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We invite you the audience to join us on location or via livestream for our performances, workshops, and dialogue. To access the livestream, to view artist bios, to read the full program or learn more about each event, go to www.dancercitizen.org. This is also where you can revisit the archive of the full event at any time, or leave feedback and questions in the comment section on the live stream channel. We'd like to thank our live streaming host, HowlRound. HowlRound is a free and open platform for theater makers worldwide that amplifies progressive, disruptive ideas about the art form and facilitates connections between diverse practitioners. We also thank our generous donors, funding partners, and venues who all helped to make moving the map a reality. We now take you to Hamburg, Germany, with Iria Arenas, Jkl Collective, and Hannah Squadron. Enjoy!


My question is, are you trying to challenge this level or do you want to change to a different course? Do you want to try this level? Yeah, go ahead and we'll start over. And again, for pressure, you're probably good, but YNX lets you row via jump. And then you'll move with either the control stick or the plus control pad. Now that mystery mushroom is going to appear on the left. I would actually, you don't have to, but do you want to be linked? There you go, get that costume. So again, when you play Super Mario Maker, you actually don't know what's going to be in that mystery mushroom until you get it. But the creator of the course had the link of Evo, so he was able to set it as the link. But when you're playing, you just don't know. That's why it's got a question for you. So those red X's again show where other people have fallen. So you're not alone. You're not the first person to die by those plants. We'll be the last, I'm sure. There we go. Costume, you don't actually take on the properties of the character. Running job. This would have been a fun one in the end. It's a new world championship. I've blown some minds. Have you watched those Nintendo World Championships? Yeah. You guys nice. Oh, not late. We actually do have the Nintendo World Championship courses available behind me on all of the television set-ups behind me. So if you would like to try out those Nintendo World Championship courses, just let our lovely demonstrators know. You can reset that mabon by heading up to that elevator. A little pro tip here from having played the course many times. Again, this is what I would call one of the more advanced courses that you can design. It's been very elaborately designed. Some puzzle elements, some platforming elements. But using that original Super Mario Brothers 3 kind of game theme. So it limits what you're able to do. Now, have this course been made in New Super Mario Brothers U? You'd have wall jumping. You could hold pubogs. It would not play nearly the same. Similarly, if you made the course underwater, you'd just be swimming around and it'd be much easier. So again, it really is up to the creator to kind of decide what they want to upload to the course world for the world to try to be. This is Super Mario Maker, just debut, ladies and gentlemen. The first time here.


The point is, we treat people as individuals, we treat people as free, as rational beings, as owning their own mind, owning their own actions. We don't treat people as members of the collective, pawns of the state, and doing my bidding for some common good. It's not the framework. Now, of course, people want to know the concretes, and you hear it, you know, when it comes to drugs, and when it comes to finance, people have asymmetric information. Some people know a lot more about stuff than others. Yeah, that's right. It's a good thing, not a bad thing. That's a feature of specialization. When we specialize, we learn a lot more about a particular topic. And that's a good thing because we often learn more than is known. We expand knowledge, we innovate, we grow a field. That's the beauty of specialization. We can be phenomenally more productive when we specialize than when we're generalists. We know more. As an investment professional, I know more than the people investing with me, who are hiding me because of my specialized knowledge. But the assumption is, and the assumption is always that I will do something bad with the fact that I know more. The assumption is that I will use that asymmetry of information to exploit my customers. I will use that to defraud them. I will use it to be burny made of. And the assumption is always, we're all burny made of, just under the surface. We're all burny made of waiting to rise up and exploit other people, to do harm to other people. Where does that come from? This idea, they were all burny made of, it's like whack them all. You got to keep them bound because anytime they rise up, you got to knock them down because everywhere, everybody's a burny made of. And we need to figure out a top that just lowers everybody down and then they have to ask for a mission to rise. And only when we've cleared them of not being burny made of, or when we've established so many laws, so many controls, so many regulations, that they can't be burny made of because, of course, burny made of existed in a highly regulatory industry. I don't believe burny made of could have existed in a free market. Burny made of was not caught by all the regulations that existed. He was caught ultimately by a hedge fund guy who wrote these memos to SCC, explaining what burny made of was doing. Nothing happened, but he was caught ultimately by a son who told the regulators, told the cops what he was doing. But it's all the regulations, I believe. And if you ask me, I can give you the details that prevented the SCC, the cop in this case, from catching burny made of. So for years, he continued even though several people in the marketplace understood completely what he was doing. So what is it that assumes they were all burny made of? And we'll talk about what we do with the burny made of that actually exist.  Christianity teaches us that we're all sinners. We're all this close to doing something wrong. We're all, if we're left free, if we're left alone, we would all sin all the time. Indeed, everybody is a sinner. That's the whole idea of original sin. And somehow we hold it together and prevent ourselves from sinning because of the imposition of morality by the church. But even then, we're going to sin. And that's why we need the imposition of regulations by the state. So it is the doctrine of original sin that is responsible, to a large extent, for all the regulations that we have. Now, and this is not just original sin. It's more than just Christianity. It's altruism more broadly. Now Christianity is a mother source of all altruism and the one that has driven it into Western thought, Western civilization so thoroughly. But altruism, altruism says. Altruism makes the clear distinction between being good, which is being self-less. Being good means self-less. And being bad, which means selfish. Now what a businessman? A businessman's self-less? No. They must they be. There's only two alternatives. You either good, which means self-less, or you're lying, cheating, stealing, S-O-B. There is no alternative.  Selfishness necessitates lying, cheating, and stealing. And therefore, regulations are there to prevent you from doing what you will inevitably do, to prevent you from just being naturally in quotes selfish. Because that's what businessmen are. And businessmen are essentially crooks, maybe not yet. But if we let them leave them free, they will be crooks. It's just a question of time. Freedom leads to lying, cheating, and stealing. Self-interest leads to lying, cheating, and stealing. Man is depraved. The only thing holding him back is a morality of altruism. Any attempt, any attempt to any move towards selfishness, towards self-interest, towards profit is going to corrupt the soul. And all regulations are trying to do is prevent you from being corrupted, because we know it's going to happen. And prevent you from doing harm that we know is going to happen. So this is deeply, the cause of this is deeply philosophical.  And of course, we've talked about self-interest and why self-interest is not lying, cheating, and stealing. But what about the bad guys? What about the people who use this asymmetry information or to build shoddy buildings, to do pyramid schemes? They're always going to be bad guys. But how is it right to violate the rights of good guys? Because they're going to be some bad guys. Why not just go after the bad guys? Now, yes, people say, but the building has to collapse first before you discover the bad guy. Yes, to some extent, that's true. We can talk about why that wouldn't really happen. But yes, life involves risk. Life involves uncertainty. Bad stuff will happen under freedom. Now, I would argue a lot less than you expect. And a lot less than happens today. Indeed, in a free market, I think I'm convinced. There would be a lot fewer Bernie Madoffs than there are today. Now, there might be a period where there are a lot of them. But then the market would learn, figure out how to protect individuals from bad actors, self-regulate, self-control, and get rid of them. But it would be a learning process. It would be a market-driven process, a process driven by individual self-interest. And indeed, in a free market, the police, the police, whatever they're called, would have a single purpose. Just like in criminal law, I think if we made drugs legal, the police would have more time to focus on murder and on property crimes and actually catch the criminals. They wouldn't have to be diverted by all kinds of victimless crimes. I think the same thing is true, for example, in finance. If the SEC doesn't have to follow me, who is not violating anybody's rights, which they do. They monitor everything that I do. If they can just look for rights violators, if they can just focus on catching criminals, then they will catch them quickly, efficiently, get them off the books, clearly make it clear what the penalty for violating people's rights are, and create a massive disincentive for doing it. Indeed, I think regulations encourage bad guys, encourage fraud, encourage people to try to get around the system. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com.  Also, if you'd like to see the Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


Because people see right through that they know you don't have a buyer in your pocket waiting to see their house never say that Another reason why you're losing So so what's up, man? You're having like 50 conversations a day not getting any emails. Yeah, um I mean are you are you are you asking for them? Okay, okay, then let me let me just ask the question. Why aren't you? I'm following up via phone I guess You call them and then so there where are you getting these leads? Who are they? Who are you calling? So So again Okay, let's role play real quick. You're ready. Who do you what do you want to do circle expirator for sell by owner? Be honest with you. No, like I said, I'm not sure if I want to sell it Okay, yeah, okay, let me break down all of your problems right quick. Okay, everything is focused around a an appointment Okay, everything is focused around an appointment. There's nothing in there that says I care about you I want to know what's going on with you. It's only about the house and how can I see it? That's back. That's backwards from what I teach, which is a After you say how you're doing I like to talk about the weather That opens them up and starts a real conversation. That's not that's not so salesy So you're not using that right there. That's that's a mistake Number two when you dive into why it hasn't sold and everything like that you need to ask them why they're selling This is going to help you connect with them. That's what you want is the connection From there an appointment might be the best thing might not be the best thing But when all you're focused on is the appointment the appointment the appointment you're not gonna you're not gonna get deals Because people see right through that they know you don't have a buyer in your pocket waiting to see their house Never say that Another reason why you're losing and also when you're talking to your mom or dad You need a fear you need to take a second while you're talking to them and take note of that mindset that you're in when you're talking to your mom or dad or brother or cousin How comfortable you are the language the the tone the speed the calmness and That's what you need to bring with you when you're talking to your prospects I know role-playing is a spur-of-the-moment Awkward situation anyway, so I know what you just did with me is not exactly how you do it in real life Understand, okay, but at the same time it kind of it was really dry. It was really scripty. It was like, okay, Ricky Well, what about this? Well, what about that? And I'm thinking You sound like every other agent Certainly not trying to make me feel comfortable or figure out what's best for me. You're just trying to get a deal You feel me and this is why you're losing Like Listen the big I don't know if you watched my video of of the the two questions you asked buyers and sellers Did you see it? Cool. So so the questions the first question is what? See this is where you have to really dive deep into my content man Because this is real stuff that I'm sharing with everybody. It's real stuff that really works The first question is is there an agent that you're gonna work with? Like this person you don't know if this person's mom was the agent they had it listed before or if they have a really good Relationship and they're just taking it off temporarily if they are there's no need going any further I mean that that's a crucial question to see where you stand in the pecking order of a possible Relationship with this prospect to do this deal. The second question is what? You know Listen you can fill them out and see if there's still if the door is still somewhat open for you That's per deal basis. You have to go with how you feel, but it's okay to walk away because guess what business is unlimited You can just go get five more. You don't have to you don't have to try to convert every deal You know I'm saying Work with the people that want to work with you don't force it You know don't feel like you have to do some slick salesman stuff and cut the other agent out of the deal on every single deal You know what I mean?  How are you doing? How's the day whatever you talk about and pay attention to the word you're saying how you're saying them How calm you are how comfortable you are how comfortable they are with you and That's what you have to imitate and you want to get into that same exact mindset when you're talking to these prospects It's like calling your best friend and saying hey, how you doing? Yeah, man. I'm enjoying the day. Isn't it gorgeous out there cool? Well, look, I don't want to take it too much of your time, but a house around the corner just sold I saw yours expired and I didn't know if there's anything in the world I could do for you You know, do you still want to sell it? Why you think it didn't sell? Why do you want to sell cool? Is there an agent that you're gonna work with if you relist it or anything or? Okay, cool. Well, look man. I'd love to work with you When can I come see the house or I love to work with you? You know, is it okay for saying touch? What's your email or whatever? At the end of the day man, are you doing weekly emails? It's a yes or no man. It's a yes or no Big mistake big big huge huge. You're not doing any zero-to-diamond stuff You're not you're not doing any of the philosophy behind the script and how to connect with people and you're not going after email addresses and you're not doing the weekly email and You're struggling So why don't you dive deep into my content?  You're not taking advantage of my free coaching It's right there and it's it's it's it's the holy grail of real estate sales 101 in today's world It's in the course dude. There's a lesson in the course Ricky's weekly email. There's a video tutorial. There's an eat An example of my email There's a link to constant contact where you can start a free trial with them, which is the company I used to do mine and It's all right there Okay. All right, dude. Well, look I got a role because I'm actually working on my weekly email, but Dive into it man, and I'm telling you Get into the mindset man. It's all mindset stuff. That's hurting you right now And it's the way that you're approaching these prospects. It's not dude calling 700 people and talking to 50 is incredible numbers Now if you will just learn that the way you've been doing it is exactly backwards from the way that you need to do it Moving forward and make those adjustments You're gonna start killing it because you're making the cause you're doing the volume now. You just need to refine your approach Got it Definitely got it Yeah, man, everybody


Guarantee that we have results with regards to tax preparation, refunds or things like that, we don't want to create unjustified expectations within the advertisement process. Implying an ability to influence any court, tribunal, regulatory agency or similar body official. So if we're trying to get clients by saying, hey, we have influence over these types of organizations, that isn't a good way to advertise. Either that's prohibited format of advertising. Claiming that specific professional services and current or future periods will be performed for a stated fee, estimated fee or fee range when it is likely at the time of representation that such fee will be substantially increased and the prospect entity is not advised of that likelihood. So if we say, if we start to promise, hey, something might happen in the future, the fee will probably be this in essence or lead them to believe that the fee will be this fee or could be this fear within this range when in actuality it may be different. So in other words, once we start the process, once we go down the road and they're already doing business with us, they may feel kind of locked in at the point in time down in the future when the fee comes down to actually pay at which point it's higher. And that would be unexpected. That would be an unfair form of advertisement as well. Making any other representations that would be likely to cause a reasonable person to misunderstand or be deceived. So that's going to be our general kind of catch off clause here. If there's anything that's intentional that's going to cause some kind of deceit or deceptive practice within the advertising, it is prohibited. Now we have the form of the organization and name. A member may practice public accounting only in a form of organization permitted by law or regulation whose characteristics conform to resolutions of counsel. A member shall not practice public accounting under a firm name that is misleading. Names of one or more past partners may be included in the firm name of a successful organization. So again, typically the convention is to have the names of the partners in the organization. Now if someone has deceased, obviously they may want a legacy kind of thing and have their name still on the organization. That's permitted but once you deviate from that kind of standard practice, that kind of standard rule, if you just pick some other kind of names, you got to be very careful with the naming convention if you're planning on doing public accounting, public practice type of activities such as attestation engagements. A firm may not designate itself as members of the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts, AICPA, unless every CPA owner are members of the institution.