Our next lecture is going to be given by Dr. Peter Klein. Dr. Klein is a professor of economics at the University of Missouri. And his lecture this afternoon is on uncertainty and the entrepreneur. Peter? Well, it's really great to be here with you guys today as the almost the last session of the first day. And I see that most of you have survived. This is a great time of year for me. I enjoyed Professor Hoppe's trip down memory lane in his opening lecture last night. I attended my first Mises University summer conference in 1988 before some of you were born. And here's the remarkable thing. I've attended every single one since. I have not missed one since 1988. The first few as a student and then since 1994 as a faculty member. And, you know, hearing these ideas over and over again from slightly different perspectives, having some time to ruminate on it between conferences. I think I'm finally starting to get it. It took a while to kind of sink in, but this whole human action thing. I don't quite get that, but the rest of it, I think I'm starting to figure out. So don't be troubled if you don't absorb every single nugget of wisdom this week. There's a lot of material being thrown at you very quickly and a lot of it requires some thought and some reflection. And think of this as the starting point for a long intellectual journey and don't a journey that will be fruitful. And you've also made a lot of you'll be making friends and building relationships this week that hopefully will last you for a very long time. I know that I still am very close to people that I met at my very first Mises Institute conference. My subject for today is uncertainty and entrepreneurship. This is somewhat of an unusual topic to have in the core in the first day core of an economics conference. Mainstream economics does not handle uncertainty or entrepreneurship very well. Uncertainty is sometimes not discussed at all. It's typically confused with probabilistic risk, a distinction that I'll emphasize in a few moments. And entrepreneurship is almost entirely absent from mainstream introductory and even intermediate level texts and economics. The entrepreneurship specialist William Baumol once described the entrepreneur echoing Shakespeare's Hamlet as the specter which haunts economic models. Just as Hamlet's father, the ghost of Hamlet's father haunts his mansion, haunts his castle in Denmark. Mainstream economics doesn't quite know what to do with the entrepreneur. There's a general recognition that things like uncertainty and innovation and entrepreneurship must be important somehow. Certainly business people think these things are important. There's a lot of discussion of them in the popular press. We think calling someone an entrepreneur is usually meant as a compliment. But mainstream economists don't quite know how to handle the concepts of uncertainty and entrepreneurship. The Austrian school is an exception to this. Since the very beginnings of the Austrian school in Europe and Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries and in France in the 18th century, and of course in Austria in the 1870s with Karl Manger's principles, the Austrians have taken entrepreneurship and uncertainty very seriously and built these concepts right into the very core of their analysis of basic economic phenomena. Just to remind you of some things you've learned about already today and things you read about in anticipation of coming here, right? Austrians following Mises conceived economics as the study of or the science of human action. Well, what is action as we learned this morning? So the fundamentals of action. Well, Manger in his principles emphasized economic behavior as the employment of means to achieve desired ends. So the concepts of means and ends are fundamental to the analysis of economic behavior, right? Unlike physical objects mentioned by Professor Hoppe last night, human beings do not behave in a sort of random fashion. They're not buffeted about by the winds or the subject of material forces, but rather they have goals, plans, purposes. They use reason and they employ these resources to achieve particular objectives. When human agents, when human actors employ means, they don't know for sure that the desired ends will come about. Right, the very notion of means and ends suggests in the real world that there's some uncertainty about whether the means will in fact achieve the desired end. Why?  So means are employed now in anticipation of ends that will be achieved in the future. Maybe only a few seconds in the future, maybe days or weeks or years in the future, but there's some lapse of time between when the means are employed and when the ends are or are not achieved. Right, so given that we don't know exactly what will happen after that amount of time has elapsed, we cannot be certain that the means we employ will achieve the ends that we desire. Right, because of the passage of time, there's an element of uncertainty in all human action. At least that's the way Mises conceived it. Mises argued that the very idea of action implies some uncertainty, or rather it implies a belief on the part of the actor that the means employed can affect the future. Right, the future is not predetermined in the sense that my choice to act one way or another my action or non-action, I believe, can affect the outcome. It can affect the future. If I thought the future would be the same no matter what I did, I would have no reason to act. Again, this is Mises' argument for how the very concept of action implies some element of uncertainty about the results of that action. When the means we employ do bring about the ends we desired, we characterize our action as successful. Right, but human action can also be unsuccessful. We can think of any number of examples, right, where you wanted to go out and have a good time, so you checked the movie listings and you picked a movie based on, you know, you had a good score on Rotten Tomatoes and you went to the movie and you hated it. Okay, so no, we wouldn't say that there's some sort of inefficiency here. Right, you made a choice to attend the movies based on your knowledge and expectations of the satisfaction you would get from seeing the movie, but it turned out that it's stunk. You disagree with the reviewers or the movie wasn't for you or for whatever reason you didn't like it. Okay, you say, darn, I wish I hadn't done that, I wish I had done something else. Or it's the best movie you've seen ever, it's best period movie period ever, as they say today, and you decide that your means were well employed and your action was successful. Right, we'll talk in a few moments about how these concepts are manifest in a market setting where success and failure can be measured in terms of profits and losses in the monetary unit. Okay, but even before we get to, even in the absence of a monetary economy, we can think of a general notion of successful action and unsuccessful action. Unsuccessful being action that does not bring about in the mind of the actor the ends that were desired. As Mises says in Human Action, the term entrepreneur as used by economic theory means acting man exclusively seen from the aspect of the uncertainty inherent in every action. In other words, all action contains a measure of entrepreneurship. Now what does Mises mean by uncertainty in this concept, in this context? What is uncertainty and is uncertainty the same as risk? Well, some of you may be familiar with Frank Knight's famous 1921 book, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, in which Knight articulated a particular way of thinking about the difference between risk and uncertainty. Knight defined risk in the following way. A situation is risky when we don't know exactly what's going to happen as a result of our action. We don't know exactly what is going to take place tomorrow, but we can name the set of possible outcomes and we can assign some probability weights to each one, rolling a pair of dice, for example. Or to keep it simple, think of a single die. Assume that it's a fair unweighted die. When I roll the die, I don't know exactly what number is going to come up, but if it's a standard die, I know there are six possible outcomes. And each one, the probability of any one number coming up is one sixth. So I can compute the expected value of a particular number, the likelihood of a particular number coming up. If I'm at the casino and I get a certain payoff depending on what number comes up, I can calculate an expected value of participating in that gambling event. Sometimes this notion, this kind of uncertainty is called insurable risk. So Knight argued that when outcomes are unknown but the problem is well-defined, such that we know what could happen and how likely any particular thing is to happen, it's possible to write insurance contracts in which people pool their risks. We'll talk about that in just a moment. Uncertainty, according to Knight, is a situation where we describe the situation where we don't know what's going to happen in the future and we don't even know the set of things that could possibly happen. We cannot even enumerate the list of all possible outcomes. I was reading an article not too long ago about the tsunami in Japan and as some of you may recall, there was a lot of concern about the nuclear reactors in Japan and whether they had been adequately protected against this kind of catastrophic event. New York Times had a long piece on emergency preparedness at these reactor sites and they interviewed one of the engineers who had designed one particular reactor. It's called Fukushima, I think is the name of the town. Fukushima is the name of the reactor. Who had worked on this reactor and the safety protocols in the 1990s and he was trying to explain how they really weren't prepared for this kind of event. They weren't prepared for a tsunami as devastating as the one that occurred. He said, we can only work on precedent and there was no precedent. When I headed the plant, the thought of a tsunami never crossed my mind. So it isn't the case that these safety engineers were thinking, okay, well, here are all the things that could happen.  Strong winds, okay, we got to have thick walls. A little bit of an earthquake, that could be a tsunami. Well, then the whole thing's going to be wiped out. We better build a big wall or we better do X, Y, Z. But we think tsunami is only probability point two. So we can rationally calculate how much we should spend on materials, safety equipment, and so on. The engineer is saying, look, we kind of work by the seat of our pants. We go by experience. There's never been a tsunami like this before. It simply never entered our minds to plan for this kind of event. So the kind of notion of decision making under quote unquote uncertainty that you get in mainstream microeconomics texts, where this simply means the decision maker chooses an action and the outcome is either X1 or X2. X1 has probability point four and X2 has probability point six. And the actor can simply do an expected value calculation and the whole sort of logic of utility maximization or whatever goes all the way through. That kind of analysis simply cannot accommodate a case like this one. Indeed, in the real world, with real human actors interacting with each other, there are many situations where we simply cannot articulate the probabilities and the possible outcomes that might obtain in the future. Now, Mises, while not exactly using the language of night in his distinction between risk and uncertainty, also elaborated this distinction in a slightly different way. Now, Mises was here building on the work of his younger brother, Richard von Mises, who was also a very distinguished scholar and academic in the field of probability theory. Richard von Mises was a very successful mathematician and statistician in Germany and emigrated to the US where he became a full professor of mathematics at Harvard. And Richard von Mises, among other contributions, is known for distinguishing between what he called class probability and case probability. And I want to argue that these are essentially similar to night's distinction between risk and uncertainty. What the Mises brothers described as class probability is a situation in which we have an event that can be conceived as a member of a homogeneous class of similar events. So, again, think about throwing the die. My rolling the die today is an element of the class of people throwing the dice, right? And one way to think about the idea that, you know, the probability that a six will come up is one sixth. How do we know this?   We could roll the dice, so to speak. We could roll the dice over and over and over again and we could actually count how many times each number comes up. And if we did this enough times, in the limit, as the number of trials approaches infinity, the number of the percent of throws that come up with a six will approach one sixth. So, probability for Richard von Mises is defined as the limit value of the frequency with which that outcome occurs in a set of repeated trials. Now, exactly how do we define a class? Well, you can imagine an element of subjectivity here. Again, think about insurance.  I hope that doesn't happen. Do we know this for sure? No. But insurance industry entrepreneurs, by studying the history of house fires and by collecting data on different kinds of houses and different neighborhoods and weather conditions and so on, can say, well, of the houses of certain size built out of certain materials and certain neighborhoods with certain features, certain kinds of air conditioning and heating systems and so on, the likelihood that any one house will catch on fire is about whatever, is P.  So we can write insurance contracts only in cases where we can pool these events into some sort of class where each member of the class shares important characteristics. Other situations by contrast are those in which each event is a unique case where there are no important similarities among the cases such that they can be assembled into a class of similar events. And Richard von Mises called this case probability. So, you know, will my business be successful? Will you learn anything at Mises University this week? Well, I mean, a lot of students have attended Mises University over the last 25 years, but each person is different. Each addition of Mises University is different. Your circumstances are very heterogeneous. You might say that your interaction with your fellow students and with the professors and with the texts and so on is in a sense unique. It's as unique as you are. We can't aggregate you into a class of all students who have attended Mises University, right? So you can't, I think it's very unlikely that you could purchase an insurance contract that says if I don't like Mises U, I get some money back. Okay? So, situations in which events are members of unique classes where each event is a unique case and not part of a class. In those situations, we cannot apply probabilistic reasoning. We can't apply percentages, p-values, and calculate expected values. Rather, human actors rely on something else, what Austrians have typically called understanding. So the entrepreneur has a kind of understanding of what might happen in the future. The entrepreneur has some conjectures, some beliefs about whether his business will be successful, about what consumer demands will be, about what rivals in the marketplace might be doing, anything else that might affect the profitability of a particular venture. But the entrepreneur cannot apply probability calculus to that computation. Rather, the entrepreneur relies on a kind of intuition, what Mises calls a specific, anticipative understanding of the future that cannot be written down as a formula. If you think about it, if entrepreneurial success could be described by a formula or a decision tree for those of you who have studied decision theory under so-called uncertainty, well, then we could all do it. Right? If there were a recipe that we could all follow that would generate entrepreneurial profit with known and measurable risks, well, then anybody could do it. Anybody could be an entrepreneur. But that isn't the nature of entrepreneurship. That isn't the nature of human action under uncertainty. Why does this matter? Well, the entrepreneur is an economic agent who specializes in dealing with uncertainty. The entrepreneur specializes in dealing with uncertainty. Let me explain this first in the most general way and then talk more specifically about the capitalist entrepreneur in a market setting. So what is entrepreneurship in the most general sense? Well, we've already talked in the lectures today about land and labor and capital, for example, in Professor Herbriner's last lecture. Well, if we think of these different participants in the market process exercising particular functions and receiving particular returns, we might classify the factors of production something like this, right? Laborers are those who perform labor services in exchange for payments that we call wages, dollars per hour, you could be paid in apples or whatever. Owners of land allow their land to be used for productive purposes or for consumption in exchange for payments that we call rents. Owners of capital make their capital available to entrepreneurs, to borrowers, in exchange for interest payments. What is it that entrepreneurs do? Well, entrepreneurs bear uncertainty and receive profits and losses. So entrepreneurship is an economic function in the same way that labor is an economic function, in the same way that land and capital are resources or factors of production. Exercising a particular economic function, likewise the entrepreneur, exercises the particular economic function of bearing uncertainty. As we already mentioned, right? Every time you make a decision, every time you act, every time you use scarce means to achieve desired ends, you're anticipating or you're hoping to achieve particular goals and you measure success or failure according to whether or not you satisfy your objectives. Now, in a non-monetary context, like going to the movies, as I explained before, you may measure gains and losses in a purely subjective way, call it psychic profit and loss, something that can't really be measured, something you can't put a number on. Your friend says, well, how much did you enjoy the movie? You're going to say, eight. It's like, well, it was good. It was not so good, whatever. You could make up a scale, right? But that wouldn't actually mean anything. It's like when you go to the doctor, I don't know if this is true, those of you outside the U.S., but when you go to the doctor in the U.S., they often say, well, how bad does it hurt? And then recognizing the absurdity of that question, these little feeling scales with little faces, you've seen that. Ten is a really happy smiley face, and one is a little smiley face in agony. And you're supposed to say, oh, I feel about a six right now. I always thought this was completely ridiculous. But I don't know if I'm a six or a five or what. So in cases like that, we don't have numbers to attach to our profits and losses. But in a monetary economy, in what Mises would call a catalactic setting, the entrepreneur can measure profits and losses in terms, you know, in money, right? So many dollars are gained or lost. I'll come back to that point in just a moment. But notice an important implication of the view that profit and loss are returns that go to the entrepreneur for bearing uncertainty. There's no such notion as sort of a natural rate of profit. Profit is not a rate of return on investment. So in mainstream micro theory, you often hear people talk about sort of the standard rate of profit or the normal rate of profit in an industry or in an economy.  I mean, the notion of normal profits doesn't make any sense in this context, right? I mean, every action, whether it's done by a consumer or whether it's done in the market by a capitalist entrepreneur, will generate some profit or some loss. Could exactly break even. Generate zero profit, right? But the outcome of every entrepreneurial venture will be different. And some will be very successful. Some will be very unsuccessful. They're heterogeneous events that can't be lumped together in some way to say what's sort of a normal rate of profit. So the whole notion of sort of excess profits doesn't make a lot of sense here. You hear politicians say, well, you know, I think a fair rate of return is 5%, and any company that earns more than 5% profit rate should be subject to an excess profits tax. Sometimes they call it a windfall profits tax. I mean, that's just completely arbitrary political posturing. There's no economic science that would be behind a policy like that. Now, entrepreneurs in acting employ resources, right? We all employ resources when we act. Now, these resources could be the things we normally think. I mean, tools, a capitalist entrepreneur has a factory and some machines and so on that are employed to produce lower order goods, et cetera. But even in the absence of tools, I mean, your time as a resource, your own body as a resource, right? It's like, you know, the old expression about being no such thing as a free lunch, right? I mean, there's no such thing as a free lecture, even though you guys didn't have to pay tuition to come here to Mises U, even ignoring travel expense and so on. Being here is not free, right? Sitting in this lecture listening to me now is not free because there's an opportunity cost, right? You couldn't be using your time and your body to achieve some other objective that you would value even more highly than the knowledge you would get from listening to me. As hard as that may be to imagine. And at the end of the lecture, you'll make a determination about whether you think this room was a wise move, right? So we can certainly think of profit and loss in that sense, purely in an opportunity cost sense. Notice this is a very old notion of entrepreneurship that goes back at least to Richard Cantillon or Cantillon for the French pronunciation, who authored the first systematic treatise in economic theory in the 1730s, it was published in 1755, and is usually considered a forerunner or a predecessor to the Austrian school. He said the following, entrepreneurs work for uncertain wages so to speak and all others for certain wages until they have them. The general who has a salary, the courtier who has a pension and the domestic who has wages are in the latter class, meaning not entrepreneurs, but rather those who work for certain wages. They work on a fixed payment, right? Others are entrepreneurs, whether they established themselves with capital to carry on their enterprise or entrepreneurs of their own work without any capital, in other words, with just their time and their body, and they may be considered as living subject to uncertainty. Even beggars and robbers are entrepreneurs of this class. In other words, according to Cantillon, anyone whose economic return is determined by a contract, anyone who receives a fixed payment is not acting as an entrepreneur. Well, anyone whose payment is uncertain in the sense of uncertainty that we've been talking about is an entrepreneur, okay? All of us are entrepreneurs in a general sense in some aspects of our lives. Every time you get out of bed and choose to walk across the street or whatever, you're bearing some uncertainty, right?  We wouldn't describe you as a professional entrepreneur, meaning someone who specializes in bearing particular kinds of uncertainty to get particular kinds of rewards, monetary rewards. So all of us are entrepreneurial in a broad sense, but it is useful to distinguish between this sort of general sense of entrepreneurship and a narrower, more catalactic notion of entrepreneurship. So think of this kind of entrepreneurship as capitalist entrepreneurship. Let's think about the relationship between the capitalist and the entrepreneur. In a market economy, under uncertainty, right capital owners not only bear interest, which is the result of time preference, making funds available in advance for earlier consumption rather than later consumption, but they also earn profit or loss due to uncertainty. In other words, any actor who owns and controls capital goods, capital resources, must make decisions about how these capital goods will be deployed, how they will be used, and these will generate particular economic returns, right? So the business firm can be conceived as sort of the intersection of the capitalist function and the entrepreneur function. So the business firm is the arena in which the capitalist entrepreneur operates. And I think one can easily build a theory of the firm, well, not easily, one can fruitfully build a theory of the firm by integrating, incorporating the capitalist and entrepreneur functions, and to prove it, I will show you this wonderful book. This just goes to show that it can be done, that any bozo can do it, and you can get a book like this. What does Austrian economics say about this integration of the capitalist and the entrepreneur function? Well, the resources that are employed by capitalists are heterogeneous, right? This was emphasized by Professor Herbner in the last lecture, that there are different degrees of specificity and substitutability among capital resources, right? So resources are not identical, and there may be millions, even billions of these resources available in an advanced economy such as ours. The production process takes time. So what is it that entrepreneurs do in a capitalist economy? Well, they assemble these heterogeneous productive resources, these higher order goods or factors of production, and they combine them in various ways to try to generate economic profit, to try to generate revenues in excess of their expenditures on these resources. How do entrepreneurs know what to do? How do they know what resources to acquire, what resource bundles to put together, what consumer goods to produce, whether they're doing it, whether they should do it or not? What's the right way to do it? Well, they perform what Mises called economic calculation, namely comparing the outcome of action, the money revenues that are generated from selling consumer goods in the future against the expenditures from purchasing the capital goods, that must be assembled and used to produce these consumer goods today. Herbner was using the example of the New York Yankees and Derrick Jeter. So the owners of the Yankees are trying to generate revenues in excess of their costs. They try to estimate what's the marginal value of having Derrick Jeter on the team. In other words, how much is it worth to add this particular resource, the labor of Derrick Jeter, to the bundle of other resources we already have, the other players, the equipment, Yankee Stadium, the brand name and so on, how much more revenue will we generate when we add this particular marginal unit of labor when we add Derrick Jeter to our resource bundle? Well, we estimate, we don't know this for sure, but we anticipate that we will generate X additional dollars in revenue from adding Derrick Jeter to the mix or keeping Derrick Jeter in the mix, and that determines the maximum that we're willing to pay for Derrick Jeter's services, adjusted for time preference, for discounting, depending on interest rates. Entrepreneurs are comparing anticipated future receipts against current expenditures for factors, and they can only do this in a monetary setting where they can compare outputs and inputs in a common unit, namely using money. So in a non-monetary setting within the family or Robinson Crusoe and his friend on a deserted island or in a very primitive pre-monetary society, there is kind of a loose and general kind of entrepreneurship in the same sense that you're an entrepreneur when you go to the movies and you're acting as an entrepreneur when you decide to come to this lecture and so on. There is a sort of a loose and general notion of entrepreneurship in those kinds of settings, but in the absence of money, there's no way to perform economic calculation to measure profits and losses in numbers the way the entrepreneur can do in a market setting under catalactic competition. So are the owners of the Yankees right? Are they paying too much for Derek Jeter? Are they getting him, you know, is it a steal to get him however many millions it is? Well, I mean, nobody knows this for certain ahead of time, right, but there is competition among entrepreneurs for the services of unique and substitutable factors of production, right? I mean, baseball, it's easy to see that there are other teams that might also like to have Derek Jeter on their roster. There's competition among owners. They bid against each other for the services of these factors. And of course, not only do entrepreneurs compete with each other in factor markets, they also compete with each other in the markets for consumer goods, right? Attracting people to go to their games and to buy their merchandise and to trying to get advertising revenue from TV broadcasts and so on. So there is competition among entrepreneurs which tends to select for skill, for entrepreneurial skill. Some entrepreneurs are better at anticipating future conditions. Some entrepreneurs have a clearer, a sharper, a better understanding of future market conditions than others. And Austrian economics, as we'll see during the week, offers a lot of unique insights into the nature of competition that are particularly useful for thinking about the theory of the firm. Now, it's worth mentioning a specific kind of entrepreneur that Mises also discusses in Human Action, what Mises calls the promoter, what we might call the entrepreneur promoter. So remember, we've already established that the general function of entrepreneurship is to bear uncertainty and to reap profit or loss. So entrepreneurship is about the deploying scarce means in anticipation of uncertain future rewards. However, in everyday discourse, we often use the term entrepreneur in a different way. And this was true even in the 1940s, as Mises noted. He says, this is quoting from Human Action. Mises says, economics also calls entrepreneurs those who are especially eager, those who are especially eager to profit from adjusting production to the expected changes and conditions. Those who have more initiative, more venturesomeness and a quicker eye than the crowd, the pushing and promoting pioneers of economic improvement. So when we think about those actors, those decision makers who make the market economy go, who introduce all the new products and services that we enjoy, the titans of industry who are responsible for moving the market, we don't necessarily think of the entrepreneur in this general abstract notion of uncertainty bearing, right? So let's put it another way. When you made the decision to come to sit in this lecture relative to something else you could have done, you were acting as an entrepreneur, investing your scarce resources, your time and your body in anticipation of gaining knowledge, which you may or may not gain. So you're acting as an entrepreneur, but I hate to break it to you, but your entrepreneurial action just really isn't that important, okay? You're not very important for the market. For the economy as a whole, your decision to attend or not to attend this lecture doesn't really amount to a whole lot. I'm sorry, I hate to break that to you.  But in terms of, you know, what the stock market is not likely reacting very much to your decision to attend Mises University or not, or to attend this lecture or not. But there are other entrepreneurs like this guy, for example, right? People like Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin and Richard Branson, and we can name these sort of important charismatic movers and shakers, right, important business people whose actions do move the market, who are sort of quantitatively more important to the capitalist economy than you or me, okay? And Mises notes that the term entrepreneur is often used to describe people like that. When we use the word entrepreneur in everyday discourse, when journalists and politicians use the word entrepreneur, they typically don't mean this abstract notion of uncertainty bearing. They mean Steve Jobs, right? They mean people who are clever, who have initiative, particularly adept at anticipating things and so on. Mises says, you know, it's too bad the word entrepreneur is often used for them because that's a different thing than what I'm talking about. Mises says, why don't we use a different word? And he proposes the term promoter. That term hasn't really caught on in the mainstream literature, but it is useful to note that Mises recognizes that the abstract notion of entrepreneurship and the identification of specific people who are very important in the market economy, that those are distinct, those are different things, okay? Who are these promoters? Well, they own and invest capital, substantial quantities of capital. They're particularly alert to opportunities, perceived opportunities to make money in the market. They may be very creative, have strong leadership skills. But again, this is sort of a more loosely defined, historically contingent notion. It's not a praxeological construct, the notion of the promoter. It's sort of an applied, empirical, common sense notion, right? It's very important indeed, but this is distinct from the pure economic function of entrepreneurship. This naturally leads me to say a few words about how entrepreneurship is used in the mainstream literature and economics and management and the popular press and so on. When mainstream commentators talk about the entrepreneur or entrepreneurship, what they really have in mind is what you might call a phenomenon or an outcome, right? So entrepreneurship is being, an entrepreneur is a self-employed person or entrepreneurship is startups, right? Starting up a new business, that's being an entrepreneur. Maybe operating and managing a small business or introducing a new product is being an entrepreneur. Notice that while these activities may very well be entrepreneurial in Mises' sense, there's a difference between describing something as a phenomenon or an outcome and describing it as a function or attribute or characteristic of human behavior, right? In the Austrian perspective, entrepreneurship as uncertainty bearing, investing resources under conditions of uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of human behavior, fundamental aspect of economic behavior. It is manifest in starting a new business or introducing a new product, but not only in those phenomena. In other words, in sort of the mainstream literature, a small company, a new company might be described as entrepreneurial, but once it reaches a certain size, the founder is not an entrepreneur anymore, right? Microsoft is not entrepreneurial because it's a big company, an old company by tech standards, right? Or IBM or GE or whatever. They're not led by entrepreneurs and they're not manifestations of entrepreneurship according to the mainstream literature because they're big, mature companies. Likewise, a self-employed person is an entrepreneur, but if you work for somebody else, you're not an entrepreneur. Well, remember, in the Austrian view, entrepreneurship is not confined to a particular type of firm or a particular employment category, right? Uncertainty bearing and acting as an entrepreneur can be manifest in a variety of circumstances in small firms and big firms, in new firms and old firms. Self-employed people act as entrepreneurs, but employed people who own equity in their organizations, for example, are also uncertainty bearers. Their returns are also not fixed, stipulated by contract, so they act as entrepreneurs as well. In other words, the point is, if we conceive entrepreneurship as something like in the broadest sense acting under uncertainty, or in a narrower sense, this capitalist-entrepreneur sense of the deployment of heterogeneous capital resources in pursuit of money profit, right? That general function does not map one-to-one into particular types of firms or particular market settings or something like that, okay? As a consequence, by the way, it's not at all clear that Austrian entrepreneurship, Austrian-style entrepreneurship is something you can teach, even though you can go over to Barnes & Noble right now and find lots of entrepreneur-for-dummies type books, and you can go across the street to Auburn University or to your own home college university and probably find lots of entrepreneurship courses in the business school, but even maybe in other colleges in engineering and even in social sciences, liberal arts, there are courses in entrepreneurship, teaching people to be entrepreneurs. Now, typically what is done in those courses is small business management skills, accounting and marketing and so on for a small business, or how to write a business plan, how to give an elevator pitch to a venture capitalist. And those are all perfectly valid things to teach, and those are important business skills, management skills that are at least to some degree teachable, but I would argue those are not entrepreneurship, right? That's small business management or whatever it is, or business plan writing, okay? You cannot teach someone to have a, as Mises points it, you cannot teach this specific, anticipated understanding of the future in a classroom setting, okay? Now, if you read in the Austrian literature on entrepreneurship, you find some variety among Austrian writers and sort of fellow travelers of the Austrian school about exactly how the entrepreneurial function should be articulated, okay? So all of the Austrians agree that entrepreneurship is not small business management or startups or self-employment per se, that it's a generalized abstract function, but they have not all conceived it in exactly the same way. Israel Kursner is one of the most important Austrian writers in the field of entrepreneurship, defines entrepreneurship slightly differently from the way that Mises does. He focuses on entrepreneurship as alertness to opportunities, which is sort of, in a way, similar to what Mises calls the promoter, although Kursner's entrepreneur does not own any capital, is sort of the pure entrepreneurship and Kursner's formulation is uncertainty bearing in the absence of investment. It's a concept that I have some difficulties with and have written somewhat critically about, but it's been very influential in the Austrian literature. Likewise, Joseph Schumpeter, who's not really a member of the Austrian school but might be considered a fellow traveler, is sort of Austrian by birth, but more of a Volrasian neoclassical economist and some of you will get the joke of Schumpeter. Schumpeter was a very charismatic and brash, brilliant intellectual, extremely clever and witty and once remarked as a young man that, he said when he first arrived at Vienna, his goal was to become the best economist, best horseman and best lover in all of Vienna, but sadly he had achieved only two of three. If you like, some people have interpreted Schumpeter as giving kind of an Austrian addition to Volrasian general equilibrium theory, classify the entrepreneur as a force that disturbs existing equilibria, somewhat in contrast to Kersner, who conceives of the entrepreneur as an equilibrator who helps to bring markets towards Volrasian equilibrium. But I've argued in my own writings that Mies's view on the entrepreneur is actually quite close to Frank Knight's, articulated in Knight's 1921 book that I already mentioned. Knight uses the term judgment to describe what it is to characterize the entrepreneur's decision-making process, that when one has to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, rather than probabilistic risk, one cannot use kind of a mechanical or mechanistic decision rule, plugging numbers into a probability equation to know what's the right thing to do. Rather one has to use a kind of understanding and Knight used the term judgment to describe this understanding that entrepreneurship is about the exercise of judgment as entrepreneurs deploy resources in anticipation of uncertain future returns. Mies's did not use the term judgment, but I've argued that Mies's concept of the entrepreneur has a very important similarities to Knight's notion of judgment. The point I'm making here is that whether one views the entrepreneurial function as alertness, as new product introduction or innovation, or as judgment, in all of these cases, entrepreneurship is conceived as an economic function, not as a specific individual, not as a specific type of firm, not as a specific job title. Okay, so it's not at all obvious how one would incorporate these general concepts of entrepreneurship into a kind of curriculum where you would teach people how to do it. It's not clear that you can teach people to be alert or teach people to be innovative or teach people to exercise judgment. More likely the contrary is true. Okay, so just click the slide by dropping it. So just a couple of remarks before we stop. I want to stop a minute or two early because Mark Thornton is glouring at me, number one, and also so we have enough time to get to the amphitheater for the picture. It is a lot of policymakers, sort of recognizing that the term entrepreneur, the term entrepreneurship, these terms have a certain cache. They're sort of trendy buzzwords nowadays and everyone wants to have an economy that's more entrepreneurial and policymakers want to encourage more entrepreneurship. If you ask them to articulate exactly what they think entrepreneurship is, they will not give you a very good answer. They don't know what it is, but they know it's good and they want more of it. So what can they do? Is there something they can do to promote it, to bring it about, to make a society more entrepreneurial? Well, I won't surprise you, at least I think it won't surprise you, to know that I'm somewhat skeptical of the ability of government through central planning or through other kinds of intervention to improve, to bring about more entrepreneurship or to target specific industries or people for entrepreneurship. In fact, the reverse is true, that government policy tends to hamper or hinder or distort the entrepreneurial process. One obvious example of this, of course, is credit expansion. And I think it's tomorrow when we get... I think Roger hasn't given his lecture yet. You'll get Roger Garrison tomorrow with a wonderful exposition of the Austrian theory of the business cycle. Some of you have been exposed to this theory before. And essentially it's a theory about entrepreneurial error that central bank credit expansion lowers the interest rate below its natural rate, leading to malinvestment, investment of resources in the wrong activities in lines of business that will not be profitable because there are not enough resources to sustain these projects or to bring them through to completion. Again, we'll have a lot more about that tomorrow and later in the week. But essentially the Austrian business cycle theory is a theory of entrepreneurs making the wrong investments, making investments that are not consistent with the pattern of consumption goods that is desired by consumers. So we talked a moment ago about entrepreneurs performing economic calculation using money prices in a highly inflationary environment where government is interfering with the money supply, where monetary policy is controlled by the state, where relative prices are noisy to use a modern jargon. Makes it much more difficult for entrepreneurs to calculate what are the right investments to make, what resources should be combined, what consumer goods should be produced, and so on. And it goes without saying, write that any attempt to interfere with the market's selection process by protecting particular classes of entrepreneurs from failure, bailouts and subsidies and so on simply hinder the market process of directing resources toward those entrepreneurs who can best use them to satisfy consumer wants. Never forget that when people talk about capitalism as a profit system, that's half true. Capitalism is a profit and loss system. And just as most of us here would argue that government should not interfere with profit seeking, should not tap or limit the returns that an entrepreneur can receive from successful investment. Likewise, you don't cap losses, right? That simply hinders this sort of selection process that we already described. More to the point, programs that are very popular in state and local governments, universities and so on, to target specific people in specific areas and so on for subsidies, special credits and special training programs and subsidized loans and so on. Theoretically, we wouldn't expect those programs to be successful. And there's a lot of empirical evidence suggesting that they're basically just rent seeking. That the returns to public investments in entrepreneurship subsidies are abysmally low. There's a recent book by Josh Lerner called Boulevard of Broken Dreams, which is about the failure of the SBIR program in the US, the Small Business Innovation Research, the Innovation Rewards Program, which tried to give subsidies and subsidized loans to people who applied for them on the grounds that they had great business plans or whatever. The best thing that government policy can do to promote entrepreneurship is to allow for market activity, right? Stable money, property rights, economic freedom and so on, that in an environment of sound money and secure property rights, in a sense, we get just the right amount of entrepreneurship. We don't get people engaged in entrepreneurial ventures who shouldn't be because they got a subsidized government loan. We don't get entrepreneurial ventures frustrated by regulation and antitrust and so on. We get whatever level of entrepreneurship and whatever types of entrepreneurship are consistent with consumer preferences, and that's exactly what we would want. Okay, so I'll stop there. Thank you very much.


in a similar system out in LA. And so I think he's going to acclimate pretty quickly when he's back out there and ready to go. And we'll just keep working with him in meeting rooms and getting as much done as we can with him until he's rib-roaring. I think there's a bad feeling moving all around. Where do you think he's best suited? Where would you like to see him repeating to try to go out the field? Yeah, Coach Fribill sets a great culture around here of expecting versatility and dependability. So wherever we need to plug somebody in, we expect them to be ready to go and be prepared. And I think Dylan's working very hard as a young player to show that and to model that. You know, I think that as we sort through the rest of camp, all that will play itself out. Guys will have opportunities at different spots. And I know Dylan's a hard worker that's going to take advantage of those chances. Place before, but it's been a while. So how much do you look forward to this first preseason game? Yeah, you know, I look forward to any chance of competing, whether it's out here calling plays in the nonscripted periods, you know, or certainly these preseason games. It's a great opportunity for me to improve and for me to knock, you know, some rust off, you know, or to get into some situations that you really can't set up in practice. They just come about in game time. So I always look forward to opportunities to improve. And I know that I can and will and have multiple areas that I'll be able to hone that in. What's the key to that process being smooth during the game? Yeah, communication. I think that's the case across the board, right? Whether it's the players communicating to the guys next to one another, me communicating with the staff, getting directed from the head coach. You know, I think those are all things that are hard to manufacture out here. You know, we don't have headsets on. There's nobody up in the booth. You know, so working through those dynamics, I think will be important for us in this preseason. And certainly something I'm excited to get into a group with. Where will you be, up or down? You know, that'll be discussed with Coach Vrable, but you'll have to find out Friday. Thanks, Todd, that you'll look for in a first preseason game. And do you have any idea at this point, just how much of the starters will go? Yeah, I think I mentioned last time, you know, that'll be all up to powers above me on the food chain, you know, in terms of who goes and who doesn't in playing time. I'm just excited whatever 11 or out there to go play fast, play aggressive, play competitive, be smart and detailed in what they do and play with great effort. And if we see that, we'll have an opportunity to take a step forward as an offense. As a guy who came in here with a great blocking reputation, but he's been making some nice catches out there. You seen some things in that department that impressed you about Tommy? Yeah, Tommy's growing every day.  And certainly as we got him as a rookie in all the extra meeting time we had, I know how dedicated he is. I know how serious he is about the opportunity to be a pro football player. And so we expect Tommy to continue to make strides in every area of his game. There may have been a couple of flashes of him catching balls, but he's improving in a lot of areas. Is Eric Frazier as offensive skill assistant different than wide receiver assistant? Yeah, I think each staff that's kind of a fluid position, right, and what responsibilities you give to that person. Eric's a very dependable and reliable guy that wears a lot of hats. And some days it may be more involved with the receiver room, and some days you may be working a little bit closer with me. But I think that it's probably a fitting title as he's a skill assistant. He's able to help out where he's needed and does a great job with everything we ask him to do. Something that you are happy to give him? Sure, he might be preparing cut-ups for situational football, looking at different two-minute drives, breaking down certain defensive tendencies. And it can be helping with the rotation, with the wide receivers. It's a wide variety of responsibilities. But anything we ask him to do, man, he jumps into it and really sinks his teeth into it, and we're lucky to have him. Who are some of the play callers in your time developing your football acumen? Who are some of the play callers that have been influential? Yeah, I've been really fortunate to be around some great offensive minds. My career started working with Scott Linehan in Minnesota. And Scott really is the guy I credit with teaching me how to develop quarterbacks and how to coach quarterbacks. He was so great with Dante Call Pepper. And then when I went with him to St. Louis and he was the head coach, I popped over to the defense the side of the ball, but I got to watch him kind of manage an offense through some ebbs and flows. I was on the other side of the ball working with Coach Hazlett, but it was a great opportunity for me to see maybe how you navigate a different roster than we had in Minnesota. Then we draft Matthew Stafford in Detroit, and I watched him groom a guy from a baby up to a 5,000-yard passer. And that was very beneficial for me, just watching that kind of growth by Matthew and how Scott handled that. Took input from the quarterback, so Scott is a huge, huge influence on me. I think that as I've had other stops along the way working with Nathaniel Hackett and Buffalo and some of his exposure to the true old-school West Coast offense and some of the past schemes, that was educational for me and a great experience. And then every stop along the way, certainly my time with Arthur was awesome to watch. Arthur and I worked hand in hand on a lot of things. I was fortunate enough that he included me in a lot of the process. And so I got to kind of see how his mind worked and how he stayed patient and things like that. So a lot of guys that I owe a lot to along the way probably don't have time to tell you all their names. I've been in there years at Julio. I've been in my times with play calls to be a bit lengthy. I've heard some of yours to be lengthy also. Is that something that you've ever... Who told you mine are lengthy? I was kidding. I'm just listening. But no, is that something that you ever wonder, like, can that be a little bit of a hindrance to some of the players trying to pick up that play call and know their assignment? You know, there's that fine balance, right? Because sometimes they get lengthy because you're tagging every single player with what their job is, right? And then sometimes you focus on just trying to be efficient and getting in and out of the huddle so that the quarterback can see the defense and have more time at the line of scrimmage. So you try to balance that, you know? And I think, you know, as you get into game plans, sometimes they can tend to get a little bit more wordy because you don't want memorization during the game week. But, you know, that's all part of the process. How's it going up on that?  Yeah, I think it's a play-by-play basis, you know? But yeah, the longer the play call, it's probably one trigger word they're listening for. How's Matt Barkley done in the time he's been in here? What do you want to see from a guy who comes in at the quarterback position two weeks into camp? Yeah, Matt's a pro, you know? And he's been around a lot of different systems. So he's able to, you know, kind of adjust and do some same-as-type concepts. And I think that helps him grow a little bit quicker into a bigger chunk of the playbook here. You know, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, you know, we're looking for backup quarterbacks that'll take care of the football, that'll make good decisions, go to the right spots and be able to run the offense. And thus far, I like what I've seen out of them and I'm excited to see him, you know, get a little bit more exposure and a little bit bigger chunk of the playbook. What's Logan to do those things?  Arthur's an extremely patient guy. Do you believe that Logan can do all those things? You said that you want the backup quarterback to do. How sure am I that Logan can do those things? Yeah, Logan's doing a great job. You know, he's doing a lot of things that we're asking him to do on a consistent level and the things that we need him to improve on, he's working hard to improve. So I'm pleased with where Logan is and, you know, he's shown great dedication to this organization and this system over the last few years and we're excited to watch that battle continue to play out.  I guess maybe having a bigger voice now, you know, in meeting rooms on the practice field, obviously just dealing with the tight ends the last couple of years. What's that been like and how do you kind of pick your spots on when to get a message to guys? Yeah, you know, you don't want to water it down, right? And so I can't go in there or fire on brimstone every meeting. You know, I hope that people would say that I'm a leader and that I am consistent and I definitely enjoy helping guys get from where they're at to a better version of themselves as a player and hopefully as young men.  Scott, did you allow yourself to look at Derrick from the 30,000 foot view as opposed to the game by game, play by play view and what do you think of him and like in the context of the league right now? Yeah, you know, I certainly won't get into comparisons but we're very fortunate to have him. I get to see and have gotten to see Derrick over the last couple of years and how hard he works and how much this game means to him. His competitive spirit and his drive and so the great players that I've been fortunate enough to be around, he has that trait where it kind of transcends the fantasy football stats and the measurables. You know, he's a really important piece to this team and very, very fortunate to be calling plays with him on the roster. Yeah, he's going to keep carving out a role for himself and that's no different than any other back in our running back room. You know, right now training camp is a time where people earn their roles and define their roles and we're asking Darrington to do a lot right now and to carry a heavy workload but that's a great opportunity for him and I think that he's done a nice job with some of the new little wrinkles we've added and new jobs we've asked him to do and we expect him to keep his nose to the ground so he won't keep working. He's more than a third down back. Excuse me? He's more than a third down back. Well, yeah, I think backs have to be in this league.  What's the challenge? Do you think you need to accomplish in camp with how patchwork the offensive line has had to be with all the injuries? You know, we don't look at those injuries as setbacks. We look at them as opportunities and that's not just offensive line, that's anywhere else and so it kind of gives us a chance to streamline things and look at how we would handle things during the season if someone were nicked up, you know, and all comes down to communication. If you can learn to talk to the guy next year and you can work together in combinations and in protections and things like that, we'll be better off for it by the time we get out of camp and we may take a couple of lumps along the way but we'll work through it and stay consistent. You've mentioned you need to take care of the football and have sections notable again today. At what point do they cross the line of teachable moments, getting used to new guys around you and become cause for concern in the preseason? Yeah, they've come in different situations, you know, and some of them are flat out unacceptable. You know, we got to take care of the ball down in the red zone. When we're down there, we can't try to force it into tight windows when the throw isn't there. And then some of them were working two minute drills at the end of the game and you know, we're down on the clock and we got to give somebody an opportunity to go make a play but they're on a case by case basis and I think that as long as the head coach, the offensive coordinator, the quarterback coach and the quarterbacks are all in lockstep on what's acceptable and what's not in terms of putting the ball in harm's way, we'll be okay by the end of it. You know, Ryan's a guy that certainly is history of taking care of the football and logan and matter the same way. So I'm not concerned about it as long as it doesn't become a repeated issue. Thanks guys. Appreciate it. Very quiet question to ask you. It does it in a nice way. Who? Down. His bullshitting ability is amazing. How we doing? How we doing? All right, KB. How encouraged are you by how frequently you guys are getting your hands on the football in practice?   You know, we got to make them count in the games but I'm really impressed with, you know, the defense. The communications been there. The competitive going back and forth, like I said, but I've been impressed. I've been impressed with defense. At the point now where you guys are really looking forward I don't know how much you can play but looking forward to playing against another team and kind of counting the days to the pre-season opener. Absolutely. You know, we didn't have a pre-season last year.  Being in live action, it's going to be pretty fun. Got some old faces down there in Atlanta with Dean Pease and Arthur, so it's going to be good to see those guys as well but I'm more excited to see some of the younger guys. See that some of the younger guys go out there and play their first snaps in the NFL. Guys like Brady Brees and those guys he had an interception today. So I'm really excited to see those guys play. How badly do you need the Tampa Bay? How badly do you guys need the? How badly do you guys need the Tampa Bay practices against obviously one of the better offenses in the league? They just won the Super Bowl in order to know that the transformation is for real. I don't think there's anything about knowing anything is real or not. We'll know that when week one starts. But to have that practice against Tom Brady, obviously the Super Bowl champion should definitely think it's going to be a pretty good measuring stick to see where we are. It's still going to be time to improve even after we play those guys in the pre-season. So we're a long way from week one but at the end of the day, I always enjoy practicing against other teams in previous years. Carolina, the Patriots as well. It's always fun going against those guys because the practices, they're really like the games. I mean, obviously the pre-season game is coming, but we treat those practices like it's game there. So it'll be a good measuring stick for us. Getting back to this game that you have coming up on Friday, what do you tell? You're excited for the younger guys. What do you tell them? Especially as DB, you can't be patient. You can't know what you tell these guys. I tell them to go out there and just play as hard as they can. Obviously in the pre-season, as both teams, we're not going to be showing too much. Not going to run a lot of defenses out there. So it should be easy as far as communication while I was going out there and having fun and playing ball.  Man, those guys I played with are mad. You're out there for a reason. And if coaches or if the NFL didn't feel like you didn't belong, you wouldn't be out here. So God didn't play fun.  What's your intention to Nico Aukter's career before he got here and how much do you think he's going to help the defense? Yeah, I mean, he was in the end, always being disruptive, always in the backfield making plays. Obviously, watching a guy like him, a guy that has so much left. I was joking with him in the locker room not too long ago. I mean, the guy's hands are huge. So he's just a big guy. Things are going to be really disruptive up front with Jeff and those guys. So excited to see him come out here and make some plays for us. So those two guys together, what's the record for everybody else? I mean, it starts up front in the trenches. Any time you can have some disruption on first and second down, especially in a run game, it forces the offense to change up what they're trying to do. Because obviously they're trying to get four or five yards on first down to keep those guys on track. So if you got those big guys down, there's disrupting stuff up front on first and second down. We can really run our third down packages. And we can suddenly have a lot of fun. I mean, guys like him, Jeffery's had a lot of tip passes. I'm pretty sure we'll get the same thing with Danico. So like I said, man, it starts up front. Any time you get those guys dominating up front, it just goes into the back end. And we start having a lot of fun. Start getting some turnovers and things like that. Changes in the secondary. How much does it help in the transition process at the two inside linebackers in Jay, honor, and Shaw, are both back and kind of come steady on that? It's the communication deal with all the different stuff that we run as a defense. We're a multiple defense. Having that continuity with the linebackers helps out a lot, especially for some of the young guys. And we're just trying to see things the same way. Like you said, with a lot of new faces in the DB room, we've been talking about all the off-season communication. But honestly, I've been impressed. The defense has been communicating a lot real well. And I think this first preseason game will be a really good measure stick to see how it is in live action. Where are you going, Jeffery? Obviously, you've got a lot of attention up front. And you just alluded to that. But what have you seen out at Tier, Tars, that your guy may be the guy to fill in for a big one? Just what have you kind of seen from him? I mean, I've seen a guy who's put a lot of work in this off-season. Definitely doesn't look how he looked last year. I mean, obviously, he's not a rookie no more. But he's definitely been disruptive up early in training. He's just been disruptive throughout. And excited for him to see what he has to do, what he's going to do this year. He still has a lot of improvement to make. But to end the day, that's a guy who I've been on, even since last year, just trying to make sure that he's going to keep it going.  But you know, set your own path.  That's a dominant group. So just been on him every single day to make sure that he's continuing to do what he's doing just being consistent. What kind of veteran who's not really fighting for a roster spot necessarily get out of the preseason? Getting better. I don't think just because you're not, nobody really knows that they're fighting for a roster spot anyway. Nothing is promised in this league. You can't take that mentality going to any preseason game as if, like, I'm solidified. Even though that might be the case, there's always things to improve on. That's what I work on every single day. And I talk about it every offseason. I'm trying to improve every part of my game. And as always, plays, even in practice, where I feel like I meet with my coaches and be like, I could have done this better. I could have been a step here, step here. And that's always my mentality. It doesn't matter if it's preseason, offseason, whatever. I'm always trying to improve and get better. Is there anything you didn't get last year because of no preseason that you're looking forward to having this year? Just dress rehearsal. Me personally, there's more contact going out there, making a couple tackles. Obviously, we didn't have in the preseason. But that's the type of stuff that you want to get early. Get them hits out the way. Get some contact out there to feel the speed of a live game. So when the regular season starts, you're ready to go. What have you seen from Chris Jackson in the slot?   He's starting out there in Denver, made a few mistakes. But I mean, his improvement has been really well. Obviously, he can still get better. Him being a rookie, he's having tough work in that slot. I mean, I think slot corner is one of the hard positions to play in the league right now with all the different communications, blitzes, and different things like that. The things he's been able to communicate, the things he'd be able to learn just in a short time, I've been really impressed by that. So I just want to get a change. So you pull Farley aside a couple of times and practices. What are some of the things you're going over with him and where can he really start to make the money? Yeah, I mean, I think he has a lot of athletic ability, even for him coming from, you know, been rehabbing and stuff like that. Watching him being out in the field, he has a lot of athletic ability, has a lot of confidence. Just a couple of times, just in practice, whereas though I think that, you know, if he makes a mistake, kind of gets down on himself. And honestly, I don't think that's a bad thing. I think he just cares a lot. He really does not want to let anybody down. He wouldn't let the coaches down. He doesn't want to let the players down. And that's just me coming to the sideline saying, hey, you know, watch your body language and things like that because I know, I know you don't want to make a mistake, but this is the NFL. This is what happens.  You got to live life on the edge, man. You know, at the end there, you can't be scared to make a mistake. You can't be scared to get beat.   No problem. Appreciate it. What's up? Really? That's interesting. Oh, it's interesting. It's not for me. So we'll kind of keep this tight. And I got to get that from you, so far away. Shane, how encouraged are you by the regularity of which you guys are getting their hands on the football right now? Yeah, I think it's something we've been emphasizing to continue that turnover trend. I mean, it's a technique. Like, there's things that go into it. I think practicing it and seeing it carry over just like anything else has been encouraging. It's just got to continue. Like, we can't lose sight of it. We got to be able to carry it through all the way through up until that first game. And then, obviously, once the season.


Firey horse with a speed of light, the cloud of dust and a hardy high old silver, the lone ranger. At his faithful Indian companion, Tonto, the daring and resourceful masked rider of the planes led the fight for law and order in the early western United States. Nowhere in the pages of history can one find a greater champion of justice. Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. From out of the past come the thundering hoofbeat of the great horse, Silver. The lone ranger rides again. Come on, Silver! Let's go, big fellow! I am Silver! Hey! When Tonto camped alone, he was even more completely hidden than when he made camp with the lone ranger. Tonto was alone in an arroyo and unnoticed by two men who met in a clump of cottonwoods on the level ground a few yards away. Well, here's half the cash ticket. You and Red will get the rest when the job is done. All right, Jico. You just make sure Tonto carries in the tunnel tomorrow morning. We'll do the rest. He's there every morning. He's working the night alone for the time being. There's another angle that maybe you didn't think about, Jico. What's that? Tom Carter's got a wife. If he's killed, won't she and Herod his share of the gold mine? She will if she's alive. Then how can Tom's death help you and Pa now? That didn't concern you, Ticket. Make sure you blast between 10 and 11 tomorrow morning. That's all you had to do. You'll get the blast. There's a very good chance that Dory Carter will be in the tunnel with her husband. That's heavy. I should have known that you and Pa now wouldn't overlook anything. Maybe me and Red should charge him more, being as there will be a double murder. You're hired to place and fire charge a powder, that's all. If anyone is in the tunnel, their death will be accidental. Don't worry, Jico. We won't raise our rates. I'll be around at noon tomorrow to collect a balance that'll be devious. Adios. Adios.  Get up there. Jekyll and Tiger rode in opposite directions. When they were gone, Tonto brought his paint horse out of the arroyo, mounted, raised toward the top of a nearby hill. Get him up, scoundrel. There he built three fires. Towers of smoke were noticed by several people who saw no reason to become excited. They were also seen by a masked man.  There's trouble. All right, Tonto. Send him in. Concealer! The lone ranger held his great horse, Silver, to a steady loop that covered a lot of ground with a minimum of energy. He went through a lush valley then at the top of another hill. Again, he saw the signals rising against the setting sun. Twilight lengthened into darkness, and then, instead of smoke, there were three distant dots of firelight for a beacon. The masked man pushed on through the night, pausing briefly from time to time to give the gallant horse a chance to rest. Morning found him at the burned out fires. Tonto was gone, but the Indian had left tracks that could be followed down the shale-covered mountain. In the side of the mountain, two men watched from their place of concealment. They saw Tonto approach the mouth of a tunnel and look around carefully. How about it, Taggart? Should that drill that red skin? Not yet. Hold it, Red. But he's snooping around. Look, he's right where we got the fuse burning. Shots likely to bring Tom Carter to investigate. It looks to me like the red skins put out the fuse. Wait, Red. He's going away. I still think I ought to shoot him. Ah, let him go. What's the sense in killing someone unless we're paid for it? Getting to his horse. Riding uphill toward the place where he had built signal fires, Tonto saw a powerful white horse and a masked rider coming to meet him. Who's the... Oh, Scottie. He's a big fella. Oh, you... You see signal? Yes, Tonto. What's going on? Three fella. Own goal, mine. Two fella, higher killers, to murder a third one. Look down there. You see entrance to mine? Yes, I see it. Who's supposed to be killed? Young fella who worked mine. Him named Tom Carter. Last set near mouth of tunnel. We better warn him. Uh, him not in tunnel now. We stop him on way to tunnel. Send him to wake and camp. Good for you. You know the men who arranged the murder? Feller named Jekyll, higher two killer. There's a couple of men down there heading for the tunnel. Are those the ones? And then, fella, who set blast. Blast go any minute. Me say fuse, Vernon. Then why are those men heading for the tunnel? Maybe think Tonto put fuse out. You've got to try to stop them. Come on, silver. Get them up, stop. You got matches, haven't you, Tiger? Yeah. I'd like to club that red skin for stepping up the fuse. They don't matter, Red. We can later again. Hey, look. The fuse is burning. Get back, Red. It's almost to the powder. You two, get away. Hurry up, Red. A land slide following a blast swept silver off his feet and through the lone ranger to the ground. The land slide increased in fury. The lone ranger and Tonto and their horses were carried into the valley with a sliding chain of gravel. The lone ranger lay momentarily stunned against a massive boulder. As he regained consciousness, he heard an angry voice on the other side of that boulder.  Carter. Oh, plenty of food. Put gun away. How was the food? Well, it just sent me away from the tunnel. If I'd gone home, my wife wouldn't have been killed. The only reason I don't shoot her right now is because I am to get some information out of you. And you better talk and talk faster. I'll start nipping your ears with lead. And what do you want, no? Why did someone trick my wife into going in the tunnel to go as long as...? Take it easy. Carter. Put the gun down, Tom. Yes. So you're in cahoots with this Indian? The gun. I'm not putting it down. See? You can shoot me if you want, but even if I'm hit, I'll manage to get this Indian. Let's put it this way, Tom. Your finger tightens on that trigger. You might get tunnel, but I'll certainly get you. I'll just talk it over. Oh, him make big mistake. Wife, not in tunnels. And where is she? She's not at home. How do you know that? I was just there. I saw the note that someone sent telling her that she was to meet me inside the tunnel.   Wait there. Yeah. Yeah, that's the way you'd have liked it, huh? I was trying to tell you that your wife was not in the tunnel.  Jacob? No, I can't believe it. He's always been a close friend. I won't believe it. He and Mr. Pornhill Grubbs take me for a long time before I struck gold.  They hired two men to close the tunnel with you and your wife inside. Who are the men? They looked to me like a couple of men who make killing a profession. Where are they now? I think they were caught in a blast. The last I saw of them, they were near the mouth of the tunnel. I think they were trapped with a landslide. Where's my wife? You see her plenty soon. Tom, listen to me.  The only witnesses against them are dead. It'll take a lot to convince me that my back has double-crossed me. It'll take even more to convince the law. That's why everyone must think that you and your wife are dead. Late that afternoon, Sam J. Kew sat in his office with another successful businessman named Henry Pornhill. You example the mountain there, Pornhill? That's right. And it'll take at least two weeks or digging to reopen the tunnel. Two weeks, huh?  My, my. Isn't that a shame? Some men from town are digging around, but they're not getting very far. There's an awful lot of loose rock to be moved. Well, partner, it seems as though we've increased our holdings in a valuable piece of property, huh? What about the men you hired to work for us this morning? What about them? Is there a chance they might talk? Well, I know they don't do business with anyone who's likely to tell everything they know. Uh-huh. Tagging Miss Powell are murderers. They signed confession of a murder they committed a month ago. Oh, I see. They won't turn on me. They don't want to hang. You see, uh, make it a practice to get something I can, uh, all over my associates. You should know that. Yes. I know. How did you get the confession from them? The same way I got one from you, partner. They wanted to borrow money without security. I gave them a loan, took the confession. They know if they don't pay me back, I can hang them. Speaking of the money I borrowed from you... What about it? Are you ready to repay me? No, but I have other security now. I have quite a bit of property. I'd like to give you a mortgage on my property and take back the, uh, document I signed. If you died suddenly... I don't expect to die suddenly. No, but if you did, the sheriff might get that confession. That would be unfortunate, wouldn't it? You'd, uh, better do all you can for now to see that I don't die suddenly. Hey, Mr. Jacob. Well, what do you want? I just came over the mountain while there was that landslide. What about it? I was there a little while ago. Have they broken through to our tunnel? No, sir, but they found two men who'd been buried with the slide. Two men? Yeah. Was Tom Carter one of them? No, sir. One of them was Lefty Taggart and the other was a red-headed fellow that had been seen around town with Taggart. How did they get caught in the landslide? Well, gosh, nobody knows, Mr. Jacob, but they sure was trapped. They're being taken over the corners for burying. What about the tunnel? Well, men are working on it, but it'll take a couple of weeks of digging to get her open.  Yeah, it sure is too bad for Tom Carter. Most unfortunately. I guess there's not much hope for him. Worst of it is, I guess his wife was in there with him.  Well, yes, sir. I'm going right away. I just thought I'd better tell you about Taggart and his friend. Thank you. You heard that, poor man. I heard it. That disposes of those two. Did you have a hand in it? The death of Taggart and Red. No, that was just coincidence. A lucky coincidence. Now then, you better go over to the tunnel and keep an eye on developments. All right. But how soon do you think we can readjust the stock issue? Not until we have proof it cut in his wife or dead. There must be proof, eh? I mean to say that dead bodies will have to be produced. Certainly. Well, I'll get over to the tunnel. I'll keep you posted. Please do. Oh. Yeah? I've been waiting for you to come out of Jekyll's office. Mashed? There's your horse hold saddle and waiting.  Who are you? It doesn't matter. We have a job to do and we need you to help us with it. Get that saddle and keep quiet. But I tell you... You'll get to understand. Yes, yes, I am. Put that knife away. Easy, Silver. They're going to ride between us. But where? And why? What do you want to be? You'll find out. Start your horse. Get up there. Come on, Silver.  The curtain falls on the first act of our Lone Ranger story. Before the next exciting scenes, please permit us to pause for just a few moments. Now to continue our story. Hornel was surprised when the Lone Ranger and Tonto captured him and left the office of his partner, J.Kill. During the ride to a camp in the nearby woods, he regained some of his composure. Oh, so... What's going on, Polar? Bonner, Polel. Sorry, Silver. This is abduction. Is it? You can't get away with it. I don't care who you are. I have a friend, in fact, a partner who will see that you're punished. Indeed. Yes. If anything happens to me, you'll have every lawman in the county searching for you. What's the name of this influential friend? J.Kill. Samuel J.Kill. I dare say you've heard of him. So you think J.Kill will put lawman on my trail? He certainly will. Just as he did in the case of the murderers of his other partner. What do you mean? I'm speaking about Tom Carter. What makes you think he's been murdered? Oh, I'll admit it doesn't look like murder. But you've got to admire J.Kill. He certainly plans things carefully. What do you mean? Your finish will look like an accident, too. My finish? Oh, yes. Didn't I tell you?  Not exactly. How about the pitfalls, I know. Is it ready? Ah, it's already. It's right over this way. Pitfall. There are mountain lions around here, you know, Pawnel. Every so often you'll find a pitfall, someone is dug and bedded in the hope of capturing a mountain lion. It's quite easy to step into one, but practically impossible to get out. Either way, Tutto, I'll bring Mr. Pawnel. Now, wait. Well? Did J.Kill pay you to do this to me? You'll have to figure that out for yourself. Now, wait. For what? I have money. I'll pay it to let me go.  You haven't cash enough in your pocket to interest me, Pawnel. Start walking. I'll get more. More?  Yes, yes. Oh, no, Pawnel. I think the temptation to stay in town might be too strong. But I don't want to die in a pitfall. I don't suppose Tom Carter wanted to die in a tunnel. After all, you'll be better off than he was. You'll have plenty of fresh air and light. You can look at the trees in the sky, hear the birds, while you're starving to death. Here, pitfall. This is it, Pawnel. Lots bigger than a grave, isn't it? Oh, no. Deeper, too.  No, no. Don't put me down there. Please don't. I'll do anything. I'll give you all I have. Give me a hand, Willing Tutto. We'll lower him as gently as possible so he won't break a leg when he lands. I'll take his right hand. No, no. Please. Please don't put me in there. Over, Willing. Don't let me go. Don't drop me. Let him go, Tutto. Help! Pawnel, in this game, there is no mercy. Within an hour, the Lone Ranger and Tutto were back at Jake Hill's office. The masked man entered without bothering to wrap on the door. Jake Hill leaped to his feet. Hold it, Jake Hill. You're covered. I met Pawnel a while ago. I saw you through my window. Rope him, Tutto. If you do nothing of the sort, I... We tried.  Just let me go. There you do this to me. Make it tight, Tutto. What's your idea? What do you want? Pawnel learned a lot from you, Jake Hill. What? Half of a gold mine is better than a third, but the whole is better than a half. So that's it. You taught Pawnel a few things when you planned Tom Carter's death? Who says I planned such a thing? Oh, we needn't discuss that. Put a few more knots in the rope. Let me do it. Here's Pawnel out of his mind. Doesn't he know what'll happen to him if anything happens to me? What will happen to him? He'll hang. That's what'll happen. You tell him that. Tell him the confession will be found. Very interesting. You'd better untie me before I decide to turn that confession over to the law. Perhaps Pawnel has found the confession. He has not. Well, he didn't speak of it when I talked to him. I doubt if he's worried much about it. He'd better worry about it. It will probably be destroyed the same time you are by the same accident. Actually... Perhaps I should say the same fire. What fire? Well, this building will go fast. Once it's started, it'll start quite easily when the candle burns low enough to start the paper burning. Oh, Lord, you can't do that. A moment ago, you told Tom Carter he couldn't rope you.  Put him in the chair, Tullo. I'll get the candle started. No, wait, listen. Let me discuss this. Sorry? I'll pay you more than Pawnel is. I turned down a lot of offers. Don't do this. We can make some sort of deal. Oh, we can't. Is he tied to the chair so he can't get out? I didn't tie it, buddy. Hold on, then, Tullo. No, no, wait. Come back here. You have about ten minutes, Jekyll. It's too bad everyone is digging on the mountainside. One is near enough to hear your cries for help. Goodbye, Jekyll. Him yell plenty loud, huh? He won't yell long. As soon as he sees a knife, he'll use his energy to get out of the ropes. That's right.  The candle burns dangerously close to the paper before he gets out of the ropes. You'll have to help him. Him got a knife. Stay here until he's free. Then you know what to do. I'm going to find the shirt and tell him what's going on. Study easy, Silver. Come on, Silver! The Lone Ranger found Sheriff Kimberley alone in his office and spent some time persuading the lawman to place confidence in a man who wore a mask. He told Kimberley what he knew and what he had done. Then, by the time he had outlined his plans, Tullo arrived with Tom Carter and his wife. Tom, I'm downright happy to see you and Dory alive. Now you can thank this Indian. Oh, Sheriff, I shuddered to think of the narrow escape we had. Tullo, do forgive the things I said when you stopped me and took me to camp. I don't blame you as I do, Dory. I reckon you said a plenty. I did. You see, I got a note that said Tom had been hurt and needed me at the tunnel right away. Tullo stopped me, tied me, and took me to his camp. He'd already met me and sent me to the camp. I see. You didn't stay there, though, Tom. No, I left to go home. When I got there, I saw the note that had been sent to Dory. I knew it was a trick or some sort, so I headed for the tunnel. I was in view of it when the blast let go.  Yes. He told us that Pawn Hill was in a pitfall and Jekyll tied up. Oh, him not tied now. Pawn Hill should be out of the pit by this time. See, there were some heavy timbers on the floor of the hole. He should be able to stand one of them up and climb out. We'll go and look for Jekyll, hmm? Each of those men suspects the other. When they meet, there should be some interesting conversation.  We'd better go to Jekyll's office. Hey, look at the window. Jekyll is coming here. Sure enough. We don't want to be seen here. I'll meet him alone, Sheriff. Yes, but where can we go? Back there in the storeroom. You two talk about it. Come on, Dory. What'll I say to Jekyll? See what he has to say to you. And they're all of you. Hurry. Kimberly, I want to speak to you. Well, come right in, Mr. Jekyll. I'm sorry to hear about your partner and his wife. Yes, it was sad. Very sad. It, well, it makes one realize we're here one day and go on the next. Well, sit down. Sit down. A man should never have anything on his conscience.  That's why I came here, Jav. I've been guilty of shielding a murder. I did it because he was a friend and a partner. But I realized he was wrong. And as a good citizen, it's my duty to turn him over to the law. Who is he? What proof you got? Pawnel. No. Is he a murderer? Yes, Jav. He signed confession. That tells you all about it. Great Scott. Why, this'll hang Pawnel.  Yep. He did it. Of course, you're turning him over to the law because of your conscience. The fact that you get to be the sole owner of the gold mine wouldn't figure anything. Nearly incidental. Now, I suppose it was also incidental that you didn't get bothered by your conscience till Pawnel had used his knowledge of mining to help you. Well... Ah, you're not fooling me, Jaco. Now that you don't need Pawnel any longer, you're getting rid of him. I wonder if you wanted to get rid of Tom and Carter. What would you say, Kimberley? Mm-hmm. Don't like to hear a talk like that. Don't make any charges you can't prove. Nope, I won't. Jaco! You, Pawnel. We're snooking for you. Well, take a good look. I'm right here. Put that gun down, Pawnel. You've got that paper. Yes, and I'm...   I'll talk plenty. Sheriff, you listen to me. Why, you... No! Stay where you are. Don't make a move or I'll shoot. Jaco wants me out of the way, so he'll own all of our gold mine. Well, he paid for the murder of Tom Carter and his wife for the same reason. Yeah.  If you doubt me, Sheriff, you examine the cash in Target's pocket. Set the corners. What about it? Jaco paid Target and Red to blow up the tunnel. He paid a new phone and money. You'll find the money in his cash box.   Now, listen to me, Sheriff. The money in Jaco's box has numbers that are right in series with what he gave Target. Stop it, puddle. You're rid of as far as I am. Maybe so, but I'm due to hang anyway. Well, before they hang me, I'll have a few things to say about you, Jaco. Target and Red are dead because of you. Maybe the law can make a hang in charge of that. How about it, Sheriff? Well, I don't know. If the law can't get rid of Jaco, I can. Let me wait. Don't shoot. Why not? I can only hang one... There you are, Jaco. I'd have got him if you hadn't winged me. Sheriff, that masked man. Jaco sent him to get me. He lies. Now, listen, Sheriff. Panel sent that masked man to burn me alive. He's the one who lies. You did, Panel.  You hired him to throw me in a pitfall so to look like an accident.  That's enough. That's enough. Both of you be quiet. I wasn't hired by either one of you. He worked on his own. Carter. Mrs. Carter. You're surprised to see me alive, aren't you? Sheriff, while we were in the storeroom, Mrs. Carter compared a certain note with some samples of Jaco's handwriting. I think you'll find that Jaco tried to send her to death in the tunnel. That'll help hang him. I guess when all the facts are in, we'll have a plenty on both here. Then, according to the agreement of the partners, who will get the gold mine? As I see it, Tom Carter and his wife will be sole owners. That's what I wanted to confirm. Come on, Carter. The horses are inside. Well, hey, wait. Come back here a minute. Tom, don't let those two leave. We owe our lives to that engine and the masked man. So who was that masked man? Well, where'd he treat us like he did? What's he after? Zakel, it looks to me like he was after you and Pawnel. Andy Shor gotcha. Oh, gosh. I wish that masked man was my partner. Imagine, Dory, being partners with the Lone Ranger. The story you have just heard is a copyrighted feature of the Lone Ranger Incorporated.


You need a financial advisor with the freedom to focus on your specific needs. Whatever your goals, Reed Potter can create a game plan tailored to you. Call Reed at 432-0777 at Pikeville, Kentucky to learn more. As Christmas approaches and children eagerly await the toys they've asked Santa for, it's important for parents to be aware of the toys their children receive. Each year, thousands of children are admitted to the hospital for toy-related injuries more than a third of them under the age of five. So one of the things that we see often after Christmas and kids start to play with their gifts is choking. This is especially true if a parent maybe has not adhered to the warnings or recommendations on a particular toy and it may have small pieces and parts that a very young child should not have access to. While small parts and electrical elements are prominent concerns in children's toys, parents should also be aware of button batteries and recalls to older children's toys they may have obtained secondhand. I think one of the emerging health risks that we're seeing is button batteries in a lot of different toys, whether that's for music or just to operate it. And some of those battery compartments are fairly easy to get into. So just being aware that a button battery, if ingested by a child, can be very serious. It can cause even life-threatening complications. So making sure that things that are operated by batteries of any kind, batteries are stored up in a way, kids can't get access to those compartments. So put like extra tape or something on there, make sure they're screwed in well. The holidays are a time of giving and it is important to be aware of the gifts you are giving to young children. Reading age restrictions and item warnings on packaging is an important step to keeping the holiday season merry and bright for everyone. For Mountain Top News, I'm Kelsea Dean.