Let's start at the beginning. Back in the 1800s through to the 1840s banks at that time actually had the ability to create money. The way they did this was through printing pieces of paper. When you put your coins into the bank they give you a receipt and that receipt would say you've deposited £5. ac yn fan amddir o'r cyfriniadig yw'n gwybod eich bytt animau am y cyfriniad, yn fawr i'r cyfriniad ywplod sydd gennych y cyfrinadau hollwch. yw dweud mai'r cyfriniad o'r cyfriniad felly mae'r bwysig addeg yn cael ei genny. dyna sydd chi'n gofio'r cyfriniad yn y cyfriniad. Rydych chi'n mynd i'r cefnu'r bwysig a'r dafod o'r bwysig hynny eich cyfriniad? achos o'r srfodi o'r rhain oedd y cyfrorth oedd ffír ei wneud y cyfrorth a dyna'n sicrhau am ddaf nhw'n ei particularly o few. Felly, rwyfaint o'r llwy tŷ o'r llwy tŷ o ddefnyddio ydw y cyfrorth o'n llwy tŷ o'r llwy tŷ o ddefnyddio fanれた. Come on, you just issue more pieces of paper with sums of money written on them and people treat them as money then effectively we have the power to create money. The more that we issue the more we can lend and the more we lend the more interest we get. You can imagine with incentives like these it didn't end well. They created too much money and it started to cause instability in the economy it caused banking crises And after a number of years of this happening The government of the day, so it was a Conservative Prime Minister, so Robert Peel, stepped in and said, well we can no longer allow banks to issue paper money because of the problems that it's causing in the economy. So they passed this piece of legislation, the Bank Charter Act, which said from this point on, only the Bank of England will have the authority to create paper money. But they missed something out because paper money isn't the only way that you can make payments. And with the increasing use of checks, people had a way of making payments using the numbers that were in the ledger books of the banks, the accounting entries. So they had this way of making payments without actually needing the real paper or metal money. Over time, as we discovered electricity, we got debit cards, electronic fund transfers and internet banking. So the point now where more than 99% of all the money that changes hands does so electronically. The shocking thing is that even though our monetary system now is electronic, this law has never been updated since 1844, which means that it's just shy of 170 years out of date, the law that actually governs our monetary system. Now the reason that banks can create money is because the liabilities, the accounting entries that they create, are what we are using as money. When you make a debit card, you're not using, you know, there's no 10 pound notes moving from your account to somebody else's account, it's actually just accounting entries between the banks. And this, the Bank of England explains this quite clearly. They say the money-creating sector in the United Kingdom consists of resident banks and building societies. Money-creating organisations issue liabilities that are treated as a media of exchange by others. And those liabilities are the numbers that you see in your account. Now what this has meant is with the sort of, you know, rise of electronic means of payment is that we've reached the point where and most of the money in our economy, broad money comprises liabilities of banks in the form of bank deposits. So most of the money in our economy comprises liabilities of banks in the form of bank deposits. This is when we talk about 97% of the money supply being created by banks, this is what we're talking about. So this chart of the blue line is the bank-issued money supply. This is cash down here at the bottom. So the 3% here, this is 3% of all the money that exists. And then this is the 97% of the money supply that is created by the banking sector. And this 3% is what is covered by the law. And this is the 97% that is ignored by the current laws. So I always found it curious that there's this one part of the state, the police, which is responsible for hunting down and prosecuting anybody who prints their own money privately. Or they call it counterfeiting. And yet there's a whole other part of the state which actually has more resources and more funding to do everything possible to encourage banks, private companies to create money. And I could never really understand why this contradiction was there and why it was good for electronic money to be created by the private banking sector, but bad if anybody's printing paper money. Now, I stumbled across this interview with Paul Fisher on the BBC. When you start printing money, you create some value for yourself. If you can issue £1,000 worth of IOUs to everybody, you've got £1,000 for nothing. And so we do restrict the ability of people to create their own notes in that way. You're protecting us from ourselves? We're protecting you from Charlesons. So he was talking about counterfeiting, but for me the key phrase is this. If you can issue £1,000 worth of IOUs to everybody, you've got £1,000 for nothing. Now what banks do when they make loans is they issue liabilities, IOUs. In the last 10 years alone banks have issued more than a trillion pounds of these new IOUs, these liabilities. Now the something that they got for nothing was a trillion pounds worth of debt, of interest bearing contracts. And this is mortgages, personal loans, business loans. This is debt from us to the banking sector. And as you've seen this morning, the total interest that has to be paid on that debt is a transfer from society to the banking sector of between 108 billion to 217 billion every single year. Now of course some of this comes back to people through the interest on savings accounts and through the bonuses and the commissions and the taxes that banks pay. But it's still a huge amount of this is creamed off in the middle and it's a massive transfer of wealth and it leads to exacerbates inequality. Now I think the economists and the people in government who defend this system and say it's something we should keep and it's something useful. I think they do so because they believe it can be controlled and they believe it can be controlled because they're taught certain stories in economics courses about the money multiplier and that the central bank has control over how much money there is in the economy. We really don't believe it can be controlled and this is one of the reasons why we've settled on this particular style of reform. But the reason it can't be controlled through start, I mean this doesn't look like a money supply that has been controlled. This is something that's out of control. But even Mervyn King has said that the Bank of England's key role has always been to ensure that the economy is supplied with the right quantity of money, neither too much nor too little. For 50 years my predecessors struggled to prevent their being too much so leading to inflation. I found myself in the opposite situation of having to explain that there is too little money in the economy. So this is the most powerful man at one of the most powerful central banks in the world admitting for that the last half a century they have struggled to keep the banks under control, to keep the money supply under control. And if you get an admission like this I think it really shows that the system can't be controlled. The book actually goes into great detail probably about 60 pages explaining why the mechanisms that economists believe can control the money supply no longer work. But fundamentally it's because you have this battle between the desire of the banking sector to create as much money as possible to maximise their profits. Because the more money they create the more they lend, the more they lend the more interest they receive. And the need of the Bank of England to protect the public interest to limit inflation and instability in the economy. And for the last 50 years at least it's been the profit motive of the banks that has won out. So what are the consequences of this? Well firstly we know that banks create too much money. They create this money for the wrong things. So we see the majority of money when it's newly created it goes straight into the housing market and into the financial sector. Very little about 13% over the last 10 years has gone into non-financial businesses. So this is the real economy, the jobs, shops, businesses and factories essentially. And about 10% has gone into credit cards and personal loans, consumer finance. And this has led to financial crisis as Adair Turner said and as we saw this morning. Some of the headlines that have been coming out of the last couple of days are getting worse and worse. Britain is experiencing a worse slump than during the Great Depression. For a while we've been talking about our own recovery growth has been 0.1% and then now we're back into the double dip recession and then we're back into recovery again and now we're back into the triple dip recession. This is a real roller coaster. Global unemployment will reach a record 200 million in 2013. Now 200 million people is nothing useful for those people to be doing really given the situation we're in right now. But there's not enough money, there's not enough numbers in computer systems created by the banking sector to allow those people to do something useful. It's led to massive indebtedness because money is created by banks when they make loans. So as the money supply goes up, the debt goes up as well. And then house prices, an entire generation has been priced out of being able to buy a home. The inequality that we discussed, the instability which is really, really bad for business. You'll always hear economists and lobbyists for the banks saying that the current banking system is good because it provides credit for business and helps the economy to grow. But actually we believe that on net, this current banking system is really harmful for the business economy and for actual wealth creation. It's very environmentally destructive as we talked about this morning. And it's bad for democracy as well. The banks now have more power to shape the economy through their lending than the whole of government. But we have all these MPs scrutinising what the government does and only about 80 board members paying attention to what the banks are doing. And the reason that the system's got to this point is because every time something's gone wrong with the current banking system, the government has stepped in with a safety net or a new support measure to allow the system to continue. And you've seen this at its most extreme over the last sort of five or six years. Now, I want to make the point that this is... Some people assume that if the banking system is structured in a certain way it's because some wise men have sat down and designed it. But the current banking system is, without getting into the evolutionist debate here, there's no signs of intelligent design in the current banking system. It's evolved over time and every time there's been a crisis there's been some new package from the government, some new measure from the Bank of England and things like the bailouts, the funding for lending, all these different schemes to keep the system going. Now, sometimes evolution works out really well and you get something that's quite beautiful and efficient and effective. Sometimes it doesn't work out that well. And there's no prize for guessing which of these two fish represents the banking sector right now. So the thing is, you know if you build your house on sand, it's going to collapse. This is what we have at the moment. We have a banking system that is really built on sand. It doesn't matter how much reinforcement or how much support you do, it's not enough to go to the documents and say, please tread lightly while you're inside the house because it's a bit unstable and if you could lose some weight that would be great too. You have to wipe it away. You have to start again and build something on firm foundations from the ground up and this is what we believe we're doing in the buck. So we have this very dysfunctional system that isn't really working in the interests of the economy or in the interests of society. And my colleague Andrew Jackson, who's done by far the largest part of the work on this book, found this quote which I think really sums up part of the ethos behind the book. A problem is a man made therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. The monetary system is just a collection of rules and laws and computer systems and it's actually remarkably easy to change. The real challenges are the things like the environmental crisis, the water crisis, the energy crisis, the changes that we're going to see over the next 40 years, the growing population. Those are real tangible problems that we need to find real practical ways of dealing with. This is just an artificial monetary system. It's a computer system. So we can't let ourselves be distracted from those big challenges by this artificial, broken, dysfunctional monetary system. So what do we do? Well, I'll take you through these quickly and then we'll go into a bit more detail on each of them. First thing is that we need to remove the power of banks to create money. You need to return that power to a transparent and accountable process. We have money created free of debt. We create money only when inflation is low and stable. We make sure that any new money goes into the real economy instead of into the financial markets and property. And we give us as customers of banks and as members of the public control and transparency over how our money is actually invested. First one, removing the power of banks to create money. Well, I don't want to take you through all the technical details of how this is done. It's explained quite simply in the book but we'll also be releasing in the next month a series of videos that go through step by step if you prefer to see things visually. But just a quick overview. As I said, banks currently have the power to create money because the liabilities that they issue are the money that we use in the economy. So money-creating organisations issue liabilities that are treated as media of exchange by others. We use these liabilities to make payments to each other. In the current system, we're here using the liabilities of these banks to make our payments. And what we do through the particular reforms outlined in the book is that we actually start using money that is created by the Bank of England. So instead of you using a promise to pay from a bank as your way of paying somebody else, you're actually using real electronic money that is being created by the Bank of England. What this means for you as a customer of a bank is that you have two options when you get your salary. You can either say to the bank, look, keep it safe for me. Or you can say to them, I want you to go and invest it for me. I want to get some interest. And if you say you want your money to be kept safe, then this would be put into a transaction account which is effectively the same as a current account now. But the difference between a current account and these new accounts is that your money would actually be at the Bank of England. It would be electronic money stored electronically at the Bank of England. And that would actually be yours. It wouldn't be the banks. They wouldn't be able to play with it, to invest it, to do anything with it. This investment account, what you're actually doing there, is you're giving your electronic money that was created by the Bank, Bank of England, to your bank so that they can then go and lend it to somebody else. And what this does through the fairly simple rule changes and a few accounting changes, this makes banks into what people think they are now, which is intermediaries, middlemen between savers and borrowers. After this reform, what banks will be doing is taking money from savers and investors and actually lending it to borrowers, doing exactly what people think they do now. So with banks no longer having the power to create money, we need to return that power to a transparent and accountable process. You know, we know, I'm sure like everybody is here because they know that we can't trust banks to create money for all the reasons that we've discussed. But I guess you wouldn't trust these people either because the problem is that politicians have the same incentives to abuse the power to create money as the banks do. You know, the more of it they create, the more of an artificial boom they can create in the economy to get people to vote for them. And that's going to end up badly. So what you need to do, the absolute key thing that needs to be done is that you have to separate the decision over how much money is created and what that money is used for because as soon as the same person or the same organisation is making those two decisions, you have a conflict of interest. So what we've suggested is that a new committee, the Money Creation Committee, which would replace the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, becomes responsible for deciding how much the money in the economy needs to increase or decrease by. And the government would be responsible for actually deciding how to get that money into the economy. The really important thing is that you make sure that this Money Creation Committee is sheltered from lobbyists either from the elected government of the day who will have their own objectives for what they want the economy to do, which might line up with the best interests of the economy and from the banks as well. So this whole process needs to be transparent, accountable to Parliament, but we can't have George Osborne calling up the Money Creation Committee and saying, can you put another £100 billion into the economy because I really need a recovery before 2015. Then you need to make sure that money is only created when inflation is low and stable. Let me show you what happens with the current system. Banks increase their lending, which means they're creating more money. This starts to push prices up and they think the economy is healthy so they lend more. They say, wow, look at house prices, we should be lending even more. At this point you're in a bubble, but everybody is convincing themselves it's not a bubble. This is more or less what has happened to the money supply over the last 40 years and particularly over the last 10 years. What was happened with the Money Creation Committee is that they start putting money into the economy and when it starts to cause price rises, so it starts to cause inflation, then they stop. When the inflation goes down, they create money again and then they stop again until things settle out. Instead of when the banks are creating money, the more they create, the more inflation there is and the more they want to create because they think house prices are rising so we can afford to lend more to people to buy houses, the Money Creation Committee actually has a responsibility to stop creating money when it causes inflation. So it's completely the opposite of what the banks will do in that situation. But we often get the question, isn't all Money Creation inflationary? Isn't all Money Creation going to push up prices? Well, it really depends because if you put 40% of all the new money you create into housing and into financial markets, then you're going to expect prices in those markets to go up and we've seen that with housing, we've seen that with the stock market. I don't know if you've seen the newspaper yesterday, but there was a weird headline. First it was, this slump is worse than the Great Depression and beneath that its markets hit four and a half year high. It's like, why is this, why? And it's a symptom of where the money's going and particularly quantitative easing. And if you put instead, put money into non-financial businesses, so into the real economy, then what you're going to do is stimulate that part of the economy. We have two and a half million people at home at the moment doing nothing, they can be employed. And what you'll actually get is economic activity will increase, so the economy will grow. So not all money creation is inflationary. It can actually, if it's put into the right parts of the economy, it can help the economy to grow faster than any sort of inflationary pressure. Okay, we need to create money free of debt. Now, this is one of the most fundamental points of this whole book because the current rules of the monetary system when 97% of all the money we're using is created by banks when they're making loans, it means that the more money we want in the economy, the more debt we have to have. If we've just had a crisis and we need some new money into the economy, then the only real way to get it in there is to have the banks increase our lending, which is why you see such an emphasis now on what we've got to get banks lending again, even though the crisis was caused by people having too much debt. Vice versa, if we want less debt in the economy, then we have to have less money and if we pay our debts, that money is effectively cancelled out. It's just the reverse accounting process of money creation. What we actually need is we need less debt and we need more money in the economy to get out of this current crisis, this current recession. If that's impossible in the current system, as you see here, the two of them are tied together. As the money supply goes up, the debt goes up because basically the money and the debt is the opposite side of the same accounting entry, the same balance sheet. We can expect to see happen if we do have a recovery now with the current system that the debt will rise and eventually this is going to lead to yet another crisis, but it may be much, much worse the next time. What these reforms do is they separate the creation of money from the creation of debt. So when banks are lending, they're actually transferring existing money from a saver to a borrower, but they're not creating money in the process. So the money can be created and money can be used to pay off a lot of the existing debt and also because of some of the other changes that need to be made to the accounting which are explained in the book, it allows us to pay off nearly a trillion pounds of household and personal debt over the course of about 20 years. Now just think about how much of a complete transformation that will make for the lives of most of the people in this country to not have this enormous debt, the personal debt is as high as it's ever been and this changes to the system actually allow this debt to be reduced. So instead of having this annual interest charge on the entire money supply of 108 billion to 217 billion a year, that could be cut down. It could be cut down to possibly half of that, maybe even less. Okay, fifth thing, we need to put money into the real economy. We talked briefly about this, but the way there's about four options that you could use to get this money into the economy and okay so you can spend more in public services, put the money into the government, you can cut taxes, you could pay down the national debt or you could actually just divide it up between people and give it directly to people. So we talk in the book about the combination of these that you would probably want to use and why actually paying down the national debt should be probably the last priority. But the important thing is that all of these things, if they're done right, will get money into the real economy. Whereas what we have now at the moment we have banks most of the money into housing and financial markets and some of this money trickles out of that market into the real economy. What we'd like to see is that as the money comes in, as it's created, it goes to government and then it comes into the real economy first. And then the banks need to borrow that money from people and businesses in the real economy before they can then lend it to, well, either back to the real economy, back to businesses or to housing and to the financial markets. One of the things that we would like to see is that this flow of money into the financial markets into speculation and the trading and that sort of stuff should really be reduced. So six, we need to give ourselves control and transparency over where our money is invested. Now I saw this advert the other day which really made me laugh. Ever wondered where your money goes? This is Lloyd's TSB saying, have you ever wondered where your money goes? I think... Yes, yes. I think they weren't aware of the move your money campaign or how much they were falling into their trap there. Because, no, most people don't think about where their money goes and that's because the bank never tells you. So one of the things that we would do as part of these reforms is require that if you're putting your money into an investment account, you're giving your money up to go and invest it. The banker actually will tell you, we're going to use it for the arms trade, for the oil industry, for tar sands, for investing in businesses or investing in commodity speculation. And some people... We're not naive. Some people won't care about this. They're not going to be bothered. But it means that the people who do care what their money is used for have that option to opt out, to be used in this way and to choose different accounts where their money will be used differently. Is it going to be easy to get this through? Of course not. There's going to be massive opposition and there's huge vested interests. And some of the things that we'll hear over the next few years is these ideas get out into the mainstream, things like it will be inflationary. If you allow the state to create money, that's going to cause inflation. Well, really, this is quite an easy one to answer. And these two is most likely to cause inflation. Banks who want to create as much money as possible because they maximise their profits by creating more or a committee that is responsible for stopping money creation when inflation starts to go up. It's quite a clear choice. And then you'll get, oh, it'll be hyperinflationary. We'll end up like Zimbabwe or Germany in the 1920s. Well, the people making that claim are very ignorant of what actually happened in Zimbabwe and what actually happened in by my republic Germany. Now, in the book, there's a whole appendix on Zimbabwe and other examples where there have been hyperinflations and other examples where states have created money without hyperinflations. But there's a study that we've quoted in there where they go through all 50 recorded hyperinflations in history and found that all of them there's been either an economic collapse or a political collapse or a war before the hyperinflation actually started. It wasn't just because some central bankers started printing money willy nilly. There was some fundamental collapse in the economy before these hyperinflations started. So the idea that this will lead to hyperinflation is, well, very misguided. You'll hear this one all the time. It will drastically reduce the level of credit. We actually heard it from the Independent Commission on Banking and we asked them what they meant by the word drastic. Do they mean like a 10% or a 50%? They didn't really know. They didn't get back to us on that. We also asked them if we could see their calculations or their modelling or the working out that they've done to show that it would be drastic. And funnily enough they didn't get back to us on that either. So this is just a knee-jerk reaction without really understanding the way the system works. The savings products at the moment where people have said I don't need my money for the next 6 or 12 months already today there is enough money in those accounts or enough liabilities to cover all of the investment that is needed in the business economy and to keep people being able to buy houses without pushing house prices up. So there's already enough money out there to provide finance to the bits of the economy that we really need. There might not be enough money to push house prices up 200% in 10 years. There might not be enough money to fund all this speculation in the financial markets. I think that's a good thing. And then you'll hear this one. You'll kill Britain's best industry. We need the banking sector because the taxes they pay pay for our schools and our hospitals and if not we'd all be scratching out or living in the dirt. It's not true. The banking sector in the year that it paid the most tax in history manufacturing in this country paid three times more tax. Does anybody want to take a guess of what this number represents? It's the number of workers in banking relative to the numbers of workers in the rest of the economy. Banking only employs one in every 53 people. So for every one person in banking every one person in this industry not asking them to make changes and not asking them to to reform the way that they do business. There are 52 people in the rest of the economy that are negatively affected by the impacts of this banking sector. So, you know, these reforms are really for the other 98% of the working population. You know, for the businesses and for the people with jobs outside of banking. Now, you should probably qualify this as there's nothing personal about what we're doing against banks or the people who work in them. It's the industry that is the problem. It's the design of the industry and the effects that it's having. And it's not about the people in them. It's about actually changing the rules of the game and the way these companies can operate. You also hear it's too radical which is quite bizarre given that we're just proposing that this law from the 1840s is updated. I can't imagine the Conservatives of 1840s were really considered to be radicals. So, the benefits of reforming. We get stable money. We get this instead of this. We get debt falling like this. Instead of house price bubbles, house prices that will stay flat until earnings have actually caught up and they become affordable again. On employment, I just want to give you one example of how ridiculous this current system is to wrap up with. We have 2.5 million people sat at home doing nothing, desperately looking for a job or to do for a job. We also have things that need doing in the economy. We have schools that need rebuilding. And the government's being sort of dilly-dallying over this school rebuilding program for the last few years saying, well, there's not enough money, we're in a recession, we need to get our public finances under order. And they finally come out and allocated £2 billion for rebuilding schools in England. £2 billion sounds like a lot of money. And it's so much money to borrow it from private finance initiative. So they're actually borrowing money that is created through accounting entries from banks and paying interest on that because they haven't got enough money of their own to fund rebuilding schools. Now, the reason for that, that, according to the BBC, is that this arrangement will spare the Department for Education's mega capital budget, the annual value of which has been halved over this parliament to £3.8 billion. So £3.8 billion for rebuilding schools and keeping this whole education system, you know, the actual physical infrastructure of this in order. Again, sounds like a lot of money, but this green line at the top here is how much money has been put into mortgages and consumer finance over the last 20 odd years. In June 1999, the banks created £4.5 billion of new money in one month to put into the property market. Into buying existing houses and building a few new ones. In July 2005, they created £7 billion in one month. And then in September 2007, they created £16 billion in one month to go into property. So in the space of one week, they've created as much money as the government is willing to spend on rebuilding schools in an entire year. Now, this is crazy. If we give banks the power to create money, this is what they're going to do. They're going to put it into markets like this instead of doing things that we actually need to do. And as I said before, we can't allow this system to continue working the way it is, given the real challenges that we're going to face over the next 40 years. So this is what the book is about. It can be heavy going at parts. We've had to kind of design it partly for the economists who would normally dismiss these sort of ideas, but we have tried to write it so that if you're not, if you don't have that background in economics, if you start from the beginning, your knowledge will build up and this will really start to make sense. And if you get to the end, then you will know more about the monetary system than 99% of professional economists. So yeah, so this is it. This is what we need to do. The pressure is really on because of the real challenges that we're facing. And it really is. I mean this movement in this country is by far the strongest in the world. The people in this room, this is the biggest gathering that I know of for reforming the monetary system. So if we don't do it, then nobody else is going to push it through. So it's really down to us. So that's what the rest of this afternoon is going to be about and how we really change the system.


Welcome back to today's vlog here at the treehouse and beyond we have an interesting delivery here today I just can't wait to see my wife's reaction here in about an hour So thank you guys for tuning in and today's vlog is sponsored by Dr. Squatch Big thanks to Dr. Squatch for sponsoring this video because this is something that I have actually used for years If you're one of those guys that thinks soap is just soap and you haven't tried Dr. Squatch For the most part guys, I live a pretty organic life. I catch my own fish that I eat.  Let's me know that it's working. I love the pine tar It's got oatmeal and sand in it. Trust me You will feel it when you're scrubbing but they have other ones that are zero grit that are less abrasive You've got to try Dr. Squatch all your skin will thank you your lady will love you and Dr. Squatch offers a 100% money back guarantee you don't think it's the best soap that you've ever used So if you want to feel like a man and smell like a champion Use the link in the description and use my code DSQ lake fork.  I got an elk of a lifetime. I was like, there's no there's no way I can't get this mounted. So I was thinking this might be like a year Maybe a year and a half. Maybe even like two years to do this thing And I might even be in a different house at that time. We not not only do we have Short ceilings we have eight foot ceilings, but I have pretty much filled it to the brim with with mounts There's really there's just there's just no more room and with today's interest rates I don't think we're gonna be moving for many years So one day we'll have that house where there'll be maybe a place to put an elk or some Large American game up on the wall, but right now we just don't so I have a Gynormous elk that is going to be delivered here in the next hour or so OSG has never seen one of these things up close. I just have nowhere to put it So we got to figure out where we're gonna put this thing. Let's do a quick check and check So I did a little bit of experiment earlier Taking one of the smaller birds that are about eight or nine weeks old now And just putting them in here with the adult birds And that did not go over too well Little penny rooster buddy. He does this weird sideways like dance walk thing When uh when he gets around some other chickens sometimes and he started he started doing it It's like he's getting pretty defensive Oh, well, are you getting defensive on me bud? Are you getting defensive on me? Look at that.   Is that what you're doing? Look at that I've I've never seen him get like this aggressive. I guess it's because I put these chicks in here Today and just got him in a mood Welcome to our house of chaos House of chaos. We're in the look at this place Sometimes followed with injuries Standing standing almost You did a backflip Amy Good job high five You're back flippin on everything now and we got Little pooter here. He's walking. He's pushing. He's pushing around everything.  I feel like I'm getting beat up on daily so, um, I came up here to kind of for me that uh There's a large American game animal That's going to be showing up here today. It's not a full body mount that goodness, but it's shoulder mount and uh You have you ever seen an elk live like up close? I have you have where is that when we went to the grand canyon they were just walking around Let's see how much I've seen them time check. There should be one here in about 10 minutes that is uh It's it's a trophy class Bull elk very large. Where are we putting this? I don't I don't know. He's probably gonna take up yet another parking spot in the garage. I don't know so I know. Yeah, we're gonna have to just keep your car out forever. Yeah, it's never coming back in. No, I would never I've never put the elk in the garage because it would it would fall apart So our house is kind of interesting that it's uh, it's like an old Lake home type type deal It's kind of an odd construction So there there's like one spot where there could possibly be a mount that I thought about but but no There's baskets there right now, and I still don't think it would be big enough actually So then if we shift over here If you look up here, this is kind of like the whitetail establishment There's most of my Good whitetail deer that I've got. There's my first uh low fence 140 deer, um, there's uncle Herschel You know big old mature crazy eight point Um, and then we've got you know a taste of Africa out there You know at first I was thinking well Maybe there's a chance that we've when we first we've been here that If I ever get an elk, maybe it could go right here, but We have filled that we have filled it up And also the outstretched arm to hang that thing Uh, dad would be going down dad would be going down the stairs.  So there's there's really Unless it could go in the bedroom. It's not going in the bedroom. I don't want to look at it when I'm sleeping Would it fit right here? If we took that I don't see here's the prop. Here's the problem But I think I think we have what's called a sneak position Or that's kind of like it's kind of like Looking out And I did that because the antlers are going to be really tall It's also just kind of a cool position But I I honestly think like the seeding fan might get in the way there So we'd love to put it up here. It's the room of collections and uh adventures and things like that, but yeah, yeah No such room Plus I would hate for old unibrow You know uncle Herschel to like have to look at that elk every day can be like jealous, you know what I mean? Like man What a stud The antlers are coming The antlers are coming Sorry, we got little kiddos running around so you set it right in the litter here and it's fine Can you ship it fine? Yeah, want to park it?  Oh now I heard you crying I first looked at a baby bin and I was like, no, I had him. I was confused He gets you Wow Okay, well now we need to think of a name Uh Antlerly Antlerly Yeah, that'd be a good name So, you know, some people get like a floor pedestal mount where the chest is like on the ground But um No, you just leave it there You just want to leave it there just looking straight up Yeah, that's a play put You see what I'm talking about how far extends out from the wall Yeah Like it's it's not like a deer where it's only like a couple feet Well, let's not put your feet on it, Amy girl What? Bin's trying to climb in here Bin's just crawling on the antler and they'll be careful a little bud, okay? Some of these are kind of sharp Hey, it would be really cool if we had a house with a chimney or a fireplace Uh, you know, one day One day We have no we have no fireplace But uh, I think, I think, oh boy, here is definitely It's going to be at my house Where do you think I should put it?  Mm-hmm Or where the other little deer is? Yeah So you think this would be an archery target?  Just right when you come in the house That's right when you walk in Try to try to grab one of the antlers and put it on here Like see what it would even do Yeah, it's going to hit the ceiling From here and this is like love You know what I mean? Yeah, that's not happening There's no way There's no way You know, you got to love a misplaced, uh, mount Randomly misplaced Just to try to give you the scope of how big this is compared to a whitetail Let me just grab one of these guys This is, I think, Stephanie's Yeah, this is Stephanie's eight-point that she shot this past season Don't worry about it Three and a half four-year-old, uh, whitetail from Texas right here You know, antler size, I mean, what in the world? Look how silly this would look Just the antlers, honestly Is that not nuts? Obviously I can keep it here But it would just be on the floor Getting in the way Our house is just way too small You know, it needs to be done justice by hanging on a wall somewhere where, you know, I can look at it every once in a while People can appreciate it It's such a cool animal But I at least want to put the antlers on right here and just try to try to get a scope of it Like it really does look like a jumbo jump for the kids Baby inside of a 350 inch bull elk If a bull elk actually got angry with you and wanted to toss you around it'd be pretty dangerous All right big boy, we're gonna find a home for you Okay, everybody welcome to the official offices Uh here and we are sitting here In front of Matt's office Right here. I have a lag bolt They're metal studs, so we might have to Metal studs Okay, all right. Well, Grant's here. He's an expert at this stuff.  All right, so there's something new in the office Okay, I wanted to see oh boy. I think I know what this is. If you know what it is We talked about this right from vichigan. Where you going? Where's where's it at? Well, we gotta push Oh my god Wait see just see it How did you not see that going to the office? I don't know. I guess I was focused on getting to my office You get to talk to them every day Feel the power of the bull It fits the office. It's bull power Marnish you got Fresh rosemary from your backyard garden. Yeah, my rosemary is uh It's dying in this, Texas. See what I'm glad you put it to good use Oh, I need to try some elk Are you gonna try some? What do you think about elk versus whitetail? What do I think about it?  Yeah It's all the ground elk. It crumbles so nicely. Wait, you just want to get in there. You want to put your face in there?  Oh my goodness that is delicious Y'all, I wish elk were as plentiful as whitetail Can we bring back those days when they just We're in the pastures in the fields and the plains Come on Bureau of wildlife and management wildlife whatever Let's make that happen So I am about to chow down on some delicious elk steaks And what else you got here? Bacon wrapped asparagus and little potatoes with some macaroni and cheese my goodness Thank you guys for tuning in to another Vlog I think from now on this year, honey. I mean I If I it's gonna have to be a megalodon Whitetail for me to do any sort of shoulder mount everything from here on out Um, I'm basically just gonna do a European mount or Not even maybe I mean I'm kind of taking a different approach this year You know going more of the national approach. I'm gonna keep more more of my highs I'm gonna keep my tendons and all that stuff you guys have been seeing me Uh getting into the bow making process. It's all it's all a part of it So a little bit different approach this year, but we still have um a little bit of elk left and uh We got some whitetail left here from last season, but it's about time to start all over again Thank you guys for tuning in. Thank you for doctor's watch for sponsoring today's video and god bless you godspeed We'll see you on the next one


Only five games on the slate for tonight in Daily Fantasy Baseball.  Today, that is not the case. We've still got really good pitching options, some fun stacks. So even though it's a five game slate, it's gonna have the scoring, I think, of a bigger one. We're gonna break down what this slaytest offer, where we can find that upside and how to build good lineups over on FanDuel.com. Welcome on into the solo shop. That's right here on the FanDuel Podcast Network and NumberFire.com. My name is Jim Saunas. I am a senior writer and analyst for NumberFire here to break down Thursday's five game main slate with lock set for 6.40 p.m. Eastern for today. The lock moved up to 6.40, making a four game slate. I'm assuming fewer games tonight because of the NFL draft. But again, as I said, not a bad slate, regardless. No weather notes for today. We are good to go there. Pretty cool temperatures across the board. So the downsides of that lesser than usual, there is one game with temperatures in the 70s that is likely indoors in Arlington. So outside of that, just kind of play things straight up and go where your heart desires. We'll dig into this slate here in just one second, but first a reminder to make sure you're subscribed to the NumberFire Daily Fantasy Podcast Feed, wherever you get your podcasts for PGA, MLB, and UFC podcasts for select events all in the same podcast feed. Just search for the NumberFire Daily Fantasy Podcast Feed on your podcast catcher of choice. Hit subscribe and if you like what you hear, leave us a five-star rating. And for the solo shot, you can also find us over on the FanDuel YouTube page. I would appreciate those of you watching over there. Hit a thumbs up if you are watching over on YouTube as always. The NBA playoffs are here and you can turn crossovers into cash with FanDuel. Just visit FanDuel right now and place a $5 bet. You can instant $150 in bonus bets, win or lose. There's no better place to bet all the playoff action than America's number one sports book. Just go to FanDuel and sign up to get $150 in bonus bets when you bet your first $5. FanDuel, official sports betting partner of the NBA must be 21 plus and president select states. FanDuel is offering online sports wagering in Kansas under an agreement with Kansas Star Casino, LLC. Bonus issued is non with trouble bonus bets that expire seven days after receipt. We're sure can supply and see terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling problem, call 1-800-Gambler or visit fanduel.com slash RG. Massachusetts Hope is here. Gambling help line MA.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER> for 24 seven support. In Arizona, 1-800-NEXT-STEP or TEXT-NEXT-STEP to 533-42 in New York, 1-877-AHOPENWIRETEXTOPENWIRE in Connecticut, 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org slash chat. In Indiana, 1-800-9 with it. In Wyoming and Kansas, 1-800-522-4700 or in Kansas, ksgamblinghealth.com. Louisiana is 1-877-770-STOP in Maryland, mdgamblinghealth.org and in West Virginia, go to 1-800-gambler.net. Pitching preview for this Thursday main slate, Garrett Cole headlines this slate. He comes in with a salary of $11,600. Shane McClanahan is at 11-3 with Cal Gibson to 10-2. Dylan Cease facing McClanahan is at 99. We have Tyler Malley, Andrew Heaney and Joey Lucchese as the others at $8,000 or higher. On tonight's slate, we have Shane McClanahan and Dylan Cease facing each other and they just faced each other back on Saturday, which means both the opposing offenses have just seen these guys. And as you know, I view that as being a pretty big negative of that familiarity with those pitchers despite the fact that McClanahan dusted the White Sox in that game. But what that does is it makes it a lot easier to put Garrett Cole at the top of our list and log out. Cole is facing the Rangers. They're not the same threat as Cease faced with the Rays. 96 WRC plus against Rides on the current active roster since the start of last year, 24% strikeout rate, 8% walk rate. So this might be the best matchup Cole has had so far this year. His first four starts have come against the Phillies, Twins, Guardians and Blue Jays. All four teams having a WRC plus of one-on-one or higher against Rides since the start of last year. The Rangers have the highest strikeout rate of that group as well. And despite facing some lower strikeout teams like the Guardians, Cole has still gotten whiffs. He has a 29% strikeout rate through four starts with a 12% swinging strike rate. He's doing a good job of limiting impactful contact as well. The barrel rate there is super low. I have Cole projected for 7.9 strikeouts tonight. That is the top mark on the slate by about 0.6 I believe strikeouts above the pack. So I think we should feel good about ranking Cole highest and making him the number one guy. That may seem obvious, but honestly, I'm okay with obvious if it is correct. And I think that Cole is the correct call for tonight. So he will be my top pitcher for tonight. Now with McClanahan and Cease, as mentioned, they're facing each other again, which means both offenses just saw them. It's not going to be enough to push them outside of our top two, but it does hurt them. McClanahan, as mentioned, torched the White Sox whereas Cease struggled against the Rays, but Cease now has a lower salary, much lower salary, likely a lower roster rate because he's underdog here and he is at home. I think that gives us leeway to rank Cease a hair ahead of McClanahan for tournaments. Now in that first matchup, Cease went four innings, three in runs, five strikeouts. That is not ideal and his swinging strike rate was low, potentially as a result of lower velocity. That velocity is the biggest red flag for me with Cease because in that one start, he's only had one start this year so far where he's had velocity on par with what he had last year. And that was his first start this year, 10 strikeouts against the Astros. Really good showing there. In the other three starts he has made, he has had no more than eight strikeouts and that's always a red flag where if the velocity is down, swinging strike rates down, it means it's not, he's like tinkering with like his velocity to get some widths and stuff like that. It could mean there's an injury there, but his velocity against the raise last time that was better than what it had then previously. So I think that that's encouraging. It was also outdoor or indoors and as was the Houston game, which could mean that the lower velocity was due to temperature. Not thinking that's entirely the case, but like it is at least a possibility. And the White Sox don't seem to be concerned about an injury here because they're letting Cease go deep in games. He's gone 113 and 102 pitches across his past two starts. So it's possible he's a typical Dylan Cease, but just in some kind of weird sort of slump and he can snap out of that in a hurry. It is 50 degrees for tonight in Chicago, which is bad for velocity for Cease. So I'd expect it to be in the 95 range once again, but it's also bad for hitting, which helps him too. ISC is projected for 7.1 strikeouts tonight. That ranks second on the slate behind just Garrett Cole. I'm gonna put Cease second right behind Cole, but it's strictly for tournaments. I think that that is the requirement here because of the velocity, because of the AP matchup. I think that we have to put Cease as a tournament only option, whereas Cole is viable for cash games. And I think that he's where I would turn there. So to me, it's Cole one, Cease two for tournaments, McLean to him three for tournaments for tonight. I think our value play here on this slate is the pretty easy call. That's Tyler Malley at home against the Royals. And I think he checks a lot of boxes. The cool temperatures in Minneapolis for today, that'll hurt hitting. And Malley looked okay so far this year. He has a new slider and in four starts with that new slider. He has a 3.74 skill interactive ERA. His strikeout rate is 25%. And he's had good results too, not just good peripherals. His ERA is 3.32. That hasn't always led to big individual gains for Cease. He had a good matchup last week at home against the Nats and in that game, six and one third innings, but just four strikeouts. He did have seven in one game, but he hasn't been pushing for double digits. Like you see with Cole, Cease and McLeanahan. So I like their upside first nine. That's why I'm on them primarily. I have Malley projected for 5.9 strikeouts. We do have, that is lower than Cole, Cease and McLeanahan. And also lower than Julie LeCasey. We'll talk about in things to watch. Those are the only guys above him though. He's at home facing a pretty weak offense that has been brutal so far this year. I think those things align low enough to make Malley a fine option as a value for today. Do you prefer the studs? So we'll be there more often, but I think Malley is at least worth a look if you think that the Rays and White Sox get to the opposing guys and given the way if you match up or if Cole struggled, which does sometimes happen. I think there's a path to Malley being good. Just would need those things to happen in order to get there. Let's move now to the stacks for today. I think the pitching is a hair better than stacks, but stacks not too bad either. And that begins in Baltimore. They're facing Joey Wentz tonight and Wentz is letting up some dangerous batted balls. And I think that makes the Orioles a good stack here. We're up to four starts on Wentz in 2023. His fly ball rate is 54% with a 39% hard hit rate. Those are pretty tough numbers and it's reflected inside his results. His ERA 7.56, if skill interactive ERA is 5.38. And we saw this last year with Wentz too, just not quite to the exact same extent. He let up a 35% hard hit rate with a 43% fly ball rate across last year. And the reason that's a big concern is because Wentz is not a major strikeout guy. So he doesn't have the leeway to struggle with hard contact and get good results. But it's still happening. The Orioles not as good against lefties as they are against righties. So I don't think it's a great matchup in that regard. It's also in Detroit for tonight, which means it's a little bit cooler than it would be if this game were in Baltimore with the temperatures at just 56 degrees. But I still think there's enough there to make the Orioles a good high upside option for tonight. Now the bummer here is I don't think they'll have Austin Hayes, he got banged up and it sounds like it'll be a multi-day thing. So I am expecting Austin Hayes to sit. Can he hit lefties well? So that's kind of a bummer. But there are a lot of non-elite guys on this team who do hit lefties well, even if we take Hayes out of the equation. Ryan Malcastle, not a secondary guy by any means, but crushes lefties. Ryan McKenna, if he plays, Jorge Mateo, Ramon Urias to an extent. All those guys pretty good against lefties. And that's in addition to Anthony Santander who has a little salary, but is very, very good. So it does hurt to not have Austin Hayes here, but I still think they're worth it. If Hayes does play, sweet, I'll use him. But I am going into this late, assuming Hayes will not play and still okay with the Orioles, despite that. Number two stack will be the Mets. They're facing Trevor Williams who's had good results so far this year. His ERA is 3.38. The underlying data, not as pretty. I think it allows us to stack the Mets for tonight. Not many strikeouts for Williams so far. He has a 15% strikeout rate so far. He has a 7.3% swinging strike rate. And that says to me that strikeout rate at 15% is likely going to stay pretty low. He's doing that while letting up a 13% barrel rate. Now, barrel rate doesn't stabilize super quickly for pitchers so that could be unlucky. And his hard hit rate is 32%, which is pretty good. But Williams does let up a lot of fly balls. So if he lets up any hard contact, it can get into trouble pretty fast. Obviously with the low ERA, that doesn't happen yet so far this year, which is impressive because he did have a start at Coorsfield. He has let up no more than three runs in any game so far. So that's good. He's been impressive so far. I just remain skeptical that it's sustainable based on what the underlying data says. The Mets will be a good test of this. They have a 122 WRC plus against righties. Good power numbers. And I think we should look to stack them here and feel good about the Mets in this spot. I think now's a good time to check in on Brett Beatty because he's had some sample in the majors. He struck out a bit more than you'd like. That's kind of the big thing for me. He's making decent contact, but not really putting it in the air. He can still basis so he doesn't necessarily need to hit for power to be viable for DFS, but I'm still tepid here is what I would say. I'm fine with him for sure because, you know, we do need to save some salary, get to coal. Beatty's salary is $2400. If you wanna get there, use a really fun guy, make it a bit easier. I'm okay with that. But I wanna see a bit more before I get jazz personally, especially while he's hitting lower in the order. So a bit more meh on Beatty for right now. I do think that Dan Vogelbach could be a good value player, 28, not the best start for him so far this year, but that could be a way to go for some value. So I think that works out strongly. Marte playing pretty well so far this year. Obviously the stolen bases are always a threat. So I would go with Marte Vogelbach ahead of Beatty as far as value plays for tonight. Final stack is gonna be the twins facing Zach Greenke, who is getting more strikeouts this year. I actually took the over on his strikeout prompt for today, which is definitely a good thing, but he's also letting up more hard contact. And I think that allows us to stack the twins against him. Greenke has added a sinker into the mix and he's weirdly had the reverse outcome you'd expect when you add a sinker. Usually the strikeout rate goes down and the bad at ball data gets better. But for Greenke, his strikeout rate is up about 4% of points, whereas his hard hit rate is up more than two ticks. The ground ball rate is down two ticks and it's led to a 5.43 expected ERA. His actual ERA is 4.61, so the results have not been perfect either. In Greenke's defense, he has had some tough matches, but the twins I think are on their way back to being that once again, because they're getting guys back off the YAL and it seems to be helping quite a bit. This one on the road for Greenke, Greenke has tended to struggle a lot more there in his career than he has at home. And I think there's enough here to make the twins a good stack against him. And of course, we're talking twins and we're coming off a game two nights ago where Byron Buxton hit a big home run. We got to talk Buxton. I think he might be starting to come out of his slump. Obviously, as you know, massive bias from me towards Byron Buxton. So take this with a big grain of salt, but his swinging strike rate has been down across the past 10 days. Strike out rate 19% in that time. He's drawn some walks. His hard hit rate is 46% across 22 balls in play. And if it were someone else, maybe we'd be skeptical, but it's Byron Buxton who has a pretty long sample now being a high upside guy for DFS. His salary is still $2,900. So I think now is a great time to buy into it. Again, the caveat being I love Byron Buxton. So keep that in mind, but do love him for sure. Joey Gallo, great play. Despite hitting lower in the order, just take the upside and deal with it. I think he's, I don't know if he'll keep up what he's doing, but he's been fun so far. So let's keep on riding it for now. I think the twins are a good stack. I think Buxton is a key part of that as we buy low on him for the short time that his salary is below $3,000. Let's go now to things to watch. I mentioned before that Joey Lucchese's strikeout projection is pretty high. A lot of that is pitch counts. He went 98 in his first start this year, but he also looked pretty good in that start. He had seven innings, nine strikeouts, seven shutout innings, I should say. The swinging strike rate was 10.2%. So I would expect the strikeouts to come down a bit, but I do think he's worth a look against the Nats for $8,300. So if you don't want Mali, totally fine. I think that Lucchese is a good alternative and one I'd also be very okay with in that range. I'd be fine putting the Yankees in the top three stacks if I knew Aaron Judge would play. He appeared to bang both of his hands somehow on a weird slide yesterday. He saved the game. He did get a hit, drew a walk later on, but I wouldn't be shocked if he gets a day off for today just because of that. They're facing Andrew Heaney, who will let up a lot of hard contact and fly balls. So I'm into the Yankees even for one-offs if Judge can't go, but missing him would hurt them as a full stack, especially with how thin their lineup is right now. It would hurt them not to have Aaron Judge quite a bit. So one-offs with like Labor Taurus, stuff like that, fine. It'd be tougher to stack them if Aaron Judge can't go. The only other situation we have not yet discussed today is the Tigers against Kyle Gibson. I don't think Gibson gets enough strikeouts to be worth his salary in DFS, but I am not stacking Detroit against him. So I think that's the one true neutral situation on the slate where not considering the guy as a pitcher and not stacking the opposing team, they are the one like full, full stay away on this slate with the way things break down. Let's finish up here with some Dinger calls for today. Mentioned before that Ryan Mountcastle crushes lefties, his bat of ball data, good so far this year. It's in Detroit, which is never super, super fun, but I think that's okay. So Ryan Mountcastle will be the boring home run call for today against Joey Wetz. The fun one, Jorge Polanco. Very small data with him coming off the IL, but I do tend to prefer Polanco against lefties versus righties, but he's had good data so far. Target field not great for lefties, but facing Granky on the road, I think this makes a lot of sense. So home run calls for today, Ryan Mountcastle and Jorge Polanco. That is all that we have here for today on the Solo Shop, but we are back with you once again tomorrow to break down a Friday slate for today. Do not forget that lock is at 6.40 PM. So get those lineups in and finalized before the early lock time. Do not forget to subscribe to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy Podcast Feed wherever you get your podcasts. Also check us out over on the Fandal YouTube page there. Subscribe there. We also have covering the spread going up on the YouTube page each and every weekday. Subscribe to the Fandal YouTube page. Hit the thumbs up button there or check us out on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy Podcast Feed and leave us a five star rating if you like what you hear. If you've got any questions for me, I am on Twitter at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the Fandal Podcast Network at Fandal Podcasts. Want to thank you all for tuning in for today. Good luck to you with your MLB DFS lineups. We're excited to join you watching that during the NFL Draft as well. We'll talk to you once again tomorrow to break down a Friday slate. This has been the Solo Shop right here on the Fandal Podcast Network.


Republican Kevin McCarty was elected Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives early on Saturday, after making extensive concessions to a group of right-wing hardliners that raised questions about the party's ability to govern. Speaking to media after the award, McCarty thanked fellow Republicans for their support, with special praise for former President Donald Trump, saying no one should doubt his influence. Trump, early this week, failed to persuade the group of 20 holdouts to fall in line behind McCarty's bid for Speaker, underscoring the former president's declining power over the party he reshaped. It is now time for all great Republican House members to vote for Kevin. Trump wrote on his true social media service in an unheeded early Wednesday morning appeal. McCarty's victory in the 15th ballot brought an end to the deepest congressional dysfunction in over 160 years, but it sharply illustrated the difficulties that he will face in leading a narrow and deeply polarized majority. McCarty, 57, suffered one final humiliation when representative Matt Gads, with healthy vote on the 14th ballot as midnight approached, prompting a scuffle in which fellow Republican Mike Rogers had to be physically pulled away. He won at least on a margin of 216-212, as he took the gavel for the first time. McCarty represented the end of President Joe Biden's Democrats hold on both chambers of Congress. What I was telling him is I'd rather win on the 15th, so he went to another ballot. That was a joke, but you didn't catch it. No, what happened was it became a tie. And I really think Matt had talked to me before. Matt really wanted to get everybody there. And so there, look, through all of this people's emotions go up and down. And at the end of the night, Matt got everybody there from the point that nobody voted against the other way. So it actually helped unite people. But what change from them going from voting against you to voting against President Trump is specifically? Well, President Trump talked to a lot, but I also think it's them and wanting to make this conference united and work together. So I thanked them for that. And Matt worked hard on that as well. How do you prevent a situation like this from happening on every tight contested vote going forward over the next two years of your speech? I think what you will see by having this now, we've worked out how to work together. You know, it's a little more difficult when you go into a majority and maybe the margins aren't high. I mean, if you study American history, this was the closest margin than any first person to win a speaker in the last 70 years. But if you look at the end of the day of how many people voted against me, it was the smallest margin that any modern speaker has had. So it may have taken a little longer. And I always like to quote my father. You know, he died 23 years ago, but he would tell, it's not how you start, it's how you finish. So don't judge us on how we start. Watch how we finish. And I think by having the disruption now really built the trust with one another and learned how to work together. What we're going to have to find in our mindset is that we have to front load. That we have to think about and work on the bills with a microcosm of the conference before we even start writing it. And that's really what we learned here. And working the rules, there were a lot of great ideas. At the end of the day, I remember on the January 1st, we did this conference call with the entire conference. And when we walked through all the rules, people were excited. People were mad before like, what were you working on? Why was it holding all up? But at the end of the day, the product was better. So maybe a hundred years from now, some master student will have to write about this. But really what most people will write about or feel is the outcome of how well we'll run the floor for the next two years. Alright, last question. A thousand percent. Thank you all.


This is Exploring Chiropractic. I'm Nathan Cashin. You may have seen my other videos where I interview students from around the world and talk about what's going on in chiropractic. I've added a couple other series. I've added the after-school interviews with chiropractors and students where we talk about stuff other than school. I've also done a little bit of a review of a book by D.D. Palmer that's probably going to keep going, just short little readings of things I find interesting. I'm going to add another one. Just on YouTube, this is going to be Exploring Chiropractic Research. I'm the host of another podcast. It's now defunct. It's called Brain Slides. And I used to design lecture slides for faculty at my undergraduate university. And I love slide design. I'm a design geek. I'm not a professional by any means. But I love talking about how can you make presentations more effective and avoid death by PowerPoint. So I want to bring all these things together with my interest in chiropractic research. And I'm going to pick an article, a paper that I read that I find interesting. And it's going to be a proof of concept, taking that information and putting it into a presentation. I'm not going to critique the paper. I'm going to try not to add my own opinions about it. But just present the information as it's there in the article. And I'm going to start with the agenda to explore vertebral subluxation research by doctors Matthew McCoy and Christopher Kent. And this is in their journal for vertebral subluxation research. 119 years ago, Didi Palmer gave the first chiropractic adjustment to Harvey Lillard. In his book The Chiropractor, Didi says, Chiropractic is a science. The foundation of chiropractic does not consist of its philosophy nor of the art of adjusting. But over these 119 years, chiropractic research has really just not dived in deep enough to determine whether what we do is really effective. There's kind of five problems, five general questions that remain to be answered. As far as chiropractic is concerned, and really focusing on the subluxation. The first one is, does vertebral subluxation exist? Do we have any papers where we can point to a subluxation and say, look, here it is, we can describe it. We can show it to others and they can replicate those findings. Nor can we measure it. How do we reliably say, this is a subluxation and this is how severe it is? We also need to answer the question of whether subluxations can make us sick. Can we show that people who have subluxations have worse health outcomes than those who are cleared? The fourth question is, can we correct it? Of course, this is what all, especially traditional chiropractors, claim to be able to do to detect and then correct subluxation. And that leads us to the fifth question, does it make us healthier? Are we able to express life more fully? Are we really more healthier than those who don't get adjusted regularly? Can we show that we can prevent severe chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, all of these other things? Can we answer these questions? There's a little bit of reasoning that we need to explain as far as why we're focusing on vertebral subluxation. And that goes back to the ideas of vitalism and holism. To kind of bring it all together, the body is a self-regulating, self-maintaining organism. The nervous system controls and coordinates all of those functions and it's housed within the vertebral column, the spine, and a subluxation can affect that. If we can correct those, then it allows the nervous system to function better and allows us to express life to the fullest. And there's three main causes that are described that lead to subluxations. And those are physical, chemical, and emotional stresses. And unfortunately throughout the world, we've developed these habits of poor exercise, poor diets, and really stressful lifestyles. All of this stuff kind of comes together, creates this cascade that allows subluxations to affect our neurobiological mechanisms and leads to poor health outcomes. That's why trying to evaluate and answer those five questions about the subluxation is really important. So to do that, there's an agenda that's been outlined and there's five main goals in this agenda. I'll go through them right now. The first one is to encourage and develop the next generation of researchers. I'm excited about this one because I've looked into the possibility of research after I graduate from chiropractic school. But one of the big challenges, well, it's going to school again in accruing more loans. So one way to address that is this proposition of providing 20 scholarships over the next 20 years for those who want to gain advanced degrees in research or in public health. That's the first goal of this agenda, to encourage and develop the next generation researchers. The next one is to focus on the research around the nature of the subluxation, to answer those five questions. So let's look at what that research might look like. Number one, we need to do research on the models of subluxation. We need to show that we can identify subluxations and explain what they are. Once we can do that, then we can measure that subluxation and show that we can reliably identify and characterize it. Then we need to do research that shows the effect of subluxation on the general public. We can show the incidents, the prevalence, the morbidity and mortality. And then what we need to do is research the clinical strategies for preventing and correcting these subluxations. So does the chiropractic adjustment clear the spine of this interference? And once we've done all that, the fifth focus of research is to measure and collect all of the health outcomes that come from this, showing that chiropractic adjustments leads to better health and enhanced solutagenesis or better expression of life. So that's the second goal, focusing on the nature of subluxation. The first was developing and encouraging next generation researchers. The third goal in this agenda is involving others. So we want to increase the utilization of vertebral subluxation screening and management. Then goal four is to create these central data repositories so that we can improve health policy regarding vertebral subluxations. And number five, really the big goal in the end is to create a marketing campaign where we involve chiropractors, students, patients, legislators, policymakers, and the general public to make them aware of subluxation and what needs to be done to correct it by utilizing chiropractic adjustments. So that's the agenda. Those five goals are kind of the roadmap for the future of chiropractic research. And that's my review of the paper by McCoy and Kent, an agenda to explore vertebral subluxation research. You can find it in their journal, the journal of vertebral subluxation research. Go to vertebralsubluxationresearch.com, create a membership or use your school's membership to log in, download the full paper. There's a lot of details I didn't cover. There's a lot of important information about how these goals can be applied and what the key focus is for each one are. And that's it for this episode of Exploring Chiropractic Research. Please leave me your comments below. How did I do? Did I understand the paper well? Did I present it in a way that was clear? How were the slides? Did I design those effectively? Leave your comments below, let me know. And I hope to see you again on the next episode of Exploring Chiropractic.


Hey, here we go. Well, hello, everybody, and welcome back to my channel. Today, I wanted to compare the Erin Condren monthly deluxe planner that I've been using in 2017 versus the one that just came out, which you can use for this year, but I chose not to. And then this is going to be my 2018 one. Really, what I want to do is kind of flip through a little bit, also compare the paper quality I hear. I haven't even like opened this up yet. I hear that the paper quality is the same as the new 2018 Erin Condren planners in here, which I'm kind of excited about. But this is what I use for my budgeting. They're both the same, the monthly deluxe planner. I will leave links down below for you guys, or sorry, a link, but I will write the item description as well on there so you know what to search for. The link that I'm going to put down below is an affiliate link. I'd just like to let you know that upfront. If it's your first time ordering anything through Erin Condren, what will happen is you'll sign up, give your email address, and an email will be sent to you. It's going to be a $10 off coupon code. It'll be a unique code with letters and numbers and such.   So anyway, without further ado, let's just kind of like do flip by flip and let's see how it works out. All right. So, oh, this is like, whatever. Okay, so this like thing didn't come with it. This is just in my thing because this is like my active one that I'm using. So on the front, this is what it has. All right. So this one says 2017 monthly planner. This one says something different. Let's, let's zoom out a little bit. Here we go. Oh, that's as far as I can go. Okay, well, yeah, this will be okay. Here, we'll go like this. Right? Yeah. Does this work? Okay. Yeah. I think this works. All right. So these Deluxe monthly planners came out last year, kind of at the tail end of last year, if I remember right. So I did scoop one up and have been using it for 2017. This one doesn't say 2018 because you can actually start it earlier if you want to. I think it starts in like July for the extra months, but I just wanted to make it clean per year and then just use this in 2018. So it's a Deluxe monthly planner and it still has, you know, the names and stuff and oh yeah, the paper is different. It's, it's the, it's the better paper. And then we've got the quote pages just like last year, but this has like the painted pedals version. And then we go into the same situation over here with the year here. Actually, this is actually a little bit different. So this one has all of 2017, which you can't see all the way over there, but that's okay. But this one has 2017 and then 2018, which is really nice because some people will still have 2017 in this particular planner, depending on, you know, how you want to use it. All right. So the next page is a little bit different. Oh no, it isn't.  So this has like the 12 boxes. They're set up a little bit differently. I don't use this. So I don't know, maybe someday I'll actually get to using it. And then very similarly, it has the dot grid page, like this one has a dot grid page as well. And then, you know, your regular quote page thing, but then this one is a little bit different with the painted pedals. So like I said, mine starts in January. Also in my order, since I ordered on a specific, I don't know if it was because of like a specific day or specific week, they were running a promotion when these released. I actually just got it, but I ordered it quite a while ago. They had a promotion with the neutral monthly adhesive tabs. I did receive these for free when I ordered this one, but I know that they're still on the website. There are other ones as well that are not neutral, that have colorful months, the monthly tabs, I guess I should say, but they are not the gold foil. They're the rose gold foil, just FYI. All right. So obviously I've used this. So, so yeah, it just goes right back into the month view. And this paper feels nicer than this paper. This paper is very thin compared to this paper. So yeah, still has those like boxes, those five boxes on the left hand side. Biggest difference I see is see how much clear this one is. Hopefully you guys can see it. It's like got a nice kind of dark, it's not even black, but like a dark charcoal outline where this one's really, really faint. I like that the lines are still pretty faint. And then if I look at this side, this line is a little bit different, which it's not the same color. And then again, with the darker charcoal in the little like kind of bullet point things on the side, if that makes sense. But yeah, I like that. I think that looks, um, looks very nice. And then again, the same thing, dot grid quote page. I'm not going to go into every single month because that's boring. But let's go into the back. So let's go to the last part of the month here. Okay. Whoa. All right. So there's December. Cool. All right. So in the back, I want to show what the differences were from this past year to this current year. This is still part of December. And then there's more notes pages than this one. I did pay for more notes pages. I think it was five dollars additionally, if I remember right. You don't have to pay for extra notes pages if you don't want to, but I decided to because I do like extra tracking and stuff like that in there. So there is one dot grid page in here, which I don't believe is part of the extra. I think the extra is like in the back. And then, which obviously there's no dot grid over here. And then same thing over here. So this is kind of like looking forward. This is all 2019, which is nice because we have 2017 and 2018 in the front of this one, which I think is really nice. So things to look forward to. Nice thing about the budgeting for this is say, if you have a specific thing, like say your property taxes are due on this, you know, on like say February and then May or whatever it is, like then you know to pay or you have like your life insurance premium is due for the year or whatever. Like, you know, if you know of something specific that's coming up, it's kind of nice to note them or you can track other things like travel or things you're saving up for. I like to use this for obviously budgeting because that's just how my brain works, but whatever. So yeah. And then, okay, so this has like a similar ish watercolor thing on this side. And then starts lined pages. So let's see. There's one, two, three. Okay, so there's a total of 19 lined pages in this one. And let me count. Oh my gosh, there's so many on this one. All right, let's count, but I did get extra. And there looks like they're all lined, by the way. Wow, this is amazing. Okay. So there is a total of 40 notes pages. I didn't do front and back, I just did physical pages. So there's actually 80. So yeah, that's kind of awesome. I did rip out already in here the stickers, but I will show you the stickers in here real quick. It's just let's move this, I kind of move these over a little bit. It's just the little ones with the asterisks that have the clear, not clear, but like the white insides. So I've got two of those, which is nice. And then a little pocket just like this one. And then on this side, there's another pocket just the same. And then the back cover, which I guess is green because I chose green for my text. So yeah, if you guys are interested in seeing how this paper writes, I will put my, I think it was my 2018 Aaron Condren Planner haul. And I think I did a pen test in that video too, but I will link that down below for you guys if you're interested. I don't really want to do a pen test today because I don't have my pens out and have a whole bunch of things I need to get done today. So I will just link that video down below if you're interested. The paper quality is very different than this one. It is the new paper and it feels really nice and thick with and it's not like it's hard to explain. It's still got some grip to it. So it's not gritty, but it's not super, super smooth either, but it feels nice.  Also, I don't know if I got a bigger coil because I added more pages, but this is the new one. And you can obviously see that the coil is very different size. So yeah, it's really different. But this could be because I added those extra pages or if you are doing like an 18 month planner, you might get this as well. I'm not sure if I would have gotten just a 12 month with no additional pages if I would have gotten the small coil again. So yeah, but all in all, I'm very impressed with this and I'm very excited to start using it in 2018. So anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed. I'll also put my like budget, I think I did like a budget setup or a budget like walkthrough of this back in, I think 2016 if I want to say, I'll link that video down below. If I can find it, I post so many videos that it's hard to keep track of all of them, but to kind of just like show you how I budget plus I'll put my money talk playlist down below since this is posting on a financial Friday. Even though it's a haul, I just want to show you what I use. I get a lot of questions about the planner that I use. So it's kind of nice to show. And then once 2018 hits, then I will be talking more about this planner. It's very, very similar to this one. And I'm probably going to be doing similar things. I might change it up a little bit. You never know, but that's the fun thing about like planning and budgeting is that you can just make it work for you and your circumstances and your family and your life because we're all different. And we all have different expenses in our life, obviously. So just do what works for you. But anyway, I think that's going to be it for me today. I'm going to jet. Thank you guys so much for hanging out with me today. I really appreciate it. If you have any questions, feel free to put them in the comments below. I will try to get back to as many of you as I possibly can. Also, if you liked the video, make sure to give it a good old thumbs up. I am here every Monday, Wednesday and Friday with new content for you guys at 9am Central Standard Time. Again, thanks so much for hanging out with me and I will see you guys in the next video. Bye guys!